indian history the beginning of the gandhian era

Printed Study Material for IAS, CSAT Civil Services Exams http://upscportal.com/civilservices/study-kit

Online Coaching for IAS Exams (at just Rs.100 per month) http://upscportal.com/civilservices/courses

www.upscportal.com

60 Days Crash Course for IAS

(Pre.) G. S.

Paper – 1

http://upscportal.com/civilservices/study-kit

http://www.upscportal.com



Chapter: The Beginning Of The Gandhian Era

The Gandhian Era in Indian politics is by far the most dynamic phase in the history of the freedom movement of the British Indian territories. Gandhi, before coming to India in 1915, had already become a figure to be reckoned with due to his participation in South Africa in the three campaigns of passive resistance of 1907-08, 1908-11 and 1913-14. These campaigns were redefined as satyagraha in 1907. In addition, due to the multiplicity of the people Gandhi came in contact with during his South African experience, comprising of Hindus, Muslims, Parsis, Christians, Gujaratis, South Indians, upper-class merchants, lawyers, and Newcastle mine workers helped him develop his techniques and strengthened his belief in unity amongst different groups and communities, especially Hindu-Muslim unity. His success and his experience in dealing with such an amalgamation of people made him a figure having an all-India appeal, over and above regional alliances. It was after the 1919 Rowlatt Satyagraha that Gandhi emerged as the dominant figure in Indian politics.

Ques. 1 : Give a brief description of Methods of Gandhi and reasons for his popularity? Ans. It is not overtly difficult to imagine the British- officials and non-officials along with many Indians- cringe with apprehension and foreboding every time Gandhi took up a cause and set out to deal with it. Curiously enough, he managed to do this, and guided and urged Indians towards freedom through peaceful means Satyagraha. The most potent legacy of Gandhi to India and also to the world is the technique of Satyagraha of which truth, ahimsa, and self-suffering are integral tools. However, these tools are not meant to be confined to political fight but to be lived by Gandhi did not refute the external influences in the formation of his ideas and thoughts, yet the manner in which they were executed and expanded, bears his particular hallmark.

Satyagraha developed as passive resistance during his protest against the Asiatic Law Amendment Ordinance in 1906, South Africa. But soon he adopted the term ‘Satyagraha’. Satya is derived from the Sanskrit roots ‘sat’ that means truth’, and ‘agraha’, which means ‘grasp’. In 1921, Gandhi announced that it literally meant ‘holding on to truth and therefore ‘truth-force’ or ‘soul-force’. It intended to replace methods of violence with a movement based entirely upon truth. According to Joan Bondurant, it is basically an ethic-principle, the essence of which is a social technique of action. It involved peaceful violation of specific laws mass courting of arrests, nartals, and marches. It also gave scope for negotiations and compromises which were more than often not clearly understood by the people themselves.

There is an essential difference between Satyagraha and passive resistance. Passive resistance either suggests lack of capacity to employ violence or tends to be a preliminary step to violence. It can also be employed side by side with violence. The extent of sacrifice in passive resistance is

Indian Polity & Governance




also limited. Satyagraha on the other hand, comprising of three main elements - truth, ahimsa, and self-sacrifice, constitutes a larger conception.

Countering claims that this was cowardice, Gandhi claimed Satyagraha as the weapon of the strong. This claim is based on his belief that it is easier to injure other than one’s own body. However, an essential difference was made between cowardice and non-violent conduct. Given a choice between violence and cowardice, Gandhi admitted that he would prefer violence, as cowardice is always demoralizing and non-violence is not. In fact, he opined that ‘...the votary of non-violence has to cultivate the capacity for the, sacrifice of the highest order to be free from fear... He who has not overcome all fear cannot practice ahimsa to perfection’ (Harijan 1940). Essential to understanding the technique of Satyagraha is the role and place of its three elements - Truth, ahimsa, and self-sacrifice, and their inter connectedness.

In short, the connection between the three elements of satyagraha ran as follows. Every form of protest or search is to be done by means of truth, nonviolence and self-suffering. The protester is not to fight for what he believed in with hate, dislike or violence. It was the responsibility of the fighter to win over the opponent by showing him the latter’s wrong doings and mode of operation was through love and out of a sense of responsibility (on behalf of the satyagrahi) ‘The test of love is tapasya and tapasya means self-suffering’ (YI 1922). Gandhi was against submission to humiliation and opined that in every case a satyagrahi must refuse to do that which his conscience forbids him to do and must do all to preserve his dignity even at the cost of his life. According to Gandhi, problems and issues can be resolved through reason and suffering, which can only be strengthened by the eyes of understanding.

Reasons for Gandhi’s popularity- According to Ravinder Kumar Gandhi’s charisma and his us of religion account for a part of the wide response he generated. He opines that an essential reason for Gandhi’ success lay in the fact that he was astute enough to know and gauge where the social loyalties of the people lay and in the manner in which these loyalties could be evoked. These loyalties lay in religion, caste and communities rather than class. Religion was the main arena of the loyalty and this belief is evident from Gandhi’s appeal to the Muslims to join him by bringing into the Indian sphere the issue of distant Turkey during the Khilafat movement.

Sumit Sarkar opines that the non-violent methods and a carefully controlled mass participation found acceptance amongst the business groups and locally well-off sections of the peasantry as they all would have suffered loss on account of a uncontrolled and violent mass participation. Gandhis criticism of everything related with modern industrial civilization as outlined in Hind Swaraj while unrealistic found resonance in the people who had suffered on account of the modernizing forces under the colonial rule. Thus, his programmes of Khadi, village reconstruction and Harijan welfare promised improvement however limited they might be.

The role of rumours also cannot be denied in spreading the popularity of Gandhi in a predominantly illiterate society which was also undergoing a period of suffering and tensions. Gandhi was ascribed with powers, often superhuman, and a Messianic personality was bestowed upon him by the oppressed. Gandhi’s strong religious tendencies .and the manner in which he wove it in his message related with upliftment, village reconstruction, and condition of the country among others was understood by the people. His use of plain language made him more approachable and identifiable to the people. Moreover, Gandhi picked on issues and examples which million of Indians either felt acutely about or could easily identify. For example, cow while was an important religious symbol was also economically central to the peasants. Hence the various remonstrations on abuse and off hand care of the cows were heard by the people. During




the Khilafat Movement, Gandhi realized the importance of the Caliphate as an Islamic symbol for the Indian Muslims and he sought to utilize it for forging Hindu-Muslim unity. Similarly, Gandhi with his knowledge understood the grievances of the peasants with the Salt Laws one chose to start the Civil Disobedience Movement by breaking the Salt Laws and gained mass participation in the process. In addition, Gandhi’s style of dressing, travelling by third class, eating simple meals, spinning, etc all added to his appeal. Yet on the other hand, his constant use of religion especially Hinduism, served to cause discomfort amongst the Muslims The need to the peasants to be saved by God-like figure might sound elitist but remains an undeniable fact during the national movement this Godhead was the Mahatma Gandhi. And this deep seeded belief also accounts for the continued popularity of Gandhi in spite of repeated failures of various movements started by him.

Ques. 2 : Briefly discuss the earlier events launched by Gandhi in India? Ans. Champaran, Bihar- It was a permanent settlement area with large areas under rich zamindars. However, in the course of the nineteenth century the peasants were forced to grow indigo by the European planters under the tinkathia system (a system where in the indigo on three twentieth part of their land. The forced cultivation of indigo, especially during the fluctuating market, had been a cause for peasant discontent under the leadership of local and rich peasants, local mahajans and traders from the 1860s as they resented competition from the planters in money lending and trade. It. was one such, a peasant leader, Raj Kumar Shukla who went to Lucknow in 1906 during the Congress session to invite Gandhi, Sant Raut and Khendar Rai to interfere on behalf of the peasants. Though the success of Gandhi (who entered only after a ban on his entry was rescinded by the local officials when threatened with satyagraha) was limited to instituting an open enquiry in July 1917 which led to the abolition of tinkathia system by Champaran Agricultural Act of 1918, the involvement of Gandhi had far reaching reverberations. It was the first time when a leader of some caliber and status had gone to the heart of the problem and interacted with the masses. The Congress leaders had remained aloof from the masses. The Champaran issues caught national attention due to Gandhi. The psychological impact of Gandhi’s participation far surpassed the real concrete results. It gave Gandhi an all-India public reputation. The peasants continued to be oppressed in spite of the Act.

The Kheda Satyagraha (1917-18):- While the Kheda Satyagraha proved to be a failure in so much as it led to neither an enquiry nor suspension of revenue collection, a demand of Gandhi, it validated the possibility of satyagraha as a technique of protest intended to be used by people of all classes. In the Kehda district of Gujarat, unlike the poor peasants in Champaran, the rich Kanbi-Patidar peasant proprietors growing food grains, tobacco and cotton for Ahemdabad called upon Gandhi to lend support to the already ongoing campaign for remission of revenues in face of poor harvest. In 1917-18, the poor harvest combined with rise in prices of kerosene, ironware, cloth and salt and the rise in wages of the low-caste Baraiyas who worked for the Patidars, stressed the revenue paying capacity of the Patidars. After much hesitation Gandhi lent his support from March 22, 1918 but by this time the poorer peasants had already paid revenues albeit with coercion, On the whole the first Gandhian peasant Satyagraha at Kehda was more of a patchy affair which affected only 70 out of 559 villages and was called off by June 1918. Gandhi mid-way got involved in Ahemdabad mill workers grievances. However, the non-violent method and touring of the villages by Gandhi, Vallabhbhai Patel and Mahadev Desai earned the Gandhian movement a support base in the region through the peasants support remained conditional like during the First World War, Gandhi’s efforts at recruiting soldiers from the region were met with lukewarm enthusiasm.




Ahemdabad Mill Workers’ Strike, February-March 1918: Unlike the grievances of the peasants in the last two instances, Gandhi intervened on behalf of the urban mill workers in their demand for substantially higher wages from their owners and it was not directed against the Government officials. The demands were met once Gandhi threatened to fast (March 1918) indefinitely after the failure of the first round of talks. This was the first time that the technique of fasting was employed in Satyagraha.

Thus, these three movements established Gandhi as a figure who could intervene on behalf of people’s grievances irrespective of their class. His nonviolent techniques and interacting with the people were rather novel and helped Gandhi gain a popular mass appeal. However, Gandhi had yet to enter into formal politics. The infamous Rawlatt Bills provided the ideal launch pad for Gandhi who felt that the repelling of the legislation was ‘necessary to appease national honour’.

Ques. 3 : Give an account of the Rowlatt Satyagraha? Ans. In light of the growing acts of terror and national activity during the years of the First World War, Lord Chelmsford appointed the Sedition Committee or the Rowlatt Committee to look into the nature and extent of the activities of the revolutionaries in India and suggest possible measures and legislation to curb them. Two such bills, of which one was dropped, were passed. This passing of the bills created a stir as they had detailed provisions which withheld the protection of law from the people who were suspected of activities related with revolutionary terrorism This was an attempt by the Government to make permanent the war-time restrictions on civil rights by means of special courts and detention without trial for a maximum period of two years. One of the bills, The Anarchical and Revolutionary Crimes Act was passed in the Imperial Legislative Assembly on March 18, 1919, disregarding the unanimous protests of the Indian members. On one hand, according to Sumit Sarkar, the Act was passed in a possible bid to placate a section of official and non-official whites who considered the concessions provided to Indians in the Reforms of Montague too liberal; on the Other hand, more power given to the police by the Rowlatt Act was a cause of much alarm to Indians.

While the Act was resented by multitude of Indians, it was Gandhi who put forward a concrete game-plan to oppose the bills by the masses in a non-violent way. His protest took the form of the Rowlatt Satyagraha in its initial phase the volunteers were to court arrest by public sale of prohibited works because under the Rowlatt Act a person found in possession of supposedly seditious tracts could be arrested. The second phase was marked by a launch of an all-India nartal on April 6, 1919. Once Gandhi announced civil disobedience, the satyagraha was confined to the Bombay Presidency. However, non-violence had a short life with mob violence erupting in Bombay, Ahemdabad and other towns in Gujarat. On April 13, 1919 the tragic Jallianwalla Bagh Massacre took place under the command of General Dyer. Thereafter, the Rowlatt Satyagraha lost its momentum and on April 18, 1919, Gandhi supended the civil disobedience part of the Satyagraha. The unprecedented violence and the subsequent repression led Gandhi to self- confess committing a ‘Himalayan blunder’ by offering the weapon of satyagraha to people who were yet not ready and trained to wield it. Gandhi then went on to observe a three days fast as atonement. Through the medium of his two journals, Young India and Navajivan, Gandhi set about to educate and train people on the ideas and ideals of Satyagraha.

Estimate of the Rowlatt Satyagraha- During Rowlatt Satyagraha Gandhi sought to involve the masses in the struggle to undo an unjust action taken by the Government. To this end Gandhi utilized three types of political networks Satyagraha Sabha (started by Gandhi himself at Bombay




on February 24, 1919), the Home Rule Leagues and certain Pan-Islamists groups, especially leaders like., Abdul Bari of Firangi Mahal ulama group at Lucknow. By now the concern over the fate of Turkey had been growing and because of this concern the moderate group of the Khilafat Movement was ousted at the Delhi Session of the Muslim League in December 1918 by motley of radical politicians like Ansari and a group of ulama brought together by Abdul Bari One should note that it was this prior close collaboration of Gandhi with a Muslim cause that led to the subsequent joining of the Khilafat Movement and the Non-Cooperation Movement. The Congress was yet not in the picture nor was Gandhi any significant part of the Congress, a standing that was to change in the near future at the Congress session at Amritsar in 1919. The realization by Gandhi of a need for a formal political body like Congress after the failure of the Rowlatt Satyagraha led him to take a swing at institutional politics. It was because of Gandhi’s efforts that Congress in the subsequent years was transformed into a national body with a new aim and agenda.

Gandhi also toured in many parts of India, Bombay, Delhi, Allahabad, Lucknow and a number of cities in South India in early part of 1919. The connections which he established in this time were to make him an identifiable figure at an all India level. The connections with the local leaders helped in the dissemination of Gandhian message and methodology. However, one needs to keep in mind that the sway of these local leaders over the people under their territories during the Rowlatt Satyagraha and also in the future, was varied and it is possible to question the degree of commitment of these leaders to Gandhian ideology. The will of the masses often surpassed the arm of the local leaders. While repel of the Rowlatt Act was certainly the main theme of the Satyagraha, however, for the people other reasons were no absent. In the Punjab, the urban populace of lower middle class groups and artisans were more prominent than the industrial workers. These groups were affected by post-war economic crisis and role of rumours regarding Gandhi too played a important part. Punjab was also the hub of the Ghadar party and of a planned armed revolt by the Ghadarites. The Government repression in the Punjab was thus all the more severe. At the massacre at Jallianwalla Bagh, General Dyer wanted to produce a ‘moral effect’ on the count of sedition and protest against the Government.

In Delhi, the transfer of Capital in 1912 led to political awakening. It was S.K. Rudra, the first Indian principal of St. Stephen’s College who had sent C.F. Andrews to South Africa and the latter spoke to Gandhi about the possibility returning to India. During 1915-1923, Gandhi on his occasional visits to Delhi stayed at the residence of the principal of St Stephen’s College where “the intelligentsia of Delhi used to meet to discuss the important questions of the day”. Delhi had by the second decade of the twentieth century become a centre for Pan-Islamic activity: The Hindu lower middle classes were particularly influenced by the Arya Samaj leader, Swami Shraddhanand. Infact, a unique incident occurred during the Rowlatt Satyagraha involving him. In a rally on April 4, 1919, at Jama Masjid, Hindus and Muslims alike kissed the feet of Swami Shraddhanand. In Calcutta, the leadership and the participation was dominated by up-country Hindus, Marwaris and Muslims with students being less involved. Violence was common after the arrest of Gandhi. Another interesting point to note is that the country wide hartal called by Gandhi on April 6, 1919, fell on a Sunday. He furthermore openly stated that employees who are required to work even on Sunday may only suspend work after obtaining a previous leave from their employers’. Gandhi also rejected the suggestion for ‘no-revenue’ given by Swami Shraddhanand. These two steps are indicative of Gandhi’s desire of a controlled yet concrete action which was couple of steps beyond mere petitioning.




Thus, while the Rowlatt Satyagraha was a failure as far as the immediate result was concerned, it breathed a new life in the growing national consciousness of British India. The movement which was to demand swaraj in terms of complete freedom from the British was in first concrete stage of launching (as opposed to developing).

Ques. 4 : Wrire a short note on the The Jallianwalla Bagh Massacre? Ans.

