GANDHIAN NATIONALISM AFTER 1919

Ideas and Movements

  1. (2005) What implications did the Gandhian strategy of struggle and negotiation have for India’s freedom struggle? (Situation of the congress before Gandhi-rise of Gandhi led to freedom movement becoming more broad based, his philosophies-ahimsa and Satya, his methods-satyagraha, his 3 movements-maybe focus on one movement, say civil disobedience*since the question talks about struggle and negotiation* and consequences)
  2. (2006) What led Mahatma Gandhi to launch Non Co-operation movement in 1920? Why did he suspend it ‘unconditionally’ and with what consequences? (Montford Reforms, Jallianwallah, Khilafat, NC etc)?
  3. (2007) How far was the Montague-Chelmsford declaration of August 1917 implemented in the Act of 1919? Why did the act fail to satisfy the nationalists? (Montford Reforms, Results- Rowlatt Satyagraha, NC Movement etc.)
  4. (2008) What were the factors responsible for the rise of Mahatma Gandhi on the Indian political scene? What changes did his movements bring about in the nature of Indian peoples’ struggle against British imperialism? (First World War, Montford reforms, and situation of the Congress-all these led to his rise. Impact should be the same as answer 1.)
  5. (2009) Why did Gandhiji launch the Non-Cooperation Movement? Evaluate its Contribution to India’s freedom struggle?
  6. (2010) Account for the rise of Gandhi in the national movement?

The year 1919 was a watershed in the modern Indian history, as 4 important developments took place-

(1) Firstly Montagu-Chelmsford reforms were enacted-they didn’t grant swaraj but anticipated a period of self-government by Indians.

(2) Secondly, the repressive Rowlatt bill was introduced and the Amritsar massacre occurred at Jallianwala Bagh.

(3) A new course of political action emerged -that of non-violent non-cooperation, and

(4) A new leader, Mahatma Gandhi returned from South Africa and became a symbol of moral leadership for the entire country.

THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT OF 1919

(1) The World War and the post-war years saw a dramatic change in Indian history. The most important constitutional reforms initiated during the war period was Edwin Montagu’s declaration of August, 1917, followed by the Montagu-Chlemsford Report of 1918 and the Government of India Act 1919.

(2) In August 1917 Edwin Montagu announced the objective of the British rule was–‘gradual development of self governing institutions with a view to the progressive realization of responsible government in India as an integral part of the British Empire.’ This was also called his 20 August Commons Declaration. This meant-

  1. According to RJ Moore-The declaration was something of a compromise and mistake. The original draft of the announcement prepared by Lord Chlemsford in 1916, provided for the ‘largest measure of Self Govt compatible with the maintenance of the supremacy of the British rule.’ This passage was altered by Chamberlain and Montagu who then made the 20 August Commons Declaration –(‘gradual development of self governing institutions with a view to the progressive realization of responsible government in India as an integral part of the British Empire.’) The deletion of ‘compatible with the maintenance of supremacy of British rule’ made the declaration more positive and dispelled the traditional notion that India was unfit for self-government.
  2. The declaration was also positive because the words ‘responsible government’ meant the responsibility of the executive to the legislature and thus the Declaration promised the Westminster Model of parliamentary government to India.
  3. The declaration was also positive as it also rejected an old line of British-Indian moves towards representative government through elected legislators but no control over the executive.
  4. The educated Indians were not seen as an underrepresented minority but as future leaders of India.
  5. The British introduced the measures slowly and in a measured way making important concessions to Indian public opinion. Montagu called the concessions ‘lubricants’. These included- a hike in cotton import duties from 3 ½ to 7 ½ % in March 1917 without increasing the countervailing excise on Indian textiles and a ban on the export of coolies through indentured labour system as well as on emigration for the army as it helped military recruitment.

Montagu’s Declaration on 1917 translated into The Govt. of India Act 1919 popularly known as the Montague-Chlemsford reforms or the Montford Reforms, which introduced the following measures-

  1. Firstly franchise was extended to over five million people (increased to 5.5 million for the provinces and 1.5 million to imperial legislature). This increase in size of electorate led to, parties other than the INC (e.g. Justice or Non Brahmin Party of Madras) achieving success in 1920 elections. In Bengal it led to breaking legislative predominance of the Hindu bhadralok of the Congress and emergence of mass politics in Bengal, which allowed the more backward Muslim majority community to achieve ascendancy in the mid twenties.
  2. Secondly the act introduced a bicameral legislature at the center, the council of state and the legislative assembly. The legislative assembly would have an elected majority but no control over its ministers. The viceroy would have veto for pushing through rejected bills.
  3. Thirdly the act introduced a new system of dyarchy by which functions of the government were split into two. There were two sets of governments-the central government in New Delhi (under British control) which controlled important subjects like law and order and the local governments in the provinces under local ministers who dealt subjects like taxes, agriculture etc. The aim was to transfer less important subjects to the provinces and little funds to the provincial ministers. Revenue resources were divided between the centre and the provinces with land revenue going to the latter while income tax going to the former. This system was introduced as Montagu felt the new system should acknowledge the principle of executive responsibility in the provinces and their powers should be enhanced by decentralization through diarchy.
  4. Fourthly the act extended of communal representation and reservations as Muslims, Sikhs were granted separate electorates and seats were reserved for the non-Brahmins in Madras and the depressed classes were offered nominated seats in the legislatures.

Results- The main Impact of these 1919 Act reforms was and whether it lived up to the 1917 declaration

The act didn’t live upto the declaration in the following ways-

  1. Firstly diarchy/decentralization of power meant different things to different provincial governors. Highly conservative provincial heads (Lord Pentland-Madras; Sir Michael O’ Dwyer-Punjab) supported decentralization enthusiastically. Liberals like Lord Willingdon welcomed it as a means of providing Indians with a fair field for their political talents.
  2. Secondly local variations in the operation of dyarchy were substantial-e.g. In Bengal it enabled the governor to break the power of the Hindu Nationalists and to consolidate Anglo-Muslim Raj. E.g. In Madras, Willingdon gave maximum responsibility to Indians while in Bombay and the United Provinces it was not introduced properly as govt. officials interfered leading Indian liberal ministers resigning in 1923.
  3. Thirdly in 1924 a Committee of inquiry looked into the working of the Act complained that the ministers had not enjoyed real responsibility –except in Madras, the governors had not encouraged collective ministerial responsibility and in several provinces the two halves of the government had not met in joint session.
  4. Fourthly the declaration had promised the increasing participation of Indians in administration. However the All India services and Indian Civil Service-were still overwhelmingly British in 1919. The All India Services still remained under the responsibility of Secretary of State even though Indians within the administration were few. Therefore this whole process of restructuring the Raj produced a lot of inconsistencies.
  5. A major reason for the hollowness of the declaration and the illusionary liberalism of the Reforms was the continuous repressive policies by the Govt. of India- seen in the Rowlatt Bill of 1919, the Jallianwallah Bagh massacre, the widespread British sympathy for General Dyer-all of which proved that the government wasn’t willing to make a sincere effort to introduce India self-government. (***Elaborated in a later section)

Positives- However the reforms did lead to some positive developments like- It gave India a new status in imperial relations as – from 1917, India was became a member of imperial conferences of Self governing dominions. In 1919, she enjoyed separate representation at the Paris Peace conference. In 1920, she obtained diplomatic recognition in London through the appointment of a high commissioner and India was freed of subservience of trading interests of Britain through the grant of autonomous control over her fiscal policy. However, her currency remained securely tied with the sterling.

Nature of the reforms-

The variations in implementation and negative aspects of the reform made Indians wonder whether the reform actually proposed to give Indian self-government. Various historians have also commented on the nature of the reforms.

  1. Philip Woods saw it as a positive measure and argued that the ideas behind the reforms were crucial in establishing parliamentary democracy in India and thereby began the process of decolonization.

Others saw it as a measure serving British interests-rather than granting self-govt.

