Gandhi’s Home Coming
Mahatma Gandhi returned to India from South Africa on January 9, 2015. His return galvanized the Indian freedom movement. Armed with novel ideas—non-violence and civil disobedience—the “little brown man in the loincloth”, as he was described by a British commentator, brought the mighty British colonial administration to its knees and eventually secured India its freedom.
Born and raised in a Hindu family in coastal Gujarat, Gandhi was trained in the law at the Inner Temple, London, and was called to the bar at age 22 in June 1891. After two uncertain years in India, where he was unable to start a successful law practice, he moved to South Africa in 1893 to represent an Indian merchant in a lawsuit. He went on to live in South Africa for next 21 years. It was here that Gandhi first employed nonviolent resistance in a campaign for civil rights. When he returned India in 1915 he was already 45.
To understand the Gandhian era it is important to now the background developments before he came to India and his belief and methodology of struggle for freedom.
Schism between the moderates and revolutionaries
The moderates dominated the the Indian National Congress (INC) during 1885-1905.They used petitions, prayers, meetings, leaflets, pamphlets, memorandums, and delegations to present their demands to the British government. The partition of the Bengal Presidency drove the rise of radicalism in INC. Their most notable achievement was the expansion of the legislative council by the Indian Councils Act of 1892. This created dissatisfaction among several congress members who wanted more direct protest against the unjust British regime in India and more proactive movement for self rule. The partition of the Bengal Presidency drove the rise of radicalism in INC. Moderates did not subscribe to militant nationalism.
Moderates believed in the policy of settlement of minor issues with the government by deliberations. But the radicals believed in agitation, strikes, and boycotts. Nationalists led by Lokmanya Tilak agitated against the Moderates.
Banaras and Calcutta Session of INC (1905 & 1906)
The split between these two sections became visible at the end of Congress’ Banaras Session (1905). Lokmanya Tilak and his followers held a separate conference and formed a separate goup which was radical, but decided to keep it under the INC umbrella.
The difference between moderates and extremists widened in Congress’ Calcutta Session of (1906) and attempts were made to select one of them as the president. The moderates opposed the resolutions on Swaraj, Swadeshi, Boycott of foreign goods, and National Education and requested to withdraw from the policy laid down in the Calcutta session. But the extremists were not ready to do so.
Gandhi’s First Address in India 1916
On 4 February 1916, Gandhiji made his first public appearance after returning from South Africa in BHU. Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya had invited Gandhiji to speak on the occasion of the opening of the Banaras Hindu University. Lord Hardinge, the Viceroy, had come specially to lay the foundation-stone of the University.
While delivering his first speech in the Banaras Hindu University he addressed a diverse audience mostly consisting of impressionable youths and princes, bedecked and bejeweled and local prominent citizens and dignitaries. He addressed the youth in his speech thus: “You will never be able merely through the lip, to give the message that India, I hope, will one day deliver to the world. I myself have been fed up with speeches and lectures. I accept the lectures that have been delivered here during the last two days from this category, because they are necessary. But I do venture to suggest to you that we have now reached almost the end of our resources in speech-making; it is not enough that our ears are feasted, that our eyes are feasted, but it is necessary that our hearts have got to be touched and that out hands and feet have got to be moved.”
In his BHU speech Mahatma Gandhi had set the tone of the freedom struggle under Gandhi’s leadership
.
He said in his speech, “The Congress has passed a resolution about self-government, and I have no doubt that the All-India Congress Committee and the Muslim League will do their duty and come forward with some tangible suggestions. But I, for one, must frankly confess that I am not so much interested in what they will be able to produce as I am interested in anything that the student world is going to produce or the masses are going to produce. No paper contribution will ever give us self-government. No amount of speeches will ever make us fit for self-government. It is only our conduct that will fit for us it. And how are we trying to govern ourselves?
