¹ The Indian Khilāfat movement was apparently the outcome of the pan-Islamic pull among the Muslims of British India. Its ostensible object was to save the Ottoman Empire from the threatened dismemberment after the First World War. But in India pan-Islamism had come to merge with nationalism and with the cry of status quo ante bellum for Turkey the Khilāfatists raised the slogan of swaraj (self-government) for India. Thus, Hindus joined Muslims in this struggle and together they launched the non-cooperation experiment to put pressure on the British Government. But this rapprochement was short-lived. By 1922, differences between the two communities had re-emerged. The Central Khilāfat Committee itself became involved in factionalism and scandals. In March 1924, the Turks themselves abolished the Khilāfat, an anomalous institution in a nationalistic state. For some years the movement continued on the secondary issue of the freedom of the Jazīrat al-'Arab (Arabia, including Iraq, Syria, Transjordan, Palestine, and especially Hijāz) from non-Muslim control, but in fact it had lost its sting as well as its raison d'ētre.Google Scholar For a detailed analysis see Qureshi, M. Naeem, ‘The Khilāfat Movement in India, 1919–1924’, unpublished London University Ph.D. thesis, 1973.Google Scholar

² Voluntary withdrawal on religious grounds from a dār al-Islām (‘the land of peace’—country under Islamic rule or law) to a dār al-harb (‘the land of war— country not under Islamic rule or law). Voluntary exodus is not peculiar to Islam. Other notable examples are those of the Plebeians to secure rights from the Patricians of Ancient Rome, the planned flight of the Israelites, the withdrawal of the Puritan Fathers from England and the emigration of Doukhobors from Russia.Google Scholar

³ What had disturbed the Delhi ‘ālim was the progressive interference by the British with the inherited tradition and practice of the Islamic law. Shāh 'Abd al'Azīz issued his ruling on the ground that the country was being ruled not by the orders of the Imām al-Muslimīn but those of the Christian rulers. His attitude becomes clearer when his ruling is contrasted with his approach towards the Hindu Marathas under whom India was dār al-Islām, as they had not replaced the Islamic legal system by one of their own. With regard to India under the British, the ruling of his disciple, 'Abd al-Hayy (d. 1828), was even more specific: it was ‘the country of the Enemy’, for ‘no recourse is made to our holy law’. Both 'Abd al-'Hayy believed in encouraging the hijrat, should it become necessary. But these rulings were mere angry protestations of academic theologians trying to satisfy the religious qualms of those forced to live under Christian rule.Google Scholar For Shāh 'Abd al-'Aziz's fatwā see Fatāwā-i 'Azīzī, I (Calcutta, 1906), pp. 32–5.Google Scholar For his approach towards the Marathas see Ahmad, Aziz, Islamic Modernism in India and Paki stan, 1857–1964 (London, 1967), p. 19.Google Scholar 'Abd al-Hayy's ruling is quoted in Hunter, W. W., The Indian Musalmans (London, 1871), p. 140.Google Scholar For their views on the hijrat see Ahmad, Aziz, Studies in Islamic Culture in the Indian Environment (London, 1964), p. 215.Google Scholar For the analysis of 'Abd al-'Aziz's fatwā also see Hardy, P., Muslims of British India (Cambridge, 1972), p. 51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴ RaShīd Aḥmad Gangōhī is reported to have fought against the British in 1857; but by 1898 he was preaching loyalty in their favour. In the collection of his fatāwā published later in 1924, he, however, appears non-committal. See India Office Library (London) [hereafter IOL], India Confidential Home Political Proceedings [hereafter ICHPP], January 1919, Pro. No. 206;Google Scholar and Fatāwā-i RaShīdiyya, I (Muradabad, 1906), pp. 76 and 87.Google Scholar The opposite views were more explicitly expressed during the revived Mujāhidīn excitement of the 1880s by Karāmat 'Alī Jawnpurī, Sayyid Aḥmad Khān and 'Ubayd-Allāh 'Ubaydī Suhrawardī, who denied that India was dār al-ḥarb. See Abstract of the Proceedings of the Mahomedan Literary Society of Calcutta. Lecture by Moulvi Karamat Ali (of Jounpore) on a Question of Mahomedan Law Involving the Duty of Mahomedans in British India towards the Ruling Power (Calcutta, 1871);Google ScholarKhan, Syed Ahmed, Review on Dr. Hunter's Indian Musalmans (Benares, 1872);Google Scholar and SirSuhrawardy, Hassan, ‘India’, in Arberry, A. J. and Landau, R. (eds), Islam To-day (London [1942]), p. 204.Google Scholar Also see Ali, Maulvi Cheragh, The Proposed Political, Legal, and Social Reforms in the Ottoman Empire and other Mohammadan States (Bombay, 1883), pp. 23–5;Google ScholarRahim, Abdur, The Principles of Muhammadan Jurisprudence (London, 1911), p. 397;Google ScholarMaqālāt-i Shiblī, I (Azamgarh, 1930–1934), pp. 182–7;Google ScholarShams al-‘Ulamā’ Sayyid Muḥammad Nazīr Ḥusayn Muḥaddis Dehlawī, Fatāwā-i Nazīriyya, II (Delhi, 1918), pp. 30, 41, 47 and 472–3.Google Scholar For Shi'a views see Hunter, , The Indian Musalmans pp. 115–19Google Scholar and for Aḥmadiyya views see Kamal-ud-din, Khwaja, Attitude of Muslims of India Towards British Government and other Muslim and non-Muslim Powers, Lahore, 1912, pp. 10–11.Google Scholar It is interesting that the controversy still exists in India to-day. The known opinion of the ‘ulamā’, especially of Sa'id Akbarābādi of Aligarh, is, however, in favour of regarding India dār al-Islām. Their argument is that the Indian Muslims share in the running of the government and that they enjoy religious freedom. As a corollary, Pakistan's war with India, as in 1965 and 1971, is not considered a jihād. See ‘Jihad, ’, Āj Kal (Delhi), XXX, No. 6 (01 1972), pp. 8–10.Google Scholar

