KHILAFAT CONFERENCE 101 NOTE BY MR. MANLEY ON THE KHILAFAT CONFERENCE HELD IN BOMBAY The third session of the All-India Khilafat Conference was held in Bombay on the 15th, 16th and 17th of February 1920 under the presidency of the Honourable Mr. G. M. Bhurgri, who owed his election to the nomination of Moulana Abdul Bari in consequence of the Committee's failure to secure from Hassan Imam any reply to repeated telegrams inviting him to preside. About 175 delegates representing approximately 33 Khilafat Committees in different parts of India assembled at the opening meeting, that first of them to reach Bombay being the Amritsar party. While the large majority of delegates were Sunnis, their number included a few Shias, five or ten at most, and three Hindus—(1) Jairamadas, editor of the Sind paper, Rouzana Akhbar ; (2) Bansidhar of the United Provinces ; and (3) Lala Gowardhandas of Amritsar. There were many conspicuous absentees, Mohammadan as well as Hindu, chief among them being, on the Muslim side, Ajmalkhan, Dr. Ansari, the Honourable Mr. Fazal-ul-Haq (a member of the next batch of the Khilafat Deputation to Europe) and Hasan Imam ; and, among non-Muslims Gandhi, Tilak, Mrs. Besant, Lala Harkisenlal, Dhuni Chand and Madan Mohan Malaviya. Of the principal absentees, I attach a full list (printed below). No particular public feeling marked Mr. Bhurgri's arrival in Bombay and no notice whatever was taken of Shaukat Ali and Abdul Bari, who arrived the same day fresh from the Khilafat Conference in Sind. The proceedings opened on the morning of the 15th with the addresses, read to an assembly of about 500 people, of Chhotani and of Bhurgri, the former being the Chairman of the Reception Committee. The addresses contained little new matter ; Chhotani made the usual assertion that England could, if she would, secure the settlement of the Turkish question in conformity with Muslim wishes. He declared that directly or indirectly the whole of Jazira-tul-Arab is now under her control a control which is in itself an act of hostility to the Khilafat. Let England, he urged, prove her good faith towards Islam by evacuating Palestine and Mosopotamia, and by withdrawing support from the Sheriff of Mecca ; and he threatened her, if she should fail thus to act, with the menace of Bolshevism. In view of later developments the most significant fact connected with his speech is the absence therefrom of any threat of reprisals, boycott, jehad and the like. Bhurgri's address was a statement on similar lines of the Muslim view. The rest of the day was devoted to the passage by the Conference of three formal resolutions and to private discussions by the Subjects Committee of the remaining draft resolutions for the following day. The Conference passed altogether fourteen resolutions (appended printed below). Seven of these were formal. The eighth recast the Committee's funds ; and the twelth voiced the demand for an official enquiry into the origin of the anti-Khilafat agitation in Sind. The real business of the Conference, however, was with the remaining three. One of them demanded the immediate removal of British troops from Jazi-ra-tul-Arab. The second registered a decision to send deputations to Mesopotamia, the Hedjaz and other Musalman countries, for the purpose of bringing about peace therein. The third enjoined upon all Pirs, Maulvis and other religious leaders the exaction of oaths from their followers for the support, when necessary, of the Khilafat cause. Except during the discussion of the resolution dealing with the withdrawal of troops from the Arabian Peninsula, the open proceedings of the Conference were not attended by any marked degree of excitement or enthusiasm, although there underlay many of the speeches a strong 102 KHILAFAT MOVEMENT 1920 current of religious fanaticism and political bitterness. Occasionally the speeches were highly flavoured, particularly those of the Hindu orators, and there were many veiled references to Jehad. Attempts by up-country delegates, especially the Hindus, to colour the proceedings with last year's events in the Punjab were defeated by the Chair. While it is reported that the Conference has aroused a good deal of religious fervour among the Bombay Muhammadans, there was no enthusiasm at all in the sitting which I myself attended. On the contrary, the proceedings were uncommonly dull. The sittings were attended by audiences which occasionally filled the pandal, the capacity of which was five thousand ; but as a rule the place was half empty. The main business of the Conference was transacted by the Subjects Committee in camera. During the first day's discussion upon the constitution it became obvious that proceedings were going to be lively. Chhotani fell out with Nur Muhomed Mojawala, one of the Bombay members of the Reception