The Jallianwalla Bagh Massacre, April 13, 1919 Punjab in the second decade of the twentieth century was undergoing intensive polticalisation especially due to the efforts of the Ghadar party. It was also struggling under the wartime repression, forcible recruitment, post-Ghadar outbreaks of 1915, rise in food prices, and spread of anti-British sentiment by Arya Samajist barristers with business connections like Gokul Chand Narang and Mukund Lal Purl; and there was, beginning of awakening amongst the Muslims due to the efforts of Zafal Ali Khan, a journalist and the poet, Iqbal. The Punjab administration under the Lieutenant-Governor Sir Michael O’Dwyer had already gained a name for ruthless repression. Thus, the Rowlatt Satyagraha was particularly intensive in the Punjab. The administration was also growing alarmed at the growing Hindu-Muslim-Sikh unity in a region noted otherwise for its communal divisions. The two hartals, March 30, 1919 and April 6 in Amritsar were massive attended though peaceful. In an attempt to show solidarity, the Ram Navami procession of April 9, 1919 was attended by the Hindus and the Muslims with both drinking from the same cups. On the same day two local leaders, who were associated with tie Reception Committee for the annual session of INC to be held in Amritsar in December, were arrested. As a sign of protest there were peaceful demonstrations near Hall Bridge in Amritsar followed by attacks on symbols of British authority like, banks, posts offices, town hail and railways. As a result of this martial law was enforced on April 11. Unaware that ban had been imposed on public meetings, a crowd which had gathered for a fair at the Jallianwala Bagh on April 13, and consisted of the old and the young alike irrespective of the gender, was hemmed in on the orders of General Dyer who had the backing of the Lieutenant-Governor, and fired upon. While the official reported 379 dead, the unofficial count was substantially higher. This brutal incident stirred the emotions across the country. Rabindranath Tagore, as a sign of protest, surrendered his knighthood bestowed on him by the British Government Sir Sankaran Nair who was a former president of INC resigned his membership of the Viceroy’s Executive Council.

The Jallianwala Bagh Massacre catalyzed the freedom movement in the Punjab against British rule and paved the way for Gandhi’s Non-Cooperation Movement against the British in 1920. It was also motivation for a number of other revolutionaries, including Bhagat Singh. On March 13, 1940, an Indian revolutionary from Sunam, named Udham Singh, who had witnessed the events in Amritsar and was himself wounded, shot dead Sir Michael O’Dwyer who was believed to be the chief planner of the Jaliianwalla Massacre at Caxton Hall in London. General Dyer had died in 1927 The restlessness of the Indians at the continued repression was visible in the Congress December session at Amritsar in 1919 where Gandhi entered the institutional politics and gave a call for Hindu-Muslim unity and bound the Khilafat Movement with the Congress.

Ques. 5 : Give a brief description of the Khilafat Movement?




Ans. The second decade of the twentieth century was a period of turmoil both in India and around the world. The outbreak of the First World War led to reverberations that were felt not only by the countries of the two opposing camps but also their dependencies. In India this period witnessed heightened political activity, post-wartime economic recession, growing Government repression that was blatantly manifested in the Jallianvala Bagh Massacre and Government’s complete lack of sympathy, of those massacred. Amongst the Indian Muslim too there was an upsurge in political activity. They were stirred into action on account of Turkey’s fate which had joined the First World War siding with the Triple Alliance against the Triple Entente. Once Turkey was defeated and it became apparent that the Ottoman Empire was going to be dismembered by the victorious Britain, the Pan-Islamic sentiments of the Indian Muslims developed into the Khilafat Movement This movement was aimed against the Allies, specifically Britain, and in support of the Ottoman Caliph Indian Muslims, especially the prosperous Bombay merchants like Chotani, organised a Central Khilafat Committee in November 1919. In the same month Gandhi was elected as the Committee’s President by an All-India Khilafat Conference that met in Delhi. The Ali brothers, who were released from internment in December 1919 and M.A. Ansari were the prominent leaders of the movement. This group was the radical wing of the Khilafat movement that gained its place over the moderate section. It was this radical group which pressed for country wide hartals of October 17, 1919 and March 19, 1920; and first called for Non-Cooperation at the Delhi all-India Khilafat Conference in November 1912. This group wanted mass agitation against the British and support of the Hindus.

The radical section comprised of lower middle class journalists and the ulama who had considerable influence over small towns and villages, particularly in the United Provinces, Bengal, Sind and Malabar. From this time onwards ulama came to play a significant role in stirring the sentiments of the Muslims and used religious slogans in their efforts. This use of religious slogans was responsible for the spate of religious violence during the post-Khilafat years. In March 1920, the Khilafatists, represented by Mohammad Ali, presented to diplomats in Paris their three central demands. The demands were that the Turkish Sultan, the Khalifa, was to retain control-over the Muslim sacred places; he must be left with sufficient territory to enable him to defend the Islamic faith, and that the Jazirat-ul-Arab (Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Palestine), the traditional centre of Islam, must remain under Muslim sovereignty. These demands were ignored and with this the radical group became more appealing to the people.

The terms of Treaty of Sevres with Turkey was published in May 1920 which inflamed the Indian Muslims. In the same month the Hunter Commission Majority Report was published and it took a rather lenient view of General Dyer’s role in the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre, which inflamed Indians. In the Allahabad Conference of the Central Khilafat Committee (June 1-2, 1920), a decision was reached to launch a four staged non-cooperation movement: boycott of titles, civil services, police, and army and finally non-payment of taxes. Non-cooperation was advocated by Gandhi as the technique for the Khilafat Movement. But this posed a problem between Gandhi and Muslim political leaders. As Gandhi found out during the course of the movement the leaders adhered to the technique only to ensure Gandhi’s support which was necessary for an alliance with the Hindus. Gandhi was responsible for urging the Congress to take up a cause (in this instance Khilafat Movement) which was close to the Muslims in order to make good the Congress’ claims of its desire to pursue Hindu-Muslim unity.

October 17, 1919 was observed as the ‘Khilafat Day’ at an all-India scale. In September 1920, at a special session of the INC at Calcutta a resolution was passed, largely due to Gandhi’s insistence, to launch the Non-Cooperation Movement to protest against two wrongs: (a) the British Government’s attitude towards the Khilafat issue, and (b) “its failure to protect the innocent people




of the Punjab and punish the officers guilty of the barbarous behaviour towards them”. This resolution was passed despite the protests of some prominent Congress leaders like Chitta Ranjan Das, Bipin Chandra Pal, Annie Besant, Motilal Nehru and Madan Mohan Malviya. (Note; A third demand that figured in the Non-Cooperation movement headed by the Congress was attainment of Swaraj within one year as promised by Gandhi but what swaraj was to mean was left undefined). The opposition by Motilal Nehru at the Amritsar Session was on account of the proposed boycotting of the council elections which were scheduled for November 1920 after the acceptance of the Montague Chelmsford Reforms (interestingly while C. R. Das virtually rejected them, it was Gandhi who directed the Congress to contest in the first place ‘so work the Reforms as to secure an early establishment of full responsible Government’

Gandhi at the Calcutta laid down an elaborate programme:-

• Surrender of titles and honorary offices and resignation from nominated seats in local bodies; • Refusal to attend official and non-official functions; • ‘Gradual withdrawal of children’ from officially controlled schools and colleges; • ‘Gradual boycott of British courts by lawyers and litigants’; • Military, clerical and labouring classes were asked to refuse to offer themselves as recruits for service in Mesopotamia; • Boycott of election to the Legislative Councils by candidates and voters; • Boycott of foreign goods; • Establishment of national schools and colleges, and • For the settlement of private disputes private arbitration courts were to be set up.

Interestingly the Non-Cooperation Movement was joined to the Khilafat Movement by Gandhi on August 1, 1920, a month before it was placed before Congress at the special Calcutta session. Regardless of such a presumptuous step taken by Gandhi, the pronouncements of the Calcutta and Nagpur sessions lent support to Gandhis decision though some continued to oppose.

However, the joint movements, Khilafat Movement and the Non Cooperation Movement were facing inter-movement tensions. Muslim leaders’ support to Non-Cooperation was conditional. In July 1921 they had announced that it was wrong for the Muslims to serve in the British army. The Ali brothers were arrested again in September 1921. In their absence, the resentments of the Muslims at the control of the Non-Cooperation Movement (it is important to remember that the Khilafat Movement was a part of the Non-Cooperation Movement) by the non-Muslims increased. After the Chauri Chaura incident, Gandhi suspended the Non-Cooperation Movement even though it was unconnected with the Khilafat Movement Gandhi himself was arrested in March 1922. By then it was apparent that the Hindu-Muslim unity was more of facade. Nor was swaraj attained within a year. As far as the Khilafat Movement was concerned the use of religious symbolism by the ulama lent fuel to communal violence in the post Khilafat years. The violence in the Malabar by the Moplahs was indicative of a rupture in Congress-Khilafatist anti-British alliance. While the Moplah’s might have declared jihad against the British, the brunt of the violence was felt by Hindus. The cause of the Caliphate itself suffered a major setback when from the late 1922 the Grand Nationa1 Assembly of Turkey set about a process for the abolition of the Caliphate, first by depriving it of its temporal powers in November 1922, and then abolishing it altogether in March 1924. Thus, the central focus of the Khilafat Movement disappeared by 1924. One can summarize that Caliphate provided a symbol around which Indian Muslims could unite irrespective of their internal differences. According to Gail Minault “A pan-Islamic symbol opened the way to pan-Indian Islamic political mobilization.”




Ques. 6 : Briefly discuss the non-cooperation movement? Ans. The Khilafat Non-Cooperation alliance was not an overnight affair. It was the result of prolonged discussions and calculations by all. Gandhi was not yet a big part of the Congress but it had become evident by 1920 that he had support of a larger section of the populace than Congress. He had the support of the Khilafatists and of the peasants from the Anand-Borsad area, and people who were moved by millenarian hopes. Gandhi had become an identifiable and bankable figure who could somehow garner people in spite of their difference (no matter how short these alliances may be). This was a period of labour unrest and atleast 125 new trade unions were formed. All India Trade Union Congress was formed in Bombay in 1920. Gandhi, on the other hand, had realized after the Rowlatt Satyagraha that he needed the help and front of institutional political body. Two Congress sessions of 1920, the September Calcutta Session and the Nagpur Sessions are of importance as during these sessions the possibilities, support, and programme of the Khilafat-Non-Cooperation Movements were set about.

Nagpur Congress (December, 1920) - Apart from ratifying the Calcutta resolution, two important changes were made in the Constitution of the Congress at the Nagpur Session under the presidentship of Lala Lajpat Rai. The goal of ‘self-government within the British Empire’ found in the older constitution were replaced by ‘Swaraj’, which was interpreted as self-government within the Empire, if possible, outside, if necessary’. Swaraj within a year was promised by Gandhi. However, the nature of self-government or swaraj was left undefined. The second change was in the terminology of the nature of methods used in achieving its goals. The ‘constitutional means’ were replaced by ‘all peaceful and legitimate means’ which allowed for disobedience of law and adoption of methods of resistance that were politically and morally ‘legitimate’ and ‘peaceful’. Three more aims were added to the programme formulated at Calcutta session: (a) promotion of Swadeshi, specially hand-spinning and weaving; (b) removal of untouchability among the Hindus; and (c) promotion of Hindu-Muslim unity.

The Programme and Progress of the Non-Cooperation Movement On March 2O, 1920, a manifesto was published, which outlined he programme of non-cooperation as under: 1. Surrender of titles and honorary offices and resignation from nominated seats in local bodies. 2. Refusal to attend Government levees, durbars and other official and semi official functions held by Government officials or in their honour; 3. Gradual withdrawal of children from schools and colleges, owned, aided or controlled by Government and, in place of such schools and colleges, the establishment of national schools and colleges in the various provinces; 4. Gradual boycott of British courts by lawyers and litigants and the establishment of private arbitration courts by their aid for the settlement of private disputes; 5. Refusal on the part of the military, clerical and labouring classes to offer themselves as recruits for service in Mesopotamia; 6. Withdrawal by candidates of their candidature of election to the reformed councils’ and refusal on the part of the voters to vote for any candidate who may, despite the Congress advice, offer himself for election; and 7. Boycott of foreign goods




The year 1921 opened with intense activity, unprecedented cooperation between the Hindus and Muslims and joint political action for securing redress for the Khilafat and the Punjab wrongs. Gandhiji and the Ali Brothers - Shaukat Ali and Mohammad Ali undertook whirl-wind tours of the counter and propagated the Nagpur resolution. They received enthusiastic response from the people. The “no-vote” campaign against the election under the Reforms Scheme, held in November 1920, was a remarkable success, and, reportedly, 80 per cent of the voters refrained from voting. From a number of places, the ballot boxes were sent empty.

On 31 March, the Congress Working Committee (CWC) met at Vijaywada and decided to raise a Swaraj Fund of one crore rupees, to enlist one crore Congress members and to introduce 20 lakhs of charkhas. Boycott of foreign cloth was openly preached; use of swadeshi goods was propagated, and anti- liquor agitation was launched. On 8 July, the All-India Khilafat Committee met at Karachi and its President, Maulana Mohammed Ali, declared that it was ‘unlawful for any faithful Muslim to serve from that day in the Army or help or acquiesce in their recruitment’.

Course of the Non-Cooperation Movement - Though the Non-Cooperation Movement was started by Gandhi on August 1, 1920 without consulting with the Congress, it had a good start. This was more so because Tilak passed away in Bombay on the same day. It was officially started in January 1921. At this time the middle class participation was rather prominent. From January to March of 1921 student left government controlled schools and colleges, and lawyers like, C.R. Das and Motilal Nehru, gave up their practice. As a mark of identification with the rural masses and in fulfillment of the Swadeshi programme, the charkha programme was taken up voluntarily by the urban middle classes. Steps were undertaken for developing national schools and arbitration Courts, raising a Tilak Swaraj Fund of Rs One Crore, enrolling one crore Congress members and installing 20 lakhs charkhas, all by June 30, 1921. After the AICC meeting in July 28-30 at Bombay, a stronger game-plan was adopted which included boycott and publicly burning foreign cloth and the reception of the Prince of Wales visit on November 17 with a nation-wide hartal. The unfortunate outbreak of violence on the same day against the Europeans, Anglo-Indians and the Parsis of Bombay made Gandhi postpone civil- disobedience and no tax campaign. People were asked to court arrest voluntarily and flood the prisons by Gandhi.

In early 1922, a no-tax campaign was launched at Bardoli, Gujarat by Gandhi. It was an interesting choice of place. It was a ryotwari area and hence absence at zamindars. This meant there as no danger of a no-revenue campaign turning into a no-rent campaign which would have ruptured any alliance among various groups. However, before this could really take-off, the Chauri Chaura in Gorakhpur incident occurred on February 1922 where 22 policemen were burned alive by angry peasants on hearing the news, Gandhi called off the movement. Taking advantage of the sudden stop and the subsequent shock of the people, the Government arrested Gandhi in March 1922, sentencing him to six years imprisonment. The shock and dissatisfaction of the people with Gandhi’s decision to call off the movement was blatantly expressed when on his arrest hardly any protestations were undertaken by the masses.

Estimation of the Non-Cooperation Movement: The most significant achievement of the Non-Cooperation Movement was the extent of its spread even in regions that had not participated in any previous movements; While in certain regions peasant participation may not necessarily, have had, little Congress intervention, peasants of Rajasthan, Sind, Gujarat, Awadh, Assam and Maharashtra participated in large numbers. Gandhi’s appeal, whether people knew him personally or heard his message or even knew of him through rumours, an important factor in gaining Khilafat Non-Cooperation Movements a considerable support.




The movements proved to be colossal failures as far as concrete results were concerned. Neither demands related with Khilafat, Punjab or ‘swaraj’, were realized Hindu-Muslim unity remained tenuous and infact post-movement years witnessed spates of communal violence The Moplah Rebellion broke out in 1921 in Malabar. There were riots in Multan in 1922 and 1923. In 1924 riots broke out in Delhi and in Kohat in the NWFP where 154 were killed. In another idealistic stand. Gandhi on his early release in February 1924 undertook a three week fast as an appeal to the rioters. However, in 1925 approximately 16 more riots broke out. Swami Shraddhananda, notwithstanding his grand involvement in Hindu-Muslim unity at Jama Masjid, undertook the campaign of shuddhi (restoring Hindus who had taken to other faiths including Islam), a campaign which literally proved fatal for him and led to his murder in 1926. In the same year three bouts of riots broke out in Calcutta with 138 fatalities. In the period 1923-27, 112 riots were recorded by the Simon Commission.

The gap made by the withdrawal of Congress candidates from the Council elections was filled by non-Congress candidates who captured new Councils that were constituted under the Government Act of 1919. Congress could not prevent the entire populace from voting. The surrender of titles and resignation from Government service along with the boycott of law courts and Government schools and colleges were negligible. On the positive note, Congress became an organization that could organize people across a large part of the country. The mass participation of the people in the movement brought it a little further down from its elitist standing. Regardless of its initial hesitation, the Congress for the first time interfered on behalf of a religious cause. Thus, dynamism that Congress achieved in this phase ensured that it was to play on important role in future politics.

Ques. 7 : Write a short note on Chauri Chaura Incident? Ans.

