ITS GENESIS 

THE 1857 revolt was suppressed. The British Empire in India was saved, Queen Victoria was proclaimed Empress of India and the new policy was ushered in. It was even more reactionary and in the long run proved very harmful. The native princes were now to be used as British tools and propped as bulwark against forces of resistance and progress. Government was no longer to encourage social reform. The benign rule was thus to carefully preserve decaying aristocracies, superstition and warring dogmas and cults. These were to provide the pattern for British imperialism with its foundations laid deep in the religious differences, caste and untouchability and the feudal states and the aristocracy.

ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL DISCONTENT

The policy of economic exploitation, however, became even worse though more subtle, Mass unrest was the inevitable result of the ever growing poverty and helplessness of the peasantry.

The common people, Hindus and Muslims, struggled against the terrible oppression, wherever they could and with whatever weapons they could muster. There was a new English educated class which was used to run the Government machinery. I was great admirer of everything Western which lent its support to the Government.

The belief of the educated classes in the English tradition of liberal thought and institutions received setbacks as a result of various Government measures. The Freedom of the press, introduced earlier by Metcalfe was soon done away with. The vernacular Press was gagged in 1878 and the Bengali Amrita Bazar Patrika had to change overnight into an English garb. The Arms Act was passed in 1879. This disillusionment advanced further when the filbert Bill to abolish “judicial discrimination, based, on racial distinction” had to be virtually dropped on accounts of fierce opposition by the European community and the Civil Service. The Europeans did not hesitate to threaten the Viceroy, Lord Ripon, with violence if the Bill was passed. Indians learned the’ lesson at time. In 1853 the first Cotton Mill was established in Bombay. The number of mills rose to 156 by 1880. This was an alarming progress and under pressure of Lancashire, all duties on cotton imports into India were removed in 1882.

It was not merely the economic exploitation and the sense of political subjection that gave birth to the Congress. For fifty years and more before the birth of the Congress, the leaven of national rejuvenation had been at work. In fact national life was in a state of ferment as early as in the times of Rammohan Roy, who could in a w be regarded as the prophet of Indian Nationalism and the father of modern India. He has a wide vision and a broad outlook. While it is in that the socio-religious condition of his day was the subject of his special attention in his reformist activities, he nevertheless a keen sense of the grave political wrongs by which his country was afflicted at that time and made a strenuous effort to seek an early redress of those wrongs. Rammohan Roy was born in 1776 and passed away at Bristol in 1883. His name is associated with two great reforms in India, namely, the abolition of Sati and the introduction of western learning in the country. In the closing period of his life he chose to Visit England and his passion for liberty was so great that when he reached the Cape of Good Hope he insisted on his being carried to a French vessel where he the flag of liberty flying, so that he might be able to do homage to that flag, and when he saw the flag he shouted, “Glory, Glory, Glory to the Flag.” Although he had gone to England primarily as the ambassador of the Moghul Emperor to plead his cause in London, yet he took the opportunity to place some of the pressing Indian grievances before a Committee of the House of Commons. He submitted three papers, on the Revenue system of India, the Judicial system of India, and the Material condition of India. He was honoured by the East India Company with a public dinner. When in 1832 the Charter Act was before Parliament he vowed that if the Bill was not passed he would give up his residence in the British dominion and reside in America.

The Universities were established in 1858 and the High Courts and the Legislative Councils in India between 1861and 1963 Just before the “mutiny”, the “Widow Re-marriage Act” was passed as also the Act relating to conversion into Christianity. In the sixties of the nineteenth century, an intimate contact was established with Western learning and literature, Western legal institutions and Parliamentary methods were inaugurated, to mark a new era in the field of law and legislation. The impact of Western civilization on the East could not hut leave a deep impress upon the beliefs and sentiments of the Indian people who came directly under its influence.

The only parts of the country which had received some education on modern, lines were the provinces of Bengal, Bombay and Madras. The number of educated men even in these provinces was small. In the work of settlement that followed the mutiny, these educated men found ample scope for their ambition. These races of Babus began to think like their English masters, admired and emulated everything that came from the West.

Soon, however, there was a reaction against this process of denationalisation which assumed various forms, some of a synthesis of the West and the East and others of a revivalism going to the past.

BRAHMO SAMAJ & PRARTHANA SAMAJ

The germs of religious reform planted in the days of Rammohan Roy became widespread Keshab Chandra Sen on whose shoulders fell the mantle of Rammohan Roy spread the gospel of the Brahmo Samaj far and wide and gave a new social orientation to its tenets. He turned his attention to the temperance movement and. made common cause with the temperance reformers in England. He was largel responsible for the passing of the Civil Marriage Act III of 1872.

The Brahmo Samaj of Bengal had it’s repercussions all over the country. In Poona, the movement assumed the name of Prarthana Samaj under the leadership of MG. Ranade, who, it will be remembered was the founder of the Social Reform movement which for long years continued to be an adjunct of the Congress. One feature, however, to this reformist movement was a certain disregard for the past and a spirit of revolt from the time-honoured and traditional beliefs of the country, which arose from au undue glamour presented by the Western institutions and  heightened greatly by the political prestige associated with them.

ARYA SAMAJ

The Arya Sarnaj in the North West founded by the venerable Swami Dayanand Saraswati, and the Theosophical movement from the South furnished the necessary corrective to the spirit of heterodoxy and even heresy which the Western learning brought with it. Both of them were intensely nationalistic movements, only the Arya Samaj movement which owed its birth to the inspiration of the great Dayanand Saraswati was aggressive in its patriotic zeal, and while holding fast to the cult of the infallibility of the Vedas and the superiority of and the infallibility of the Vedic culture was at the same time not inimical to broad social reform. It thus developed a virile manhood in the Nation which was the synthesis of what is best in its heredity, with what is best in its environment. It fought some of the prevailing social evils and religious superstitions in Hinduism as much as the Brahmo Samnaj had battle against polytheism, idolatry amid polygamy.

THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT

The Theosophical movement while it extended its studies and sympathies to the wide world, laid special emphasis on a rediscovery as well as a rehabilitation of all that was great and glorious in the culture, It was this passion that led Mrs. Besant to start a college in Benares, the holy cit of India. The Theosophical activities, while developing a spirit of international brotherhood, helped to check that sense of rationalist superiority of the West and planted anew a cultural centre in India which attracted the savants amid scholars of the West once again to this ancient land.

RAMAKRISHNA MISSION

The latest phase of nation renaissance in India prior to the Congress was inaugurated in Bengal by that great sage, Ram Krishana Paramhansh, who later found in Swami Vivekanand his chief apostle carrying his gospel to East and West. The Ramakrishna Mission is not merely an organisation wedded to occultism or realism, but to a profound transcendentalism which, however, does not ignore the supreme duty of “Loke-Sangraha” or social service.

This “Cyclonic Hindu”, as Vivekananda was called in America, carried the message of India not only to America or Europe, Egypt, China and Japan but was himself influenced greatly by the West and preached a dynamic new gospel of regeneration in India, from Cape Comorin to the Himalayas. He stressed on the necessity for liberty amid equality and the raising of the masses. He wanted to combine he Western progress with Indian spiritual background. The one constant refrain of his speech and writing was Abhay “Be fearless, be strong for weakness is sin, weakness is death.”

