Paper 2›Modern India›Rise of Gandhi & Gandhian Nationalism

Gandhian Nationalism

Contents Home Rule Movement............................................................................................................................2

World War 1....................................................................................................................................2
Failure of the Indian Councils Act, 1909.........................................................................................3
Role of prominent leaders ..............................................................................................................3

Leaders and their objectives...........................................................................................................3 Approach of the Home Rule Movement towards the masses............................................................4 Approach towards the British.............................................................................................................5 British response to the Home Rule Movement..................................................................................5 Significance of the Home Rule Movement.............................................................................................6 Practice Question................................................................................................................................7 Q Discuss the factors responsible for the Home Rule movement. Is it fair to consider Mahatma Gandhi as its greatest beneficiary?.................................................................................................7 Lucknow Session of the Congress (1916)................................................................................................8 Re-entry of Extremists into the Congress...........................................................................................8 Significance of the Lucknow session...................................................................................................9 Lucknow Pact between INC and Muslim League..................................................................................10 Factors that facilitated Lucknow Pact...............................................................................................10 Significance of the Lucknow Pact......................................................................................................11 Q. The Lucknow Pact of 1916 acted as a double edged sword for the national struggle. Discuss.

......................................................................................................................................................11 August Declaration/ Montague's Declaration/ Montague's Statement (1917)...................................13 Content of the statement.................................................................................................................13 Significance.......................................................................................................................................13 Limitations ........................................................................................................................................13 Practice Question..............................................................................................................................14 Q. Critically evaluate the August declaration made by Lord Montague in 1917. Did it represent a serious British commitment to the idea of self-rule in India?......................................................14

“Swaraj is my birthright, and I shall have it!" Bal Gangadhar Tilak”

During First World War, colonies faced the direct burden on their economy, society as well as the very soul. In India, the seeds of nationalism had already been sown in the nineteenth century. However, following the Surat split, there was no single political platform which could give voice to the nationalists. On the other hand, revolutionary extremism had its own limitations which could not become a popular mode of resistance. In such a scenario, the nationalist movement saw three major incidents -

 The Home Rule Movement  Lucknow Session of the Congress  Lucknow Pact Home Rule Movement The Home Rule Movement was started by Annie Besant and Bal Gangadhar Tilak with the objective of convincing the British to grant home rule or Swaraj to Indians through a mass constitutional struggle. It was inspired by the Irish Home Rule League movement.

Factors responsible for the Home Rule Movement:-

World War 1- Popular unrest was widespread due to shortage of essential goods

caused by the war.

 The few civil liberties enjoyed by Indians had been crushed as part of the British war time restrictions through a series of draconian acts such as

Indian Newspapers (incitement to offences) Act, 1908
Indian Press Act, 1910
Defence of India Act, 1915  In the backdrop of the war, conscription had been introduced in several areas. Young men and boys were being forcibly drafted into military service causing resentment.

Further, Indian conscripts were routinely mistreated and discriminated against.
The death toll among Indian soldiers was alarming and those who returned did so with deep wounds both physical and psychological.  Indians were also appalled at the level of British hypocrisy.

While the war was being waged in the name of defending freedom, the British were openly crushing Indian freedom.  Indian industrialists also supported the idea of Home Rule

They were concerned that following the end of the war, the British would move to undermine Indian industries in order to revive British manufacturing which had collapsed during the war.

Indian industries would lose all the gains made during the war and progress would be permanently derailed.

Failure of the Indian Councils Act, 1909

 It had failed to satisfy both the moderates and the extremists.

The Act had enlarged the scope of Constitutional autocracy by institutionalizing communalism. Thus, the nationalists were convinced of the need to overturn it.

Role of prominent leaders

 Tilak and Annie Besant played an active role in starting the Home Rule Movement.

 Tilak was released in 1914 and adopted a strategic position of loyalty towards the British in order to secure their goodwill. He also made an open appeal to the moderates for the common action.

 Annie Besant emerged as a link between the moderates and extremists by adopting a position and methods that were acceptable to both.

Leaders and their objectives  In 1914, both Tilak and Besant started working towards the twin objectives-

Securing re-entry of extremists into the Congress;
Convincing the Congress to launch the Home Rule League movement.  However, their attempts were frustrated due to the opposition of the moderate old guard mainly Pherozshah Mehta and Gopal Krishna Gokhale.

 In 1915, once again the two leaders tried to influence the Congress. By this time, both Pherozshah Mehta and Gokhale had passed away and resistance against the extremists was lower.

Thus, the Congress resolved to re-admit the extremists at its next session.
However, it did not agree to support the Home Rule Movement because-  Swaraj was not an acceptable demand for moderates who wanted incremental reforms to introduce responsible government.

 They considered it immoral to launch a mass movement against the British at a time when they were fighting for their survival.

 In 1916, Tilak and Annie Besant launched their separate Home Rule Leagues to demand Swaraj.

Tilak's League was launched in April, 1916 with its headquarters established in Poona. It had six branches that were organized and managed directly by Tilak. They were active in Maharashtra (except Bombay), Karnataka, the Central Provinces and Berar. It had three objectives-

 Attainment of Swaraj  Linguistic reorganization of Provinces  Spread of education among Indians in vernacular language.

 In a few months, the league was able to create a grassroot network of around thirty thousand volunteers.

Annie Besant established her league in September, 1916 with its headquarters at Adyar in Madras. It was a loosely organized League with more than two hundred branches. Her League covered the rest of India not covered by Tilak's league. It had only one objective-

 Attainment of Home rule which was defined as Dominion status within British rule as enjoyed by the white colonies of Ireland, Canada and Australia.

 Her league attracted twenty seven thousand grassroot volunteers.

 Even if the leaders had convinced the Congress to endorse the Home Rule Movement, it would have had little practical affect since the Congress completely lacked grassroots organisation or a volunteer network. In other words, it did not have any direct links with the masses.

Approach of the Home Rule Movement towards the masses  It adopted a unique approach towards the masses which represented a combination of extremist and moderate methods.

Like the extremists, the Home Rule leaders wanted to involve the masses in a major way but like the moderates, they wanted to educate the masses instead of political activism.

 While Tilak refrained from the old tactics of using religious symbols for mass mobilization, Annie Besant and other theosophists did so.

 Both the leaders and the Leagues committed themselves to the use of constitutional methods only.

The message of Home rule was popularised through the creation of a vast library movement, political meetings and rallies, newspapers including Tilak's Maratha and Kesari and Besant's New India and Commonweal and volunteers who travelled to the

interiors to spread the message of Swaraj and educate people about its independence.

 The leaders wanted to convince British that Swaraj was not simply the demand of a small minority of political elites rather it was the desire of ordinary Indians across the country.

Approach towards the British  The Home Rule Leagues desired the support of the moderates. Thus, they made the strategic decision not to uproot British rule outright.

 While working towards the ultimate objective of Swaraj, the movement adopted a pro-

British attitude with figures such as Tilak repeatedly professing loyalty to the British crown appealing to the youth to join the army.

 Unlike the Swadeshi movement, there were no calls for boycott, promotion of Swadeshi, or non-cooperation with British rule. Instead, the Home Rule Leaguers wanted to convince the British to grant home rule as it would be in their interests. They argued that a self-governed India guided by Indian leaders would support the British war effort whole heartedly and would thus be a much more effective ally.

Thus, the movement never tried to disrupt the functioning of the British government of India.

It simply tried to generate educated public opinion in favour of Swaraj and the British war effort simultaneously.

This tells us that the Home rule leaguers were serious about their commitments to the British.

British response to the Home Rule Movement  Despite every attempt being made by the leaders not to disrupt the British Raj, India's colonial administrators moved to ruthlessly suppress the home rule movement.

 Even though the movement remained purely non-violent and constitutional, the demand of Swaraj remained inconceivable to the British.

 They utilized war time restrictions on civil liberties to suppress the movement including the Indian Press Act, Defence of India Act, the sedition law, the Unlawful Assemblies Prevention law.

 Many prominent leaders were arrested-

Tilak was charged with sedition
Annie Besant was arrested at Madras. However, her arrest galvanised the nationalists into action and the mood turned radical. Fearing the beginning of a major program of boycott, the British were forced to release her.

 British continued to suppress the home rule movement in the name of protecting internal security. Peaceful assemblies were broken up with lathicharge and mass arrests.

The military was also kept on standby to suppress the movement in order to have a chilling effect upon it.

 However, the Home Rule Movement succeeded in reigniting the dormant nationalism of the Indian masses. It remains an important step in India's march towards independence.

Significance of the Home Rule Movement While the Home rule movement did not succeed in fulfilling its ultimate objective of Swaraj, it should not be considered a complete failure. In fact, home rule movement was immensely successful in many other respects  It played a significant role in reviving mass politics in India. Since the Surat split, there had been no mass movement till the launching of the Home Rule movement.

 The Surat split had given a body blow to the national movement as a whole. In this context, the Home rule movement acted as a huge shock which reignited India's dormant nationalism.

 The movement popularised the idea of Swaraj and instilled it to the national consciousness. Swaraj became the enduring objective of all Indian nationalists and would remain the ultimate demand for the remainder of the national movement.

 Home rule leagues performed the important task of spreading political awareness among the masses through their newspapers, meetings, speeches and volunteers.

They educated the masses about ideas such as Home rule, Swaraj, responsible government, constitutionalism, critical organization and civil liberties. By doing this, they succeeded in modernizing the Indian political consciousness to a significant degree.

 The Home rule movement also succeeded in exerting significant pressure upon the British forcing them to respond positively to the national movement.

 It played a direct role in the proclamation of the August declaration (1917), Montford reforms (1919).

 Home rule movement also paved the way for future nationalists. Not only did it revive the idea of Swaraj and mass national consciousness, it also materially benefitted next generation of nationalists specially Mahatma Gandhi.