Chauri Chaura Incident In view of the recalcitrant attitude of the authorities the Congress was left with no alternative but to launch the movement. But before Gandhi could actually make some headway a misfortune struck the movement at the outset. This was the tragedy at Chauri Chaura, near Gorakhpur in U.P, on 5 February. While a Congress procession was passing a mob pushed 21 constables and one sub-inspector into a police station and set it on fire. All of them perished in the flames. Similar tragic events had already taken place on 17 November 1921 in Bombay and on 13 January 1922 in Madras. Gandhi was sorely grieved by all these occurrences. He realized that the country was not yet ready for a non-violent movement along the lines he envisaged. On his suggestion, the CWC suspended, on 12 February, the mass civil disobedience programme and instructed all Congressmen to stop their activities in that direction. In order to prepare the masses psychologically before the political movement could be launched, the GWC drew up a constructive programme involving enlistment of the crore members, organization of national educational institutions and panchayat and popularization of use of Swadeshi goods. After the suspension of the movement in order to isolate Mahatma Gandhi from the masses, the British authorities put him under arrest on March 13, 1922. During the course of his trial held in Ahmedahad, he took upon himself full responsibility for the occurrences in Madras, Bombay and Chauri Chaura, and told the British Judge, Broomfield that “he would do the same again” if he was, set free. The judge sentenced him to six years imprisonment.




Ques. 8 : Give a brief description of the Left Movement in India? Ans. The emergence and growth of the leftist movement was the result of a combination of factors development of Indian industries the economic crunch caused by the two World Wars and the success of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. The emergence of Indian Communism out of the shortcoming of the mainstream national movement is quite undeniable. It was borne Out of motley of peasant and labour activists, Non-Cooperators, Khilafatists and revolutionaries whose aspirations and participation in the national movement remained either unfulfilled or insufficient. They sought alternate roads for their demands and some joined the Left Movement.

The founder of the Indian communism was Naren Bhattacharki (alias Manabendra Mikhail Nath Roy), a Yugantar revolutionary. After meeting the Bolshevik Mikhail Borodin in Mexico in 1919 and helping in the establishment of a Communist Party, Roy attended the second Congress of Communist International in Russia in 1920. Hereafter ensued a much celebrated dialogue between Naren Bhattacharki and Lenin on the strategy of Communists in the colonial world. He then founded the Communist Party of India in Tashkend in October 1920. Various formal Communist bodies were formed in the period 1921-25 in different parts of the country. Satyabhakta organised an All-India Conference of the communists at Kanpur in December 1925. The convening of this Conference under the President-ship of Singaravelu Chettiar of Madras is considered as the formal beginnings of Indian Communism. Between 1992 and 1927 a number of organisations cropped up, essentially to provide legal cover to workers and peasants. These included Labour Swaraj Party of Bengal, Congress Labour Party in Bombay, Kirti Kishan Party in the Punjab and Labour Kisan Party of Hindustan in Madras. Ganbani, Mehnatkash, Kranti and Krantikari were some of the popular journals and newpapers.

With the agreement of supporting the national movement as encouraged by Lenin, the Communist Party of India (CPI) asked its members to join the ranks of the Congress and to form a strong Left wing within it.

The labour movement was not far behind in its development. In the first half of 1920 there were approximately 200 labour strikes. Under the Presidentship of Lala Lajpat Rai All-India Trade Union Congress held its first session in October in Bombay. Leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru, and Subhas Chandra Bose were also Left inclined and brought Left-wing tint in Congress. The left influences was very, strongly visible in the second, phase of revolutionary terrorism between 1922 and 1928. In December 1928, a Conference of different labour-kisan parties was called forth and they merged into All-India Workers and Peasant’s Party (WPP). Its’ aim was to work within the Congress and infuse in it a more radical orientation. Their programme comprised abolition of zamindari and redistribution of land, development of the peasants and workers movement and raising the general standard of the masses. Their presence in the Congress gave the Communists a strong entrée point. However, the Government, ever paranoid of socialism, grew alarmed at the increase in Left activities and subsequently arrested 32 political and trade union leaders in March 1929 under Meerut Conspiracy Case which dragged on for three odd years. These were defended by Jawaharlal Nehru, M. A. Ansari and M. C. Chagla. 27 of the accused were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment while Muzzafar Ahmed was given life imprisonment.

In 1928 with the adoption, in CPI meet at Calcutta in 1929, of the Comintern change of policy, the Congress was declared as the class party of the, bourgeoisie and all connections with it were broken. There was another shift when in 1934, the Communists were asked to join back the




national movements against imperialism. Many Communists joined the leadership of the Congress Socialist Party (CSP). CSP was formed in 1934 in Pune under the chairmanship of Narendra Dev with the aim of consolidating Leftist proposals after gaining independence. It was geared towards moulding Congress along socialist lines. Nehru and Bose supported CSP from outside. However, CSP could not really gain much headway. Neither could it leave Congress that this point in time as it would have weakened the CSP. Gradually, within Congress there emerged two camps on account of the rowing socialist influence in INC. Congress got divided along “Leftist” and “Rightist” predilections. The radical leaders like G. B. Pant, P. D. Tandon and Sri Prakash joined CSP and harped on the local Congress executives to implement radical measures like removal of middlemen; cancellation of debts of peasants owed to the landlords and regulation of land tax. This was criticized by the right wing leaders like Patel. The Cabinet Mission Plan was rejected by the CSP and it boycotted the Constituent Assembly. CSP dropped Congress from its nomenclature in February-March 1947 and threw its door open to non-Congress members. Its connections with the Congress were formally severed in 1948 after Patel’s declaration that all political parties formed within Congress were outlawed. Given the option to join or opt out, the Socialist Party chose the latter. However, socialist influence was carried on by Nehru who did not agree with forming a separate organisation or breaking away from Congress and severing the ties with Gandhi and right wing nationalists.

Ques. 9 : Briefly discuss the achievement and activities of the Swaraj Party? Ans. In the vaccum created by the premature termination of the Non-Cooperation and the imprisonment of Gandhi, Congress was in a fix about its stand on civil disobedience and what it should include. To this end a Civil Disobedience Committee was formed towards the end of 1922 which comprised of several eminent leaders. However, conflict arose on the question of boycott of Legislatures. Two opposing groups emerged. The ‘pro-changers’ headed by C. R. Das, Vithalbhai Patel, Hakim Ajmal Khan and Motilal Nehru spearheaded contesting Council elections and wrecking them from within by total obstruction of their proceedings. This, they believed, would create a deadlock and ‘the Government would ‘be forced to concede further reforms. The second group of ‘no-changers’, Ansari, Rajagopalachari, Kasturi-ranga lyengar, Rajendra Prasad and Vallabhbhai Patel wanted to stick to the Gandhian programme of constructive rural work.

At the Gaya Congress session of December 1922, under the presidentship of C. R. Das, the ‘pro-changers’ were defeated by the ‘no-changers’. C.R. Das himself a ‘pro-changer’ resigned from the his post and along with other ‘prochangers’ formed the Congress-Khiiafat-Swarajya Party, commonly known as the Swarajya Party. It however, did not dissociate itself from the Congress but claimed to be its integral part and continued to profess commitment to non-violent non-cooperation. Congressmen were allowed to stand for elections and faith in constructive programme was reiterated at a Delhi Special Congress session in September 1923 and at the next regular session at Coconada in December. This way another break in Congress was avoided. The Swarajya Party established a separate organisation (within the banner of Congress) under the leadership of C R Das and Motilal Nehru who acted as Joint Chiefs. The Swarajya Party in spite of the short time was able to win 42 out of 101 elective seats in the Central Legislative Assembly and also secured the support of the Liberals (those who had walked out of INC in 1918) and Jinnah. In the Provincial Legislatures, the pro-changers secured a majority in the Central Provinces and became the largest party in Bengal. In the United Provinces and Bombay they did well too. But in Madras and the Punjab, the caste based and communal forces in the form of Justice and Unionist Parties (respectively) were stronger.




The Swarajyist programme of wrecking the Councils was a success. In the enter Provinces and Bengal they made diarchy unworkable by refusing salaries to the Ministers and thereby compelling them-to resign. In the Central Legislatures their efforts led to the appointment of Alexander Muddiman Committee to enquire into the defect of the Act of 1919. They also sought to make a case for the repeal of the repressive laws. Due to their efforts the government was forced to grant protection to Tata’s steel, industry in 1924. The Swarajyists were also able to secure a few economic benefits like, abolition of cotton excise duty, reduction of duty on salt, improvements in the conditions of labour, protection for the trade unions and so on. This led to forging of connections between the Indian business groups and the Swarajya Party. It was through the working of the Swarajyists that many Indians were exposed to parliamentarian politics.

The Congress, on the other hand, was able to capture local bodies and municipalities almost across India, especially in Calcutta under C. R. Das and Subhas Bose, Allahabad under Jawaharlal Nehru and Ahmedabad under Vallabhbhai Patel. This provided an opportunity for introducing limited change but in terms of patronage and funds, it proved to be rather valuable.

However, even the Swarajya Party was not immune to deviating from its path and internal divisions. Once they disrupted the working of the dyarchy, they were at odds about their next step. Moreover, the Viceroy or the Governors, if they so choose, could push any legislation by means of the certificate procedure. This limitation was brought home when Subhas Bose was detained under, an Ordinance without the benefit of a trial, along with 80 others who were suspected of having terrorist links in October 1924. While the Ministers in the dyarchy had little powers, they controlled a fair share of patronage and funds. The Swarajyists were unable to avoid the lure of benefits and a trend of ‘responsive cooperation’ with the Government soon developed: The ‘group to adopt such an approach came to be known as the ‘Responsivites’ as against the ‘Non-Responsivites, those who opposed such cooperation The ‘Responsivites’ in their efforts to protect Hindu interests cooperated with the Government and the Muslims isolated themselves. These divisions had an impact on the party as was visible when in the 1926 elections the Swarajya Party won only 40 seats in the Central Legislature and in Madras only half the seats; while in other Provinces they fared rather badly. In 1930, the Swarajya Party walked out of the Legislature and by early 1 930s, it was already in decline.

The Swarajists fought the election of 1923 and were pitted against the Liberals. They did not join the Liberal Federation because the letter was identified British and had achieved little during the past three years of its existence. The Liberals hardly ever condemned the bureaucracy even for its serious lapses and the Swarajists frowned at their (Liberals’) association with the alien Government. They considered the attitude of the Liberals as ‘unpatriotic’. They achieved remarkable successes and became a majority in Central Provinces (C.P.) a dominant party in Bengal and influential in U.P. and Bombay. In the Central Legislative Assembly, they won 45 out of 145 seats. They did good work in the Provincial Councils, but their work was memorable in the General Assembly. Here, the leader was Moti Lal Nehru who could, by the support of the Nationalist Party and some independents, command a working majority.

During 1923-1926 - period of Swarajists’ pre-dominance the Congress went into eclipse. The political atmosphere of the country during 1923 was disturbed by more severe Hindu-Muslim riots. The Khilafat movement came to an inglorious end and the leadership of the Muslims began to past into the hands of the Muslim League. Gandhiji’s confinement in jail plunged the Congress into disarray. The Council-goers (Das and Moti Lal) broke away from the Congress at Gaya and organized the Swaraj Party. In such circumstances, there was little hope that Civil Disobedience could be launched as a national programme in the near future in the shadow of these




disappointments, a special session of the Congress was held at Delhi in September 1923 under the presidentship of Maulana Azad, to consider the move of the Das and Nehru. A resolution was adopted endorsing the formation of the Swaraj Party, and the Coundil-goers got the Congress declare that ‘such Congressmen as have no religious or other conscientious objections against entering the Legislature are at liberty to stand as candidates and to exercise their right of voting at the forthcoming elections.

And the Congress, therefore, suspends all propaganda against entering the Council. The annual session of the Congress at Kakinada in December 1923 three months later, while reaffirming the principle and policy of boycott of the Councils, declared, in a new interpretation of non-cooperation, that “non-cooperation could be effected as much from inside the Councils as from outside”. The session stressed constructive work as had been adopted at Bardoli, and called upon the Nation to prepare itself to take up Civil Disobedience.

The Death of C.B. Das in 1923 not only weakened the Swarajists but also took away one of its most outstanding leaders. Finally, Swarajists walked out of the Legislature in March 1926 on the issue of all-white Simon.

Other Political Parties and Movements In the period 1922-27 a number of political forces rose up aside from the Swarajya Party.

• In 1919, the Moderates who had walked out of the Congress in the second split formed National Liberal League which Later came to be known as All India Liberal Federation. And true to their moderate ways, they cooperated with the Government. However, the loss in the elections of 1923 marked its demise as an organised body. Yet some of its members, Tej Bahadur Sapru, B. C. Pal and Srinivas Sastri continued to exercise influence on political activities. • With the abolishment of the Khilafat in Turkey by Mustafa Kamal Pasha in 1924, the All-India Khilafat Committee too decline. In its absence, the All India Muslim League revived under the leadership of Jinnah who was from now to play an intrinsic role in Muslim politics. • With the election of Madan Mohan Malviya as the President of Hindu Mahasabha (founded in 1918) at its Belgaum session in 1924, Hindu communal politics gained in strength and vigour. The multiplicity of configuration of Indian society meant that aside from religious-based organisations there emerged bodies with non-religious affiliations. These organisations were of varied nature, caste-based, peasant based and so on. • In Madras, Justice Party with its anti-Brahman predilections unrepentantly cooperated with the British Government and made the working of dyarchy a success. • In Maharashtra Bhaskarrao Jadav’s non-Brahman Party was so loyalists and against the Congress which it believed to be more Brahman oriented. On December 28, 1924, at all-India Non-Brahmin Conference held at Belgaurn with A Rarnaswami Mudaliar as the Chairman, the various non-Brahman organisations were merged into an all-India body. This Conference demanded communal representation to no-Brahmans in elective bodies and Government services. • In the Punjab, the Unionist Party of Fazl-i-Husain with its pro-agriculturalist base that included landlord and rich peasants, forged ties with the Jats and the Muslims, was able to build a strong lobby against urban nationalism. The Aklai Movement which sought to free the gurdwaras from the control of the corrupt and pro-British Mahants was of greater significance in the Punjab. As influence and reach expanded the Brtish Government in order to avoid spread of rebellious ideas to the Sikhs in the army passed the Gurdwara Reform Act of 1925 which restored the control of the shrines to Sikh management that was now undertaken by Shiromani Gurdwara Prababdhak




Committee (SGPC). • A Satyagraha, The Nagpur Flag Satyagraha was started in mid-1923 against a local order which banned the use of the Congress flag in some areas of Nagpur. • A first really successful Gandhian Satyagraha took place in Borsad in Kheda district in 1923-24 under Vallabhbhai Patel. Initially it started out against a poll-tax of Rs.2-7-0 imposed in September 1923 on every adult in Borsad. It was imposed to meet the expenses involved for the policing required to suppress a wave of dacoities. This tax was resented because these dacoities were committed mainly by low-caste Baraiyas. The Patidars who paid the poll-tax felt that they were being penalized for supporting the Congress The satyagraha spread to all the 104 affected villages in December and demanded total non-payment of the poll-tax. The tax under pressure-was scraped on January 7, 1922. • Another significant satyagraha was Vaikom Satyagraha (1924-25) was fought for ‘temple-entry’, the first of its kind, by the low caste Ezhavas and untouchables for their right to use the roads near a Tranvancore temple It was led by the Ezhava Congress leader T K Madhavn along with fellow Congressmen, K Kelappan and K P Menon Even Gandhi visited Vaikom in March 1925 but the movement petered out after 20 months when the Government constructed diversionary roads for use by the untouchables. This movement witnessed multi-caste participation when Nair caste association leader Mannath Padmanabha Pillai pitched in. However, the more important Christian community was—somewhat alienated when Gandhi asked them to keep away from a Hindu affair (a similar advice was later given by him to Christian missionaries, like C. F. Andrews, who were pro-Indians during the course of the freedom movement).

States Peoples Conference Movements (Praja Mandal Movements in Princely States) The British India comprised of two types of territories the territories annexed, conquered by or ceded to the British, which were under the direct British rule under the British laws These British territories had been divided into Provinces and Commissioners Territories, etc. The rest of British India comprised of Princely, Native or subsidiary states, having signed the Subsidiary Alliance with the British or signed Agreements or Sanads with the British. The number of such Princely States during the post-Revolt phase was 562 and all of them acknowledged the British Paramountcy. The territories, of these states intermingled with those of British- India. The people of the states belonged to the same race, same religion, culture and linguistic groups. A number of states were ancient. Some of them owed their origin to the weakness and decline of the Mughal empire like Hyderabad and Maratha states. Others were creation of British themselves. In status, authority and honour, the states differed. The Simon Commission enumerated two features of Indian states: i) they were not British territory, and ii) their subjects were not British subjects; The relation was one of paramount power and each of them was ascertained from a Treaty or other written document or usage or agreement. The duties of the-British Crown were to protect the rulers of the states ‘and his dynasty from internal disorder and external attack to ‘conduct their external relations, to provide for their defence and regulate disputed succession.’ Internally, these princely states enjoyed autonomy except the right of the paramount power in the case of gross misgovernment. The princes were reasonably in firm control over their territories and employed autocratic methods against all sources of opposition. In wider perspective, the princes acted as Indian spokesmen for ‘order’ and as ‘mediators’ between foreign British and Indian social and religious groups. As. Nehru wrote in his Autobiography, most of the states were known for their backwardness, semi-feudal conditions, personal autocracies, devoid even of compassion or benevolence. Inspite of British paramountcy, the semi-feudal conditions were retained, autocracy was kept, the old laws and procedures continued to function and all the restrictions on personal




liberty, association and expression of opinion continued. However, a few states made some progress. In Travancore, the percentage of literacy was 47 percent and in Cochin 35 percent. Some- had introduced local self-government or advisory and popular institutions. But none surrendered its sovereignty to the people. None of them had their own currency. Many of them were connected with British India through roads and rails. There were no travel restrictions on the British Indian subjects. Many adopted British laws and employed British officers on deputation. During the fag end of the nineteenth century, as a result of Indian economic development, the relations of the princely states with British India expanded, tending to multiply contacts between, the peoples of both regions and expose the people of the states to the thought and action of British India people.

