History: Towards Mass Involvement

  • Posted by Unknown
  • at Saturday, January 25, 2014 -
  • 0 comments
Morley-Minto Reforms
Ever since the introduction of the Indian Councils Act of 1892, the Congress had been demanding representative institutions for the people of India. The victory of the Liberals in the general elections in England in 1905 led the Moderates to believe that the new government would accept their demands. But Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Bepin Chandra Pal and Aurobindo Ghose criticized as futile and impossible the aim of the Congress to convince the British and obtain for the Indians selfgovernment. They proved right. Governor-General lord Minto and Secretary of State for India, John Morley did not accept the demands of the Moderates. John Morley even went to the extent of declaring that “the nations who inhabit India” did not deserve democratic institutions. Morley also made it clear that he had no intention to take part in any “grand revolution during his time of responsibility.”

The Congress Objections
The Morley-Minto reforms or the Government of India Act of 1909 did prove that. There was absolutely nothing in the Act which could in any way come up to the expectations of the Congress. Even the great Moderates like Madan Mohan Malaviya and Surendranath Banerjea severely criticized the reforms. There were four main grounds of protest by the Congress against the 1909 Act. These were—the grant of separate electorates to the Muslims, general distrust of the educated classes, preference to one community (Muslims) and grant of wide legislative, executive and financial powers to the British authorities in India.
                The Muslim League was very pleased with the Morley-Minto Reforms. It expressed thanks to the British Government and said that the reforms constituted a fulfillment of he promises made with the Muslims by Lord Minto. The 1909 Act turned out to be the second major attempt on the part of the British Government to drive the Muslims away from the Congress.

Rise Of Mahatma Gandhi
The post-Morley-Minto Reforms period witnessed several developments which resulted into a remarkable Hindu-Muslim unity and friendship between the Moderates and the Radicals. In Europe, the Balkan War (1912-1913 ) displayed a change in the British attitude towards Turkey. The fall-out of this changed attitude was the end of the Turkish rule over Eastern European countries like Romania and Bulgaria. This aroused widespread discontentment among the Indian Muslims and the Muslim League took intitative with a view to coming closer to the Congress.
                The First World War which broke out, in 1914 also contributed immensely to the process of unity among various political streams in India. Bal Gangadhar Tilak was also released from the Mandalay prison in 1914. He returned to India at a time when Annie Besant was busy organizing her Gome Rule Movement. He also started his own Home Rule League in western India, which became the channel of his activities.
                It was in this background that the Congress and the Muslim League sessions were held simultaneously at Lucknow in 1916 and a pact was signed between the two. Under this pact, the Congress agreed to accept as a temporary measure the institution of communal electorates for the Muslims and the Muslim League declared its support for the Congress demand for self-rule. This Pact is known as the Lucknow Pact. It unwittingly began the constitutional process leading to the partition of India. Interestingly, the leading role in the Lucknow Pact was played by Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Annie Besant, on the one hand, and Mohammad Ali Jinnah, on the other.However, the most important and epoch-making development in the post-1909 period  was the return of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi from South Africa in January 1915. He had returned with a new technique of mass struggle, called Satyagraha. But between 1915 and 1918, he did not play any active role in the Indian political life under the advice of his political guru, Gopal Krishna Gokhale. During this period, he simply studied the prevailing condition in the country. He got so moved by the poverty of the masses that he adopted a life of simplicity earning the title of Mahatma for himself. The title of Mahatma was given by Rabindranath Thakur.
                Soon he started applying his technique of non-violent Satyagraha to local mass struggles. These included his fight for the rights of the Champaran (Bihar) indigo cultivators, Kheda (Gujrat ) peasants and Ahmedabad textile workers. Gandhi identified himself with the weaker sections of the society and emerged as a moral force in the Indian public life. The success of these three localized experiments thrilled the whole nation and Gandhi emerged as a rallying point for patriotic elements in the country. In the meantime, the First World War ended in the victory of England and defeat of Germany and her ally Turkey.
                Wedded to the ideology of Pan-Islamism, the Muslim opinion in India felt very much concerned about the fate of the defeated Turkey. The Indian Muslims were unhappy over the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire. They were also upset because of the weakening of the control of the Sultan of Turkey as he carried the designation of Khalifa also. They saw in all these developments an erosion of the authority of their Khalifa. They were, in short, in a rebellious mood.
                The story of the nationalist opinion in India was also one of dejection. It had been expecting the British Government to grant self-rule to India in lieu of her services in the war. Instead, the country got the Government of India Act of 1919, which only futhered the British policy of divide and rule. The act extended  the principle of communal electorates to cover the Sikhs, the Anglo-Indians, the Indian Christians and others. The 1919 Act, among other things, introduced diarchy in the provinces. Under this scheme, officials remained incharge of more crucial departments like finance and law and order and the provincial governors continued to enjoy veto powers in matters legislative and financial. On the contrary, the Indians got departments with no or a little political weight and meager funds.


