Selection Mania

INSTAGRAM
TELEGRAM
WHATSAPP
CALL
EMAIL
Email: info@selectionmania.com
Menu
×
Home » Modern Indian History » National Movement (1919 – 1939)

National Movement (1919 – 1939)

Montague-Chelmsford Reforms or the Government of India act, 1919
  • In line with the government policy contained in Montagu’s statement (August 1917), the Government announced further constitutional reforms in July 1918, known as Montagu- Chelmsford or Montford Reforms.
  • The Montagu–Chelmsford Reforms were reforms introduced by the British Government in India to introduce self-governing institutions gradually to India. The reforms take their name from Edwin Samuel Montagu, the Secretary of State for India during the latter parts of World War I and Lord Chelmsford, Viceroy of India between 1916 and 1921.
  • The reforms were outlined in the Montagu-Chelmsford Report prepared in 1918 and formed the basis of the Government of India Act 1919.

The main features of the Montford Reforms 

(1) Provincial Government—Introduction of Dyarchy:

(a) Executive:

  1. Dyarchy, i.e., rule of two—executive councillors and popular ministers—was introduced. The governor was to be the executive head in the province.
  2. Subjects were divided into two lists: “reserved” which included subjects such as law and order, finance, land revenue, irrigation, etc., and “transferred” subjects such as education, health, local government, industry, agriculture, excise, etc.
  3. The “reserved” subjects were to be administered by the governor through his executive council of bureaucrats, and the “transferred” subjects were to be administered by ministers nominated from among the elected members of the legislative council.
  4. The ministers were to be responsible to the legislature and had to resign if a no-confidence motion was passed against them by the legislature, while the executive councilors were not to be responsible to the legislature.
  5. In case of failure of constitutional machinery in the province the governor could take over the administration of “transferred” subjects also.
  6. The secretary of state and the governor-general could interfere in respect of “reserved” subjects while in respect of the “transferred” subjects; the scope for their interference was restricted.

(b) Legislature:

  1. Provincial Legislative Councils were further expanded—70% of the members were to be elected.
  2. The system of communal and class electorates was further consolidated.
  3. Women were also given the right to vote.
  4. The Legislative Councils could initiate legislation but the governor’s assent was required. The governor could veto bills and issue ordinances.
  5. The Legislative Councils could reject the budget but the governor could restore it, if necessary.
  6. The legislators enjoyed freedom of speech.

(2) Central Government—Still Without Responsible Government:

(a) Executive:

  1. The governor-general was to be the chief executive authority.
  2. There were to be two lists for administration– central and provincial.
  3. In the viceroy’s executive council of 8, three were to be Indians.
  4. The governor-general retained full control over the “reserved” subjects in the provinces.
  5. The governor-general could restore cuts in grants, certify bills rejected by the Central Legislature,summon, prorogue, dissolve the Chambers, and issue ordinances.

(b) Legislature:

  1. A bicameral arrangement was introduced. The lower house or Central Legislative Assembly would consist of 144 members (41 nominated and 103 elected—52 General, 30 Muslims, 2 Sikhs, 20 Special) and the upper house or Council of State would have 60 members (26 nominated and 34 elected—20 General, 10 Muslims, 3 Europeans and 1 Sikh).
  2. The Council of State had tenure of 5 years and had only male members, while the Central Legislative Assembly had tenure of 3 years.
  3. The legislators could ask questions and supplementaries pass adjournment motions and vote a part of the budget, but 75% of the budget was still not votable.
  4. Some Indians found their way into important committees including finance.
  • The secretary of state would control affairs relating to Government of India
  • In 1921 another change recommended by the report was carried out when elected local councils were set up in rural areas, and during the 1920s urban municipal corporations were made more democratic and “Indianized.

(3) Review:

  • The Montagu-Chelmsford report stated that there should be a review after 10 years.
  • Sir John Simon headed the committee (Simon Commission) responsible for the review which recommended further constitutional change.
  • Three round table conferences were held in London in 1930, 1931 and 1932 with representation of the major interests. Gandhi attended the 1931 round table after negotiations with the British Government. The major disagreement between Congress and the British was separate electorates for each community which Congress opposed but which were retained in Ramsay MacDonald’s Communal Award.
  • A new Government of India Act 1935 was passed continuing the move towards self-government first made in the Montagu-Chelmsford Report.

Drawbacks 

  1. Franchise was very limited.
  2. At the centre, the legislature had no control over the governor-general and his executive council.
  3. Division of subjects was not satisfactory at the centre.
  4. Allocation of seats for Central Legislature to provinces was based on ‘importance’ of provinces for instance, Punjab’s military importance and Bombay’s commercial importance.
  5. At the level of provinces, division of subjects and parallel administration of two parts i.e. Dyarchy was irrational and hence unworkable.
  6. The provincial ministers had no control over finances and over the bureaucrats, leading to constant friction between the two. Ministers were often not consulted on important matters too; in fact, they could be overruled by the governor on any matter that the latter considered special.
  7. On the home government (in Britain) front, the Government of India Act, 1919 made an important change the secretary of state was henceforth to be paid out of the British exchequer.
  8. While, on the one hand, the Government dangled the carrot of constitutional reforms, on the other hand, it decided to arm itself with extraordinary powers to suppress any discordant voices against the reforms. In March 1919, it passed the Rowlatt Act even though every single Indian member of the Central Legislative Council opposed it. This Act authorised the Government to imprison any person without trial and conviction in a court of law, thus enabling the Government to suspend the right of habeas corpus which had been the foundation of civil liberties in Britain.

Reception in India  

  • The Congress met in a special session in August 1918 at Bombay under Hasan Imam’s presidency and declared the reforms to be “disappointing” and “unsatisfactory” and demanded effective self-government instead.
  • The 1919 reforms did not satisfy political demands in India. The British repressed opposition, and restrictions on the press and on movement were re-enacted in the Rowlatt Acts introduced in 1919. These measures were rammed through the Legislative Council with the unanimous opposition of the Indian members. Several members of the council including Jinnah resigned in protest. These measures were widely seen throughout India of the betrayal of strong support given by the population for the British war effort.
  • Gandhi launched a nationwide protest against the Rowlatt Acts with the strongest level of protest in the Punjab. An apparently unwitting example of violation of rules against the gathering of people led to the massacre at Jalianwala Bagh in Amritsar in April 1919. This tragedy galvanised such political leaders as Nehru and Gandhi and the masses who followed them to press for further action.Montagu ordered an inquiry into the events at Amritsar by Lord Hunter. The Hunter Inquiry recommended that General Dyer, who commanded the troops, be dismissed, leading to Dyer’s sacking. Many British citizens supported Dyer, whom they considered had not received fair treatment from the Hunter Inquiry.

Conclusion:

The MCR would go on to become the basis for the Government of India Act, 1935, and, ultimately, the Constitution.

The key principles of responsible government, self-governance and federal structure grew out of these reforms. Montagu-Chelmsford Report on Indian constitutional reforms is a watershed in India’s constitutional history.

The MCR on Indian constitutional reforms along with the Montagu Declaration are, thus, worthy claimants of the title of the Magna Carta of modern India.

  • The Rowlatt Act was passed in March 1919 by the Central Legislative Council to control the militant nationalist struggles and curtailed the liberty of the people.
  • The Bill provided for speedy trial of offences by a special court and had no appeal.
  • The provincial government had powers to search a place and arrest a suspected person without warrant. These gave unbridled powers to the government to arrest and imprison suspects without trial for two years maximum.
  • It caused a wave of anger in all sections spreading a country-wide agitation by Gandhiji and marked the foundation of the Non-Cooperation Movement. Gandhiji organised the Satyagraha on 14th February, 1919. On 8th April, 1919 Gandhiji was arrested.

Jallianwala Bagh Massacre, also called Massacre of Amritsar was an incident in which British troops fired on a large crowd of unarmed Indians in an open space known as the Jallianwala Bagh in Amritsar in Punjab.

 

Jallianwala Bagh massacre:

    • April 13, 1919, marked a turning point in the Indian freedom struggle.
    • It was Baisakhi that day, a harvest festival popular in Punjab and parts of north India.
    • Local residents in Amritsar decided to hold a meeting that day to discuss and protest against the confinement of Satya Pal and Saifuddin Kitchlew, two leaders fighting for Independence, and implementation of the Rowlatt Act, which armed the British government with powers to detain any person without trial.
    • The crowd had a mix of men, women and children.
    • They all gathered in a park called the Jallianwala Bagh, walled on all sides but for a few small gates, against the orders of the British.
    • The protest was a peaceful one, and the gathering included pilgrims visiting the Golden Temple who were merely passing through the park, and some who had not come to protest.
    • While the meeting was on, Brigadier-General Reginald Edward Harry Dyer, who had crept up to the scene wanting to teach the public assembled a lesson, ordered 90 soldiers he had brought with him to the venue to open fire on the crowd.
    • Many tried in vain to scale the walls to escape. Many jumped into the well located inside the park.

Response of the Indians:

    • This tragedy came as a rude shock to Indians and totally destroyed their faith in the British system of justice.
    • National leaders condemned the act and Dyer unequivocally.
    • Nobel laureate Rabindranath Tagore in his letter of protest renounced the knighthood conferred on him, condemning the brutal act of Britishers.
    • In protest against the massacre and the British failure to give due justice to the victims, Gandhiji relinquished his title ‘Kaiser-e-hind’ bestowed on him by the British for his services during the Boer War in South Africa.
    • In December 1919, the congress session was held at Amritsar. It was attended by a large number of people, including peasants.

British and Government of India Response:

    • Gen Dyer was appreciated by many in Britain and the British in India although some people in the British government were quick to criticize it.
    • The massacre had been a calculated act and Dyer declared with pride that he had done it to produce ‘moral effect’ on the people and that he had made up his mind that he would shoot down all men if they were going to continue the meeting.
    • The government set up the Hunter Commission to inquire into the massacre. Although the commission condemned the act by Dyer, it did not impose any disciplinary action against him.
    • He was relieved of his duties in the army in 1920.
    • A British newspaper called it as one of the bloody massacres of modern history.

One of the worst acts of violence:

    • Large gathering of 15,000-20,000 people with a majority of Sikhs came together to celebrate the Punjabi harvest festival of Baisakhi in this garden.
    • They had also gathered to revolt against the repressive Rowlatt Act that provided for stricter control of the press, arrests without warrant and indefinite detention without trial.
    • The people were unarmed and British surrounded them and opened fire brutally.
    • Even after that British was not empathetic but responded with brutal repression in the following ways.
    • Seeking to humiliate and terrorize people, Satyagrahis were forced to rub their noses on the ground.
    • They were forced to crawl on the streets, and do salaam (salute) to all sahibs.
    • People were flogged and villages (around Gujranwala in Punjab) were bombed.
    • For Indians this added the fuel to fire and national movement was taken forward more intensively
    • Leaders heavily criticized the government with Tagore renouncing his knighthood as protest.
    • The whole nation came together protesting against British so this incident brought unity to India which was essential for the freedom movement.