(a) Changes in British Policy During the Post-Revolt Phase With the assumption of the Government of India by the Crown in 1858, the relations of the Indian States with the British Government entered upon a new phase. Till now these relations were neither uniform nor well-defined as they grew up at different times and under different circumstances. Hence there was much uncertainty about the position and status of the ruling dynasties. Theoretically, many of the States were independent under certain specified restrictions, but in practice they were often interfered with and sometimes downright annexed. Failure of natural heirs and misgovernment were the two main grounds of annexation. This policy was now definitely abandoned and the changed outlook found authoritative expression in the pledge given in the Queen’s Proclamation of 1858. ‘We desire no extension of our present territorial possessions” this was the solemn assurance given to the Princes and feudatory chiefs. This assurance was implemented by grants of sanads authorising the Princes to adopt sons on failure of natural heirs. The perpetuity of the States was thus guaranteed. Henceforth the British policy was to preserve the States as bulwarks of the British Empire, as “breakwaters to storm” that might sweep over the country. The feudatory chiefs were kept in good humour and their loyalty was secured by the grant of high-sounding titles, gun-salutes and other marks of favour.

Although the policy of annexation was abandoned the British Government continued to assert the doctrine of paramountcy with increasing emphasis? As early as 1800 Lord Canning affirmed the principle that “the Government of India was not precluded from stepping in to set right such serious abuses in a native government. It as may threaten any part of the country with anarchy or disturbance, nor from assuming temporary charge of a native state when there snail be sufficient reasons to do so” This right to interfere in the internal affairs of the State in case of misgovernment was definitely asserted on several occasions. Policy of Subordinate’ Isolation (1813-58): During this period the Company made the Indian States subordinate to itself by making them enter into subsidiary alliances. They were required to give either money or enough territory so that the Company might be able to keep a contingent force either in the State itself or outside for its protection. The State joining the subsidiary alliance had to turn out all the non-English and European employees from its services. It could not conduct any foreign relations except through the British Government. In all disputes with other powers, it was to recognize the Biritish Government as arbitrator. In return, the British Government would guarantee territorial integrity of the States. The officials of the Company became very bold and they adopted the strategy of annexing Indian States with vigour. Any argument could be manufactured for this sake, ranging from ‘misgovernance’ to that of absence of a ‘natural’ heir. It was just a tactic that while many States had been annexed, some like Kashmir, Khairapur and Shawalpur were assured of the Company’s policy of nonintervention. The fact stands out that Company’s policy vis-a-vis Indian States was chaotic, indefinite and contradictory. Dodwell says that during this period




Company’s policy remained both undefined and undefinable but always lending to expand under the strong pressure of political circumstances.

Policy of Subordinate Union (1858-1935): A significant change in the policy towards the Indian States occurred in 1858. Now the course of annexation was finally abandoned and instead the principle of intervention in the affairs of a State was introduced that could amount to the deposition of the ruler. Lord Canning gave practical shape to the new trend by granting 140 sanads or instruments or grants of adoption to Hindu and Muslim Princes. Lord Lansdowne issued 17 more sanads. The fiction of the Indian rulers standing on a status of equality with the Crown in the capacity of sovereign and independent states came to an end. At the time of rendition of Mysore in 1881 the position of the new prince was made conditional on his ‘remaining faithful in allegiance and subordination to the Crown’. The British Government had a big stick in its hand so as to break the tips of any ruler who would do anything amounting to the forfeiture of allegiance. In 1865 the ruler of Jhabua was fined and deprived of his salute for allowing the mutilation of a temple thief. So Muhammed Ali Khan (Nawab of Tonk) was charged with complicity in an attack on the relations of his tributary (the Thakur of Laws). He had to resign in favour of his son in 1867, the ruler of Alwar was deposed and a Council of Regency was set up there. The Gaekawad of Baroda was charged with the act of giving poison to the Resident (Phayre) and deposed in 1875. The Maharaja of Kashmir was forced to quit in favour of a Council of Regency. In 1892 the Khan of Kalat was deposed for brutal executions and barbarous conduct towards his wazir. Since freedom movement had gained momentum under Gandhi’s leadership, its influence on the Indian States was feared and so the Chamber of Princes came into being. The Butler Committee Report (1929) rankly said that the Princes had no sovereign authority.

Policy of Equal Federation (1935-47): The Indian Princes were invited to take part in the Round Table Conferences (1930-32). The Government of India Act of 1935 proposed a system of Federation which the rulers could join according to their will and on their terms. The Federal Parliament had two Chambers and the States were given representation in them. They had 104 seats in the Council of State and 125 seats in the House of Assembly. The members were to be nominated by the rulers of the States. But the princes had their fears and so they did not like to join the Federation. The result was that when the Second World War broke out in September 1939, Viceroy Linlithgow declared that the scheme of Federation was scrapped. The Cripps Scheme (1942) desired representation of the States in the proposed. Constituent Assembly with their option to accept the Constitution framed by it or not. On 22 May 1946, the Cabinet Mission released a ‘Memorandum on States Treaties and Paramountcy’ which referred to the desirability of the States forming or joining, administrative units large, enough to enable them to be fitted into the constitutional structure.

(b) Formation of “The Chamber of Princes” or “Nripendra Mandal” The British Government while tightening its control over the Indian princes, realised the necessity of securing their co-operation in view of the troubled political situation after the partition of Bengal Lord Curzon and Lord Minto wanted to form a consultative body composed of representatives, of different States. The need for such a body to co-operate with the British Government became greater because of the difficulties created by the first World War of 1914-18 Lord Hardinge had this plan in his mind when in 1916 he described the Indian princes as “helpers and colleagues in the great task of imperial rule.” The Montague-Chelmsford Report made a definite recommendation for the creation of a “permanent consultative body” and so the chamber of




Princes was set up by a Royal Proclamation in 1921. The Chamber was to be it consultative, body in matters concerning British India and the States in common.

The idea of having a body of the Indian Princes as an advisory body was quite old. As early as 1876 Viceroy Lytton had suggested the formation of an Indian Privy Council of Chiefs of some big Indian States to confer with the Governor-General on matters of common interest. Curzon offered the idea of having a Council of the Ruling Princes and then Minto suggested the making of an Imperial Advisory Council. The authors of the Montford Report, favoured the formation of a Council of Princes. So, the assemblage of 1877 made by Lytton “finally culminated in the establishment of the Chamber of the Princes.” Inaugurated on 8 February1921, it had the object to enable the States to consider in a collective body all questions bearing on:

1. the dignity, prerogatives as well as interests of the Princes and the States, 2. maintenance of their rights and privileges as defined by the treaties and engagements, 3. joints interests of the States and British India, 4. interests of the Indian Empire -as a whole, and 5. matters relating-to the British Empire as a whole.

It consisted of 120 princes, out of which 12 members represented 127 States and the remaining 108 were members in their own right. Some important Indian rulers did not join it. Ordinarily it met once a year and was presided over by the Viceroy. It elected its own Chancellor who presided over the meeting in the absence of the Viceroy. The Chancellor was the president of the Standing Committee of this Chamber. Every year the Standing Committee submitted its report to the Chamber. It met twice or thrice in a year in Delhi to discuss important questions facing the Indian States.

The Chamber of the Princes was a deliberative, consultative and advisory body that subserved the purpose of both the British Government and the rulers of the Indian States. In order to maintain as well as demonstrate their loyalty to the British. Raj, the rulers of the States rendered their cooperation in the suppression of the freedom movement. Soon after Gandhi’s start of Salt Satyagraha in April 1930, the Nizam of Hyderabad, at the instance of Lord Irwin, issued a manifesto exhorting all Muslims to stand firmly aloof from this movement -and, on the request of the Viceroy, he contacted Nawab Hamidullah Khan of Bhopal and they together exceed their weight on the leaders of the Deoband School so as keep to keep away the lndian Muslims from the influence of the Indian leaders.

(c) Butler Committee Report (1926) and Indian Princely States Meanwhile the Princes were getting restive. The gradual Indianisation of the Government made them very sensitive about their position and prestige. They shrank from the idea of acknowledging the suzerainty of Indian ministers responsible to popularly elected legislature. For some time past they had been protesting against the extent to which the Paramount Power interested in their domestic affairs. Besides, they had their grievances in regard to the tariff policy of the Government and the collection of customs revenue. Hence in 1927 the Secretary of States appointed the Indian States Committee presided over by Sir Harcourt Butler to investigate the nature of relationship between the Paramount Power and the Indian States and to make recommendations for adjusting the fiscal relations between British India and the Indian States. The report of the Butler Committee was published in 1929. It insisted that “Paramountcy must remain paramount” but at the same




time declared that a new Indian Government responsible to an Indian legislature could not take over the existing duties of the British Government towards the States without their rulers’ consent. The Government of India Act of 1935 provided for a scheme for the accession of the States to the proposed Federation. But the Federal part of the Act was to come into force only when specific number of States had acceded to it.

The main recommendation of the Butler Committee were: 1. Paramountcy must remain paramout and it must fulfil its obligations by defining and adopting itself according to the shifting necessities, of the time and the progress development of States. 2. The States were bound with the Crown by treaties and so they should not be handed over to the Indian Government without their prior consent. 3. The Viceroy, not the Governor General-in-Council was to be the Crown agent in dealing with the States 4. The scheme regarding the creation of a State Council should be rejected. 5. Intervention in the administration of a State should be left to be decision of the Viceroy. Special committees Should be set up to inquire into disputes that might arise between the States and British India.

Reactions The report of the Committee failed to satisfy the rulers to the desired extent it enunciated the theory of direct relationship between the British Crown and the Indian States. So it was criticised not only by the rulers but by other leaders of our country as well. For instance, Sir C.Y. Chintamani said : “The Butler Committee was bad in its origin, bad in the time chosen for its appointment, bad in its terms of reference, bad in its personnel, and bad in its line of inquiry, while its report is bad in reasoning and bad in its conclusions.” Sir M. Visvesaryya commented that the Butler proposals “are unsympathetic, unhistorical, hardly constitutional or legal.” The Nehru-Committee accused it of being an attempt to convert the Indian States into an Indian Ulster.’ At the Round Tale Conferences the representatives of the Indian States hesitatingly supported the case of a federation as put forth by Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru. The Nawab of Bhopal declared: “We can only federate with a self-governing and federal British India.”

(d) Praja Mandal and All-India States People’s Conference (AISPC) It was after the launching of the Non-cooperation Movement the I.N.C., came forward to support the peoples of Princely States. The Nagpur session of the Congress (1920) earnestly requested all the princes of India to establish full responsible government in their states. The Non-cooperation Movement and Khilafat agitation in 1920s exercised considerable influence over the people of States. It was increasingly being realized that British India could never achieve effective self-government or dominion status unless the states shared in democratic political advance. Under the impact of national movement, numerous local organizations such as Praja Mandals (States Peoples Conferences) began to be established to agitate for democratic institutions in advanced states like Mysore, Hyderabad, Baroda, Kathiavad, etc. Since most princes proscribed all forms of political opposition to their administration and policies, these newly formed associations usually met on the British Indian territory, preferably near state boundaries. They contained a sizeable number of British Indians and state subjects living in British India. The different regional groups were converted into an All India States People’s Conference (A1SPC) in 1927 under the




leadership of Balwant Rai Mehta, Manilal Kothari and G.R. Abhayankar with its headquarters in Bombay.

(e) Early Congress Attitude Towards States People’s Movement. The leaders of the Praja Mandals looked towards the Indian National Congress for encouragement and support. The policy of the Indian National Congress towards the Indian states was first enunciated in 1920 at the Nagpur session which called upon the princes to grant full responsible government in their states. But the Congress believed in the policy of non-intervention in the affairs of the states. The Congressmen were called upon not to initiate political activity in the states in the name of Congress (they could function in their individual capacity). Given the great difference in the political conditions of British India and the Indian states, the general-lack of civil liberties and political backwardness of the people of the states, and the fact that Indian states were legally independent entities, there certain restriction on the Congress. Hence, the main emphasis was that the people of the states should build up their own strength and demonstrate their own capacity to struggle for their demands. However, the informal links between the Indian National Congress and AISPC continued in 1927 Congress reiterated its resolution of 1920. In 1929, Nehru as President of INC declared that ‘the Indian states cannot live apart from the rest of India…the only people who have a right to determine their future of the states must be the peoples of those states. But it was decided that political activities should be left to the Praja Mandals or State Peoples Conference.

(f) AISPC Activities and Response of the Indian Princes The programme of early Praja Mandals in different states was moderate in tone. It called for representative institutions as a preparation or responsible government under a monarch supported by the loyalty of his people. Some of their manifestations even contained expressions of sympathy and support for the princes in their effort to maintain their rights and status vis-a-vis paramount power. The All India State Peoples Conference in its first meeting held in December 1927, called for a federal arrangement between the two parts of India, an amalgamation of smaller states into politically and economically viable units, political reforms such as independent judiciary and responsible ministries within the state governments. It also pleaded for the acceptance of the principle of popular representation and self-government by-elections. The conference underlined the problems of the people living in the princely states, demanded social education and economic reforms. It also raised a voice for the states people in the relationship between the princely states and British India AISPC rapidly emerged as a permanent and powerful political organization. It brought a general awakening and a new spirit of cohesion among the people of princely states The Congress lent its indirect support while Nehru believed that the princely states could not live apart from the rest of India, Ramananda Chatterjee, who presided over the third meeting of AISPC said, “the division of India into British India and Indian India is political and administrative, not a geographic division, nor a natural division in any other sense. for India is one.”

The usual princely response to this type of political activity was suppression within their own territories and request to the British government to choke off such Opposition on their side of the border. Instead of making any serious reforms, the princes charged that the peoples’ leaders were unrepresentative of the dis-loyal masses within princely India and their programmes were unrelated to local customs and conditions. Willingly deluded by their own counterattacks, the




princes were slow to recognize the growing adherence of their formerly docile subjects to the state peoples’ movement. Their political shortsightedness meant that they would have to cope with increasingly belligerent demands just when their bargaining power was declining.

The announcement of Simon Commission in 1927 inaugurated a new era of political confrontation between Indian nationalists and the British government. During the civil disobedience movement, the goal of Indian National Congress became independence. The emergence of state peoples groups within and around the states coming forward to participate in the civil disobedience movement presented an unprecedented challenge to the princes’ ability to maintain internal order. British effort during this period was to mobilize the princes to thwart the activities of the Congress. The special activities of the civil disobedience movement such as the boycott of British goods were not allowed to be practised in the states.

The AISPC staked its claim to be represented at the First Round Table Conference. When the request was turned down by the British government, it presented a memorandum to the Congress pleading for an all India federation that would grant to the people of the states all fundamental rights and privileges which the Karachi Congress session had demanded from the British government. However, Gandhi was not in favour of Congress intervention in the affairs of the states. Though he continued to be firm on their earlier stand that the people of the state must fight for their rights themselves, he supported the adoption of resolution calling upon the princes to accord fundamental rights to their subjects.

Even this moral support of the Congress proved enough to activate the movement of the peoples of the states. The working of the Congress ministries in the provinces during 1937-39 apprised the people of the great difference between the rule of the popular governments and that of the hereditary rulers of the states. The operation of the Congress governments also enthused the leaders of this party to talk of United India’ and to rabidly denounced the autocratic ways of the princely rulers. The AICC at its meeting held at Calcutta in October, 1937 condemned the ruthless policy and actions of the ruler of the state of Mysore and put stress on the right of the people for self-determination. The Congress sent fraternal greetings to the people of Mysore and wished them bold success in their non-violent struggle. The Haripura session of the congress held in 1938 authorised the Congressmen to take part in their individual capacity in the freedom struggle going on in the states. In the following year, the Tripuri Congress criticised the action of the rulers of the states of Rajkot and Kathiawad for breaking the settlement which they had arrived at with Gandhiji and Sardar Patel. As the president of this session, Subhas Bose advocated a systematic and vigorous policy of the party towards the princely states. The AISPC supported the call for complete independence given by the Congress in 1929, it resolved to endorse the stand of the Congress on war crisis in 1939. Thus, by all means, it worked as the adjunct of the Congress. The AISPC worked as a link between the Praja Mandals and the Indian National Congress. It is true that on many occasions the leaders of the AISPC felt dissatisfied with the stand of the Congress for not meeting their expectations, things improved after Nehru became its President. When Nehru frankly declared that “the people of the states had the right to self-determination”, the leaders of the AISPC whole-heartedly appreciated it. But they expressed their displeasure at the agreement whereby the stales had been given representation in the Constituent Assembly unequal to that of the British Indian provinces and more than that, after a little while, the principle of election was substituted by the method of nomination of the representatives of the states. They, however, willy-nilly accepted what Nehru said due to their confidence in his leadership. The fact stands out that as the Congress was closely associated with the AISPC, it could be possible for Nehru to secure the cooperation of the people of the states on such a vital issues. The AISPC at its meeting held at Bombay on 25 April, 1948 resolved to




dissolve itself. Thereupon the Congress Working Committee decided to merge all Praja Mandals and Parishads with its District and Provincial Congress Committees.

