1877-1904:

The Indian National Congress:

By the end of the nineteenth century, there was a growing belief
among many people in both India and Britain that the Indian people
needed a national political body to represent their views to the
British government. In 1883, the Indian Association proposed the
formation of such a body. That same year, a British Member of
Parliament also supported the idea by writing a letter to The Times
newspaper, encouraging Indians to establish a national political
association of their own.
Allan Octavian Hume, a retired British civil servant, took the idea
further by writing a letter to the graduates of Calcutta University. In
his letter, he urged them to take the lead in setting up a national
organization. Following this appeal, Hume helped form the Indian
National Union, with branches in several Indian cities. The British
Viceroy at the time, supported Hume's initiative, describing the
proposed organization as a "safety valve" to release the growing
political pressure in the country.
On 28 December 1883, a conference of the Indian National Union
was held in Bombay, while a second one was organized in Calcutta.
These conferences were held under the name Indian National
Congress, usually shortened to Congress and this marked the official
beginning of an organization that would later play a major role in
India’s independence movement. However, in its early years,
Congress was careful not to provoke the British authorities. It
declared loyalty to Queen Victoria and stated that its only aim was
to broaden the basis of the government in India.
By 1886, during the second meeting of the Indian National
Congress, the number of delegates had grown, and the organisation
made its aims clear: to promote India’s welfare and unite the
people. Congress sought to educate both Indians and the British
about political issues by publishing resolutions in newspapers and
forming a British Committee in London. It also demanded fairer
treatment, especially greater Indian representation in the Indian
Civil Service and legislative councils.
Although Congress influenced the Indian Councils Act of 1892, which
allowed slightly more Indian involvement, the changes were
minimal. Real power remained with the British, who soon began to
dismiss Congress. Lord Dufferin called it a “microscopic minority,”
and by 1900, Viceroy Lord Curzon claimed it was “tottering to its
fall.”
Still, many Congress members—known as Moderates—believed in
peaceful change. They felt British rule had brought stability, law,
and education, and hoped that reasoned debate and protest would
persuade the British to gradually give Indians more control.
However, not all Indians agreed with this slow approach. A Stronger
form of nationalism was emerging. Leaders openly demanded
freedom and were punished for speaking out. That year, a British
officer was assassinated, and secret societies working to end British
rule grew more active.
In response, the British cracked down, including by partitioning
Bengal, hoping to weaken nationalist unity. Instead, the move
backfired and became a major turning point in the struggle for
independence.

1905: Partition of Bengal

By the late 19th century, Bengal was the most populous province in
British India, with a population far greater than that of Britain itself.
Viceroy Lord Curzon argued that Bengal had become too large to
govern efficiently, and in 1903 he proposed dividing it into two
separate provinces: West Bengal (mainly Hindu) and East Bengal
(mainly Muslim, including Assam, Dhaka). Although the British
justified the move as an administrative necessity, many Indians saw
deeper political motives behind it. The partition officially took effect
on 16 October 1905.
The British claimed the re-organization would make governance
more manageable, but many Hindus viewed the decision as a
deliberate attempt to divide the growing nationalist movement,
particularly the Hindu-led Indian National Congress. Congress had
begun demanding reforms, and the partition seemed like a strategic
move to weaken their unity by creating religious divisions. As a
result, Hindus perceived the act as part of Britain’s wider ‘divide
and rule’ strategy.
The reaction among Hindus was intense, declaring the day of
partition “a day of mourning”, organizing mass protects among
Bengal. Public meetings were held, petitions submitted, and
political awareness spread rapidly. Nationalist leaders encouraged
Indians to reject British control in more visible ways. One of the key
developments was the Swadeshi Movement, which called for a
boycott of British goods in favor of Indian-made products. People
began wearing locally made clothes as a show of resistance. The
boycott hurt British trade and marked the beginning of a more
forceful version of nationalism
In contrast, the reaction from Muslims was largely positive. For
many years, Muslims had been politically limited, concerned about
Hindu domination. The creation of a Muslim-majority province gave
them a sense of political identity and representation. It provided
new opportunities for Muslim leadership, education, and
administration, which had long been denied under Hindu-majority
governance. As a result, Muslim leaders welcomed the partition as a
chance to protect their rights and interests.
The partition of Bengal led to rising communal tension and created
long-term mistrust between Hindus and Muslims. The British
government, taken aback by the intensity of the protests, was
forced to reconsider its position. Although the partition was
reversed in 1911, the damage had already been done. In conclusion,
the partition of Bengal was a turning point in Indian history,
revealing the British willingness to exploit divisions to maintain
control and marking the shift from peaceful protest to stronger
opposition. It also laid the foundation for the eventual demand for a
separate homeland.

The British reaction to the Hindu Protests:

The British responded swiftly to the Hindu protests by imposing
restrictions on newspapers and public meetings. Between 1906 and
1908, many editors were prosecuted and some imprisoned, and in
1908 a Press Act gave the government even greater control over the
media. Radical leaders were arrested, being sentenced up to six
years in prison, while few fled India to avoid arrest. Many people
suspected of being revolutionaries were put in jail or sent away
without a trial but the British soon understood that punishment
alone would not end the protests. To gain the support of moderate
Hindus, Viceroy Lord Minto introduced reforms, working with the
Secretary of State for India to bring in the Morley-Minto Reforms,
which gave some limited political changes to please the Hindus

1906: Simla Deputation

Even before the Morley-Minto Reforms were introduced, Morley had
decided that the British should try to gain the support of the
Muslims to strengthen their control over India. The Simla
Deputation of 1906 provided the perfect opportunity for this.
The Muslims had watched the Hindu reaction to the Partition of
Bengal with worry. They feared the strong protests by Hindus might
lead to the Partition being reversed. Since Muslims were less able to
organize such protests, they felt vulnerable. They were also
concerned that the INC would push for Hindi to become the national
language or even try to force Muslims to convert to Hinduism. When
the Liberal government was elected in Britain in 1905, Muslim fears
grew stronger. The Liberals promised to increase Indian
participation in government through elections, which Muslims
feared would lead to Hindu domination because Hindus were the
majority.
On 8 October 1906, a group of important Muslim leaders, led by the
Aga Khan, met Viceroy Lord Minto at Simla. They presented what
became known as the Simla Deputation. In it, they asked that
Muslims should be given special political representation, arguing
that their importance should be judged not just by numbers, but by
their role in society and service to the British Empire.
The deputation demanded that Muslims should have their own
representatives in all local and provincial elections, elected only by
Muslim voters. They also asked for Muslims to have a higher
proportion of seats in councils than their population percentage.
The Muslim leaders pointed out that many Muslims were wealthy
landowners, and that a large percentage of soldiers in the British
Indian Army were Muslim. They also warned that without separate
Muslim representatives, elections would likely cause violence
between Hindus and Muslims.
Lord Minto accepted the arguments. As a result, the Morley-Minto
Reforms of 1909 introduced the policy of separate electorates for
Muslims. This meant Muslims could elect their own representatives
separately from Hindus, giving them a guaranteed political voice.
This policy aimed to protect Muslim interests but also deepened
divisions between the communities.

Importance Of Simla Deputation:

The British acceptance of the Simla Deputation was a significant
moment in the history of Pakistan. It demonstrated that the earlier
efforts by leaders like Sir Syed Ahmad Khan to improve relations
between Muslims and the British had been successful. The British
government was now willing not only to cooperate with Muslim
leaders but also to make political concessions in their favor.
This acceptance also marked a shift in Muslim political thinking. The
Muslim community chose to protect its place in India’s political
system by seeking separate representation. This change turned the
rivalry between Hindus and Muslims, which was mostly about social
and cultural differences, into a political issue.
Furthermore, the Simla Deputation revealed that many Muslims now
saw themselves as a distinct community with interests separate
from those of the Hindus. This growing sense of identity eventually
led to the separation of Muslim political interests from the Indian
National Congress, and the creation of a separate Muslim party to
protect these interests.
In this way, the Simla Deputation was a crucial early step on the
long path towards the eventual creation of Pakistan.

The Formation of All India Muslim

League (1906):
Aim:
The Muslims were encouraged by their success in getting Lord Minto
to agree to separate electorates in 1906. This made them feel it was
the right time to form their own political party. Although the British
had accepted the Simla Deputation and had partitioned Bengal in
1905 to create a Muslim-majority area in East Bengal, Muslims still
felt less politically powerful than the Hindus, who had gained much
influence through the Indian National Congress. One aim of the new
party was “to counter the growing influence of the so-called Indian
National Congress.”
The partition of Bengal had also caused strong Hindu protests,
which increased tensions between the two communities. Muslim
leaders realized it was now necessary to have a political party that
could present their views. Congress was now becoming Hindu-
dominated and In response, there formed a Muslim party, which was
essential to protect Muslim rights.

Formation:
The All-India Muslim League was officially formed in December 1906.
Muslim leaders gathered at the 20th session of the Muhammadan
Educational Conference held in Dhaka, and after the main session, a
separate meeting was chaired by NAWAB VIQAR UL MULK to
consider forming a political party named the "All-India Muslim
League." This marked the formal beginning of a political
organization specifically meant to represent the interests of the
Muslim community.

Objectives:
At its first official meeting in December 1906, the Muslim League
clearly set out its goals. These included protecting and promoting
the political rights of Muslims in India, representing their needs and
demands to the British government, and encouraging loyalty among
Muslims towards British rule. The League also aimed to clear
misunderstandings about any government policies and to reduce
tension between Muslims and other communities in India.
While the British welcomed the formation of the League—mainly
because it was led by moderate landowners and princes—they were
not the ones who created it. The League was formed by Muslim
leaders themselves in response to rising Hindu influence and the
need for a separate Muslim voice in politics. For the British, the
League was useful as it helped balance the growing protests from
Congress, especially after the partition of Bengal. From this point
on, the differences between Congress and the Muslim League
became more obvious, and their political rivalry shaped Indian
politics for many years.

