In this essay we will discuss about Non-Violence in India. After reading this essay you will learn about:- 1. Beginning of a New Era – “Non-Violence in India†2. Swadeshi Movement 3. The Home Rule Movement 4. Jallianwala Bagh Tragedy 5. Non-Co-Operation Movement 6. Swarajist Party 7. Simon-Commission in India 8. Civil Disobedience Movement 9. Dandi March, 1930 10. Round-Table Conferences and Other Details.
List of Essays on Non-Violence in India
Essay Contents:
- Essay on the Beginning of a New Era – “Non-Violence in Indiaâ€
- Essay on the Swadeshi Movement
- Essay on the Home Rule Movement
- Essay on the Jallianwala Bagh Tragedy
- Essay on the Non-Co-Operation Movement
- Essay on the Swarajist Party
- Essay on the Simon-Commission in India
- Essay on the Civil Disobedience Movement
- Essay on the Dandi March, 1930
- Essay on the Round-Table Conferences
- Essay on the Quit India Movement
1. Essay on the Beginning of a New Era – “Non-Violence in Indiaâ€:
Both the Liberals and Extremists played key role in the growth of national movement. The former challenged British status and authority at a time when it was more or less a crime to utter a word against British colonial power. In their own way they made the rulers realise the need of association of Indians in running of their own administration.
The Extremists in their own way made the British government realise that Indians were very much conscious and awakened and reforms should not be unduly delayed. But in India’s national struggle a new turn came with the appearance of Gandhiji on the national scene. He made national struggle for freedom as a mass movement.
Gandhiji had won name and fame in South Africa and his new method of ahimsa, non-violence and truth had caught the imagination of the people. He had, however, deep faith in British sense of justice and when British government in 1914 declared that it was fighting world war for protecting weaker nations, he took that on their face value.
He extended his personal co-operation as well and appealed to Indian masses to help the Britishers without any reservations to win the war. At that time he perhaps did not properly understand British character. But as the time passed he began to study their character and replied to that in a befitting manner, with the result that the Britishers had to leave India.
Gandhiji became popular and sole representative of the people of India, because of certain reasons and under certain circumstances. It was a time when the people of India were sick of cult of violence which had been retaliated by the British government with repressive measures.
They wanted to follow a policy of struggle in which they could participate in a peaceful manner. At the same time, it was also time when the people were not prepared to depend solely on making representations and prayers to the rulers for getting freedom They, therefore, wanted a via media between extreme submission and extreme violence.
In addition, the Liberals were arm chair leaders. They had never seen poverty. They, thus, were not the leaders of the masses. They were a class among themselves and thus there was no real contact between the leaders and the masses, as long as they remained on the scene. Then came the extremists, who had some mass base but the people were not prepared to much associate themselves with them.
They, therefore, wanted to have leaders who mixed with them, spoke their language, understood their problems and with whom they had no hesitation to mix. Ghandiji provided that leadership. His policy of non-co-operation, non-violence was welcome with them. He mixed with the masses and thus Gandhiji became man of masses and he became the voice of India.
In his Discovery of India Nehru once said about emergence of Gandhiji that, “He did not descend from the top, he seemed to emerge from the millions of India speaking their language and incessantly drawing attention to them and to their appalling conditions.”
Of course, Gandhiji took some time to understand the people of India after coming from South Africa but that was not only necessary but also unavoidable. History is a witness that Gandhiji’s intentions and motives were not properly appreciated even by leaders like Jawahar Lal Nehru, when he withdrew Chauri Chaura agitation.
In his Biography he writes, “We were very angry when we learnt of this stoppage of our struggle at a time when we seemed to be consolidating our position and advancing on all fronts.”
Gandhiji came on the scene when England was in need of help from India to win World War I and Indians on the suggestion of Gandhiji rendered immense help to England. It was accepted by Lord Birkenhead, when he said that “The winter campaign of 1914-15 would have witnessed the loss of the channel ports but for the stubborn valour of Indians.”
But war too had its positive effects on national movement. Soldiers from India went abroad. They found European soldiers burning with love for their country. They found them patriots, most willing to sacrifice their everything for the sake of their motherland. They also found that being a slave nation they had no respect in the eyes of the whole world. Their supreme sacrifices were even not recognised.
They, therefore, had now one motive before them, namely, to make India free from British yoke. The question which they posed to themselves and to which they had no reply was that if they could fight at such a distance for perpetuating their slavery, why could they not fight for winning freedom and thus have a respectable place in the family of nations?
In the words of Pole Graham, “It brought to her a new sense of self-respect and self-reliance and hastened enormously the development of consciousness among her people.”
2. Essay on the Swadeshi Movement:
Gandhiji started with the philosophy of non-violence and non-cooperation. He wanted the people to fight with the weapons of ahimsa and truth. But before his coming on the scene the extremists had started Swadeshi Movement.
They had realised that in case British goods in India were boycotted, there will be no way out left with the rulers but to leave the country. These people were inspired by many activities which were going on in different parts of the world.
The whole movement had both political as well as economic orientation. It was felt by these leaders that in case British goods were boycotted Indians industries would get encouragement and millions of unemployed Indians would get jobs to feed their families. It was as also believed that this weapon of swadeshi alone would end the poverty of the people.
Then it was also felt that India will politically become a free nation, when the rulers will have no economic base. Among those who associated themselves with this movement were Lala Lajpat Rai, Lokmanya Tilak, Bipin Chandra Pal, Aurobindo Ghosh and many others. Those who joined this movement were required to take a vow in which they prayed Almighty God to give them strength to use swadeshi.
The movement was approved in 1906 by Indian National Congress. A resolution about swadeshi passed in that year said, that, “Congress accords its most cordial support to the swadeshi movement and calls upon the people of the country to labour for its success by making earnest and sustained efforts to promote the growth of indigenous industries and to stimulate the production of indigenous articles by giving them preference over imported commodities, even at some sacrifice.”
Swadeshi was, however, made a very comprehensive term. It did not include the boycott of only British clothes but all British goods, government run, managed and controlled schools and other educational institutions, courts of law, offices and even police and army.
If taken to its logical conclusion the movement and boycott meant setting up of a parallel government. These leaders pleaded with every Indian to use swadeshi goods and make a bonafire of foreign stuff.