His speech clearly reflected his vision of self governance,“I entirely agree with the President of the Congress that before we think of self-government, we shall have to do the necessary plodding. He said, No paper contribution will ever give us self-government. No amount of speeches will ever make us fit for self-government. It is only our conduct that will fit for us it. And how are we trying to govern ourselves?” Among the important things he referred to in this regard was filth, dirt and squalor all around from rail coaches to dirty streets of Banaras leading to Vishwanath temple and highlighted that if India has to achieve self governance the people need to show it that they are capable of maintaining their affairs on their own and that they can take responsibility. Using the example of poorly managed temples in India as a mark of lack of responsibility on the parts of India in governing themselves he said, “If even our temples are not models of roominess and cleanliness, what can our self-government be? Shall our temples be abodes of holiness, cleanliness and peace as soon as the English have retired from India, either of their own pleasure or by compulsion, bag and baggage?”
He also referred to the hypocrisy of people in India while thinking about self rule that he felt would not help to realize it. “I now introduce you to another scene. His Highness the Maharaja who presided yesterday over our deliberations spoke about the poverty of India. Other speakers laid great stress upon it. But what did we witness in the great pandal in which the foundation ceremony was performed by the Viceroy? Certainly a most gorgeous show, an exhibition of jewellery, which made a splendid feast for the eyes of the greatest jeweler who chose to come from Paris. I compare with the richly bedecked noble men the millions of the poor. And I feel like saying to these noble men, “There is no salvation for India unless you strip yourselves of this jewellery and hold it in trust for your countrymen in India.” I am sure it is not the desire of the King-Emperor or Lord Hardinge that in order to show the truest loyalty to our King-Emperor, it is necessary for us to ransack our jewellery boxes and to appear bedecked from top to toe. I would undertake, at the peril of my life, to bring to you a message from King George himself that he expects nothing of the kind.”
But most importantly he referred to the need of improving the plight of farmers. He said, “Sir, whenever I hear of a great palace rising in any great city of India, be it in British India or be it in India which is ruled by our great chiefs, I become jealous at once, and say, “Oh, it is the money that has come from the agriculturists.” Over seventy-five per cent of the populationare agriculturists and Mr. Higginbotham told us last night in his own felicitous language, that they are the men who grow two blades of grass in the place of one. But there cannot be much spirit of self-government about us, if we take away or allow others to take away from them almost the whole of the results of their labour. Our salvation can only come through the farmer. Neither the lawyers, nor the doctors, nor the rich landlords are going to secure it.”
In his message to young students he also indicated about his method of freedom struggle. He said, “Let us not forget that India of today in her impatience has produced an army of anarchists. I myself am an anarchist, but of another type. But there is a class of anarchists amongst us, and if I was able to reach this class, I would say to them that their anarchism has no room in India, if India is to conqueror. It is a sign of fear. If we trust and fear God, we shall have to fear no one, not the Maharajas, not the Viceroys, not the detectives, not even King George.” He added, “I honour the anarchist for his love of the country. I honour him for his bravery in being willing to die for his country; but I ask him-is killing honourable? Is the dagger of an assassin a fit precursor of an honourable death? I deny it. There is no warrant for such methods in any scriptures. If I found it necessary for the salvation of India that the English should retire, that they should be driven out, I would not hesitate to declare that they would have to go, and I hope I would be prepared to die in defense of that belief. That would, in my opinion, be an honourable death. The bomb-thrower creates secret plots, is afraid to come out into the open, and when caught pays the penalty of misdirected zeal.”
Later Gandhiji set out in opposition to the unjust and exploitative rules under the British rule. He organised peasants, farmers, and urban labourers to protest against excessive land-tax and discrimination. He opposed the Rowlett Act and called for Satyagraha. He led the None Cooperation Movement in 1921 in cooperation with the leaders of Khilafat Movement. Later, Gandhiji led the Civil Disobedience Movement in 1924. And after this Mahatma Gandhi gradually resorted to active resistance against the British policies which finally culminated in Quit India movement in 1942. Before we discuss Gandhian phase of freedom struggle it is imperative that we discuss the background at the time of Gandhi’s home coming.
