The Indian National Movement, the struggle for India’s independence from British colonial rule, was a long and arduous journey that spanned several decades. The period from 1918 to 1929 marked a crucial phase in this movement, characterized by the rise of Mahatma Gandhi as a charismatic leader, the adoption of non-violent resistance as the primary method of protest, and a growing demand for complete independence from British rule.

World War I (1914-1918) had a profound impact on India, both in terms of its political and economic landscape. The war brought about both opportunities and challenges for the Indian independence movement, which was at a crucial stage of development.

Impact on the Indian Economy

• The war caused significant economic disruption in India, as the British government diverted resources and manpower towards the war effort.
• This led to shortages of essential goods, inflation, and increased unemployment.
• However, the war also created opportunities for Indian industries, as they were able to fill the gap left by British manufacturers.

Impact on the Indian Political Movement

• The war initially led to a surge of support for the British government in India, as Indians rallied behind the Allied cause.
• However, as the war dragged on and the economic hardship increased, anti-British sentiment grew.
• The Indian National Congress, the main political party advocating for independence, saw its support base expand during the war years.

Reforms and Agitation

• In response to the growing nationalist movement, the British government introduced some reforms, such as the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms of 1919.
• These reforms expanded Indian representation in the legislative councils and introduced some measures of self-governance at the provincial level.
• However, these reforms were seen as inadequate by many Indians, who continued to demand complete independence.
• The war also saw the rise of non-violent resistance as a major strategy of the independence movement. Mahatma Gandhi, who had returned to India from South Africa in 1915, became the leading proponent of Satyagraha, a form of non-violent civil disobedience.
• Gandhi organized a series of protests and campaigns, such as the Non-Cooperation Movement (1920-1922) and the Civil Disobedience Movement (1930-1934), which challenged British authority and mobilized millions of Indians.

Impact on the Muslim League

• The war also had a significant impact on the Muslim League, a political organization representing the interests of Muslims in India.
• The Muslim League, which had initially been supportive of the British government, became increasingly concerned about the protection of Muslim interests in the face of growing Hindu nationalism.
• In 1916, the Muslim League and the Indian National Congress signed the Lucknow Pact, which agreed on a formula for Muslim representation in the government.
• However, the pact did not last long, and the two parties eventually drifted apart.

World War I played a complex and multifaceted role in the Indian independence movement. While the war initially brought about some economic opportunities and a surge of support for the British government, it also exacerbated existing tensions, fuelled anti-colonial sentiment, and created conditions for the rise of non-violent resistance and the Muslim League. The war ultimately contributed to the intensification of the struggle for Indian independence, which would continue to dominate Indian politics for decades to come.

The Champaran Satyagraha of 1917 was a pivotal event in the Indian independence movement, marking the first time Mahatma Gandhi employed his non-violent resistance method, Satyagraha, in India. It was a successful peasant uprising against the oppressive indigo cultivation practices imposed by British planters in the Champaran district of Bihar, India.

Background

• In the early 20th century, British planters in Champaran forced tenant farmers to cultivate indigo, a dye-producing plant, on a significant portion of their land.
• This cultivation was highly exploitative, as the planters paid farmers a meagre price for indigo, leaving them in poverty.
• Additionally, the planters imposed a system known as “teen kathiya,” which forced farmers to devote 20% of their land to indigo cultivation, even if they could not afford to do so.

Gandhi’s Intervention

• In 1917, Mahatma Gandhi, who had recently returned to India from South Africa, was invited by Rajkumar Shukla, a local farmer leader, to investigate the plight of Champaran peasants.
• Gandhi was appalled by the oppressive conditions and decided to organize a Satyagraha movement to resist the indigo planters.
• Gandhi established an ashram in Champaran and began organizing villagers to protest against the indigo planters.
• He instructed them to disobey the unjust indigo cultivation laws and to plant food crops instead.
• Gandhi also encouraged them to boycott British goods and to spin their own cloth, reducing their dependence on British imports.
• The British government initially responded to the Champaran Satyagraha with repression, arresting some of the protesters and attempting to intimidate others.
• However, Gandhi’s non-violent resistance and the growing support among the villagers forced the British to reconsider their position.

Outcome and Significance

• In 1918, the British government appointed the Champaran Agrarian Inquiry Committee to investigate the conditions in Champaran.
• The committee’s report found in favour of the peasants and recommended reforms, including the abolition of the “teen kathiya” system and the introduction of fair compensation for indigo cultivation.
• The Champaran Satyagraha was a significant victory for the Indian independence movement and marked a turning point in Gandhi’s leadership.
• It demonstrated the effectiveness of Satyagraha as a non-violent method of resistance and inspired millions of Indians to join the struggle for freedom from British rule.

The Ahmedabad Mill Strike of 1918 was a significant event in the Indian independence movement, demonstrating the power of workers’ collective action and shaping the development of Gandhi’s philosophy of non-violent resistance.

During World War I, the textile industry in Ahmedabad, India, experienced significant economic hardship due to rising prices and declining profits. This led to a decrease in wages for mill workers, who were already struggling to make ends meet.