They also picketed shops which sold foreign goods and advocates left their practices. The students left educational institutions and people like Rash Behari Bose, C.R. Das and Rabindra Nath Tagore associated themselves in setting up a National Education Council. The people were made to realise that unless they made this sacrifice they could not take India on the path of economic and political advancement.
About the implications of this movement B.C. Pal is stated to have said, “It is not mere economic movement, though it openly strives for the economic reconstruction of the country. It is not a political movement, though it has boldly declared itself for absolute political independence. It is immensely a spiritual movement having as its object not simply the development of economic life or attainment of political freedom but emancipations in every sense of the term, of Indian manhood and womanhood.”
The movement became very popular. It became a fashion with the people to use swadeshi goods. Educational institutions run and controlled by the nationalists attracted many brilliant students. Obviously, the government could not be a silent spectator to the whole movement.
Repression was used to crush it and check its growth. But whole affair had a lasting effect. It became clear now to the nation that unless it vigorously asserted its will, it shall not be in a position to end British mis-rule in India.
The nation will remain in perpetual slavery and there will never be political, economic and cultural regeneration. It has rightly been said that the movement was fore runner of non-co-operation movement in the country.
Prof. A.R. Desai in his Social Background of Indian Nationalism has said that it was this movement which aroused among the people a militant determination to win swaraj. In the same way, V.P.S. Raghuvanshi in his Indian National Movement and Thought has said that movement made the nation learn that the only effective guarantee against misrule was vigorous assertion of national will.
3. Essay on the Home Rule Movement:
The movement started by Lokhianya Tilak and Annie Besant became very popular and assumed an all India character. It was this movement which in 1916 brought both the Hindus and the Muslims on one platform on the one hand and united the moderates and the Extremists on the other.
The movement was organised by Mrs. Annie Besant who was originally an Irish Christian lady but had embraced Hinduism. She had pride in ancient Indian culture and wanted to revive its old glory. She wanted to awaken Indian masses so that they could realise what was their past and work for the freedom of their motherland. She found her inspiration for setting up this League from Home Rule Movement of Redmond.
In order to propagate her view point and ideology she also started two newspapers, namely, New India and Common Weal. In her efforts she was joined by Lokmanya Tilak and Lala Lajpat Rai. Tilak awakened the people through his Kesari and Maratha. Both of them jointly significantly in making masses conscious about their glorious cultural heritage.
What was the aim of this movement?
Lokmanya Tilak said that, “We will remain in empire as equals. We will not live in the empire merely as servants and load carriers.” One aim of the movement also was to save India from the cult of bombs and militant approaches and bring India and Britain nearer and closer to each-other.
In the political field the movement aimed at complete self-government from village councils through district and municipal boards and from provincial Legislative Assemblies to a national Parliament equal in its powers to legislative bodies of self-governing colonies.
They wanted to see India self-governing Dominion in which Indians would have control over Central Legislative Council. They also wanted that there also should be complete control of Indians over provincial governments. The Congress at its session held in 1916 very much supported Home League Movement, including its programme and policies. In recognition of her services to and keeping in view the nature of programme of the movement Mrs. Annie Besant was elected as Congress President of 17th session, when she was still in jails.
The government, however, did not tolerate the spread of the movement and came with a heavy hand on it. It put several restrictions to crush it and discouraged the people from joining it. In May 1916, the government decided to institute cases against Lokmanya Tilak for delivering certain speeches which could arouse the people against the government.
He was asked to execute personal bonds of Rs.20,000/- and also produce two securities for good behaviour in future for one year.
This order of the Magistrate was, however, quashed by Bombay High Court. In August 1916, the government forfeited the security of New India and was asked to furnish another security of Rs.10,000/-. An appeal against this order was made to Privy Council, but too did not materialise.
But all these measures did not in any way slacken the vigour of the people. The movement became popular and its leaders became hero of the masses. As the government adopted repressive measures, many leaders who had hither-to remained outside the movement began to join it. It became a forum for creating new ideas and feelings and the movement spread practically throughout India.
Assessment of the Movement:
The movement was significant in India’s freedom struggle in more than one way. It brought the Moderates and the Extremists in the Congress closer and nearer to each-other. In this way Congress again emerged as a united organisation in the difficult task of fighting against British imperialism.
Thus, the damage done to the organisation in 1907 was undone.
In the words of Lala Lajpat Rai, “India of 1917 was different from India of 1907. In 1907, we were fighting for crumbs. In 1917, we no longer pray for concessions but are demanding rights.”
The Moderates were satisfied that the movement aimed at winning freedom by non-militant methods and that India was to remain in the British empire. In addition, the Extremists were satisfied that Tilak and Lajpat Rai were the leaders of the movement.
In addition to this another great contribution of the movement was that it provided a mass base to all freedom fighters. The people of India at the base level were awakened and they were made to realise that unless they participated actively in freedom struggle, the nation could not win freedom.
The movement was demand oriented with public backing. It made it amply clear to the government that the people of India were fighting for a cause and that nothing could deter the nation from proceeding further on a decided path.
At a time when the nation was in the grip of Home Rule Movement report on Mesopotamian affairs came out.
The main aim of the report was to find out the causes responsible for the failure of Mesopotamian campaign launched by the Government of India against Turkey in Mesopotamia. In the report it was pointed out that the old myth that only the silent strong man on the spot could effectively get things done east of the Suez had been shattered.
The report also brought out many glaring defects of Indian system of government with the result that Mr. Chamberlain the then Secretary of State for India, had to resign. He was succeeded by Mr. Montague, who gave famous Montague-Chelmsford (Montford) Reforms.
Montford Reforms:
Montford reforms were much below the expectations of the people of India. These were much condemned by all sections of Indian society. The people of India did not cherish the idea that the British government should be the sole judge to decide when next dose of reforms should be given to the people.
The Congress condemned these reforms as unsatisfactory, inadequate and most disappointing. There was a feeling in India that whole reforms were unworthy to be offered by England and below the dignity of India to be accepted. This was particularly because Indians had made immense sacrifices in war on the British side and even the die hards in England accepted that without active co-operation of Indians, Britain perhaps would not have won the war.
