Discover the power of collective action and unity in the Khilafat Movement, as Mujeeb Jaihoon explores its history and enduring relevance.
Introduction
In the sixteenth century, a Western observer once remarked that if a visitor from Mars were to land on Earth, they would likely conclude that the world was destined to become Muslim. With the Mughal Empire in the East, the Safavid dynasty in the center, and the Ottomans in the West, the Islamic world stood as a formidable force of power, culture, and governance.
Yet, like all great empires, the Ottoman realm faced storms—military, political, economic, and ideological. Czar Nicholas I of Russia famously referred to Turkey as “the sick man of Europe,” as rival powers circled like vultures, awaiting the funeral of the last great empire in the East. And when the end did come, it sent tremors through the Muslim world—none more poignant than in the Indian subcontinent.
The Meaning of the Caliphate
The Caliph—Khalifa—is more than a political figure. As Shah Waliyullah Dehlavi eloquently described, the Caliph represents a collective effort to implement Divine Will: to establish justice, preserve religious knowledge, organize defense, and uphold the moral structure of society. He is a successor, a representative—not above the law, but accountable to the community and to God.
In an essay published in the Sociological Review of London in 1908, Dr. Mohammed Iqbal, the Poet Philosopher of Islam, wrote that the Caliph holds no privilege in front of the law. Even the mighty Umar ibn al-Khattab once stood in court to defend himself. The Islamic state, Iqbal insisted, is not theocratic in the medieval sense, but a force to translate God-given principles into social reality—principles of equality, justice, and freedom.
Ottoman Origins and Decline
The Ottomans rose from the ashes of a fragmented Anatolia, under the visionary leadership of Osman I. Rooted in the traditions of the Abbasids and Seljuks, they constructed one of history’s most enduring empires. They ruled through a system that valued coexistence, as seen in the millet framework—granting autonomy to religious communities under their spiritual leaders.
Like any empire, the Ottoman Empire saw a decline following its days of glory. This transformation did not happen suddenly, but rather over years or even centuries. Historians note that civilizations were destroyed not by external forces but due to internal conflicts, and the Ottoman Empire was no exception.
Yet, the grandeur of Suleiman the Magnificent slowly gave way to corruption, palace intrigue, and administrative decay. In the 17th century, the empire fell under the sway of courtly factions—an era known as the “Sultanate of Women.” Nepotism, bribery, and decentralization eroded the empire from within.
Provincial Janissaries sometimes acted as semi-autonomous local rulers, while in Istanbul, they became a disruptive force, often collaborating with others. This was like an Ottoman reflection of the European feudal system.
Externally, the Ottomans failed to keep pace with Europe’s scientific and industrial revolutions. Economic shifts, unfavorable trade deals, and military defeats further weakened the empire. Nationalism surged across its provinces—from Egypt to Arabia. The Young Turk movement, and later the Committee of Union and Progress, sought to save the empire through constitutional reform. But World War I brought the final blow. The Ottomans sided with Germany and lost. The victorious Allies divided the spoils of the Caliph’s shattered realm.
The Indian Response to Ottoman Collapse
When the Caliphate fell, it did not perish unnoticed. From Delhi to Damascus, the Muslim world mourned. But in India, that grief ignited a movement.
Maulana Muhammad Ali Jauhar—scholar, activist, and patriot—returned from Oxford not with nostalgia for the empire, but with fire in his soul. In 1914, he penned a 36-hour editorial, “The Choice of Turks,” responding passionately to British press coverage. During the Balkan Wars, he sent medical aid to the Turks. In 1919, he became a towering figure in the Khilafat Movement and joined hands with the Indian National Congress.
Though based in North India, the movement gained more significant traction in the south, particularly in Kerala. It is a fallacy to reduce the Khilafat Movement to the ambitions of a single community. Never before, since the First War of Independence in 1857, had Indians united across caste, creed, and class in such numbers—and, yes, such sacrifice.
Unity in Diversity: The Real Strength of the Khilafat Movement
The Khilafat Movement was a cry of conscience, a resistance not just to colonial injustice but to the desecration of sacred ideals. Leaders like K. Madhavan Nair, K.P. Keshava Menon, and Maulana Abdur Rahman joined hands across religious lines. Even in Malabar, Ali Musliyar and Kunhammad Haji rose in defiance of imperial rule—establishing, however briefly, a caliphate that defied foreign domination.
Women, too, gave selflessly—donating jewelry, organizing protests, and marching in solidarity. Maulana Muhammad Ali Jauhar spent his final years rallying support for the Caliphate across Europe and Asia. His final resting place, near the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, stands as a testament to a life spent in service of justice.
Conclusion
The Khilafat Movement failed to revive the Ottoman Caliphate. But its legacy endures—not in titles restored, but in the hearts awakened. It reminded a colonized people that collective conscience can become collective action. That justice, truth, and faith are worth struggling for—even when victory is uncertain.
In a time of division, the Khilafat Movement dared to dream of unity. In a time of silence, it chose to speak. And in a time of despair, it taught generations to hope.
Let us remember—not merely the fall of an empire, but the rise of a people who stood for their principles, their faith, and each other.