Modern History Playlist
19 chapters • 0 completed
1
Advent of Europeans in India
10 topics
2
Decline of the Mughal Empire
7 topics
3
Emergence of Regional States
11 topics
4
Expansion and Consolidation of British Power
23 topics
5
British Government & Economic Policies (1757-1857)
7 topics
6
Social Reform Movements
24 topics
7
People’s Resistance before 1857
13 topics
8
The revolt of 1857
7 topics
9
Growth of Nationalism and Moderate Phase of Congress
9 topics
10
British Administration in India
9 topics
11
Era of Militant Nationalism (1905-1909)
6 topics
12
First Phase of Revolutionary Activities(1907-1917)
8 topics
13
India’s Response to First World War and Home Rule Movement
5 topics
14
Emergence of Gandhi
10 topics
15
Non-Cooperation Movement and Khilafat Movement
10 topics
16
Emergence of Swarajists, Socialist Ideas, Revolutionary Activities
8 topics
17
Struggle For Swaraj: 1928-1935
16 topics
18
Period from 1935-42
12 topics
19
Period from 1942-47
25 topics
Progress (0%)
0 / 19 complete
Chapter 13: India’s Response to First World War and Home Rule Movement
Chapter Test5 topics•Estimated reading: 15 minutes
India’s Response to First World War and Home Rule Movement (Background)
Key Point
The outbreak of the First World War (1914) brought India into the conflict as a colony of Britain. While Indian leaders initially supported the war effort expecting political concessions, economic hardship, repression , and disappointment over reforms soon fueled discontent. This disillusionment set the stage for the Home Rule Movement (1916) led by Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Annie Besant .
The outbreak of the First World War (1914) brought India into the conflict as a colony of Britain. While Indian leaders initially supported the war effort expecting political concessions, economic hardship, repression , and disappointment over reforms soon fueled discontent. This disillusionment set the stage for the Home Rule Movement (1916) led by Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Annie Besant .
Detailed Notes (12 points)
Tap a card to add note • Use the highlight Listen button to play the full section
I. India's War Contribution and Cost:
Massive Military Effort: Over 1.3 million (13 lakh) Indian soldiers and non-combatants were sent overseas to fight (France, Mesopotamia, Africa).
Human Cost: The war resulted in approximately 74,000 Indian soldiers killed .
Economic Impact: Heavy war expenditure led to increased taxes, sharp inflation and price increases , and widespread food shortages and famines .
Initial Support: Moderates and Congress leaders supported Britain based on the Loyalty-for-Self-Government thesis, hoping for substantial reforms.
Repression: Wartime measures like the Defence of India Act (1915) severely curtailed civil liberties and allowed for arbitrary preventive detention .
Revolutionary Activity: The Ghadar Party (abroad) and revolutionary groups attempted to exploit wartime conditions for revolt ( Indo-German Conspiracy, 1915–17 ).
II. Rise of Home Rule Demand:
Political Frustration: Despite India’s sacrifices, Britain’s post-war reforms (Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms) were criticized as falling short of expectations.
Rise of Home Rule Demand: Inspired by Ireland’s Home Rule agitation, Indian leaders like Tilak and Annie Besant launched the Home Rule Movement (1916) demanding self-government within the British Empire.
New Unity: The Home Rule Movement created a political platform that facilitated the reunification of Moderates and Extremists (Lucknow Session, 1916).
Role of Extremists and Moderates: The movement created a platform where moderates, extremists, and even some revolutionaries could come together against colonial rule.
India’s Role in First World War
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Military Contribution | 13 lakh Indian soldiers fought; 74,000 killed |
| Economic Burden | Taxes increased, high inflation , food shortages |
| Political Response | Congress supported war expecting reforms |
| Repressive Laws | Defence of India Act (1915) curtailed freedoms |
| Revolutionary Response | Ghadar Party and Indo-German Conspiracy attempted revolt |
Fun Facts
Indian soldiers fought in Europe wearing turbans, which surprised many Europeans who had never seen Sikhs before.
Annie Besant , originally an Irishwoman, connected Irish and Indian struggles for Home Rule .
Tilak returned to politics in 1916 after his imprisonment (1908–14) and became a central figure in Home Rule agitation.
Mains Key Points
India’s enthusiastic participation in WWI initially reflected loyalty but later exposed colonial exploitation (economic drain, repression).
Economic hardships and repressive laws created mass discontent, weakening faith in British promises.
The disappointment after WWI reforms became a trigger for the rise of Home Rule Movement.