 It prepared the framework for greater national unity involving moderates as well as extremists, Hindus as well as Muslims, Congress as well as Muslim league leaders and urban as well as rural masses. Mahatma Gandhi directly inherited a more unified India from the home rule movement.

The vast volunteer networks created by the Home rule movement remained in place even after its end. Mahatma Gandhi later enlisted these organisations to his own mass movements including the Rowlatt Satyagraha and the Khilafat non-

cooperation movement.

 The movement played a significant role in reviving the fortunes of the Congress by facilitating both the re-entry of the extremists and the Lucknow pact. Mahatma Gandhi could later use the strengthened Congress platform for much of his political acts.

 Lastly, the Home Rule movement provided a new stratagem to Mahatma Gandhi. It was not important to launch any mass movement from the Congress platform exclusively. Rather specific organisations may be created to organize mass movements. The Congress along with other parties would be forced to follow. This strategy had the added advantage of bringing different political outfits onto a common platform without necessarily rising internal friction. In other words, it could prove useful in creating a national coalition of diverse critical opinions united by a single objective.

Practice Question Q Discuss the factors responsible for the Home Rule movement. Is it fair to consider Mahatma Gandhi as its greatest beneficiary?

Home Rule movement was started by Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Annie Besant with the objective of gaining Swaraj for India. It became the logical demand after the nationalists had received the first taste of anti-British popular struggle during Swadeshi movement in which the idea of Swaraj had gained currency.

Factors responsible for the Home rule movement

 World War One had brought great degree of hardships for India-

Civil liberties had been crushed during the war time through draconian measures such as Indian Newspapers (incitement to offences) Act, 1908; Indian Press Act, 1910 and Defence of India Act, 1915.

In the backdrop of the war, conscription had been introduced in several areas bringing huge amount of discontentment among people.

Indians realised that while British were fighting for liberty and freedom, the same is being taken away from Indians. When soldiers coming back from the war saw it, they were further appalled.

Indian business community also supported the idea as they were concerned as the British would reinstate discriminatory business policies once the war time constraints would be over.

 Failure of the Indian Councils Act, 1909 to satisfy the demands of both moderates and extremists.

 Role of prominent leaders such as Tilak and Besant also needs to be acknowledged. They created a huge cadre of volunteers thus spreading the idea of Swaraj among masses.

The Home rule movement is credited for various reasons, one among which is its contribution to the rise of Mahatma Gandhi-

 It provided Mahatma Gandhi with a more unified India and a conscious cadre of volunteers ready to work for national struggle.

 It taught Mahatma Gandhi that the Congress platform is not necessary to launch any popular movement. He used this strategy in Non-cooperation- Khilafat movement.

 The movement paved the way for the revival of the Congress which ultimately helped Mahatma Gandhi.

The role of Home rule movement is immense in building momentum for the national movement at a time when any organizational structure was not upto the mark. This also prepared a fertile ground for Mahatma Gandhi but his own charisma and political uniqueness also deserves its own credit.

Lucknow Session of the Congress (1916)

Lucknow session of the INC was a remarkable step in the national movement as it brought the Congress out of its disarray and back into the movement after Surat split. The session is renowned for two major happenings-

 Re-entry of extremists into the INC  Lucknow Pact Re-entry of Extremists into the Congress At the Lucknow session in 1916, under the Presidency of Ambika Charan Majumdar, the Congress passed a resolution amending its constitution to pave the way for the re-entry of

extremists who had been earlier expelled from the Congress in the Surat split. Following factors were responsible for that-

 Role of prominent leaders such as Annie Besant and Bal Gangadhar Tilak should be recognized. Both had been campaigning rigorously for the re-entry of the extremist since

They wanted unified Congress to launch the Home Rule Movement. While they

were unsuccessful in convincing the Congress to support the Home rule movement, they did act as a bridge between moderates and extremists.

 Surat split had taken place in the backdrop of the Swadeshi movement as ideological differences regarding methods and objectives had erupted between the moderates and extremists. Almost a decade has passed since the old controversies become meaningless thus paving the way for reunification.

 Among the moderates, the biggest critiques of the extremists, Pherozeshah Mehta and GK Gokhale, passed away in 1915 thus removing the biggest roadblock thus facilitating the re-entry of extremists. Other moderate leaders such as Tej Bahadur Sapru and Surendranath Banerjee were open to the idea and realized the importance of the extremists in reviving link between the masses and the Congress.

 The Home rule movement had also demonstrated the ability that moderates and extremists were towards common constitutional objectives in a constructive way. It played an important role in convincing the moderates that it is possible for the two groups to cooperate on a more permanent basis.

 Both sides realized the Surat split had done immense damage to the national movement. The effectiveness of the Congress depended upon the common action of both groups and thus was time to repair the relationship.

Significance of the Lucknow session  The Surat split had resulted in the demise of the Swadeshi movement. However, re-

entry of extremists into the Congress strengthened the Home rule movement.

 The re-entry of extremists also revived the fortunes of the Congress which had been languishing in inactivity since the Surat split. Further, it also triggered the reawakening of Indian nationalism as a whole as it was followed by a series of mass movements  It also filled the British with a sense of trepidation forcing them to proclaim the August declaration and introduce the Montford reforms.

 The re-entry of extremists into the Congress also permanently ended domination of moderate within it. The Congress from this point forward became increasingly radical and aligned with extremists and later Gandhian movement.

 This development also paved the way for more direct confrontation with the colonial regime. As a result, the frequency and scale of such mass movements increased substantially following the re-entry of extremists.

 The re-entry of extremists also prepared the stage for the rise of Mahatma Gandhi and the democratization of the Congress.

Mahatma Gandhi's mass appeal and spiritual charisma would not have appealed to the moderate but was highly attractive for the extremists. Thus, by preparing the way for extremist donation within the Congress, developments at Lucknow in 1916 had prepared the ground for rise of Mahatma Gandhi as well.

The extremists wanted to engage masse at a deeper level. The logical conclusion of this agenda was the transformation of the Congress into a mass movement unto

itself. This was finally done in the Nagpur session of 1920 when Congress adopted a new policy which democratized and decentralized India. Such a development could not have been possible under the moderates.

 The extremists also evolved due to closer contact with moderates. To a certain degree, they shed their religious exclusivism and social conservatism adopting more inclusive and secular program which was visible during the home rule movement, Rowlatt Satyagraha and Khilafat-non-cooperation movement.

Lucknow Pact between INC and Muslim League At the joint session of the Congress and the Muslim League in Lucknow in 1916, the two parties signed the Lucknow Pact preparing the way cooperation between them. The important provisions of this pact were as follows-

 Both would hold their annual sessions jointly  Both will work jointly towards the common objective of Swaraj  Both would work to promote communal harmony  The Congress would not oppose the system of separate electorates  One-third seats in the Central legislature would be reserved for Muslims  If a bill affecting the cultural interests of a minority community was opposed by three-

fourth of that communities' representatives in the legislature, Congress and Muslim League would oppose it as well. This came to be known as minority veto.

Factors that facilitated Lucknow Pact  Within both Congress and the League, the change in leadership had brought the two parties together-

The-entry of extremists into the Congress signaled the revival of anti-colonial all India secular mass struggle.

On the other hand, younger league leaders such as Jinnah, Hakim Ajmal Khan, Maulana Abdul Bari, Maulana Hasrat Mohani and the Ali brothers espoused the values of modernity, nationalism and secularism in both social relations and politics.

Thus, they were naturally aligned with the Congress.

 The First World War brought immense misery to Indians. Both Hindus and Muslims were adversely affected. The apathy of the British towards Indian suffering enraged both communities and convinced them of the need to overcome internal differences and provide a unified front to the British.

 Home Rule Movement- it did not utilize any communal rhetoric to mobilise the masses.

Its inclusive appeal attracted members of both communities.

It also demonstrated that it was possible for Hindus and Muslims to work together.
Further, movement had witnessed participation from leaders of both the Congress as well as League.

 Lastly, the movement succeeded in modernizing vast political consciousness atleast to some degree. Its program of political education succeeded in convincing bulk of both communities about the importance of prioritizing the national interest over the communal interest.

 These developments prepared the framework for greater national unity of which the Lucknow pact was a shining example.

Significance of the Lucknow Pact Q. The Lucknow Pact of 1916 acted as a double edged sword for the national struggle. Discuss.

Lucknow Pact between the Congress and the Muslim League was an important development in the history of India's nationalist struggle. In the short term it boosted the nationalist consciousness and pressurized the British. However, the long term consequences of the Lucknow Pact were decidedly negative. This paradox may be appreciated while looking at strengths and limitations of the Lucknow pact separately.

Strengths of the Lucknow Pact  The Lucknow pact strengthened national movement by forging political unity and creating a secular coalition of Indians against British rule.

 It resulted in visible religious harmony and neutralized divide and rule politics atleast in the short term.

 The communal harmony engendered through the Lucknow pact broadened the social base of the national movement. Muslims had largely remained aloof from nationalist mass politics. They participated in large numbers during the Home rule movement, Rowlatt Satyagraha and Khilafat non-cooperation.

 Subsequently, the British came under intense pressure forcing them to respond in the form of August declaration and Montford reforms.

Limitations  In the larger scheme of things, the pact proved to be short sighted. The Muslim League's illegitimate position on dangerous issues such as separate electorates and minority veto were accepted and legitimized by the Congress. In the future, the Congress would not be able to clearly walk back from its position.

 As communal harmony broke down, the Congress-League relationship also suffered.

Thus, in effect, that was a short lived affair.

 The pact also provided legitimacy to the Muslim League as he representative of the Muslim League. The Congress had entered the pact with the league as equals. More disturbing was the fact that the pact presented not simply political agreement between the two political parties but social pact between the Hindus and Muslims. Therefore, Congress had unwittingly succeeded in painting itself as the representative of the Hindus.

