Allama Iqbal Open University, Islamabad

Due Date:
Course code 0538
Genesis Of Pakistan-2
Department Pakistan Studies
Subject Pakistan Studies
Marks 100 Marks
Semester First (Autumn 2020)

Assignment Number 01
Tutor Name Muhammad Mohsin

Student Full Name Muhammad Ajmal

Student Father Name Muhammad Aslam
University Roll Number CB564139

QNO 1:
FIGURE OUT SIR SYED AHMAD KHAN EFFORTS IN EVOLVING THE IDEA OF
MUSLIM NATIONALISM IN INDIAN SUBCONTINENT. WHY DID HE OPPOSE THE
INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS?
ANS
SIR SYED AHMAD KHAN EFFORTS IN THE BIRTH OF MUSLIM NATIONALISM
Belonging to a family which had roots in the old Muslim nobility, Sir Syed’s prolific authorship
on the Muslim condition in India (during British rule) and his activism in the field of education,
helped formulate nationalist ideas in the Muslims of the region.
These ideas went on to impact and influence a plethora of Muslim intellectuals, scholars,
politicians, poets, writers and journalists who then helped evolve Syed’s concept of Muslim
nationalism into becoming the ideological doctrine and soul of the very idea of Pakistan.

However, his influence in this context began to recede from the mid-1970s when certain drastic
internal, as well as external economic events; and a calamitous war with India in 1971, severely
polarized the Pakistan society. With the absence of an established form of democracy, this
polarization began to be expressed through the airing of radical alternatives such as neo-Pan-
Islamism. The Pan-Islamic alternative managed to elicit a popular response from a new
generation of urban bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie. Its proliferation was also bankrolled by
oil-rich Arab monarchies which had always conceived modernist Muslim nationalism as an
opponent.

As a reaction, the Pakistan state changed tact and tried to retain the wavering status quo by
rapidly co-opting various aspects of pan-Islamism; even to the extent of sacrificing many of the
state’s original nationalist notions.

The gradual erosion of the original nationalist narrative created wide open spaces. These spaces
were rapidly occupied, and then dominated by ideas which had been initially rejected by the
Pakistani state and nationalist intelligentsia. Here is from where Sir Syed’s presence begins to
evaporate from the pages of textbooks and the nationalist narrative.

MUSLIM NATIONALISM: A THEOLOGICAL BEGINNING

Muslim nationalism in South Asia did not exist till the end of Muslim rule here. The decline of
the Mughal Empire, rise of British Colonialism, and the political reassertion of Hindus in India,
provided the materials with which Muslim nationalism would first begin to shape itself.

Dr. Mubarak Ali has insightfully noted one very important (but often ignored) factor which
helped create a sense of nationhood among sections of Muslims in India: i.e. the manner in
which Urdu began to replace Persian as the preferred language of Muslims in India.

As Muslim rule receded, immigrants from Persia and Central Asia stopped travelling and settling
in India because now there were little or no opportunities left for them to bag important posts in
the courts of Muslim regimes. The importance and frequency of Persian ebbed, gradually
replaced by Urdu – a language which began to form in India from the 14th century CE.

Largely spoken by local Muslims (most of whom were converts); by the early 19th century, Urdu
had already begun to make its way into the homes of the Muslim elite as well. This helped the
local Muslims to climb their way up the social ladder and begin to fill posts and positions which
were once the exclusive domain of Persian and Central Asian immigrants. This initiated the early
formation of a new Muslim grouping, mostly made-up of local Muslims who were now enjoying
social mobility.

But all this was happening when the Muslim empire was rapidly receding and the British were
enhancing their presence in India. This also facilitated the process which saw the Hindus
reasserting themselves socially and politically after remaining subdued for hundreds of years.

With no powerful and overwhelming Muslim monarch or elite now shielding the interests of the
Muslims in the region, the emerging community of local Muslims became fearful of the fact that
its newly-found enhanced status might be swept aside by the expansion of British rule and Hindu
reassertion.

Though many local Muslims had managed to make their way up the social ladder, the ladder
now led to a place which did not have a powerful Muslim ruler. Thus, the new community was
politically weak. It felt vulnerable and many of its members began accusing the later-day
Mughals of squandering an empire due to their decadence. Even some famous Muslim rulers of
yore were criticized for putting too much faith in pragmatic politics and in inclusive policies, and
not doing enough to use their powers to prompt wide-scale conversions.

During the heights of Muslim rule in India, the Ulema had only been allowed to play a nominal
role in the workings of the state. But as this rule receded, the Ulema took it upon themselves to
air the ambitions and fears of the new Muslim community. The Ulema insisted on explaining the
decline of the Mughal Empire as a symptom of the deterioration of ‘true Islam’ in the region —
due to the inclusive policies of the Mughals which strengthen the Hindus and extended patronage
to Sufi saints and orders, and which, in turn, encouraged ‘alien ideas’ to seep into the beliefs and
rituals of the region’s Muslims.

Such a disposition saw a number of Ulema and clerics from the emerging Muslim community
become drawn towards a radical puritan movement which had mushroomed 2000 miles away in
Arabia (present-day Saudi Arabia) in the 18th century. It was led by one Muhammad Al-
Wahhab, a celebrant in the Nejd area of central Arabia who preached the expulsion and rejection
of various practices and rituals from Islam which he claimed were distortions and heretical
innovations.

A Muslim scholar from the Bengal in India, Haji Shariatullah, who was the son of an
impoverished farmer, became smitten by Wahhab’s movement when he travelled to and stayed
in Arabia in 1799.