Surat Split
The INC meeting, which was to be held in Nagpur in 1907 was shifted to Surat to avoid a clash between moderate leaders and militant nationalists led by Tilak who was under arrest along with other radical leaders at the time. Meanwhile, another radical leader Rash Behari Ghosh joined the militant nationalists
In Surat Session (1907), The Radicals or Extremists wanted Rai or Tilak as a presidential candidate, and Moderates supported Ghosh to be the President. But Rai stepped down and Ghosh became the President. The colonial authorities immediately clamped down on the extremists and their newspapers were suppressed. Lokmanya Tilak, their main leader, was imprisoned in Mandalay (present-day Myanmar ) for six years. The difference between the moderates and radicals came out and they crossed the point of reconciliation. The INC was broken in two factions. This event in history is known as the Surat Split.
Lukhnow Pact
The increasing schism between the Hindu leaders and Muslim leaders had given birth to creation of the Muslim League. The difference between the leaders of the two communities was increasing especially the feeling that the INC did not represent Muslim interest due to lower representation in it increased the discontentment of the latter.
The INC’s Lucknow session took palce at Lucknow in December 1916.This INC session is known for the Lucknow Pact. This was an agreement reached between the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League (AIML). Through the pact, the two parties agreed to allow representation to religious minorities in the provincial legislatures. The Muslim League leaders agreed to join the Congress movement demanding Indian autonomy. In the December meeting Bal Gangadhar Tilak represented the Congress while framing the deal. Muhammad Ali Jinnah, a member of Congress and the Muslim League both at that time participated in the Lucknow session. Mahatma Gandhi also participated in this event.
In the Lukhnow session the Congress agreed to separate electorates for Muslims in electing representatives to the Imperial and Provincial Legislative Councils. Although the Muslims were given this right in the Indian Council Act of 1909, the Indian National Congress opposed it. The Congress also agreed to the idea of one-third seats for the Muslims in the Councils despite the fact that the Muslim population represented less than a third. Apart from that, the Congress agreed that no act affecting a community should be passed unless three-quarters of that community’s members on the council supported it. After the signing of this pact, the rivalry between moderates and extremists was reduced to some extent. There was a significant change in their relation.
The Lucknow Pact was seen as a beacon of hope to Hindu–Muslim unity. It was the first time that the Hindus and Muslims had made a joint demand for political reform to the British. It led to a growing belief in British India that Home Rule (self-government) was a real possibility. The Lucknow Pact also helped in establishing cordial relations between the two prominent groups within the Indian National Congress – the ‘extremist’ faction led by the Lal Bal Pal trio (Lala Lajpat Rai, Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Bipin Chandra Pal), and the ‘moderate’ faction led by Gopal Krishna Gokhale until his death in 1915 and later represented by Gandhi. Jinnah was a member of both Congress and Muslim League in 1916 but 20 years later advocated a separate nation for the Muslims.
Rowlett Act
Mahatma Gandhi came to mainstream freedom struggle with his protest against the “black act” popularly referred to as the Rowlatt Act 1919. It ushered in the Gandhian Era of Indian politicsin the Indian freedom struggle. The Act was named after Sir Sidney Rowlatt Passed who presided the Rowlatt Committee that recommended the act to the legislative council.
Technically the Rowlett Act was known as ‘The Anarchical and Revolutionary Crimes Act’ 1919, passed by the Imperial Legislative Council in Delhi on 18 March 1919. Passing of this law indefinitely extended the emergency measures of preventive indefinite detention, incarceration without trial and judicial review as enacted in the Defence of India Act 1915 during the First World War. The Rowlatt Act gave powers to the police to arrest any person without any reason whatsoever. The purpose of the Act was to curb the growing nationalist upsurge in the country. The act effectively authorized the colonial British government to imprison any person suspected of terrorism living in British India for up to two years without a trial, and gave the colonial authorities power to deal with all revolutionary activities.
The Rowlett Act came into effect on 21 March 1919. Gandhi was very critical of this act due to the possibility of its use against the political activists demanding self rule. He called upon the people to perform Satyagraha against the act as it provided for stricter control of the press, arrests without warrant, indefinite detention without trial, and juryless in camera trials for proscribed political acts. Madan Mohan Malaviya and Muhammad Ali Jinnah, a member of the All-India Muslim League resigned from the Imperial legislative council in protest against the act.