A contemporary of Vivekananda and yet belonging to a much more later generation was Rabindranath Tagore. The Tagore family played a great part in various reform movements during the 19th Century in Bengal. It gave us Abhindranath Tagore and others,, great spiritual leaders and artists. The influence of Tagore over the mind of India and the stamp that he has left in the domain of literature, poetry, drama, music, soci4l and educational reconstruction and political thought is unsurpassed .in its beauty and depth. It is a marvel of human personality and mind affecting and giving colour to successive generations. The contribution of Tagore has been of a synthesis of the East and West, of the modern and the ancient and of the international with the national tide in the country.

These currents and movements were the real, lifeblood of the new national consciousness, urge and their embodiment that took shape partly and developed from, stage to stage in the form of the Indian National Congress.

THE IDEA OF AN ALL-INDIA ORGANISATION

The credit for the birth of the Congress is often sought to be given to A/art Octavian Hume, who with the’ blessings ‘of the Viceroy, Lord Dufferin, inaugurated it. The British are thus said to be the foster parents of the Indian nationalism. It is true that Hume was the organiser of the Congress Session in 1885. But it will be seen that the Congress was the natural and inevitable production of various political, economic and social forces.

The more alert among the English administrators were not unaware of the rising unrest in the country. “A reckless bureaucratic Government sat at this time trembling upon the crumbling fragments of a mendacious budget on the one side on the sheathing and surging discontent of multitudinous, population on the other”. Mr. Hume collected widespread evidence of the imminence of a “terrible revolution” by the half-starved and desperate population and set about to find ways and means of direction the popular impulse into an innocuous channel.

He wrote a letter to “Graduates of Calcutta University” on March 1, 1883 and the “Indian National Union” was formed in 1884, in response to this, for constitutional agitation, on au all-India basis, and was to meet in Poona later. The Government who first patronised this organisation, however, found later that it outgrew their plans and the patronage was soon withdrawn. It came to be called the ‘factory of sedition’ in a few years and later Lord Dufferin himself tried to twit it as a body representing “microscopic minority” of India’s population.

There were various provincial political organisations that preceded the Congress. In Bengal which was at the vanguard of progress at this time, in 1843 was founded the British Indian Society to be merged later into the British Indian Association. This body had such stalwarts as Rajendralal Mitra, Ramgopal Ghosh, Peary Chand Mitter and Harish Chandra Mukherjee. In Bombay there was the Bombay Association with Jaggannath Sankerset, Dadabhai Naoroji, V.N, Mandlik and Nowrosjee Furdunjec.

Later, more popular bodies, the Indian Association in Bengal and Sarvajanika Sabha in Poona, under Ranade and 1ahajauia Sabha in Madras were established. Surendranath ‘Bannerjee went on an all India tour in 1877 and succeeding years and carried a campaign about Indian Home Rule and the political questions of the day. He attended the Delhi Durbar that year, and the idea of an all-India political organisation was mooted there.

In December 1884, the Annual Convention of the Theosophical Society was held at Madras and there  some leading public men met and decided to inaugurate an all India national movement.

Thus, the ground was well prepared for the Government to take the initiative and the credit of forming the National Congress and keep it under control.

The Indian National movement was primarily a movement for freedom from alien domina-nation. The movement has been one comprehensive effort embracing all aspects of the life of the community.

The birth of the Indian National Congress, perhaps the oldest and the biggest democratic organisation in the world, did not take place in an atmosphere of a fanfare of trumpets nor did it create a stir by passing flamboyant resolutions.

HUME’S INITIATIVE

In 1884, at the annual convention of the Theosophical Society at Adyar in Madras, Mr. Allan Octavian Hume laid bare to his friends his plan to organise the Congress. A committee was formed to make the necessary prepara tions for a session at Poona to be held in 1885.

The committee consisted of Mr. Hume, Mr. Surendra Nath Bannerji, Mr. Narendranath Sen, Mr. S. Subrarnania Iyer, Mr. P. Ananda Charlu, Mr. V.N. Mandalik, Mr.K.T. Telag, Sardar Dayal Singh, Lala Sri Ram.

Mr Hume, still a government servant, addressed an “Resolutions” that were passed on what were thought to open letter to the graduates of Calcutta University with a fervent appeal for self help.

He said “and if even the leaders of thought are all years, excepting ‘agitation’ on these resolutions in India either such poor creatures, or so selfishly wedded to and in England personal concern, that they dare not strike a blow for their country’s sake, then justly and rightly they are kept down and trampled on, for they deserve nothing better. Every nation secures precisely as good a government as it merits, If you the picked men, the most highly. educated of the nation cannot, scorning personal ease and selfish objects, make a resolute struggle to secure greater freedom for yourselves and your country, a more impartial administration, a larger share in the management of your own affairs then we, your friends are wrong and our adversaries right, then Lord Rippon’s noble aspirations for your good are fruitless and visionary, then at present at any rate, all hopes of progress are at an end, and India truly neither lacks nor deserves any better government than she enjoys.

“Only if this be so, let us hear no more factious, peevish complaints that you are kept in strings and treated like children, for you will have proved yourself such, Men know how to act. Let there be no more complaints of Englishmen being preferred to you ill all important offices, for if you lack that public spirit, that highest form of altruistic devotion that leads men to subordinate private case to the public weal that patriotism that has made Englishmen what they are-then rightly are these preferred to you, rightly and inevitably have they become your rulers.. And rulers and task masters they must continue let the yoke gall your shoulders never so sorely, until you realise and stand prepared to act upon the eternal truth that self-sacrifice and unselfish ness are the only unfailing guide to freedom and happiness.”

THE FIRST SESSION

The first session, of the Congress was to meet at Poona hut owing to an outbreak of cholera the venue was shifted to Bombay and the session began on the 28th December 1885, with Mr. W. C. Bnnerjee, the doyen of the Calcutta Bar in the chair, though originally, it had been decided to request Lord Reay, Governor of Bombay, to be the first President of the Indian National Congress but the idea had to be dropped as the Governor was advised by the Viceroy not to accept the offer. 72 delegates came from different parts of the country and most important among them were Dadabhai Naoroji, Ranade, Pherozeshah Mehta K.T. Telang, Dinshaw Wacha, etc. The meeting was truly a national gathering consisting of leading men from all parts of India.

The president defined the objective of the Congress as “promotion of personal intimacy and friendship among all the more earnest workers in our country’s cause in the parts of the empire and eradication of race, creed or provincial prejudice and fuller development of national unity.”

In its early sessions, the Congress Organisation, by and large, limited its activities only to debates.

After the Madras Session in 1887, an aggressive propaganda was started among the masses. Hume published a pamphlet entitled “An Old Man’s Hope” in which he appealed to the people of England in these words: “Ah men, well-fed and happy, do you at all realise the dull misery of these countless myriads? From their births to their deaths, how many rays of sunshine think you chequer their gloom-shrouded paths? Toil, toil, toil; hunger, hunger, hunger, sickness, suffering, sorrow; these alas, alas, alas are the keynotes of their short and sad existence.