The Morley-Minto-Reforms
(1909):
British Attempts to Win Indian Support.
In 1909, Lord Minto (Viceroy of India) and John Morley (Secretary of
State for India) introduced reforms to respond to Indian demands
for more say in government. These were known as the Morley-Minto
Reforms, officially called the Indian Councils Act of 1909.
The reforms increased the number of members in the Imperial
Legislative Council to 60 by adding more non-official members.
However, the British kept control by ensuring that most members
were still appointed by them. The Central Executive Council was also
expanded, allowing members to discuss issues like the budget and
advise the government, though they could not make final decisions.
At the provincial level, council sizes were also increased—to 50 in
larger provinces and 30 in smaller ones. Most importantly, the
reforms introduced separate electorates for Muslims, meaning
Muslims could elect their own representatives. This was a major
step in recognizing Muslims as a separate political group.

Importance:
Although the reforms gave the impression of increasing Indian
involvement, real power remained with the British. The councils
could only give advice, not make decisions. While more Indians
could now join discussions, the British had no intention of allowing
self-rule.
The most significant result was the official introduction of separate
electorates for Muslims, recognizing them as a distinct political
group. Congress strongly opposed this, calling it undemocratic, and
for 25 years they passed yearly resolutions to end it. However,
Congress failed to see that the British weren’t trying to create
democracy, they only wanted to control the situation by making
limited changes.

Voice For Indians?

Although more Indians were included in the councils, their powers
remained very limited. Morley himself made it clear that the reforms
were not a step toward Indian self-government. He even stated that
if he thought the reforms might lead to an Indian parliament, he
would not have supported them.
For the British, these reforms were a way to calm political tensions
while ensuring continued dominance. Hindus and Muslims were both
pushing for greater rights, and the British were trying to respond
without losing control. However, as later events would show, even
these small concessions could be reversed if British interests were
threatened.

Bengal Partition Reversal

(1911):
The importance of the Muslim League became even clearer in 1911,
when the British reversed the Partition of Bengal, shocking and
angering Muslims. The new Viceroy, Lord Hardinge, approved the
reversal, which was officially announced by King George V at the
Delhi Durbar on 12 December 1911.
Although the British claimed it was an administrative change, the
real reason was the strong opposition from Bengali Hindus, which
forced them to back down. To balance this decision, they moved the
capital from Calcutta to Delhi, trying to show that the Hindus had
not won everything.
For Muslims, this was a huge betrayal. They had supported the
partition and trusted the British, but now it was clear that the
British could give up Muslim interests under Hindu pressure. This
made Muslims realize that only a strong Muslim political
organization like the Muslim League could protect their rights in
India.

India Before the First World War

(1912-1914):
Outbreak of the Balkan War
Before World War I, many Muslims became unhappy with British
rule, especially after the Partition of Bengal was reversed in 1911.
The Muslims felt betrayed because the British had promised the
Partition would stay. When the British changed their mind, Muslims
realized that the British might not protect their interests if the
Hindus protested enough.
The Morley-Minto Reforms of 1909 had made Muslims hopeful
because they allowed more Indians to join government councils but
these councils only gave advice and did not have real power. This
showed that the British did not want to give Indians real control,
which made Muslims lose trust in the British.
Muslims were also upset by the Balkan Wars (1912–13) because
Britain supported countries fighting against Turkey, the biggest
Muslim country in Europe. This made Indian Muslims feel ignored
and left out. Because of these problems, the All-India Muslim
League passed a resolution in January 1913 asking for “a form of
self-government suitable to India.” This was the first time the
League openly asked for self-rule. It also helped the League and the
Indian National Congress get closer because now both wanted more
freedom for India, even though they were different groups.
Outbreak of the World War: 1914
When the First World War started in August 1914, Indians had
mixed feelings. India was a British colony, so many Indians,
especially those loyal to Britain, supported the war. Over one million
Indian soldiers joined the British army and fought bravely in places
like Europe and Mesopotamia. Thousands died, and the British often
said the war would have been much harder without India’s help.
Many Indian leaders hoped that their support during the war would
be rewarded. Since Britain said it was fighting for self-determination
(the right of people to govern themselves), Indians believed they
would get more political freedom after the war. They thought
cooperating with Britain would bring new reforms.
But not all Indians agreed. Some saw the war as a chance to push
for independence because Britain was busy fighting and might be
weaker. During this time, several revolutionary groups tried to start
uprisings:
 In 1913, Lala Hardayal, started the Mutiny Party, which wanted
to start an armed rebellion in India. They tried to smuggle
weapons but were caught by Indian police in 1915.
 In 1915, Indian nationalists tried a rebellion in Punjab, but the
British quickly stopped it.
 In Singapore, Indian soldiers in the British army mutinied but
were defeated, and many were punished.
 Muslim leaders planned the Silk Letter Conspiracy to start a
large Muslim revolt, but it also failed.
Because of these uprisings, the British passed the Defense of India
Act during the war. This law gave them strong powers to control
protests and arrest people without trial. Many suspected
revolutionaries were jailed or sent away. These harsh actions
showed how determined the British were to keep control, even as
political anger grew in India.

The Lucknow Pact: 1916

Cooperation Between the Muslim League and
Congress:
By 1915, both the All-India Muslim League and the Indian National
Congress were unhappy with the British government. The British
had failed to make real political changes and had been strict during
the war. Because of this, the two groups started working closer
together, sharing a common goal: to get more rights for Indians.
Muhammad Ali Jinnah, a respected leader in the Muslim League,
helped bring the two parties together. In 1915, Congress and the
Muslim League held their meetings in Bombay and set up joint
councils to work better as a team on important political issues.
At the same time, the British government was busy with World War I
and wanted to avoid trouble in India. In October 1916, the British
hinted they might make some constitutional changes to give Indians
more say in government. These changes included the idea that
some members of the Executive Council would be elected, and that
elected members would make up most of the Legislative Council.
Both Congress and the Muslim League liked these ideas, which
helped them grow closer.

Terms of the Lucknow Pact:

In December 1916, Congress and the Muslim League met in Lucknow
and made the Lucknow Pact, showing new unity between them. The
key part was Congress agreeing to important Muslim League
demands, like separate electorates, meaning Muslims would vote
for their own representatives. Before, Congress had opposed this.
The pact said Muslims would have separate electorates even in
Punjab and Bengal, get one-third of council seats despite being 25%
of the population, and no law affecting a community could pass
without most of its representatives agreeing. These were big
compromises by Congress to work with the Muslim League.
They also agreed on shared demands for the British: more elected
council seats, acceptance of council decisions by the British,
protection for minorities, and self-government for provinces. The
pact was a key moment of Hindu-Muslim unity but didn’t last long
after.
Importance Of the Lucknow Pact:
The Lucknow Pact was very important because it was the first time
that Hindus and Muslims officially worked together to ask the British
government for political reforms. This showed that India’s two main
communities could unite and fight for better rights. Muhammad Ali
Jinnah, a key leader in the pact, said that real progress would only
happen if Hindus and Muslims cooperated and supported each other.
The pact was also the first time Congress accepted that Muslims had
a separate political identity. Congress agreed to give Muslims
separate electorates and reserved seats to protect their interests.
This helped Muslims feel more confident that their rights could be
defended by working with Congress instead of relying only on the
British.
Because of the Lucknow Pact, many Indians began to believe that
self-rule for India was possible. This led to the creation of Home
Rule Leagues in 1917 and encouraged political cooperation.
Although this unity between Hindus and Muslims was short-lived
due to later conflicts, the Lucknow Pact remains an important
symbol of hope and cooperation in India’s journey toward
independence.

The Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms -

Diarchy in India (1919):
In 1917, Lord Montagu (the Secretary of State for India) and Lord
Chelmsford (the Viceroy) traveled across India to learn about the
political demands of Indians. Their findings were published in 1919
as the Montagu-Chelmsford Report, which proposed some important
reforms to give Indians a greater role in governing their country.
The main idea was to introduce a system called ‘diarchy’ in the
provinces. This meant that the government’s responsibilities were
split into two parts. The British-controlled areas, called Reserved
Subjects, included important matters like justice, police, taxes, and
press control. The Indians were given control over Transferred
Subjects such as education, local government, public health, and
public works. However, the British Governor still had the power to
dismiss Indian ministers and could overrule their decisions.
At the national level, the reforms changed the legislative system.
The old Legislative Council became the Legislative Assembly, which
had 145 members, with 103 elected. Out of these elected seats, 32
were reserved for Muslims through separate electorates. A new
Council of State was created with 60 members, 33 of whom were
elected. There was also a Council of Princes for the Indian royalty to
discuss issues, but it had no real power and many princes didn’t
attend. The Viceroy’s Executive Council included three Indians, but
they were appointed, not elected.
Even though these reforms gave more Indians the right to vote, only
about 5.5 million people—roughly 2% of India’s huge population—
were eligible. This showed that, despite some progress, real
political power was still mostly in British hands.