On his return to India, he was extremely dismissive of the conduct of the last remnants of the
Mughal Empire and conjectured that the Muslims of India had been declining as a community
mainly due to the fact that they were practicing an inaccurate strain of Islam, which was
adulterated by rituals borrowed from Hinduism. Shariatullah was equally harsh on rituals he
believed were a concoction of the centuries-old fusion of Sufism and Hinduism in the
subcontinent.

Another figure in this regard was Syed Ahmad Barelvi who, though, an ardent follower of
Sufism, believed that Sufism in India, too, was in need of reform, and that this could only be
achieved by reintroducing the importance of following Sharia laws, something which one did not
expect from the historically heterogeneous Sufi orders in India. Sufism in the region had, in fact,
largely opposed religious orthodoxy and was comfortable with the rituals and beliefs which had
grown around it, especially among the local Muslims.

Syed Ahmad theorized that the Muslim condition was in decline because the beliefs of the
common Muslims of India repulsed the idea of gaining political power through force. He
suggested that this could only be achieved through the practice of the Islamic concept of holy
war which was missing in the make-up of Islam in the subcontinent.

Syed Ahmad gathered a following from among common Muslims and set up a movement in the
present-day Pakistan province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP). The area at the time was under the
rule of the Sikhs who had risen to power at the end of the Aurangzeb regime.
Barelvi had gathered over 1000 followers and most of them belonged to various Pakhtun tribes.
He implored them to shun their tribal customs and strive to fight a holy war against the ‘infidels’
(Sikhs and British) in the area and help him set up a state run on Sharia laws. After offering stiff
resistance to the Sikhs, Barelvi managed to establish a strong base in the region. He began to
impose laws grounded in his idea of the Sharia. The move backfired when leaders of the tribes
accused him of undermining their established tribal customs.

Many of these tribes which had initially helped him fight a guerrilla war against the Sikhs, rose
up against him and pushed his movement deep into the rocky hills near Charsadda. In the town
of Balakot, Syed Ahmad was surrounded by the Sikh army and killed in 1831.

The idea of ‘purifying’ Islam and Muslims in India (through vigorous preaching and holy war)
formulated by men like Shariatullah and Syed Ahmad were expressions of the fears haunting the
local Muslims. These fears were also triggered by the mushrooming of aggressive Hindu
reformist movements and also by the arrival of Christian missionaries from Britain.

The missionaries enjoyed a good response from lower-caste Hindus and from some local
Muslims as well; and men such as Shariatullah and Syed Ahmad believed that the nature of
Muslim beliefs in India (especially among common Muslims) was such, that it could be easily
molded by the missionaries and the Hindu reformists. To them, only a strict adherence to Islamic
laws and rituals could save the Muslim community from being completely absorbed by the
changing political and social currents and events.

The movements formed by Shariatullah and Syed Ahmad made the mosques and madrassas the
cornerstones of the idea of nationhood among the local Muslims. Indeed, these movements
constitute one dimension of the formation of Muslim nationalism in South Asia. But they
collapsed when the British began to assert their authority. The movements elicited a surge of
passion among many Indian Muslims, but these passions put the community on a course leading
to further alienation and social and political deterioration, especially after the 1857 Sepoys
Mutiny against the British.

The mutiny — remembered as a War of Liberation in present-day India and Pakistan — involved
an uprising within sections of Hindus and Muslims in the British Army; but most of its civilian
leaders were Muslims from the local Muslim community, and remnants of the old Muslim elite.

After the bloody commotion was brought under control, the last vestiges of Mughal rule were
eradicated.

According to the British — whose power grew manifold after the failure of the rebellion — it
were the Muslims who had played the more active role in the rebellion. Consequently, influential
British authors such as Sir William Muir began fostering the myth of the Muslim with a sword in
one hand and the Qur’an in the other.

Two factors influenced the creation of this image: the first was, of course, the nature of the
movements led by Shariatullah and Syed Ahmad decades before the Mutiny; and second was the
lingering imagery in the West of Muslims authored by European Christian perseveres during the
Crusades (1095-1291).

MUSLIM NATIONALISM; THE RATIONAL TURN

It is interesting to note that in their writings on India before the 1857 upheaval, the British had
largely conceived India to be a racial whole.

But things in this respect began to change drastically when the British (after 1857) began to
investigate the social, political and cultural dynamics of the religious differences between the
Muslims and the Hindus in the region, and then utilized their findings to exert more control over
both the communities. British authors were squarely criticized by Muslim scholars in India for
looking at Islamic history from a Christian point of view and presenting the legacy of Islam as
something which was destructive and retrogressive.

One of the first Muslim scholars to offer a detailed rebuttal did not come from the Ulema circle
and neither was he a cleric. He belonged to a family which had roots in the old Muslim nobility
and elite. His name was Sir Syed Ahmad Khan. It is with him that the second (and more
dominant) dimension of Muslim nationalism emerges in India. And it is this dimension which
evolved into becoming a movement that strived to carve out a separate Muslim-majority country
in the subcontinent, and then further evolve to become Pakistani nationalism.

During the 1857 mutiny, Sir Syed had already established himself as a member of the scholarly
Muslim gentry who had studied Sufism, mathematics, astronomy, and the works of traditional
Islamic scholars. After the Mutiny was crushed and literature, which cast a critical eye on
Muslim history began to emerge, Khan put forward a detailed proposal which he hoped would
not only contest the perceptions of Islam being formulated by the British, but also help the
region’s Muslim community to reassess their beliefs, character and status according to the
changes taking shape around it.

Khan reminded the British that Islam was inherently a progressive and modern religion which
had inspired the creation of some of the world’s biggest empires, which in turn had encouraged
the study of philosophy and the sciences during a period in which Europe was lurking aimlessly
in the ‘Dark Ages.’