In December 1889, the Congress Session was held at Bombay under the Presidentship of Sir William  Wedderburn. It was attended by Charles Bradlaugh, a member of British Parliament He addressed the Congress  in words; “For whom should I work if not for the people? Born of the people, trusted by the people, I will die for the people, and I know no geographical or race limitation.”

Dadabhai Naoroji was re-elected as the President of the Lahore Session of the Congress held in December 1893, His journey from Bombay to Lahore presented the spectacle of a procession, and Citizens at various places on the way presented him addresses. At the Golden Temple at Amritsar, he was given a robe of honour. Addressing the audience at the Session, Dadabhai Naoraji declared: “Let us, always remember that we are children of our mother country. Indeed, I have never worked in any other spirit than that I am an Indian and owe duty to my work and all my countrymen. Whether I am a Hindu or a Mohammedan, a Parsi, a Christian, or of any other creed, Tam above all an Indian. Our country is I our nationality is Indian.”

THE MODERATES

The early Congressmen who dominated the affairs of the Indian National Congress from 1885, to 1905 were known as the Moderates. They belonged to a class which was Indian in blood and colour but British in tastes, in opinions, in morals and in intellect. They were supporters of British institutions. They believed that what India needed was a balanced and lucid presentation of her needs before the Englishmen and their Parliament. They had faith in the British sense of justice and fairplay.

The Moderates believed in orderly progress and constitutional agitation. They believed in patience, steadiness, conciliation and union. To quote Surendarnath Banerjee, “The triumphs of liberty are not to be won in a day. Liberty is a jealous goddess, exacting in her worship and claiming from her votaries prolonged and assiduous devotion.” In 1887, Badruddin Tyabji observed: “Be moderate in your demands just in your criticism, correct in your facts and logical in your conclusions.”

The Moderates believed in constitutional agitation within the four corners of law. They believed that their main task was to educate the people, to arouse national political consciousness and to create a united public, opinion on political questions. For this purpose they held meetings. They criticised the Government through the press. They drafted and submitted memorials and petitions to the- Government, to the officials of the. Government of India and also to the British Parliament. They also worked to influence the British Parliament and British public opinion. The object of the memorials and petitions was to enlighten the British public and political leaders about the conditions prevailing in India. Deputations of leading Indian leaders were sent to Britain in 1889. A British Committee of the Indian National Congress was founded in 1906 and that Committee started a journal called India. Dadabhai Naoroji spent a major part of his life and income in Britain doing propaganda among its people and politicians.

The object before the Moderates was “wide employment of Indians in higher offices in the public service and the establishment of representative institutions.”

The economic and political demands of the Moderates were formulated with a view to unifying the Indian people on the basis of a common political programme. They organised a powerful all-India agitation against the abandonment of tariff-duties on imports and against the imposition of cotton excise duties. This agitation aroused the feelings of the people and helped them to realise the real aims and purposes of British rule in India. They urged the Government to provide cheap credit to the peasantry through agricultural banks and to make avail able irrigation facilities on a large scale. They asked for improvement in the conditions of work of the plantation labourers, a radical change in the existing pattern of taxation and expenditure which put a heavy burden on the poor while leaving the rich, especially the foreigners, with a very light load.

The Moderates complained of India’s growing poverty and economic backwardness and put all the blame on the policies of the British Government. They criticised the individual administrative measures and worked hard to reform the administrative system.

The Moderates opposed tooth and nail the restrictions imposed by the Government on the freedom of speech and the press. In 1897, Tilak and many other leaders were arrested and sentenced to long terms of imprisonment for spreading disaffection against the Government through their speeches and writings. The Natu brothers of Poona were deported without trial. The arrest of Tilak marked the beginning of a new phase of the Nationalist movement. The Amrita Bazar Patrika wrote: “There is scarcely a home in this vast country where Tilak is not now the subject of melancholy talk and where his imprisonment is not considered as a domestic calamity.”

The basic weakness of the Moderates lay in their narrow social base. Their movement did not have a wide appeal. The area of their influence was limited to the urban community. As they 1id not have the support of the masses, they declared that the time was not ripe for throwing out a challenge to the foreign rulers. To quote Gokhale, “You do not realise the enormous reserve of power behind the Government. If the Congress were to do anything such as you suggest, the Government would have no difficulty in throttling it in five minutes.” However, it must not be presumed that the Moderate leaders fought for their narrow interests. Their pro-grammes and policies championed the cause of all sections of the Indian people and represented nation-wide interests against colonial exploitation. What they wanted was to reform or liberalise the existing system of government through peaceful, gradualist and constitutional means.

The influence of the moderates, however, declined with the rise of the militants who did not believe in gradualism and who criticized the moderates for their great faith in Britain and British political institutions.

RISE OF EXTREMISM

TIme moderates sought to make time provincial legislatures more representative and to increase the Indian element in the civil services, but the process was long and the progress slow slow, Repelled by the unsympathetic approach of the imperial bureaucracy and enraged by he unpopular policies of Lord Curzon, the Viceroy, and particularly his decision on the partition of Bengal, the youth of India moved towards militant politics and direct action. As a protest against the partition of Bengal (October 1905), the nationalists advocated the boycott of British goods.

In 1907, Bipin Pal made the paradoxical statement that the “viceroyalty of Lord Curzon…. had been one of the most beneficent if not decidedly the most beneficent viceroyalty that India ever had,” for Curzon, by pursuing his unpopular policies, had made Indians SO discontented that they demanded self-government with greater determination than ever before.  Aurobindo similarly declared that he considered the partition of Bengal to be a most beneficial measure because, by arousing intense opposition among the people, that measure had stirred up and strengthened national feeling.

As a result of the growing disillusionment about the activities of the British rulers and as a reaction against Curzon’s proposal for the partition of Bengal there came into existence the extremist part which advocated a policy of boycott, swadeshi and national education in January 1907, Tilak declared: ‘‘We are not armed, and there is no necessity of arms either. We have a stronger weapon, a political weapon in boycott.’’ Tilak also said: “When you prefer to accept swadeshi, you must bycott videshi  (foreign) goods. Without boycott, swadeshi cannot flourish.’’

Aurbindo Tilak and Pal asked the people not to cooperative with the government. The basic theory of Tilak, Aurbindo and Pal, which was later put into operation a mass scale by Mahatmna Gandhi, was that as the existence of the Government depended on he cooperation of the people, the Government would cease to function or to exist the very day the people withdrew their Cooperation from it.

With the rise of the militant movement the glamour of England and English institutions began to fade and English influence increasingly came to be replaced by the influence emanating primarily from the indigenous sources as also from the European literature or revolt. The study of British constitutional history had generated among the moderates a love for and faith in Dominion status. But such stories as how the Italians had driven the Austrians out of their land gave militant nationalists a new conception and in fact a new ideal of complete independence. Self-government under British promontory had been the goal of the moderate school, but the ideal of extremist or militant school was complete autonomy and elimination of all foreign control.