⁵ Notable examples of jihād and hijrat in India were the Mujāhidīn movement of Sayyid Aḥmad of Bareilly, the Farā'iẓī movement of Ḥājī Shari'at-Allāh (1781–1840) of Bengal, the participation of the ‘ulamā’ in the Revolt of 1857, and the ‘Silk Letter Conspiracy’ of 1915–16. For a legal and theological discussion of the jihād see Hamidullah, M., Muslim Conduct of State (Lahore [1945]), pp. 105–59;Google Scholar and Khadduri, Majid, War and Peace in the Law of Islam (Baltimore, 1955), pp. 51–82.Google Scholar

⁶ Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam, ed. Gibb, H. A. R. and Kramers, J. H. (Leiden, 1953), p. 69.Google Scholar

⁷ For instance, the muhājirīn who emigrated under the leadership of Aḥmad 'Alī (q.u.) of Lahore had two black standards with the Qur'anic inscriptions on them: ‘O! triumph is from All¯h and a speedy victory’ (lxi:13); ‘It is He [Allāh] who had sent his Apostle with guidance and religion of truth to proclaim it over all the religions even though the pagans may detest it’ (ix:34); ‘We are God's helpers’ (iii:52); and ‘Certainly, the group of Allāh must triumph’ (v:59).Google Scholar Also see a poem on the hijrat by Muḥammad Isma'il 'Īsā of Amritsar in Zamīndār (Lahore), 3 07 1920.Google Scholar

⁸ Memorial dated 24 April 1919, IOL, Judical and Public Department [hereafter J&P], 3915/1919 with 1451/1919.Google Scholar

⁹ Kāshmīrī, Shōrish (ed.), Khuṭbāt-i Āzād (Lahore, 1944), pp. 220–8.Google Scholar

¹⁰ See, e.g., Ẓafar, 'Ali Khān's views in Taqārīr-i Mawlānā Ẓafar 'Ali Khān (Meruth, n.d.), pp. 36 and 50Google Scholar, and Zamīndār, 30 July 1920.Google ScholarFor 'Aṭā-Allāh and others see Amritsarī, Ḥusayn Miralias Sōkhta, Ghulām Ḥusayn, Dāstā-i Hijrat (Amritsar, 1921), p. 4, and IOL, ICHPP, 08 1920, Pro. No. 71.Google Scholar

¹¹ Shaydā'i's, Iqbāl memoirs, Imrōz (Lahore), 4 05 1969.Google Scholar

¹² See 'Alī, Muḥammad, Taqārir-i Mawlānā Muhammad 'Alī, I, ed. Ahmad, MunShi MuShtāq, 2nd ed. (Meruth [1921]); pp. 16–17;Google Scholar'Alī, Shawkat (ed.), Muḥammad 'Alī (Lahore, 1922), p. 38; and Viceroy to Secretary of State for India, Telegram P., No. 82, 2 February 1920, Chelmsford Papers.Google Scholar

¹³ Viceroy to Secretary of State for India, Telegram P., No. 426-S, 12 April 1920, IOL, Political and Secret Subject Files, [hereafter PSSF], P. 7020/1920 with 1061ūr (Sherkot), 24 April 1920.