  1. Carl Bridge felt that these were measures to safeguard British position in India.
  2. BR Tomlinson says it was an attempt to mobilize an influential section of Indian opinion to support the Raj.
  3. Peter Robb said that the problem with the reform was that it was limited by the idea of continuing British presence. Many Indians now wanted Swaraj, which later became complete independence and not just self-government. Therefore these reforms failed to satisfy Indian political opinions.
  4. Recent Cambridge historiography says they were introduced to satisfy imperial requirements of financial devolution and need for a wider circle of Indian collaborators. Yet Cambridge historians also seeks to establish a positive impact of the reform thus they see a cause-effect relationship between the Reforms and emergence of mass politics- the Act broadened electorates and therefore politicians were forced to cultivate a more democratic style.
  5. Yet Sumit Sarkar critiques this interpretation he says it may explain certain types of politics but hardly the reason for post war mass awakening.

MAHATMA GANDHI

World War I, political and the socio economic situation created conditions favorable for the rise of Gandhi-

 (1) Prior to Gandhi the National struggle was led and participated in by a small group of educated professionals who came mainly from presidency towns of Bombay, Delhi and Calcutta. Thus DA Low has described this class as ‘the underlings of the British rulers.’ Groups like the Bhadralok of Bengal, the Chitpavan Brahmins of Bombay and the Tamil Brahmins of Madras kept away from the Congress politics. These leaders were only concerned about creating a new elite society and culture for themselves and were influenced by the ideas and ideals of the British aristocracy or the Middle classes and were only marginally interested in bringing about far-reaching socio-economic changes in the Indian society.

(2) The Nationalist demands were weakened considerably with the growing factionalism within the INC and the consequent Surat split that took place in 1907 dividing the party into the moderate and the extremists. The congress politics were limited in goal and did not achieve much during 1915-17. Both the Moderate and Extremist group had lost credibility and failed to achieve their goals. Many Extremists had been crushed post the Swadeshi and the Moderates who dominated inactive Congress.

(3) Thus Judith Brown refers to the nationalist movement in India before the arrival of Mahatma Gandhi as politics of studied limitations. Ravinder Kumar says it was a movement representing the classes as opposed to the masses. 

(4) Apart from this political void, the social and economic environment in India during the World War one also played an important role, which increased popular appeal for Gandhi’s program.

  • Firstly defense expenditure rose phenomenally resulting in a huge national debt. The war expenses of the British, which they sought to recover from their colonies, went on increasing even after 1919. As they could not increase the land revenue, new and indirect form of taxation was used on trade and industry, the burden of which fell on the common people as it resulted in a phenomenal price rise. The rising prices were accompanied by the phenomenon of food shortage and famine like conditions.
  • The peasantry was dissatisfied as -There was underproduction of food crops during the war period caused by two extraordinary crop failures in 1918 and 1920 affecting Punjab, UP, Bombay and Central Provinces. Also, export of food to feed armies abroad led to near famine conditions and influenza epidemic (e.g. Census of 1921, about 12 to 13 million people lost their lives) Between 1914-1923, forced recruitment for armies led to resentment in the countryside. The prices of agricultural exports did not rise, resulting in a decline in export and rising stockpile causing a crisis in the market 1917-19. This affected the rich peasantry thus a rise is peasant protests occurred.
  • The war brought profits for businessmen and declining wages for the workers. Which made industrialists remained loyal to the British and workers and the small traders were unhappy. The war also disillusioned educated youth.

This climate of moral and physical despondency formed the background to the rise of Mahatma Gandhi. He had no vested interest in the political status quo and at a time of moral vacuum and political despondency, he was able to provide a new political programme that appealed to and incorporated the masses but was also spiritually noble. As Judith Brown has argued that this ideology “appealed to few wholly, but to many partially” as everyone could find in it something to identify with.

The arrival of Gandhi

  • Post 1919 Gandhi emerged as the principal architect of Indian independence. At 18, he went to England to study law. Later in 1893 he went to South Africa where he practiced as an Indian lawyer and defended mostly the Indian business community. His experience there proved crucial to his leadership of India’s freedom struggle. 
  • Between 1893 and 1914 he put together his new vision of society-this differed from other nationalist leaders, as it was a critique of modern civilization. He criticized the western obsession with material goods and the competition necessary to secure them. He said industrial development should be avoided as machinery represented sin and put forth a view of a simple life like in his imagined traditional Indian village.
  • Thus he harked back to the ancient past by evoking the mythic kingdom of Lord Ram/Ramrajya. To reform society he said one must start from the bottom and it should be a moral not political transformation of society. He did not believe that the end-of freedom-justified the means that might be necessary to achieve it.
  • Gandhi’s life was not dominated by political activity. There were significant pauses during which Gandhi did constructive work, which was dear to him. Amongst intellectual influences European writers such as Tolstoy, Kipling, and Bernard Shaw etc influenced Gandhi. He read Tamil and Gujarati works as well as Upanishads and The Gita. He read Marx’s work as late as 1944. In jail (1923) he read over 150 books – for example the Mahabharata, a Gujarati account of six systems of Indian philosophy, the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith etc.

In 1909 Gandhi wrote a book called Hind Swaraj expressing his views on Swaraj and critique of Modern Civilization.

  • Gandhi used the term Swaraj in a dual sense as-as (1)’self-rule’ and as (2) ‘self-government’. The first meant self-control/rule over oneself and was the foundation for the second self-government. Gandhi prioritized self-rule over self-government and to both over political independence. Essential to both meanings of Swaraj, was a sense of self-respect that was Gandhi’s answer to colonial rule.
  • The main point of his pamphlet was that the real enemy was the modern industrial civilization and not the British political domination. He presented a moral critique of Western civilization.
  • Gandhi held that- (i) Industrial capitalism -the essence of modern civilization was bad as it disrupts cosmic harmony as it considers bodily pleasures important and is driven by greed and destroys self-sustaining local industry. He held it responsible for the conflict of interest as it divorced economic activities from moral concerns and said Indians were responsible for their enslavement as they embraced capitalism. (ii) He said the Modern State was bad- as it enjoys monopoly of violence and demands impersonal/exclusive loyalty from its citizens. (iii) He also felt Liberal democracy was too individualistic as it emphasized rights not duties and self interest not selflessness and Parliamentary democracy was marked by duality of power. In theory people rule themselves but in practice they rule themselves only through representatives. He prescribed an alternative of popular sovereignty in which each individual controls or restrains his/her own self and this was Gandhi’s subtle distinction between self-rule and mere home rule.
  • He outlined a social utopia in the book, which was unrealistic, and obscurantist. However it did represent response to the deeply alienating effects of ‘modernization’ under colonial conditions.
  • Thus Rudolf C. Heredia’s says Gandhi’s Hind Swaraj presents us with an idealized version of Indian culture that is completely opposite to the ‘modern west’. Gandhi radically re-interprets ‘Swaraj’ and gives it a dual meaning.
  • Gandhi also never used the geographical terms east and west- to refer to Europe and India instead he used the terms Ancient Civilization and Modern Civilization. He said Indians constituted a nation or praja since the pre-Islamic day and Indian civilization had a strong base, which tended to ‘elevate the moral being’ and had nothing to learn from the ‘godless modern civilization’ that only propagated immorality.
  • According to Bhikhu Parekh, Gandhi’s usage of the term Ancient civilization and Modern civilization gave Gandhi an advantage as now he could argue Europeans were upstarts and had forgotten their glorious Greco Roman past leading to an impoverishment of the west while Indian civilization had attempted to preserve its ancient past and was therefore fighting for the entire mankind. By this Parekh says Gandhi undermined universalistic claims of European ‘modernity’ and Europeans found it hard to critique Gandhi’s anti-colonial critique.
  • Anthony Parel says despite Hind Swaraj’s writing it is incorrect to say Gandhi rejected modernity completely. As in the introduction to Hind Swaraj –the text is presented as a dialogue between a reader and an editor- a very modern figure with Gandhi took on. Also throughout his career he used print media and travelled by railways to organize his campaigns. Thus we need not see him as only modern or traditional as Claude Markovits says we see in Gandhi, ‘the paradoxical modernity of Gandhi’s anti-modernism.’
  • It would be misleading to suggest that Gandhi introduced an entirely new kind of politics. As mass movements organized by Tilak in Maharashtra in 1890, the Swadeshi in Bengal had already foreshadowed mass politics and some Gandhian methods. Also the Home Rule League of Tilak and Annie Besant made the base for Gandhi’s first Satyagraha movement.