Bal Gangadhar Tilak (1856-1920) and other extremist o wanted to adopt a policy of direct act and sistance, denounced what they called “the political mendicancy” of the moderates. During the anti partition agitation, in the first decade of the twentieth century Tilak wrote: “The time has come to demand Swaraj or self Government. No piecemeal reform will do. The system of the present administration is ruinous to the country. It must mend or end.” According to him Swaraj was the birthright of every Indian.

“The term Swaraj,” said Bipin Pal (1858-1932), another exremist leader, was not merely a political but primarily a moral concept. “The corresponding term in our language,” he said, “is not non-subjection which would be a literal rendering of the English word independence, but self-subjection which is a positive concept. Self- subjection means.... complete identification of the individual with the universal.”

Another Swarajist leader who, like Tilak, spoke of the ideal of Swaraj, was Aurobindo Ghose (1872-1950). “We of the new school, “he said, ‘‘would not pitch our ideal one inch lower than absolute Swaraj-Self-Government as it exists in the United Kingdom.” And he added, “We reject the claim of aliens to force upon us a civilisation inferior to our own or keep us out of our inheritance on the untenable ground of a superior fitness.”

Lajpat Rai (1865-1928), along with Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Bipin Pal, constituted the swarajist triumvirate called “Lal-Bal-Pal”. Lajpat, like the other extremists, believed that India must rely oil her own strength amid should not look to Britain for help.

The swarajist said that however much Britain’s rule might be improved or liberalised, it could never be as beneficial to Indians as the self—rule. Their attitude was the same as that of the Irish Sinn Fein leader Arthur Griffith, who had said: I”…in those who talk of ending British misgovernment we See the helots. It is not British misgovernment, but British government in Ireland, good or bad, we stand opposed to.” The swarajists accordingly considered that freedom was their birthright.

THE SURAT SPLIT

In 1907, there was a split in the Congress and the Moderates parted company with the Extremists. That split was due to many causes. The moderates had controlled the Congress from its very beginning and even now they were ill control of it. They had their own ways of thinking and 1 which were not acceptable to the younger generation who were impatient with the speed at which the Moderates were moving and leading the nation. Under the circumstances, a confrontation between the two was inevitable and that actually happened in 1907.

The seeds of the split could be traced to the Calcutta Session in 1906, where the Moderates had accepted the resolutions on Swaraj, national education, boycott and Swadeshi on account of the pressure brought of them from all quarters. In their hearts, they had not accepted the new resolutions. Their fear was that the growing pace of the national struggle might lead to lawlessness and that would provide the British with an excuse to deny the reforms on the one hand and to crush all political activity on the other. They had no self-confidence. They did not believe that sustained and dignified national struggle was possible and desirable. They considered the Extremists irresponsible persons who were likely to put in danger the future of the country. The British Government also tried to win over the Moderates against the Extremists. While the Extremists were roughly handled by the Government, the Moderates were shown all the favours. Lala Lajpat Rai, Sardai Ajit Singh, Tilak and man leaders of Bengal were deported.

The break—up of the Surat Congress was no doulbt au unpleasant affair. It marked a direct open breach between the Moderates and the Nationalist parties not only in Maharashtra but throughout India. For the first time in the history of the Congress, there was at Surat an open fight between the delegates of the Congress and sonic blood was drawn, but it did not stop at that. The split led to a cleavage in the sense that the name of the Indian National Congress had to be kept in abeyance for the time and a new entity called he convention was installed in its place. Of course as the name itself implies, the Convention was a stop-gap expedient, intended to function in the place of the Congress only till such time as the national Congress could meet again in its old form. The old form had this peculiarity that there was not much ceremony observed in the election oft he delegates to the Congress. There were no conditions of membership. There was no constitution as such for the Congress, no election of delegates. In fact the membership was open to anyone that might choose to attend the Congress session as a delegate. There was no competition as such in the election of the delegates for the simple reason that there was no numerical allotment fixed for an province, it was an open rally of all that chose to attend.

Tilak and his party were of course ousted from the Convention because they would not sign a prescribed creed of political faith, which practically excluded the ideal of independence, if only an ideal so far. The Convention and the Nationalist party met in two separate camps at Surat. It must be noted here that even with this definite split in the Congress each party duly affirmed its love for the Congress which alone was regarded as the true national Assembly for the country and in both the camps the hope was expressed that sooner or later there might again be held a Congress united as before.

Nobody could openly allege the break-up of the Congress as a criminal offence, but the split was taken into consideration by the government as an open challenge to the policy of constitutional agitation. After Tilak’s conviction by the High Court, the National party led by him became sullen and almost went underground. For six years from 1908 to 1914, the Nationalist Party could not decide as to what it should do about entering the Congress. There was an attempt made to call a meeting of a rival Congress at Nagpur. But while government banned the session, there was also want of unanimity in the party itself about the starting of a rival Congress which might make the split absolutely permanent. The cooler wings in the Party thought that there was no wisdom in setting up a rival to the old Congress as without unity among political parties the show as presented by separate parties was bound to be poor. A group within the Tilak Party was trying to negotiate matters with the leaders of the Moderate party for making the entry of this group and others of its persuasion into the Congress on its own terms, that is to say, without the restriction of a creed and with the old facilities for unfettered election of delegates. But the other view was more insistent and prevailed, namely, that nothing should be done in this matter until Tilak returned from Mandalay.

TILAK’S LOYAL ATTITUDE

Things came to a head after his return, It was soon discovered that Tilak was against setting up of a rival Congress though b this tune it was also discovered that the Moderate party had a very poor following in t lie Congress, so much so that the total number of delegates of the Congress at one tune did not mount to even 350, though the session was held under the presidency of such an illustrious personage as Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya, and also held in the vantage ground of northern. India. This loyal attitude of Tilak towards the Congress was well-known to the Moderates but was not appreciated by them. In fact, they resisted by every means in their power, all efforts made by Tilak and his friends to re enter the Congress.

Both Tilak and Mrs. Besant ioined hands and two Home Rule Leagues were formed, one in Maharashtra and the other in Madras. By the time of the Lucknow Congress in 1916, most of the open sores were healed. There was an urge in the mind of both Parties towards re union on honourable conditions. Some conditions about the membership of the Congress were agreed to, and the Moderate Party opened its arms to the Nationalist Party. Tilak attended the Lucknow Congress after an absence of 8 years and was given the honours of the one and sole political hero of the time. It must also be mentioned that the Moderate group in the Congress could not yet make up its mind to instal Tilak as the president of the Congress. But it was well-know that Tilak never hankered after this honour. On the contrary, he was determined to practise an ordinance of self-denial in this matter, for it was well-know that though elected president of the Congress which was to have been, but was not held, in 1907, in Nagpur by the Reception Committee at Nagpur, Tilak withdrew his name and suggested that of Lala Lajpat Rai in his own place. For two years however, that is to say, in 1916 and 1917, Tilak was of course the leading figure at the annual Congress session and also at the special session held at Bombay. It was practically on the eve of Tilak’s departure for England for the prosecution of the Chirol case, that he was elected to the presidentship of the Congress, but he was of course unable to accept it for he was given a passport to England only for the Chirol case and it was not expected that he could find time to devote’ to politics during his stay in England. He resigned it since it was of no practical use to him for some time. But he carried with him the capacity of the president of the Tilak Home Rule League and gave evidence to the Parliamentary Select Committee on Montague’s Government of India Bill, as the Chirol case was disposed off and there was an open invitation by the British Government to all Indian political parties to send delegations to England for the purpose. The last thing to be mentioned in connection with relations between Tilak and the Congress is the collection of a crore of rupees by Mahatma Gandhi’ in the name of the Tilak Swaraj Fund, though it must also be mentioned that this Fund was spent on activities and propaganda to which Tilak could not be supposed to have given his cordial approval, namely the non-co operation policy and the cult of Ahinsa as a political weapon.