 The Pact essentially legitimized the principle of communal politics and representation by virtually accepting the league as an advocate of Muslim interests. In the future, new leaders and parties would emerge to represent the interests of other communities. It would fracture the social and political fabric of India leading to permanent divisions. This division was fully exploited by the British through their divide and rule policy to preserve British rule and stunt the growth of the Indian nation.

 Mutual differences between Congress and Muslim league on core issues such as separate electorate, minority veto would lead to constant political friction causing communal tension and disharmony.

Conclusion The first visible breach in Congress and Muslim League occurred in 1928 over disagreement over the provisions of the Nehru report. Following the end of the Quit India movement, these differences took the shape of a constitutional deadlock that could not be resolved politically. Constant friction emerging from the breakdown of the Lucknow Pact strengthened the two-nation theory creating the legacy of violence suffering and partition.

August Declaration/ Montague's Declaration/ Montague's Statement (1917)

It was a statement made by Lord Montague (Secretary of State for India) in August 1917 from the floor of the British House of Commons regarding Britain's future policy with respect to India.

Content of the statement  The ultimate objective of the ongoing set of Constitutional reforms of India was to prepare Indians for responsible self-government in the future.

Significance  It was the victory for the nationalist demand for Swaraj as it was accepted in principle by the Government.

 It represented the success of the Home Rule Movement, Revolutionary pressure and Lucknow session.

 The demand of Swaraj became a form of protected speech as it could no longer be termed as seditious because the government had itself accepted it.

 Nationalists could hold the government accountable for not making sufficient progress towards Swaraj or for derailing it.

 August declaration also shifted the political discourse from simply demanding Swaraj to now defining it. Gradually, as the national movement evolved, demand for Swaraj became more comprehensive evolving ultimately to

Poorna Swaraj
Socio-economic freedom
Cultural decolonization
Legal, political and social equality
Individual rights
Civic freedoms
Minority and cultural rights  The future constitutional reforms would be scrutinized on the basis of the evolving idea of Swaraj. Thus, constant program for reform could be sustained.

Limitations August declaration was a proclamation that the British never intended to uphold. It is also reflected in the contents of the declaration itself because of the following reasons-

 It lacked specific details and definitions regarding the idea of self-rule.

 The British also did not make any concrete moves to introduce Swaraj.

 There was no clarity on the methods or principles on which Swaraj was to be granted.

 No clear deadline or roadmap was given towards the grant of the Swaraj.

All this shows that the declaration was only a lip service to the Indians and British were never serious about devolution of powers.

Moreover, British attitude towards Indians in the near future such as Rowlatt Satyagraha, Jallianwallah Bagh Massacre, Khilafat issue, and Dyarchy saga show their reactionary and anti-India approach. They wanted to preserve their rule; considered Indians unfit for rule; and wanted to frustrate, delay and derail the national movement at all stages.

This led to distrust among Indians regarding British intentions and led to continuous national resistance. Any such offer during the Second World War was looked at with skepticism by the nationalist leaders.

Practice Question Q. Critically evaluate the August declaration made by Lord Montague in

Did it represent a serious British commitment to the idea of self-rule in

India?

August declaration was made by Lord Montague, the Secretary of State for India in August 1917 from the floor of British House of Commons with the objective of implementing such constitutional reforms in India which would prepare it for responsible self-government in the future.

Significance of the declaration  It was the victory for demand of Swaraj made by the nationalists. Revolutionary extremists and Home rule movement had created an atmosphere forcing the government to accept the demand for self-rule in principle.

 Now since the British had themselves mentioned the word 'self-rule', the demand for Swaraj could no longer be treated as sedition furthering the intensification of the demand.

 Now the discourse shifted from simply demanding a vague self-rule to defining its various dimensions such as socio-economic freedom, cultural decolonization, civic rights etc.

 The future constitutional reforms would be judged from the benchmark of 'self-

government' and thus the sustained resistance began gradually around the issue of 'Poorna Swaraj'.

However, in spite of some progressive features, the declaration represented the lack of seriousness among the British-

 It lacked specific details and definitions regarding the idea of self-rule.

 The British also did not make any concrete moves to introduce Swaraj.

 There was no clarity on the methods or principles on which Swaraj was to be granted.

 No clear deadline or roadmap was given towards the grant of the Swaraj.

This lackadaisical attitude of the British shows that the declaration was merely a lip service to the Indians and British were never serious about their commitments.

Although, the immediate British response was reactionary and contrary to the stated demand, nonetheless nationalist demand entered the mainstream of both Indian and British politics and a sustained resistance began against the British rule.

Contents Gandhi in South Africa............................................................................................................................2 Gandhian thought...................................................................................................................................3 Religious thought................................................................................................................................3 Political thought..................................................................................................................................3 Gandhi's arrival in India..........................................................................................................................4 Gandhi's early Satyagrahas in India........................................................................................................5 Champaran Satyagraha (1917): First Civil disobedience ....................................................................5 Issues...............................................................................................................................................5 Gandhiji's response.........................................................................................................................5 Outcome .........................................................................................................................................6 Ahmedabad Mill strike (1918): First Hunger strike.............................................................................6 Issue................................................................................................................................................6 Gandhiji's response.........................................................................................................................6 Outcome .........................................................................................................................................6 Kheda Satyagraha (1918): First Non-cooperation ..............................................................................7 Issue................................................................................................................................................7 Gandhi's response...........................................................................................................................7 Outcome .........................................................................................................................................7 Significance of the three Satyagrahas.....................................................................................................8 Criticism ..............................................................................................................................................8 Counter-arguments.............................................................................................................................9 Practice Question..............................................................................................................................10 Q. Throw light on the entry of Gandhi into nationalistic politics. Discuss the significance of his three early satyagrahas.................................................................................................................10

By the end of the first decade of the twentieth century, the political movement in India was rather dull. Congress had already split in 1907 at Surat and British repression along with the policy of carrot and stick had weakened the movement. However, by the beginning of the second decade, the movement started regaining momentum. Revolutionary extremism and Home rule movement had intensified the struggle. Still, the greatest development of the period proved to be the entry of Mahatma Gandhi in Indian national struggle. Let us examine the transition of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi to Mahatma Gandhi, his philosophy and early experiments in this chapter.

Gandhi in South Africa  Mahatma Gandhi went to South Africa in 1893 as an advocate to represent his client and Gujarati origin friend Dadabhai Abdullah and his company in a legal matter in South Africa.

 In South Africa, under British rule, an informal racial segregation known as Apartheid was being followed at that time. Apartheid was the legal and social division of different racial groups. All the schools, parks, buses, toilets, cinemas, theatres, restaurants, offices, living quarters etc. were racially segregated.

 Although African societies consisted of Whites, blacks, coloured and Asians (two-third were Indians), the social division was between Whites and non-whites.

 Gandhi experienced this racial segregation in a train ride from Durban to Pretoria and even again in a cart ride when he was not allowed to sit in the first class despite having the ticket. The humiliation made him realise the gravity of the situation and he also experienced first-hand the implicit and explicit face of 'Colonial supremacy'.

 This led him to set up Indian Natal Congress in 1894 in order to generate sympathetic opinion in the Indian community living in Natal. The Congress used to organise meetings, made representations to provincial and union governments of South Africa and attempted to shape public opinion among both Indians and others through his newspaper Indian Opinion.

 Alongwith these, Mahatma Gandhi also established Phoenix ashram and Tolstoy farm to develop his own social philosophy, political ideology and further strategy. It was here that he got to experience his unique philosophy of Satyagraha.

 This experiment emboldened him to establish Passive Resistance Association in 1907 through which his Satyagraha phase began to start manifesting. Boycott, promotion of Swadeshi, non-cooperation and civil disobedience were used to overcome certain problems Indian community was facing.

 He not only challenged various problematic and discriminatory laws such as Marriage law, Asiatic Registration bill, Natal Disenfranchisement bill and poll tax but also succeeded in the legal fight against these bills.

 Apart from this, he established Natal Indian Ambulance Corps during Boer War (1899-

1902). Although the war was fought between two 'white groups' i.e. British and the Afrikaners (Dutch who had settled in 15 th-16 th centuries), Mahatma Gandhi led this humanitarian initiative to provide medical assistance to the British soldiers. While recognizing his contributions, he was awarded 'Kaiser-i-Hind' by the British.

Gandhian thought Religious thought  God and truth is the same thing - he believed that truth and the God are the same thing. The word truth or 'satya' is derived from 'Sat', which means 'being'. Nothing is or exists in reality except truth. That is why sat or truth is perhaps the most important name of God. He suggests that it is more correct to say that Truth is God, than to say that God is truth.

 Spirit or soul of a religion is more important than its body/form - he believed in following the religious values rather than just creating an outward impression of following a religion.

According to him, the soul of any religion lies in its core values rather than its physical attributes such as costumes etc.

 He believed that different religions are simply different paths to realize the same destination - since the essential values of various religions are same, any tangible or intangible difference is more virtual than real.

Political thought  Mahatma Gandhi was inspired by the political philosophies of John Ruskin, HD Thoreau and Leo Tolstoy. However, the major chunk of his political philosophies comes from his own experiments.

 Political thoughts of Mahatma Gandhi include -

Satyagraha i.e. 'to search for the truth' was his political philosophy and strategy for mass struggle. Its important components were non-violence and truthfulness which, according to Gandhi, were paramount in the search for truth.

His adherence to and insistence upon the truth was without the fear of consequences, making God as a witness, to change the heart and mind of the opponent through self-suffering. He believed that man by nature is good, so in order to change the heart and mind of an opponent one should endure 'self-suffering'.

Trusteeship was Mahatma Gandhi's solution for class struggle. He believed that class cooperation and harmony will increase if the affluent class voluntarily let go of some of its wealth and privileges to establish class harmony. He believed that it will also increase national unity.