Reaction of The Indian People:

The Government of India Act 1919 put the Montagu-Chelmsford
Reforms into action, but many Indians were disappointed. After
supporting Britain during the First World War, they had hoped for
real self-rule, but the reforms gave only limited power and kept
most control with the British.
At a special session of the Indian National Congress in August 1918,
the reforms were called “inadequate, unsatisfactory and
disappointing.” While some moderates in Congress accepted them,
the party soon shifted toward more radical leaders who rejected the
reforms.
One important result of the reforms was the official approval of
separate electorates for Muslims. This encouraged other groups like
non-Brahmins and Sikhs to demand their own political
representation too. As a result, Indian society became more divided
by community, which caused problems later on.
In summary, although the reforms allowed some Indian participation
in government, real power stayed with the British, and the growing
demand for self-rule was left unfulfilled.

The Rowlatt Act (1919):

The British introduced the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms to gain
Indian support, but they were also determined to stop any
opposition. In 1917, they set up a committee led by Justice Rowlatt
to investigate revolutionary activities. The committee reported in
1918 that anti-British actions were increasing and suggested harsh
laws to control them.
Based on this, the Rowlatt Act was passed in 1919. It allowed the
British to arrest people without a warrant, keep them in jail without
bail, and restrict their movements. These powers were very strict
and similar to emergency laws used during the war.
Indians were very angry because the Act ignored basic rights like
fair trials and protection against wrongful imprisonment. Many saw
it as a betrayal after India had supported Britain in World War I.
Muhammad Ali Jinnah resigned in protest, and Mahatma Gandhi
started a peaceful strike called a hartal. In April 1919, protests and
strikes spread all over India.
The British government ignored these protests and passed the Act
anyway. This made relations worse and pushed Indian politics
toward more radical actions, leading to events like the tragic
Amritsar Massacre later that year.

The Amritsar Massacre

(1919):
Following the unrest caused by the Rowlatt Act, the British
responded by banning anti-government publications and public
meetings. However, the protests continued, especially in Punjab.
Tensions rose when two nationalist leaders were deported without
trial in early 1919.
On 10 April, rioting broke out in Amritsar, during which two banks
were attacked and five Europeans were killed. In response, the
British military commander, General Dyer, took charge and imposed
strict control over the city. He banned public gatherings, but on 13
April 1919, around 20,000 unarmed men, women, and children
gathered peacefully at Jallianwala Bagh, a public park with narrow
entrances and a 5-foot wall around it.
Without warning, General Dyer and his soldiers blocked the exits
and opened fire on the crowd, firing over 1,600 rounds. People were
trapped and had nowhere to escape. Around 400 people were killed,
and about 1,200 were injured. Dyer later claimed that his actions
were meant to send a strong message to the people of Punjab that
they must obey British rule.
The massacre was followed by further acts of brutality. In Amritsar,
Indian men were publicly flogged and forced to crawl on their hands
and knees down a street where a British woman had been attacked.
In Gujranwala, a protest crowd was bombed from the air. The British
authorities also carried out many executions, imprisonments, and
exiles to restore order.
The Hunter Committee, a special enquiry set up in Britain,
investigated the massacre. It eventually led to Dyer being removed
from duty, but he was not punished further. While many Europeans
considered Dyer a hero, the Indian people were outraged. The
failure to hold him accountable deeply insulted Indians and
strengthened anti-British feelings. Gandhi, horrified by the brutality,
declared that "cooperation in any shape or form with this satanic
government is sinful."

The Non-Cooperation
Movement (1922):
By 1920, many Indians had lost all trust in the British government,
especially after the betrayal of the Rowlatt Act and the horrors of
the Amritsar Massacre. Gandhi channeled this frustration into the
Non-Cooperation Movement, which quickly gained widespread
support. Indians were urged to boycott British goods, particularly
cloth, which was publicly burned as a symbol of resistance. Instead,
Indians were encouraged to wear hand-spun khadi. Teachers and
students left British-run schools and colleges to form national
institutions. Lawyers gave up their practices to protest the colonial
legal system. In the elections held under the Montagu-Chelmsford
Reforms, Congress refused to participate, further weakening British
control. Jawaharlal Nehru described the period as one of excitement
and hope, as Indians felt they were finally part of a meaningful
struggle for independence. However, as the British responded with
arrests and imprisonments, the situation became tense. Over
30,000 political prisoners were jailed. Then, in February 1922, when
a violent mob killed police officers in Chauri Chaura, Gandhi,
committed to non-violence, immediately called off the campaign.
Though the movement failed to bring about swaraj or protect the
Caliphate, it raised political awareness and showed Indians that
mass protest could be powerful.

The Growth of Communalism

Following the end of the Non-Cooperation Movement, tensions
between Hindus and Muslims increased significantly. While they had
previously united against British oppression, this unity began to
break down. One major factor was the rise of Hindu fundamentalist
groups like the Arya Samaj, which aimed to reform and “purify”
Hinduism and reconvert those who had left the religion. Founded in
1877 by Dayanand Saraswati, Arya Samaj had a strong presence in
Punjab during the 1920s. Its religious and social reforms were seen
as aggressive by many Muslims. Another key group was the
Hindu Mahasabha, which promoted the idea of India as a Hindu
nation. Founded in 1923 by Pandit Mohan Malaviya, the party later
grew under the leadership of V.D. Savarkar. He rejected Gandhi’s
tolerance towards Muslims and believed India should be ruled by
Hindus. This growing Hindu nationalism caused deep concern among
Muslims, and violent communal riots erupted in various parts of
India during the early 1920s.

Pandit Mohan Malaviya and the Hindu Mahasabha:

Pandit Mohan Malaviya played a key role in organizing Hindu
political activism during the early 1920s. Although Hindu Sabhas
had been active in Punjab since the 1890s, Malaviya brought them
together in a single party called the Hindu Mahasabha in 1923. The
Mahasabha aimed to defend Hindu interests and contested its first
election in 1926, though with limited success. Its influence grew
after V.D. Savarkar became its leader. Savarkar strongly promoted
Hindu nationalism and criticized Gandhi’s religious tolerance as a
weakness. By 1947, the Hindu Mahasabha condemned the idea of
partition and instead wanted a united Hindu India. Though Savarkar
was later accused of being involved in Gandhi’s assassination in
1948, he was acquitted by the court. Still, the Hindu Mahasabha
became a major voice for Hindu hardliners.

Growing Divisions in the Congress Party

In the early 1920s, the Indian National Congress itself became
divided. Although Congress had officially boycotted the 1920
elections under British reforms, a group broke away to participate
as the "National Liberals." While they won some seats, they soon
realized that British control made real change impossible.
Recognizing this, Congress changed its strategy in 1923. Under a
new policy, they decided to contest elections but not to cooperate —
instead, they aimed to obstruct British rule from within the system.
This approach led to the formation of the Swaraj Party, which
successfully won many seats in the 1923 elections. This rise in
Congress influence caused fear among Muslims, who worried that
Congress cared more about Hindu interests than about all Indians.
Their fear was confirmed when Congress refused to support Muslim
demands for provincial autonomy in areas like Punjab, Bengal, and
NWFP. This political rivalry added to growing tensions between the
communities.

The Delhi Proposals

To address Muslim concerns and safeguard their political future,
Muhammad Ali Jinnah organized a major meeting of Muslim leaders
in Delhi in 1927. The result was a set of demands known as the
Delhi Proposals.
These proposals included:
 one-third representation for Muslims in the Central Legislature
through joint electorates (instead of separate electorates)
 full provincial status for Sindh
 extension of British reforms to neglected regions like
Balochistan and the NWFP
 proportional Muslim representation in provinces like Punjab
and Bengal where they formed a majority.
Jinnah offered to abandon the demand for separate electorates if
these proposals were accepted, hoping to create Hindu-Muslim
unity. This showed Jinnah’s willingness to compromise and work for
a united India — though these proposals were ultimately rejected by
Congress, deepening the divide between the two communities.

Khilafat Movement:
The Lucknow Pact of 1916 had raised hopes that Hindus and
Muslims in India could work together politically. It showed that both
communities could set aside their differences and unite for common
goals, particularly against British rule. This spirit of cooperation
seemed to continue with the launch of the Khilafat Movement in
1919. Hindus and Muslims initially stood side by side in their protest
against British imperial policies, especially those that affected the
Muslim world. However, despite this promising beginning, deep
religious and political divisions gradually began to re-emerge. As
time passed, tensions between the communities increased, and
mutual trust declined. It became clear that the unity built during the
Khilafat Movement was difficult to maintain in the face of growing
religious identity and colonial manipulation.
Reasons for the Formation:
a) deep-seated muslim fears
The concerns of Indian Muslims, which gave rise to the Khilafat
Movement, had deep roots. Long before 1919, Muslims were uneasy
about the way European powers treated Muslim-majority countries
such as Afghanistan and Persia. These regions had been used as
pawns in the so-called “Great Game” between Britain and Russia,
without regard for the wishes of the Muslim populations. Indian
Muslims saw this as part of a broader pattern of disrespect toward
the Islamic world. Many Muslims also believed that the British were
deliberately trying to divide Muslims and Hindus to maintain their
control. Leaders like Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, who was part of the
Indian National Congress, criticized Muslims who remained loyal to
the British. He even described the Hindu struggle for independence
as a kind of jihad and called on Muslims to join it.

b) 1st world war & turkey (British betrayal of promises)

During the First World War, these concerns intensified. The Ottoman
Empire, ruled by the Khalifa, joined Germany in fighting against
Britain. This put Indian Muslims in a difficult position, as they were
expected to fight against a fellow Muslim power. The Khalifa was not
just a political leader but also the spiritual head of the global
Muslim community, and many Muslims in India felt deep loyalty
toward him. While the British promised to protect the Ottoman
Empire to gain Muslim support, they were also suspicious of Muslim
loyalty and arrested influential leaders like Maulana Muhammad Ali
Jauhar and his brother Maulana Shaukat Ali. After the war, Muslims
were outraged when the British broke their promises. The Treaty of
Versailles and other agreements punished the defeated powers
harshly, and it became clear that the Ottoman Empire would also be
broken up. British leaders like David Lloyd George openly supported
the idea of dismantling Turkey, further angering Muslims.

c) Importance of Khalifa
For Indian Muslims, the Khalifa was not just a symbol but a vital
religious figure who represented the unity of the Muslim world.
When the Allied powers planned to reduce the Khalifa’s authority
and take control of important Islamic regions like Mecca, Medina,
and Jerusalem, Muslims in India reacted with alarm. This led to the
official launch of the Khilafat Movement in 1919, aimed at defending
the Khalifa’s position and pressuring Britain to honor its promises.
The movement quickly gained support among Muslims across India
and was even supported by some Hindu leaders, including Gandhi,
who saw it as a shared cause. However, the religious nature of the
movement and the re-emergence of communal tensions eventually
weakened its impact. What began as a powerful symbol of Hindu-
Muslim unity ended in disappointment, as rising mistrust and
conflicting political goals made lasting cooperation impossible.

