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 14: Emergence of Gandhi
Chapter Test10 topics•Estimated reading: 30 minutes
Emergence of Gandhi in Indian Politics (1915–1920): From Local Action to National Leadership
Key Point
Gandhi returned from South Africa in 1915 , bringing with him the unique methodology of satyagraha and non-violence . Through successful local peasant and worker movements (Champaran, Ahmedabad, Kheda) and his leadership in the Rowlatt Satyagraha , he skillfully transformed the nationalist struggle into a mass movement . By 1920, he emerged as the undisputed national leader , strategically unifying diverse classes, regions, and communities (including the Khilafat issue).
Gandhi returned from South Africa in 1915 , bringing with him the unique methodology of satyagraha and non-violence . Through successful local peasant and worker movements (Champaran, Ahmedabad, Kheda) and his leadership in the Rowlatt Satyagraha , he skillfully transformed the nationalist struggle into a mass movement . By 1920, he emerged as the undisputed national leader , strategically unifying diverse classes, regions, and communities (including the Khilafat issue).
Detailed Notes (15 points)
Tap a card to add note • Use the highlight Listen button to play the full section
I. South Africa and Initial Integration (1915-1916):
South Africa Experience: Gandhi spent two decades (1893–1914) developing and testing satyagraha (Truth-Force) against racial discrimination and oppressive laws, shaping it into a formidable political tool.
Return and Mentorship: He returned to India in January 1915 . As advised by his political guru, Gopal Krishna Gokhale, he spent the initial period touring widely to understand the 'real India'—its economic hardship and social composition—before committing to political action.
Sabarmati Ashram (1917): Gandhi established his ashram near Ahmedabad, which became a hub for experiments in non-violence, simplicity, and a foundation for the Constructive Programme.
II. Testing Satyagraha: The Local Movements (1917-1918):
Champaran Satyagraha (1917): Gandhi’s first satyagraha in India was against the tinkathia system (forced indigo cultivation on 3/20th of land) in Bihar. He organized peasants and secured the official abolition of the oppressive system.
Ahmedabad Mill Strike (1918): Supported textile workers demanding better wages against Indian mill owners. Gandhi successfully used the hunger strike as a political tool for the first time in India, compelling owners to concede a 35% wage increase.
Kheda Satyagraha (1918): Led peasants in Gujarat demanding tax remission due to crop failure (famine). He, along with Sardar Patel and Indulal Yajnik, organized a no-tax campaign, forcing the government to concede partial relief.
Significance of Local Triumphs: These movements cemented Gandhi’s reputation as a leader of peasants and workers, demonstrating the practicality and ethical strength of satyagraha as a technique for mass struggle.
III. National Emergence and Consolidation (1919-1920):
Rowlatt Satyagraha (1919): The Rowlatt Act (allowed detention without trial) led to Gandhi’s first all-India struggle. He called for nationwide hartals (strikes) and non-violent protests, despite the movement turning violent in some regions.
Jallianwala Bagh (April 1919): General Dyer’s firing on an unarmed crowd in Amritsar shocked the nation. This tragedy propelled Gandhi into the moral leadership of Indian politics and convinced him that cooperation with the 'satanic' British government was impossible.
Khilafat Movement (1919–20): Gandhi strategically supported the Indian Muslims who were protesting the dismemberment of the Ottoman Caliphate. By merging the Khilafat issue with Non-Cooperation, he forged an unprecedented level of Hindu-Muslim unity.
Transformation of Congress: By 1920, Gandhi transformed the nationalist struggle from a middle-class, constitutional movement into a mass movement involving peasants, workers, women, and students, fundamentally changing the social base of the Congress.
Constructive Programme: Gandhi emphasized spinning khadi, the removal of untouchability, promotion of Hindu-Muslim unity, and rural uplift as integral components of the freedom struggle, linking social reform with political freedom.
Timeline of Gandhi’s Early Movements in India
| Year | Event | Region | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1915 | Return from South Africa | India | Began tours to understand India; Gokhale's advice |
| 1917 | Champaran Satyagraha | Bihar | Abolition of tinkathia system |
| 1918 | Ahmedabad Mill Strike | Gujarat | Workers gained 35% wage increase; Gandhi used hunger strike |
| 1918 | Kheda Satyagraha | Gujarat | Partial revenue remission for peasants (No-Tax campaign) |
| 1919 | Rowlatt Satyagraha | All India | First all-India agitation; General Dyer's repression |
| 1919 | Jallianwala Bagh Massacre | Punjab | National outrage; Gandhi gained moral leadership |
| 1920 | Khilafat-Non-Cooperation | All India | Start of Gandhian mass movement phase; Hindu-Muslim Unity |
Fun Facts
Champaran peasants called Gandhi 'Bapu' for the first time.
During the Ahmedabad Mill Strike, Gandhi initially advised workers to sell off their jewelry, but he later resorted to a fast.
Gandhi experimented with diet, spinning khadi, and simple living at Sabarmati Ashram as part of his philosophical preparation for political life.
Mains Key Points
Evolution of Satyagraha: Gandhi introduced satyagraha and non-violence as practical, ethical, and scalable tools of mass struggle in India, moving politics beyond petitions and violence.
Wider Social Base: His local movements successfully connected the Congress leadership with the peasants, workers, and middle classes, fundamentally widening the nationalist base into a pan-Indian mass movement.
