 Hello and welcome to NewsClick. You're watching Present, Past and the Future. International pages of newspapers and quality websites, including NewsClick, are packed with news of a world which is rife with strife. And I'm not just talking about Hong Kong, which has been in headlines. Look around various parts of the world. Protests are underway in Indonesia's West Papua province, Argentina, Swaziland and even Germany. These theatres of protests are often surprising because they are associated with the status quo and status quoism. It is astonishing that the young are protesting in hundreds of thousands while the parents are worrying for them at home. The young have nothing to lose but their shackles. The elders are worried that whatever they build by playing safe will be lost to romanticism of youth. But is it wrong to ask questions? Is it necessary to be obedient and docile? I think there is nothing wrong in protesting. Anyone who says raising the flag of revolt is anti-national has no idea of history, even Indian history. Exactly a hundred years ago, India was witnessing high level of discontentment. Causes were multiple. The British imperialists wanted to enact the Role Act. It jeopardised personal and press freedom. The law also provided the government with unchallenged powers to brand any Indian a terrorist. They could be jailed for up to two years without trial. People rose in protest at Mahatma Gandhi's call for Satyagraha. This angered British officials and one army officer mercilessly gunned down hundreds of people in Jalyanwala Bagh. If this was not enough, martial law was imposed in Punjab. The Hunter Commission appointed to probe these disturbances was an eye-wash. And General Dyer became a hero for British public who collected funds for him. Colonialists also announced constitutional reforms, the Montaigou Chem 4 reforms which did not satisfy Indians. Indian Muslims, many of who risked lives for allied forces during the First World War, were disillusioned. Promises were made that the caliph of Turkey would be treated fairly. But the British went back on the pledge. This August, we mark the beginning of the centenary year of the non-cooperation movement. But it is not part of the Indian government's programs yet. Protests, movements and agitations are not part of its copy book now. A hundred years ago, Gandhiji and other Indian nationalists took it on themselves to challenge the might of the colonial state. They forged unprecedented unity among Hindus and Muslims. In his ultimatum to Vice Roy Chem 4, Mahatma Gandhi wrote how the peace terms with Turkey shocked Indian Muslims and affected him personally. He wrote and I quote, As a staunch Hindu wishing to live on terms of closest friendship with my Muslim countrymen, I should be an unworthy son of India if I did not stand by them in their hour of trial. With that began India's first mass movement and the national movement forever changed gears. The goals of the Congress transformed with the non-cooperation caliphate movement. From aiming for self-government constitutionally and legally, Gandhiji steered the Congress into seeking Swaraj by non-violent mass agitation. Suchadha Mahajan joins me today to discuss this watershed movement and also shed light on what importance is there for contemporary India. Suchadha teaches history at the Jawaharlal University. Welcome Suchadha. Thank you. You know, I have often wondered that a hundred years ago in an India which was not prepared for mass agitation, what kind of magic did Gandhi and others weave to be able to actually enlist people for a mass agitation on issues which in today's world appear to be very common. A hundred years ago might have appeared very vague, personal freedom, press freedom, constitutional reforms. How do you, as a historian, explain as to what they did to be able to galvanize the people? I think what Gandhiji brought into the national movement was the masses. And how did he bring them? He brought them in by removing the fear of the British. I think that was the main, if magic, if you want to call it, that people were no longer afraid of protest. People were no longer afraid of walking out. He gave a call in non-cooperation, for example, that boycott the legislatures, come out of the universities and colleges, come out of the courts. So it was non-cooperation with the government, which was the main strategy of the movement. But he also married this, as you very rightly said in your introduction, with the Khilafat movement. And it was that combination, that synergy, two strands coming together, which was, I think, the very special quality of this movement. Khilafat, I would want to immediately come to, with the movement actually, Khilafat movement comes in. Right now, especially within the Indian right wing, the Hindu forces specifically. The general argument is that Khilafat movement, you know, symbiotically linking it with non-corporation movement, was the first instance of the Congress's appeasement policy towards religious minorities. I think this is absolutely rubbish. It is said that Gandhi ji introduced religion into politics and that communalized the situation. There is a big difference between Gandhi's idea of religion, by that he simply meant morality and ethics. If he took up the cause of the Khilafat, it was not as quote-unquote a Muslim cause. As he said, that as a Hindu, as an Indian, this was something which affected all Indians. And therefore, it was also a very anti-imperialist issue that the Khilafat, the head of the Caliphate, the head of the Caliph who was the Caliphate, who was the head of the Ottoman Empire, he was thrown out and the way the Ottoman Empire was dismembered among the allied powers, that it was also taking up an issue which was a burning international issue and he took it up as an Indian. But the proponents of, you know, what I am saying, you know, that as an instance of appeasement policies of the Congress, that this is the first instance of Pan-Islamism in India, that this is what eventually paved the way for, you know, global jihad. Well, I think this is absolutely a link which is totally untenable. What followed in India was when if we look at the Pakistan movement, that had nothing to do with Pan-Islamism. In fact, it was all