The act shattered the belief of the Indian leaders and the public in constitutional opposition to the Rowlett Act and they resorted to a hartal on 30 March and the British Police resorted to repressive measures. On April 6 Mahatma Gandhi and other leaders also went on hartal in Bombay marked strikes, public fast and meetings by closer of shops and suspension of business. Civil disobedience of the Rowlett Act was observed what could be seen as a part of Non-cooperation movement that gathered momentum since 2021. The success of the hartal in Delhi was overshadowed by tensions running high, which resulted in rioting in the Punjab, Delhi and Gujarat. Deciding that Indians were not ready to make a stand consistent with the principle of nonviolence, an integral part of satyagraha (disobeying the British colonial government’s laws without using violence), Gandhi suspended the resistance. In Punjab the protest movement was very strong, and on 10 April two leaders of the congress, Dr. Satyapal and Saifuddin Kitchlew, were arrested and taken secretly to Dharamsala. The most repressive of all acts was the Jalianwala episode. The army was called into Punjab, and on 13 April people from neighbouring villages gathered for Baisakhi Day celebrations and to protest against deportation of two important Indian leaders in Amritsar, which resulted in the Jallianwala Bagh massacre of 1919.
Accepting the report of the Repressive Laws Committee, the British colonial government repealed the Rowlett Act, the Press Act, and twenty-two other laws in March 1922.
Jallianwala Bagh massacre
The Jallianwala Bagh massacre, also known as the Amritsar massacre, took place on 13 April 1919. A large peaceful crowd had gathered at the Jallianwala Bagh in Amritsar, Punjab to protest against the arrest of pro-Indian independence leaders Dr. Saifuddin Kitchlew and Dr. Satya Pal.
In response to the public gathering, the Anglo-Indian Brigadier R. E. H. Dyer surrounded the Bagh with British Indian army units. The Jallianwala Bagh could only be exited on one side, as its other three sides were enclosed by buildings. After blocking the exit with his troops, he ordered them to shoot at the crowd, continuing to fire even as the protestors tried to flee. The troops kept on firing until their ammunition was exhausted. The death toll in the sad event was estimated to be more than one thousand and over 1,200 injured many of them seriously seriously injured.
The event could not be seen as a great human tragedy by the British including those who had poetic hearts like the Anglo-Indian author Rudyard Kipling who justified Dyer who according to him “did his duty as he saw it”. This incident shocked Gurudev Rabindranath Tagore to such an extent that he renounced his knighthood.
On the other hand Indian hearts bled. The level of casual brutality, and lack of any accountability, stunned the entire nation, resulting in a wrenching loss of faith of the general Indian public in the intentions of the United Kingdom. The ineffective inquiry, together with the initial accolades for Dyer, fuelled great widespread anger against the British among the Indian populace, leading to the non-cooperation movement of 1920–22. Some historians consider the episode a decisive step towards the end of British rule in India. Britain has never formally apologised for the massacre but expressed “deep regret” in 2019.
Non-cooperation movement
The non-cooperation movement was launched on 1 August 1920, by Mahatma Gandhi to against the British government with the aim of inducing the British to grant self-governance. The movement was to deny cooperating with the British administration in implantation of their laws. The movement was ignited by a wide and deep discontentment among the INC leaders and Indian public against the Rowlett Act of 18 March 1919 and the Jallianwala Bagh massacre of 13 April 1919. Both of these shattered the faith of Indians in the fairness and sanity of the British regime. Indian leaders resorted to hartals and non-cooperation with the British government. And the events led to a “political awakening” of Indians which inspired them to fight against the “threat” by the British.