The Home Rule Movement bridged moderates and extremists (Lucknow Pact), creating new unity in the nationalist struggle.
Prelims Strategy Tips
Defence of India Act → 1915 (wartime repressive law).
Over 13 lakh Indians fought in WWI; 74,000 killed.
Home Rule Movement launched in 1916 by Tilak and Annie Besant .
Inspired by Irish Home Rule agitation .
Home Rule Movement (1916–1918): Revival and Expansion
Key Point
The Home Rule Movement , launched separately by Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Annie Besant in 1916 , demanded self-government for India within the British Empire. Inspired by Irish Home Rule , it marked a vital revival of nationalist politics after the decline of the Swadeshi Movement and successfully created organizational unity between the Moderates and Extremists.
The Home Rule Movement , launched separately by Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Annie Besant in 1916 , demanded self-government for India within the British Empire. Inspired by Irish Home Rule , it marked a vital revival of nationalist politics after the decline of the Swadeshi Movement and successfully created organizational unity between the Moderates and Extremists.
Detailed Notes (16 points)
Tap a card to add note • Use the highlight Listen button to play the full section
I. Objectives, Inspiration, and Strategy:
Objective: To achieve Self-government (Home Rule) for India within the British Empire (Dominion Status), focusing on control over internal administration.
Inspiration: The movement was directly modeled on the Irish Home Rule League.
Tilak’s League (April 1916, Poona): Active in Maharashtra, Karnataka, Central Provinces, and Berar . Focused on mass mobilization , linking with peasants, and using the vernacular press. Slogan: 'Home Rule is my birthright, and I shall have it.'
Besant’s League (September 1916, Adyar): Covered the rest of India (Madras, UP, Bombay). Leveraged Theosophical Society networks , focusing on educated classes and using petitions and pamphlets.
Methods: Continuous agitation through extensive public meetings, pamphlets, newspapers, tours, and campaigns for political awareness, utilizing the Indian language press.
II. Impact on Nationalist Unity (Lucknow Milestones):
Congress Reunion (Lucknow, 1916): The Home Rule momentum facilitated the reunion of Extremists (Tilak) and Moderates in the Congress, healing the Surat Split of 1907 .
Hindu-Muslim Unity (Lucknow Pact, 1916): Led to the historic pact between Congress and the All-India Muslim League (facilitated by Tilak and Jinnah), presenting joint constitutional demands to the British.
Controversial Concession: The Congress formally accepted separate electorates for Muslims for the first time, a structural concession that later validated the communal principle in Indian politics.
III. Decline and Enduring Legacy:
British Response: Initially repressive; Annie Besant was interned (June 1917) , which ironically amplified the movement’s popularity.
Montagu’s Declaration (August 1917): The sustained pressure forced Britain to promise the 'gradual development of self-governing institutions.'
Decline (By 1918): Weakened due to Besant’s acceptance of the Montagu Declaration (moderation), Tilak's absence (to fight the Valentine Chirol libel case in England), and the subsequent emergence of Gandhi’s leadership and mass Satyagraha.
Prepared the Ground: The movement created a nationwide organizational structure and a generation of trained, politically conscious youth (students, women, lower middle class), preparing the masses for Gandhi's mass movements of the 1920s.
Shift to Masses: Successfully utilized linguistic provinces and vernacular language for political mobilization, anticipating the later regional strategies of the Congress.
Comparison of Tilak’s and Besant’s Home Rule Leagues
| Aspect | Tilak’s League | Besant’s League |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | April 1916 (Poona) | September 1916 (Adyar, Madras) |
| Regions | Maharashtra, Karnataka, CP & Berar | Madras, Bombay, United Provinces, rest of India |
| Focus | Mass mobilisation, peasants, popular appeal | Educated classes, petitions, propaganda |
| Method | Tours, meetings, vernacular press | Pamphlets, petitions, journals |
| Leadership Style | Assertive, linked with extremists | Moderate, linked with Congress liberals |
Fun Facts
Tilak popularised the slogan: 'Home Rule is my birthright and I shall have it'.
Besant used Theosophical networks to spread the movement’s message across India.
The Lucknow Session (1916) of Congress witnessed unity between moderates, extremists, and Muslim League for the first time since Surat Split.
Mains Key Points
Revival and Organisational Unity: The Home Rule Movement revived nationalist activity after the Swadeshi decline and created unity by bridging moderates and extremists (Lucknow Session).
Global and Domestic Pressure: It exerted continuous pressure on the British, leading directly to the Montagu’s Declaration (1917) , the first official British commitment to responsible government .