Establishment of Khilafat
Movement:
By the end of the First World War in 1918, Indian Muslims had
grown increasingly anxious over the future of the Ottoman Empire
and the position of the Khalifa, or Caliph. Despite earlier British
assurances that the Turkish Empire would be preserved, post-war
developments suggested otherwise. When it became clear that the
victorious Allies—especially Britain—intended to dismantle the
Ottoman Empire, Muslim leaders in India felt betrayed and
organized widespread resistance. This marked the beginning of the
Khilafat Movement, a campaign to protect the Khalifa and Islamic
holy sites from foreign control.

A) All India Khilafat Conference (1st):

In November 1919, the Khilafat Movement took a major step
forward with the All India Khilafat Conference held in Delhi. Key
Muslim leaders like Maulana Shaukat Ali, Maulana Muhammad Ali
Jauhar, and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad led the event, aiming to
convince the British to keep their wartime promises and protect the
Turkish Empire. A key decision was made to send a delegation to
Britain to show how strongly Indian Muslims supported the Khalifa.

The presence of Mahatma Gandhi at the conference was especially

significant. He supported the movement and called for Hindu-
Muslim unity to oppose British injustice. Gandhi promoted non-
violent resistance, or satyagraha, encouraging Indians to stand up
to British rule through peaceful means. He urged Muslims to join the
Indian National Congress in the fight for self-rule. Most Muslim
leaders supported this idea, but Muhammad Ali Jinnah disagreed. He
believed India was not yet ready for independence and warned
against rushing the process.
 B) The Second Conference:
In December 1919, a second Khilafat Conference was held in
Amritsar, alongside meetings of the Congress and Muslim League.
The three groups agreed to work together against British plans to
weaken and divide the Turkish Empire. Gandhi was chosen to lead
efforts to convince the British to change their policies toward
Turkey.
Despite these united efforts, they saw little success. Maulana
Muhammad Ali had recently returned from Britain, where he had
tried to persuade officials to protect the Ottoman Empire. Though
treated politely, his pleas made little difference. British Prime
Minister David Lloyd George even mocked the idea, saying Turkey
would face the same harsh "justice" as Germany and Austria, which
had suffered severe territorial and economic penalties.

2) The Policy of Non-Co-operation:

The failure to influence British policy led to a more assertive
strategy. In January 1920, a Khilafat deputation met with the
Viceroy of India to demand fair treatment for Turkey. Then in
February 1920, a delegation was sent to Britain once more to
prevent harsh measures against the Ottoman Empire. However,
while they were still in England, the Treaty of Sèveres was
announced.
Signed in August 1920, the Treaty of Sèveres officially broke up the
Ottoman Empire. Arabia was declared independent, and other
Middle Eastern territories such as Syria, Palestine, and Iraq were
handed over to Britain and France under the League of Nations
mandates. Large portions of Turkish land were also given to Greece,
leaving Turkey with little more than Istanbul and surrounding areas
in Europe. These terms enraged Indian Muslims, as they felt their
religious institutions and the spiritual head of Islam had been
completely humiliated.
In response, on 22 June 1920, Indian Muslims issued a warning to
the Viceroy stating that if the Treaty of Sèveres was imposed, a non-
cooperation movement would begin on 1 August 1920. This marked
the official beginning of a joint Khilafat–Non-Cooperation Movement,
with Gandhi touring the country to rally support.
The non-cooperation program received enthusiastic support from
both Hindus and Muslims. It included several key actions:
  The surrendering of titles and resignation from British-
controlled local councils.
 The withdrawal of students from government schools and
colleges.
 The boycott of British law courts.
 Refusal to join the British army.
 The boycott of British goods, encouraging Indians to use
swadeshi (locally made) products.
 The refusal to stand in elections for legislative councils under
British rule.
This marked a rare and powerful instance of pan-Indian resistance
to colonial rule. However, as future events would reveal, religious
and political differences would later weaken this alliance.

Development of The Khilafat

Movement:
After its start in 1919, the Khilafat Movement grew beyond just
defending the Khalifa’s authority and became part of a larger
struggle against British colonial rule. Leaders like Maulana
Muhammad Ali Jauhar, Maulana Shaukat Ali, and Mahatma Gandhi
helped transform the movement into a key force in the fight for
Indian independence.
By 1921, the movement had united Hindus and Muslims in a
widespread protest against British rule, especially through Gandhi’s
non-cooperation campaign, which encouraged boycotts of British
goods and institutions. One dramatic moment was during the Prince
of Wales visit to Bombay in November 1921. Intended to boost
loyalty to Britain, his visit instead sparked strikes and large
protests. These demonstrations turned violent, resulting in the
deaths of 53 people, embarrassing the British government and
showing how powerful the movement had become.
The British responded with harsh repression, arresting thousands of
protestors and political leaders. By the end of 1921, over 30,000
people were imprisoned. Despite this crackdown, the unity between
Hindus and Muslims held strong for a while, as they shared the
common goal of resisting British control.
At the same time, many Muslims still saw the Khilafat Movement as
a religious cause. They believed British-ruled India had become dar-
ul-harb—“land of war”—where Muslims could no longer practice
their religion freely. This belief led to the idea of Hijrat, or
migration, to a Muslim-ruled country. In August 1920, inspired by
religious leaders, about 18,000 Muslims from regions like the North-
West Frontier and Sindh sold their homes and belongings and tried
to move to Afghanistan, hoping for a better Islamic life.
Unfortunately, the migration ended in failure. The Afghan
government, overwhelmed by the sudden arrival, refused to let
them stay and sent them back. When they returned, many found
their homes taken over and themselves without any means of
support. This failure hurt the morale of the Khilafat supporters and
caused many to lose faith in the movement, shifting their hope away
from religious idealism toward a more practical approach.

The Khilafat Movement in Difficulty

(1921–1922)
The Khilafat Movement began facing serious challenges by mid-
1921. During the third and final Khilafat Conference on 8 July 1921,
several radical resolutions were passed, including calls for Muslims
to withdraw from British institutions such as schools, the police, and
the army. These resolutions angered the British authorities, who
responded by arresting key leaders such as the Ali brothers,
accusing them of sedition. Around the same time, unrest was
growing across India. In August 1921, the Moplah Uprising occurred
in South India, where Moplah Muslims rebelled against both the
British and their Hindu landlords. The rebellion led to violent
clashes—at Tirur, 10,000 Moplahs seized weapons and burned down
the police station. British forces suppressed the revolt with brutal
force, killing around 4,000 Moplahs.
Tensions peaked in February 1922, with the Chauri Chaura incident
in Gorakhpur district, where a political procession turned violent
after police fired on the crowd. In retaliation, protestors killed 21
policemen. These incidents shook Mahatma Gandhi, who had
already grown doubtful about the country’s readiness for mass civil
disobedience. Believing that the violence undermined the moral
strength of the movement, Gandhi suspended the non-cooperation
campaign, deeply disappointing many Congress leaders and Muslim
supporters. His withdrawal weakened the momentum of the
movement, and shortly afterward, Gandhi was arrested and
sentenced to six years in prison. The Hindu-Muslim unity that had
been a strength of the movement now began to crumble.

The End of the Khilafat Movement (1922–1924)

Despite Gandhi’s withdrawal, many Muslims continued to support
the Khilafat cause. However, the biggest blow came not from India,
but from Turkey itself. In 1922, Sultan Abdulmejid II was stripped of
political power by the new secular Turkish government led by
Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Then, in 1924, Atatürk officially abolished
the Khilafat and exiled the Khalifa. This made the efforts of Indian
Muslims irrelevant—the very institution they were trying to protect
no longer existed. With the Khalifa gone, the Khilafat Movement in
India collapsed, having lost both its purpose and its unity.

Reasons for the Failure of the Khilafat Movement

The Khilafat Movement ultimately failed for several important
reasons. One of the biggest blows came from within Turkey itself
when Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and the Turkish people abolished the
Khilafat in 1924. This move showed that Indian Muslims’ deep
passion for the Khalifa was not shared by the Turks, making the
Indian efforts seem out of touch with reality.
The unity between Hindus and Muslims, which had been a hopeful
sign at the movement’s start, proved to be fragile and temporary.
Many Hindus supported the Khilafat mainly because it aligned with
their own goal of gaining self-rule, rather than out of genuine
concern for the Khalifa. When difficulties arose—especially after the
failure of the non-cooperation campaign and the communal riots of
1921–22—old religious and political divisions quickly resurfaced.
Violence also played a role in weakening the movement. Although
Gandhi’s philosophy was firmly based on non-violence, some
supporters resorted to violent protests, which alarmed him deeply.
His decision to withdraw from the campaign in 1922 dealt a serious
blow to both Hindu-Muslim cooperation and the movement’s overall
momentum.
Another significant setback was the disastrous Hijrat migration of
1920. Thousands of Muslims who had hoped to find a better life in
Afghanistan were turned away and returned home to poverty and
unemployment. This failure disheartened many supporters and
further undermined enthusiasm for the Khilafat cause. Together,
these factors led to the decline and eventual collapse of what had
once seemed a promising movement for unity and resistance.