Sarvodaya and Antyodaya - Sarvodaya means nobody should be left behind and that everyone's participation should be ensured in various aspects of public life vis-à- vis politics, economy and religious.

Antyodaya means upliftment of the people living at the margins of the society. He believed that humanity is like a great ocean in which the core is constituted of elite people who are few but have huge share in public affairs whereas there are people at the margins of the margins who are unrepresented.

So the idea of the Antyodaya speaks for the rise of the people at the margins of the margins. It is also known as Gandhi's Talisman as he famously said that whenever one is confused for the consequences of his actions, he should think from the point of view of its impact on the last person in the society.

The idea of Swaraj- Mahatma Gandhi's Swaraj does not simply mean political freedom but it also comprised of social, economic, ideological and cultural liberation. This was a comprehensive definition of Swaraj for the common masses.

Gandhi's arrival in India  Mahatma Gandhi came to India on 9 th January, 1915. His political guru Gopal Krishna Gokhale advised him not to enter the Indian politics directly and rather to travel across the country first. Over the next two years, Gandhi worked on this advice travelling to every corner of the country.

 He was already a known figure owing to his achievements in South Africa and so he attended some of the meetings of Home rule leagues as well but never participated directly on any political activity until he got to know about the ground realities.

 His direct contact with Indians from various regions and diverse background gave him an innate ability to connect with the masses later allowing him to emerge as a true mass leader.

 It was during his journey that Raj Kumar Shukla, a farmer from Champaran asked him to visit Champaran in Bihar and sought his help for the problems they were facing. He was finally prepared to test his strategy of non-violent Satyagraha against British rule in India.

 During 1917-18, he launched three regional satyagrahas upon specific regional issues.

These could be considered as mini experiments of his strategy before they could be replicated at a grander stage. These include - 1) Champaran Satyagraha, 2) Ahmedabad Mill strike, 3) Kheda Satyagraha.

Gandhi's early Satyagrahas in India Champaran Satyagraha (1917): First Civil disobedience Issues  The Indigo farmers from Champaran wanted freedom from forced indigo plantation under the 'teenkathia system'.

 Under this system, indigo farmers were legally forced to cultivate indigo on 3/20 th of their land through legal contracts enforced upon them by the British planters with the help of local authorities and courts.

Since indigo cultivation is highly capital intensive, the contracts provided for arrangement of loans for the farmers by the planters. In return they would have to supply a fixed quantity of indigo to the planters.

 The farmers wanted freedom from the teenkathia system due to the following problems-

Indigo cultivation had become uncomfortable due to rising competition from synthetic German dyes. The planters were shifting losses onto the farmers thus increasing their indigo demands.

It was also leading to the problem of rural indebtedness.
Indigo cultivation also led to shortage of food crops diverting valuable agriculture land away from it.

It was also harmful for soil fertility reducing productivity of agriculture.
It also caused imbalances due to its water intensive and polluting nature. It also disrupted the labour market due to its high labour intensity.  European planters wanted heavy monetary compensation to dissolve the contracts but the farmers were not in a position to pay.

Gandhiji's response  As we read, he was approached by a local farmer Rajkumar Shukla to visit Champaran.

Initially, he asked his other companions to lead a fact finding mission in Champaran.

These involved Anugraha Narayan Sinha, Dr. Rajendra Prasad, Mazhur ul Haq, Narhari Parekh, Bhulabhai Desai, JB Kriplani.

 Once he was convinced that the issues of the farmers were real, he advised them not to cultivate indigo thus violating their contracts.

 Morally, it was justified on the grounds that these forced contracts were unjust and illegitimate. By upholding them the farmers would be participating in injustice.

Strategically, it was meant to pressurize the British planters and the authorities who knew that quick solution would have to be found. Gandhiji demanded the establishment of an inquiry commission and simultaneously used the press to criticize the authorities and gain national sympathy for the farmers.

Outcome  Ultimately, indigo commission was set up with Gandhiji as the member.

It concluded that the contracts forcing farmers to cultivate indigo were illegal since they violated basic principles of English law.

It recommended that no farmer should be forced to cultivate the crop against their wishes and the planters' demand for monetary compensation was invalid. With this, Gandhi's first act of civil disobedience in India was a resounding success.

Ahmedabad Mill strike (1918): First Hunger strike Issue  The mill workers were unhappy due to discontinuation of plague bonus that had been in place since the outbreak of Bubonic plague in the Surat-Ahmedabad belt in 1916.

 The textile mill owners had discontinued it because of two reasons-

The revival of British textiles industry following Germany's capitulation in World War One resulting in higher competition.

End of the plague accompanying labour shortage.

Gandhiji's response  He advised the workers to go on an indefinite strike and he himself went on a hunger strike to pressurize the mill owners and draw national attention to the problems of the workers.

 He also outlined more comprehensive demand program for the workers including

50% bonus
Wage hikes
Improvement in living and working conditions
Establishment of industrial disputes resolution tribunal Outcome  Mill owners ultimately agreed to set up a tribunal which awarded

35% bonus
Fixed working hours and wages
Safety and hygiene protocols  Mahatma Gandhi called off the strike and advised the workers to accept the award.

 This was because he wanted to strike a compromise between both sides as they involved Indian interests. This was an early example of Gandhian trusteeship and class cooperation.

Kheda Satyagraha (1918): First Non-cooperation Issue  The farmers at Kheda wanted exemption from land revenue due to massive crop failure urging from a drought.

 Revenue officials, on the other hand, continued demanding revenue in full even though their own famine code recommended the automatic suspension of collection to bring crop failures in access of 50%.

Gandhi's response  He sent Sardar Patel and Indu Lal Yagnik on a fact finding mission. After meeting the peasants, they reported back validating their problems.

 Gandhiji advised the peasants not to cooperate with the revenue officials. He also asked them to prepare for lengthy campaign of civil disobedience.

 Gandhiji's strategy was to compromise the revenue officials, attract national sympathy for the farmer and expose the British hypocrisy. Simultaneously, he wanted Indians to retain the moral high-ground by remaining entirely non-violent and giving an opportunity to the British to accept their demands.

Outcome  Ultimately, the government issued internal circular instructing revenue officials to collect revenue only from those peasants who were in a position to pay.

 Mahatma Gandhi advised the peasants to resume cooperation with the tax authorities and call off their protests. He did not persist towards complete victory due to the following reasons-

He considered it the moral responsibility of capable farmers to pay their share of the taxes

He wanted a demonstrable victory that was quickly attained.
He did not want to test the British patience since it may have resulted in the evaporation of ay gains made by the farmers.

 Thus, once again, Mahatma Gandhi had succeeded in demonstrating strength of non-

violent Satyagraha.

Significance of the three Satyagrahas  It was the early political expression of Gandhian philosophy in India. It demonstrated the strength of non-violent Satyagraha.

 Gandhiji was also propelled to the national limelight.

 The success of the satyagrahas filled Indians with enthusiasm. It increased Gandhiji's popularity and attached masses with him for future struggles as well.

 He forged a balance between different classes without taking sides for any particular class and rather keeping his approach issue-centric. This measured strategy won the confidence of the nationalist leadership as well as the common masses.

 His success and style of protest removed the fear of British repression from the minds of ordinary Indians.

 He also demonstrated the ability to transform mundane issues and disputes to a moral, righteous and religious struggle.

 He also displayed the ability to publicise even local issues.

 These three satyagrahas announced the beginning of the Gandhian phase of the Indian national movement.

Criticism  Colonial historians claimed that Mahatma Gandhi was a shrewd political operator who used his religious image and spiritual charisma to 'hijack' the national leadership.

 Marxist historians, on the other hand, have leveled the allegations that Mahatma Gandhi deliberately used his image as a miracle worker to transform himself into an ideologue. This, according to them, reduced the democratic credentials of the movement.

They accuse that Mahatma Gandhi tactically made the movement to revolve around him and thus did not allow any other leader to shine.

The whole Gandhian movement is described by them as a demagoguery which flourished in the absence of a strong anti-British intellectual base.

The also allege that Gandhian ideology was never actually meant to serve the interests of the working class. It was always meant to preserve the Bourgeoisie and landed classes. His idea of trusteeship and class cooperation were never meant to succeed. Rather, they were simply meant to create the impression of goodwill

between the classes so that the real interest of the working classes could not be fulfilled.

Gandhi's cooperation and rather acceptance of caste system, according to them, only decelerated the progress of Indian society. Counter-arguments  Colonial and Marxist historians were inherently biased against Mahatma Gandhi.

 Since colonial historians were against the very idea of the national struggle so there delegitimizing of Mahatma Gandhi is not surprising. They would discredit any movement or idea which led to the independence.

 Marxists, on the other hand, looked at the movement only through the lens of the class struggle. They tried to discredit Gandhi because of his attempt at class solidarity and for successfully leading a multi-class movement.

 Contrary to these criticisms, it was Gandhi's effective leadership which could maintain cohesion and unity of action.

To be a good leader, Gandhiji needed to put himself in a position of leadership.
Greatest gains were made under his leadership.  In response to the accusation of demagoguery, it should be understood that Gandhi is regarded as one of the greatest leaders in human history for his own unique style.

Secondly, Gandhiji never personally engaged in demagoguery. Rather it was the superstitious Indian masses that ascribed supernatural abilities upon him.

Thirdly, the inherent flaw with the Marxism itself should be understood. It has itself failed on several fronts owing to a rigid class concept.

Therefore, Gandhi should be credited for giving a new ideology to the world.

 In words of Ravindra Kumar, Gandhiji enlisted loyalty of different social groups for the Congress and thus it became the umbrella under which almost all the shades of Indian nationalism found their place.

While concluding the discussion, it can be said that these three early satyagrahas of Gandhi laid the foundation of Gandhian mass politics that redefined the Indian nationalism.