It was because of the AISPC or Praja Mandal movements, the national movement in true sense became a movement of the nation and in view of these movements the integration of the Indian States to the Indian Union could become possible so smoothly, immediately after India’s Independence.

Ques. 10 : Briefly discuss the Simon Commission and Anti-Simon Commission Agitation? Ans. It was in the background of the growing political unrest in India after the suspension of the Non-cooperation Movement, particularly after the rise and growth of the second phase of the revolutionary terrorism, and the great ‘economic recession’ between the two World War that in November 1927, the British government announced the appointment Indian Statutory Commission (known as Simon Commission to recommend future constitutional reforms in India.)

The Simon Commission consisted of seven members headed by Sir-John Simon, an eminent constitutional lawyer and a prominent member of the Liberal Party in the House of Commons. The Indian reaction to the appointment of the Simon Commission was sharp, swift ad unanimous to boycott the Simon Commission.

The fundamental resentment against the Commission was that it was an all white Commission. The Secretary of State, Lord Birkenhead had already been warned that the all white and non-participation of the Indians could invite troubles but he never paid any heed to this. He showed his inability to give representation to all political sections in India on the Commission. For him, the issue of constitutional reforms was too vital to include Indians in it. On the other hand, the non-association of Indians was considered by the national leaders as an outrageous insult. Nearly all political formations and groups in India decided to boycott the Commission. The Indian National Congress which met at Madras in December 1927, decided to boycott the Commission. The Congress was determined not to meet the Commission, not to give evidence not to serve on any select committee nor to vote for their formulations. It was declared that Indians were entitled to determine their own constitution and they could not be a party to an inquiry into their own fitness for Swaraj. The most important reason was the affront to Indian self-respect by their deliberate exclusion from the Commission. Simultaneously, the liberal Federation presided over by Tej Bahadur Sapru adopted a similar resolution. The Muslim League also resolved to boycott the Commission and appointed a committee to prepare a constitution for India in consultation with other parties. The lead given by these parties was followed by Hindu Mahasabha, the Khilafat Conference etc. Thus, by the end of 1927, practically all established political groups had decided to boycott the Commission. Those who decided to welcome the Commission were either splinter groups like a section of Muslim League led by Muhammad Shafi or representatives of factional interests such as Europeans, Anglo-Indians, non-Brahmin movement leaders, Depressed Classes etc.

When the Commission arrived in India in early 1928, it was boycotted not only by the Congress but by the Liberals, the major sections of Muslim League and by individual leaders like, Jinnah and Annie Besant. Lala Lajpat Rai moved a resolution in the legislature on 16 February 1928, stating, ‘The assembly recommends to the Governor-General-in-Council that he may be pleased to convey to His Majesty’s Government the Assembly’s lack of confidence in the Parliamentary




Commission which has been appointed to recast the constitution. The motion was carried by 68 votes to 62. For him, India was not a problem for any commission of inquiry but a problem for negotiation and agreement. Jinnah declared ‘Simon Commission is the butchery of our soul’.

The Commission was greeted with ‘Go back Simon’ banners, black flags and wide demonstrations on its arrival at Bombay. All major towns and cities observed hartal. Wherever Simon Commission went whether it was Calcutta, Lucknow, Vijaywada or Poona — it was greeted by mass rallies and black flags. In Lucknow, Jawaharlal Nehru and Govind Vallabh Pant were beaten up by the police. But the worst happened in Lahore where. Lala Lajpat Rai led a huge procession of demonstrators. The procession was lathi charged by the police. The white police officer Saunders rained lathi blows on Lalaji and inflicted grievous injuries resulting later in his death. It was his death that Bhagat Singh and his comrades were seeking to avenge when they killed Saunders in December 1928.

Throughout 1928, intense excitement prevailed in the country on account of the Simon Commission and its boycott. No stone was left unturned to warn the Government on the, consequences of the policy of which the Simon Commission of exclusive British composition was the expression. The resentment was expressed through strikes, demonstrations, boycotts, burning of foreign clothes etc. The boycott movement provided the first taste of political action to the new generation of youth represented by Jawaharlal Nehru and Subhas Chandra Bose. The rising communist and socialist leaders also participated in the movement.

Inspite of the anti-Simon Commission agitation it submitted its final, report in May 1930, which was discussed at the Round Table Conference consisting of the representatives from the Parliament, the Indian states the British India to discuss this issue. However, some portions of the report were adopted by the Government of India Act, 1935.

Ques. 11 : Give an account of the Revolution-ary Movement in northern India in the Post-1922 period? Ans. The revolutionary movement witnessed a second revival in the post-1922 period. It was borne out of the disillusionment caused by the failure of the Non-Cooperation Movement and the vaccum created in the political activity thereafter. Dispirited with the lack of results of the non-violent Gandhian methods, the educated youth of Bengal, the Punjab, U.P. and Delhi resorted to the revolutionary terrorism. Yugantar and Anushilan Samities among other older revolutionary societies re-emerged.

Revolutionary Movement in Northern India- Sachin Sanyal and Jogesh Chandra Chatterji, two Bengalis living in U.P. organized the Hindustan Republican Association at Kanpur in October 1924. Its objectives were to (i) establish a Federal Republic of United States of India by means of an organized and armed revolution; (ii) focus on political crimes like political dacoities (of money belonging to the Government), in order to collect money and arms for the revolution; and (iii) have various departments of HRA. The dacoity of a running train at Kakori on the Lucknow-Saharanpur section of the Northern Railways in August 1925 by ten HRA members was the main highlight of the society. Most members (29) were arrested after the government unearthed the whole plan. Of the 29, four revolutionaries Ram Prasad Bismil, Asfaqullah Khan, Roshan Lal and Rajendra Lahiri, were sentenced to death.




The remaining members sought to establish Links with the Hindustan Socialist Republican Army which was emerging under the leadership of Bhagat Singh in September 1928. It sought to establish a Socialist Republican State in India. The first act of HSRA was the assassination of Saunder, the Assistant Superintendent of Police of Lahore at Lahore Railway Station on 17 December, 1928 by Chandra Shekhar Azad and Rajguru. It was Saunder who was in-charge when the order of lathi-charge, which had wounded Lala Lajpat Ral while he was protesting against the Simon Commission on October 30, 1928, was given. Unable to find the culprits the Government clamped down on the public. In order to announce that mass action was needed and to make people aware of the need of hour, two of HSRA members, Bhagat Singh and Batukeshawar threw two crude bombs along with some leaflets in the Central Legislative Assembly on April 8, 1929 while the discussion for the Public Safety and the Trade Dispute Bill was going on, and courted arrest. These bills, if passed, would have reduced the civil liberties of the people in general and workers in particular. The two were arrested and tried under the Central Assembly Case.

With the arrest of Bhagat Singh and Batukeshwar, most of the remaining HSRA revolutionaries were too arrested for the Lahore Conspiracy Case. Those arrested undertook a hunger-strike in jail in order to secure for themselves the status of political prisoners rather than ordinary criminals. On September 23, 1931, Jatin Das died on the 64th day of his hunger strike. While most were convicted, three of them; Bhagat Singh, Sukh Dev and Rajguru were hanged on March 23, 1931, a sacrifice that was mourned across the country.

Ques. 12 : Briefly discuss the revolutionary movement in Bengal in the post-1922 period? Ans. The Revolutionary Movement in Bengal- The revolutionary terrorist reorganized themselves in Bengal. They undertook underground activities while at same time participating in the Congress working: Some also heldped C. RDas in his Swarajyist work. With his death, the Bengal Congress leadership had divided into two groups, one led by Subhas Chandra Bose with whom the Yugantar group joined itself with and the other was led by J. M. Sengupta with whom Anushilan group joined forces with. The rivalry between the two groups often weakened the revolutionary movement in Bengal. Indian Republican Army, the most prominent organisation in Bengal, was founded by Surya Sen who had participated, in the Non-Cooperation Movement. As he had become a teacher in a National school in Chittagong, he came to be known as the Master Da. A band of revolutionaries like Lokenath Baul, Ganesh Ghosh, and Anant Singh, joined him. They prepared a manifesto which declared a war on the British on April 19, 1930. Their famous act was the Chittagonj Armoury Raid. After the raid, Surya Sen wearing Gandhian attire, unfurled the National flag outside the Armoury. Unable to continue fighting in the open, the IRA revolutionaries shifted their fight to Jalalabad Hill where they fought with thousands of British soldiers After sometime, Surya Sen organised bands of fighters in the neighbouring villages who conducted raids on the Government personnel and property Caring not for the counter-Government repression, the revolutionaries received support from most of the villagers including the Muslims Surya Sen was arrested on February 16 1933, tried and hanged on January 12, 1934 Many of his co-conspirators were also arrested and imprisoned.

The Chittagong Armoury raid fired the imaginations of many youth with recruits pouring in and joining the movement Three British magistrates were assassinated in Mindapore district. Attempts were made on the lives of two Governors in the period 1930-1933 twenty-two officials and twenty




non-officials were killed. The Government repression became severe. Even Jawaharlal Nehru was sentenced for two years for sedition in 1933 after his speech in Calcutta where he criticized imperialism, condemned police repression and praised the heroism of the revolutionary youth though he did not claim revolutionary terrorism to be significantly useful.

The participation of women irrespective of their classes and status was a rather marked occurrence. In December 1931, two school girls of Comilla, Santi Ghosh and Suniti Chowdhury, shot dead the District Magistrate. Bina Das fired point blank at the Governor while receiving her degree at the Convocation in February 1932. Under Surya Sen’s leadership many women acted as messengers, custodians of arms provided shelter and under took act of individual, heroism. However, Surya Sen’s death also signified the end of revolutionary terrorist activities in Bengal. Those remaining and having strong socialist inclinations joined the Communist party, the Congress Socialist Party, the Revolutionary Socialist Party and other Left organisations.

Ques. 13 : Briefly discuss the Nehru Report? Ans. The boycott of Simon Commission by the Indian National Congress, the Liberal Federation, the Muslim League, the Hindu Mahasabha, the Khilafat Conference and several other parties led to a parallel attempt to formulate plans for an Indian constitution. The boycott of the Commission made it incumbent upon the Indian leaders to discharge the duty of demonstrating that India was equally capable of preparing a constitution having the consent of all major communities. Lord Birkenhead, the Conservative Secretary of State who, was responsible for the appointment of Simon Commission had been constantly harping on the Hindu-Muslim differences and the expected inability of the Indians to formulate comprehensive scheme of constitutional reforms, which had the approval of all sections of political opinion. The challenge was taken up by the Indian National Cohgress. The Congress in December 1927, passed three resolutions : boycott the Simon ‘Commission, ‘the preparation of a Swaraj Constitution and Hindu-Muslim unity. In pursuance of this resolution, the All Parties Conference, which was represented by 29 parties, was convened in Lucknow, which appointed an All Parties Committee, headed by Motilal Nehru (Nehru Committee) to draft the Swaraj Constitution for India. The Constitution drafted by this Committee is known as ‘Nehru Report’, which was discussed by the All Parties Convention held in Calcutta in December 1928.

The report of the Committee known as Nehru Report was presented at the convention. The principal recommendations were as follows:-

(i) The political status of India shall be like other British dominions such as Canada, Australia etc. (ii) Provision of fundamental rights, particularly, freedom of conscience, of profession and practice of religion, to form unions, (iii) Universal adult franchise for all those who have attained the age of 21 and not disqualified by law, (iv) The lower houses of central and provincial legislatures shall consist of representatives elected on the basis of joint and mixed electorates, with reservation of seats for both. Muslims and Hindus wherever they are in minority, (v) Reservation will be on the basis of population and for a fixed period. There shall be no reservation for Muslims in Punjab and Bengal, (vi) The list of central and provincial subjects shall be provided in the schedules, (vii) The provinces of Sindh and Karnataka hall be made separate province after India acquired the dominion status and Subject to weightage to Hindu minority there.




Although the Nehru Report could not solve the communal problem yet it was the first major Indian effort to draft a constitution, complete with lists of central and provincial subjects and fundamental rights. The report, even while demanding responsible government both at the Centre and in the provinces, advocated dominion status and not complete independence, much to the anguish of young leaders likes Jawaharlal and Subhas Chandra Bose. It raised that demand for universal adult suffrage, something never conceded in any constitution made by the British for India down to 1947. The socialists and the left nationalists criticized the scheme because it abandoned the goal of independence and accepted the zamindari, feudal and property interests. However, the Report did not try to resolve the question of communalism in an uncompromising, forthright manner. Exceptions were made to the principle of equal representation to all citizens both at the level of central legislature and the provincial councils.

The Calcutta session of the Congress, held in December 1928, which discussed the Nehru Report, was divided in its support to Report. The younger section led by Nehru and Bose stood for nothing less than complete independence. However, at the mediation of Gandhi, it was resolved that if the Nehru Report (Dominion status) was not accepted by the year end (December 31, 1928) ‘by the British Government, the Congress would opt for complete independence arid fight to achieve it by launching the Civil Disobedience Movement.

Ques. 14 : Give an account of the Jinnah’s 14-Points charter? Ans. M.A. Jinnah, the leader of the Muslim League, rejected the Nehru Report, particularly for the rejection of separate electorate for Muslims in the Nehru Report. In retaliation Jinnah announced his infamous 14-Points, a charter of communalism, main points were:

(i) In the central legislature., the Muslim representation shall be 1/3 of the total seats, (ii) In the event of adult suffrage not accepted. Punjab and Bengal should have seat reservation on the basis of population, (iii) the residuary powers should vest in the provinces, (iv) the separation of Sindh should not be postponed till the promulgation of new constitution, (v) the amendment of the constitution should be effected only with a four-fifth majority in either house as well as both houses jointly. The proposal of 1/3 representation in the central legislature was accepted by Sapru but was vehemently opposed by the Hindu Mahasabha. The dilemma for Motilal Nehru and other nationalist leaders was that they could not concede to the, demands of Muslim League and Hindu Mahasabha simultaneously. The amendments of Jinnah were put to vote and were lost.

Ques. 15 : Briefly discuss the importance of the Lahore session of the Congres in 1929? Ans. It was in the background of the ultimatum served by the Calcutta session of the Congress regarding the acceptance or rejection of the Nehru Report by the year-end by the British Government, historic Lahore session of the Congress was held under the presidentship of Jawahar Lal Nehru. On 31 December 1929; the, one year grace contemplated in the Calcutta resolution came to an end. Government had refused to accept the conditions of dominion status, Consequently, Gandhi moved the historic resolution which said, ‘The Congress, therefore, in pursuance of the resolution passed at its session at Calcutta last year declares that the word




Swaraj in Article 1 of the Congress constitution shall mean complete independence (Poorna Swarajya). The resolution declared that the Nehru Report had lapsed and nothing would be gained by the Congress through representation at Round Table Conference. It called upon Congressmen to devote their attention to the attainment of independence and boycott of central and provincial legislatures. It also authorized the Working Committee to launch upon a programme of civil disobedience including non-payment of taxes whenever considered proper. Exactly at midnight, on the banks of Ravi, the resolution was put to vote and carried the tri-colour flag of Indian independence was unfurled admist cheers and jubilation. The Congress also issued a call to the countrymen to celebrate 26 January 1930, as ‘Poorna Swarajya Day’. A resolution drafted for adoption on that day was also issued. A pledge was taken to be repeated year after year. It roused and inflamed the passion of the people for independence and emotionally prepared them for the next stage of the mass movement.

Ques. 16 : Give a brief description of the Salt-Satyagraha “Dandi March”? Ans. The national movement made qualitative advance in 1930s. After the declaration of Poorna Swarajya, the country was far more imbibed with the Congress ideology and With Gandhian techniques than it had been in 1920s. The people were convinced that Gandhi meant what he said regarding non-violence though he himself seemed to have modified his position slightly. He now accepted the possibility that some violence might break out but, so long as the movement remained essentially non-violent on the whole, he would continue the battle. Economic factors also favoured the mounting of a new campaign. There was acute economic depression in the country which had a telling effect on all classes, especially the poor. The slump in food prices had affected the farmers and peasants while in the urban areas there was considerable working class unrest. The Indian National Congress had given Gandhi and the Congress Working Committee full power to start the campaign of civil disobedience including non-payment of taxes The Working Committee in turn gave full power to Gandhi to start the campaign at a time and place of his choice.

On 2 March, Gandhi addressed a letter to the Viceroy announcing his decision to start the salt satyagrah and explaining the grounds .on which the decision was taken. The Viceroy’s reply was short and curt. He regretted that Gandhi was embarking on a course of action which was violation of law and public peace.

Why did Gandhi choose salt tax as a central issue for Civil Disobedience Movement?