Impact of the Khilafat Movement:

While the movement failed to achieve its main goal, it still left
behind important IMPACTS:

Positive Effects:
1. First Hindu-Muslim Unity Against British Rule:
For the first time, Hindus and Muslims united in mass protest
against British rule. This cooperation helped lay the foundation
for future nationalist struggles and showed that the Indian
people were no longer passive under colonialism.

2. Muslim Political Awakening: The movement gave

Muslims political confidence. They realized they had the
strength to organize and campaign for their own rights,
independent of both Hindus and the British. The harsh British
response also convinced many Muslims that their rights were
not a priority for colonial rulers.

Negative Effects:
1. Economic Loss for Muslims: Many Muslims sacrificed
jobs, left schools, or migrated to Afghanistan, expecting
rewards for their faith. Instead, they returned home to
economic ruin and disillusionment.

2. Communal Tensions Increased: The collapse of

Hindu-Muslim unity led to communal riots and mutual distrust.
Many Muslims felt betrayed when Gandhi ended the campaign,
and this incident showed that the two communities might
struggle to achieve shared political goals. This experience
pushed some Muslims toward the idea of a separate Muslim
state, making the Khilafat Movement an early step on the road
to Pakistan.
1927-1939: Chapter 8
Simon Commission:
By 1927, rising communal tensions in India were threatening Hindu-
Muslim cooperation. However, British actions soon united Indian
political groups in a rare moment of solidarity. According to the
Government of India Act of 1919, a commission was to be
established after ten years to assess how the 1919 reforms were
working. Fearing that the Labour Party—sympathetic to Indian
nationalism—might soon come to power and grant more concessions
to India, the Conservative government brought the commission
forward to 1927. A seven-man committee was formed under Sir John
Simon, but all its members were British, with no Indian
representation. This was seen as a national insult and caused
outrage across the political spectrum.
In response, all major Indian political parties, including Congress,
the Muslim League, and others, agreed to oppose the Simon
Commission. Congress officially declared a boycott at its Madras
session in 1927 and, for the first time, demanded complete
independence from British rule. Protests followed the commission
throughout its visit to India, with loud calls for its return to Britain.
Meanwhile, Indian leaders began preparing their own vision for
India’s future. In May 1928, an All-Party Conference, including all
major political groups, met and tasked Motilal Nehru with drafting a
new constitution. The result, the Nehru Report, was approved in
September 1928 and reflected the Indian demand for self-
governance, highlighting the growing desire to shape their own
political destiny.

The Nehru Report Rejected:

Although the Nehru Report had been drawn up by an All-Party
Congress, many Muslims were horrified by its proposals. It seemed
that the views of the Muslims had been ignored and that Congress
was turning its back on the agreements it had made in the Lucknow
Pact. On January 21, 1929, the All India Muslim Conference rejected
the report.
In an attempt to save the Report, Jinnah proposed four key
amendments that clearly stated the Muslim demands:
 1. One-third of the elected representatives of both houses of the
central legislature should be Muslims.
2. In Punjab and Bengal, if adult suffrage was not introduced,
there should be reserved seats for Muslims based on
population for ten years.
3. Residuary powers (i.e., powers not listed in the constitution)
should be given to the provinces, not the center.
4. The North-West Frontier Province and Sindh should be given
full provincial status.
Congress refused to accept these proposals. As a result, Jinnah
declared this moment as “the parting of the ways”. From this point
onward, he gave up trying to reconcile with Congress and began
focusing on defining a clear Muslim position in Indian politics.

Impact of the Rejection:

The rejection of Jinnah’s amendments had a significant and lasting
impact on the politics of the Indian subcontinent. It created a
permanent rift between the Hindu-led Congress and the Muslim
League, ending the fragile unity that had occasionally existed
between the two communities. Muslims felt increasingly excluded
from Congress’s plans for the future of India, and the idea of
cooperation began to fade. Jinnah’s decision to stop seeking
reconciliation and instead promote a clear Muslim political identity
marked a decisive moment in history.
This rejection also played a key role in laying the groundwork for
the demand for a separate Muslim homeland. Many Muslims began
to believe that their interests could never be protected in a united
India under Congress rule. The seeds of the Pakistan Movement
were now sown, and the rejection of the Nehru Report became one
of the earliest steps on the road to partition

14 Points of Jinnah: 1929

In 1929, Muhammad Ali Jinnah presented his Fourteen Points at the
All-India Muslim League meeting in Delhi. These points were a
response to the Nehru Report, which had ignored Muslim concerns
about their political and religious rights in a future independent
India. Jinnah’s Fourteen Points aimed to safeguard the rights of
Muslims and other minorities if the British left and a Hindu-majority
government took over. They became a clear summary of Muslim
demands and showed that Muslims wanted to be treated fairly in
any future constitution.
Some of the main points included the demand that all provinces
should have the same amount of autonomy, and that Muslims
should be given one-third of the seats in the Central Assembly to
ensure their voice was heard. Jinnah also demanded separate
electorates so that Muslims could elect their own representatives.
He called for full religious freedom, so Muslims could practice their
religion without interference. Another important point was that no
law should be passed if three-fourths of any community opposed it.
He also wanted Muslim culture, education, religion, and charities to
be protected by the constitution.
Jinnah’s Fourteen Points made it clear that Muslims would not
accept a system that ignored their identity and rights. When the
Congress rejected these demands, many Muslims began to believe
that living in a united India was not possible. This later helped
strengthen the idea of a separate homeland, which became the
foundation of the Pakistan Movement.

More Non Co-operation Movement:

As it had warned earlier, the Congress Party decided to relaunch its
non-cooperation campaign, with Mahatma Gandhi leading the
movement. The campaign began on 12 March with the famous Salt
March, a twenty-four-day journey from Gandhi’s ashram near
Ahmedabad to the coastal village of Dandi. This march was more
than a protest—it became a symbolic and widely publicised
demonstration of resistance, attracting national and international
attention. The British had made it illegal to make salt without
government permission, and Gandhi's defiance of this law was a
direct challenge to British authority. The march inspired many
Indians to break unfair laws and oppose British rule in different
forms. British cloth shops were picketed, and British-run schools,
colleges, and public services were boycotted.
In response, the British government declared Congress illegal,
imposed press censorship, and began a campaign of mass arrests.
Gandhi, Nehru, and several other Congress leaders were
imprisoned. However, the movement did not receive support from
all parts of Indian society. Muhammad Ali Jinnah strongly
disapproved of the campaign. He believed that Congress was using
the independence movement not just to end British rule, but also to
assert Hindu dominance over Muslims. As a result, most Muslims
chose not to participate in the non-cooperation campaign,
highlighting the growing divide between Congress and the Muslim
League.

The Allahabad Address

In 1930, a significant turning point in the history of the Pakistan
Movement occurred when the renowned philosopher and poet Dr.
Allama Muhammad Iqbal chaired the annual session of the Muslim
League in Allahabad. During his presidential address, he boldly
called for a separate homeland for the Muslims of the Indian
subcontinent. Iqbal argued that Islam united all Muslims through a
common religious identity, making them a distinct nation. He
stressed that true peace could only be achieved if Muslims were
recognized as a separate nation and granted the same rights and
autonomy under a federal system as the Hindu-majority areas. He
specifically proposed that the Muslim-majority provinces of Punjab,
NWFP, Sindh, and Balochistan should be merged into a single
Muslim state, either within the British Empire or as an independent
entity. Notably, he did not include Kashmir or Bengal in his vision,
even though both had large Muslim populations.
Allama Iqbal is regarded as the first Muslim leader to clearly
advocate for the division of India based on the Two-Nation Theory,
making him the ideological founder of Pakistan. His address inspired
many Muslims who were unsure about how to safeguard their
religion and culture, giving them a clear and unified goal. His ideas
also greatly influenced other Muslim leaders, such as Chaudhry
Rahmat Ali, who proposed the Pakistan Scheme in 1933, and
Muhammad Ali Jinnah, whose Pakistan Resolution of 1940 reflected
Iqbal’s vision. Furthermore, Iqbal’s powerful poetry stirred deep
feelings of unity and nationalism among Muslims and motivated
them to strive for an independent Muslim state.

The Round Table Conferences

Despite widespread opposition, the Simon Commission managed to
complete its work and published a two-volume report in 1930.
However, the report failed to satisfy the demands of the Muslim
community. While it supported the concept of separate electorates,
it rejected two key Muslim demands: a one-third share for Muslims
in the Central Legislative Assembly and the separation of Sindh
from the Bombay Presidency. In response to the growing discontent
and to discuss the findings of the Simon Commission, the British
government organised a series of Round Table Conferences. These
conferences were meant to bring together various Indian political
leaders and British officials to discuss constitutional reforms and
the future governance of India.