Turning point in Indian national movement:

    • By the end of the 19th century, British rule, in India as well as across the globe, had gained a certain legitimacy even in the eyes of the enslaved public.
    • Till then, most Indians had reconciled with the progressive nature of the colonial rule.
    • Jallianwala Bagh shattered the faith that the people had in the British sense of justice and fairness.
    • To most Indians, the massacre of the unarmed was a betrayal of the trust that they had placed on the British to rule them wisely, justly and with fairness.
    • In the eyes of the Indian, the just, fair and liberal British suddenly turned into a ruthless, bloodthirsty tyrant who couldn’t be trusted. Jallianwala Bagh revealed the evil that resided in the ‘enlightened’ empire.
    • Since then, it was a slow but sure downward slide for British rule in India. It was on this sense of betrayal that Gandhi built his mass movement, which put a premium on breaking the laws made by the rulers.
    • As the people began to willfully break the laws made by the state, the state itself became illegitimate. Now people actively started demanding for purna swaraj
  • The main objective of the Khilafat movement was to force the British government change its attitude towards Turkey and restore the Khalifa to his former position.
  • Turkey was defeated in the First World War and the harsh terms of the Treaty of Sevres (1920) was felt by the Muslims as a great insult to them.
  • The Muslims in India were upset over the British attitude against Turkey and launched the Khilafat Movement which was jointly led by the Khilafat leaders and the Congress.
  • Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, M.A. Ansari, Saifuddin Kitchlew and the Ali brothers were the prominent leaders of this movement.
  • In November 1919, a joint conference of the Hindus and the Muslims held under the chairmanship of Mahatma Gandhi. Mahatma Gandhi was particularly interested in bringing the Hindus and the Muslims together to achieve the country’s independence.
  • In February 1920, Gandhiji suggested to Khilafat Committee that it adopt a programme of nonviolent non-cooperation to protest the Government’s behavior.
  • On 9 June, 1920 the Khilafat Committee at Allahabad unanimously accepted the suggestion of non-cooperation and asked Gandhiji to lead the movement.
  • Four stages of non-cooperation were surrender of titles and honorary positions, resignation from civil services under the Government, resignation from Police and Army services and non-payment of taxes
  • Subsequently, the Khilafat Movement merged with the Non-Cooperation Movement launched by Mahatma Gandhi in 1920.

Conclusion:

While Mahatma Gandhi’s mass appeal was undoubtedly genuine – and in the context of Indian politics, without precedent – it must also be stressed that his success in broadening the basis of nationalism was based on careful organisation. During this period Mahatma Gandhi became the undisputed leader of the National Movement.

Background 

  • Non-Cooperation Movementwas a significant phase of the Indian independence movement from british rule. It was led by Mahatma Gandhi after the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre. It aimed to resist British rule in India through nonviolent means.

Forms of protest:-

  • The programme of non-cooperation included within  its ambit the surrender of titles and honours.
  • Boycott of government affiliated schools and colleges
  • Boycott of law courts
  • Picketing of shops selling foreign cloth was also a major form of the
  • Boycott could be extended to include resignation from government service and mass civil disobedience including the non-payment of taxes.
  • National schools and colleges were to be set up
  • Panchayats were to be established for settling disputes
  • Hand-spinning and weaving was to be encouraged
  • People were asked to maintain Hindu- Muslim unity, give up untouchability and observe strict non-violence.
  • Kisan sabhas:-
    • In the Avadh area of U.P., where kisan sabhas and a kisan movement had been gathering strength since 1918 and with Non-cooperation propaganda it became difficult to distinguish between a Non cooperation meeting and a kisan meeting.
  • In Malabar in Kerala, Non cooperation and Khilafat propaganda helped to arouse the Muslims tenants against their landlords.
  • Charkhas were popularized on a wide scale and khadi became the uniform of the national movement.
  • Defiance of forest laws became popular in  Andhra.
  • Peasants and tribals in some of the Rajasthan states began movements for securing better conditions of life.
  • Akali movement:-
    • In Punjab, the Akali Movement for  taking control of the gurudwaras from the corrupt mahants (priests) was a part of the general movement of Non-cooperation, and the Akalis observed strict non-violence in the face of tremendous repression.

Success:-

  • The most successful item of the programme  was the boycott of foreign cloth.
    • Volunteers would go from house to house collecting clothes made of foreign cloth, and the entire community would collect to light a bonfire of the good.
    • The value of imports of foreign cloth fell from Rs. 102 crore in 1920-21 to Rs. 57 crore in 1921-22.
  • Picketing of toddy shops:-
    • Government revenues showed considerable decline on this count.
  • The educational boycott was particularly successful in Bengal, where the students in Calcutta triggered off a province-wide strike to  force the managements of their institutions to disaffiliate themselves from the Government.
  • Movement was spread almost to all parts of India.
  • It was a truly mass movement where lakhs of Indians participated in the open protest against the government through peaceful means.
  • It shook the British government who were stumped by the extent of the movement.
  • It saw participation from both Hindus and Muslims thereby showcasing communal harmony in the country.
  • This movement established the popularity of the Congress Party among the people.
  • As a result of this movement, people became conscious of their political rights. They were not afraid of the government.
  • Hordes of people thronged to jails willingly.
  • The Indian merchants and mill owners enjoyed good profits during this period as a result of the boycott of British goods. Khadi was promoted.

Challenges:-

  • The boycott of law courts by lawyers was not as successful as the educational boycott.
  • The movement in Kerala unfortunately  took on a communal colour.
  • In Assam, labourers on tea plantations went on strike. When the fleeing workers were fired upon, there were strikes on the steamer service, and on the Assam-Bengal Railway as well.

Non cooperation movement was the first mass movement which revolutionalised the masses. This movement acted as a stepping stone for future movements where the forms of struggle slightly varied but the principles and essence remained largely same as this movement.

No Related Posts found

No Related Posts found

 

Introduction

  • This session was held at a time when major program of Non-Cooperation was initiated in 1920
  • The Indian National Congress attempted to strengthen the Non-Cooperation Movement at its Nagpur session held in December 1920

 

The Nagpur Session of 1920

  • The following resolutions were adopted at the Nagpur Session:
    • The programme of non-cooperation was endorsed
    • An important change was made in the Congress: now, instead of having the attainment of self-government through constitutional means as its goal, the Congress decided to have the attainment of swaraj through peaceful and legitimate means, thus committing itself to an extraconstitutional mass struggle
    • Some important organisational changes were made:
      • a congress working committee (CWC) of 15 members was set up to lead the Congress from now onwards;
      • provincial congress committees on linguistic basis were organised;
      • ward committees was organised; and
      • entry fee was reduced to four annas
    • Gandhi declared that if the non-cooperation programme was implemented completely, swaraj would be ushered in within a year
  • Other developments at the session include:
    • Many groups of revolutionary terrorists, especially those from Bengal, also pledged support to the Congress programme
    • The adoption by the Congress of the non-cooperation movement initiated earlier by the Khilafat Committee gave it a new energy, and the years 1921 and 1922 saw an unprecedented popular upsurge

 

Significance of the Session

  • When the session concluded on December 31, 1920, history had been created.
    • Mahatma Gandhi emerged as the supreme leader of Congress, and a new chapter was set to be written in the Indian struggle for Independence with the non-cooperation movement.
    • The historic Nagpur Session not only saw solid emergence of Mahatma Gandhi in national politics but also passage of all-important resolution on non-cooperation movement.
  • The session also saw Congress changing its creed while adopting a new Constitution.
    • It truly marked the change of gears of the freedom struggle.
  • A galaxy of eminent leaders of time Mahatma Gandhi, Mohd Ali Jinnah, Pt Motilal Nehru, Pt Madan Mohan Malaviya, Sardar Patel, C R Das, Lala Lajpat Rai, Bipinchandra Pal, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and a host of others arrived in the city and debated and discussed various important matters to shape India’s freedom struggle.
  • In the words of Dr B Pattabhi Sitaramayya, known as historian of Congress, “The Nagpur Congress really marked a new era in recent Indian history. The old feelings of impotent rage and importunate requests gave place to a new sense of responsibility and a spirit of self- The Nagpur Congress laid a heavy duty upon the Nation, and the All India Congress Committee, under the advice of the Working Committee, set itself seriously to its task.”

 

Impact of the Session

  • The resolution on non-cooperation had many shades including
    • renunciation of voluntary association with the then Government
    • refusal to pay taxes
    • boycotting schools aided or controlled by the Government
    • nationalising educational institutions
    • call to lawyers to suspend their practice
    • economic boycott of foreign goods
    • encouraging hand-spinning and hand-weaving
    • boycott of Legislative Council elections etc
  • In another resolution, people were asked to popularise Ayurvedic and Unani systems of medicine by establishing schools, colleges, and hospitals
  • Following boycott call, thousands of students across the country shifted to national educational institutions
  • The no-vote campaign turned out to be a remarkable success in some parts of the country. Numerous lawyers left their profession and dedicated themselves to the cause of national movement.
    • In January 1921, Bajaj donated Rs 1 lakh to Tilak Memorial Swaraj Fund to support lawyers who had participated in non-cooperation movement.

Thus, the Nagpur session committed congress to program of extra-constitutional mass actions. And it ushered in a new era in Indian History, as it gave way to new sense of responsibility and self-reliance

 

Introduction

  • The Swaraj Party, established as the Congress-Khilafat Swaraj Party, was a political party formed in India on 1 January 1923 after the Gaya annual conference in December 1922 of the National Congress, that sought greater self-government and political freedom for the Indian people from the British Raj

 

Formation

  • The suspension of non-cooperation movement in 1922 was met with an impressive measure of logical inconsistencies among pioneers of the Congress Party
  • While some wanted to continue non-cooperation, others wanted to end the legislature boycott and contest elections
  • The former were called no-changers, and later were called pro-changers
  • In 1922, in the Gaya session of the Congress, C R Das (who was presiding over the session) moved a proposal to enter the legislatures but it was defeated
    • Das and other leaders broke away from the Congress and formed the Congress-Khilafat Swarajaya Party with Das as the president and Nehru as one of the secretaries

 

Objectives of Swaraj party

  • The Congress-Khilafat Swarajya Party or the Swaraj Party aimed for:
    • Speedy attainment of dominion status
    • Obtaining 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 peoples
    • Establishing control over the bureaucracy
    • Obtaining full provincial autonomy
    • Attaining Swarajya (self-rule)
    • Getting people the right to control the existing machinery and system of government
    • Organising industrial and agricultural labour
    • Controlling the local and municipal bodies
    • Having an agency for propaganda outside the country
    • Establishing a federation of Asian countries to promote trade and commerce
    • Engaging in the constructive programmes of the Congress

 

Methods

  • What gave a peculiar distinction to the politics of the Swarajists was their avowed intention of wrecking the reforms from within
  • 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
  • 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

 

Works and Achievements of Swaraj Party

  • The Swarajists emerged as the single largest party in the Central Assembly, Bombay and Bengal Councils while their number in the U.P. Council was not insignificant in 1923.
    • The victory of the Swarajists at the polls strengthened their position in the congress as against the No Changers
  • In the absence of mass political activities in this period, the Swarajists played a significant role in keeping the spirit of Anti-British protest alive.
    • They made it almost impossible for the British rulers to get the approval of the legislatures for their policies and proposals
    • For example, in 1928, the government introduced a bill in the legislative assembly which would give it the power to expel from the country those non-Indians who supported India’s struggle for freedom. The bill was defeated. When the government introduced this bill again, Vithalbhai Patel who was the president of the assembly refused to allow it
  • The Swarajists exposed the weaknesses of the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms
    • They gave fiery speeches in the Assembly on self-rule and civil liberties
  • The year 1924-25 registered many victories for the Swarajists in the Legislative Assembly.
    • Here, they succeeded in throwing out the Budget forcing the Government to rely on its power of certification
    • Further, they resorted to adjournment motions and asking inconvenient questions to expose the misdeeds of the alien government

 

Decline of Swaraj Party

  • 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 death of C R Das in 1925 further weakened the party
  • 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 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
  • Thus, the Council Entry programme in the changed political situation occupied a back seat and lost its relevance
  • Other Reasons for Decline
    • Rising Communal Politics
      • The protracted Hindu-Muslim tension, presence of reactionary elements of both the communities within the party, which ostensibly professed secularism, really created a difficult situation.
      • The Hindus felt that their interests were not safe in the hands of the Congress.
      • The activities of the Hindu Mahasabha also weakened the Swarajist position.
      • The Muslim alienation from the Congress became so marked that its erstwhile Muslim members fought elections as Muslims, not as Swarajists
    • 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.
      • However, The spirit of resistance soon gave way to cooperation
    • Internal Divisions
      • The Swaraj Party was a house divided against itself.
      • Mutual bickering and distrust eroded its credibility.
      • Denial of tickets to some Swarajists led them to declare their candidature as independents.
      • There were internal divisions among the Swarajists. They were divided into the responsivists and the non-responsivists.
      • The responsivists (M M Malaviya, Lala Lajpat Rai, N C Kelkar) wanted to cooperate with the government and hold offices, whereas the non-responsivists (Motilal Nehru) withdrew from legislatures in 1926

 

Despite of its decline, Swaraj party succeeded to a great extent in achieving its goals at that challenging time. The activities of Swarajists enlivened an otherwise dull political atmosphere. Their tactics of obstruction embarrassed the government while the parliamentary duels of the period constitute a brilliant page in the annals of parliamentary politics.