Sir Syed also asserted that the scientific and military prowess of the West was originally inspired
and informed by the scholarly endeavors of medieval Muslim scientists and philosophers and
that the Muslims had been left behind because this aspect of Islam stopped being exercised by
them.

Interestingly, this thesis first put forward by the likes of Syed Ahmad Khan in the 19th century,
still prevails within large sections of Muslims around the world today.

Sir Syed then turned his attention towards his own community. He was vehemently opposed to
the militancy of men like Shariatullah and Syed Ahmad Barelvi, and he was also critical of the
1857 uprising, suggesting that such endeavors did more harm to Islam and the Muslims.
However, he refused to agree with the assessment of the British that it were the Muslims alone
who instigated the 1857 mutiny. He wrote that the mutiny had been triggered by reckless British
actions based on their ill-informed conceptions about Indian society.

According to noted historian, Ayesha Jalal, the concept of both Muslim and Hindu nationalism
was largely the result of British social engineering which they began as a project after the 1857
Mutiny.

The project began when the British introduced the whole idea of conducting a census. A lot of
emphasis was stressed upon the individual’s faith; and the results of the census were then
segmented more on the bases of religion than on economic or social status. The outcome was the
rather abstract formation of communities based on faith, constructed through an overwhelmingly
suggestive census, undertaken, not only to comprehend the complex nature of Indian society, but
to also devise a structural way to better control it.

Sir Syed was quick to grasp this, and also the fact that the Hindu majority was in a better position
to shape itself into a holistic community because of its size and better relations with the British
after the 1857 Mutiny.

Sir Syed’s thesis correctly theorized that the Muslims needed to express themselves as a holistic
community too, especially one which was positively responsive to the changes the British were
implementing in the social, judicial and political spheres of India.

This constituted a break from the early dimensions of Muslim nationalism conjectured by the
likes of Shariatullah and Syed Khan who had tried to express the idea of forming a Muslim
community in India as a purely religious endeavor. The endeavor was to construct a homogenous
Muslim whole in India which followed a standardized pattern of Muslim rituals and beliefs.

Nevertheless, this scheme was largely a failure because within the Muslim communities of the
region were stark sectarian, sub-sectarian, class, ethnic and cultural divisions. And as was seen
during Syed Ahmad Barelvi’s uprising in KP, once he began to implement his standardized ideas
of the Sharia, he faced a fateful rebellion by his erstwhile supporters who accused him of trying
to usurp their tribal influence and customs. Sir Syed was conscious of these divisions and
decided to address it by localizing the European concept of nationalism.

So when the British began to club together economically, ethnically and culturally diverse
groups into abstract Muslim, Hindu and Sikh communities, reformers from within these
communities leveraged the idea of European nationalism to overcome the contradictions inherent
in the whole idea of community-formation by the British. But this was easier said than done.
Nationalism was a modern European idea which required a particular way of understanding
history, society and politics for a people to come together as a nation.

This idea was absent in India before the arrival of the British. As Muslim rule began to ebb, men
such as Shariatullah and Syed Khan attempted to club the Muslims of India as a community
which shared theological commonalities with Muslim communities elsewhere in the world, and
especially those present in Arabia.
During the last days of Muslim rule, clerics in Indian mosques had begun to replace the names of
Mughal kings in their sermons (khutba) with those of the rulers of the Ottoman Empire, as if to
suggest that the interests of the Muslims of India were inherently rooted outside India.

Indeed, the ulema had begun to conceive the Muslims of India as a unified whole, but this whole
was not explained as a nation in the modern context, but as part of a larger Muslim ummah. Sir
Syed saw a problem in this approach. He decried that such an approach went against the
changing tides of history. He was perturbed by three main attitudinal negatives which he
believed had crept into the psyche of the Muslims and were stemming their intellectual growth,
and, consequently, causing their economic and political decline.

SYED’S TRIUMPH

In 1879 one of Sir Syed’s staunchest supporters, the poet and intellectual, Altaf Hussain Hali,
wrote a long poem which passionately forwarded Syed’s ideas of reform and modernity. But the
most protuberant aspect of the poem was when Hali declared the Muslims of India as a separate
cultural entity, distinct from other communities in India, especially compared to the Hindu
majority.

But Hali explained that this distinction was not based on any hostility towards the non-Muslims
of the region; but on the notion (which Hali believed was a fact) that the Muslims of India were
descendants of foreigners who came and settled here during Muslim rule.

By the late 19th century, many local Muslims had begun to claim foreign ancestry (Persian,
Central Asian and Arabian) mainly because with the erosion of Muslim rule in India, Muslim
empires still existed elsewhere in the Middle East. The claim of having foreign ancestry was also
a way to express the separateness of India’s Muslims.

Another aspect in this context was the rise of the Urdu language among the Muslims. Though
having (and claiming to have) Persian, Central Asian and Arabic ancestry was a proud attribute
to flaunt; Urdu, which had been the language of ‘lower Muslims’ of (North) India, ascended and
began to rapidly develop into a complex literary language.

The British didn’t have a problem with this. Because since Persian had been the language of the
court during Muslim rule, its rollback symbolized the retreat of the memory and influence of
Muslim rule in India.

In 1837, the British replaced Persian with Urdu (in the northern regions of India) as one of the
officially recognized vernacular languages of India. But in the 1860s, Urdu became a symbol of
Muslim separatism not through the efforts of the Muslims, but, ironically, due to the way some
Hindus reacted to Urdu becoming an official language.

The resultant controversy triggered by Hindu reservations helped establish Urdu as an additional
factor which separated the Muslims from the Hindus.
Syed Ahmad Khan had managed to attract the support and admiration of a growing number of
young intellectuals, journalists, authors and poets. But he was the target of some vicious
polemical attacks as well.