Spark of Rebellion

• In 1918, the mill owners announced a further reduction in wages, sparking widespread discontent among workers.
• The strike began on February 21, 1918, with a march of over 10,000 workers demanding a restoration of their wages and an improvement in working conditions.
• Mahatma Gandhi, who was already gaining recognition for his leadership in the Champaran Satyagraha, was invited by the mill workers to support their cause.
• Gandhi recognized the strike as an opportunity to apply his principles of non-violent resistance to the working class movement.
• Under Gandhi’s guidance, the strike took on a nonviolent approach. Workers pledged to abstain from violence and to use their picketing and demonstrations to peacefully express their grievances.
• Gandhi also organized charkhas (spinning wheels) to encourage workers to spin their own cloth, reducing their reliance on British imports.
• The British government initially attempted to suppress the strike-through force, arresting some of the leaders and threatening violence.
• However, the nonviolent resistance of the workers and the support of the wider community forced the government to reconsider its approach.

Outcome and Significance

• After seven months, the Ahmedabad Mill Strike resulted in a partial victory for the workers.
• The mill owners agreed to increase wages and improve working conditions, but they did not fully meet all the workers’ demands.
• However, the strike proved to be a turning point in the Indian independence movement, demonstrating the effectiveness of non-violent resistance in achieving social and economic justice.
• The Ahmedabad Mill Strike also had a profound impact on Gandhi’s philosophy.
• He realized that non-violent resistance could be effectively employed not just against political oppression but also against economic exploitation.
• This insight further solidified his commitment to non-violent resistance as a means to achieve social change.

The Ahmedabad Mill Strike was a landmark event in the Indian independence movement, demonstrating the power of worker solidarity and the effectiveness of non-violent resistance in achieving social justice. It also played a significant role in shaping Gandhi’s philosophy of Satyagraha and its application to broader social and economic issues.

The Kheda Satyagraha was a peasant uprising in the Kheda district of Gujarat, India, in 1918. It was led by Mahatma Gandhi and was a major victory for the Indian independence movement.

Reasons 

• The Kheda Satyagraha began on March 22, 1918, with a meeting of peasants in Nadiad, the district headquarters of Kheda. At the meeting, the peasants pledged to refuse to pay the tax increase.
• The British government imposed a 23% increase in land taxes on the peasantry of Kheda.
• This was a major blow to the peasantry, who were already struggling to make ends meet.
• In 1918, Gandhi was invited by the peasant leaders of Kheda to help them resist the tax increase.
• Gandhi arrived in Kheda on March 27, 1918, and he immediately began organizing the Satyagraha movement. He met with the peasants, encouraged them to continue their resistance, and provided them with financial assistance.
• Gandhi instructed the peasants to refuse to pay the tax and to offer nonviolent resistance to any attempt to collect it. He also encouraged them to boycott British goods and to spin their own cloth.
• The British government initially responded to the Satyagraha with repression, arresting some of the leaders including Mohanlal Pandya and Shankarlal Parikh and threatening violence.
• The Satyagraha continued, despite the repression. In June 1918, the government agreed to reduce the tax by 20%. This was a significant victory for the peasants of Kheda and the Indian independence movement.

Outcome and Significance

• After several months, the British government agreed to reduce the tax by 20%.
• This was a significant victory for the peasants of Kheda and the Indian independence movement.
• The Kheda Satyagraha demonstrated the effectiveness of Satyagraha as a non-violent method of resistance.
• It also helped to raise awareness of the plight of the peasantry and to build support for the Indian independence movement.

The Kheda Satyagraha had a profound impact on the Indian independence movement. It demonstrated the effectiveness of Satyagraha as a non-violent method of resistance and helped to raise awareness of the plight of the peasantry. The Satyagraha also helped to build support for the Indian National Congress and to strengthen Gandhi’s leadership.

The Government of India Act of 1919, also known as the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms, was a significant piece of legislation enacted by the British Parliament to expand Indian participation in the government of India. Introduced by Edwin Montagu, the Secretary of State for India, and Lord Chelmsford, the Viceroy of India, the act aimed to gradually introduce self-governing institutions in India, paving the way for eventual independence.

Key Features of the Government of India Act, 1919

• The act introduced a system of dyarchy, dividing the government into two parts: provincial and central. At the provincial level, certain subjects, such as education, health, and public works, were transferred to Indian ministers, while others, such as finance, law and order, and defence, remained under British control.
• The act enlarged the legislative councils, both at the provincial and central levels and increased the representation of Indians through elections and nominations.
• The act established the Public Service Commission, an independent body responsible for recruiting and promoting government officials, aimed to ensure fairness and impartiality in the recruitment process.
• The act expanded the franchise, granting voting rights to a larger section of the Indian population, albeit based on property and literacy qualifications.
• The act created the office of the High Commissioner for India in London, providing a direct representation of the Indian government in Britain.
• Provinces were granted greater autonomy in certain areas, such as education, public health, and local self-government.

Impact of the Government of India Act, 1919

• The act provided limited self-governance, allowing Indians to participate in the administration of certain subjects, but it fell short of satisfying the aspirations of many Indians who desired complete independence.
• The act introduced communal representation, reserving seats in the legislatures for different religious and social groups, which sowed the seeds of communalism and hindered the development of national unity.
• The act laid the groundwork for further reforms, such as the Government of India Act of 1935, which further expanded Indian participation in the government.
• The act’s limitations led to the rise of the Non-Cooperation Movement, led by Mahatma Gandhi, which sought to completely dismantle the British administration.
• The act received mixed reactions, with some Indians welcoming the reforms as a step towards self-governance, while others criticized it for its limitations and perceived favouritism towards certain groups.

The Government of India Act of 1919, though flawed and limited in scope, marked a significant step in the evolution of Indian politics. It introduced the concept of dyarchy, expanded Indian representation in the legislatures, and established the Public Service Commission. However, it fell short of meeting the aspirations of many Indians, leading to further agitation and ultimately contributing to the Indian independence movement.