Moral and Political Ascent: The Rowlatt Satyagraha and the subsequent Jallianwala Bagh massacre elevated him as the undisputed moral and political leader of India, replacing the Moderate and Extremist methods.
Strategic Unification: By 1920, Gandhi achieved a strategic masterstroke by unifying the Congress, the Khilafat movement, and the masses into a single, cohesive movement (Non-Cooperation), marking the definitive beginning of the Gandhian era.
Prelims Strategy Tips
Champaran Satyagraha (1917) → Gandhi’s first satyagraha in India.
Ahmedabad Mill Strike (1918) → Gandhi used hunger strike successfully.
Kheda Satyagraha (1918) → Involved Sardar Patel; achieved revenue remission.
Rowlatt Satyagraha (1919) → First all-India agitation under Gandhi.
Khilafat merged with Non-Cooperation (1920) → Gandhi as national leader.
Rowlatt Act (1919): The 'Black Act' and Catalyst for Mass Politics
Key Point
The Rowlatt Act , passed in March 1919 against universal Indian opposition, strategically extended the government’s wartime repressive powers into peacetime. This arbitrary law, dubbed the 'Black Act' , exposed British betrayal of self-governance promises, leading directly to Gandhi’s first all-India Satyagraha and tragically culminating in the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre.
The Rowlatt Act , passed in March 1919 against universal Indian opposition, strategically extended the government’s wartime repressive powers into peacetime. This arbitrary law, dubbed the 'Black Act' , exposed British betrayal of self-governance promises, leading directly to Gandhi’s first all-India Satyagraha and tragically culminating in the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre.
Detailed Notes (13 points)
Tap a card to add note • Use the highlight Listen button to play the full section
I. Background and Draconian Provisions:
Context and Betrayal: The Act was formally the Anarchical and Revolutionary Crimes Act of 1919. It was based on the recommendations of the Sedition Committee chaired by Justice S.A.T. Rowlatt . It was passed immediately after WWI and the promise of the Montagu Declaration, confirming the nationalist view that British policy was rooted in repression, not reform.
Provisions (Denial of Justice): The Act allowed the British government to imprison any person suspected of sedition or terrorism without trial for up to two years. Its most infamous feature was the complete denial of fundamental legal rights, summed up by the phrase: 'no vakil, no appeal, no daleel' (no lawyer, no appeal, no argument).
Official Goal: Ostensibly, the goal was to curb revolutionary activities during and after WWI; in reality, it aimed to stifle any political dissent arising from the Home Rule Movement or wartime hardship.
II. Gandhi’s Response and Mass Mobilisation:
The 'Black Act': Nationalists universally condemned the law as the 'Black Act' for its draconian suppression of civil liberties and press freedom. Even Moderates like Madan Mohan Malaviya and Annie Besant opposed it strongly.
First All-India Satyagraha: Gandhi denounced the Act as the final proof of the 'satanic' nature of the British system. He launched the Rowlatt Satyagraha , calling for a nationwide hartal (strike) on April 6, 1919 . This marked his first political action on a truly all-India scale, using non-violent civil disobedience as a political tool.
Spread of Agitation: The strike was successful, turning into widespread strikes, processions, and protests in major urban centers like Delhi, Punjab, Gujarat, and Bengal. The movement successfully involved a new social base, including the urban lower middle class and artisans.
III. Consequences and Legacy:
Unrest and Repression: The British responded with harsh repression and mass arrests. The arrest of local leaders in Punjab, Dr. Saifuddin Kitchlew and Dr. Satyapal , triggered spontaneous and sometimes violent protests.
Link to Jallianwala Bagh: The agitation against the Act culminated tragically in the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre (April 13, 1919), where General Dyer ordered the firing on an unarmed crowd. The severity of the massacre (and the mild punishment given to Dyer by the Hunter Committee) permanently destroyed any Indian faith in the British sense of justice.
Turning Point: The events following the Rowlatt Act—the brutality and the lack of official remorse—marked the end of the era of constitutional petitions and cooperation. It was the direct ideological foundation for the launch of the Non-Cooperation Movement (1920), establishing the framework for the first truly mass Gandhian movement.
Legacy: The anti-Rowlatt Satyagraha was key to establishing Gandhi as the undisputed national leader and testing the methodology of Satyagraha on a vast scale across diverse regions.
Key Features of Rowlatt Act (1919)
| Feature | Details |
|---|---|
| Detention | Arrest without warrant; detention up to 2 years without trial ('no appeal, no daleel') |
| Trials | Political cases tried without jury |
| Press & Liberties | Severe restrictions on newspapers and suppression of civil rights |
| Public Perception | Called 'Black Act' due to suppression of civil rights and denial of justice |
Fun Facts
The Act was officially called the 'Anarchical and Revolutionary Crimes Act of 1919'.
Even Moderates like Madan Mohan Malaviya and Annie Besant opposed it strongly.
Gandhi’s hartal against the Act on April 6, 1919, was one of the first truly nationwide protests in India.
Mains Key Points
Betrayal and Failure: The Rowlatt Act was a profound error of judgment by the British, passed immediately after WWI, effectively nullifying the political goodwill and the promise of the Montagu Declaration.