Rowlatt Satyagraha
In order to stem the tide of popular discontent the British passed and promulgated the Rowlatt Act as a tool  of repression on 18 March 1919. Thereafter, Gandhi joined the political struggle in a big way. He took this Act as an open challenge to the Indians. It had been passed despite the total opposition of the Indians. Their opposition was based on the ground that the Rowlatt Act was simply designed to empower the police to keep in detention any Indian on any pretext for two years, curb the Indians’ civil rights and check the struggle for self-rule.
                The most notable feature of the political situation arising out of the 18 March development was that the political leaders of all shades of opinion and radical elements reposed their faith in the Gandhi’s leadership . They looked towards him for guidance and action. Gandhi responded by launching a massive Satyagraha against the Rowlatt Act. This was known as the Rowlatt Satyagraha. On 30th March 1919, a number of Indian towns observed hartal. On 6th April 1919, the Indians under the leadership of Gandhi organized the first ever all- India hartal.
                The Success of the 6th April hartal was very alarming from the point of view of the British. However, what was more alarming and disturbing was the remarkable communal amity in the provinces known earlier for communal difference. Take, for example, the large participation of the Hindus, the Sikhs and the Muslims in the hartals organized on 30th March and 6th April in the Punjab in protest against the Rowlatt Act. Another very significant instance was the participation of a large number of Muslims in the 9th April Ran Navmi procession at Amritsar.