Rowlatt Act

The Rowlatt Act, also known as the Anarchical and Revolutionary Crimes Act, was a controversial piece of legislation passed by the British government in 1919. It gave the British authorities wide-ranging powers to arrest, detain, and imprison individuals suspected of sedition or other political offences. The act was widely criticized by Indian nationalists, who saw it as an attempt to suppress dissent and stifle the independence movement.

Background

The Rowlatt Act was drafted by a committee headed by Sir Sidney Rowlatt, a British judge. The committee was appointed in February 1918 to investigate seditious activities in India. The committee’s report, submitted in July 1918, recommended the enactment of special measures to deal with these activities.

Key Provisions of the Rowlatt Act

• The act empowered the authorities to arrest and detains suspects without trial for up to two years.
• The act provided the government with the power to seize publications and restrict printing presses if they were deemed to be seditious.
• The act allowed for special trials without a jury for certain offences, making it easier to convict suspects.
• The act gave the authorities the power to restrict movement, regulate gatherings, and impose curfews.

Impact of the Rowlatt Act

• The act sparked widespread protests and demonstrations across India, as it was seen as an attack on civil liberties and a curtailment of political freedom.
• The act led to the intensification of the Non-Cooperation Movement, a nationwide campaign launched by Mahatma Gandhi to resist British rule.
• The Rowlatt Act contributed to the tragic Jallianwala Bagh massacre, in which British troops fired upon a peaceful gathering of unarmed civilians, killing hundreds of people.
• The Rowlatt Act became a symbol of British oppression and further fuelled the desire for Indian independence.

Repeal of the Rowlatt Act

The widespread opposition to the Rowlatt Act forced the British government to reconsider its stance. The public outcry against the act and the growing unrest in India made it difficult for the British to maintain the law. After facing intense criticism and pressure, the British government repealed the Rowlatt Act in 1922.

Jallianwala Bagh Massacre

The Jallianwala Bagh Massacre was a tragic event that took place on April 13, 1919, in Amritsar, Punjab, during British colonial rule in India. It is one of the darkest chapters in the history of the Indian freedom struggle and a symbol of British brutality and oppression.

Background

The massacre occurred against the backdrop of the repressive Rowlatt Act, which had been passed by the British government in India in 1919. The act granted sweeping powers to the British authorities to arrest and detain Indians without trial and curtailed civil liberties.

The Massacre

• On the fateful day, a large crowd of Indians gathered in Jallianwala Bagh, a public garden, to peacefully protest the Rowlatt Act and other repressive measures.
• The garden was surrounded by high walls and had only one narrow entrance.
• Brigadier General Reginald Dyer, the officer in charge of Amritsar, arrived with a contingent of fifty soldiers and two armoured cars.
• Without giving any warning to the crowd to disperse or any way for them to leave, Dyer ordered his troops to open fire on the unarmed civilians.
• They continued firing for about ten minutes until they ran out of ammunition.
• The troops even targeted those attempting to escape by jumping into a well within the garden.

Casualties and Consequences

• The massacre resulted in the deaths of 379 people, with over 1,200 injured. The victims included men, women, and children.
• The massacre shocked the world and became a defining moment in the Indian independence movement.
• The Jallianwala Bagh Massacre sparked outrage and condemnation not only in India but also across the world.
• It led to a profound sense of anger and a surge in demands for India’s independence from British rule.
• Mahatma Gandhi, who had not been an advocate of non-cooperation with the British until then, was deeply affected by the massacre and shifted his stance, eventually leading nationwide protests and campaigns for freedom.
• Brigadier General Dyer was relieved of duty but received support and approval from some quarters in Britain.
• He defended his actions as necessary to maintain control and order.
• Dyer’s actions were widely criticized by others in Britain, and a debate about his conduct in the House of Commons led to a censure, but no further punitive action was taken against him.

The Rowlatt Act and the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre marked a turning point in the Indian independence movement. They galvanized Indians to stand up against repressive colonial laws and fuelled the demand for self-rule and constitutional reforms. The events of 1919 are seen as significant catalysts in the larger struggle for India’s independence, which culminated in the country gaining freedom from British rule in 1947.

The Khilafat Movement was a significant socio-religious and political movement in India during the early 20th century. It was launched to protest against the disintegration of the Ottoman Caliphate and to support the cause of the Khilafat (Caliphate) and the non-cooperation movement against British colonial rule. 

Background

The Ottoman Empire, based in Turkey, was a major Muslim power, and the Ottoman Sultan also held the title of Caliph, the religious leader of the Muslim world. During World War I, the Ottoman Empire was one of the Central Powers. After the war, the victorious Allied Powers, including Britain, France, and Italy, planned to dismember the Ottoman Empire through the Treaty of Sèvres. This treaty threatened the existence of the Ottoman Caliphate.

Objectives of the Khilafat Movement

• The primary objective of the Khilafat Movement was to safeguard the authority and sanctity of the Ottoman Caliphate. Indian Muslims felt a religious duty to protect the Caliph, who was regarded as the spiritual leader of the global Muslim community.
• The Khilafat leaders, including Mahatma Gandhi and the Ali Brothers (Maulana Mohammad Ali and Maulana Shaukat Ali), combined the Khilafat cause with the non-cooperation movement against British rule in India. They believed that supporting the Khilafat was a way to mobilize Indian Muslims and gain their support for the broader struggle against colonialism.