Catalyst for Mass Politics: Gandhi’s anti-Rowlatt Satyagraha successfully mobilized the masses across regions, marking the beginning of mass Gandhian politics and moving the national movement beyond elite circles.
Moral Condemnation: The subsequent Jallianwala Bagh Massacre served as 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.
Ideological Shift: The tragedy directly led to Gandhi's critical shift from a policy of cooperation to non-cooperation, establishing the framework and ideological necessity for the launch of the Non-Cooperation Movement (1920).
Prelims Strategy Tips
Rowlatt Act (1919) → Based on Rowlatt Committee report (1918).
Allowed detention without trial; famously called 'Black Act'.
First all-India satyagraha launched by Gandhi against it.
Directly linked to Jallianwala Bagh massacre.
Impact of the Rowlatt Act (1919): Catalyst for Mass Politics and Disillusionment
Key Point
The Rowlatt Act (1919) provoked unprecedented anger across India, strategically serving as a catalyst for mass politics. It united diverse groups against British repression, leading to Gandhi’s first all-India satyagraha . The Act intensified distrust in British promises (nullifying the Montford spirit) and culminated tragically in the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, marking the definitive turning point in the freedom struggle.
The Rowlatt Act (1919) provoked unprecedented anger across India, strategically serving as a catalyst for mass politics. It united diverse groups against British repression, leading to Gandhi’s first all-India satyagraha . The Act intensified distrust in British promises (nullifying the Montford spirit) and culminated tragically in the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, marking the definitive 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. Strategic Failure of British Policy:
Betrayal of Wartime Loyalty: The Act was passed immediately after the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms (1919) and India's massive support during WWI. Indians viewed this as a direct betrayal of the Montagu Declaration’s (1917) promise of gradual self-government.
Trust Deficit: The arbitrary nature of the law, allowing detention without trial ('no vakil, no appeal, no daleel'), confirmed the nationalist view that the British response to political demand was rooted in repression, not genuine reform.
Moral Condemnation (Jallianwala): The tragic climax at Jallianwala Bagh and the subsequent lack of severe punishment for General Dyer (as shown by the Hunter Committee) served as the ultimate moral condemnation of the British Raj, permanently damaging the faith of all sections (including moderates) in the colonial system's sense of justice.
II. Transformation of Nationalist Politics:
Unity of Political Spectrum: The Act acted as a unifying force, bringing together Moderates, Extremists, Congress, and Muslim League leaders against a common oppressive target, providing a rare display of political unity.
Birth of Mass Satyagraha: Gandhi launched his first all-India satyagraha in protest, successfully introducing the method of non-violent protest as a practical and ethical tool of mass struggle across diverse regions and social groups.
Shift in Leadership: The violence and repression that followed, particularly the Jallianwala Bagh tragedy, propelled Gandhi into the undisputed moral and political leadership of the nation, effectively marking the end of the era of constitutional petitions.
Ideological Shift: The profound disillusionment directly fueled the ideological shift from a policy of cooperation with the British to one of non-cooperation, establishing the ideological necessity for the launch of the Non-Cooperation Movement (1920).
III. Mass Mobilisation and Consequences:
Mass Protests: The Act was denounced as the 'Black Act' and met with widespread hartals, strikes, processions, and demonstrations across the urban centers of India (Delhi, Punjab, Gujarat).
Escalation and Repression: British authorities responded with violence and mass arrests. This repression led to localized violence (especially in Punjab), culminating in the gathering at Jallianwala Bagh and the subsequent massacre.
Symbolic Protest: Prominent Indians like Rabindranath Tagore renounced their knighthood, and Sir Sankaran Nair resigned from the Viceroy’s Executive Council, signaling the profound anger felt by even the loyalist elite.
Impact of the Rowlatt Act
| Impact Area | Details |
|---|---|
| Political Unity | Moderates and extremists , Hindus and Muslims opposed the Act (temporary unification) |
| Mass Politics | First all-India satyagraha by Gandhi; involved urban masses |
| Trust Deficit | Betrayal of Montagu Declaration (1917); confirmed repression as British intent |
| Escalation | Led directly to mass violence and the Jallianwala Bagh massacre |
| Legacy | Marked the end of cooperation and the ideological necessity for the Non-Cooperation Movement |
Fun Facts
The Act was officially called the 'Anarchical and Revolutionary Crimes Act of 1919'.
Even loyalists like Madan Mohan Malaviya and Annie Besant strongly opposed the Act.
The nationwide hartal of April 6, 1919 , was among India’s first coordinated mass strikes.
Mains Key Points
Betrayal and Failure: The Rowlatt Act was a profound error of judgment by the British, passed immediately after WWI, effectively nullifying the political goodwill and the promise of the Montagu Declaration.
Catalyst for Mass Politics: Gandhi’s anti-Rowlatt Satyagraha successfully mobilized the masses across regions, marking the beginning of mass Gandhian politics and moving the national movement beyond elite circles.
Moral Condemnation: The subsequent Jallianwala Bagh Massacre served as 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.
Ideological Shift: The tragedy directly led to Gandhi's critical shift from a policy of cooperation to non-cooperation, establishing the framework and ideological necessity for the launch of the Non-Cooperation Movement (1920).
Prelims Strategy Tips
Rowlatt Act (1919) → Called 'Black Act'; based on Rowlatt Committee report (1918).