THE HOME RULE MOVEMENT

When Great Britain was involved in the First World War, Indian leaders like Tilak and Annie Besant decided to put new life in the national movement in the country. As the Englishmen did not like the word Swaraj and considered the same to be “seditious and dangerous,” Tilak decided to use the term “Home Rule” in place of Swaraj as the goal of his movement. In December 1915, he had deliberations with his colleagues and on 28 April 1916 the Indian Home Rule League was set up with its headquarters at Poona. The object of this League was to “attain Home Rule or self—government within the British Empire by all constitutional means and to educate and organise public opinion in the country towards the attainment of the same.” A similar Home Rule League was founded by Annie Besant on 15 September 1916 with its headquarters at Adyar near Madras.

 The advocates of the Hone Rule Movement believed’ in Constitutional methods and were opposed to violence and revolutionary agitation. The had no desire to embarrass the British Government which was fighting against Germany and Austria-Hungary. They were prepared to offer their cooperation to the British Government so that it could win the war. However, the believed that the great of Home Rule to India was in the interests of the British Empire in its war against Germany and Austria as she could then fight with greater moral force.

The year 1917 was an eventful year in the sense that the two Home Rule Leagues of Tilak and Annie Besant worked in co operation with each other. Tilak confined his activities to the Bombay presidency and the Central Provinces and the rest of India was left to Annie Besant. The branches of the Home Rule League were set up all over the country and there was a popular demand for Home Rule.

Tilak went on a whirlwind tour of the country in 1916 and appealed to the people to unite under the banner of the Home Rule League. His target was not the British Empire or the Emperor of India but the bureaucracy in India. In his public speeches, he declared emphatically that Home Rule was the only cure for India’s political ills and grievances, that liberty was tile birthright of every man and that the aspiration to get one’s liberty was the essence of human nature A small minority from outside India could not be allowed to rule the country arbitrarily.

Annie Besant also toured the country amid created a lot of enthusiasm among the people for the national cause. Her articles in the Commonweal and New India were very popular. C.Y. Chintamani says: “Annie Besant stirred the country by tile spoken as well as the written word, as scarcely as ally one else could do.” Annie Besant’s work was particularly among the Women of India who showed ‘‘uncalculating heroism, endurance and tile selfless sacrifice of the feminine nature.

The British Government could not be expected to keep quiet in the face of a stir created by the Home Rule Leagues and their leaders and it decided to curb the activities of those leaders who were in the forefront of the movement. The existing statutes were tightened. There was already an ordinance to prevent tile entry of undesirable aliens into India. The Defence of India Act, 1915 superseded the ordinary criminal law of country and action under it could be taken against agitators. The provisions of the Indian Press Act 1910 were strictly enforced to stop the propaganda of the Home Rule Leaguers. Circulars were issued by which the students of schools and colleges were forbidden from taking part in the Home Rule Movement. In July 1916, Tilak was prosecuted for delivering seditious speeches and was ordered to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 20,000. Externment orders were served on him and he was ordered not to enter Delhi and the Punjab. Similar action was taken against Annie Besant. She was ordered to furnish security for her press and the Commonweal and New India. In all, she deposited Rs. 20,000 arid the whole that amount was forfeited by the Government. The Government also took action against Annie Besant and her two associates, B.P. Wadia and G,S. Arundale. The Governor of Madras called Annie Besant for an interview and told her that she was to be interned. There was a lot of indignation all over the country against her intern Protest meetings were held all over the country at repression by the police was condemned.

In the critical closing year of the war, the repressive policy of the British Government was becoming worse and worse. The Press Act was severely enforced. There were restrictions on Tilak and Mrs. Besant. In Bengal the number of youngmen interned ran upto nearly three thousand. There was great hardship and discontent, specially in the Punjab on account of recruiting and war fund activities of the Government.

The war had come to a close already when the Congress met at Delhi.in19 18 under the Presidentship of Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviva, The allies had been successful and the principle of self-determination had been declared b President Wilson, Llvod George and other statesmen. In the light of this situation, the Delhi Congress re-examined the position with regard to the Montague-Chelmsford scheme, demanding Dominion Status’ and representation on Peace Conference, and nominating Lokmanya, Gandhiji and Hussan lmam as its representatives. The Congress also urged the withdrawal of all repressive laws.

But the demands of the Delhi Congress were not only unheeded but as 1919 showed-the Government having won the war, felt itself free now, to deal with the agitation and rebellion in India, in its own way. The Rowlatt Bills were introduced in February 1919 in the Supreme Legislative Council which provided for severe curtailment of civil liberties.

GANDHI ENTERS ACTIVE POLITICS

It was at this time that Gandhiji entered the field of Indian politics actively. He took the history decision to begin for the first time, a satygraha movement in the country to protest against the Rowlatt Act.

On the 18th March he published the pledge: “Being conscientiously of opinion that the Emil known as the Indian Criminal law Emergency Powers Bill, No 2 of 1919, are unjust, subversive of the principals of liberty and justice and destructive of the elementary rights of an individual on which the safety of India as a whole and the State itself is based, we solemnly affirm that in the event of these Bills becoming law and until they are withdrawn, we shall refuse civily to obey these law and such other laws as the Committee, hereafter to be appointed, may think fit, and we further affirm that in the struggle we will faithfully follow truth and refrain from violence to life, person or property.”

The 30th of March 1919 was fixed for a hartal, a day of fasting, penance and prayer, hut was changed to 6th April which can be called a red letter day in Indian history. The response of the people startled the Government, which flushed with victory, lost its head. There was firing at place. At Delhi, Swami Sharadhananda when threatened with shooting by British soldiers, bared his chest for the bullets. There were glorious scenes of Hindu-Muslim fraternisation. Swami Shradhananda was allowed to preach from the pulpit of Jamma Masjid. The country took to this new idea, as if they had been waiting for it, all along. A new chapter in the national struggle had begun. The happenings in the Punjab soon provided the immediate source of a deep and torrential flood of national awakening.

