Roadmap for Answer Writing
1. Introduction
- Contextualize the situation: Briefly mention the political situation after the withdrawal of the Non-Cooperation Movement in 1922 and the divisions that arose within the Indian National Congress.
- State the factions: Introduce the two main factions—Swarajists and No Changers—and the broader context of the Moderates and Extremists split prior to 1907.
Facts
- After Gandhi’s call for the withdrawal of the Non-Cooperation Movement in 1922, a split occurred within the Congress.
- Swarajists, led by C.R. Das and Motilal Nehru, wanted to engage within the British framework through legislative councils.
- No Changers, led by Gandhi, focused on non-cooperation and civil disobedience as methods for achieving full independence.
2. Main Body
Part 1: Differences in Approach to the Freedom Struggle
a. Swarajists’ Approach:
- Constitutional Methods: They believed in participating in the British legislative system to secure reforms and push for self-government (swaraj).
- Support for Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms: They viewed the 1919 reforms as a means to further the autonomy of India.
- Formation of Swaraj Party (1923): The party was formed to contest elections to the legislative councils.
Facts
- Swaraj Party formed in 1923 under the leadership of C.R. Das and Motilal Nehru.
- The Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms (1919) expanded the franchise but did not offer full autonomy. The Swarajists saw these reforms as steps toward self-rule.
b. No Changers’ Approach
- Non-Cooperation & Civil Disobedience: They rejected the reforms, arguing that true independence could only be achieved through mass movements, including non-cooperation and civil disobedience.
- Rejection of Legislative Councils: They boycotted councils, seeing them as a sham to maintain British control.
- Leadership of Gandhi: Gandhi led the No Changers, focusing on mass mobilization and direct action.
Facts
- Gandhi’s leadership in the Non-Cooperation Movement (1920-22) and the subsequent Civil Disobedience Movement.
- The No Changers’ rejection of the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms, advocating for complete independence instead.
c. Comparison
-
- Swarajists were more pragmatic and accepted limited reforms to build a foundation for future self-rule.
- No Changers, especially Gandhi, were more radical, rejecting anything short of full independence.
Part 2: Handling Disagreements – Comparison with Moderates and Extremists
a. Swarajists & No Changers
- Unity Despite Differences: Both factions, despite having differing strategies, worked within the broader Indian National Congress (INC). They avoided major violent clashes and reconciled their differences under Gandhi’s leadership by 1924.
- Less Violent Splits: There was no violent confrontation like the Surat split (1907) between Moderates and Extremists.
- Coexistence and Success: Both factions achieved significant success—Swarajists through elections and local governance, and No Changers through mass mobilization and cultural reforms.
Facts
- Gandhi’s leadership during the 1924 Belgaum session helped reconcile internal differences within the INC, facilitating unity despite differing approaches.
- Swarajists formed governments in provinces like Central Provinces in 1923, effectively managing practical political affairs.
- No Changers focused on ‘constructive work’, i.e., social and educational reforms to build nationalist sentiment.
b. Moderates and Extremists
- Violent Split (Surat, 1907): The Moderates (led by Gopal Krishna Gokhale and Dadabhai Naoroji) and Extremists (led by Bal Gangadhar Tilak) had a violent split in 1907 over differences in approach—Moderates believed in gradual reforms, while Extremists demanded more immediate and radical changes.
- Reconciliation Through Lucknow Pact (1916): Moderates and Extremists eventually reconciled in 1916 through the Lucknow Pact, realizing the importance of unity in the face of British oppression.
Facts
-
- The Surat split (1907) resulted in a significant division within the INC, leading to a temporary weakening of the Indian freedom movement.
- The Lucknow Pact of 1916 between Congress and the Muslim League helped unite the Indian nationalist front, demonstrating the possibility of reconciliation even after violent splits.
3. Conclusion
- Summarize the key differences: The Swarajists and No Changers, though differing in their strategies (engagement vs. non-cooperation), both contributed significantly to the freedom struggle. Unlike the Moderates and Extremists, their disagreements were resolved more peacefully and pragmatically.
- Final Evaluation: Conclude that the Swarajists and No Changers demonstrated greater maturity in handling disagreements compared to the Moderates and Extremists, who experienced violent conflict before reconciling.
Relevant Facts and Sources
- Swaraj Party Formation (1923): Led by C.R. Das and Motilal Nehru to participate in legislative councils.
- Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms (1919): Introduced limited self-government; Swarajists supported it as a step towards independence.
- Gandhi’s Non-Cooperation Movement (1920-22): Focused on non-violent resistance and mass mobilization for independence.
- 1924 Belgaum Session: Gandhi helped unite the Swarajists and No Changers under the INC leadership.
- Surat Split (1907): Violent confrontation between the Moderates and Extremists, weakening the Congress.
- Lucknow Pact (1916): Reconciliation between the Moderates and Extremists, marking a significant step towards unity in the Congress.
Introduction
Post 1922’s Non-Cooperation Movement end the Indian National Congress developed internal disagreements. Under the leadership of C.R. Das and Motilal Nehru both activists formed Swarajism which advocated entering British legislative councils. Gandhi directed the No Changers who maintained only non-cooperation with constructive work as ways to support change. Unlike the 1907 Moderates vs Extremists split Swarajists alongside No Changers carefully established this separation through cooperative means.
Differences in Approach to the Freedom Struggle –
1. Swarajists’ Approach –
– Constitutional Methods: The Swarajists joined legislative councils to advocate cases for reforms and expanded authority because of their political goals. –
– Setting up of Swaraj Party (1923): Through voting and political contests they fought to overtake British domination from the inside out.
– Pragmatism: According to the Swarajists the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms included provisions for the advancement of India’s self-rule status.
2. No Changers’ Approach
– Non-Cooperation: They promoted institution boycotting combined with civil disobedience activities alongside mass popular engagements.
– Constructive Work: Khadi numbers rose along with rural infrastructure development and educational initiatives to boost localized nationalist consciousness.
– Rejection of Legislative Councils: During colonial times people saw their participation as granting validity to the British administrative system.
Leadership approaches to discord stemming from difference in ideology became the focus of observation regarding choice tactics between extremists and moderates.
Swarajists and No Changers
– Unity Despite Differences: Under Gandhi’s leadership the moderation and revolutionary camps operated within Congress boundaries and merged their divergent positions at the 1924 Belgaum congress meeting.
– Complementary Strategies: During the time the Swarajists directed legislative politics while No Changers maintained their focus on mass adoption. 2. Moderates and Extremists
– Violent Split (Surat, 1907): The temporary decline of the Congress movement came after deep ideological disagreements led to complete fragmentation.
– Reconciliation (Lucknow Pact, 1916): After a decade-long separation Congress members finally saw fit to unite their forces as one entity.
Conclusion
Swarajists and No Changers, despite the different tactics used, stayed together in Congress. This managed to blend mass action with legislation in the Congress. Moderates and Extremists’ schism was the reason for the biggest loss before reunification. Maturity as seen by Swarajists and No Changers exemplified a more cohesive and effective way of handling disagreement in the freedom movement.
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
No Changers
Maturity in Managing Disagreements
Yes
No
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.