4. Essay on the Jallianwala Bagh Tragedy:
It was at this time when there was great discontentment in India that government passed Rolwatt Act, which vested the police and the executive government with unlimited authority to take away civil liberties of the people. Mahatma Gandhi who was a firm believer in British sense of justice was shaken by the provisions of the Act. He decided to launch a campaign of passive resistance against this Act.
Hartals were observed in the country and the people were asked to observe fast. At this time when the people needed leaders to control the movement, the government decided to arrest Mahatma Gandhi near Palwal in Punjab.
Dr. Satya Pal and Dr. Kitchlew were also arrested and thus there was a very tense atmosphere in Punjab, which was also leaderless due to the arrest of these leaders.
The people of Punjab demanded release of their leaders and took out procession in Amritsar. This peaceful procession was, however, fired by the police, which made the atmosphere in the province still more tense. The firing left few processionists dead.
This resulted in violence in which few Europeans were killed and government buildings were set on fire. General Dyer, the so-called iron man of Punjab, decided to take revenge on Indians. On 12th April, 1919, he issued orders banning all meetings, but did not deliberately give wide publicity to these.
A meeting was fixed by the people for 13th April, which was a baisakhi day and on which large number of people assembled at Jallianwala Bagh at Amritsar, to demand the release of their leaders.
It is believed by some of the modern historians that General Dyer hired some persons to give wide publicity to the meeting so that maximum number of people assembled at the meeting place. Vast crowd thus gathered at the meeting place. It was quite unarmed and peaceful.
When the crowd was awaiting the arrival of their leaders to address them, General Dyer appeared on the scene with about 150 soldiers both Indians and Europeans.
He blocked the only passage from where the people could escape. From a narrow passage at a distance of hardly about 100 yards General Dyer directed firing where the crowd was the thickest. Even those who tried to make escape by riding high bagh walls were not spared.
Hundreds of the assembled were shot dead whereas thousands in wounds were left to their own care and at the mercy of God. General Dyer happily left the place, leaving behind not only thousands ‘wounded but a shame on the fair name of England and a blot on the civilisation and mankind. This ghastly tragedy of Jallianwala Bagh shook not only the people of India and England, but of the whole world.
As if Jallianwala Bagh tragedy was not a sufficient challenge to India and slur on the fair name of civilisation, two days later General Dyer declared Marshal Law in five districts of Punjab. During this period the people were made to crawl on their bellies and public flogging was quite common.
There was not only confiscation but also destruction of property. There were mass arrests without trial and in fact in the martial law everything which civilisation could condemn happened.
When India was highly condemning and very much getting agitated, British government appointed Hunter Committee to find out how far General Dyer as responsible for committing- excesses, as if this needed some proof. Hunter Committee which went into the matter tried to wash off the blames of General Dyer.
All that the Committee felt was that the General had exceeded limits of authority to some extent and that there was little error of judgment. On the other hand, Anglo-Indian press very highly praised his action and elevated Dyer as the saviour of British empire.
Not only this, but after some time his admirers also presented him a purse of £ 20,000 for the noble deed he did in India by brutually massacring Indians and inhumanly, enforcing Marshal law rules in Punjab. All that the British government did was that it called back General Dyer to England.
5. Essay on the Non-Co-Operation Movement:
Gandhiji was co-operator and had full faith in British sense of justice. But ghastly tragedy of Jallianwala Bagh even shook his faith also. It also a time when on account of Khilafat question both the Hindus and the Muslims had come closer and nearer to each-other. Ali Brothers, who were the leaders of Muslim community joined Congress under the leadership of Gandhiji.
Thus time was ripe for starting a new movement because there was Hindu-Muslim unity; discontentment on account of Jallianwala Bagh ghastly tragedy and also general discontentment which spread throughout the country due to unsatisfactory nature of Montford Reforms. Gandhiji took maximum advantage of this situation and decided to start his movement.
At a special session of the Congress held in September, 1920, at Calcutta under the Presidentship of Lala Lajpat Rai the Congress passed non-co-operation movement resolution by a very big majority. Gandhiji made it clear that India wanted revolution but by non-violent means and with truth and the aim of the movement now was to attain swaraj by peaceful and legitimate means and if that became unavoidable India could also go out of the British empire.
The resolution was supported by such important leaders as Ali Brothers and Pt. Moti Lal Nehru, though Pt. Madan Mohan Malviya and Mrs. Annie Besant were opposed to it.
Programme of the Movement:
The programme of non-co-operation included several things. The councils were to be boycotted and the lawyers were not to attend the courts.
The student were supposed to leave their schools and colleges. All titles were to be surrendered and those holding nominated posts and honorary offices were to give up these. It was also expected that the people would refuse to attend government levees, darbars and other official and non-official functions which might be held in honour of government officials.
All foreign goods were to be boycotted and officials, both civil and military, were not to attend their offices. It was not only that the programme was given to the people but also vigorously pursued. In order to arouse the people, Gandhiji toured whole of India and sought people’s co-operation in this programme.
Assessment of the Programme:
The response to Gandhiji’s efforts was very encouraging. In large numbers students left their colleges and schools. The courts were boycotted. Elections were boycotted and the electorates refused to participate in the election process. Those holding honorary titles surrendered these. Under the influence of Khilafat leaders the Muslims left police and military services. Such institutions as Kashi Vidya Peeth and Jamia Millia Islamia and national universities of Punjab and Bengal came into being. Leaders like Pt. Moti Lal Nehni, Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel and Dr. Rajendra Prasad left their lucrative practices. Lakhs of rupees were collected to plead the cases of those who were harassed by the government and arrested. On November, 27 when Prince of Wales came to India he was greeted with hartals.
The government on its part tried to repress the people. It is estimated that about 50,000 persons were arrested on political grounds. In December 1921, Indian National Congress at its December session decided to launch civil disobedience movement.
Gandhiji informed the Governor-General that in case all non-violent political prisoners were not released within seven days and government showed no clear signs of sincerity to resolve Indian political crisis, non-payment of tax campaign will be started. The Congress was also declared as the sole executive authority for the implementation of the programme.