The conservative ulema were extremely harsh in their criticism and one of them even went on to
accuse him of being an apostate. They blamed him for trying to tear the Muslims away from the
unchangeable tenants of their religion, and for promoting ‘Angraziat’ (Western ethics and
customs) among the believers.

Syed also received criticism from the supporters of Afghani’s pan-Islamism. Afghani himself
admonished Khan for not only undermining the idea of global Muslim unity (by alluding to
Muslim nationalism in the context of India’s Muslims only); but he also censured him for
creating divisions between India’s Muslims and Hindus.

Afghani was of the view that Hindu-Muslim unity was vital in India to challenge British rule in
the region.

Despite the attacks — which mostly came his way through statements, editorials and articles in
the plethora of Urdu newspapers which began to come up after the proliferation of the printing
press in India – it were his ideas which managed to dominate the most prominent dimensions of
Muslim nationalism in India.

According to Ayesha Jalal, Sir Syed’s strategic and pragmatic alignment with the British helped
his ideas to make vital in-roads in a more organized and freer manner. His religious detractors
remained stationed in their mosques and madrassahs. And though their criticism of his ideas was
intense, it mostly appeared in rhetorical articles in newspapers.

Consequently, most of his religious opponents could not find a place in the school that he set up
in Aligarh. This school evolved into becoming a college and then an institution which began to
produce a particular Muslim elite and urban bourgeoisie who would go on to dominate Muslim
nationalist thought in India and decide what course it would take.

SIR SYED AHMAD KHAN OPPOSE THE INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS

In 1885 congress was set up and it claimed to be the body of every Indian regardless of religion.
However it later proved to be functioning only for the Hindus and tried to eradicate the Muslims
congress made 3 demands:
Political representation according the population. This obviously meant Hindu domination as
they were dominant majority in India and sir Syed opposed it.
Appointment in government should be competitive examinations. Sir Syed opposed this because
He knew that the educational standards of Hindus was much better than the Muslims.
 QNO 2:
GIVE A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF THE PARTITION OF BENGAL OF 1905
FOCUSING ON HIDU MUSLIM REALTIONSHIPS?
ANS
THE PARTITION OF BENGAL OF 1905
The decision to split Bengal came in July and by October 16, 1905, Bengal had been divided into
Piston Bengal and Assam (with a population of 31 million) and the rest of Bengal (with a
population of the 4 million of who 18 million were Bengalis, and 36 million Biharis and Oriyas).
• The decision had come after Lord Curzon claimed that Bengal was too large to be governed
effectively

DIVIDE AND RULE

• The partition separated the largely Muslim eastern areas from the largely Hindu western areas
It was definitely the 'divide and rule' policy for the Indians and the whole population was
outraged about the fact that the colonizers were turning native population against itself in order
to rule.

FACTS ABOUT THE PARTITION OF BENGAL

• The provincial state of Bengal had a population of nearly 80 million at that time
• It included the Hindi-speaking regions of Bihar, the Odia-speaking regions of Odisha and the
Assamese-speaking region of Assam
• The government announced the idea for partition in January 1904
• The idea was opposed by Henry John Stedman Cotton, Chief Commissioner of Assam
• But the Partition of Bengal went on to happen on October 16, 1905 by Viceroy Curzon
The former province of Bengal was divided into two new provinces -- 'Bengal' (which comprises
of western Bengal and the province of Bihar and Orissa) and Eastern Bengal and Assam, with
Dacca as the capital of the latter.

REASONS FOR THE PARTITION OF THE BENGAL

• The reason for the partition was all administrative
• Bengal was as large as France and had a significantly larger population
Curzon had stated that the eastern region was neglected and under-governed and hence, by
splitting the province, an improved administration could be established there.
The other reason for partition is believed to be that the Hindus were in a better position in terms
of economic status and professional qualities than the Muslims; and during the pre-Sepoys
Mutiny period, Hindu traders had greatly helped the British while their Muslim counterparts did
not.
• This had made the British angry
Hence, the benefits of Western education were given only to the Hindus and not the Muslims
 FOR AND AGAINST THE PARTITION OF BENGAL
The partition was supported by the Muslims of East Bengal and their support was motivated by
both their poor economic conditions in East Bengal, as well as the believed dominance of the
Hindu businessmen in West Bengal over the governance of Bengal.
• It was opposed by the educated middle class of western Bengal

POLITICAL AGITATION FOLLOWING THE PARTITION OF THE BENGAL

• Bengali Hindus were at the forefront of political agitation
• Following the partition, an anti-British movement formed in opposition
This involved non-violent and violent protests, boycotts and even an assassination attempt
against the Governor of the new province of West Bengal.
• After partition, Hindu resistance exploded as the Indian National Congress began the Swadeshi
movement
The movement was not supported by the Muslims because the Muslims in East Bengal had
hoped that a separate region would give them more control and hence, they opposed the
movements.

REUNION OF THE BENGAL

Due to these political protests, the two parts of Bengal were reunited in 1911 and a new partition
divided the province on linguistic, rather than religious grounds.

RE-PARTITION OF THE BENGAL

In 1947, Bengal was partitioned for the second time, solely on religious grounds, as part of the
Partition of India following the formation of India and Pakistan.

WHAT WAS CURZON’S TWO REAL MOTIVES BEHIND THE PARTITION OF THE
BENGAL?
The partition of the Bengal was the decision of separating eastern parts of Bengal from rest of
Bengal. It was announced on 19 July 1905 by the Viceroy of India, Lord Curzon. The reason
given for the decision was that Bengal with a population of 78 million had become too big to be
administered which was true to some extent but the real motives behind the partition of Bengal
were the British desire to weaken Bengal the nerve Centre of Indian nationalism and divide the
muslims and Hindus on the basis of their religion.

