Beginning of Mass Nationalism (1919-1939)

Model Answer

Introduction

After the withdrawal of the Non-Cooperation Movement by Gandhi in 1922, the Indian National Congress saw a division into two main factions: the Swarajists, who advocated working within the British political system, and the No Changers, who wanted to continue with non-cooperation and boycott British institutions. This division led to differing approaches towards the freedom struggle, and their ability to manage disagreements is worth examining, especially in comparison to the earlier rift between the Moderates and Extremists.

Differences Between the Swarajists and the No Changers

Swarajists

• Constitutional Engagement: The Swarajists, led by C.R. Das and Motilal Nehru, believed in engaging with the British political system through legislative councils. They saw participation in these councils as a way to push for reforms and demand concessions from the British government, particularly following the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms of 1919, which offered limited self-governance.
• Strategic Participation: They formed the Swaraj Party in 1923 to contest elections and occupy legislative positions, believing this route could serve as a stepping stone towards full independence (swaraj). They were pragmatic in their approach, focusing on legislative reforms.

No Changers

• Non-Cooperation and Civil Disobedience: Led by Gandhi, the No Changers rejected participation in British institutions. They saw the legislative councils as inadequate and instead focused on mass movements like Non-Cooperation and Civil Disobedience to achieve full independence.
• Rejection of Reforms: The No Changers viewed the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms as insufficient and advocated for immediate and complete independence.

Maturity in Managing Disagreements

Yes

• Unified Goal of Independence: Despite their differences, the Swarajists and No Changers remained united in their overarching goal of independence. This was in stark contrast to the intense fragmentation between the Moderates and Extremists after the 1907 Surat split.
• Leadership Under Gandhi: Gandhi’s leadership helped mitigate conflicts within the Congress, particularly during the 1924 Belgaum session. This allowed both factions to engage in constructive debates and remain within the broader framework of the Congress, unlike the violent split between Moderates and Extremists.
• Practical Success: The Swarajists were able to form governments in some provinces, like in the Central Provinces, following their electoral successes in 1923. Similarly, the No Changers continued to build the nationalist movement through social reforms, showing that both factions could achieve their goals without resorting to violence.

No

• Partial Separation: The Swarajists did form a separate party (Khilafat-Swarajya Party), indicating a level of detachment from the Congress, which mirrored the earlier division between Moderates and Extremists after 1907. This lessened their cohesion within the Congress.
• Moderate-Extremist Reconciliation: It is also worth noting that the Moderates and Extremists eventually reconciled through the Lucknow Pact of 1916, uniting under the common goal of independence, much like the Swarajists and No Changers.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while both the Swarajists and the No Changers took different paths towards independence, they exhibited more maturity in managing their disagreements than the Moderates and Extremists. Their ability to stay united under Gandhi’s leadership, avoid violence, and work towards practical solutions, like the Swarajists’ participation in elections, ensured that they maintained a productive role in the freedom struggle. Ultimately, their cooperation laid the groundwork for the more radical push for independence, marked by the Purna Swaraj resolution at the 1929 Lahore Session.

Model Answer

Introduction

The Vaikom Satyagraha, initiated in 1924 in Kerala, marked a significant turning point in the social and political landscape of India. Aimed at securing the rights of lower-caste communities to use the public roads leading to the Sri Mahadevar Temple, the movement sought to challenge caste-based discrimination. Led by social reformer T.K. Madhavan, and supported by Mahatma Gandhi, the Satyagraha became a symbol of both social reform and a precursor to India’s larger freedom struggle.

Vaikom Satyagraha and Social Reform

The Vaikom Satyagraha was instrumental in raising awareness about caste-based discrimination and the plight of Dalits in India. By challenging the denial of access to public roads for certain caste groups, the movement highlighted the deep-rooted social inequalities. This spurred public opinion against untouchability and inspired other social reform movements across India, including those advocating for Dalit and women’s rights.

The movement also marked a turning point in the Indian social reform landscape, instilling a sense of rationality and social justice among the masses. Gandhian principles of non-violence were actively embraced, and the Congress leadership, along with Gandhi, recognized the importance of eradicating untouchability. Thus, the Vaikom Satyagraha contributed to the broader social reform agenda of the time.

Vaikom Satyagraha and India’s Struggle for Independence

The Vaikom Satyagraha was also pivotal in India’s independence struggle, particularly in shaping the Gandhian model of non-violent resistance. The movement served as a testing ground for Satyagraha, where Gandhi’s ideas of peaceful protest were implemented on a large scale for the first time. This non-violent tactic later influenced major independence movements, including the Salt Satyagraha and the Quit India Movement.

Furthermore, the Satyagraha united people from different castes, religions, and regions, embodying the idea of mass participation. It also fostered communal harmony, with both Savarnas and Avarnas, along with Christians and Muslims, participating actively in the movement. The inclusive nature of the struggle laid the groundwork for a more unified India.