Key Events and Features

• The All-India Khilafat Committee was formed in 1919, with prominent leaders like the Ali Brothers and Mahatma Gandhi at the forefront.
• The movement involved a boycott of British-made goods, non-payment of taxes, and non-cooperation with the British government. Protests, strikes, and public meetings were organized across India.
• The Khilafat Movement had a pan-Indian character, with mass participation by Muslims from various regions.
• The movement received widespread support, and non-Muslim leaders and organizations, including the Indian National Congress, extended their solidarity.

Challenges and Outcomes

• Despite the widespread protest, the Ottoman Caliphate could not be saved. In 1924, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk abolished the Caliphate in Turkey.
• While the movement did not achieve its primary objective, it played a pivotal role in mobilizing Muslims and strengthening Hindu-Muslim unity in the struggle against British colonialism.
• The Khilafat Movement was an important precursor to the non-cooperation and civil disobedience movements led by Mahatma Gandhi. It demonstrated the power of nonviolent resistance in the fight for India’s independence.

The Khilafat Movement is remembered for its role in the larger Indian freedom struggle and for fostering unity between Hindus and Muslims in their quest for self-rule and independence from British colonial rule.

The Non-Cooperation Movement was a nationwide campaign of civil disobedience launched in British India in 1920 by Mahatma Gandhi to protest against the British Raj and to promote Swaraj (self-rule). The movement was based on the principles of Satyagraha, a philosophy of nonviolent resistance developed by Gandhi. 

Background

The Rowlatt Act passed in 1919, and the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre of the same year had deeply angered Indians. The oppressive legislation and the brutal massacre led to widespread protests. The Khilafat Movement, launched to support the Ottoman Caliphate, was in full swing. Mahatma Gandhi saw an opportunity to unite Hindus and Muslims in a common struggle against British rule.

Objectives of the Non-Cooperation Movement

• The primary objective of the Non-Cooperation Movement was to secure complete independence from British colonial rule.
• Indians were urged to boycott government institutions, courts, schools, and colleges.
• It encouraged nonviolent resistance and non-cooperation with oppressive laws, taxes, and policies. People were asked to peacefully defy unjust British laws and practices.

Key Events and Features

•  The movement was formally launched on August 1, 1920, with the suspension of cooperation with the British government. It began with the return of honours and titles awarded by the British.
• People were urged to boycott British-made goods and promote the use of swadeshi (locally produced) goods.
• Thousands of Indians voluntarily surrendered their British titles and honours as a mark of protest.
• Indian lawyers, students, and teachers boycotted British-controlled courts, schools, and colleges.
• Large-scale protests, hartals (strikes), and nonviolent marches became common across India.
• The movement was marked by nonviolent resistance, but the Chauri Chaura incident in 1922, where a police station was set on fire and 22 policemen were killed, led Gandhi to call off the movement.

Challenges and Outcomes

• The Non-Cooperation Movement had a profound impact on Indian society. It mobilized millions of people, instilling a sense of patriotism and self-reliance.
• The movement established nonviolent resistance as a potent weapon for achieving political and social change. Mahatma Gandhi’s leadership and his emphasis on ahimsa (nonviolence) became central to the Indian freedom struggle.
• The Chauri Chaura incident, which turned violent, led to Mahatma Gandhi suspending the movement in 1922, as he was concerned about maintaining its nonviolent character.
• While the movement did not lead to immediate independence, it contributed to the Indian Nationalist Movement’s growing strength and set the stage for future struggles.

The Non-Cooperation Movement left a lasting legacy in India’s struggle for freedom. It showed that the masses had the power to challenge British authority and laid the foundation for the Civil Disobedience Movement and the eventual attainment of India’s independence.

The Bardoli Resolution was a major turning point in the Indian independence movement; marking a shift from the more confrontational Non-Cooperation Movement towards a more focused and disciplined campaign of civil disobedience.

• In 1928, the British government imposed a 22% increase in land revenue in the Bardoli region of Gujarat, India. This decision was met with widespread resentment among the peasants, who were already struggling to make ends meet due to low crop yields and the harsh conditions of British rule.
• Under the leadership of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, the peasants of Bardoli launched a Satyagraha, a nonviolent resistance movement, to protest the unjust tax hike. They pledged to withhold their taxes and to boycott government institutions, such as courts and schools.
• In November 1928, the Indian National Congress adopted the Bardoli Resolution, which outlined a strategy for carrying out civil disobedience on a nationwide scale. The resolution called for a united front of all Indians, regardless of religious or caste differences, to resist British rule through peaceful means.

Key Provisions of the Bardoli Resolution

• The resolution emphasized the need for a strong organizational structure to coordinate and support the civil disobedience movement.
• The resolution reiterated the importance of nonviolence as the cornerstone of the movement, emphasizing the need for peaceful protests and civil disobedience.
• The resolution outlined a gradual escalation of the movement, starting with non-violent protests and boycotts, and moving to more disruptive actions, such as strikes and non-payment of taxes, as the movement gained momentum.
• The resolution encouraged Indians to become self-reliant by developing their own industries, crafts, and agricultural practices, reducing their dependence on British goods and services.
• The resolution called for international support for the Indian independence movement and appealed to the international community to pressure the British government to grant India self-rule.