QNO 3
HINDU REVIVALIST MOVEMENT AGGRAVATED THE COMMUNAL PROBLEM
IN INDIA. DISCUSS AND ANALYZE?
ANS

HINDU REVIVALISM REVIVALIST MOVEMENT AGGRAVATED THE

COMMUNAL PROBLEM IN INDIA:
During the seventh of the nineteenth century in Bengal and eighties in Maharashtra. Hindu
revivalism began to replace in popularity the creed of Brahmo Samaj and Prarthana Samaj, and a
new note of assertive, even aggressive Hinduism began to be heard above the voice of
rationalism which had reverberated in the land for nearly forty years.

In Bengal this tendency found expression through the leadership of the orthodox section of the
Hindu middle class led by Radhakanto Deb of Sova Bazar who had founded the Dharma Sabha
in opposition to Ram Mohan Roy’s Brahmo Sabha in 1830.

But this movement could not make any head-way and the radicals of Young Bengal and the
reformers like Dwarakanath and Devendranath held the field for nearly half a century.

The social reform movement was supported by Akshay Kumar Datta, Iswar Chandra Vidyasagar,
Ramtanu Lahiri, Rajnarayan Bose and others whose co-operation largely enhanced the reputation
of the Brahmo society.

In the decades following the Revolt of 1857, new factors came into play and modified social
attitudes. The ideas and influence of radicalism and the urgency for social reforms began to
recede bringing conservative tendencies into the foreground. The change became marked in
Bengal in the seventies and in Maharashtra in the eighties.

In Bengal two ideas—those of nationalism and romanticism swayed the minds of the people.
There were feelings of individual self-assertion and of pride in the past heritage, resentment
against the haughtiness and oppression of the ruling class, sympathy for the misery and poverty
of the rural people and yearning for liberty and equality. These urges naturally stimulated the
desire for political emancipation without which the social reforms seemed to be impossible.

But this movement could not make any head-way and the radicals of Young Bengal and the
reformers like Dwarakanath and Devendranath held the field for nearly half a century.

The social reform movement was supported by Akshay Kumar Datta, Iswar Chandra Vidyasagar,
Ramtanu Lahiri, Rajnarayan Bose and others whose co-operation largely enhanced the reputation
of the Brahmo society.
In the decades following the Revolt of 1857, new factors came into play and modified social
attitudes. The ideas and influence of radicalism and the urgency for social reforms began to
recede bringing conservative tendencies into the foreground. The change became marked in
Bengal in the seventies and in Maharashtra in the eighties.

In Bengal two ideas—those of nationalism and romanticism swayed the minds of the people.
There were feelings of individual self-assertion and of pride in the past heritage, resentment
against the haughtiness and oppression of the ruling class, sympathy for the misery and poverty
of the rural people and yearning for liberty and equality. These urges naturally stimulated the
desire for political emancipation without which the social reforms seemed to be impossible.

Bankim Chandra was not in favour of piecemeal acts of reforms. He fervently believed that
moral and religious regeneration alone, could remould the society. He believed in fullest and
harmonious development of the individuals which could according to him, be achieved through
Anusilan Dharma, i.e., religion of discipline which was based on love for self (atma priti), love
for relations, (swajan priti), love for the country (swadesh priti) and love for the humanity as a
whole (jagat priti). Thus Bankim Chandra’s ideas were a mixture of morality with nationalism,
patriotism and internationalism.

RAMKRISHNA MISSION:
In Ramakrishna Mission is to be found a synthesis of the Oriental and the Western forces and
ideas which characterized the last religious and social movements of the nineteenth century. The
mission is named after Ramakrishna (1836-1886), the saint of Dakshineswar who was a poor
priest in a Dakshineswar temple in the northern outskirts of Calcutta.

He was uneducated in the formal sense of the term but carried an extra-ordinary element of
‘charm, sweetness and grace’ and an unparalleled humanism in his personality.

He believed in the inherent truth of all different religions and beliefs and put his conviction to
test by practicing religious rites of not only of the different Hindu sects but also of Islam and
Christianity. “He was an illiterate Brahmin who by sheer force of character and personal
magnetism as also homely wisdom stormed the hearts of thousands and earned the respect of
even those who could not agree with his preaching’s”. He was a God-intoxicated mystic who
saw in all forms of worship the adoration of Supreme Being. “This poor, illiterate, shrunken,
unpolished, diseased, half idolatrous, friendless Hindu devotee stirred Bengal to its depth.” He
worked as a powerful magnet for the sophisticated, Westernized Bengali middle class who were
attracted by his humility and spiritual integrity, and even men like Narendranath Datta
, later Swami Vivekananda, a Calcutta University graduate, Keshab Chandra Sen and others
either came to stay with him or to dedicate their lives to spread his gospel or to receive
instruction from him. The most famous of them was however, Vivekananda who carried the
message of Ramakrishna all over India. “His learning, eloquence, spiritual fervor and wonderful
personality gathered round him a band of followers which included prince and peasant.”
Vivekananda’s speeches at the Parliament of Religions at Chicago and other places in the U.S.A.
and the U.K. brought him both fame and friends and from that time the teachings of
Ramakrishna as interpreted by Vivekananda became a world force and Hinduism assumed an
international character.

GIVE A DETAILED ACCOUNT OF THE NON MUSLIMS POPULATIONS DURING

THE MUSLIMS RULE 712-1707?
ANS:
QNO 4:
ELABORATE THE ROLE OF THE KHILAFAT MOVEMENT IN AWAKENING OF
MUSLIMS IN INDIA?
ANS:
THE KHILAFAT MOVEMENT IN AWAKENING OF MUSLIMS IN INDIA

The Khilafat movement was a very important event in the political history of India. The Muslims
of India had a great regard for the Khilafat (Caliphate) which was held by the Ottoman Empire.
During World War I, the Ottoman Empire (Turkey) joined the war in favour of Germany. But
Turkey and Germany lost the war and a pact commonly known as Istanbul Accord was
concluded between the Allied Forces on 3rd November 1918. According to this Pact the
territories of Turkey were to be divided among France, Greece and Britain.

