Whatsapp 88106-52225 For Details
Get Free IAS Booklet
Get Free IAS Booklet
CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE MOVEMENT
In this unit
We will explore the Calcutta Session of the INC, Lord Irwin’s Declaration, Delhi Manifesto, and the Civil Disobedience Movement. Additionally, topics like the Gandhi-Irwin Pact, Round Table Conferences, Communal Award and the Poona Pact between Gandhiji and Ambedkar will be discussed.
CALCUTTA SESSION OF CONGRESS
Calcutta session in December 1928 was held to approve the Nehru report. However, leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru, Subhash Bose demanded the adoption of Purna Swaraj (complete independence) as its goal. The older leaders like Gandhiji and Motilal Nehru wanted to give grace period of 2 years for acceptance of dominion status. But due to pressure from young leaders reduced the period to one year. Furthermore, it was decided that if government does not accept the dominion status, a civil disobedience movement will be launched and complete independence will be demanded.
IRWIN’S DECLARATION (OCTOBER 31, 1929)
The Irwin Declaration, a statement made by Lord Irwin, the then Viceroy of India, on 31 October 1929 regarding the status of India in the British empire. It was intended to placate leaders of the Indian nationalist movement who had become increasingly vocal in demanding dominion status for India. However, there was no time scale. There was further a promise of Round Table Conferences after the Simon Commission submitted its report.
DELHI MANIFESTO
‘Delhi manifesto’ was issued on November 2, 1929, where the prominent leaders put forth conditions for attending the Round Table conference. The conditions were as follows:
The purpose of the Round Table Conference should be not to determine whether or when dominion status was to be reached but to formulate a constitution for implementation of the dominion status (thus acting as a constituent assembly) and the basic principle of dominion status should be immediately accepted;
The Congress should have majority representation at the conference; and
There should be a general amnesty for political prisoners and a policy of conciliation; Gandhiji along with Motilal Nehru and other political leaders met Lord Irwin in December 1929. They asked the viceroy for assurance that the purpose of the round table conference was to draft a constitutional scheme for dominion status. That was not the purpose of the conference, said Irwin. Viceroy Irwin rejected the demands put forward in the Delhi Manifesto. The stage for confrontation was to begin now.
LAHORE SESSION
Jawaharlal Nehru, was nominated the president for the Lahore session of the Congress (December 1929) mainly due to Gandhiji’s backing (15 out of 18 Provincial Congress Committees had opposed Nehru). 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. On December 31, 1929, at midnight on the banks of River Ravi, the newly adopted tricolour flag of freedom was hoisted by Jawaharlal Nehru amidst slogans of Inquilab Zindabad.
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. This pledge, which is supposed to have been drafted by Gandhiji, made the following points:
Indians have an undeniable right to freedom, which cannot be compromised.
The British rule in India has stripped us of freedom, exploited our resources, and brought devastation to our economic, political, cultural and spiritual well-being. To restore our dignity, India must achieve complete independence or Purna Swaraj.
Economically, we are being drained by exorbitant taxes, the collapse of traditional village industries without viable alternatives, and unfair manipulation of customs, currency, and exchange systems to our detriment.
Politically, we are denied real power and the right to free association, while our administrative abilities are systematically suppressed.
Culturally, the education system imposed on us has disconnected us from our roots and traditions.
Spiritually, the enforced disarmament has eroded our courage and sense of self-reliance.
Continuing to submit to British rule is a grave injustice to both humanity and divinity.
To work towards complete independence, we will disengage from voluntary associations with the British government and prepare for civil disobedience, including the refusal to pay taxes.
Through this unified resistance, we aim to bring an end to this oppressive rule and establish true self-governance as guided by the Congress.
GANDHIJI’S EFFORTS
Gandhiji was still not sure of his plan of action. Before launching the movement, he once again tried for compromise with the Government. He placed ‘eleven points’ of administrative reform and stated that if Lord Irwin accepted them there would be no need for agitation. The important demands were:
The Rupee-Sterling ratio should be reduced to 1 shilling and 4 pence (1s 4d),
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
Reserve coastal shipping for Indians,
All political prisoners should be released,
Accept Postal Reservation Bill,
Change Arms Act allowing popular control of issue of firearms licences,
Carry out reforms in the Criminal Investigation Department (CID). The Government response to Gandhiji’s proposal was negative. The Congress Working Committee invested Gandhiji with full powers to launch the Civil Disobedience Movement at a time and place of his choice. By February-end, Gandhiji had decided to make salt the central formula for the movement.
WHY SALT WAS CHOSEN AS THE IMPORTANT THEME
Salt was a concrete and a universal grievance of the rural poor, which was almost unique in having no socially divisive implications.
With regard to food habits, salt was a daily necessity of the people. It also carried with it the implications of trust, hospitality, mutual obligations. In this sense it had a far-reaching emotional content.
Moreover, the breaking of the salt law meant a rejection of the Government’s claims on the allegiance of the people.
In coastal areas where over the previous century indigenous salt production had been ruined by British imports, illegal manufacture of salt could provide the people a small income which was not unimportant.
Beginning of the movement
Gandhiji took the decision to start the movement. On 12 March 1930, Gandhiji started the Historic March from his Sabarmati Ashram to Dandi beach accompanied by his 78 selected followers. The Programme of the movement was as follows:
Wherever possible civil disobedience of the salt law should be started.
Foreign liquor and cloth shops can be picketed.
We can refuse to pay taxes if we have the requisite strength.
Lawyers can give up practice.
Public can boycott law courts by refraining from litigation.
Government servants can resign from their posts.
All these should be subject to one condition—truth and non-violence as means to attain swaraj should be faithfully adhered to.
Local leaders should be obeyed after Gandhiji’s arrest. On reaching Dandi on April 6, Gandhiji and his followers broke the law by manufacturing salt from the sea. The violation of the law was seen as a symbol of the Indian people’s resolve not to live under British-made laws and therefore under British rule. Gandhiji openly asked the people to make salt from sea water in their homes and violate the salt law.
Spread of the movement
Once the way was cleared by Gandhiji’s ritual at Dandi, defiance of the salt laws started all over the country. Nehru’s arrest in April 1930 for defiance of the salt law evoked huge demonstrations in Madras, Calcutta and Karachi. Gandhiji’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. Gandhiji’s arrest was followed by massive protests in
Bombay, Delhi, Calcutta and in Sholapur, where the response was the fiercest. After Gandhiji’s arrest, the CWC sanctioned:
non-payment of revenue in ryotwari areas;
no-chowkidar-tax campaign in zamindari areas; and
violation of forest laws in the Central Provinces.
SATYAGRAHA AT DIFFERENT PLACES Tamil Nadu
In April 1930, C. Rajagopalachari organised a march from Tiruchirappalli to Vedaranniyam on the Tanjore (or Thanjavur) coast to break the salt law.
The event was followed by widespread picketing of foreign cloth shops; the anti-liquor campaign gathered forceful support in interior regions of Coimbatore, Madura, Virdhanagar, etc.
Although Rajaji tried to keep the movement non-violent, violent eruptions of masses and the violent repressions of the police began.
Malabar
K. Kelappan, a Nair Congress leader famed for the Vaikom Satyagraha, organised salt marches.
P. Krishna Pillai, the future founder of the Kerala Communist movement, heroically defended the national flag in the face of police lathi-charge on Calicut beach in November 1930.
Andhra Region
District salt marches were organised 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.
The merchants contributed to Congress funds, and the dominant caste Kamma and Raju cultivators defied repressive measures.
Orissa
Under Gopalbandhu Chaudhuri, a Gandhian leader, salt satyagraha proved effective in the coastal regions of Balasore, Cuttack and Puri districts.
Assam
In Assam, Satyagrahis walked from Sylhet to Noakhali (Bengal) to make salt.
A successful student strike against the Cunningham Circular, which banned students’ participation in politics, was seen in May 1930.
Chandraprabha Saikiani, in December 1930, incited the aboriginal Kachari villages to break forest laws, which was, however, denied by the Assam Congress leadership.
Bengal
The Bengal Congress, divided into two factions led by Subhas Bose and J.M. Sengupta was involved in the Calcutta Corporation election. This resulted in alienation of most of Calcutta bhadralok leaders from the rural masses.
Despite this, Bengal provided the largest number of arrests as well as the highest amount of violence.
In Bengal, as salt manufacturing became difficult with the onset of the monsoon, the shift to anti-chowkidari and anti-Union Board agitation emerged as distinct options.
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.
In Patna, Nakhas Pond was chosen as a site to make salt and break the salt law under Ambika Kant Sinha.
In landlocked Bihar, manufacture of salt on a large scale was not practicable and at most places it was a mere gesture. A very powerful no- chaukidari tax agitation replaced the salt satyagraha.
By November 1930, sale of foreign cloth and liquor dramatically declined, and administration collapsed in several parts like the Barhee region of Munger.
The tribal belt of Chhotanagpur (now in Jharkhand), saw instances of lower-class militancy.
Bonga Majhi and Somra Majhi, influenced by Gandhijism, led a movement in Hazaribagh. However, the Santhals were reported to be taking up illegal distillation of liquor on a large scale under the banner of Gandhiji.
Peshawar
Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan’s educational and social reform work among the Pathans had politicised them.
Gaffar Khan, also called Badshah Khan and Frontier Gandhiji, 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.
On April 23, 1930, the arrest of Congress leaders in the
NWFP led to mass demonstrations in Peshawar which was virtually in the hands of the crowds for more than a week till order was restored on May 4. This was followed by a reign of terror and martial law.
It was here that a section of Garhwal Rifles soldiers refused to fire on an unarmed crowd. This upsurge in a province with 92 per cent Muslim population left the British government nervous.
Sholapur
This industrial town of southern Maharashtra saw the fiercest response to Gandhiji’s arrest.
Textile workers went on a strike from May 7 and along with other residents burnt liquor shops and other symbols of government authority such as railway stations, police stations, municipal buildings, law courts, etc.
The activists established a virtual parallel government which could only be dislodged with martial law after May 16.
Dharasana
On May 21, 1930, Sarojini Naidu, Imam Sahib and Manilal (Gandhiji’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.
This new form of salt satyagraha was eagerly adopted by people in Wadala (Bombay), Karnataka (Sanikatta Salt Works), Andhra, Midnapore, Balasore, Puri and Cuttack.
Gujarat
The impact was felt in Anand, Borsad and Nadiad areas in Kheda district, Bardoli in Surat district and Jambusar in Bharuch district.
A determined no-tax movement was organised here which included refusal to pay land revenue.
Villagers crossed the border into neighbouring princely states (such as Baroda) with their families and belongings and camped in the open for months to evade police repression. The police retaliated by destroying their property and confiscating their land.
Maharashtra, Karnataka, Central Provinces
These areas saw defiance of forest laws such as grazing and timber restrictions and public sale of illegally acquired forest produce.
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. Since most of the zamindars were loyalists, the campaign became virtually a no- rent campaign.
Manipur and Nagaland
These areas took a brave part in the movement. At the young age of thirteen, Rani Gaidinliu, a Naga spiritual leader, who followed her cousin Haipou Jadonang, born in what is now the state of Manipur, raised the banner of revolt against foreign rule.
She urged the people not to pay taxes or work for the British—in the tradition established by the freedom struggle in the rest of India.
As the reformist religious movement steadily turned political, the British authorities caught Haipou Jadonang and hanged him on charges of treason in 1931.
A manhunt was launched for Rani Gaidinliu. She outwitted the British till October 1932 when she was finally captured. She was later sentenced to life imprisonment.
FORMS OF MOBILIZATION
Various forms of mobilization became popular as the Civil Disobedience Movement evolved into a significant nationalist form of anti-colonial politics.
Volunteer corps were formed, and sankirtan processions were organized to spread the message of swaraj, as well as prabhat pheris at dawn to sing nationalist songs through villages and towns.
Activists and leaders conducted tours to organize public meetings in both rural and urban areas, fostering nationalist sentiments.
Magic lantern shows and the secret circulation of booklets containing nationalist literature became common methods to spread nationalist ideas in villages.
Underground Congress ashrams were established, offering a safe space for nationalist activities.
Rural market places, temples, and Gandhian ashrams emerged as important centers for nationalist mobilization.
Children enthusiastically participated in organizing vanara sena or monkey squads to contribute to the nationalist movement.
IMPACT OF AGITATION
Imports of foreign cloth and other items fell.
Government suffered a loss of income from liquor, excise and land revenue.
Elections to the Legislative Assembly were largely boycotted.
SOCIAL BASE OF THE MOVEMENT
In urban areas around 1930, support for Gandhian nationalism was lower than during the Non-Cooperation Movement. Only a few lawyers left their practice, and a few students shifted to ‘national schools’ instead of government-controlled institutions.
Muslim participation was limited, with communal tensions evident in Dhaka town and Kishoreganj village during May and July 1930. In Dacca, Muslim leaders, shopkeepers, lower-class people, and upper-class women were active. The Muslim weaving communities in Bihar, Delhi, and Lucknow were effectively mobilized.
Women played a significant role in the Civil Disobedience Movement. They from socially conservative families, including professionals, businesspersons, and peasants, participated in picketing shops, endured police brutality, and went to jail.
Along with women, students and youth were highly active in the boycott of foreign cloth and liquor.
Merchants and petty traders were enthusiastic supporters. Traders’ associations and commercial bodies were instrumental in implementing the boycott, especially in Tamil Nadu and Punjab.
Tribals participated actively in regions like Central Provinces, Maharashtra, and Karnataka.
Workers were involved in cities like Bombay, Calcutta, Madras, and Sholapur.
Peasants contributed actively in regions such as the United Provinces, Bihar, and Gujarat.- In urban areas around 1930, support for Gandhian nationalism was lower than during the Non-Cooperation Movement. Only a few lawyers left their practice, and a few students shifted to ‘national schools’ instead of government-controlled institutions.
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE
The Government’s reply to the national struggle was the same as before —an effort to crush it through ruthless repression, lathi charges and firing on unarmed crowds of men and women.
Over 90,000 Satyagrahis, including Gandhiji and other Congress leaders, were imprisoned. The Congress was declared illegal.
The nationalist press was gagged through strict censorship of news. According to official figures over 110 persons were killed and over 300 wounded in police firings.
South India in particular experienced repression in its most severe form. The police often beat up men just for wearing khadi or Gandhiji caps.
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.
In August 1930 Motilal and Jawaharlal Nehru were taken to Yeravada Jail to meet Gandhiji and discuss the possibility of a settlement. The Nehrus and Gandhiji 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.
CRITICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE MOVEMENT
The Civil disobedience movement for the Congress was by no means a failure. By 1934, the Congress had mobilised great political support and gained a moral authority, which were converted into a massive electoral victory in 1937.
Though the Congress was forced to withdraw the movement, its prestige among the masses remained high. In fact, the vertical and horizontal reach of Congress had grown stronger in the 1930s as compared to its position in the early 1920s.
From the logic of Civil disobedience itself, many left alternatives emerged which emphasised the need for combining nationalism with radical social and economic programmes. Hereafter, the Congress drifted towards greater radicalisation. Though some scholars opine that Gandhiji’s decision to suspend the civil disobedience movement as agreed under the Gandhiji-Irwin pact was a retreat, it was not really so. The move was warranted due to some practical reasons. Firstly, it is important to understand that mass movements are necessarily short lived and the capacity of the masses to make sacrifices unlike that of the activists is limited. Secondly, there were clear signs of exhaustion after September 1930 especially among shopkeepers and merchants who had participated so enthusiastically. Gandhiji had realised that the ‘vast reserves of energy’ expected to flow into the movement were instead fast petering out. It was against this backdrop; the viable option was to suspend the movement and consolidate whatever gains have been scored so far.
Comparison to Non-Cooperation Movement
There were certain aspects in which the Civil Disobedience Movement differed from the Non-Cooperation Movement.
The stated objective this time was complete independence and not just remedying two specific wrongs and a vaguely-worded swaraj.
The methods involved violation of law from the very beginning and not just non-cooperation with foreign rule.
There was a decline in forms of protests involving the intelligentsia, such as lawyers giving up practice, students giving up government schools to join national schools and colleges.
Muslim participation was nowhere near that in the Non-Cooperation Movement level.
No major labour upsurge coincided with the movement.
The massive participation of peasants and business groups compensated for the decline of other features.
The number of those imprisoned was about three times more this time.
The Congress was organisationally stronger.
DELHI PACT OR GANDHIJI-IRWIN PACT
Unconditional release of Gandhiji and other members of Congress Working Committee (CWC) on January 25, 1931.
Gandhiji was authorised to put forth his leadership and initiate discussions with viceroy.
Thus, a pact was signed in Delhi on March 5, 1931. This Delhi Pact, also known as the Gandhiji-Irwin Pact, placed the Congress on an equal footing with the government.
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 ➤ withdrawal of emergency ordinances.
The viceroy, however, turned down two of Gandhiji’s demands— ➤ public inquiry into police excesses ➤ commutation of Bhagat Singh and his comrades’ death sentence to life sentence.
Gandhiji on behalf of the Congress agreed— ➤ to suspend the civil disobedience movement ➤ 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 (covering such areas as defence, external affairs, position of minorities, financial credit of India and discharge of other obligations).
KARACHI CONGRESS SESSION (1931)
In March 1931, a special session of the Congress was held at Karachi to endorse the Gandhiji-Irwin Pact. Six days before the session (which was held on March 29) Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev and Rajguru were executed.
Throughout Gandhiji’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.
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 Gandhiji-Irwin Pact was endorsed. ➤ The goal of purna swaraj was reiterated. ➤ Two resolutions were adopted one on Fundamental Rights and the other on the 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.”
The Karachi Resolution was to remain, in essence, the basic political and economic programme of the Congress in later years.
Round Table Conferences [1930-1931-1932].
ROUND TABLE CONFERENCES [1930-1931-1932] First Round Table Conference
The first Round Table Conference was convened in London between November 16, 1930 and January 19, 1931.
It was opened officially by King George V on November 12, 1930 and chaired by Ramsay MacDonald.
As many Congress leaders were in jail, ‘safe’ representatives of other parties, communities and services were nominated by the government as the spokespeople of India.
The Indian princely states were represented by the Maharaja 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).
The Muslim League sent Aga Khan III (leader of British- Indian delegation), Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar, Muhammad Shafi, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Muhammad Zafarullah Khan, A.K. Fazlul Huq, Hafiz Ghulam Hussain Hidayat Ullah, Dr. Shafaat Ahmad Khan, Raja Sher Muhammad Khan of Domeli and A.H. Ghuznavi.
The Hindu Mahasabha and its sympathisers were represented by B.S. Moonje, M.R. Jayakar and Diwan Bahadur Raja Narendra Nath.
The Sikhs were represented by Sardar Ujjal Singh and Sardar Sampuran Singh.
For the Parsis, Phiroze Sethna, Cowasji Jehangir and Homi Mody attended.
Begum Jahanara Shahnawaz and Radhabai Subbarayan represented Women.
The Liberals were represented by J.N. Basu, Tej Bahadur Sapru, C.Y. Chintamani, V.S. Srinivasa Sastri and Chimanlal Harilal Setalvad.
The Depressed Classes were represented by B.R. Ambedkar and Rettamalai Srinivasan.
The Justice Party sent Arcot Ramasamy Mudaliar, Bhaskarrao Vithojirao Jadhav and Sir A.P. Patro.
Labour was represented by N.M. Joshi and B. Shiva Rao.
K.T. Paul represented the Indian Christians, while Henry Gidney represented the Anglo-Indians, and the Europeans were represented by Sir Hubert Carr, Sir Oscar de Glanville (Burma), T.F. Gavin Jones, C.E. Wood (Madras).
There were also representatives of the landlords (from Bihar, the United Provinces, and Orissa), the universities, Burma, the Sindh and some other provinces.
The Government of India was represented by Narendra Nath Law, Bhupendra Nath Mitra, C.P. Ramaswami Iyer and M. Ramachandra Rao.
The three basic principles adopted in the conference were: (i) the form of the new government would be an all-India federation; (ii) the federal government, subject to certain conditions, would be answerable to the federal legislature; and (iii) the provinces would be autonomous.
Second Round Table Conference
Members of the Indian Liberal Party such as Tej Bahadur Sapru, C.Y. Chintamani and Srinivasa Sastri appealed to Gandhiji to talk with the Viceroy.
Gandhiji and Irwin reached a compromise which came to be called the Gandhiji-Irwin Pact (the Delhi Pact).
The second Round Table Conference was held in London from September 7, 1931 to December 1, 1931.
The Indian National Congress nominated Gandhiji as its sole representative. A. Rangaswami Iyengar and Madan Mohan Malaviya were also there. There were a large number of Indian participants, besides the Congress.
The princely states were represented by Maharaja of Alwar, Maharaja of Baroda, 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 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).
The Muslims were represented by Aga Khan III, Maulana Shaukat Ali, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, A.K. Fazlul Huq, Muhammad Iqbal, Muhammad Shafi, Muhammad Zafarullah Khan, 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. Shafaat Ahmad Khan, Jamal Muhammad and Nawab Sahibzada Sayed Muhammad Mehr Shah.
Hindu groups were represented by M.R. Jayakar, B.S. Moonje and Diwan Bahadur Raja Narendra Nath.
The Liberals at the conference were J. N. Basu, C.Y. Chintamani, Tej Bahadur Sapru, V.S. Srinivasa Sastri and Chimanlal Harilal Setalvad.
The Justice Party sent Raja of Bobbili, Arcot Ramasamy Mudaliar, Sir A.P. Patro and Bhaskarrao Vithojirao Jadhav.
The Depressed Classes were represented by B.R. Ambedkar and Rettamalai Srinivasan.
Sardar Ujjal Singh and Sardar Sampuran Singh represented the Sikhs.
The Parsis were represented by Cowasji Jehangir, Homi Mody and Phiroze Sethna.
Indian Christians were represented by Surendra Kumar Datta and A.T. Panneerselvam. Industry was represented by Ghanshyam Das Birla, Sir Purshottamdas Thakurdas and Maneckji Dadabhoy.
Labour was represented by N. M. Joshi, B. Shiva Rao and V. V. Giri.
The representatives for Indian women were Sarojini Naidu, Begum Jahanara Shahnawaz and Radhabai Subbarayan. The universities were represented by Syed Sultan Ahmed and Bisheshwar Dayal Seth.
Representatives of Burma and from the provinces of Sindh, Assam, Central Provinces and the NWFP also attended.
The Government of India was represented by C.P. Ramaswami Iyer, Narendra Nath Law and M. Ramachandra Rao. Not much was expected from the conference because of the following reasons. ➤ By this time, 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 which was an uneasy coalition between Labour and Conservatives. 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. The Prime Minister, Ramsay MacDonald headed the Conservative- dominated cabinet with a weak and reactionary secretary of state for India, Samuel Hoare. ➤ At the conference, Gandhiji 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 Gandhiji. Because of the participation of a large number of groups, the British government claimed that the Congress did not represent the interests of all of India. ➤ Gandhiji pointed out that there was a need of a partnership between Britain and India on the basis of equality. He put forward the demand for the immediate establishment of a responsible government at the centre as well as in the provinces. He also reiterated that the Congress alone represented political India. Saying that the untouchables were Hindus, and thus not to be treated as a minority, he discarded the idea of a separate electorate for them. He also said there was no need for separate electorates or special safeguards for Muslims or other minorities. Many of the other delegates disagreed with Gandhiji. ➤ The session soon got deadlocked on the question of the minorities. Separate electorates were being demanded by the Muslims, depressed classes, Christians and Anglo-Indians. All these came together in a ‘Minorities’ Pact’. Gandhiji fought desperately against this concerted move to make all constitutional progress conditional on the solving of this issue. ➤ The princes were also not too enthusiastic about a federation, especially after the possibility of the formation of a Congress government at the centre had receded after the suspension of civil disobedience movement.
Outcome- 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 ➤ The prospect of a unilateral British Communal ➤ Award if Indians failed to agree.
The government refused to concede the basic Indian demand of freedom. Gandhiji returned to India on December 28, 1931.
Third Round Table Conference
The third Round Table Conference, held between November 17, 1932 and December 24, 1932, was not attended by the Indian National Congress and Gandhiji. It was ignored by most other Indian leaders.
The Indian States were represented by Akbar Hydari (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), J.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), and Raja of Sarila (small states).
Other Indian representatives were Aga Khan III, B.R. Ambedkar, Ramakrishna Ranga Rao of Bobbili, Sir Hubert Carr, Nanak Chand Pandit, A.H. Ghuznavi, Henry Gidney, Hafiz Hidayat Hussain, Muhammad Iqbal, M.R. Jayakar, Cowasji Jehangir, N.M. Joshi, Narasimha Chintaman Kelkar, Arcot Ramasamy Mudaliar, Begum
Jahanara Shahnawaz, A.P. Patro, Tej Bahadur Sapru, Dr.Shafaat Ahmad Khan, Sir Shadi Lal, Tara Singh Malhotra, Sir Nripendra Nath Sircar, Sir Purshottamdas Thakurdas, Muhammad Zafarullah Khan.
Again, like in the two previous conferences, little was achieved. The 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.
BACK TO AGITATION
The failure of the Second Round Table Conference and the empty-handed return of Gandhiji from it resulted in the resumption of the Civil Disobedience Movement in early 1932.
Despite severe repressive measures taken by the British Government to crush the agitation, the movement continued with vigour for about a year and half.
In April 1932, Lord Wellingdon described Bengal and Bombay as the ‘two black spots’. In Bengal militant activities increased with vigour along with sporadic agrarian unrest.
Local-level leaders and Satyagrahis in the coastal Orissa during this phase, tried out diverse and innovative methods of struggle to keep up the movement.
These methods included resistance to the police, rescue of arrested Satyagrahis, recapture of the already-seized Congress ashrams (sometimes by women volunteers) and the attempt to sell contraband salt in the court premises.
Attempts at attacking colonial symbols, such as tearing off the uniforms of the policemen and chowkidars, damaging post-boxes and disruption of court proceedings during revenue sales also surfaced.
The small traders of Gujarat strongly supported the Congress. However, in rural areas, the movement evoked less enthusiasm than it was in the earlier phase.
The rich peasants groups, who had shown greater militancy during the first phase of the Movement (1930-32) felt betrayed by the movement’s withdrawal and remained unstirred in many places, such as Coastal Andhra, Gujarat or UP, when the Congress leaders wanted to mobilise them the second time.
On the other hand, Gandhiji’s Harijan campaign failed to impress the Harijans themselves. In Marathi-speaking Nagpur and Berar, which had been the strongholds of Ambedkar’s Dalit (Untouchable) politics, the Untouchables refused to switch their allegiance to the Congress.
In the urban areas, the relationship between the business groups and the Congress was marked by a certain degree of ambivalence. There was an open estrangement between the Congress and Bombay Mill owners, who under the leadership of Homi Mody, asked Gandhiji not to resume the movement. The other sections of the Indian big business were also in a dilemma.
By 1933, the weakening economy and growing violence even crushed the enthusiasm of the staunchest of Gandhian supporters – the Gujarati and Marwari merchants.
The labour remained apathetic and the Muslims often antagonistic.
Government Response
A series of repressive ordinances were issued which ushered in a virtual martial law, though under civilian control, or a ‘Civil Martial Law’. Congress organisations at all levels were banned; arrests were made of activists, leaders, sympathisers; properties were confiscated; Gandhiji ashrams were occupied. Repression was particularly harsh on women. Press was gagged and nationalist literature banned.
Under these circumstances, Gandhiji who himself was in prison, decided to temporarily suspend the Movement in May 1933. The movement was formally withdrawn in April 1934
REPRESENTATION OF DEPRESSED CLASSES
Among the Depressed Classes at the national level two major identifiable groups emerged in the late 1920s, one around M.C.Rajah and the other around Dr. B.R. Ambedkar.
M.C.Rajah and his associates who dominated the All-India Depressed Classes Association decided not to accept proposals of the Simon Commission in the absence of separate electorates.
In the ensuing struggle within the Depressed Classes to represent them in the proposed Round Table Conference in London, Ambedkar was nominated by the British government to represent the Depressed Classes.
Rajah-Moonje Pact of 1932
M.C.Rajah and B.S.Moonje, president of the Hindu Mahasabha entered into an agreement known as the Rajah-Moonje Pact in 1932, based on the principle of reservation of seats in joint electorates.
Opinions among the Depressed Classes were divided over the Rajah-Moonje Pact. A section of the Depressed Classes made a statement that the All-India Depressed Classes Association was not representative of the Depressed Classes of India. They expressed their support in favour of a separate electorate.
Dr. Ambedkar was very much opposed to the Rajah-Moonje Pact and stated that the Depressed Classes had repudiated the Pact.
COMMUNAL AWARD
Ambedkar and R. Srinivasan were invited by the British government as representatives of the Depressed Classes to attend the Round Table Conference in London in 1930 to deliberate on the constitutional reforms. The Round Table Conference failed to resolve the issue of representation of the Depressed Classes.
Then in 1932 under Lord Lothian the Indian Franchise Committee was constituted to decide on the matters concerning franchise. A significant development that took place during this time was the signing of an agreement between M.C.Rajah and B.S.Moonje, leader of the Hindu Mahasabha to prove Ambedkar’s position on representation of the Depressed Classes wrong.
Being challenged by M.C.Rajah, Ambedkar decided to impress upon the British government the need for special provision for the Depressed Classes and succeeded in his mission when the British Prime Minister Ramsay Mac-Donald announced the Communal Award in August, 1932, making the provision for a separate electorate for the Depressed Classes.
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.
Congress Stand
Though opposed to separate electorates, the Congress was not in favour of changing the Communal Award without the consent of the minorities. Thus, while strongly disagreeing with the Communal Award, the Congress decided neither to accept it nor to reject it.
Gandhiji’s Response
Gandhiji saw the Communal Award as an Attack on Indian unity and nationalism.
Gandhiji, in his letter to the British government, informed his decision for going to fast unto death unless the government withdrew the scheme of separate electorate for the Depressed Classes.
Gandhiji was supportive of adequate representation of the Depressed Classes but he was not agreeable to the proposal of separate electorate.
POONA PACT
The British government justified its action of announcing the Communal Award on the ground that Indian leaders failed to arrive at an agreement on the issue of representation of the Depressed Classes in the Round Table Conference.
In the given situation, to protect the interests of the Depressed Classes, the government had announced this scheme. But Gandhiji’s moral weapon forced various sections of the Indian leaders to work out a compromise formula between the separate electorate and joint electorate.
Gandhiji, in principle, was opposed to the reservation of seats either through a joint or separate electorate. But sensing the prevailing mood of the Depressed Classes he agreed to accept the reservation of seats in joint electorates between the caste Hindus and Depressed Classes.
In spite of opposition to Gandhiji’s approach to the issue of representation of the Depressed Classes, Ambedkar agreed to consider Gandhiji’s proposal provided that the scheme guarantees better than the Communal Award.
Ambedkar, after meeting Gandhiji who was at that time at Yeravda jail, got the assurance of Gandhiji that the interest of his community would be safe in the proposed scheme.
Gandhiji assured that he would end fast as soon as the separate electorate was replaced by the joint electorate. This softened Ambedkar’s attitude.
After prolonged deliberations between the leaders of the two groups, a formula based on the principle of joint electorate was devised and against 71 seats given by the Communal Award 148 seats were reserved for the Depressed Classes in the provincial legislatures.
As regards the central legislature, 18 percent of the total seats meant for the general electorate would be kept for the Depressed Classes.
It was also decided that the continuance of reservation would be decided in future by mutual agreement. On 24 September 1932, the Poona Pact was signed between the leaders of the Depressed Classes and caste Hindus and the same was sent to the British Prime Minister for
acceptance. As promised, Gandhiji ended his fast after the signing of the pact. The Poona Pact was accepted by the government as an amendment to the Communal Award.
Responses to Poona Pact
The varied responses to the Poona Pact are the result of different perspectives on the issue of the representation of the Depressed Classes.
To Ambedkar, the rights of the Depressed Classes were most important compared to political independence, whereas Gandhiji was fighting a two-pronged battle, one for India’s independence, the other for maintaining the cohesiveness of Hindu society.
The Poona Pact evoked strong reactions from different circles; even the demand was raised for its revision both from a section of the Depressed Classes and the Hindus as well.
The reactions were particularly sharp in the provinces of Punjab and Bengal where Hindus constituted 31 percent and 44 percent of the population respectively.