Significance

• The Bardoli Satyagraha, like other movements of its time, reinforced the effectiveness of nonviolent resistance in India’s struggle for independence.
• Vallabhbhai Patel’s leadership and the success of the Bardoli Satyagraha earned him the title of the “Iron Man of India” and established him as a prominent figure in the Indian Nationalist Movement.
• The movement demonstrated the power of unity and mass mobilization in achieving social and political goals.
• The Bardoli Resolution inspired and energized similar movements across India, where people adopted nonviolent methods to resist colonial policies.

The Bardoli Resolution marked a significant shift in the Indian independence movement, moving away from the more spontaneous and mass-based Non-Cooperation Movement towards a more disciplined and organized campaign of civil disobedience. It also highlighted the importance of nonviolence as a strategy to challenge British rule.

The Nagpur Session of the Indian National Congress was held in December 1920, and it marked a turning point in the Indian independence movement. The session adopted a more radical approach to achieving self-rule, calling for a nationwide campaign of civil disobedience, the Non-Cooperation Movement.

Background

The Non-Cooperation Movement was launched by Mahatma Gandhi and the Indian National Congress in response to the Jallianwala Bagh massacre (1919) and the Rowlatt Act. It aimed to boycott British institutions, products, and services. The Congress had adopted a resolution for “dominion status” at the December 1919 session, marking the first time the demand for self-government was explicitly included in the Congress agenda.

Key Points and Outcomes

• The Nagpur Session endorsed the Non-Cooperation Movement and extended support for its continuation. The session emphasized the importance of nonviolence as the guiding principle of the movement.
• At this session, Lala Lajpat Rai was elected as the President of the Congress. He succeeded Annie Besant. The choice of Lala Lajpat Rai indicated a shift in the leadership from a moderate approach to a more assertive and militant form of protest.
• The Congress adopted a resolution to endorse the Non-Cooperation Movement in its entirety. It called for the boycott of government schools, colleges, courts, and legislatures. People were urged to withdraw from government service and non-violently resist British rule.
• The Nagpur Session saw the active involvement of young leaders such as Jawaharlal Nehru, Subhas Chandra Bose, and others who would later play key roles in the freedom struggle. Jawaharlal Nehru played a pivotal role in making the Non-Cooperation Movement more appealing to the youth and involving them in the struggle. The session advocated the boycott of British titles and honours.
• The session reflected a growing determination among Congress leaders to push for complete self-government and dominion status for India. This marked a significant shift from the earlier demand for reforms within the British colonial framework.
• The term “Swaraj” (self-rule or self-governance) became a central theme during the Nagpur Session. The Congress aimed to achieve Swaraj through nonviolent resistance.
• The session provided a renewed sense of purpose and direction to the freedom movement. It inspired the masses to actively participate in the struggle against British colonial rule.
• The Nagpur Session laid the groundwork for extensive mass mobilization and people’s participation in the freedom struggle, especially during the Non-Cooperation and Civil Disobedience Movements that followed.

Significance

The Nagpur Session of 1920 is historically significant for several reasons:

• It marked a significant shift in the Indian National Congress’s approach to the freedom struggle, with a stronger emphasis on nonviolent resistance and the demand for complete self-government.
• The session’s resolutions and decisions played a crucial role in shaping the trajectory of the freedom movement and influenced the strategies adopted in subsequent movements.
• The emergence of leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru and Subhas Chandra Bose, who were actively involved in the session, set the stage for their future leadership roles in the struggle for independence.
• The session inspired a renewed spirit of nationalism and mass participation, which contributed to the success of the Non-Cooperation and Civil Disobedience Movements.

The Nagpur Session of the Congress was a pivotal moment in India’s struggle for independence, as it provided clarity of purpose, strong leadership, and a mass movement that would eventually lead to the end of British colonial rule in India.

The Swaraj Party was a faction within the Indian National Congress (INC) that advocated for a more aggressive approach to achieving self-rule from British rule. The party was formed in 1923 by C.R. Das and Motilal Nehru, who were dissatisfied with the INC’s more moderate approach under Mahatma Gandhi’s leadership.

Formation and Objectives

The Swaraj Party was formed in January 1923 by Motilal Nehru and Chittaranjan Das, both prominent leaders of the Indian National Congress. They were among those who disagreed with Mahatma Gandhi’s decision to suspend the Non-Cooperation Movement following the Chauri Chaura incident in 1922.

The primary objective of the Swaraj Party was to seek self-government or dominion status within the British Empire for India. While they shared the overall goal of independence with Gandhi, they believed that active participation in legislative bodies under the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms could help advance the cause of self-government.

Evaluation Positive Aspects

• The Swaraj Party’s decision to contest elections and work within the colonial legislative framework allowed them to influence policy and demand reforms from within. They saw this as a pragmatic approach to gain self-government incrementally.
• The party consistently demanded responsible government in India, which was a step closer to self-rule. They used the legislative platform to push for reforms and hold the British accountable for their actions.
• Swaraj Party members actively engaged in addressing socio-economic issues and promoting people’s welfare through legislation. This approach demonstrated their commitment to improving the lives of ordinary citizens.
• The Swaraj Party’s participation in the legislative process contributed to the development of constitutional practices and a better understanding of parliamentary democracy in India.
• The Swaraj Party’s legal and constitutional methods provided an alternative channel for political expression and organization in the absence of the mass mobilization of the Non-Cooperation Movement.