During the war the Indian Muslims were in a very awkward position, because they had a deep-
rooted devotion to the caliphate. They had profound respect for this holy institution. Therefore,
their support to the British Government was subject to the safeguard and protection of the holy
places of Turkey and on the condition that Turkey will not to be deprived of its territories. But
the British Government could not fulfill both of these promises. The Treaty of Savers 1920 was
imposed on Turkey and its territories like Samarna, Thrace and Anatolia were wrested from it
and distributed among European countries. A wave of anger swept across the Muslin World and
the Indian Muslims rose against the British Government. Muslim leaders like Maulana Abdul
Kalam Azad, Moulana Muhammad Ali Johar, Moulana Shoukat Ali and others reacted against
the British Government policy and were put behind the bars.

Thus, Muslims organized a mass movement, which came to be known as Khilafat Movement.

The aims of this movement were

(a) To protect the Holy place of Turkey

(b) To restore the Territories of Turkey

(c) To restore the Ottoman Empire.

In December 1919 both the Khilafat Committee and Congress held their meetings
simultaneously at Amritsar and a delegation was prepared which was sent to England under the
leadership of Maulana Mohammad Ali Johar to see the British Prime Minister, Cabinet Member
and Members of Parliament and to explain the Indian point of view regarding the Khilafat. The
delegation visited England in 1920. The leaders of the delegation addressed the House of
Commons and saw the British Prime Minister, Lloyd George who paid no heed to the
delegations demand. The delegation stayed at London for eight months and won many hearts and
sympathies of people in Britain delivering speeches. However, the delegation returned to India
unsuccessful in October 1920.

After the unsuccessful visit to England the leaders of Khilafat Movement realized the fact that
British were not in the mood to help them. Therefore, they realized that a new strategy needed to
be adopted in order to reinvigorate the zest and zeal for freedom among a general populace. With
this aim they decided to launch a movement of Non Co-operation. When the leaders of Khilafat
movement announced the Non Co-operation Movement, the Congress extended its full support
to the Khilafat Movement. The leaders of the two met at Amritsar and resolved to launch a
country wide agitation under the leadership of Mr. Gandhi. The agitation was against the British
government. The Jamiat-ul-Ulama Hind issued a Fatwa of Tark-e-Mawalat. The following
points were included in it:

1. Renunciation of all Government titles.

2. Boycott of legislature and court.

3. Withdrawal of student’s from educational institutions.

4. Resignation from government posts.

5. General civil disobedience.

As a result of this proclamation of fatwa, hundreds of thousands people returned the titles and
stopped sending their children to government schools and colleges. All those highly educated
young men who could have rose to high government positions bade farewell to their bright future
and accepted ordinary jobs in the private sector. The vacuum created in government offices was
joyfully filled in by Hindus, while the Muslim government employees willingly accepted
starvation for the sake of the Muslim cause.

Under the hypnotism of Mr. Gandhi, Muslim ulema had issued a verdict and declared India
as Dar-ul-Harab and the Muslims therefore needed to migrate to some other country or Dar-ul-
Salam. Thousands of families sold out their properties for a tenth of their value and hastily left
for Afghanistan, in August 1920. As many as eighteen thousand people marched towards
Afghanistan, which was unable to bear the influx of the people. Thus, the Afghan authorities
closed their frontiers. Eventually the Muhajarins had to return to their homes. A great number of
old man, women and children died on their way during returning to homes and those who luckily
reach alive their former places. They found themselves homeless and penniless. In fact they
faced great difficulties. Even the preachers of Khilafat Movement realized the fact.

In January 1921, nearly three thousands students of various colleges and schools boycotted their
classes and a number of teachers most of them were Muslims tendered their resignation. The
Movement became so powerful that the Government was obliged to pay attention to the problem.
The British Government invited Seth Jan-Muhammad Chutani, the President of Khilafat
conference to visit London to discuss the issue. A delegation under has leadership visited
London and discussed the sentiment of Muslims but the delegation also returned unsuccessfully.

The Khilafat Movement came to an end when thousands of Indians were put behind the bar. The
leaders in spite of their best efforts could not maintain the Hindu-Muslim Unity. One of the main
reasons which caused a death blow to Khilafat Movement was the indirect announcement of
Gandhi to discontinue the Non Co-operation Movement. Gandhi used an incident of arson on
February 1922, when a violent mob set on fire a police choki at Chora Churi at district
Gorakhpur, burning twenty one constables to death as an excuse to call off the non-cooperation
movement. It adversely affected the Khilafat Movement which thought to be integral part of
movement. In 1924, Kamal Ataturk set up a government on democratic basis in Turkey by
abolishing Khilafat as a system of government which served a finishing blow to Khilafat
Movement in India and people had lost whatever interest that they had in the movement.

FAILURE OF THE MOVEMENT

The abolition of Khilafat by Kamal Ataturk was a serious blow on Khilafat movement in the
sub-continent and he exiled Sultan Abdul Majeed, a helpless Caliph and abolished Khilafat as an
institution, due to this all agitational activities came to an end in the Sub-continent.

The Hijrat Movement made the Muslims disillusioned with the Khilafat Movement due to the
declaration of India as Darul-Harab. A large number of Muslims migrated from Sindh and
N.W.F.P to Afghanistan. The Afghan authorities did not allow them to cross the border. After
this tragic event those who had advocated the Hijrat movement come to realize their mistake
which resulted in failure of movement.