Chauri-Chaura Incident:
The movement was much success and the people were enthusiastically joining it when an unfortunate happening took place at Chauri-Chaura in U.P. on February 4, 1922, in which the agitators killed twenty-one police men and one inspector of police.
Gandhiji felt that it was an unhealthy event and that the people were going on the path of violence. He felt that the whole movement could become violent and thus go out of control. He, therefore, decided to suspend the movement.
Suspension of movement by Gandhiji at a time when it was at its height was misunderstood by the people and even by political leaders. Jawahar Lal Nehru’s first reaction was that, “We were angry when we learnt of this stoppage of our struggle at a time when we seemed to be consolidating our position and advancing on all fronts.”
Similarly Subhash Chandra Bose also said, “To sound the order of retreat just when public enthusiasm was reaching the boiling point was nothing short of national calamity.”
Jawahar Lal Nehru after some time realised the wisdom of Gandhiji’s action when he assessed the consequences of the movement turning violent. He said, “This would have been crushed by the government in a bloody manner and a reign of terror established which would have thoroughly demoralised the people.”
Both M.N. Roy and Rajni Palm Dutt who were then abroad also condemned this action of Gandhiji characterising it as the betrayal of revolutionary forces.
In his own words, it was, “Not the question of violence or non-violence, but the question of class interest in opposition to the mass movement, was the breaking point of national struggle in 1922. This was the rock on which the movement broke.” Taking advantage of situation and finding that Gandhiji’s popularity was at a low ebb, government arrested him and sentenced him for 6 years imprisonment.
But the movement was neither a failure, nor a futile exercise though it could not achieve its object of winning swaraj within a period of one year. The Congress organisation became very popular. The slogan of swaraj reached every nook and comer of the country.
The poorest man was made politically awakened. National movement in the country got intensified. The movement gave a new turn to national freedom struggle. In the words of Coupland, “Gandhiji had done what Tilak had failed to do. He had converted the national movement into a revolutionary movement…. And he had not only made the national movement revolutionary, but he had also made it popular.”
Gandhiji stood for ‘Swaraj’ within a year but what was understood by it, perhaps none was clear. Gandhiji himself did not encourage clear thinking about it. Lala Lajpat Rai at Calcutta Congress session of 1920 said that the word was deliberately chosen for its ambiguity in order to enable Indians to remain within the projected commonwealth or to leave it according to their own preference.
Jawahar Lal Nehru himself said that to most of our leaders Swaraj meant something much less than independence. For Gandhiji “It means a state such that we can maintain our separate existence without the presence of the English. If it is to be a partnership, it must be partnership at will.”
6. Essay on the Swarajist Party:
Withdrawal of non-co-operation movement, when it was at its peak and when many felt that the goal was near for achievement, could not be reconciled by many Congress leaders. Of course, many equally understood the wisdom behind the action but still many more did not agree with Gandhiji’s view point.
C.R Das felt that, “The Mahatma opens a campaign in a brilliant fashion, he works it up with skills, he .moves from success to success till he reaches the zenith of his campaign but after that he loses his nerve and begins to falter.”
The leaders like Moti Lal Nehru, C.R. Das and N.C. Kelkar who could not reconcile themselves to the decision of Gandhiji decided to form a new party. They accordingly formed Swarajist party. The others to join this newly formed party were Hakim Ajmal Khan, Sardar Vithal Bhai Patel and Pt. Madan Mohan Malviya.
But C. Rajagopalachari and Dr. M.A. Ansari decided to remain outside the party. From the very beginning the Swarajists made it clear that they were entering the legislatures with a view to wrecking these from within by creating obstructions and following a policy of non-co-operation.
In 1923, the Swarajists could get a resolution passed from the Congress, by which the party agreed to Swarajists entries in the legislatures. But those who did not wish and approve this new development met in September, 1923 and a compromise between pro- and anti-changers was arrived at.
Even Gandhiji who came out of jail in 1924 found no other alternative but to accept the programme of entry in the legislatures. In short it can be said that for all practical purposes Swarajist party became political wing of the Congress. About the aims of the party C.R. Das once said, “We want to destroy and get rid of a system which does no good and can do no good.”
About the programme of Swarajists Bisheshwar Prasad in his Changing Modes of Indian National Movement has written that, “Outside the legislatures, the Swarajists were to render support to the constructive programme and, finally there was an assurance that the moment we find that it is impossible to meet the selfish obstinacy of the bureaucracy without Civil Disobedience, we will retire from legislative bodies and help him (Gandhi) to prepare the country for Civil Disobedience.” Thus, the Swarajists appreciated Gandhiji’s line of thinking and his Civil Disobedience movement.
Achievements of the Swarajists:
In 1923, elections were held under Montford Scheme. The Swarajists emerged very powerful in C.P. and Bengal where they paralysed dyarchy. In these provinces they did not allow the formation of Ministries and also themselves did not form Ministries. In many other provinces they became a formidable opposition.
As regards Central Legislative they could secure 45 seats out of 145 but they could win the cooperation of the independent members and many a times could inflict defeat on the government. They, however, could not much impede the work because the Governors in the province and Governor-General in the Central Assembly had veto power.
The Swarajists however rejected votable part of the budget and thus embarrassed the government on several occasions.
They also occupied positions on all elected bodies of the Assembly and Councils in a bid to create obstructions.
Their success was speculator on February 9, 1924, when they got a resolution passed by the Central Assembly in which it was stated that the Government of India Act may be reviewed and revised with a view to establishing full responsible government in India and for this purpose a Round-Table Conference may be convened. In addition, the Swarajists did not leave early opportunity to embarrass the government.
They voted out budget proposals prepared by the government for the year 1924-25. They got Seditious Meeting’s Act and State Prisoner’s Acts repealed and so on.
Since the Assembly had passed a resolution moved by Pt. Moti Lal Nehru that the Constitution of India may be revised, the government set up a Committee known as Muddiman Committee. As it had official majority, though included some non-official members as well, therefore, it was boycotted by the Swarajists.
Whereas official members, who were in majority felt that there was nothing inherently wrong with the dyarchy, the non-officials felt that dyarchy was basically unworkable. The report was placed before the Assembly in 1925 and rejected much against the wishes of the government.