(1) The abolition of salt tax had been advocated in India generally and by Gandhi in particular long back during his struggle in South Africa. (2) In his blanket indictment of the British rule in Hind Swaraj, Gandhi had stressed that ‘the salt tax is not a small injustice’. (3) In his 11 points sent to the Viceroy, the salt tax had been raised to the level of basic reform. However, it was not until 5 February that it was reported in the press that Gandhi would undertake Civil Disobedience movement in connection with the salt issue. (4) It was only on 27 February that Gandhi himself outlined the reason for selecting the issue of salt tax. He wrote, ‘next to air and water, salt is perhaps the greatest necessity of life. It is the only condiment of the poor. ...There is no article like salt outside Water by taxing which the State can reach even the starving millions and the sick, the maimed and the utterly helpless. The tax constitutes the most inhuman poll tax that ingenuinity of man can devise’.




(5) The salt issue for Gandhi acquired two essential components: the indispensable moral emphasis - particularly suffering of the helpless population and the suggestion that resistance to the tax must touch virtually everyone and certainly, the ‘starving millions’. (6) Through the issue of salt, Gandhi gave the message of ‘outrageous injustice’ in which already destitute millions were made to carry on an unjust burden: a tax not on an unnecessary item (such as tea) but on a primary need, a commodity equivalent to air and water which belongs to all and which everyone has a natural right to consume. (7) As Sumit Sarkar writes, salt was linked with Swaraj as the most concrete and universal grievance of the rural poor. It afforded, like khadi, the chance of paltry but psychologically important extra income for peasants through self help and like khadi, once again, offered to urban adherents the possibility of a symbolic identification with mass suffering.’ Even the Viceroy admitted that Gandhi planned a fine strategy round the issue of salt.

After deciding the issue of the Civil Disobedience, the next step was to devise the strategy for starting the movement. It was decided that Gandhi alongwith a band of seventy-eight members of Sabarmati’ ashram - men belonging to almost every region and religion of India - would march from Ahmedabad through the villages of Gujarat to Dandi 240 miles away on the sea coast and break the law by manufacturing salt illegally and openly. After he has violated the law, illegal manufacturing and sale of salt should beg in. The march started on 12 March 1930 - a march which had no parallel in history. It generated a great deal of fervour and patriotic sentiments. It received enormous publicity and attention not only from the entire country but also from the world over. Gandhiji reached Dandi on 5 April 1930 Next morning, he walked into the waters of the sea, took his bath, returned and picked up a lump of salt and violated the law. This technical violation of the Salt Law was a signal to the country to start the Disobedience Movement - a movement which surpassed all other movements in the country. The rank and file volunteers began defying the salt law. Swift law breaking movements spread all over the country. Salt making, salt peddling, courting arrest, suffering brutal attacks, going to jails handcuffed or bound with ropes, forcible breaking of meetings, shootings, confiscation of properties, became the order of the day.

Ques. 17 : Briefly discuss the Civil Disobedience Movement (1930-34)? Ans. The breaking of the Salt Laws at Dandi April 5, 1930, marked formal inauguration of the Civil Disobedience Movement Programmes of the Civil Disobedience included:

i) absentation from attending educational institutions by the students and offices by public servants, ii) picketing of shops dealing in liquor, opium and foreign goods, iii) bon-fire of foreign cloth, and iv) non-payment of taxes. In fact, everyone was free to disobey any civil law so long as he remained non-violent. On 9 April, Gandhi formulated a programme for the movement, ‘Let every village fetch or manufacture contraband salt, sisters should picket liquor shops, opium dens and foreign cloth dealers’ shops, Young and old should spin.....Foreign cloth should be burnt. Hindus should eschew untouchability.....Let students leave, government schools and colleges, and government servants resign their services....and we shall soon find that Poorna Swarajya will come knocking at our doors’. v) Organising mass strikes and demonstrations. vi) Boycott of law courts by lawyers and litigants both, legislature, elections, official functions, etc.




Nature and Progress of the Movement (First Phase: April 5, 1930-March 5, 1931)

The salt satyagrah started by Gandhi was only the beginning of a multi-dimentional disobedience movement. After the arrest of Gandhi, the Congress Working Committee accelerated the boycott activities such as boycott of foreign cloth, British banking, British insurance and shipping. In some places, no tax campaign were started; Liquor shops were picketed and appeals-were made to the British Indian army and police to treat the non-cooperators as their bretherns. Before his arrest, Gandhi had already called for boycott of foreign cloth and liquor shops and, specially asked women to actively participate in the movement. Traders’ associations and commercial bodies were themselves quite active in implementing the boycott: Consequently, there was a remarkable fall in British cloth imports (from 26 million yards in 1929 to 13.7 million yards in 1930). Other British imports also suffered from May to August 1930 and the British. Trade Commissioner’s office was flooded with panic -reports and complaints from Imperial Tobacco, Dunlop, ICI and other white firms. Similarly, liquor boycott also brought the government’s revenue from excise duties crashing down.

In United Provinces and Gujarat, no-tax campaign was launched. Thousands of women, even from orthodox and aristocratic families, came out of their homes, and offered themselves for arrest and imprisonment. In the North West Frontier Province (NWFP), Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, popularly known as Frontier Gandhi, under the banner of his “Khudai Khidmatgars” (Servants of God) organisation, most actively participated in the movement with his volunteers, who dressed up in red shirts. From their uniform they came to be known as Red Shirts. More than 60,000 persons were arrested in course of the movement in less than a year. In the North-East, the Manipuris joined the movement, and the young Rani Gaidinliu with her Naga followers actively supported the movement. The Civil Disobedience, Movement was a multi-layer, multi-class multi-generation, and multi dimensional movement. As compared to the non-cooperation movement, the Civil Disobedience movement was a definite advance towards the goal of national liberation. Participation in the movement this time was much more risky because the government adopted a policy of senseless violence towards peaceful satyagrahis. Non-payment of taxes met with wholesale confiscation of household goods. The civil disobedience also marked a major step towards the emancipation of Indian women. Before his arrest, Gandhi called upon the women to play a leading role in the national movement. “To call a woman a weak sex is a libel, it is man’s injustice towards women”, he declared. At his call, thousands of women suddenly emerged from the seclusion of their homes and in some instances actually from purdah in order to join Congress; demonstrations, assist in picketing and salt making. An official Government of India report in 1930 affirmed that ‘an unexpected’ source of assistance for the movement came from women. Even Irwin expressed his special concern over the support gained from women as a ‘new and serious feature’ because on occasions, it made the work of the police unpleasant. Alongwith women, students and youth played: an equally important part in the boycott of foreign cloth and liquor. By this time Congress was a mass party having its own cadre in almost all parts of the country. From the start of the movement till September 1930, there was active participation of urban bourgeoisie and rich peasants on issues selected by Gandhian leadership such as salt, no-revenue; picketing of liquor shops and non-payment of chowkidari tax in villages. G.D. Birla donated between one and five lakhs to the movement and also persuaded the Calcutta Marwari foreign cloth importers to establish trade contacts with Ahmedabad and Bombay cotton mills. Other capitalists who actively supported the movement were Jamnalal Bajaj, Walchand Hirachand, Lalji Maranji and Thakurdas. The merchants and petty traders were also on the whole quite enthusiastic supporters of the national movement. The collective pledges by merchants not to indent foreign goods became very




common in Bombay, Amritsar, Delhi and Ca1cutta At the village level, the movement had its strong basis in villages which had already experienced Gandhian rural constructive work such as Bardoli and Kheda in Gujarat, Bankura and Arambagh in Bengal. The salt movement could become the basis of civil disobedience only in coastal regions such as Bombay, Balasore or Midnapur but picketing of liquor shops became an important part both in-small towns and villages Peasants refused to pay chowkidari tax inspite of physical coercion Rural administration was sought to be paralysed by large scale resignation of mukhi as or village headmen.

Limitations However, the movement had certain weak points. The Hindu-Muslim unity of 1919-22 was totally missing. The period from 1922 onwards is marked by an extraordinary increase in communal organizations and fratridal strifes between Hindus and Muslims which reached their peak during the breakdown of Nehru Report negotiations. Muslim participation in the civil disobedience was low. Also this time, the movement did not coincide with any major labour upsurge. The old forms of protests of the intelligentsia such as lawyers giving up practice or students leaving schools or colleges was also missing. But this lacuna was counter balanced by the massive response-received from the capitalist class, and the peasantry. From September 1930 onwards, there was a simultaneous decline and radicalization of the movement, a weakening of the movement in the urban area accompanied by widespread tendencies towards less manageable and violent forms of protests in the countryside such as no-rent campaigns and tribal outbursts. There was a decline in the enthusiasm and support from urban merchants with dealers breaking Congress imposed ban on foreign cloth in Benares and Amritsar. Even the capitalist class was feeling that the capacity of the commercial community for endurance was reaching its limit. In the countryside, the movement was taking unmanageable and socially dangerous forms like tribal rebellions. Peasants started resisting the arrest of their leaders and seizure of their property, mobilizing neighbouring villages through the blowing of conch shells, and surrounding and attacking the police parties. In such circumstances, some form of a compromise became the need of the hour. Developments in London at the first Round Table Conference provided this opportunity. In terms of class, the brunt of the campaign was borne by the middle class in the cities and by the rich peasantry in the countryside. In terms of religion, Hindus were most prominent. Muslims remained aloof except in parts of the Punjab and NWFP where under the leadership of Ghaffar Khan, they became deeply involved in the struggle.

Government Reactions The government’s response to the civil disobedience movement was a combination of repression and conciliation. It started with repressive measures but as the movement gained momentum, it adopted a conciliatory attitude in the process, it made full use of its policy of divide and rule.

As expected, the initial policy of the colonial government to deal with the civil disobedience movement was through repressive methods. In late April, ordinances were passed demanding securities from the press and outlawing the Congress organization. The government was authorized to confiscate the property of the Congress Party Ordinances curbing the civil liberties of the people were feely issued and provincial governments were given the freedom to ban civil disobedience organizations. Those who broke the laws were arrested in mass. A large number of Congress leaders were put in jail by May 1930. After the arrest of Gandhi, a reign of terror was let loose on the rank and file of the Congress party and their sympathizers. The main objective of the




repressive measures was to prohibit the functioning of the Congress organization by banning all its committees, arresting the leaders wholesale and outlawing every form of political activity such as meetings, processions, picketing, propaganda etc. At many places police firings were made against the agitators. Simultaneously, special attention was paid to prevent the Muslim community from joining the movement. On 13 May, Irwin gave an assurance to the Muslims that no solution of the political problem would be regarded as satisfactory which did not command the assent of the important minorities and gave them a sense of security. This assurance was fully exploited by the Muslims as well as other sections of the population. Amidst of these heroic deeds and official repression, when the movement was at its peak in 1931, the Viceroy took the initiative of releasing Gandhi and a few leading members of the Congress Working Committee, so as to creation of conditions for the participation of the Congress in the Second Round Table Conference.

Ques. 18 : Write short notes on:

1) The First Round Table Conference 2) Gandhi-Irwin Pact 3) The Second Round Table Conference Ans.

1) The First Round Table Conference The Report of the Simon Commission came on June 13, 1930. It did not make any mention of Dominion Status. The proposals of the Commission were rejected both by the Congress and the Muslim League. As a concillatory gesture and to side-trac the Simon Commission Report, the Viceroy suggested holding of a round table conference and also accepted the suggestion of exploring the possibility of a compromise between Congress and the government. Sapru and Jayakar tried to bring a compromise between the government and the Congress. However, Gandhi told them that the Congress was not prepared to, go to London without an assurance that the discussions would proceed on the basis of full responsible government i.e. Poorna Swarajya. As the government was not prepared to concede the demand, the efforts failed. However, the British government went ahead with the holding of a Round Table Conference. The Congress boycotted the Conference. The delegates were so chosen as to create the impression that India was fully represented and the exclusion of the Congress representative was the absence of only one among the many groups and interests of the country. The delegates included were from among these categories:

i) politicians belonging to all India parties who were moderate and keen in keeping India within the British empire, ii) representatives from communal organizations such as Muslim League, Hindu Mahasabha, Sikhs, Christians and Schedule Castes, iii) representative of economic interests-landlords arid industrialists, iv) non-Indian groups and interests such as Europeans and Anglo-Indians, v) representatives from Indian princely states, and




vi) British delegates comprising of three parliamentary parties. In all there were 89 members. Though Congress was absent but all important Muslim leaders such as Muhammad Ali, Aga Khan, and Jinnah alongwith Hindu Mahasabha leaders such as Moonje and Jayakar were present. Others present were liberal leaders like Sapru and C.YV. Chintamani, Srinivas Sastri and a big princely contingent. The basic purpose behind the choice of the delegation, in the words of Coatman, was that ‘the Indian delegates to the RTC were not there with one voice for India as a whole.’ They were there to represent the Indian states, this or that community interest or so on’.

The Conference was held in November 1930 and was presided over by the British Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald. He proposed a federal form of government for India with full responsible government in the provinces (subject to special responsibility of the governors to safeguard the interests of the minorities) and a dyarchy at the centre with governor-general armed with special, powers. All parties agreed to the proposals though for varied reasons. The Princes thought that it would reduce paramountcy claims, Muslims liked the idea of a weak centre, liberals were attracted by the promise of a responsible centre. However, the Minority Committee of the Conference could not come to any agreement. While Muslim delegates demanded separate representation and Jinnah reiterated the acceptance of his 14 points, Ambedkar also demanded reservation for the Harijans. An additional complication was introduced by the Sikh claim to 30% seats in the Punjab Assembly. They were 11% of the population and had already 19% representation. Hindu representatives were prepared for reservation of seats but insisted on joint electorate. More importantly, every delegate at the Conference reiterated that a constitutional discussion in which Congress was not a party was meaningless. The British Prime Minister expressed the hope that the Congress would participate in the next round of deliberations to be held in the later part of the year.

2) Gandhi-Irwin Pact While the RTC was being held in London, the civil disobedience movement was running its turbulent course which baffled the government. Inspite of the repressive measures, it had been spreading unabated, affecting all the provinces. The removal of Gandhi from the scene did not put an end to the movement. By the end of 1930, the British had realized that without conciliating the Congress, whose influence had proved to be all-pervasive, no settlement was possible. As Times correspondent warned, ‘No Indian delegation without Gandhi, the two Nehrus, Malaviya or Patel could possibly be looked upon as representative.

On 26 January, 1931, the Viceroy announced unconditional release of Gandhi and other members of the Congress Working Committee so that they could respond to the British Prime Minister’s call for participation in the next round of talks. After his release, Gandhi told an audience, ‘I am hankering for peace if it can be had with honour.’ The Liberal leaders like Sapru after their return from London also pleaded for a compromise. After a great deal of correspondence between Gandhi and the Viceroy, mediation of Sapru and Jayakar and in the talks between Irwin and Gandhi, a pact was concluded on 5 March, 1931 known as Gandhi-Irwin Pact. The terms of the agreement, among other things, included the following features :

i) As regards the constitutional question, federation was admitted as the essential basis and. Indian responsibility with reservations and safeguards wherever necessary, ii) immediate release of all political prisoners, not convicted for violence, iii) remission of all fines not yet collected, iv) return of confiscated lands not yet sold to third parties,




v) lenient treatment for government employees who had resigned, vi) permission to persons living within a certain distance from sea shore to collect or manufacture salt without being taxed, vii) permit peaceful picketing of shops selling liquor, foreign goods and opium, viii) restoration of the property seized in connection with the movement and return all the movable and immovable properties forfeited in lieu of land revenue The Congress demand for an inquiry into the police excesses was not accepted but was only recorded in the agreement.

The Congress on its part agreed to i) suspend the civil disobedience movement, ii) withdraw all boycott plans, and iii) to take steps ;to associate with the Round Table Conference.

The Gandhi-Irwin Pact, its timing and the motive of Gandhi in signing it generated, considerable controversy and debate among the contemporaries and historians alike. It angered the leftist leaders and caused Jawaharlal Nehru to waver in his support to Gandhi for the Pact. ‘This is the way the world ends, not with a bang but with a whimper’ wrote Nehru in his Autobiography. Bose came out in opposition to the Pact. The Pact was also not made conditional to the commutation of death sentence of Bhagat Singh and his comrades. It was seen as a betrayal of the Indian people and bowing to the pressure of the Indian capitalist class. The patidars of Kheda considered the pact as betrayal since revenue had not been reduced and even the forfeited land remained largely unrestored. Similar was the case in Andhra and U.P. The worst reactions to the conclusion of the Pact, emanted on account of sudden and secret execution of Bhagat Singh, Sukhdeva and Rajaguru, sentenced to death in the Lahore Conspiracy Case, hanged on March 23, 1931, 18 days after the Gandhi-Irvin Pact, which caused violent nation-wide stir, including condemnation of Gandhi for concluding the Pact.

The positive side of the Pact was that inspite of the meagre concessions the Viceroy was forced to treat Gandhi on the basis of courtesy and equality. This was later resented by the British officials in India as well as in Britain. The average Congress worker released from the jail went home as a victor, a mood which was very different from that of the non-cooperation days.

