Tribal Revolts
Name	Year	Area	Leader
Churas	1768 & 1832	West Bengal	NA
Bhils	1818-1848	Khandesh	NA
Kolis	1824-48	Sahyadri hills of Gujarat & Maharashtra	NA
Khasis	1829-32	Khasi hills of Assam & Meghalaya	Tirut Singh & Bar Manik
Kols	1831-32	Chotanagpur	Buddho Bhagat
Koyas	1840-80 & 1922-4	Rampa region in Andhra Pradesh	Alluri Sitaram Raju
Khonds	1846-48 & 1855	Orissa	Chakra Bisayi
Santhals	1855-56	Rajmahal hills in Bihar	Sidhu & Kanhu
Naiakdas	1858-59 & 1868	Panch Mahals in Gujarat	Rup Singh & Joria Bhagat
Kachha Nagas	1882	Assam	Samhudan
Mundas	1899-1900	Chotanagpur	Birsa Munda
Bhils	1913	Banswara & Dungarpur	Govind Guru
Oraons	1914-15	Chotanapur	Jatra Bhagat
Thadoe Kukis	1917-19	Manipur	Jadonang & Rani Gaidinliu

Significance Of Civil Rebellions

1.    The civil rebellions established the tradition of struggle against British rule in India. It was a humble beginning of freedom struggle; however it is difficult to use the word freedom struggle.

2     The revolt of 1857 was climax or culmination of hundred year process. The process led by civil rebellion climaxed into the great revolt of 1857.

3.    The civil rebellions provided source of inspiration to coming generation. Their sacrifice filled the sense of nationalism among people fighting in the freedom struggle. They also inspired for organized struggle against British rule in India.

4.    The civil rebellion represents “History from Below”. The History of modern India is actually history of Aristocratic section of society. There has not been recording of struggle done by poor peasants, tribes, and artisans for the nation. But civil rebellion recalls the history of such people, what we call history from below.

Some important civil rebellions

1.    Sanyasi rebellion – (1763-1820) – Sanyasi rebellion occured in Bengal. The immediate cause was the pilgrimages to holy places stopped by British. During this time, Bengal was going through severe famine, which created acute conditions for people. The Hindu Naga Sadhus, who were earlier part of army of Nawab of Oudh, Bengal and Rajputs led the revolt against British. They raided English factories, and installations. Although, the revolt was suppressed by the British, yet it left a long lasting impression. The famous novel Anandmath (Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay) is based on this rebellion.

2.    Paika Rebellion — (1817-1825) — Paikas were essentially the peasant militias of the Gajapati rulers of Odisha who rendered military service to the king during times of war while taking up cultivation during times of peace. They unfurled the banner of rebellion against the British under the leadership of Baxi Jagabandhu Bidyadhara as early as 1817 to throw off the British yoke.  Rulers of Khurda were traditionally the custodians of Jagannath Temple and ruled as the deputy of lord Jagannath on earth. They symbolised the political and cultural freedom of the people of Odisha. The British, having established their sway over Bengal Province and Madras Province to the north and south of Odisha, occupied it in 1803.The Gajapati King of Odisha Mukunda Deva-ll was a minor then and initial resistance by Jai Rajguru, the custodian of Mukunda Deva-II, was put down brutally and Jai Rajguru was torn apart alive. A few years later, it was the Paikas under Baxi Jagabandhu, the hereditary chief of the militia army of the Gajapati King, who rose in rebellion, taking support of tribals and other sections of society. The British were initially taken aback and then tried to regain lost ground but faced stiff resistance from the rebelling Paikas. Widespread suppression followed with many killed and imprisoned. Many more were tortured. Some rebels fought a guerilla war till 1819 but were captured and killed. Baxi Jagabandhu was finally arrested in 1825 and died in captivity in 1829.

3.    Ramosi uprising – (1822 –26) – People of Ramosi community once served in lower ranks in Maratha army. They also constituted a farming community in Satara region of Maharashtra. They revolted in Satara under the leadership of Chittur Singh against heavy land revenue and harsh methods of revenue collection. Another important leader of Ramosi rebellion was Umaji who provided leadership to revolt during famine conditions in Satara.

4.    Revolt of Velu Thampi – (1808-09) – Velu Thampi was Diwan of Travancore (Kerla). He rose into revolt against British as he was sacked from Diwanship. British also imposed heavy financial burden over Travancore state under subsidiary alliance. He mobilized people against British and posed challenge to British. However revolt was suppressed and Velu Thampi died in action.

5.    Revolt of Kittur Chinnamma – (1824-29) – In 1824, The Kittur (Karnataka) chief died without a natural heir and the British refused to recognize adopted son as heir to the throne of Kittur and took over the administration of Kittur in their own hands. Chinnamma, the widow of deceased chief led the revolt against British. She mobilized the people of Kittur state and killed the collector of Dharwar. She also declared the independence of Kittur. The revolt was suppressed and later Chinnamma died in prison.

6.    Satara Revolt – (1840-41) – British deposed the king of Satara- Raja Partap Singh. There was general anger among the people. Dhar Rao, provided the leadership to the revolt. British faced lot of difficulties to suppress the revolt.

7.    Bundela rebellion – This revolt was led by Landlord of Sagar region (Madhya Pradesh). It was a outburst against government’s economic policies associated with landlords and zamindars. People killed many police officers and civil officers and began to plunder the town. British resorted to violence to suppress the revolt.

8.    Gadkari Uprising – 1844 – Gadkari community people were hereditary servants of Marathas. During British rule, it was an important farming community in Maharashtra. They resorted to violence against British arbitrary methods of land revenue collection. They were also angry because of govt policy to put their land under supervision of Mamlatdars. British could suppress this revolt after great efforts.

9.    Sawantwadi Revolt – Sawantwadis were followers of a Maratha leader Sawant. He led the revolt along with another Maratha leader Anna Sahib against British political and economic policies. They formed a huge force and captured the forts, British adopted suppressive measures which forced them to flee to Goa. They created turmoil even in Goa. British had to impose martial law and inflicted severe punishment against Sawantwadies.

Towards 1857 revolt

In 1856, Lord Canning succeeded Lord Dalhousie as the Governor General of India. The reign of Dalhousie had been quite momentous for the Britishers as he had pursued a policy of territorial aggrandisement and extended the dominions of the empire. The reign of his successor witnessed a big conflagration-the Great Revolt of 1857. It was the cumulative result of the misrule and oppression of the East India Company over a span of hundred years. The Great Revolt was so meticulously planned that the Company rule would have totally collapsed but for the fact that the revolutionaries did not have the backing of all sections of the people.

The revolt of 1857 forms one of the most important chapters in the history of the struggle of the India people for liberation from the British rule. It shook the foundations of the British Empire in India and at some points it seemed as though the British rule would end for all time to come. What started merely as a sepoy mutiny soon engulfed the peasantry and other civilian population over wide areas in northern India. The upsurge was so widespread that some of the contemporary observers called it a “national revolt”.

Causes

The main reason for the revolt was the ruthless exploitation of the Indian people by the British. The British rule which was formally established after the Battle of Plassey in 1757 in Bengal, strove to fill the coffers of the East India Company at the expense of the Indians. The east India Company was governed by greedy merchants and traders who could go to any extent to enrich themselves. The Company was formed in 1600, and was given a Royal Charter by Queen Elizabeth which conferred on it the exclusive privilege to trade with the East. Its main aim was to assume the trade monopoly in India. It was not an ordinary merchant company formed for trade but had its train of soldiers who fought battles with the Portuguese and the French trading companies in the 17th and 18th centuries in order to establish its trade monopoly. After these rival powers had been defeated it also tried to humble the Indian traders who offered competition. When the Battle of Plassey was won in 1757, the British successfully imposed their trade monopoly over the area under their control, eliminated competition from the India traders and forced the artisans to sell their products to them. The artisans were now paid so low that they could hardly survive. The legend has it that the weavers of Dhaka cut their thumbs to protest against such low payments by the East India Company for their superb work on muslin renowned for its fine texture.

Exploitation of the peasantry

Although the trade monopoly enriched the East India Company considerably, its main source of income was now derived from the land. After entrenching itself in Bengal, it spread its power in India through wars and treaties. To extract as much money as possible it devised new systems of land settlements-Permanent, Ryotwari and Mahalwari-each more oppressive than the other.

The Permanent Settlement which was effective in Bengal Presidency and in large parts of north India did not recognize the hereditary rights of the peasants on land, which they had earlier enjoyed. The loyal zamindars and revenue-collectors were now given the proprietary rights on land. The cultivators were reduced to the status of simple tenants. But even the newly created landlords were not given absolute rights. Their situation was also deliberately left very precarious. They had to pay to the Company 10/11th of the entire rent derived from the cultivators and if they failed to do so, their property was sold to others.

The other land settlements were no better. In all of these the peasants had to pay beyond their means and any adverse natural shifts like droughts or flood compelled them to go for loans to the money lenders who charged exorbitant interest. This made the peasants so heavily indebted that they were ultimately forced to sell their land to these money lenders. It is because of this that the money lenders were so hated in rural society.

The peasantry was also oppressed by petty officials in administration who extracted money on the slightest pretexts. If the peasants went to the law court to seek redress of their grievances, they were bound to be totally ruined. When the crop was good the peasants had to pay back their past debts; if it was bad, they were further indebted. This nexus between the lower officials, law courts and money lenders created a vicious circle which made the peasantry desperate and ready to welcome any opportunity for change of regime.

Alienation of the middle and upper strata of Indians

It was not merely the peasantry that got alienated from the British rule, the middle and upper strata Indians also felt oppressed. During the period of the Mughals or even in the administration of the local princes and chieftains, the Indians served at all the places - both lower and higher. The disappearance of these Indian states and their replacement by the British administration deprived the Indians of higher posts which were now taken mainly by the British. The Indians now served only as subordinates and on other petty positions in the administration. Even the most brilliant of Indians were subordinated to the second or third rate Britishers who as a matter of right, grabbed all the higher paid positions. Further more, the cultural personnel like poets, dramatists, writers, musicians etc, who were earlier employed by the native states were now thrown out. The religious men like Pandits and Maulvis also lost all their former power and prestige.

Annexation of princely states

The East India Company did not spare even its former allies. The native state of Awadh was annexed by Dalhousie in 1856 on the pretext that Nawab Wazid Ali Shah was mismanaging the state. Even before this he had annexed Satara in 1848 and Nagpur and Jhansi in 1854 on the pretext that the rulers of these states had no natural heir to succeed them after their death. These annexations embittered the rulers of these states, making Rani of Jhansi and Begum of Awadh staunch enemies of the British. Further the British refusal to pay pension to Nana Sahib, the adopted son of Peshwa Baji Rao II worsened the situation. The annexation of Awadh was also resented by the sepoys as most of them came from there. This action hurt their patriotic loyalty and sense of dignity. Moreover, since their relatives had now to pay more taxes on land, it adversely affected the purses of the sepoys themselves.

The alien rule

Another important reason of the unpopularity of the British was the alien nature of their rule. They never mixed with the Indian people and treated even the upper class Indians with contempt. They had not come to settle in India but only to take money home. So the Indians could never develop any affinity towards them.

Impact on the sepoys

The revolt of 1857 originated with the mutiny of the Sepoys. These Sepoys were drawn mainly from the peasant population of North and North-West India. As we have seen, the rapacious policies followed by the East India Company were impoverishing and ruining the peasantry. This must have affected the Sepoys also. Infact, most of them had joined the military service in order to supplement their fast declining agricultural income. But as the years passed by, they realised that their capacity for doing so declined. They were paid a monthly salary of 7 to 9 Rupees out of which they had to pay for their food, uniform and transport of their private baggage. The Post Office Act( 1854) took away the privilege of free postage hitherto enjoyed by the sepoys. The cost of maintaining an Indian Sepoy was only one-third of his British counterpart in India. Moreover, the Indian Sepoy was treated roughly by the British officers. They were frequently abused and humiliated. The Indian Sepoy, despite his valour and great fighting capacity, could never rise above the rank of a Subedar while a fresh recruit from England was often appointed his superior overnight.

Threat to religion

Apart from degrading service conditions, another factor inflammed the feelings of the sepoys. An impression was created among them that their religion was being attacked by the British. This belief was also shared by the general civilian population. The proselytizing zeal of the missionaries and some of the British officials instilled fear in the minds of the people that their religion was in danger. At several places conversions to Christianity were reported to be made. The Government maintained the chaplains at its own cost and in some cases also provided police protection to the missionaries. Even the army maintained chaplains at state cost and Christian propaganda was carried among the sepoys. Furthermore, the sepoys were forbidden to wear their castemarks, and in 1856 an Act was passed under which every new recruit had to give an undertaking to serve overseas, if required. The conservative beliefs of the sepoys were thus shaken and they sometimes reacted strongly. For example in 1824, the 47th Regiment of sepoys at Barrackpore refused to go to Burma by sea-route because their religion forbade them cross “black water”. The British reacted ruthlessly, disbanded the Regiment, and put some of its leaders to death.

In 1844, seven battalions revolted on the question of salaries and bhatta (allowance). Even during the Afghan War from 1839 to 1842 the soldiers were almost on the verge of revolt. Like sepoys, the people of India had also risen in revolt against the oppressive British rule. The most important of these uprisings were the Kutchh rebellion (1816-32), the Kol uprising in 1831 and the Santhal uprising in 1855-56. The main point with regard to the 1857 challenge, however, was that both the military and civilian revolts merged and this made it really formidable.

The immediate cause

The atmosphere was so surcharged that even a small issue could lead to revolt. The episode of greased cartridges, however, was a big enough issue to start the rebellion on it own. Dry tinder-box was there and only a spark was needed to set it ablaze. Cartridges of the new Enfield rifle which had recently been introduced in the army had a greased paper cover whose end had to be bitten off before the cartridge was loaded into rifle. The grease was in some instances made of beef and pig fat. This completely enraged the Hindu and Muslim sepoys and made them believe that the government was deliberately trying to destroy their religion. It was the immediate cause of the revolt.

Organisation

What kind of organisation did the rebels employ in order to raise their banner against the British? On this question there has been a good deal of controversy among historians. One view is that there was a widespread and well-organized conspiracy, while another view maintains that it was completely spontaneous. The fact seems to be that some kind of organized plan was in existence but it had matured sufficiently when the revolt broke out.

As the rebels formed a clandestine set-up they did not keep any records about the nature, functions and structure of their secret organisation. Another view is that if they did keep any records these were destroyed by the victors (British). But the stories which have come down to us talk about the red lotuses and chappatis, symbolizing freedom and bread, being passed from village to village and from one regiment to another. Besides these means speeches were also delivered and quiet preaching conducted by the roaming sanyasis and fakirs to mobilize and rally anti-colonial forces. All these stirred the sepoys to revolt.

Also, the pattern of the rebell across the cities was very similar thereby symbolizing some level of organization and planning on the part of the rebels.

Lack of a unified programme and ideology

The rebellion swept off the British system of government and administration in India. But the rebels did not know what to create in its place! They had no forward-looking plan in mind. This made them rely on the outmoded feudal system with Bahadur Shah at its head. The other prominent leaders of rebellion like, Nana Saheb, Begum of Awadh, Rani of Jhansi, etc., were also representatives of the old feudal world. This system had lost its vitality and was unable to withstand the onslaught of the British. It was because of the failure of these rulers, that the British had earlier been able to conquer almost the whole of India. Reliance on these elements made it difficult for the rebel forces to create a new sense of unity among the Indian people which alone could have created a viable alternative to the British rule.

Lack of unity among Indians

As mentioned above, no broad based unity among the Indian people could emerge. While sepoys of the Bengal army were revolting, some soldiers in Panjab and south India fought on the side of the British to crush these rebellions. Similarly, there were no accompanying rebellions in most of eastern and southern India. The Sikhs also did not support the rebels. All these groups had their reasons to do so. The possibility of the revival of Mughal authority created a fear among the Sikhs who had faced so much oppression at the hands of the Mughals. Similarly, the Rajput chieftains in Rajasthan and Nizam in Hyderabad were so much harassed by the Marathas that they dreaded the revival of Maratha power. Besides this, there were some elements of the peasantry that had profited from the British rule. They supported the British during the revolt. The zamindars of Bengal Presidency were the creation of the British; and had all the reasons to support them. The same applied to be big merchants of Calcutta, Bombay and Madras who did not go over to the rebels but supported the British.

Lack of support from the educated indians

The modern educated Indians also did not support the revolt because, in their view, the revolt was backward-looking. This educated middle class was the product of the British system of education and they believed mistakenly that the British would lead the country towards modernization.

Different Leaders Associated with the Revolt of 1857
1.	Lucknow	Begum Hazrat Mahal, Birjis Qadir
2.	Kanpur	Nana Sahib, Tantia Tope
3.	Jhansi	Rani Laxmibai
4.	Bihar (Jagdishpur)	Kunwar Singh
5.	Allahabad	Maulvi Liyakat Ali
6.	Faizabad	Maulvi Ahmadullah
7.	Bareilly	Khan Bahadur Khan
8.	Mandsor	Firoz Khan
9.	Assam	Kandapareshwar Singh, Manirama Datta
10.	Orissa	Surendra Shahi, Ujjwal Shahi
11.	Kullu	Raja Pratap Singh
12.	Rajasthan	Jayadayal Singh
13.	Gorakpur	Gajadhar Singh
14.	Mathura	Devi Singh, Kadam Singh

Disunity among the leaders

The main problem however, was lack of unity in the ranks of rebels themselves. Their leaders were suspicious and jealous of each other and often indulged in petty quarrels. The Begum of Awadh, for example, quarreled with Maulavi Ahmadullah, and the Mughal princes with sepoy-generals. Azimullah, the political adviser of the Nana Saheb, asked him not to visit Delhi lest he be overshadowed by the Emperor Bahadur Shah. Thus, selfishness and narrow perspective of the leaders sapped the strength of the revolt and prevented its consolidation.

Military superiority of the British

Another major factor for the defeat of the rebels was the British superiority in arms. The British imperialism, at the height of its power the world over and supported by most of the Indian princes and chiefs, proved militarily too strong for the rebels. While the rebels were lacking in discipline and a central command, the British continued to have a constant supply of disciplined soldiers, war materials and money from British. Sheer courage could not win against a powerful and determined enemy who planned its strategy skillfully. Because of poor discipline the rebels lost more men and material than the British in every encounter. Many sepoys, after seeing that the British had an upper hand, left for their villages.

These were the main factors responsible for the failure of the revolt.

Impact

Despite the fact that the revolt of 1857 failed, it gave a severe jolt to the British administration in India. The structure and policies of the re-established British rule were, in many respects, drastically changed.

Transfer of power

The first major change was that the power to govern India passed from the East India Company to the British Crown through an Act of 1858. Now a Secretary of State for India aided by a Council was to be responsible for the governance of India. Earlier this authority was wielded by the Directors of the Company.

Changes in military organisation

The second drastic change was affected in the army. Steps were taken to prevent any further revolt by the Indian soldiers. Firstly, the number of European soldiers was increased and fixed at one European to two Indian soldiers in Bengal Army and two to five in Bombay and Madras armies. Moreover, the European troops were kept in key geographical and military positions. The crucial branches of the army like artillery were put exclusively in European hands. Secondly, the organisation of the Indian section of the army was now based on the policy of “divide and rule”. Regiments were created on the basis of caste, community and region to prevent the development of any nationalistic feeling among the soldiers.

Divide and rule

This policy of “divide and rule” was also introduced in the civilian population. Since the British through that the revolt was a conspiracy hatched by the Muslims the latter were severely punished and discriminations made against them in public appointments and in other areas. This policy was later reversed and a belated appeasement of Muslims began. A policy of preferential treatment of the Muslims was adopted towards the end of the 19th century. These policies created problems for Indian freedom struggle, and contributed to the growth of communalism.

New policy towards the princes

Another important change was in the British policies towards the Princely states. The earlier policy of annexation was now abandoned and the rulers of these states were now authorised to adopt heirs. This was done as a reward to those native rulers who had remained loyal to the British during the revolt.Thus Britishers used Princely states as ‘Breakwaters in the storm ‘. However, this authority of the Indian rulers over particular territories was completely subordinated to the authority of the British and they were converted into a Board of privileged dependents.

Search for new friends

Besides these changes, the British now turned to the most reactionary groups among the Indians, like the zamindars, princes and landlords, for strengthening their fortune in the country. They started respecting and even promoting their traditional status and claims so as to make new allies among the Indians to act as breakwaters in case of any subsequent unrest.

THE NATURE OF THE REVOLT: DEBATE

Between the 1950s and 1960s historians focused much of their attention on whether the revolt was a sepoy mutiny, national struggle or a manifestation of feudal reaction. Let us sum up the essential arguments of this earlier debate.

Sepoy mutiny

Anxious to minimize Indian grievances, for many years, British historians had maintained that the revolt had been nothing more than a sepoy mutiny and hence the name. Such accounts generally narrated:

Details of the greased cartridges,

The activities of rebel sepoys,

And the British campaigns on 1857-58 that suppressed the revolt.

Not only was the rebellion of the people made light of, but the civil rebellion was attributed to merely the selfish interests of landholders and princes. In essence, this interpretation ignored the colonial context in which the revolt had occurred and of which it was a reflection.

National struggle or feudal reaction?

With emergence of nationalist agitations against the colonial government the revolt of 1857 came to be looked upon as part of that struggle and the focus shifted from the greased cartridges to the oppressions of the British. V.D. Savarkar’s The Indian War of Independence of 1857 published anonymously in 1902 remained banned in India almost till the end of British rule.

However, several works coinciding with the centenary year of the revolt argued variously:

That the absence of a general plan of rebellion went against such an interpretation

That the leaders were not imbued with national sentiment and ‘would have put the clock back’,

That 1857 was not the inauguration of a freedom movement but ‘the dying groans of an obsolete aristocracy’.

On the other hand there were objections to the restrictive use of the term ‘national’ and the implicit minimization of the anti-imperialist content of the revolt and of the evidence of the Hindu-Muslim unity during 1857-58.

More recently it has been noted that though the rebel mission may not have been ‘national,’ their political horizon was not restricted to their ilaqas. Also that the aim of the rebels was not so much an attempt to establish a new social order as to restore a world that was familiar i.e. the traditional world of hierarchy, lineage, patronage and deference.

The army and the revolts

On 29th March 1857 in Barrackpore near Calcutta, there took place a disturbance when a sepoy, Mangal Pandey killed one of the European officers. This disturbance was easily suppressed but in the next few weeks, disturbances in the army gathered momentum. The mutiny of the Meerut sepoys who killed their European officers on 10 May 1857 and crossed over to Delhi on the 11th to appeal to Bahadur Shah II, the pensioner Mughal emperor, to become their leader, led to the revolt of 1857. Almost half of the 2,32,224 sepoys of the East India Company rebelled. The bulk of the sepoys were upper caste Hindus from the North Western Provinces and Awadh. Nearly one-third came from Awadh, thus forming a homogeneous group within the army. Over the years the upper caste sepoys had found their religious beliefs in conflict with their service conditions.

In 1806 the replacement of the turban by a leather cockade caused a mutiny at Vellore.

In 1824 the sepoys at Barrackpore refused to go to Burma because crossing the sea would mean loss of caste,

In 1844 there was a mutinous outbreak of the Bengal army sepoys for being sent to far away Sind. Crossing the Indus was perceived as causing loss of caste.

Closer to the revolt of 1857 there had been reports of bone dust in the atta (flour) ration. The cartridges of the Enfield rifles (introduced around January 1857) which had to be bitten off before loading were reportedly greased with pork and beef fat. This seemed to confirm fears about their religion being in danger.

In addition there was professional discontent:

1.    An infantry sepoy got only seven rupees per month, and a cavalry sawar 27 rupees, out of which he had to pay for his uniform, food and the upkeep of the mount

2.    There was racial discrimination in matters of promotion, pension and terms of service,

3.    Annexations had deprived the sepoys of bhatta (extra pay) for Foreign Service.

4.    There were fears of being edged out by new recruits from Punjab.

Select opinions on the revolt of 1857

1. “The crisis came: at first as a mere military mutiny, it speedily changed its character and became a national insurrection” — G.B. Malleson

2. “The decline and fall of empires are not affairs of greased cartridges. Such results are occasioned by adequate causes and by the accumulation of adequate causes” — Benjamin Disraeli

3. “It is a mutiny or is it a national revolt?” —Benjamin Disraeli

4. “The entire movement lacked a unified and forward looking programme to be implemented after the capture of power.” — Bipin Chandra

5.  “It is in fact an anachronism to describe the mutiny as the first essay towards modern independence. It was rather, in its political aspect, the last effort of the old conservative India”.                                     —Percival Spear   

6." The so called first national war of Independence of 1857 is neither first ,nor National nor war of Independence"--- R.C .Mazumdar.  

7. "Wholly unpatriotic and selfish sepoy mutiny with no native leadership and no popular support"   —     John Seeley

POLITICAL ASSOCIATIONS BEFORE 1885

The Indian National Congress was not the first political association to be established in India. Various associations had been established earlier. The beginning of organized political activity in India generally dates back to the establishment of landholders’ society in 1837. It was an association of landholders of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa and its principal objective was to guard its class interests. In 1843 was formed another association named Bengal British India society. Its objective was wider, i.e. to protect and promote general public interests. The landholders’ society represented the aristocracy of wealth, the Bengal British India society represented the aristocracy of intelligence. In 1851 the two associations were merged, giving rise to a new one, named the British India Association. This was the time when the Charter of the British East India Company was due for renewal and a need was felt to make the views of Indians known to the authorities in London. Associations were also formed about this time in Bombay and Madras. These were called the Bombay Association and the Madras Native Association respectively and were established in 1852. All these associations were dominated by wealthy landed gentry. Similar, but lesser known associations were established in other parts of India too. Deccan Association can be mentioned as one of them.

The three Presidency associations sent petitions suggesting changes in East India Company’s Charter. These suggestions give us a fairly good idea of the attitude of the publically conscious classes in India at that time. Broadly speaking, the petitioners wanted that Indians should be appointed to the legislative bodies. Company’s monopoly of salt and indigo should be abolished and the state should give aid to indigenous industry. It was also stated that the local governments should have greater powers and Indians should have bigger share in the administration of their country. So far as agrarian issues were concerned, a desire was expressed for the preservation of existing interests in land. Each petition also expressed concern about the need to improve the condition of peasants. In the petition sent by members of the British Indian Association it was stated that while Indians acknowledged ‘the blessings of an improved form of government’, they could not but feel that they had ‘not profited by their connection with Great Britain to the extent which they had a right to look for’. Many of their demands were later taken up by the Congress.

As has already been mentioned, during the 1860s and 1870 ideas of nationalism and patriotism were very much in the air. A number of political associations were established in different parts of the country during this period to propagate the cause of reform in various spheres of administration and to promote political consciousness among various sections of people. Of these, the Poona Sarvajanik Sabha, established by M.G. Ranade, G.V. Joshi, S.H. Chiplankar and his associates in 1870, proved to be the most important. This Sabha brought out a journal from 1878 which did much for arousing political consciousness. To carry on political propaganda in England, some Indian students like Pherozeshah Mehta, Badruddin Tyabji, Dadabhai Naoroji and Manmohan Ghose founded the East India Association in December, 1866.

The half century from the establishment of Landholders society in 1837 was more a period of aspirations than of achievements. But the stage was set during this period for the emergence of a national body. The need for a national platform began to be keenly felt. In Calcutta, dissatisfaction with the British Indian Association had been growing. Its subscription was Rs. 50 per annum which was too high for the middle class. Its membership was, therefore, confined to the wealthy people. In 1876 the Indian Association was founded in Calcutta. The membership fee was kept at five rupees, per annum. It soon became very popular amongst the educated people and became a major force in Bengal and subsequently in Indian politics. Surendranath Banerjee, a young member of the middle class who had been ejected from the Indian Civil Service on what appeared to be insufficient grounds was mainly responsible for its establishment. The aims of the Indian Association included developing a strong public opinion, promoting Hindu-Muslim friendship, establishing contact with masses and generating wider awareness amongst the Indian people. These are certainly ingredients of a broad based nationalist movement. Surendranath Banerjee said that the new association was based on the conception of United India derived from the inspiration of Mazzini - the main architect of the Italian Unification.

Many other political bodies were established in other parts of India, like the Madras Mahajan Sabha, the Bombay Presidency Association, the Allahabad People’s Association, the Indian Association of Lahore etc. Many of these bodies had branches in the Mofussil towns. After 1885 these became the regional arms of the Congress.

DEVELOPMENT OF EDUCATION

Till the second half of 18th century the English East India Company did not face any dilemma about its role in the promotion of education of India. It was basically a commercial corporation, so its basic objectives were trade and profit. Before acquisition of territorial power the Company had no role in education, however, there were attempts by the missionaries to establish charity schools and to promote learning. But things began to change with the British occupation of Eastern India in the second-half of 18th century. Within the official circle as well as outside of its there was growing debate about what should be the role of the company in the promotion of learning in India.

Immediately after the acquisition of political power in India the company officials wanted to maintain neutrality or non-intervention in the sphere of religion and culture of the indigenous society. The reason behind it was partly the fear of adverse reaction and opposition to their role by the local people. However, constant pressure from different quarters, the Missionaries, the Liberals, the Orientalists, the Utilitarians compelled the company to give up its policy of neutrality and to take the responsibility of promotion of learning.

The second important point around which the opinions were sharply divided was whether the company should promote western or oriental learning. In the initial stage the company officials patronised oriental learning. It cannot be denied that some of the Englishmen had the genuine desire to acquire and promote oriental learning.

In this context we may mention the establishment of the ‘Calcutta Madarasa’ by Warren Hastings (1781), the ‘Banaras Sanskrit College’ by Jonathan Duncan (1791) and the ‘Asiatic Society of Bengal’ by William Jones (1784). The Calcutta Madarasa and the Sanskrit College were designed to provide a regular supply of qualified Indians to help the administration of law in Company’s court and knowledge of classical languages and vernaculars was useful in correspondence with Indian States. Enlightened Indians and missionaries started exerting pressure on government to promote modern, secular, western education because enlightened Indians thought that western education was the remedy for social, economic and political ills of the country.

Missionaries thought that modern education would destroy faith of Indians in their own religions and they would take to Christianity. Serampore missionaries were, in particular, very enthusiastic for spread of education. Those who were in favour of continuation of the existing institutions of oriental learning and promotion of Indian classical tradition were called “Orientalists”

Orientalist-anglicist controversy

The Anglicists argued that the government spending on education should be exclusively for modern studies.

The Orientalists said while western sciences and literature should be taught to prepare students to take up jobs, emphasis should be placed on expansion of traditional Indian learning.

Even within Anglicists there were differences over medium of instruction-one faction was for English language as medium, the other faction was for Indian languages (vernaculars) for that purpose.

Unfortunately there was a great deal of confusion over English and vernacular languages as media of instruction and as objects of study.

The RESPONSE OF INDIANS to this debate over education policy was a mixed one. Ram Mohan Roy and others favoured introduction of Western education with the belief that it would help Indians to assimilate the knowledge of western science, rationalism, new ideas and literature. This would help in the regeneration of the country. Some other people believed that knowledge of Western education, specially the knowledge of English, would help them in getting jobs and coming close to the ruling elite. So they were in support of Western education. In opposition to this there were many conservatives who were staunch supporters of Indian classical language and culture. They had the apprehension that introduction of Western education would lead to the collapse of indigenous society and culture.

For the first time the British Parliament included in the Company’s charter (1813) a clause that the Government-General in Council is bound to keep a sum of not less than one lakh of rupees per year for education. But the company used this fund mainly to promote and encourage Indian language and literature. The importance of the Charter Act of 1813 was that the Company for the first time acknowledged state responsibility for the promotion of education in India.

Macaulay, the President of the General Committee of Public Instruction and Lord Bentinck, the Governor General, took the side of the Anglicists and Bentinck gave his ruling that

“The  great object  of the british government in india was henceforth  to  be the  promotion of European literature and science among  the  natives  of  India;  and that all the funds  appropriated  for  the purpose of education would be best employed on english  education alone.”

Some of the important points of the resolution that Bentinck announced in 1835 were as follows:

1.    Persian was abolished as the court language and was substituted by English.

2.    Printing and publication of English books were made free and available at a comparatively low price.

3.    More funds were provided to support the English education, while there was curtailment in the fund for the promotion of oriental learning.

Downward Filtration Theory

Government soon made English as medium of instruction in its schools and colleges and operated a few English schools and colleges instead of a large number of elementary schools, thus neglecting mass education. The British planned to educate a small section of upper and middle classes, thus creating a class “Indian in blood and colour but English in tastes, in opinions, in morals and in intellect” who would act as interpreters between the government and masses and would enrich the vernaculars by which knowledge of western sciences and literature would reach the masses. This was called the Downward Filtration Theory.

Modern ideas, if not education, did filter down to the masses, though not in a form desired by the rulers, through political parties, press, pamphlets, public platforms, etc. Modern education only helped this process by making available the basic literature on physical and social sciences to nationalists, thus stimulating their capacity to make social analysis-otherwise the content, structure and curricula of modern education served colonial interests.

Schools and colleges
Calcutta Madarsah (1781)	Warren Hastings.
Sanskrit College (Varanasi) (1791)	Jonathan Duncan
Hindu College (Calcutta) (1817)	David Hare.
Vedanta College (Calcutta) (1825)	Raja Ram Mohun Roy (for synthesizing western learning with Vedantic ideals)
Bethune School (Calcutta) (1849)	Secretary Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar (Established by J.E. Bethure)
Three Universities (Calcutta, Madras, Bombay)	1857
One Engineering College (Roorkee)	1847
Central Hindu School – Banaras	Annie Besant – Converted to Banaras Hindu University by Madan Mohan Malviya.
Muhammedan Anglo – Oriental College (MAO) – Aligarh (1875) –	By Sayyid Ahmad Khan – Later became Aligarh Muslim University.
National Muslim University	Sayyid Ahmed Barelvi (Aligarh). Later transferred to Delhi and became Jamia Milia Islamia.
New English School (1880’s) – Bombay –	Tilak – later became Fergussan College.
National Council of Education (Calcutta) 1906 –	National College in Calcutta with Aurobindo Ghose as Principal.
SNDT Women’s University – by Maharishi Karve	established in 1916, it was first women university.

Efforts of Thomas Campbell Robertson

He was Lieutenant-Governor of NW Provinces (1843-53), developed a comprehensive scheme of village education through the medium of vernacular languages. In these village schools, useful subjects such as Mensuration, Agriculture Sciences were taught. The purpose was to train personnel for the newly-set up Revenue and Public Works Department.

Wood’s Despatch

The next major landmark in the development of English education in this period was the WOOD’S DESPATCH OF 1854. Sir Charles Wood, the president of the Board of control, in 1854 laid down the policy which became the guiding principle of the education programme of the government of India.It is known as “Magna Carta of English Education in India”.

The major recommendations of the Despatch were as follows:

1.    The creation of a department of public instruction in each of the five provinces of the company’s territory

2.    It systematized the hierarchy from vernacular primary schools in villages at bottom, followed by Anglo-Vernacular High Schools and an affiliated college at the district level affiliating universities in the presidency towns of Calcutta, Bombay, Madras.

3.   Medium of instruction-English for higher studies and vernaculars at school level.

4.   Stress was laid on female and vocational education

5.   Recommended a system of grants-in-aid to encourage private enterprise.

6.    The establishment of university at Calcutta, Bombay and Madras,

7.    The establishment of teachers training institutions,

8.    The promotion of vernacular schools,

9.    The introduction of a system of grants-in-aid for financial help to the schools, etc.

In 1857 three universities were established in Calcutta, Bombay and Madras. The establishment of universities and the opening of education departments in the provinces provided a basic structure to modern education in India, in fact Wood’s Despatch provided the model for the further development in education in India.

The ideals and methods of Wood’s Despatch dominated the field for five decades which saw rapid westernisation of education system in India, run by European headmasters and principals. Missionary enterprises played their own part. Gradually, private Indian effort appeared in the field.

Bethune School founded by J.E.D. Bethune at Calcutta (1849) was the first fruit of a powerful movement for education of women which arose in 1840s and 1850s. Bethune was the President of Council of Education. Mostly due to Bethune’s efforts, girls’ schools were set up on a sound footing and brought under government’s grants-in-aid and inspection system.

Agriculture Institute at Pusa (Bihar) and Engineering Institute at Roorkee were started.

Hunter education commission (1882-83)

Earlier, schemes neglected primary and secondary education. When, in 1870, education was shifted to provinces, primary and secondary education further suffered because the provinces already had limited resources at their disposal. The commission mostly confined its recommendations to Primary and Secondary education. Major recommendations:-

1.   Emphasized that State’s special care is required for extension and improvement of primary education. Primary education should be regarded as the instruction of masses through vernacular.

2.    Transfer control of primary education to newly set up District and Municipal Boards.

3.   Secondary (High School) education should have two divisions:

       Literary-leading Upto University.

       Vocational-for commercial careers.

4.   Drew attention to inadequate facilities for female education, especially outside presidency towns and made recommendations for its spread.

5.    The commission recommended that an all out effort should be made to encourage private enterprise in the field of education.

Two decades following this saw rapid growth and expansion of secondary and collegiate education with participation of Indian activity.

Also, more teaching-cum examining universities were set up namely - Punjab University (1882),    Allahabad University (1887)

Indian universities act-1904

The dawn of 20th century saw political unrest. The official view was that under private management quality of education had deteriorated and educational institutions acted as factories producing political revolutionaries. Nationalists accepted the decline in quality but accused government of doing nothing to eradicate illiteracy.

In 1902, Raleigh Commission was set up to go into conditions and prospects of universities in India and to suggest measures for improvement in their constitution and working. The commissioner precluded from reporting on primary or secondary education. Based on its recommendations, I.U. Act was passed in 1904-

1.   Universities to give more attention to study and research.

2.   Number of fellows of a University and their period in office reduced. Most fellows to be government nominated.

3.   Government to have powers to veto universities senate regulations. It could amend these regulations or pass regulations on its own.

4.   Stricter conditions of affiliation for private colleges.

5.   One good step was the provision of sanction of Rs. five lakhs per annum for five years for improvement of higher education and universities.

Curzon justified greater control over universities in the name of quality and efficiency, but actually sought to restrict education and to discipline the education towards loyalty to Government.

The nationalists saw in it an attempt to strengthen imperialism and to sabotage nationalist feelings Gokhale called it a ”retrograde measure”.

Government resolution on education policy-1913

In 1906, the progressive state of Baroda introduced compulsory primary education throughout its territories. National leaders urged the government to do so for British India (especially, Gokhale made a powerful advocacy for it in the Legislative Assembly.)

In its 1913 Resolution on Education Policy, the Government refused to recognize the responsibility of compulsory education, but accepted the policy of removal of illiteracy and urged provincial governments to take early steps to provide free elementary education to poorer and more backward section. Private efforts were to be encouraged for this.

Quality of secondary schools was to be improved.

A University, it was decided, should be established in each province and teaching activities of universities were to be encouraged.

Sadler university commission (1917-19)

The Commission was set up to study and report on problems of Calcutta University but its recommendations were applicable more or less to other Universities also. It reviewed the entire field from school education to University education. It held the view that for improvement of university education, improvement of secondary education was a necessary pre-condition. Its observations:-

1.   Recommended 12 years school course. Students to enter university after an intermediate stage (rather than matric) for a three-year degree course in University. This was done to

(a)  Prepare students for University stage.

(b)   Relieve universities of a large number of below University standard students.

(c)  Provide collegiate education to those not planning to go through university stage.A separate Board of Secondary and Intermediate education for administration and control of secondary and intermediate education.

2.   Less rigidity in framing University regulations.

3.   University should function as centralized, unitary-residential-teaching autonomous bodies, rather than as scattered, affiliated colleges.

4.   Stressed extension of female education, applied scientific and technological education, teach era’ training including those for professional and vocational colleges.

In the period of 1916-21 seven new Universities came up-at Mysore, Patna, Banaras, Aligarh, Dacca, Lucknow and Osmania.

In 1920, the Government recommended Sadler report to the Provincial Governments.

Education under dyarchy

Under Montford reforms education was shifted to provincial ministries and the government stopped taking direct interest in educational matters, while government grants, liberally sanctioned since 1902, were now stopped. Financial difficulties prevented any substantial expansion but still education grew, especially under philanthropic efforts.

Hartog Committee (1929) Increase in number of schools and colleges had let to deterioration of standards. Hartog committee was set up to report on development of education. Its main recommendations were-

1.   Emphasized importance of Primary education but condemned hasty expansion or need for compulsion in education;

2.   Only deserving students should go in for high school and intermediate stage, while average students should be diverted to vocational courses after VIII standards;

3.   for improvements in standards of University education it was necessary to restrict admissions.

Wardha scheme of basic education (1937)

Based on Gandhi’s ideas published in a series of articles in weekly Harijan, Gandhi thought that western education had created a gulf between the educated few and the masses and had also made the educated elite ineffective.

The main principle behind the scheme was “Learning through Activity”.

Congress organized a National Conference on Education (October 1937) in Wardha. In the light of resolutions passed there, Zakir Hussain committee formulated the detailed scheme-

1.   Included a basic handicraft in the syllabus.

2.    First seven years of schooling to be an integral part of a free and compulsory nationwide education system (through mother tongue).

3.   Hindi teaching from class II to VII and English only after class VIII.

4.   Devise ways to establish contact with community around schools through service.

5.   Devise a suitable technique with a view to implementing the main idea of basic education-educating the child through the medium of productive activity of a suitable handicraft.

This system, rather than being a methodology for education, was an expression of an idea for a new life and a new society. The basic premise was that only through such a scheme could India be an independent and non-violent society. This scheme was child-centered and cooperative.

There was not much development of this idea, because of Second World War and the resignation of the Congress ministries (October 1939).

Sergeant plan of education

1944-Central Advisory Board of Education (Sergeant-Educational Advisor to Government) drew up this scheme.

1.    Pre-primary education for 3-6 years age; free, universal and compulsory elementary education for 6-11 years age; high school education for 11-17 age group for selected children, and a University course of 3 years after higher secondary. Higher schools to be of two types-

 (i) Academic

(ii) Technical and Vocational.

2.   Adequate technical, commercial and arts education.

3.   Recommended abolition of intermediate course.

4.   Liquidation of adult illiteracy in 20 years.

5.   Stressed teachers’ training, physical education, education for the physically and mentally handicapped.

The objective was to create the same level of educational attainment as had been in England and within 40 years. Although a bold and comprehensive scheme it proposed to methodology for implementation and the ideal of England’s achievements was erratic since that may not have suited Indian conditions.

Radhakrishnan commission 1948

In November 1948 the Government of India appointed a commission under the chairmanship of Dr.Radhakrishnan to report on university education in the country and suggest improvements. The important recommendations of the report submitted in August 1949 were as follows :

1. Twelve years of pre–university educational course.

2. The Higher education to have three main objectives: General education, Liberal education and occupational education.

3. The examination standard should be raised and made uniform in all the universities and university education placed on the concurrent list.

4. A University Grants Commission should be set up to look after university education in the country.

1835, 1836, 1838: William Adam’s reports on vernacular education in Bengal and Bihar pointed out defects in the system of vernacular education. 1843-53: James Jonathan’s experiments in the northwest provinces (UP), as the lieutenant-governor there, included opening one government school as a model school in each Tehsildari and a normal school for teachers’ training for vernacular schools. 1853: In a famous minute, Lord Dalhousie expressed strong opinion, in favor of vernacular education. 1854: Wood’s Despatch made the following provisions for vernacular education: 1. Improvement of standards. 2. Supervisions by a government agency. 3. Normal schools to train teachers. 1854-71: The government paid some attention to secondary and vernacular education. The number of vernacular schools increased by more than fivefold. 1882: The Hunter commission held that the state should make special efforts for extension and improvement of vernacular education. Mass education was to be seen as instructing of masses through vernaculars. 1904: Education policy put special emphasis on vernacular education and increased grants for it. 1929: Hartog Committee presented a gloomy picture of primary education. 1937: These schools received encouragement from Congress ministries.

 

James Augustus Hickey in 1780 started The Bengal Gazette or Calcutta General Advertiser, the first newspaper in India which was seized because of outspoken criticism of government in 1872. Later more newspapers/journals came out-The Bengal Journal, Calcutta Chronicle, Madras Courier, Bombay Herald. Company’s officers were worried that these newspapers might reach London and expose their misdeeds.

Early regulations

Censorship of Press Act (1799) - Lord Wellesley enacted this, anticipating French invasion of India. It imposed almost wartime press restrictions including pre-censorship. These restrictions were relaxed under Lord Hastings, who had progressive views, and in 1818, pre-censorship was dispensed with.

Licensing Regulations (1823) - The acting Governor-General, John Adams, who had reactionary views, enacted these. According to these Regulations, starting or using a press without license was a penal offense. These restrictions were directed chiefly against Indian language or Indian edited newspapers. Rammohan Roy’s Mirat-ul-Akbar had to stop publication.

Liberation of Indian Press (1835) - Metcalfe (Governor-General-1835-36)-repealed the obnoxious 1823 ordinance and earned the epithet, “Liberator of Indian Press”.

-       Lord Macaulay also supported the cause of a free press in India.

-       A new Press Act (1835) required a printer/publisher to declare precise account of premises of publications and cease functioning, if required by a similar declaration.

-       The result of a liberal press policy was a rapid growth of newspapers.

Licensing Act (1857) - Due to emergency caused by 1857 revolt and in addition to already existing registration procedure laid down by Metcalfe Act, this act imposed licensing restriction and government reserved the right to stop publication, circulation of any book, newspaper or printed matter.

This replaced Metcalfe’s Act of 1835 and was of a regulatory, not restrictive, nature-

1.     Every book/newspaper was required to print name of printer and publisher and place of publication

2.     Within one month of publication of book-a copy was to be submitted to local government.

Struggle by early nationalists to secure press freedom

Right from early nineteenth century, defence of civil liberties, including the freedom of the Press, had been high on nationalist agenda. As early as 1824, Raja Rammohan Roy had protested against a resolution restricting the freedom of the Press.

The early phase of nationalist movement from around 1870 to 1918 focussed more on politicization, political propaganda and education, formation and propagation of nationalist ideology and arousing, training, mobilization and consolidation of public opinion, than on mass agitation or active mobilization of masses through open meetings. For this purpose the Press proved to be a crucial tool in the hands of the nationalists. The Indian National Congress in its early days relied solely on the Press to propagate its resolutions and proceedings.

Many newspapers emerged during these years under  distinguished and fearless journalists, such as Hindu and Swadesamitran under G. Subramaniya Aiyar, Bengalee under Surendranath Banerjee, Voice of India under Dadabhai Naoroji, Amrit Bazar Patrika under Sisir Kumar Ghosh and Motilal Ghosh, Indian Mirror under N.N. Sen, Kesari (Marathi) and Maharatta (English) under Balgangadhar Tilak, Sudharak under Gopal Krishna Gokhale, Hindustan and Advocate under G.P. Verma, Tribune and Akbhar-i-am in Punjab, Gujrati, Indu Prakash, Dhyan Prakash and Kal in Bombay and Som Prakash Banganivasi and Sadharani in Bengal.

These newspapers were not established as profit-making business ventures but were seen as a national and public service. In fact, these newspapers had a wide reach and they stimulated a library movement. Even beyond  cities and towns, these newspapers reached the remote villages, where each news item and editorial would be read and discussed thoroughly in the ‘local libraries’ which would gather around a single newspaper. In this way, these libraries served the purpose of not only political education but also of political participation. In these newspapers, government acts and policies were put to critical scrutiny. This way, they acted as an institution of opposition to government.