When Khilafat movement became mature and was reaching its climax. A tragic incident took
place in the village of Chora Churi in which the police opened fire on the procession of local
resident. The agitated mob in counteraction set the police station on fires which in result twenty
one police constables were burnt alive. Due to this incident the Ali brother and other Muslim
leader were arrested and Mr. Gandhi put off the movement. As a consequence the movement lost
its intensity.

CONCLUSION:
 The Khilafat movement was started to safeguard the Khilafat in Turkey, an issue which
essentially belonged to the Muslims. By the involvement of Hindus the Movement grew forceful
and there was possibility of meeting the movement with success. The British Government was
the common enemy of the Muslims and Hindus. That is why, both the nations continued united
efforts against it. But the difference between the Hindus and Muslims became even more
pronounced and many other events showed that the opposition of Hindus to British Government
was not lasting. When Khilafat Movement reached at its success, the Hindus especially Mr.
Gandhi gave up from movement and leaved the Muslims alone and caused the failure of
Movement.

The Khilafat movement proved that Hindus and Muslims were two different nations as they
could not continue the unity and could not live together. The Khilafat Movement created
political consciousness among the Indian Muslims, which inspired them to constitute another
movement for then Independence. Thus, they started Pakistan Movement.

QNO 5:
GIVE A DETAILED ACCOUNT OF THE NON MUSLIMS POPULATIONS DURING
THE MUSLIMS RULE 712-1707?
ANS:
The kingdoms of Kapisa Ghandhara in modern day Afghanistan Zabulistan and Sindh in modern
day Pakistan all of which were culturally and politically part of the India since ancient times,
were known as The Frontier of Al Hind. The first clash between a ruler of an Indian kingdom
and the Arabs took place 643 AD, when Arab forces defeated Rutbil, King of Zabulistan in
Sistan. Arabs led by suhail b abdi and Hakam Al Taghilbi defeated an Indian army in the battle
of Rasil in 644 AD at the Indian Ocean sea coast, then reached the Indus river. Caliph Umar
denied them permission to cross the river or operate on Indian soil and Arabs returned home.
Abdullah ibn Amir led the invasion of khurasan in 650 AD and his general Rabi b Ziyad Al
Harithi attacked Sistan and took Zatanj and surrounding areas in 651 AD while Ahnaf ibn Qais
conquered the Hepthalites of Herat in 652 AD and advanced up to Balkh by 653 AD. Arab
conquests now bordered the kingdoms of Kapisa, Zabul and Sindh in modern day Afghanistan
and Pakistan. The Arabs levied annual tributes on the newly captured areas, and leaving 4,000
men grassions at Merv and Zaranj retired to Iraq instead of pushing on against the frontier of
India. Caliph ‘Uthman b Affan sanctioned an attack against Markran in 652 AD, and sent a recon
mission to Sindh in 653 AD. The mission described Makran as inhospitable, and caliph Uthman,
probably assuming the country beyond was much worse, forbade any further incursions into
India.
This was the beginning of a prolonged struggle between the rulers of Kabul and Zabul against
successive Arab governors of Sistan, Khurasan and Makran in modern day Afghanistan and
Pakistan. The Kabul Shahi Kings and their Zunbil kinsmen blocked access to the Khyber Pass
and Gomal Pass routes into India from 653 to 870 AD, while modern Baluchistan, Pakistan,
comprising the areas of Kikan or Qiqanan, Nukan, Turan, Buqan, Qufs, Mashkey and Makran,
would face several Arab expenditions between 661-711 AD. The Arabs launched several raids
against these frontier lands, but repeated rebellions in Sistan and Khurasan between 653-691 AD
diverted much of their military resources in order to subdue these provinces and away from
expansion into AL Hind. Muslims control of these areas ebbed and flowed repeatedly as a result
until 870 AD. Arabs troops disliked being stationed in Makran, and were reluctant to campaign
in the Kabul area and Zabulistan due to the difficult terrain and underestimation of zunbils
power. Arab strategy was tribute extraction instead of systematic conquest. The fierce resistance
of Zunbil and Turki shah stalled Arab progress repeatedly in the frontier zone.
Muawiyah established Umayyad rule over the Arabs after the first fitnah in 661 AD, and
resumed expansion of the Muslim Empire. After 663/665 AD, the Arabs launched an invasion
against Kapisa, Zabul and what is now Pakistani Baluchistan. Abdur Rahman b samurra besieged
Kabul in 663 AD, while Haris b Marrah advanced against Kalat after marching through
Fannazabur and Quandabil and moving through the Bolan Pass. King Chach of Sindh sent an
army against the Arabs, the enemy blocked the mountain passes, haris was killed and his army
was annihilated. Al Muhallab ibn sufra took a detachment through the Khyber Pass towards the
Multan in southern Punjab in modern day Pakistan in 664 AD, then pushed south into Kikan, and
may have also raided Quandabil. Turki Shah and Zunbil expelled Arabs from their respective
kingdoms by 670 AD and Zunbil began assisting in organizing resistance in Makran.
Muhammad Bin Qasim departed from Shiraz in710 CE, the army marched along the coast to
Tiaz in Makran, then to the Kech valley. Muhammad resubbed the restive towns of Fannazabur
and Armabil, finally completing the conquest of Makran then the army met up with the
reinforcements and catapults sent by sea near Debal and took it through assault, from Debal the
arabs moved north along the Indus, clearing the region up to Buddha, some towns like nerun and
sadusan surrendered peacefully while tribes inhabiting sisam were defeated in battle. Muhammad
bin Qasim moved back to nerun to resupply and receive reinforcements sent by hajjaj. The Arabs
crossed the Indus further south and defeated the army of the dahir, who was killed. The Arabs
then marched north along the east bank of the Indus after the siege and the capture of rawer.