Practice Question Q. Throw light on the entry of Gandhi into nationalistic politics. Discuss the significance of his three early satyagrahas.

Mahatma Gandhi's entry into Indian national movement was a millennial step which not only contributed greatly to the freedom of India but also gave an original political thought to the world with the unique feature of mass participation.

Gandhiji's entry into nationalistic politics was through three satyagrahas that revolved around local issues-

 Champaran Satyagraha (1917) (first civil disobedience) - under 'teenkathia system', farmers of the region were forced by the planters to cultivate indigo on 3/20 th of their respective land. They had to supply a fixed quantity of indigo to the planters who controlled its prices on the one hand and on the other hand, it was leading to food shortages due to diversion of land.

Gandhiji asked farmers to violate their contracts and not to cultivate the indigo.
Under pressure, British had to set up indigo commission with Gandhiji as the member and forced indigo cultivation was abandoned.

 Ahmedabad Mill Strike (1918) (First hunger strike) - The mill discontinued the plague bonus at a time when inflation was on the rise. As workers approached Mahatma Gandhi, he asked them to go on an indefinite strike and he himself went on a hunger strike.

Gandhi also realized that mill owners were also under pressure and thus a mutually acceptable rise in bonus alongwith better working hours and safety and hygiene protocols were agreed upon.

 Kheda Satyagraha (1918) (First non-cooperation) - The farmers in Kheda were demanding exemptions from land revenue due to massive crop failure owing to drought.

However, revenue officials continued demanding full revenue.
Gandhiji asked peasants not to cooperate with revenue officials.
Ultimately, government asked officials to tax only those peasants who were capable. Significance of the three Satyagrahas  It was the early political expression of Gandhian philosophy in India. It demonstrated the strength of non-violent Satyagraha.

 Gandhiji was also propelled to the national limelight.

 The success of the satyagrahas filled Indians with enthusiasm. It increased Gandhiji's popularity and attached masses with him for future struggles as well.

 His success and style of protest removed the fear of British repression from the minds of ordinary Indians.

 He also demonstrated the ability to transform mundane issues and disputes to a moral, righteous and religious struggle.

 He also displayed the ability to publicise even local issues.

 These three satyagrahas announced the beginning of the Gandhian phase of the Indian national movement.

These three satyagrahas prepared the blueprint for nationalists all over the world to stand against a cruel opponent in a disproportionate struggle. Even till the very end of the Indian independence, these strategies were used by Gandhi in one or the other way.

Contents Rowlatt Act..............................................................................................................................................2 Rowlatt Satyagraha.................................................................................................................................2 Jallianwallah Bagh Massacre...................................................................................................................3 Montford Reforms/ Montague-Chelmsford Reforms/ Government of India Act, 1919 ........................4 Provisions............................................................................................................................................4 Critical Evaluation...............................................................................................................................6 Practice Question................................................................................................................................8 Q. Discussing the merits and limitations of the Montford reforms, discuss their impact on Indian society.............................................................................................................................................8 Khilafat Movement...............................................................................................................................10 The leaders and their strategy..........................................................................................................10 Practice Question..............................................................................................................................11 Q. What were the major factors behind the Khilafat movement? Discuss its significance in Indian history................................................................................................................................11 Non-Cooperation Movement ...............................................................................................................13 Merger with the Khilafat Movement................................................................................................13 Practice Question..............................................................................................................................16 Q. How did the emergence of popular politics contribute to the growth of communalism in India? Illustrate in the context of the Montford Reforms and the Non-cooperation movement.

......................................................................................................................................................16 Programmes of the non-cooperation Movement ............................................................................17 Salient features of non-cooperation.................................................................................................17 Withdrawal of the Non-cooperation movement..............................................................................18 Interpretation of the withdrawal......................................................................................................19 Impact of the withdrawal..................................................................................................................19 Swarajist controversy............................................................................................................................21 Practice Question..............................................................................................................................23 Q. Discuss the features of the Swarajist movement which emerged within the national struggle following the withdrawal of the non-cooperation movement. Highlight its significance for the national movement.......................................................................................................................23

Following the end of the First World War, India witnessed a strong wave of rising post-war discontent with British rule. Indians had whole-heartedly supported the British war effort, quietly suffering war-time hardships. They had been promised rich rewards for their loyalty.

However, the trust reposed by Indians in the British guarantees and promises was shattered by the '1919 wrongs'-

Rowlatt Act
Jallianwallah Bagh Massacre
Montford reforms
Khilafat wrongs Indians felt betrayed by these wrongs and vented their discontent by reviving mass nationalist activity which ramped up throughout 1919 to finally culminate in the Khilafat-

Non Cooperation Movement.

Rowlatt Act

On the basis of the recommendations of the Rowlatt Committee (Sedition Committee), the British Government of India passed the Rowlatt Act in March, 1919.

This act came as a huge shock to the Indian nationalists since it represented a major violation of Indian civil liberties.

It made the war-time restrictions on Indian freedoms permanent.
The Defence of India Act, 1915 had provided for the preventive detention of Indians on the basis of the suspicion of sedition.

During the war, the preventive detention provision of the Defence of India Act had been used widely to suppress not only revolutionary, but also peaceful and mainstream nationalist activity.

The Rowlatt act made this provision permanent and applicable during peace time.

It provided that any Indian could be held without trial for a period of two years on suspicion of seditious activity/conspiracy against the government. Rowlatt Satyagraha

India leaders of all political hues condemned the Rowlatt Act as some Indian members resigned from the Indian Legislative Council (Madan Mohan Malviya, Mazhar ul-Haq,

M.A. Jinnah etc.)

Gandhi recognized the revolutionary nature of the situation and organised Rowlatt Satyagraha.

He set up the Satyagraha Sabha to organise the Rowlatt Satyagraha because the Congress lacked the organizational capability to do so.

Mahatma Gandhi efficiently enroped the volunteers of BG Tilak's and Annie Besant's Home Rule Leagues and GK Gokhale's Servants of India Society.

He gave the call for an All India strike on 6 th April, 1919.

He organised massive Sarva Dharma Prarthana Sabhas across India.
Civil Disobedience and courting arrest.
Fasting and prayer.

The response to the call was electrifying.

Cities across India witnessed massive demonstrations, strikes and violation of curfew laws. Jallianwallah Bagh Massacre In Punjab, public anger against the British reached fever-pitch.

It had borne the brunt of war-time hardships and the public confidence had reached the breaking point.

Further, Punjab represents the core region of the Indian revolutionary sentiment (Ghadar).

Instances of violence occurred in cities such as Lahore, Amritsar, and Sialkot. On the 12 th April, 1919, the British imposed martial law. However, the development did not get much publicity.

The local leaders of the Rowlatt Satyagraha, Saifuddin Kitchlew and SP Malik were arrested.

On Baisakhi day, 1919 (13 th April), the people of Amritsar gathered publicly across Punjab for celebrations. One such gathering took place in the Jallianwallah Bagh of Amritsar. The religious congregants were also joined by the political activists protesting the arrest of leaders.

Brigadier Dyer blocked off the only exit and ordered his troops to open fire. Thousands died with the official figure standing at 379.

The national conscience was violently shaken by this barbarity.
Ravindra Nath Tagore renounced his knighthood in disgust while Mahatma Gandhi returned his 'Kaiser-i-Hind' medal.

Further, Mahatma Gandhi on 19 th April, 1919, withdrew the Rowlatt Satyagraha.

He said that he had made an Himalayan blunder by giving the powerful tool of non- violent Satyagraha to the people who were not sufficiently trained in it,

At the same time, he indicated major mass movement in the near future by saying that the further cooperation with the satanic regime was no longer possible.

The British instituted the Disorder Inquiry Commission/ Hunter Commission, with seven members, out of which three were Indians, to investigate the Jallianwallah Bagh massacre.

While Brigadier Dyer was found responsible for the loss of life, and was stripped of command, no criminal charges were drafted.

In Britain, Dyer was received as a hero. Montford Reforms/ Montague-Chelmsford Reforms/ Government of India Act, 1919

The August Declaration, 1917 had promised constitutional reforms, designed to introduce responsible government.

On the basis of this declaration, Montague and Chelmsford prepared the Montford Report (1918). Its recommendations were codified in the Government of India Act, 1919.

The Home Rule Movement, re-entry of extremists in the Congress, success of three early

Gandhian Satyagrahas and the fallout of the Rowlatt Satyagraha along with the additional outrage caused by the Jallianwallah Bagh massacre, had greatly intensified nationalism. Thus, the government was compelled to introduce the Montford reforms as a measure to pacify nationalists.

Provisions

It introduced the bicameral legislature at the centre.

The lower house was known as the Central Legislative Assembly

145 members (104 elected, 41 nominated)
Term- 3 years.

The upper house known as the Council of States

60 members (36 elected, 24 nominates)
Term- 5 years.

The state-wise allocation of seats in the central legislature was on the basis of

importance.

For example, financial importance for Bombay and military importance for Punjab.

It provided for two legislative lists-

Central list and the Provincial list
Residuary powers lay with the Governor General

It also introduced executive dyarchy at the Provincial level.

Subjects of provincial administration were further divided into the Reserved and Transferred lists.

The Reserved subjects were administered by the Governor on the aid and advice of the Executive Council.

The transferred subjects were administered by the Governor on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.

At the Provincial level, a partially responsible government was introduced but the

concept of responsible government was completely missing at the centre.

Legislators had the power to-

Ask questions and supplementaries
Pass adjournment motions
Vote on parts of budget

The principle of direct election was introduced but voting qualifications remained in

place.

Women got the right to vote for the first time.
3/8 members of the Governor General's Executive Council would be Indians.
An Indian High Commissioner, stationed at London, would represent the Indian

government.

The expenses and salaries of the Secretary of State for India and his India Council would

be borne by the British exchequer.