The Government on its part had enacted many strident laws, such as section 124 A of Indian Penal Code which provided that anyone trying to cause disaffection against the British Government in India was to be transported for life or for any term or imprisoned upto three years. But the nationalist-minded journalists had evolved many clever stratagems to subvert these legal hurdles. For instance, writings hostile to the government used to be prefaced with sentiments of loyalty to the government or critical writings of socialists or Irish nationalists from newspapers in England used to be quoted. This was a difficult task which required intelligent mix of simplicity with subtlety.

The national movement, from the beginning, stood for freedom of Press. The Indian newspapers became highly critical of Lord Lytton’s administration especially regarding its inhuman treatment to victims of famine of 1876-77. The government struck back with the Vernacular Press Act (1878).

Vernacular press act (1878)

A bitter legacy of 1857 revolt was the racial bitterness between ruler and the ruled. After 1858, European Press always rallied behind Government in political controversies while vernacular press was critical of government. There was a strong public opinion against imperialistic policies of Lytton, made restive by terrible famine (1876-77) on one hand and lavish expenditure on Imperial Delhi Durbar, on the other.

Vernacular Press Act was designed to better control the Vernacular press and effectively punish and repress seditious writing.

1.     The District Magistrate was empowered to call upon printer and publisher of a press to enter into a bond with government undertaking not to cause disaffection against government or antipathy between persons of different religions, caste, race through published material; could also require to deposit security which could be forfeited if the regulation were contravened, press equipment could be seized if the offense re-occurred.

2.     Magistrate’s action was final and no appeal could be made in a court of law.

3.     A vernacular newspaper could get exemption by submitting proofs to a government censor.

The Act, nicknamed “gagging act”, had as its worst features:-

1.     Discrimination between English and vernacular press

2.     No right of appeal.

Under VPA, proceedings were instituted against Som Prakash, Bharat Mihir, Dacca Prakash, Samachar,

Later, the pre-censorship clause was repealed, and a Press Commissioner was appointed to supply authentic and accurate news to the press.

There was strong opposition to the Act and finally Ripon repealed it in 1881.

In 1833, Surendranath Banerjee became the first Indian journalist to be imprisoned while performing his duty as a journalist. He had criticized a judge of Calcutta High Court for being insensitive to religious sentiments of Bengalis in one of his judgments. Banerjee did so in an angry editorial in Bengalee.

Balgangadhar Tilak is most frequently associated with the nationalist fight for freedom of Press. Tilak had been building up anti-imperialist sentiments among the public through Ganapati festival (started in 1893), Shivaji festival (started in 1896) and through his newspapers Kesari (Marathi) and Mahratta (English). He was among the first to advocate bringing the lower middle classes, the peasants, artisans and workers into the Congress fold. In 1896, he organized an all-Maharashtra campaign for boycott of foreign cloth in opposition to imposition of excise duty on cotton. In 1896-97 he initiated a no-Tax campaign in Maharashtra, urging farmers to withhold the payment of revenue if their crop had failed. In 1897, plague occurred in Poona. Although Tilak supported government measures to check plague there was large-scale popular resentment against heartless and harsh methods such as segregation and house searches. The popular unrest resulted in murder of the chairman of the Plague Committee in Poona, by Chapekar brothers. Also, the government policies on tariff, currency and famine had been behind this popular resentment.

The government had been looking for an opportunity to check this militant trend and hostility in the Press. They decided to make Tilak an example to the public. Tilak was arrested after the Rand murder on basis of publication of a poem in Kesari, ‘Shivaji’s  utterances’ and of a speech which Tilak and delivered at the Shivaji festival, justifying Afzal Khan’s murder by Shivaji. Tilak’s defence of Shivaji’s killing of Afzal Khan was portrayed by the prosecution as an incitement to kill British officials. Tilak was held guilty and awarded rigorous imprisonment of eighteen months. Simultaneously several other editors of Bombay presidency were tried and given similar harsh sentences. There were widespread protests against these measures. Overnight Tilak became a national hero and was given the title of ‘Lokmanya’ (respected and honored by the People)-a new leader who preached with his deeds.

In 1898, the government amended section 124 A and added another section 153 A which made it a criminal offense for anyone to bring into contempt the Government of India or to create hatred among different classes, that is, vis-a-vis Englishmen in India. This also led to nation-wide protests. During Swadishi and boycott movements and due to rise of militant nationalist trends, several repressive laws were passed.

Newspaper (Incitement to Offenses) Act 1908 Aimed against extremist nationalist activity-magistrates were empowered to confiscate Press property which published objectionable material likely to cause incitement to murder/acts of violence.

Indian Press Act 1910 revived worst features of VPA-Local government empowered to demand a security at registration from printer/publisher and forfeit/deregister if it was an offending newspaper and printer of a newspaper was required to submit two copies of each issue to local government free of charge.

Tilak as the leader of militant nationalists was tried on charges of sedition and transported to Mandlay (Burma) for six years. This led to countrywide protests. In Bombay, textile workers and railway workshop workers took on the army on streets and struck work for days. Lenin hailed this as the entrance of the Indian working class on the political stage.

During first world war

Defences of India Rules were imposed for repression of political agitation and free public criticism. In 1921, on recommendations of a Press Committee chaired by Tej Bahadur Sapru, Press Acts of 1908, 1910 were repealed.

Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act 1931 gave sweeping powers to provincial governments to suppress propaganda for Civil Disobedience Movement. It was further amplified in 1932 to include all activities calculated to undermine government authority.

During Second World War

Under Defence of India rules, pre-censorship was imposed and amendments made in Press Emergency Act and Official Secrets Act. At one time, publication, of all news related to Congress activity was declared illegal. Special powers ended in 1948.

Press Enquiry Committee (1947) To examine Press Laws in light of Fundamental rights formulated by Constituent Assembly-recommended repeal of Indian Emergency Powers Act (1931), amendments in Press  and Registration of Books Act, modifications in Sections 124-A, 156-A, of IPC, among others.

Press (Objectionable Matters) Act, 1951 along with amendment to article 19(2) of Constitution. Then Act empowered the government to demand and forfeit security for publication of “objectionable matter”. Aggrieved owners and printers were given right to demand trial by jury. It remained in force till 1956.

1954-Press Commission under Justice Rajadhyaksha recommended All India Press Council, Price-page schedule system for newspapers, banning crossword puzzle competitions, a strict code of advertisements by newspapers, desirability of preventing concentration in ownership of Indian newspapers.

Further Acts After than Govt. passed

-       Delivering of Books and Newspapers (Public Libraries) Act 1954.

-       Working Journalists (Conditions of Services) and Misc. Provisions Act 1955.

-       Newspaper (Price and Page) Act 1956.

-       Parliamentary Proceedings (Protection of Publication Act 1960).

 

CIVIL SERVICES

Cornwallis (Governor-General, 1786-93) was the first to bring into existence and organize the Civil Services. He tried to check corruption through-

• raising salary
• strict enforcement of rules against private trade
• Debarring civil servants from taking presents, bribes etc.

·Enforcing promotions only through seniority

1800 Wellesley (Governor-General, 1798-1805) set up the Fort William College for training of new recruits.

1806 Wellesley’s College was disapproved by the Court of Directors and instead the East India College was set up at Haileybury in England to impart two years’ training to the recruits.

1853 The Charter Act of 1853 ended the Company’s patronage, enjoining recruitment to be through an open competition now.

The Indians, however, were barred from high posts from the very beginning.  The Charter Act of 1793 had reserved all posts worth 500 pound per annum for the Covenanted Servants of the Company. Reasons for exclusion of Indians were-

*    The belief that only the English could establish administrative services serving British interests;

*    The belief that the Indians were incapable, untrust-worthy and insensitive to the British interests;

*    Already there was competition among the Europeans for lucrative posts, so why offer them to the Indians.

Although, the Charter Act of 1833 theoretically threw open the Services to the Indians, the relevant provisions were never really implemented. After 1857, when the Indians claimed a share in higher services, the Proclamation of 1858 declared the British intention of including the Indians, freely and impartially, in offices under the Civil Service.

Indian Civil Service Act 1861 reserved certain offices for Covenanted Civil Servants language, based on classical learning of Greek and Latin. The maximum permissible age was gradually reduced from 23 (in 1859) to 22 (in 1860), to 21 (in 1866) and to 19 (in 1878).

1863 Satyendra Nath Tagore became the first Indian to qualify for the Indian Civil Service.

1878-79   Lytton introduced the Statutory Civil Service consisting of one-sixth of covenanted posts to be filled by Indians of high families by nominations by local governments subject to approval by the Secretary and the Viceroy. But, the system failed and was abolished.

The Indian National Congress, after it was set up in 1885, demanded for

*    lowering of age limit for recruitment.

*    holding the Examination simultaneously in India and Britain.

Atchison Committee on Public Services (1886) set up by Dufferin recommended-

*    dropping of the terms, Covenanted and Uncovenanted

*    Classification of the Civil Service into-

-      Imperial Indian Civil Service (Examination in England)

-      Provincial Civil Service (Examination in India)

-      Subordinate Civil Service (Examination in India)

*    raising the age limit to 23.

1893 The House of Commons in England passed a resolution supporting simultaneous Examination in India and England; but the resolution was never implemented. Kimberly, the Secretary of State, said, “It is indispensable that an adequate number of members of Civil Service shall always be Europeans.”

Montford Reforms (1919)

*     stated a realistic policy-if a responsible Government is to be established in India, the more Indians we can employ in public service, the better.”

*    recommended holding of simultaneous examination in India and England.

*    One third of recruitments to be made in India itself-to be raised annually by 1.5%.

Lee Commission (1924) recommended that

*    The Secretary of State should continue to recruit the ICS, the Irrigation branch of Service of Engineers, the Indian Forest Service, etc.

*    For the Transferred fields like Education, Civil Medical Service, the recruitments to be made by Provincial Government.

*    Direct recruitment to ICS and 50:50 parity between the Europeans and the Indians to be reached in 15 years.

*    A Public Service Commission be immediately established (as laid down in the Government of India Act 1919).

Government of India Act 1935 recommended the establishment of a Federal Public Commission and Provincial Public Service Commission under their spheres.

But the positions of control and authority remained in British hands and the process of Indianisation did not put effective political power in Indian hands since the Indian bureaucrats acted as the agents of colonial rule.

Civil Services
1786	Started (directly recruited by E.I. Co.) ‘ known as ICS after 1861
1853	Entrance Examination started (in London)
1859	Age (maximum) – 21 Yrs (Satyendranath Tagore, first Indian to compete in Civil Services – 1863).
(1878)	Age reduced to 19 yrs (maximum) from 21 yrs
1923	Simultaneous exam in England and in India (ICS).
1926	Establishment of Public Service Commission at the centre.

 

1791 Cornwallis organized a regular Police force to maintain law and order by going back to and modernizing the old Indian system of thanas (circles) in district under a Daroga (an Indian) and a Superintendent of Police (SP) at the head of a district. He relieved the zamidaras of their police duties.

1808 Mayo appointed an SP for each division helped by a number of spies (goyendas) but these spies committed depredations on local people.

1814 By an order of the Court of Directors, the establishment of Darogas and their subordinates was abolished in all possessions of the Company except in Bengal.

Bentinck (Governor-General, 1828-35) abolished the office of SP. The Collector/Magistrate was now to head the police force in this jurisdiction and the Commissioner in each division was to act as the SP. This arrangement resulted in a badly-organized police force, putting a heavy burden on the Collector/Magistrate. Presidency towns were the first to have the duties of Collector/Magistrate separated.

Police Commission (1860) – its recommendations led to the Indian Police Act 1861. The Commission recommended

*    A system of Civil Constabulary-maintaining the village set-up in the present form (a village watchman maintained by the village) but in direct relationship with the rest of the Constabulary.

*    Inspector General as the head in a province, Deputy Inspector General as the head in a Range and Superintendent of Police as the head in a District.

The police gradually succeeded in curbing criminal acts, such as dacoity, thugee, etc. But while dealing with the public, the attitude of the Police was unsympathetic. The Police was also used to suppress the national movement.

The British did not create an All-India Police. The Police Act 1861 presented the guidelines for a police set-up in the provinces. The ranks were uniformly introduced all over the country.

1902 The Police Commission recommended the CID (Criminal Investigation Department) in the provinces and a Central Intelligence Bureau at the Centre.

Earlier, the administration of justice used to be under the zamindars and the process of dispensing justice often used to be arbitrary.

Reforms under Warren Hastings (1772-85)

*    District Diwani Adalats were established in districts to try civil disputes. These Adalats were placed under the Collector and had Hindu Law applicable for Hindus and the Muslim Law for Muslims. The Appeal from District Diwani Adalats lay to the Sadar Diwani Adalat which functioned under a President and two members of the Supreme Council.

*    District Fauzdari Adalats were set up to try criminal disputes and were placed under an Indian also were under the general supervision of the Collector. Muslim law was administered in Fauzadari Adalats. The approval for capital punishment and acquisition for property lay to the Sadar Nizamat Adalat at Murshidabad which was  headed by a Deputy Nizam (an Indian Muslim) assisted by Chief Qazi and Chief Mufti.

*    Under the Regulating Act of 1773, a Supreme Court was established at Calcutta which was competent to try all British subjects within Calcutta and the subordinate factories, including Indians and Europeans. It had original and appellate jurisdiction. Often, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court clashed with that of other courts.

Reforms under Cornwallis (1786-93)

*    The District Fauzdari Courts abolished and instead, circuit courts were established at Calcutta, Dacca, Murshidabad and Patna. These Circuit Courts had European judges and were to act as courts of appeal for both civil and criminal cases.

*    The Sadar Nizamat Adalat was shifted to Calcutta and was put under the Governor-General and members of the Supreme Council assisted by the Chief Qazi and the Chief Mufti.

*     The District Diwani Adalat was now designated as the District, City or the Zillah Court and placed under a District Judge. The Collector was now responsible only for the revenue administration with no magisterial functions.

*    A gradation of Civil Courts was established (for both Hindu and Muslim laws)-

i.     Munsiff’s Court under Indian officers.

ii.    Registrar’s Court under a European judge.

iii.   District Court under the District Judge.

iv.    Four Circuit Courts as Provincial Courts of appeal.

v.     Sadar Diwani Adalat at Calcutta.

vi.    King-in council for appeals of 5000 Pounds and above.

*    The Cornwallis Code was laid out-

-      separation of revenue and justice administration, -   European subjects were also brought under jurisdiction, -  Government subjects were answerable to the Civil Courts for actions done in their official, capacity.

-      The principle of sovereignty of law established.

Reforms under William Bentinck (1828-33)

*    The four Circuit Courts were abolished and their functions transferred to Collectors under the supervision of the Commissioner of revenue and circuit.

*    Sadar Diwani Adalat and a Sadar Nizamat Adalat were set up at Allahabad for the convenience of the people of Upper Provinces.

*    Till now, Persian was the official language in courts. Now, the suitor had the option to use Persian or a vernacular language, while in the Supreme Court English language replaced Persian.

1833: A Law Commission was set up under Macaulay for codification of Indian Laws. As a result, a Civil Procedure Code (1859), an Indian Penal Code (1860) and a Criminal Procedure Code (1861) were prepared.

1860: It was provided that the Europeans can claim no special privileges except in criminal cases, and no judge of an Indian origin could try them.

1865: The Supreme Court and the Sadar Adalats were merged into three High Courts at Calcutta, Bombay and Madras.

1935: The Government of India Act provided for a Federal Court (set up in 1937) which could settle disputes between Governments and could hear limited appeals from the High Courts.

Positive aspects of judiciary under the British

*     The rule of law was established.

*    The codified laws replaced the religious and personal laws of the rulers.

*    Even European subjects were brought under the jurisdiction, although in criminal cases, they could be tried by European judges only.

*    Governmnt servants were made answerable to the Civil Courts.

The Negative Aspects

*    The judicial system became more and more complicated and expensive. The rich could manipulate the system.

*    There was ample scope for false evidence, deceit and chicanery.

*    Dragged on litigation meant delayed justice.

*    Courts became overburdened as litigation increased.

*    Often, the European judges were not conversant with the Indian usage and traditions.

Establishment and Organisation of Ramakrishna mission 

The Ramakrishna monastic order and mission was officially established in 1887 (formally registered under Societies Registration Act in 1909) by Vivekananda, the chief disciple of Swami Ramakrishna Paramahansa (1836-86) of Dakshineshwar. Ramakrishna Paramahansa, who lived and worshipped at the temple of Dakshineshwar, was a mystic. He was not only the source of inspiration and gentle piety to the common people, but a powerful magnet for sophisticated middle class westernized men, who were attracted by his utter humility, humanity and spiritual integrity. Ramakrishna saw in all forms of worship the adoration of one Supreme Being, in all religious quests “the search for the same God towards who all are directing their steps, though along different paths”. He drew spiritual inspiration from the Vedanta and the Upanishads but regarded all religions as different paths leading to the same goal. He was initiated into Islam by a Muslim Sufi and had the Bible read out to him. He taught “not mercy, but service for man must be regarded as God”.

Ramakrishna’s humanism very deeply impressed his chief disciple Narendranath Dutta, better known as Swami Vivekananda. The former saw in him the one man destined to propagate his message far and wide.  After Ramakrishna‘s death in 1886 Vivekananda, who was then hardly 24, decided to dedicate his life to the propagation of his master’s message and renounced the world. His grand tour around the country acquainted him with the vast misery and sufferings of the common people. And led him to exclaim “the only God in whom I believe, the sum total of all souls and above all, my God the wicked, my god the afflicted, my God the poor of all races”.

 In 1893, he went to America and attended the world Parliament of Religions at Chicago. He stayed in America lecturing, establishing “Vedanta Societies” and making disciples. The substance of his addresses was that “no religion on earth preaches the dignity of humanity in such a lofty strain as Hinduism”. From America, he went on a tour of the continent and visited England, France, Switzerland and Germany. Vivekananda was the first Indian who questioned the superiority of the west and instead of defending his religion against the attacks of its critics, boldly asserted its spiritual pre-eminence and incomparable greatness.

After four years of stay abroad Vivekananda returned to India and established two principal centers, one at Belur near Calcutta and the other at Mayavati near Almora, where the men who joined the Ramakrishna Mission were trained as Sanyasis for the religious and social work of the mission. The monks of the Mission were engaged in active service of society, alleviating suffering, providing medical aid to the sick and looking after the orphans. Under the auspices of the mission, schools were opened and philanthropic centers were established. 

Ideology and objectives

The ideology and objectives of the Ramakrishna Mission were:

i.     to impart and promote the study of the ‘Vedanta and its principles as propounded by Ramakrishna and practically illustrated by his own life, and of comparative theology in its widest form. Vedanta is a Hindu philosophy which teaches that there is Oneness of all truth, that all evolves from truth and returns to truth. Thus all appearances are deceptive, unless apprehended through the truth.

ii.    to impart and promote the study of the arts, science and industries;

iii.   to train teachers in all the branches of knowledge mentioned above and enable them to reach the masses;

iv.    to carry on educational work among the masses;

v.     to establish, maintain, carry on and assist schools, colleges, universities, orphanages, workshops, laboratories, hospitals, dispensaries, houses for the infirm, the invalid, and the afflicted, famine relief works, and other educational and/or charitable works and institutions of a like nature;

vi.    to print and publish and to sell or distribute, gratuitously or otherwise, journals, periodicals, books or leaflets that the Association may think desirable for the promotion of its objectives;

Ideas of the Ramakrishna Mission can be put under the following heads:

i.     Ideal: Freedom of the self and service of mankind.

ii.    Aim: Preaching and practice of Sanatana Dharma, the eternal religion as embodied in the lives and teachings of Sri Ramakrishna and Swami Vivekananda.

iii.   Motto: Renunciation and Service; Harmony of all religions.

iv.    Method: Work and worship.

Activities of the mission

By providing an idea of the practices which the Mission is engaged in we hope to indicate its wide range of activities.

i.     Worship: This includes specialized training of monastic aspirants and religious preachings.

ii.    General and technical education with an ethical and spiritual background; other general services include:

• Medical service;
• Famine and distress relief work;
• Rural upliftment;
• Work among the toiling and emerging people of all classes; and
• Other cultural activities.

Swami Dayanand took an important and far reaching decision during his tour to Bombay in 1875. This decision was regarding the foundation of “Arya Samaj”. This organisation was founded to plant his message and bring socio-religious reforms firmly to the soil of north India. It went on to have an enormous impact on the development of Hinduism and of Indian nationalism.

Apart from having a huge role in socio-religious reform movements in India one of the most a controversial and unconventional step that Dayanand took was to offer to “reclaim” Hindus who had changed their religion to Islam, Christianity and so on. This was often done en masse in what was known as the “Shuddhi” ceremony or ceremony of purification.

It may be considered that Dayanand wanted to bring together all Hindus who agreed on a couple of very broad issues: (i) a dedication to religious and social reforms and (ii)         a conviction in Hinduism that reform was to come through a revival of Vedic religion.

Being organised as a body, these people would be more effective in helping one another in influencing the whole society. Swami Dayanand was not interested in creating a body of followers to propagate his ideas. He held the opinion that reform had to come from the people themselves. It is task of the people to work for their personal improvement and for the upliftment of society. Dayanand would always be available to the people for advice-either in person or through his publications, but he would not be their leader. He had recognised the limitations of his own knowledge and refused to become the Guru of devotees not even of a single individual.

Organisation of Arya Samaj

The Arya Samaj had an effective organisational structure. Every branch of the Arya Samaj is a unit in itself, and these are located in village, towns and cities.  Membership involved acceptance of the ten principles or rules, the payment of one per cent of monthly or yearly income to help the cause and general cooperation and participation in meetings etc. Such weekly meetings comprised of the homa ritual, bhajans and prayers. A lay person regardless of caste conducts these meetings.

The Executive Committee governed the affairs of the Arya Samaj. The office bearers were five in number and additional members all elected by the members themselves

These ten rules are as under:

i.     god is the primordial root (source) of all true knowledge and of  all things that can be known through knowledge.

ii.    God is all Truth, All knowledge, All Bliss. He is Bodyless (Formless), Almighty, Just, Merciful, Unborn, Infinite, Unchangeable, Beginningless, Incomparable, Support and Lord of all, All pervading, knower and controller of all from within, Imperishable, Immortal, Fearless, Eternal, Holy and the creater of the whole universe. He alone is worthy of worship.

iii.   Vedas are the books of all true knowledge. It is the prime duty of all Aryas to study and propagate the Veda, to hear and preach it. After God, the Veda is the most important of Dayanand’s ideology. His call “Back to the Vedas” means that we are to reject all changes that may be found in the scriptures that may be at variance with the teachings of the Vedas. The Veda is God’s own word, revealed to mankind through the Rishis (sages). They are thus of non-human authorship.

iv.    We should always be ready to accept Truth and reject untruth.

       This is an important dictum. We should not stick to any opinion, merely because it has the sanction of time. If it is untrue, we should have no hesitation in abandoning it.

v.     All actions should be performed according to Dharma and after considering the right and wrong to each.

vi.    The principal purpose of this Samaj is to do good to the world-physical, social and spiritual. This means that Arya Samaj is no sectarian or parochial institution working for the good of only its own members, as some of closed societies claim to be. The Samaj is created for the good of the whole world. This is far cry from the old Hindu approach of extreme individualism, where each aspirant sought only his own “Mukti” or salvation. In fact it was the early goal of young Dayanand too, before Swamy Virjananda widened his horizon and swore him to work for the good of the country and the whole world.

vii.   We should deal with love, righteousness and consideration of their merit. The basis of our behaviour with all fellow beings should be of love and good will, not snobbery, hate, ill will or jealousy. A society based on universal love will bring the kingdom of heaven on earth. Also a person of superior merit would receive superior regards. This is the character of human dignity, but it does not preach blind equality, irrespective of persons virtues or vice, genius or mediocrity, worth or otherwise. This is Vedic socialism.

viii.  We should work for the liquidation of ignorance and promotion of knowledge. Illiteracy, ignorance and superstitions are the mother of all ills and evils, while knowledge brings joy and all round welfare. The preachings at myriad Arya Samaj platforms and the network of D.A.V. and Gurukul institutions are translating this rule into practice.

ix.    No one should be content with his own upliftment but should feel his own good in the good of all. This means that all human beings, being the image of God are one entity. The whole emphasis is from selfish to altruistic good. No man or group can be happy if all around people are starving or miserable, as they would only bring down the whole social structure. To do good to others is no favour but enlightened self interest.

x.     All men are obliged (unfree) in having to obey the social laws that have been framed for the good of all; but everyone is free to work for his own welfare. For instance, one is not free to break the traffic laws or commit theft or murder, for all such laws are there, for the good of all. But in all personal matters, concerning one’s individual good, one has freedom. That means one has freedom of action but not at the cost of the well being of others.

Arya samaj movement and reform

The Arya Samaj opened a vast number of educational instituions for boys and girls all over north India. Orphanages were. Arya Samaj’s worked on earthquake relief. Before Mahatma Gandhi took up the cause of untouchables it was the Arya Samaj who had tried to get them recognised as equal members of Hindu Society. The samaj also carried on a ceaseless effort to remove their superstitions and teach them the fundamental doctrines of religion.

Dayanand formed many Gurukuls as part of the Arya Samaj educational programme. The first D.A.V. (Dayanand Anglo-Vedic) College was founded in Lahore to commensurate Dayanand’s memory after his death in Ajmer in 1883. This institution became a focal point of national education in the country. The idea of the Founders of Lahore College was to induce the scientific temperament in the students without uprooting them from their spiritual, cultural, religious moorings.

Arya samaj and emancipation of women

Women, like Harijans have been called ‘Slaves of the slaves’. In the British era men were the slaves of the British and women were the slaves of these enslaved men. Women had few rights, little freedom and were rarely considered as equals to men.

Dayanand, the founder of Arya Samaj was among the pioneers of women’s rights and equality in modern times. He advocated the equality of sexes. Dayanand encouraged women to study the Vedas - a revolutionary step at that time. They were allowed to recite “Gayatree” mantra while tradition did not permit them this privilege. Dayanand forcefully put forward the argument that women sages accounted for 200 mantras in the Rig-Veda alone.

He also carried on a crusade against child marriage. Dayanand ordained that no girl should be married till she was 16 and boys should marry at 25 or above. Thus he confronted the so called ‘Shastric’ injunction that, if a girl had her menses in her father’s house, the father and brother would go to hell. This idea was ridiculed by Dayanand. His argument was why anyone should go to hell because of a natural function.

Dayanand’s stand was that men or women should marry only once. For a young widow his prescription was for ‘Niyoga’, rather than widow marriage. To him “Niyoga” meant temporary union with the dead husband’s brother or other kin to get a child or two but not more than two. But his concept of Niyoga was not accepted by the Aryas. Dayanand in a true democratic spirit did not press his point. In fact, Arya Samaj in the Punjab advertised for and arranged some widow remarriages and Dayanand acquiesced.

Arya Samaj took up the cause of and improved education in general and women’s education in an impressive way. As mentioned earlier it had organised a network of schools and colleges in the country both for boys and girls where education was imparted in the mother-tongue. Dayanand Anglo-Vedic (D.A.V.) colleges were founded. Some of the Conservative Arya Samajis were of the opinion that education imparted in these colleges were not sufficiently Vedic in character, therefore in the leadership of Munshi Ram they started Gurukul at Hardwar, where education in its method and content was given in the ancient Vedic manner. Being the pioneer in opening women’s schools, colleges and Gurukulas, Arya Samaj founded the first Kanya Mahavidalaya in Jalandhar in 1896.

Politics and the arya samaj

Dayanand was not just a social and religious reformer. He was also a forerunner in the national and political awakening of India. The Arya Samaj was founded in 1875 a decade before the Indian National Congress. Dayanand had prepared the ground and declared that foreign government is no substitute for self-rule. Lala Lajpat Rai has mentioned that the British had always viewed the Arya Samaj with suspicion. This often took the form of deportations and prosecutions of its members. The Arya Samaj was considered a seditious body. Members were dismissed from civil and military service solely on the grounds that they were members of the Arya Samaj. The open declaration of the desire for political freedom at a time when jailing was common for such utterances showed a great deal of moral courage from its members. The Arya Samaj however always mentioned it was a religious, social and cultural organisation.

Swami Dayanand and Arya Samaj movement have contributed in the National movement in the following ways.

1.    Support of the Hindi language

2.    Swadeshi & Khadi were supported

3.    Opposition to salt tax was agreed upon and supported.

Some critics have dubbed Swami Dayanand as a reactionary, looking back towards the dead past because he gave the call “Back to Vedas”. Yet Dayanand ushered in modern action in India just as Gandhiji did half a century later.

CASTE MOVEMENTS

 

Caste Movements
Name	Year	Area	Leader
Nair Movement	1891-1919	Travancore	C.V. Raman Pillai, K. Ramakrishna Pillai
Nadar Movement	1910	Tamilnadu	NA
Justice Movement	1915-16	South India	C.N. Mudaliyar, T.M. Nair & P.T. Chetti
Self Respect Movement	1925	Tamilnadu	E.V. Ramaswami Naicker (Periyar)
Ezhava Movement	1928	Kerala	Nanu Asan (Narayan Guru)
Satyashodhak Movement	1872	Maharashtra	Jyotiba Phule
Mahar Movement	1920	Maharashtra	B.R. Ambedkar
Kaivartas	1897	Midnapur (Bengal)	NA
Namshudras	1901	Faridpur (Bengal)	NA

 

 

Peasant Movements
Name	Year	Area	Leader
Indigo Movement	1859-60	Bengal	Bishnucharan Biswas and Digambar Biswas
Pabna Movement	1872-1885	East Bengal	Keshab Chandra Roy, Sambhunath Pal
Deccan Riots	1875	Maharashtra	NA
Punjab Peasant Movement	1890-1900	Punjab	NA
Champaran Movement	1917	Bihar	Gandhi, Rajendra Prasad, A.N. Sinha, JB Kriplani, Mazhar-Ul Haq & Mahadev Desai
Kheda Satyagraha	1918	Gujarat	Gandhi, Vallabhbhai Patel
Moplah Rebellion	(1836-1921)	Kerala	Kunhammad, Haji, Ali Musaliyar, Sithi Koya Thangal & Kalathingal Mammad
Bardoli Sayagraha	1928	Gujarat	Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel
Ekka Movement	1921-22	Northwest Frontier	Madari Pasi

Hindu organisations/movements

S. NO.	MOVEMENTS & ORGANISATION	FOUNDER	AIM OF FORMATION
1.	Atmiya Sabha	Rammohan Roy (Calcutta 1815)	To attack the evils within Hinduism.
2.	Brahmo Samaj	Rammohan Roy (Calcutta 1828)	Preach monothism and attack idol worship & social evils
3.	Dharma Sabha	Radhakanta Dev (Calcutta 1830)	To counter the Propaganda of Brahma Samaj & defend orthodox Hinduism.
4.	Tatvabodhini Sabha	Devendranath Tagore (Calcutta 1839)	To propagate the teaching of Rammohan  Roy.
5.	Paramhansa Mandali	(Bombay 1849)	To break the caste restrictions.
6.	Radha Swami Satsang	Tulsi Ram (Agra 1861)	To propagate monotheistic doctrines.
7.	Brahmo Samaj of India	Keshab Chandra Sen (Calcutta 1865)	A break away organisation from original Brahmo samaj for giving the movement liberal and cosmopolitan outlook.
8.	Prarthana Samaj	Dr. Atmaram Pandurang (Bombay 1867)	Reform Hindu thought and practices, preach monotheism, and social reforms.
9.	Arya Samaj	Swami Dayanand Sarswati (Bombay 1875)	Condemn idol worship, prevent conversion of Hindus to other religions, oppose caste system & spread education.
10.	Theosophical society	Madame H.P  Blavatsky and Col. H.S. Olcott (USA 1875)	Revival and strengthening of ancient religious of Hinduism, Zoroastrianism & Buddhism; Advocate universal brotherhood.
11.	Sadharan Brahmo Samaj	Anand Mohan Bose, Shivanthan Shastri, etc (Calcutta 1878)	A break away organisation from Keshev’s Samaj over social reforms.
12.	Deva Samaj	Shivanaryan Agnihotri (Lahore 1887)	Removal of evils within Hindusism.
13.	Ramakrishna Mission	Swami Vivekanand (Belur 1877)	To preach pure Vedantic doctrines. And service to the mankind.
14.	Servants of India Society	Gopal Krishan Gokhle (Bombay 1905)	To spread education and train people to serve the mother land.
15.	Poona Seva Sadan	Mrs. Ramabai Ranade and Mr. G.K. Devadhar (Poonal).	To promote the welfare of women.
16.	Social Service League	N.M. Joshi (Bombay 1911)	To secure for the masses better and reasonable condition of life and work.
17.	Seva Samiti	H.N. Kunzuru (Allahabad 1914)	To promote education and organise social service during natural calamities.
18.	Seva Samiti Boy Scouts Association	Ram Bajpai (Bombay 1924)	To bring complete Indianisation of the Boy Scout movement in India.

 

MUSLIM ORGANISATIONS/MOVEMENTS

S. NO.	ORGANISATIONS & MOVEMENTS	FOUNDERS & LEADERS	AIM OF FORMATION
1.	Wahabi movement (Tariquah-Muhammediyan).	Shah Walliulah (Shah Abdul Aziz, are Syed Ahmed Barevli) (Punjab 1840).	Revivalist in nature it aimed at creating a homeland for Muslims. Declared India to be dar-ul harb (land of Kafirs) and the need to make it dar-ul-Islam.
2.	Deoband movement (Darululum).	Muhammad Qasim Wanatavi and Rashid Ahmed Gangoli (Deoband-Saharanpur 1866).	To propagate among the Muslims the true teaching of Koran and keep alive the spirit of Jehad against the foreign rulers. Welcomed the formation of Indian National Congress.
3.	Nadwah-ul-Ulama.	Maulana Shibli and others (Lucknow 1894).	To reorganise Muslim education system, reform Muslim morals and put an end to the theological controversies within Islam.
4.	Ahl-i-Handis (People of the Handis).	Maulana Syed Nizir Hussain (Punjab).	They preached the saying of the prophet and the Koran as the ultimate authority on Islam.
5.	Ahl-i-Quran (People the Quran).	Maulavi Abdullah Chakralvi (Punjab)	To preach the teaching of Koran as the ultimate authority on Islam.
6.	Ahmadiya Movement.	Mirza Gulam Ahmed (Quadiani in Punjab 1869).	The movement was based on the universal religion of all humanity. It aimed at spreading western liberal education among the Indian muslims
7.	Aligarh Movement.	Sir Syed Ahmed Khan and others (Aligarh 1870s-80s).	Based on the liberal interpretation of the Koran, it aimed at spreading western and scientific education among the Muslim masses.
8.	Ahrar Movement.	Muhammed Ali Hakim Ajmal Khan, Maulana Zafar Ali & Hasan Imam.	They disliked the loyalist policies of Aligarh school and advocated active participation in the national movement

 

MOVEMENT AMONG THE SIKHS AND PARSIS

	MOVEMENTS	FOUNDERS & LEADERS	AIM OF FORMATION
1.	Singh Sabha Movement	Founded at Amritsar in 1873 by the Sikh leaders.	To bring to the Sikh community the benefits of Western enlightenment through modern education and counter the activities of the Christian missionaries as well as Hindu revivalists.
2.	Namdhari or the Kuka Movement	Bhagat Jawahar Mal (Sain Sahib) in Punjab in 1840 Baba Rams Singh, greatest leader.	It preached worship of one God through prayer and mediation. The movement was poilitco-religious in nature and aimed at reserving Sikh sovereignity.
3.	Nirankari Movement	Baba Dayal Das (Punjab)	It preached against idol worship of human Gurus and believed in the formless God. It disapproved worship of tombs and graves
4.	Akali movement	Started in 1920 by Akali leaders.	To purify the management of Sikh Gurudwaras and liberate it from the control of corrupt Mahants.
5.	Rehnumai Mazdayasan Sabha	Naoroji Furdoonji, Dada Bhai naoroji and SS Bengalee	Regeneration of social condition of Parsis especially women. Restore Zoroastrain religion to purity

 

RISE OF NATIONAL CONSCIOUSNESS

The rise of national consciousness in the nineteenth century was essentially the result of the British rule. The economic, political and social changes brought about by the British rule resulted in the oppression of all classes of Indian people giving rise to a wide spread dissatisfaction among the masses. Moreover, the uniform system of administration, development of post and telegraph, railways, printing press and educational institutions created by the British primarily as measures for running an effective administration also became instrumental in providing favourable conditions for the rise and growth of national movement.

The term nation is more a cultural term and less a political term. It implies collectivenss of people having common religion, language, food, dresses and other aspect of culture. People living in far away are also part of the nation.

Nationalism implies feeling of togetherness based on different traits of culture like language, religion, etc. When people begin to associate themselves with a country, the term nationalism assumes political colour. People even living in far flung areas associate themselves with a country and such country becomes nation. The feeling of belongingness with nation is called Nationalism.

British rule provided material, moral and intellectual conditions for rise of Nationalism in India. British rule was new system of governance with new administrative machinery. It was inherently different from traditional Indian system of governance.

British rule in India resulted in clash of interests of various classes and communities. British followed colonialial policies, which were characterized by exploitation. Indian reaction to such policies was in two forms. One was a series of revolts and rebellion what we called civil rebellions. These revolts were carried out by civilians in reaction to British socio-economic policies. The second form of reactions was socio-political consciousness in form of socio-religious reform movements. These movements began to associate people with new and modern ideas thus contributing to the growth of nationalism.

The British rule provided uniformity to India; earlier India was divided into different kingdoms and states. British unified whole India into one unit. They implemented single uniform administration, law and order system, economy, political system and land revenue system. However such systems were introduced for colonial intersts, yet it unified the Indians and provided an opportunity for interaction and sharing their grievances at the pan Indian level.

The means of Communication developed by British enabled Indians to share their feelings and grievances. People began to interact with each other. British broke all political boundaries in India and unified them all. Means of communication like railway lines, roads, post and telegraph etc made people to people contact and interaction easy. It helped in spreading new ideas of liberty, nationalism etc. Press played vital role in strengthening the spirit of Nationalism. During 18th and 19th century, press began to play its due role. It began to reach up to masses. The ideas of Nationalism now reached common man.

Their agriculture policy and industrial policy led to impoverishment of masses. Such policies created discontent among Indian people who began to suffer. The painful experience prompted people to come close to each other. It also contributed to the feeling of Nationalism. Industrialisation integrated the whole country in one industrial unit. It encouraged the workers to be geographically mobile which provided them opportunity to share their sentiments. It paved the way for growth of nationalism.

British introduced new Education system in India. They discarded India’s old traditional value system. The new education system imparted the values like Liberty, equality, fraternity, democracy etc. It prompted political consciousness in India.

The modern education strengthened middle class in India. Such middle class carried forward the spirit of Nationalism. They provided platform to whole India to cement their internal relations. Indians went abroad for study and they studied the ideas of J.S. Mill, Rousseau, Kant etc. Later they popularized same ideas in India. Such progressive ideas strengthened the spirit of Nationalism. The educated intelligentsia led the movement of Nationalism from the front. They began to mobilize people in the name of the nation.

It was the educated middle class who with the modern education and knowledge of the outside world exposed the exploitative nature of the British rule before the masses thereby contributing towards the formation of an anti-British sentiment across the nation.

During socio religious reform movement also it was the intelligentia who united the people. The leading figures in this regard were Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Soami Dayanand, Soami Vivekanand, Rabindra Nath Tagore etc.

Many international events too intensified the spirit of nationalism in India. The unification of Italy and Germany was product of Nationalism. It inspired many Indians to carry forward the process of one independent India. Later Japan, a small country defeated a known power Russia which again inspired Indians to unite against common enemy.

British had adopted very discriminatory and reactionary policies both in civil as well as in military administration. They discriminated in the name of race against Indian army soldiers and civil servants. Such discrimination further gave boost to the spirit of nationalism.

Certain policies of different Governor Generals also aroused the feeling of Nationalism. For example, Lord Lytton held Delhi Darbar while country was suffering from severe famine. Similarly, Lord Curzon parted Bengal into two parts. He also got passed the Universities Act of 1904. All such activities aroused the feeling of Nationalism.

Hurdles in the rise of Nationalism

There were many hurdles in the rise of National consciousness which slowed down the process of nationalism. These hurdles were like vastness of India, poor means of communication, lack of awareness or prevalence of traditional ideas or values among people or people were denied of progressive values, British Economic Policies and impoverishment of India.

Lytton

Lytton followed openly reactionary and anti-Indian policies. These afforded excellent opportunities to the Indian Association to organize a number of all-India political agitations.

• Lytton sent an expensive expedition to Afghanistan which was financed out of Indian revenues.
• He removed import duties on cotton textiles to benefit British cloth industry at the cost of the nascent Indian textile industry.
• In domestic policy the Viceroy patronised the sections like the ruling princes and landholders who played a vital role in the continuance of the British rule.
• He viewed the aspirations of educated Indians with contempt. During his period the maximum age for appearing in the Indian Civil Service examination was reduced from 21 to 19 years. Since the examination was held only in London, it was in any case difficult for the Indians to take this examination. The lowering of the age was looked upon as a step calculated to prevent Indians from appearing in this examination.
• The Indian Association took up the issue and launched an agitation over it in the country. Surendranath himself undertook a tour of different parts of the country in 1877-78 and acquired all India fame. The Association also sent a well-known Bengali barrister, Lal Mohan Ghose, to England to present a memorial.

The Vernacular Press Act and the Arms Act were passed during this period. The former imposed restrictions on the newspapers and journals printed in Indian languages. This caused deep resentment among the Indian societies. Amrita Bazar Patrika which was published in Bengali till then, changed overnight into an English medium paper so as to escape the restrictions posed under the Act. Under the Arms Act, Indians were made to pay a license fee in order to possess a weapon but Europeans and Eurasians were exempted from doing so. Special concessions were also given to landholders. During the agitation on these issues huge mass meetings, attended at some places by ten to twenty thousands people were organised in district towns.

Ripon

Lord Lytton was succeeded by Lord Ripon in 1880. Ripon’s approach was different. He had that the educated Indians possessed legitimate aspirations in keeping with their education and the pledges given by the British Parliament from time to time in this regard should be honoured. Lytton’s administration, he argued, had given the impression ‘rightly or wrongly’ that the interests of the natives of India, were in all ways to be sacrificed to those of England. He wanted to harness the talents of the educated classes for strengthening British Rule. Some of steps taken by him during this period clearly indicate his policy.

1.    He repealed the Vernacular Press Act,

2.    Promoted local self-government institutions,

3.    Encouraged the spread of education and

4.    Brought the Afghan War to an end.

5.    Ilbert Bill controversy

His policy, however, could not proceed beyond certain limits on account of the constraints imposed by the very character of British rule in India. A bitter agitation directed at Ripon and his pro-Indian policies erupted over the so-called Ilbert Bill among the Anglo-Indians who had been annoyed by him. The Criminal Procedure Amendment Bill or the Ilbert Bill as it came to be called after the name of the Law Member in Viceroy’s Council was in essence a measure putting Indian Judges on the same footing as Europeans in dealing with all cases in the Bengal Presidency. Its purpose was to enable qualified Indian judges in the mofussil to try Europeans for criminal offenses (in Presidency towns they were already allowed to do so). The Bill was brought forward because Indians were now rising in the ranks of the judicial service. It involved the possibility of trial of Europeans by Indian judges for criminal offenses without a jury. It also gave right to Europeans to appeal to the High Court if they were not satisfied. But this provoked a storm of angry criticism amongst the Anglo-Indians. Ripon found that even the civil service was in sympathy with the opposition. In the press and in public meetings Indian character and culture were severely criticized. Ultimately the Government had to bow before this hostile opinion and the Bill was amended in such a manner that its very purpose was defeated.

The entire controversy has an important place in the circumstances leading to the emergence of an All-India body. It is often said that Indians learnt their first lesson in political agitation from Anglo-Indians on this occasion. This is not really true. Indians had already realised the importance of this method and had organised an all-India agitation on the question of Civil Service Examination. In fact they had already learnt from experience that Anglo-Indians would not make a common cause with them in their demands for more power and better privileges. The reaction of Indians throughout the country on the issue of agitation against the bill was the same. The Indian press made it clearly known that educated Indians valued the principle underlying the bill and would bitterly resent its abandonment. After the main principle was abandoned, the Indians realised an urgent need for national unity, greater organisation and self-reliance.

During the early 1880s the idea of a national organisation had become an important topic for discussion in the Indian press. The Ilbert Bill controversy seemed to reinforce this idea. In July 1883, the Indian Association held a meeting which was attended by some 10,000 persons. Here it was decided that ‘a national fund’ with the aim of securing the political advancement of the country by means of agitation in England and in India, should be created. This proposal was widely acclaimed. However, in some quarters there was criticism on the ground that the Indian Association had failed to secure the support of other political associations in the country. The drive for national fund yielded only Rs. 20,000. But it sparked off widespread debate in the press. It was repeatedly pointed out during this debate that coordinated political action was called for and representatives of different political associations should meet annually in big cities of the country. In December 1883 an International Exhibition was scheduled to be held in Calcutta. The Indian Association decided to take advantage of this event and invited prominent public men and associations in different parts of the country to meet and discuss questions of general concern. Such a Conference was held from 28 to 31 December 1883 and was called the National Conference. It was not a very representative or influential gathering but it is significant that the programme adopted here was very similar to the one adopted by the Indian National Congress later. It provided an opportunity to educated Indians from different places to meet and exchange views. It has rightly been described as the precursor of the Indian National Congress or ‘the dress rehearsal’ for it.

Policies of Curzon

1.    Curzon reduced the number of elected members in the Calcutta Corporation. This measure was intended primarily to satisfy the European business interests in the city, who often complained of delays in the grant of licences and similar other facilities. The consideration behind the action was obvious, and its undemocratic nature was un-mistakable. The Calcutta citizens felt deeply offended and wronged. However, before they could digest this wrong,

2.    Curzon launched an assault on the autonomous character of Calcutta University-the pride of the educated sections in Bengal. Armed with the recommendations of Indian University Commission, whose sole Indian member (Gurdas Banerji) disagreed wholly with others, Curzon passed the Universities Act (1904). The objective used as a pretext was “to raise the standard of education all round”. The act cut down the number of elected senate members (mostly Indians) and transferred the ultimate power of affiliating colleges and schools, as well as giving them grants-in-aid, to the Government officials. This piece of legislation left the outraged members of the educated middle class in no doubt about the Viceroy’s determination to hurt them and break their spirit in every conceivable way.

3.    The worst, as it turned out, came rather quickly and dramatically in July 1905 when Curzon announced the partition of Bengal.

FOUNDATION OF THE CONGRESS

The foundation of congress was not an isolated phenomenon. It had a long history, beginning from Raja Ram Mohan Roy. It went through various phases and various factors contributed to set political movement on right line. The foundation of congress was climax of political movement on one hand and beginning of freedom struggle on other.

Various phases of background of political movement leading to formation of congress

First phase

The first phase starts with Raja Ram Mohan Roy. He put forward many reforms and initiated the struggle for them. He highlighted certain demands like, freedom of press, Indian to be tried by Jury, separation of judiciary from executive, Indian should be appointed on high posts etc. These demands provided frame work and context for political movement of India.

Henry Vivian Derozio also inspired his students to fight for their rights. He taught to love liberty and patriotism.

Second phase

During 1830 and 40s many smaller organization came into existence. Land holders society at Calcutta, Bengal British Indian society, British Indian association, Madras native association and Bombay association etc. All such organizations, big or small were dominated by wealthy landed elements. These organizations were local in nature. Such organization, however, represent political movement of India, yet their demands were peculiar to their interests.