Led to first all-India satyagraha by Gandhi.
Direct precursor to Jallianwala Bagh massacre.
Jallianwala Bagh Massacre (1919) and Its Outcome: The End of Cooperation
Key Point
On 13 April 1919, in the backdrop of the Rowlatt Satyagraha, thousands of unarmed men, women, and children had gathered at Jallianwala Bagh, Amritsar , to protest peacefully. General Reginald Dyer ordered troops to fire without warning on the trapped crowd, killing hundreds. This massacre destroyed the last vestiges of Indian faith in British rule and became the definitive turning point in the freedom struggle.
On 13 April 1919, in the backdrop of the Rowlatt Satyagraha, thousands of unarmed men, women, and children had gathered at Jallianwala Bagh, Amritsar , to protest peacefully. General Reginald Dyer ordered troops to fire without warning on the trapped crowd, killing hundreds. This massacre destroyed the last vestiges of Indian faith in British rule and became the definitive turning point in the freedom struggle.
Detailed Notes (14 points)
Tap a card to add note • Use the highlight Listen button to play the full section
I. The Incident and Its Immediate Context:
Context (Rowlatt Satyagraha): The massacre occurred during the unrest triggered by the Rowlatt Act (1919). The immediate catalyst was the spontaneous protest in Amritsar against the arrest of two local leaders, Dr. Saifuddin Kitchlew and Dr. Satyapal . Public meetings had been banned under the threat of martial law.
The Atrocity: On Baisakhi day, a large, peaceful crowd—unaware of the ban—had gathered in the enclosed Jallianwala Bagh. General Dyer blocked the single, narrow exit and ordered 40 to 150 troops to fire directly into the crowd. Firing continued until ammunition was exhausted.
Casualties: The official British Hunter Commission cited 379 deaths , but the Congress Committee estimated over 1,000 deaths and many more wounded, trapped inside the walled garden.
Dyer's Intent: Dyer later admitted his objective was not merely to disperse the crowd but to produce a "sufficient moral effect" on the entire populace of Punjab, making the attack an act of deliberate state terror.
II. Moral and Political Condemnation:
The Hunter Commission (1919): The British government appointed the Hunter Commission to investigate the incident. While the report mildly condemned Dyer’s actions, it failed to impose any serious punishment. Dyer was merely relieved of command and retired, strengthening the Indian belief in British partiality.
The Moral Condemnation: The incident was the ultimate moral indictment of the British Raj. It shattered the notion of British justice and loyalty among even the most moderate Indians.
Symbolic Protests: Rabindranath Tagore renounced his knighthood in protest, stating that the time had come for "titles to lose all their relevance." Sir Sankaran Nair resigned from the Viceroy’s Executive Council .
III. Impact on the National Movement (Turning Point):
End of Co-operation: The massacre convinced Mahatma Gandhi that cooperation with the "satanic" British government was impossible, marking the definitive end of the era of constitutional petitioning and cooperation that had defined Congress politics for decades.
Radicalization of Politics: The widespread national outrage and anger radicalized the national movement, providing the emotional and ideological basis for the Non-Cooperation Movement (NCM) in 1920.
Unification in Resistance: The tragedy united all sections of Indian society—Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, peasants, and the educated elite—in shared anger and resistance against the common oppressor.
International Legacy: The global criticism of British actions severely damaged the moral legitimacy of the British Empire, transforming India's freedom struggle into a globally recognized anti-colonial cause.
Key Outcomes of Jallianwala Bagh Massacre
| Outcome | Details |
|---|---|
| End of Faith | The massacre permanently destroyed the belief in British justice among Moderates and all Indians. |
| Political Shift | Radicalized Indian politics; pushed Congress toward mass non-cooperation (NCM). |
| Leadership Ascent | Elevated Gandhi as the undisputed moral authority and primary political leader. |
| International Criticism | Weakened the moral legitimacy of the British Empire worldwide. |
Fun Facts
The garden had only one narrow exit, which was blocked by troops, trapping people inside.
The massacre occurred on Baisakhi , a major harvest festival in Punjab.
Udham Singh later avenged the massacre by assassinating Michael O’Dwyer (Punjab’s Lt. Governor during 1919) in London (1940).
Mains Key Points
Moral Crisis: The massacre was the ultimate moral condemnation of the British Raj, destroying faith in British justice among moderates and setting the stage for the end of cooperation.
Radicalization: It provided the emotional and ideological foundation for the next phase, propelling the Congress towards mass non-cooperation and radicalizing Indian politics.
Symbolic Unity: The brutality symbolized the cruelty of colonial rule, successfully unifying diverse sections of society in shared anger and resistance.
Global Impact: International criticism of the atrocity weakened the moral legitimacy of the British empire, strengthening the global case for Indian independence.
Prelims Strategy Tips
Jallianwala Bagh Massacre → 13 April 1919, Amritsar, Punjab.
General Dyer ordered firing on unarmed civilians.
Hunter Commission investigated but gave no real punishment.
Rabindranath Tagore renounced knighthood in protest.
Hunter Committee of Inquiry (1919): The Failure of Imperial Justice
Key Point
The Hunter Committee , formally the Disorders Inquiry Committee , was appointed by the British Government in October 1919 to investigate the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre. Its findings, widely viewed as lenient and biased, condemned General Dyer’s actions as excessive but failed to impose any serious punishment, serving as the final proof of the failure of British justice .