Satyagraha
Non-Cooperation movement was one of Gandhi’s first organized acts of large-scale Satyagraha (civil disobedience). Gandhi’s planning of the non-cooperation movement included persuading all Indians to withdraw their labour from any activity that “sustained the British government and also economy in India,” including British industries and educational institutions. The protestors in the movement used non-violent means, or Ahimsa. The leaders of the non-cooperation movement resulted in disorder or obstruction of government services. The leaders persuaded Indians to refuse to buy British goods and instead they tryd to adopt and use local handicrafts. The participants in the movement also picketed liquor shops. In addition to promoting “self-reliance” by spinning khadi, buying Indian-made goods only, and boycotting British goods, Gandhi’s non-cooperation movement called for the restoration of the Khilafat (Khilafat movement) in Turkey and the end to untouchability. The strikes (hartals) under the Non-cooperation movement led to the first arrests of both Nehru and his father, Motilal Nehru, on 6 December 1921. Subsequently large number of leaders and police resorting to non-cooperation were arrested.
Veterans such as Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Bipin Chandra Pal, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, and Annie Besant opposed the idea of non-cooperation outright as they felt that it was not an efficient method struggle for self rule and freedom of the country from British rule. The All India Muslim League also criticized the idea. However, the younger generation of Indian nationalists was thrilled and backed Gandhi, whose plans were adopted by the Congress Party in September 1920 and launched that December. Leaders like Bal Gangadhar Tilak and other supporters of militant nationalism called major public meetings. The British took them very seriously and imprisoned him in Mandalay in Burma and V. O.Chidambaram Pillai received 40 years of imprisonment.
Chauri- Chaura episode and the suspension of Non-cooperation movement
Chauri- Chaura, a small town in the district of Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh saw violent outbursts of people against the repression during the non-cooperation movement. A police officer had attacked some volunteers picketing a liquor shop. On 5 February 1922, a big crowd of peasants gathered at Chauri Chaura police chowki (station) and set fire the police chowki into fire with some 22 policemen inside it. This heinous massacre stirred Mahatma Gandhi and he suspended the non-cooperation movement.
The None Cooperation movement instilled nationalism among Indians and their desire for self rule was intensified. The British authorities were shocked by the kind of mass mobilization that the non-cooperation movement saw. Unity in the country was strengthened and as British educational institutions were boycotted, many Indian schools and colleges opened. Indian goods were encouraged. Many nationalist leaders criricise Mahatma Gandhi’s decision to suspend the non-cooperation movement but Gandhiji did so because he was disappointed with the gradual loss of non-violent nature of the movement. He did not want the movement to degenerate into a contest of violence, with police and angry mobs attacking each other back and forth, victimizing civilians in between. Gandhi appealed to the Indian public for all resistance to end, went on a fast and on 12 February 1922 called off the non-cooperation movement.
Simon Commission
The Simon Commission, a group of seven Members of British Parliament under the chairmanship of Sir John Simon arrived in India in 1928 to study constitutional reform in India. India was Britain’s largest and most important possession and the Indian Statutory Commission (Simon Commission) was mandated to examine the effects of Montagu–Chelmsford Reforms in 1919 for India . One of its members was the future leader of the Labor Party Clement Attlee, who became committed to self-government for India. The Simon Commission came to India as committed by the British government at the time of introducing of Montagu–Chelmsford Reforms. At the time of introducing of Montagu–Chelmsford Reforms, the British Government declared that a commission would be sent to India after ten years to examine the effects and operations of the constitutional reforms and to suggest more reforms for India.
In November 1927, the British government appointed the Simon Commission to report on India’s constitutional progress for introducing constitutional reforms, as promised. Its main objective was to widen the communal feelings to break the country’s social fabric. The Commission was strongly opposed by many Indians. At the time of introducing the Montagu–Chelmsford Reforms, also known as the Govt of India act of 1919, it was opposed by Nehru, Gandhi, Jinnah, the Muslim League and Indian National Congress because it contained seven members of the British Parliament but no Indians. However, it was supported by B R Ambedkar and Periyar E. V. Ramasamy who were not against the nationalist leaders and self rule, but wanted to address the social issues and separate electorate in new reforms. On the other hand the nationalist leaders did not want to deny the scheduled caste to have their deserved rights, but they apprehended that the British wanted to divide the Indian leaders on communal lines. The nationalists also wanted that the issue of self rule should be first fought together and thereafter, the social issues can be taken after India won freedom.