Elected governments could be removed by the Governors arbitrarily
In the provincial legislatures, the introduction of a bill needed the prior approval of the

Governor.

The Governor could also-

Veto bills
Restore cuts to the budgets

The Governor General of India also had the power to-

Certify bills
Restore cuts
Make ordinances for all of British India

Separate electorates were granted to-

Sikhs
Anglo-Indians
Indian Christians

Critical Evaluation The Montford reforms were directly responsible for the launch of non-cooperation. It obviously had failed to fulfill nationalist aspirations. However, before discussing their limitations, its positive aspects must be noted-

The legislature was enlarged giving greater representation.
The proportion of elected members was raised, thus strengthening the concept of popular sovereignty.

The introduction of direct elections strengthened representative democracy.
The democratic exercise became accessible to a greater chunk of Indians with the broadening of the franchise.

Giving the right to vote to women was the first step towards ensuring political equality among the genders.

The financial and executive control of the legislature over the government was strengthened by giving it the right to vote on parts of the budget and pass adjournment motions.

For the first time, the element of responsible government was introduced in India with the presence of popularly elected ministers in the provinces.

The major source of the 'Drain of wealth' was plugged by separating expenses to the Secretary of state for India and his office by the Indian budget

The introduction of bicameralism at the centre was a step towards decentralisation and federalisation of the government.

Finally, legislative devolution between the centre and the states laid the foundations of Indian federalism which emerge fully under the Government of India Act, 1935.

Limitations

Despite having these positive aspects, the Montford reforms are remembered largely as a tool used by the British to subvert Indian nationalism. Their limitations far outweigh any strengths and its content reveals the duplicitous intent behind these reforms.

The most controversial provision of this act was the introduction of dyarchy in the provinces.

Dyarchy provided for impractical and unscientific division of administrative subjects between elected and appointed officials.

Most important subjects were kept in the reserved list while those which depended upon the control of the reserved subjects, were put in the transferred list. For example, reserved list included subjects like finance, police, power and education.

Whereas the transferred list included subjects like health, education, industry and agriculture.

The system was designed to create constant friction and fail. By doing this, the British wanted to demonstrate that Indians were unfit to rule.

The Montford reforms further expanded the apparatus of separate electorates thus widening the scope of divide and rule and sowing further social divisions among Indians.

While the franchise had been expanded, voting restrictions remained in place. Only three percent of Indian had the right to vote. As such, the bulk of the ordinary Indian masses remained disenfranchised.

While the proportion of elected members had been increased, the legislatures continued to have large number of nominated members thus diluting the principle of representative democracy.

Furthermore, responsible government was weakened by the high degree of executive privilege in legislative matters. The Governors and Governor General had several paths to bypass the legislative route of law-making.

Further, the concept of collective responsibility which forms the very basis of Parliamentary democracy was almost entirely absent. While the central government had no elected ministers, provincial ministers and governments could be summarily removed by the Governors.

The financial and executive control of the legislature over the government was superficial. They could neither censure the government nor vote on the budget as a whole.

Therefore, the Montford reforms lacked any real substance and represented a hollow mechanism that was meant to strengthen constitutional autocracy while weakening

Indian nationalism. Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru accurately captured failing of the Montford reforms by observing that "dyarchy is a vehicle that is all breaks and no engine".

The Montford reforms would go on to have a major impact on the evolution of Indian nationalism-

Their shortcomings continued to the rising wave of political discontent against British rule.

With these, the British lost their last opportunity to regain Indian goodwill and made the non-cooperation movement inevitable.

The Montford reforms gave a new target objective and approach to Indian nationalists in the form of dyarchy, Swaraj and non-cooperation respectively.

These elements continued to remain the primary driving force of Indian nationalism for a long period even after the withdrawal of the non-cooperation movement.

Further, the Montford reforms also initiated a conversation within the nationalist camp about concepts such as Swaraj, responsible government and popular sovereignty.

Through this conversation, these ideas were given body and expressed in a more cogent, comprehensive and concrete manner.

The Montford reforms by preparing the stage for the non-cooperation movement, directly contributed to the rise of Mahatma Gandhi as the undisputed leader of the

nationalist movement. Gandhi would continue to lead Indians right upto independence.

His philosophy and methods would guide India beyond independence.

Therefore, the Montford reforms are a major turning point in Indian nationalism. They represented a challenge to address which Indian nationalism had to mature and evolve.

Practice Question Q. Discussing the merits and limitations of the Montford reforms, discuss their impact on Indian society.

Montford reforms were introduced in 1919 in the backdrop of failure of Act of 1909 and build-up of national movement. However, it was such a half-hearted attempt that Mahatma Gandhi rejected it by saying "only a method of further draining India of her wealth and prolonging her servitude".

The reforms are also known as Government of India Act, 1919 which brought some progressive reforms vis-à-vis Indian administration-

The legislature was enlarged and the proportion of elected members was raised.
By giving the right to vote to women, it began the gender equality in politics.
The financial and executive control of the legislature over the government was strengthened by giving it the right to vote on parts of the budget and pass adjournment motions.

In provinces, dyarchy was introduced in which administrative subjects were divided into two lists- reserved and transferred. Transferred list was under elected provincial ministers thus introducing the element of responsible government.

The introduction of bicameralism at the centre paved for further decentralisation and gradually to provincial autonomy through Act of 1935.

However, the act contained following limitations

Dyarchy introduced in the provinces led to impractical and unscientific division of administrative subjects between elected and appointed officials. Important subjects

such as finance were kept under reserved list without which transferred subjects could not be performed appropriately.

It further expanded the apparatus of separate electorates thus widening the scope of divide and rule and sowing further social divisions among Indians.

Despite the franchise being increased, only three percent of Indians were allowed to vote.

The legislatures continued to have large number of nominated representatives, thus weakening the representative democracy.

Governor General and Governors were given extraordinary veto powers to bypass legislative scrutiny.

Financial control of legislature over executive was very weak as it could not discuss budget as a whole alongwith other restrictions.

Even then it left a major impact on Indian society

British lost the last opportunity to reconcile with nationalists and ultimately gave way to non-cooperation movement.

It gave new political consciousness among nationalists regarding the Swaraj, responsible government and popular sovereignty gradually leading to the demands for 'Purna

Swaraj".

By preparing the ground for non-cooperation, it facilitated the rise of Mahatma Gandhi.
Provisions of bicameralism and gender equality in franchise were later utilised by Constituent Assembly.

The skepticism raised by Gandhi was proved by Curzon when he said that the expression 'ultimate self-government' used by British government meant to have an intervening period of 500 years. However, this only strengthened the resilience of Indian nationalism.

Khilafat Movement

The word Khilafat refers to the office of Caliph. It was considered to be the religious and political leader of all Muslims by a large sect of Muslims.

Khilafat movement was a pan-Islamist movement that affected all countries with large Muslim population during and after the First World War. This included the India subcontinent as well.

This movement was organized in defence of the Caliph as Muslims were concerned that the allies would

Topple the Caliph
Dismember the Ottoman Empire
Desecrate holy Islamic sites such as Mecca-Medina and Jerusalem. The leaders and their strategy

Prominent leaders of the movement included the Ali brothers (Shaukat Ali and Muhammad Ali Jauhar), Maulana Hasrat Mohani, Maulana Abdul Bari, Hakim Ajmal Khan, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad.

As we can see, the Khilafat leadership consisted of conservative and traditional leaders. On the other hand, the Muslim middle class leaders were opposed to the Khilafat movement.

Leaders such as Mohammad Ali Jinnah did not want India Muslims to agitate politically on a religious issue. Further, he argued that since the material conditions

of Indian Muslims would not be directly affected by the future of the caliph, they should not defend him on religious grounds only. Moreover, the office of a Caliph was an antiquated institution based on religious and dynastic customs. According to Jinnah, such institutions have no place in the modern world. Thus, Indian Muslims should not waste their energy defending them.

Nevertheless, the calculated and logical arguments of the middle class Muslim leaders could not tame the raw power of religious emotion and the conservative leaders gained immense popularity.

Initially, the Khilafatists used moderate methods through prayers, petitions, public meetings, speeches and writings. They tried to persuade the British to make peace with

the Caliph while the war was ongoing and not to treat the Caliph harshly once the war had ended.

Muhammad Ali Jauhar even led a deputation to Paris in order to persuade the allies to treat the Caliph mildly.

However, their appeals were ignored. The government even took prominent Khilafat leaders under house arrest; they were finally released after the end of the war. But

by this time the central powers had been defeated while the allies seemed prepared to extract revenge.

Now, the Khilafatists adopted a more militant approach. Several provincial Khilafat committees were set up and the leaders began preparing the masses for direct action against British rule.

In early 1919, the All India Khilafat Committee was created with the following demands-

The office of the Khalifa must remain intact
The Khalifa should remain in control of the sufficient territories
The holy Islamic sites should remain under his control
It became clear that if the British would not accept these demands, the All India Khilafat Committee would begin a program of Khilafat and non-cooperation.

Under Mahatma Gandhi's leadership the Khilafat movement was integrated into a larger movement of the general public involving both Hindus and Muslims against British rule namely the non-cooperation movement.

Practice Question Q. What were the major factors behind the Khilafat movement? Discuss its significance in Indian history.

Khilafat movement started in early 1919 against the treatment meted out to the Khalifa, the religio-political leader of all Muslims, by the British during the First World War. A pan-

Islamic issue led to the creation of a pan-India Muslim identity which had its own advantages and disadvantages.

Major factors behind the Khilafat movement

Turkey, the seat of Khalifa was about to lose in the First World War;
There was fear of toppling of Khalifa;
Muslims were concerned that Ottoman Empire will be dismembered;
There was rumour that holy Islamic sites such as Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem will be desecrated after Turkey's defeat.