Criticisms

• The formation of the Swaraj Party led to a split within the Indian National Congress. While Motilal Nehru and Chittaranjan Das led the Swaraj Party, Mahatma Gandhi and other Congress leaders remained committed to nonviolent resistance outside the legislative framework. This division weakened the overall movement.
• Despite participating in legislative bodies, the Swaraj Party’s success in achieving self-government within the British Empire was limited. The British government was not fully committed to transferring power.
• The shift from mass mobilization to parliamentary politics led to a decline in the mass support that was integral to the earlier phases of the freedom struggle.
• The British government sometimes used constitutional measures to manipulate the political landscape in India. The Government of India Act 1919 (Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms) was seen as a way to co-opt moderate elements and divide the Indian political leadership.
• The British government was often unresponsive to the demands of the Swaraj Party and continued to maintain control over crucial aspects of governance.

The Swaraj Party’s approach to achieving self-government through constitutional means had its merits, including participation in legislative bodies and advocacy for responsible government. However, it also faced criticism for its limited success and the split it created within the Indian National Congress. The Swaraj Party’s role in the broader struggle for Indian independence is a subject of historical debate, but it reflects the diversity of strategies and tactics employed during the freedom movement.

The Muddiman Committee, also known as the Reforms Enquiry Committee, was a committee set up by the British government in 1924 to investigate the working of the dyarchy system of government introduced under the Government of India Act of 1919. The committee was headed by Sir Alexander Muddiman, a retired British civil servant, and consisted of Sir Sivaswami Aiyar, Dr R P Paranjape, Sir Tejbahadur Sapru, Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Bijoy Chand Mahtab.

Background

The dyarchy system, which divided the administration of provinces into reserved and transferred subjects, was a controversial experiment in Indian governance. The Indian National Congress and other nationalist organizations strongly criticized the system, arguing that it was too limited and did not provide adequate representation to Indians.

Objectives of the Muddiman Committee

The Muddiman Committee was tasked with examining the working of the dyarchy system and making recommendations for its improvement. The committee was specifically asked to consider the following questions:

1. Whether the diarchy system was working effectively and efficiently
2. Whether the system was promoting cooperation between the transferred and reserved departments
3. Whether the system was providing adequate representation to Indians in the government

Recommendations of the Muddiman Committee

The Muddiman Committee submitted its report in 1925. The report was divided into two parts: a majority report and a minority report.

The majority report, signed by the British members of the committee, concluded that the dyarchy system had not been given a fair trial and that it was too early to judge its success or failure. The committee recommended only minor changes to the system, such as expanding the powers of the provincial legislatures.

The minority report, signed by the Indian members of the committee, was more critical of the dyarchy system. The committee argued that the system was fundamentally flawed and that it was not possible to make it work effectively. The committee recommended that the dyarchy system be abolished and replaced with a system of full self-government.

Impact of the Muddiman Committee

• The Muddiman Committee report had a significant impact on British policy in India. The British government accepted the majority report’s conclusion that the dyarchy system should be given more time to work.
• However, the government also recognized that the system was unpopular with Indians and that it would need to be reformed in the future.
• The Muddiman Committee report also helped to consolidate Indian nationalist opinion.
• The report’s criticism of the dyarchy system reinforced the belief among many Indians that the British were not willing to grant India genuine self-government.
• This contributed to the growing demand for full independence.

The Muddiman Committee was an important turning point in the Indian independence movement. The committee’s report helped to highlight the flaws of the dyarchy system and to strengthen the demand for full self-government. The report also played a role in shaping British policy in India in the years leading up to independence in 1947.

The Simon Commission, also known as the Indian Statutory Commission, was a seven-member commission appointed by the British government in 1927 to study the constitutional reforms in British India. The commission was headed by Sir John Simon, a British politician, and consisted of seven British members, but no Indian members.

Background

The Simon Commission was appointed in response to the growing demand for self-government in India. The Indian National Congress and other nationalist organizations had been campaigning for constitutional reforms for many years, but the British government had been reluctant to grant any significant concessions.

Objectives of the Simon Commission

The Simon Commission was tasked with examining the working of the Government of India Act of 1919 and making recommendations for its reform. The commission was specifically asked to consider the following questions:

1. Whether the dyarchy system was working effectively and efficiently
2. Whether the system was promoting cooperation between the transferred and reserved departments
3. Whether the system was providing adequate representation to Indians in the government

The Simon Commission was boycotted by the Indian National Congress and other nationalist organizations. The Indians were outraged that the commission had no Indian members and that it had been appointed without consulting them.

The Simon Commission submitted its report in 1930. The report recommended several constitutional reforms, including the expansion of the provincial legislatures, the introduction of direct elections for the Central Legislative Assembly, and the establishment of a federal system of government in India.

Impact of the Simon Commission

• The Simon Commission report was rejected by the Indian National Congress and other nationalist organizations.
• The Indians argued that the report did not go far enough and that it did not meet their demands for self-government.
• The Simon Commission report also hurt British-Indian relations.
• The boycott of the commission by the Indians and the subsequent rejection of its report further alienated the Indian people from the British government.

The Simon Commission was a controversial episode in Indian history. The commission’s appointment without consulting the Indians and its lack of Indian members were seen as insults to the Indian people. The commission’s report, which was rejected by the Indians, further widened the rift between the Indians and the British government. The Simon Commission played a role in the rise of Indian nationalism and the eventual achievement of Indian independence in 1947.

The Bardoli Satyagraha, also known as the Bardoli Farmers’ Revolt, was a nonviolent protest movement in India against the British government’s decision to increase land revenue in the Bardoli region of Gujarat. The movement was led by Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, who was later known as the “Iron Man of India” for his role in the Indian independence movement.