Committee, who regarded himself as aggrieved at his failure to secure election to the Subjects Committee and who nevertheless attended its deliberations. High words developed into filthy abuse by Chhotani ; and it is reported that Mojawala drew a knife upon the former. This incident embittered the discussion to such an extent that no further progress was made with the constitution. At the close of the Conference Mojawala went to the Chief Presidency Magistrate, and took out a summons against Chhotani for insult and assault. The real battle, to which this incident was a mere preliminary skirmish, commenced on the following day, when issue was joined between the Moderates, including most of the Bombay delegates headed by Chhotani and Bhurgri, and the Extemists comprising most of the other members of the Subjects Committee and led apparently by the delegates from Sind. The questions under consideration were (1) the proposed boycott of English goods, combined with a withdrawal from co-operation with Government, (2) the question whether or not it was haram for a Mussalman to serve in the Indian Army, and (3) the evacuation of the Jazira-tul-Arab. The extreme view of all these matters was upheld by the up-country delegates, among whom a Sindhi named Noor Mahomed and one Mahomed Dawood Guznavi of Amritsar were prominent. They were warmly opposed by Chhotani, Bhurgri and their followers. After a long fight, a resolution was adopted urging the British Government to withdraw from the Arabian Peninsula all troops over and above those who are provided for by the terms of the Armistice; the other two problems being reserved for further discussion the following day. Notwithstanding this decision, the Sindhi delegates gave notices that they would urge in open Conference the view that the presence of any British troops in the Jazira- tul-Arab is an open violation of the rights of the Khilafat and should not be permitted a moment longer. Bhrugri, Chhotani, Mirza Ali Mahomed Khan and a few others tried hard. but without success, to induce them to abandon this unreasonable demand. The Extremists were as good as their word and on the following day persuaded the Conference to endorse their view. The feeling of the assembly at large was so strongly in their favour that the official spokesmen could not obtain a hearing and retired discomfited. In view of the turn events had taken during this discussion, the Bombay party decided to submit to a meeting of Moulvis, convened by them for the following morning, the question of the Mussalman attitude towards the Army. This meeting took place at Chhotani's house. Thirty-one persons attended, only three of whom were representatives of Bombay. Maulana Abul Kadir Azad Subhani of Cawnpore presided. It was decided at once KHILAFAT CONFERENCE 103 under the inspiration of Abdul Bari that as there was no guarantee that the army would not be used against Mussalman forces it was haram for Mussalmans to belong to it. The question then arose as to what steps should be taken to give effect to this decision. Notices were urged for the solution among those present asking issue of fatwas for circulation among the troops. When M. K. Azad, a Bombay Barrister and disciple of Horniman, pointed out the illegality in such a course, he was told that in a matter of the kind the religious law must prevail. After a discussion lasting three hours the meeting broke up and reported to the Subject Committee, which resumed consideration of the matter. Another heated debate followed. Mirza Ali Mahomed Khan, a Bombay Solicitor and the only Shia member of the Subjects Committee, placed on the table the Indian Penal Code and other war legislation and began to explain the law in much the same way as Azad had done. At this point one Noor Mahomed of Hyderabad, Sind, placing the Quran on the table beside the law books, asked the Committee to choose between the two. This blunt presentation of alternatives settled the matter at once in favour of the Extremists. M. K. Azad then demanded plainness of speech and asked them what they actually meant. From this point onwards the term Jihad was frequently heard. The heated discussion which followed only obated when Bhurgri urged that until news arrived from Mahomed Ali it would be unwise to commit the Conference to any definite line of action. It was hoped that the reception in England accorded to Mahomed Ali's deputation and its ultimate success, would render unnecessary any action such as that under discussion. This definitely shelved the army question and with it the boycott and refusal of co-operation with Government. It was announced towards the end of the Conference that the following subscription to the Khilafat Funds had been promised :—Sind—five lakhs, ; Bengal—five lakhs ; U.P. and Oudh— four lakhs ; Bombay—eleven lakhs.