Modern History Playlist
19 chapters • 0 completed
1
Advent of Europeans in India
9 topics
2
Decline of the Mughal Empire
7 topics
3
Emergence of Regional States
11 topics
4
Expansion and Consolidation of British Power
19 topics
5
British Government & Economic Policies (1757–1857)
4 topics
6
Social Reform Movements
20 topics
7
People’s Resistance before 1857
3 topics
8
The revolt of 1857
6 topics
9
Growth of Nationalism and Moderate Phase of Congress
6 topics
10
British Administration in India
7 topics
11
Era of Militant Nationalism (1905-1909)
5 topics
12
First Phase of Revolutionary Activities(1907-1917)
8 topics
13
India’s Response to First World War and Home Rule Movement
4 topics
14
Emergence of Gandhi
6 topics
15
Non-Cooperation Movement and Khilafat Movement
7 topics
16
Emergence of Swarajists, Socialist Ideas, Revolutionary Activities
5 topics
17
Struggle For Swaraj: 1928-1935
13 topics
18
Period from 1935-42
9 topics
19
Period from 1942-47
22 topics
Progress
0% complete
Chapter 14: Emergence of Gandhi
Chapter Test6 topics•Estimated reading: 18 minutes
Emergence of Gandhi in Indian Politics (1915–1920)
Key Point
Gandhi returned from South Africa in 1915, bringing with him the methods of satyagraha and non-violence. Through local movements in Champaran, Ahmedabad, and Kheda, and his leadership in the Rowlatt Satyagraha, he emerged as the national leader. By 1920, he became the undisputed face of Indian nationalism, linking diverse classes and communities.
Gandhi returned from South Africa in 1915, bringing with him the methods of satyagraha and non-violence. Through local movements in Champaran, Ahmedabad, and Kheda, and his leadership in the Rowlatt Satyagraha, he emerged as the national leader. By 1920, he became the undisputed face of Indian nationalism, linking diverse classes and communities.
Detailed Notes (11 points)
Tap a card to add note • Use the highlight Listen button to play the full section
South Africa Experience: Gandhi developed satyagraha during struggles against racial laws (1906–14). This training shaped his future role in India.
Return to India (1915): He toured widely to understand conditions, often avoiding immediate political activity as advised by Gopal Krishna Gokhale.
Sabarmati Ashram (1917): Gandhi established his ashram near Ahmedabad, which became a hub of experiments in truth, non-violence, simplicity, and constructive work.
Champaran Satyagraha (1917): Against tinkathia system (forced indigo cultivation). Gandhi organized peasants, conducted surveys, and secured official abolition of the system.
Ahmedabad Mill Strike (1918): Textile workers demanded better wages. Gandhi supported them using hunger strike, forcing owners to concede.
Kheda Satyagraha (1918): Peasants faced famine and demanded tax remission. Gandhi, Sardar Patel, and Indulal Yajnik organized no-tax campaign; government conceded partial relief.
Rowlatt Act & Satyagraha (1919): The act allowed detention without trial. Gandhi called for hartals and non-violent protests nationwide. Although violence broke out, this was Gandhi’s first all-India agitation.
Jallianwala Bagh Massacre (April 1919): General Dyer’s firing on unarmed crowd shocked the nation. Gandhi assumed moral leadership of Indian politics.
Khilafat Movement (1919–20): Indian Muslims opposed dismemberment of the Ottoman Caliphate. Gandhi supported them, merging Khilafat with Non-Cooperation, creating Hindu-Muslim unity.
Rise as National Leader: By 1920, Gandhi had transformed the nationalist struggle into a mass movement involving peasants, workers, women, and students.
Constructive Programme: Gandhi emphasized spinning khadi, removal of untouchability, promotion of Hindu-Muslim unity, and rural uplift as part of the freedom struggle.
Timeline of Gandhi’s Early Movements in India
| Year | Event | Region | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1915 | Return from South Africa | India | Began tours to understand India |
| 1917 | Sabarmati Ashram | Gujarat | Centre of satyagraha and constructive work |
| 1917 | Champaran Satyagraha | Bihar | Abolition of tinkathia system |
| 1918 | Ahmedabad Mill Strike | Gujarat | Workers gained wage increase |
| 1918 | Kheda Satyagraha | Gujarat | Partial revenue remission for peasants |
| 1919 | Rowlatt Satyagraha | All India | Suppressed violently; Gandhi emerged as all-India leader |
| 1919 | Jallianwala Bagh Massacre | Punjab | National outrage; Gandhi gained moral leadership |
| 1920 | Khilafat-Non-Cooperation | All India | Start of Gandhian mass movement phase |
Fun Facts
Champaran peasants called Gandhi 'Bapu' for the first time.
Gandhi experimented with diet, spinning, and simple living at Sabarmati Ashram as part of his philosophy.
During Kheda Satyagraha, Gandhi inspired peasants to 'do or die' but without violence.