¹⁴ For the Anglo—Afghan Conference see IOL, PSSF, 1061/1919.Google Scholar

¹⁵ The Times (London), 1 05 1920.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Āftāb (Lahore), 10 May 1920.Google Scholar Also see Dastūr, 24 04 1920.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Aybek, Ẓafar Ḥasan, Āp Bītī, I, Lahore, [1964], pp. 202–4. A member of the Afghan delegation confided to Ṣaḥibzāda (later Sir) 'Abd al-Qayyüm (1866–1937) that his Government could easily get rid of the Indian revolutionaries and the Boishevists ‘if it were made worthwhile’. See IOL, Political and Secret Memoranda, A. 190, p. 7.Google Scholar

¹⁸ These Indian pan-Islamists were spearheaded by the ‘ulamā’ of Deōband under Maḥmūd Ḥasan's (q.u.) associate ‘Ubayd-Allāh Sinidhī (1872–1944). The fifteen students who crossed into Afghanistan in February 1915 did so with the object of proceeding to Turkey and fighting for the Caliph. See IOL, PSSF, 4260/1916; Aḥmad Madnī, Ḥusayn, NaqSh-i Ḥayāt, 2 vols., Deōband, 1953Google Scholar; and Aybek, , Āp Bītī, 3 Vols.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Paysa AKhbar (Lahore), 28 04 1920;Google ScholarĀftāb, 16 May 1920; Viceroy to Secretary of State for India, Telegram P., No. 337, 30 April 1920, Chelmsford Papers.Google Scholar

²⁰ For details of what transpired at the Delhi Conference see Āftāb, 23 April 1920;Google Scholar and Dastūr, 24 April 1920. Also see Viceroy to Secretary of State for India, Telegram p., No. 390, 25 April 1920, Chelmsford Papers.Google Scholar

²¹ Extract from Bombay fortnightly report, 16 January [sic for June] 1920, IOL, PSSF, p. 7020/1920 with 1061/1919, XI.Google Scholar

²² Viceroy to Secretary of State for India, Telegram P., No. 337, 30 April 1920, above; and Report on the Political and Economic situation in the Punjab for the fortnight ending 30 April 1920, Thompson Papers. Also see Report on the Conference at Mussoorie, IOL, PSSF, P. 7382/1920 with 1061/1919, II.Google Scholar

²³ Siyāsat (Lahore), 21 05 1920.Google Scholar

²⁴ Amritsarī, Aziīz Hindī, ‘Tehrīk-i Hijrat ki TārīKh’ in Aḥmad, Sayyid RaīsNadwi, Ja'fri (ed.), Awrāq-i GumgaShta (Lahore, 1968), p. 77.Google Scholar

²⁵ Ibid., p. 781.

²⁶ 'Abd al-Bārī to Chelmsford, 12 June 1920, in ibid., pp. 145–6.

²⁷ al-Bārī, 'Abd, Majmū'a Risāla-i Hijrat wa Risāla-i Qurbānī Gāā ed. ShayKh Shāḥid 'Ali, Farangi Mahall, 1920Google Scholar, reprinted in ibid., p. 150.

²⁸ Ibid., pp. 138–68.

²⁹ Amritsarī in ibid., pp. 781–2.

³⁰ Ibid., pp. 781–2.

³¹ Paysa AKhbār, 28 April 1920;Google ScholarJhang Syāl, 30 April 1920, Punjab Native Newspaper Report, 1920, p. 188; Khilāfat, 1 May 1920;Google Scholar Extract from Bombay fortnightly report, No. 506, 16 January [sic], 1920, above, n. 21; Ḥabīb al-Raḥmān to Ḥakīm Barham GōraKhpuri, 12 May 1920, in Mawlān¯ Muhammad Y¯sin Chiriyākōtī, Al-Tanqīd Al-al Khilāfa (Gorakhpur [1922]), p. 78;Google ScholarSōkhta, , Dāstān-i Hijrat p. 3;Google ScholarKhaliquzzaman, Choudhry, Pathway to Pakistan (Lahore, 1961), p. 56;Google Scholar and Aḥmad, Maqbūl, ‘Teḥrīk-i Hijrat’, IntiKhāb (London), 12 1968, p. 20.Google Scholar

³² Hurrīyyat, 26 April 1920.Google Scholar

³³ al-Bārī, 'Abd, Majmū'a Risāla-i Hijrat, pp. 149–51.Google Scholar

³⁴ Paysa AKhbār, 11 June 1920. The reference is to an earlier date.Google Scholar

³⁵ Vakil (Amristar), 7 May 1920. It is interesting that though Abū Turāb preached the hijrat he prevented his son from emigrating to Afghanistan on the pretext that he was a minor, still devoted to his studies and thus needed parental authorization.Google Scholar See Vakil, 22 August 1920.

³⁶ Islāmābādī, Munīr al-Zamān to al-Bārī, ';Abd, n.d., NuqūSh (Lahore), CIX, 04/05 1968, pp. 197–8.Google Scholar

³⁷ The information is based on: Sōkhta, , Dāstā-i Hijrat, pp. 3–4;Google ScholarIOL, J&P, 5259/1920. 5446/1920, 6728/1920 and 6882/1920; ICHPP, August 1920, Pro. No. 71;Google Scholar Amristsari in Nadwī, Ja'fri, Awrāq-i Gumgashta, p. 795;Google ScholarZamīr, 20 July 1920;Google ScholarKhān, A.H. (ed.), Mard-i Mōmin, Lahore, 1964, passim;Google Scholar and Rāshidi, Pir 'Ali Muḥammad, ‘Pir 'Ali Anwar Shāh RasShidī Marḥūm’, Jang (Rawalpindi), 23 04 1974.Google Scholar

³⁸ Reference in Muḥammad Anīs to al-Bārī, 'Abd, 24 06 19 [20], NuqūSh, CIX, p. 220;Google ScholarIslāmābādī, Munīr al-Zamān to al-Bārī, 'Abd, n.d., above n. 36; 'Abd al Bārī, Khutba-i Ṣadārat (Erode, 1921), p. 26;Google Scholar and Sōkhta, , Dāstān-i Hijrat, p. 3.Google Scholar

³⁹ See his letter to Gōrakhpurī, Ḥakīm Barham, 12 May 1920, above, n. 31.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Ḥaẓrat ShayKh al-Hind kā ēk Ẓarūrī Khat, published by the Khilāfat Committee, Azamgarh (Azamgarh, n.d.).Google Scholar

⁴¹ Sa'id, Aḥmad, Jidd-omacr; Jahd-i Āzādī awr Mawlānā AsShraf 'Ali Thānwī (Rawalpindi, 1972), pp. 69–70.Google Scholar

⁴² Zamānā, 11 June 1920, cited by Ḥakīk Muḥammad Sikandar of Amritsar in Vakīl, 23 June 1920.Google Scholar

⁴³ Interview with Malik Lāl Khān (1892–1976), former Secretary of the Punjab Khilāfat Committee, at Lahore in September 1966. In fact, Aḥmad Raẓā Khā's views on the Khilāfat began to crystallize from the time of the Balkan War in 1912, when he refused to patch up his differences with the other ‘ulamā’ in order to concentrate on helping the Turks.Google ScholarSee Ḥassan, Murtaẓa to Khān, Aḥmad Raẓā, 31 October 1912, NuqūSh, CIX, pp. 113–14;Google Scholar and Muḥammad Aḥmad to 'Abd al-Bārī 10 November 1912, ibid., p. 119.

