SWARAJISTS AND NO-CHANGERS [1922-1926] Study Materials

[1922-1926]

[1922-1926]

In this unit

We will explore the phase of political inactivity within Congress. We will discuss various factions like Swarajists, No-Changers and Gandhi's perspectives on each.

The non-cooperation movement was suddenly brought to a halt in May 1922 following the violence at Chauri Chaura. Almost immediately after the withdrawal of the movement, Gandhiji was arrested and sentenced to six years imprisonment. At this point the national movement was at a crossroad and there were two important questions confronting the Congress leadership:

1.  Should the non-cooperation movement be resumed again or not? 2.  What should be the Congress stand on the 1923 elections to the legislatures?

To get a sense of the mood of the people on these questions, the AICC constituted an enquiry committee in June 1922. The committee consisted of Hakim Ajmal Khan, Vitthalbhai Patel, Motilal Nehru, Srinivas Aiyangar, M.A. Ansari and C. Rajagopalachari. The committee toured the country and submitted its report. All the members unanimously agreed that the country was not ready for a round of non-cooperation. On the question of council-entry, however, there was a difference of opinion.

Ajmal Khan, Vithalbhai Patel and Motilal Nehru were in favour of council entry by Congressmen and the remaining members were against it. The advocates of council entry came to be identified as pro-changers or ‘Swarajists’.

C. Rajagopalachari led the other school of thought, Vallabhbhai Patel, Rajendra Prasad and M.A. Ansari came to be known as the No- changers. 

Since the AICC was unable to come to a conclusion on this issue, the final decision was left for the annual session of the Congress to be held at Gaya in December 1922. Chittaranjan Das was the president of the Congress at this time.

At the Gaya session of the Congress the real differences between the two groups came to the fore. 

The pro-changers wanted Congressmen to contest elections, enter the legislative bodies and put-up stiff resistance to the British inside the legislatures.

The no-changers, on the other hand, believed that council entry would dilute the spirit of non-cooperation and amount to cooperation with the British. Instead of council entry they suggested that the national movement should be advanced by carrying on Gandhiji’s constructive programme.

Constructive programme consisted of promoting Hindu-Muslim unity, Khadi and a social campaign against untouchability.

The final decision was left for the general session of the Congress. The general Congressmen voted for the no-changers. The verdict of the Congress was overwhelmingly against council entry. Since this decision was against the thinking of president C.R. Das, he resigned from Congress presidentship.

The pro-changers realised that a fairly large section of Congressmen was in favour of council entry. Therefore, immediately after the Gaya Congress, they convened a meeting of their supporters and decided to form a new party within the Congress. They gave it the name of Congress Khilafat Swaraj Party or simply Swarajist Party. C.R. Das was the president and Motilal Nehru the general secretary of the new party.

The Swarajists were allowed to contest elections as a group within the Congress. The Swarajists accepted the Congress programme with only one difference, that they would join legislative councils.

The elections to the newly constituted Central Legislative Assembly and to provincial assemblies were to be held in November 1923.

Swarajists’ Arguments

The Swarajists had their reasons for advocating entry into the councils.

Entering the councils would not negate the non- cooperation programme; in fact, it would be like carrying on the movement through other means, opening a new front.

In a time of political vacuum, council work would serve to enthuse the masses and keep up their morale.

Entry of nationalists would deter the government from stuffing the councils with undesirable elements who may be used to provide legitimacy to government measures.

The councils could be used as an arena of political struggle; there was no intention to use the councils as organs for gradual transformation of colonial rule.

No-Changers’ Arguments

The No-Changers argued that parliamentary work would lead to neglect of constructive work, loss of revolutionary zeal and to political corruption. 

Constructive work would prepare everyone for the next phase of civil disobedience.

THE SWARAJIST MANIFESTO FOR ELECTIONS

The Swarajist manifesto, released in October 1923, took a strong anti-imperialist stance.

It argued that the British governed India for their own selfish interests, exploiting the country’s resources while keeping Indians in a subordinate position.

Swarajists aimed to demand self-government within the councils, striving for autonomy.

If their demand was denied, they proposed a policy of continuous obstruction to create deadlocks and make governance through councils impossible.

Gandhiji’s Attitude

Gandhiji was initially opposed to the Swarajist proposal of council entry. But after his release from prison on health grounds in February 1924, he gradually moved towards a reconciliation with the Swarajists. He felt public opposition to the programme of council entry would be counter-productive.

Swarajists at the Polls

Swaraj Party contested the elections in 1923 and 1926. The 1923 elections were held almost immediately after the formation of the Party.