PUNJAB ATROCITIES

The story of the Punjab is toowell-known and remembered to be repeated in any detail. The Punjab has been the citadel of British Imperialism, recruiting ground of the army of occupation; and reaction - and ruthlessness has distinguished the Punjab Government policy ever since the beginning uptil the last days of British departure. The legacy of that policy still overclouds our outlook and the situation in the Punjab is still the tragedy and menace of our country. In 1919, the Punjab was ruled by a more forthright imperialist in the person of Sir Michael O’Dwyer who was determined to save the Punjab from contamination of political agitation elsewhere.

The Congress was to be held in Amritsar in 1919 and Sir Michael O’Dwyer sent for the local Congress leaders, Dr Kitchlew and Dr Satyapal to his house and they were spirited away to unknown places. This was on the 10th April 1919. Crowds of people gathered and wanted to meet the District Magistrate to ask the where about of these popular leaders. There was firing and brickbats and the casualties made the people very agitated and the mob killed five Englishmen and burnt a bank and some other buildings. There were similar incidents at Gujeranwalla and Kasur and minor outbreaks elsewhere. Martial law was declared in the Punjab and same day.

JALLIANWALLA BAGH MASSACRE

On 12 April 1919, a proclamation was issued--by General Dyer, who had taken charge of the troops the day before, that no meetings or gatherings of the people were to be held. However, no steps were taken to see that the proclamation was brought to the notice of the people living in the various localities of the city. The result was that, it was announced on 12 April evening that there would be public meeting on 13 April 1919 at 4.30 p.m. in the Jallianwala Bagh. Neither General Dyer nor other authorities took any action to stop the meeting. The meeting started at the right time and there were about 6,000 to 10,000 people present in the meeting. All of them were practically unarmed and defenceless. The Jallianwala Bagh was closed practically on al sides by walls except one entrance. General Dyer entered the Jallianwala Bagh with armoured cars and troops. Without giving any warning to the people to disperse, he ordered the troops to fire and he continued to do so till the whole of the ammunition at his disposal was exhausted At least one thousand persons were killed. The contention of General Dyer was that he wanted to teach the people a lesson so that they might not laugh at him. He would have fired and fired longer, he said, if he had the required ammunition He h only fired 1,600 rounds because his ammunition had run out The regime of Dyer imposed some unthinkable punishments The water and electric supply of Amritsar were cut off Public flogging was common How ever, the “Crawling Order” was the worst of all

The news of events in the Punjab, suppressed at first soon sent a wave of horror and fury throughout the length and breadth of the country. This massacre proved to be a turning point in the history of the freedom movement.

For eight months the Government tried to draw a veil over the Punjab massacre. After the Congress had conducted and published an enquiry into the facts by a committee consisting of Gandhjji, Motilal Nehru, C. R. Das, Abbas Tyabji and Jaykar, and in face of widespread agitation the Government set up a committee under Lord Hunter. Inspite of the ugliest findings, this committee tried to whitewash and justify the perpetrators of the crimes, with mild regret. The House of Commons did not fail to glorify General Dyer and public subscriptions were raised in England to honour him.

GANDHIJI’S DECISION

Mahatma Gandhi had so far believed in the justice and fairplay of the British Government. He had given his full cooperation to the Government during the First World War, inspite of opposition from men like Tilak. But the tragedy at Jallianwala Bagh, the imposition of Martial Law in the Pun jab findings of the Hunter Committee in 1920 on the tragic events of the Punjab, completely shattered the faith of Mahatma Gandhi in the good sense of the Britishers. He, therefore, decided to start Non cooperation Movement. He felt that the old methods must be given up.

A special session of the Congress met at Calcutta from 4th to 9th September, 1920. Here Gandhiji himself moved the resolution on non-cooperation. He was opposed not only by the President elect, Lala Lajpatrai and by other stalwarts like Chittaranjan Das, but ultimately he carried the day. Pandit Motilal Nehru joined Gandhiji at once and gave up his practice. The resolution was carried by a majority of 1855 votes as against 873.

The country had now found a way to express its intese desire for freedom and a new atmosphere soon began to pervade it. The non-cooperation programme was to be finally discussed and ratified at Nagpur. An unprecedented of delegates attended the Nagpur session. The Nagpur Congress really marked the new era in the Freedom movement The old feeling of impotent range and importunate request gave place to a new sense of responsibility and a self reliance Lalali and Deshbandhu came to oppose proposals but stayed to be converted.

The Nagpur Congress made Gandhiji the indisputedly supreme authority in the Congress and outside. Seasoned leaders like B.C. Pal and Malaviyaji, Jinnah and Khaparde, and stalwarts like C.R. Das and Lalaji were all won over. The Nagpur Congress also changed the creed of the Congress, “in such a fashion as to eliminate the declared adherence of that body to the British connection and to constitutional methods of agitation.”

THE PROGRAMME

The programme of the Non-Cooperation Movement was clearly stated in the non-cooperation resolution. It involved the surrender of titles and honorary offices and resignation from nominated posts in the local bodies. The non-cooperators were not to attend Darbars and other official and semi-official functions held by the Government officials or in their honour. They were to withdraw their children gradually from schools and colleges and establish national schools and colleges. They were to boycott gradually the British courts and establish private arbitration courts. They were not to join the army as recruits for service in Mesopotamia. They were not to stand for election to the Legislatures and they were also not to vote. They were to use Swadeshi cloth. Handi-spining and hand-weaving were to be encouraged. Untouchability was to be removed as there could be no Swaraj without this reform. Mahatma Gandhi promised Swaraj within one year if people followed his programme sincerely and whole-heartedly. Ahimsa or non-violence was to be strictly observed by the non-co-operators. They were not to give up Satya or truth under any circumstances.

The Non Cooperation Movement captured the imagination of the pet Both the Hindus and Muslims participated in it There was wholesale burning of foreign goods. Many student left schools and colleges and the Congress set up such national educational institutions the Kashi Vidyapeeth, Benares Vidyapeeth, Gujarat Vidyapeeth, Bihar Vidyapeeth, Bengal National University, National College of Lahore, Jamia Millia in Delhi and the National Muslim University of Aligarh. Seth Jamma Lal was declared that he would give Rs. one lakh a year for the maintenance of non-practising lawyers. Forty lakh volunteers were enrolled by the Congress. Twenty thousand Charkhas were manufactured, The people started deciding their disputes by means of arbitration.

The non-cooperation movement had both a positive and a negative aspect. The positive aspect included the revival of hand-spinning and weaving, removal of untouchability, promotion of Hindu-Muslim unity and prohibition. The negative aspect fell into three parts: boycott of legislatures, courts, and government educational institutions. This boycott movement spread like wild fire. The Government tried to crush the movement by large-scale arrests, but this only helped to strengthen the movement.

In July 1921 the All India Congress Committee decided to counter the government policy of repression by not participating in the welcome to the Prince of Wales who was to visit India in November- December 1921. When the Prince of Wales came to India, he was “greeted” with hartals throughout the country. The Government persisted in the policy of repression; the Congress and the Khilafat Volunteers’ Organisation were declared illegal and large numbers of Congress workers were put behind prison bars.

CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE

Mahatma Gandhi was convinced that the only way to make the Government see reason was to start the civil disobedience movement and he decided to start the, same in Bardoli in Gujarat. The Congress Working Committee called upon the people of India to cooperate with the people of Bardoli “by refraining from mass or individual civil disobedience of an aggressive character, except upon the express consent of Mahatma Gandhi previously obtained.” Mahatma Gandhi wrote to the Viceroy and gave 7 days to accept his demands. The Viceroy held, the Congress responsible for all the lawlessness in the country. Mahatma Gandhi was left with no alternative but to launch the civil disobedience movement.

Unfortunately, at this time, the tragedy of Chauri Chaura occurred which changed the course of Indian history. What actually happened was that a mob of 3,000 persons killed 25 policemen and one inspector on 5 February, 1922. Similar tragic events had already occurred on 17 November, 1921 in Bombay and on 13 January 1922 in Madras. This was too much for Mahatma Gandhi who stood for complete non-violence. The result was that Mahatma Gandhi gave orders for the suspension of the Non-cooperation Movement at once. The Goverment was not satisfied with this action of Mahatma Gandhi and the Congress. It was feared that Mahatma Gandhi was out for a bigger trouble and conseq-uently he was arrested on 13 March,1922. His trial began in Ahmedabad and he pleaded guilty. He took upon himself full responsibility for the occurrences in Madras, Bombay and Chauri Chaura and told Mr. Broomfield, the British judge, that he would “do the same again” if he was set free. He was sentenced to 6 years’ imprisonment.

The action of Mahatma Gandhi in suspending the movement was severely criticised from many quarters. According to Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya, “Long letters were written from behind the bars by Pt.

Motilal Nehru and Lalà Lajpat Rai They took Gandhi to task for punishing the whole country for the sins of a place.”

Dr. R.C. Majumdar says that the most outstanding feature of the Non-cooperation Movement was the willingness and ability of the people in general to endure hardships and punishments inflicted by the Government. It is true that the movement collapsed but the memory of its greatness survived and was destined to inspire the nation to launch a more arduous campaign. The movement served as a baptism of fire which initiated the people to a new faith and new hope and inspired them with a new confidence in their power to fight for freedom. As a result of this movement, the Congress movement for the first time became a really mass movement. The national awakening not only penetrated to the people at large but also made them active participants in the struggle for freedom. Moreover, the Indian National Congress was turned into a genuine revolutionary organisation. It was no longer a deliberative assembly but an organised fighting party pledged to revolution.

THE SWARAJIST PARTY

When C. R. Das and the other Bengal leaders were in Alipore Cenral Jail, they evolved a new programme of non-cooperation with the Government through legislatures. Their idea was to enter the legislatures in large numbers and “carry on a policy of uniform, continuous and consistent opposition to the Government.” Motilal Nehru also shared the views of C.R. Das. In July 1922, C.R. Das came out of jail and began to carry on propaganda in favour of Council-entry.

When a meeting of the All-India Congress Committee was held at Calcutta in November 1922, there were differences of opinion among the Congress leaders on the question of Council-entry. While C,R. Das, Motilal Nehru and Hakim Ajmal Khan were in favour of it, C. Rajagopalachari, Dr. Ansari, etc., were opposed to it. In spite of lengthy debates, no decision was arrived at. At the annual session of the Congress held at Gaya in December 1922, the “No-changers” won a victory and the programme of Council-entry was rejected. C.R. Das who presided over the session resigned from the Congress and announced his decision to form the Swarajist Party. The Object of the new party was to wreck the Government of India Act, 1919 from within the Councils. In March 1923, the first Conference of the Swarajist Party was held at the residence of Motilal Nehru at Allahabad and the future programme of the Party was decided. The keynote of the programme of the Party was obstructionism. Its members were to contest elections on the issue of the redress of the wrongs done by the British bureaucracy, to oppose every measure of the Government and to throughout all legislative enactments proposed by the British Government. This view of the Swarajists was that the seats in the legislatures must be captured so that they did not fall into the hands of undesirable persons who were tools in the hands of the bureaucracy in India. The leaders of the Swarajist Party declared that outside the Councils, they would co operate with the constructive programme of the Congress under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi and in case their methods failed, they would, without any hesitation, join Mahatma Gandhi’s civil disobedience movement if and when launched by him.

The Swarajist Party fought the elections in 1923 and refused to come to any understanding with the Liberal Federation. The Swarajist Party won a majority in the Legislative Council of the Central Provinces. It was the dominant Party in Bengal. It also won good support in U.P. and Bombay. However, the Swarajist party was at its best in the Central Assembly under the leadership of Motilal Nehru. By winning over the support of the Nationalist Party and a few other members, the Swarajist Party was able to command a working majority and was thus able to accomplish a lot. On 18 February, 1924, the Swarajist Party was able to get a resolution passed by which the Government was requested to establish full responsible Government in India. A demand was also made that a Round Table Conference consisting of the representatives of India should be called at an early date to frame a Constitution for India. The appointment of the Muddiman Committee was the result of a resolution of the Swarajist Party. Motilal Nehru was requested to become a member of this Committee but he refused. Some of the demands in the budget of 1924-25 were rejected by the Central Assembly as a result of the efforts of the Swarajist Party. The Assembly also refused to allow the Government to introduce the entire Finance Bill. In February 1925, V.J.Patel introduced a Bill asking for the repeal of certain laws and with the exception of one, the Bill was passed. A resolution was passed with the help of the Swarajist Party demanding the release of certain political prisoners. The Swarajists resorted to walkouts as a mark of protest against the policy of the Government. They boycotted all receptions, parties or functions organised by the Government. What was done in the Central Assembly was also done in those provincial legislatures where the Swarajists had some influence.

According to R. C. Majumdar, the Swarajist Party rendered a signal service to the country. For the first time, the Legislative Assembly wore the appearance of a truly National Assembly where national grievances were fully voiced, national aims and aspirations expressed without any reservation and real character of the British rule exposed. The British autocracy and Indian bureaucracy stood exposed to the whole world.

SIMON COMMISSION AND NEHRU REPORT

The Government of India Act, 1919, had provided that a review of the constitutional position would be made after ten years. However, the British Government appointed Royal Commission headed by

SirJohn Simon in 1927, two years ahead of time, to go into the question of constitutional reforms. This Commission did not contain any Indian members; its all-white composition was treated by the people of India as an to national dignity. When Simon landed in Bomb he was treated with black flags and shouts of “Simon, go back”, and there was a countrywide hartal. Anti-Simon, demonstration took place all over the country anti Lala Lajpat Rai, the “Lion of Punjab”, was struck with lathi blows of the police, and he died soon afterwards.

The Congress, on the other hand, appointed an all-parties Committee to draft a new Constitution for India. As a result, there emerged a report which, drafted under the chairmanship of Motilal Nehru, was called the Nehru Report. The Nehru Report marked a watershed in the constitutional thinking of Indian nationalists. The Nehru report came up before the Calcutta Congress for approval. At the Cakutta Session of the Cohgress held in 1928, it was intended to pass a resolution declaring complete independence as the goal of India. However, Mahatma Gandhi. intervened and Dominion Status was declared to be the goal of India. Mahauna Gandhi gave the assurance that he himself would lead the movement for independence if by the end of 1929 the British Government did not confer Dominion Status on India. The year 1929 had been a year of waiting.

