Daily Times

The first phase in Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s political life was as an avowed Indian nationalist. He returned from England in 1896 and established a legal practice in Bombay. Hard work and impressive cross-examination skills helped him establish a growing practice. In 1905, he emerged as an outspoken Indian nationalist who believed in the unity of India and all Indians. His inspiration was the Indian National Congress, established in 1885, and leaders like Dadabhai Naoroji and Gopal Krishna Gokhale.

He condemned the 1905 partition of Bengal as a British conspiracy to divide Indians. When Sir Aga Khan led the Simla Deputation of Muslim notables to meet Viceroy Lord Minto with a petition that Muslims be granted separate electorates as well as the weightage in representation in the councils and legislatures, Jinnah condemned it and called into question the representative character of the deputation. He joined the Indian National Congress in 1906 while denouncing the founding of the All-India Muslim League at Dhaka in December 1906 as a divisive entity.

In any event, the 1909 India Act granted separate electorates and weightage to Muslims. Thus, with one masterstroke, the British objectified Indian Muslims as a separate political entity; encouraging them to prioritise their communal interests over national interests. The Partition of Bengal was annulled in 1911 because of mass protests, including Congress support, and even terrorism carried out by upper-caste Bengali Hindus. Jinnah met some Muslim Leaguers in 1911 and accepted separate electorates. He joined the Muslim League in 1913 but retained a robust membership in Congress.

The Congress supported Jinnah joining the Muslim League in the hope that he will be able to bring both parties closer. Thus, he would break the isolation of Indian Muslims from the political mainstream imposed upon them by Sir Syed and other British loyalists. It can be noted that in 1915, the Hindu Sabha (later named Hindu Mahasabha) was formed by communal Hindus.

Jinnah felt Gandhi had demeaned his status as an Indian leader by describing him as a mere Mohammaden leader.

The high point of Jinnah’s career as an Indian nationalist was when with the backing of the Congress, he had convinced the Muslim League to agree to a constitutional formula to bring Hindus and Muslims closer politically. The Lucknow Pact of 1916 accepted several electorates and doubled Muslim representatives in the Hindu-majority provinces. Meanwhile, in Muslim-majority Punjab and Bengal, the Muslim representation was somewhat decreased and Hindus and Sikhs were given weightage. His contribution to Indian unity was classically described by Sarojini Naidu as the Ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity.

Thereafter, set in the anti-climax. In 1915, at a welcome reception arranged by fellow Gujaratis (both Jinnah and Gandhi were Gujaratis) for Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, who had returned from South Africa, Jinnah lauded his great services to Indians in South Africa. However, Gandhi described Jinnah as a “Mohammaden leader.”

According to Stanley Wolpert, Jinnah resented that deeply. He felt Gandhi had demeaned his status as an Indian leader by describing him as a mere Mohammaden leader. Gandhi’s grandson, Prof Rajmohan Gandhi, believes Gandhi was expressing joy that both Hindu and Muslim Gujaratis were present in the same function in a spirit of brotherly concord. In any event, Gandhi and his followers annoyed Jinnah again in 1917, when at an Indian National Congress session, Jinnah began speaking in English and they insisted that he speak in Gujarati.

However, such personal resentments turned political over tactics and strategy to question colonial policy in India. Both Jinnah and Gandhi believed that India deserved greater self-rule, especially since Indians had, by and large, supported the British during World War I with generous donations. Over a million of them had joined the British Indian Army and many were dispatched to different battle theatres in the Middle East and Europe.

However, the British response was shocking. Instead of more self-rule, the draconian Rowlatt Acts were introduced in February 1919 that authorised the government to arrest people without trial on mere suspicion of conspiring against the government. Jinnah delivered a scathing speech in the Imperial Legislative Assembly; blaming the British for alienating Indians. Gandhi upped the ante by calling for non-cooperation in the form of peaceful mass civil disobedience. This meant that people were to boycott British goods, give up government jobs and return the titles they had been given. He converted the hitherto elite Congress Party into a mass party open to all for a nominal membership fee.

The Jallianwala massacre of April 13, 1919, took place when the mass movement in Punjab had become unruly. In 1920, Gandhi agreed-upon the request of anti-colonial Muslims-to become the president of the Khilafat Committee, seeking to preserve the defeated Ottoman Empire. Jinnah had in 1919 gone to England as part of a Muslim League delegation to plead to the government to not dismember the Ottoman Empire as it symbolised Muslim spiritual unity. However, these pleas were ignored by the British. In 1920, Jinnah again spoke against British policy vis-à-vis the Ottoman Empire. He said among other things:

“First came the Rowlatt Bill – accompanied by the Punjab atrocities – and then the spoliation of the Ottoman Empire and the Khilafat. The one attacks our liberty, the other our faith.”

Notwithstanding that both Jinnah and Gandhi took identical positions on the Ottoman Empire question, Jinnah strongly opposed the mass agitation that Gandhi had spearheaded against the British. Gandhi, however, was keen to bring the Muslims, alienated since 1909, into the political mainstream.

In 1920, at the Nagpur session of the Congress, their differences came to a head. In his speech, Jinnah referred to Maulana Mohammad Ali Johar and Mahatma Gandhi as Mr Mohammad Ali and Mr Gandhi. That angered their followers. Some behaved threateningly. Jinnah walked out, never to return to the Congress.

Now, Gandhi’s non-cooperation had annoyed many Congress leaders. Had Jinnah stayed in the party, there was a fair chance that he could have recovered his status as a top leader of the nationalist movement. But, in history, one such wrong move sometimes suffices to seal one’s fate. Jinnah was not willing to take the risk of playing second fiddle to Gandhi. He had to be the number one leader.

To be continued

The writer is Professor Emeritus (Stockholm University); Visiting Professor (Government College University); Honorary Senior Fellow (National University of Singapore). He has written a number of books and won many awards. He can be reached at billumian@gmail.com