SWARAJ PARTY

FORMATION

The suspension of the Non-Cooperation movement had created a political vacuum in the National movement. At this stage a new lead was given by C.R. Das and Motilal Nehru. When the Civil Disobedience Enquiry Committee reported that the country was not yet ready to embark upon a programme of mass civil disobedience, and the constructive programme found only a limited response, these leaders proposed that instead of boycotting the legislatures, Non-Cooperation should be carried into them. They put forward the idea of Council-entry to wreck them from within. This proposal attracted several congressmen but it was stoutly opposed by orthodox Gandhians led by Rajagoplachari, Rajendra Prasad and Vallabhbhai Patel. There was a split in the congress. The No-Changers or orthodox Gandhians decried the programme of council-entry and desired the congress to follow Gandhi’s constructive programme. The Pro-Changers or Swarajists wanted the constructive programme to be coupled with a political programme of council-entry. The matter came to a head in December 1922 at the Gaya Session of the congress where Rajagopalachari led opposition to Council Entry forcing C.R. Das to tender resignation from the presidentship of the Congress. On being outvoted C.R. Das announced the formation of the Swaraj Party on 31 December, 1922 with himself as President and Motilal as Secretary.

The victory of the No-Changers at the Gaya Congress was short lived. The Hindu Muslim riots of 1923 darkened the political atmosphere. It was also clear that the civil disobedience could not be resumed as a national programme. The special Congress session, held at Delhi in September 1923 under the presidentship of Maulana Azad, allowed congressmen to contest the forthcoming elections. Annual session at Cocanada blessed the council entry by maintaining that Non-Cooperation could be practised inside the councils also. The Congress called upon all its members to double their efforts to carry out the constructive programme of Gandhi. Thus the split in the Congress was avoided.

Objectives and Aims

The objectives and aims of the Swaraj Party were indicated in its programme first published in February, 1923. The immediate objective was ‘speedy attainment of full Dominion Status’, including ‘the right to frame a constitution adopting such machinery and system as are most suited to the conditions of the country and genius of the people’. Its manifesto of 14 October 1923 as well as the nature of its demands in the councils revealed that it wanted full provincial autonomy implying control over bureaucracy as a necessary preliminary to the right to frame constitution. The other objective of the party was to secure the recognition of the principle that the bureaucracy derived its power from the people. The manifesto made it clear that the demand which its members would make on entering legislatures was to press the Government to concede “the right of the people of India to control the existing machinery and system of government”, and to resort to a policy of “uniform, continuous and consistent obstruction” if the Government refused to entertain such a demand.

The constitution of the Swaraj Party, framed in 1923, underwent many changes until its relationship with the Congress was finally determined at the Belgaum Congress in December, 1924. The constitution of 1924 laid down the party’s objective as the attainment of Swaraj by the people of India by all legitimate and peaceful means. The exact nature of Swaraj was left undefined in the constitution.

Programme of the Swarajists

The Swaraj Party was the handiwork of those eminent Congress leaders who did not favour much the approach to non-cooperation. Being an integral part of the congress and operating as one of its departments, the programme of the Swarajists could not be much different from that of the Congress. Fortified by the blessings of the Congress, the Swaraj Party proclaimed to carry non-violent non-cooperation inside the councils with a view to wrecking the Act of 1919. The party resolved to adopt the following programme:

Inside the councils

1.    The party decided that whenever possible it would refuse supplies and throw out budget to force recognition of their rights;

2.    Throw out all proposals for legislative enactments by which the bureaucracy proposed to consolidate its powers;

3.    Move resolutions and introduce and support measures and bills necessary for the healthy growth of national life;

4.    Help the constructive programme of the Congress;

5.    follow a definite economic policy to prevent the drain of public wealth from India by checking all activities leading to exploitation and to advance national, economic, industrial and commercial interest of the country; and

6.    Project the rights of labour - agricultural and industrial, and adjust the relations between landlords and tenants, capitalists and workmen.

Outside the council

It was decided that the Party would work for:

1.    Inter-communal unity with a view to bringing about a complete understanding among Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Brahmins and non-Brahmins;

2.    Removal of untouchability and raising the status of the depressed classes;

3.    Village organisation;

4.    Organisation of labour in the country, industrial as well as agricultural, including ryots and peasants in order to protect and promote their interests and secure a proper place for them in the struggle for Swaraj;

5.    Acquisition of economic control of the country including development of commerce and industry;

6.    Establishment of control of nationalists over local and municipal affairs;

7.    Carrying out the constructive programme of the Congress in a manner as it thought necessary in relation to Swadeshi, Khaddar, temperance, national education and arbitration boards;

8.    Boycott of selected British goods manufactured outside India on the advice of a committee with a view to use it as a political weapon in the pursuit of ‘Swaraj’;

9.    Formation of a federation of Asiatic countries to secure Asian solidarity and mutual help in trade and commerce; and

10.  Organisation of agencies for propaganda outside India of national work and enlisting sympathy and support of foreign countries in the struggle for ‘Swaraj’.