The Pact required the approval of the Congress before it could be implemented. A session of the Indian National Congress was convened on 29 March 1931, sixdays after the execution of Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev and Rajguru. The resolution for ratification of the Pact was initiated by Nehru and was carried practically unanimously. Gandhi was chosen as the sole representative to attend the Round Table Conference. The Resolution called for Poorna Swarajya, but also accepted the Pact which opened the way for reconsideration of the objective.

Before Gandhi’s departure for London, Willington replaced Irwin as the Viceroy in April 1931 and Samuel Hoare assumed the post of the: Secretary of State for Indian in England. The new team changed the complexion of government policy towards Indian national movement. So far as the Muslim question was concerned, Gandhi did make a last minute effort before leaving India for the Conference to arrive at a settlement and met representatives of Muslim Conference and the Muslim nationalists but with no results. The Muslim League reiterated the 14 points of Jinnah. In July, the Congress Working Committee met at Bombay and assured Muslims and Sikhs that no solution of the minority problem in any future constitution could be acceptable to the Congress that did not gave full satisfaction to the parties concerned.




3) Second Round Table Conference Gandhi attended the second Round Table Conference in London as the sole representative of the Congress. M.M. Malviya and Sarojini Naidu were nominated by the viceroy in their personal capacity. Gandhi’s request to the Viceroy to nominate Ansari was refused on the ground that his name was objected to by the Muslims other members of the Conference were handpicked by the government and included loyalists, communalists, big landlords and representatives of the Princes. The basic purpose behind the wide choice was only to prove that Congress did not represent the interests of whole India. More importantly, Congress gave up its demand for a majority representation of his party at the Conference and accepted parity with other sectional interests some of whom were quite unrepresentative.

The Conference was meeting in the context of world economic crisis. The Labour government had fallen in England and had been replaced by Tory dominated national government though MacDonald remained the Prime Minister. The official and British business representatives wanted that the Viceroy should retain enormous powers in the field of finance. They also pressed hard for commercial safeguards; guaranteeing foreign capital in India against discrimination by national government. At political level also, there was a return to the Simon proposals that is, India must be forced back upon only provincial autonomy. Winston Churchil, leader of the Conservative Party, held strong objection to the British government negotiating on terms of equality with Gandhi He wanted a strong government in India.

The main business before the Congress was Hindu-Muslim differences. Gandhi appealed to all parties and sectional interests to abandon their fears and suspicions and unite in a common endeavour to establish India’s independence without further delay. Deadlock, however, continued in the Minority Committee which met under the chairmanship of MacDonald. He asked all members to sign a joint request to him to settle the communal question and pledge themselves to accept his decisions, but none agreed. The separate electorate was now being demanded not only by Muslims but also by the depressed castes, Indian Christians, Anglo-Indians and Europeans. All of them came together in a Minorities Pact for joint action on 13 November. Gandhi desperately fought against the move to make all constitutional progress conditional on a solution to the communal problem. Even his offer to accept all demands of the Muslims provided they agreed to the Congress demand for Swarajya was rejected by the Muslims delegates. Nor this generosity was shared by Hindu Mahasabha and Sikh community to give majority to Muslims in Punjab. Even the Princes became less enthusiastic about the Federation at the centre. In short, everybody played an important role in frustrating Gandhi’s efforts in presenting a united front at the Conference. Finally, in December 1931 McDonald proposed to carry on according to the terms of 1930 Accord which would provide a strong federal centre and provincial autonomy, giving a limited measure of self-government to provinces. The most important areas of finance, foreign relations and defence would be the prerogative of the Parliament and the Viceroy. The British Prime Minister also announced the formation of two Muslim majority provinces of Sind and NWFP and a unilateral British communal award, if the Indians failed to agree on it. The Muslims got a virtual statutory majority of seats in Punjab and an assured 47.6% seats in Bengal. In short, they achieved power in four autonomous provinces as well as obtained separate electorate. The circumstances made Gandhi’s participation in the Conference futile and in disgust he returned to India empty handed by the end of December1931.




Resumption of the Second Phase of the Civil Disobedience Movement (1932-34) Gandhi returned to India, after attending the Second RTC, as an utterly frustrated person, more so on account of the non-flilment of the terms of the Gandhi-Irwin Pact and the continuing British repression against the Indian people. The higher British officials believed that the government had made a major mistake in negotiating with Gandhi on equal terms and they wanted to reverse it. For example, Churchil had strongly objected to the British government negotiating on terms of equality with the ‘Seditious Fakir’ and demanded a strong government in India. The government now decided to take stronger measures of repression against the entire national movement. This intervening period was also marked with growing agrarian unrest. The fall in the prices of agricultural commodities had brought considerable distress among the peasants due to world economic crisis. In many parts of the country a section of agriculturists refused to pay rent and taxes. The government accused the Congress of encouraging the farmers thereby breaking the terms of Gandhi-Irwin Pact When UP Congressmen advised peasantry to withhold payment of rent pending negotiations they were arrested wholesale, including their leader, Nehru and P.D. Tandon. In NWFP, Abdul Ghaffar Khan and his brother Dr Khan Sahib and other leaders were also put behind the bars. In Bengal terrorism was again raising its head and Government took recourse to extreme measures including muzzling of press, detention of the suspects and unfettered police action.

On his return, Gandhi found India saddled with the rule of ordinances - the lawless law, and all important leaders of the national movement behind the bars. He asked the Viceroy for an interview to discuss the matter. The Viceroy even refused” to admit the legitimacy of the Congress to demand information. The Secretary of State declared that the government was at war with the Congress whose aim was to terminate the British domination in India by means of Civil Disobedience. The Congress Working Committee met on 2 January 1932 and had no option but to ‘call upon the nation to resume Civil Disobedience movement including nonpayment of taxes’.” The government banned the Congress organization and allied branches and arrested all important national leaders including Gandhi, Patel, Rajendra Prasad, Nehru, Ansari, C. Rajagopalachari, M.M. Malviya, Sarojini Naidu and Abdul Kalam Azad. The government issued a number of ordinances such as Emergency Powers Ordinances, Unlawful Instigation Ordinance, the Prevention of Molestation and Boycotting Ordinance and Unlawful Association Ordinance. These Ordinances conferred upon the government, various powers such as prevention of nonpayment of taxes, to declare associations illegal,’ to restrict appeals from special criminal courts, to suppress terrorism, to provide special procedure for trial in certain offences, to prohibit boycotting of foreign goods. However, inspite of repressive measures on an unprecedented scale, the national movement under Congress still fought bravely for another year and a half before it was finally called off.

Civil Disobedience movement in 1932-33 comprised of a wide range of activities because many things had now become illegal and civil liberties almost totally suppressed. Willington, while finalizing the plans for 4 January, had confessed that ‘He was becoming a sort of Mussolini in India’.” The forms of defiance included picketing of cloth and liquor shops, closing of markets and boycott of white or loyalist business concerns, symbolic hoisting of Congress flags, holding in public of illegal Congress sessions, salt satyagrahs, nonpayment of chowkidari taxes, no-rent and no-revenue campaign, forest laws violations etc. The no-tax campaign in different parts of the country was treated with great severity, Lands, houses, cattle agricultural implements and other properties were freely and forcibly confiscated. The number of arrests between January 1932 and




March 1933 went up 100000. The number of people arrested this time was more partly because the government had become more intense and systematic. However, there were signs of decline in the movement over a period of time by the second half of 1932, there were signs of decline in rural areas, though the reasons were more the overwhelmingly suppressive force of the government rather than loss of faith in the Congress. Propertied peasants were no longer ready to sacrifice their land because Gandhi had not been bale to get it restored in 1931. Even the business community was ready to support the Congress but it wanted it to change its policy of agitation and boycott. In addition to the civil disobedience movement, the year 1932 also witnesses two other outbreaks in the Princely State – one in Kashmir and the other in Awar. In Kashmir, Sheikh Abdulla started the Muslim Conference (which was later renamed as National Conference) to fight against the autocratic Hindu King of Jammu, in Alwar, there was an uprising against Maharaja Jaisingh by the semi-tribal peasant community known as Meos for his revenue enhancement, ‘begar’ and reservation of forests. The Maharaja had to be sent to Europe and the administration of Alwar was taken over by the British government for a few years.

In June 1932, the Secretary of State announced .the new procedure for dealing with the constitutional problems. According to this procedures the government would set out the proposals for constitutional reforms in a White Paper which will be circulated among the members of Parliament, and place before the Parliament one comprehensive measure for consideration during the life of the existing House of Commons. The new proposal reduced the status of. R.T.C. from being a body of representatives of the British government to merely an advisory body whose advise could be accepted or rejected by the government.

Ques. 19 : Write short notes on:

1) Communal Award 2) Poona Pact, 1932 3) The Third Round Table Conference Ans.

1) Communal Award Before convening the third round of R.T.C., the British Prime Minister announced .the Communal Award on 10 August 1932 which he had promised at the Second Round Table Conference. The Award was based on the British theory that India was not a nation but a congeries of racial, religious and cultural groups, ‘castes and interests.’ The Award gave recognition to the Harijans as .a minority and separate seats were allotted to them in the provincial legislatures. The Award accpted the demand of Muslims, Sikhs, Indian, Christians Anglo-Indians and women for separate electorate. Labour commerce, industry, landlords and universities were also given separate constituencies and fixed seats A fixed number of seats were allotted to each minority and special separate electorate was assigned to each i.e. Muslims will be elected by Muslims only, Sikhs by Sikhs only and so on. The scheme not only encouraged Muslims but also other minority groups to consider themselves as national units with their particular interests separate from the interest of the general body of Indians. The Award took for granted that the programmes and parties in India at the centre as well as in the provinces would be determined by religious and communal




considerations rather than economic, political and social considerations. In the whole scheme of fixing the number of representatives, the British prejudice against Hindu majority community was cleverly concealed. Simultaneously, the British imperial interests were safeguarded both against Hindus and Muslims in such a way that no community could come to power on its own strength. For example, in the federal legislature which was to consist of 250 elected member, the division of seats was: Hindus 105, Muslims 82 Depressed classes 19, other groups and interests 44. Similarly, in the provinces, Muslims were given weightage where Hindus were in a majority, whereas in the Muslim majority areas, the Hindu representation was reduced and they were not given the benefits in the same ratio as the Muslims in the Hindu dominated provinces.

The Communal Award was rejected by the Congress as well as by the Hindu community. It was felt that the Award was yet another attempt, to encourage separatism and religious and caste ill-wills. Gandhi, though in prison, realized the mischievous character of the Award and resolved to resist it with all his strength. However, the idea of separate electorate for the Muslims had already been accepted by the Congress in 1916. Hence, the Congress took the position that although it was opposed to separate electorate yet it was not in favour of changing the Award without the consent of minorities. It was therefore, neither accepted nor rejected. But the attempt to separate the depressed classes from Hindus by treating them as a separate political entity was opposed by all nationalists. The Award was seen as an attack on the national unity and harmful to both Hindus and the depressed classes, because once the depressed classes were treated as a separate community, the question of abolishing untouchability would not arise and the work of Hindu social reforms would come to a halt. Separate electorate would ensure that untouchables would remain untouchable in perpetuity. The need of the hour was not their protection through reservation but the eradication of the evil of untouchability. Gandhi wanted to have a general electorate for them though he had no objection for their larger representation.

2) Poona Pact (September 26, 1932) Gandhi communicated to the Prime Minister of Britain that he would fast unto death if the government did not revoke separate electorate for the depressed classes. As he did not get a favourable response, he began his fast on 20 September 1932. Many Policital leaders considered this fast as a diversion from the ongoing civil disobedience movement. Ambedkar called the fast as a political stunt. However, 20 September was observed as a day of fasting and prayer. Temples and wells were thrown open to the depressed classes all over the country. Gradually both Hindu and Depressed classes leaders became active and agreed to a solution to replace the Award. An agreement was signed on 26 September known as Poona Pact. The Pact abandoned the separate electorate but the number of reserved seats in the provincial legislatures were doubled. As many as 148 seats were reserved against 71 in the Award. Nearly 20% seats were reserved for the Harijans in the central legislature. Adequate representation was assured in the local bodies and public services. And lastly, financial aid was promised to; Harijans to promote literacy among them. The same day Gandhi broke the fast. The British Prime Minister was informed about the agreement and asked to give effect to it. The Prime Minister accepted the-proposed agreement and the Government of India announced the decision in the Assembly. After the Poona Pact, Harijan campaign and their upiiftment became the first and foremost occupation of Gandhi for the next one and a half year.

Gandhi embarked upon another fast of 21 days in May 1933 for purification of mind of himself and his co-workers so that they might better concentrate on the cause of the upliftment of Harijans. The fast objectively played the role of diverting the attention of the people from the political




struggle. The government soon released Gandhi from prison. On his release, he called off the Civil Disobedience Movement temporarily but ‘allowed the people to court arrest individually. Since the enthusiasm of the people had been on the wane and the violence was on increase, the Congress Gandhi’s advice, finally decided to wind up the movement in 1934. It was in the background of the Communal Award, Gandhi’s fast-unto-death, Poona Pact and Gandhi’s another fast in May 1933, Bihar having rocked by a severe earthquake and the whole, national attention having been drawn to provide relief to the earthquake stricken people, and Gandhi’s decision to retire from active politics (1934-39) to devote his all time and energies to launch the Harijan Movement, the Civil Disobedience Movement was side tracked and had an unceremonious and abrupt end.

3) Third Round Table Conference While the national leaders were busy in sorting out the communal problem, the third Round Table Conference was called in London in November 1932. But it was not like, the two earlier conferences. The Secretary of State had already announced change in the procedure in June 1932. The Conference was not of equals for the purpose of granting self-government to Indians. The invitation for the Conference was sent only to those persons who were loyal to the government. The idea of participation of Indian National Congress was out of question. Jinnah was also left out. The Indian Princely states had little interest in the proceedings and the princes abstained. The Labour Party, which disapproved of cooperation with the renegade Prime Minister McDonald, refused to join.

The reports of various subcommittees appointed at the end of second round of R.T.C. were the basis of discussion. The Conference was held from 13 to 24 December 1932. On the basis of the proceedings of the Conference, the Government published a White Paper on 15 March 1933 giving a complete outline of the Constitution. It included the recommendations of the Simon Commission plus a scheme of Federation at the centre which would come into operation if certain conditions were fulfilled. The White Paper was given favourable response by the three parliamentary parties of both Houses. However, the White Paper was rejected by the Indian National Congress and other leaders because it did not curtail the powers of the Governor-General over the Indian affairs. In view of the general discontent, the government-submitted the proposals to a Joint Parliamentary Committee of both Houses, which made it still worse. However, on the basis of the report, a Bill was prepared which was introduced in the Parliament and later came to be known as Government of India Act, 1935.

Ques. 20 : Critically evaluate the Government of India Act, 1935? Ans. The Government of India Act 1935 opened a new era in Indian Constitutional progress. The process of preparing this Act took eight years, beginning in November 1927 with the appointment of Simon Commission continuing through the Round Table Conferences and a Joint Select Committee and concluding with a hard fought passage through Parliament against the, opposition of Churchi and his friends in the Conservative Party. Considerable state craft was employed in drafting the Act to satisfy the different aims and objects of the parties concerned. British concerned with safeguarding their journalist and the Indian with their desire for the transference of power in their hands. In the end, the substance of power was retained by the British and all appearance only was given away. The Act was quite a lengthy and detailed document consisting of 321 sections and 10 schedules.




It said nothing about the dominion status. It perpetuated the sovereignty of the British parliament over India. The principle of communal electorate was retained and enlarged in scope. The Act granted the concession to the Depressed Classes. The minorities were given weightage in representation the provinces where they were in a minority, except that the Hindu minorities in Punjab and Bengal were not treated equally favourably with the Muslims. The franchise was extended from 2.8 percent to 11 percent of the population by lowering the property qualifications.

The Act provided for an all India federation comprising of the British Indian provinces and the Indian states. The constituent units of the federation were 11 provinces, 6 chief commissioner’s provinces and all those Princely States which agreed to join it. The States were free to join or not to join the proposed federation. In accordance with the principle of federation, the Act provided for the division of powers between the Centre and the units. It provided a federal list consisting of 59 subjects, the provincial list consisting of 54 subjects and a concurrent list of 46 subjects. The Act also provided for the setting up of a Federal- Court to settle disputes between the federal government and the units.

Provincial Autonomy The Act abolished dyarchy at the provincial level and introducted it at the centre. The federal subjects were divided into two categories: reserved and transferred. The reserved list included defence, external affairs, ecclesiastical affairs and the tribal areas. These were to be administered by the Governor General with the help of councillors. The transferred subjects were to be administered by the Governor-General with the help of ministers to be chosen from the persons commanding the confidence of the central legislature. The Governor-General was also empowered to include the representatives of the Indian states in the ministry. He was also responsible for the coordination of work between the two wings: councillors and the ministers.