One of the greatest losses to India’s freedom movement was the death of Sher-e- Punjab, Lala Lajpat Rai. Lala Lajpat Rai led a protest against the Simon Commission in Lahore. He suffered a police beating during the protest and died of his injuries on 17 November 1928.
National Congress, at its December 1927 meeting in Madras, resolved to boycott the Commission and challenged Lord Birkenhead, the Secretary of State for India, to draft a constitution that would be acceptable to the Indian populace. The Muslim League, led by Mohammed Ali Jinnah, also decided to boycott the Commission. The famous slogan used during the protest “Simon Go Back” was first said by ‘Lala Lajpat Rai. Later On 30 October 1928, the Commission arrived in Lahore where it was met by protesters waving black flags. The protest was led by Lala Lajpat Rai, who had moved a resolution against the Commission in the Legislative Assembly of Punjab in February 1928. To make way for the Commission, the local police force began beating protestors. Lala Lajpat Rai was critically injured and died a fortnight later.
The Commission published its two-volume report in May 1930. It proposed the abolition of dyarchy and the establishment of representative government in the provinces. The outcome of the Simon Commission was the Government of India Act 1935, which called for a “responsible” government at the provincial level in India- that is a government responsible to the Indian community rather than London. It is the basis of many parts of the Indian Constitution. In 1937 the first elections were held in the Provinces, resulting in Congress Governments being returned in almost all Provinces. By 1933 many nationalist leaders argued that British rule was alien to India and was unable to make the social and economic reforms necessary for India’s progress.
Dyarchy as conceived in Montagu- Chelmsford Reforms
Dyarchy was introduced as a constitutional reform by Montagu Chelmsford Reforms in 1919. Edwin Samuel Montagu was secretary of state for India (1917–22) and Lord Chelmsford, viceroy of India (1916–21). Dyarchy was a system of double government introduced by Montagu- Chelmsford reforms in India in 1919. The principle of dyarchy was a division of the executive branch of each provincial government into two parts—the first section was one which was authoritarian and the second which was popularly elected and responsible. The first was composed of executive councillors, appointed, as before, by the British crown. The second was composed of ministers who were chosen by the governor from the elected Indian members of the provincial legislature.
The various fields, or subjects of administration were divided between the councillors (representing the Crown) and the ministers (representing the elected Indian members in the provincial legislatures), being named “reserved” and “transferred” subjects, respectively. The “reserved subjects” came under the heading of law and order and included justice, the police, land revenue, and irrigation. The transferred subjects (i.e., those under the control of Indian ministers) included local self-government, education, public health, public works, and agriculture, forests, and fisheries.
In the reforms the major powers were kept by the Crown while residual powers were left to the provincial representatives. At best it was partial transfer of power by the imperial regime to cajole the Indian nationalist leaders. The Montagu-Chelmsford reforms were criticized vehemently for this clever manipulation. The imperialist historians say that it marked the first introduction of the democratic principle into the executive branch of the British administration of India as it was the forerunner of India’s full provincial autonomy (1935) and independence (1947).
The Nehru Report
In 1927 the Congress appointed an all-Indian commission to propose constitutional reforms for India. Members of other Indian political parties joined the commission led by Congress President Motilal Nehru. The Nehru Report demanded that India be granted self-government under the dominion status within the Empire. While most other Indian political parties supported the Nehru (Jawaharlal Nehru) commission’s work, it was opposed by the Indian Liberal Party and the All India Muslim League. The British ignored the commission, its report and refused to introduce political reform.