A cursory look at the programme of the Swarajists would reveal its all-embracing, omnibus character. It was devised to please all sections of people with an eye on the election. The Swarajists believed in class collaboration rather than in class cleavage. They did not want to disturb the social order as it had been for centuries in India. They stood for justice to the peasantry but at the same time believed that ‘poor indeed will be the quality of that justice, if it involves any injustice to the landlord.’ The Swarajists had to keep richer sections of society in good humour owing to their dependence on them for election and party funds. In espousing the constructive programme they recognised the utility of legislative bodies as instruments for its implementation. It must however, be admitted that their programme outside the legislative bodies was quite unwieldy. The creation of a federation of Asiatic countries and the organisation of agencies for foreign propaganda were too ambitious to be realised.

Methods of the Swarajists

What gave a peculiar distinction to the politics of the Swarajists was their avowed intention of wrecking the councils from within. Michael O’Dwyer, formerly Lt. Governor of Punjab had written that to deal with ‘sabotage’ was much more difficult than an open rebellion. The Swarajists’ methods of obstruction to all government sponsored laws were calculated to destroy the prestige of the councils which had throttled the national self-assertion and respect. Motilal observed in March, 1926 while staging a walk-out of his party, ‘we feel that we have no further use for these sham institutions and the least we can do to vindicate the honour and self-respect of the nation is to get out of them. We will try to devise those sanctions which alone can compel any government to grant the demand of a nation’. The Swarajists carried non-cooperation ‘into the very aisles and channel of the Bureaucratic church’. They created deadlock in the legislatures, blew up the Dyarchy in the provinces by their method of obstruction. By obstruction they meant resistance to the obstruction placed in the way of Swaraj by the alien government.

The methods of the Swarajists on the destructive side emphasised rejection of the votable parts of the budgets and rejection of proposals emanating from the bureaucracy. On the constructive side, they sought to move resolutions calculated to promote a healthy national life and displacement of bureaucracy.

The General Council of the Swaraj Party laid down specific rules for the conduct of its members in the legislative bodies. They were not to serve as members on committees by official nomination.

Demoralisation and decline

The enthusiasm of 1924 began to wane and the years 1925-27 saw demoralisation and eventual decline of the Swarajists. Inside the legislatures, the Swarajists failed to pursue the policy of ‘constant, continuous uniform obstruction’. The Swarajist tactics had served the purpose of exposing the hollowness of the Act of 1919 but these proved unavailing in ending or mending it. A substantial section of the Swarajists realised that the destructive opposition to all government measures put an end to all socially useful measures. The spirit of ‘responsive cooperation’ was getting stronger month after month. Even C.R. Das became inclined towards cooperation. Presiding over the Bengal Provincial Conference at Faridpur on 2 May, 1925, he appealed to the British to effect a reasonable settlement. He said that ‘cooperation with the Government was possible if some real responsibility was transferred to the people’. He called for a ‘general amnesty to all political prisoners’ and ‘to show a practical demonstration of changes of heart’. He assured the government that the Swarajists would do everything to discourage ‘revolutionary propaganda’.

Drift towards cooperation

The Faridpur declaration accelerated the drift towards cooperation with the Government. Lord Birkenhead’s speech of 7 July, 1925 paying tribute to the party as ‘the most highly organised political party in India’ and disclaiming that ‘we no longer talk of holding the gorgeous East in fee’ seemed to have impressed the Swarajists and they were in a mood to be dissuaded from pure obstructionists politics. In fact, many of the Swarajists had no faith in the policy of Non-cooperation. Having entered the councils, they were not averse to enjoying its privileges. The Swarajist leaders accepted offices and sat on various committees. Motilal, who had earlier declined a seat on the Muddimen Committee, now accepted one of the Skeen Committee. Vithalbhai Patel became President of the Assembly and A. Ramaswamy lyenger sat on the Public Accounts Committee. Sir Basil Blackett eulogised in the Assembly the cooperation of Motilal Nehru. He asked, ‘what else is Panditji doing in passing the steel protection bill, in passing last year’s budget, in separating the railway finance? ‘What else is Patel doing in presiding over this House?’ He also praised lyengar for the valuable services rendered by him on the Public Accounts Committee. The Government succeeded in cajoling the Swarajists into some kind of cooperation.