The Hunter Committee , formally the Disorders Inquiry Committee , was appointed by the British Government in October 1919 to investigate the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre. Its findings, widely viewed as lenient and biased, condemned General Dyer’s actions as excessive but failed to impose any serious punishment, serving as the final proof of the failure of British justice .
Detailed Notes (16 points)
Tap a card to add note • Use the highlight Listen button to play the full section
I. Formation, Mandate, and Findings:
Formation and Composition: The committee was set up by the Government of India and chaired by Lord William Hunter . It included 7 members (3 British and 4 Indians , including Sir Chimanlal Harilal Setalvad and Sardar Sultan Ahmed Khan).
Mandate: To inquire into the nature of the disturbances in Bombay, Delhi, and Punjab, with the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre being the primary focus.
Official Findings: The Committee officially criticized General Reginald Dyer’s action as 'inhumane,' 'excessive,' and an 'error of judgment.' However, it simultaneously offered a major concession by stating that Dyer acted 'in good faith' to suppress a widely perceived rebellion.
Recommendations and Leniency: The committee recommended no criminal or judicial action against Dyer. He was merely censured and relieved of his command (forced to retire). Michael O’Dwyer, the Lt. Governor of Punjab, was largely exonerated.
II. Nationalist Reaction and Parallel Inquiry:
National Outrage: Nationalists, including Gandhi and the Moderates , were outraged by the report's leniency, viewing it as the British government’s endorsement of Dyer’s brutality.
Congress Parallel Inquiry: In direct protest, the Indian National Congress established its own non-official inquiry committee.
- Leadership: This parallel inquiry was led by prominent figures including Madan Mohan Malaviya , Motilal Nehru , M.R. Jayakar , and Mahatma Gandhi .
- Verdict: The Congress inquiry strongly condemned Dyer and held him guilty of inhuman and criminal action, concluding that the British were fully responsible for the widespread repression.
Impact: The Congress report was better received by the Indian public and served to solidify the nationalist narrative against colonial injustice.
III. Legacy for the Freedom Struggle:
Exposed Colonial Justice: The weak report exposed the inherent bias of the British imperial structure and its reluctance to punish colonial officials for atrocities against Indians.
Deepened Disillusionment: The episode permanently destroyed the faith of the Moderates and the educated elite in the British sense of justice and fair play.
Catalyst for Mass Movement: The widespread anger over the Dyer verdict contributed directly and profoundly to the shift in political strategy, providing the necessary moral and emotional impetus for the launch of the Non-Cooperation Movement (1920).
Strengthened Nationalist Narrative: The parallel inquiry by the Congress successfully countered the official narrative, strengthening the nationalist movement's moral and political authority.
Hunter Committee vs Congress Inquiry
| Aspect | Hunter Committee | Congress Inquiry |
|---|---|---|
| Formation | By British Govt (Oct 1919) | By Indian National Congress |
| Leadership | Lord William Hunter | Madan Mohan Malaviya, Motilal Nehru, M.R. Jayakar |
| Verdict on Dyer | Criticized but no real punishment ; acted in 'good faith' | Held guilty of inhuman and criminal action |
| Impact | Increased Indian anger against British | Strengthened call for non-cooperation |
Fun Facts
General Dyer was celebrated by British loyalists in Britain; a fund was raised for him after his resignation.
Winston Churchill , then Secretary of War, called the massacre 'monstrous' in the House of Commons.
The Congress inquiry was better received by Indians than the official Hunter report.
Mains Key Points
Failure of Justice: The Hunter Committee exposed British reluctance to punish colonial officials for atrocities, thereby destroying the faith of the Moderates and the educated elite in British sense of justice.
Catalyst for NCM: The leniency towards Dyer served as the final moral and emotional catalyst that pushed the Congress under Gandhi's leadership toward mass non-cooperation.
Countering the Narrative: The Congress parallel inquiry successfully strengthened the nationalist narrative against colonial injustice, providing the public with a reliable and authoritative Indian perspective.
Radicalization: The episode significantly radicalized Indian politics and cemented the idea that only self-rule could ensure justice and safeguard civil liberties.
Prelims Strategy Tips
Hunter Committee (1919) investigated Jallianwala Bagh massacre .
Headed by Lord William Hunter ; 3 British + 4 Indian members.
Criticized Dyer but gave no major punishment .
Rabindranath Tagore renounced his knighthood in protest.
Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms and the Government of India Act, 1919 (Critical Evaluation)
Key Point
The Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms , implemented through the Government of India Act, 1919 , were strategically designed to pacify the Moderates and divide the political class while ensuring the continuation of absolute imperial control. While they introduced dyarchy in provinces, they disappointed nationalists by retaining British control over key powers and dangerously extending separate electorates.
The Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms , implemented through the Government of India Act, 1919 , were strategically designed to pacify the Moderates and divide the political class while ensuring the continuation of absolute imperial control. While they introduced dyarchy in provinces, they disappointed nationalists by retaining British control over key powers and dangerously extending separate electorates.
Detailed Notes (17 points)
Tap a card to add note • Use the highlight Listen button to play the full section
I. Structural Changes and Positive Features (The Carrot):
Association with Law-making: For the first time, Indians were formally associated with law-making at both central and provincial levels.