Introduction

  • Simon Commission was the Indian Statutory Commission, which was a group of seven Members of Parliament under the chairmanship of Sir John Simon.
  • The commission arrived in British India in 1928 to study constitutional reform in Britain’s largest and most important possession
  • The Government of India Act of 1919 provided for the appointment of a commission to study the progress of the governance scheme and suggest new steps after ten years
  • Since the British administration had failed to include even a single Indian in the Commission, it was strongly opposed by national leaders and freedom

 

Why Was Simon Commission Sent to India?

  • To expand the participation of Indians in government affairs, the Parliament of the United Kingdom had passed an act called ‘The Government of India Act 1919.’
    • The act introduced the system of diarchy in British India, which was opposed by Indian nationalist leaders, who demanded the administration to review the system
  • The act envisaged a system of review of reforms after ten years to study and analyse the constitutional progress and to bring in more reforms.
    • Though the review was due in the year 1929, the Conservative government, which was in power back then, decided to form the Commission that would study the constitutional progress of India in the late 1920s
    • The reason behind forming the Commission earlier was the Conservative government’s fear of losing to the ‘Labour Party’ in the upcoming elections
  • Other recommendations include:
    • The special power for the safeguarding of province and the protection of minorities comes under the Governor powers
    • The representation of provinces and other areas constituted on the basis of population at the Federal Assembly ( at the Centre)
    • Recommended Dominion Status for Burma and should be provided its own Constitution
    • Recommended the representation of Council of State could not be chosen on the basis of Direct Election but by Indirect Election through Provincial Council which is more or less just like Modern day election procedure as Proportional Representation.
  • Since the Conservative government did not want the ‘Labour Party’ to take over British India, it constituted a commission consisting of seven British MPs to study the constitutional progress in British India as promised earlier.

 

Why Was Simon Commission Boycotted?

  • People in India were infuriated and felt insulted, for the Commission, which had been constituted to analyse and recommend constitutional reforms for India, did not have a single Indian member.
    • The Simon Commission was strongly opposed by the Congress and other nationalist leaders and common people
  • Many protests were carried out individually as well as in groups, urging the British administration to review the constitution of the Commission.
    • In December 1927, the Indian National Congress in its meeting in Madras resolved to boycott the Commission
    • Led by Mohammed Ali Jinnah, some of the members of the ‘Muslim League’ too, had made up their minds to boycott the Commission.

 

Protests and death of Lala Lajpat Rai

  • The Commission, headed by Sir John Allsebrook Simon, reached India on February 3, 1928.
    • As soon as the Commission’s arrived in Bombay, it was greeted by thousands of protestors, who demanded the Commission to go back. Many were seen holding placards and other sign boards that had the words ‘Go Back Simon’ written on them.
    • There were nation-wide strikes and people greeted the Commission with black flags. Wherever the commission went, it received the same response.
  • On 30 October 1928, the Commission arrived in Lahore where it was met by protesters waving black flags
    • The protest was led by the Indian nationalist Lala Lajpat Rai, who had moved a resolution against the Commission in the Legislative Assembly of Punjab
  • The protesters blocked the road in order to prevent the commission members from leaving the railway station.
    • In order to make way for the Commission, the local police led by Superintendent James Scott began beating protestors.
    • Lala Lajpat Rai was critically injured, and never recovered later and died of cardiac arrest on 17 November 1928

 

Aftermath of the Commission

  • In its May 1930 report, the Commission proposed the eradication of diarchy system and suggested the establishment of representative government in various provinces.
  • Much before the Simon Commission’s report, Motilal Nehru submitted his ‘Nehru Report’ in September 1928 to counter the Commission’s charges, which suggested that Indians still lacked constitutional consensus.
    • The ‘Nehru Report’ pushed for dominion status for India with complete internal self-government.
  • While the report was still to be published, the British government tried to calm down people by saying that the opinion of Indians will be taken into account in any such future exercise and that the natural outcome of constitutional reforms will be dominion status for India
    • The Government of India Act 1935 was a result of the recommendations of the Simon Commission.

 

Introduction

  • Among the most pivotal moments in the Indian freedom struggle was the Bardoli Satyagraha of 1928.
  • The movement was a truly participative and secular peasants movement guided by Sardar Vallabhai Pateland Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, the non-violent Bardoli Satyagraha laid the blueprint of what followed.
  • For four months starting from February 1928, farmers from 137 villages in this 600-sq-km taluka of Surat district, Gujarat, not only challenged the British colonial administration and won but also played a part in reinvigorating the freedom struggle after the mass Non-Cooperation Movement (1920-22) fell apart
  • Also, the movement was further went on to pave way for the Civil Disobedience Movement, two years later, highlighted by the game changing Dandi March

 

Causes that led to the Resolution

  • The trigger was the Bombay Presidency’s Government decision to impose an exorbitant 30% increase in land revenue assessment
  • The decision came at the behest of government’s belief that farmers in the region were more prosperous, alongside an appreciable rise in land and produce prices, along with the belief that the condition of bonded and landless labourers had improved as well
  • However, the bureaucratic assessment of the ground situation was very different from reality
  • When the demands of the farmers were ignored, farmer representatives reached out to Sardar Patel, who in the past had prior experience of leading Satyagrahas

 

How did the struggle unfold?

  • When the Governor of Bombay ignored Patel’s letter asking to reduce taxes, he then instructed all the farmers of Bardoli taluka to refuse payment of their taxes
  • Aided by Narhari Parikh, Ravi Shankar Vyas and Mohanlal Pandya, he divided Bardoli into several zones, each with a leader and volunteers specifically assigned
  • Patel instructed the farmers to remain completely nonviolent and not to respond physically to any incitements or aggressive actions from officials
  • The Government then began supressing the revolt:
    • The government began to auction the houses and the lands
    • Bands of Pathans were gathered from northwest India to seize the property of the villagers and terrorize them

 

Bardoli Resolution

  • In 1928, an agreement was finally brokered
    • It agreed to restore the confiscated lands and properties, to cancel revenue payment for the year and to cancel the 22% raise until after the succeeding year.
  • The government had appointed the Maxwell-Broomfield Commission to look in to the matter
    • After a rigorous survey, the raise in taxes was decided to be just 6.03%
  • However, the basic problems of the peasants were left unsolved, and bonded labour continued

 

Significance of Bardoli Movement

  • Unity in dissent
    • The movement received widespread support from Patidars, Anavil Brahmins and Baniyas, besides some Muslim and Parsi landowners, along with suppor from Deprived classes as well
  • The turning point
    • Once the Non-Cooperation Movement came to an end, Bardoli continued to see the emergence of different centres propagating activities like the production of khaddar, uplifting the Dalit and other deprived communities and the enforcement of prohibition
    • Thus, the resolution in its essence prepared masses for next round of agitation
    • Subhash Chandra Bose pre-judged this event as a precursor to a larger battle that Gandhi would wage

 

Commemoration

  • The momentum from the Bardoli victory aided in the resurrection of the freedom struggle nationwide
    • As a continuation of struggle against the British, the Congress in 1930 would declare Indian independence, and the Salt Satyagraha would be launched by Gandhi
  • Patel credited Gandhi’s teachings and the farmers’ undying resolve, and people across the nation recognised his vital leadership. It was women of bardoli who bestowed the title Sardarfor the first time
    • It was after Bardoli that Sardar Patelbecame one of India’s most important leaders

 

Background

  • TheNehru Report of 15 August 1928 (approved on 28 August) was a memorandum to appeal for a new dominion status and a federal set-up of government for the constitution of India
  • In November 1927, the British government appointed the Simon Commission to review the working of the Government of India Act 1919 and propose constitutional reforms for India.
    • The Commission did not have a single Indian member which irked leaders of the nationalist movement.
  • While the British acknowledged the discontent, it did not change the composition of the Commission and instead asked Indians to prove that they could draw up a constitution themselves.
    • A similar challenge was made in 1925 by Lord Birkenhead, then Secretary of State for India, in the House of Lords
  • As a result, Leaders of the nationalist movement responded to the challenge by drafting theNehru Report 1928
  • In December 1927, at its Madras session, the Indian National Congress set up an All Parties Conference to draft a Constitution for India
    • On May 19, 1928 at its meeting at Bombay, the All Parties Conference appointed a committee with Motilal Nehru as its chairman

 

Recommendations of Nehru Report

  • India should be given Dominion Status with the Parliamentary form of Government with bi-cameral legislature that consists of senate and House of Representatives
  • It recommended Responsible government at the Centre and in provinces—
    • The senate were to comprise of two hundred members elected for seven years, while the House of Representatives should consist of five hundred members elected for five years. Governor-General will act on the advice of executive council. It was to be collectively responsible to the parliament
    • Provincial councils to have a 5-year tenure, headed by a governor acting on the advice of the provincial executive council
  • There should be Federal form of Government in India with Residuary powers to be vested in Centre.
  • There were to be no separate electorate for minorities because it awakens communal sentiments therefore it should be scrapped and joint electorate should be introduced
  • It recommended Nineteen fundamental rights including equal rights for women, right to form unions, and universal adult suffrage
  • Full protection to cultural and religious interests of Muslims.
  • Complete dissociation of State from religion

 

Muslim League reaction to the Nehru Report

  • The process of preparing the Constitutional framework began enthusiastically. However, communal differences crept in and Nehru report got involved in controversies over the issue of communal representation
  • Muslim League reaction
    • The league’s leaders rejected the Nehru proposals
    • In reaction Mohammad Ali Jinnah drafted his Fourteen Points in 1929, which became the core demands the Muslim community put forward as the price of their participating in an independent united India
  • The Main objection of Muslim league were:
    • The 1916 Congress-Muslim League agreement Lucknow Pact provided separate electorates and weightage, to the Muslim community whereas they were rejected by the Nehru Report
    • The League realized that while they would be a majority in the provinces of the North-East and North-West of India, and hence would control their provincial legislatures, they would always be a minority at the Centre. Thus they demanded, contrary to the Nehru Report, that residuary powers go to the provinces
  • Younger section of Congress Reaction
    • The younger section of the Congress led by Jawaharlal Nehru and Subhash Bose were angered
    • The younger section regarded the idea of dominion status in the report as a step backward, and the developments at the All Parties Conference strengthened their criticism of the dominion status idea
    • Further, Nehru and Subhash Bose rejected the Congress’ modified goal and jointly set up the Independence for India League

Conclusion

  • The Nehru Report demanded that the Fundamental Rights for the people of India wouldn’t be subjected to forfeiture.
  • The report was an inspiration from the American bill of rights, which laid to the foundation of Fundamental Rights provision in the Indian Constitution
  • Unfortunately, the Nehru Report was not adopted by the All Party Convention in Calcutta in December 1928. Some communal leaders from the Muslim League, the Hindu Mahasabha, and the Sikh League objected

 

Introduction

  • The Fourteen Points of Jinnah were proposed by Muhammad Ali Jinnah during all parties meeting of 1928, in response to Nehru report.
  • It basically consisted of four Delhi proposals, the three Calcutta amendments and demands for continuation of separate electorates and reservation of seats for Muslims in government services and self-governing bodies

 