But as the time passed it became clear that the Swarajist’s policy of continuous obstruction was not giving the desired results and that it needed some changes. After the death of C.R. Das this change became still more necessary. The Swarajists now began to follow policy of responsive co-operation instead of deliberate obstructions. But still there were few who wanted to follow policy of non-co-operation and thus the party got divided. Those who followed policy of cooperation included Pt. Moti Lal Nehru, S.B. Tambe and V.J. Patel.
The last mentioned leader was elected leader of the Central Legislative Assembly. But on the whole division of the party much weakened it and its prestige very much came down and in 1926 when elections were held the party did not do well and by the end of the year even the Swarajists realised that the policy of continuous obstruction was no solution to country’s political problems.
The Swarajists, however, played a big role in nation’s political life. It was a time when national movement was in doledrums because of withdrawal of non-co-operation movement. The Swarajists came forward and upheld the morale of the people.
In the Assemblies they very bitterly exposed the weaknesses of the policies being followed by the government and stood many times on the way of autocratic policies of the government which otherwise would have done great harm to the people of India. One important effect of the movement was that after its split Gandhiji got an opportunity to re-emerge on the political scene of India.
About the achievements of Swarajists, Gandhiji wrote in ‘Young India’ on 13th November, 1924, “They have shown a determination, grit, discipline and cohesion and have not feared to carry their policy to the point of defiance…. it must be admitted they have introduced a new spirit into the Indian legislatures.”
About their work and their coming back to the Congress fold Lal Bahadur has written, “Having asserted itself for sometime and having tried the experiment of obstruction and non cooperation from within, with remarkable success, specially in so far as question of rousing the national feeling against foreign domination was concerned, it was very – nature of things that it should once again go back to its original fold.”
On the other hand, Rajni Palm Dun has said that the Swarajists failed to satisfy progressive section of the Congress. For him the Swaraj party was a party of progressive bourgeoisies. In his own words, “But in practice, the Swaraj party was the party of progressive bourgeoisie, its existence depended on the support of these elements just as its main leaders came from among them; and however, much they might talk sentimentaly of the workers and the peasants to win the support of the upper class element they had to make perfectly clear that their party was sound on the essential basis of landlordism and capitalism.”
But while not much appreciating the work of Swarajists even V.P.S. Raghuvanshi admits that they could demonstrate that the Constitutional reforms of 1919 were a Charter of irresponsibility of executive heads and a denial of even elementary principles of democracy.”
7. Essay on the Simon-Commission in India:
Gandhiji’s emergence on the scene of India as the sole authority of Congress party after the loss of glamour of the Swarajists again started the era of non-co-operation and civil disobedience. It was, however, a time when national movement was not much progressing. The Swarajists had failed to give any solid programme to the masses and Gandhiji was yet to re-start his new plan of action.
The masses who were quite enthusiastic to follow their leaders in freedom struggle but had no plan or action were thus in frustration. It was at this time that on 5th November, 1927, Viceroy invited Gandhiji and informed him that an all white man Commission headed by Mr. Simon had been set up by British government to give proposals for a new constitution for India.
The Commission consisted of Members of British Parliament and included no Indian in it. In fact, a Commission should have been appointed in 1931 under Montford Scheme but was appointed four years earlier. According to some critics Conservative government in England deliberately did so. It was done with the intention of defaming India, which was witnessing communal riots at that critical time.
Then another view is that the Conservative party, which was expecting defeat at the time of next general elections in his own country wanted to seal Indian issue leaving no opportunity for the Labour party to tackle the problem so that imperialist interests in India did not suffer. A.B. Keith has, however, given his own view about early setting up of Simon Commission.
In his opinion, “It was in these difficult conditions aggravated by the cleverness of Congress in sponsoring at the suggestion of Jawahar Lal Nehru and Subhash Chandra Bose a Youth movement which appealed to excitable and half-educated young men with irresistible force, that British government decided to obtain the sanction of Parliament for the acceleration of the appointment of Commission of enquiry.”
The announcement of this all white man Commission, under whatever compelling circumstances and compulsions was not at all a welcome with Indians. All the sections of Indian social and political life almost unanimously decided to boycott it.
When it landed on the soil of India on 3rd January, 1929, it was greeted with black flags. Hartals were observed at all the places wherever it went. ‘Simon Go Back’ was the cry of the day. Indians of all political opinions refused to co-operate with this Commission. Demonstrations were organised against Simon Commission in which Lala Lajpat Rai and G.B. Pant received severe lathi blows. The Commission, however, took about 2 years to complete his work.
This all white man Commission, which was in no way less infuriated by hartals and non-co-operation of Indians came to the conclusion that dyarchy was unworkable and that provincial administration should be handed over to the Ministers responsible to the legislature.
It was also of the view that centre’s control over the provinces should be reduced to the minimum and as far as possible, the prov inces should be their own masters. Governors should, however, have special powers to maintain peace and tranquility in the provinces and also to protect legitimate interests of the minorities.
The Commission, however, did not favour the idea of responsibility of executive to the legislature at the central level. It even did not favour dyarchy at the centre. In the view of the Commission in India there should be federal and not a unitary form of government and till the time that the federation actually carted working there should be, at the Centre, a Council of Greater India which should discuss problems common both to Indian provinces and princely states. The Commission also suggested that the legislatures should be enlarged and more people should be given right to vote.
It favoured the idea of communal representation in India. It suggested the fonnation of a new province of Sindh and also that of separation of Burma from India. In the opinion of Commission it was not possible to immediately Iudianise Indian army, though steps in this direction should immediately be taken.
Till the army was fully Indianised, British government should retain control over it. Both the Houses of the Central Legislature should be indirectly constituted through the provincial councils.
In the view of the Commission the present method of setting up of Commission from time to time to enquire into the working of the Act or to find out the extent of awakening in the country, should be given up. On the other hand, the Constitution should be so elastic that it should provide for necessary changes.
The very fact that such a hostile Commission came to the conclusion that Indians should be given more responsibility is an ample proof of country’s political awakening. The Report, however, received mixed reception. Sir Sivaswamy did not consider it more important than a heap of waste paper, whereas P. Roberts was of the view that it was one of the most important state papers.