In the 1923 elections, the party performed well but well below its own expectations.

The party acquired a majority in CP and emerged as the largest single party in the Central Assembly, Bombay and Bengal. In UP it registered an impressive presence but in other places the performance of the party was generally disappointing.

On the whole the party won 234 seats (42 at the centre and 192 in the provinces).

Swarajists in the assembly

Motilal Nehru became the leader of opposition in the Central Legislative Assembly.

Motilal Nehru tried to mobilise the Liberals and the independents. He was able to successfully reach out to Liberal leaders like Tej Bahadur Sapru, and liberal communal leaders like Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Madan Mohan Malaviya.

At the time of the convening of the first session of the Assembly, Mahatma Gandhi was in jail. The first task of the Swaraj Party in the Assembly was to give a notice to the government for Gandhiji’s release. The proposal was almost certain to receive support from other Indian members. Therefore, sensing the mood of the Assembly, the government released Gandhiji the day the proposal was to be tabled. This was the first victory of the Swaraj Party in the Assembly.

Motilal Nehru moved an amendment proposing that the new Constitution should be framed by a representative Round Table Conference and approved by the Indian Legislative Assembly. The amendment was opposed by the government benches but it got overwhelming support from the elected members. This was the first and perhaps the most spectacular victory of the Swaraj Party in the Assembly.

In 1926, the Swaraj Party moved a proposal for the release of political prisoners. But this demand did not receive the support of other Indian members of the Assembly and was defeated.

Throughout the period (1923-26) Swaraj Party opposed the government budget and other government proposals. However, this process of non-cooperation in the Assembly could not continue for very long after 1926. Therefore, the party as a whole decided to stage a ‘walk out’ of the Assembly.

A noteworthy achievement was the defeat of the Public Safety Bill in 1928 which was aimed at empowering the Government to deport undesirable and subversive foreigners.

Vithalbhai Patel was elected speaker of the Central Legislative Assembly in 1925.

Swarajist Activity in Councils

Swarajist activities continued in provincial councils, especially in Central Provinces (CP), where they effectively utilized their majority.

They consistently opposed government proposals, placed no-confidence motions, criticized and opposed the government budget, and rejected all government offices during the initial years.

However, over time, Swarajist influence weakened due to widespread communal riots and internal divisions between Swarajists on communal and Responsivist versus Non-responsivist lines.

Responsivists like Lala Lajpat Rai, Madan Mohan Malaviya, and N.C. Kelkar advocated cooperation with the government and holding office where possible, while protecting Hindu interests.

Meanwhile, communal tensions led to accusations of anti-Hindu and anti-Muslim biases, with leaders like Motilal Nehru being labeled anti-Hindu and Muslim communalists accusing Swarajists of being anti-Muslim.

The Swarajists faced a setback in the 1926 elections, securing only 40 seats in the Centre and losing in places like the United Provinces, Central Provinces, and Punjab. In 1930, they withdrew following the Lahore Congress resolution on purna swaraj and the onset of the Civil Disobedience Movement.

Drawbacks

The Swarajists lacked a policy to coordinate their militancy inside legislatures with the mass struggle outside. They relied totally on newspaper reporting to communicate with the public.

An obstructionist strategy had its limitations.

They could not carry on with their coalition partners very far because of conflicting ideas, which further limited their effectiveness.

They failed to resist the perks and privileges of power and office.

They failed to support the peasants’ cause in Bengal and lost support among Muslim members who were pro- peasant.

Constructive Work by No-Changers

The No-Changers devoted themselves to constructive work that connected them to the different sections of the masses.

Ashrams sprang up where young men and women worked among tribals and lower castes (especially in Kheda and Bardoli areas of Gujarat), and popularised the use of charkha and khadi.

National schools and colleges were set up where students were trained in a non-colonial ideological framework.

Significant work was done for Hindu-Muslim unity, removing untouchability, boycott of foreign cloth and liquor, and for flood relief.

The constructive workers served as the backbone of civil disobedience as active organisers.

A Critique of Constructive Work

National education benefited the urban lower middle classes and the rich peasants only.

Popularisation of khadi was an uphill task since it was costlier than the imported cloth.

While campaigning about the social aspect of untouchability, no emphasis was laid on the economic grievances of the landless and agricultural labourers comprising mostly the untouchables.

Although the Swarajists and the No-changers worked in their separate ways, they kept on best of terms with one another and were able to unite whenever the time was ripe for a new political struggle.