Background

  • The report was given in a meeting of the council of theAll India Muslim League on 9 March 1929.
  • The Nehru Reportwas criticized by Muslim leaders Aga Khan and Muhammad Shafi. They considered it as a warrant because it recommended joint electoral rolls for Hindus and Muslims
  • In March 1929, the Muslim League session was held atDelhi under the presidency of Jinnah
  • In his address to his delegates, he consolidated Muslim viewpoints under fourteen items and these fourteen points became Jinnah’s 14 points

 

The Fourteen Points

  1. The form of the future constitution should be federal, with the residuary powers vested in the provinces
  2. All provinces must be given equal Autonomy
  3. All legislatures in the country and other elected bodies shall be constituted on the definite principle of adequate and effective representationof 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 the separate electorate at present it shall be open to any community, at any time, to abandon its separate electorate in favour of joint electorate
  6. Any territorial distribution that might at any time be necessary shall not in any way affect the Muslim majority in Punjab, Bengaland NWFP provinces
  7. Full religious liberty shall be guaranteed to all communities
  8. No bill or resolution shall be passed in any legislature if three-fourths of the members of any community in that body oppose the bill
  9. Separation of Sindh from Bombay
  10. Reforms should be introduced in the NWFP and Balochistanon the same footings as in the other provinces
  11. Muslims should be given an adequate share in all services, having due regard to the requirement of efficiency
  12. The Constitution should embody adequate safeguards for the protection of Muslim culture, education, language, religion and personal laws, as well as for Muslim charitable institutions
  13. One-third representation shall be given to Muslims in both central and provincial cabinets
  14. No change will be made in the constitution without the consent of the provinces

 

After Jinnah’s proposals

  • Thus, the fourteen points were a constitutional reform plan to safeguard the political rights of Muslims in a self-governing India
  • The amendments as proposed by Jinnah were not accepted by the Congress. So Jinnah refused to participate further
  • His aim was to get rights for Muslims.
    • The fourteen points covered all of the interests of the Muslims at a heated time
    • And in this pursuance, Jinnah stated that it was the “parting of ways” and that he did not want and would not have anything to do with the Indian National Congress in the future
  • Further, the League leaders motivated Jinnah to revive the Muslim League and give it direction. As a result, these points became the demands of the Muslims and greatly influenced the Muslims’ thinking for the next two decades till the establishment of Pakistan in 1947

 

 

Introduction

  • The Indian National Congress, on 19 December 1929, passed the historic ‘Purna Swaraj’ – (total independence) resolution – at its Lahore session.
  • A public declaration was made on 26 January 1930 – a day which the Congress Party urged Indians to celebrate as ‘Independence Day’.
  • The declaration was passed due to the breakdown of negotiations between leaders of the freedom movement and the British over the question of dominion status for India

 

Background

  • Dadabhai Naoroji in his presidential address at the 1886 National Congress in Calcutta advocated for Swaraj as the sole aim of the nationalist movement
  • In 1907, Sri Aurobindo, as editor of the newspaper Bande Mataram, began writing that the new generation of nationalists would not accept anything less than Purna Swaraj, full independence, as it exists in the United Kingdom
  • Before 1930, the All India Home Rule League had been advocating Home Rule for India: dominion status within the British Empire
  • Congress leader and famous poet Hasrat Mohani was the first activist to demand complete independence (Poorna Swaraj) from the British in 1921 from an All-India Congress Forum
  • Further, In 1927, the British government further outraged people across India by appointing a seven-man, all-European committee led by Sir John Simon, called the Simon Commission to deliberate on constitutional and political reforms for India
  • Later in 1928, the Nehru Report demanded that India be granted self-government under the dominion status within the Empire
  • In 1929, Lord Irwin, the then Viceroy of India, made a vaguely announced – referred to as the Irwin Declaration – that India would be granted dominion status in the future
    • The Irwin Declaration triggered a backlash in England: politicians and the general public were not in favour of India obtaining dominion status
    • Under pressure, Lord Irwin, at a meeting with Jinnah, Nehru, Gandhi and Sapru, told Indian leaders that he could not promise dominion status anytime soon.
    • It was at this time the Lahore session of the Congress was held

 

Lahore Congress Session 1929

  • Jawaharlal Nehru was chosen as the President due to following reasons:
    • Because of the timing (Congress’ acceptance of complete independence as its goal), and
    • To recognize the surge of youth that had made the anti-Simon campaign a huge success
  • The following major decisions were taken at the Lahore session:
    • The Round Table Conference was to be boycotted
    • Complete independence was declared as the aim of the Congress
    • Congress Working Committee was authorised to launch a programme of civil disobedience including non-payment of taxes and all members of legislatures were asked to resign their seats
    • January 26, 1930 was fixed as the first Independence (Swarajya) Day, to be celebrated everywhere
  • At midnight on New Year’s Eve, President Jawaharlal Nehru hoisted the tricolour flag of India upon the banks of the Ravi in Lahore

 

January 26, 1930: the Independence Pledge

  • Public meetings were organised all over the country in villages and towns and the independence pledge was read out in local languages and the national flag was hoisted
  • The pledge supposed to have been prepared by Gandhi made following points:
    • It is the inalienable right of Indians to have freedom.
    • The British Government in India has not only deprived us of freedom and exploited us, but has also ruined us economically, politically, culturally and spiritually. India must therefore sever the British connection and attain purna swaraj or complete independence
    • We are being economically ruined by high revenue, destruction of village industries with no substitutions made, while customs, currency and exchange rate are manipulated to our disadvantage.
    • No real political powers are given—rights of free association are denied to us and all administrative talent in us is killed
    • Culturally, the system of education has torn us from our moorings.
    • Spiritually, compulsory disarmament has made us unmanly
    • We hold it a crime against man and God to submit any longer to British rule.
    • We will prepare for complete independence by withdrawing, as far as possible, all voluntary association from the British government and will prepare for civil disobedience through non-payment of taxes. By this an end of this inhuman rule is assured
  • Further, One hundred seventy-two Indian members of central and provincial legislatures resigned in support of the resolution and in accordance with Indian public sentiment.

 

The Legacy of the Lahore Session

  • The resolution of the Lahore session, was more like a manifesto
    • The document called for severing ties with the British and claimed ‘Purna Swaraj’ or complete independence.
    • It indicted British rule and succinctly articulated the resulting economic, political and cultural injustice inflicted on Indians
  • The Congress regularly observed 26 January as the Independence Day of India – commemorating those who campaigned for Indian independence.
  • In 1947, the British agreed to transfer power to India, and 15 August became the official Independence Day.
  • However, the new Constitution of India, as drafted and approved by the Constituent Assembly, was mandated to take effect on 26 January 1950, to commemorate the 1930 declaration

 

Introduction

  • Civil disobedience is the active, professed refusal of a citizen to obey certain laws, demands, orders or commands of a government
  • In India, Civil disobedience movement was a landmark event in the Indian Nationalist movement. In many ways, the civil disobedience movement is credited for paving the way for freedom in India

 

Background

  • The abrupt withdrawal of the Non-Cooperation Movement by Gandhi after the Chauri Chaura incident of February 1922, had a demoralising effect on many Congress leaders and led to a sharp decline in the national movement
  • 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.
  • The remarkable Hindu-Muslim unity of the Non-Cooperation Khilafat days dissolved into widespread communal riots in the mid-1920s
  • 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
  • Even though the Hindu-Muslim Unity were never regained, there were many signs of growth of anti-imperialist movement from 1928 onwards, as follows:
    • Demonstration and hartals in towns in the course of the boycott of the Simon Commission
    • Militant communist led workers movement in Bombay and Calcutta which alarmed Indian businessmen and British officials and capitalists alike
    • The revival of revolutionary groups in Bengal and Northern India (with Bhagat Singh’s HSRA introducing a new secular and socialistic tone)
    • Peasant movements in various regions, particularly the successful Bardoli Satyagraha led by Vallabhbhai Patel in Gujarat in 1928 against the enhancement of land revenue
  • Also, during this period when the Congress Left was emerging, under Jawaharlal Nehru and Subhas Bose slogans of Purna Swaraj rather than of only Dominion Status were voiced.
  • Further, there existed certain political and Economic tensions between British Domination and Indian interests; some of which are as follows:
    • 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

 

Civil Disobedience Movement (1930 -1931)

  • The Lahore Congress (1929) 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 day Civil disobedience was supposed to commence and It was declared Independence Day

 

Gandhi’s Efforts

  • Gandhi was still not sure of his action. Before launching the movement he once again tried for compromise 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:
    • The rupee-Sterling ratio should be reduced
    • Land revenue should be reduced by half and made a subject of legislative control
    • Salt tax should be abolished and also the government salt monopoly
    • Salaries of the highest grade services should be reduced by half
    • Military expenditure should be reduced by 50% to begin with
    • Protection for Indian textiles and coastal shipping
    • All Political prisoners should be discharged

 

Beginning of the Movement: Dandi March

  • Gandhi took the decision to start the movement. On 12 March 1930 Gandhi started the Historic Salt 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:
  1. a) Salt law should be violated everywhere.
  2. b) Students should leave colleges and government servants should resign from service.
  3. c) Foreign clothes should be burnt.
  4. d) No taxes should be paid to the government.
  5. e) Women should stage a Dharna at liquor shops, ctc.
  • Thus, the historic march, marking the launch of the Civil Disobedience Movement, began on March 12, and Gandhi broke the salt law by picking up a lump of salt at Dandi on April 6

 

Spread of Movement

  • Once the way was cleared by Gandhi’s ritual at Dandi, defiance of the salt laws started all over the country
  • Gandhi’s arrest came on May 4, 1930 when he had announced that he would lead a raid on Dharasana Salt Works on the west coast
  • The onset of Monsoon made the salt manufacture difficult and the Congress switched to other forms of mass struggle, all characterised by a similar pattern of careful choice of social issues, followed by their broadening and radicalisation through a variety of populist initiatives, such as:
  • non-payment of revenue in ryotwari areas;
  • no-chowkidara-tax campaign in zamindari areas; and
  • violation of forest laws in the Central Provinces.
  • Social boycott of Police and lower level administrative officials led to many resignations

 

Response at Different Places

  • Tamil Nadu
    • In April 1930, C. Rajagopalachari organised a march from Thiruchirapalli to Vedaranniyam on the Tanjore (or Thanjavur) coast to break the salt law.
    • The event was followed by widespread picketing of foreign cloth shops and anti-liquor campaign
  • Malabar
    • Kelappan, a Nair Congress leader famed for the Vaikom Satyagraha, organised salt marches
  • Andhra Region
    • District salt marches were organise in east and west Godavari, Krishna and Guntur. A number of sibirams (military style camps) were set up to serve as the headquarters of the Salt Satyagraha.
  • Bengal
    • Bengal provided the largest number of arrests as well as the highest amount of violence.
    • Midnapur, Arambagh and several rural pockets witnessed powerful movements developed around salt satyagraha and chaukidari tax.
    • During the same period, Surya Sen’s Chittagong revolt group carried out a raid on two armouries and declared the establishment of a provisional government
  • Bihar
    • Champaran and Saran were the first two districts to start salt satyagraha
    • However, very soon, a very powerful non-chaukidari tax agitation replaced the salt satyagraha (owing to physical constraints in making salt)
  • Peshawar
    • Here, Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan’s educational and social reform work among the Pathans had politicised them. Gaffar Khan, also called Badshah Khan and Frontier Gandhi, had started the first Pushto political monthly Pukhtoon and had organised a volunteer brigade ‘Khudai Khidmatgars’, popularly known as the ‘Red-Shirts’, who were pledged to the freedom struggle and non-violence
  • Dharasana
    • On May 21, 1930, Sarojini Naidu, Imam Sahib and Manilal (Gandhi’s son) took up the unfinished task of leading a raid on the Dharasana Salt Works.
    • The unarmed and peaceful crowd was met with a brutal lathicharge
  • United Provinces
    • A no-revenue campaign was organised; a call was given to zamindars to refuse to pay revenue to the government. Under a no-rent campaign, a call was given to tenants against zamindars

 