Provincial Responsibility: Dyarchy introduced limited ministerial responsibility, as Transferred Subjects (e.g., Education, Public Health) were handled by Indian Ministers accountable to the legislature.
Legislative Expansion: Central and Provincial Legislatures were significantly expanded, and an elected majority was established in the provinces.
Central Bicameralism: At the center, bicameralism was introduced for the first time, establishing the Council of States and the Legislative Assembly.
Executive Inclusion: Indians were admitted to the Viceroy’s Executive Council; S.P. Sinha became the first Indian to hold the Law Member's portfolio.
II. Fundamental Flaws and Nationalist Disillusionment (The Stick):
Flawed Dyarchy (The Illusion of Power): Key powers—Finance, Police, and Land Revenue—were Reserved under the British Governor. Indian Ministers for 'Transferred' subjects lacked real budgetary control.
Central Irresponsibility: The Central Executive remained entirely responsible to the British Parliament. The Governor-General retained an overriding veto and could suspend legislatures, ensuring ultimate imperial supremacy.
Extension of Communalism: Separate Electorates were dangerously extended beyond Muslims to Sikhs, Anglo-Indians, Indian Christians, and Europeans, a tool to institutionalize communal divisions.
Limited Franchise: The right to vote was severely restricted, based on property and education qualifications. Only about 10% of the population had voting rights.
Nationalist Condemnation: Congress rejected reforms as 'disappointing and sham'; Tilak famously called dyarchy 'a new charter of slavery', highlighting the continued dominance of the British executive.
III. Long-Term Analytical Impact:
Constitutional Benchmark: The reforms established a constitutional benchmark, initiating the vocabulary of 'responsible government' that future nationalist demands would be measured against.
Exposure of Intent: The failure of dyarchy in practice exposed the British intent to maintain absolute financial and administrative control, despite the promise of reform.
Groundwork for 1935 Act: The experiences and debates surrounding the 1919 Act provided the essential structural framework for the much more comprehensive Government of India Act, 1935.
Deepening Fragmentation: The extension of separate electorates ensured that communalism became a structural feature of India's political system, accelerating the process of political fragmentation.
Critical Evaluation 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 core powers (Finance, Police). |
| Central Legislature | Introduced bicameralism; Central Executive was irresponsible to the Indian Legislature. | To retain Official Majority and ensure absolute control at the Centre. |
| Separate Electorates | Extended to Sikhs, Christians, Anglo-Indians | To institutionalize communal divisions and fragment the nationalist movement. |
| Limited Franchise | Voting rights restricted to 10% of the population (based on property/education) | To exclude the masses from political participation. |
| 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.
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
Government of India Act, 1919 → Introduced dyarchy in provinces and bicameralism at the centre.
Franchise was limited to about 10% of population.
Separate electorates were extended to Sikhs, Anglo-Indians, and Indian Christians.
Tilak famously called dyarchy 'a new charter of slavery'.
Vaikom Satyagraha (1924–1925): A Social Struggle for Dignity
Key Point
The Vaikom Satyagraha (1924–25) was a pioneering, non-violent struggle in Travancore (Kerala) that demanded the right for untouchables to use the public roads surrounding the Shiva temple at Vaikom. It successfully linked the Gandhian method of Satyagraha with the anti-caste social reform movement in South India.
The Vaikom Satyagraha (1924–25) was a pioneering, non-violent struggle in Travancore (Kerala) that demanded the right for untouchables to use the public roads surrounding the Shiva temple at Vaikom. It successfully linked the Gandhian method of Satyagraha with the anti-caste social reform movement in South India.
Detailed Notes (5 points)
Tap a card to add note • Use the highlight Listen button to play the full section
Context: The movement was a protest against untouchability and unapproachability, which enforced a ban on lower-caste communities (Ezhavas and Pulayas) from walking on the roads near the Vaikom temple.
Leadership: Initiated by local leaders like K. P. Kesava Menon and T. K. Madhavan. E. V. Ramaswamy Naicker (Periyar), who successfully mobilized support, was imprisoned for his leadership and gained the title 'Vaikom Virar' (Hero of Vaikom).
Gandhi's Role: Mahatma Gandhi provided moral leadership and personally visited Vaikom in 1925 to mediate. He emphasized that the struggle must remain non-violent and focused strictly on the public roads, not temple entry itself.
Methodology: The Satyagrahis used non-violent picketing and stood patiently at the barricades blocking the roads. Akali volunteers from Punjab provided financial and logistical support (running a community kitchen).
Outcome and Legacy: The movement was partially successful. The government eventually opened three of the four roads to all castes. Although full temple entry was not achieved until the Travancore Temple Entry Proclamation of 1936, Vaikom marked a decisive victory in establishing the principle of equality and linking the freedom struggle with social emancipation.
Vaikom Satyagraha (1924–25)
| Year | Region | Key Leaders | Goal |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1924–25 | Travancore (Kerala) | T.K. Madhavan, E.V. Ramaswamy Naicker (Periyar) | Right of untouchables to use public roads near the temple. |
Fun Facts
The roads near the Vaikom temple had signs marking where the lower castes were forbidden to proceed.
The campaign ran for over 600 days, with the Satyagrahis standing patiently in the intense sun and rain.