Mass Base Preparation: It successfully spread political education to new social groups including students, women, and the lower middle class , thereby preparing a mass base for Gandhi’s mass movements from 1919 onwards.
Political Strategy: The movement facilitated the Lucknow Pact, showcasing strategic Hindu-Muslim cooperation, although it simultaneously entrenched the structural weakness of separate electorates.
Prelims Strategy Tips
Home Rule Movement launched 1916 by Tilak (Poona) and Annie Besant (Madras) .
Inspired by Irish Home Rule Movement .
Annie Besant was interned in June 1917 ; release increased popularity.
Montagu’s Declaration (1917) → response to Home Rule agitation.
Lucknow Pact (1916): A Milestone of Unity
Key Point
The Lucknow Pact of 1916 was a historic agreement forged during the high point of the Home Rule Movement between the Indian National Congress and the All-India Muslim League. It successfully achieved temporary Hindu-Muslim unity and presented joint constitutional demands to the British, marking a strategic consolidation of the nationalist struggle.
The Lucknow Pact of 1916 was a historic agreement forged during the high point of the Home Rule Movement between the Indian National Congress and the All-India Muslim League. It successfully achieved temporary Hindu-Muslim unity and presented joint constitutional demands to the British, marking a strategic consolidation of the nationalist struggle.
Detailed Notes (8 points)
Tap a card to add note • Use the highlight Listen button to play the full section
I. The Context of Unification:
Congress Reunion: The Lucknow Session (December 1916) was marked by the successful reunion of the two Congress factions, the Extremists (led by Tilak) and the Moderates, effectively healing the Surat Split of 1907.
Congress-League Unity: For the first time, the All-India Muslim League also held its session at the same venue. Influential leaders like Tilak, Annie Besant, and Mohammad Ali Jinnah (then the 'Ambassador of Hindu-Muslim Unity') played crucial roles in brokering the agreement.
Joint Goal: Both parties agreed on a common minimum program of constitutional reforms to demand from the British government, centering on the demand for eventual self-government/Dominion Status.
II. Key Provisions and Structural Flaws:
Expansion and Control: Both parties jointly demanded that the Legislative Councils be expanded and contain an elected Indian majority to ensure greater Indian participation in governance.
The Controversial Concession: The Congress formally accepted separate electorates for Muslims for the first time since 1909. This political necessity secured the Muslim League's support but is widely criticized for validating the communal principle and laying the foundations for the eventual communal divide.
Impact: The pact created a powerful illusion of Hindu-Muslim unity at the national level, significantly strengthening the nationalist voice and increasing political pressure on the British government.
Key Provisions of the Lucknow Pact
| Provision | Details |
|---|---|
| Expansion of Councils | Legislative councils to be larger with elected majority |
| Separate Electorates | Congress accepted separate electorates for Muslims |
| Self-Government | Joint demand for eventual dominion status/self-rule |
| Unity | Hindu-Muslim cooperation in political demands |
Fun Facts
At Lucknow in 1916, Tilak and Jinnah shared the same political stage, symbolizing Hindu-Muslim unity.
The pact was hailed by Annie Besant as a 'wonderful beginning of a new era of national cooperation'.
The Lucknow Pact marked Jinnah as an 'ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity', a title he later lost.
Mains Key Points
Structural Weakness: Acceptance of separate electorates was the major flaw, sowing the seeds of future communal divide by validating the principle of communal representation in the political structure.
Strategic Success: The Pact served as a major strategic success during WWI by achieving unprecedented nationalist unification (Moderates + Extremists + League), greatly intensifying pressure on the British.
Political Consolidation: It marked the first formal Congress-Muslim League cooperation, allowing the national movement to present a united front and a clear set of demands to the colonial power.
Milestone: Despite its flaws, it was a major political milestone that galvanized the national movement during WWI and helped push the British towards the Montagu Declaration (1917).
Prelims Strategy Tips
Lucknow Pact → 1916 (Congress + Muslim League).
Congress accepted separate electorates for Muslims for the first time.
Extremists and moderates reunited at Lucknow Session (1916).
Key leaders: Tilak, Annie Besant, Jinnah.
Montagu’s Declaration (1917) and Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms (1919): Limited Constitutionalism
Key Point
The period 1917–1919 marked a strategic, though limited, shift in British policy. The Montagu’s Declaration (August 1917) was the first official promise of self-governance, which was formalized by the Government of India Act, 1919 (Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms). These were designed primarily to pacify nationalist opinion and divide the Indian political class while retaining absolute British control.