The First Round Table Conference – November 1930

The First Round Table Conference took place in London in November 1930. It was attended by
representatives of the Muslim League, the Liberals, and the Princely States. However, the
Indian National Congress, which was the largest political party in India, refused to participate
unless there was a guarantee that any agreement made would be implemented. Since no
such guarantee was provided, Congress instead continued its non-cooperation campaign,
significantly reducing the chances of achieving major progress during the talks.
Despite Congress’s absence, some important developments occurred. The princely states
declared their willingness to join a future Indian federation, provided their rights were
protected. The British also agreed to introduce representative government at the provincial
level. The Muslim delegation, which included figures such as Jinnah, Maulana Muhammad Ali,
and the Aga Khan, felt that some positive steps had been taken, although there was still
dissatisfaction.

The Second Round Table Conference – September

1931
Efforts were made to persuade Congress to join the Second Round
Table Conference. In February 1931, Gandhi met Viceroy Lord Irwin
to discuss terms. This led to the Gandhi-Irwin Pact, signed on 5
March 1931. According to the pact, the British agreed to release
political prisoners and return confiscated property, while Gandhi
agreed to call off the non-cooperation campaign and participate in
the next round of talks. He also accepted the idea of a federal India
and agreed to postpone the demand for full independence.
The Second Round Table Conference was held between September
and December 1931. However, it failed to achieve meaningful
results. Two main reasons led to its failure: the Labour Party in
Britain had been replaced by a coalition government that was less
willing to compromise, and Gandhi, representing Congress, took a
hard stance by refusing to acknowledge the concerns of minority
communities. As a result, the only outcome was the British decision
to grant provincial status to NWFP and Sindh. They also warned
that, in the absence of an agreement, they would impose their own
solution to India’s constitutional issues
The Communal Award – August 1932
On 16 August 1932, British Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald announced the Communal
Award in an attempt to solve India’s political deadlock. The Award granted separate
electorates to all minority communities and applied the principle of weightage in elections.
While it gave some recognition to Muslim demands, the Award was not entirely favourable to
them. For example, in Punjab, although Muslims made up about 56% of the population, they
were given only 86 out of 175 seats in the provincial assembly. Despite their dissatisfaction,
the Muslim League accepted the Award “in the best interest of the country,” while reserving
the right to push for full acceptance of their demands later.
Congress, on the other hand, strongly opposed the Award. Gandhi was particularly angered
by the decision to classify Untouchables as a separate minority. In protest, he began a fast
unto death. He also initiated talks with leaders of the Untouchables to convince them that
they were part of mainstream Hindu society and not a separate community.

The Third Round Table Conference - November

1932:
The Third Round Table Conference took place in November 1932 but
stood little chance of success. By this time, Lord Irwin had been
replaced by Lord Willingdon as Viceroy, who was far less willing to
compromise. Congress had re-launched its non-cooperation
movement in January 1932, prompting Willingdon to arrest many of
its leaders, including Gandhi and Nehru. Due to this, Congress once
again boycotted the conference.
Other key political figures were also absent. Jinnah had gone into
voluntary exile, disillusioned with the political process, and was not
even invited. The Muslim representation was minimal and led by the
Aga Khan. Only 46 delegates attended the conference, and with
little support or meaningful participation, the talks ended without
any significant agreement.

Rahmat Ali:
Rahmat Ali was one of the young Indian Muslims studying in
England during the 1930s. While in Britain, he attended several
conferences in London where the future of Hindus and Muslims in
India was debated. During these discussions, Muslim
representatives generally supported the idea of a united India with
a federal system. However, Rahmat Ali strongly disagreed with this
approach. He believed that the best solution was not federation, but
partition — with the creation of a separate homeland for the
Muslims of the subcontinent.
At this time, Rahmat Ali's thinking was far more radical and forward-
looking than most other Muslims, including even Muhammad Ali
Jinnah, who did not yet support partition in the early 1930s. Despite
lacking widespread support, Rahmat Ali was not discouraged. In
1933, he published a four-page pamphlet titled Now or Never. In
this pamphlet, he declared that Muslims should demand their own
independent homeland called "Pakistan." He explained that the
name ‘Pakistan’ was made from letters representing different
regions — Punjab, Afghania (NWFP), Kashmir, Iran, Sindh,
Turkaristan, Afghanistan, and Balochistan. The name also
symbolized the Islamic identity and cultural heritage of the Muslim
people.
Rahmat Ali was the first to invent and promote the name "Pakistan,"
making a significant contribution to the Pakistan Movement. His
vision was more ambitious than Allama Iqbal’s, as he wanted the
Muslim homelands to be completely independent, rather than
simply autonomous provinces within a federation. Although his
ideas were not accepted at the time, they later played a crucial role
in shaping the demand for Pakistan.

Government of India Act: 1935

The Government of India Act 1935 was a major reform introduced by
the British after the failure of the Round Table Conferences. It aimed
to reorganize how India was governed and was the longest piece of
legislation passed by the British Parliament at the time. The Act
proposed an All-India Federation that included British Indian
provinces and Princely States, although the princely rulers were not
forced to join. A central legislature was to be formed with two
houses: the Council of State and the Legislative Assembly, where
members from British India were elected and those from the
Princely States were nominated.
One of the most important changes was the end of diarchy at the
provincial level. Provinces were given more autonomy, and
ministers were to be responsible to elected provincial legislatures.
However, diarchy was introduced at the central level, where the
Governor-General retained control over key areas such as defence,
foreign affairs, and tribal affairs. Eleven provinces were created,
with Sindh and NWFP given full provincial status for the first time.
Although the Act seemed to give more power to Indians, it still kept
strong control in British hands. The Governor-General had special
powers, including the right to overrule decisions, dismiss ministers,
and impose direct rule in emergencies. Similarly, provincial
governors could still interfere in matters concerning law and order
and minority rights. Another limitation was the franchise — only
about 25% of the adult population could vote due to property and
income restrictions.
The Act was unpopular with all major Indian political groups.
Congress rejected it, with Nehru calling it a “Charter of Slavery,”
while Jinnah described it as “rotten and fundamentally bad.” The
princely states also disliked the idea of losing power. Still, despite
its flaws, the Act laid the groundwork for further political
developments. It created a parliamentary structure and provincial
autonomy that helped prepare India for eventual independence.

1937 Elections
Although both the Congress and the Muslim League disapproved of
the Government of India Act 1935, they decided to contest the
provincial elections held in early 1937. Nehru initially wanted
Congress to boycott the elections to show opposition, but later
changed his stance, realising that participation would allow the
party to spread its message to millions of Indians. Congress leaders
hoped that campaigning would boost their influence and prepare
the public for future changes.
The Muslim League, now under the firm leadership of Jinnah (who
had returned to politics in 1934), also saw an opportunity. It
campaigned on two key points: self-government for India and
greater provincial autonomy with protection for minorities. Jinnah
hoped that Congress and the League could work together after the
elections, but Nehru dismissed the League’s importance by saying
only two parties mattered – Congress and the British – which deeply
offended Jinnah.
The results, however, were a major setback for the League.
Congress secured absolute majorities in five provinces and was the
largest party in four others. The League only managed to win 109
out of 482 Muslim-reserved seats. Even in Muslim-majority
provinces such as Punjab, Bengal, and Sindh, the League performed
poorly. Despite the disappointing results, the elections helped the
League identify its weaknesses: poor organization, lack of mass
support, and an aristocratic image. The experience helped the party
to improve its future strategies.

The Rule of Congress 1937–1939

Despite initial hesitation, Congress formed ministries in eight
provinces after its landslide win. With the assurance from Viceroy
Linlithgow that provincial governors would not misuse their powers,
Congress leaders took office. Once in control, however, Congress
dismissed the Muslim League’s importance. It refused to form
coalition governments with the League even where the League was
the largest Muslim party. In Muslim-majority provinces, Congress
allowed Muslims to govern only if they were not affiliated with the
League.
More concerning for Muslims were the cultural and religious threats
they felt under Congress rule. Although not official policies, several
incidents and programmes deepened the sense of discrimination.

Bande Matram
‘Bande Matram’ was a Hindu nationalist song that symbolised the
Hindu struggle for independence. Its compulsory singing before
government business in assemblies deeply offended Muslims, as the
lyrics were seen as anti-Muslim. Although Congress never formally
adopted it as policy, the enforcement of the song’s recital raised
fears about Hindu dominance and disrespect towards Muslim
identity.

The Wardha Scheme

The Congress-led education policy, known as the Wardha Scheme, was based on Gandhi’s
views. It promoted Hindi over Urdu, introduced cotton spinning in schools, banned religious
education, and even required students to bow before Gandhi’s image. Muslims saw these
moves as an attack on their religion, fearing that it aimed to convert young Muslims to
Hinduism and erase their cultural identity.

The 'Congress Tyranny'

This period became known to many Muslims as the time of ‘Congress Tyranny’. In some
places, Hindu extremists imposed harsh rules: Muslims were forbidden from slaughtering
cows, Azan (call to prayer) was restricted, mosques were attacked, and provocative Hindu
processions disrupted prayers. Complaints to authorities were often ignored or ruled against
Muslims. Although these events weren’t uniform across India, they highlighted Congress’s
failure to ensure religious tolerance. Even Viceroy Linlithgow acknowledged “continued
oppression in small ways.”
The Day of Deliverance
In September 1939, Britain declared war on Germany, and India was
automatically drawn into the conflict without consultation. Congress
strongly objected to this decision and resigned from all provincial
ministries in protest. The Muslim League welcomed the resignations
and celebrated 22 December 1939 as the ‘Day of Deliverance’,
marking the end of what they saw as a period of Hindu oppression.
For Muslims, it was a moment of relief and hope for better
representation.