Background

• The Bardoli region was a fertile agricultural area in Gujarat, India.
• The farmers in the region were already struggling to make ends meet due to low crop yields and the harsh conditions of British rule.
• In 1928, the British government decided to increase land revenue in the region by 22%.
• This decision was met with widespread resentment among the farmers, who saw it as an unjust burden.

The Satyagraha

• Under the leadership of Sardar Patel, the farmers of Bardoli launched a Satyagraha, a nonviolent resistance movement, to protest the land revenue increase.
• They pledged to withhold their taxes and to boycott government institutions, such as courts and schools.
• The Satyagraha lasted for four months, and it was a major success.
• The British government eventually agreed to reduce the land revenue increase to 6.03%.
• The Bardoli Satyagraha was a major turning point in the Indian independence movement, and it helped to solidify Sardar Patel’s position as a national leader.

Significance

• The Bardoli Satyagraha was a major turning point in the Indian independence movement.
• The success of the satyagraha boosted the morale of the Indian people and solidified Sardar Patel’s position as a national leader.
• The satyagraha also helped to pave the way for the Salt March and the Quit India Movement, which ultimately led to India’s independence in 1947.
• The Bardoli Satyagraha had a significant impact on the Indian independence movement.
• The success of the Satyagraha demonstrated the power of nonviolent resistance and helped to inspire other peasant uprisings throughout India.
• The Satyagraha also helped to strengthen the Indian National Congress and to unite the Indian people in their struggle for independence.

The Bardoli Satyagraha was a landmark event in the Indian independence movement. It was a successful example of nonviolent resistance, and it helped to inspire other peasant uprisings in India. The Satyagraha also had a major impact on Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, who would go on to become one of the most important leaders of the independence movement.

The Nehru Report, also known as the Report of the All Parties Conference Committee, was a document released in 1928 that outlined a proposed constitution for a self-governing India. The report was drafted by a committee headed by Motilal Nehru, with his son Jawaharlal Nehru serving as secretary.

• The Nehru Report called for a dominion status for India within the British Empire, with a federal system of government and a bill of fundamental rights.
• The report also proposed several social and economic reforms, such as the abolition of untouchability and the promotion of women’s rights.
• The Nehru Report was a significant document in the Indian independence movement.
• It was the first time that the various Indian nationalist groups had been able to agree on a common constitutional framework.
• The report was also a bold and ambitious document, calling for a radical transformation of Indian society.

Key Features of the Nehru Report

• The Nehru Report demanded the establishment of a dominion status for India within the British Commonwealth.
• It proposed a federal structure with residuary powers vested in the centre.
• The report recommended substantial autonomy for provinces, with a system of responsible government.
• The report advocated for separate electorates for Muslims, but with the provision for reserved seats for non-Muslims in Muslim-majority provinces.
• It included a chapter on fundamental rights, emphasizing individual liberties and equality before the law.
• The Nehru Report proposed safeguards for the rights of religious and linguistic minorities.

Muslim Response

• The Nehru Report was accepted by most political parties, including the Indian National Congress.
• However, the All India Muslim League, under the leadership of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, rejected the report.
• Jinnah presented the Fourteen Points in response, outlining the Muslim League’s demands for political safeguards.

The Nehru Report was rejected by the British government but it had a lasting impact on the Indian independence movement. The report’s proposals formed the basis for the Indian Constitution, which was adopted after independence in 1947.

The Nehru Report represented a united front among various Indian political leaders against the colonial government’s attempt to frame constitutional reforms without Indian representation. While it marked an important step in the constitutional evolution of India, it also highlighted the communal divisions that would later become more pronounced during the struggle for independence.

The Nehru Report was a landmark document in the Indian independence movement. It was a comprehensive attempt to draft a constitution for India that would be acceptable to all Indians. The report was rejected by the British government, but it played an important role in uniting Indians behind a common goal and in laying the foundation for future constitutional negotiations. The Nehru Report’s emphasis on dominion status, a federal system of government, a bill of rights, and social reforms helped to shape the Government of India Act of 1935 and the Indian Constitution of 1950.

Jinnah’s Fourteen Points were a set of constitutional demands proposed by Muhammad Ali Jinnah in 1929. The points were presented as a response to the Nehru Report, which had been drafted by a committee of Indian leaders and called for dominion status for India within the British Empire.

Jinnah’s Fourteen Points were more radical than the Nehru Report, and they reflected his growing belief that a separate Muslim homeland was necessary to protect the interests of Muslims in India.

The Fourteen Points of Jinnah were as follows

1. The points emphasized the establishment of a federal system of government with the provinces as autonomous units.
2. There should be adequate representation for Muslims in all legislative bodies proportionate to their population, and representation should be separate for all communities.
3. Muslims should have the right to elect their own representatives through separate electorates.
4. To ensure Muslim representation in legislative bodies, Jinnah proposed a system of weightage where seats for Muslims would be increased to maintain their proportionate representation.
5. Muslims should be given adequate and fair representation in all services, especially in public services.
6. Full religious freedom should be guaranteed to all communities, and no law should be enacted that goes against Islamic principles.
7. Measures should be taken to protect and preserve the social, economic, and cultural rights of Muslims.
8. Full autonomy should be given to Sindh.
9. The people of North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) should have the right to determine their own destiny.
10. Similar to NWFP, the people of Baluchistan should also be given the right to determine their own destiny.
11. To secure a Muslim majority in the Punjab, areas with a Muslim majority should be separated from non-Muslim majority areas.
12. Muslims should be given one-third representation in the central legislature.
13. To rectify the communal imbalance, Bengal should be reassessed with the principle of one-third representation for Muslims.
14. No constitutional plan would be acceptable to Muslims unless it was framed with their approval.

