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

The First World War (1914-1918) caused significant socio-economic disruptions in India, which contributed to the rise of mass mobilization for the independence movement. Some of the key disruptions included:

1. Economic Hardships

• Rise in National Debt: To fund the war, the British government significantly increased defense expenditure, leading to a rise in national debt by over Rs. 3 million between 1914 and 1923. This debt burden was passed on to the common people through heavy war loans and increased taxes. This economic strain was compounded by the rise in prices, leading to widespread hardship for the Indian populace.
• Food Shortages and Famine: The export of food grains to support the war effort, along with crop failures in 1918-19, led to food shortages and famine. The underproduction of crops during this period disproportionately affected vulnerable groups, such as women and children.

2. Distress Among Peasants and Workers

• Farmer Distress: Rising prices of industrial goods and food crops during the war were not matched by a corresponding increase in the prices of Indian agricultural raw materials. This led to severe distress among farmers, sparking protests like the Kisan Sabha movement in Uttar Pradesh (1918).
• Working-Class Discontent: Low wages, long working hours, and harsh working conditions, compounded by the demand for overtime to increase war production, led to widespread dissatisfaction among industrial workers.

3. Spread of Pandemic

• The return of Indian soldiers from the front lines in Europe facilitated the spread of the Spanish Flu (1918-1919), which claimed millions of lives and overwhelmed India’s already strained healthcare system.

Contribution to Mass Mobilization for Independence

The socio-economic impact of WW-I fueled the Indian independence struggle in several ways:

1. Political Awareness

Indian soldiers who fought in the war returned with heightened political awareness and a sense of injustice about colonial rule. This sense of empowerment contributed to the spread of nationalist ideas.

2. The Home Rule Movement

In response to the hardships caused by WW-I, the Home Rule Movement, led by leaders like Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Annie Besant, gained momentum. It called for self-governance and rallied public opinion against British policies.

3. Repressive British Policies

The British response to growing discontent included the imposition of martial law and the Rowlatt Act (1919), which restricted civil liberties. These oppressive measures further united Indian society, leading to Gandhiji’s Rowlatt Satyagraha.

4. The Khilafat-Non-Cooperation Movement

The harsh post-war Treaty of Sevres and the treatment of the Turkish Sultan (Khalifa) sparked the Khilafat Movement. Gandhiji’s Non-Cooperation Movement, which combined the Khilafat cause with the broader nationalist struggle, mobilized peasants, workers, and women.

Thus, the socio-economic disruptions caused by the war, alongside oppressive British policies, led to mass mobilization across various sections of Indian society for the independence 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.