The Muslim League under Congress Rule

After the elections, Jinnah proposed that Congress and the Muslim
League form coalition governments, but Congress rejected the idea.
Jinnah, now convinced that Congress was working to establish
‘Hindustan’ dominated by Hindus, warned Muslims of the need to
unite and defend their interests.
At the Lucknow session of October 1937, Jinnah urged the League to
organize itself at the grassroots level. He emphasized that victory in
elections was possible only with strong local branches. This strategy
worked – by mid-1938, the League’s membership had grown
significantly, and even chief ministers from key provinces like
Punjab, Bengal, and Assam formally joined the party. Although
Congress still refused to recognize the League as the sole
representative of Muslims, it was now clear that the League was
becoming a major political force.
By the end of 1939, Hindu-Muslim relations were severely strained,
and political polarization had deepened. However, Britain’s
involvement in World War II shifted the colonial government’s focus
away from Indian politics – for the time being.

Outbreak of the War 1939:

On 3 September 1939, Britain declared war on Nazi Germany, and on
the same day, the Viceroy of India, Lord Linlithgow, announced that
India was also at war. This decision was taken without consulting
Indian leaders, which angered Congress. Congress objected
strongly, insisting that India could only take part in the war if it was
first promised full independence. The British government refused
this demand and instead offered only Dominion status after the war.
Congress rejected this offer, but before resigning from government,
it passed a resolution expressing its complete disapproval of Nazism
and Fascism. While Congress supported the broader Allied cause, it
would not support Britain unless Indian independence was
guaranteed.
The Muslim League also made demands before offering support to
the British. Jinnah called for an end to anti-Muslim policies by
Congress, a rule that no law affecting Muslims should be passed
unless supported by two-thirds of Muslim members, and an
agreement from Congress to form coalition governments in the
provinces. Neither Congress nor the British accepted these
conditions. As a result, the Muslim League did not give full support
to the British during the war, although like Congress, it disapproved
of Nazi and Fascist ideologies and did not actively oppose Britain
either.
With Congress resigning from all provincial governments, Jinnah
declared 22 December 1939 as a "Day of Deliverance." This was
celebrated by the Muslim League across the subcontinent to mark
the end of what it called the “tyranny, oppression and injustice” of
Congress rule. Congress leaders were offended by this, and Nehru
remarked on how far apart the Congress and the Muslim League had
grown by this point.

The Pakistan Resolution

The idea of a separate Muslim homeland had been growing for some
time through the work of figures like Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, Allama
Iqbal, and Rahmat Ali. While Iqbal envisioned a separate Muslim
state in the northwest of India, Rahmat Ali had gone further by
suggesting a completely independent country named “Pakistan.”
Initially, Jinnah did not support this idea. He preferred a federation
in which Muslims had political autonomy and guaranteed rights.
However, the experience of Congress rule from 1937 to 1939 and
the increasing likelihood of British withdrawal from India convinced
Jinnah that the Muslims needed a state of their own to safeguard
their identity, culture, and future.
At the annual session of the All-India Muslim League held in Lahore
on 22 March 1940, the premier of Bengal, Maulvi Fazl-ul-Haq,
presented a historic resolution. It demanded that regions where
Muslims were in the majority — particularly in the northwestern and
eastern zones of India — should be grouped into independent
states. These states were to be autonomous and sovereign. The
resolution was passed unanimously on 23 March 1940, a date which
is now celebrated annually as Pakistan Day.
Although the resolution did not mention the word "Pakistan," the
Hindu press began calling it the "Pakistan Resolution," and the
name quickly gained popularity. This marked a turning point in
Muslim politics. The demand for a separate homeland united
Muslims across India and gave new direction to the Muslim League,
which now emerged as the clear leader of what came to be called
the Pakistan Movement. For many Muslims, the years of oppression
under British and Hindu dominance were finally being challenged,
and the idea of Pakistan had become a political goal to work
towards with renewed determination.

The Cripps Mission and Its Consequences

In March 1942, the British sent Sir Stafford Cripps to India in an
effort to win Indian support for the war effort. Cripps proposed that
after the war, India would become a Dominion within the British
Commonwealth, and provinces would have the right to opt out and
become independent if they wished. He also promised the formation
of a Constituent Assembly to frame a new constitution, with
elections held immediately after the war. The Muslim League
rejected the proposals because they did not mention Pakistan
directly. However, Jinnah noted the right to opt out of a future
Indian union, which indirectly acknowledged Muslim aspirations.
Congress also rejected the Cripps proposals. It wanted immediate
independence and did not trust the British to fulfil promises made
for after the war. Gandhi famously called the offer “a post-dated
cheque on a failing bank,” showing deep skepticism. Congress
believed that Britain’s weakness due to the war was an opportunity
to demand full and immediate independence.

The Quit India Resolution

Frustrated with British refusal to grant immediate independence,
Congress launched the Quit India Movement. At a meeting in
Allahabad in May 1942, Gandhi argued that British presence
endangered India and urged a mass non-violent protest to force
British withdrawal. On 8 August 1942, the All-India Congress
Committee passed the Quit India Resolution. In response, the British
arrested top Congress leaders including Gandhi and Nehru and
banned the party. Riots and unrest followed across India, and the
British used force, including aerial bombings, to crush the
movement.
The Muslim League did not support Quit India. It saw Congress’s
actions as a way to seize power once the British left, and feared
Hindu domination. Jinnah criticized the movement as "blackmail"
and accused Congress of exploiting the war situation for its own
benefit. This deepened the divide between the two main political
parties.

The Gandhi-Jinnah Talks

In 1944, Gandhi was released from prison on medical grounds and
sought talks with Jinnah to discuss India’s future. Gandhi proposed
that the League support Congress’s demand for British withdrawal,
after which partition could be considered. Jinnah refused, insisting
partition had to be decided before the British left. He feared
Congress would never agree to it once they gained power.
There were also disagreements over control of defence and foreign
policy—Gandhi wanted these powers centralised, while Jinnah
wanted them with the provinces. Moreover, Gandhi claimed to speak
for all Indians, which Jinnah strongly rejected, stating that he only
represented Congress, while the League represented Muslims. The
talks failed, but Jinnah emerged stronger as Congress was now
forced to acknowledge the Muslim League as the legitimate
representative of Muslims.

Lord Wavell and the Simla Conference

As World War II neared its end, Lord Wavell, the new Viceroy,
proposed forming an Executive Council made up entirely of Indians,
except for the Viceroy and the Defence Member. The Council would
have equal representation for Muslims and Hindus. In June 1945, he
invited Congress, the Muslim League, Sikhs, Scheduled Castes, and
other groups to a conference in Simla to discuss the proposal.
While the idea of an Executive Council was accepted by all, disputes
over its composition caused the talks to collapse. Jinnah objected to
Congress’s attempt to nominate Muslims to the Council, arguing
that only the League could represent Muslims, especially after
winning all Muslim by-elections in the past two years. He also
pointed out that Sikhs and Scheduled Castes often sided with
Congress, meaning Muslims would still be in a minority. As a result,
the conference failed by mid-July, another British effort at
compromise having collapsed.
The 1945-46 Elections
In 1945, Britain’s Labour Party, led by Clement Attlee, came to
power and was committed to granting India self-rule. Elections were
held for both central and provincial assemblies to determine future
leadership. Congress campaigned for a united, independent India,
while the Muslim League demanded a separate Muslim homeland.
The results clearly showed a religious and political divide. Congress
won 91% of the non-Muslim vote and formed governments in most
provinces. The League, however, won 87% of the Muslim vote,
securing all 30 Muslim seats in the Central Legislative Assembly and
dominating the Muslim seats in the provincial elections. It formed
governments in Bengal and Sindh and was the largest party in
Punjab. The only disappointment was in the NWFP, where Congress
narrowly defeated the League.
The dramatic rise of the League since its poor performance in 1937
was due to several factors. The League had improved its
organisation and clearly communicated its aims to the Muslim
public. Congress rule from 1937–1939 had alienated Muslims and
made them realise they needed to assert their rights. The passing of
the Pakistan Resolution in 1940 had also united Muslims behind a
clear goal. The elections proved that the League was now the voice
of the Muslims, and that no future settlement could succeed without
its participation.

The Cabinet Mission Plan

In March 1946, the British made a final attempt to avoid partition by
sending a Cabinet Mission consisting of Lord Pethick-Lawrence, Sir
Stafford Cripps, and A.V. Alexander to India. Their goal was to find a
compromise acceptable to all Indian political parties. While Jinnah
demanded the creation of Pakistan from six Muslim-majority
provinces, Congress firmly rejected any form of partition. As a
compromise, the Cabinet Mission proposed a united India divided
into three groups: Hindu-majority areas, western Muslim provinces,
and Bengal and Assam. These groups would have autonomy but
share central control over defence, foreign affairs, and
communications. Though the League initially accepted the plan,
Nehru’s statement that Congress would not be bound by it once the
British left caused the League to withdraw support. The plan was
abandoned, marking another failed attempt at reconciliation.
The 3 June Plan
By early 1947, Britain had decided to leave India, and the new
Viceroy, Lord Mountbatten, was tasked with overseeing the transfer
of power. As communal violence spread, especially in Punjab,
Mountbatten concluded that partition was inevitable. The 3 June
Plan, announced in 1947, proposed the creation of two states: India
and Pakistan. Each would have Dominion status under the 1935
Government of India Act, and Muslim-majority provinces would vote
on whether to join Pakistan or remain in India. Sindh, Balochistan,
and the NWFP opted to join Pakistan, while Bengal and Punjab voted
to be divided between Muslim and non-Muslim areas. A referendum
in Sylhet led to its inclusion in East Pakistan. Mountbatten advanced
the transfer of power to 15 August 1947, leaving only weeks to
manage the enormous logistical and political challenges of partition.