Third phase

The failure of Revolt of 1857 was actually failure of political movement of India. It proved that political leadership was backward looking and traditional in nature. The revolt made Britishers more exploitative in nature.

The failure of revolt also awakened Indian intellegentia. India scholar community began to expose Britishers. The fine example is that British Indian association changed its character. It began to criticize British rule. In 1866, Dada Bhai Naoroji, organized “East India association in England”. He explained the Drain of Wealth theory in his book Poverty and Unbritish Rule in India. Meantime, Mahadev Ranade, G.V. Joshi, S.H. Chiplunkar organized “Poona Sarvajanik Sabha” in 1860s.

Fourth phase

The fourth phase begins with policies of Lord Lytton. He removed import duty on British textile goods. He led expansionist wars against Afghanistan putting burden on Indian Exchequer. He passed Arms Act, Vernacular press Act and held Delhi Darbar with full luxury where as whole nation was suffering with famine. He also reduced the age to appear in ICS exam for Indians from 21 to 19.

People reacted against such exploitative & draconian rules. During 1870s Swadeshi movement began to gain ground. In 1876, Surendernath Benerjee along with Anand Mohan Bose formed “Indian Association”. It took up the issues like civil service reform. In early 1880s, influential leaders like Gazulu Lakshminarasu Chetty formed “Madras Mahajan Sabha. In 1885, Phirozshah Mehta, K.T. Telang and Badruddin Tyyabji formed “Bombay Presidency association”.

Fifth phase

The political consciousness of the people necessitated a political organization at the National level. People felt strong need of a common platform. Moreover, Indian leadership had also got enough experienced leaders like Ranade, Dada Bhai Naoroji, Phiroze Shah Mehta, K.T. Telang, etc.

In 1883, “All India National Conference” was founded by a group of leaders. However, they could not concretize their Idea. But in 1885, Bombay group of Nationalist leaders co-operated with A.O. Hume. In December 1885, A.O. Hume put the foundation of Indian National congress in Bombay.

First meeting

The credit for organizing the first meeting of the Indian National Congress goes to A.O. Hume. He was a retired government servant who had chosen to stay back in India after retirement. He was on very good terms with Lord Ripon and shared his view that the emergence of the educated class should be accepted as a political reality and that timely steps should be taken to provide legitimate outlets to the grievances of this class and efforts be made to satisfy its ambitions. He laboriously consolidated the network of contacts that he had established. Early in December 1884 he reached Bombay to bid farewell to Ripon. He stayed on there for three months and during this period he discussed with the leaders who were influential in the Bombay Presidency the programme of political action to be adopted by the educated Indians.

In March It was decided that a conference of the Indian National Union (initially it was this name that was adopted) would be convened at Poona during the Christmas week. Initially Hume and his group considered Calcutta as the most likely place for the conference. But later they decided upon Poona because it was centrally located and the Executive Committee of the Poona Sarvajanik Sabha expressed readiness to make arrangements for the conference and provide necessary funds.

However, fate deprived Poona of the opportunity to host the first session of the Indian National Congress. The venue had to be shifted to Bombay because of the outbreak of cholera in Poona. The first meeting was held on Monday 28 December 1885 in Gokuldas Tejpal Sanskrit College, Bombay. Womesh Chandra Banerjee was chosen as the president of the First session of Indian National congress. He was one of the first Indian Barristers and one of the foremost legal luminaries in his day. His election established the healthy precedent that the President should be chosen from a province other than the one in which the Congress was being held.

Congress objectives

The Presidential Speech of the first Congress President was armed at stating explicitly the scope, character and objectives of the Congress. Moreover, the presidential speech also sought to remove many apprehensions and misgivings which might have arisen in the mind of the people about the exact intentions of the Congress.

The aims and objectives of the Congress were defined very clearly by the President. He described the objectives as.

1.    Promotion of personal intimacy and friendship amongst the countrymen.

2.    Eradication of all possible prejudices relating to race, creed or provinces.

3.    Consolidation of sentiments of national unity.

4.    Recording of the opinions of educated classes on pressing problems of the day, and

5     Laying down lines for future course of action in public interest.

Besides these demands the President enumerated the blessings conferred by the British on India. He assured that the educated Indians were thoroughly loyal and consistent well-wishers of the Government. He clarified that their purpose in organizing the Congress was to represent their views to the ruling authorities and it was wrong to condemn them as a nest of conspirators and disloyals. They accepted Hume’s leadership because most of the Britishers in India distrusted educated Indians. Of all the objectives and aims of Congress no aspiration was more keenly expressed than the one for national unity.

The Congress leaders had tremendous faith in what they described as the British sense of justice. They were not thinking in terms of expelling the British. All they wanted was that the policies adopted by the Government of India should aim at the welfare and good for Indians which meant really the advancement of their interests. For this purpose they wanted greater share in running the government. This was to be done through the development of representative institutions and appointment of Indians to higher posts.

Social base of the congress

1.    It is often argued that the lawyers dominated the Congress. For example, a noted historian Anil Seal points out that over half the delegates at the first Congress-39 out of 72-were lawyers and that during the decades to come more than one-third of the delegates to every Congress session belonged to the legal professions.

2.    The old aristocracy-people like rajas, maharajas, big zamindars and very wealthy merchants were conspicuous by their absence.

3.    Nor did the peasants or artisans feel attracted towards it.

The fact that the lawyers predominated cannot be denied. But this is more or less true of political organisations and legislatures everywhere. In India the problem became compounded by the fact that very few careers were open to educated Indians. Therefore, a very big number adopted the legal profession. The old aristocratic class did not participate in the Congress proceedings because it felt threatened by new liberal and nationalist ideas. Though the question of poverty of Indian had been discussed for sometime by various leaders especially Dadabhai Naoroji, no attempt was made to associate the masses with the movement at this stage. This was so because the leaders at this stage thought that the masses are not yet trained in the form of political agitation adopted by the Indian National Congress. The leaders through their memorials, petitions, speeches etc. aimed at making the masses politically conscious. When the Congress came to discuss the condition of the people, it resolved that the first step should be the granting of representative institutions. Given the tactics adopted by the Congress-that of petitioning and drawing attention to grievances by public discussions, this was natural.

Proceedings and resolutions

The proceedings of the Congress were conducted in the most orderly and efficient manner. The resolutions were moved discussed and passed in accordance with strict parliamentary procedure. Each resolution was proposed by a member belonging to one province, then seconded by a member belonging to another province and was supported by members from other provinces. The speeches were marked by moderation, earnestness and expressions of loyalty to the Crown. Historian Briton Martin (New India 1885, Delhi 1970) comments that the first Congress was a distinctly professional affair, which would have been the envy of any comparable political meeting held in England or the United States at that time’.

The first congress adopted nine resolutions.

In one resolution demand was put forward for the appointment of a Royal Commission for inquiring into Indian affairs on which Indians would be adequately represented.

The other resolution demanded the abolition of the Indian Council of the Secretary of State for India. The Congress wanted that the Secretary of State should be responsible directly to the British Parliament. This demand was based on the idea that the British people were just and fair and if properly informed, they would sympathize with the legitimate demands of the Indians.

There was also a resolution on foreign policy which condemned the annexation of Upper Burma.

Other resolutions covered subjects such as liberalizing the Constitution and functions of the Central and Provincial Legislative Councils, holding of simultaneous examination for the Civil Service in Britain and India and the need to reduce expenditure on the army, etc.

Before dispersing, the Congress decided that an attempt should be made to get the resolutions passed at the Congress session ratified by political associations throughout the country.

Need for an all-india body

Viewed in a larger context, the founding of the Indian National Congress was a response to the then existing political and socio-economic conditions which had resulted from long subjection to the alien rule. During the 1880s, as we have seen, the idea of national organisation was very much in the air. In fact, during the last ten days of 1885 as many as five conferences were held in different parts of the country. The Madras Mahajan Sabha held its second annual conference from 22 to 24, December. It was timed as to enable the members of the Sabha to attend the Congress at Poona. The Second Indian National Conference, convened by the Indian Association, met at Calcutta. It merged with the Indian national Congress in 1886.  Two other conferences held during the same period were the conferences organised by Eurasians at Jabalpur and by Prayag Central Hindu Samaj at Allahabad. Given the emergence of a countrywide educated class, the ideas they expressed and the organizational developments that had taken place, it was only a matter of time before a national body was created. The Indian National Congress represented the culmination of awareness amongst educated groups of the need to work together for political purposes. It marked the culmination of a long process of evolution of political ideas and a process of organisation which had started from 1830s onwards.

The Congress programme during the first phase (1885-1905) was very modest. It demanded moderate constitutional reforms, economic relief, administrative reorganization and defence of civil rights. Also it adopted moderate means of political agitation like filing petitions, memorials etc. before the government and organizing public speeches and discussions around political issues.

The demands and programme

The more important of the demands were:

-      The organisation of the provincial councils.

-      Simultaneous examination for the I.C.S. in India and England,

-      The abolition or reconstitution of the Indian Council.

-      The separation of the Judiciary from the executive.

-      The repeal of the Arms Act

-      The appointment of Indians to the commissioned ranks in the Army.

-      The reduction of military expenditure, and

-      The introduction of Permanent Settlement to other parts of India.

The Congress expressed opinions on all the important measures of the Government and protested against the unpopular ones. These demands were repeated year after year, although there was hardly any response from the Government. During the first twenty years (1885-1905) there was practically no change in the Congress programme. The major demands were practically the same as those formulated at the first three or four sessions.

This phase of the Congress is known as the MODERATE PHASE. During this period the leaders were cautious in their demands. They did not want to annoy the government and incur the risk of suppression of their activities. From 1885 to 1892, their main demand continued to be

Constitutional reforms

Te Congress demanded expansion and reform of the Legislative Councils, the membership of the Councils from elected representatives of the people and also an increase in the powers of these Councils.

The British Government was forced to pass the Indian Councils Act of 1892 but the provisions of this Act failed to satisfy the Congress leaders. They demanded Indian control over the public purse and raised the slogan that that had earlier been raised by the Americans during their War of Independence, ‘No taxation without representation’. By 1905 the Congress put forth the demand for Swaraj or self-rule for Indians within the British Empire on the model of the self-governing colonies like Australia or Canada. This demand was first referred to by G.K. Gokhale in 1905 (at Banaras) and later explicitly stated by Dadabhai Naoroji in 1906 (at Calcutta).

Economic nationalism

A strong point noted by the nationalists during this phase was about the economic drain of India. Dadabhai Naroji described the British rule as an 'everlasting and every day increasing foreign invasion’ that was gradually destroying the country. In the nationalist opinions the British were responsible for the destruction of India’s indigenous industries. The remedy for the removal of India’s poverty was the development of modern industries. The Government could promote it through tariff protection and direct government aid. However after seeing the failure of the Government in this regard the nationalists popularized the idea of Swadeshi or use of Indian goods and boycott of British goods as a means of promoting Indian industries. They demanded:

-      End of India’s economic drain.

-      The reduction of land revenue in order to lighten the burden of taxation on the peasants.

-      Improvement in the conditions of work of the plantation labourers.

-      Abolition of the salt tax and

-      The reduction in the high military expenditure of the Government of India.

The progressive content of these demands and their direct connection with the needs and aspirations of the Indian middle class is clear by these demands. Most of them opposed on grounds both economic and political the large-scale import of foreign capital in railways, plantations and industries and the facilities accorded to these by the Government. By attacking expenditure on the army and the civil service, they indirectly challenged the basis of British rule in India. By attacking the land revenue and taxation policies, they sought to undermine the financial basis of British administration in India. The use of Indian army and revenue for British imperial purposes in Asia and Africa was identified as another form of economic exploitation. Some of them even questioned the propreity of placing on Indian revenues the entire burden of British rule itself. In the form of the drain theory, they impressed upon the popular mind a potent symbol of foreign exploitation of India.

The Indian leaders were concerned with the problem of economic development as a whole rather than economic advancement in isolated sectors. The central question for them was the overall economic growth of India. Developments in different fields were to be considered in the context of their contribution to the economic development of the country. Even the problem of poverty was seen to be one of lack of production and of economic development.

Drain of wealth Theory

The transfer of resources and wealth from India to England without providing ‘any equivalent return’ which began in the second half of the eighteenth century had been christened by Indian ‘non-practicing’ economists like Dadabhai Naoroji, M. G. Ranade, R. C. Dutt as the “economic drain”.

It was in 1867 that for the first time Dadabhai Naoroji in his paper 'England's Debt to India' put forward the idea that Britain was extracting wealth from India as a price of her rule in India, that out of the revenues raised in India, nearly one-fourth went clean out of the country and was added to the resources of England', and that India was consequently 'being bled'. Dadabhai Naoroji dedicated his life to propagation of the drain theory and to launching a roaring campaign against the drain which was considered by him to be the fundamental evil of British rule in India.

 Dadabhai Naoroji gave six factors that caused external drain. These are:

1.     External rule and administration in India.

2. Funds and labour needed for economic development was brought in by immigrants but India did not draw immigrants.

3.   All the civil administration and army expenses of Britain were paid by India.

4.  India was bearing the burden of territory building both inside and outside India.

5. India was further exploited by opening the country to free trade.

6.  Major earners in India during British rule were foreigners. The money they earned was never invested in India to buy anything, rather they left India along with the money that was earned here.

Not only this but through different services such as railways, India was given a huge amount to Britain. On the other hand ,trade as well as Indian Labour was deeply undervalued, along with this, The East India company was buying product from India with Indian Money and exporting it to Briatin.

Effects of the Drain on India:

1.   Huge drain of resources from India into England had resulted disastrous effects on Indian economy and its people. Huge amount of these resources which could be invested in India were snatched and siphoned off to England.

2.   Huge public debt undertaken by the Government and its payment of interest necessitated increasing tax burden on the people of India, which were highly regressive in nature. As per Dadabhai Naoroji’s estimates, tax burden in India during 1886 was 14.3 per cent of its total income which was very high as compared to 6.93 per cent in England.

3.   Moreover, these tax proceeds were mostly used for making payments to British creditors and not for the social services and welfare activities of Indians. This type of drain of tax proceeds from India impoverished the agriculture, industry and trading activities in India and was largely responsible for stagnant stage of its economy during the 18th and 19th centuries.

Although the British undertook responsibility of maintaining law and order, centralised political and judicial administration, roads, railways, educational set up etc. but the extent of draining out of resources was too excessive leading to stagnation of the economy and poor and miserable condition of Indian masses.

Nature of economic demands

As we have noted earlier, even though their political demands were moderate, their economic demands were radical in nature. The Indian leaders advocated basically anti-imperialist economic policies. They laid stress on basic changes in the existing economic relations that made India a supplier of raw materials and a market for British manufacturers. They criticized the official policies on tariff, trade, transport and taxation. These were regarded as hampering rather than helping the growth of indigenous industry.

Freedom of speech and expression

They also fully recognised the value of the freedom of the press and speech and condemned all attempts at their curtailment. In fact, the struggle for the removal of restrictions on press became the integral part of the nationalist struggle for freedom.

Evaluation of work

Whatever may be the drawback in the demands put forward by the Congress, it was a national body in true sense of the term. There was nothing in its programme to which any class might take exception. Its doors were open to all classes and communities. Its programme was broad enough to accommodate all interests. It may be said that it was not a party, but a movement.

It must be said to the credit of the nationalist leaders that though they belonged to the urban educated middle class they were too broad-minded and free from narrow and sectional class interests. They kept in mind the larger interests of the people in general. Their economic policies were not influenced by the short sighted vision of a job-hungry middle class.

This challenging critique of the financial foundations of the Raj was a unique service that the early Congress leadership rendered to the nation.

The British attitude towards congress

The political tone of the Indian National Congress might have been mild but from the fourth session of the Congress onwards, the government adopted a hostile attitude towards it. Time passed and nothing substantial was conceded to the Congress. Elements hostile to the Congress were encouraged by the British. For example they encouraged the Aligarh movement against the Congress and the British attitude became more hostile to the Congress under Lord Curzon. In an autocratic manner be tried to control the university education and decreed the partition of Bengal. This led to a strong national awakening.

During this period general impression grew that they (the Moderates) were political mendicants, only petitioning and praying to the British Government for petty concessions. As studied earlier, the Moderates had played an important role at a critical period in the history of Indian nationalism.

They succeeded in creating a wide national awakening, in arousing among the people the feeling that they belonged to one common nation the Indian nation. They made the people of India conscious of the bonds of common political, economic, social and cultural interests and of the existence of a common enemy in imperialism and thus helped to weld them in a common nationality. They trained people in the art of political work, popularised among them the ideas of democracy, civil liberties, secularism and nationalism, propagated among them a modern outlook and exposed before them the evils results of British rule. This contribution of the moderates was to serve as the foundation for political action in the coming years.

With changing times, the Moderates also began to alter their position. By 1905 Gokhale had started speaking of self-rule as the goal and in 1906 it was Dadabhai Naoroji who mentioned the word Swaraj as the goal of the Congress.

Even so, the Moderates found themselves in a tight corner with the emergence of extremist leadership within the congress. The British authorities also doubted their bonafides. The extremists were attracting youthful section among the political activists. Extremists came to the centre stage of the Congress.

Extremism in the Indian National scene did not spring up all of a sudden in the first decade of the twentieth century. In fact it had been growing slowly but invisibly since the Revolt of 1857 itself.

Ideological basis of extremism

The nationalist ideas behind the Revolt of 1857, according to the Extremists, were Swadharma and Swaraj. Attachment to rationalism and western ideals had almost alienated the ‘Liberal’ (Moderate) school from the masses in India. That is why despite their high idealism, they failed to make any effective impact on the people. In due course a section was bound to come to fill this gap. In the place of adoration and imitation of all things western, there was a movement by the eighties of the nineteenth century urging people to look to their ancient civilization. An under-current of this type had existed earlier but during the Revolt of 1857 it had suddenly burst into open. However, the educated community by the large had kept itself aloof from the main current of Indian life and remained untouched by this trend. The historic task of bridging the gulf between the educated few and the general people was accomplished by Paramahamsa Ramakrishna and his English-educated disciple, Swami Vivekananda, Swami Dayananda, who was well-versed in Vedic literature and the Arya Samaj founded by him also played a vital role in this direction. The Eclectic Theosophical Society of Annie Besant too made a contribution. These social reform movements gave impetus to political radicalism. There was instinctive attachment to native culture, religion and polity. The political radicals who derived inspiration from their traditional cultural values were ardent nationalists who wanted to have relations with other countries in terms of equality and self respect. They had tremendous sense of self respect and wanted to keep their heads high. They opposed the moderates who were considered by them to be servile and respectful to the British. They thought that a trial of strength between the ruler and the ruled was inevitable, and argued for building a new India of their dreams in which the British had no contribution to make.

Three groups of the extremists

       The Maharashtra group, headed by B.G. Tilak;

       The Bengal group represented by B.C. Pal and Aurobindo Ghosh

       The Punjab group led by Lala Lajpat Rai.

The Bengal Extremists were greatly influenced by the ideas of Bankim Chandra, who was a liberal conservative like Edmund Burke. He wanted no break with the past which, he thought, might create more problems than it would solve. He was opposed to precipitate reforms imposed from above. In his view, reforms should wait on moral and religious regeneration which should be based on fundamentals of religion. Bankim blazed the trail for the Extremists in his contemptuous criticism of the Moderates.

This nationalism of the Extremists was emotionally charged. The social, economic and political ideals were all blended in this inspiring central conception of nationalism. Carrying this message to the West Vivekananda generated tremendous self-confidence and will-power. Aurobindo even raised patriotism to the pedestal of mother worship. He said in a letter, “I know my country as my mother. I adore her. I worship her.”

Aurobindo was very much attracted by the teachings of Dayananda who was hardly influenced by any ideas from the West. He credited Dayananda with more definite work for the nation than any other reformer. Bankim Chandra, Dayananda and Vivekananda had thus prepared the ideological ground on the basis of which the Extremists drew up their political programme.

Extremists in action

Tilak resented any interference by an alien government into the domestic and private life of the people. He quarreled with the reformers over the Age of Consent Bill in 1891. He introduced the Ganpati festival in 1893 and 1894. Tilak threw a challenge to the National Social Conference in 1895 by not allowing it to hold its session in the Congress pavilion in Poona (The National Social Conference was under the influence of Moderate Wing). In the same year the Poona Sarvajanik Sabha was captured by the Extremists from the Moderates. The Shivaji festival was first held on 15 April 1896 and with the foundation of the Deccan Sabha on November 4, 1896, the division between the Extremists and the Moderates in Maharashtra was complete, but it was not so all-over India. Pal, for example, the leader of the Bengal Extremists was still in the camp of the Moderates.

Because of the soft and vacillating policy it pursued, Lajpat Rai also was not interested in Congress programme. Between 1893 and 1900 he did not attend any meeting of the Congress. He felt during this period that the Congress leaders cared more for fame and pomp than for the interests of the country.

Open conflict and split

Tilak was unpopular with the Moderate group in Bombay. He was a shrewd tactician waiting for the opportunity to show his hand. The unity forged at the Benaras Congress (1905) with the Bengal Extremists proved advantageous to Tilak at the Calcutta Congress (1906). Gokhale also had his premonitions about the Calcutta Congress. He apprehended trouble. This mutual distrust did not augur well for the Congress. To begin with there was controversy over the Presidentship. Pal and Aurobindo wanted Tilak to be the President, but the Moderates were in no mood to accept him. To have their way the latter resorted to an extraordinary maneuver, and without consulting the Reception Committee, wired Dadabhai Naoroji to accept the presidentship. After the latter’s acceptance, the Extremists were presented with a fait accompli. Thus having failed in their attempt to get Tilak installed as President, the Extremists-Tilak, Aurobindo, Pal, Ashwini Kumar Dutt, G.S. Khaparde etc. - formed themselves into a pressure group to press their points. The Extremists were in majority and they had substantial local support. There was much heat in the atmosphere and the meeting of the Subjects Committee was stormy. Resolutions were discussed and amended under pressure from the Extremists. Pherozeshah Mehta was the target of their special fury. Mehta, M.M. Malaviya and Gokhale were heckled and booed. Ultimately a compromise was hurriedly made, and the resolutions on the partition of Bengal, Swadeshi and Boycott were re-phrased and secured a smooth passage in the open session. There was however, no union of the minds and hearts among the antagonists. The danger was averted for the time being but a festering sore was left.

Though the Extremists had failed to get Tilak elected the President of the Calcutta Congress (1906), they were satisfied with what they had achieved there. They had emerged as a strong, coherent and powerful force. They had thwarted what they believed to be determined attempts to water down the Congress programme. The Moderates left Calcutta with mixed feelings of bewilderment, humiliation and dismay. What worried them most was the “rough behaviour” adopted by the Extremists.

Both the Moderates and the Extremists participated in the Swadeshi movement; but there were real differences between the views of the Moderates and Extremists on Swadeshi. To Tilak, Pal and Aurobindo boycott had double implications. Materially it was to be an economic pressure on Manchester, producing thereby a chain reaction on the Government of India. Spiritually it was a religious ritual of self-punishment. Swadeshi had primarily an economic message for Gokhale the message of industrial regeneration which he had imbibed from Ranade. To Surendranath the Swadeshi movement was in spirit a protectionist movement. It appealed to the masses because they had the sense to perceive that it would “herald the dawn of a new era of material prosperity for them”. To Tilak and Lajpat Rai it was a moral training in self-help, determination and sacrifice was well as a weapon of `political agitation’. To Aurobindo Swadeshi was not `secularity of autonomy and wealth’, but a return to the faith in India’s destiny as the world-saviour. Thus Swadeshi had a far richer and meaningful content for the Extremists than for the Moderates.

Differences of Temperament and ideology and clash of personalities were to create bitter feelings among the rival groups. Persistent criticism by the Extremists alarmed the Moderates. The latter were afraid that the former had already captured Bengal, Maharashtra, Berar and the Punjab and there was danger of the rest of the country also being lost to them.

At Calcutta it has been decided to hold the next session of the Congress at Nagpur where the Moderates thought that they would be in majority. The election of the Congress President for the ensuing session (1907) developed into an occasion for trial of strength between the Moderates and the Extremists. The Moderates were determined not to allow Tilak to hold the presidential chair.

The Moderates were unanimous on the exclusion of Tilak but not on who should be elected. Gokhale had his eyes fixed on Rash Behari Ghosh, a renowned lawyer and powerful orator. But the Moderates found themselves unnerved at Nagpur and Pherozeshah Mehta changed the venue to Surat where he thought he would have his way. The Extremists did not like this. The tense atmosphere and the intemperate language used by both sides pointed to the inevitability of the coming crisis at Surat. Rash Behari Ghosh was elected the Congress President. The relations between the two groups worsened still further. In the meeting there was open conflict to the proposal of Ghosh being elected as President. Tilak was not allowed to express his views in the matter. This was a signal for pandemonium and the two groups formally split.

Consequences of the split

But whoever may be responsible for the split and whatever may be its cause, it was a great national calamity. Gokhale was aware of this great disaster. The British bureaucracy was in jubilation. Lord Minto, the Viceroy, exultingly told Lord Morley, the Secretary of State that the ‘Congress Collapse’ (Surat split) was ‘a great triumph for us’. But Morley knew better. Almost prophetically he told the Viceroy that, the immediate collapse notwithstanding, the Extremists would eventually capture the Congress. The split did immense harm to the Congress in particular and the national movement in general. It can be said that the Moderates were the brain of the Congress and the nation and the Extremists were the heart; the former were the ‘law’ and the latter ‘impulse’. The unified action of the two was absolutely necessary for the proper functioning of the organisation and growth of national movement. Without the extremists, the Moderates were to achieve little. For about a decade, the Moderates were not in a position to show the kind of strength that was needed to seriously oppose the British. It was only after 1916, with the re-entry of the Extremists in the Congress and exit of the Moderates from it that the Congress could be reactivised. But then it was a new story. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, Gokhale’s political disciple, associating himself with the programme of the Extremists, with his emphasis on the synthesis of the reason and faith, law and impulse, representing the abiding strength of the Indian people was to activise and rejuvenate the congress and carry a new phase of action.

Moderates and extremists: an analysis

There was much in common between the Moderates and the Extremists. But they also shared certain differences in political perspective and methods.

Differences

Tilak remarked that the Old (Moderate) and New (Extremist) parties agreed on the point that appeals to the bureaucracy were useless. But the Old party believed in appeals to the British nation, the New Party did not. Like the Moderates, Tilak also believed that under the British rule, the industries had been ruined and wealth drained out of the country, and Indians reduced to the lowest level of poverty. But the way out was not through petitioning. The extremists believed that Indians should have the key of their own house and Self Government was the goal. Extremists wanted the Indians to realize that their future rested entirely in their own-hands and they could be free only if they were determined to be free.

Tilak did not want Indians to take to arms; rather they should develop their power of self-denial and self-abstinence in such a way as not to assist the foreign power to rule over them. Tilak advised his countrymen to run their own courts, and to stop paying taxes when time came. He asserted, “Swaraj is my birthright and I will have it”.

The philosophical radicalism of Aurobindo went even further. According to him the existing condition of the Government in India suffered from corrupt western influences. To escape it, she must get rid of these conditions and seek refuge in her own superior civilization. The work of nationalism, he added would be to:

i)     win Swaraj for India so that the existing unhealthy condition of political life, full of germs of the social and political malaise which was overtaking Europe, might be entirely and radically cured, and

ii)    Ensure that the Swaraj when gained would be a Swadeshi Swaraj and not an importation of the European variety. This is why, in his opinion, the movement for Swaraj found its first expression in an outburst for Swadeshi sentiment directed not merely against foreign goods, but against foreign habits, dress, manners and education and sought to bring the people to their own civilization.

From the foregoing it may appear that though the Extremists used much stronger and sharper language, but as far as the goals were concerned they were substantially not very different from the moderates. As referred earlier, Gokhale in his Presidential Address (Benaras, 1905) and Dadabhai Naoroji in his Presidential speech (Calcutta, 1906) had respectively advocated self-government and Swaraj as the goal of the Congress. The differences were related to the methodology for achieving the goals.

Personality clash

Besides these differences of attitude and emphasis mentioned above, the controversy between the Moderates and the Extremists raged round the personality of Tilak.  Both Tilak and Gokhale hailed from Poona. Tilak was militant, who would influence on public opinion through his paper; the Mahratta and the Kesari. Gokhale was gentle and soft-spoken. He had wonderful mastery over Indian financial problems and was at his best in the imperial Legislative Council being an expert in exposing the hallow claims of the Government. He had established at Poona the Servants of India Society with a view to training a band of dedicated workers who were expected to give their all to the service of the motherland. The members of the Society had to take an oath of poverty, had to observe strict code of conduct. They were given only a subsistence allowance and had to perform hard duty.

The difference between Gokhale and Tilak may be traced back to an earlier period. There had been intense clash of personalities at Poona from the beginning of the nineties of the last century. A quarrel ensured between Tilak and G.G. Agarkar although they had been co-workers in the Deccan Education Society. Ultimately Tilak was pushed out of the Society. Thereafter there had been a constant tussle between the followers of Tilak on the one hand and his opponents on the other. The opponents rallied round Mahadev Govind Ranade and Gokhale, backed in Congress affairs by Pherozeshah Mehta from Bombay. Gokhale enjoyed the support of the Congress establishment. As the Moderates were losing their popularity and the Extremists were capturing the imagination of the country because of the growth of the new spirit, the conflict between the two contending groups in Maharashtra and Poona also became more pronounced.

There was ferment, all over India. The Bande Mataram under Aurobindo was not only challenging the right of the British Government to rule India, but also the right of the veteran leaders to speak for India. Outside Bengal Tilak was the first to recognize the potential of the ferment in Bengal. The Partition of Bengal was to him not so much a British blunder as Indian opportunity to build up strength. He extended support to the anti-partition movement and encouraged the emerging Extremist leaders in Bengal. Gokhale had seen this alliance growing since the Banaras Congress (1905). This Tilak-Pal alliance caused a deep concern not only to the Government, but also to many Congress Leaders. Tilak was regarded as a dissident, if not a rebel. Pherozeshah Mehta, D.E. Wacha and the whole Bombay Group distrusted him since the controversies raging in the 1890s. The differences were partly temperamental. For at least 15 years there had been a cold war between the Congress Establishment headed by Mehta on the one hand and Tilak on the other.

The Curzonian scheme to partition Bengal took a concrete shape gradually from the time the Viceroy wrote his minute on Territorial Redistribution on 1 June, 1903 to the day the final scheme of division was dispatched to the home authorities in London for sanction on 2 February, 1905. On 19 July 1905 the Government of India announced its decision to form the new province of “Eastern Bengal and Assam”, comprising the Chittagong, Dacca and Rajshahi divisions, Hill Tippera (Tripura), Malda and Assam. The province came into existence on 16 October 1905, by breaking up Bengal and its 41.5 million Bengali speaking people.

The motive behind the plan

In the eyes of Curzon and others like him Bengal was the most vulnerable point in the entire British Indian Empire. In their view the Bengalis were “a force already formidable and certain to be a source of increasing trouble in the future”. To meet the growing nationalist challenge in eastern India Curzon and his advisors searched for an effective answers, and eventually found it in the division of the Bengali-speaking people. The official assessment (Risley) was: “Bengal united is a power; Bengal divided will pull in several different ways”. Curzon and Company were determined “to split up and thereby weaken a solid body of opponents” to the British rule. The splitting up operations, or the arrangement for giving effect to the maxim “divide and rule”, had to be done in such a manner as to make the Bengalis suffer physical as well as mental division. This Curzon wanted to achieve by creating a situation of mutual suspicion and jealousy between the two major communities in Bengal - the Hindus and the Muslims.

Curzon and his advisors knew that their opponents in Bengal came largely from among the Hindus, who had benefited more than their Muslim brethren by taking socio-economic and educational advantage of the British rule. Majority of the Muslims being agriculturists could not manage to take a similar advantage. By shrewdly suggesting that his Government wished to stand by the Muslims in their race for advancement with the Hindus, and secure them from any threat of Hindu domination, Curzon planned to take away from Bengal those territories where Muslims were more numerous, and join these with Assam to form a new province with Dacca as its Capital. The new province, Curzon hoped, “would invest the Mohammedans in Eastern Bengal with a unity which they have not enjoyed since the days of the old Mussalman viceroys and kings”. He also expected Dacca “to acquire the special character of a Provincial Capital where Mohammedan interest would be strongly represented if not predominant”. By partitioning Bengal, therefore, Curzon and his lieutenants wanted to set up Dacca as a parallel political centre to the rationalistically oriented Calcutta. To make use, of the Muslims to counter-balance the Hindus they intended to create out of Bengal a Muslim-majority province where 15 million Muslims would live with 12 million Hindus and reduce the Bengali speaking people into a minority in what would remain as Bengal (where 19 million Bengali speaking persons should be outnumbered by 35 million speakers of Hindi, Oriya and other languages). The partition mainly aimed at weakening the rising force of nationalism which was threatening the British.

The anti-partition agitation began in Bengal on the conventional moderate nationalist lines, though with a great deal of noise and angry protestations. There were sharp press campaigns against the partition scheme, numerous public meetings in opposition to it and the drafting of petitions to the Government for its annulment. Big conferences were held at the Town Hall, Calcutta, where delegates from districts came to participate and gave vent to their injured sentiments. All this was impressive, making the educated middle class’ case against the partition loud and clear. But it made no effect on the indifference of the authorities in India and Britain.

Extremist phase

The evident failure of these methods, therefore, led to a search for new techniques from the middle of 1905 and resulted in the discovery of the boycott of British goods as an effective weapon. The boycott suggestion first came from Krishnakumar Mitra’s journal Sanjivani on 3 July, 1905, and was later accepted by the prominent publicmen at the Town Hall meeting of 7 August, 1905. The discovery was followed by the calls of Rabindranath Tagore and Ramendra Sunder Trivedi, respectively, for the observance of raksha-bandhan (the tying of sacred threads among Hindus and Muslims as a mark of unity) on the day the partition was put into effect. With these measures the movement gained a new fervor.

The boycott of British products was followed by the advocacy of swadeshi or exhorting purchasers to buy indigenously produced goods as a patriotic duty.

Charkha (the spinning wheel) came to typify the popular concern for the country’s economic self-sufficiency, and the holding of swadeshi melas or fairs for selling handicrafts and other articles became a regular feature.

A considerable enthusiasm was created for undertaking swadeshi or Indian enterprises. A number of exclusively Indian industrial ventures, such as the Calcutta Potteries, Bengal Chemicals, Benge Lakshmi Cotton Mills, Mohini Mills and National Tannery were started. Various soap, match box and tobacco manufacturing establishments and oil mills, as well as financial activities, like the swadeshi banks, insurance and steam navigation companies also took off the ground under the impetus generated by the movement.

Meanwhile, the picketing before the shops selling British goods soon led to a boycott of the officially controlled educational institutions. The British threat to the student-picketers in the form of the withdrawal of grants, scholarships and affiliations of the institutions to which they belonged (through the infamous circular of 22 October, 1905 issued by Carlyle, the Chief Secretary of the Government of Bengal, known otherwise as the “Carlyle Circular”) and the actual imposition of fines and rustication orders on them resulted in the decision by large number of students to leave these schools and colleges of “slavery”. Boycott of schools and colleges forced the leaders of the Swadeshi movement to think in terms of running a parallel system of education in Bengal. Soon appeals were made, donations collected and distinguished persons came forward to formulate programmes for national education. These efforts resulted in the establishment of the Bengal Technical Institute (which was started on 25 July, 1906, and which later turned into the College of Engineering and Technology, Jadavpur (the nucleus of the present day Jadavpur University), the Bengal National College and School (which was set up on 15 August, 1906 with Aurobindo Ghosh as its Principal) and a number of national, primary and secondary schools in the districts.

The samitis and the political trends

For aiding the cause of national education, and for spreading the messages of boycott and swadeshi, a large number of national volunteer bodies or samitis sprang up in Calcutta and the districts. Some of the distinguished among them were the Dawn Society (named after the famous journal of the time - Dawn), the Anti-Circular Society (formed initially to protest against the “Carlyle Circular”), the Swadeshdhandhav, the Brati, the Anushilan, the Suhrid and the Sadhana samitis. These samitis preached the essentials of swadeshi and boycott, took up social work during famines and epidemics, imparted physical and moral training, organised crafts and national schools and set up arbitration committees and village societies. They encouraged folk singers and artistes (notably persons like Mukunda Das, Bhusan Das and Mufizuddin Bayati) to perform on the swadeshi themes in local dialects. These efforts served to supplement at the rural level the spate of patriotic compositions by literary stalwarts like Rabindranath Tagore, Rajanikanta Sen, Dwijendralal Roy, Girindramohini Dasi, Sayed Abu Mohammed, or playwrights like Girishchandra Ghosh, Kishirodeprasad Vidyavinode and Amritalal Bose. The ideologies of samitis ranged from secularism to religious revivalism, from moderate politics to social reformism (through constructive economic, educational and social programmes), and included within their range political extremism.

As a matter of fact several trends of political thinking were competing with one another for popular acceptance during the swadeshi days in Bengal:

i)     The moderate nationalist opinion (which was represented by persons like Surendranath Banerjee, Krishnakumar Mitra and Narendra Kumar Sen) still had abiding faith in the British sense of justice, and were not in favour of stretching the agitation too far. Its advocates actually pinned their hopes on the Liberal Morley’s appointment as Secretary of State for India in Britain. Their lukewarmness was so obviously out of tune with the prevailing militant mood against the British authorities that the moderates rapidly and conclusively lost their popularity.

ii)    The second or the social reformist creed of “constructive swadeshi” - as it was termed aimed at gathering national strength through a persistent movement of self-help and self-reliance (or Atmashakti according to Rabindranath Tagore) by organising indigenous enterprises, nationalistic educational process and setting up village upliftment societies to bridge the gulf between the rural and urban people. All those who did not see eye with the moderate nationalists supported the cause of “constructive swadeshi” in the beginning. Satishchandra Mukherji, Aswini Kumar Dutta, Rabindranath Tagore, Prafulla Chandra Roy and Nilratan Sircar were its prime adherents.

         Even though the programme recommended by the social reformists was significant in some ways, it was too arduous and unexciting to have wide appeal in these heady days. It could neither match the exuberance of political leaders like Bipinchandra Pal, Aurobindo Ghosh and Brahmabandhav Upadhayaya, nor satisfy the impatient, adventurous youth of Bengal. In such circumstances, the appearance of political extremist - the third trend - was natural. It found expression in periodicals like New India (edited by Bipinchandra Pal), Bande Mataram (edited by Aurobindo Ghosh), Sandhya (edited by Brahmabandhav Upadhyaya) and Yugantar (edited by Bhupendranath Dutta). The political extremists demanded self-government for India, not under British tutelage or British Paramountcy (as the moderates wished), but by severing all British connections, and wiping off all British influences.

HOME RULE LEAGUES

There was another, less dramatic but more effective, response to the situation arising out of the First World War-the Home Rule Leagues of Lokmanya Tilak and Annie Besant.

Events leading to the formation of leagues

When Tilak returned to India after serving a long sentence of six years in Mandalay in Burma, he initially concentrated all attention on securing the readmission of himself and other Extremists into the Indian National Congress from which they had been thrown out in 1907 at Surat. Even in 1907, he had been far from happy with the split, and now he was convinced even more that unity was necessary. Besides, the sanction of the Congress was seen to be desirable for any political activity as the Congress had come to symbolise the national movement in the minds of the people. Further disunity had only helped the British who had removed the Extremists through repression, and then ignored the Moderates by granting reforms the Extremists through repression, and then ignored the Moderates by granting reforms that fell far short of their expectations. The complete lack of political activity since 1908 was also making the Moderates unhappy and many of them were now more favourably disposed towards the question of the return of the Extremists to the fold.

The Moderate leaders were also under considerable pressure from Mrs. Annie Besant, who wanted to build up a movement in India on the lines of the Irish Home Rule League, and was urging them to accept the Extremists back into the Congress. Annie Besant, aged 66 in 1914, had come to India from England in 1893 to work for the Theosophical Society, and had earlier been an exponent of Free Thought, Radicalism and Fabianism. She had set up her headquarters at Adyar near Madras, and developed a large network of followers of the Theosophical Society from among those educated Indians whose communities had experienced no cultural revival of their own. With this as a base, she now wanted to start a political movement on agitational lines.

Two leagues

The Extremists failed to be allowed re-entry into the Congress at its session in December 1914, but consistent efforts throughout 1915, including the campaigns launched separately by Annie Besant and Tilak through newspapers and local associations, secured them their re-entry in December 1915. The opposition to the Extremists was also considerably whittled down by the death of Pherozeshah Mehta who had been the most recalcitrant in his opposition. The Congress still dominated as it was by the Moderates, however, failed to keep its promise of reviving local level Congress Committees and beginning a programme of educative propaganda by September 1916. Therefore, Annie Besant and Tilak launched their own organisations, the Home Rule League, in 1916. The two Leagues demarcated their areas of operation: Tilak’s League was to work in Maharashtra, Karnataka Central Provinces and Berar and Annie Besant’s in the rest of India.

Tilak’s Home Rule League

Tilak’s Home Rule League, launched at the Bombay provincial Conference held at Belgaum in April 1916, was organised into 6 branches, one each in Central Maharashtra, Bombay city, Karnataka and Central Provinces, and two in Berar. It published 6 pamphlets in Marathi and 2 in English, of which 47,000 copies were sold. Pamphlets were also brought out in Kannada and Gujarat. Apart from these, the most crucial role was played by Tilak’s tours of Maharashtra during the course of which he lectured on and explained the demand for Home Rule. “India was like a son who had grown up and attained maturity”, he said. “It was right now that the trustee or the father should give him what was his due”. His speeches during this period also show no trace of a religious appeal and he categorically stated:

“Alienness is not connected with religion, trade or profession; it is a question of interests. He who does what is beneficial to the people of this country, be he a Mohammedan or an Englishman, is not alien.”

The most surpising element of Home Rule Leagues was that they were only implementing in a vigorous fashion, the programme of the Moderates.

The annual session of the Congress in December 1916 at Lucknow also provided the Home Rule Leaguers with an opportunity of demonstrating their strength and they turned up at this Congress in large numbers. Tilak and Annie Besant also played a leading role in bringing about the famous Congress League Pact which was signed at this session. The Home Rule Leagues held a joint meeting at the end of the session attended by more than 1,000 delegates and addressed by Besant and Tilak, and on their return journeys both the leaders toured extensively through parts of North, Central and Eastern India.

The government’s decision to again try repression acted as a further spur to the movement. In June 1917, Besant, B.P. Wadia and Arundale were placed under arrest. Immediately, many who had earlier kept their distance now voiced their protest and joined the movement. Jinnah, Surendranath Banerjee and Madan Mohan Malaviya were among the most famous of these. Tilak advocated passive resistance to the AICC meeting in July 1917, and Gandhi’s suggestion of collecting the signatures of one thousand men willing to defy the internment orders and march to Besant’s place of detention was implemented. Village tours and meetings were intensified and the movement displayed a new resolve.

Change in British attitude

Faced with this growing agitation, the government in Britain decided to adopt a soft line. The signal for the change of policy was the declaration of Montague, the Secretary of State for India, in the British House of Commons which stated: “the policy of His Majesty’s government...is that of increasing association of Indians in every branch of the administration and the gradual development of self-governing institutions with a view to the progressive realisation of responsible government in India as an integral part of the British Empire”. This statement was a distinct advance on the position taken in 1909 when Morley while introducing the Reforms had categorically stated that they were not intended to lead to self-government. After Montague’s declaration, the demand for self-government or Home Rule could no longer be treated as seditious, and this was an important achievement. This did not, however, mean that Britain was about to grant self-government to India. Any doubts on this score were dispelled by the accompanying part of the statement which made it clear that the nature and timing of the reforms would be decided by the government alone. This gave enough room for continual postponement of transfer of any real power to Indians.

The immediate gain of the new policy was that Annie Besant was released in September 1917. She was, at Tilak’s instance, elected President of the annual session of the Congress in December 1917. Her popularity at this time was at its height, and the movement appeared poised for greater advances.

Decline of the home rule leagues

During 1918, however, the Home Rule agitation gradually fizzled out. Among the factors responsible for this was the withdrawal of support by the Moderates who had again been won over to the hope for reforms and worried by the increasing talk of civil disobedience among the Home Rule rank and file. The publication of the Reforms Scheme in July 1918 further divided the nationalists: while some wanted to reject them, others wanted to give them a trial. Annie Besant herself demonstrated considerable inconsistency in her stand both on the question of the reforms and on the issue of passive resistance. Tilak was on the whole more consistent in his approach that the reforms were unworthy of Britain to offer and Indians to accept, but given Besant’s continuous vacillation, there was little he could do on his own. His decision to go to England at the end of 1918 to pursue a libel case he had filed against Valentine Chirol, the author of Indian Unrest, physically removed him from the scene for many critical months. The movement was essentially rendered leaderless.

The tremendous achievement of the Home Rule movement was in creating a politically aware and committed band of nationalist workers who were to play the leading role in the coming mass struggles. The contacts they had established in towns and villages during the course of the agitation were also to prove invaluable in the coming years. The ground was also created by the wide popularization of the idea of Home Rule and the arousal of national feeling.

True, the leaders of the Home Rule Movement were themselves unable to show the way forward and translate this consciousness into a mass struggle. But they prepared the ground for the next stage-a stage that was to be shaped and given a unique character by the personality of Mahatma Gandhi.

Towards Non-cooperation movement

Gandhi's arrival in India and Ideology

Before returning to India Gandhi went to England. In the meantime, the First World War broke out. In this situation Gandhi considered it his duty to help the British government. He decided to organize an Ambulance Corps of the Indians. However, after some time due to differences with the British officials, Gandhi dissociated himself from it. He received a Kaiser-i-Hind Gold Medal in the New Year Honours list of 1915.

Gandhi reached India on January 9, 1915 and was given a warm welcome for his deeds in South Africa. In India, the moderate leader Gokhale was his political mentor. He wanted Gandhi to join the Servants of India Society. But Gandhi could not become its member because some members of the society strongly opposed his entry. Gokhale had extracted a promise from Gandhi that he would not express any opinion or political matters for a year. Keeping his vow, Gandhi spent 1915 and most of 1916 touring India and visiting places as far as Sindh and Rangoon, Banaras and Madras. He also visited Rabindranath Tagores’ Shantiniketan and the Kumbh fair at Hardwar. All this helped Gandhi in the better understanding of his countrymen and the conditions in India. In 1915 Gandhi had set up an Ashram at Ahmedabad on the bank of the Sabarmati. Here Gandhi lived with his close associates who were being trained in the rigorous moral and emotional life essential for a satyagrahi.

At this time Gandhi took very little interest in political matters, and mostly at meetings he spoke on his experiences in South Africa and the ideas he had formulated there. When Annie Besant approached Gandhi to join her in founding a Home Rule League he refused on the ground that he did not wish to embarrass the British government during the war. In 1915, he attended the Congress session, but avoided speaking on important issues like self government. Gandhi welcomed the unity move of bringing back Tilak and others who were earlier excluded from the Congress. But at the same time Gandhi made it clear that he did not belong to any group. He attended the reunited session of the Congress but refused to speak on issues which would have meant aligning himself with a particular group. He spoke strongly on the indentured labourers recruitment and a resolution was passed for the abolition of this practice.