Prominent Muslim leaders of India like Ali brothers, Maulana Hasrat Mohani, Maulana Abdul Bari, Hakim Ajmal Khan, and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad started mobilizing people. In 1919, All India Khilafat Committee was created as a platform to put forth the demands of Muslims.

Muhammad Ali Jauhar even led a deputation to Paris in order to persuade the allies to treat the Khalifa mildly. When there was no response, Khilafatists received support of Mahatma

Gandhi and a larger Non-Cooperation movement of the general public involving both Hindus and Muslims against British rule started.

Significance of Khilafat movement in Indian history

It facilitated entry of Indian Muslims into mass politics
Hindu-Muslim unity which was manifested in Home rule movement and Lucknow Pact was benefitted during Khilafat movements thus failing the British policy of divide and rule.

It propelled the rise of Mahatma Gandhi and his style of mass politics which continued till independence.

However, it had following problematic yet significant impacts-

It symbolized the communalisation of Muslim mass politics and weakened the national alliance within the leadership.

It showed a paradox that Gandhi was contributing to a communal issue whereas Jinnah was talking in favour of secularism.

In the long run, it proved to be disastrous as withdrawal of the non-cooperation movement embittered Hindu-Muslim relations as Muslims felt betrayed.

Khilafat movement also revived old communal sentiments and grievances which took an ugly turn in certain places such as Moplah communal riots in Malabar Coast.

Alongwith that dilution of Congress' secular credentials by supporting Khilafat weakened its future ideological position i.e. in its communal phase, Muslim League could blame the

Congress for initially communalising India's mass politics.

Non-Cooperation Movement

The non-cooperation movement was the first All India Gandhian mass movement in the true sense. It witnessed participation from diverse sections of the population, both rural

and urban. The energy and intensity of the movement was far greater than anything previously witnessed in national movement. The British were almost brought to their knees with the Gandhian strategy of mass Satyagraha and non-cooperation.

To understand unprecedented intensity of the movement, the driving force and the mass discontent must be appreciated.

Indians had cooperated whole heartedly with the British during the First World War. However, Indian trust had been betrayed by the 1919 wrongs-

Rowlatt Act
Jallianwallah Bagh Massacre
Hunter Inquiry Report
Dyarchy
Khilafat

Mahatma Gandhi felt that the masses were ready for action. Further, the Khilafat issue presented a golden opportunity to cement Hindu-Muslim unity. It was already strong

due to Lucknow Pact and common participation during the home rule movement and Rowlatt Satyagraha.

Merger with the Khilafat Movement

After release from house arrest, the Ali brothers began touring the country and mobilizing Muslims for the Khilafat cause.

Several provincial Khilafat committees were set up by the like-minded Muslim leaders.
In Jan, 1920 All India Khilafat Committee was set up and Mahatma Gandhi was invited to preside it.

He travelled extensively drawing both Hindus and Muslims to the Khilafat cause in large numbers.

In June, 1920, frustrated by the lack of British response, an All Part conference at Allahabad gave the call for boycott of British goods and institutions.

On 1 st August, 1920, Bal Gangadhar Tilak passed away and mourning masses filled the streets.

At the same time, the draft of the Treaty of Sevres (imposed by the entente on the Ottoman Empire) was published.

This caused spontaneous uproar among Muslims as their demands had been neglected.

Massive protests by both Hindus and Muslims occurred across the country.

On 31 st August, All India Khilafat Committee presided by Mahatma Gandhi officially gave the call for non-cooperation and a program for boycott and non-cooperation.

On 4 th September, 1920 Congress organized its special session of INC at Calcutta adopted the non-cooperation resolution with the following programmes-

Boycott
Non-cooperation
Charkha and Khadi (swadeshi)

There was no unanimity in the Congress. Some groups opposed the movement-

CR Das and Motilal Nehru opposed it since they were not convinced by strategy of Gandhian Satyagraha.

MA Jinnah opposed it since he did not find it appropriate for a secular all India party to launch a movement on religious grounds.

Liberals such as SN Banerjee and Dr. Tej Bahadur Sapru opposed it since they were satisfied by the Montford reforms, they did not want to disrupt its operation.

In Dec, 1920- in annual session at Nagpur, the Congress once again endorsed the non- cooperation resolution with the following demands-

Swaraj
Undoing the Punjab wrong
Undoing the Khilafat wrong

CR Das moved the resolution while Motilal Nehru seconded it. The preceding three months had amply demonstrated the effectiveness of Gandhian methods.

Resultantly, MA Jinnah resigned from the Congress.
Liberals such Tej Bahadur Sapru, Annie Besant, GC Kharpade and SN Banerjee resigned from the Congress based on their opposition to extra constitutional methods.

SN Banerjee founded the Indian National Liberal Federation and the Liberal party.

The Congress also adopted new constitution in its Nagpur session which decentralized and democratized its working-

Central working committee (15 members)

AICC- All India General Elected Body

The new constitution had several advantages-

The low membership and open membership allowed the Congress to transform itself into a mass movement unto itself.

Within one year, the Congress membership had swelled to 70 lakh providing the Congress permanent presence at the grassroot level of mass politics.

Congress also adopted more democratic way of functioning. The new Congress created a mechanism for the elevation of most popular leaders to the highest level.

The decision making process was also decentralized as the regional and local councils were empowered to adopt their own resolutions thus creating new marketplace of ideas within the Congress organization.

It also strengthened the argument of the linguistic reorganization of the provinces since the Congress had applied this principle for organizing its own provincial council.

However, the new constitution also paved the way towards a dangerous destiny-

The infusion of bottom-up democracy and decentralized decision-making opened the gates for the rise of populism.

Over the 1920 s, as communal harmony broke down, the Congress rank and file became deeply influenced by the Hindu nationalist rhetoric of Hindu Mahasabha and its leaders such as Madan Mohan Malviya whose slogan 'Hindi, Hindu, Hindustan' resonated deeply at the popular level.

Congress leadership was forced to respond to these urges by adopting more rigid position with respect to the Muslim League, ultimately eliminating the possibility of PCC- State level Congress Assemblies ZCC- District Level Committees BCC- Block level Committees Village/Ward level Committees

any future compromise. This would have been seen as minority appeasement by the Congress workers at the lower levels.

The result was growing divide between the Congress and Muslim league which finally erupted in the form of communalism, two-nation theory, and Pakistan demand leading to India's partition.

Practice Question Q. How did the emergence of popular politics contribute to the growth of communalism in India? Illustrate in the context of the Montford Reforms and the Non-cooperation movement.

Popular politics in India rose on the back of extremist methods which needed mass support.

This need to mobilise people incentivised the use of religious and cultural symbols which gradually paved the way for communalism.

Rise of nationalism in India has been accompanied with rise in communalism. Since socio-religious reform movements began, leaders and organisations such as Arya Samaj,

Sir Syed Ahmad and Singh Sabha linked the social reforms with religion.

This phenomenon entered political arena through extremist politics such as Ganesha and Shivaji festivals of BG Tilak.

However, it took significant proportions during Montford reforms and non-cooperation movement.

Montford reforms furthered the communal electorates on one hand and disappointed the nationalist aspirations on the other. This facilitated a popular movement particularly after the reconciliation of the Lucknow pact.

Gandhiji and later Congress' support to Khilafat movement, a communal issue of Muslims and its merger with Non-cooperation movement converted it into a popular issue thus widening the communal awareness.

Similarly, Congress had redefined its constitution emphasizing on decentralisation and elected members at the central level which further necessitated popular support.

In this scenario, local rank and files of various communities relied on communal rhetoric which was contradictory to each other despite having a unified movement against the British rule.

Moplah riots led by Muslims and slogans such as 'Hindi, Hindu, Hindustan' given by Hindu Mahasabha leader Madan Mohan Malviya shows the widespread communalisation of Indian society.

Moreover, central leadership tried to turn a blind eye by declaring communalism as anti-national rather than devising a sustainable solution to reconcile the differences.

Thus, the nationalist consciousness was undercut by communal consciousness in order to capitalize on popularity of religious symbols. This gradually led to two-nation theory and Pakistan demand

leading to India's partition which remains still a persistent problem from Sambhal in Uttar Pradesh to attacks against ISCKON in Bangladesh and an existential threat for minorities in Pakistan.

Programmes of the non-cooperation Movement

Swadeshi and Boycott- English goods were boycotted along with burning of British cloth and peaceful picketing of shops selling foreign goods.

British institutions such as schools, colleges and law courts were boycotted. Many Indians responded to the call of non-cooperation and resigned from government service like Subhash Chandra Bose who resigned from civil services.

Further many prominent lawyers resigned from the Bar including CR Das, Motilal Nehru and Jawaharlal Nehru. Indian recipients of British honours and awards renounced them in large numbers.

Many nationalist schools and educational institutions were set up under nationalist leadership including the Bengal National College, Calcutta with SC Bose as Principal, Kashi Vidyapeeth at Banaras with Lala Lajpat Rai, Bihar Vidyapeeth, Patna under Acharya Narendra Dev and Jamia Milia at Aligarh under Dr. Zakir Hussain.

Further, Swadeshi was promoted by the Khadi and Charkha programs. Local Congress Committees took upon the responsibility of promoting them and encouraging ordinary Indians to produce a minimum amount of Khadi daily.

Courting arrest- Another program was to fill up British jails thus pressurising British financially as well as administratively.

Further, workers organised strikes in many industrial centres and refused British yarn for manufacturing textiles.

Tilak Swaraj Fund was set up to raise funds for organising nationalist activity. Within three months, it was over subscribed.

Salient features of non-cooperation

First true All India Mass Movement- it observed participation from almost every section, region and religion.

Both rural and urban masses participated in good numbers- peasants, workers, professionals, students, women, lawyers, industrialists, merchants and government officials etc. as well as Hindus and Mulims etc.