Mains Key Points
Vaikom was crucial as it demonstrated the applicability of the Gandhian method (Satyagraha) to fight deep-seated social evils like untouchability, not just political issues.
It strengthened the social base of nationalism in South India by successfully integrating the anti-caste struggle into the broader political movement.
The movement highlighted the internal social contradictions that the nationalist movement had to address for true national unity.
Prelims Strategy Tips
Vaikom Satyagraha was for public roads, not temple entry (initially).
E.V. Ramaswamy Naicker (Periyar) gained the title 'Vaikom Virar' here.
Gandhi mediated in 1925; the final victory (Temple Entry) came in 1936.
Khilafat Movement (1919–1924): Causes, Leaders, and Alliance
Key Point
The Khilafat Movement was an all-India agitation led by Indian Muslims to pressure the British government to preserve the integrity of the Ottoman Caliphate (Khilafat) after World War I. Gandhi strategically merged this religious issue with the Non-Cooperation Movement to achieve unprecedented Hindu-Muslim unity.
The Khilafat Movement was an all-India agitation led by Indian Muslims to pressure the British government to preserve the integrity of the Ottoman Caliphate (Khilafat) after World War I. Gandhi strategically merged this religious issue with the Non-Cooperation Movement to achieve unprecedented Hindu-Muslim unity.
Detailed Notes (10 points)
Tap a card to add note • Use the highlight Listen button to play the full section
I. Causes and Core Demand:
The Caliphate Issue: The spiritual head of the Muslim world was the Caliph of Turkey (Ottoman Sultan). After Turkey’s defeat in WWI, Britain and its allies planned to dismember the Ottoman Empire and abolish the Caliphate, an act seen by Muslims worldwide as a grave religious and political affront.
Core Demand: The movement demanded that the Caliphate must be allowed to retain control over the Muslim holy places and that the Ottoman Sultan must retain his temporal power.
II. Leadership and Organizational Growth:
The Khilafat Committee: Formed in Bombay in 1919. The movement was led by the Ali Brothers (Maulana Mohammad Ali and Maulana Shaukat Ali), Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, and Hasrat Mohani.
Gandhi's Strategic Role: Gandhi saw the Khilafat issue as an opportunity to forge lasting Hindu-Muslim unity. He persuaded the Congress to lend full support to the Khilafat Committee's demand, viewing it as the best chance to draw Muslims into the national struggle.
Merger with NCM (1920): The Non-Cooperation Movement (NCM) was launched in 1920 with two main issues: Swaraj and the Khilafat question. The merger provided the NCM with a mass base of committed Muslims and provided the Khilafat issue with a political platform and a nation-wide organization (the Congress).
III. Decline and Legacy:
Internal Disintegration: The movement gradually weakened and collapsed after 1922 due to Chauri Chaura violence (which led to the NCM's withdrawal) and, crucially, the abolition of the Caliphate itself by Mustafa Kemal Pasha (Kemal Atatürk) in Turkey in 1924.
Significance: The Khilafat movement was the high point of Hindu-Muslim unity during the freedom struggle. While the unity was short-lived, it demonstrated the potential for mass mobilization across communal lines for the anti-imperialist cause.
Khilafat Movement Key Figures
| Leader | Role | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Maulana Mohammad Ali & Shaukat Ali | The Ali Brothers | Founded the All India Khilafat Committee. |
| Mahatma Gandhi | Political strategist | Persuaded Congress to merge Khilafat with NCM for unity. |
| Maulana Abul Kalam Azad | Organizer | Prominent figure in the movement and later Congress President. |
| Mustafa Kemal Pasha (Atatürk) | Turkish Head | Abolished the Caliphate in Turkey in 1924, ending the cause. |
Fun Facts
The Khilafat issue was entirely external to India but became a central focus of Indian politics due to Gandhi's strategic linking with the national movement.
The Ali Brothers were initially educated in the Aligarh tradition but became fierce anti-British activists.
Mains Key Points
Strategic Unification: Analyze Gandhi’s masterstroke in merging Khilafat with NCM, providing the national movement with an unprecedented mass base and Hindu-Muslim unity.
Communal Politics: Evaluate the long-term impact of integrating a purely religious issue into the national struggle, which later gave the communal forces an opportunity to exploit religious sentiments for political gains.
Mass Mobilization: The movement demonstrated the vast potential for mass mobilization on anti-imperialist issues, laying the groundwork for future Gandhian mass movements.
Prelims Strategy Tips
Khilafat Movement → 1919; led by Ali Brothers (Mohammad Ali and Shaukat Ali).
Cause: Preservation of the Ottoman Caliphate (Turkey).
Merger: Joined with Non-Cooperation Movement (1920).
Movement ended in 1924 when the Caliphate was abolished by Mustafa Kemal Pasha.
Chauri Chaura Incident and Withdrawal of NCM (1922)
Key Point
The Chauri Chaura incident on February 5, 1922, in Gorakhpur (UP), saw a mob of Congress and Khilafat protestors clash with police, resulting in the burning of a police station and the death of 22 policemen. This single act of violence caused Mahatma Gandhi to immediately withdraw the Non-Cooperation Movement (NCM), believing the country was not yet ready for the core principle of Ahimsa (non-violence).
The Chauri Chaura incident on February 5, 1922, in Gorakhpur (UP), saw a mob of Congress and Khilafat protestors clash with police, resulting in the burning of a police station and the death of 22 policemen. This single act of violence caused Mahatma Gandhi to immediately withdraw the Non-Cooperation Movement (NCM), believing the country was not yet ready for the core principle of Ahimsa (non-violence).
Detailed Notes (5 points)
Tap a card to add note • Use the highlight Listen button to play the full section
The Incident (Feb 5, 1922): A large group of peaceful NCM and Khilafat protestors clashed with police who had fired at them. The mob attacked the police station at Chauri Chaura (Gorakhpur, UP), locking the police inside and setting the building on fire, killing 22 policemen.
Gandhi's Decision: Gandhi viewed the violence as a personal failure and a violation of the Ahimsa principle, which was the core tenet of Satyagraha. He feared that continued violence would be met with even harsher government repression and could degenerate into anarchy.
Withdrawal (February 1922): Despite opposition from nearly all top Congress leaders (including Jawaharlal Nehru, Subhas Chandra Bose, and C.R. Das), Gandhi announced the immediate suspension of the Non-Cooperation Movement.
Consequences: The sudden withdrawal disappointed and confused many nationalists. Leaders criticized Gandhi's decision to halt a national movement based on a localized incident, but the decision underscored Gandhi's uncompromising commitment to non-violence.
Legacy: The Chauri Chaura incident proved that the success of Gandhian mass movements was entirely predicated on the principle of strict non-violence, even in the face of provocation. It highlighted the fragility of the mass base's commitment to Ahimsa.
Chauri Chaura Incident (1922)
| Date/Year | Place | Key Event | Consequence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 5, 1922 | Gorakhpur (UP) | Mob burned police station; 22 policemen killed | Immediate withdrawal of NCM by Gandhi |
Fun Facts
Gandhi announced the withdrawal of the NCM at the Bardoli session of the Congress Working Committee.
C.R. Das and Motilal Nehru formed the Swaraj Party soon after the withdrawal, as they disagreed with Gandhi's decision.
Mains Key Points
Principle over Politics: The withdrawal highlighted Gandhi’s uncompromising commitment to non-violence (Ahimsa), proving that for him, the means were as important as the end (Swaraj).
Political Impact: The sudden halt led to a split in the Congress (forming the Swaraj Party), but it protected the movement from further potential violence and harsh state repression.
Assessment of Mass Readiness: The incident forced Gandhi to accept that the masses were still lacking the necessary discipline and understanding of non-violence required for a sustained Satyagraha.
Prelims Strategy Tips
Chauri Chaura occurred in 1922 in Gorakhpur (UP).
The incident led to the withdrawal of the Non-Cooperation Movement.
Gandhi made the withdrawal decision in Bardoli.
INC Session at Belgaum (1924)
Key Point
The Belgaum Session of the Indian National Congress (1924) was highly significant as it was the only INC session ever presided over by Mahatma Gandhi during his entire political career.
The Belgaum Session of the Indian National Congress (1924) was highly significant as it was the only INC session ever presided over by Mahatma Gandhi during his entire political career.
Detailed Notes (5 points)
Tap a card to add note • Use the highlight Listen button to play the full section
Date and Place: Held in December 1924 in Belgaum (now Belagavi, Karnataka).
President: Mahatma Gandhi was elected President, a unique instance as he generally avoided formal posts.
Context (Post-NCM): The session was held during a critical period following the withdrawal of the Non-Cooperation Movement (1922), the Khilafat collapse, and the Suraj Party split (1923). The Congress was facing a period of political inactivity and internal factionalism.
Key Resolution: The central achievement was the 'Gandhi-Das Pact' which ratified the agreement between Gandhi and C. R. Das (leader of the Swaraj Party). This pact allowed Swarajists to pursue their political work within the legislative councils as representatives of the Congress, while Gandhi focused on the Constructive Programme.
Focus: Gandhi emphasized the importance of his Constructive Programme, promoting Khadi, prohibition, the removal of untouchability, and Hindu-Muslim unity as essential foundational work for achieving Swaraj. This focused Congress efforts on social reform alongside legislative activity.
Belgaum Session (1924)
| Year | Place | President | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1924 | Belgaum (Karnataka) | Mahatma Gandhi | Only INC session presided over by Gandhi ; ratified Gandhi-Das Pact. |
Fun Facts
The Belgaum session venue was built using Khadi cloth and bamboo, emphasizing Gandhi’s core message.
Gandhi had resigned from the INC's primary membership just before his death, but his 1924 presidency remains historically iconic.
Mains Key Points
The session marked Gandhi’s strategic attempt to reorganize and refocus the Congress after the NCM's withdrawal, allowing different factions (Swarajists and No-Changers) to pursue separate but coordinated goals.
It underscored the importance of the Constructive Programme as the foundational work necessary for mass awakening and achieving the ethical goals of Swaraj.
The Gandhi-Das Pact was a display of pragmatism, temporarily resolving the internal factionalism and preventing a complete organizational collapse of the Congress.
Prelims Strategy Tips
Belgaum (1924) was the only INC session presided over by Mahatma Gandhi.
The session ratified the Gandhi-Das Pact (agreement with Swarajists).
It occurred during a period of political lull (inactivity) post-NCM.
Chapter Complete!
Ready to move to the next chapter?