Entry into Indian politics

Gandhi’s entry into Indian politics occurred in the 1917-1918 period when he became involved in three local issues concerning with Champaran indigo farmers, the Ahmedabad textile workers and the Kheda peasants. In these disputes Gandhi deployed his technique of Satyagraha and his victories in all these cases ultimately paved the way for his emergence as an all India leader.

Champaran

Champaran in the Tirhut division of North Bihar had been seething with agrarian discontent for some time. European planters had established indigo farms and factories in Champaran at the beginning of the 19th century. By 1916-17, a large part of Champaran was held by three proprietors, the Bettiah, Ram Nagar and Madhuban estates. Bettiah was the largest estate consisting of over one and half thousand villages. Most of these villages were not managed by landlords but were leased to thikadars or temporary tenure holders of whom the most influential group was European indigo planters. The basic issue of the trouble was the system of indirect cultivation whereby peasants leased land from planters, binding themselves to grow indigo each year on specified land in return for an advance at the beginning of the cultivation season.

Indigo was cultivated under the system called Tinkathia by which a tenant had to cultivate indigo at three twentieths of his holdings, which generally constituted the best portion of the land. Although some slight modifications were made in Tinkathia system in 1908, it did not bring any material change in the degrading conditions of the tenants. Planters always forced them to sell their crop for a fixed (usually uneconomic) price. At this time the demand of Indian indigo in the world market was declining due to the increasing production of synthetic indigo in Germany. Most planters at Champaran realised that indigo cultivation was no longer a paying proposition. The planters tried to save their own position by forcing the tenants to bear the burden of their losses. They offered to release the tenants from growing indigo (which was a basic condition in their agreement with planters) if the latter paid compensation or damages. Apart from this, the planters heavily inflated the rents and imposed many illegal levies on the tenants.

Gandhi took no interest in the case of indigo cultivators of Champaran when this question was discussed at the Lucknow session of the Congress in 1916 on the ground that he knew nothing about the matter. But Raj Kumar Shukla, a peasant from Champaran, after strenous efforts prevailed upon Gandhi to visit Champaran. Gandhi arrived in Bihar and started making investigations in person. When he reached Motihari, the headquarters of the district of Champaran, he was served with an order to quit Champaran as he was regarded a danger to the public peace. Gandhi decided to disobey the order ‘out of a sense of public responsibility.’ He was immediately arrested and tried in the district court. But the Bihar government ordered the Commissioner and District Magistrate to abandon proceedings and grant to Gandhi the facilities for investigation. Gandhi was warned not to stir up trouble, but he was free to continue his investigations into the cultivator’s grievances.

The Government appointed Champaran Agrarian Committee with Gandhi as on of its members. The committee unanimously recommended the abolition of Tinkathia system and many illegal exactions under which the tenants groaned. The enhanced rents were reduced, and as for the illegal recoveries, the committee recommended 25% refund. The major recommendations of the Committee were included in the Champaran Agrarian Act of 1917.

In this agitation, the chief supporters of Gandhi came from the educated middle class. For instance, Rajendra Prasad, Gorakh Prasad, Mirpalani and some other educated persons from the cities worked as his close associates. Local Mahajans traders and village Mukhtars (attorneys) also helped him. But it was the peasantry which gave him the real massive support. Gandhi approached them in a most simple and unassuming manner. In the countryside, he often walked on foot or traveled in a bullock cart. He came where ordinary people lived and talked about their plight in the language they understood.

Kheda

Gandhi’s second intervention was for the peasants of Kheda in Gujarat where his method of Satyagraha came under a severe test. Most of Kheda was a fertile tract and the crop of food grains, tobacco and cotton produced here had a convenient and sizeable market in Ahmedabad. There were many rich peasant proprietors called Patidars from the Kunbi caste. Besides, a large number of small peasants and landless labourers also lived in this region.

In 1917 excessive rain considerably damaged the Kharif crop in Kheda. This coincided with an increase in the price of kerosine, iron, cloth and salt because of which the cost of living for the peasantry went up. In view of the poor harvest, the peasants demanded the remission of land revenue. The ‘revenue code’ provided for a total remission if the crops were less than twenty five per cent of the normal production. Two Bombay barristers, V.J. Patel and G.K. Parakh made the enquiries and reached the conclusion that a major portion of the crop was damaged. But the government did not agree with their findings. After enquiry into the state of the crop in Kheda the Collector decided that there was no justification for the remission of land revenue. The official contention was that the agitation was not a spontaneous expression of the peasant discontent but was started by outsiders or members of the Home Rule League and Gujarat Sabha of which Gandhi was the president at that time. The truth was that initiative for the agitation against payment of revenue came neither from Gandhi nor from the other Ahmedabad politicians; it was raised by local village leaders like Mohanlal Pandya of Kapadvanj taluka in Kheda.

Gandhi maintained that the officials had over-valued the crops and the cultivators were entitled to a suspension of revenue as a legal right and not as a concession by grace. After a lot of hesitation he decided to launch a Satyagraha movement on 22 March 1918. He inaugurated the Satyagraha at a meeting in Nadiad, and urged the peasants not to pay their land revenue. He toured villages and gave moral support to the peasants in refusing to pay revenue, and to expel their fear of the government authority.

Gandhi was also assisted in this struggle by Indulal Yajnik, Vallabhbhai Patel and Anasuya Sarabhai. The Satyagraha reached at its peak by 21 April when 2337 peasants pledged not to pay revenue. Most of the Patidars took part in this Satyagraha. Some poorer peasants were coerced by the government into paying the revenue. Moreover a good Rabi crop had weakened the case for remission. Gandhi began to realize that peasantry was on the verge of exhaustion. He decided to call off the agitation when the government issued instructions that land revenue should be recovered from only those who had the capacity to pay and no pressure should be exerted on the genuinely poor peasants. This agitation did not have a uniform effect on the area. Only 70 villages out of 559 in Kheda were actually involved in it and it was called off after a token concession. But this agitation certainly helped Gandhi in broadening his social base in the rural Gujarat.

Ahmedabad Mill Strike

Gandhi organised the third campaign in Ahmedabad where he intervened in a dispute between the mill owners and workers. Ahmedabad was becoming the leading industrial town in Gujarat. But the mill owners often faced scarcity of labour and they had to pay high wages to attract enough hands. In 1917 plague outbreak made labour shortage more acute because it drove many workers away from Ahmedabad to the countryside. To dissuade the workers from leaving the town the millowners decided to pay ‘Plague Bonus’ which was sometimes as high as 75% of the normal wages of the workers. After the epidemic was over, the millowners decided to discontinue the Plague Bonus. But the workers opposed the employers’ move and argued that it was helping them to offset the war time rise in the cost of living. The millowners were prepared to give 20% increase but the workers were demanding a 50% raise in the wages in view of the price hike.

Gandhi was kept informed about the working conditions in Ahmedabad mills by one of the secretaries of the Gujarat Sabha. Gandhi knew Ambalal Sarabhai, a mill owner, as the latter had finacially helped Gandhi’s Ashram.  Moreover, Ambalal’s sister Anasuya Sarabhai had reverence for Gandhi. Gandhi discussed the workers’ problems with Ambalal Sarabhai and decided to intervene in the dispute. Both workers and mill owners agreed to refer the issue to a board of arbitration consisting of three representatives of the employers and three of the workers with the British Collector as Chairman. Gandhi was included in the board as representing the workers. But, suddenly the millowners decided to withdraw from the board on the ground that Gandhi had no real authority or mandate from the workers, and that there was no guarantee that workers would accept the arbitration award. They declared the lockout of the Mills from 22 February 1918.

In such a situation, Gandhi decided to study the whole situation in detail. He went through a mass of data concerning the financial state of the mills and compared their wage rates with those of Bombay. Finally he came to the conclusion that the workers should demand 35% instead of 50% increase in their wages. Gandhi began the Satyagraha movement against the millowners. The workers were asked to take a pledge stating that they would not resume work without 35% increase and that they would remain law abiding during the lockout. Gandhi, assisted by Anasuya Sarabhai organised daily mass meetings of workers, in which he delivered lectures and issued a series of leaflets on the situation.

The millowners ended the lockout on 12 March and announced that they would take back the workers who were willing to accept 20% increase. On the other hand, Gandhi announced on 15 March that he would undertake a fast until a settlement was reached. Gandhi’s objective was to rally the workers who were thinking of joining the mills despite their pledge. The fast created tremendous excitement in Ahmedabad and the millowners were compelled to negotiate. A settlement was reached on 18 March. According to this agreement, the workers on their first day would receive 35% raise, in keeping with their pledge. On the second day, they would get 20% increase, offered by the millowners. From the third day until the date of an award by an arbitrator, they would split the difference and receive 27-1\2% increase. Finally the arbitrator’s award went in favour of the workers and 35% raise was given to them.

Gandhi began his journey from South Africa. He fought for the rights of Indians staying in South Africa. He showed his organizing capacity for larger interest of the people. He created impression as a miraculous worker and savior. It aroused the hopes of the people. It helped him gain acceptance.

In South Africa he did experiments of his ideas and methods. It was phase of evolution and implemetation of his ideas and political methods. The success of all his experiments filled public faith in him.

When he entered into India, there was disillusionment among the people. People were facing various ups and down in ongoing National movement. There were different groups and parties working but failing to come to public expectation. There was leadership vacuum in the country. Both moderates and extremist have lost public faith. Home rule movement did not sustain, and revolutionaries too lost somewhere. Gandhi had character to capitalize such situations.

Gandhi could capitalize Pan India forum named Indian National congress. The congress party already had many achievements in his credit. It had already long anti imperialist struggle in her credit.

Gandhi started his political career with smaller Satyagraha E.g. Champaran, Ahmedabad and Kheda Satyagraha. The success of these Satyagraha popularized Gandhian ideology and people developed faith in him.

Gandhi identified himself with masses. His ideas were not new to masses. Non-violence, Celebacy, etc were already part of Indian thinking. He associated himself with public through his simple dress, language, foods and thought.

The Novelty of his methods also raised his stature. His methods like Satyagraha, marches, civil disobedience etc. were intelligible to common man. The efficacy of his methods were age old proved.

He adopted comprehensive political outlook. His programme included Hindu Muslim unity, communal harmony, upliftment of Harijans and emancipation of women etc.

The Rowlatt satyagrapha

During the years 1917 and 1918 Gandhi took little interest in all-India issues. He protested against internment of Annie Besant, and also demanded the release of Ali brothers (Mohamed Ali and Shaukat Ali) who were actively associated with the Khilafat issue. Unlike other political leaders of the time he did not take active interest in the Reform proposals. But it was the British decision to pass ‘Rowlatt Act’ which forced him to plunge into national politics in a forceful manner.

Rowlatt act

In 1917 the Government of India had appointed a committee under the chairmanship of Justice Sydney Rowlatt to investigate “revolutionary crime” in the country and to recommended legislation for its suppression. After a review of the situation, the Rowlatt committee proposed a series of changes in the machinery of law to enable the British government to deal effectively with the revolutionary activities. In the light of these recommendations the Government of India drafted two bills and presented them to the Imperial Legislative Council on 6 February 1919. The government maintained that the bills were ‘temporary measures’ which aimed at preventing ‘seditious crimes’.

The new bills attempted to make war-time restrictions permanent. They provided trial of offences by a special court consisting of three high court judges. There was no provision of appeal against the decision of this court which could meet in camera and take into consideration evidence not admissible under the Indian Evidence Act. The bill also proposed to give authority to the government to search a place and arrest a person without a warrant. Detention without a trial for maximum period of two years was also provided in the bills. The bills were regarded by nationalist leaders as an effort to conciliate a section of official and non-official white opinion which had resented Montague’s Reform proposals.

There was widespread condemnation of the bills in the whole country. Gandhi also launched his campaign against the bills. He said that the proposed powers were out of all proportion to the danger, particularly when the Viceroy possessed emergency powers of legislation by ordinance. He also stated that they were instruments of distrust and repression. Moreover, he opposed not just the content of the bills, but also the manner in which they were enacted in the country without regard to public opinion. He formed a Satyagraha Sabha on 24th February 1919 in Bombay to protest against the Rowlatt Bills. Its members signed a pledge proclaiming their determination “to refuse civilly to obey these laws (i.e., the Rowlatt Bills) and such other laws as a committee hitherto appointed may think fit and we (members) further affirm that in this struggle we will faithfully follow truth and refrain from violence to life, person or property.” While launching the Satyagraha agitation against the Rowlatt bills Gandhi said: “It is my firm belief that we shall obtain salvation only through suffering and not by reforms dropping on us from the English-they use brute force, we soul force.”

Despite strong opposition in the whole country the government remained firm. The Council passed one of the bills, though all the non-official members voted against it. The Viceroy gave assent to the bill on March 21, 1919. A group of liberals like Sir D.E. Wacha, Surendranath Banerjee, T.B. Sapru and Srinivas Shastri opposed Gandhi’s move of starting Satyagraha. Their reason for opposing the Satyagraha was that it would hamper the Reforms. Some of them also felt that the ordinary citizen would find it difficult to civilly disobey the Act. Annie Besant also condemned the Satyagraha on the grounds that there was nothing in the Act to resist civilly, and that to break laws at the dictate of others was exceedingly dangerous. But the younger and radical elements of Annie Besant’s Home Rule League supported Gandhi. They formed the main cadre of Satyagraha movement in different parts of the country. In organising this Satyagraha, Gandhi was also assisted by certain Pan-Islamic Leaders, particularly Abdul Bari of Firangi Mahal Ulema group at Lucknow, and some radical members of the Muslim League like M.A. Jinnah also opposed the Rowlatt Bill vehemently and warned the Government of the dangerous consequences if the government persisted in clamping on the people of India the “lawless law”.

Gandhi inaugurated his Satyagraha by calling upon the countrymen to observe a day of ‘hartal’ when business should be suspended and people should fast and pray as a protest against the Rowlatt Act. The date for the ‘hartal’ was fixed for 30th March but it was changed to April 6th. The success of hartal varied considerably between regions and between towns and the countryside. In Delhi a hartal was observed on 30th March and ten people were killed in police firing. Almost in all major towns of the country the hartal was observed on the 6th April and the people responded enthusiastically. Gandhi described the hartal a ‘magnificent success. Gandhi intensified the agitation on 7th April by advising the satyagrahis to disobey the laws dealing with prohibited literature and the registration of newspapers. These particular laws were selected because disobedience was possible for an individual without leading to violence. Four books including Hind Swaraj of Gandhi, which were prohibited by Bombay Government in 1910 were chosen for sale as an action of defiance against the government.

Gandhi left Bombay on the 8th to promote the Satyagraha agitation in Delhi and Punjab But, as his entry in Punjab was considered dangerous by the government, so Gandhi was removed from the train in which he was travelling at Palwal near Delhi and was taken back to Bombay. The news of Gandhi’s arrest precipitated the crisis. The situation became tense in Bombay and violence broke out in Ahmedabad and Virangam. In Ahmedabad the government enforced martial law.

The Punjab region as a whole and Amritsar, in particular, witnessed the worst scenes of violence. In Amritsar, the news of Gandhi’s arrest coincided with the arrest of two local leaders Dr. Kitchlew and Dr. Satyapal on 10th April. This led to mob violence and government buildings were set on fire, five Englishmen were murdered, and a woman assaulted. The civil authority lost its control of the city. On 13th April, General Dyer ordered his troops to fire on a peaceful unarmed crowd assembled at Jallianwala Bagh. Most of the people were not aware of the ban on meetings, and they were shot without the slightest warning by General Dyer who later on said that it was no longer a question of merely dispersing the crowd, but one of ‘producing a moral effect.’ According to official figures, 379 persons were killed but the unofficial accounts gave much higher figures.

Importance

The whole agitation against the Rowlatt Act shows that it was not properly organised. The Satyagraha Sabha concentrated mainly on publishing propaganda literature and collecting signatures on the Satyagraha pledge. The Congress as an organisation was hardly in the picture at all. In most of the areas people participated because of their own social and economic grievances against the British rule.

Gandhi’s Rowlatt Act Satyagraha provided a rallying point to the people belonging to different sections and communities. This aspect of the movement is quite evident from the massive participation of the people in Punjab which Gandhi had not even visited before the movement. Broadly speaking, the movement was intense in cities than in rural areas.

On 18th April Gandhi decided to call off the Satyagraha because of the widespread violence particularly in his home state in Ahmedabad city. He confessed publically that he committed a ‘Himalayan blunder’ by offering civil disobedience to people who were insufficiently prepared for the discipline of Satyagraha. The most significant result of this agitation was the emergence of Gandhi as an all India leader. His position became almost supreme in the Indian national movement and he began to exercise decisive influence on the deliberation of the Congress. At Amritsar session of the Congress in 1919 Gandhi proposed that the Indians should cooperate in the working of Reforms despite some inadequacies. But in September 1920 Gandhi reversed his policy of cooperation and decided to launch the Non-Cooperation Movement.

The gandhian ideology

Before we discuss Gandhi’s ideology it is necessary to mention that there were a number of influences which worked on Gandhi and helped him in evolving his philosophy. His autobiography makes it clear that the outlook of his parents and the socio-religious millieu of his native place left a profound influence on him. In particular, the values of Vaishnavism and the tradition of Jainism shaped his early thoughts. Moreover, some Hindu texts like the Bhagavata Gita also influenced him. The Gospels (especially the Sermon on the Mount) and the writings of Tolstoy, Thoreau and Ruskin also greatly influenced his thinking. Gandhi was primarily a man of action and his own experiences in life helped him more than his readings in evolving and shaping his ideology.

Satyagraha

The chief aspect of Gandhi’s ideology was Satyagraha i.e. ‘force of truth’. As mentioned earlier, it was evolved by Gandhi in South Africa but after it had been fully developed it became a dominant element in India’s struggle for freedom from 1919 onwards. For Gandhi, the Satyagraha was to be used so that by self suffering and not by violence the enemy could be converted to one’s own view. P. Sitaramayya aptly explains Satyagraha as follows:

It involves self-chosen suffering and humiliation for the resisters. If it is effective, it is so by working on the conscience of those against whom it is being used, sapping their confidence in the exclusive rightness of their cause making their physical strength important, and weakening their resolution by insinuating a sense of guilt for the suffering they have part in causing.

Gandhi made a distinction between the Satyagraha and passive resistance, when he wrote:

The latter (passive resistance) has been conceived as a weapon of the weak and does not exclude the use of physical force or violence for the purpose of gaining one’s end; whereas the former (Satyagraha) has been conceived as a weapon of the strongest, and excludes the use of violence in any shape.

In fact, for Gandhi, Satyagraha was not merely a political tactic but part of a total philosophy of life and ideology of action. Gandhi believed that the search for truth was the goal of human life. Since no one could know the ultimate Truth one should never attack another’s integrity or prevent another’s search for truth.

Non-violence

Non-Violence formed the basis of Satyagraha. Gandhi wrote:

When a person claims to be non-violent he is expected not to be angry with one who has injured him. He will not wish him harm; he will wish him well; he will not swear at him; he will not cause him any physical hurt. He will put up with all the injury to which is subjected by the wrong doer. Thus non violence is complete innocence. Complete Non-Violence is complete absence of ill will against all that lives.

Gandhi emphasised that non-violent Satyagraha could be practised by common people for achieving political ends. But some time Gandhi took a position which fell short of complete non-violence. His repeated insistence that even violence as preferable to a cowardly surrender to injustice sometimes created a delicate problem of interpretation.

In 1918 Gandhi campaigned for military recruitment in the hope of winning concessions from the British government after the war which can not be easily reconciled with the doctrine of non-violence.

In practice, Satyagraha could assume various forms-fasting, non-violent picketing, different types of non-cooperation and ultimately in politics, civil disobedience in willing anticipation of the legal penalty. Gandhi firmly believed that all these forms of Satyagraha were pure means to achieve pure ends. Gandhi’s critics sometime take the view that through the technique of Satyagraha, Gandhi succeeded in controlling the mass movements from above. The dominant section in the peasantry and the business groups also found the Gandhian non-violent model convenient because they feared to lose if political struggle turned into uninhibited and violent social revolution. On the whole, the use of Satyagraha by Gandhi and the Congress in national movement brought different sections and classes of society together against the British rule.

Trusteeship

Trusteeship is a socio-economic philosophy that was propounded by Mahatma Gandhi.He believed that the rich people could be persuaded to part with their wealth to help the poor. Putting it in Gandhiji's words "Supposing I have come by a fair amount of wealth – either by way of legacy, or by means of trade and industry – I must know that all that wealth does not belong to me; what belongs to me is the right to an honourable livelihood, no better than that enjoyed by millions of others."  This concept was condemned by socialists as being in favour of the landlords, feudal princes and the capitalists.

Religion

Another important aspect of Gandhi’s ideology was his attitude towards religion. Religion for Gandhi was not a doctrinal formulation of any religious system but a basic truth underlying all formal religions. Gandhi described religion as the struggle for Truth. His conviction was that religion could not be relegated to the realm of private opinion but must influence and permeate all activities of men. He was convinced that religion provided the fundamental basis for political action in India. This makes easy for us to explain that Gandhi took the Khilafat issue of the Muslims with a view to bringing them in the movement against the British government. Gandhi also used the religious idiom through concepts like ‘Ram Raj’ to mobilize people in the national movement. However, it cannot be denied that this use of religious idiom prevented Gandhi and the national movement under his leadership from giving effective challenge to a major category of division among the Indian people which can cause a fissure in our national unity in periods of crisis and strain, and tended to push into the background their internal differences and conflicts.

Hind swaraj

The other important feature of Gandhian thought was the body of ideas which he illustrated in his book ‘Hind Swaraj’ (1909). In this work, Gandhi pointed out that the real enemy was not the British political domination but the modern western civilization which was luring India into it’s stranglehold. He believed that the Indians educated in western style, particularly lawyers, doctors, teachers and industrialists, were undermining India’s ancient heritage by insidiously spreading modern ways. He criticised railways as they had spread plague and produced famines by encouraging the export of food grains. Here he saw Swaraj or self rule as a state of life which could only exist where Indians followed their traditional civilization uncorrupted by modern civilization. Gandhi wrote:

Indian’s salvation consists in unlearning what she has learnt during the past 50 years or so. The Railways, telegraphs, hospitals, lawyers, doctors and such like have to go and the so-called upper classes have to learn to live consciously and religiously and deliberately the simple life of peasant.

These ideas certainly look utopian and obscurantist in the context of the early twentieth century. But it seems that his ideas reflected adverse effects of ‘modernization’ under the colonial rule on the artisans and poor peasantry in the countryside.

Later on, Gandhi tried to give concrete shape to his social and economic ideas by taking up the programme of Khadi, village reconstruction and Harijan welfare (which included the removal of untouchability). It is true that these efforts of Gandhi could not completely solve the problem of the rural people, but it cannot be denied that this programme of Gandhi succeeded in improving their conditions to a certain extent and making the whole country conscious of the new need for its social and economic reconstruction.

Swadeshi

Gandhi advocated swadeshi which meant the use of things belonging to one’s own country, particularly stressing the replacement of foreign machine made goods with Indian hand made cloth. This was his solution to the poverty of peasants who could spin at home to supplement their income and his cure for the drain of money of England in payment for imported cloth. It is interesting to find that despite his pronounced opposition to the influences of Western Industrial civilization Gandhi did not take a hostile view towards emerging modern industries in India. As noticed earlier, Gandhi had close relations with industrialists like Ambalal Sarabhai. Another noted industrialist G.D. Birla was his close associate after 1922. Gandhi believed in the interdependence of capital and labour and advocated the concept of capitalists being ‘trustees’ for the workers. In fact, Gandhi never encouraged politicization of the workers on class lines and openly abhorred militant economic struggles. As a matter of fact, all the major elements of Gandhi’s ideology are based on a distrust of conflict in the notion of class interests. Gandhi always emphasised the broad unity that can and must be achieved on the basis of a larger objective among people divided on account of class of any other category.

Constructive Works Programmes of Gandhi

Constructive works programme of Gandhi was essentially a comprehensive socio Economic programme. These programmes were part of Gandhian Nationalistic political struggle as well. His programme represents issue like social service, social reforms and Economic reconstructions.

Component of constructive work programme

I.          Hindu Muslim unity.

II.         Harijan upliftment

III.        Emancipation of women

IV.        National Education              

V.         Promotion of Khadi

VI.        Promotion of Village Industry

Relevancy in context of Gandhian leadership

The constructive work programme made Gandhian leadership more comprehensive. His political struggle was no longer associated with political issues only and was closely associated with the socio-economic issues facing country. These played vital role in popularizing Gandhian ideas and philosophy and earned him the support of the masses in the National Movement.

Relevancy in context of national movement

Constructive works Programme played crucial role

I.          During passive phase of National movement.

II.         In filing the political void and sustained the sense of political activism.

III.        In overcoming desperation and disillusionment of people.

IV.        In providing alternative for participation in nationalistic struggle.

V.         Expanded social base of National movement. It attracted many new groups into National Movement.

VI.        Strengthened secular ideas among general public.

VII.       Established links between urban and rural areas. It established organizational links between peoples of different areas.

VIII.      Filled the sense of confidence among people. It especially filled sense of confidence among Harijans and women. They began to come into national mainstream.

Gandhi and dalit emancipation

He founded “All India untouchable league” which later got renamed as “Harijan Sevak Sangh” in 1932. He also started one journal named “Harijan” for propagation of his ideas. Gandhian Harijan works or programme for dalit emancipation was part of his constructive works programmes. He played vital role as a social reformer, motivated entire national movement for upliftment of down trodden section of society. He successfully linked political struggle with social struggle. He advocated that without social democracy, political democracy was meaningless. He associated his works mainly with issues like.

End of oppression and exploitation.

Spread of education among down trodden section of society.

He secured religious rights of the people through his temple entry movement.

He secured right of Harijans to use public well, road & tank etc.

Gandhi had very cautious approach in dalit affairs. He avoided politicization of issue of Harijans. He did not project them as collective political entity. Gandhi was not votary of social revolution. He was not to change fundamental structure of society. He advocated reforming the evils of society that too gradually. He played instrumental role in opening schools and vocational training institute. He founded many housing societies, cooperative credit society, for Harijans. He also influenced working of congress ministries favouring Harijans.

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.

SIMON COMMISSION

Under section 84 of the Government of India Act, 1919, a statutory commission was to be appointed in 1929 to inquire into ‘the working of the system of government, and the development of representative institutions in India, with a view to extend, modify or restrict the degree of Responsible Government then existing in India.

The all-white commission was appointed in Nov, 1927, two years before it was due. It consisted of seven members of the British Parliament, with Sir Simon as its chairman. The Government claimed that it anticipated the setting up of the commission as a concession to the Indian demand for an early revision of the Constitution. Two other explanations are offered, which are not so laudable. One is that India had gone through the worst communal riots in 1927, and the Government desired the Commission to form a poor impression of the Indian social and political situation. Another is that general elections were due in England in 1929. The Conservatives, then in Government, feared that the Labour party would come into power, and a commission appointed by Labour might not safeguard the imperial interests to the same extent as the Conservatives.

Indians protested the appointment of the commission because all its members were Englishmen; no Indian was included. The commission implied denial to Indians of the right to participate in determination of the Constitution while Britain posed as the sole arbitrator of India’s destiny.

The Congress party opposed the commission at every stage. When the commission landed in Bombay on 7 February 1926, it was greeted with a country-wide hartal. Wherever it went, the commission was confronted with demonstrations, black flags and slogans of ‘Simon, go back’. In Lahore, Lajpat Rai led a mammoth demonstration against the commission. He was beaten up by the police, which resulted in his death some weeks later. The police oppression further angered the people.

It was in this atmosphere of non-compromising hostility that the commission continued and completed its inquiry and submitted its report.

Provisions of the report (on March 30, 1930)

1.    A strong and stable government at the centre was essential, ‘while the Provincial Councils were learning by experience to bear the full weight of new and heavy responsibilities’.

2.    The existing unitary type of government was unsuitable for India.

3.    The power of India Council was to be limited.

4.    The central legislature was to be enlarged and elected by the Provincial Councils.

5.    The method of indirect election, through the Provincial Councils, was recommended for both houses of the central legislature.

6.    Dyarchy was inherently defective. It needed to be scrapped. The whole provincial administration needed to be entrusted to ministers responsible to the legislature.

7.    For some specific purposes like the maintenance of peace and tranquility of a Province and the protection of the legitimate interest of the ministry, safeguards were necessary.

8.    The method of periodical parliamentary inquiry needed to be abandoned, and the new Constitution needed to be so elastically framed as to enable it to develop by itself.

9.    To help the growth of people’s political consciousness ‘franchise should be extended, and the legislature enlarged’.

10.  Burma was to be separated from India and Sind from the Bombay Presidency.

Appraisal

The wholly irresponsible Central Government and the indirect election to the central legislature were retrograde recommendations.

Most recommendations of the commission found a place in the subsequent Act of 1935.The safeguards against full responsible government in the Provinces that were enacted in 1939 turned out to be even worse than what the commission had recommended.The commission failed to mention the future goal of India’s dominion status, which was resented in India.

Nehru report and Jinnah’s fourteen points

The demand for swaraj had been mounting. To counter this demand, the Conservative Secretary of State for India, Birkenhead, threw a challenge to the Indian leaders to produce a Constitution. The Congress decided to meet this challenge and at the Madras Congress (Feb, 1927), a committee was constituted, with Motilal Nehru as the president, to frame a Constitution of India. The Nehru Report, which was accordingly drawn up, was approved by the All Parties Conference in August 1928 at Lucknow.

Recommendations

Acceptance of adult franchise, joint electorates with reservation of seats in some areas only for a ten year period, accountability of the Executive to the Legislature and provincial autonomy were some of the features of the Nehru Report. Other main recommendations were:

1.    India was to remain within the empire, with dominion status.

2.    A responsible government was to be established.

3.    The fundamental rights of speech and association of citizens were to be guaranteed.

4.    The House of the People was to consist of 500 members chosen on the basis of adult franchise.

5.    The Upper House (or Senate) was to consist of 200 members chosen by the Provincial Assemblies or Councils.

6.    The principle of separate electorate was not accepted except to a limited extent.

Comparison with Simon Commission Report

1.    The Nehru Report accepted dominion status and responsible government. The Simon report recommended an irresponsible centre, but limited responsible government at the provincial level.

2.    The Nehru Report accepted adult franchise. The Simon report rejected it.

3.    The Nehru Report provided only for the reservation of seats. The Simon report retained the provisions of separate electorate.

4.    The Nehru Report provided for the fundamental rights of the citizen and a Supreme Court. The Simon report was silent on both.

Reactions

The Nehru Report convincingly demonstrated Indian legal and political expertise. It marked an important advance in the direction of Constitution making.

However, even within the Congress leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru and Subhash Chandra Bose were dissatisfied with the Nehru Report. Mainly, they were not satisfied with the demand of mere dominion status.

Though the All Parties Conference at Lucknow had accepted the report, the Muslim League later opposed it. Its demands wee elaborated by Jinnah in the form of an amendment at the representative convention of Calcutta (22 December 1928), which reviewed the report. The amendments proposed were as follows:

1.    The Muslims should have one-third representation in the Central Legislature.

2.    The Punjab and Bengal legislatures should have Muslim representation on the basis of population for ten years in the event of adult suffrage not being granted.

3.    Residuary powers should be vested in the Provinces and not in the Centre.

The League later repudiated the report. Its meeting at Delhi (28 March 1929) elaborated the minimum Muslim demands in the form of ‘the fourteen points’. There were:

1.    The form of the future Constitution of India should be federal with residuary powers vested in the Provinces.

2.    A uniform measure of autonomy should be granted to all Provinces.

3.    All legislatures in the country and other elected bodies shall be constituted on the definite principle of adequate and effective representation of minorities in every Province without reducing the majority in any Province to a minority or even equality.

4.    In the Central Legislature, Muslim representation shall not be less than one-third.

5.    Representation of communal groups shall continue to be by means of separate electorates as at present.

6.    Any territorial redistribution that might any time be necessary shall not in any way affect the Muslim majority in the Punjab, Bengal and NWFP.

7.    Full Religious liberty, i.e. liberty of belief, worship and observance, propaganda, association and education shall be guaranteed to all communities.

8.    No bill or resolution shall be passed in any legislature if three-fourth members of any community in that particular body oppose such a bill as injurious to that community.

9.    Sind shall be separated from the Bombay Presidency.

10. Reforms should be introduced in the NWFP and Baluchistan on the same footing as in the other Province.

11. Provision should be made in the Constitution for giving the Muslims adequate share in all services and in local self-governing bodies.

12. The Constitution should embody adequate safeguards for the protection of Muslim culture, education, language, religion, etc.

13. No Cabinet, Central or provincial, should be formed without there being a proportion of at least one-third Muslim members.

14.  No change shall be made in the Constitution by the Central Legislature except with the concurrence of the states constituting the Indian federation.

CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE

Under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi the Congress emerged as a great nationalist forum of all shades and opinions voicing anti-imperialist sentiments. During Gandhi’s first Civil Disobedience movement (1920-22), its roots spread out among all classes of people. The formal acceptance of Swaraj as the goal of the Congress really converted Non-Cooperation into a mass movement. Gandhi’s catchy slogan ‘Swaraj in one year’ stirred the masses into action. The suspension of Non-Cooperation in February, 1922 created widespread disappointment and precipitated an open division in the leadership of the Congress. The Government took advantage of the situation to take resort to a policy of repression. It invoked Bengal Regulation III of 1816 and promulgated an ordinance providing for summary arrest and trial before special commissioners. The British Prime Minister, Lloyd George, delivered his ‘steel frame’ speech, praising the work and efficiency of the I.C.S. cadre. This was in tune with the shift in policy which virtually repudiated the principles of self-government and strengthened the autocratic British regime.

A sense of disillusionment led many at this stage to question the efficacy of Gandhian methods of struggle. Was it at all possible to train millions of people in the philosophy of non-violence? Even if it was possible, how long would it take? Gandhi was now behind the bars and there was no definite political programme before the country. The Hindu-Muslim unity was fast disappearing. Acute Hindu-Muslim tensions and outbreak of communal violence dissipated national energies. The Constructive Work of the Congress, an essentially socio-economic programme of amelioration, could not attract the upper middle class intellectuals. They had never appreciated Gandhi’s emotional and metaphysical approach to politics. They looked at politics from the plane of reality, and were keen to rescue the Congress and its politics from the demoralisation that had set in after the withdrawal of Non-Cooperation.

Background

1.    The abrupt withdrawal of the Non-Cooperation Movement by Gandhi after the Chauri Chaura incident of February 1922 had demoralising effect on many Congress leaders and led to a sharp decline in the national movement. The All India Congress membership went down to 106,000 in March 1923, and was only 56,000 in May 1929.

2.    The Swarajist programme of wrecking dyarchy from within petered out into council and municipal politicking. The ‘No Changer’ group which emphasised upon Gandhian Constructive Work in villages remained scattered and kept themselves aloof from the political developments.

3.    The remarkable Hindu-Muslim unity of the Non-Cooperation Khilafat days dissolved into widespread communal riots in the mid-1920s. For example, there was a violent anti-Hindu outburst at Kohat in the N.W. Frontier Province in September 1924. Three waves of riots in Calcutta between April and July 1926 killed about 138 people. In the same year there were communal disturbances in Dacca, Patna, Rawalpindi, Delhi and United Provinces. Communal organizations proliferated with Hindu Sabhas and Swarajists often having virtually identical membership in some places. Negotiations with Jinnah over the Nehru Report plan for an alternative constitution broke down in 1927-28 largely because of Hindu Mahasabha opposition and Jinnah’s obstinacy in relation to it.

 There were many signs of the growth of anti imperialist movement from 1928 onwards.

 These signs were visible in:

1.    Demonstration and hartals in town in the course of the boycott of the Simon Commission.

2.    Militant communist led workers’ movement in Bombay and Calcutta which alarmed Indian businessmen and British officials and capitalists alike,

3.    The revival of revolutionary groups in Bengal and Northern India (like HSRA introducing a new secular and socialistic tone).

4.    Peasant movements in various regions, particularly the successful Bardoli Satyagraha led by Vallabhbhai Patel in Gujarat in 1928 against the enhancement of land revenue.

5.    Contradictions were enormously sharpened by the impact of the World Depression which set in from late 1929. Business groups were not happy with the British tariff policy. Lancashire textile imports were going up again, and there were growing conflicts in Calcutta between the Birlas and British Jute interests and in Bombay over coastal shipping. The workers facing large scale retrenchment started agitations with unprecedented militancy and organization. Rural tensions were sharpened by stagnation in agrarian production and by British efforts to enhance land revenue in Ryotwari areas in the late 1920s till the Bardoli victory halted such endeavours permanently. But socio-economic tensions did not necessarily or automatically take an anti British turn, for the immediate oppressors would most often be Indian Zamindars, moneylenders, or millowners, groups which could have nationalist connections, or which nationalists generally tried to keep on their side. Yet a massive country wide upsurge did take place in 1930.

6.    During this period when the Congress Left was emerging, under Jawaharlal Nehru and Subhash Bose slogans of Purna Swaraj rather than of only Dominion Status were voiced.  After much hesitation, Gandhi accepted this change in Congress creed at the Lahore session in December 1929, setting the stage for the next major round of countrywide struggle in 1930-34.

Throughout 1928 and 1929 we find that political and economic tensions between British domination and a variety of Indian interests increased.

The Lahore Congress (1929) had left the choice of the precise methods of non-violent struggle for Purna Swaraj to Gandhi. It was resolved that a Manifesto or pledge of Independence would be taken all over India by as many people as possible on 26 January 1930. On this date civil disobedience was supposed to commence. It was declared as Independence Day.

Gandhi’s efforts

Gandhi was still not sure of his plan of action. Before launching the movement he once again tried for compromise with the Government. He placed ‘eleven points’ of administrative reform and stated that if Lord Irwin accepted them there would be no need for agitation. The important demands were:

1)   The Rupee-Sterling ratio should be reduced

2)   Land revenue should be reduced by half and made a subject of legislative control,

3)   Salt tax should be abolished and also the government salt monopoly

4)   Salaries of the highest grade services should be reduced by half

5)   Military expenditure should be reduced by 50% to begin with

6)   Protection for Indian textiles and coastal shipping

7)   All political prisoners should be discharged.

8)   Total Prohibition of intoxicants

9)    Doing away with services of CID

10) Freedom to keep arms to citizens for self protection

11) Protective policy for the foreign cloth

To many observers this charter of demands seemed a climb-down from Purna Swaraj. But Gandhi cleared any doubts by highlighting that if all the demands were accepted by the British, their rule in India will no longer be profitable and they would be forced to quit. The Government response to Gandhi’s proposal was negative.

Beginning of the movement

Gandhi took the decision to start the movement on 12 March 1930 by starting the Historic March from his Sabarmati Ashram to Dandi beach accompanied by his 78 selected followers. There Gandhi and his followers broke the law by manufacturing salt from the sea. The Programme of the movement was as follows:

a)   Salt law should be violated everywhere.

b)   Students should leave colleges and government servants should resign from service.

c)   Foreign clothes should be burnt.

d)   No taxes should be paid to the government.

e)   Women should stage a Dharna at liquor shops, etc.

The choice of salt as the central issue appeared puzzling initially. Events quickly revealed the enormous potentialities of this choice. “You planned a fine strategy around the issue of salt” Irwin later admitted to Gandhi. Salt was a concrete and a universal grievance of the rural poor, which was almost unique in having no socially divisive implications. With regard to food habits salt was a daily necessity of the people. It also carried with it the implications of trust, hospitality, mutual obligations. In this sense it had a far-reaching emotional content. Moreover the breaking of the salt law meant a rejection of the Government’s claims on the allegiance of the people. In coastal areas where over the previous century indigenous salt production had been ruined by British imports, illegal manufacture of salt could provide the people a small income which was not unimportant. The manufacture of salt also became a part of Gandhian methods of constructive work like Khadi production. Rural Gandhian bases everywhere provided the initial volunteers for the salt Satyagraha. Above all, the Dandi March and the subsequent countrywide violation of the salt law provided a tremendously impressive demonstration of the power of non-violent mass struggle.

What came to be undermined were the entire moral authority of the government and its self-image of being the paternalistic guardian of the poor. An additional District Magistrate reported from Midnapur (Bengal) in November 1930 that even old villagers were talking “insolently - the ordinary cultivator simply squatted on his haunches and laughing sarcastically said, ‘We know how powerful the Sarkar is”

Movement spreads

Social boycott of police and lower-level administrative officials led to many resignations. That the British realized the gravity of the threat was revealed by the sheer brutality of repression, as “unresisting men - (were) methodically bashed into a bloody pulp”, in the words of the American journalist Webb Miller. But the spectacle of unarmed, unresisting satyagrahis standing up to abominable torture aroused local sympathy and respect as nothing else could have done. The brutal repression invoked memories of innumerable acts of petty oppression by police and local officials, linking up the all India struggle with the lived day-to-day experiences of the villagers. Sympathy quickly turned into participation, spreading the movement far beyond the fairly narrow confines. And such participation often took violent forms, with crowds of villagers attacking police parties. The Gandhian restraints had been weakened, anyway, by the early removal of most of the Congress cadres by arrests.

While the salt Satyagraha was at its height, British alarm was depended by three major outbursts, outside or going beyond the confines of Gandhi’s Civil Disobedience.

i)     On 18 April 1930, Bengal revolutionaries inaugurated the most powerful and heroic epoch in the history of the terrorist movement by seizing the Chittagong armoury and fighting a pitched battle on Jalalabad hill on 22 April. Revolutionary terrorism accompanied the whole history of Civil Disobedience in Bengal, with 56 incidents in 1930 (as compared to 47 for the decade 1919-1929). The Chittagong leader Surya Sen managed to remain underground in villages till as late as 1933, and there was the evidence of a new level of peasant sympathy. For the first time Muslims were also included in what had been a movement of educated middle class Hindu youth alone.

ii)    In Peshawar on 23 April 1930, the arrest of Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan provoked a massive upsurge, and a platoon of Garhwal Rifles (Hindu soldiers facing a Muslim crowd) refused to open fire, an instance of patriotic self-sacrifice, non-violence, and communal unity which deserves to be better remembered.

iii)   The industrial city of Sholapur in Maharashtra in early May 1930 saw a textile workers’ strike, attacks on liquor shops, police outposts and government buildings, and even something like a parallel government for a few days.

The onset of the monsoon made illegal salt manufacture difficult and the Congress switched over to other forms of mass struggle, all characterised by a similar pattern of careful choice of socially non-divisive issues, followed by their broadening and radicalization through a variety of populist initiatives. The Working Committee in May 1930 sanctioned non-payment of land revenue in Ryotwari areas, an anti-choukidari (village police) tax in zamindari regions (not, significantly enough, no-rent), and ‘forest satyagraha’: peaceful violation of forest laws restricting age-old tribal and poor peasant rights to free fodder, timber and other forest produce. The government struck back at no-tax movements through largescale confiscations of property, yet thousands of peasants heroically stood their ground, at times migrating en masse to neighbouring princely states. Rural movements repeatedly went beyond the prescribed Gandhian bounds, through violent confrontations with the police at many places, and massive tribal invasions of forests in Central Provinces, Maharashtra and Karnataka. The rumour spread that the British Raj was coming to an end.

Response of different sections

Urban intelligentsia support for Gandhian nationalism was perhaps less in evidence in 1930 than during the Non-Cooperation Movement and there were few instances of lawyers giving up practice or students leaving official institutions to join national schools. Militant urban educated youth tended to be attracted more by revolutionary terrorism in Bengal, and in north Indian towns Bhagat Singh’s popularity briefly rivaled that of Gandhi himself. The most obvious weak point of nationalism as compared to 1919-22, was of course Muslim participation which remained low on the whole except in Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan’s NWFP and places like Delhi; for example only 9 out of 679 Civil Disobedience prisoners in Allahabad between 1930 and 1933 were Muslims. Social discontent turned communal in Dacca town and Dishoreganj village in May and July 1930, and there were large scale riots in Kanpur in March 1931, soon after the Gandhi-Irwin Pact. Unlike Non-Cooperation, Civil Disobedience did not coincide with any major labour upsurge. There were frequent hartals in towns, but the Congress did not include industrial or communication strikes in its programme, much to the relief of British officials.

Such lags were largely made up by the massive peasant mobilization and considerable support from business groups, at least during the early months of Civil Disobedience. The movement, unlike Non-Cooperation, implied violations of law, arrests, and beatings up right from the beginning, and the number of jail goers was 92,214; more than three times the 1921-22 figures. Support from Ahmedabad mill owners, Bombay merchants and petty traders (industrialists in the city being less enthusiastic), and Calcutta Marwaris headed by GD Birla can be cited as examples of the solidarity of the Capitalists with the national movement at this stage. For example, the merchants in many towns took a collective pledge to give up import of foreign goods for some months. Combined with picketing and the overall impact of the Depression, there was a spectacular collapse of British cloth imports, from 1248 million yards in 1929-30 to only 523 million yards in 1930-31.

A novel and remarkable feature of the Civil Disobedience Movement was the widespread participation of women. The handful of postgraduate women students in 1930s still went to class escorted by their teachers, and yet there were women from far more socially conservative professional, business or peasant families, picketing shops, facing lathis, and going to jail. A U.P. Police official felt that “the Indian woman is struggling for domestic and national liberty at the same time ...’ However, this sudden active role of women in politics did not produce any significant change in the conditions of women in or outside the family. Gandhian non-violence, after all, did not entail any drastic violation of the traditional image of women; rather, it was male action that had in some ways been ‘feminized’, through the emphasis upon self-sacrificing acceptance of suffering. The one form of women’s participation which came to be quite sharply condemned was an active role in direct terrorist action, including assassination as happened several times in Bengal. Even Rabindranath Tagore, usually much in advance of others in questions of women’s roles, then wrote a novel - Char Adhyay (1934) - condemning such ‘unfeminine’ behaviour.

Regional variations

The recent spate of regional studies of Civil Disobedience has brought to light interesting variations and internal tensions. Gurjara - more specifically, Kheda district, Bardoli taluka of Surat, Ahmedabad, and the Gujarati business-cum-professional community of Bombay City - had become the classic heartland of controlled mass mobilization through Gandhian Satyagraha. Gandhian strategies and controls fitted in well with the interests of substantial landholding peasants like Patidars of Kheda and Bardoli, where in the absence of big zamindaris, rent was not much of an issue. Rural movements tended to be more uninhibited where Congress organization was weaker, or where internal zamindar-peasant divisions were quite sharp. Thus in Central Provinces, Maharashtra or Karnataka, where Non-Cooperation had made little inroads, the Gandhian ideas had the flavour and vagueness of novelty, a near millenarian flavour could still be seen which was absent in the well-established strongholds like Gujarat, coastal Andhra or Bihar. In the United Provinces, district level comparisons have brought out clearly this inverse relationship between organization and militancy. Parts of Agra district, with a strong Congress organisation and few big zamindars, followed the Bardoli pattern; talukdar-dominated Rae Baraeli, saw powerful pressures from the peasants. In Bara Banki, where khadi or charka were little in evidence, local activists were preaching that land was a gift of God and could not belong to zamindars alone. In Bengal, with its relatively weak and faction-ridden Congress, a near-coincidence of class with communal divisions in the eastern districts, and the presence already of a left alternative, the pattern was even more complex. There were powerful Gandhian rural movements in parts of West Bengal like Midnapur, Arambagh sub-division, and Bankurata Praja movement was developing among Muslim rich peasants which was aloof or hostile regarding Civil Disobedience; and in one Muslim-majority district, Tippera, Congress activists were combining agrarian radicalism with nationalism in ways branded as ‘rank Bolshevism’ by Government officials and local Hindu landlords.