based on the ideology of the Tunation theory, that Hindus and Muslims are Tunation. There was no element of that. The Ulema, which had played some role in the Khilafat movement, played, they did not support the Tunation theory or the Pakistan movement. If you look at the main players, Moulana Azad, who was, comes up as a leader at this time, he remains clearly with the Congress. So the trajectory, if we want to look at it from Khilafat onwards, is that of an anti-imperialist trajectory, where nationalist Muslims come into the Congress and they remain with it till the end. So are you trying to argue that the Tunation theory was essentially very little to do with religion or religious identity, that it was completely political in nature, whereas Khilafat actually was the religious aspiration and the religious, you know, desires of the Indian Muslims. You're absolutely right. There was nothing religious about the Pakistan movement. As I said, the Peers, the Ulemas, none of them supported it. It was a pure strategy that Jinnah comes up with at a point when a journalist asks him, that are you saying that there are two nations in one village, Hindus and Muslims, two nations in one village? And he looks back straight at him and he says, Hindus and Muslims, yes, in one village. He compares or rather he tries to bring it into comparison with the issue of the black discrimination in the US, which is not a religious issue at all. So he poses it as a disadvantaged groups, that is the Muslims according to him who are disadvantaged, they haven't got their share of political power and this political power and he moves from demanding cultural rights to demanding a separate nation. So the trajectory is very clear and it is totally, even in the end, the use of violence coming out on the streets, what happens in Noakali, in Calcutta, etc., it's purely a kind, it's a movement which is, you know, very cold-blooded. It's very clear the message he's giving. He writes to the Viceroy, he says, look, you have pushed us out onto the streets. I was happy with the constitutional negotiations but now if you don't listen to us, we are going to the streets and if you listen to the Congress because they have forged a pistol, then we too today have forged a pistol. So he reinvented the Muslim League in what he thought was along the lines of a mass movement of the Congress type. No, you know, coming back to the non-cooperation movement, you know, quite often we use the word non-cooperation without really understanding what really happened. That is, it actually meant outstepping outside the government framework. You know, even children stepped out outside, you know, government schools and, you know, which were run by the British and then they went into their own societies, society created its own institutions. Similarly, likewise, we get a lot of, you know, other evidences, the more we get deep into it. Now at a conceptual level, you had non-cooperation, 10 years after that you had civil disobedience. It was a huge leap in terms of strategy, but in terms of political strategy and conceptualization, what was really different between non-cooperation and civil disobedience? I think that non-cooperation is really an early stage. Gandhi had not yet, I think, though he had practiced passive resistance in South Africa very effectively. He had worked with Muslims. Then he has worked in India with different groups, Champaran, Khera, Ahmedabad. So he is experimenting. So non-cooperation is at the national level, the first movement where he's talked about Satyagraha but the concept of civil disobedience, which means the defiance of laws, the defiance of colonial laws in a big way, that is the salt tax, that had not yet come in. It's more proactive compared to non-cooperation. Non-cooperation was about, okay, you step out of the arenas which have been created by the colonial state and you create your own arenas. You start your national schools where the students are going to, the Gujarat Vidya Peeth, the Jamia Milia, Islamia. All that came up. So it is more of fashioning, I would say, an alternative. There is Swadeshi, there is boycott and burning of foreign clothes. So again Khadi comes in in that way. So I think the elements of what were later in the next two years, he was to call his constructive work program. Non-cooperation, I think, prepares the ground for that. That Hindu-Muslim unity comes in here with Khilafat. Khadi comes in and then later on he is going to add untouchability, etc. So it is more, as I said, to do with vacating or coming out of certain arenas and creating your own arenas and looking for that. Whereas civil disobedience, there is a clear element, as I said, of defiance, of violating law, going and breaking the law. And I think by that time, the idea of that, and yet it is civil, that is, yet it is within the parameters of legality. That was the brilliance. Not violent. That was the brilliance. Not, you know, that you remained within legality and within the... You know, this passive resistance, what effect did it have on the British? Well, I think if you see it from the point of view of the British themselves, the colonial officials have themselves written about how, when, certainly in the time of Dandi March and all what they had to face... Dandi March completely. When it came much later, you're talking about non-cooperation, that they were... it had an effect that, I mean, you know, what... Broomfield, for example, Judge Broomfield, where Gandhi goes to the court in Champaran. I think non-cooperation is very much a continuation of that particular political strategy that there is, where the British, where Gandhi is experimenting with how to push the boundaries, how to expand the parameters... And how to draw people in. ...and to draw people in. Right. Into that. And that is his genius. Look what he does with Rowlett. Eventually they have to give it up. They have to give it up. And non-cooperation too. I mean, you know, the genius, I feel, of withdrawing the movement at a particular point where it goes beyond the bounds of violence. That's something which we need to understand. Yeah, sure. Yeah. We are talking about the brilliance of Gandhi and that it actually, without actually doing anything, it forced the British