Impact of the Fourteen Points

• Jinnah’s Fourteen Points had a significant impact on the Indian independence movement.
• The points were initially rejected by the Indian National Congress, but they were eventually accepted by the Congress in 1940, leading to the Lucknow Pact of 1940.
• The Lucknow Pact was a major step towards the eventual partition of India.
• Jinnah’s Fourteen Points also helped to strengthen the All-India Muslim League and to increase its support among Muslims in India.
• The League became the sole representative of Muslims in India, and Jinnah emerged as the undisputed leader of the Muslim community.

Jinnah’s Fourteen Points were a landmark document in the Indian independence movement. The points played a key role in shaping the constitutional negotiations between the Indian National Congress, the All-India Muslim League, and the British government. The points also helped to strengthen the Muslim League and to increase its support among Muslims in India.

The Lahore Session of the Indian National Congress in 1929 was a watershed moment in the Indian independence movement. The session was attended by over 15,000 delegates, and it marked a shift in the Congress’s approach to achieving self-rule.

Key Decisions of the Lahore Session

• The session adopted a resolution declaring that India’s goal was Purna Swaraj or complete independence. This was a significant departure from the Congress’s previous stance, which had been to seek dominion status within the British Empire.
• The session also adopted a resolution on non-cooperation. This resolution called for a boycott of British goods and institutions, as well as a withdrawal of cooperation from the government.
• The Lahore Session decided that 26th January 1930 would be observed as Independence Day, which would be celebrated every year until India achieved complete independence.
• The session passed the Salt March Resolution, which called for a nationwide campaign of civil disobedience to protest the British salt tax.
• The session also adopted a resolution on fundamental rights and economic programmes. This resolution called for several social and economic reforms, including the abolition of untouchability, the introduction of universal adult suffrage, and the development of heavy industry.
• The session authorized the Indian National Congress to launch a Civil Disobedience Movement against British rule. This movement aimed at non-violent non-cooperation with unjust laws and demands.
• The Lahore Session showcased the emergence of Mahatma Gandhi as the undisputed leader of the Indian National Congress. His emphasis on non-violent civil disobedience became a central tenet of the freedom struggle.
• The session also reaffirmed the authority of the Congress Working Committee (CWC) and granted it the power to launch mass struggles, marking a departure from the earlier approach of seeking constitutional and moderate means.

Significance of the Lahore Session

The Lahore Session was a significant event in the Indian independence movement for several reasons.

1. It marked a shift in the Congress’s approach to achieving self-rule. The Congress had previously been willing to work within the British system to achieve its goals, but the Lahore Session declared that India’s goal was complete independence.
2. The Lahore Session adopted several progressive social and economic reforms. These reforms were designed to address the needs of the Indian people and to create a more just and equitable society.
3. The Lahore Session launched a new phase of the Indian independence movement. The non-cooperation movement that was launched in the wake of the session was the most widespread and sustained mass movement in Indian history.

The Lahore Session of the Indian National Congress in 1929 was a watershed moment in the Indian independence movement. The session marked a shift in Congress’s approach to achieving self-rule, adopted several progressive social and economic reforms and launched a new phase of the independence movement. The Lahore Session was a significant step towards India’s eventual independence in 1947.

The Allahabad Address of 1930 refers to a significant speech delivered by Allama Muhammad Iqbal, a prominent poet, philosopher, and politician, during the 25th annual session of the All-India Muslim League. The address took place on December 29, 1930, in Allahabad, India. The Allahabad Address is often considered a key intellectual milestone in the articulation of the idea of an independent Muslim state, which eventually led to the creation of Pakistan.

Key Points of the Allahabad Address

• Allama Iqbal, in his address, outlined his vision for a separate Muslim state in the northwest regions of India. He proposed the formation of an independent Muslim state to safeguard the political, cultural, and economic rights of Muslims.
• Iqbal suggested that the Muslim state should consist of autonomous regions within the Indian federation, where Muslims could freely develop their cultural, social, and economic life. He emphasized the idea of decentralization to empower local Muslim-majority areas.
• Iqbal conceptualized Muslims as a distinct nation with its own cultural, historical, and social identity. He argued that the cultural and religious differences between Hindus and Muslims were so profound that they warranted separate political entities.
• Allama Iqbal stressed that the constitution of the Muslim state should embody the principles of justice and equality as outlined in Islam. He called for a political system that adhered to the teachings of the Quran and the traditions of the Prophet Muhammad.
• While advocating for a separate Muslim state, Iqbal also emphasized the importance of friendly and cooperative relations between the proposed Muslim state and other communities in the Indian subcontinent. He envisaged a South Asian federation where various nations coexisted.
• The Allahabad Address laid the intellectual groundwork for the later demand for Pakistan. Although the term “Pakistan” was not explicitly used in the address, Iqbal’s vision became a foundational idea for the Muslim League’s demand for a separate Muslim state.
• The Allahabad Address is considered a precursor to Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s advocacy for Pakistan and the eventual creation of the country in 1947. Jinnah, the leader of the All-India Muslim League, later transformed Iqbal’s vision into a political reality.

The Allahabad Address is regarded as a pivotal moment in the evolution of the demand for a separate Muslim state and the shaping of the ideology that led to the establishment of Pakistan.