The truce months, march-december 1931

Around September-October 1930, Civil Disobedience entered a second, more contradictory, phase. Pressures for no-rent were mounting as the Depression began having its major impact, and the UP Congress had to reluctantly sanction non-payment of rent in October. Incidents of poor peasant and tribal militancy and violence multiplied in many areas. At the same time, official reports began speaking of a marked decline of enthusiasm and support among urban traders, many of whom started breaking earlier pledges not to sell imported goods. Thakurdas warned Motilal Nehru that “the capacity of the commercial community for endurance” had reached its limits, and industrialists like Homi Mody denounced the “frequent hartals which dislocated trade and industry”. Possibly the enthusiasm of substantial peasants in the face of ruthless British seizure of property had started flagging too. Almost all leading Congress leaders were put behind bars. This was probably the context for Gandhi’s rather sudden retreat. He initiated talks with Irwin on 14 February 1931, which culminated in the Delhi Pact of 5 March. The pact is popularly called GANDHI-IRWIN PACT. The salient features of this accord were:

i)     The agreement arrived at the First Round Table Conference shall further be deliberated upon in another Round Table Conference.

ii)    Indian National Congress will withdraw the Civil Disobedience Movement immediately and effectively in all respects.

iii)   The boycott of British goods would also be withdrawn forthwith.

iv)  The Government agreed to withdraw ordinances promulgated in relation to the Civil Disobedience Movement. Those political prisoners against whom there were no allegations of violence were to be set free and penalties that had not been realised were to be remitted. Indemnities would be paid to those who had suffered in the movement.

V)   The Government was neither to condone breach of the existing law relating to salt administration nor would the salt Act be amended. Nonetheless, government was to permit the collection and manufacture of salt freely to the people living within a specified area from the sea-shore.

The Congress working committee was divided when it met on 5 March, 1931 to discuss the results of the talks. Many people hailed it as a Victory because the Viceroy had to negotiate a settlement. Others were not happy. Gandhi agreed to attend the Round Table Conference, more or less on British terms, in sharp contrast to his stand uptill the end of January 1931. Even Gandhiji’s request for remitting the death sentence on Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev and Rajguru was turned down by the Viceroy, and they were executed on 23rd March.

The Gandhi-Irwin Pact had ambiguous consequences. Many others besides Nehru felt dismayed by the unexpected halt, long before attaining the proclaimed goal of Purna Swaraj, and peasants who had sacrificed land and goods at the Congress behest must have felt particularly let down. There was even a black flag demonstration against Gandhi when the Karachi Congress opened a few days after the execution of Bhagat Singh. The session, however, ratified the new policy, with Nehru, having spent some sleepless nights, moving the key resolution accepting the Delhi agreement. More fundamentally, it can be argued that the Truce meant the loss of some crucial months during which the Congress restrained no-tax and no-rent movements precisely when rural discontent was at its height, with the Depression having its initial impact, and when sheer economic distress had not as yet ruined the potential for largescale struggle. The Congress did give the call for no-tax again, in January 1932, but by that time the psychological moment had gone.

Gandhi’s entry into the Second Round Table Conference also proved a virtual fiasco. The first Conference, in January 1931, with Civil Disobedience still at large and the Congress boycotting it had been marked by Ramsay MacDonald’s novel offer of responsible government at the centre. But its two characteristics were a Federal assembly on which princes who joined would nominate their own members, and a series of “reservations and safeguards” to maintain British control over defence, external affairs, finance, and economy. Having accepted this as the framework for discussing, Gandhi as sole Congress representative at the second RTC found himself involved in endless squabbles with Muslim leaders, the Scheduled Caste representative Ambedkar who had started demanding separate electorates for untouchables, and princes. The British watched this gleefully. The Congress had clearly been out maneuvered.

Yet the impact of the Pact and truce months was not entirely negative. The British after all, had to negotiate with Gandhi on terms of equality and courtesy for the first time, and this was something deeply resented by many died-hard officials. The released Congressmen seem to have gone back to their villages and towns with undiminished confidence, almost as victors. The Congress organization expanded rapidly in the countryside, and the general mood was quite different from the fragmentation and decline after 1922. The Congress in fact was seeking to establish itself as the alternative, more legitimate centre of authority, starting arbitration courts to settle local disputes, and trying to mediate in zamindar raiyat conflicts. Meanwhile popular pressures were also building up in many areas, most notably no-rent agitation in the United Provinces, which the provincial Congress eventually permitted in December 1931. A powerful anti-Maharaj movement in Kashmir under Sheikh Abdulla was an indication that political unrest was reaching out to princely states (there was to be a revolt in Alwar two years later), even though the Congress leadership still refused to intervene in princely India.

This was the overall context for the British decision of a pre-emotive strike against the Congress before it got any stronger, taken by the new Right-Wing National Government and Viceroy Willingdon in late 1931. The new policy has been described as one of ‘Civil martial law’. Sweeping ordinances banning all Congress organizations on 4 January 1932 (272 of them in Bengal alone), abrogating all civic freedom without formally declaring military rule in order to force the Congress to wage an unequal and defensive battle were promulgated. On 4 January 1932, a fresh batch of Congress leaders including Gandhi and Sardar Patel were arrested. Now attempts to treat political prisoners as common criminals became more common than ever before.

Out maneuvered and facing repressive measures on an entirely unprecedented scale, the national movement still fought on valiantly for about a year and a half. 120,000 people were jailed in the first three months-an indication, however, not so much of a more extensive movement than in 1930, but of more intense and systematic repression, for the figures soon began to decline fairly fast. Bombay city and Bengal were described as the “two black spots” by Willingdon in April 1932: Gujarati small traders wee still staunchly with the Congress, and Bengal remained a nightmare partly because of sporadic agrarian unrest, and more due to terrorism (104 incidents, the highest ever, in 1932; 33 in 1933). Rural response seems to have been less on the whole than in 1930, though a village like Ras in Kheda was still withholding revenue in 1933, despite confiscation of 2000 acres, public whipping, and electric shocks.

As the mass movement gradually declined in face of ruthless repression, political ‘realism’ combined with economic calculations of certain sections of Indians pushed Indian big business towards collaboration with the British, Bombay millowners concluded the Lees-Mody Pact in October 1933, aligning with the Lancashire out of fear of Japanese competition. Ahmedabad businessmen and GD Birla bitterly denounced this Betrayal, but Birla and Thakurdas from 1932 onwards were themselves pressing the Congress for a compromise.

Gandhi in jail not unnaturally began to think in terms of an honourable retreat. He suspended Civil Disobedience temporarily in May 1933, and formally withdrew it in April 1934.

Individual Satyagraha

The Mahatma decided to make Harijan work the central plank of his new rural constructive programme. This was his answer to the British policy of ‘Divide and Rule’ which found expression in the official Communal Award declared early in 1932 by Ramsay Macdonald. The Award provided for separate Hindu, ‘Untouchable’ and Muslim electorates for the new Federal legislatures, treating Hindus and Harijans as two separate political entities. Gandhi opposed this Award. He demanded reservation of more seats for Harijans within the Hindu electorate. Ambedkar, the Harijan leader, accepted Gandhi’s stand. Another section of Congressmen preferred to go back to Council politics, and so the scenario of the mid 1920s appeared to be repeating itself. The 1935 Government of India Act was considerably more retrogressive than earlier drafts, for it was drawn up at a point when the British seemed triumphant.

Aftermath

That the Government’s sense of ‘victory’ had been largely illusory was quickly revealed, when the Congress swept the polls in most provinces in 1937. The Congress had been defeated by superior brute force, but its mass prestige was as high as ever. The Left alternatives emerged from the logic of Civil Disobedience itself, for the Movement had aroused expectations which Gandhian strategy could not fulfill. At the level of leadership, Nehru (and, less consistently, Bose) voiced the new mood, emphasising the need to combine nationalism with radical social and economic programmes. Some Congress activists formed a socialist ginger-group within the party in 1934. Kisan Sabhas with anti-zamidar programmes developed rapidly in provinces like Bihar and Andhra. The Communists, too, were recovering from the Meerut arrests and their own folly of keeping away from Civil Disobedience, and a significant section of disillusioned terrorists and Gandhian activists were moving towards them.

In this changed situation, the dominant groups within the Congress were able to retain control only by a series of adjustments and openings towards the left, though usually at the level of programmatic statements and not action. Thus land reforms directed towards curbing and eventually abolishing zamindari were coming to be included in the official Congress programme by the mid-1930s, in total contrast to all earlier pronouncements. An early indication of such a shift was the Karachi declaration on fundamental rights and economic policy, made-significantly-just after the Gandhi-Irwin Pact: This declaration was very moderate in content, yet reductions were promised, for the first time, not only in revenue but in rent, and living wages and trade union rights also entered the Congress programme. Peasant upsurges which had constituted so much of the real strength of Civil Disobedience like the labour unrest of the late 1920s had not been entirely futile. Though crucial political controls within the national movement remained elsewhere, much of the Congress language and rhetoric, and some actual policies, did have to take a leftward direction as a consequence of the growing assertiveness of these sections of Indian society.

The second phase of the Civil Disobedience Movement (i.e. from 1932 onwards) had not evoked a similar response from the people as the earlier phase had done. It was becoming apparent that this mass movement would not continue for long. With the mass movement on low ebb, there emerged voices within the Congress advocating a return to constitutional methods. In some quarters the revival of the Swarajist Party was also discussed. Asaf Ali and S. Satyamurti had raised this issue with Gandhi even during the period of the mass movement. Another prominent Congressman, Dr. M.A. Ansari was in favour of council entry. In 1933 Satyamurti formed the Madras Swaraj Party. K.M. Munshi, B.C. Roy and Ramaswamy lyengar also sought Gandhi’s support for the revival of Swaraj Party. However, at this moment Gandhi did not favour the idea of going back to constitutional methods.

Some Congressmen favoured council entry while a few others like Acharya Narendra Dev and Purshottamdas Tandon opposed it. This reflects the difference of opinion within the Congress with each side eager to influence and tilt the Congress policy to its opinion though not without Gandhi’s consent. As soon as the Civil Disobedience Movement was withdrawn, Gandhi gave a free hand to each side.

The section which supported council entry at this time was not exactly following the arguments given by the Swarajists, twelve years earlier. The Swarajists had entered the councils to wreck the constitution from within and had refused office. But now leaders like Rajagopalachari were advocating council entry which was different from Swarajists in two way:

i)     It was not meant to wreck the constitution or put obstacles in its smooth functioning. It aimed at making the constitution workable.

ii)    In the event of obtaining majority, office was to be accepted and ministries to be formed.

On the other hand there were Congressmen with Socialist leanings who opposed council entry and were not in favour of making the Constitution workable. The Socialists had earlier organised themselves by forming the Congress Socialist Party within the Congress. It is worth mentioning here, that the differences in opinions-though governed by ideological leanings - were considered internal matters within the Congress. As far as the Congress position vis-a-vis British imperialism was concerned it was always stated in one voice. For example the objectionable clauses of the Act of 1935 were condemned by the Congress with full support from all of its sections.

The issue before the Congress was to decide whether to contest the forth coming elections and accept office or not.

1935 act

In February 1935, the Secretary of State introduced a bill in the British Parliament for political reforms in India. The result was the Government of India Act, 1935, which drew upon a variety of sources such as: (a) the Simon Commission report, (b) the Nehru Report, (c) deliberations in round table conferences, (d) a White Paper introduced parliament, (e) report of the Joint Select Committee and (f) the Lothian report over franchise.

Provisions of the act

1.    All India federation: An all-India federation was to be established consisting of Governors’ Provinces, Chief Commissioner’s Provinces and the Indian states. Accession to the federation was optional to the states. There was to be an ‘instrument of accession’ laying down the terms on which a state joined the federation.

2.    Dyarchy was introduced at the Centre: The Governor-General was to administer defence, external affairs, ecclesiastical affairs and tribal areas with the assistance of a maximum of three councillors. He was to administer other subjects with the assistance and advice of a council of not more than 10 ministers of his choice who were to hold office during his pleasure. The Governor-General had special responsibilities in certain specified subjects like maintenance of peace.

3.    Federal Legislature: The Federal Legislature was to have two chambers, namely and Council of State and Federal Assembly.The Council of States was to be a permanent body, with one-third of its membership being vacated and renewed every third year. Among its members, 156 were to be elected members of British India and not more than 104 from the Indian states. The Federal Assembly was to be elected for five years. It was to consist of 250 representatives of British India and not more than 25 members from the Indian states. Elections to the Federal Assembly were to be indirect. Members of the Provincial Legislative Assemblies had the vote on the basis of proportional representation with single transferable vote.

4.    Provincial autonomy

Executive

Executive authority was vested in a Governor to represent the ‘Crown in the Province. Administration was to be carried on by the Council of Ministers appointed by the Governor from among the elected members of the Provincial Legislature and responsible to that body. Ministers held office during the Governor’s pleasure and the Governor could also dismiss the ministry. The Governor had ‘special responsibilities’ in certain specified subjects such as maintenance of peace. Governors were given ‘discretionary’ powers as well as powers of ‘individual’ judgement.

Legislature

Election to the Provincial Legislature was to be directly by the people. The Legislature was bicameral in six provinces and unicameral in the rest. There was to be a separate system of representation by religious communities and groups. Seats were reserved for Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, scheduled castes and Anglo-Indians. There were separate communities for labour, landholders, commerce and industry etc.

Others provisions

*     A federal Court was to be established.

*     The new Constitution could be amended only by the British Government.

*     The India Council was abolished. Instead, the Secretary of State was given advisers.

         Criticizing the provisions of the Act, Jawaharlal Nehru said it was ‘a new charter of slavery’. He described the 1935 Constitution as a ‘machine with strong brakes but no engine.’ Jinnah said: ‘The scheme is thoroughly rotten, fundamentally bad and totally unacceptable.’

Towards elections

After a lot of discussion and debate the Congress decided in its Lucknow session of 1936 to contest the forthcoming elections for provincial councils. But earlier in October 1934, Gandhi had withdrawn from the Congress refusing 4-anna membership of the Congress. However, this did not mean that his hold over the Congress had weakened or that he was not guiding the Congress policy any longer. In fact whether a 4-anna member or not, his domination over the Congress continued.

Election manifesto

It was the task of the parliamentary committee to draft the Election Manifesto of the Congress. The manifesto aimed at “explaining the political and economic policy and programme of the Congress”. We list for you the prominent features of the Election Manifesto adopted by the AICC in August 1936.

i)     The Manifesto made it clear that the purpose of sending Congressmen to the legislatures was not to cooperate with the Government, but to combat the Act of 1935 and to end it. British imperialism was to be resisted in its “attempts to strengthen its hold on India.”

ii)    It highlighted the poverty of Indian masses particularly peasants, workers and artisans, and stated that “for the vast millions of our countrymen the problem of achieving national independence can give us the power to solve our economic and social problems and end the exploitation of our masses”.

iii)   The task of the Congress representatives was “to take all possible steps to end the various regulations, ordinances and Acts which oppress the Indian people”. They would work for:

       establishment of civil liberty,

       release of political prisoners and detenues, and

       undoing the wrongs done to the peasants, etc.

iv)  In relation to industrial workers the policy of the Congress would be to secure for them

       a decent standard of living.

       regular hours of work, and

       better conditions of labour.

The promises made included:

*     right to form unions.

*     suitable machinery to settle disputes with employers, and

*     protection “against the economic consequences of old age”.

       There were many other promises in the Manifesto, such as:

*     removal of untouchability,

*     equal status for women,

*     encouragement to khadi and village industries, and

*     satisfactory solution on communal problem.

The question of office acceptance was to be decided after the elections. Thus, the Congress was gearing itself for elections, and trying to reach a decision for the selection of candidates.

The Lucknow session was important from another point of view as well. It was during this session that the first meeting of the All India Kisan Sabha was held under the presidentship of Swami Sahajanand Saraswati.

Faizpur congress

The next session of the Congress was held at Faizpur in December 1936, again under the presidentship of Jawaharlal Nehru. A variety of issues were raised in this session. These were related to both the international and the internal situation. Nehru attacked Fascism in his presidential speech, and the congress passed resolutions condemning Italian aggression of Abyssinia and Japanese aggression of China. The Congress warned the people against the resources of India being used by British in the case of a World War. On national issues Nehru made it clear that:

The only logical consequence of the Congress policy is to have nothing to do with the office and the ministry. Any deviation from this would ... mean a kind of partnership with British Imperialism in the exploitation of the Indian people.

In this session Congress demanded the formation of a Constituent Assembly to frame a Constitution of their own. The question of office acceptance was deferred again. However, the most important thing which the Congress resolved at Faizpur was the adoption of an agrarian programme. The major features outlined in this programme included:

1.    50 per cent reduction in rent and revenue,

2.    Exemption of uneconomic holdings from rent and land tax and taxation of agricultural income,

3.    Abolition of feudal levies and forced labour,

4.    Cooperative farming,

5.    Wiping out arrears of rent,

6.    Modification of ejectment laws, and

7.    Recognition of peasant unions (Kisan Sabhas) etc.

This programme was however silent on the issue of the abolition of Zamindari and Taluqdari systems. The Kisan Sabha leaders, though welcoming the programme in general, criticised it on this ground for they felt that these systems were the root cause of peasant exploitation. They were supported by Socialist leaders like Jayaprakash Narayan. Here it is worth mentioning that the Right Wing in the Congress was not in favour of Zamindari abolition. But there is no doubt that the Agrarian Programme was a progressive document, and as we shall see later, went a long way in rallying the peasants behind the Congress.

By this time the Congress membership increased tremendously. For example there were 4,50,000 members in May, 1936, by December 1936 the number stood at 6,36,000.

Congress ministries at work

The task before the Congress was a tremendous one - particularly in the light of the kind of expectations the people had from the Congress. A brief thematic account of what the Congress did during nearly 2 1/2 years in office is given below.

Political prisoners and civil liberties

The Congress, through its election manifesto, was committed to release of political prisoners and detenues. Many among them were in prison even without facing trials. The Andaman prisoners had informed Gandhi that they no longer believed in the cult of violence. The largest number of political prisoners were in Bengal-a non-congress ruled province. Gandhi went to Calcutta to personally negotiate for their release and after three weeks of long talks he was able to secure the release of 1100 detenues. In U.P. many prisoners were released - prominent among them were the Kakori prisoners. There were massive public demonstrations welcoming these prisoners. But the British Government disliked this. Gandhi, Govind Ballabh Pant and Jawaharlal Nehru while welcoming their release, condemned “welcome demonstrations”. Pant felt that such a response from the people could affect the release of other prisoners. And sure enough the Governors of U.P. and Bihar stopped the release of other prisoners. Just before the Haripura Session (March, 1938) the Prime Ministers of these provinces submitted their resignations over the issue.

The Congress position was clearly stated at Haripura that it would not hesitate in taking action in the “matter of violent crime” but as the prisoners had shed violence there was no risk in releasing them. Ultimately the Government had to bow down.

The Congress also worked for lifting restrictions on the return to India of political exiles like Rash Behari Gosh, Prithvi Singh, Maulvi Abdullah Khan, Abani Mukerjee, etc. However, it could not do much in this regard. The Congress was committed to civil liberties within the confines of non-violence. It was made clear that the “Congress will, consistently with its tradition, support measures that may be undertaken by the congress Governments for the defence of life and property”. The Left Wing in the Congress was opposed to such an approach and this resolution was termed as a defeat for them in the Congress.

The peasants’ question

The peasant problem was burning issue. Jawaharlal Nehru observed that: “The outstanding problem of India is the peasant problem. All else is secondary”. He believed that the formation of Congress ministries had generated new hopes amongst the peasants, whereas the big zamindars and taluqdars were “organising to resist this long deferred justice to the peasantry”. He stressed that “we must remain true to our pledges and give satisfaction and fulfillment to the hopes of the peasantry”. The Kisan Sabhas welcomed such a statement from the Congress President in 1937.

Tenancy legislation was taken up in all the Congress ruled provinces. The Right Wing did not want to go ahead in this without negotiating with the landlords and the position varied from province to province. For example, in Bihar the Congress signed a pact with the zamindars regarding the provisions of the Tenancy Bill. Rajendra Prasad and Maulana Azad had been instrumental in bringing about this pact. The Bihar Kisan Sabha was totally ignored and the pact was severely criticised not only by the Left Wing but also by those Congressmen who sympathised with the peasants’ cause. Prasad had written to the Maharaja of Dharbhanga that he “shall come in for a great deal of criticism from not only the Kisan Sabha but Congress in general and even perhaps the High Command”. It was at this time that a ban was imposed on the Congressmen for participating in Kisan Sabha activities in Bihar. In Bihar the Congress policy was to an extent pro-zamindari. The zamindars were confident that for their sake “the Kisan movement was being suppressed by the Congress”. On the other hand, the Kisan Sabha launched a number of struggles at regional levels to remind the Congress for implementing the Faizpur Agrarian Programme.

The situation in U.P. was different from Bihar. The U.P. Congress was dominated more by the Left Wing. The Tenancy Bill which was passed here was not given assent by the Governor even after two years of its passage.

In Bombay the Congress was successful in getting those lands restored to their original owners which had been sold to new owners as a result of the no-rent campaign during the Civil-Disobedience Movement.

In all the provinces, efforts were made to protect the peasant from moneylenders and increase irrigation facilities. But in most of the areas the zamindars remained in a dominant position. But on the whole, this was a period of tremendous awakening among the peasants, and they stood behind the Congress.

Labour

The Congress had promised better working conditions to the working class. However, its labour policy was influenced by the relations between the labourers and capitalists on the Gandhian principle of Trusteeship, but the Left Wing based them on class lines. In October 1937, the Labour Committee appointed by the Congress, gave a programme which was accepted by the AICC. This included:

•   holidays with pay
•   employment insurance,
•   leave with pay during sickness,
•   to devise way to fix minimum wages, and
•   recognition of such Trade Unions by the State which pursued a policy of peaceful and legitimate means, etc.

However, Bombay was the only province to undertake Labour Legislation. The Ministry introduced the Industrial Disputes Bill with the aim to prevent strikes and lockouts as far as possible. According to the workers this only meant a ban on strikes as a lockout was the most effective “weapon in the armoury of Capitalists for the exploitation of workers” against which the government could do nothing. The workers went on strike which was crushed by the Congress government with the help of the police. About 20 workers were killed in the police action.

This period also saw a massive workers strike in Kanpur where 24000 workers struck work in August, 1937 demanding higher wages and better living conditions. Here also the strike was condemned by the Congress leaders. When the workers started picketing, Nehru stressed:

If violence is resorted to, it cannot be expected that the government will not interfere and the army or police will not be called. The workers should remember that the government is very powerful and will put down violence by violence and that the workers will be subdued in no time.

Ultimately the dispute was settled by the Ministry. In Bengal the Congress supported the strike in Jute Mills (March-May, 1937). The Bengal PCC condemned the repression of Jute workers by the Home ministry which was a non-Congress government. During the TISCO workers strike at Jamshedpur Nehru and Rajendra Prasad acted as arbitrators between the Tatas and Workers. Over all, the left increased its influence over labour during this period.

Constructive programme

In all the Congress ruled provinces, sincere efforts were made to introduce prohibition; encourage education and give an impetus to village industries. These included:

1.    A vigorous campaign in favour of prohibition

2.    A grant of 2 Lakh rupees for Khadi and Handspinning by the Madras Ministry

3.    Honorary medical officers were appointed in hospitals

4.    Investment on public buildings was considerably reduced, etc.

5.    An advance was made in the field of education. An All India National Education Conference was held at Wardha (22 and 23 October, 1937). The Conference formulated a scheme which included:

*     Free and compulsory education to be provided for seven years throughout the country

*     Mother tongue should be the medium of instruction

*     Emphasis on vocational and Manual Training, etc.

On the basis of these guidelines Dr. Zakir Hussain submitted a scheme of Basic education to be implemented by the Congress Mnistries (2 December, 1937). This scheme included learning of basic crafts; proper knowledge of mother tongue; basic scientific knowledge, etc. In many provinces attempts were made to put this scheme into action. As a result of the Congress education policy the number of students as well as educational institutions increased. For example, in Bombay province the number of educational institutions was 14,609 and 1936-37 increased to 1,556,441 by 1939-40.

The other MAJOR ACHIEVEMENTS of the Congress Ministries were:

1.    Reduction in salaries of Ministers

2.    The declaration of Fundamental Rights

3.    Welfare Schemes for Tribals

4.    Carrying Jail Reforms

5.    Repeal of Moplah Outrages Act

6.    Carrying out commercial and economic surveys, etc.

A very important feature of this period was the change in the attitude of government officials. They had to work under those very leaders who were earlier arrested by them.

Some problems faced by congress

There was a malicious propaganda carried out against the Congress by the communal parties. They accused the Congress of discrimination against the minorities, but such propaganda was carried out to political and communal overtones, rather than on factual basis.

At the same time, many opportunists joined the Congress during this period in order to seek advantages of office. The Congress was aware of such characters and Gandhi wrote frankly about corruption in the Congress in his paper Harijan. In many regions a drive was made to free the Congress from such elements.

During this period the Congress had two sessions. The Fifty First session was held at Haripura in February, 1938 under the presidentship to Subhash Chandra Bose. This session passed a number of resolutions related to international affairs as well as on the internal situation in India. However, it was at the next session (Tripuri) that the Congress faced a major crisis. This time an election was held for the President and Bose defeated Pattabhi Sitaramayya by 1580 to 1377 votes. This was regarded as a victory of the Left Wing, as the Right Wing had solidly supported Sitaramayya. Even Gandhi regarded this defeat as his own defeat. There were problems in the formation of the working committee and ultimately Bose resigned from the Presidentship.

The Congress Ministries resigned office in November, 1939 on the ground that the Viceroy on its own had made India a participant in the imperialist war without consulting the Congress.

Towards independence

Second World War 1939- 41

The sequence of events and the circumstances during the period 1939-1941 which led to Quit India Movement were as under

Attitude towards war

Generally speaking the attitude of Indians towards the World War can be categorized as follows:

i)     Since Britain was in trouble, India should seize the opportunity to gain freedom (propagated by Subhash Chandra Bose). This was to be done by:

1.    opposing the British efforts to mobilize India’s resources for the war.

2.    launching a strong movement against the British.The prime concern of the proponents of this view was to achieve India’s freedom and they were not concerned about the international situation.

ii)    India should not seek advantage of Britain’s problems. It should cooperate with the British in their war efforts unconditionally. Those who supported this view hoped that after the war the British would adopt a lenient view towards India in the light of her services, and suitably reward her.

iii)   There were many who considered Fascism as a greater threat to mankind, and wanted to help Britain in the War. But this help was to be conditional (Nehru). The conditions were India’s independence in the future and an interim government of Indians for the moment.

iv)  There were also sections who maintained a neutral position.

What did the Congress do in such a situation? Practically all of attitudes mentioned above were visible within the Congress, and it was a difficult task to steer towards a definite line of action. The Congress, at this juncture, offered full cooperation in the war, provided some sort of a responsible government was established at the centre immediately. As for the future, the Congress demanded a Constituent Assembly to frame the constitution of free India. Thus, it is clear, that the section which was in favour of launching a movement against the British at this time, was not heard by the Gandhian leadership. Gandhi questioned the British, “Will Great Britain have an unwilling India dragged into the War or, a willing ally co-operating with her in the prosecution of a defence of true democracy?” He further stated, “The Congress support will mean the greatest moral asset in favour of England and France”.

Though Gandhi supported the Congress Working Committee Resolution of conditional support he himself was not for it as he stated later “I was sorry to find myself alone in thinking that whatever support was to be given to the British should be given unconditionally.” Gandhi, in his personal capacity, was repeating his attitude towards the British of the First World War days i.e. cooperation. But now things were different and one had to come above one’s personal views, Gandhi realised that his silence might turn out to be a “distinct disservice to both India and England” and he stated:

If the British are fighting for the freedom of all, then their representatives have to state in the clearest possible terms that the freedom of India is necessarily included in the war aim. The content of such freedom can only be decided by Indians and them alone.

The British were not prepared either to make any concessions immediately or make promise about the future-except a vague talk of dominion status. Defence of India Rules was promulgated in order to check defiance of British authority and exploit Indian resources for the War effort.

There were two opinions in Congress about the launching of civil disobedience. Gandhi felt that the atmosphere was not in favour of civil disobedience as there were differences and indiscipline within the Congress. Those advocating Civil disobedience were attempting to convince Gandhi that once a movement was launched differences would disappear and all would work for its success. But Gandhi would not agree. The Congress Socialists and the All India Kisan Sabha(AIKS) were in favour of immediate struggle. N.G. Ranga even suggested that the AIKS should sever links with Congress and launch and independent movement. He was, however, checked by P. Sundarayya from doing so. It was in such an atmosphere that the Congress met at Ramgarh in March 1940 under the presidentship of Maulana Azad who declared-

Indian cannot endure the prospect of Nazism and Fascism, but she is even more tired of British imperialism.

The Ramgarh Congress called upon the people to prepare themselves for participating in a Satyagrah to be launched under Gandhi’s leadership. But the Socialists, Communists, Kisan Sabhaites and those belonging to the Forward Bloc were not happy with the resolution. They held an anti-compromise conference at Ramgarh and Subhash Chandra Bose urged the people to resist compromise with imperialism and be ready for action.

There was resentment in India that Indians had not been consulted before the country was involved in the Second World War. To conciliate Indian opinion, the Viceroy, Lord Linlithgow made the following offer on 8 August 1940. The announcement came on the day of the Battle of Britain. The declaration contained the following points:

1.    Immediate expansion of Governor-General’s Executive Council and establishment of an Advisory War Council.

2.    Minority opinion was sought to be preserved.

3.    There was to be a new Constitution drawn up by a constitutional body in which Indians would be represented. The new Constitution would come into effect after the war. In the interim, all parties and communities were required to cooperate with the British Government.

The Congress dismissed the announcement as of little consequence. It would not be satisfied with anything short of immediate democratic responsible government. Jawaharlal Nehru described the offer of dominion status as ‘dead as a door-nail’. Gandhiji expressed a view that ‘Government did not mean business.’ The Muslim League, however, welcomed the statement for its guarantee that minority opinion would always be protected.

Individual Satyagraha

Following Linlithgow’s the August offer, the AICC on 15 September, 1940 requested Gandhi to resume the leadership of the Congress. Under his leadership, on 11 October, the Congress Working Committee decided to start ‘individual civil disobedience’. The campaign had the following features:

1.    Satyagraha would be offered by a few selected individuals in every locality.

2.    Satyagrahis would demand ‘freedom of speech’ to preach against participation in the war.

3.    Before starting the fast, satyagrahis would inform the authorities of their intent.

At the start of the campaign, Acharya Vinoba Bhave made a speech protesting against the dragging of India into the war. By May 1941, an estimated 25,000 satyagrahis had been arrested. The Satyagraha lasted from 17 October 1940 to December 1941 and passed through four phases:

Phase 1, till mid November 1940. Only selected persons were allowed to offer Satyagraha. On 17 October 1940, Acharya Vinoba Bhave inaugurated the Satyagrah by delivering an anti-war speech at Paunar - village near Wardha. Bhave had been personally selected by Gandhi for this. His two other nominees Vallabhbhai and Nehru were arrested before they could offer Satyagrah.

Phase 2, from mid November 1940 to January 1941. Representative of CWC, AICC, and Central and Provincial Legislatures were allowed to join.

Phase 3, from January 1941 to April 1941. Members of local Congress bodies also joined. In this phase over 2,000 were jailed.

Phase 4, marked by protest of Rabindranath Tagore.

Individual Satyagraha expressed Indians’ strong political feeling and also induced the British government to accept more Indian demands.

World developments in the latter half of 1941 made the British more willing to concede some Indian demands. These developments were:

(a)   Unprecedented Japanese onslaught on South East Asian nations;

(b)   Pressure of China and USA on Britain to settle on some sort of agreement;

(c)   Pressure on the Government within the U.K. from members of the Labour Party, some Liberals and Conservatives, and from the press to be more accommodating.

As the war came closer to India, after Singapore, Rangoon and the Andamans fell one by one, the Cripps Mission was sent to India to negotiate with Indian political parties.

The Congress too was becoming conciliatory. The CWC resolution on 30 December 1941 at Bardoli, for example, offered cooperation to the Government provided Britain created conditions in which Indians could honourably fight for freedom and democracy. Indian liberal leaders like Sapru and Jayakar also appealed for immediate Dominion status and expansion of the Viceroy’s Executive into a National Government.

Sir Stafford Cripps arrived in Delhi on 23 March, with a draft scheme for settling the Indian political problem. The two part scheme (a) prescribed the procedure for formulating the Dominion Constitution and (b) laid down the immediate and interim arrangements during the war period.

In brief, the Cripps proposals were:

1.    Immediately upon the cessation of hostilities, an elected constitutional body would be formed for drawing up a new Constitution.

2.    Indian states would participate in the Constitution-making body.

3.    The Constitution-making body would be elected by members of the lower house of the Provincial Legislatures through proportional representation.

4.    Provinces would have to right to secede.

5.    The protection of racial and religious minorities would be ensured.

6.    The defence of the country would be in the hands of the British Government till a new Constitution was framed.

The Cripps proposals, however, did not satisfy any political party. The Congress objected

(a)   To the provision for local option which implied the acceptance of Pakistan,

(b)   To selection of state representatives by the rulers,

(c)   To defence being in the hands of Britain, and

(d)   To the Viceroy’s veto power.

(e)   To no suggestion for a national government.

(f)    To the implicit encouragement to anti-Congress forces like the Muslim League.

The unfavorable War situation and international pressures had compelled the British to seek an amicable settlement with India and obtain her active support in the War. Sir Stafford Cripps landed in India with a set of proposals and negotiated with leaders of various political parties.

This Declaration was rejected by almost all the Indian parties. The Congress did not want to rely on future promises. It wanted a responsible Government with full powers and also a control over the country’s defence. Gandhi termed the proposal “as a post-dated cheque on a crashing bank.”Nehru said the proposals were meant to make a few Indians the Viceroy’s ‘liveried camp-followers’ to ‘look after canteens and the like’.  The Muslim League demanded a definite declaration by the British in favour of the creation of a separate state for the Muslims, and also seats for the Muslim League on 50:50 bases with the Congress in the Interim Government. The Depressed Classes, the Sikhs, the Indian Christians and the Anglo-Indians demanded more safeguards for their communities.

Thus, the Cripps Mission failed to pacify the Indians. The British had merely taken up this exercise to demonstrate to the world that they cared about Indian sentiments, rather than to actually do something concrete.

Background to the Quit India movement

The Congress had to decide its course of action in wake of:

*     the failure of the Cripps Mission;

*     the arrival of Japanese armies on Indian borders;

*     the rising prices and shortages in food supplies, and

*     the different opinions within the Congress.

The Congress Working Committee adopted a resolution calling for complete non-violent non-cooperation with any foreign forces invading India (in May 1942). Rajagopalachari and a few other Congressmen from Madras attempted to get a resolution passed which proposed that in case the Madras Government invited them the Congress should form a ministry there. The resolution was rejected, but the very proposal demonstrated that there were certain Congressmen who wanted to cooperate with the government. Rajagoplachari was following an independent path. He had favoured the Pakistan demand, and was urging the Congress to support the War effort.

In May 1942 Gandhi told a gathering of Congressmen at Bombay that he had made up his mind to ask the British to quit India in an orderly fashion. If they did not agree, he would launch a Civil Disobedience Movement.

Many of the Congress leaders had reservations about the launching of a movement. Nehru was particularly concerned about the choice between fighting imperialist Britain and letting USSR and China down in their struggle against fascist powers. Eventually, he decided in favour of launching the movement. The Congress made it clear that the quit India demand did not mean that the British and the allied armies had to withdraw from India immediately. However, it meant an immediate acknowledgement of India’s Independence by the British. On July 14 the Congress Working Committee adopted the Quit India Resolution which was to be ratified at the Bombay AICC meeting in August.

On 8 August 1942 the AICC passed the Quit India Resolution. After deliberating at great length on the international and national situation the Congress appealed to the people of India:

They must remember that non-violence is the basis of this movement. A time may come when it may not be possible to issue instructions or for instructions to reach our people, and when no Congress Committee can function. When this happens every man and woman who is participating in this movement must function for himself or herself with in the four corners of the general instructions issued.

Gandhi told the British to quit and “leave India in God’s hand”. He exhorted all sections to participate in the Movement and stressed “every India who desires freedom and strives for it must be his own guide”. His message was ‘do or die”. Thus started the Quit India Movement (QIM).

The movement

The Congress gave the call for ousting British but it did not give any concrete line of action to be adopted by the people. The Government had been making preparations to rust the Movement. On the morning of 9 August all prominent Congress leaders including Gandhi were arrested. The new leaders’ arrest shook the people and they came to streets protesting against it.

Spread of the movement

Before his arrest on 9 August 1942 Gandhi had given the following message to the country:

“Every one is free to go the fullest length under Ahimisa to complete deadlock by strikes and other non-violent means. Satyagrahis must go out to die not to live. They must seek and face death. It is only when individuals go out to die that the nation will survive, do or die.”

But while giving this call Gandhi had once again stressed on non-violence:

“Let every non-violent soldier of freedom write out the slogan ‘do or die’ on a piece of paper or cloth and stick it on his clothes, so that in case he died in the course of offering Satyagraha, he might be distinguished by that sign from other elements who do not subscribe to non-violence.”

The news of his arrest alongwith other Congress leaders led to unprecedented popular outbursts in different parts of the country. There were hartals, demonstrations and processions in cities and towns. The Congress leadership gave the call, but it was the people who launched the Movement. Since all the recognised leaders-central, provincial or local-had been arrested, the young and more militant cadres-particularly students-with socialist leanings took over as leaders at local levels in their areas.

In the initial stages, the Movement was based on non-violent lines. It was the repressive policy of the government which provoked the people to violence. The Gandhian message of non-violent struggle was pushed into the background and people devised their own methods of struggle. These included:

1.    attacks on governments buildings, police stations and post offices,

2.    attacks on police stations and sabotaging rail lines,

3.    cutting off the telegraph wires, telephones and electric power lines.

4.    disrupting road traffic by destroying bridges, and

5.    workers going on strike, etc.

Most of these attacks were to check the movement of the military and the police, which were being used by the government to crush the Movement. In many areas, the government lost all control and the people established Swaraj. We cite a few such cases:

In Maharashtra, a parallel government was established in Satara which continued to function for a long time.

In Bengal, Tamluk Jatiya Sarkar functioned for a long time in Midnapore district. This national government had various departments like Law and Order, Health, Education, Agriculture, etc., along with a postal system of its own and arbitration courts.

People established Swaraj in Talcher in Orissa.

In many parts of eastern U.P. and Bihar (Azamgarh, Ballia, Ghazipur, Monghyr, Muzaffarpur, etc.) police stations were over run by the people and government authority uprooted.

The Movement had initially been strong in the urban areas but soon it was the populace of rural areas which kept the banner of revolt aloft for a longer time. The Movement got a massive response from the people of Bombay, Andhra, U.P. Bihar, Gujarat, Orissa, Assam, Bengal, Karnataka, etc. But the responses in Punjab, Sindh, NWFP, etc. were weak.

Responses and trends

“Quit India” and “Do or Die” were the slogans of the day, and yet there were varied responses to the Movement. The Working Class in many industrial centres went on strike. Some of these centres were Bombay, Cawnpore, Ahmedabad, Jamshedpur and Poona. In Delhi the strike on 9 August was a result of the workers coming to the streets. But in most of these centres the strikes did not last long, except in Ahmedabad where it continued till about 3 months.

In Bihar, Patna was cut off from the rest of the areas as a result of mass actions by the people of rural areas surrounding Patna.

This reflects the level of participation by the rural people and the constraints of Gandhian leaders in directing the Movement. A similar situation existed in eastern U.P. The account kept by R.H. Nibblet of what happened at Madhuban Police Station in Azamgarh district shows the fury of the revolt in that area. Nibblet has mentioned how the police station was attacked in an organized manner from three sides. The people from one side reaching earlier, waited at a distance for the people to reach from the other sides. The police fired 119 rounds to check the attack which lasted about two hours.

In Orrissa the government used airplanes to check the advance of peasant guerrillas towards Talcher town. In Maharashtra the battles were long drawn in the Satara region.

Besides mass action there emerged another trend in the movement. This was the trend of underground revolutionary activity. On 9 November 1942, Jaiprakash Narayan and Ramnandan Misra escaped from Hazaribagh Jail. They organized an underground movement and operated from the regions bordering Nepal.

Similarly, in Bombay, the Socialist leaders continued their underground activities under leaders like Aruna Asaf Ali. The most daring act of the underground movement was the establishment of Congress Radio with Usha Mehta as its announcer. This radio carried broadcasts for a long time. Subhash Bose, speaking over Berlin radio (31 August 1942) described this movement as “Non-violent guerilla warfare”. He suggested that:

The object of this non-violent guerilla campaign should be a two-fold one. Firstly, to destroy war production in India, and secondly, to paralyze the British administration in the country. Keeping these objectives in view, every section of the community should participate in the struggle.

There was massive participation by the students who spread to the countryside and played a role in guiding the people there. The Movement did not evoke much response from the merchant community. In fact most of the Capitalists and merchants had profited heavily during the War. In certain cases, the Capitalists did appeal to the government (through FICCI) to release Gandhi and other leaders. But their argument was that Gandhi alone could check attacks on government property. They were worried that if such attacks continued they may get converted into attacks on private property. The Muslim League kept aloof from the Movement and no communal riots were reported. The Hindu Mahasabha condemned the Movement. The Communist Party of India due to its “people’s war” line did not support the movement. The princes and the landlords were supporting the War effort and did not sympathies with the movement. There were also Congress leaders like Rajagoplachari who did not participate in the movement and supported the War effort.

However, the intensity of the Movement can be gauged from the following figures:

In U.P. 104 railway stations were attacked and damaged according to a government report. About 100 railway tracks were ‘sabotaged’ and the number in case of telephone and telegraph wires was 425. The number of post offices damaged was 119.

In Midnapore 43 government buildings were burnt.

In Bihar 72 police stations were attacked. 332 railway stations and 945 post offices damaged.

Throughout the country there had been 664 bomb explosions.

Repression

The Government had geared all its forces to suppress the popular upsurge. Arrests, detentions, police firings, burning of Congress offices, etc., were the methods adopted by the Government.

By the end of 1942 in U.P. alone 16,089 persons were arrested. Throughout India the official figures for arrests stood at 91,836 by end of 1943.

The number of people killed in police firings was 658 till September 1942, and by 1943 it was 1060. But these were official figures. Many more had died and innumerable wounded.

In Midnapore alone, the Government forces had burnt 31 Congress camps and 164 private houses. There were 74 cases of rape; out of which 46 were committed by the police in a single day in one village on 9 January, 1943.

The Government accepted having used aeroplanes to gun people at 5 places. These were: Giriak near Patna; Bhagalpur district; near Ranaghat in Nadia district; Monghyr district and near Talcher city.

There were countless lathicharges, floggings and imprisonments.

Collective punitive fines were extorted from the residents in the areas affected by the upsurge. For example in U.P. the total amount involved in such fines was Rs. 28,32,000. Similarly in North Bihar fines were imposed to the amount of Rs. 34,15,529 by the end of February 1943.

It was through such repressive actions that the British were able to re-establish themselves. The War situation helped them in two ways:

i)     They had at their disposal a massive military force which was stationed here to face the Japanese, but was promptly used to crush the Movement.

ii)    Due to War time censorship they repressed the upsurge in a ruthless manner. They did not have to bother themselves about any internal criticism of their methods, or international opinion. The Allied countries were busy fighting the Axis powers, and had no time to concern themselves with what the British were doing in India.

The Quit India Movement collapsed, but not without demonstrating the determination of the masses to do away with British rule. The Congress leadership did not condemn the deviation by the people from the principle of non-violence, but at the same time disowned any responsibility for the violent acts of the people.

Gandhi - subhash controversy

It was a conflict between Gandhian and Socialist ideology. In other words, it was difference between, how Gandhi wanted to establish a just society, and how socialist programmes would achieve socio economic justice. In the beginning of World War-II, this issue became cause of conflict between Gandhi and S.C. Bose. At the outbreak of the Second World War S.C. Bose argued.

(a)        It was right time for mass struggle.

(b)        He had belief that people were ready for mass struggle.

(c)        The crisis situation of British should be exploited.

(d)        He was of the view that British should be given six months ultimatum to grant freedom or to face nation wide civil disobedience movement.

Gandhi did not subscribe to S.C. Bose ideas and opposed him. He argued.

(a)        This is not the right time to wage mass struggle

(b)        We should not exploit crisis situation of British

(c)        The general people in the country were not ready for any mars movement

(d)        We should not frustrate British War efforts against the Fascist forceswhich were regarded as bigger enemy.

The result of the conflict between Gandhi and Subhash came on surface in 1939. It became an issue of Presidential election for congress party. S.C. Bose tendered resignation in favour of Gandhi candidate Pattabhi Sitaramaiyya. He formed his own party called “Forward Block”.

Indian National Army (INA)

The QIM was a struggle fought against the British in India. But equally important is the role of the Indian National Army which waged battles against the British from foreign soil.

There were many Indian revolutionaries working abroad for the country’s cause. Among these was Rasbehari Bose, living as a fugitive from the British since 1915 in Japan. He organized the revolutionary force named Indian National Army.

Bose had escaped from India in 1941 to Berlin. In June, 1943 he came to Tokyo and then joined the INA at Singapore in July. Rasbehari Bose handed over the leadership to Subhash Bose, and an Azad Hind Sarkar was formed. In November, 1943 the Japanese announced their decision to hand over the administration of Andamans and Nicobar islands to the INA. Thus started the heroic struggle of the INA for India’s independence.

Actions of INA

The INA in a few months time had three fighting brigades named after Gandhi, Azad and Nehru. Soon other brigades were raised, namely the Subhash brigade and the Rani Jhansi brigade. The overseas Indians contributed heavily in terms of money and material for the army. The slogans of the INA were ‘Jai Hind’ and ‘Delhi Chalo’. The most famous was Subhash’s declaration that “Tum Mujhe Khoon Do Mein Tumhe Azadi Dunga” (you give me blood I will give you freedom).

Fighting side by side with the Japanese armed forces the INA crossed the Indian frontier on 18th March 1944. The tricolour was hoisted on Indian soil. However the INA failed to capture Imphal due to two reasons.

i)      The Japanese failed to supply the necessary material and air cover to the INA.

ii)    The Monsoon prevented their advance.

In the meantime the British were able to regroup their forces and made counter attacks. The INA fought heroically with tremendous loss of manpower, but the course of war was changing. With the collapse of Germany and set backs to the Japanese armies, the INA too could not stand on its own. Subhash Bose disappeared. Some believed he died in an air crash, while others refused to believe this.

Impact

The INA had failed to achieve its goal but it made a significant impact on the freedom struggle:

i)      It became clear to the British that they could no longer depend on the loyalty of Indian soldiers and treat them as mercenaries.

ii)    The struggles of the INA demonstrated that those who waged an armed struggle against the British were not at all affected by communal division. There were Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs in the INA who had fought as Indians.

iii)   The actions of the Rani Jhansi Brigade - an exclusively women force - demonstrated the capabilities of Indian women waging armed struggle against the British.

iv)    The INA had also demonstrated the enthusiasm and concern of overseas Indians for the freedom of their motherland.

In dealing with the role of Subhash Bose during this period, we have to take note of the fact that what he did was not due to his support to Fascist Germany or expansionist Japan, but for India’s freedom. He was determined to maintain the independent existence of INA from the Japanese, and while in Berlin he had problems with the Germans regarding the use of India Legion against USSR. The British Government court martialled the INA officers and soldiers and put them on trial for conspiring against the crown.