⁴⁴ Aḥmad, Fayẓ, Mihr-i Munīr (Golra, 1973), pp. 144, 270–9;Google ScholarAmritsarī in Ja'frī Nadwī, Awrā-i GumgasShta, p. 792;Google Scholar and Paysa AKhbār, 12 June 1920.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Bashir, MirāAḥmad, al-Din Maḥmūd, Mu'āida-i Turkiyya awr Musalmānōn kā Āinda Rawayya (Qadian, 1920), pp. 8–9.Google Scholar Also see his Tark-i Mawālāt awr Aḥkā-i Islām (Qadian, 1920), pp. 9, 47–53.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ The exact date of the fatwā is not known. But from internal evidence it appears that it was given in April or early May 1920. The fatwā was published by the Ahl-i Ḥadī (Amritsar) of Abū Turā 'Abd al-Ḥaq, in its issue of 30 July 1920. For the text of the fatwā, see Mihr, Ghulā Rasū (ed.), Tabarrakāt-i Āzād (Lahore, [1959]), pp. 203–6.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Later in July 1920, when the Secretary of the central office migrated to Afghanistan, AKhmad Sa'īd, the well-known 'ālim of Delhi and the Secretary of the Jamīyyat al-‘Ulamā’i Hind, was request to look after its affairs. But Aḥmad Sa'īd, with the consent of the importan ‘ulamā’ of Delhi, advised that the headquarters of the hijrat organization should be shifted to Peshawar, which had then become the centre of the campaign. A skeleton staff was, however, retained in Delhi underthe supervision of Aḥmad Sa'īd. The peshawar Hijrat Committee was formally established on 12 July 1920, with Jān Muḥammad as its President and 'Abd al-Ṣamad, 'Alī Gul Khān, Āghā Qāsim, Ḥakīm 'Abd al-Jalīl and 'Abd al-Rab as the other office-bearers. An Anjuman-i Muhājirīn of the Frontier had, however, existed at Mardan since early May 1920.Google Scholar See Zamīndār, 7 May and 16 July 1920; and Diary dated 12 July 1920 in Malik Lāl Khān Papers.

⁴⁸ The information is based on: Viceroy to Secretary of State for India, Telegram P., No. 379, 7 May 1920, Chelmsford Papers; Grant to Carter, No. 1420-R, 21 May 1920, IOL, PSSF, P. 7020/1920 with 1061/1919, XI; Extract from Bombay fortnightly report, 16 January [sic.] 1920, above, n. 21; J&P, 6728/1920 with 5703/1920; IOL, ICHPP, November 1920, Pro. No. 45;Google ScholarThe Times, 16 08 1920;Google ScholarSōkhta, Dāstān-i Hijrat, pp. 3–4;Google ScholarMuḥammad, Qāẓīal-Ghaffār, 'Abd, Ḥayāt-i Ajmal (Aligarh, 1950), p. 222;Google Scholar and Abdul, KhanKhan, Ghaffar, My Life and Struggle (Delhi [1969]), p. 50.Google Scholar For various poems to excite the hijrat see Aḥmad, ḤājīDard-i Khilāfat (Aligarh, 1921 [composed in 1920]);Google ScholarNāla-i Khilāfat, issued by Muslimī, Anjuman-i Islāh-i (Lahore, 1920);Google Scholaral-Dīn, Muḥammad Badar, A'īna-i 'Ibrat (Muradabad, 1920);Google ScholarKamāl, SayyidJa'fri, al-Din, Khilāfat awr Musalmānō kā Farẓ Allahabad, 1920);Google ScholarZamīndār, 3, 20 and 30 July and 4 september 1920; paysa AKhbār, 17 July 1920: and Siyāsat 28 June, 8 and 28 July, 9 August and 7 and 8 October 1920.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Viceroy to Secretary of State for India, Telegram P.& R., No. 521, 26 June 1920, Chelmsford Papers.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Ahmad, Muzaffar, The Communist Party of India and its Formation Abroad (Calcutta, 1962), p. 16.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Ibid. Also see Usmani, Shaukat, Peshawar to Moscow (Benares, 1927), p. 1.Google Scholar

⁵² Viceroy to Secretary of State for India, Telegram P., No. 497, 19 June 1920, Chelmsford Papers.Google Scholar