Conclusion

While primarily focused on social reform, the Vaikom Satyagraha played a crucial role in India’s broader struggle for independence. It challenged social inequalities, promoted Gandhian principles of non-violence, and set the stage for future mass movements that ultimately contributed to India’s liberation. The movement, thus, was both a significant step toward social justice and a key moment in the larger freedom movement.

Model Answer

Strategy of the Indian Capitalist Class During the National Movement

The Indian capitalist class played a significant role in the national movement, adopting a strategy that balanced constitutional participation with alternative forms of struggle. This dual approach helped them navigate between aligning with the Indian National Congress (INC) and protecting their own economic interests.

1. Support for Constitutional Methods

a. Constitutional Participation:

• The capitalists supported constitutional methods as a means to express their opposition to policies that would harm India’s economy.
• Fact: In 1934, the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industry (FICCI) rejected the Report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Constitutional Reforms for India as it did not meet the minimum national demands (Source: FICCI Records).
• Fact: FICCI advised a boycott of the Round Table Conferences, except for the Second Round Table Conference, due to the absence of INC leadership and Mahatma Gandhi (Source: FICCI Archives).

b. Alignment with Congress’s National Goals:

• The capitalist class saw participation in constitutional assemblies as a way to stay aligned with the progressive goals of the INC, particularly the attainment of Swaraj.
• Fact: They refrained from supporting bills like the Public Safety Bill that repressed socialist and communist elements within the movement, as it was seen as harmful to India’s national interests (Source: Legislative Records).

2. Support for Alternative Forms of Struggle

a. Non-Violent Mass Struggles:

• While the capitalists preferred constitutional methods, they did not rule out using non-violent mass struggles as a tool for achieving their goals.
• Fact: G.D. Birla warned British leaders like Lord Halifax and Lord Lothian with the threat of mass civil disobedience in 1937 if constitutional advances were not fulfilled (Source: Birla’s Correspondence).

b. Mediation and Pressure on the British Government:

• Capitalist leaders acted as intermediaries between the INC and the British government, particularly during critical phases like the withdrawal of the Civil Disobedience Movement.
• Fact: They pressured the British government to cease repression, release political prisoners, and lift the ban on Congress (Source: Personal Letters of G.D. Birla and Purshottamdas Thakurdas).

3. Long-Term Vision and Nationalist Support

• The capitalists recognized the importance of supporting Indian nationalism, even when faced with pressures from imperialism.
• Fact: Leaders like G.D. Birla and Purshottamdas Thakurdas critiqued imperialism’s economic exploitation, including excessive taxation and currency manipulation, strengthening the nationalist cause (Source: Economic Critiques by Indian Capitalists).

Conclusion

The Indian capitalist class adopted a balanced strategy during the national movement, supporting constitutional reforms while also using mass struggles to apply pressure on the British. Their ability to mediate between Congress and the British, combined with their long-term vision, played a crucial role in the Indian freedom struggle.

Model Answer

Evolution of the Working Class in India

The working class in India began to take shape in the latter half of the 19th century, primarily due to the growth of modern industry under British colonial rule. This evolution was closely tied to the broader Indian national movement.

Evolution of the Working Class

The destruction of the traditional village economy, driven by British free trade policies, forced many impoverished rural workers to migrate to urban areas in search of employment. This migration laid the foundation for the industrial working class, particularly in cities like Bombay and Calcutta, where demand for cheap labor surged (Source: “The Working Class of India: History and Perspective” by R. K. Sharma). Initially unorganized and exploited, especially women and children, the working conditions began to improve with the introduction of legislation like the Factories Act of 1881 and the Factories Act of 1891.

As the working class became more organized, they shifted focus from purely economic issues to broader political concerns. This transformation was evident in significant strikes and protests, such as the Ahmedabad mill strike. The establishment of trade unions post-World War I, exemplified by the formation of the All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC) in 1920, marked a consolidation of the working class. During the 1920s and 30s, communist ideologies began to influence the working class, promoting political activism (Source: “Trade Union Movement in India” by A. K. Sen).

Involvement in the Freedom Struggle

The working class actively participated in key national movements, including the Swadeshi Movement, Non-Cooperation Movement, and Quit India Movement. For instance, railway workers protested during the Rowlatt Agitation, showcasing their commitment to the national cause (Source: “The Role of Working Class in India’s Freedom Struggle” by P. S. Gupta).

Strikes and hartals became common as workers sought to address both economic and political grievances, exemplified by strikes in government presses and textile mills. Lala Lajpat Rai, president of AITUC, notably critiqued the link between capitalism and imperialism, positioning the working class as a vital force against colonial rule.

Trade unions proliferated in 1919-20, further embedding workers in the national political landscape. Many prominent leaders, including C.R. Das and Subhash Chandra Bose, collaborated with the AITUC, urging workers to engage in political activism.

Though the emergence of a strong leftist movement in the late 1920s caused some tensions with the Congress Party, the working class remained essential to the freedom struggle, particularly in the post-World War II period during the INA trials and the naval ratings’ mutiny in 1946 (Source: “The Indian National Movement: A History” by B. R. Nanda).

In summary, the working class evolved from a fragmented group into a politically conscious force, playing a pivotal role in India’s struggle for independence.