But on the whole India rejected the Report. A. B. Keith is of the view that had India accepted this report at that time, the country would have got responsible government in the provinces much earlier than in 1935.
Nehru Report and After:
When India rejected Simon Commission Report, the then Secretary of State for India, challenged Indian leadership to produce a Constitution which was acceptable to all sections of Indian society. Accordingly an All Party Conference was convened at Bombay on 19th May, 1928 under the Presidentship of Dr. M.A. Ansari. The conference appointed a drafting committee under PL Moti Lal Nehru to draft a constitution for India.
The report of the Committee was almost unanimous and accepted by all except by orthodox Muslims who decided to meet separately. It was accepted by enlightened Britishers that the Report had basis on which India’s constitutional problem could be solved.
Subsequently to safeguard Muslim interests Mr. Jinnah gave his fourteen point proposals which instead of solving communal problem very much aggravated the same.
In December 1928, the Congress party, however, gave an ultimatum to the British government that in case Nehru Report in its entirety was not accepted by it, the Congress party will have no other alternative but to start non-co- operation movement.
In May 1929, British government in England inspired a hope in the mind of the people of India that the country would soon get Dominion status within the British empire. On October 31, 1929, Lord Irwin, after consultation with British Prime Minister, made a very vague statement.
He simply said that ultimate aim of India’s constitutional struggle was a Dominion status. The declaration, however, did not say anything about the date on which this was going to be achieved and what steps the government proposed to take in this direction.
The statement of Lord Irwin was differently reacted. The leaders like Gandhiji, Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, Pandit Madan Mohan Malviya and Mrs. Annie Besant felt that it was a welcome declaration. They even sent a memorandum to the Governor-General in which they appreciated the spirit in which statement had been made and suggested that the government should take more liberal steps so that the whole constitutional problem was solved in a very amicable manner.
Gandhiji even said, “I can wait for Dominion status, if I can get real Dominion status in action.”
The manifesto also demanded that all political prisoners should be immediately released and that the proposed Round-Table Conference in which India’s constitutional problem was to be discussed should be convened at a very early date.
But within the Congress itself comparatively young leaders like Subhash Chandra Bose and Jawahar Lal Nehru made it clear that their aim was not to fight for Dominion status but for complete independence. As a protest they also resigned from the Congress Working Committee.
When this was the situation in India, the things were not smooth in England as well. Labour party had of course promised Dominion status, but it could keep its words only with the co-operation of other partners in the government, namely, the Liberals, who were not forthcoming to implement this promise of the government.
Then the Conservatives who though in the opposition were very powerful in the House of Commons and made India’s Dominion Status as an issue for gathering public opinion in their favour. They were opposed to any move. The Labour party, thus, could not carry out its promise.
The Congress leadership in India which had issued a manifesto and annoyed younger elements in the party was quite keen that government should clearly come out at the earliest with its mind on solving India’s constitutional problem.
Gandhiji and some other national leaders met Viceroy on l3th December, 1929, in which they wanted from him a clear assurance that at the proposed Round-Table Conference a Constitution will be framed in which India would be given Dominion status.
But the Viceroy did not give any such assurance and the leaders came out empty handed. When the people of India came to know of this, there was not only dismay and frustration but also wide spread anger throughout the country.
Young elements in the Congress party had by now an upper hand. On 31st December, 1929, the Congress at its Lahore Session decided that henceforth not the Dominion status but complete independence shall be the aim of their freedom struggle.
In the declaration of Swaraj it was said, “We believe that it is the inalienable right of the Indian people, as of any other people, to have freedom and to enjoy the fruit of their toil and to have the necessities of life so that they may have full opportunities of growth. We believe also that if any government deprives the people of these rights and oppresses them the people have a further right to alter it or to abolish it. The British government in India had not only deprived the people of their freedom but has based itself on the exploitation of the masses, and has ruined India economically, politically, culturally and spiritually. We believe, therefore, that India must sever the British connection and attain Puma Swaraj or complete independence.”
This historic session which was held at Lahore under the Presidentship of Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru thus gave a new turn to freedom struggle. Tricolour was unfurled on the mid-night of 31 December, 1929. The Congress decided to boycott the proposed Round-Table Conference.
8. Essay on the Civil Disobedience Movement:
But how to achieve this object?
There were two distinct ways open for the leadership. Either the country should go violent or energies of the people should be so channelised that they were so deeply involved in the struggle that they felt satisfied. The people were ready to fight because they were undergoing many sufferings. Economically the lot of the poor was really deplorable. There was economic depression all over the world and India was no exception to that.
The prices of agricultural commodities had considerably come down thus creating economic problem for the cultivators and agriculturists. Both the industrialists as well as the commercial classes were not satisfied because the government had not taken care of their interests. The leaders of labour movements had been put behind the bars for years and this had annoyed the working classes.
Thus, there was very explosive situation. But Gandhiji thought it more advisable to fight the struggle on non-violent basis rather than giving the country in the hands of those who believed in violence. On March 2, 1930, he wrote to the Viceroy that in India forces of violence were gaining ground and that their presence and strength was being felt.
Clarifying his position he said that his non-violent struggle wills combat not only violent force of the British rule but also the organised violent force of the growing trend of violence in India.
On 30th January 1930, Gandhiji indicated that his programme of civil disobedience combined both Swadeshi and non-co-operation and among other things it included non-payment of taxes. On February 14-16, 1930, the All India Congress Committee authorised Gandhiji to launch the movement in the way he liked. He accordingly wrote Viceroy demanding an assurance from him that all repressive measures would be abandoned.
But since no reply was received from him Gandhiji decided to launch his movement which included:
(a) Manufacture of contraband salt.
(b) Picketing of liquor shops.
(c) Picketing foreign cloth dealers shops.
(d) Plying takli and spinning.
(e) Burning of foreign cloth.
(f) Eschewing untouchability.
(g) Making efforts for satisfying the minorities.
(h) Leaving of governmental educational institutions by the students.
(i) Resignation of public servants of their services and their devoting themselves to the cause of the welfare of the people.
(j) Non-payment of all tax arrears being claimed by the government.
(k) Let the majority rest content with what remains after the minorities have been satisfied.
It was formally launched on March 12, 1930.