Federal Provisions The federal of the constitution was to be set up when half of the Indian Princely States by weight agreed to federate. But this never happened and the federal feature remained a non starter. The Princes had welcomed the scheme of federation in the first round of RTC but soon after the conference doubts began to assail them regarding the real implications of federation. The Chamber of Princes which met in January 1935 at Bombay emphasized that the federation depended upon the clear recognition of sovereignty of the states and their rights. However, the British were unwilling to reduce their paramountcy claim over the States in return for their accession to the federation. Moreover, with the rise of States Peoples Movement, the Congress was demanding that the states should establish responsible government and allow their subjects the right to elect state representatives to the federal legislature. Hence, the princes did not agree to join the federation. However, the British were no perturbed with this deadlock because the Act provided two alternative constitutions. One contemplate the establishment of a federal union but if it was not possible, then it was stipulated that the Government of India Act, 1919 with some minor amendments would remain in force, limiting its legislative powers to the federal list of subjects and the concurrent list.

Since the federal part of the constitution never came into force, it is no necessary to enumerate the details. However, what is important to note is that the scheme was so devised as to make it impossible for the progressive and liberal elements of Indian society to come to power and carryout the necessary reforms. The federal legislature was made bicameral. The upper house




was to consist of 260 representatives out of which 104 i.e. two fifth were to be chosen by the rulers of the States. The remaining 156 seats were to be divided as follows: 140 seats allotted to the provinces out of which 75 were for general electorate, 6 for Scheduled Castes 4 for Sikhs, 49 for Muslims, 6 for women, 10 reserved for Anglo-Indians, Europeans and Indian Christians, and 6 kept for the Governor General for nomination of members of his choice. Thus in a house of 260, the majority of population i.e. Hindus could elect only 31 percent of members, 24 percent distributed to communal minorities and 40 percent given to States. In the lower house, out of 375 seats, 125 were to be drawn from the States, and the remaining 250 were to be divided as follows: Hindus 104 i.e. 42 percent, Muslims 83 i.e. 24 percent, 26 to other minorities, 11 for industry and commerce, 10 for labour, 7 for landlords and 9 for women Moreover, most of the members in the British provinces were to be elected by the members of their own communities, who were members of the Provincial Assemblies through a system of proportional representation with single transferable vote. In short, the whole scheme of representation was such that not only the Princes were given disproportionate share in the Federation but their personal status and autocracy was also maintained. The Act was a hindrance to the growth of democratic government.

Provincial Autonomy-In Action The only redeeming feature of the Act was the provincial autonomy. The system of dyarchy was abolished in the provinces and all subjects were transferred to the ministers popularly elected. The hold of the centre over the provinces was also considerably reduced. But the ministers were not free to run the departments of their own. The governor continued to possess a set of overriding powers through discretionary power regarding summoning of legislatures, giving assent to Bills and administering, certain special regions. The governor in addition could take over and indefinitely run the administration of a province under the Section 93 of the Act. Both at the centre and in the states, a system of ‘safeguards and reservations’ was an integral part of the Act. The reasons given were that the minorities needed protection from the dominance of the majority community. The safeguards amounted to vital, reduction in the powers of the ministers. Some of these safeguards were: i) powers in the hands of Governors and the Governor General to disallow the Bills, ii) to certify Bills or financial requirements, iii) to legislate by ordinance and to control the higher public services. It was the intention of the framers of the Act that the provinces should act as self-governing units but the self-government was unmistakably with strings. This was the price of prudence or of pacifying the British Conservative Party.

Apart from the constitutional provisions, three other important decisions were included in the Act: (I) Burma and Aden were constitutionally separated from India, (II) Sind and Orissa were made separate provinces, and (III) the authority of the Crown with regard to the Indian States was removed from the Government of India and placed under Crown’s Representative i.e. the Governor-General.

In India, the Act was criticized by almost all sections of the Indian public opinion. Jinnah declared that the scheme of Federation was wholly ‘rotten, totally unacceptable and absolutely unworkable.’ Hindu Mahasabha regarded it as ‘much worse than the existing one: and was even reactionary .and obstructive to the growth of nationalism and democracy’ When the Act was passed, Nehru wrote: “From the point of view of political change this proposed constitution is an absurdity, it is far worse from the social and economic points of view. . . Britain retains power without responsibility there is not even the proverbial fig leaf to cover the nakedness of autocracy”. In the debates in the House of Commons, Attlee pointed out that the Act did not recognize the rights of Indians because it contained a large number of reservations. “The keynote of the Bill was mistrust. There is no trust




at all. India is not to have control over foreign affairs or her finances. The whole note struck by the Bill was not a constitution to be worked by Indians but some kind of consultation with restrictions of every kind at all times”. He compared the Bill “with a ship whose source of energy which give it the movement was left out.” Laski commented that the scheme was cluttered up with all sorts of checks and balances which seemed to ‘reproduce the worst features of the worst modern constitution’.

Politically and constitutionally, the Act was a remarkable feat even though its highest intentions were never fulfilled. Under it, India had first taste and practice of parliamentary self-government in the eleven provinces. Although the all-India federation embodied in it was never created yet the bones of a Federal System including a detailed separation of powers were formed and exercised. It marked a critical stage in the development of British policy towards Indian self- government from 1937 to 47. But it was far behind the times for which it was legislating. Its origin went back to Simon Commission. By the time it came, a decade had passed a decade of vital developments in the political life of British India and in less degree of the Indian states. Political power which was till then defused was becoming concentrated in organized political parties. The political consciousness of the masses had awakened: With these developments, the British government and public opinion was largely out of touch.

The importance of the Act lies in the fact that it was under it that, with a few amendments, power was transferred entirely from the British to Indian hands and it served as the working constitution of Independent India for three years and of Independent Pakistan for nine years.

Critical Appraisal of the Act of 1935 1. The most important part of the Government of India Act of 1935 relating to the setting of an all India Federation remained like a “lost ideal” or “a paper Federation”, since it failed to come into force. The proposed Federal scheme was killed by the Indians Princes.

2. Another serious drawback of the Act 1935 should be traced in is mischievous attempt to shift the notorious dyarchical form of government from the Provinces (as provided in the Act of 1919) to the Centre. When the experiment of dyarchy could not succeed in the provinces, why was it implanted at the Centre?

3. The voting qualifications or franchise rights varied from one province to another, but the main franchise was restricted to the wealthy and educated sections of the society. The general basis of qualifications for voter was literacy and the payment of certain amount of income-tax, or land revenue or house rent, municipal or vehicle tax. Thus about 14% of the Indian population was given franchise rights. The constituencies were also made on territorial-cum-communal basis along with the seats for various classes and interests.

4. The so called ‘Provincial autonomy’ which was the most important: features of the Act, was “mere farce” on account of the powers of the provincial legislatures made very limited by the “special responsibilities and special safeguards” given to the Governors, who enjoyed a virtual veto power to freely interfere in the provincial administration and veto any decision taken by Indian Ministers. Innumerable powers given to Governors were clearly inconsistent with the spirit of, what was termed, provincial autonomy. No less unhelpful, rather outspokenly hostile was the attitude of the sate of the higher services.




5. The last imperialist constitution “thus came and went away into the pages of the constitutional history of modern India with a record of tragic casualties.”

As a matter of fact, the Act of 1935 failed to satisfy any section of Indian leaders, whether they belonged to the Congress or to the Muslim League, or they represented the reactionary community of the Indian Princes. Thus the Congress Working Committee in its resolution passed in July 1935, declared “The Congress has more than once categorically rejected the entire scheme of constitutional reforms on the broad ground of its not being an expression of the will of people of India and has insisted on a constitution framed by the Constituent Assembly.”

Nehru criticised the Act as “a charter of slavery”. In his view the .safeguard ridden provincial autonomy was “a machine with strong brakes but no engine.” A moderate leader like Madan Mohan Maiaviya said that the Act “has somewhat democratic appearance outwardly, but it is absolutely hollow from inside.” Jinnah condemned the Federal scheme as “thoroughly rotten, fundamentally bad and totally unacceptable”, because he felt hat it would substantially increase the Hindu majority at the centre; but he was prepared to accept the provincial scheme, because it would ensure Muslim control of the four Muslim-majority Provinces. As stated above, the Federal scheme was shelved, but elections to the Provincial Legislatures were held in January-February 1937, which caused radical changes in the Indian politics.

Ques. 21 : Briefly discuss the significance of the Provincial Elections of 1937? Ans. Before the passages of the Government of India Act, 1935, the Civil Disobedience movement had petered out and many Congressmen began to think of reviving the defunct Swaraj Party preparatory to contesting the elections. In course of time, the urge among the Congressmen to contest the elections grew. Eventually, Jawaharlal Nehru, as Congress President (1936), admitted that “there was no choice but to contest elections.” In his view, this would “educate the masses on the political policies and economic programmes of the Congress”, with “demand for the Constituent Assembly in the forefront”. Accordingly, the Congress launched the election campaign and in the elections held in January- February 1937, swept the polls, winning absolute majority in five provinces Madras, United Provinces, Central Provinces, Bihar and Orissa; in Bombay. Later, in Assam and in the North West Frontier Province it was the largest party and formed coalition Governments. In Bengal, the Punjab and Sind the Congress did not have majority. In July 1937 the Congress formed ministries in the United provinces, Central Provinces, Orissa, Bihar, Madras and Bombay. Later, Assam and the North-West Frontier Province also came under the Congress rule.

In the Punjab, the Unionist Party and the Muslim League formed a coalition government, but later on the Muslim League established its influence on the Muslim sections of the Unionist Party during the Premiership of Sikandar Hayat Khan, which remained uninterrupted till March 1947.

In Bengal the coalition, ministry of the Krishak Praja Party and the Muslim League came to power, but later on the Muslim League Ministry was installed, which remained in power till August 14, 1947, with H.S. ‘Suhrawardy as the Premier. In Sind a succession of non-Congress ministries under different leaders held office during the decade 1937-47. Two of the Premiers there Ghulam Hussain Hidyatullah and Allah Bakhsh—had strong associations with the Congress.




The elections held in 1936-37, served an important political purpose. Election propaganda brought the Congress into close contact with the masses and general political consciousness among them. The enfranchisement of 3½ crore voters, including many women, under the Act of 1935 extended the field of political propaganda the election results demonstrated the predominance of the Congress in India’s political life, which greatly antagonised the Muslim League, which took the bloody path of “extreme communalism” during the “post election phase”.

During the post-election (l937) phase two main trends were witnessed in the Indian politics—rise and growth of “Extreme Communalism” leading to the launching of the Pakistan movement by League and on the other, the emergence of the radical elements within the Congress.

Ques. 22 : Briefly discuss the Rise of Extreme Communalism? Ans. From 1930 onwards, a section of Muslim intelligentsia began nourishing the idea of a separate independent Muslim state in India. The ideological and political background had, of course, been prepared by the Aligarh movement, the foundation of Muslim League and the Minto-Morley reforms introducing separate electorate. In 1930, Mohammad Iqbal, the well-known poet and philosopher, presiding over the Allahabad session of the Muslim League had said, ‘I would like to see the Punjab, the North-Western Frontier Province, Sind and Baluchistan’’ amalgamated into a single state.’ ‘Self-government within the British empire without the British empire, the formation of a consolidated North West Indian Muslim state appears to be the destiny of the Muslims of North West India.’ He raised the demand for the creation of a ‘Muslim India within India’. The idea of a separate Muslim state in a new form was, also elaborated at the time of Round Table Conference by a group of young Muslim students in England led by Rahmat Ali. Rahmat Ali conveyed to the Muslim delegates attending the Round Table Conference the scheme of a separate Muslim homeland consisting of Punjab, North-West Frontier or Afghan Province, Kashmir, Sind and Baluchistan. The proposed-Muslim state was to be named PAKISTAN (taking the first letter of four provinces and the end of’ the last province). The idea did not receive a serious consideration from the delegates but Rahmat ‘All founded Pakistan National Movement in 1933 to propagate the idea. The scheme continued to gain ground. In 1932, Chaudhury Mohammad Ali instigated by the British government, prepared the outlines and maps àf Pakistan in Britain and sent them to India. Those who fathered the idea in the early thirties were financed by the British intelligence in London. Though Jinnah had not been thinking on these lines but the idea that the Muslims of India were not merely a community but a nationality was growing in his mind.

Throughout the twenty-seven months of Congress rule in the provinces, the League kept up an intense propaganda against the Congress. In the Lucknow session of the Muslim League in October 1937, Jinnah charged the Congress for alienating the Muslims by following a policy which was exclusively Hindu. Since they had formed the governments in the provinces, they had by their words, deeds and programmes shown that the Muslalmans cannot expect justice or fair play at their hands. In October 1938, Jinnah declared that the Congress had adopted a most brutal, oppressive and inimical attitude towards, the Muslim League since they secured the majority in the six provinces. The charges included failure to prevent communal riots, local ban on Baqrid, slaughter, singing of Bande Matram with its ‘idolatrous’ passage on public occasions and encouragement of Hindi and Hindustani in the Devanagri script at the cost of Urdu. He even accused the government that it had a secret understanding with the Congress not to protect Muslim rights. The charges were repeated in the Patna session of the Muslim League. The




League also appointed a committee (Pirapur Committee, head by Raja of Pirpur) to investigate Muslim complaints against the Congress governments and submit a report.

The one- sided report published in December 1939 condemned the Congress governments and the Hindus on various counts, such as excluding Muslims from a share in government, introduction of Wardha scheme of education, compelling them to show respect to the Congress flag, extending the use of Hindi. Much of the charges were exaggerated and the Congress offered to investigate the complaints by an independent authority but Jinnah rejected the proposal. Even the government gave a clean chit to the Congress. The fact of the matter was that during the 27 months of Congress rule, the League was in wilderness and without a clear programme, because its old demands such as separate electorate, provincial autonomy, full provincial status for NWFP and Sind, the Muslim political predominance in Punjab and Bengal had all been more or less accepted by the British and the Congress. Jinnah in his talks with Subhas Chandra Bose in 1938 insisted on recognition of the League as the sole spokesman of the Muslims—a totally unjustified demand at the time. He was gradually coming round the View that the majority rule in India, would mean Congress rule and that Congress rule meant Hindu rule. The idea of a separate state for the Muslims which was implicit in the later writings of Syed Ahmad and which had been fervently propagated by Rahmat Ali and Iqbal since 1930 began to appeal to Jinnah.

In short, from 1937 onwards, communalism began to take a virulent form. The previous theory was that India which consisted of distinct religious communities with their separate socio-economic and political interests could still few in a single nation and the methods for this could be separate electorate, communal rights, reservations etc., within a single country. Now the idea of living together as a single nation began to be replaced by the politics of hatred, fear, enemity towards the other communities and separation. The interests of Hindus arid Muslims were declared to be contradictory and permanent in conflict, the move towards Pakistan seemed inevitable since separation was the only part of the communal programme that was left unfulfilled.

Ques. 23 : Give an account of Radical Elements within the Congress? Ans. It was during the post 1934 phase, after Gandhi’s retirement from active politics, the socialist ideas influenced a group of Congress leaders, leading to the foundation of the Congress Socialist Party in 1934, having its own political agenda and constitution. Subhash Bose was also a popular representative of the radical politics within the Congress. The year 1938 saw the widening gulf between the two, Gandhians and Bose-led wings of the Congress party, which became evident at the Haripura (1938) and Tripuri (1939) sessions of the Congress, both presided over by Subhas Bose Subhas Chandra Bose was unanimously elected President of the Haripura session of the Congress (February 1938). Some important resolutions were adopted. First, the people’s struggle in the Princely States was assured of moral support, but it was not to be undertaken in the name of the Congress. Such struggle, it was stated, should be led by ‘independent organizations’ in the States. Secondly, the kisan (peasant) movements organized by Kisan Sabhas sometimes, violated the principles and programme of the Congress because they aimed at quick results. At Haripura the Congress declared that it ‘cannot associate itself with any activities which are- incompatible’ with its ‘basic principles’. It warned those Congressmen who, as members of the Kisan Sabhas, help in creating an atmosphere hostile to Congress, principles and policy’. Thirdly, a resolution was passed, declaring that India ‘could not be party to an imperialist war’ and ‘would’ not permit




her man-power and resources to be exploited in the interest of British imperialism’. This was an anticipation of India’s attitude towards war in Europe which appeared to be impending.

At Tripuri, Subhas Bose after defeating Pattabhi Sitarammaya, Gandhi’s personal candidate for the Presidency of the Congress, was re-elected as the President of the INC, showing his immense popularity and Charisma in the Congress. Bose ‘caused further annoyance in Gandhian circles’ by trying to ‘stiffen the opposition of the Congress Party to any compromise with Britain’. He thought that a war between Britain and Germany’ was inevitable, and he hoped that it would enable India to exploit Britain’s peril to secure freedom. Gandhi and Nehru on the other hand were definitely opposed to the idea of taking advantage of Britain’s peril. After the Munich Pact (September 1938) Bose ‘began an open propaganda throughout India in order to prepare the Indian people for a national struggle which should synchronize with the coming war in Europe. But ‘the Gandhites’ were ‘opposed to any national struggle’ at a time when they were engaged in their ‘ministerial and parliamentary work’. Again, Gandhi, who was opposed to industriali-zation, was annoyed, when Bose formed the National Planning Committee (the forerunner of the Planning Commission of post-Independence India). In view of these differences Subhash Bose resigned from the Congress and formed the Forward Block.


indian history the beginning of the gandhian era

Documents