Gandhi’s thoughts on reason, logic and politics-

  • REASON/LOGIC-Gandhi distrusted reason and stressed the limits of reason. He said arguments always follow conviction and man always finds reason for whatever he does or wants to do. He didn’t like the logical way of arriving at conclusions as he said logic lead to wrong conclusions as he said facts necessary for reason were never available to man.
  • DHARMA-He used several terms in his writings-like Dharma or moral law. He emphasized Dharma more than Moksha/Nirvana (salvation) as he was a worldly man and not in the pursuit of salvation. Thus according to him political engagement was more important than personal salvation.
  • MODERN CIVILIZATION-His attitude towards modern civilization was very different from other thinkers of his time. For him modern civilization was evil and he used the term ‘Kaliyuga’ for it and said it was a satanic civilization. Therefore, servants of societies should live like monks and should serve as crusaders to create a Ramrajya.
  • POLITICS and RELIGION: He had a moral and spiritual standpoint when it came to politics. He said modern day politics is soulless. He said everyone was in the pursuit of power but moral values could also be used to create power. He said moral values allow us to be effective as individuals and survive collectively. Thus he felt he need to spiritualize politics and said, “politics divorced from religion is like a corpse fit only for burning”. He made a distinction between religious beliefs and values and was concerned with the latter. He felt politics like religion is concerned with a fundamental thing in life-happiness of the toiling masses. Thus Social work for him was integral to his politics and there is a need to engage in self-purification can only come if one has boundless love for mankind.
  • Gandhi had disagreements with his contemporaries like Tilak over religion. Tilak in 1920 wrote to Gandhi saying politics is a game of worldly people and not sadhus. To which Gandhi replied, “the epitome of religion is to promote purushartha or a desperate attempt to become a sadhu and a sadhu is nothing but a gentleman in every sense of the word”
  • Gandhi rejected Hobbs’s notion of citizenship in which sovereign stood outside society and used fear exercise power. In such a situation the subjects are passive. Gandhi instead endorsed Roseau’s view of engaged citizens. Gandhi felt that individuals should recognize and used the power in their hands for Sarvodaya-or social good.

SATYA AND AHIMSA

  • Two key terms for Gandhi were Satya and Ahimsa. Satya was relative truth while Ahimsa/non violence was absolute truth. Truth was the substance of morality. Satya was derived from ‘sat’ which means ‘being’.
  • For him Satya meant the truth in the realm of knowledge, righteousness in conduct and justice in social relations. His concept of truth stresses action rather than thought. In order to understand truth one has to understand the eternal law of nature. Once truth is perceived and seized it must be acted upon. For Gandhi truth was even higher than god. He said every man was a seeker of truth and every man embodied a portion of this truth-this he called soul force. He said one must have faith in absolute truth but every man can follow truth according to his like’s i.e. relative truth. Thus Truth can be obtained through tapasya (self suffering).
  • Ahimsa literally means non-killing. In the Hindu tradition if one kills an evildoer, it is not himsa/violence because it was done to preserve social order. Thus was called vadha. Gandhi was deeply influenced by this but departed in some respects. Raghavan Iyer says Gandhi felt that Tolstoy understood non-violence better than anyone including ancient thinkers. Thus Gandhi took up Tolstoy’s notion of non-violence, which advocated active love in social terms. In the Gandhian notion of non-violence there is an element of compassion plus a positive desire to help others.
  • Gandhi’s concept of Satya with Ahimsa determined his doctrine of Satyagraha (truth force). He developed this method in South Africa which involved peaceful violation of laws, protests, hartals combined with readiness of negotiation and compromise. This method pressurized the British and apart from drawing from the masses kept mass activity under strict control of the leader.

Spirituality

  • Gandhi pointed out the flaws in Hindu culture by saying that active fellow beings are marginalized in Hindu culture. This view was similar to Hindu reformers (Arya Samaj etc) who felt Hinduism lacked social work. He said Svadharma is the very essence of his politics or morality. He said Hindu culture was indifferent to struggle for justice and only if Hindus involve themselves in this struggle would they be the path to moksha or salvation.
  • Gandhi used the term yuga dharma – dharma which is appropriate to a certain yuga or age and believed that Hindu culture needed to be reconstituted according to the Modern age/yuga. He devoted his entire life to finding this dharma. Sumit Sarkar says Gandhi was ‘na sanyasi na sansari’. Bhikhu Parekh critiques this saying that the Indians did not see Gandhi as an avatar or a saint or a renouncer. He was a fighter and passionately involved with the world and hence not a sanyaasi. He also pointed out human flaws of Gandhi e.g. vanity.

GANDHI – IMPACT –

  • (i) Gandhi achieved uniting both the moderates and the extremists on a common political platform by tactically combined the goal of moderates with the means of extremists. He adopted the moderate’s goal of Swaraj and his method of Satyagraha was similar to the Extremists passive resistance of the. He even had a hand at uniting hindu-muslim interests by aligning himself with the younger leaders who supported the Khilafat.
  • (ii) More importantly Gandhi appealed directly to the peasants and gained mass support. Mass mobilization was the foundation of Gandhi’s Satyagraha. His simple attire, Spartan existence, use of Hindi all led to the masses to react to him with adulation.
  • Judith Brown says Gandhi’s rise did not symbolize ‘a radical restructuring of political life’ or ‘opening up of modern politics to the masses’ but the rise of Western educated and regional literal elites of the backward areas in place of Western educated leaders of Presidency towns. It was these local leaders -the “subcontractors” which mobilized popular support for Gandhi in the Indian countryside.
  • Sekhar Bandyopadhyay critiqued Brown as feels that such an image of Gandhi reduced his popular appeal. Gandhi’s simple ways, use of colloquial language, his popular allegory Ramrajya made him comprehensible to common people-people interpreted Gandhi in their own ways and it was difficult to ignore this millenarian aspect of his popular appeal. Brown’s subcontractors had very little to do with this groundswell.
  • Gandhi’s appeal was not uniform throughout India. To understand Gandhian nationalism it is necessary to take account of his support base and opposition. In Gujarat the vani-vakil-patidar alliance or traders, professionals and well off landowning peasants of the patidar castes formed the core of Gandhi’s support base. Outside Gujarat, Gandhi found support in Bihar and UP among men such as Govind B. Pant and Motilal Nehru. In remote village areas, Gandhi’s message took unexpected shapes. The peasantry made of this ‘great souled mahatma’ a man able to magically to right wrongs. He was fired into the pantheon of Hindu deities. The peasants in UP did not hesitate in looting bazaars and attacking landlords by taking Gandhi’s name.
  • In the princely states and the thinly populated hills of central India, Gandhi found little support for non-cooperation. The princes kept nationalism out and newspapers rarely reached their interiors. The lowest elements of the social order (artisans and peasants) were left out too. However most opposition came from those who felt that Gandhi’s new program would threaten their pre eminence- these were the educated elite of Calcutta, Bombay and Madras who led the Congress before 1920s. They enjoyed the substantial benefits they got from participation in law courts etc. In Punjab and Madras provincial castes and class antagonisms limited Gandhi’s support base throughout the 1920s.

Champaran, Kheda and Ahmedabad
Gandhi returned from South Africa in 1915.And undertook three ventures–Champaran Satyagraha, Kheda Satyagraha and Ahmadabad Mill strike established him as a man who could achieve concrete reforms in a manner different from the established Congress methods which worked top downwards. Judith Brown says that the main importance of these movements lay in the recruitment of his lifelong allies-JB Kriplani, Rajendra Prasad, Vallabhai Patel, Mahadev Prasad etc., the existence in every case of pressures from below, a note of millenarian appeal at times and first indications of a restraining role.
CHAMPARAN (1917)

  • The Champaran Satyagraha took place at a time when indigo cultivation was declining as Germans had developed a synthetic dye leading to decrease in the demand for natural dye. With the world war demand for indigo increased and farmers in India were coerced to grow it on 3/20th of their land, this was known as the Tinkathia system.
  • In 1885, the Bengal Tenancy Act was passed- by which the ryot could be released from his obligation to grow indigo but had to pay higher rents. The increase in rent (by 60%) was called Sharabeshi and the peasant also had to contribute Abwab or miscellaneous contributions a to the landlord’s household. Landlords could also take a lump sum of money (tawan) from the peasants in return for freedom. These set the background for the Champaran Satyagraha.
  • Jacques Pochepadass’s study talks about the role of local rulers –rich and middle peasants, local mahajans and traders, village mukhtars and schoolteachers.
  • He says a crucial role was played by a middle peasant called Raj Kumar Shukla who went to Lucknow to invite Gandhi as the indigo cultivators were highly oppressed under the Tinkathia system, increasing taxes and famine. Gandhi at first instituted an open inquiry in July 1917and gave all-India publicity to the grievances of these Champaran cultivators. This led to the abolition of the Tinkathia system. Yet the psychological impact far surpassed the concrete activities. Gandhi left behind 15 volunteers who tried to do constructive village work and told Rajendra Prasad that the only solution was the education of the ryots.