9. Essay on the Dandi March, 1930:
Gandhiji felt that tax on salt was height of injustice by the government because it was used by the poorest man in the hut. He, therefore, decided himself to violate this law by manufacturing salt from sea water. It was symbolic to make the people realise the importance of the movement and also to consolidate public opinion against British government.
He started from Sabarmati Ashram in Ahmadabad with 79 followers and marched towards Dandi about 200 miles away from his Ashram.
This distance was covered, in 24 days in which on the way thousands accompanied him. English press and men who mattered in Indian bureaucracy, however, ridiculed the movement little realising that the force behind it was uncontrollable and also that the basic idea underlying the movement had been spread throughout the country.
Bombay Chronicle very beautifully described the march in an account saying, “Never was the wave of patriotism so powerful in the hearts of mankind as it was on this occasion which is bound to go down m the chapters of India’s national freedom as a great beginning of great movement.”
Thus, the people got mentally and morally ready to violate salt law. On 6th April, 1930, Gandhiji violated salt law by extracting salt from sea water. On that day people throughout the country also violated salt law and where saline water was not available other laws were openly violated. In this way a beginning is the real sense was made of this movement.
It became so popular that in CP. Forest laws, and in many other provinces salt laws were violated. Liquor and foreign goods shops were very successfully picketed. Within months thousands of the people tendered their resignations from public services and students came out of educational institutions not caring for disruption in their studies.
At Peshawar, the troops refused to fire the agitators when ordered to do so. The women sided with menfolk in freedom struggle and in this agitation.
Spread of movement and its popularity naturally caused much worry in government circles and era of repression and suppression again started. Properties of the agitators were confiscated and even women were molested by police men. The government Issued several ordinances to crush the movement. There were lathi charges everywhere and heavy penalties were imposed on the people to create terror in their minds.
Demonstrations and meetings were banned. But in spite of all these provocations, except at few places, the people did not get provocated and continued to follow the path of non-violent non-co-operation. In order to provoke the people, Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru was arrested on April 16 and Gandhiji on May 30 of the same year. Congress Committee was banned.
All these steps were taken in the hope that the movement will lose its vigour but what happened was otherwise. It is estimated that about 60,000 people courted arrest as non-violent non-co-operators. In the words of Rev Verrier Elwin the movement showed determination of Indian masses, their desire to win freedom.
10. Essay on the Round-Table Conferences:
The British government was now quite clear in its mind that except orthodox Muslims almost whole of India was behind Gandhiji, who in turn made it clear to the government that he was prepared to withdraw his agitation provided he was assured that at the forthcoming Round-Table Conference the substance of independence to India will be conceded.
Solo Combe a journalist met Gandhiji as well as other national leaders of the Congress party and so did Dr. Jayakar and Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru but all then- efforts to persuade Gandhiji to withdraw his agitation failed.
When it became clear that agitation was not going to be withdrawn, British government decided to convene First Round Table Conference at London on November 12, 1930, without representatives of the Congress party. Obviously such a Conference could not be a representative body of India.
Prime Minister Macdonald told the Conference that the basis of their discussion should be that the provinces were to get full autonomy and at the centre there was going to be partial responsible government.
In addition, India was likely go be a federation. It was also suggested that representation was to continue on communal basis. Though the Conference continued to deliberate till January, 1931, yet nothing concrete came out of that without the representation of the Congress.
The governments, both in India and England were, however, quite convinced that it was impossible to solve India’s constitutional problems without Congress participation. On 26th January, 1931, ban on Congress party was removed and Gandhiji and members of the Congress working committee were released.
Dr. Jayakar, Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru and V.S.S. Sastri made every effort to bring compromise between the government and Gandhiji. As a result of their efforts Gandhi-Irwin Pact was signed by which whereas the government agreed to release all political prisoners and return their properties, Gandhi agreed to withdraw the movement and participate in the deliberations of Second Round Table Conference.
The movement was withdrawn but this again created a controversy about this action of Gandhiji. Many in the Congress believed that Gandhiji had outright surrendered without achieving anything. He even failed to get salt law repealed.
The youth of India were frustrated with him because the Pact did not provide for the release of revolutionaries like Sardar Bhagat Singh and others and they felt that Gandhi-Irwin Pact was an agreement to send these patriots to the gallows.
While discussing the nature of the movement A.R. Desai has said that deliberate efforts were made to restrict its scope. Independent actions of workers and peasants like strikes and non-payments of rents were disapproved because those were likely to seriously jeopardise vested interests like zamindari.
In his own words, “The bourgeoisie leadership consistent with Gandhian political ideology and its class affiliation restricted the scope of nationalist movement.” But even then Gandhiji could carry Karachi Congress with him which decided to participate in the Second Round-Table Conference and send Gandhiji as the sole representative of Congress to that Conference.
The Conference began on 7th September, 1931, but it proved to be a pompous debating society that was being liquidated. It went on deliberating but ultimately nothing concrete came out of that because British Conservative party was in no mood to concede anything to India. It came to an end on December 1,1931 and Gandhiji came back to India empty handed.
As soon as Gandhiji landed on the soil of India he was arrested. The new Viceroy Lord Willingdon did not much care for Gandhi-Irwin Pact and during the absence of Gandhiji several Congress leaders were arrested which among others included Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan and Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru.
The government also issued several ordinances to crush nationalist activities. When Gandhiji and Sardar Patel were arrested on January 14,1932, the Pact was practically broken and Gandhiji decided to start his Civil Disobedience Movement again. As if the government was ready to face the situation, several Congress leaders, who were still out of jails were arrested.
The party was declared illegal and its offices were raided. The government got extraordinary powers to deal with the situation by the issue of several ordinances.
The people were arrested even on suspicion and there were lathi charges and shooting of the demonstrators. Again the properties were confiscated. But movement continued and in a period of 6 months more than 1.25 lakhs people courted arrest. But obviously such a movement could not last long.
As the time passed and vigorous leaders who were in the forefront, went behind the bars, there was slackness in it. It was, therefore, in the first instance suspended for 12 weeks in May 1933 and thereafter finally on April 7, 1934.