PERIOD BETWEEN 1942 AND 1945

Between the years 1942 and 1945 there was hardly and political activity. Three developments of the period that stand out are: (a) the C.R. Plan, (b) the Desai-Liaqat plan and (c) the Wavell plan and Simla Conference.

C.R. plan

C. Rajagopalachari published the following formula on 10 July 1944 with the intent of coming to an amicable Congress-Muslim League understanding:

The Muslim League was to endorse the demand for independence for the transitional period.

At the end of the war, a commission would demarcate those contiguous areas in North and Northeast India where the Muslims were in an absolute majority. In those areas, a plebiscite of all inhabitants would decide whether or not they should be separated from Hindustan.

In the event of separation, agreements would be made for defence, commerce, communications and other essential purposes.

The terms would be binding only in case of transfer by Britain of full power and responsibility for the government of India.

The Muslim League rejected the plan. It demanded self-determination even in non-Muslim areas. The League was also opposed to a common centre.

Desai Liaqat plan

In 1945, Bhulabhai Desai and Liaqat Ali Khan arrived at an understanding for the formation of an Interim Government at the Centre. The points of agreement were:

Both the Congress and the Muslim League would nominate an equal number of persons to the Central Executive. The persons nominated did not have to be members of the Central Legislature.

There would have to be representatives of the minorities (particularly scheduled castes and Sikhs).

The Government would function under the existing Government of India Act.

Provincial Governments would be formed on the lines of a coalition.

Members of both the Congress and the Muslim League found the pact objectionable, so much so that Liaqat was forced to repudiate it.

Simla conference and elections

At the end of World War II, at the initiative of the Viceroy, Wavell, the Congress leaders were released from jail in mid June 1945 and invited to Simla to work out an interim political agreement under which Indians would be responsible for running the country. The Congress was willing to cooperate and gave in its list of nominees but Jinnah decided to test the power of veto given to him by the British. He insisted that the League alone had the right to nominate Muslims to the Executive Council. This was embarrassing for the government as this denied representation to the Muslims of the Unionist Party of Punjab, which had supported the British staunchly throughout the War. But the present and future interests were considered more important than past loyalty and Wavell preferred to announce the breakdown of the Conference rather than bypass the League. Jinnah’s power to veto the constitutional progress had been upheld.

Elections - the watershed

The elections held in the winter of 1945-46 to the Central and Provincial Legislative Assemblies were fought by the League with a straight forward communal slogan - “A vote for the League and Pakistan was a vote for Islam”. Mosques were used for election meetings and pirs (holy men) persuaded to issue fatwas (directives) that Muslims must vote for the League. The choice between Congress and the League was portrayed as a choice between the Gita and the Koran. It was small wonder then, that the League made a clean sweep of the Muslim seats.

The Cabinet Mission

In the wake of the Second World War, power equations in the world had changed. U.K. was no longer the pre-eminent power, and both the newly emerged big powers USA and USSR, supported the Indian demand for freedom. Britain’s resources, both economic and military, were crippled with the war and the INA and Royal Indian Navy (RIN) mutiny made the Government realise that it could no longer rely upon the armed forces, which had been the chief instrument of suppressing the national movement. Dissatisfaction had been growing in the country all round. Industrial, postal and railway services were plagued by strikes and the peasants were also up in arms.

The change of Government in Britain from Conservative to Labour brought perceptible changes in Britain’s attitude to the Indian struggle for freedom. On 19 February 1946 the Secretary of State, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, announced that a Cabinet Mission consisting of himself, Sir Stafford Cripps (president of the Board of Trade), and A.V. Alexander (First Lord of the Admiralty) would be sent to negotiate with the Indian leaders the terms for the transfer of power to Indians. The Mission reached Delhi in 24 March 1946 and proposed its plan on 16 May, 1946.

Recommendations

Rejection of demand for pakistan

The Cabinet Mission rejected the demand for Pakistan for the following reasons:

Pakistan was not viable because of the large population of non-Muslims in the Northeast and Northwest zone.

There was no justification for including non-Muslim districts of Bengal, Assam and the Punjab in the proposed Pakistan.

Any attempt to create a new State would lead to disintegration of transportation and postal and telegraph system.

A new State would raise the question of division of armed forces, which would be not judicious.

Union of India

The Mission in turn recommended ‘union of India’. The basis of the constitution of India was suggested as follows:

Union of India out of both British India and the princely states to deal with defence, foreign affairs, communications, and financial power.

The Union was to constitute of both executive and legislative wings.

Communal issues to be decided in the legislature. The basis for decision would be majority vote of the members of both the communities present and voting, and majority of all the members present and voting.

Provinces would enjoy autonomy in subjects other than Union subjects. Residuary powers would be vested in the Provinces.

Provinces were free to form groups. The suggested grouping was:

Group A: six Hindu-dominated majority provinces viz., Madras, Bombay, Central Provinces, United Provinces, Bihar, Orissa.

Group B: Muslim-majority Provinces in the Northwest (Punjab, Sindh, NWFP).

Group C: Bengal Assam.

Three Chief Commissioners’ territories (Delhi, Ajmer-Merwar and Coorg) would join Group A and Baluchistan would join Group B.

Provinces had the option to come out of the groups.

Formation of the constituent assembly

A Constituent Assembly was to be elected by the Provincial Legislative Assemblies. Members of these assemblies would be divided into three groups: General, Muslims and Sikhs. Each group, would send its representatives in accordance with proportional representation through single transferable vote.

The number of members suggested was: 292 from Provinces, 4 from Chief Commissioners’ Provinces and 93 members to be elected by the Princely states.

The Constituent Assembly had the right to conclude a treaty with Britain on matters involving transfer of power.

With the passing of the Constitution, the Paramountcy of Britain over the states would lapse.

Interim government

The Cabinet Mission also suggested the setting up of an Interim Government.

Critique

The plan had both positive and negative points. Among the former were: (a) the constitution of the Constituent Assembly through elections, (b) the framing of the Constitution by the elected Constituent Assembly, and (c) rejection of the demand for partition. Its demerits were: (a) the grouping of states, which would prove inimical to the unity of India, and (b) neglect of the minorities except for the Muslims.

Reactions

The Congress accepted the plan. The Muslim League initially rejected it and did not join the Constituent Assembly; but the League joined the Interim Government. The Hindu Mahasabha objected to the compulsory grouping of states. CPI objected to the composition and powers of the Constituent Assembly.

The change, in the British attitude towards the Congress and the League around this time reflects this understanding. The British Prime Minister, Attlee, declared on 15th March 1946 that “minority will not be allowed to place a veto on the progress of the majority”. This was in sharp contrast to the Viceroy Wavell’s attitude during the Simla Conference in June-July 1945 when Jinnah had been allowed to wreck the Conference by his insistence on nominating all Muslims. The Cabinet Mission also believed that Pakistan would not be viable as a separate entity. Therefore the plan that was drawn up by the Mission was to safeguard the interests of the Muslim minority within the overall framework of unity of the country. Three sections were planned which would have separate meetings to work out their constitutions. The Congress provinces like Madras, Bombay, U.P., Bihar, Central Provinces and Orissa, would form group A; Punjab, N.W.F.P. and Sind would go into Group B and Bengal and Assam would make up Group C. The common centre would look after defence, foreign affairs and communications. A province could leave the group to which it was assigned after the first general elections and after ten years it could demand modification of both the group and union constitutions.

Ambivalence over grouping

Disagreement arose between the Congress and the League over the issue of grouping. The Congress demand was that provinces should have the option not to join a group at a very beginning, rather than wait till general elections were held. The Congress raised this objection keeping in mind the Congress ruled provinces of Assam and N.W.F.P., which had been placed in sections C and B. The League demanded that provinces be given the right to modify the Union Constitution immediately and not wait for ten years. Thus, the basic problem was that the Cabinet Mission Plan was not clear about whether grouping was compulsory or optional. In fact the Cabinet Mission deliberately refused to clarify its stand, even when asked to do so. This was because of the hope that their ambivalence might reconcile the irreconcilable position of the Congress and the League, but in effect, it only complicated matters.

Soon it was obvious that the League and the Congress were at cross-purposes in their interpretation of the Mission Plan. Both parties saw it as a confirmation of their stand. Sardar Patel drew satisfaction from the fact that Pakistan was now out of the picture and the League’s power of veto had been withdrawn. The League made it clear (in the 6th June 1946 statement) that it accepted the Plan in so far as the basis of Pakistan was implied by the clause of compulsory grouping. Nehru explained in his speech to the A.I.C.C. (on 7th June 1946) that the Congress Working Committee had only decided that the Congress would participate in the Constituent Assembly. Since the Assembly was a sovereign body, it would formulate the rules of procedure. The implication was that the rules laid down by the Mission could be amended. The League, whose acceptance of the Plan had in any case, been qualified, quickly took advantage of Nehru’s speech to withdraw its acceptance of the Mission Plan on 29th July 1946.

Formation of interim government

The British Government was now placed in a dilemma - should it wait till the League came around or should it implement the short-term aspect of the plan, and set up an Interim Government with the Congress alone? Wavell’s preference was for the first option but His Majesty’s Government was of the opinion that Congress cooperation was absolutely necessary for their long-term interests. Accordingly the Congress was invited to form an Interim Government which came into being on 2nd September 1946 with Jawaharlal Nehru functioning as its de facto head. This was a sharp departure from earlier British practice, as, for this first time, the British were willing to defy Jinnah’s stand that no constitutional settlement be made unless it was acceptable to the League.

League launches direct action

Jinnah, however, was determined to ensure that the British continue with their old policy. He warned the British Prime Minister Attlee, that surrender to the Congress by the British would compel the Muslims to shed their blood. This was no empty threat as the league had already accepted the programme of Direct Action. The call for Direct Action was given in Calcutta on 16th August 1946 and the new slogan was Larke Lenge Pakistan (we will fight and get Pakistan). Communal frenzy was provoked by Muslim communal groups with the league’s Bengal ministry headed by Suhrawardy looking on passively, if not actively abetting it. Hindu communal elements retaliated, perhaps with equal brutality, and 5000 people were killed in what has come to be known as the ‘Great Calcutta killings’. The trouble broke out in Noakhali in East Bengal in early October 1946 and Noakhali sparked off widespread attacks on Muslims in Bihar in late October 1946. The following months saw riots everywhere in U.P. Bombay, Punjab and N.W.F.P. The tide could not be stemmed.

British revert to conciliating the league

Jinnah’s ability to unleash civil war sent the British authorities back to their old policy of placating the Muslims. They realised that though the league was their creation, it had now assumed the shape of a “communal monster which could not tamed”. Wavell had kept up his effort to bring the league into the Government and now the Secretary of State, Pethick-Lawrence, supported him on the ground that civil war would become inevitable if the league stayed out. On 26th October 1946 the league joined the Interim Government.

Interim government - arena of struggle

However, the League’s entry into the Interim Government did not end the conflict, it only opened up another arena of struggle. The League was allowed to join the Interim Government without forsaking the idea of Pakistan or the plan of Direct Action. Furthermore, it did not accept the short term or the long term aspects of the Cabinet Mission Plan. League leaders, including Jinnah, publicly said that the Interim Government was merely the continuation of civil war by other means. Jinnah’s assessment was that the exclusive control over administration by the Congress was not in the League’s interest and therefore he was keen that the League share power. The Interim Government was seen as a foothold which would help the League to advance towards its goal of Pakistan.

Conflict between Congress and League members in the Interim Government erupted very soon. The choice of second rung League leaders as League nominees (except Liaqat Ali Khan) clearly indicated that the League had no intention to share with Congress the responsibility for running the Government. On the other hand, the intention apparently was to demonstrate that cooperation between the two was impossible. The League ministers made it a point to disagree with actions taken by their Congress colleagues. They refused to attend the parties at which Congress members would arrive at decisions before the formal meeting of the Executive Council so as to sideline Wavell.

Interim government - threat of breakdown

The Congress leaders had raised the objection (right after the League members were sworn in) that the League could not join the Interim Government without accepting the Cabinet Mission Plan.

Later, when non-cooperation of the League both inside and outside the Government became clear, the Congress members demanded that the League either give up Direct Action or leave the government. Further, the League refused to participate in the Constituent Assembly which met on 9th December, 1946 even though the statement made by His Majesty’s Government (on 6th December 1946) upheld the League’s stand on grouping. The breaking point came when the League demanded that the Constituent Assembly be dissolved because it was unrepresentative. On 5th February, 1947 the Congress members of the Interim Government sent a letter to Wavell with the demand that the League members should be asked to resign. A crisis was imminent.

PERIOD BETWEEN 1946 AND 1947

The R.I.N. (Royal Indian Navy) mutiny began on 18 February 1946, with the ratings on HMS Talwar going on a hunger strike and refusing to cooperate with authorities. They were protesting against flagrant racial discrimination, unpalatable food and abuses and demanded equal pay for white and Indian sailors. It appeared that the nationalist sentiment that had been growing since 1942 had affected the naval ratings as well.

The RIN mutiny passed through three stages.

       Stage I: The ratings formed organisations and protested. B.C. Dutt was arrested for scrawling ‘Quit India’ on HMS Talwar. A Naval Central Strike Committee was elected, headed by M.S. Khan. Soon the strike spread to castle and fort barracks and 22 ships in Bombay harbour.

       Stage 2: The upsurge spread to cities resulting in flare-ups in Bombay and Calcutta.

       Stage 3: People in different parts of the country expressed solidarity with the movement. Karachi, Madras, Delhi, Calcutta, Cochin, Jamnagar, Andamans, Aden and Bahrain joined in, affecting 78 ships and 20 shore establishments in all.

Political response

The CSP and CPI supported the movement. The Congress leaders advised restraint on the part of the strikers and Patel urged them to surrender. The Muslim League also was in favour of ‘restoration of discipline’ in the army and appealed for calling off the strike.

The Government crushed the mutiny, but having realised that the movement was an expression of popular militancy against the British rule, started thinking of granting substantial political concessions to India.

Under popular pressure the British were forced to free the sailors arrested on charges of mutiny.

Time-limit for British withdrawal

The situation was saved by Attlee’s announcement in Parliament on 20th February 1947 that the British would withdraw from India by 30th June 1948 and that lord Mountbatten would replace Wavell as Viceroy. This was no answer to the constitutional crisis that was at hand but it showed that the British decision about leaving India remained unchanged. The Congress responded with a gesture of cooperation to the League. Nehru appealed to Liaqat Ali Khan:

The British are fading out of the picture and the burden of this decision must rest on all of us here. It seems desirable that we should face this question squarely and not speak to each other from a distance.

But Jinnah’s reaction to Attlee’s statement was entirely different. He was confident that now he only needed to stick firmly to his position in order to achieve his goal of Pakistan. After all, the declaration made it clear that power would be transferred to more than one authority if the Constituent Assembly did not become a fully representative body, i.e. if the Muslim majority provinces did not join it.

The Governor of Punjab had warned in this regard that “the statement will be regarded as the prelude to the final showdown”, with every one out to “seize as such power as they can, if necessary by force”. He was soon proved right. The League began a civil disobedience campaign in Punjab which brought about the collapse of the coalition ministry headed by Khizr Hayat Khan of the Unionist Party.

Thus the situation which Mountbatten found on his arrival in India was a fairly intractable one. The League was on the war path, as Punjab showed, and Jinnah was obdurate that he would accept nothing less than a sovereign Pakistan. The Cabinet Mission Plan had clearly become defunct and there was no point in persisting with it. The only way the British could maintain unity was by throwing all their weight behind it. The role of mediators between the Congress and League had to be discarded. Those who opposed unity had to be put down firmly and those who wanted unity had to be openly supported. Despite Attlee’s claim years later - “we would have preferred a united India. We couldn’t get it, though we tried hard”, the truth was that the British chose to play safe and take both sides along without exercising any check or restraint even when the situation demanded this type of assertion of authority.

The 3^rd June plan and its outcome

This was done by making concessions to both the Congress and the League. India would be divided but in a manner that maximum unity was retained. The League’s demand would be accommodated by creating Pakistan, but it would be made as small as possible in order to accommodate the Congress stand on unity. Since Congress was making the bigger concession i.e. it was giving up its ideal of a united India, all its other stands were to be upheld by the British. For example, Mountbatten supported the Congress stand that princely states must not be given the option of independence. Mountbatten realised that it was vital to retain the goodwill of the congress if he hoped to persuade India to remain in the Commonwealth. Dominion status offered a chance of keeping India in the Commonwealth, even if for a while, and hence the 3rd June Plan declared that power would be handed over by 15th August 1947 on the basis of dominion status to India and Pakistan.

The Congress was willing to accept dominion status because it was the only way of assuming complete power immediately and taking the communally explosive situation in hand. British officials were half-hearted about preventing the communal situation from deteriorating further. Sardal Patel summed up the situation in his statement to the Viceroy: “You won’t govern yourself, and you won’t let us govern”. The British had abdicated responsibility and the advancing of the date for withdrawal to 15th August 1947 made this more apparent.

Indian independence act

The Act, introduced on 4 July, was enacted on 18 July. It formalized the Mountbatten plan.

1.    The Act provided for the partition of India to take effect from 5 August 1947.

2.    Pending the adoption of the new Constitution, every dominion and every province was to be governed by the provisions of the Government of India Act, 1935.

3.    Up to 31 March 1948 the dominions could modify the 1935 Act through the Governor-General and thereafter through their Constituent Assemblies.

4.    British Paramountcy was terminated.

5.    The King’s right to veto was given up.

The Indian Independence Act marked the end of colonial rule in India and the beginning of free India.

The speed with which the country was partitioned was disastrous from the Indian point of view, although it suited the British and enabled them to forsake responsibility for the worsening communal situation. Both transfer of power and division of the country, equally complicated processes, were hurried through in seventy two days from 3rd June to 15th August 1947. Some senior British officials like the Commander in Chief and the Punjab Governor were of the opinion that a minimum period of a few years was necessary to effect a peaceful division. Jinnah complicated matters further by refusing to let Mountbeatten be a common Governor General of India and Pakistan. There was no institutional structure to which problems arising from division could be referred and even the joint defence machinery broke down in December 1947 as a fall out of the hostilities in Kashmir.

Massacres that accompanied partition

The speed with which division was allocated and the delay in announcing the awards of the Boundary Commission aggravated the tragedy to partition. These were Mountabatten’s decisions. Mountbatten delayed the announcement of the Boundary Commission Award (even though it was ready by 12th August 1947) to disown responsibility for further complications. This created confusion for ordinary citizens as well as the officials. People living in the villages between Lahore and Amritsar stayed on in their homes in the belief that they were on the right side of the border. Migrations necessarily became a frenzied affair, often culminating in massacres.

The officials were busy arranging their own transfers rather than using their authority to maintain law and order. Had officials in every grade in the civil services, and all the personnel of the armed services, been in position in their respective new countries before Independence Day, it seems there would have been a better chance of preventing widespread disorder.

Another consideration on accepting partition was that it firmly ruled out the spectre of the ‘balkanisation’ of the country. The Congress had the support of the Viceroy and behind him His Majesty’s Government, in refusing the option of independence to the princely states. Through persuasion or force, they were made to join either the Union of India or Pakistan.

Gandhi and partition

It is common knowledge that Gandhi was so distressed when partition became an imminent reality that he no longer wished to live for 125 years, as he had stated earlier. One popular interpretation is that Gandhi’s advice was ignored by his disciples, Nehru and Patel. Though he felt this betrayal acutely, he did not wish to condemn them publicly because they had been his faithful followers.

Gandhi’s own statements, however, suggest that the main reason for his helplessness lay in the communalisation of the masses. When different segments of people wanted partition, what could he or the Congress do but to accept it? At his daily prayer meeting on 4th June 1947 Gandhi said.

“The demand has been granted because you asked for it. The Congress never asked for it ... But the congress can feel the pulse of the people. It realised that the Khalsa as also the Hindus desired it”.

Socialists and Gandhians appealed to Gandhi to launch a struggle for unity bypassing the Congress leaders. Gandhi pointed out that the problem was not that he was unwilling to go ahead without the Congress leaders. After all, few had agreed with his assessment in 1942 that the time was right for a struggle of the Quit India type, and yet he had defied their counsels and he had been proved right. The crucial lacuna in 1947 was that there were no “forces of good” upon which he could “build up a programme”. He confessed - “Today I see no sign of such a healthy feeling. And, therefore, I shall have to wait until the time comes”.

The time never came, for political developments were moving at too fast a pace. Partition was announced on 3rd June and implemented on 15th August 1947. Gandhi’s advice to Congressmen, conveyed in his speech to the AICC meeting on 14th June 1947, was to accept Partition as an unavoidable necessity for the present, but not accept it in their hearts and fight to reverse it later, when passions would subside.

Congress and the Communal problem

It is often argued that partition could have been avoided if the Congress had been willing to conciliate Jinnah, not only before he came up with the demand for a separate state in 1940, but also in 1942 at the time of the Cripps Mission or even in 1946 when the Cabinet Mission Plan was put forward. Maulana Azad in his autobiography- India Wins Freedom has supported this position. This view ignores the fact that Jinnah laid down the impossible condition that he was willing to negotiate with the Congress only if it declared itself a Hindu body and accepted the Muslim League as the sole representative of the Muslims. Had the Congress accepted this demand, it would have had to give up its secular character. This would not only have meant betrayal of the nationalist Muslims who had resolutely stood behind the Congress at great personal cost, but betrayal of the Indian people and their future. The logical culmination of accepting Jinnah’s demand would have been the creation of a Hindu fascist state, from a Hindu body to Hindu state being a logical next step. In Rajendra Prasad’s words, the Congress “would be denying its own past, falsifying its history, and betraying its future”.

Pitfalls of conciliation

In fact, though the Congress refused to negotiate with Jinnah on his terms, it made unilateral concessions to Muslim demands despite Jinnah’s intransigence. The Congress accepted the autonomy of Muslim majority provinces during the negotiations with the Cripps Mission on 1942. In his talks with Jinnah in 1944 Gandhi recognised that Muslim majority provinces would have the right of self-determination. When the Cabinet Mission Plan proposed that Muslim majority provinces (groups B and C) would set up a separate Constituent Assembly if they wished, the Congress did not oppose this. Congress opposed compulsory grouping (because it would force N.W.F.P. and Assam into groups they may not wish to join). But by the end of 1946 Nehru declared that his party would accept the interpretation of the Federal Court on whether grouping was compulsory or optional. Accordingly, when the British Cabinet clarified in its 6th December 1946 statement that grouping would be compulsory, the Congress quietly accepted the new interpretation. As we have pointed out, earlier Nehru appealed to Liaqat Ali Khan for cooperation when His Majesty’s Government announced a time limit for their withdrawal on 20th February 1947. So when the Congress finally accepted the 3rd June Plan and Partition - this was only the final act of surrender to the League’s demand. It was the culmination of a process of reconcilement to the harsh realities of a situation created by the League’s intransigent championing of the demand of a sovereign Muslim majority state.

Thus, the policy of concessions, intended to reassure Muslims that their interests would be protected, ended up as surrender to extreme communal demands. For example, The Congress conceded the right of secession in the hope that “the Muslims would not exercise it but rather use it to shed their fears.” This was wishful thinking as by the 1940s Muslims communalism was no longer based on an assiduous fanning of minority fears, but on an assertive “Muslims nation” determined on a separate sovereign state. Consequently, every time the Congress made a concession Jinnah pegged his demand a notch higher, seeing that Congress was yielding. Far from cutting the ground from under the communalist’s feet, every round of concessions strengthened their foothold as more and more Muslims joined their ranks, impressed by their success. Along with Muslim communalism, Hindu communalism also registered rapid growth as the Hindu communalists projected themselves as the only champions of Hindu interests, which, they charged, the Congress was betraying in the hope of winning over Muslims.

The basic failure

This lack of the logic of communalism in the 1940s was only symptomatic of the general failure of the Congress in contending with communalism. Though the Congress was committed to secularism and though Gandhi staked his life for Hindu Muslim unity, the Congress was not able to formulate a long term strategy to fight communalism in its different forms at the level of both politics and ideology. The Congress leaders naively believed that reassurance, generous concessions and willingness to reach a compromise would solve the communal problem. As Prof. Bipan Chandra has said:

“The fact is that communalism is basically an ideology which could not have been, and cannot be, appeared; it had to be confronted and opposed ... The failure to do so was the real weakness of the Congress and the national movement.

INDEPENDENCE AND THE PRINCLY STATES

The Indian Independence Act 1947 which was responsible for the creation of the dominions of India and Pakistan left the question of the future of Indian states indefinite. Under the Act the paramountcy of the Crown lapsed and the states could join either dominion or remain free. Although Indian opinion was against the latter option, it was incorporated on the advice of the Viceroy’s Political Adviser, Sir Conrad Confield who was a great champion of the rights of princely states.

On the eve of independence, no less than 565 states were left in the subcontinent with options allowed under the Indian Independence Act 1947 with a great potency of mischief and turmoil. Although the Viceroy Lord Louis Mountbatten was sympathetic to the Indian view that paramountcy did not lapse but vested with the successors to the Government of India, Sir Conrad’s opinion prevailed with the British Government. This left a legacy of complicated and explosive problems with the Government of India which were satisfactorily solved (with one exception) largely due to the ability of Sardar Vallabhai Patel and Sri V.P. Menon who became Secretary to the States Ministry headed by Sardar Patel.

It was soon realised that though the lapse of paramountcy created complications, it would also help in sweeping away outmoded arrangements arising from various treaties signed by the British with different princes. “The Instrument of Accession” which has sometimes been referred to as a new kind of paramountcy was the method by which Patel and Menon brought about the integration of the Indian states. The revolution effected by them is of great significance in the history of modern India. It was a bloodless coup by which a number of princely states claiming various rights which could have seriously impeded the building of modern India were brought down without a struggle.

The Instrument of Accession and the Standstill Agreement provided for surrender of certain limited powers to the Dominion Government leaving them free to manage their internal affairs.

In the matter of getting the states to accede to India, the Viceroy Lord Mountbatten played a very helpful role which greatly contributed to the smooth transition. As a result of all these efforts, 562 of 565 states had acceded to India before independence. Three states continued to remain intrasigent. After India became independent, developments in these states followed different patterns. The three states concerned are Junagadh, Hyderabad and Kashmir.

Junagadh 

Junagadh in Kathiawar was a small state ruled by a Muslim Nawab with a Hindu population of 85%. It was surrounded by territories of Hindu princes of Baroda and Bhavnagar who had already acceded to India. Thus geographically and culturally Junagadh belonged to India. The Nawab however harboured designs of joining his state to Pakistan. The Pakistan Government knowing fully the weakness of the case did nothing to discourage the Nawab who moved his troops to occupy certain outer portions of his territory. This led to counter moves by India and the Nawab fled to Pakistan and his forces offered no resistance to Indian troops who moved in. Pakistan was greatly upset at these events and later on urged these points in defence of their stand on Kashmir which although a Muslim majority State was ruled by a Hindu ruler who acceded to India.

Later on in a plebiscite held on 20th February 1948, 99.95% of voters of Junagarh voted in favour of joining the Union of India.

Hyderabad

The second state whose accession to India did not take place was Hyderabad. This majority state was ruled by a Muslim ruler, the Nizam who had claimed special status amongst princely states from the British, which was however never accorded. The aim of the Nizam was however not to accede to Pakistan but remain independent. Neither the Viceroy nor the British Government gave him any encouragement. The Nizam started organising irregular forces called “Razakars” to enable him to oppose the Indian moves. The “Razakars” were loosely formed militant groups who were used to terrorise the opposition in the state and interrupt the functioning of the services of the Government of India like Railways, Post and telegraph, etc. Lord Mountbatten offered special conditions to the Nizam in the Instrument of Accession to avoid unpleasant developments. However, the Nizam resisted these overtures and continued on his confrontation course. As long as Mountbatten’s Governor-Generalship continued, he kept up negotiations with the Nizam. On his departure from India, he was succeeded by Sri C. Rajagopalachari as Governor-General. The Nizam conveyed his desire to sign the Instrument of Accession as earlier negotiated between him and Mountbatten. The Razakkars had turned violent attacking trains and peoples organisations. The Government of India felt no useful purpose would be served by negotiations and the army moved in to suppress the Razakars. Very little resistance was offered and the Nizam’s dominions were incorporated into the territory of India.

Kashmir

The last of the states which did not accede to India before independence was Kashmir. This state with its predominantly Muslim population was ruled by a Hindu Rajah. The aim of the Maharajah of Kashmir was to be independent if possible or accede to either of the dominions which offered him better terms. In order to gain time he offered to sign standstill agreements with both India and Pakistan. This was immediately agreed to by Pakistan but not by India. The Maharajah signed the standstill agreement with Pakistan under which Post & Telegraph and other services were operated by them. At this point, tribesmen from the frontier provinces of Pakistan (supported by the Government of Pakistan) crossed into the state and overran many areas and reached up to Srinagar. The Maharaja appealed to India and since India would not intervene without the state’s accession to India, the Instrument of Accession was signed by the Maharajah of Kashmir on 26th October 1948. The Indian troops thereafter marched into Kashmir and the raiders were cleared from the valley. At this stage the case was referred to the U.N. and a ceasefire ordered. It was agreed that a plebiscite would be held to determine the wishes of the Kashmiris after the vacation of aggression by Pakistan. The aggression was never vacated and ultimately the Government of India declared that the accession of the state to India was now full and complete.

Although the parts of Kashmir which were not under the occupation of Pakistan were integrated into India, with special provisions under Art. 370 for the protection of the States identity, Pakistan is not reconciled to this situation and has time and again disturbed the peace of this sub-continent on this issue.

In 1950, India became a republic. The former provinces and native states became constituent units of the republic to be called states or Union Territories and India became a “Union of States”.

In 1947 when India attained freedom, there were nine Governor’s provinces, five Chief Commissioner’s provinces and certain tribal areas, frontier regions and the Andaman and Nicobar islands. The Indian states included major states like Hyderabad, Kashmir, Mysore, Baroda and Travancore and several hundred small states run on autocratic lines like feudal principalities. According to the Independence Act even these could be sovereign states if they did not wish to accede to either dominion.

Due to the magnificent efforts of Sardar Patel and V.P. Menon, the problems had been reduced to manageable proportion when India became a republic. The accession and integration of the states into the Union was achieved by two operations-integration and merger. Rajasthan was created by integration of several small states in Rajputana. The states of Travancore-Cochin, Saurashtra, etc, were formed by similar process of integration. The process of merger was particularly useful in states such as Bihar and Orissa, Serakala and Kasravan merged with Bihar, Mayurbanj and some feudatory states merged with Orissa. The state of Pudukkotah was also merged with the province of Madras.

Constitution adopted and brought into force in 1950 provided for three classes. Part A, Part B Part C states.

       Part A states were generally those which constituted the former British Indian provinces, some of which had expanded by the merger of states mentioned earlier. All Part A states were full-fledged members of the Union

       Part B states were composed mostly of integrated states. As these were considered to be in a lower level of political development, they were under the general control of the Central Government and had to comply with such particular directions as the latter may issue from time to time.

       Part C states were directly administered by the Centre on a unitary basis. They consisted mostly of the earlier Chief Commissioner’s provinces. The Union executive was responsible to Parliament for their administration.

The Andaman & Nicobar Islands were classified as a Part D state, fully under the control of the Central Government. The number of states which formed the Union of India in 1950 are shown below:-

Part A states-10, Party B states-8, Part C states-10, Part D-1.

This three-tier system of states organisation (Part A, B, C states) was not a very happy situation and was bound to be changed. Many suggestions had been made to terminate this arrangement and evolve a more national scheme. However, sudden political developments in Andhra precipitated the end of this system. In 1952 as a result of continued agitation, it was decided to create a new State of Andhra for Telugu speaking population from certain parts of Madras and Hyderabad. This was the first state to be formed on a purely linguistic basis. This led to countrywide demand and agitation for formation of linguistic states. The political leadership of the day could not stand against these demands. A States Reorganisation Commission was constituted in 1953 to go into the question “objectively and dispassionately”. Former Judge of the Supreme Court Justice Fazl Ali headed this Commission assisted by two other members, Pandit H.N. Kunzru and Sardar K.M. Panikkar. On 30th September 1955 the Commission submitted its report. They emphasised that any scheme of re-organisation of states must have the following aims:

1)   preservation and strengthening of the unity and security of India,

2)   linguistic and cultural homogeneity,

3)   financial, economic and administrative considerations and

4)   successful working of the national development plans.

The Commission also recognised that re-organisation problems required a regional approach and a uniform pattern would be difficult to implement throughout the country. The Commission recommended abolition of the Part A,B,C state classification, abolition of special arrangements with Part B states and the institution of Rajpramukhs. On these bases, the Commission recommended creation of 16 states and 3 centrally administered territories.

The report was discussed at length in Parliament and the states legislatures after which the States Re-organisation Bill was introduced. Subsequently, Bombay was divided into the states of Maharashtra and Gujarat, the State of Nagaland created from Assam and Haryana from Punjab.

Later a number of states in the north-east such as Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Tripura, came into being on ethno-linguistic grounds. Some Union territories like Goa also became full fledged states.

Rise of Communalism in India

Communalism is a belief that all those who have a common religion, also have, as a result common social, political, cultural and economic interests and identities. In other words, it is the notion that religion forms the base of the society and a basic unit of division in the society; that it is religion that determines all the other interests of man. To understand it better, let us look at it differently. Man is a multi faceted social being, who can, at the same time have a number of identities. His identity can be based on his country, region, sex, occupation, position within the family, caste or religion. A communalist would choose from this wide range, only the religious identity and emphasize it out of proportions. As a result, social relationship, political behaviour, and economic struggles might be defined on the basis of the religious identity. So, briefly put, it is the super-imposition of the religious category over all others, which becomes the starting point of communalism. Two more things need to be clarified at this stage:

Firstly, in the context of pre-independence India, communalism expressed itself mainly in terms of a conflict between certain sections of the Hindus and Muslims. It was partly for this reason that communalism was also referred to as the Hindu-Muslim problem, or the Hindu-Muslim question, in contemporary debates and literature. However, from this we should not assume that the problem was confined only to the Hindus and Muslims or that it was a religious problem at all.

Secondly, communal beliefs and propaganda did not always remain at the same pitch. In fact, as the society got more politicized and as the struggle for independence intensified, communalism also, correspondingly, shifted to higher levels of propaganda. Briefly, the communal propaganda and arguments had three levels.

i)     that the interests of all the numbers of a religious community were the same; for example it was argued that a Muslim Zamindar and a peasant had common interests because both were Muslims, (or Hindus or Sikhs as the case might be),

ii)    that the interests of the members of one religious community were different from the members of another religious community. In other words this meant that all Hindus had different interests from all Muslims and vice-versa,

iii)   that not only were these interests different, but also antagonistic and conflicting. This, in other words meant that Hindus and Muslims could not co-exist in peace because of conflicting interests.

Needless to say, these arguments were false, based on a wrong understanding of interests and had no roots in reality. Throughout the medieval period large sections of Hindus and Muslims had co-existed with tolerance and harmony. Although they maintained their religious differences, the common people, among both Hindus and Muslims lived in peace throughout and continued to interact on a cross-communal network.

Causes of communalism in India

Socio-economic factors

The British conquest brought about a change in the power structure which generally penetrated down to all the sections of the Indian society. To begin with, the British conquest marked the decadence of the upper class Muslims. It was particularly so in Bengal, where they lost their semi-monopoly in employment in the upper posts of army, administration and judiciary. They were also slowly evicted from their dominant position in land-holding as well. In particular the Permanent Settlement of 1793 and the making of English as the official court language in 1833, deprived the upper class Muslims of their wealth, power and influence. As it happened, owing to the uniqueness of the Indian situation, the loss of the Muslims invariably went in favour of the Hindus who had responded more positively to education and other modernizing forces than, the Muslims who remained largely backward. In other words, “economic development within the British imperialist system benefitted a group of Indians of whom a far larger proportion was Hindus than Muslims”. (W.C. Smith, Modern Islam in India, 1946)

Muslims, adapted later than Hindus to such British novelties as education, the new professions, posts in the administration, and culture. Consequently an intellectual awakening resulting in a re-assessment of the old beliefs, customs and values was also late among the Muslims, compared to Hindus. This time ‘lag’ between Ram Mohan Roy and Syed Ahmed Khan for instance, would help to explain, a feeling of weakness and insecurity on the part of the Muslims, leading to a reliance on religion and traditional ways of thinking.

This ‘lag’ theory i.e. the theory of a time lag between the Hindus and Muslims in responding to the forces of modernization and socio-economic development in the 19th century had not been found to be wholly acceptable by recent historians. It should, therefore be taken with same reservations. One major reason is its different application in different regions. If the Muslims as a group suffered in Bengal and as a result of the British rule, they benefited in some other parts like U.P. Still the ‘lag’ theory holds importance for as it gives us a clue to the 20th century phenomenon of the Muslims’ alienation from the national mainstream. The relationship of the lag theory with communalism was summed up very accurately by Jawaharlal Nehru in a letter to his friend, written in 1939.

“After the Indian mutiny of 1857, there was a period of intense repression and both the Hindus and the Muslims suffered from it but the Muslims probably suffered more. Gradually people began to get over this suppression. The Hindus took to English education which led to state services much more than the Muslims. The Hindus also took the professions and to industry in large numbers. Among the Muslims, the reactionary elements prevented the spread to modern education as well as industry. The Hindus developed a new middle class during this period, while the Muslims still continued to remain largely feudal. The Hindu middle class laid the foundation of the nationalist movement, but about a generation later, the Muslims went the same way, took to English education and state service and professions and developed a new class also. A conflict arose between the various middle class elements for state services and this was the beginning of the communal problem in its modern phase.”

Communalism in India was, therefore, a struggle for jobs between various communities, unequal educationally, politically and economically. Historian K.B. Krishna (Problems of Minorities, 1939), one of the earliest scholars to work on the communal problem felt that these struggles were accentuated in an epoch of the development of Indian capitalism, under feudal conditions, by British imperialism by its policy of counterpoise. It was therefore a product of imperialist-capitalist-feudal structure of India. To quote K.B. Krishna: “History of the communal representation is the history of British policy in India, also one of the growth and diversity of middle class consciousness in India and the demand of the middle class for political powers. But British imperialism is one aspect of the problem. The social economy of the country another.”

Role of British policy

The British policy holds a very special responsibility for favoring the growth of communalism. If communalism could flourish in India and reach monstrous proportions, which it did in 1947, it was possible largely because of the support it received from the British government. But before we discuss the British policy in detail certain clarifications might be made.

The British did not create communalism. We have seen the certain socio-economic and cultural differences already existed. They were not created but only taken advantage of by the British, to serve their political end, W.C. Smith (Modern Islam in India, 1946), has made this point very forcefully:

“The political policy of the government would have been less successful than it was, had there not been powerful economic factors operating to reinforce it. Communalism could not have proved so effective a divisive force, nor could the upper class Muslims have been so effectively repressed, had the Hindu and the Muslim sections of the class concerned been of the same economic level. But they were not.”

It is therefore, quite obvious that the British policy of ‘divide and rule’ that we are going to talk about, could succeed only because something in the internal social, economic, cultural and political conditions of society favoured its success. It is important to note that conditions were remarkably favourable for the use the growth of communalism as well as for the policy of ‘divide and rule’. Communalism grew and prospered not only because it served the political needs of the British rule but also because it met the social needs of some sections of the Indian society. Communalism was not a British creation. It was the result of a combination of a variety of factors.

The history of the British policy toward communalism can be easily traced to the period just after the rebellion of 1857.

The post-1857 period made it imperative for the rulers to adopt a new set of policies in order to combat the possible threat to their empire. The British policy, therefore, underwent significant changes after 1857 and acquired a dual character. It now consisted of a combination of liberal and imperialist policies. Liberal-in so much as it recognised and conceded the claims and aspirations of the new classes and sections as they arose; and imperialist because what was conceded was always circumscribed by imperial interests, utilizing the rivalries of various classes and interests. This policy was formulated with a double edged purpose to make friends by catering favourably to the aspirations of some newly emerging sections, and then to counterpoise one against the other, to offset one sectional interest against the other, one class against the other. This was, in a nutshell, the role of British policy, a policy of concession, counterpoise and coercion.

Once this policy became operative, its net result was the spread of communalism. But even while pursuing this policy, the communal ideology became a useful ally in serving the political objectives of the government. Generally speaking, at this stage, there were two main objectives before the government.

1.    To make some friends in the society, to offer patronage to some sections mainly in order to exercise influence and extend control and thereby strengthen its base in the society.

2.   To prevent a unity of the Indian people. If all the sections of the society could unite under any ideological influence, they could threaten the British Empire. Therefore communal ideology had to be used and spread to deny the oneness of the Indian people. This was done more effectively in the 20th century when the communal demands and organisations were encouraged to negate the legitimacy and credibility of the nationalist demands, ideology and organisation. Thus on the one hand, all attempts were made to keep the Muslims away from the Congress, and then the claims of the Congress were run down on the grounds that it did not represent the Muslims!

Communalism served the government in yet another way. Communal deadlock and the worsening communal situation could also be used as justification for the continuation of the British rule. The argument they gave, went something like this-the major political parties i.e. Congress, Muslim League and the Hindu Mahasabha could not come to an agreement among themselves. The Indian people were divided amongst themselves, and were therefore incapable of governing themselves, if the British rule ended. The impossibility of any Indian alternative to British rule was, thus, emphasized. This was the British policy of first encouraging communalism and then using it for their own political ends.

Separate-electorates

The declaration of separate-electorates in the legislative bodies in 1909, as a part of the Morley-Minto reforms is a major landmark in the history of communalism. Separate-electorates meant grouping of constituencies, votes and elected candidates on the basis of religion. In practical terms it meant introducing Muslims constituencies, Muslim voters and Muslim candidates. The election campaign and politicization was thus strictly confined within the walls of each religion. All this was to have disastrous consequences.

The introduction of the separate-electorate was based on the notion that the Indian society was a mere collection of interests and groups and that it was basically divided between the Hindus and Muslims. Indian Muslims were on the other hand, regarded as “a separate, distinct and monolithic community”. It was also based on the motive of entrusting power in the hands of potential allies as well as preventing Hindu-Muslim unity. Arguing against joint-electorates, Minto pointed out to Morley:

“Under the joint scheme, the Hindu would not only be able to elect their own men, but a Mohammedan as well, who might not represent bona fide Muslim interests.”

According to these reforms, the Muslims were assured that they would be granted representation in the councils, not merely according to their ‘numerical strength’, but also according to their ‘political importance’. This Minto assured a Muslim deputation:

“The pitch of your address, as I understand it, is a claim that in any system of representation ... the Mohammedan community should be represented as a community ... you just claim that your numerical strength, both in respect to the political importance of your community and the service it has rendered to the Empire entitle you to consideration. I am entirely in accord with you ... I can only say to you that the Mohammedan Community may rest assured that their political rights and interests as a community will be safeguarded in any administrative reorganization with which I am concerned ...”

The impact of the separate electorates was as follows:

1.    it created the institutional structures containing separatism.

2.    it was to produce severe constraints on the Congress and limit its space for nationalist activities,

3.    it was to active the communal groups and organisations, and

4.    it ensured the impossibility of a common agreement among Indian political groups.

However, the impact of the separate-electorates was to surface in Indian politics only later. David Page (Prelude to Partition, 1982) in a recent book has summed it up very well:

“The granting of separate-electorates appears to have been an attempt by the Raj to shore up a crucial part of its system of control ... it was an attempt to extend and broaden the base of its rule by extending and broadening the support of its traditional allies.”

19th century revivalism

The revivalist tendencies in the 19th century acted as a contributory factor in the growth of communalism. Revivalism was a very general phenomenon under imperialism the world over. It meant an attempt at restoration of self respect which had been deeply injured by political subjection. This self respect was sought to be restored by glorifying India’s past, which was projected as a compensation for India’s existing humiliation.

Although revivalism solved some problems i.e. of inculcating a sense of pride in one’s past, it creates some other problems. One such problem was the projection of different glorious origins for Hindus and Muslims. This added a historical factor to the already existing religious, cultural and socio-economic differences. The reformers among the Hindus glorified Indian’ ancient past and condemned the medieval period as an age of barbarians. Their Muslim counterparts looked to the history of the Arabs for pride and glory. So at a time when Hindus and Muslims needed to be united in very sense, they were shown to be different people, historically. This damage became clear in the 20th century when Mohammed Ali Jinnah, while formulating his two-nation theory declared that Hindus and Muslims were two nations also because they had a different history and that often the hero for one was a villian for the other.

Political trends

Related to the question of revivalism was the emergence of certain political trends in the late 19th century among a section of the Muslims in India. Although these trends were far from being communal, they nevertheless, provided the background and a certain justification to subsequent communal politics. In this connection a reference may be made to Sir Syed Ahmed Khan.

The views and political activities of Syed Ahmed Khan were always marked with certain ambivalence. He started his activities without any communal bias. His main aim was to introduce reforms among the Muslims, impress upon them the necessity of modern education and secure official patronage for them. For this purpose, he formed the Aligarh College which received financial support from many Hindus and had many Hindu students and teachers. He himself preached harmony between Hindus and Muslims.

However, his politics changed after the formation of the Congress in 1885. He found his priority of securing administrative posts for Muslims and of professing loyalty to the British rule, to be in absolute contradiction with the anti-imperialist edge of the Congress. Although his main opposition with Congress was on the attitude towards the British government, he voiced his disapproval in terms of the Congress being a Hindu body, and therefore opposed to the Muslims. Thus he laid down the foundation of certain basic themes of communalism. One such theme was that being a majority Hindus would dominate the Muslims and override their interest, if the British rule ended and the power was transferred to Indians. It was on this ground that Syed Ahmed Khan was opposed to the establishment of representative democratic institutions. According to him the democracy would only mean the power to the majority as “it would be like a game of dice in which one man had four dice and the other only one”. He also felt that any system of elections would put power into the hands of Hindus. Hence, the three main themes of communalism i.e.

1.    opposition to the nationalist forces,

2.    opposition to the democratic process and institutions, and

3.    loyalty to the British Government

         could be traced back to the ideology of Syed Ahmed Khan and his followers.

Needless to say these arguments were wholly incorrect. Although there were many Hindus in it, the congress could not be called a Hindu Organisation, by any stretch of imagination.

There was nothing Hindu about its demands and programme. Badruddin Tyabji, a Muslim, presided on its session in 1887, and the number of Muslim delegates to the Congress Session increased in subsequent years so as to include many prominent Muslims in it. Also, democracy or modern representative institutions, posed absolutely no threat to the Muslims. In fact it posed the threat only to the Rajas, the feudal and Jagirdari elements among the Muslims (as also among the Hindus) of whom Syed Ahmed Khan was a representative.

Partition of Bengal and the formation of the Muslim league

The partition of Bengal (1905) may have started as an administrative measure, but it was soon transformed into a major political advantage for the government as it intended to convert Bengal into areas in Hindu majority and Muslim majority. It was thus the result of the British desire to weaken the nationalism of Bengal and consolidate a Muslim block against it. Said Curzon the Viceroy:

“The partition would invest the Muslims of East Bengal with a unity which they had not enjoyed since the days of old Mussalman Viceroys and Kings”.

The partition scheme and the subsequent Swadeshi Movement was followed by the formation of the All India Muslim League towards the end of 1906, with official patronage. It consisted of a group of big Zamindars, ex-bureaucrats and other upper class Muslims, like Aga Khan, the Nawab of Dacca and Nawab Muslim-ul-Malik. Its motive was to thwart the young Muslims from going over to the Congress, and thereby into the nationalist fold. The Muslim League was formed as purely a loyalist body whose only job was to look up to the government for favour and patronage. And they were not disappointed.