The Radcliffe Award

To draw the final borders between India and Pakistan, a Boundary
Commission led by Sir Cyril Radcliffe was set up. The Commission
had two members each from Congress and the League. Radcliffe’s
decisions were announced on 16 August 1947, a day after
independence. The League was angered when Muslim-majority
districts like Ferozepur and Gurdaspur in Punjab were given to
India. These decisions gave India a direct route into Kashmir,
contributing to future conflicts. Calcutta was also awarded to India
despite being surrounded by Muslim areas, disappointing many in
Pakistan. Although Jinnah denounced the Award as unjust, partition
had already occurred, and Pakistan’s government had more urgent
matters to handle.

The Indian Independence Act

The Indian Independence Act was passed on 15 July 1947, officially
declaring that British India would be divided into two independent
Dominions—India and Pakistan—on 15 August. Each new state would
have full legislative authority and the 1935 Government of India Act
would serve as the interim constitution. On 14 August 1947,
Pakistan came into existence with Jinnah as its first Governor-
General, and on 15 August, India gained independence. This Act
marked the formal end of British rule in India and the beginning of a
new era for both countries.
Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s
Unique Contribution to the
Pakistan Movement
Mohammad Ali Jinnah was a pivotal figure in the Pakistan
Movement, not only leading the political struggle for a separate
Muslim state but also becoming the first Governor-General of
Pakistan. Born in Karachi on December 25, 1876, to a Gujarati Khoja
Muslim family, Jinnah was a brilliant scholar who went to London at
age 15 to study law. There, he developed a keen interest in politics
by attending debates in the House of Commons.
Returning to Karachi in 1897, Jinnah built a successful law practice
before entering politics in 1909 as a member of the Imperial
Legislative Council. Initially, he joined both the Muslim League and
the Indian National Congress, advocating cooperation between
Hindus and Muslims. He helped negotiate the Lucknow Pact in 1916,
which was highly regarded by both communities. However, Jinnah
disagreed with Gandhi’s radical methods, especially civil
disobedience and the Khilafat Movement, and left Congress in 1921.
Though no longer part of Congress, Jinnah still hoped for Hindu-
Muslim cooperation toward independence. This hope was dashed
with the Nehru Report, which he felt demanded unacceptable
sacrifices from Muslims. After harsh criticism from Hindus, he
described this split as the “parting of the ways.” In 1929, Jinnah
issued his Fourteen Points demanding separate electorates and
reserved seats for Muslims, a blueprint that laid the foundation for
Pakistan’s creation, even though he initially opposed outright
partition.
Jinnah attended the 1930 Round Table talks in London but became
disillusioned with their failure. After witnessing the Muslim
League’s defeat in the 1937 elections, he reorganized the party to
build grassroots support, which expanded rapidly by 1938, largely
due to Muslim grievances under Congress rule. By 1939, Jinnah was
recognized by both the British and Congress as the undisputed
leader of Indian Muslims.
Initially favoring a federation, Jinnah eventually accepted the
demand for a separate Muslim homeland by the time of the Lahore
Resolution in 1940. As he told Gandhi in 1944, Muslims were a
distinct nation deserving their own state. Jinnah firmly stated in
1947 that Pakistan was the only practical solution to the Muslim-
Hindu problem, a fight he ultimately won with Pakistan’s creation in
August 1947.

Jinnah’s Achievements as Pakistan’s First

Governor-General
Though Jinnah lived only one year after independence, his
leadership was crucial in establishing Pakistan’s foundation and
survival.

As a Leader:
Though the Governor-General’s role was meant to be mostly
ceremonial, Jinnah acted as Chief Executive. He chaired Cabinet
meetings and presided over the Constituent Assembly. Knowing his
health was failing, he worked tirelessly to create a stable and united
nation.

Building National Unity:

Despite Pakistan’s division into East and West and its ethnic
diversity, Jinnah promoted national unity, urging people to identify
as Pakistanis rather than by ethnic or regional labels. He opposed
religious intolerance and provincialism, calling himself the
"Protector-General" of religious minorities and insisting on fair
treatment for non-Muslims who stayed in Pakistan. To aid refugees
displaced by partition, he established a Relief Fund, which received
generous support.

International Recognition:
Jinnah successfully secured Pakistan’s membership in the United
Nations in September 1947, helping the new country gain global
recognition and support.

Building Government:
Jinnah oversaw the creation of Pakistan’s governmental structure.
Liaquat Ali Khan was appointed Prime Minister, and a Cabinet and
Constituent Assembly were formed to draft a constitution. Karachi
was made the capital, and the civil service was organized despite
scarce resources. Jinnah emphasized that government officials were
servants of the people and needed to work with a strong national
spirit.
Building the Economy:
Jinnah faced economic challenges, as Pakistan was deprived of
much of India’s wealth and industry. On 1 July 1948, he established
the State Bank of Pakistan to help develop the economy. His
Industrial Policy Statement stressed the urgent need to build
industries. He also resolved the Canal Water Dispute with India to
secure vital water resources for Pakistan’s agriculture and ensured
the transfer of Pakistan’s financial assets.

Establishing National Security:

Though Pakistan’s military was poorly equipped and lacked senior
officers, Jinnah worked to build a capable defense force. British
officers filled gaps temporarily, and Jinnah warned the army not to
interfere in politics, emphasizing its role as servant of the people.
Under his leadership, Pakistan’s army saw its first action in Kashmir,
holding its ground despite disadvantages.

Conclusion
Mohammad Ali Jinnah died on 11 September 1948, leaving behind a
newly established Pakistan with a functioning government, a
growing sense of national identity, and an emerging economy and
defense system. His leadership, vision, and dedication earned him
the title Quaid-e-Azam (“Great Leader”). As The Times noted after
his death, Jinnah was more than just the founder of Pakistan; he
was a statesman who shaped history and policy with unmatched
determination and vision, becoming a legend even in his lifetime.

Allama Iqbal: The Philosopher-Poet and Visionary

Leader
Allama Muhammad Iqbal was born in 1877 in Sialkot, northern
Punjab. He was a distinguished scholar who completed his Masters
at Government College Lahore, studied philosophy at Cambridge
University, and earned a doctorate in philosophy from Munich
University, Germany. Besides being a philosopher, Iqbal was a
celebrated poet whose works were deeply inspired by the Holy
Quran. In 1922, the British government knighted him in recognition
of the high quality of his poetry. Iqbal’s poetry aimed to awaken the
Muslim community of the Indian subcontinent, urging them to take
pride in their heritage and work hard to improve their social and
political position. Although honored by the British, Iqbal was firmly
opposed to British rule in India and used his poetry to highlight the
suffering of the people under colonialism. He believed that Muslims
and Hindus were two distinct nations with different cultures and
histories, and he strongly advocated for Muslims to have their own
sovereign state. Because of this, he is often called the ‘Architect of
Pakistan.’
Iqbal’s political career gained momentum when he was elected to
the Punjab Assembly in 1926. He quickly made an impact with his
ability to handle new laws and understood that Hindu-Muslim
cooperation was unlikely to succeed in the 1920s. He believed
partition was the only solution and that the Muslim League should
be strengthened to represent Muslim interests across India. In
1927, Iqbal was appointed General Secretary of the Muslim League
in Punjab, and in 1930, he presided over the All India Muslim League
session in Allahabad. There, he delivered his famous speech calling
for a federation where Muslims would have political autonomy,
proposing the amalgamation of Punjab, NWFP, Sindh, and
Balochistan into one Muslim state. Although this idea was ahead of
its time and not immediately adopted by the Muslim League, it laid
the foundation for the demand for Pakistan. Iqbal died in 1938,
before Pakistan was created, but his vision and poetry continued to
inspire future Muslim leaders. He was buried outside Lahore’s
Badshahi Mosque, and his tomb remains a place of respect and
pilgrimage.

Rahmat Ali: The Man Who Named Pakistan

Rahmat Ali was born in 1897 in Punjab and studied at Islamia
College in Lahore. After completing his degree in 1918, he practiced
law and later traveled to Britain to study at Cambridge University,
where he earned a Masters degree. Rahmat Ali was in London
during the important Round Table Conferences when Indian leaders
were discussing the future of the subcontinent. Unlike most Muslim
leaders at the time, including Jinnah who believed in a federation,
Rahmat Ali was a strong advocate for a completely separate Muslim
homeland. He was frustrated by the lack of support for this idea
among Muslim leaders.
In 1933, Rahmat Ali and three other students published a pamphlet
titled Now or Never, addressed to the 30 million Muslims in
northwest India. This pamphlet was the first to clearly call for the
partition of India and the creation of a separate Muslim state. Most
importantly, Rahmat Ali gave this new country a name: Pakistan.
The name quickly captured the imagination of Muslims across the
subcontinent, even though many leaders did not immediately
support the idea. To promote his cause, Rahmat Ali founded the
Pakistan National Movement and wrote extensively on the subject,
including a work called Pakistan, the Fatherland of the Pak Nation.
Despite his passionate support for Pakistan, Rahmat Ali was often
critical of other Muslim leaders, including Jinnah, accusing them of
not demanding enough and later opposing the terms agreed upon in
1947. He was particularly unhappy with the way partition divided
Muslim communities, feeling that many, such as those in Delhi, were
unfairly left in India. Rahmat Ali died in Cambridge in 1951, where
he was buried. Although he did not live to see the full realization of
his vision, his contribution in naming Pakistan and advocating for a
separate Muslim homeland remains an important part of Pakistan’s
history.