⁵³ In Delhi, people were so worked up that ghulām Muḥammad 'Azīz sent a telegram to the Viceroy that ‘it is impossible for the faithful any longer to remain under the British rule peacefully’. Another was addressed to Maḥmūd Ṭarzī, the Afghan Envoy at Delhi, thanking him for the hospitality offered by the Amīr. Col. Yate, C.E., ‘Unrest in India: the Question of the Khaliphate’, Asiatic Review (London), XVI, 1920, pp. 379–80.Google Scholar Also see Paysa AKhbār, 29 April, 1920.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ The communication was addressed by one Miyān Qamar al-Din Kākā Khel, Secretary, Anjuman-i Muhājirīn-i Islām Ṣūbah Sarḥadī at Mardan.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Grant to Carter, No. 1420-R, 21 May 1920, above, n. 48.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ The early muhājirīn crossed secretly for fear of Chastisement by the police. See Shaydā'ī's, Iqbāl memoirs, Imrōz, 2 03 1969.Google Scholar Also see Ahmad, Muzaffar, Communist Party of India, p. 13.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Grant to Carter, No. 1420-R, 21 May 1920, above, n.48.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Rājpūt Gazette (Lahore), 22 05 1920.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Viceroy to Secretary of State for India, Telegram P. & R. No. 521, 26 June 1920, Chelmsford Papers.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Viceroy to Secretary of State for India, Telegram P., No. 461, 4 June 1920, Chelmsford Papers.

⁶¹ Viceroy to Secretary of State for India, Telegram P., No. 497, 19 June 1920, Chelmsford Papers.

⁶² Amritsarī in Nadwī, Ja'frīAwrāq-i Gumgashta, pp. 777 and 783;Google ScholarGhaffār, , Ḥayāt-i Ajmal, p. 222;Google ScholarĀftāb, 30 March and 10 May 1920; Paysa AKhbār, 28 April 1920; Sōkhta, Dāstān-i Hijrat, p. 4; IOL, ICHPP, August 1920, Pro. No. 71; Williams's, L. F. Rushbrook letter dated 11 October 1968;Google Scholar and his The State of Pakistan (London, 1962), p. 9;Google Scholar and Albiruni, A. H., Makers of Pakistan and Modern Muslim India (Lahore, 1950), p. 177.Google Scholar Also see Grant, to Carter, , No. 1420–R, 21 May 1920, above n. 48; Viceroy to Secretary of State for India, Telegram P. & R., No. 442, 28 May 1920, Chelmsford Papers;Google Scholar and The Times, 14 08 1920.Google Scholar

⁶³ Ibid.

⁶⁴ Hindu (Madras, 2 06 1920;Google Scholar and Sindhī (Sukkur), 28 05 1920Google Scholar, Bombay Native Newspaper Report, 1920.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Gandhi has been wrongly accused of starting the hijrat by writers like Rajput, A. B., Muslim League: Yesterday and To-day (Lahore, 1948), p. 32;Google Scholar and Briggs, F. S., ‘The Indian Hijrat of 1920’, Moslem World, XX, No. 2 (04 1930), p. 164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶⁶ Gandhi, to Shraddhanand, , 2 05 1920, The Collected Works of Mahatama Gandhi XVII (Ministry of Information, Government of India: Delhi, 1958–), p. 381.Google Scholar Also See Paysa AKhbār, 29 July 1920;Google ScholarSource Material for a History of Freedom Movement in India, (Collected from Bombay Government Records), III, Part I (Government of Bombay: Bombay, 1965), p. 307.Google Scholar Such views he had expressed as early as June 1919. See J&P, 4695/1919 with 1451/1919.Strangely enough, in the late 1920s and 1930s, the hijat, (minus ‘jihād’) became an important item in Gandhi's satyagrapha action. See Dhawan, G., The Political Philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi, 2nd edn (Ahmedabad, 1951), p. 278;Google ScholarSarkar, H. B., ‘Non-violent Non-cooperation in World History’, Journal of Indian History, XLVIII, Pt I, No. 142 (04 1970), p. 72.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ IOL, ICHPP, November 1920 Pro. No. 45.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Hindu, 8 07 1920.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Viceroy to Secretary of State for India, Telegram P., No. 541, 2 July 1920, Chelmsford Papers.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Report on the Political and Economic Situation in the Punjab for the fortnight ending 15th June 1920, Thompson Papers.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Viceroy to Secretary of State for India, Telegram P., No. 609, 24 July 1920, Chelmsford Papers. The entire expenses for hiring the special train (Rs 14,500) were paid by Junējo from his own pocket.Google ScholarPaysa AKhbār, 15 July 1920.Google Scholar