Another important feature of this period was the growth of Muslim separatism, because of

1.    the surfacing of Hindu revivalist tendencies during the Swadeshi movement.

2.    the British propaganda that the partition of Bengal would benefit the Muslims, and

3.    spurts of communal violence. A number of communal riots broke out in Eastern Bengal, in the period following the Swadeshi movement.

Lucknow pact

Lucknow Pact (1916) was an attempt made by the Indian organisation, namely the Congress and Muslim League, to arrive at a settlement. The Congress conceded separate electorates as a temporary arrangement, in order to obtain Muslim League’s support. Two things need to be remembered regarding the Lucknow Pact:

1.         It was an arrangement between the leaders, not between the people. The Congress-League settlement was wrongly equated with a Hindu-Muslim settlement, the assumption being that the Muslim League truly represented the Muslims.

2.         Soon the Lucknow Pact became redundant because of the Government of India Act, 1919, which granted much more to Muslims than the Lucknow Pact.

Khilafat

The Khilafat agitation, was a product of a particular political climate where Indian nationalism and Pan-Islamism went hand in hand. It witnessed Muslims’ participation in the national movement at an unprecedented level. However, communalism started making inroads into Indian politics and society, just after the withdrawal of the Non-Cooperation Movement following the violence at Chauri-Chaura. There were many symptoms of increasing communalism in the period 1922-27:

1.    Communal violence erupted at an unprecedented level. In U.P. alone there were as many as 91 riots from 1923-1927. Issues of cow-slaughter and music before mosques come into prominence.

2.    Khilafat bodies representing Hindu-Muslim unity gradually petered out.

3.    The Muslim League got revived during 1922-23 and began to openly preach separatist politics.

4.    Its Hindu counterpart, the Hindu Mahasabha, formed in 1915 and lying inactive since then, found good climate in which to revise itself.

5.    Movement like Tabligh (propaganda) and Tanzim (organisation) arose among the Muslims. They were partly a response of Shuddhi and sangathan among the Hindus. These were again in part a response to the forcible conversions made during the Moplah rebellion. All this vitiated the atmosphere considerably.

6.    R.S.S. (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) was founded in 1925.

There were many reasons for this worsening communal situation:

The Khilafat alliance brought religious heads into politics. But they entered politics on their own terms. The withdrawal of the movement however, did not lead to a withdrawal of their participation from politics. This gave a certain religious interpretation to politics.

The nature of the political structure itself contained the seed of communalism through the introduction of separate-electorates. This structure was enlarged by the Montagu-Chelmesford reforms (1919) which created space for communal propaganda and political alignments along communal lines.

The spread of education without a corresponding growth in the employment opportunities left an army of unemployed educated people who could use religion for jobs, favour, etc.

The political situation as it stood in 1927 was far from satisfactory. Nationalist forces were divided and at a low ebb. Communalism was gaining momentum.

Parting of the ways

The arrival of the Simon Commission and its near unanimous boycott by all sections of political opinion, once again provided an opportunity for unity. A section of the Muslim League, under the leadership of Jinnah, took the initiative and was willing to give up separate-electorates in favour of joint-electorates, if certain conditions were met. These were:

1/3rd representation for the Muslims in the central legislature

separation of Sind from Bombay as a separate province,

reform in the North-West Frontier provinces, and

Muslims’ representation in the legislative council in proportion to their population in Punjab and Bengal.

These demands were accepted by the Congress, which opened up prospects for unity. But its rejection in uncompromising terms by the Hindu Mahasabha at the All Parties Conference (1928) complicated matters. The incompatibility between the League and Mahasabha frustrated all attempts at unity. The Nehru Report (framed by Motilal Nehru and Tej Bahadur Sapru), was rejected by the Muslim League as it did not incorporate all their demands.

The impact of the Nehru report

It led to the estrangement of Jinnah, who called it a ‘Parting of the Ways’ with the Congress, went back to the separate-electorates, and formulated his famous fourteen points (including separate-electorates, reservation of seats in the centre and provinces, reservation of jobs for Muslims, creation of new Muslim majority provinces, etc.) which became the text of the communal demands.

It increased the distance between various political groups and pushed Jinnah more toward communalism.

It also contributed to the aloofness and even hostility of most leaders among the Muslims towards Civil Disobedience Movement.

Towards a mass base- extremist phase

The event of 1928-29 demonstrated a drifting apart of the communal forces. Soon this drifting apart was to reach a point of no return. This was the starting point of communalism transforming into an irresistible mass force. By 1940, all the communal demands were to pale into insignificance in front of the new demand-the demand for Pakistan, as a separate homeland for Muslims. This demand was finally achieved in 1947. Let us look at these events in more details.

The Government of India Act, 1935, provided for provincial autonomy and a wider franchise than earlier. Elections were held in early 1937 under separate-electorates. The results were quite revealing. In the general constituencies Congress swept the polls, was in a position to form ministries in six provinces and was the largest single party in two others. In the Muslim constituencies however, the Congress performance was disappointing. Out of 482 Muslim constituencies, Congress contested 58 and won 26. Quite interestingly, even the Muslim League, claiming to be a representative of the Muslims, performed very badly, did not get a single seat in the North-West Frontier Provinces, got 2 seats out of 84 in Punjab and 3 out of 33 in Sind. It was not a position to form a ministry anywhere. In the crucial provinces of Bengal and Punjab, the ministries were formed by regional parties (Unionist Party led by Sikander Hayat Khan in Punjab and Praja Krishak Party led by Fazl-ul-Haq in Bengal).

The election results confronted the Muslim League and the Congress with different messages. For the Congress, the message was loud and clear. It had a strong base among the Hindus but was yet to establish itself as a representative of the Muslims. However, the only hope was that even its rival among the Muslims, the Muslim League, could not claim to represent them. The congress, therefore, had a two-fold project.

To work among the Muslims masses and bring them into the Congress fold. In 1937, it did not seem a difficult task because the Muslims seemed to be completely independent of any dominant political influence-communal or nationalist.

To ignore the Muslim League completely as it had the feet of clay. There seemed no point in trying to make a settlement with the league as the election results had demonstrated its unrepresentative character. Nehru, therefore, declared quite trimumpantly that there were only two forces in the country-nationalism and imperialism being represented respectively by the Congress and the Government.

To achieve these two-fold tasks, the Congress decided to launch a ‘Muslim mass contact campaign’. This was an attempt to ignore all the organisations and make a direct appeal to the Muslims to join the Congress. Jinnah was quite alarmed by this move and warned the Congress to stay away from the Muslims, because, according to him, only the Muslim League could represent the Muslims.

Muslim League had, hitherto, been an elite organisation, dominated by the princes and the Zamindars and had absolutely no base among the masses. In order to succeed in the electoral politics and be in a better bargaining position vis-a-vis other dominant groups, it was important to have a mass base and be a popular organisation, much like the Congress was.

By 1937 all the fourteen points of Jinnah had been granted by the government. And yet he found himself nowhere! He was just not able to carry himself and the League, of which he had become the permanent President, to a position of Political respectability. Therefore, it was important to maximize the league’s membership and also to place the demand at a much higher pitch since all the other demands (like separate-electorates, reservation of seat, etc.) had been acceded.

In order to achieve these two-fold tasks. Jinnah did the followings:

1.    A massive campaign for the population of the League was launched. The Muslim League actually broke out of its elite shell and began to acquire a mass character (although among Muslim masses only). Membership fee was reduced, provincial committees were formed and the party programme was also transformed so as to acquire a socio-economic content.

2.    An equally strong campaign was launched to denounce and condemn the Congress ministries. They were shown to represent Hindu-Raj, and hostile to Muslim minorities. This was the surest way of creating a Hindu-Muslim divide. The Congress was asked to concentrate only on the Hindus, as it was seen by Jinnah, as a Hindu Body.

In 1940, at the Lahore session Jinnah came up with the two-nation theory. It said that Muslims were not a minority, they were a nation. Hindus and Muslims, consisted of two nations, as they were different people economically, politically, socially, culturally and historically. Therefore the Muslims of India should have a sovereign state for themselves. Hence the proposal for Pakistan as a separate homeland for Muslims was raised.

As a result of all that has been discussed above, communalism began to emerge as a mass force. Although it had not become one by 1940, but the process of the transformation of communalism into a mass force had been set in motion. This was to lead to partition of India in 1947.

Role of communal organisations

Once communalism raised its head, then in addition to being encouraged by the Government, it grew on its own. It seemed to have the inbuilt system; whereby it could increase its strength, even independent of any external support. Communal organisations played a vital role in this process. The leading communal organizations, All India Muslim League (formed in 1906) and the All India Hindu Mahasabha (formed in 1915) were opposed to each other, but they always provided justification for each other and increasingly made each other more communal. Through their political activities and propaganda they prevented the Hindus and Muslims from coming together, made them distrust each other and thereby spread communalism among the people.

Weaknesses in the national movement

The growth of communalism in the 20th century could have been checked by a nationalist upsurge. The communal ideology could be defeated by the nationalist forces and ideology. But the Indian National Congress, as a representative of the nationalist forces and ideology, failed to prevent the spread of communalism among the people. Although fully committed to secularism and nationalism, and desirous to bring about a unity of the Indian people, the Indian National Movement fought a battle against the communal forces but lost ultimately due to a variety of reasons.

To begin with, the Congress could not comprehensively understand the nature of communalism. As a result of this, the Congress did not have a central strategy to combat communalism. Therefore, it kept shifting between temporary sets of strategies. Also the Congress could not keep pace with the fast changing character of communalism.

Besides, certain Hindu revivalist tendencies entered into the national movement and successfully prevented its attempts to reach out to Muslims and incorporate them into its fold. Also the use of certain religious symbols (like Ramarajya for instance) acted as a barrier.

At the level of implementation the Congress sometimes made wrong choices while dealing with the communal forces. It tried to offer concessions and made compromises with them, which only increased the credibility of the communal groups. On certain other occasions, opportunities for a compromise were lost, thereby creating a deadlock.

However, while pointing out the limitations, the complexity of the problems, particularly because of the attitude of the Government must be accounted for. The British government did all it could to prevent a settlement between various political groups. No matter what the Congress offered to the Muslims, the Government always offered more, thereby making the arrangement redundant.

The Evolution of Nationalist Foreign Policy

Significant and inevitable fallout of the western influence on the nationalist intelligentsia was a growing interest in and contact with the dominant international currents and events. Gradually, the nationalist thinkers came to realize that colonialism and imperialism had an international character and much wider implications. With the development and crystallization of an anti-imperialist nationalist ideology, there emerged a nationalist foreign policy perspective so as to align with other similar forces gloablly. The evolution of this policy perspective can be traced under these broad phases:

1880 to FIRST WORLD WAR

Anti-imperialism and pan-Asian feeling

After 1878, the British undertook a number of expansionist expeditions which were opposed by the nationalists. These expeditions included-

*      the Second Afghan War (1878-80)

*      in 1882, the dispatch of troops by England to suppress the nationalist uprising by Col. Arabi in Egypt.

*      in 1885, annexation of Burma.

*      in 1903, invasion of Tibet under Curzon.

*      during the 1890s, a number of annexations were made in the north-west to stop the Russian advance.

         The nationalists supported the resistance to these adventures by the British.

In place of an aggressive imperialism, the nationalists advocated a policy of peace. C. Sankaran Nair, the Congress President in 1897, said, “Our true policy is a peaceful policy.” So, the emerging themes during 1880-1914 were-

1.     solidarity with other colonies fighting for freedom, such as Ireland, Egypt, Turkey, Ethiopia, Sudan, Burma and Afghanistan.

2.     Pan-Asian feeling reflected in-

*      condemnation of annexation of Burma in 1885.

*      inspiration from Japan as an example of industrial development.

*      condemnation of the participation of Japan in the international suppression of the Boxer Rebellion in China (1895).

*      condemnation of the imperialist efforts to divide china.

*      defeat of the Czarist Russia by Japan exploded the myth of European superiority.

*           Congress support for Burma’s freedom.

World war-I

The nationalists supported the British Indian Government in the belief that Britain would apply the same principles of democracy for which they were supposed to be fighting. After the conclusion of the war, the Congress insisted on being represented at the Peace Conference. In 1920, the Congress urged the people not to join the army to fight in the west. In 1925, the Congress condemned the dispatch of Indian army to suppress the Chinese nationalist army under Sun-Yat-Sen.

1920s AND 1930s-IDENTIFYING WITH THE SOCIALISTS

In 1926 and 1927, Nehru was in Europe where he came in contact with the socialist and other leftist leaders. Earlier, Dababhai Naroji attended the Hague session of the International Socialist Congress. He was a close friend of H.M. Hyndman, the famous socialist. Lajpat Rai also made contacts with the American Socialists during his USA visit from 1914 to 1918. Gandhi had close relations with Tolstoy and Romain Rolland. In 1927, Nehru attended the Congress of Oppressed Nationalists at Brussels on behalf of the Indian National Congress. The conference was organized by political exiles and revolutionaries from Asia, Africa and Latin America, suffering from political and economic imperialism. Nehru was one of the honorary Presidents along with Einstein, Madam Sun-Yat-Sen, Rolland and George Lansbury. Nehru came to understand the international character of US imperialism during his European experience. Nehru was also nominated to the Executive Council of the League against Imperialism. The Congress also decided to open a Foreign Department to be in touch with the other people’s movements. In 1927, Nehru also visited the Soviet Union and was very impressed by the achievements of the infant socialist state. He saw Russia as a bulwark against imperialism.

After 1936-anti fascism

The 1930s saw the rise of Fascism in Europe and the struggle against it. The Nationalists saw Imperialism and Fascism as organs of capitalism. They lent support to the struggles against Fascism in other parts of the world in Ethiopia, Spain, China, and Czechoslovakia. In 1939, at the Tripuri session, the Congress dissociated itself from the British policy of appeasement which supported Fascism in Europe.

In 1937, the Japanese attack on China was condemned by the nationalists. Congress also sent a Medical Mission under Dr. Atal to China.

On the Palestine issue, the Congress lent support to the Palestinians. It expressed sympathy with the Jews, but urged that the Palestinians not be displaced and that the issue should be settled by direct dealing between the Jews and the Arabs without western intervention. It also opposed the partition of Palestine.

After independence

India opted to pursue an independent foreign policy without being involved in the cold war polemics and bloc politics of the day. Soon, India emerged as a leading proponent of the non-aligned foreign policy.

REVOLUTIONARY TRENDS

Revolutionary terrorism was the form of political action adopted by the generation of motivated nationalist youth whose creative energies failed to find adequate room for expression within the existing political trends.

Factors leading to revolutionary trends

The Extremists’ critique of Moderate politics had convinced them of the futility of trying to convert the British rulers by petitioning and reasonable argument. They had participated actively in the Swadeshi movement in the hope and belief that Extremist methods of agitation such as boycott, passive resistance etc., would take the national movement out of its elitist groove. They expected that this movement would bring the British Government to its knees. The Swadeshi movement was only partially successful in mobilising vast sections of the masses. It also could not secure the reversal of the partition of Bengal. This failure was however, almost inevitable. Firstly, because it was the first major attempt at mass mobilization and secondly its methods were new and unfamiliar both to those who advocated them and to those who hesitated to adopt them. It led to a growing sense of impatience and frustration among the youth who began to feel that perhaps something even more dramatic was needed to arouse the people.

The inability of the Extremist leadership to either adequately analyse the weaknesses of the movement or to suggest new ways out of the impasse further strengthened this trend. Some sections of the leadership, such as Aurobindo Ghosh, in fact supported the new trend. Those who did not quite agree preferred to remain silent rather than come out in open criticism, perhaps out of a feeling that this would be playing into Government hands.

Another factor that helped the growth of the trend of revolutionary terrorism was the brutal repression of the Swadeshi movement by the Government. For example the police made the unprovoked assault on the peaceful crowd at the Barisal Political Conference of 27th April 1906 which had led the nationalist paper Jugantar to give the call: “Force must be stopped by force”. The Government’s ability to repress was considerably enhanced by the split that took place in the Indian National Congress at Surat in 1907 between the Moderates and the Extremists, since it removed or at least reduced the danger of alienating the Moderates in the event of repression of the Extremists. Luring the Moderates with promises of constitutional reform, the government proceeded to launch an all-out attack on the Extremists; Tilak was sentenced to six years of exile in Burma, Aurobindo Ghosh was arrested in a revolutionary conspiracy case. During this period a whole generation of nationalist youth especially in Bengal, were angered by repression and convinced of the futility of the moderate path and were impatient with the inability of the extremists to either extract immediate concessions from the government or to achieve a full scale mobilisation of the masses.

This young generation turned to the path of individual heroic action or revolutionary terrorism, a path that had been taken before them by the Irish nationalists and the Russian Nihilists. Though believing in the necessity, in the long-run, of an armed mass revolt by the people in order to overthrow imperialism, the daunting nature of this task as well as of attempts to subvert the loyalty of the army left them with only one choice for immediate action: assassination of individual British officials, especially the unpopular ones. This was done:

in order to strike terror among officialdom;

remove the fear and inertia of the people; and

arouse their nationalist consciousness.

Early activities

Though the trend of revolutionary terrorism acquired a real force only around 1907-8, there had been earlier examples as well:

As early as 1897 the Chapekar brothers of Poona-Damodar and Balkrishna-had assassinated two British officers.

In Maharashtra again, by 1904, V.D. Savarkar and his brother Ganesh had organised the Mitramela and the Abhinav Bharat as secret societies.

After 1905, many newspapers and individuals started advocating this form of political action. In 1907, there was an attempt, though unsuccessful on the life of the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal.

The real launching of the new trend is, however, identified with the throwing of a bomb in April 1908, by Khudiram Bose and Prafulla Chaki on a carriage in which they believed Kingsford, the unpopular district judge of Muzaffarpur, to be travelling. But unfortunately, the carriage was carrying two British ladies who were thus inadvertently killed. Prafulla Chaki shot himself dead rather than be arrested, but Khudiram Bose was arrested and later hanged. The government also used the opportunity to involve Aurobindo Ghosh, his brother Barindra Kumar Ghosh and many others in a conspiracy case in which Aurobindo himself was acquitted but his brother and many others were sentenced to deportation and harsh prison terms.

Formation of Secret Societies and Revolutionary Activities: The repression by the British triggered off the formation of secret societies and a spate of assassinations and what were termed as ‘swadeshi’ dacoities to raise funds for buying arms, etc. In Bengal, which became the main centre of revolutionaries, the organisation of revolutionary activities was spearheaded by the Anushilan and Jugantar societies. In Maharashtra, Poona, Nasik and Bombay became centres of revolutionary activity. In Madras, Vanchi Aiyar of the Bharata Matha Association assassinated an official who was responsible for firing on a crowd that was protesting the arrest of the Extremist leaders Chaidambaram Pillai. In London, Madan Lal Dhingra killed Curzon Wylie, an Indian Office official and Rashbehari Bose organised a daring attempt on the life of the Viceroy, Lord Hardinge, as he entered Delhi on 23rd December, 1912. Other revolutionaries, such as Shyamji Krishna Varma, Lala Har Dayal, V.C. Savarkar, Ajit singh and Madame Cama established centres in Europe from which they could continue to spread the revolutionary message and render assistance to comrades at home. In all, it was estimated that 186 revolutionaries were either killed or convicted in the years 1908-1918.

Decline of the revolutionary trend

Stern repression facilitated by a series of draconian laws and the lack of a popular response led to the gradual decline of this wave of revolutionary terrorism. Individual heroic action undoubtedly earned the revolutionaries a great deal of popular adulation and sympathy, and many of them such as Khudiram Bose and Prafulla Chaki became folk heroes. By its very nature, however, this form of political action could only be emulated by a few individuals, and not by the mass of people, who still awaited a movement that could accommodate their weaknesses and make effective use of their strengths.

The Gadar movement

The First World War broke out in 1914 and to many Indian nationalists it appeared that once-in-a-lifetime opportunity had arrived to take advantage of Britain’s difficulty. Being embroiled in the war, it was felt, Britain would not be in a position to effectively answer a nationalist challenge. The challenge was thrown by two very difficult groups of nationalists, the Gadar revolutionaries based in North America, and the Home Rule Leagues of Tilak and Annie Besant in India. We shall first discuss the Gadar Movement.

Background of the movement

The Gadar revolutionaries were recruited largely from the ranks of Punjabi immigrants who had settled on the West Coast of North America at least since 1904. They were mostly debt-ridden and land-hungry peasants from the crowded areas of Punjab, especially Jullundur and Hoshiarpur and many of whom had served in the British Indian Army and had thus acquired the confidence and the means necessary for emigration. The hostile attitude of the local population including of the white labour unions, the increasingly restrictive immigration laws, helped by the active complicity of the Secretary of State for India-all pushed the Indian community to the realisation that they must organize themselves if they were to resist the blatant racial discrimination being imposed on them. For example, Tarak Nath Das, an Indian student who was one of the first leaders of the Indian community in North America and responsible for starting a paper called ‘Free Hindustan’ understood very well that while the British government encouraged Indian labourers to go to work to Fiji where they were needed by British players it discouraged their emigration to North America for they feared that they might get infected by the current ideas of liberty.

Early activities

The first stirrings of political activity among Indian immigrants became evident as early as 1907 when a Circulare-e-Azad (Circular of liberty) was brought out by Ramnath Puri, a political exile, in which he pleaded support to the Swadeshi movement. Tarak Nath Das started the Free Hindustan and G.D. Kumar brought out a Gurmukhi paper Swadesh Sevak advocating social reform and asking Indian troops to rise in revolt. By 1910, Das and Kumar had set up the United India House in Seattle in the USA and began lecturing every week to a group of Indian labourers. They also developed close links with the Khalsa Diwan Society which resulted in 1913 in a decision to send a deputation to meet the Colonial Secretary in London and the Viceroy and other officials in India. They failed to meet the Colonial Secretary, despite a wait of a mouth, but succeeded in securing an audience with the Viceroy and the Lieutenant Governor of Punjab. Their visit to Punjab became the occasion for a series of public meetings in different Punjab towns and enthusiastic support from the people and the press.

Meanwhile, in early 1913, Bhagwan Singh, a Sikh priest who had worked in Hong Kong and the Malay states, visited Vancouver in Canada and openly preached the violent overthrow of British rule. Such was the effect of his exhortations that he was externed from Canada after three months, but his ideas had fired the imagination of his audiences.

Towards organisation

Disappointed with the lack of response from the Indian and British governments, convinced that their inferior status in foreign lands was a consequence of their being citizens of an enslaved country, and aroused to nationalist consciousness and a feeling of solidarity by the consistent political agitation, the Indian community in North America felt the acute need for a central organisation and a leader. The leader they found was Lala Har Dayal, a political exile from India, who had come to the U.S. in 1911 and had been lecturing at Stanford University as well as to the various American groups of intellectuals, radicals and workers on the anarchist and syndicalist movements but had not shown much interest in the affairs of Indian immigrants. His attitude changed with the news of the bomb attack on the Viceroy in Delhi in December 1912 which convinced him that the revolutionary spirit was still alive. He assumed leadership of the immigrant Indian community and, in May 1913, the need for a central organisation was met with the setting of the Hindi Association in Portland, which later changed its name to Hindustan Gadar Party. Baba Sohan Singh Bhakna was elected the President, Lala Har Dayal the General Secretary and Pandit Kanshi Ram Maroli the Treasurer at the first meeting of the Association which was also attended by others including Bhai Parmanand and Harnam Singh ‘Tundilat’. A sum of $10,000 was collected on the spot and decisions were taken to set up headquarters by the name of Yugantar Ashram in San Francisco and start a weekly paper, the Gadar, for free circulation.

Strategy and action

The plans of political action outlined by Lala Har Dayal and accepted by the Hindi Association were based on the understanding that British rule could only by overthrown by armed revolt and that for this to happen it was necessary that Indian immigrants go to India in large numbers and carry this message to the masses and the soldiers of the Indian army. He also believed that the freedom available in America should be used to fight the British and not the Americans, for in any case Indians would never be accepted as equals abroad till they were free in their own land. Basing themselves on this understanding, the militant nationalists launched a vigorous propaganda campaign, touring factories and farms where Indian immigrants worked.

Launching of paper and its impact

The paper Gadar was launched on the first of November, 1913; the first issue was in Urdu followed a month later by the Gurmukhi version.

The format of the Gadar paper was designed to convey the message of nationalism in simple and bold terms. Its very name meant revolt, thereby leaving no doubts about its intentions. On its masthead was inscribed the caption: Angrezi Raj Ka Dushman or ‘An Enemy of British Rule’. Besides, the front page of each issue carried the ‘Angrezi Raj Ka Kacha Chittha’ or ‘An Expose of British Rule’, which consisted of 14 points enumerating the negative effects of British rule. This Chittha was in effect a summary of the entire nationalist critique of British rule on the issues of drain of wealth, high land revenue, low per capita income, recurrence of famines which killed millions of Indians, high expenditure on Army and low expenditure on health, the policy of divide and rule by pitting Hindus and Muslims against each other. The last two points of the Chittha also pointed to the way out by highlighting the small number of Englishmen present in India as compared to the crores of Indians and by suggesting that the time had come for another revolution since already fifty-six years had lapsed since the last one in 1857.

The Gadar was of course circulated widely among Indian immigrants in North America, but it soon reached immigrants in the Philippines, Hong Kong, China, Malay states, Singapore, Trinidad and the Honduras as well as Indian regiments stationed in many of these centres. It was sent to India as well. The response it generated among immigrant communities was tremendous, groups were formed to read it and discuss the issues it raised and contributions poured in. The most popular proved to be the poems that were published in the paper, which were soon put together in the form of a collection called Gadar Ki Goonj, and were recited and sung at gatherings of Indians. The poems were marked by a revolutionary spirit and a strongly secular tone, as the following lines show:-

No Pundits or Mullahs do we need

No Prayers or litanies we need recite

These will only scuttle our boat

Draw the Sword; ‘it is time to fight’.

The Gadar also exhorted the Punjabi to atone for his pro-British role in the Revolt of 1857 by playing a leading part in throwing off the British yoke and it changed his self-image from that of a loyal soldier, an image that had been assiduously cultivated by the British, to that of a rebel whose only aim was freedom. The message of Gadar went home so rapidly that Har Dayal himself was surprised at the intensity of the response and the impatience of those who had been aroused into action.

Gadar movement: the main events

The subsequent course of the Gadar Movement was, however, determined by three major events in 1914; the arrests, jumping of bail and flight to Switzerland of Lala Har Dayal, the fateful voyage of the ship Komagata Maru, and the beginning of the First World War.

(i)    In March, 1914 Har Dayal was arrested. The most likely reason was the pressure exerted by the British government who for obvious reasons would like to see him removed from the leadership of the Gadar Movement, but the stated reason was his anarchist activities. He was released on bail and it was decided that he jump bail and go to Switzerland.

(ii)   Meanwhile, in an attempt to defy Canadian immigration laws which forbade entry to all except those who made a “direct passage in their own ship.” Gurdit Singh, an Indian contractor living in Singapore chartered a ship, the Komagata Maru, and, with 376 Indian passengers originating from various places in East and South East Asia, set sail for Vancouver. On the way, Gadar party mobilisers visited the ship, gave lectures and distributed literature. Receiving prior intimation of the intended immigration, the Press in Vancouver warned of the ‘Mounting Oriental Invasion’ and the Canadian government prepared to meet the challenge by tightening its laws.

On arrival, the ship was not allowed into the port and was cordoned off by the police. Despite the strenuous efforts of the “Shore Committee” in Vancouver led by Husain Rahim, Sohan Lal Pathak and Balwant Singh and a powerful campaign in the USA led by Barkatullah, Bhagwan Singh, Ram Chandra and Sohan Singh Bhakna, the Komagata Maru was forced out of Canadian waters. Before it reached Japan, the First World War broke out and the British government ordered that no passenger was to be allowed to leave the ship till it reached Calcutta.

Its return journey triggered off a wave of resentment at every port of call among the communities of immigrant Indians and heightened anti-British feelings. When the ship reached Budge near Calcutta, the hostile attitude of the police led to a clash which resulted in the death of 18 passengers. 202 were arrested and the rest succeeded in running away.

iii)        The third and most important event that brought about a dramatic change in the situation was the outbreak of the First World War. This was the opportunity that the Gadarites had been waiting for to seize and to make the best of Britain’s difficulty. It came earlier than they had expected, and their preparations were still in a rudimentary stage. Nevertheless, a special meeting of the leading workers of the party met and decided that the time had come for action and that their biggest weakness, lack of arms, could be made good by persuading the Indian soldiers to revolt. The Gadar party accordingly issued its Ailan-e-Jung or ‘Proclamation of War’, which was circulated among Indians living abroad. Gadar activists also embarked on tours exhorting people to return to India and organize a revolt. The response was tremendous, with large numbers offering themselves and their entire belongings to the cause of the nation. Encouraged by this the Gadar party began the exodus to India, and batches of revolutionaries began to arrive in India by different routes in the latter half of 1914.

The movement in the last phase

The Government of India was laying in wait, armed with the new Ingress into India Ordinance. Returning immigrants were carefully scrutinised, and of an estimated 8,000 who returned, 5,000 who were considered ‘safe’ were allowed to go unhindered. Of the remaining, some were interned in their villages, others detained. Nevertheless, many hardcore activists succeeded in reaching Punjab.

Kartar Singh Sarabha, the young and brilliant Indian student who had jointed the Gadar Movement in the USA and played a prominent role in the production of the Gadar paper, had been among the first to reach Punjab safely and he set about the task of organising and contacting the returning emigrants, holding meetings and formulating a plan of action. Gadar activists toured the villages, cyclostyled and distributed party publications, addressed gatherings at melas and made every effort to persuade the people to rise in revolt. But the Punjab in 1914 was very different from what they had expected and the people were in no mood to embark upon the romantic Gadar adventure. They had also to contend with the active hostility of loyalist elements such as the Chief Khalsa Diwan who declared them to be apostates or fallen Sikhs and criminals and cooperated fully in the government’s efforts to crush them.

Disappointed with the popular response, the Gadar revolutionaries next attempted to spread their message among the soldiers and engineer a mutiny. Attempts at revolt in November 1914 failed for lack of proper organisation and centralised leadership. Another, more organised, attempt was made in February 1915 after Rash Behari Bose had been contacted and entrusted the task of leadership and organisation, but this too proved abortive as the government succeeded in penetrating the organisation and taking pre-emptive measures. Bose managed to escape, but most of the other leaders were arrested and the Gadar movement effectively crushed.

The repression

The repression that followed was the heaviest possible: 42 were sentenced to death and 200 to long prison terms. As a consequence, an entire generation of the nationalist leadership of Punjab was politically beheaded. Efforts by Indian revolutionaries in Berlin to use German help and organize mutinies among Indian troops stationed abroad and by Raja Mahendra Pratap and Barkatullah to enlist the aid of the Amir of Afghanistan proved equally abortive. Violent rebellion to overthrow British rule was not fated to have much success.

Failure and achievements

Should, we therefore, term the Gadar movement a failure? Can we say that because they did not succeed in their immediate stated objective of organising an armed revolution driving the British out, their efforts were in vain? By that token, all the major national struggles of 1920-22, 1930-34 or 1942 would have to be termed as failures, since none of them succeeded in immediately winning independence. But if the yardstick of success is whether there was a furthering of nationalist feeling, creation of traditions of resistance, emergence and trial of new methods of struggle, the spread of forward-looking ideologies of secularism, democracy and egalitarianism, then the Gadar movement occupies a very important place in India’s struggle for freedom.

Achievements: The Gadarites succeeded in popularising nationalist ideology, especially the critique of colonialism and the understanding that Indian poverty and backwardness was a consequence of British rule among vast masses of Indians in India and abroad. They created a cadre of highly motivated nationalists and though many of these were lost through repression, some permanently and others for number of years continued to play an important role in building up the national movementand later the left and peasant movements in Punjab and other parts of India for many decades to follow.

Gadar ideology was also strongly egalitarian and democratic in content. Their aim was to set up an independent republic in India. Har Dayal, deeply influenced as he was by the anarchist-syndicalist movements also imparted to the movement an egalitarian outlook. His constant references to the Irish, Mexican, and Russian revolutionaries also helped in saving the movement from a chauvinist nationalism and in giving it an inter-nationalist character.

But perhaps the most important achievement of the Gadarites was that despite the fact that the vast majority of their followers were recruited from amongst Punjabi Sikh immigrants, they never betrayed any communal tendencies and were, on the contrary, strongly secular in their outlook. Concern with religion was seen as petty and narrow-minded, and unworthy of revolutionaries.

They freely accepted non-Sikhs and non-Punjabis as leaders: Har Dayal was a Hindu, Barkatullah a Muslim, Rash Behari Bose a Hindu and Bengali. They revered leaders from all over India-Tilak, Savarkar, Khudi Ram Bose and Aurobindo Ghosh were their heroes. They also understood that the ideology of the Sikhs being a ‘martial race’ was a creation of the colonial rulers and was meant to preserve them as loyal soldiers and they tried their best to counter it. They popularised the nationalist salute Bande Mantaram as the rallying cry of the movement and not any religious greeting such as Sat Sri Akal. In the words of Sohan Singh Bhakna, the Gadari Baba who later became a major nationalist and left leader, “we were not Sikhs or Punjabis, our religion was patriotism.”

Weakness: The Gadar movement inevitably had its share of weaknesses as well, the chief of which was its over-estimation of the level of readiness of the movement. One might say that they sounded the bugles of war without stopping to examine the state of their own army. The response that they evoked in the immigrant Indian community, whose nationalist consciousness was aroused by daily experiences of racial insult, alienation produced by living in unfamiliar surroundings, and whose small numbers made that task of its organisation relatively easier, misled them into thinking that vast mass of Indians in India were also in a similar state of readiness.

They also underestimated the might of the British rulers, the strength of the ideological foundations of their rule, and thought that all that the people of India needed was a call to revolt. The cost that had to be paid for this crucial weakness not only by the Gadar movement but by the entire national movement was heavy indeed, for it is not unlikely that if the major part of the Gadar leadership had not been removed from the scene, the political complexion of the national movement, certainly in Punjab, would have been very different indeed as the Gadarites with their committed nationalist and secular ideology would inevitably have played a critical role in checking the communal tendencies that were to raise their head in later years.

Revolutionary terrorism during the 1920s

Why Attraction for Revolutionary Terrorism after Non-Cooperation Movement?-The revolutionaries had faced severe repression during the First World War. But in early 1920, many were released by the Government under a general amnesty to create a harmonious environment for the Montford Reforms to work. Soon, Gandhi launched the Non-Cooperation Movement. Under the persuasion of Gandhi and C.R. Das, many terrorist groups either agreed to join the non-cooperation programme or suspended their activities to give the non-violent Non-Cooperation Movement a chance.

But the sudden withdrawal of the Non-Cooperation Movement left many of them disillusioned; they began  to question the basic strategy of nationalist leadership and its emphasis on non-violence and began to look for alternatives. But since these younger nationalists were not attracted to the parliamentary work of the Swarajists or to the patient, undramatic, constructive work of the No-changers, they were drawn to the idea that violent methods alone would free India. Thus, revolutionary terrorism was revived.

Nearly all major leaders of revolutionary terrorist policies had been enthusiastic participants in the Non-Cooperation Movement and included Jogesh Chandra Chatterjee, Surya Sen, Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev, Chandrasekhar Azad, Shiv Verma, Bhagwaticharan Vohra, Jaidev Kapur and Jatin Das. Two separate strands of revolutionary terrorist groups emerged during this period-one operating in Punjab-UP-Bihar and the other in Bengal.

Major influences

1.    Upsurge of working class trade unionism after the War; the revolutionaries wanted to harness the revolutionary potential of the new emergent class for nationalist revolution.

2.   Russian Revolution (1917) and the success of the young Soviet state in consolidating itself.

3.   Newly sprouting communist groups with their emphasis on Marxism, socialism and the proletariat.

4.   Journals publishing memoris and articles extolling the self-sacrifice of revolutionaries, such as Atmasakti, Sarathi and Bijoli.

5.   Novels and books such as Bandi Jiwan by Sachin Sanyal and Pather Dabi by Sharatchandra Chatterjee (a Government ban only enhanced its popularity).

In Punjab-UP-Bihar the revolutionary terrorist activity in was dominated by the Hindustan Republican Association/Army or Hindustan Republic Association (later renamed Hindustan Socialist Republication Association or HSRA). The HRA was founded in October 1924 in Kanpur by Ramprasad Bismil, Jogesh Chandra Chatterjee and Sachin Sanyal, with an aim to organize an armed revolution to overthrow the colonial government and establish in its place a Federal Republic of United States of India whose basic principle would be adult franchise.

Kakori Robbery (August 1925) - The most important “action” of the HRA was the Kakori robbery. The men held up the 8-Down train at Kakori, an obscure village near Lucknow, and looted its official railway cash. Government crackdown after the Kakori robbery led to arrests of many, of whom 17 were jailed, four transported for life and four-Bismil, Ashfaqullah, Roshan Singh and Rajendra lahiri-were hanged. Kakori proved to be a setback.

The HSRA was determined to overcome the Kakori setback. The younger revolutionaries, inspired by socialist ideas, set out to reorganise Hindustan Republic Association at a historic meeting in the ruins of Ferozshah Kotla in Delhi (September 1928). The participants included Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev, Bhagwaticharan Vohra from Punjab and Bejoy Kumar Sinha, Shiv Verma and Jiadev Kapur from UP. The HSRA decided to work under a collective leadership and adopted socialism as its official goal.

Saunders’ Murder (Lahore, December 1928) - Just when the HSRA revolutionaries had begun to move away from individual heroic action and terrorism, the death of Sher-i-Punjab Lala Lajpat Rai due to lathi blows received during a lathicharge on an anti-Simon Commission procession (October 1928) led them once again to take to individual assassination. Bhagat Singh, Azad and Rajguru shot dead Saunders, the police official responsible for the lathicharge in Lahore. The assassination was justified in these words: “The murder of a leader respected by millions of people at the unworthy hands of an ordinary police officer....was an insult to the nation. It was the bounden duty of young men of India to efface it...we regret to have had to kill a person but he was part and parcel of that inhuman and unjust order which has to be destroyed.”

Bomb in the Central Legislative Assembly (April 1929) - The HSRA leadership now decided to let the people know about its changed objectives and the need for a revolution by the masses. Bhagat Singh and Batukeshwar Dutt were asked to throw a bomb in the Central Legislative Assembly on April 8, 1929 against the passage of the Public Safety Bill and Trade Disputes Bill aimed at curtailing civil liberties of citizens in general and workers in particular. The bombs had been deliberately made harmless and were aimed at making the deaf hear. The objective was to get arrested and to use the trial court as a forum for propaganda so that people would become familiar with their movement and ideology.

Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev and Rajguru were tried in the Lahore conspiracy case. Many other revolutionaries were tried in a series of other cases. In jail, these revolutionaries protested against the horrible conditions through a fast, and demanded honourable and decent treatment as political prisoners. Jatin Das became the first martyr on the 64th day of his fast. Defence of these young revolutionaries was organised by Congress leaders. Bhagat Singh became a household name.

Azad was involved in a bid to blow up Viceroy Irwin’s train near Delhi in December 1929. During 1930 there were a series of terrorist actions in Punjab and UP towns (26 incidents in 1930 in Punjab alone).

Azad was killed in a police encounter in a park in Allahabad in February 1931. Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev and Rajguru were hanged on March 23, 1931.

In Bengal during the 1920s many revolutionary groups reorganized their underground activities. While many continued working under the Congress, thus getting access to the masses and providing an organisational base to the Congress to towns and villages, many cooperated with C.R. Das in his Swarajist work. After Das’s death in 1925, the Bengal Congress broke up into two factions-one led by J.M. Sengupta (Anushilan group joined forces with him) and the other led by Subhash Bose (Yugantar group backed him).

The actions of the reorganised groups included an assassination attempt on the notorious Calcutta Police Commissioner, Charles Tegart (another man named Day got killed) by Gopinath Saha in 1924. The Government, armed with a new ordinance, came down heavily on revolutionaries. Many including Subhash Bose were arrested. Gopinath Saha was hanged.

Because of government repression and factionalism among the revolutionaries, revolutionary activity suffered a setback, but soon many of them started regrouping. Among the new “Revolt Groups”, the most active and famous was the Chittagong group under Surya Sen.

Chittagong Armoury Raid (April 1930) - Surya Sen had participated in the Non-Cooperation Movement and had become a teacher in the national school in Chittagong. He was imprisoned from 1926 to 1928 for revolutionary activity and afterwards continued working in the Congress. He was the secretary of the Chittagong District Congress Committee. He used to say “Humanism is a special virtue of a revolutionary.” He was a lover of poetry and an admirer of Tagore and Qazi Nazrul Islam.

Surya Sen decided to organize an armed rebellion along with his associates-Anant Singh, Ganesh Ghosh and Lokenath Baul to show that it was possible to challenge the armed might of the mighty British Empire. They had planned to occupy two main armouries in Chittagong to seize and supply arms to the revolutionaries to destroy telephone and telegraph lines and to dislocate the railway link of Chittagong with the rest of Bengal. The raid was conducted in April 1930 and involved 65 activists under the banner of Indian Republican Army-Chittagong Branch. The raid was quite successful; Sen hoisted the national flag, took salute and proclaimed a provisional revolutionary government. Later, they dispersed into neighbouring villages and raided government targets.

Surya Sen was arrested in February 1933 and hanged in January 1934, but the Chittagong raid fired the imagination of the revolutionary-minded youth and recruits poured into the revolutionary terrorist groups in a steady stream.

Official Reaction - there was panic at first and then severe government repression. Armed with 20 repressive Acts, the Government let loose the police on the revolutionaries. In Chittagong, several villages were burned and punitive fines imposed on many others. In 1933, Jawaharlal Nehru was arrested for sedition and given two years’ sentence because he had condemned imperialism and praised the heroism of the revolutionaries.

Ideological Rethinking - A real breakthrough was made by Bhagat Singh and his comrades in terms of revolutionary ideology, forms of revolutionary struggle and the goals of revolution. The rethinking had begun in the mid-1920s. The Founding Council of HRA had decided to preach revolutionary and communist principles, and the HRA Manifesto (1925) declared that the “HRA stood for abolition of all systems which made exploitation of man by man possible”. HRA’s main proposa was nationalisation of railways and other means of transport and of heavy industries such as ship building and steel. HRA had also decided to start labour and peasant organisations and work for an “organised and armed revolution”. During their last days (late 1920s), these revolutionaries had started moving away from individual heroic action and terrorism towards mass politics.

Bismil, during his last days, appealed to the youth to give up pistols and revolvers, not to work in revolutionary conspiracies and instead work in an open movement. He urged the youth to strengthen Hindu-Muslim unity, unite all political groups under the leadership of the Congress. Bismill affirmed faith in communism and the principle that “every human being has equal rights over the products of nature”.

The famous statement of the revolutionary position is contained in the book - The Philosophy of the Bomb written by Bhagwaticharan Vohra.

Even before his arrest, Bhagat Singh had moved away from belief in terrorism and individual heroic action to Marxism and the belief that a popular broad-based movement alone could lead to a successful revolution. In other words, revolution could only be “by the masses, for the masses”. That is why Bhagat Singh helped establish the Punjab Naujawan Bharat Sabha (1926) as an open wing of revolutionaries to carry out political work among the youth, peasants and workers, and it was to open branches in villages. Bhagat Singh and Sukhdev also organised the Lahore Students Union for open, legal work among students. Bhagat and his comrades also realised that a revolution meant organisation and development of a mass movement of the exploited and the suppressed sections by the revolutionary intelligentsia. Bhagat used to say, “...real revolutionary armies are in villages and factories.”

What then was the need for individual heroic action? Firstly, because of the rapidity of change in thinking, effective acquisition of new ideology is a prolonged and historical process.  Secondly, these young intellectuals faced the classic dilemma of how to mobilise people and recruit them. Here, they decided to opt for propaganda by deed, i.e., through individual heroic action and by using courts as a forum for revolutionary propaganda.

Redefining Revolution - Revolution was no longer equated with militancy and violence. Its objective was national liberation. Imperialism was to be overthrown but beyond that a new socialist order was to be achieved, ending “exploitation of man by man”. As Bhagat Singh said in the court, “Revolution does not necessarily involve sanguinary strife, nor is there a place in it for personal vendetta. It is not the cult of bomb and pistol. By revolution we mean the present order of things, which is based on manifest injustice, must change”.

Bhagat Singh fully accepted Marxism and the class change”. He said -”Peasants have to free themselves not only from the foreign yoke, but also from the yoke of landlords and capitalists.” He also said, “The struggle in India will continue, so long as a handful of exploiters continue to exploit labour of common people to further their own interests. It matters little whether these exploiters are British capitalists, British and Indian capitalists in alliance, or even purely Indians.” He defined socialism scientifically as abolition of capitalism and class domination.

Bhagat was fully and consciously secular-two of the six rules drafted by Bhagat for the Punjab Naujawan Bharat Sabha were that its members would have nothing to do with communal bodies and that they would propagate a general feeling of tolerance among people, considering religion to be a matter of personal belief. Bhagat also saw the importance of freeing people from the mental bondage of religion and superstition-”to be a revolutionary, one required immense moral strength, but one also required criticism and independent thinking”.

Aspects of the New Phase of Terrorist Movement in Bengal

There was a large-scale participation of young women especially under Surya Sen. These women provided shelter, carried messages and fought with guns in hand. Prominent women revolutionaries in Bengal during this phase included Pritilata Waddedar, who died conducting a raid; Kalpana Dutt who was arrested and tried along with Surya Sen and given a life sentence; Santi Ghosh and Suniti Chandheri, school girls of Comilla, who shot dead the district magistrate. (December 1931); and Bina Das who fired point blank at the Governor while receiving her degree at the convocation (February 1932).

There was an emphasis on group action aimed at organs of the colonial state, instead of individual action. The objective was to set an example before the youth and to demoralise the bureaucracy.

Some of the earlier Hindu religiosity was shed, and there were no more rituals like oath-taking, and this facilitated participation by Muslims. Surya Sen had Muslims such as Satar, Mir Ahmed, Fakir Ahmed Mian and Tunu Mian in his group.

Some drawbacks

-      The movement retained some conservative elements.

-      It failed to evolve broader socio-economic goals.

-      Those working with Swarajists failed to support the cause of Muslim peasantry against zamindars in Bengal. 

The princely states, which covered a total area of 7,12,508 square miles and  numbered no fewer than 562, included tiny states such as Bilbari with a population of 27 persons only and some big ones like Hyderabad (as large as Italy) with a population of 14 million. The East India Company acquired, in the process of conquest, important coastal tracts, the valleys of the great navigable rivers and such tracts which were rich in agricultural products and densely populated by prosperous people, while, generally, the Indian states were “the inaccessible and less fertile tracts of the Indian peninsula”.

The making of Indian states was largely governed by the same circumstances which led to the growth of East India Company’s power in India. The evolution of relations between the British authority and states can be traced under the following broad stages.

Position of subordination (1740-1765)

Starting with Anglo-French rivalry with the coming of Dupleix in 1751, the East India Company asserted political identity with capture of Arcot (1751). With the Battle of Plassey in 1757, the East India Company acquired political power next only to the Bengal Nawabs. In 1765 with the acquisition of the Diwani of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa, the East India Company became a significant political power.