The period 1917–1919 marked a strategic, though limited, shift in British policy. The Montagu’s Declaration (August 1917) was the first official promise of self-governance, which was formalized by the Government of India Act, 1919 (Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms). These were designed primarily to pacify nationalist opinion and divide the Indian political class while retaining absolute British control.
Detailed Notes (17 points)
Tap a card to add note • Use the highlight Listen button to play the full section
I. Strategic Context and Montagu's Declaration (1917):
Political Pressure: The Declaration was a direct response to combined nationalist pressure: the continuous agitation of the Home Rule Movement, the strategic nationalist unity achieved through the Lucknow Pact (1916), and the need to reward India for its massive military and financial sacrifices during WWI.
The Policy: Announced on August 20, 1917, by Edwin Montagu, the Secretary of State, it declared the goal of the British government as the 'progressive realisation of responsible government in India' as an integral part of the British Empire. This marked the first official promise of responsible government by the British Parliament.
II. The Government of India Act, 1919 (Montford Reforms):
Provincial Dyarchy (Dual Rule): This was the Act's most distinct feature, introducing dual rule in the provinces:
- Reserved Subjects: Crucial areas like Law and Order, Police, Finance, and Irrigation remained under the control of the Governor and his Executive Council (British officials).
- Transferred Subjects: Less critical areas like Education, Public Health, and Local Self-Government were placed under the control of Indian Ministers responsible to the Provincial Legislature.
Flaws of Dyarchy: The system was inherently flawed, as Indian Ministers responsible for 'Transferred' subjects had no control over finance (which was 'Reserved'), making their departments effectively powerless.
Central Administration: The Central Executive remained entirely responsible to the British Parliament, not the Indian Legislature.
Bicameralism at Centre: Introduced bicameralism at the Centre for the first time: the Central Legislative Assembly and the Council of States.
Institutionalizing Communalism: The provision of separate electorates was dangerously extended from Muslims to include Sikhs, Anglo-Indians, Indian Christians, and Europeans, a deliberate political maneuver to fragment the nationalist ranks.
Governor-General’s Powers: The Governor-General retained overriding veto power over all legislation and expenditure, ensuring ultimate imperial supremacy.
III. Nationalist Response and Legacy:
Political Disillusionment: The reforms were widely rejected as grossly inadequate and 'disappointing and deceitful.' Tilak famously dubbed dyarchy 'a new charter of slavery,' highlighting the continued dominance of the British executive.
Constitutional Milestone: Despite their political shortcomings and the perpetuation of the communal divide, the Montford Reforms were a constitutional milestone because they:
- Introduced the principle of elections and partial responsibility in the provinces.
- Provided the institutional framework for the Government of India Act, 1935, which advanced the concept of self-governance further.
Key Features of Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms (1919)
| Feature | Details | Strategic Intent |
|---|---|---|
| Provincial Dyarchy | Subjects divided into Reserved (British control) and Transferred (Indian ministers) | To give an illusion of responsibility while retaining control over key powers (Finance, Police). |
| Central Legislature | Introduced bicameralism: Assembly + Council of States | To retain Official Majority and check Indian influence. |
| Separate Electorates | Extended to Sikhs, Christians, Anglo-Indians | To institutionalize communal divisions and fragment the nationalist movement. |
| Governor-General Powers | Retained veto and overriding control | To ensure ultimate imperial supremacy over the entire administration. |
Fun Facts
Edwin Montagu was the first British Secretary of State for India to visit India personally (1917) during the consultation process for the reforms.
The reforms led to the first Indian woman legislator, Begum Jahanara Shahnawaz, being nominated/elected under the expanded councils.
The 1919 Act provided for a review commission (later the Simon Commission ) after ten years to assess the working of the reforms.
Mains Key Points
Strategic Compromise: The reforms were a strategic compromise: rewarding loyalty (WWI) and addressing pressure (Home Rule) while carefully limiting power transfer to maintain imperial control.
Flawed Devolution: The introduction of dyarchy was a flawed experiment that exposed the British intent. By reserving Finance and Police, the British ensured that the Indian Ministers lacked any real capacity to implement positive change.
Deepening Divide: The dangerous extension of separate electorates was a deliberate institutional strategy to fragment the political landscape along communal lines, mitigating the unity achieved by the Lucknow Pact.
Constitutional Precedent: Despite failure, the Act set a constitutional precedent by formally introducing the language of 'responsible government', which nationalists thereafter used as the minimum benchmark for future demands.