KHEDA (1918)

  • The Kheda movement provided agrarian basis to the Independence movement. The Kheda district in Gujarat had the prosperous class of Kanbi-Patidar peasant proprietors who produced foodgrains. Many of them were rich and educated.
  • According to David Hardiman post 1899 a period of prosperity was followed plagues and famine, which made revenue payment very difficult. The lesser patidars were worst affected. In 1917-18, a poor harvest coincided with high prices of kerosene, cloth etc. The initiative for no revenue payment came from local leaders who approached Gandhi to take up their cause and Gandhi took it up in March 1922. By this time the peasants had been coerced to pay revenue and had had a good rabi crop and this weakened the case for remissions.
  • Kheda was the first real Gandhian peasant Satyagraha and affected 70/559 villages and was called off in June after a token concession. But over the years a solid Gandhian base was built in Gujarat.

AHMEDABAD (1918)

  • Gandhi in Feb-March 1918 intervened in the Ahmadabad Mill strike a purely internal conflict between Gujarat mill owners and their workers. The mill owner’s attempts to end the plague bonus in 1917, which led to confrontation despite Gandhi’s mediation attempts. This strike was notable because it was the first time the Mahatma used the weapon of a hunger strike. It won the workers a 35% wage increase.
  • It also led to the Textile labor Association of 1920 being formed and grounded on Gandhian philosophies of peaceful arbitration of disputes, independence of capital and labor and owners being trustees for workers.

ROWLATT SATYAGRAHA-6th April 1919

  • In 1919 the Rowlatt Act was passed by the British, which extended wartime restriction on civil rights permanently by introducing imprisonment without trial for a maximum of two years for those suspected of terrorist activity. All Indians deeply resented the Rowlatt Act but it was left to Gandhi to suggest opposition to the Act. As constitutional methods to oppose the Act failed Gandhiji finally decided to launch the Rowlatt Satyagraha, calling for a nationwide strike/hartal accompanied by fasting and prayer on 6th April and in addition civil disobedience of specific laws. A Satyagraha Sabha was set up to direct the Satyagraha.
  • The Rowlatt Satyagraha of 1919 was the first occasion on which Gandhi led an all India campaign. The Satyagrah called for all offices and factories would be closed. Indians would be encouraged to withdraw from Raj-sponsored schools, police services, the military and the civil services, and lawyers were asked to leave the Raj’s courts. Public transportation and English-manufactured goods, especially clothing, was boycotted. This campaign posed a lot of problems for Gandhi-those of organization, communication, mobilization of a wide array of groups, and exercise restraint over those very social groups.
  • In organizing his Satyagraha, Gandhi used three types of political networks- (i) the two home rule leagues started by Annie Besant and Tilak, certain pan-Islamic groups and a Satyagraha Sabha, which he founded by Gandhi.
  1. Besant’s All India Home Rule League began holding protests against the bills in January/February (1919) at Delhi, Allahabad, Kanpur, Banaras, Lucknow, Patna, Madras, and Bombay-through its branches. The chief initiative came from Bombay where Shankarlal Banker printed copies of the Pledge, as well as posters, which outlined the Rowlatt Bill and Gandhi’s indictment towards it in a number of languages. In Sind, Durgdas Adwani, Jamshed Mehta addressed the meetings. In United Provinces meetings were held. The Home Rule league provided an important grid for relaying Gandhi’s message.
  2. The Khilafat movement also provided Gandhi widespread support. The Indian Pan-Islamists had begun to turn towards the Hindus for support against the common foe-the British Raj. Gandhi had developed excellent relationships with the Muslim league leaders especially Abdul Bari of Firangi Mahal Ulama group at Lucknow who was the religious preceptor of the Ali brothers. Concern about the harsh treatment meted out to the Sultan of Ottoman Turkey had spread among the Muslims. The first steps were taken to form an organization specially designed to stimulate agitation on the Khilafat issue during the Rowlatt agitation. Gail Minault who says usually the international aspect of the Khilafat movement is emphasized but Minault questions this dominant interpretation. She explained why Indians Muslims participated in this movement- because they were trying to communicate their own sense of identity and managed to create a Muslim constituency within the context of the Indian national movement. This movement provided a space to Muslims within the nationalist movement and thus concealed separatism for now.
  3. Gandhi formed the Satyagraha Sabha an organization especially for the Rowlatt campaign. An executive committee of the Sabha was appointed to decide the laws to be broken by those signing the pledge. Gandhi was the President while Horniman was the Vice President of the committee. Satyagraha committees were established all over the country to direct the campaign on an all India scale. Bombay committee was the meant to be the central committee but as this was a difficult proposition and so it was that decided that each province would have its own independent organization. They were independent vis-à-vis each other but had to report to Gandhi on the broad strategy of the campaign. However many local campaigns ended in violence and Gandhi repudiated committees without investigating the local conditions, this led to abandonment of a few local Sabhas. Therefore the success of the campaign in each locality depended on two factors – effectiveness of Gandhi’s lieutenants and whether Gandhi himself was able to visit the locality to prepare it or lead it.

Results

  1. A very violent anti-British storm emerged in April 1919 as many areas e.g. Delhi was confused about the hartal date and violence broke out. In most areas especially Punjab, the strikes turned violent (e.g. on 10th April local leaders attacked the Town Hall/post offices leading to army called in under General dyer.) Local leaders Dr Satyapal and Kitchlew were deported and in the same evening Gandhi was restrained from entering Delhi and Punjab. On April 13, General Dyer opened fire at a peaceful unarmed crowd, which congregated at Jallianwala Bagh in Amritsar. This act was the last straw and the Indians were appalled at the British injustice.
  2. In Bombay and Ahmadabad violence emerged. In Ahmadabad 51 buildings were burnt down as a result of the action taken against Gandhi. Ravinder Kumar says the Hunter Committee Report shows these violent upheavals were sparked off by post war economic grievances, brutal provocation and repression in Punjab especially.
  3. Calcutta witnessed had witnessed hartals on 6 and 11 April (1919), a joint Hindu-Muslim rally at a mosque and clashes with the police and army. The Madras province was quiet but held few big labor meetings.
  4. The movement was mostly urban and affected the following areas-Amritsar, Lahore in Punjab, Ahmadabad and Nadia in Gujarat, Delhi, Bombay and Calcutta.
  5. Gandhi realized the widespread violence was a blunder. He quickly called off the Satyagraha on 18th April 1919. Despite Gandhi’s failure to achieve his immediate objectives, the Rowlatt Satyagraha was by no means futile. It greatly strengthened nationalism in India. The support he got from the Indian population undermined the claims by British civilians about political loyalties of the people of India.