government, you know, the colonialists to take a step backward. Women, for example, if I could add. Again, the women come in during the non-cooperation movement for the first time. And there again, it's the... So the issue movement, they had completely... Not so much. And it was also not at a national level. This is at a national level, huge level. Now, what does he do? He tells them, you go and pick it to the liquor shops. Right. So that because the men, when they will come there, they will not be able to push aside the women. And the women will be standing there and saying, that go back to your homes. Don't spend this money over here. We are not going to allow you to go into the liquor shops. So creating again spaces where each class, each gender has, is given something to do, which is particularly suitable for that particular group. Students are told come out of the colleges. Lawyers are told come out of the courts. Similarly, you know, law makers are told come out of the legislatures. So there is a clear, yes. And also patwaris and so many other people. Just did not participate in any competition. Yes, they resigned. They resigned. This is the first time it happens. And then later on, of course, we know it becomes there. So they would have been a huge power vacuum. Absolutely a power vacuum. And this is something which therefore, as I said, something for every group. And the British did not know what to do. They were not prepared for something like this. Yes, absolutely. Moving on to what you said, the withdrawal. There cannot be a discussion on the non-corporation room without mentioning the Chaurichara incident and Gandhi's decision subsequent to the killing of 22 policemen. That the movement is withdrawn. Possibly one of the most controversial and contentious. Even now historians, I know, continue to debate whether he should have, whether he should not have. If it had continued, would independence have been several years before 1947, et cetera, et cetera. As a historian and as a person who studied Gandhi and has looked at in totality, you know, how would you look at the decision to withdraw the movement at that stage? Thank you for this question. I think it took great courage. Immense. Immense courage to call off the movement. It would have been so much easier. Sorry, it would have possibly enhanced his moral stature globally. Calling it off. To call it off. It did. And yet, with the carders who had come out, don't forget Gandhi had promised Swaraj in one year. He had said, if you do all this, we will have Swaraj in one year. So people came out with a lot of hope, a lot of conviction, making these sacrifices. It was not easy to give up everything. And then this happens. And what does he do? This is a big dilemma before him. On the one hand, as I said, committed activists who will be very disillusioned if he withdraws the movement. On the other hand, he's not just his personal conviction in ahimsa, in nonviolence, but an understanding that a mass movement in order to be effective in the long run must necessarily be nonviolent. That understanding of the necessity of nonviolence in a mass movement to have that effect. This was something which was very much a dilemma before him. And I think he goes by his conviction, by his ideological conviction, that no, what has happened today, and also you must remember, this goes along with working within the parameters of legality. That no, you do not attack a police station and kill people who are policemen. This was not a fight between, say, two people, two groups clashed somewhere. It's not an individual clash. It's not an individual clash. It's a very clear targeting of a police station. And Gandhi ji had stressed one thing. We are against the system, imperial system, the colonial system. We are not against individuals. So these poor petty policemen working for the colonial state, they are not our enemies. They are not our targets. This was another point he was making. But on the other side, it was a big price. He paid, Jawaharlal Nehru, so close to him, wrote on his autobiography that Gandhi ji, he was felt so disillusioned when he heard about the calling off of this movement. And it took him a long time to accept Gandhi ji's leadership again. Only when he realized, well, you know, he is the guy who can lead the masses. So again, you know, he very reluctantly accepts it. But there must have been so many young people, idealistic youth like Nehru, who must have felt totally disillusioned. So Chetan, last question before we actually wind up the discussion, we are running out of time. 100 years down the line, how do you think that non-cooperation movement, Khilafat movement were, what lessons does it have for contemporary India? And how would you like the anniversary of these two movements or this symbiotic relationship between these two movements to be celebrated and observed? Well, the anniversary must be celebrated and it should be done, I think, by highlighting the Hindu-Muslim unity which was there in this movement. We also should be highlighting the fact that how we were able to fashion this whole movement at that time, the early stages of it, our first mass movement, first national mass movement. First mass movement can always, we can continue to have mass movements all the time. Yes, and I think that to recognize that in any situation, even of imperial domination of foreign masters, every individual can and must recognize they have the courage to protest and to make their voice known. Thank you, Sucheta, it's always a great pleasure talking to you. Thank you so much. Telling the ruler or government that your way is not correct is not a crime. People need not be told all the time that they do not know what is good for them and what is not good for them. Gandhi discarded his dhoti and kurta for a langot in the course of the non-cooperation Khilafat movement. He came to be called a half-naked fakir thereafter. He had conviction deep within himself. I will leave you today with his words to Vice Roy Chemsford. Non-cooperation was the only dignified and constitutional form of such direct action for it is the right recognized from times immemorial of the subject to refuse to assist a ruler who misrules. Think about the meaning of these words. Goodbye.