Prelims Strategy Tips
Montagu’s Declaration → 20 August 1917 (First official promise of responsible government).
Government of India Act, 1919 → Introduced dyarchy in provinces and bicameralism at the centre.
Separate Electorates were extended in 1919 to Sikhs, Christians, and Anglo-Indians.
Tilak famously called dyarchy 'a new charter of slavery'.
Rowlatt Act and Jallianwala Bagh (1919)
Key Point
The Rowlatt Act (1919) , passed against universal Indian opposition, extended the government’s wartime repressive powers. This arbitrary law led to the first all-India Satyagraha launched by Gandhi and culminated in the horrific Jallianwala Bagh Massacre , marking a turning point in the freedom struggle.
The Rowlatt Act (1919) , passed against universal Indian opposition, extended the government’s wartime repressive powers. This arbitrary law led to the first all-India Satyagraha launched by Gandhi and culminated in the horrific Jallianwala Bagh Massacre , marking a turning point in the freedom struggle.
Detailed Notes (13 points)
Tap a card to add note • Use the highlight Listen button to play the full section
I. The Rowlatt Act (Black Act):
Context: The British government passed the Anarchical and Revolutionary Crimes Act of 1919, popularly known as the Rowlatt Act , based on the recommendations of the Sedition Committee chaired by Justice S.A.T. Rowlatt .
Key Provision: The Act allowed the British government to imprison any person suspected of terrorism or sedition without trial for up to two years. It was infamous for denying the fundamental right to appeal, famously described as 'no vakil, no appeal, no daleel' (no lawyer, no appeal, no argument).
Gandhi's Response: Gandhi denounced the Act as the 'Black Act' and launched the Rowlatt Satyagraha —his first all-India struggle —calling for a nationwide hartal (strike) and fast.
II. Jallianwala Bagh Massacre:
Trigger: The arrest of two prominent local leaders in Amritsar, Dr. Saifuddin Kitchlew and Dr. Satyapal , during the Satyagraha led to spontaneous protests in the city.
The Incident (April 13, 1919): On the day of Baisakhi , a large, peaceful crowd (including women and children) had gathered in the enclosed Jallianwala Bagh to protest the arrests. General Reginald Dyer ordered his troops to fire on the unarmed crowd without warning.
Casualties: Official reports cited around 379 deaths, but the Congress Committee estimated over 1,000 casualties . The brutality shocked the nation.
Hunter Committee: The British government formed the Hunter Committee to inquire into the massacre. The report criticized Dyer but did not punish him severely , further fueling anti-British sentiment.
III. Impact on the National Movement:
Turning Point: The Jallianwala Bagh tragedy marked the end of the era of petitions and prayers. It convinced Gandhi that cooperation with the 'satanic' British government was impossible.
National Disillusionment: The incident led to widespread national disillusionment and anger, setting the ideological stage for the Non-Cooperation Movement (1920).
Protests: Rabindranath Tagore renounced his knighthood in protest, and Sir Sankaran Nair resigned from the Viceroy’s Executive Council.
Rowlatt Act and Jallianwala Bagh Summary
| Event | Year | Key Feature | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rowlatt Act (Black Act) | 1919 | Arrest without warrant or trial ('no appeal, no daleel') | Led to Gandhi’s first all-India Satyagraha |
| Jallianwala Bagh Massacre | April 13, 1919 | General Dyer ordered firing on peaceful Baisakhi gathering | Turning point; led to the end of cooperation and launch of NCM |
| Hunter Committee | 1919 | British inquiry into the massacre | Report criticized Dyer but showed insufficient official remorse |
Fun Facts
General Dyer's goal was to produce a 'sufficient moral effect' on the population.
Dyer became a hero to a section of the British public and was presented with a sword of honor by some supporters in England.
Mains Key Points
The Act was a profound error of judgment by the British, as it was passed immediately after the war, nullifying the Montagu Declaration's promise of self-government.
The Jallianwala Bagh Massacre was the ultimate moral condemnation of the British Raj, permanently damaging the faith of all Indians, including moderates, in the colonial system's sense of justice.
It directly led to Gandhi's shift from cooperation to non-cooperation, establishing the framework for the first truly mass movement of the national struggle.
Prelims Strategy Tips
Rowlatt Act (1919) was based on the recommendations of the Rowlatt (Sedition) Committee.
The massacre occurred on April 13, 1919 , on the festival of Baisakhi .
Rabindranath Tagore renounced his knighthood in protest.
Chapter Complete!
Ready to move to the next chapter?