INDEPENDENCE PLEDGE

When the Congress leaders met on the banks of the river Ravi, near Lahore, in 1929 they were disappointed over the attitude of the British Government. Leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru, Subhash Chandra Bose and Srinivas Iyengar asked for bold action against the Government. In his presidential address Jawaharlal Nehru condemned British imperialism, Kings and Princes and declared himself to be a socialist and a republican. He called upon the leaders assembled there to take strong action in these words: “Talking of high stakes and going through great dangers were the only way to achieve great things.” He declared that complete independence should be the goal of the Congress. Mahatma Gandhi also approved of that goal but he did not like to precipitate matters. A resolution was passed that the word Swaraj in the Congress Constitution means “complete independence.” All Congressmen taking part in the National Movement were asked not to take part, directly or indirectly, in future elections and the sitting members were asked to resign their seats. The All India Congress Committee was authorised to launch a programme of civil disobedience including the non-payment of taxes. On midnight of 31 December 1929, as the new year was ushered in the Tricolor Flag of Puma Swaraj was hoisted on the banks of the river Ravi by the Congress President, Jawaharlal Nehru.

26 January 1930 was declared Independence Day and a pledge was taken by the people of India on that date and the same independence pledge was repeated year af year. The Independence pledge began with the words: “We believe that it is the inalienable right of the Indian people, as of any other people, to have freedom and to enjoy the fruits of their toil and have the necessities of life so that they may have full opportunity for growth. We believe also that if any Government deprives a people of these rights and oppresses them, the people have further right to alter it or abolish it. The British Government of India has not only deprived the Indian people of their freedom but has ruined India economically, politically, culturally and spiritually”.

PURNA SWARAJ celebrations throughout the county on 26thJanuarv, 1930, in the wake of the famous Lahore Session, revealed the pent-up feelings, enthusiasm and readiness of the people for sacrifice. The independence pledge had rekindled the smouldering fire and a new upsurge was in the offing.

It was iii this atmosphere that All India Congress Working Committee met in February at Sabarmati and authorised Gandhiji to start Civil Disobedience Movement at a time and 1 of his choice.

It was not yet clear what would be the programme of action. Gandhiji’s strategy was not dear even to his closest associates. But the country had unbounded faith in Gaudhiji’s leadership. Earlier he had made his 11-point demand on the Victory and had offered inspite of every thing that had happened, to call of T Civil Disobedience. These points included total prohibition, reduction of Rupee ratio to Is. 4d. reduction of Land Revenue by half, reduction of all Military expenditure by half, protective Tariff on foreign cloth, relaxation of the Arms Act for self-defence and abolition of Salt Tax.

It soon became known that Salt Tax was to he chosen for (tired action campaign. This, when it started, appeared fantastic and ridiculous to time Moderates amid the Government. But soon the country was ablaze with the mighty movement that is remembered with pride ‘‘In it one might have said, the progress of a thousand ears was encompassed within the events of a year.”

Gandhiji was to start on Dandi March to take possession of the salt deposits of the Government-Salt Depot in the seashore. Before starting this march, Gandhiji, sent a letter to the Viceroy apprising him of his plan. This letter, sent through Mr. Reginald Reynolds, an Englishman Ashramite, gave a tale of India’s ruination, poverty and serfdom under the British Raj, and demanded redress on the lines of the 11 points. If, however, no redress came, “On the 11th day of this month. shall proceed, with such co workers of the Ashram as I can take, to disregard the provisions of the Salt Laws. I regard this tax to be the mast iniquitous of all from the poor man’s standpoint. As the Independence movement is essentially for the poorest in the land, the beginning will be made with this evil, The wonder is that we have submitted to the cruel monopoly for so long. It is, I know, open to you to frustrate my design by arresting me. I hope that there will be tens of thousands ready, in a disciplined manner, to take up the work after me, and, in the act of disobeying the Salt Act, to lay themselves open to the penalties of a Law that should never have disfigured the Statute Book.”

The Victory’s reply to this ultimatum came back quickly, and was unequivocal. His Excellency expressed his regret that Mr. Gandhi should have been “Contemplating a course of action which was clearly bound to involve violation of the law and danger to the public peace.”

Gandhiji wrote, “On bended knees I asked for bread and received the stone instead English Nation responds only to force, and I am not surprised by the Viceregal reply. The only public peace the Nation knows is the peace of the public prison. India is a vast prison-house. I repudiate this (British) Law and regard it as my sacred duty to break the mournful monotony of compulsory peace that is choking the heart of the Nation for want of free vent.”

HISTORIC MARCH TO DANDHI

Gandhiji began his march at 6.30 a.m. on 12th March, 1930 accompanied by his 79 Ashramites. It was a historic scene, calling back to our minds, the old legends coupled with the names of Shri Rama and the Pandavas. Motilal Nehru compared it to the march of Shri Rama Chandrato Sri Lanka. C.F. Andrews regarded it as Moses leading the exodus of Israelities. Americans compared the epic march to Lincoln’s decision to maintain the Union and his sending troops to the southern States. And all this by one frail unarmed man at 61, challenging the then strongest empire.

The March was widely reported and anxiously watched all over the country. Each day added to the fervour and enthusiasm. 300 Village officers tendered their resignations from the area through which Gandhiji passed. Gandhiji had said earlier “Wait till I begin. Once I march to the place, you will know what to do.” He had a clear vision of this scheme of resistance when others were in the dark.

Government had not yet arrested Gandhiji but Sardar Vallabhbhai and some other leaders had already been put in jail.

The road was watered, the path was strewn with flowers and leaves and decorated with flags and festoons. Crowds gathered everywhere to witness the march and pay homage to this strange army and its general. Gandhiji preached his old Gospel along the route. Khaddar, abstinence from drink and removal of untouchability were the three favourite themes, but he also enjoyed that all should join the Satyagrahis. During the march he declared that he would either die on the way or else keep away from the Ashram until Swaraj was won. Gandhiji’ s march lasted 24 days. They had traversed a distance of 200 miles. All along he was emphasising that the march was a pilgrimage, a period of penance not to be spent in feteing and feasting.

On the morning of April 5th, Gandhiji reached Dandi. Soon after the morning prayers, Gandhiji and his volunteers proceeded to break the Salt Law by picking up the salt lying on the seashore. Immediately after this Gandhiji issued a press statement: “Now that the technical or ceremonial breach of the Salt Law has been committed, it is now open to anyone who would take the risk of prosecution under the Salt Law to manufacture salt wherever .he wishes, and wherever it is convenient.”

ARREST OF GANDHIJI

The country had been held back and was now ablaze from end to end, being permitted to start salt satyagraha as from the 6th of April, the national week. Huge public meetings were held in all big cities, the audience running up to six figures. The events at Karachi, Shiroda, Ratnagiri, Patna, Peshawar, Calcutta, Madras and Sholapur constituted a new experience in self-sacrifice and also laid bare the mailed fist of the British Government. There were military firings, lathi charges and arrests. Special Ordin