Brahmanabad, then Alor and finally Multan, were captured alongside other in between towns
with only light Muslims causalities. Arabs marched up to the foothills of Kashmir along the
Jhelum in 713 AD, and the stormed on Al-Kiraj. Muhammad was deposed after the death of the
caliph walid in 715 AD. Jai Singh, son of dahir captured Brahmanabad and arab rule was
restricted to the western shore of the indus. Sindh was briefly lost to the caliph when the rebel
yazid b Muhallab took over Sindh briefly in 720 AD.
Junaid b. Abd Al Rahman Al Marri became the governor pf Sindh in 723 AD. Secured Debal,
then defeat and killed Jai Singh secured Sindh and southern Punjab and stormed Al Kiraj in 724
AD. Junaid next attacked a number of the Hindu kingdoms in what is now Rajasthan, Gujarat
and Madhya Pradesh aiming at permanent conquest but the chronology and area of operation of
the campaigns during 725-743 AD is difficult to follow because accurate, complete information
is lacking. The Arabs moved east from the Sindh in several detachments and probably from
attacked from both the land and the sea, occupying mirmad, al Mandal or marwar and dahanj,
not identified, al baylaman and jurz and attacking barwas, sacking vallabhi. Gurjara king siluka
repelled the Arabs from stravani and valla, probably they are north of Jaisalmer and Jodhpur, and
the invasion of malwa but were ultimately defeated by bappa rawal and nagabhata in 725 AD
near Ujjain. Arabs lost control over the newly conquered territories and Sindh due to Arab tribal
infighting and Arab soldiers deserting the newly conquered territory in731 AD.
Al Hakam b Awana Al Kalbi recovered Sindh and in c733 AD, founded the garrison city of Al
Mahfuza similar to Kula, Basra and waist, on the eastern side of the lake near Brahmanabad.
Hakam next attempted to reclaim the conquests of Junaid in al hind. Arabs records merely state
that he was successful, India records at navasari details that arab forces defeated kacchella,
saindhava, saurashtra, cavotaka, maurya and gurjara kings. The city of al mansura was founded
near al mahfuza to commemorate pacification of Sindh but Amir b Muhammad in c738 AD. Al
Hakam next invaded the Deccan in 739 AD with the intention of permanent conquest, but was
decisively defeated at navasari by the viceroy avanijanashraya pulakeshin of the Chalukya
Empire serving vikramaditya 2. Arab rule was restricted to the west of the Thar Desert.
Writing c. 1030, al biruni reported on the devastation caused during the conquest of the
Ghandhara and much of northwest India by Mahmud of ghazni following his defeat of jayapala
in the battle of Peshawar at Peshawar in 1001.
Now in the following times no Muslim conqueror passed beyond the frontier of Kabul and the
river Sindh until the days of the Turks, when they seized the power in ghazna under the samani
dynasty, and the supreme power fell to the lot of nasir-assaula Sabuktagin. This prince chose the
holy war as his calling, and therefore called himself al- ghazi, in the interest of his successors he
constructed, in order to weaken the Indian frontier, those roads on which afterwards his son
Yamisn-addaula Mahmud marched into India during a period of thirty years and more. God be
merciful to both father and son. Mahmud utterly ruined the prosperity of the country, and
performed there wonderful exploits, by which the Hindus became like atoms of dust scattered in
all directions and like a tale of old in the mouth of the people. Their scattered remains cherish, of
course, the most inveterate aversion towards all Muslims. This is the reason, too, why Hindu
sciemces have retired far away from those parts of the country conquered by us, and have fled to
places which our hand cannot yet reach, to Kashmir, Benares, and the other places. And there the
antagonism between them and all foreigners receives more and more nourishment both from
political and religious sources.
During the closing years of the tenth and the early years of the succeeding century of our era,
Mahmud the first sultan and musalman of the Turk dynasty of kings who ruled at ghazni, made a
succession of in roads twelve or fourteen in number, into Gandhar the present Peshawar valley in
the course of his proselytizing invasions of Hindustan.
Fire and sword, havoc and destruction, marked his course everywhere. Gandhar which was
styled the garden of the mort was left at his death a weird Abd desolate waste. Its rich fields and
fruitful gardens, together with the canal which watered them, had all disappeared. Its numerous
stone built cities, monasteries, and topes with their valuable and revered monuments and
sculptures, were sacked, fired, razed to the ground, and utterly destroyed as habitations.
The Ghaznavid conquests were initially directed against the Ismaili Fatimid’s of Multan, who
were engaged in an ongoing struggle with the provinces of the Abbasid caliphate in conjunction
with their compatriots of the Fatimid’s caliphate in North Africa and the Middle East, Mahmud
appeared hoped to curry the favor of the Abbsaids in this fashion. However once this aim was
accomplished, he moved onto the richness of the loot of Indian temples and monasteries from the
Abbsaids caliphate al-Qadir Billah.
Ghaznavid rule in north western India lasted over 175 years from 1010 to 1187. It was during
this period that Lahore assumed considerable importance apart from being the second capital,
and later the only capital of the Ghaznavid Empire.
At the end of his reign Mahmuds Empire extended from Kurdistan in the west to Samarkand in
the north east, and from the Caspian Sea to the Punjab in the west. Although his raids carried his
forces across northern and western India, only Punjab came under his permanent rule Kashmir
the Doab, Rajasthan, and Gujarat remained nominal under the control of the local Indian
dynasties. In 1030, Mahmud fell gravely ill and died at age of 59, as with the invaders of three
centuries age, Mahmud’s armies reached temples in Varanasi, Maheshwar, Jwalamukhi,
Somnath and Dwarka.
END