Many didn't agree with Gandhiji but there were no dissidents or defections. That this happened just within three years after Jallianwala massacre, speaks volumes of the spiritual strength of people on this sub-continent. Gandhiji was seen a true successor of Mahavir and Buddha by all sections of the society.
The partition happened because of the formation of Sabha and Jamaat. That's when the people knew that with Gandhi as the leader, there would be a rule dominated by people of one faith. The missionaries worked overtime to deepen the divide in the society, which aggravated after the world war 2. There was no template of people of different faiths living in harmony anywhere in the world.
how did this come to your mind. that it divided the hindu muslims. it has almost spontaneously been reactied all over by all parties..it would not be proper to rretrospectively blame some incidents as the cause of divide. I feel the matter must be edited better
Re: chauri chaura.
by Darvin Chaudhary (View MyPage) on Oct 29, 2017 07:57 PM
It is true. Because, later Mohammad Ali Jinnah concentrated on All-India Muslim League. RSS also formed in 1925, whose goal was unity of Hindus. Later, things not improved and it worsen with time. British used divide and rule. You know what is end result. I am afraid exactly after 100 Years, we are not going same direction.
Was an incident if violent protest of people against British and that weakened khilafat movement yes but why chauri chaura is an issue? Everyone has the right to protest their own way and they suffer the consequences too. How can you generally blame chauri chaura for this? I agree that since Indian freedom fight was fought in non violence that is why we are prosperous but does not mean that noone has the right to protest any other way and blaming that for split is irrelevant
The Khilaphat was not spiritual leader of Indian Muslims. Also Khilaphat was abolished by Turks themselves. British had no role.In my opinion, Gandhi was misguided in helping them. This only united them and made them more radical.
Author fails to explain why suspension should make Muslims angry. It was a suspension of freedom movement. Nothing per se against a Muslim cause. May be, mixing of religious issue of Khilafat (a very shallow one, as it turned out) with a much more fundamental freedom movement was the greater tragedy.