The Rowlatt Bills and my Dilemma
I had hardly begun to feel my way towards recovery, when I happened casually to read in the papers the Rowlatt Committee’s report which had just been published . Its recommendations startled me. Shankarlal Bankar and Umar Sobani approached me with the suggestion that I should take some prompt action in the matter. In about a month I went to Ahmedabad. I mentioned my apprehensions to Ballabhbhai , who used to come to see me almost daily.  ‘Something must be done’ said I to him ‘But what can we do in the circumstances?’ he asked in reply. I answered, ‘If even a handful of men can be found to sign the pledge of resistance, and the proposed measure is passed into law in defiance of it, we ought to offer Satyagraha at once. If I was not laid up like this, I should give battle against it all alone, and expect others to follow suit. But in my present helpless condition I feel myself to be altogether unequal to the task’.
                As a result of this talk, it was decided to call asmall meeting of such persons as were in touch with me. The recommendations of the Rowlatt Committee seemed to me to be altogether unwarranted by the evidence published in its report  and were. I felt, such that no self-respecting people could submit to them.
                The proposed conference was at last held at the Ashram. Hardly a score of persons had been invited to it. So far as I remember, among those who attended were besides Vallabhbhai , Shrimati Sarojini Naidu, Mr. HOrniman, the late Mr. Umar Sobani, Sjt. Shankalal Banker and Shrimati Anasuyabehn. The Satyagraha pledge was drfted at this meeting, and, as far as I recollect, was signed by all present.
                                                                                                                By ----M. K. Gandhi
Jalianwala Bagh Massacre
Frightened, the British authorities drove the leading Amritsar leaders Dr. Satyapal and Dr. Kitchlew out of the Punjab on 9th April. They also banned the entry of Gandhi into Delhi and Punjab. On 10th April, the British forces fired on peaceful Satyagrahis at Amritsar . This greatly angered the people of Amritsar, who attacked the government symbols, including post-offices, banks, town hall and railway stations. Two days later on the Baishakhi day (13th April ), General Dyer and his troops attacked the peaceful gathering of villagers in the Jallianwala Bagh. He blocked the route of escape and ordered firing. Nearly400 Indians lost their lives and 1200 unarmed and peaceful civilians received serious injuries due to this brutal action. Several persons jumped into the Well to escape the British bullets.
Khilafat and Non-cooperation Movement
The tragedy of Jallianwallah Bagh sent a wave of shock throughout the country. Persons like Rabindranath Thakur returned their "knighthood" and Mahatma Gandhi surrendered his title of Kaisar-i-Hind. Gandhi simultaneously fused the national urge for Swaraj with the Muslim concern for the Khilafat. He in a pact with the Khilafat Committee clubbed the two issues of the protection of Khilafat and the protection of cow.
                      Gandhi's support to the Khilafat was not acceptable to a section fo the old Congress leaders such as Tilak, Annie Besant, Srinivasa Shastri, Madan Mohan Malaviya and C.R. Das. But Gandhi was able to carry the major section of the Congress leadership to support his programme of non-cooperation on the twin issues of Khilafat and Swaraj. The special session of the Congress held at Calcutta on 20th September 1920, under the presidentship of Lala Lajpat Rai and the historic Nagpur Congress Session (December 1920) supported the programme of Gandhi. In fact, Gandhi was able to rally behind him practically the whole Congress leadership. It was at the Nagpur Session the Jinnah found himself out of step with the general mood and,therefore, left the Congress. In fact, Jinnah was losing ground with the emergence of Gandhi in the Indian politics. Gandhi's emphasis on Swadeshi did not find favour with Jinnah from the very beginning.
                    The Congress under the unique leadership and guidance of Gandhi transformed itself from and elitist body into a mass organisation reaching to the village level. The apparent gulf between the urban elite and rural India was bridged and a new Congress came into being. Women and depressed classes joined the Congress, thus making it a mass movement. The Congress in its new avtar launched a massive Non - cooperation Movement all over the country. In a way, Gandhi snatched away the initiative from the British, who had been setting the political agenda for India after the failure of the 1857 rebellion. The British authorities found it difficult to match Gandhi's unconventional methodology and unpredictable moves.
                   The Non-cooperation programme included the triple boycott of courts, government deucational institutions and legislative process, including elections. It also included the boycott of foreign goods, picketing of liquor shops and surrender of titles given by the government. Several lawyers gave up practice. A number of national schools were established in different parts of the country, including the Madras presidency. Some of these included Kasi Vidyapith (Banaras ) and Gujarat Vidyapith (Ahmadabad).
                    The Non-cooperation Movement galvanised the whole nation and a moment the British Government was dumb-founded to see the massive all -India character of the upsurge. The patriotic fervour generated by the movement inspired young Subhas Chandra Bose to renounce his Indian Civil Service and return to India to join the struggle for Swaraj. For the first time several thousand youngmen and women courted impresonment and a unique scene of the Hindu-Muslim unity was witnessed. Thiru Vi Ka supported four -month long strike at the Buckingham and Carnatic textile mills. Picketing of shops was one of the most successful forms of non cooperation in Andhra and interior Tamil Nadu. C. Rajagopalachari led the movement . In Andhra, Konda venkatapayya, T. Prakasam and P. Sitaramayya were very active.
                   The British gesture of revising the Treaty of Serves (May 1920 )  in favour of Turkey considerably mollified the Indian Muslims. But the subsequent abolition of the institution of Khilafat by the Turkish revolutionaries under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal Pasha weakened the whole Khilafat movement. The Muslim fervour for agitation died and they withdrew from the Non-cooperation Movement.
                 However, the participation of the Muslims fired by a religious fervour gave the Movement a new vigour and aggressiveness. At the same time, the outburst of this religious zeal in Malabar, in the form of Moplah riots on agrarian / tenancy problems resulted into a large scale conversions and murder of the Hindus. The behind the scene British diplomacy was also working in deepening the dissensions and to detach the Muslims from the Non-cooperation Movement. This phase also witnessed a spate of Hindu-Muslim riots all over the country from Kohat to Calcutta. This trend induced Lala Lajpat Rai to study deeply the question of Hindu-Muslim unity. He contributed a series of articles in The tribune of Lahore wherein he made a prophecy that India will surely witness a communal partition if the same trend of communal divide through communal electorates continued anymore.
                    When the Non-cooperation Movement reached its peak, a violent incident at Chauri-Chaura (Gorakhpur ) on 5th February, 1992, led Mahatma Gandhi to withdraw the Non-cooperation Movement on 12th February. The angry peasants had burnt to death twenty-two policemen in a police station. The sudden withdrawal of the movement came as a great shock and disappointment to the people. The British authorities were waiting for such an opportunity and arrested Gandhi.
                     The most significant aspect of the Non-cooperation Movement was the willingness of the people to face hardships and punishments inflicted by the authorities. The events during the course of he movement also established two other equally significant things. First, the Congress, for the first time, became a really mass movement. For, the national awakening not just penetrated to the people but also made them "active participants" in the freedom struggle. Secondly, the Congress turned into a "genuine revolutionary organisation." It was no longer a "deliberative assembly but an organised fighting force, pledged to a revolution. Its weapons were different but its aims, objects and temperament closely resembled those of a militant nationalism". 


Author

Written by Admin

0 comments: