INDIVIDUAL SATYAGRAHA AND CRIPPS MISSION Study Materials

Individual Satyagraha and Cripps Mission

INDIVIDUAL SATYAGRAHA AND CRIPPS MISSION

We will focus on the period from 1940-44, covering Individual Satyagraha, its impact, and ending at the Cripps Mission and reasons for its failure.

INDIVIDUAL SATYAGRAHA

The Individual Satyagraha or passive resistance campaign was launched when the Government refused to heed the Congress resolution of lending support to Britain in its war efforts if she would grant the formation of a provisional national government.

The campaign began in October 1940 and continued till December 1942. It was started mainly to protest peacefully against the war.

Gandhiji formulated a protest not against India’s war effort as such but against the prohibition to protest against it.

The objectives of launching individual satyagraha were— (i)  to demonstrate that nationalist patience was not a sign of weakness; (ii)  to express the public’s sentiment that they were opposed to the war and did not differentiate between Nazism and the oppressive rule in India; (iii)  to provide the government with another chance to peacefully accept Congress’ demands.

Vinoba Bhave was the first to offer the satyagraha and Nehru, the second.

The struggle was mainly based on the principle of freedom of speech, not on the principle of non-violence in the circumstances of the war. 

It was to be a controlled ‘individual satyagraha’ because non-Congress members could not offer it. Replying to a query to this effect, Mahatma Gandhi had replied in March 1941 that Satyagraha could be offered by only those who had become “four anna” members of the Congress and fulfilled other conditions. Thus, the movement remained confined to the Congress.

In the United Provinces, the Congress Committees were asked to convert themselves into Satyagraha Committees. Those who were not in agreement with the programme proposed by Gandhiji were asked to resign from the organisation. Sucheta Kripalani was one of the first Congress members to be arrested from the region.

Evaluation

Regional studies have shown that the Individual Satyagraha campaign was fairly successful in the United Provinces.

In western India prominent leaders like Vinoba Bhave were arrested in October 1940 and went to jail. By June 1941 about 20,000 Congressmen had been arrested in different parts of the country.

However, it failed to impress the popular masses everywhere. Besides the restrictions placed on the campaign by Gandhiji himself, the agitational potential present in the late 1930s in places like Bihar and United Provinces, had also either been suppressed or assuaged by the provincial Congress governments through some modest land reforms before their resignation.

By October 1941, the campaign lost its initial impetus and only about 5,600 Satyagrahis had remained in jail. Thus, by and large the campaign was limited to symbolic acts of defiance.

Individual Satyagraha did not completely jeopardise the war effort. Nor did it bring the two sides – the imperial government and the Congress on to the negotiating table.

Despite the limited impact of the Individual Satyagraha campaign, several relatively unknown and marginal individuals joined the campaign to also protest against local excesses.

For instance, in 1940-41 tribal leaders like Laxman Naiko in the Malkangiri district in Orissa, along with seven local villagers launched individual satyagraha. It was through these satyagrahas that a movement was built against the immediate grievances of illegal exactions, forced and unpaid labour etc.

CRIPPS MISSION-1942

Why Cripps Mission was sent?

The political mood in India was certainly becoming belligerent in the backdrop of the individual acts of

defiance against the war-effort as witnessed in the individual satyagraha campaigns and the increase in the lack of faith in the British Indian Army’s capability of defending the east against the aggressive onward march of Japan.

There was an attempt made by Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, a leading lawyer from Allahabad, to bring the Congress and the League together to resolve the existing impasse. When the attempt failed, he presided over a conference called the Bombay Conference to arrive at a settlement with the government and to put across the Indian perspective.

The conference proposed that Britain should make a declaration promising India Dominion Status after the war. Secondly, in the interval, all central government portfolios should be transferred to the hands of non-official Indians. 

These proposals, thus, differed from the Congress proposals in that they did not demand immediate independence and they also proposed that the central executive in India should remain responsible to the Crown at least for the duration of the war.

However, the talks with the government ultimately failed. The government refused to concede to any of the proposals.

The Cripps Mission was thus formulated under the stewardship of Sir Stafford Cripps, the Lord Privy Seal in the Home Government, on 30 March 1942, as a preventive measure to thwart all attempts at withdrawal of support to Britain.

Stafford Cripps, a Socialist in British politics, was ready to concede considerable ground to the demands of the Indian nationalists.

The main proposals of the mission were as follows.

An Indian Union with a dominion status would be set up; it would be free to decide its relations with the Commonwealth and free to participate in the United Nations and other international bodies.

After the end of the war, a constituent assembly would be convened to frame a new constitution. Members of this assembly would be partly elected by the provincial assemblies through proportional representation and partly nominated by the princes.

The British government would accept the new constitution subject to two conditions: (i) any province not willing to join the Union could have a separate constitution and form a separate Union, and (ii) the new constitution- making body and the British government would negotiate a treaty to effect the transfer of power and to safeguard racial and religious minorities.

In the meantime, defence of India would remain in British hands and the governor-general’s powers would remain intact.

Departures from the Past and Implications

- The proposals differed from previous offers in several ways—

The constitution-making process was to be entirely in Indian hands, not just ‘mainly’ as in the August Offer.

A detailed plan for the constituent assembly was provided.

Provinces had the option to create separate constitutions, offering a blueprint for India’s partition.

Free India had the possibility of withdrawing from the Commonwealth.

A significant role was given to Indians in the administration during the interim period.

Why Cripps Mission Failed

The Cripps Mission proposals failed to meet the expectations of Indian nationalists and were seen largely as a propaganda tool for garnering support from the US and China. Different parties and groups raised objections to the proposals on various points.

The Congress objected to:

The offer of dominion status instead of full independence.

Representation of princely states by nominees rather than elected representatives.

The right for provinces to secede, which conflicted with the principle of national unity.

Lack of any immediate transfer of power and no real share in defence, with the governor-general retaining supreme authority.

Nehru and Maulana Azad were the official negotiators for the Congress.

THE MUSLIM LEAGUE

criticized the idea of a single Indian Union;

did not like the machinery for the creation of a constituent assembly and the procedure to decide on the accession of provinces to the Union; and

thought that the proposals denied the Muslims the right to self-determination and the creation of Pakistan.

Other response

Several groups objected to the provinces' right to secede, with the Liberals opposing it as undermining India’s unity and security.

The Hindu Mahasabha criticized the foundation of the right to secede.

The depressed classes expressed concern that partition would leave them vulnerable to the caste Hindus.

The Sikhs opposed partition, fearing it would result in losing Punjab.

Cripps’ inability to move beyond the Draft Declaration and his rigid “take it or leave it” approach worsened the deadlock. Initially, Cripps had discussed a cabinet or national government, but later clarified it was merely an expansion of the executive council.

The procedure for accession was not well-defined, with decisions being made through a 60% majority in the legislature or a plebiscite, which disadvantaged Hindus in Punjab and Bengal if they sought accession to the Indian Union.