Response of different Sections

  • The Militant urban educated youth tended to be attracted more by Revolutionary Terrorism in Bengal, and in North Indian towns because of Bhagat Singh’s popularity
  • The most weakest point of Nationalism during this point was the Muslim participation, which remained low
    • Still, some areas such as the NWFP saw an overwhelming participation. Middle class Muslim participation was quite significant in Senhatta, Tripura, Gaibandha, Bagura and Noakhali. In Dacca, Muslim leaders, shopkeepers, lower class people and upper class women were active
  • Such lags were largely made up by the massive peasant mobilization and considerable support from business groups
    • Traders’ associations and commercial bodies were active in implementing the boycott, especially in TamilNadu and Punjab
  • A novel and remarkable feature of the 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

 

Government Attitude

  • The British Government followed a policy of repression to suppress the movement. Even before the movement was actually started, thousands of Congress workers were arrested and put in jails
  • On 23 August 1930, the Bengal ordinance was promulgated and the life of freedom fighters was made very hard.
  • The Press Act of 1910 was strictly enforced and many restrictions was put on the newspapers. Many newspapers and magazines stopped their publications.
  • Civilian property was destroyed. Innocent men and women were beaten up. Prisoners were starved and suffocated. Hundreds of men and women were killed as a result of police firing

Efforts for truce

  • The government’s attitude throughout 1930 was ambivalent as it was puzzled and perplexed
  • In July 1930 the viceroy, Lord Irwin, suggested a round table conference and reiterated the goal of dominion status.
    • He also accepted the suggestion that Tej Bahadur Sapru and M.R. Jayakar be allowed to explore the possibility of peace between the Congress and the government
  • Further, In August 1930 Motilal and Jawaharlal Nehru were taken to Yeravada Jail to meet Gandhi and discuss the possibility of a settlement. Here, Nehru and Gandhi unequivocally reiterated the demands of:
  • right of secession from Britain;
  • complete national government with control over defence and finance; and
  • An independent tribunal to settle Britain’s financial claims.

However, talks broke down at this point.

  • When almost all leading Congress leaders were put behind bars, this was probably the context for Gandhi’s rather sudden retreat. He initiated a talk with Irwin on 14 February 1931, which culminated in the Delhi Pact of 5 March 1931. The pact is popularly called Gandhi-Irwin pact.

Introduction

  • The Round Table Conferences (RTC) of 1930–1932 were a series of peace conferences organized by the British Government and Indian political personalities to discuss constitutional reforms in India.
  • The conference resulted from a review of the Government of India Act of 1919, undertaken in 1927 by the Simon Commission, whose report was published in 1930

 

Background

  • There were increasing demands of granting dominion status to India among a certain section of the British polity.
  • In India, the freedom movement was in full swing with its demand for Swaraj or self-rule spearheaded by Gandhi.
  • The conferences were based on the recommendation of Muhammad Ali Jinnah to Lord Irwin, the then Viceroy of India and James Ramsay MacDonald, the then British Prime Minister, and the Simon Commission report.
  • It was for the first time that the Indians and the British were meeting as ‘equals’. The first conference started on November 12th, 1930

 

First Round Table Conference Features

  • The First Round Table Conference officially inaugurated by King George V on November 12, 1930 in Royal Gallery House of Lords at London and chaired by the Prime Minister
  • Ramsay MacDonald presided over the first Round Table Conference
  • This was the first conference arranged between the British and the Indians as equals
  • The Congress and some prominent business leaders refused to attend, but many other groups of Indians were represented at the conference
  • Participants
    • The first session (Nov. 12, 1930–Jan. 19, 1931) had 73 representatives, from all Indian states and all parties except the Indian National Congress, which was waging a civil disobedience campaign against the government
    • 58 political leaders from British India.
    • 16 delegates from the native princely states.
    • 16 delegates from the three British political parties.
    • The Indian National Congress decided not to participate in the conference. Many of the INC leaders were imprisoned due to their involvement in the civil disobedience movement.
    • Among the British-Indians, the following representatives attended the conference: Muslim League, Hindus, Justice Party, Sikhs, liberals, Parsis, Christians, Anglo-Indians, Europeans, landlords, labour, women, universities, Sindh, Burma, other provinces, and the representatives from the Government of India
RepresentationMembers
Indian princely statesMaharaja of Alwar, Maharaja of Baroda, Nawab of Bhopal,

Maharaja of Bikaner, Rana of Dholpur, Maharaja of Jammu

and Kashmir, Maharaja of Nawanagar, Maharaja of Patiala

(Chancellor of the Chamber of Princes), Maharaja of Rewa,

Chief Sahib of Sangli, Sir Prabhashankar Pattani (Bhavnagar),

Manubhai Mehta (Baroda), Sardar Sahibzada Sultan Ahmed

Khan (Gwalior), Akbar Hydari (Hyderabad), Mirza Ismail

(Mysore), Col. Kailas Narain Haksar (Jammu and Kashmir)

Muslim LeagueAga Khan III (leader of BritishIndian delegation), Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar, Muhammad Shafi, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Muhammad Zafarullah Khan,

A.K. Fazlul Huq, Hafiz Ghulam Hussain Hidayat Ullah,

Dr.Shafa’at Ahmad Khan, Raja Sher Muhammad Khan of

Domeli and A.H. Ghuznavi

Hindu Mahasabha and its

sympathisers

 B.S. Moonje, M.R. Jayakar

and Diwan Bahadur Raja Narendra Nath

SikhsSardar Ujjal Singh and Sardar Sampuran Singh
ParsisPhiroze Sethna, Cowasji Jehangir and Homi

Mody

WomenBegum Jahanara Shahnawaz and Radhabai

Subbarayan

LiberalsJ.N. Basu, Tej Bahadur Sapru, C.Y. Chintamani,

V.S. Srinivasa Sastri and Chimanlal Harilal Setalvad

Justice PartyArcot

Ramasamy Mudaliar, Bhaskarrao Vithojirao Jadhav and Sir

A.P. Patro

Anglo-IndiansHenry Gidney
Indian ChristiansB.Shiva Rao and K.T. Paul
EuropeansSir Hubert Carr, Sir Oscar

de Glanville (Burma), T.F. Gavin Jones, C.E. Wood (Madras)

Government of IndiaNarendra

Nath Law, Bhupendra Nath Mitra, C.P. Ramaswami Iyer and

M. Ramachandra Rao.

 

Issues discussed in the First Round Table Conference

  • Dr B R Ambedkar demanded separate electorates for the ‘untouchables’.
  • Federal structure
  • Provincial constitution
  • Provinces of Sindh and NWFP
  • Minorities
  • Defence services
  • Franchise
  • Executive responsibility to the legislature
  • Tej Bahadur Sapru moved the idea of an All-India Federation. This was supported by the Muslim League. The princely states also supported this on the condition that their internal sovereignty is maintained.

 

Outcome

  • Nothing much was achieved at the conference.
  • It was generally agreed that India was to develop into a federation, there were to be safeguards regarding defence and finance, while other departments were to be transferred
    • But, little was done to implement these recommendations and civil disobedience continued in India
    • As a result, the First Round Table Conference was deemed a failure
  • Its principal achievement was an insistence on parliamentarianism—an acceptance by all, including the princes, of the federal principle—and on dominion status as the goal of constitutional development
  • Eventually, the British government realised that the participation of the Indian National Congress was necessary in any discussion on the future of constitutional government in India

 

Conclusion

  • Observing the impasse created over the RTC because of the non-cooperation of the Congress, the Government released the Congress leaders and withdrew the notification declaring the Congress to be an unlawful association.
  • After this gesture by the Government the working Committee authorized Gandhi to seek an interview with Lord Irwin.
    • On various days between February 17 and March 5 Gandhi had private interviews with the viceroy; the ultimate result being the well-known Gandhi-Irwin pact.
    • After the pact , Gandhi went to London to take part in the second RTC towards the end of 1931

 

 

Introduction

  • Gandhi-Irwin Pact, was an agreement signed on March 5, 1931, between Mohandas K. Gandhi, leader of the Indian nationalist movement, and Lord Irwin, British viceroy (1926–31) of India
  • It marked the end of a period of civil disobedience (satyagraha) in India against British rule that Gandhi and his followers had initiated with the Salt March (March–April 1930)

 

Background

  • Before the pact, Lord Irwin, the Viceroy, had announced in October 1929 a vague offer of ‘dominion status‘ for British-occupied India in an unspecified future and a Round Table Conference to discuss a future constitution
  • By the end of 1930, thousands of Indians, including Jawaharlal Nehru, were in jail. The Civil Disobedience movement had generated worldwide publicity, and Irwin was looking for a way to end it
  • Gandhiji was released from custody in January 1931, and the two men began negotiating the terms of the pact
  • Gandhiji was authorised by the then President of the Congress, Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel and Congress Working Committee (CWC), to negotiate with Lord Irwin
    • He told the people that the nation had suffered a great deal and needed an interval to fight the next phase with more vigour
    • The outcome of these talks was the Gandhi Irwin pact
  • Also, the Gandhi-Irwin Pact, also known as the Delhi Pact, equalized Congress and the government and was to lay the groundwork for the Round Table Conference to be held in England

 

The Gandhi-Irwin Pact

  • Irwin on behalf of the government agreed on:
    • immediate release of all political prisoners not convicted of violence
    • remission of all fines not yet collected
    • return of all lands not yet sold to third parties
    • lenient treatment to those government servants who had resigned;
    • right to make salt in coastal villages for personal consumption (not for sale);
    • right to peaceful and non-aggressive picketing; and
    • withdrawal of emergency ordinances
  • The viceroy, however, turned down two of Gandhi’s demands:
    • public inquiry into police excesses, and
    • Commutation of Bhagat Singh and his comrades’ death sentence to life sentence.
  • Gandhi on behalf of the Congress agreed
    • to suspend the civil disobedience movement, and
    • to participate in the next Round Table Conference on the constitutional question around the three lynch-pins of federation, Indian responsibility, and reservations and safeguards that may be necessary in India’s interests

 

Outcomes of the Pact

  • Many British officials in India, and in Great Britain, were outraged by the idea of a pact with a party, whose avowed purpose was the destruction of the British Raj
  • Despite boycotting the first Round Table Conference, members of the CWC attended the second conference in September 1931.
  • Further, Bans on the INC were lifted, and it was permitted to hold peaceful meetings that were not intended to be anti-establishment.

 

Significance of the Pact

  • Gandhiji’s technique of Satyagraha got highlighted in the pact
    • The satyagraha (quest for truth) movements were commonly described as “struggles”, “rebellions” and “wars without violence”
    • The object of satyagraha was, however, not to achieve the physical elimination or moral breakdown of an adversary—but, through suffering at his hands, to initiate a psychological processes that could make it possible for minds and hearts to meet.
    • In such a struggle, a compromise with an opponent was neither here nor treason, but a natural and necessary step.
    • Also, If it turned out that the compromise was premature and the adversary was unrepentant, nothing prevented the satyagrahi from returning to non-violent battle which aimed at coercing the oppressor to accept the real truth and not the truth that had been imposed via violence and oppression
  • As a significant fact, this was the second high-level meeting between Gandhi and a Viceroy in 13 years after the initiation of the Montagu–Chelmsford Reforms in 1919

 

No Related Posts found

 

Introduction

  • The Karachi Congress Session in 1931, was held following the Gandhi–Irwin Pact and in the immediate aftermath of Bhagat Singh’s execution
  • As a result, throughout Gandhi’s route to Karachi, he was greeted with black flag demonstrations by the Punjab Naujawan Bharat Sabha, in protest against his failure to secure commutation of the death sentence for Bhagat and his comrades.
  • The session is significant, as the Karachi resolution of 1931 was to remain in essence the basic political and economic programme of the Indian National Congress in later years

 

Background

  • The Gandhi-Irwin accord, by which Congress was to call off “civil disobedience” in return for the release of all satyagrahi prisoners, had been reached only a few days earlier following a fortnight of intense discussions between Gandhi and the Viceroy, Lord Irwin.
  • Satyagrahis were to be released from jail, salt was to be freed for collection in coastal areas, and forfeited lands were to be returned.
  • And at the upcoming Round Table Conference in London, Gandhi was to speak for the Congress’s goal of Swaraj.
  • Also, Bhagat Singh’s became the most important ideational presence at the Karachi Congress, virtually dictating its agenda and defining the draft resolution which Nehru put together; after being executed by the British

 

Congress Resolutions at Karachi

  • While disapproving of and dissociating itself from political violence, the Congress admired the ‘bravery’ and ‘sacrifice’ of the three martyrs.
  • The Delhi Pact or Gandhi-Irwin Pact was endorsed
  • The goal of Purna swaraj was reiterated.