The Nehru Report led to controversy within Congress. Younger nationalist leaders like Subhas Chandra Bose and Jawaharlal Nehru demanded that Congress resolve to make a complete and explicit break from all ties with the British. Jawaharlal Nehru had been influenced by the idea of Bhagat Singh (“total independence”), which Singh had introduced a resolution demanding in 1927, which was rejected because of Gandhi’s opposition. Now Bose and Nehru opposed dominion status, which would retain the Monarch of the United Kingdom as the constitutional head of state of India (although in the separate capacity as King of India), and preserve political powers for the British Parliament in Indian constitutional affairs. They were supported in their stand by a large number of rank-and-file Congressmen.
Lahore Congress (1928)
The Indian nationalist leaders from the moderate groups wanted self rule for India but they did not have any problem with “dominion status” for India under the British Crown. But the militant nationalist leaders in the India National Congress felt that India deserves nothing less than Purna Swaraj. Dadabhai Naoroji in his presidential address at the 1886 National Congress in Calcutta advocated for Swaraj as the sole aim of the nationalist movement, but along the lines of Canada and Australia, which was colonial self-government under the British crown.
However, in 1907, Sri Aurobindo, as editor of the newspaper Bande Mataram, began writing that the new generation of nationalists would not accept anything less than Purna Swaraj, full independence, as it exists in the United Kingdom. Through his writings and speeches, along with Bal Gangadhar Tilak he popularised this idea, making it a core part of the nationalist discourse. Congress leader and famous poet Hasrat Mohani was the first activist to demand complete independence (Poorna Swaraj) from the British in 1921 from an All-India Congress Forum. Maghfoor Ahmad Ajazi supported the ‘Poorna Swaraj’ motion demanded by Hasrat Mohani. Veteran Congress leaders such as Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Sri Aurobindo and Bipin Chandra Pal had also advocated explicit Indian independence from the Empire.
In December 1928 Lahore session of the INC Mahatma Gandhi proposed a resolution that called for the British to grant dominion status to India within two years. After some time, Gandhi brokered a further compromise by reducing the time given from two years to one. Jawaharlal Nehru voted for the new resolution, while Subhash Bose told his supporters that he would not oppose the resolution, and abstained from voting himself. The All India Congress Committee voted 118 to 45 in its favour (the 45 votes came from supporters of a complete break from the British). However, when Bose introduced an amendment during the open session of Congress that sought a complete break with the British, Gandhi admonished the move: “You may take the name of independence on your lips but all your muttering will be an empty formula if there is no honour behind it. If you are not prepared to stand by your words, where will independence be? The amendment was rejected, by 1350 to 973, and the resolution was fully adopted.
Demand for Purna Swaraj
The Purna Swaraj or “complete Independence of India was promulgated (declared) by the Indian National Congress on 26 January 1930, resolving the Congress and Indian nationalists to fight for complete self-rule independent of the British Empire.
Despite continuous demands by the Indian nationalist leaders the British government failed to address the issue of self governance to their satisfaction. As a result of the denial of reforms and political rights, the Indian National Congress grew increasingly cohesive – unified in the desire to drive out the British from India completely. The Lahore session of INC filled the nationalist leaders and public in general with resolve, determination, hope and vigour to fight for complete independence. Jawaharlal Nehru was elected President and veteran leaders like Chakravarthi Rajagopalachari and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel returned to the Congress Working Committee. They approved a declaration of independence, which stated: “The British government in India has not only deprived the Indian people of their freedom but has based itself on the exploitation of the masses, and has ruined India economically, politically, culturally and spiritually…. Therefore…India must sever the British connection and attain Purna Swaraj or complete independence.”
At midnight on New Year’s Eve, President Jawaharlal Nehru hoisted the tricolour flag of India upon the banks of the Ravi in Lahore, which later became part of Pakistan. A pledge of independence was read out, which included a readiness to withhold taxes. The massive gathering of public attending the ceremony also agreed with the resolution for complete independence. The Declaration of Independence was officially promulgated on 26 January 1930. Gandhi and other Indian leaders would immediately begin the planning of a massive national non-violence would encourage the common people not to attack Britishers even if they attacked them. Subsequently, the Salt Satyagraha was initiated by Mahatma Gandhi on 12 March 1930 and what followed gave impetus to the Indian independence movement and sparked off the nationwide Non-Cooperation Movement.