⁷² The Times, 14 07 1920.Google Scholar

⁷³ For details of the Katcha Garhi incident see IOL, ICHPP, December 1920, Pros. Nos. 325–52; J&P, 6728/1920 with 5703/1920, and 5978/1920 with 5411/1920.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Grant, to Carter, , No. 2090–R, 27 July 1920, IOL, J&P, 6728/1920.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Church Missionary Review (London), LXXI (1920), p. 362. Also see Viceroy to Secretary of State for India, Telegram P., No. 661, 13 August 1920, Chelmsford Papers; and Rushbrook Williams's letter to the writer, above, n. 62.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Viceroy to Secretary of State for India, Telegram P., No. 624, 30 July 1920, Chelmsford Papers.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Chief Commissioner, North West Frontier Province [hereafter N.W.F.P], to Foreign Secretary, Government of India, Telegram P., No. 285–N., 3 August 1920; and Chief Commissioner, N.W.F.P., to Foreign Secretary, Government of India, Telegram P., No. 314–N. 314–N., 9 August 1920, J&P, 1676/1920. Also see Briggs, ‘The Indian Hijrat of 1920’, p. 165Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Enclosure to the Sarhaddar, Dakka, to the Political Agent, Khyber, 12 August 1920, IOL, J&P, 6882/1920.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Ibid.

⁸⁰ Ibid.

⁸¹ The course of the negotiations can be followed in IOL, PSSF, 1061/1920.Google Scholar

⁸² A curious side-light of the hijrat was that some Afghan residents of Khost, who had been deprived of their lands in favour of the muhājirīn, asked the Deputy Commissioner of Bannu to allow them to migrate to India. See Chief Commissioner, N.W.F.P., to Foreign Secretary, Government of India, Telegram No. 326–P.N., 10 August 1920, IOL, J&P, 6728/1920.Google Scholar

⁸³ Chief Commissioner, N.W.F.P., to Foreign Secretary, Government of India, Telegram No. 877–P., August 1920, IOL, J&P, 6882/1920.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ See, for instance, Paysa AKhbār, 28 08 1920.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Chief Commissioner, N.W.F.P., to Foreign Secretary, Government of India, Telegram No., 875–P., 19 August 1920, IOL, J&P, 3882/1920.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ The number of the muhājirīn has been variously estimated between 18,000 and two million. The Punjab Khilāfat Committee counted 120,000 muhājirīn though Malik Lāl Khān believed that 235,000 had emigrated to Afghanistan. A muhājir in his account states that at one time in Kabul alone, the number had reached 125,000 and more were coming. Another muhājir puts the total at 23,000, while a third believes it was 36,000. According to the estimation of the Government of India, approximately 30,000 muhājirin had emigrated to Afghanistan. See The Punjab Khilāfat Committee, Mas'ala-i Hijrat: Punjāb Khilāfat Committee kā I'lān, Lahore, 1920, pp. 3–4;Google Scholar Malik Lāl Khān Papers; Parliamentary Papers, 1921, (2020), Statement Exhibiting the Moral and Material Progress and Condition of India During the Year 1920, Fifty-sixth Number, p. 52;Google ScholarBriggs, , ‘The Indian Hijrat of 1920’, p. 165;Google ScholarSokhta, , Dāstān-i Hijrat, p. 31;Google Scholar'Abd al-Qādir's memoirs in The Times, 25 02 1930;Google ScholarUsmani, Shaukat, Peshawar to Moscow, p. 2;Google ScholarUsmani, Shaukat, I Met Stalin Twice (Bombay, 1953), p. 2;Google ScholarViceroy to Secretary of State for India, Telegram P., No. 698, 21 August 1920, IOL, J&P, 6882/1920. However, the figure 60,00 seems more plausible.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ See the map, indicating the routes taken by the muhājirīn.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ The Times, 30 11 1920.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Williams, Rushbrook, The State of Pakistan, p. 19.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Years later, Ḥusayn Aḥmad Madnī (1879–1957), an associate of Maḥmūd Ḥasan, compared the sufferings of the hijrat with the hardships undergone by the Muslim refugees in 1947 as an argument against the partition of India and the creation of Pakistan. See Madnī to Muḥammad Ṣiddīq, n.d., in Iṣlāhī, Najam al-Din (ed.), Maktūbāt-i ShayKh al-Hind, II (Deoband, 1954), pp. 262–3.Google Scholar

⁹¹ See n. 61, above.Google Scholar

⁹² Sēth Miyān Muḥammad Ḥājī Jān Muḥammad Chhōtānī, the President of the Central Committee, was among those who opposed the decision. See Viceroy to Secretary of State for India, Telegram P., No. 698, 21 August 1920, Chelmsford Papers.Google Scholar