Policy of ring fence (1765-1813)

This policy was reflected in Warren Hastings’ wars against the Marathas and Mysore, and aimed at creating buffer zones to defend the Company’s frontiers. The main therat was from the Marathas and Afghan invaders. The Company undertook to organize Awadh’s defence to safeguard Bengal’s security. Wellesley’s policy of subsidiary alliance was an extension of ring fence-which sought to reduce states to a position of dependence on British Government in India. Major Powers such as Hyderabad, Awadh and the Marathas accepted subsidiary alliance. Thus, British supremacy was established.

Policy of subordinate isolation (1813-1857)

Now, the imperial idea grew and the theory of paramountcy began to develop. Indian states were supposed to act in subordinate cooperation with the British Government and acknowledge its supremacy. States surrendered all forms of external sovereignty and retained full sovereignty in internal administration. British Residents were transformed from diplomatic agents of a foreign power to executive and controlling officers of a superior government.

In 1833, the Charter Act ended the Company’s commercial functions while it retained political functions. It adopted the practice of insisting on prior approval/sanction for all matters of succession. In 1834, the Board of Directors issued guidelines to annex states wherever and whenever possible. This policy of annexation culminated in usurpation of six states by Dalhousie including some big states such as Satara and Nagpur.

Policy of subordinate union (1857-1935)

The year 1858 saw the assumption of direct responsibility by the Crown. Because of the states’ loyality during the 1857 revolt and their potential use as breakwaters in political storms of the future, the policy of annexation was abandoned. The new policy was to punish or depose but not to annex. After 1858, the authority of the Mughal emperor ended; sanction for all matters of succession was required from the Crown since the Crown stood forth as the unquestioned ruler and the paramount power. Now the ruler inherited the seat of power not as a matter of right but as a gift from the paramount power, because the fiction of Indian states standing in a status of equality with the Crown as independent, sovereign states ended with the Queen adopting the title of “Kaiser-i-Hind” (Queen Empress of India). The paramount supremacy of the Crown presupposed and implied the sub-ordination of states. The British Government exercised the right to interfere in the internal spheres of states-partly in the interest of the princes, partly in the interest of people’s welfare, partly to secure proper conditions for British subjects and foreigners and partly in the interest of the whole of India.

The British Government was further helped in this encroachment by modern developments in communication-railways, roads, telegraph, canals, post offices, press and public opinion. The Government of India exercised complete and undisputed control in international affairs-it could declare war, peace or neutrality for states. According to the Butler Commission in 1927, “For the purpose of international relations, state territory is in the same position as British territory and state subjects in the same position as British subjects.”

Curzon’s Approach -Curzon stretched the interpretation of old treaties to mean that the princes, in their capacity as servants of people, were supposed to work side-by-side with the governor-general in the scheme of Indian Government. He adopted a policy of patronage and “intrusive surveillance”. He thought neither as feudal nor federal, a type not based on a treaty but consisting of a series of relationships having grown under different historical conditions that, in the course of time, gradually conformed to a single line.

The new trend seemed to reduce all states to a single type-uniformly dependent on the British Government and considered as an integral part of Indian political system.

Post 1905 a policy of cordial cooperation began to counter progressive and revolutionary developments in face of large-scale political unrests.

According to the recommendations of Montford Reforms (1921), a Chamber of Princes (Narendra Mandal) was set up as a consultative and advisory body having no say in the internal affairs of individual states and having no powers to discuss matters concerning existing rights and freedoms. For the purpose of the chamber the Indian states were divided into three categories.

1.     Directly represented-109

2.     Represented through representatives-127

3.     Recognised as feudal holdings or jagirs.

The question of extent of sovereignty and paramountcy was still undefined. The Butler Committee (1927) was set up to examine the nature of relationship between the states and Government. It gave the following recommendations-

1.     Paramountcy must remain supreme and must fulfill its obligations, adopting and defining itself according to the shifting necessities of time and the progressive development of states.

2.     States should not be handed over to an Indian Government in British India, responsible to an Indain legislature, without the consent of states.

Thus, “paramountcy” was left undefined and depended on Crown’s prerogative and the princes’ implied consent.

Policy of Equal Federation (1935-1947)

According to the Federation proposal, the Indian states were to be brought into a direct constitutional relationship with British India, as distinct from the existing position in which they were in direct relationship only with the British Crown. This was to be achieved by the setting up of a Federal Indian Legislature which would have representatives from British India as well as from the Indian States. However, while the representatives from British India would be largely elected by the people, the representatives from the Indian States, who were to constitute one-third of the total members, would be nominated by the rulers of these States. The whole purpose of this scheme was to use the nominated representatives of the States as a solid conservative block to counter the weight of the elected representatives of British India. The Federation scheme was, therefore, opposed by all nationalists and it was demanded that the representatives of the States should also be elected instead of being nominated. Understandably, this imparted a great sense of urgency to the demand for responsible government in the Indian States, for there could be no elective principle at the Federal level without it being implemented at the level of the States.

The Government of India Act, 1935 proposed a Federal Assembly with 125 out of 375 seats for the princes and the Council of States with 104 out of 160 seats for the princes, under its scheme of an all-India federation, which was subject to ratification by states representing more than half of the population and entitled to more than half of the seats in the Council of States.

This scheme never came into existence and after the outbreak of World War-II (September 1939) it was dropped altogether.

Influence of the national movement

Nevertheless, as was bound to happen, the national movement, after it had taken roots in British India, exercised a powerful and growing influence on the people of the States. The ideas of democracy, responsible government and civil liberties popularised by the nationalists had an immediate relevance for them as they in their day to day life suffered the excesses of autocratic rule. These ideas were carried at first by individual nationalists, some of them revolutionary terrorists from British India seeking shelter in the states. But when the national movement assumed a mass character, its influence on the people of Indian states became more generalized. In fact, the first local-level popular associations were organised in the states under the impact of the Non-Cooperation and Khilafat movement which lasted from 1920 to 1922.

The political organisations-praja mandals

Among the States where the first Praja Mandals or State People’s Conference were set up included Hyderabad, Mysore, Baroda, the Kathiawad States, the Deccan States, Jamnagar, Indore and Nawanagar. Among the leaders who emerged through this process, the more important names are those of Balwant Rai Mehta, Maniklal Kothari and C.R. Abhayankkar. It was largely at their initiative that the first all-India gathering of the people of States took place in 1927 and led to the formation of the All India States’ People’s Conference (AISPC), the first session itself being attended by about 700 political workers.

The congress policy

In 1920, the Indian National Congress had declared its policy towards the Indian states through a resolution which called upon the rulers to institute full responsible government. On the question of organising political movements or struggles in the Indian States, however, the Congress policy was more complex. While individuals living in the States were free to become members of the Congress and participate in movements led by it, they were not to carry on political activity in the states in the name of the Congress. This they could do only in their individual capacity or as members of local political organisations such as Praja Mandals, etc. An obvious reason for this stand of the Congress was that the States were legally independent entities; the political conditions in different States varied a great deal and between British India and the Indian States the differences on this count were immense. Therefore, an organisation such as the Congress, which determined its politics and forms of struggle, on the basis of the conditions in British India, could not afford to be directly associated with political movements in the states at that initial stage. Moreover, it was not advisable for the people in the States to rely on the more advanced types of movement in British India for an acceptance of their demands. They were required to build up their own strength, advance their own political consciousness, and demonstrate their capacity to struggle for their own specific demands. Within the framework of these limitations, the Congress and Congressmen continued to extend support to the movements in the States in a variety of ways. In his Presidential Address to the Lahore session of the Congress in 1929, Jawaharlal Nehru elaborated the position of the organisation vis-a-vis the states. He emphatically stated: “Indian States cannot live apart from the rest of India ... the only people who have the right to determine the future of the States must be people of these States.”

While the process of political awakening and political protest went ahead in many states in 1920s and early 1930s, the real spurt in the movements in the states came in the latter half of the 1930s. This was largely a product of two associated developments - the Federation scheme proposed by the Government of India Act of 1935 and, the assumption of office by Congress ministries in the majority of the provinces of British India in 1937.

Congress ministries

The assumption of office by Congress ministries in many of the provinces also acted as a spurt to the movements in the Status. The fact of the Congress being in power in the provinces in British India and the works done by it for betterment of common people in these provinces generated a feeling of confidence and aroused expectation in the people of the States. It also acted as a pressure on the rulers that the Congress was no longer just an oppositional movement; it was a party in power. They took this as an indication of the future they would have to contend with in their own territories.

The new stage

The high water-mark of the movement in the States was thus reached in the years 1938-39. Praja mandals or People’s Associations sprung up in many states, and struggles broke out in Rajkot, Travancore, Mysore, Hyderabad, Patiala, Jaipur, Kashmir and the Orissa States.

Change in the congress policy

There was a marked change in the Congress policy towards the movements in the States in this new situation. The militants and leftists had been urging even earlier for a clearer identification with the movement in the States, but the decisive impact on Congress thinking was made by the growth of popular movements in the States. This is clear from the following statement made by Gandhiji in an interview to the Times of India on 25 January 1939:

“The policy of non-intervention by the Congress was, in my opinion, a perfect piece of statesmanship when the people of the States were not awakened. That policy would be cowardice when there is all-round awakening among the people of the States and a determination to go through a long course of suffering for the vindication of their just rights ... The moment they became ready, the legal, constitutional and artificial boundary was destroyed.”

At its Tripuri session in March 1939, the Congress passed a resolution which incorporated the idea expressed above by Gandhiji:

“The great awakening that is taking place among the people of the States may lead to a relaxation, or to a complete removal of the restraint which the Congress imposed upon itself, thus resulting in an ever increasing identification of the Congress with the States’ peoples.”

The election of Jawaharlal Nehru as President of the Ludhiana session of the AISPC in 1939 also gave great impetus to the movement and became a symbol of the fusion of the movements in British India and the Indian States.

Quit India in the states

The Second World War broke out in 1939 and this led to a marked change in the atmosphere. The Congress Ministries resigned and the British Indian government as well as the Princes became more repressive. There was a lull in the movement which was, however, broken with the launching of the Quit India movement in August 1942. For the first time, the Congress gave a call to the people of the States to participate fully in the all-India struggle for independence. To their demand for responsible government was now added the demand for independence for India and for the States to become integral parts of the Indian nation. The struggle of the people in the States was formally integrated with the struggle of the people in British India.

Integration and merger

After World War-II began and a position of non-cooperation was adopted by the Congress, the British Government tried to break the deadlock through the Cripps Mission (1942), Wavell Plan (1945), Cabinet Mission (1946) and Attlee’s statement (February 1947).

Cripps held that the British Government did not contemplate transferring paramountcy of Crown to any other party in India. The states tried various schemes to forge a union of their own, envisaging themselves as sovereign in status or as a third force in the Indian political scene. The June 3rd Plan and Attlee’s statement made it clear that the states were free to join either of the two dominions, and Mountbatten refused to give a sovereign status to the states.

Sardar Patel, who was in charge of states’ ministry in the interim cabinet, helped by V.P. Menon, the secretary in the ministry, appealed to the patriotic feeling of rulers to join the Indian dominion in matters of defence, communication and external affairs-the three areas which had been part of the paramountcy of the Crown and over which the states had anyway no control. By August 15, 1947, 136 states had joined the Indian Union but others remained precariously outside-

1.     Junagarh : The Muslim Nawab wanted to join Pakistan but a Hindu population wanted to join Indian Union. In the face of repressive attitude of the Nawab, there was a plebiscite which decided in favour of India.

2.     Hyderabad : Hyderabad wanted a sovereign status. It signed a Standstill Agreement with India in November 1947. Indian troops withdrew and the Nizam’s police and troppers (Razakkars) took over. The Nizam wanted an outlet to the sea (Goa). The violence and supply of foreign arms prompted Indian troops to move in again in 1948-described as “a police action to restore law and order”. Hyderabad acceded in November 1949.

3.     Kashmir :  The state of Jammu and Kashmir had a Hindu prince and a Muslim majority population. The prince envisaged a sovereign status for the state and was reluctant to accede to either of the dominions. As he procrastinated, the newly established state of Pakistan sent its forces behind a front of tribal militia and  moved menancingly towards Srinagar. It was now that the prince was forced to sign an Instrument of Accession (October 1947) with the Indian Union, endorsed by the popular leader Sheikh Abdullah. Indian troops were despatched to defend the state against the raiders from Pakistan. India’s complaints to the UN Security Council regarding raids from Pakistan and the Indain offer to settle the status of the state through a plebiscite led to a ceasefire and left 84,000 square km of area under Pakistani occupation. The special status of Jammu and Kashmir was recognised under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution which implied a limited jurisdiction of the Indian Union over the state as compared to other states.

Two-fold problem

(1)  of transforming the states into viable administrative units, and

(ii)   of absorbing them into the constitutional units.

This was sought to be solved by-

1.     incorporating smaller states (216 such states) into contiguous provinces and listed in Part A. For instance, 39, states of Orissa and Chhattisagarh were incorporated into Central Provinces. Gujarat states were incorporated into Bombay.

2.     making some states as centrally administered for strategic or special reasons, listed in Part-C (61 states)- Himachal Pradesh, Vindhya Pradesh, Manipur, Tripura, Bhopal, etc;

3.     creating five unions-United States of Kathiawar, United States of Matsya, Patiala and East Punjab States Union, Rajasthan and United States of Travancore-Cochin (later Kerala).

Initially these states acceded with respect to defence, communication, external affairs; later they felt that a closer association was necessary. The five unions and Mysore accepted Indian jurisdiction in Union, concurrent subjects except taxation and subject to differences as under Article 238 and the supervisory power of Union for ten years.

The Seventh Amendment (1956) abolished Part-B states as a class and formed one class out of Parts A and B; thus special provisions relating to Part B states were deleted. The Indian states thus lost their identity and became part of one uniform political set-up.

Rise of Left Movement in India

The left or in simple words, socialist philosophy or philosophy propagated by Karl Marx penetrated into India in 19th century. The New Education System established link with Europe, Indians studying in Europe or Europeans staying in India, all were contributing factor for coming of socialist philosophy in India. The left philosophy can be divided into three streams in India.

(A)       The Communist movement in India.

(B)       The Socialist movement within congress.

(C)       The Socialist movement outside congress.

These three in combination can be called left movement in India.

Factor responsible for rise of left movement

British were colonial and so were their policies. They were exploitative in nature. Such exploitation was reacted against by Indians. Indian intelligentsia, who was linked with west, took to socialist/communist philosophy to mobilize people against such British policies.

British colonialism was product of industrializiation in Europe. British also gave impetus to industry in India however suiting to their interest. It gave boost to trade unionism in India. It further provided sustenance to left movement in India.

The early leadership in Congress also had soft Corner for socialistic ideas. Early leaders like Dada Bhai Naoroji, Pherozshah Mehta, Badruddin Tyabji, Surinder Nath Banerjee etc represented the philosophy of poor people in India. In later years in congress the socialism began to feel its presence.

The sudden suspension of Non Cooperation Movement (NCM) also led to growth of Socialism within and outside congress. Gandhi provides an alternative in form of Gandhian constructive work programme. There were many within and outside congress who did not appreciate such programme. So they were drifted towards new philosophy that was socialism.

During 1920, there was rise of new leadership within congress in form of Pt. J.L. Nehru and S.C. Bose. These leaders were socialist in their taste and intellect. They mobilized new generation within congress. They propagated socialistic ideas but without revolution.

Russian Revolution provided immediate impetus to socialism in India. Gandhian leadership did not appreciate revolution yet people got attracted towards revolution. They began to follow the socialist leadership.

The Great depression of 1929-30 provided boost socialistic ideas world over and in India as well. This depression made public life miserable as people began to suffer economic problems like low prices, low purchasing power, over production, low import/export, etc. Russia was only country which was not affected with ill effect of depression. It also fascinated young generation toward socialistic ideas.

The suspension of CDM in 1934 too contributed to rise of left movement in India. Those who did not appreciate Gandhian Constructive programme began to look for any alternative ideology. The emerging discontent led to rise of left.

There were many world events which gave boost to leftism in India. The fine example is rise of fascism in many countries. The world over public opinion was against fascism and people opted for socialism. At the same time, the capitalistic philosophy too showed its ill effects. The rich poor gap began to be widened in capitalistic countries. It also frightened people towards leftism.

Rise and growth of communist movement in India         

The communist movement spreaded out of disillusionment in Indian freedom struggle. Labourers, peasants and unemployed all were looking for new way for emancipation as these people were not wholly satisfied from the way freedom struggle was moving forward.

M.N. Roy (or Naren Bhattacharyajee) came in contract with Bolshevik, Mikhail Borodin in Mexico. In October 1920, M.N. Roy along with Abani Mukherjee and some Khilafat leaders like Mohammad Ali and Mohammad Shifaq founded Communist Party of India (CPI) in Tashkant. They had hoped to penetrate into India through Afghanistan with new ideology.

In 1921, M.N. Roy shifted Headquarter of CPI to Berlin. He started journal “Vanguard of Indian independence.” He also published a book “India in transition.” It was a Marxian analysis of Indian Socio Economic conditions.

One another Socialist leader, S.A. Dange started a weekly -“Socialist” in Bombay. He also started one Bengal weekly “Janavani”. Both these journal began to prepare ground for socialist movement in India. There was another revolutionary group in India. The notable leaders of this group were Virender Nath Catoupadhaye, Bhupender Nath Dutt and Barkatullah. They started “Indian Independence Party” in Berlin in 1922.

During second decade of 20th century Gadhar activist too turned communist. Their leaders like Ratan Singh, Santokh Singh, Teja Singh Swantatar too contributed to the cause of left movement in India. Many of thier leaders began to propagate communist revolution after World War I.

Revolutionary Terrorist too contributed for communist movement in India. Some revolutionary leaders from West Bengal like Abani Mukherjee and Nalni Gupta supported M.N. Roy’s communist movement. The establishment of Hindustan Socialist Republican Association was indicative of the rise of left in India.

 In same way some Khilafat leaders like Muzzaffar Ahmad too began to support communist movements in India.

However, British govt adopted suppressive policies against communist movement, even then, communist leaders called “Indian Communist Conference” in 1925. The conference was organized by Satyabhakta. In this conference, “Communist Party of India” was appointed chairman of reception committee whereas Singaravelu became its president.

However govt continued its suppressive policies, yet trade union movement too began to play role. It began to provide sustenence to communist movement. In 1927, “All India Workers and Peasant Party” was founded.

Communist Party of India did work in Cooperation with congress from 1925 to 1929.  In 1929 CPI broke away from Congress. It also dissolved its workers and peasants party.

In 1934, CPI was banned and communist movement split into many parts. In 1935, CPI was reorganized. Actually Communist International gave direction to form united front against fascist forces. It also directed CPI to cooperate with congress.          

In 1942, CPI took a different stand in ongoing freedom struggle. It apposed Quit India movement. It got direction from top to help British in 2nd World War and keep aloof from freedom struggle. In 1964, it again splited into two parts CPI and CPI(M).

Socialist movement within congress

Early Congress leadership was fully aware about socialistic ideas. Dada Bhai Naroji attended “International Socialist conference”, 1904 in Amsterdam. However, they never seriously associated themselves with ideology of socialism.

Most of the leaders in early congress were from upper strata of society. They were western educated landed elements, white collar professionals or entrepreneurs. So it was also difficult to expect from them to be socialist. Moreover they were not leading any mass movement.

Congress Socialism after First World War

The condition created by World War was very miserable and acute. Mean time, Gandhi took over the leadership of congress and Congress opted to fight a non-violent battle. Accordingly, soon congress became a party with mass representing all section of people.

In 1922, congress party suddenly withdrew “ongoing non-cooperation movement. It developed frustration among workers. Many outside congress did not appreciate Gandhian constructive work programme. Those who neither joined constructive work programme nor joined Swarajist began to support socialist ideology within congress.

Rise of J.L. Nehru & S.C. Bose & Socialism.

(i)    During early 1920, Pt. J.L. Nehru was also disturbed over sudden withdrawal of non-cooperation movement. However he was loyal to Gandhiji yet he opted far an alternative ideology that was socialism. He got first hand information about problems of peasants/workers in Kanpur and Rai Barreli. It convinced him to the philosophy of socialism.

(ii)   He also visited various European Countries so that on one hand he could understand Indian conditions and on the other he could understand the concept of Colonialism in a better manner. He attended “International Congress against colonialism, oppression and imperialism” held in Brussels where he met representatives of different developing countries. He became member of theexecutive committee. Here he learned that how capitalism has had been spreading Colonialism and leading to World Wars. He also visited Soviet Union where he realized how socialism works and on that base he analyzed reconstruction of the nation.

The development in 1927, led to a debate between self govt and Swaraj/Complete independence. Meantime Simon Commission put question mark over Indian ability to run the country. In Nehru report Congress party was looking for dominion status but it was opposed by Pt. Nehru and Subhash Chander Bose in favour of complete independence. In this way Pt. Nehru along with S.C. Bose put socialist ideology on surface of the congress.

In 1928, Pt. Nehru and S.C. Bose formed “Indian independence league” to pressurize congress to accept complete independence as ultimate goal of the Nationalist Movement. They mobilized young generation of the congress. In 1928 Pt. Nehru became President of Congress and in 1931 S.C. Bose became President of Congress.

In 1931, Karachi session, congress passed not only fundamental rights of the people but agriculture programme for peasantry also. Congress supported the idea of socio economic independence of the country.

Nehru and Bose became left leaders within congress. S.C. Bose became President of “All India Trade Union Congress” and mobilized workers into National movement. Nehru pleaded for land reforms to abolish landlordism and for economic democracy in the country.

In 1934, Pt. Nehru formed “Congress Socialist Party” with an aim was to spread socialist ideas within congress party.

Pt. Nehru wanted congress to adopt principle known as “Democratic Socialism” however he convinced all congressmen yet formally such resolution could not be adopted. He elaborated such ideas after being President of Congress in 1935-36 Faizpur Session. In Faizpur session itself he also passed agrarian reforms. He also raised demand to constitute constituent assembly and to establish responsible govt.

In 1938, S.C. Bose became president of congress in Haripur session. He also played instrumental role in establishing “National Planning Committee” in 1938 to plan for India’s future development. Pt. J.L. Nehru was appointed its first chairman.

He left congress to form his own party “Farward Block” purely on socialist lines. This clearly divided congress party between right and left.

In the election manifesto of 1945-46, congress party incorporated many such principles which were clearly socialist in nature like agrarian reforms, workers’ rights land reforms etc.

Ideology and programme of socialists

The core of the socialist ideology was anti imperialist struggle and eventually establishment of a socialist society. In India it was a two pronged programme as on one hand there was liberation of India and on other hand the establishment of a Socialist state.

Socialists stood for abolition of all forces of exploitation like landlordism, zamindari system etc. and the more radical ones among socialists wanted to abolish the class system in India.

The socialists had wide connotation of meaning of independence. The freedom to them was not just political freedom. They were looking to establish socio economic democracy in India.

The principle plank of their programme was to organize peasants and workers and to put them in national mainstream. They thought that in order to give true meaning to national movement, the participation of workers and peasants is must.

The socialists had belief in planning system i.e. the state should plan the use of its resources for socio economic betterment of society. Planning was seen as an instrument of distributive justice. 

They had elaborative programme for workers. They consistently put forward the demands like right to form trade unions, employment insurance and fixed working hours etc. In same way they stood for elaborative peasantry reform programmes. They demanded for abolition of landlordism, reduction of land revenue, abolition of feudal levies etc.

The socialist ideology was anti fascist and pro human rights, pro democracy and for social equality. The socialists stood for international peace. They were against any kind of war and imperialism. 

The Movement of the Working Class

The beginning of the second half of the nineteenth century heralded the entry of modern industry into India. The thousands of hands employed in construction of railways were harbingers of the modern Indian working class. Further, industrialization came with development of ancillary industries along with railways. The coal industry developed fast and employed a large working force. Then came the cotton and the jute industries.

The Indian working class suffered from the same kind of exploitation witnessed during the industrialization of Europe and the rest of the West, such as low wages, long working hours, unhygienic and hazardous working conditions, employment of child labour and the absence of all amenities. The presence of colonialism in India gave a distinctive touch to the Indian working class movement. The Indian working class had to face two basic antagonistic forces-an imperialist political rule and economic exploitation at the hands of both foreign and native capitalist classes. Under the circumstances, inevitably, the Indian working class movement became intertwined with the political struggle for national emancipation.

EARLIER EFFORTS: The earlier attempts to improve the economic conditions of the workers were in the nature of the philanthropic efforts which were isolated, sporadic and aimed at specific local grievances.

1870 Sasipada Banerjee started a workingmen’s club and newspaper, Bharat Shramjeevi.

1878 Sorabjee Shapoorji Bengalee tried to get a bill, providing better working conditions to labour, passed in the Bombay legislative council.

1880 Narain Maghajee Lokhanday started the newspaper Deenbandhu and set up the Bombay Mill and Millhands Association.

Attitude of the early nationalists

The moderates

*      were indifferent to the labour’s cause.

*      differentiated between the labour in the Indian-owned factories and those in the British-owned factories.

*      believed that labour legislations would affect the competitive edge enjoyed by the Indian-owned industries.

*      did not want a division in the movement on the basis of classes.

*      did not support the Factory Acts of 1881 and 1891 for these reasons.

1899 The first strike by the Great Indian Peninsular Railways took place, and it got widespread support. Tilak’s Kesari and Mahratta had been campaigning for the strike for months.

There were many prominent nationalist leaders like Bipin Chandra Pal and G. Subramanya Aiyar who demanded better conditions for workers and other pro-labour reforms.

During swadeshi upsurge

Workers gradually began participating in wider political issues. Strikes were organized by Ashwini Kumar Banerjee, Prabhat Kumar Roychaudhuri, Premtosh Bose, Apurba Kumar Ghosh etc. These strikes were organized in Government Press, Railways and the jute industry.

There were attempts to form trade unions but these were not very successful.

Subramaniya Siva and Chidambaram Pillai led strikes in Tuticorin and Tirunelvelli and were arrested.

The biggest strike of the period was organized after Tilak’s arrest and trial.

During the First World War and after

The War and its aftermath brought a rise in exports, soaring prices, massive profiteering for the industrialists but very low wages for the workers. This led to discontent among workers.

Emergence of Gandhi led to a broad-based national movement and the emphasis was placed on the mobilization of the workers and peasants for the national cause.

A need was felt for the organisation of the workers in trade unions.

International events like establishment of a socialist republic in the Soviet Union, formation of the Comintern and setting up of ILO (International Labour Organisation) lent a new dimension to the movement of the working class in India.

In 1920 The All India Trade Union Congress was founded. The Indian National Congress president of the year, Lala Lajpat Rai was elected as the first President of AITUC and Dewan Chaman Lal as the first General Secretary. In his address, Lajpat Rai linked capitalism with imperialism-”imperialism and militarism are twin children of capitalism.”

The AITUC- The prominent Congress and Sawarajist leader C.R. Das presided over the third and fourth sessions of the AITUC. The Gaya session of the Congress (1922) welcomed the formation of the AITUC and a committee was formed to assist it. C.R. Das advocated that the Congress should take up the workers’ and peasants’ cause and incorporate them in the struggle for swaraj or else they would get isolated from the movement. Other leaders who kept close contacts with the AITUC included Nehru, Subhash Bose, C.F. Andrews, J.M. Sengupta, Satyamurthy, V.V. Giri, Sarojini Naidu. In the beginning, the AITUC was influenced by social democratic ideas of the British Labour Party. The Gandhian philosophy of non-violence, trusteeship   and class-collaboration also had great influence on the movement. Gandhi helped organize the Ahmedabad Textile Labour Association (1918) and through a protest secured a 27.5% wage hike.

The Trade Union Act 1926

*      Recognised trade unions as legal associations.

*      Laid down conditions for registration and regulation of trade union activities.

*      Secured immunity, both civil and criminal, of trade unions from prosecution for legitimate activities, but put some restrictions on their political activities.

LATE 1920s- A strong Communist influence on the socialist movement lent a militant and revolutionary content to it. In 1928 there was a six-month-long strike in Bombay Textile Mills led by the Girni Kamgar Union. The whole of 1928 witnessed unprecedented industrial unrest. This period also saw the crystallization of various Communist groups, with leaders like S.A. Dange, Muzaffar Ahmed, P.C. Joshi, Sohan Singh Joshi etc.

Alarmed at the increasing strength of the Trade Union movement under extremist influence, the Government resorted to legislative restrictions. It passed the Public Safety Ordinance (1929) and the Trade Disputes Act (TDA), 1929. The TDA-1929 provided-

*      compulsory appointment of Courts of Inquiry and Consultation Boards for settling industrial disputes,

*      making illegal, the strikes in public utility services like Posts, Railways, Water and Electricity, unless each individual worker planning to go on strike gave an advance notice of one month to the Administration.

*      forbade trade union activity of coercive or purely political nature and even sympathetic strikes.

Meerut Conspiracy Case (1929) - In March 1929, the Government arrested 31 labour leaders on charges of creating unrest by organizing strike in Indian Railways. The trial resulted in the conviction of Muzaffar Ahmed, S.A. Dange, Joglekar, Spratt, Bradley, Usmani and others. The trial got worldwide publicity but weakened the working class movement.

The workers participated during 1930 in the civil disobedience movement but after 1931 there was a dip in the working class movement because of a split in 1931 in which the corporatist trend led by N.M. Joshi broke away from AITUC to set up All India Trade Union Federation. In 1935, the communists rejoined the AITUC. Now, the left front consisted of the communists, Congress socialists and the leftist nationalists like Nehru and Subhash Chandra Bose.

Under Congress Ministries during the 1937 elections, the AITUC had supported the Congress candidates. The Congress governments in provinces gave a fillip to the trade union activity. The Congress Ministries were generally sympathetic to the workers’ demands. Many legislations favourable to the workers were passed.

After the Second World War

Initially, the workers opposed the War but after 1941 when Russia joined the war on behalf of the allies, the Communists described the war as a “people’s war” and supported it. The communists dissociated themselves from the Quit India Movement. A policy of Industrial peace was advocated by the communists.

1945-47: Workers participated actively in the post-war national upsurge. In 1945, the dock workers of Bombay and Calcutta refused to load ships taking supplies to the warring troops in Indonesia. During 1946, the workers struck in support of the Naval Ratings. During the last year of foreign rule, there were strikes by workers of posts, railways and many other establishments.

After Independence the working class movement got polarized on the basis of political ideologies.

Role of women in the national movement

From liberal homes and conservative families, urban centers and rural districts, women – single and married, young and old – came forward and joined the struggle against colonial rule. Though their total numbers were small, their involvement was extremely important. Women’s participation called into question the British right to rule, legitimized the Indian nationalist movement and won for activist women, at least for a time, the approval of Indian men.

Politics completely altered the goals and activities of organized women. Education, social reform and women’s rights appealed to some progressive women, but the movement to rid the country of its foreign rulers attracted women from all classes, communities and ideological leanings. Nationalist leaders deliberately cultivated linkages with peasants, workers and women’s organizations to demonstrate mass support for their position. Women were amazed to find political participation approved of by men who wanted their wives to behave in the home like perfect wives in religious texts.

The story of women’s role in the nationalist struggle is not simply one of those who were told when to march and where to picket. The number of women, who played some role in this movement, however small, far exceeded expectations. The nature of their work influenced how women saw themselves and how others saw their potential contribution to national development. At the same time, their involvement helped to shape women’s view of themselves and of their mission.

Their early contribution to nationalist movement   

Bankim Chandra Chattopdhaya (1838-94) wrote the novel Anandamath (1882) that portrayed revolutionaries sacrificing their lives for the Motherland. Bankim’s emotional hymn, Bande Mataram (“Hail to the Mother”) became famous throughout India. This call to save the Motherland was not a call to women to join the political movement but rather a linking of idealized womanhood with nationalism.

The situation began to change after a number of Bengali women wrote to the Viceroy in support of the Ilbert Bill. In 1889, four years after the Indian National Congress (INC) was founded, ten women attended its annual meeting. In 1890, Swarnakumari Ghosal, a woman novelist, and Kadambini Ganguly, the first woman in the British Empire to receive a BA and one of the India’s first female medical doctors, attended Congress session as delegates.

From this time on, women attended every meeting of the INC, sometimes as delegates, but more often as observers. Attending with their fathers and husbands, their contribution was both decorative and symbolic.

A chorus of fifty-six girls from all regions of India performed the song “Hindustan” in 1901. The next year, two Gujarati sisters sang a translation of this song at the opening session.

These educated and politically knowledgeable girls and their mothers informed the world that India was as advanced as any Western country in its vision of women’s public roles.

Participation in Swadeshi Movement

 In 1905 when the British portioned the province of Bengal, women joined men in protesting this division by boycotting foreign goods and buying only swadeshi goods. Women were at the forefront in picketing foreign goods’ shops.

Support to Revolutionary terrorism

Still other women gave their support to the revolutionary organizations. Nanibala Devi (1888-1967) was widowed at fifteen, and was forced to take shelter with her nephew Amarendranath Chattopadhyay. He was the leader of the new Jugantar (New Age) party, dedicated to violent defeat of the foreign rulers. Nanibala joined the party and acted as their housekeeper, occasionally posing as the wife of one of the revolutionaries.

Gandhi’s Role in Mobilizing Women

 Soon after Gandhi’s return to India from South Africa and introduction to Bombay society, he met women who belonged to women’s social reform organization. He was invited to talk to one of these groups, composed of middle- class women, about the poverty of the masses. He told his audience that India needed women leaders who were “pure, firm and self- controlled” like the ancient heroines Sita, Damayanti and Draupadi. It was these heroines Gandhi recalled when he told women to wake up and recognize their essential equality with men. Only when they appreciated the strength of their ancestors, would women comprehend their right to freedom and liberty.

With the end of World War I and renewed demands for self rule, Gandhi began to develop a program for women. On April 6, the day marked for general strike through out India, he addressed a meeting of “ladies of all classes and communities” and asked them to join the Satyagraha movement to facilitate the total involvement of men. Following the Jallianwala Bagh massacre Gandhi called off the campaign, but it was already clear that women had joined the fight against the British. Gandhi urged them to take the swadeshi vow to give up foreign goods and spin every day. India’s poverty, he explained, was caused by ignoring indigenous crafts and purchasing foreign goods.

Gandhi evoked India’s sacred legends, especially the Ramayana, when he asked Hindu women to join the political movement. In a series of articles and speeches on British atrocities in the Punjab, Gandhi compared the British rulers to the demon Ravana who abducted Sita. Under colonialism, the enslaved people were losing all sense of dharma. Restoration of the rule of Ram would come only when women, emulating the faithful and brave Sita, united with men against this immoral ruler. Appearing with Maulana Shaukat Ali at a meeting in Patna, Gandhi modified his message to appeal to Muslim women. Gone were references to the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, now Gandhi asked women to spin and encourage their husbands to join the movement. On other occasions, Gandhi told Muslim women that British rule was the rule of Satan and extorted them to renounce foreign cloth to save Islam.

PERSONALITIES

Abdul Gaffar Khan: He was known as the Frontier Gandhi. He was a nationalist Muslim leader of the North-West Frontier Province. He first started a militant organisation known as the ‘Red Shirt’, and later on joined the non-violent Civil Disobedience Movement started by Mahatma Gandhi.

Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar: A prominent leader of the Scheduled Castes. Built up a party of the untouchables, became a member of the Constituent Assembly and piloted through it the Indian Constitution which declared India to be Republic. He also piloted the Hindu Code through the Indian Legislature.

Sir Surendranath Banerjee: Born in 1848 of a Brahman family of Calcutta, he graduated from Calcutta University, passed the ICS Examination in 1869, joined Indian Civil Service in 1871, but was soon dismissed from the service. He played a prominent part in founding the Indian Association in 1876 and in holding the first All-India National Conference in Calcutta in 1883. He presided over the eleventh session of the Indian National Congress held at Poona in 1895 and also over the eighteenth session held at Ahmedabad in 1902.

W.C. Banerjee (1844-1906): A renowned Barrister, he became the first president of the Indian National Congress held at Bombay in 1885. He anglicised his family name Banerjee to Bonnerjee. He was made Congress president a second time at its Allahabd session in 1892.

Mrs. Annie Besant (1847-1933): English theosophist, born in London in October 1847. She founded the Central Hindu College at Banaras, and was elected president of the Theosophical Society in 1907. In 1916 she founded the Indian Home Rule League and became its first president and in 1917 she was the president of the Indian National Congress at its Calcutta session. She published an Autobiography in 1893 and the Religious Problem in India in 1902. In her How India Wrought for Freedom she called India her “motherland”.

Subhas Chandra Bose: Popularly known as Netaji, was born on January 23, 1879, at Cuttack in Orissa to respectable middle-class Bengali parents. He passed the Indian Civil Service Examination in 1920. He joined the Indian National Congress in 1921. In 1938 he was the President of the INC at its Haripura session and in 1939 he was elected president of its Tripuri session. In 1943 he took charge of Indian National Army in Singapore. He died in a plane crash on August 18, 1945.

Dadabhai Naoroji (1825-1917): A prominent businessman of Bombay with trading connections with England. He was elected president of the Indian National Congress at its second session held in Calcutta in 1886. He was the first Indian to be elected a member of the House of Commons in England on a ticket of Liberal Party. Twice again, in 1893 and in 1906 he was elected president of the INC. He dedicated his entire life to the Nationalist movement.

Chittaranjan Das (1870-1925): An eminent lawyer practising in the High Court of Calcutta. He became the elected Mayor of Calcutta with Subhash Chandra Bose as the Chief Executive Officer of the Calcutta Corporation. He became the president of the Indian National Congress in 1922. He died on June 16, 1925.

Swami Dayanand Saraswati (1824-83): He was the founder of the Arya Samaj (1875). He wanted to rebuild Hindu religion and society in India. ‘Go back to the Vedas’ was his motto. He started the Shuddhi movement, that is to say, the movement for re-converting non-Hindus to Hinduism. He was a great force in the promotion of Indian nationalism in the nineteenth century. He is also known for his role in spreading modern education in India and his works for rational revivalism of religion and emancipation of women

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi: Better known as Mahatma Gandhi was born on October 2, 1869 at Porbandar in Gujarat. Became a barrister-at-law (1891) in England. Went to South Africa in 1893. Stayed there till 1914 for the cause of the emancipation of the Indians from the insulting life to which they had been so long condemned in South-Africa. Launched in India: Non-cooperation movement (1919), Civil Disobedience Movement (1930), Quit India Movement (1942). Gandhi was the father of the Indian nation which he had led to the dawn of an age of independence. He was shot dead by Nathuram Godse on January 30, 1948.

Aurobindo Ghosh (1872-1950): An ardent nationalist who later became a saint, was educated in England. His views were readily accepted by Lala Lajpat Rai of Punjab and Bal Ganghadhar Tilak of Maharashtra and led to the formation within the Congress of an extremist school. He propagated his ideas through journals like the Bandemataram and Karmayogin. He passed away in 1950.

Gopal Krishna Gokhale (1886-1915): He was a prominent Indian nationalist, and presided over the 1905 session of the Indian National Congress. He became a member of the Bombay Legislative Council in 1902. In 1905 he founded at Poona the Servants of India Society. In the enlarged Viceregal legislature set up in 1910 Gokhale was the commanding figure. His last public duty was to serve as a Member of the Indian Public Services Commission (1912-15). He died in 1915.

Lala Har Dayal: In 1908 he left India and settled in the USA, where he organised the Gadar party. Expelled from the USA, went to Europe and set up his headquarters in Berlin. He advocated organised rebellion against the British rule in India.

Pandit Madan Mohan Malviya (1861-1946): A leading nationalist leader. Born in Allahabad, began his career in 1885 as a school teacher and in 1893 enrolled himself as a lawyer in the Allahabad High Court. He also tried his hand at journalism and between 1885 and 1907 edited three journals named Hindustan, Indian Union and Abhydaya. Later on joined the second session of the Indian National Congress held in 1886 and twice became its president in 1909 and 1918. Malviya was also elected a member of the Legislative Council of the U.P. in 1902 and later on of the Legislative Assembly. His greatest achievement was the foundation in 1915 in Banaras of the Banaras Hindu University by raising the necessary funds from the princes and people of India.

Mrs. Sarojini Naidu (1879-1949):  A talented Indian lady born of Bengali parents was a poet and orator who took a prominent part in Indian politics. She presided over the Cawnpore session of the Indian National Congress in 1925 and was the first lady to be appointed a state Governor in the Republic of India.

Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru (1889-1964): He was the first Prime Minister of independent India and is known as the architect of modern India. Born in Allahabad on November 14, 1889 as the only son of Pandit Motilal Nehru and Swaruprani. In 1928 he became the Central Secretary of the Indian National Congress and in 1929 its President. At the Lahore session under his presidentship Congress passed the Independence Resolution. He became President of the Congress again in 1936, 1946 and in every session from 1951 to 1954. Nehru was not only a great statesman but a great orator. His Autobiography published in 1936 created world-wide interest. His other works are India and the World, Soviet Russia, Glimpses of World History, Unity of India and Independence and After.

Pandit Motilal Nehru (1861-1931): He was born on 6th May, 1861 in Delhi and was a Kashmiri Brahman. He began his career as a lawyer at the Allahabad High Court, joined the Indian National Movement after the inauguration of Montford Reforms and  started a journal named ‘The Independent’ to support the cause of Indian Nationalism. Along with C.R. Das he formed the Swarajist party within the Congress. On behalf of the Indian National Congress he drew up in 1928 a report known as the Nehru Report on the future constitution of India.

Sister Nivedita: A famous disciple of Swami Vivekananda, she was an Irish lady named Miss Margaret Noble. She met Swami Vivekananda in London and later on came over to India where she was formally initiated as disciple of Swami Vivekananda and was attached to the Ramakrishna Mission, devoted herself to social service, rendering exemplary services to the Indian community in Calcutta during the outbreak of the plague epidemic. The Cradle Tales of India is one of her many works.

Mrs. Vijayalakshmi Pandit: Born in 1900, was a talented daughter of Pandit Motilal Nehru. She held many high offices since Indian independence including the post of India’s High Commissioner in England (1955-61) and India’s Ambassador to the U.S.S.R as well as to the U.S.A. (1949-51). She was the president of the U.N. General Assembly in 1954.

Pandita Ramabai (1858-1922): She was one of the few Indian ladies who availed themselves of Western education in the nineteenth century. She made a great impression on the Western world by her erudition and eloquence which had earned her the title of “Saraswati”.

Dr. Rajendra Prasad: He was the first President of the Republic of India. Born in Bihar in 1884, educated at the Calcutta University, he began his career as an advocate and soon commanded a very large practice at Patna High Court. Prasad became the President of Congress in 1934, 1939 and 1947; a minister in Nehru’s cabinet in 1947. From 1946 to 1949 he presided over the Indian Constituent Assembly. In 1950 he was elected as the first President of the Republic of India and reelected in 1952 and again in 1957.

Dr. Sarvepalli Radha Krishnan: The second President of the Republic of India. He had been appointed as the professor of Eastern Religions at the University of Oxford (1936-39). Radha Krishanan was appointed as India’s ambassador to the USSR in 1949. In 1962 he became the President of India.

Chakravarti Rajagopalachari: A prominent Indian politician, born in south India in 1879. He was the General Secretary of the Indian National Congress and member of the Congress working committee. Rajgopalachari was the Chief Minister of Madras from 1937-39 and again from 1952-54, supported the idea of the partition of India into India and Pakistan as the price of Indian independence. Chakravarti became the first Indian Governor of West Bengal in 1947-48 and then first Indian Governor General of India from 1948-50 and was Home Minister of India from 1950 to 1951.

Ramakrishna Paramahansa (1834-86): He was a very great spiritual teacher of the Hindus in modern times. Born in the district of Hooghly in Western Bengal he became attached to the temple of gooddness Kali at Dakshineswar, near Calcutta as a priest. Ramkrishna preached that as different words in different languages denote the same substance, so Allah, Hari, Christ, etc. are different names under which the people worship the same great God, who is one. His two-noteworthy disciples were Keshobchandra Sen and Swami Vivekanand.

Madhav Govinda Ranade (1852-1904): Ranade was a reformer and scholar. He became a judge of the Bombay High Court. He became a devoted and enthusiastic member of the Prarthna Samaj of Bombay. He was one of the founders of the Widow Re-Marriage Association in 1861 and of Deccan Education Society.

Lala Lajpat Rai (1865-1920): Indian national leader known as “Lion of Punjab”. Founder editor of Bande Mataram, The Punjabee and The People. Died of injuries caused by police lathi-charge while leading a demonstration against Simon Commission at Lahore in 1920. Author of Young India, the Arya Samaj and England’s Debt to India.

Srinivasa Ramanujam (1887-1920): Indian mathematician contributed to the theory of numbers.

Raja Ram Mohun Roy (1772-1883): Born in the Hoogli district of West Bengal, he preached the unity of God, opposed caste distinctions, polygamy and Sati and forced widowhood of women who would like to remarry. He protested against the press regulations issued by Governor-General, Lord Hastings and against the Jury Act of 1827. Mughal Emperor Akbar II (1806-37) invested him with the title of Raja. He died at Bristol on the 27th September, 1833.

V.D.C. Savarkar (1883-1966): He founded Mitra Mandal aimed at achieving freedom by armed rebellion, founded Abhinav Bharat, started Free Indian Society in England. Savarkar was arrested in Nasik conspiracy case and sentenced to transportation for life and freed in 1937. He has authored Indian War of Independence.

Satyajit Ray (1922-1992): Indian film maker, winner of Bharat Ratna, recipient of Lifetime Achievement award. Special Oscar winner and many other national and international awards. First Indian film maker to win “Legion d’Honeur”, the highest civilian award of France in 1987.

Bhagat Singh (1907-1931): Known as Shahid-e-Azam. Founded Naujawan Bharat Sabha. Exploded bomb in Central Legislative Assembly at Delhi on April 8, 1929. He was arrested and sentenced for life. He, along with Sukh Dev and Shivram Rajguru, was hanged on March 23, 1931 for participating in Lahore conspiracy.

Rabindranath Tagore (1861-1941): Poet, novelist, patriot, educationist, essayist, painter and philosopher. He founded Shantinikatan (now Viswabharati University) in West Bengal. He was the first Asian to receive Nobel Prize on Literature (for Gitanjali in 1913). Writer of National Anthems for India and Bangladesh. His other works include Gora, Post Office, Home and the World etc.

Bal Gangadhar Tilak (1856-1920): Patriot and statesman, known as “Lokamanya”. He organised Nationalist (or Extremist) Party with Lala Lajpat Rai and Bipin Chandra Pal. Britishers called him “Father of Indian Unrest”. He gave the clarion call “Swaraj is my birth right”. Tilak was the founder-editor of Maharatta (English) and Kesari (Marathi). He authored Geetha-rahasyam.

Shyamaji Krishna Varman (1857-1930): Nationalist leader and founder of India Home Rule Society (1905). Organised first commemoration of Sepoy Mutiny of 1857 in 1905 at London. Instituted travel scholarships for Indian intellectuals to visit abroad. India House in London founded by him was a centre of revolutionary activities. He died in exile at Geneva.

Acharya Vinoba Bhave: Saintly personality who ardently believed in the non-violent Satyagraha and had devoted his life to social welfare. He was the founder of the Bhoodan movement

Swami Vivekanda (1863-1902): Disciple of Rama Krishna Paramahansa, and founder of Ramakrishna Mission at Belur. He championed the supremarcy of Vedantic philosophy and his talk at the Chicago conference of world religions in 1893 made westerns realise the greatness of Hinduism for the first time.

Zakir Hussain (1897-1969): Proposed Wardha Scheme of education. Was formerly Vice-Chacnellor of Jamia Millia college. He was elected as President of India in 1967.

---