Raja Narendra Nath, who was a Hindu Mahasabha leader in Punjab, opposed the Poona Pact on the very day and commented that the Poona Pact has frustrated the very object for which the Communal Award, given by the Prime Minister, was sought to be modified.
Twenty-five Hindu M.L.C.s from Bengal, through an urgent telegram to the Prime Minister, impressed upon him the necessity of modifying the Poona Pact so far as Bengal is concerned. Rabindranath Tagore, who once urged upon the British Prime Minister to accept the Poona Pact, later on changed his opinion.
Even the members of the Depressed Classes Federation in Bengal were not happy with the arrangement made by the Poona Pact. Ambedkar himself wanted the revision of the Poona Pact because he felt that the political parties would put up their own Depressed Class candidates which would create division within the Depressed Classes.
Impact of Poona Pact on Dalits
The Poona Pact, despite giving certain political rights to the depressed classes, could not achieve the desired goal of emancipation of the depressed class. It enabled the same old Hindu social order to continue and gave birth to many problems.
The Pact made the depressed classes political tools which could be used by the majoritarian caste Hindu organisations.
It made the depressed classes leaderless as the true representatives of the classes were unable to win against the stooges who were chosen and supported by the caste Hindu organisations.
This led to 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 Brahmanical order.
It subordinated the depressed classes into being part of the Hindu social order by denying them a separate and distinct existence.
The Poona Pact perhaps put obstructions in the way of an ideal society based on equality, liberty, fraternity and justice.
By denying recognising the Dalits as a separate and distinct element in the national life, it pre-empted the rights and safeguards for the Dalits in the Constitution of independent India.
JOINT ELECTORATES AND ITS IMPACT ON DEPRESSED CLASSES
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. The working committee of the federation, thus, demanded for the restoration of the system of separate electorates, and nullification of the system of joint electorates and reserved seats. Even after signing the Poona Pact, Dr B.R. Ambedkar continued to denounce the Poona Pact till 1947.
Gandhiji on depressed classes
Gandhiji, from his childhood days, was very much concerned with the removal of untouchability.
In his opinion ‘Untouchability’ has made Indians untouchables in the whole world and those who wanted to see the condition of untouchable Indians should go to South Africa and realize what untouchability meant’.
He was also of the opinion that without integrating the vast sections of the Depressed Classes in the Hindu society and without removing untouchability, it would be difficult to achieve ‘swaraj’.
The Satyagraha Ashram founded by Gandhiji in 1915 resolved to abolish untouchability.
In place of using terms like ‘untouchables’, ‘panchamas’, ‘antyaja’, etc., Gandhiji coined the term ‘Harijan’, meaning ‘Children of God’ because he was of the opinion that other expressions were derogatory. Gandhiji brought the issue of untouchability at the centre of Indian politics.
Although Gandhiji was critical of untouchability and the restrictions on inter-marriage and inter-dining in the name of caste, he was not opposed to Chaturvarna. He argued that ‘Varnas have been sanctioned by the Shastras’.
In 1924, as president of the Belgaum session of the Indian National Congress, Gandhiji brought a resolution asking the members to pay more attention to the needs of the Depressed Classes.
The Belgaum Congress also supported the satyagrahis at Vaikom in the Travancore state where the local satyagrahis were demanding the access of the untouchables to the roads near the temple.
Gandhiji himself visited the place in 1925 and urged upon the local authorities to declare the road open for the untouchables. It is considered in history as the first major demonstration of the Congress volunteers for the cause of the Depressed Classes.
In 1932 when Gandhiji was in jail, established the All-India Anti-Untouchability League (Harijan Sevak Sangh) to initiate the Constructive Programme for the social and material development of the Depressed Classes.
The Harijan Sevak Sangh started a journal titled ‘Harijan’ to create awareness in society for the welfare of the Depressed Classes.
After his release, he shifted to the Satyagraha Ashram in Wardha as he had vowed in 1930 not to return to Sabarmati Ashram unless swaraj was won.
Instead of adopting a confrontationist line, Harijan Sevak Sangh believed in pursuing caste Hindus for a change of heart and strongly advocated for the removal of untouchability and wanted legislation for temple entry.
During 1933-1934 Gandhiji travelled various parts of the country to educate people about the need for temple entry and removal of untouchability.
As part of his Constructive Programme, Gandhiji wanted to provide quality education to the children of the Depressed Classes so that they can stand on equal footing with the upper castes.
By weaving khadi and cleaning own toilet he wanted to attach dignity to such jobs. He desired to remove the rigidities in minds considering some occupations as below dignity.
He appealed to promote cleanliness, to improve methods of scavenging and tanning, to encourage parents to send children to schools, to abolish untouchability, in order to uplift the Depressed Classes.
Gandhiji, through village reconstruction, provided the key to improve the material condition of the poor and the socially oppressed people.