NON-COOPERATION MOVEMENT (1920-22)

  • At the beginning of 1920, the Indians were highly discontented as the Rowlatt Act, the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre and martial law in Punjab had belied all the wartime promises of the British. The Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms satisfied few and the Indian Muslims were also incensed.
  • Gandhi suggested to the Khilafat Committee to adopt a programme of non-violent non-cooperation to protest the Government’s behavior. On 9th June 1920, the Khilafat Committee unanimously accepted the suggestion and asked Gandhiji to lead the non-cooperation movement.
  • The movement was to be formally launched by Gandhi on 1 August 1920 centered on three things-the Punjab wrong, the Khilafat wrong and Swaraj. However the established politicians of the Congress still had their doubts about a non-cooperation programme. The Congress met in September at Calcutta with the main opposition led by C.R. Das and Motilal Nehru against the boycott of elections of Central legislative councils.
  • In the Nagpur Session of the Congress in December 1920, CR Das changed his attitude and accepted the resolution of non-violent non-cooperation. The programme of non cooperation was accepted by the Congress as its own and included – the surrender of titles and honours; triple boycott of schools, courts, councils; national schools and colleges were to be set up; hand spinning and weaving was to be encouraged along with the promotion of Khadi. Thus the Nagpur session committed the Congress to a programme of extra constitutional mass action.
  • To enable the Congress to fulfill its new commitment changes were introduced in its organization on Gandhi’s insistence. The goal of the Congress was changed from the attainment of self-government by constitutional and legal means to the attainment of Swaraj by peaceful and legitimate means. The important changes included the constitution of a Working Committee, the organization of Provincial Congress Committees on a linguistic basis and the membership fee was reduced to four annas per year. The organization structure was both streamlined and democratized.
  • The adoption of the Non Cooperation Movement by the Congress gave it a new energy and from January 1921, it began in full swing and registered considerable success all over the country. The four phases of the non cooperation movement are as follows –
  1. January-March 1921: Gandhiji along with the Ali brothers undertook a nationwide tour during which he addressed hundreds of meetings and met political workers. Thousands of students left government controlled schools and colleges joining the national ones. Many leading lawyers gave up their lucrative practices. However the most successful item of the programme was the boycott of foreign cloth with the picketing of shops selling foreign cloth, a major form of boycott.
  2. March-June 1921: At the Congress session at Vijayawada it was decided that that it should concentrate on collection of funds, enrollment of members and distribution of charkhas. As a result a vigorous membership drive was launched and the Tilak Swaraj Fund was oversubscribed exceeding the target of rupees one crore. Charkhas were popularized on a wide scale and khadi became the uniform of the national movement.
  3. July-November 1921: Gradually the movement became more militant with the beginning of boycott and organization of public bonfires of foreign cloth. On 17th November 1921, the Prince of Wales who arrived in India on an official visit was greeted with a nationwide hartal. On that day Bombay witnessed the break of the first violent riot of the movement, targeting the Europeans, the Anglo Indians and the Parsis in the city. Gandhi was incensed and full-scale civil disobedience and a no tax campaign was postponed. The whole sequence of events left Gandhi profoundly disturbed about the recurrence of violence once mass civil disobedience was sanctioned.
  4. November1921-February1922: The last phase of the movement nearly brought the government to its knees. Gandhi was under considerable pressure from the Congress to start the phase of mass civil disobedience. He was appointed as the sole authority on the issue. The Government ignored Gandhi’s appeal that unless it lifted the ban on civil liberties and released political prisoners he would be forced to go ahead with civil disobedience. It was decided that an experimental no revenue campaign would be launched at Bardoli in February 1922. However this did not happen as Chauri Chaura Incident took place and Gandhi who was fed up called off the Non Cooperation movement.
  • CHAURI CHAURA (1922)
    The Chauri Chaura incident proved to be the last straw for Gandhi. In February 1922, local volunteers had gathered to protest against police oppression and the high prices of certain articles. The police initially sought to deter them by firing in the air but irritated by the behavior of some policemen the crowd attacked them. The police opened fire and in retaliation the crowd set fire to the local police station killing 22 policemen. On hearing of the incident Gandhi decided to abruptly call off the movement. Thus on 12th February 1922, the Non Cooperation Movement came to an end.

Nehru later said that this decision was “deeply resented by all Congress leaders” and “naturally even more” by the “younger people.” Gandhi however repeatedly said that he prepared to lead a specific type of controlled mass movement but was not interested in a class struggle or social revolution. The fact that the entire movement was called only implies its basic weakness-there was ample combustible material in India in 1919-22.

Why did Gandhi call off the movement?

  1. Gandhi’s reason for calling off the movement was widely debated. RP Dutt and other scholars continued to condemn the decision taken by Gandhi and saw it as proof of his concern for the propertied classes of Indian society. According to them, he withdrew it because the action at Chauri Chaura was a symbol of the growing militancy of the Indian masses and their growing radicalization as well as their willingness to launch an attack on the status quo of property relations. This they say was the real though hidden motive behind the historic decision of February 1922.
  2. Bipin Chandra argues that the movement never became as radical as to pose a threat to the interest of the propertied class. Instead he says that Gandhi always asserted the importance of non-violence if the movement was to achieve the goals. If he continued this movement, it would mean giving up his higher moral ground.
  3. Mushirul Hasan brings attention to the Khilafat angle and says that the growing strain with the Khilafat movement was a factor. Certain sections of the Ulema who were Khilafat leaders did not agree with Gandhi on a few issues and by the end of 1921, the Khilafat movement was slipping out of Gandhi’s control. The Moplah riots of August 1922 ended any possibility of reconciliation.
  4. Judith Brown argues that Gandhi’s differences with the established politicians of the Congress who felt that NC would be ineffective if it was not followed by civil disobedience led to his decision. The leaders wanted to contest elections and confront the government in legislatures. The program had to move forward if it had to survive and Gandhi’s failure in responding to these emerging challenges led to the withdrawal of the movement.
  5. However the arguments put forward by Gandhi’s critics that violence in a remote village could not be a sufficient cause for such a decision and that the real motive for withdrawal was the fear of the growth of radical forces and Chauri Chaura was the proof of the emergence of precisely such a radical settlement are both on weak ground and are not accepted.

Whether or not the withdrawal was made at a correct time would always be open to debate but Gandhi probably had enough reasons to believe that the moment he chose was the right one.

Regional Variations –

  • The Non Cooperation Movement began in Punjab but it seemed to remain relatively weak. Rajasthan presents an interesting deviant pattern of powerful peasant movements. This movement was especially strong in Gujarat. Maharashtra was a weak center for the movement as the established Tilakite politics was unenthusiastic about Gandhi and the non-Brahmins felt that the Congress was a Chitpavan led affair. The truly all India nature of the NC movement is best indicated by its penetration of the south. In Bengal, the non-cooperation Khilafat alliance was the greatest strength in the entire history of the nationalist movement in Bengal. The United Provinces during this movement became one of the strong Congress bases.

IMPACT –

  • The Non Cooperation Movement had in fact succeeded on many counts. The movement has a twofold character drawing in the masses and at the same time keeping mass activity under control. It demonstrated that it commanded the support and sympathy of vast sections of the Indian people. After non-cooperation, the charge of representing a microscopic minority could never be hurled at the INC. Its reach among many sections of Indian peasants, workers, artisans, traders, and professionals had been demonstrated. The spread of the movement was also nationwide. The notion that the desire for national freedom was the preserve of the rich and educated was dispelled and shown to be an urge common to all members of a subject nation. This was for many people the first contact with the modern world of nationalist politics and the modern ideology of nationalism. The tremendous participation of Muslims in the movement and the maintenance of communal unity was also striking.
  • Non-Cooperation movement therefore made attempts to establish more meaningful links with the masses in the national struggle and thereby changed the Indian political scene for good. The retreat that was ordered was only a temporary one an even though the battle was over, the war would continue.

CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE MOVEMENT (1930-1931) –

EVENTS LEADING TO THE CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE MOVEMENT – (1922-29) (need to edit)