 

Two resolutions were adopted, one on Fundamental  Rights and the other on National Economic Programme, which made the session particularly memorable.

  • The Resolution on Fundamental Rights guaranteed:
    • free speech and free press
    • right to form associations
    • right to assemble
    • universal adult franchise
    • equal legal rights irrespective of caste, creed and sex
    • neutrality of state in religious matters
    • free and compulsory primary education
    • protection to culture, language, script of minorities and linguistic groups
  • The Resolution on National Economic Programme included:
    • substantial reduction in rent and revenue in the case of landholders and peasants
    • exemption from rent for uneconomic holdings
    • relief from agricultural indebtedness
    • control of usury
    • better conditions of work including a living wage, limited hours of work and protection of women workers in the industrial sector
    • right to workers and peasants to form unions
    • state ownership and control of key industries, mines and means of transport
  • This was the first time the Congress spelt out what swaraj would mean for the masses, ”in order to end exploitation of masses, political freedom must include economic freedom of starving millions.”

 

Significance of Karachi Session

  • The socio-economic provision in the Karachi Resolution went on to influence the Constituent Assembly in drawing up Part IV of the Indian Constitution – the Directive Principles of State Policy
  • The Karachi Congress met at a time when Gandhi called a ‘truce’ with the British government to negotiate a pact with the Viceroy, Lord Irwin, in February 1931.
    • The primary agenda for the Karachi Congress was to ratify the Gandhi-Irwin Pact, which was greatly criticised by nationalists for its compromising nature
  • The enlightened vision of the session, guided the Congress in later years. When ministries were formed in 1937 by Congress in various provinces, they tried to execute some of them like legalising trade union, land reforms (partial though), press freedom etc.
  • The influence of this resolution can also be found in the formation and recommendation of National Planning committee headed by Subhash Chandra Bose (1938)

Background

  • The second Round Table Conference was held in London from 7 September 1931 to 1 December 1931 with the participation of Gandhi and the Indian National Congress
  • Two weeks before the Conference convened, the Labour government had been replaced by the Conservatives
  • As a part of Gandhi-Irwin pact, Gandhi agrees to suspend the Civil Disobedience movement and participate in next Round Table Conference(RTC)

 

Participants in Second RTC

RepresentativesMembers
Indian StatesMaharaja of Alwar, Maharaja of Baroda, Maharaja Of Darbhanga , Nawab of Bhopal, Maharaja of Bikaner, Maharao of Kutch, Rana of Dholpur, Maharaja of Indore, Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir, Maharaja of Kapurthala, Maharaja of Nawanagar, Maharaja of Patiala, Maharaja of Rewa, Chief Sahib of Sangli, Raja of Korea, Raja of Sarila, Sir Prabhashankar Pattani (Bhavnagar), Manubhai Mehta (Baroda), Sardar Sahibzada Sultan Ahmed Khan (Gwalior), Sir Muhammad Akbar Hydari (Hyderabad), Mirza Ismail (Mysore), Col. K.N. Haksar (Jammu and Kashmir), T. Raghavaiah (Travancore), Liaqat Hayat Khan (Patiala)
Government of India C. P. Ramaswami Iyer, Narendra Nath Law, M. Ramachandra Rao
Indian National Congress Mahatma Gandhi (He was the sole representative of the Congress).
Muslims Aga Khan III, Maulana Shaukat Ali, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, A. K. Fazlul Huq, Sir Muhammad Iqbal, Muhammad Shafi, Muhammad Zafarullah Khan, Sir Syed Ali Imam, Maulvi Muhammad Shafi Daudi, Raja Sher Muhammad Khan of Domeli, A. H. Ghuznavi, Hafiz Hidayat Hussain, Sayed Muhammad Padshah Saheb Bahadur, Dr. Shafa’at Ahmad Khan, Jamal Muhammad Rowther, Khwaja Mian Rowther, Nawab Sahibzada Sayed Muhammad Mehr Shah
Hindus M. R. Jayakar, B. S. Moonje, Diwan Bahadur Raja Narendra Nath
Depressed Classes B. R. Ambedkar, Rettamalai Srinivasan
Indian ChristiansSurendra Kumar Datta, A. T. Pannirselvam
WomenSarojini Naidu, Begum Jahanara Shahnawaz, Radhabai Subbarayan

 

Proceedings

  • There were three major differences between the first and second Round Table Conferences
    • Congress Representation
      • The Gandhi–Irwin Pact opened the way for Congress participation in this conference.
      • Gandhi was invited from India and attended as the sole official Congress representative accompanied by Sarojini Naidu and also Madan Mohan Malaviya, Ghanshyam Das Birla, Muhammad Iqbal, Sir Mirza Ismail (Diwan of Mysore), S.K. Dutta and Sir Syed Ali Imam.
      • Gandhi claimed that the Congress alone represented political India; that the Untouchables were Hindus and should not be treated as a “minority”; and that there should be no separate electorates or special safeguards for Muslims or other minorities. These claims were rejected by the other Indian participants.
      • According to this pact, Gandhi was asked to call off the Civil Disobedience Movement (CDM) and if he did so the prisoners of the British government would be freed except the criminal prisoners, i.e. those who had killed British officials. He returned to India, disappointed with the results and empty-handed
    • National Government
      • Two weeks earlier the Labour government in London had fallen.
      • Ramsay MacDonald now headed a National Government dominated by the Conservative Party
    • Financial Crisis
      • During the conference, Britain went off the Gold Standard, further distracting the National Government
    • At the end of the conference Ramsay MacDonald undertook to produce a Communal Award for minority representation
    • Other important discussions were the responsibility of the executive to the legislature and a separate electorate for the Untouchables as demanded by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar.
    • Gandhi announced that henceforth he would work only on behalf of the Harijans: he reached a compromise with the leader of depressed classes, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, over this issue; the two eventually resolved the situation with the Poona Pact of 1932

 

Why nothing much was expected from Second RTC?

  • Lord Irwin had been replaced by Lord Willingdon as viceroy in India. Just before the conference

began, the Labour government in England had been replaced by a National Government

  • The British were also angered by the increased revolutionary activities which had claimed many European lives in India.
  • The Right Wing or Conservatives in Britain led by Churchill strongly objected to the British government negotiating with the Congress on an equal basis. They, instead, demanded a strong government in India
  • At the conference, Gandhi (and therefore the Congress) claimed to represent all people of India against imperialism.
    • The other delegates, however, did not share this view.
    • Historians point out that many of the delegates were conservative, government loyalists, and communalists, and these groups were used by the colonial government to neutralise the efforts of Gandhi

 

Outcome of Second RTC

  • The lack of agreement among the many delegate groups meant that no substantial results regarding India’s constitutional future would come out of the conference
  • The session ended with MacDonald’s announcement of:
    • two Muslim majority provinces—North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) and Sindh;
    • the setting up of an Indian Consultative Committee;
    • setting up of three expert committees—finance, franchise and states; and
    • the prospect of a unilateral British Communal Award if Indians failed to agree
  • Further, the government refused to concede the basic Indian demand of freedom

 

No Related Posts found

The Truce Months, March-December 1931

  • Around September-October 1930, Civil Disobedience movement entered a second, more contradictory phase, as:
    • Pressures were mounting as the Depression began having major impact
    • Incidents of poor peasant and tribal militancy and violence multiplied in many areas
    • 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
    • Almost all leading Congress leaders were put behind bars
  • With the signing of Gandhi-Irwin pact in 1931, the Congress withdrew the Civil Disobedience Movement immediately
  • Also, Gandhi agreed to attend the second Round Table Conference, more or less on British terms, in sharp contrast to his stand until 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 1931
  • Thus, Civil Disobedience had died a sudden death, ending “not with a bang but a whimper”, according to Nehru
  • On the other hand, the impact of the Pact and Truce months was not entirely negative, as:
    • 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 die-hard officials
  • The released Congressmen seem to have gone back to their villages and towns with undiminished confidence, almost as victors
  • The Congress at this time was 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 conflicts

 

1932-34: Civil Disobedience Again

  • Changed Government Attitude After Second RTC
    • The higher British officials had drawn their own lessons from the Delhi Pact which they thought had raised the political prestige of the Congress and the political morale of the people and had undermined British prestige.
    • There were three main considerations in British policy:
      • Gandhi would not be permitted to build up the tempo for a mass movement again.
      • Goodwill of the Congress was not required, but the confidence of those who supported the British against the Congress, government functionaries, loyalists, etc. was very essential.
      • The national movement would not be allowed to consolidate itself in rural areas
    • At this time, the Congress Working Committee decided to resume the Civil Disobedience Movement
    • As a consequence, on January 4, 1932, Gandhi was arrested
  • Government Action
    • A series of repressive ordinances were issued which ushered in a virtual martial law, though under civilian control, or a ‘Civil Martial Law’, under which
      • Congress organisations at all levels were banned
      • arrests were made of activists, leaders, sympathisers;
      • properties were confiscated
      • Gandhi ashrams were occupied
  • Response of Indians
    • People responded with anger. Though unprepared, the response was massive. In the first four months alone, about 80,000 satyagrahis, mostly urban and rural poor, were jailed
    • Other forms of protest included
      • picketing of shops selling liquor and foreign cloth
      • illegal gatherings, non-violent demonstrations
      • celebrations of national days, symbolic hoistings of national flag,
      • non-payment of chowkidara tax,
      • salt satyagraha
      • forest law violations and
      • installation of a secret radio transmitter near Bombay
    • However, this phase of the movement could not be sustained because:
      • Gandhi and other leaders had no time to build up the tempo; and
      • the masses were not prepared
    • As a result, Gandhi decided to withdraw the Civil Disobedience movement in April 1934
  • Notable gains made during this phase
    • As the mass movement gradually declined in face of ruthless repression, political ‘realism’ combined with economic calculation 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 Lancashire out of fear of Japanese competition

 

Aftermath of Civil Disobedience Movement

  • The British Government’s sense of Illusionary Victory was quickly, swept when the Congress captured the polls in most provinces in 1937
  • The Congress had been defeated by superior brute force, but its mass prestige was 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 fulfil.
    • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • On the whole, after the end of Civil Disobedience Movement, 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.

 

 

Introduction

  • The third Round Table Conference, held between November 17, 1932 and December 24, 1932, was not attended by the Indian National Congress and Gandhi.
  • Also, It was ignored by most other Indian leaders
  • Further, it proved fruitless as most of the national leaders were in prison.
    • But, the discussions led to the passing of the Government of India Act, 1935.
  • Following the publication of Communal Award, the third Session, or “the Pocket” R.T.C. met in London to discuss a fixed agenda in private
  • Also, On the failure of the second Round Table Conference, the Congress Working Committee decided on December 29, 1931 to resume the civil disobedience movement

 

Participants

RepresentativesMembers
Indian States’ Representatives Deewan sagar (Dewan of Hyderabad), Mirza Ismail (Dewan of Mysore), V. T. Krishnamachari (Dewan of Baroda), Wajahat Hussain (Jammu and Kashmir), Sir Sukhdeo Prasad (Udaipur, Jaipur, Jodhpur), D. A. Surve (Kolhapur), Raja Oudh Narain Bisarya (Bhopal), Manubhai Mehta (Bikaner), Nawab Liaqat Hayat Khan (Patiala), Fateh Naseeb Khan (Alwar State), L. F. Rushbrook Williams (Nawanagar), Raja of Sarila (small states)
British-Indian Representatives Aga Khan III,B. R. Ambedkar (Depressed Classes separate Electorate), Ramakrishna Ranga Rao of Bobbili, Sir Hubert Carr (Europeans), Nanak Chand Pandit, A. H. Ghuznavi, Henry Gidney (Anglo-Indians), Hafiz Hidayat Hussain, Muhammad Iqbal, M. R. Jayakar, Cowasji Jehangir, N. M. Joshi (Labour), Narasimha Chintaman Kelkar, Arcot Ramasamy Mudaliar, Begum Jahanara Shahnawaz (Women), A. P. Patro, Tej Bahadur Sapru, Dr. Shafa’at Ahmad Khan, Sir Shadi Lal, Tara Singh Malhotra, Sir Nripendra Nath Sircar, Sir Purshottamdas Thakurdas, Muhammad Zafarullah Khan.

Proceedings and Outcomes

  • As like in the two previous conferences, little was achieved
    • The third RTC proved to be a setback, as nothing of importance were discussed, in the absence of political leaders and Maharajas
  • However, he recommendations were published in a White Paper in March 1933 and debated in the British Parliament afterwards
  • A Joint Select Committee was formed to analyse the recommendations and formulate a new Act for India, and that committee produced a draft Bill in February 1935 which was enforced as the Government of India Act of 1935 in July 1935

 

Introduction

  • TheCommunal Award (also known as MacDonald Award) was created by the British prime minister Ramsay MacDonald on 16 August 1932; and was announced after the Round Table Conference (1930–32)
  • This was Britain’s unilateral attempt to resolve the various conflicts among India’s many communal interests
  • The Communal Award, based on the findings of the Indian Franchise Committee (also called the Lothian Committee), established separate electorates and reserved seats for minorities, including the depressed classes which were granted seventy-eight reserved seats

 

Background

  • The debate over the separate and joint electorates as rival modes of election to the various representative institutions by the British began with the Simla deputation of 1906
  • Also, since the early 19th century, there were awareness among Depressed classes to raise voices for legitimate rights and social equality, which the social hierarchy had denied them over years
  • When Morley – Minto Reforms Act of 1909made provision for a separate electorate for the Muslims, many leaders of the Depressed Classes felt that they should also demand for reservation of seats for their representatives in legislative bodies.
  • Later, Dr B.R. Ambedkar in his testimony to the Simon Commission, had stressed that the depressed classes should be treated as a distinct, independent minority separate from the caste Hindus
    • But the Simon Commission rejected the proposal of separate electorate for the depressed classes; however, it retained the concept of reserving seats
  • Eventually, the depressed class leaders succeeded in forcing the British Government to get invitation for their representatives in the Round Table Conference at London to deliberate on the prospective constitutional amendments.
  • In the Second Round Table Conference held in London, Ambedkar again raised the issue of separate electorate for the depressed classes.
    • Gandhi, who had declared himself the sole representative of India’s oppressed masses, rejected Ambedkar’s proposal
  • Amidst such efforts, a consensus on the minority representation could not be worked out among the Indian delegates. In the wake of such a situation, Ramsay MacDonald, who had chaired the committee on minorities, offered to mediate on the condition and came up with the offer of an award

 

Main Provisions of the Communal Award

  • Muslims, Europeans, Sikhs, Indian Christians, Anglo- Indians, depressed classes, women, and even the Marathas were to get separate electorates. Such an arrangement for the depressed classes was to be made for a period of 20 years.
  • In the provincial legislatures, the seats were to be distributed on communal basis.
  • The existing seats of the provincial legislatures were to be doubled.
  • The Muslims, wherever they were in minority, were to be granted a weightage.
  • Except in the North West Frontier Province, 3 per cent seats were to be reserved for women in all provinces.
  • The depressed classes to be declared/accorded the status of minority
  • The depressed classes were to get ‘double vote’, one to be used through separate electorates and the other to be used in the general electorates
  • Allocation of seats were to be made for labourers, landlords, traders and industrialists.
  • In the province of Bombay, 7 seats were to be allocated for the Marathas.

 

Response

  • Congress
    • While strongly disagreeing with the Communal Award, the Congress decided neither to accept it nor to reject it
  • Nationalists
    • The effort to separate the depressed classes from the rest of the Hindus by treating them as separate political entities was vehemently opposed by all the nationalists
  • Gandhiji
    • Gandhi saw the Communal Award as an attack on Indian unity and nationalism.
    • He thought it was harmful to both Hinduism and to the depressed classes since it provided no answer to the socially degraded position of the depressed classes
    • Once the depressed classes were treated as a separate political entity, he argued, the question of abolishing untouchability would get undermined, while separate electorates would ensure that the untouchables remained untouchables in perpetuity
    • He instead demanded that the depressed classes be elected through joint electorate and if possible a wider electorate through universal franchise, while expressing no objection to the demand for a larger number of reserved seats
  • Ambedkar
    • He supported the Communal Award
    • According to Ambedkar, Gandhi was ready to award separate electorates to Muslims and Sikhs. But Gandhi was reluctant to give separate electorates to scheduled castes

 

Thus, on the whole, the Communal Award was nothing but ‘a sign of determination [of the British Government] to warp the Indian question towards electoral politics’

 

No Related Posts found

Introduction

  • Poona Pact, (September 24, 1932) was an agreement between Hindu leaders in India granting new rights to Dalits, which resulted in the reservation of electoral seats for the depressed classes in the legislatureof British India in 1932
  • The pact, signed at Poona, resulted from the Communal Award of August 4, 1932, a proposal by the British government which would allot seats in the various legislatures of India to the different communities in an effort to resolve the various tensions between communal interests
  • It was signed by Ambedkar on behalf of the depressed classes and by Madan Mohan Malviyaon behalf of Hindus and Gandhi, as a means to end the fast that Gandhi was undertaking in jail

 

Terms of Poona Pact

  • There shall be electoral seats reserved for the Depressed Classes out of general electorate
  • Election to these seats shall be by joint electorates subject to following procedure:
    • Where, all members of the Depressed Classes registered in the general electoral roll of a constituency were to form an electoral college, which would elect a panel of four candidates, belonging to the Depressed Classes for each of such reserved seats by the method of the single vote, and four persons getting the highest number of votes in such primary elections shall be the candidates for election by the general electorate
  • The representation of the Depressed Classes in the Central Legislature shall likewise be on the principle of joint electorates
    • In the Central Legislature, 18% of the seats allotted to the general electorate for British India in the said legislature shall be reserved for the Depressed Classes
  • The seats reserved for the depressed classes were increased from 71 to 147 in provincial legislatures
  • There shall be no disabilities attached to anyone on the ground of his being a member of the Depressed Classes in regard to any election to local bodies or appointment to the public services.
    • Every endeavour shall be made to secure a fair representation of the Depressed Classes in these respects, subject to such educational qualifications as may be laid down for appointment to the Public Services
  • In every province out of the educational grant, an adequate sum shall be earmarked for providing educational facilities to the members of Depressed Classes.

 

Significance of the Poona Pact

  • The Poona Pact was an emphatic acceptance by upper-class Hindus that the depressed classes constituted the most discriminated sections of Hindu society.
    • It was also conceded that something concrete had to be done to give them a political voice as well as a leg-up to lift them from a backwardness they could not otherwise overcome
  • The concessions agreed to in the Poona Pact were precursors to the world’s largest affirmative programme launched much later in independent India.
    • A slew of measures were initiated later to uplift Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, post-independence
  • It sealed Ambedkar as the official leader of depressed classes across India
    • He made the entire country, and not just the Congress Party, morally responsible for the uplift of the depressed classes
    • Most of all he succeeded in making the depressed classes a formidable political force for the first time in history

 

Downsides of Poona Pact

  • The Pact made the depressed classes political tools which could be used by the majoritarian caste Hindu organisation
    • This rallying of Depressed classes for Political Gains, making them a vote bank continues even today
  • It also led the depressed classes to submit to the status quo in political, ideological and cultural fields and not being able to develop independent and genuine leadership to fight the Brahminical order
  • It subordinated the depressed classes into being part of the Hindu social order by denying them a separate and distinct existence
  • The Working Committee of the All India Scheduled Caste Federation alleged that in the last elections held under the Government of India Act, 1935, the system of joint electorates deprived the scheduled castes of the right to send true and effective representatives to the legislatures.
    • The committee, further, said that the provisions of the joint electorate gave the Hindu majority the virtual right to nominate members of the scheduled castes who were prepared to be the tools of the Hindu majority

As a consequence, even after signing the Poona Pact, Dr B.R. Ambedkar continued to denounce the Poona Pact till 1947

Background

  • As the growing demands of populace led by Indian leader for constitutional reforms in India intensified with progression in the British Rule, the evolving administrative arrangements put in place by the British paved the way for a more responsible government in India premised on the fact of maximum representation of Indians
  • India’s support to Britain in the First World War also aided in British acknowledgement of the need for the inclusion of more Indians in the administration of their own country.
    • This formed the basis of the passing of the Government of India Act, 1935 by the British Parliament
  • This legislation was the longest Act passed by the British Parliament after its domination and overtaking of administrative control in India
  • The Act was based on the facts and considerations of several experiences and outcomes which, inter alia, include
    • the Simon Commission Report
    • the recommendations of the Round Table Conferences
    • the White Paper published by the British government in 1933 (based on the Third Round Table Conference
    • the Report of the Joint Select Committees

 

 Salient Features of the Government of India Act, 1935

  • All India Federation
    • It provided for the establishment of an All India Federation consisting of provinces and princely states as units.
    • The Act divided the powers between the Centre and units in terms of three lists, Federal List (for Centre containing 59 items), Provincial List (for provinces containing 54 items) and the Concurrent List (for both containing 36 items).
  • Residuary powers were given to the Viceroy.
  • However, the federation never came into being as the princely states did not join it. But this has formed the basis of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India, 1950 (read with Article 236)
  • Provincial Autonomy
    • It abolished diarchy in the provinces and introduced ‘provincial autonomy’ in its place.
      • The provinces were allowed to act as autonomous units of administration in their defined spheres.
      • Moreover, the Act introduced responsible governments in provinces which meant that the governor was required to act with the advice of ministers responsible to the provincial legislature
    • However, the Ministers were not absolutely free in matter of running their departments
      • As the Governors continued to possess a set of overriding powers although such powers were not exercised very often
  • Bicameralism
    • The Act introduced bicameralism in six out of eleven provinces.
      • Thus, the legislatures of Bengal, Bombay, Madras, Bihar, Assam and the United Provinces were made bicameral consisting of a legislative council (Upper House) and a legislative assembly (Lower House) with certain restrictions on them
    • Also, the Central Legislature was bicameral, consisting of Federal Assembly and Council of States.
      • The term of the assembly was five years but it could be dissolved earlier also.
  • Diarchy at the Centre
    • The Act of 1935 abolished diarchy at the Provincial level and introduced it at the Centre.
      • Consequently, the federal subjects were divided into reserved subjects and transferred subjects
    • Religious affairs, defence, administration of tribal areas and external affairs were included in the reserved subjects.
      • The Transferred subjects were to be administered on the advice of ministers and the number of ministers could not exceed ten.
    • The Governor-General remained over all in charge of both the Reserved and Transferred subjects
      • The idea of diarchy was imposed with the purpose of facilitating better administration and the governor general was appointed to look after and coordinate among the two parts of the government
  • Communal/Class Representation
    • The Act further extended the principle of communal representation by providing separate electorates for depressed classes (scheduled castes), women and labourers (workers).
    • Further, under the Act the Muslims got 33 percent (1/3 of the seats) in the Federal Legislature
  • Other features
    • It abolished the Council of India, established by the Government of India Act of 1858. The secretary of state for India was provided with a team of advisors.
    • It provided for the establishment of a Reserve Bank of India to control the regulation of currency and credits of the country.
    • The franchise (voting rights) was extended further from 3% to 14% of the total population.
    • It provided for the establishment of not only a Federal Public Service Commission, Provincial Public Service Commission and Joint Public Service Commission for two or more provinces.
    • It provided for the establishment of a Federal Court, set up in 1937, which continued to function till the establishment of the Supreme Court of India after the attainment of independence (1950).
    • This Act gave the authority and command of the railways in India in the hands of a newly established authority called “Federal Railway” consisting of seven members who were free from the control of councillors and ministers. The authority directly reported to the Governor-General of India
    • The Act also paved the way for reorganisation of certain parts including the Sindh being carved out of Bombay Presidency, split of Bihar and Orissa and the severance of Burma from India.

 

Significance of the Act

  • The Government of India Act of 1935 marked the second milestone towards a completely responsible government in India after the Act of 1919.
  • The Act of 1935 served some useful purposes by the experiment of provincial autonomy, thus we can say that the Government of India Act 1935 marks a point of no return in the history of constitutional development in India.
  • The Government of India Act 1935 curtailed the powers concentrated in the hands of the Central Government and distributed it by ensuring that a decentralised form of government takes shape in India
  • Separate electorates for women, although they had not asked for it, was quite good for the advancement of women in the decision making process
  • This Act was the first attempt to give the provinces an autonomous status by freeing them from external interference
  • The Act also holds great importance in the Indian history because it eventually culminated in the fact of the Dominion Status which urged the need for Independence again in the minds of the people

 

Criticism of the Act

  • Numerous ‘safeguards’ and ‘special responsibilities’ of the governor-general worked as brakes in the proper functioning of the Act.
  • Ex: Despite Provincial Autonomy, the governor still had extensive powers in provinces
  • The extension of the system of communal electorates and representation of various interests promoted separatist tendencies which culminated in partition of India
  • The Act provided a rigid constitution with no possibility of internal growth. Right of amendment was reserved with the British Parliament
  • A close reading of the Act reveals that the British Government equipped itself with the legal instruments to take back total control at any time they considered this to be desirable.
    • This was evident in the way the powers in defence and external affairs necessarily, as matters stood, given to the governor-general limited the scope of ministerial activity, and the measure of representation given to the rulers of the Indian States negated the possibility of even the beginnings of democratic control
  • The Federal portion was to go into effect only when half the States by weight agreed to federate.
    • This never happened, and the Federation’s establishment was indefinitely postponed after the outbreak of the Second World War.
  • As a result, the 1935 Act was condemned by nearly all sections and unanimously rejected by the Congress
    • The Congress demanded, instead, the convening of a Constituent Assembly elected on the basis of adult franchise to frame a constitution for independent India
  • Further, Nehru called it “a machine with strong brakes but no engine”. He also called it a “Charter of Slavery”

 

Conclusion

  • On the whole, the British introduced this Act to win the support of modern nationalist and with the aim of maintaining continuity in their rule over the dominion of India
  • But the Act proved largely to be disappointing because it did not hold out assurance about granting Dominion Status, not did it consider sympathetically the feelings and urges of politically conscious Indian populace
  • In spite of the drawbacks, the Act had its own significance for this Act provided a basis for negotiation between Britishers and Indians for getting independence.
  • Also, the Government of India Act 1935, however, had introduced several features which later formed the nucleus of the present Constitution.
  • Thus, the Government of India Act 1935 marks, in fact, a watershed moment in the Constitutional history of India

 

Introduction

  • Provincial elections were held in British India in the winter of 1936-37 as mandated by the Government of India Act 1935.
  • Elections were held in eleven provinces – Madras, Central Provinces, Bihar, Orissa, United Provinces, Bombay Presidency, Assam, NWFP, Bengal, Punjab and Sindh.

 

Background

  • The period between 1936-39 was the period when the Congress gave up the path of confrontation and went for constitutional politics
  • However, unlike the earlier Swarajist phase, its present aim was to give the constitutional methods a trial and the Congressmen worked for their success
  • The second phase of the Civil Disobedience movement(from 1932 onwards) had not evoked a response that earlier phase had done
    • Hence, it was becoming apparent that mass movement would not continue for long
    • With mass movement on a low ebb, there emerged voices within the Congress advocating a return to constitutional methods
  • As was the trend during the nationalist struggle phase, after a hectic debate the Congress decided to contest the elections in 1937 and was successful in forming governments in seven provinces

 

Towards Elections

  • Before we go on to analyse the elections of 1937 and the events related to them we shall discuss briefly the general political situation and some of the earlier elections
  • Elections to Local Bodies
    • Gandhi had given a free hand to all sections to pursue their methods so long as they worked in one direction i.e., opposing the British
    • Thus from 1934 the Congress contested elections to the Assembly and the local bodies as and when they were held
    • These elections proved useful from the following points of view:
      • The Congress could test its popular base through election results.
      • They gave the Congress tremendous experience in terms of organisation, planning, and managing of elections.
      • The Congress could test its allies for funds which were needed for electoral politics.
  • Lucknow Congress Session
    • The Congress session at Lucknow (April 1936) was presided over by Jawaharlal Nehru
    • Prominent resolution passed in the session include:
      • The people of the state should have the same right of self-determination as those of the rest of India; and that the Congress stands for the same political, civil and democratic liberties for every part of India
      • The Congress resolved to contest elections on a basis of manifesto

 

Elections of 1937

  • Once the Congress decided to contest elections, every Congressman made an all-out effort to ensure the success of Congress candidates.
  • Election results
    • The results were very encouraging for the Congress
    • Except for Bengal, Punjab, and Sindh, the Congress had fared well in other regions
    • In Bengal, NWFP, Assam and Bombay, Congress emerged as the single largest party, whereas in Punjab and Singh its performance was poor
    • But, the Congress could not do well in the elections to upper houses as the franchise was limited to the upper strata only
    • The performance of Congress in reserved constituencies was not at all satisfactory except in the labour seats
  • Office Acceptance
    • The decision of office acceptance had been left pending due to differences within the Congress
    • The AICC met in March 1937 to decide over the issue.
    • Rajendra Prasad moved a resolution for ‘conditional acceptance’ of office which was accepted.
  • The condition attached was that the governors would not use their special powers to intervene with the functioning of ministries
  • Here Jayprakash Narain moved an amendment for total rejection of office but this was defeated when put to vote (78 in favour and 135 against).
    • This was considered as a major victory for the Right Wing within the Congress.
    • Also, Gandhi himself was in favour of conditional acceptance of office.
  • In six provinces where the Congress was in majority, its leaders were invited by the Governors to form ministries
    • However, this offer was turned down due to the refusal of Governors to give assurances on the conditions put forward by the Congress
  • Hence, the next move of the Government was to form Interim ministries in these provinces
    • These were ministries which did not command majority in the legislatures, and hence could not continue in office beyond six months
  • The resignation of the interim ministries was followed by the formation of Congress ministries. And it was the beginning of the new era in the freedom struggle
  • At this time, the Congress had delayed the decision of office acceptance by about six months
    • The delay had disproved the election time propaganda against the Congress that they were office hungry and would jump at the first opportunity to form ministries.
  • The Congress unity had been maintained and demonstrated.
  • It had become clear to Governors and the ministers that the word of the Congress High Command was supreme
  • Governors would think several times before intervening in the work of ministers.

 

Congress Ministries At Work

  • In the 28 months of Congress rule in the provinces, there were some efforts made for people’s welfare
  • Civil Liberties
    • The Congress ministries did much to ease curbs on civil liberties:
      • Laws giving emergency powers were repealed.
      • Ban on illegal organisations, such as the Hindustan Seva Dal and Youth Leagues, and on certain books and journals was lifted.
      • Press restrictions were lifted.
      • Newspapers were taken out of black lists.
      • Confiscated arms and arms licences were restored.
      • Police powers were curbed and the CID stopped shadowing politicians.
      • Political prisoners and revolutionaries were released, and deportation and internment orders were revoked.
      • In Bombay lands confiscated by the government during the Civil Disobedience Movement were restored.
      • Pensions of officials associated with the Civil Disobedience Movement were restored
  • Agrarian Reforms
    • Tenancy legislation was taken up in all the Congress ruled provinces.
    • In all provinces, efforts were made to protect the peasant from money lenders and to increase irrigation faculties
    • 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 Civil Disobedience movement
    • However, in most areas the Zamindars remained in a dominant position
  • Labour
    • The basic approach was to advance workers’ interests while promoting industrial peace.
      • This was sought to be achieved by reducing strikes as far as possible and by advocating compulsory arbitration prior to striking before the established conciliation machinery
    • Goodwill was sought to be created between labour and capital with mediation of ministries, while at the same time efforts were made to improve workers’ condition and secure wage increases for them
    • The ministries treated militant trade union protests as law and order problems, and acted as mediators as far as possible.
    • Also, leftist critics were not satisfied by this approach. Generally, the ministries took recourse to Section 144 and arrested the leaders
      • Nehru was unhappy about these repressive measures, but in public supported the ministries to protect them from petty and petulant criticism.
      • Although Gandhi was against militant and violent methods, he stood for political education of the masses
  • Social Welfare Reforms
    • These included the following:
      • Prohibition imposed in certain areas.
      • Measures for welfare of Harijans taken—temple entry, use of public facilities, scholarships, an increase in their numbers in government service and police, etc.
      • Attention given to primary, technical and higher education and to public health and sanitation.
      • Encouragement given to khadi through subsidies and other measures.
      • Prison reforms undertaken.
      • Encouragement given to indigenous enterprises.
      • Efforts taken to develop planning through National Planning Committee set up under Congress president Subhash Bose in 1938
  • Extra-Parliamentary Mass Activity
    • These included:
      • launching of mass literacy campaigns,
      • setting up of Congress police stations and panchayats,
      • Congress Grievance Committees presenting mass petitions to government, and
      • states peoples’ movements

 

Problems faced by Congress at this time

  • 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 due to political and communal overtones, rather than on factual basis
    • The All India Muslim League, annoyed with the Congress for not sharing power with them established the Pirpur Committee in 1938 to prepare a detailed report on the atrocities supposedly committed by the Congress ministries.
      • In its report the committee charged the Congress with interference in the religious rites, suppression of Urdu in favour of Hindi, denial of proper representation and of the oppression of Muslims in the economic sphere
  • Many opportunists joined the Congress during this period in order to seek advantages of office
    • In many regions, a drive was made to free the Congress from such elements
  • Then came in the issue at the Tripuri Session of the Congress in 1939
    • Bose winning the presidential post of Congress, was regarded as a victory of the Left wing
    • Even Gandhi regarded this defeat as his own defeat
    • Further, there were problems in the formation of the Working Committee and eventually Bose resigned from the Presidentship
  • Further, 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 was without consulting the Congress”

 

Significance of the Congress Rule

  • The contention that Indian self-government was necessary for radical social transformation got confirmed.
  • Congressmen demonstrated that a movement could use state power to further its ends without being co-opted.
  • The ministries were able to control communal riots.
  • The morale of the bureaucracy came down.
  • Council work helped neutralise many erstwhile hostile elements (landlords, etc).
  • People were able to perceive the shape of things to come if independence was won.
  • Administrative work by Indians further weakened the myth that Indians were not fit to rule

 

Summing Up

  • The Congress after a long debate decided to contest the elections and emerged victorious in five provinces
  • The victory of Congress was attributed to its pro-people policies; while in most of the cases he Zamindars and Communal forces opposed the Congress
  • On the whole, the Ministries functioned under certain limitations, but tried their best to give relief to the people
  • The formation of Congress Ministries was perceived by the people as their win over British Raj, and they firmly believed that days of the British Raj were numbered
Selection Mania Logo

We are committed to empowering aspiring civil servants to achieve their dreams by providing high-quality guidance and resources for the UPSC Civil Services Examination.

Connect With

© 2026 Selection Mania. All Rights Reserved. | Design and Developed