The suspension of movement, however, resulted in wide and wild criticism of Gandhiji. Subhash Chandra Bose, Vallabh Bhai Patel and Jawahar Lal Nehru all criticised him openly and bitterly. They felt that Gandhiji had unconditionally surrendered and accepted the failure of our mass movement.
But Gandhiji justified his action by pleading that the people of India were now not prepared to undergo more miseries and sufferings on the one hand and repression and suppression unlashed by the British government on the other. He was sure that had the movement not been withdrawn it would have automatically died down, giving more disrepute to the people of India.
In between came Macdonald Award, which compelled Gandhiji to go on fast and resulted in the signing of Poona Pact. In November 1932, Third Round Table Conference was held which again achieved nothing and a White Paper was issued by British government in March 1933 outlining future constitution of India. This became the basis of Government of India Act, 1935.
The Act came into actual operation in 1937 but practically ceased to operate in 1939 when Second World War broke out and Congress party resigned from the provinces in which it was in power. As the war proceeded to the disadvantage of British government with that she needed India’s help.
India was prepared to help provided British government agreed to concede its demand of independence, after the war was over and was prepared to introduce major changes during the course of war. Sir Stafford Cripps who came to India to solve country’s constitutional problems failed and in 1942 there was again a major movement in the country called ‘Quit India Movement’.
11. Essay on the Quit India Movement:
Quit India Movement was the last important movement launched by Gandhiji on a large scale in which masses were involved for India’s freedom struggle. Gandhiji himself called it as the last struggle of his life. In this movement the people of India participated in a spirit of either to do or die.
Equally the British government took a view that to demand constitutional reforms and to launch any movement either violent or non-violent at a time when war was going on to the disadvantage of British government was nothing but a sort of rebillion and should be crushed in that spirit.
Since in this mass movement there were cases of violence at certain places, the British government tried to establish that so-called non-violent movement was a violent one.
Moreover, the Britishers also tried to establish that Indians themselves were so much divided that even if all efforts were made to solve India’s political problem, no solution could be found out because of divergent views of major religious communities about constitutional reforms.
Before starting his movement Gandhiji wrote to the Governor- General about his intention to launch the movement. He instead received a rebuff from him. In his communication he requested the British government to leave the country to God and if that was not possible the country be left to anarchy.
Gandhiji also said that from British withdrawal all that he meant was that British domination over India should come to end. Once it was decided to end British domination then the basis on which British forces will stay in India can mutually be decided and there should be no difficulty in that.
Thus, there was no intention on the part of India to immediately throw British forces out of India.
On July 14, 1942, Congress Working Committee at its Wardha Session decided that Britain should immediately withdraw from India. On 8th August, 1942, at its Bombay session All India Congress Committee also endorsed this decision of the Working Committee.
In that Resolution about British rule was said that, “The continuation of this rule is degrading and enfeebling India and making her progressively less capable of defending herself and of contributing to the cause of world freedom.”
The Committee resolved that India had an inalienable right of freedom and independence and that of starting non-violent struggle on the widest possible scale. The Committee also decided that such a struggle should be guided by Gandhiji.
It was suggested in the resolution that there should be a provisional government in the country which should be responsible for evolving a scheme for setting up a Constituent Assembly which will give constitution to India. Gandhiji made it clear from the very beginning that any violent or underground activity will be condemned outright.
As discussed elsewhere that whereas the resolve of Congress party created an upheaval in the country and whereas the masses joined the movement the government was least hesitant to use repressive measures and to crush every individual participant of the movement with a very heavy hand.
The agitators were machine gunned from low flying aircrafts and according to official estimates more than one thousand persons were killed and 3000 wounded. As many as 100,000 Indians went behind the bars and property worth Rs.90 lakhs was confiscated. There was nothing but suppression everywhere and the people were really fighting in the spirit of ‘do or die’. Since all important Congress leaders had been arrested, therefore, the whole movement went underground.
Assessment of the Movement:
The movement went a long way in India’s struggle. The way in which the people responded made it amply clear to the government that it was impossible for the Britishers for long to stay in, India as rulers. It involved the masses and took the struggle to the villages and every nook and comer of the country.
But one peculiar feature of the whole movement was that the British government instead of accepting that otherwise peaceful movement became violent because of repression of the government and arrest of national leaders, threw whole blame on Gandhiji and Indian National Congress.
The government in a booklet entitled, “Congress Responsibility for Disturbances 1942-43” tried to establish that violence broke out in the country because of the atmosphere created by Gandhiji. This was intolerable for Gandhiji who wanted to institute an enquiry into the charges levied against him.
Since the government was not prepared for that, he went on 21 days fast on February 10, 1944. On the whole the movement gave big jolt to British rule in India.
It was a historic fast in the sense that the British government was not prepared to release Gandhiji in spite of the fact that after 15 days of his fast his health so much deteriorated that there was no hope of his life. It is said that government made all arrangements for his cremation but on account of his will power Gandhiji could survive even after fast of 21 days.
In the words of Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, ‘The extraordinary capacity for suffering he had shown on other occasions was displayed in an amazing degree. His stamina overcame he challenge of death and after 21 days he broke his fast.
But after the break of fast his health so much deteriorated that the doctors attending on him informed the government that he could collapse at any time. The government perhaps would not have cared even now but the situation on the war front had changed to the advantage of British government. In addition to this, the government was still not in a position to bear the responsibility of Gandhiji’s death on its shoulders.
It was also hoped that his presence might help checking violent movement in the country. Taking all these factors combined together Gandhiji was released on May 6, 1944. Due” to his weak health he did not lead any movement for some time. He tried to solve India’s constitutional problems and met Mr. Jinnah as well.
He also actively participated during Wavell Plan discussions, Shimla .Conference and during the visit of Cabinet Mission in India. He was also the guiding spirit behind Congress when Mountbatten Mission Plan was put before the country and ultimately India won her freedom in 1947.
The era of non-violence saw non-co-operation and Civil Disobedience movement which involved in country’s freedom struggle middle classes on the one hand and rural folk on the other. Under Gandhiji’s leadership feelings of freedom spread in Indian villages spread all over the country.
Gandhiji had immense faith in the capacity of Indians to fight for freedom and to suffer as well for achieving the goal, though at times he was over optimistic. He was leader of masses and directed their energies for challenging the mightiest colonial power of the world.