In the Central Provinces the two Swarajist Stalwarts-S.B. Tambe and Raghavendra Rao-were converted by the Government to its side. This not only broke the party in the province into two wings - Responsivists and Non-Cooperators - but split the party as a whole. The Swarajists of Bombay advocated the path of responsive cooperation. Another Swarajist stalwart defended S.B. Tambe’s actions differ from that of V.J. Patel. The Responsive Swarajists voiced publicly the demand to reconsider the party’s programme. Motilal’s rigid discipline and threat, ‘the diseased limb of the Swaraj Party must be amputated’ offended the Responsivists to the extent of open rebellion against the Central leadership.

The years 1926-27 further demoralised the Council front. The serious Hindu-Muslim cleavage disintegrated the Swaraj Party. Madan Mohan Malaviya and Lajpat Rai organised a new party of Congress Independents and rallied the Hindus under their banner. They were of the opinion that opposition to the Government injured the interests of the Hindus. The Swarajists of Bombay made an open declaration in favour of the cult of responsivism. The Swaraj Party was now riven with dissensions and defections. Many Swarajists attended a meeting of leaders, held at Calcutta on 31 December 1925, to forge a common line of action.  It became clear that there were no fundamental differences now among the liberals, Independents and Responsivists. In April 1926 many Swarajists attended the Bombay Conference presided over by T.B. Sapru. The crisis in the Swaraj Party deepened and Motilal tried to effect reconciliation between the two wings. He convened a meeting of the party at Sabarmati to explore the possibilities of a compromise. The meeting approved more or less the principles of responsivism and laid down certain conditions for office acceptance. The non-cooperators attacked the compromise. The Responsivists severed their connections with the Congress which laid down the policy of Non-Cooperation inside the councils. The Sabarmati Compromise failed to keep the Swaraj Party united. Dyarchy which was destroyed in Bengal was restored in 1927.

Death of C.R. Das

Untimely death of Das weakened the integration of the Swaraj party in the later years.

Announcement of constitutional reforms

The announcement of Simon Commission in the closing months of 1927 and Lord Birkenhead’s challenge to Indians to produce a constitution acceptable to all sections of society opened new political vistas in the country. The Simon Commission evoked universal boycott while Motilal, taking up the challenge of Birkenhead, prepared a constitution known as Nehru Report. The Swarajists and the No changers began to draw closer to one another. The Calcutta Congress of 1928 resolved that in case the British Government did not accept the Nehru Report by 31 December 1929, the Congress would declare complete independence as its goal. The Council Entry programme in the changed political situation occupied a back seat and lost its relevance. The Swaraj Party now merged with the Congress as the country began to prepare for the second round of direct mass action to achieve complete independence.

Internal conflicts and disintegration

The Demoralisation and the decline of the Swaraj Party, after its success in 1924 was due to the absence of a broad ideological basis. The unity of the Nationalist Party proved to be short-lived. The grant of immediate constitutional advance as pre-condition for cooperation was too limited a goal to hold together men of diverse thinking and independent views. The non-Swarajist constituents of the Nationalist Party realised that the Swaraj Party gave precedence to its interest at their cost. This led to rift and defection and the Nationalist Party broke down. Jinnah seceded from the National Coalition and formed a separate party called the Independent Party. Before the elections of 1926 the Nationalist Party was split in to three clear-cut groups.

1.    The Swarajist or the Congress Party,

2.    The Responsive cooperators which included the Hindu Mahasabha and Independent Congressmen. They together formed the Nationalist party under the leadership of Lajpat Rai and Madan Mohan Malaviya, and

3.    The Independent Party headed by Jinnah.

There was however, no marked difference in their political and voting behaviour.

Rising communal tempo

The increasing communal tempo began to shape the course of events. The communalisation of politics narrowed in practice the ideological gap between the Swarajists and the Hindu Mahasabha. Although the Swarajists had captured the Congress but in the murky communal atmosphere the Congress image, or a national organisation free from communal and religious bias, now stood battered. The Muslim alienation definitely weakened the Congress and the former Muslim Swarajists fought elections as Muslims rather than as Swarajists. The emotional appeal of religion proved irresistible and secularism became the casualty. In fact, most of the Swarajists were not so much concerned with the secular nationalism as with short term gains. It led them to compromise with Muslims on adjustment of seats in public services and legislatures. The socialist basis of mass action alone could have reinforced secular nationalism in India.

Lure of office

The lure of office proved to be another reason for the decline of the Swarajists. They began their career with a bang by entering councils with the declared objective of stiff resistance to the bureaucracy. The spirit of resistance soon gave way to cooperation. V.J. Patel was elected President of the Assembly and Motilal accepted membership of Skeen Commission. The Policy of unqualified obstruction lost its appeal and the party showed signs of disintegration. Its ranks were riven with internal dissensions and open rebellion and desertions decimated it further.