Gandhi emerged as the undisputed leader of the national movement with the non- cooperation movement. He was able to demonstrate the success of his satyagraha

strategy. He actively removed the fear of mass repression from the minds of ordinary

Indians. He would remain on this leadership position till the attainment of independence.

Mahatma Gandhi was able to link the political activity of the masses with their socio- economic and cultural issues. Thus, making national movement more meaningful for the masses. This was done through programs such as-

Khadi
Anti-untouchabilty programme
Village reconstruction programmes
Anti- liquor movement
Sarva Dharma Prarthana Sabhas
Hindu-Muslim unity Programmes
With this strategy, Mahatma Gandhi provided practical and accessible means for the masses to perform nationalist service. The result was unprecedented levels of mass participation.

For the first time, women entered nationalist politics on a mass scale. This definitely contributed to the liberation of women. This was achieved by the linking of the private and public spheres for women by Gandhi through-

Khadi and charkha
Anti-liquour social movement
Hindu-Muslim Unity Programmes
Sarva Dharma Prarthana Sabhas

Hindu-Muslim unity emerged as the most prominent feature of the non-cooperation movement. They participated in rallies, protests and boycotts together. Such unity had

not been witnessed since the revolt of 1857. However, this unity did not last. The first breach occurred during the Moplah riots, 1920.

Withdrawal of the Non-cooperation movement

Following the Chauri-Chaura incident on 5 th February, 1922, the mood of the nation suddenly shifted. Mahatma Gandhi decided to suddenly withdraw the non-cooperation movement.

The Congress Working Committee adopted the Bardoli resolution on 12 th February, 1822-

Stop all the activities leading to law breaking and launch constructive programmes in the villages.

Continue the boycott through boycott of elections and legislative bodies.

Interpretation of the withdrawal

Marxist scholars allege that Gandhi withdrew the movement to support Zamindars and industrialists.

Peasants of Awadh started a no-rent campaign against the Zamindar and Mahatma Gandhi wanted to contain it.

Industrialists were incurring losses due to the boycott of British yarn and the low supply and high prices of Indian Khadi. In other words, Mahatma Gandhi was more interested in derailing working claas movement in order to protect the upper class interest even if it meant sacrificing national interest.

On the other hand, Nationalist historians have interpreted the withdrawal in other light.

Bipan Chandra points out that violence was against the Gandhian satyagraha. He was ideologically compelled to withdraw the movement after the Chauri-Chaura incident. He was concerned that the British would use this incident to violently suppress the movement.

Given the deteriorating national consensus that the cyle of violence may take an unpredictable turn resulting in massive communal riot.

Lastly, withdrawing a movement was in line with the Gandhian strategy of mass struggle i.e. S-T-S which means Struggle- Truce- Sruggle which experienced PCP-

Pressure-compromise-pressure in respective phases. Gandhi realised that any mass movement cannot be sustained for too long. In order to prepare people for widespread concerted struggles, constructive programmes should be run in the interregnum of two movements.

There is much truth in this interpretation.

The masses had started showing the signs of fatigue due to economic pressure caused by slow industrial production, declining profits, worker strikes, disruption of agriculture, and inflation. Further, the Moplah riots had demonstrated that national unity was on the verge of breakdown and there was a strong undercurrent of communalism.

Impact of the withdrawal

Several leaders were unhappy with the sudden withdrawal of the non-cooperation movement. It finally manifested in the form of the Swarajist controversy which threatened to split the Congress once again.

Muslims felt betrayed and blamed Mahatma Gandhi and the Congress. The result was that Hindu-Muslim unity broke down completely and several communal riots occurred during the 1920 s.

The national pressure on the British was released and the British began boldly suppressing nationalism as demonstrated by Mahatma Gandhi's arrest and six years' imprisonment sentence.

Swarajist controversy

After the withdrawal of non-cooperation movement, Gandhi was arrested and sentenced to six years of rigorous imprisonment.

Moreover, sudden withdrawal of the NCM had also left many senior Congress leaders dissatisfied.

Some openly expressed doubts about Gandhi's leadership and Satyagraha strategy while others continued to follow him.

As a result, ideological split within the Congress seemed imminent.

Tensions rose in the context of post-non-cooperation strategy.

Ultimately, two groups emerged on these questions- Pro-changers or Swarajists and no

changers-

Pro-changers (Swarajists) No-changers

Prominent leaders included CR Das, Motilal Nehru, and Hakim Ajmal Khan.

They expressed doubts about the efficacy of Constructive work.

They wanted to lift the boycott on elections and council entry.

They argued that if the Congress did not participate, the government would be able to stuff the councils with loyalists.

Electoral campaigning and council work would enthuse the masses.

They would 'mend or end' the councils within. They would table popular motions forcing the governors to use their extraordinary powers of veto certification and withholding assent thus exposing the hypocrisy and hollowness of the Montford reforms.

Prominent leaders were C. Rajagopalachari, Dr Rajendra Prasad, M.A. Ansari, and Sardar Patel.

They wanted to continue boycotting elections and council entry since they were based on the illegitimate principle of Dyarchy.

They remained engaged in constructivist programmes such as forming of committees at the lowest levels, spreading awareness regarding the movement.

They popularised Gandhian ideals of Satyagraha.

They also worked towards anti-liquor and anti-untouchability programmes.

December, 1922- Gaya Session

In a loosely contested election, CR Das and ML Nehru (both Swarajists) were elected as President and Secretary respectively.

They introduced a resolution to end the boycott of elections and council entry thus allowing the Congress to participate in the upcoming elections.

In other close note, this resolution was defeated.
Feeling that this was a moral defeat, CR Das and ML Nehru resigned from their office
It appeared that they and their supporters could resign from the Congress to establish a separate political party.

Such a split would have permanently weakened the Congress and the national movement as a whole.

To avoid it, Mahatma Gandhi intervened and suggested a compromise i.e. the pro- changers should be allowed to contest the upcoming elections as a sub-group within the Congress.

The Congress accepted this compromise with the All India Khilafat Swarajist party (Swaraj Party) being established in January, 1923 with CR Das as President and ML Nehru as Secretary.

The Swarajists performed well especially in the Central Legislative Assembly, UP Legislative assembly and Bengal legislative assembly. They secured majority in several legislatures.

However, they elected to remain in opposition instead of accepting office.
Alongwith other nationalist parties, they exposed the hollowness of the dyarchy arrangement as well as the hypocrisy of the government.

Vitthalbhai Patel became the first Indian President of the Central Legislative Assembly.

The Swarajists tabled several bills that had to be vetoed, passed cuts that had to be restored and defeated motions that had to be certified by the Governors.

They also passed adjournment motions against the government to criticize it and raised several questions of public importance.

Thus, the Swarajists fulfilled their promise of mending or ending the councils from within.

Further, they also provided an innovative alternative towards non-cooperation other than boycott.

As a result, they enriched the national movement by introducing a new strategy and new methods.

The Swarajist strategy acted as a guide for the future nationalists

A strategic debate emerged within the Congress following the Civil Disobedience Movement on the question of council entry. The positive experience of the Swaraj party allowed the INC to choose the option of entering Councils.

Further, the pressure created by the Swarajists convinced the British that provincial dyarchy was unworkable in India. This was partly the reason why they abolished it through the Government of India Act, 1935.

Further, the Congress was able to avoid another Surat like split which would have definitely derailed the national struggle.

Instead the Swaraj party's actions helped conserve the momentum of the struggle. However, following the death of CR Das in 1925, the Swarajist movement began losing direction.

Many Swarajist leaders began accepting government office.
In other words, they began cooperating with the British within the framework of dyarchy.

Thus, they legitimised this unfair principle and therefore they lost popular support.
By 1927, the movement had lost its original sheen.
The appointment of the Simon Commission prompted mass resignation of the Swarajist who joined the mainstream Congress movement once again.

Practice Question Q. Discuss the features of the Swarajist movement which emerged within the national struggle following the withdrawal of the non-cooperation movement.

Highlight its significance for the national movement.

After non-cooperation movement, Congress had followers of two different ideologies- no changers and pro-changers. While the no-changers supported Gandhian constructive programmes, pro-changers also known as Swarajists were in favour of a change in approach towards the struggle.

Features of the Swarajists

Swarajists favoured contesting elections and entering Councils in both Centre and provinces.

Their real aim was to enter the Councils in order to expose the government and obstruct its regular functioning if it doesn't support the cause of India known as 'mend or end' the councils.

It was an ideological and strategic diversion from the mainstream movement.
It provided an alternative to Gandhian strategy and philosophy.
It represented the merger of a radical and constitutional struggle.
Its nature was that of a democratic and popular movement.
Moreover, it was nationalist anti-colonial movement.
However, it was a Personality led movement rather than an ideological movement.
Further, it resulted in the schism in the Congress.

Significance of the Swarajist movement

The Swarajists tabled several bills that had to be vetoed, passed cuts that had to be restored and defeated motions that had to be certified by the Governors.

They also passed adjournment motions against the government to criticize it and raised several questions of public importance.

Thus, the Swarajists fulfilled their promise of mending or ending the councils from within.

Further, they also provided an innovative alternative towards non-cooperation other than boycott.

As a result, they enriched the national movement by introducing a new strategy and new methods.

The Swarajist strategy acted as a guide for the future nationalists

A strategic debate emerged within the Congress following the Civil Disobedience Movement on the question of council entry. The positive experience of the Swaraj party allowed the INC to choose the option of entering Councils.

Further, the pressure created by the Swarajists convinced the British that provincial dyarchy was unworkable in India. This was partly the reason why they abolished it through the Government of India Act, 1935.

The Swarajists contributed in the continuation of the movement at a time when non

cooperation had been withdrawn and no mass struggle was in sight. They enriched the struggle and gave a necessary experience of running administration to the Indians which proved beneficial later.