  • For some time after the withdrawal of the NCM, the Congress was not in a position to launch another round of mass movement. Post Chauri Chaura, the British arrested Gandhi in March 1922 with a 6-year sentence. After his release from jail in 1924, Gandhi channelized his energies on constructive programs such as removal of untouchability, building of the ashrams, use of charkha etc. the colonial government felt that he was a ‘spent force’ politically.
  • There was also a crisis in the unity within the congress. The Congress was divided into no changers and pro changers. The former wanted to stick to the Gandhian ways (Ansari, Iyengar) while the latter wanted to revert to constitutional politics (Motilal Nehru, CR Das). The constitutionalists became more powerful and launched the Swaraj party within the Congress. They wanted to participate in council politics and wreck the constitution from within. However the Swarajists were not a stable group nor were they united by all India loyalty to achieve that mission.
  • There were further fissures because of the growing influence of the Congress socialists under the young leaders Jawaharlal Nehru and SC Bose and this turned into a Right-Left confrontation within the Congress. The No-changers worked on constructive work within the villages. This included relief work, promotion of Khadi, anti-liquor campaign, and social work among low castes.
  • The short-lived Muslim league-Congress alliance was also jeopardized by the decline of the Khilafat movement. The Muslim league was divided on the issue of joint electorates and separate electorates. There were communal riots all over. The All India Hindu Mahasabha gained in strength in north and central India and its close association with the congress tarnished its secular image.
  • However there were significant changes, which prepared the ground for another round of mass agitations against the British raj.
  1. First, a major crisis for export oriented colonial economy culminated in a great depression in the 1920s. The prices of exportable agricultural cash crops went down steeply and affected the rich peasantry. The amount of revenue remained static worsening the situation. This led the Congress to mobilize rich peasants in various parts of the country. In UP, repeated crop failures and shortfall in the production of food crops led to the miseries of poor peasants. This led to the organization of peasant movements outside the Congress, as it was clearly not interested in mobilizing radical lower peasant groups. This is what Tanika Sarkar has described as a parallel stream of protest.
  2. Secondly, there was an emergence of a capitalist class during and in the years immediately after the WW1. In the 1920s there was a powerful and conscious capitalist class who organized themselves and came into conflict with the imperial government on many issues. They decided to side with the Congress to fight their battle who began to support many of their demands making them into national issues. At the same time there was a lot of labour unrest in India under the communist influence. However the influence declined as the government came down heavily on them. This gave the Congress a chance to project themselves as a broad united front where capitalists and workers (even if the working class support for it was weak) were under the same banner.
  3. Thirdly, a Tory government in London appointed an all white statutory commission under Sir John Simon to review the operation of Constitutional system in India. When the Simon Commission arrived in 1928, it was boycotted. This resulted in the holding of the All-Party Conference of 1928 where the Nehru Committee report was finalized. According to this report, while there would be joint electorates everywhere reserved seats were conceded only at the center and in the provinces with the Muslim minorities. Sind would be detached from Bombay and made into a separate province only after India acquired dominion status. Jinnah pleaded for some sort of compromise that was brushed aside by the Hindu Mahasabha. This finally led to his famous Fourteen Points which asked for things like new provinces, 1/3rd seats at the center, separate electorates.
  • The Nehru Report was a sort of an entry of Gandhi once again into national politics. Motilal Nehru wanted Gandhi’s support on this scheme as he wanted it to be smoothly accepted. But for Gandhi, Swaraj was not a constitutional matter the British would give-it had to be attained by mobilizing the masses.
  • The other entry point for Gandhi into nationalist politics was Bardoli Satyagraha of 1928. Despite being called off during the non-cooperation movement, constructive programs were carried on in this area. Therefore when the government raised the land revenue by 22 % in 1927, a good deal of mobilization had already taken place. Vallabhai Patel launched the Bardoli Satyagraha on 4th February 1928 with Gandhi’s blessings. This was a spectacular success and covered by the press. According to Judith Brown, Bardoli lifted Gandhi out of depression and the Calcutta Congress of 1928 witnessed his re-emergence as a national leader.
  • The young group within the Congress led by Nehru and Bose were against the dominion status plea in the Nehru Report who wanted complete independence. Therefore Gandhi proposed a compromise resolution that adopted the report but said that if the government did not accept it by 31 December 1930 the congress would go in for a non cooperation movement to achieve full independence. The then Viceroy Lord Irwin proposed the “Irwin Offer” 1929 where he proposed a Round Table conference. However the talks were inconclusive.
  • At the Lahore Session on 1929 December, the congress adopted the goal of Purna Swaraj/Complete independence and decided to start a boycott of legislature as a preliminary to the civil disobedience movement. However the response was cool and most groups-the Muslims, the Hindu Mahasabha, the Sikhs and even the business groups moved away from the congress. 26 January 1930 was celebrated as the Independence Day but evoked little enthusiasm except in areas like Bihar, UP, Punjab, Delhi and Bombay.

LAUNCH OF THE CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE MOVEMENT –

  • The Lahore Congress of 1929 had authorized the Working Committee launch a program of civil disobedience including the non-payment of taxes.
  • The Chronology of the Civil Disobedience Movement is as follows –
  1. March 1930 – January 1931: First Civil Disobedience Movement
  2. February 1931 – December 1931: Truce between Gandhi and the British Government
  3. January 1932 – May 1934: Second Civil Disobedience Movement

First Civil Disobedience Movement –

  • On 31 January 1930 Gandhi presented eleven points to Irwin and said that if the demands were not met there would be a civil disobedience movement. According to Sumit Sarkar’s classification, there were six issues of general interest, three specific bourgeois demands and two basically peasant themes including the abolition of salt tax and government salt monopoly. It was a mixed package to appeal to a wide cross section of political opinions and join the Indians together. Of all the grievances, the salt tax seemed to be the most crucial one.
  • Irwin was in no mood to compromise and this led Gandhi to launch his historic Dandi March on 12th March 1930. Gandhiji along with 78 supporters marched from Sabarmati Ashram to Dandi, a village on the Gujarat coast where he would break the salt laws by collecting salt. As Gandhi began his march, newspapers reported his progress, his speeches and the impact on the people. By the time he reached Dandi, he had a whole nation waiting restlessly for the final signal.
  • On 6th April, by picking up a handful of salt, Gandhiji inaugurated the Civil Disobedience Movement, one that was to remain unsurpassed in the history of the Indian national movement for the country wide mass participation it unleashed. It was a symbol of the Indian people’s refusal to live under British made laws and therefore under British rule.
  • The movement spread rapidly. The violation of salt laws all over the country was soon followed by the defiance of forest laws in Maharashtra, Karnataka and the Central Provinces and refusal to pay the rural chaukidari tax in eastern India. Everywhere in the country, people joined hartals, demonstrations and the campaign to boycott foreign goods and to refuse to pay taxes. In many parts of the country, the peasants refused to pay land revenue and rent and had their lands confiscated. A notable feature of the movement was the wide participation of women. They participated in picketing of shops selling liquor and foreign cloth and flocked in thousands to hear Gandhi speak. Another feature was the huge support of the business classes. They provided the finance and supported the boycott movement particularly of foreign cloth.
  • The rapid spread of the movement left the government with little choice but to use force. In mid May Gandhi was arrested leading to a massive wave of protest.
  • There were major violent outbursts in Chittagong, Peshawar and Sholapur. The fiercest response came from Sholapur where the textile workers went on strike and along with other residents burnt liquor shops. Even at this point, Gandhi did not call off the movement. This encouraged a mass movement did not merely involve non-cooperation but actual violation of laws to achieve complete independence.
  • All leaders and most volunteers were arrested and the movement began to decline from September 1930 onwards as people lost interest. In a conciliatory gesture, the Viceroy suggested that the First Round Table Conference would be held in London in November 1930 but the Congress boycotted it and it was a meaningless exercise.

Truce and Second Civil Disobedience Movement –

  • Meanwhile the government now made attempts to negotiate an agreement with the Congress. As a part of this on 25th January 1931, the Viceroy announced the unconditional release of Gandhi and all the other Congress leaders.
  • After much deliberation, the Congress authorized Gandhi to initiate discussions with the Viceroy, which culminated on 5th March 1931 in the Gandhi-Irwin Pact. It was described as a truce and a provisional settlement.
  • The Gandhi Irwin Pact is a subject of great controversy as to why Gandhi signed it. Some historians say that certain Congress leaders persuaded Gandhi because they felt that the Round Table Conference had potential of further devolution of power in India while others said that Gandhi was a satyagrahi and was always open to compromise. According to Sumit Sarkar, the Indian bourgeoisie, Gandhi’s staunchest supporters pressurized him as their businesses were suffering and thus played a crucial role in the subsequent withdrawal. Historians such as Judith Brown, Claude Markovits and Basudev Chatterji have accepted this position.
  • The terms of the pact included the immediate release of all political prisoners not convicted for violence, inquiry into police repression and that the land confiscated from peasants is returned to them. The government also conceded the right to make salt for consumption to villages along the coast as also the right to peaceful and non-aggressive picketing. The Congress on its part agreed to discontinue the Civil Disobedience Movement. It was also understood that the Congress would participate in the next Round Table Conference.
  • Many of the Congress leaders, particularly the younger left wing section were opposed to the Gandhi Irwin Pact for the government did not accept even one of the major nationalist demands. However Gandhi was satisfied and convinced that Irwin and the British were sincere in their desire to negotiate on Indian demands. Gandhi went to England in September 1931 to attend the Second Round Table Conference but in spite of his powerful advocacy, the British government refused to concede to the basic demand for freedom by granting Dominion Status. Thus the negotiations with the government failed and Gandhi returned empty handed in December 1931.
  • Meanwhile, peasant unrest had developed in several parts of the country. In UP, the Congress agitated for a reduction of rent and prevention of eviction of tenants. While in the North West Frontier Province there was a peasant movement against the government’s land revenue policy. Thus on his return to India, Gandhi had no choice but to resume the Civil Disobedience Movement in January 1932.
  • On 4th January, Gandhi and other Congress leaders were arrested and it was banned. The government repression succeeded in the end as it was helped by differences among the Indians on many issues.
  • The rich peasant groups, who had showed greater militancy during the first phase of the movement, felt betrayed by its withdrawal and remained unstirred in many places while the staunchest of Gandhi’s supporters – the merchants lost enthusiasm. The urban intelligentsia also felt less inclined to follow the Gandhian path and thus the Civil Disobedience Movement gradually waned. The Congress officially suspended the movement in May 1933 and withdrew it in May 1934. Gandhiji once again withdrew from active politics.
  • For the Congress however, the Civil Disobedience Movement was by no means a failure. It had by now mobilized great political support and marked a critically important stage in the progress of the anti-imperialist struggle.

COMMUNAL AWARD AND POONA PACT (1932)

  • The constitutional history of India took a major turn when the British PM Ramsay MacDonald announced his Communal Award in 1932. It apportioned representation among communities and extended provision among separate electorates to the untouchables as well.
  • Gandhi, who was in jail, saw this as a ploy to divide the Hindu society, as the untouchables were an integral part of it. Therefore Gandhi took fast unto to death to reverse the arrangement. However the Dalit leader, BR Ambedkar supported the separate electorates.
  • The British responded to Gandhi’s fast unto death declaration by stating that the communal award would be amended if those affected by it agreed to do so. This provision was widely publicized by the British highlighting the fact that it was an issue between Gandhi and the depressed classes and not between Gandhi and the Govt. of India. This strategy worked and many leaders like Sapru and Jaikar pressurized Ambedkar to give in.
  • They agreed to the idea of reserved seats and therefore the Poona Pact of 1932 was signed which proposed a number of reserved seats for the reserved /depressed classes to be increased and a two tier election system was recommended to ensure proper representation of such classes.
  • This was a victory for Gandhi and his moral stature was enhanced like never before both at home and abroad as he challenged the government decision and emerged victorious. (DA Low). The sinking morale of congress was lifted.

THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT 1935

The Government of India Act 1935 proposed the following-

  1. In place of dyarchy, there would be responsible government in all the departments. This was nullified by the wide discretionary powers given to the governors about summoning legislatures; giving assent to bills etc. they also had special powers to safeguard minority rights, privileges of civil servants and British business interests. Also, they could take over and run the administration of a province indefinitely under a special provision.
  2. At the centre, the act provided for a federal structure, but it would come into effect only if more than 50 % of the princely state acceded to by signing an Instrument of Accession. The act introduced dyarchy at the centre but subject to various safeguards.
  3. Transfer of financial control from London to New Delhi because the Govt. of India was demanding fiscal autonomy since a long time.
  4. The electorate was enlarged to 30 million but enfranchised only 10% of the population. In rural India, it gave voting rights to the rich and middle peasants, as they were the main constituency for Congress politics. Therefore according to DA Low, it was a ploy to corrode the support base of the congress and tie these important classes to the Raj.
  5. In the bicameral legislature in the centre, members nominated by the princes would constitute 30-40% of seats thus eliminating the possibility of a Congress majority. There were separate electorates for Muslims and reserved seats for the untouchables. This act made no mention of granting dominion status promised during the civil disobedience movement.

Nature

  1. The Labour opposition argued that the act only proposed to protect British interests in India by sharing power with the loyalist elements. Conservatives like Churchill thought this act amounted to the abdication of empire.
  2. However according to Carl Bridges, his colleagues had specially chosen the federal structure as it would protect British interests rather than hand over control in vital areas. BR Tomlinson says that the only change was that the apex of the system moved from London to Delhi. The viceroy had new powers and essentially all imperial interests were protected.
  3. The provincial part of this act took effect with the elections of 1937 where the Congress won an absolute majority in 5 out of 11 provinces. However the federal part of the act remained a non-starter, as no one was interested in it. The Muslim league feared Hindu domination, the princes were reluctant to join it (as it did not resolve the issue of paramountcy) and the congress were not happy with the proposed tie up with the princes.

QUIT INDIA MOVEMENT 1942

  • With the demise of the civil disobedience movement, Gandhi withdrew from active politics while the Congress acquired a leftist dimension to it and leaders like Jayaprakash Narayan and Minoo Masani formed the Congress Socialist Party.
  • The Congress formed ministries in 1937 and in 1939 and the Second World War (which was set the back ground for the launch of the Quit India movement) broke out. This brought new variables into Indian politics-
  1. The Congress promised support to the British only if the British would give concession to two key issues-a post war independence pledge and a national government at the centre. However, Lord Linlithgow did not concede and the Congress ministries resigned in protest in 1939.
  2. Meanwhile Japanese intervention and rapid Japanese victories brought the war closer to India in 1941. Now Indian war effort was clearly necessary and there had to be some solution to the constitutional crisis. This led to the coming of the Cripps’ Mission in March-April 1942.
  3. The war evoked mixed reactions among the Congress politicians. Gandhi remained ambivalent. At one point he was anti-war as it went against his principles of non-violence. At Ramgarh Congress in May 1940, he launched individual Satyagraha by volunteers personally chosen by Gandhi for this purpose. This involved those giving antiwar speeches but the movement failed. In 1942, Gandhi was in a surprisingly militant mood.
  4. The impact of the war economically was initially beneficial to some groups. As commodity prices rose, it was beneficial to industrialist, rich peasants and merchants. It took away bad effects of depression and for the peasants it took away the hardships of high rent. However by 1942, there was a severe shortage of rice and the price index of food grains rose by 60 points in north India. Max Harcourt calls this a scarcity crisis. The poorer section was hit by price hike and the richer section was affected by excessive profit tax, forcible collection of war funds, and coercive sale of war bonds. This created a mentality of popular panic.
  5. From May onwards, streams of American and Australian soldiers occupied India and stories of rape and sexual harassment among the civil population spread. Rumors and axis propaganda led to a widespread belief in India that British power was going to collapse soon and it was the right time to liberate India from the 200 years of colonial rule. This set the back ground to the Quit India Movement
  • In July 1942 the Congress Working Committee approved the draft resolution on mass civil disobedience. On 8th August 1942, the Quit India Movement resolution was passed by the AICC in Bombay. Gandhi delivered his famous Do or Die Bridge arguing that this was the final battle.
  • According to Gyan Pandey, Gandhi provided the people with a psychological break by saying that everyone should henceforth be a free man or woman and choose own course of action if leaders are arrested.
  • The next morning the top leaders were put behind bars and this was followed by the August revolution, which involved mass fury – it was spontaneous and the intensity surprised everyone- it was characterized as a spontaneous revolution as no pre conceived plan could have produced such instantaneous results.
  • Recent studies on the Quit India movement shows that it was not just an impulsive response of an unprecedented populace as was claimed by the government. However the unprecedented scale of violence was not premeditated by the congress. The Congress leaders before August 9 drafted a 12-point which included industrial strikes, Gandhian Satyagraha, holding up of railways and telegraphs, nonpayment of taxes and setting up of parallel government.
  • As the movement progressed AICC continued to send instructions to peasants, which outlined the course of action in the subsequent months. The issue of non-violence got lesser importance in the QI Movement. The people accepted the challenge and interpreted it in their own way and the congress had little control over the actions of the masses.
  • Sumit Sarkar has identified three phases of the Quit India Movement. Initially it was an urban movement marked by strikes, boycotts and picketing that were suppressed. In mid August, the focus shifted to the countryside, which witnessed a major peasant rebellion marked by destruction of communication systems and attacks on Govt. buildings. This brought in sever repression forcing the movement to go underground. The third phase was characterized by terrorist activities, which involved sabotaging war efforts by dislocating communication systems and propaganda activities by using various means. The “terrorists” included youths as well as peasants and enjoyed popular support. As time passed, underground activities came to channeled into three streams- a radical group under Jayaprakash Narayan organizing guerilla warfare in the India-Nepal border, a centrist group by Congress Socialists like Aruna Asaf Ali for sabotage activity, and a Gandhian group led by Sucheta Kriplani who emphasized non violent action and constructive program.
  • Regional Variations

The movement was most powerful in Bihar where the Kisan Sabha had done a lot of groundwork. In Jamshedpur the movement started with a strike of the local constabulary. However the peasant strike, which took place the following week in every district of Bihar, was more important. Local treasuries, railway stations, unarmed European officers were attacked- thus they were destroying the physical presence of the colonial authority. In Eastern UP, students of BHU arrived and galvanized local peasantry into action destroying railway tracks and stations. In Bengal, the movement took place in Calcutta, Hugli, Dinajpur, Purulia, and Birbhum and was the most popular in Midnapur. In Orissa it was strongest in Cuttack, Balasore and Puri where Kisan Sangha and Praja mandals had mobilized the peasantry. In the Bombay presidency, it took on two distinct forms-peasant guerilla wars in a few pockets and more violent terrorist sabotage carried on by educated cadres. Among others in Western India, the Quit India movement was most powerful in regions of Kheda, Surat and Broach in Gujarat and the princely state of Baroda with labour strikes, hartals and rioting. In Ahmedabad a parallel Azad Government was set up. In regions like Madras, it was fairly moderate. This is because people like Rajagopalachari opposed it and other factors such as strength of constitutionalism, absence of socialists, opposition of Kerala communists etc.

  • Social Composition

The Muslims kept away from the movement almost in all regions. The Muslim league did not approve of the movement. However they did not actively oppose the Quit India movement-there was no major incident of communal conflict except maybe in Gujarat. Dr. BR Ambedkar, the leader of the Dalits did not support it either. But there are instances of Dalit participation in some regions. The Hindu Mahasabha called it ‘sterile, unmanly and injurious to the Hindu cause and stalwarts like VD Savarkar whole-heartedly supported the British war efforts. The Communist Party of India did not support it because of their People’s War Strategy. The British withdrew the ban on CPI who had begun to preach war efforts to contain fascism. However individual communists did take part. Thus there was limited and short live role of labour in the movement. There was considerable business participation in Bombay. Middle class students were in the forefront. However, a notable aspect is the rise in peasant participation.

  • By the end of 1942, the British had definitely come out victorious in their immediate total confrontation with Indian nationalism. The remaining two years of the war passed without any political confrontation from within the country.
  • However Sumit Sarkar says that the British were victorious only because the war conditions had allowed them ruthless use of force. The British realized that they could not hold onto India by force after the war ended. From the point of view of the congress leaders, imprisonment and defeat brought certain benefits. Isolation in jail helped them avoid taking a pro or Japanese war issue especially when Subhash Chandra Bose’s INA appearance.
  • DD Kosambi said that the glamour of jail and concentration camp served to wipe out the so-so record of congress ministries in office, thereby restoring the full popularity of the organization of the masses.
  • The British ultimately came to realize that it was only wise to transfer power to Indian hands after the Quit India movement. The Congress Right got a new prestige while the Left was weakened in two ways- brutal repression exhausted many peasant bases built up through years of constructive work and radical Kisan Sabha activity and the left was now divided into two camps: that of socialists and followers of Bose on one side and the Communists on the other.

The INA (a short note)

  • There was a grand convergence of multiple streams of protest at the historical conjuncture of 1942. Subhash Chandra Bose felt that when the Second World War broke out, India should have taken as much advantage as she could from the empire’s weakest moment. In 1939, disciplinary action was taken against him and he was convinced that it was the right wing element that was stalling a mass movement against the Raj. Therefore he traveled across India to stir a movement but did not get an enthusiastic response.
  • In Bengal he along with the Muslim League decided to launch a civil disobedience movement to destroy the Holwell monument that stood in Calcutta as a reminder of the Black Hole tragedy. However before he could start it, he was arrested under on 3 July 1940, under the Defence of India Act. Later the monument was removed but he remained incarcerated. After threatening to start a hunger strike, he was released but kept under constant surveillance.
  • As the war progressed, Bose felt Germany was going to win – he believed it would be bifacial for India to join hands with the Axis powers (the enemy of the enemy). In 1941, he fled to Berlin. In Berlin, he met Hitler and Goebbels and was allowed to start his Azad Hind Radio and was handed over the Indian POW captured in North Africa to start a legion but nothing beyond that. He could not get Axis declaration in favour of Indian independence. The reverses faced by the Germans at Stalingrad didn’t help the cause either.
  • Meanwhile, in South Asia a new stage of action was being prepared for him as the Japanese were taking real interest in the cause of independence – Major Fuziwara was sent to Southeast Asia to organize expatriate Indians who were organizing themselves into the Indian Independence Leagues under the leadership of men like Pritam Singh. In 1941, Captain Mohan Singh agreed to cooperate with Fuziwara to raise an army with POWs to march alongside the Japanese to liberate India. Thus, the united independence league was born in South Asia as civilian political body having a controlling authority over the army.
  • By September, the INA was formally in existence. However the Japanese only agreed to see the INA as a subsidiary force as opposed to an allied army. As Mohan Singh insisted on an allied status, he was removed from command. By 1943, the first INA experience virtually collapsed.
  • The INA needed a new leader-and the Japanese thought it was time to bring Subhash Chandra Bose to Asia by negotiating with the Germans. Therefore, he arrived in May 1943 and took control of the situation by getting assurance of help and equal treatment from the Japanese. He established a Provisional Government of Free India, which was immediately recognized by Japan and 8 other countries. And he became the supreme commander of the army, The Azad Hind Fauj/Free India Army/Indian National Army.
  • The provisional government declared war on Britain and its chief ambition was to march (as an ally of the Japanese army) through Burma to Imphal to Assam where the Indian people were expect to join the rebellion and free their mother country. However the ill-fated Imphal campaign (8th March 1944) ended in disaster.
  • According to Joyce Lebra the reasons were many- the lack of air power, breakdown in the chain of command, disruption of the supply line, the strength of allied offensive, and the lack of Japanese cooperation. After Japanese surrender, Bose contemplated seeking help from USSR. The Japanese said they would help to transport him to Manchuria but he died on his way there on 18th August 1945 in an air crash.
  • After their surrender the 20000 INA soldiers were interrogated and sent back to India. Those who appeared to have been persuaded or misled by the INA or Japanese were classified as “whites” or “greys” and let off. But those who were found guilty were tagged as “blacks” and court martialled. Ten trials took place and the first one charged three officers- GS Dhillon, Shah Nawaz Khan, PK Sahgal were charged of treason, murder and abetment of murder. However, the government had miscalculated the political fall-out of the INA trials.
  • As the public learned about the details of the INA campaign they began to view these officers as patriots as opposed to traitors. The demand to discontinue the trials became stronger every day. The AICC meeting in September 1945 decided to defend the accused in the INA trial and announced the formation of a Defence Committee consisting legal experts-Asaf Ali, JL Nehru. The Congress made the INA issue a chief election issue.
  • The government remained firm-the first trial went on for two months and India erupted into a mass upheaval. All political parties were against the trials-the Muslim league, the congress, the RSS, Akali Dal etc. therefore the demonstrations were marked by communal harmony. 5th– 11th November-was celebrated as INA week and 12th November was INA day.
  • There were demonstrations and people from all walks of life joined these. Violence erupted on May 7 when police opened fire at Madura. Then from 21-24 November, rioting broke out in various parts of the country. However the three officers were found guilty. However on 3rd January 1946 there were set free by the commander-in-chief and this was celebrated all over the country.
  • What scared the British about the INA trials was the loyalty if the army-which in post Quit India days was the only reliable apparatus of rule. The army was getting politically conscious – they openly donated money to the INA relief fund and attended the protests in full uniform.
  • Therefore the forties were a turbulent decade. Contesting visions and agendas of emancipation existed within India’s national struggle against imperialism. The Indian National Army was one such vision.