Mains Key Points
Gandhi introduced satyagraha and non-violence as practical tools of mass struggle in India.
His leadership connected peasants, workers, and middle classes, widening the nationalist base.
Rowlatt Satyagraha and Jallianwala Bagh massacre elevated him as moral and political leader of India.
By 1920, Gandhi unified Congress, Khilafat, and masses into a single movement, marking the 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) → Revenue remission for peasants.
Rowlatt Satyagraha (1919) → First all-India agitation under Gandhi.
Jallianwala Bagh (1919) → Turning point in nationalist struggle.
Khilafat merged with Non-Cooperation (1920) → Gandhi as national leader.
Rowlatt Act (1919)
Key Point
The Rowlatt Act, passed in March 1919, empowered the British government in India to arrest and detain individuals without trial and curb press freedom. Popularly called the 'Black Act,' it sparked widespread anger, leading to Gandhi’s first all-India satyagraha and ultimately contributing to the Jallianwala Bagh tragedy.
The Rowlatt Act, passed in March 1919, empowered the British government in India to arrest and detain individuals without trial and curb press freedom. Popularly called the 'Black Act,' it sparked widespread anger, leading to Gandhi’s first all-India satyagraha and ultimately contributing to the Jallianwala Bagh tragedy.
Detailed Notes (8 points)
Tap a card to add note • Use the highlight Listen button to play the full section
Background: Recommended by the Rowlatt Committee (1918) under Justice Sydney Rowlatt to curb revolutionary activities during and after WWI.
Provisions: Allowed detention without trial for up to two years, trial without jury, restrictions on press, and preventive measures against political agitation.
Nickname: Nationalists termed it the 'Black Act' for its draconian measures.
Public Reaction: Leaders across the country condemned it as a betrayal of wartime promises of self-government.
Gandhi’s Response: Gandhi called for a nationwide hartal (April 6, 1919) – the first all-India satyagraha.
Spread of Agitation: Strikes, processions, and protests erupted in Delhi, Punjab, Gujarat, and Bengal.
Consequences: Repression by British authorities, mass arrests, and violence in some places.
Link to Jallianwala Bagh: The agitation against the Act culminated in the Jallianwala Bagh massacre (April 13, 1919), intensifying nationalist struggle.
Key Features of Rowlatt Act (1919)
| Feature | Details |
|---|---|
| Detention | Arrest without warrant; detention up to 2 years without trial |
| Trials | Political cases tried without jury |
| Press | Severe restrictions on newspapers and publications |
| Political Activity | Government empowered to curb nationalist movements |
| Public Perception | Called 'Black Act' due to suppression of civil rights |
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
Rowlatt Act exposed British betrayal of wartime promises of self-government.
Its draconian provisions curbed civil liberties and press freedom.
Gandhi’s anti-Rowlatt Satyagraha marked the beginning of mass Gandhian politics.
It directly led to unrest culminating in Jallianwala Bagh massacre.
Prelims Strategy Tips
Rowlatt Act (1919) → Based on Rowlatt Committee report (1918).
Allowed detention without trial; called 'Black Act'.
First all-India satyagraha launched by Gandhi against it.
Directly linked to Jallianwala Bagh massacre.
Impact of the Rowlatt Act (1919)
Key Point
The Rowlatt Act provoked unprecedented anger across India, uniting moderates and extremists against British repression. Gandhi’s first all-India satyagraha was launched in protest. The Act intensified distrust in British promises, led to mass protests, and directly contributed to the Jallianwala Bagh massacre.
The Rowlatt Act provoked unprecedented anger across India, uniting moderates and extremists against British repression. Gandhi’s first all-India satyagraha was launched in protest. The Act intensified distrust in British promises, led to mass protests, and directly contributed to the Jallianwala Bagh massacre.
Detailed Notes (8 points)
Tap a card to add note • Use the highlight Listen button to play the full section
National Outrage: The Act was denounced as 'Black Act' by leaders across political spectrum.
Unity of Nationalists: Moderates and extremists, Congress and Muslim League leaders, all opposed the Act, bringing rare unity.
Mass Protests: Hartals, strikes, processions, and demonstrations spread across India.
Birth of Nationwide Satyagraha: Gandhi launched his first all-India satyagraha (April 1919) against the Act, introducing non-violent protest as a mass tool.
Repression: British authorities used violence and arrests; peaceful protests turned violent in some places due to police action.
Loss of Faith in British: Indians saw the Act as betrayal of Montagu’s 1917 promise of gradual self-government.
Escalation to Violence: The unrest culminated in the Jallianwala Bagh massacre in Amritsar (April 1919).
Legacy: Though repealed later, the Act left a deep scar on Indian politics and marked the beginning of Gandhi’s dominance in the national movement.
Impact of the Rowlatt Act
| Impact Area | Details |
|---|---|
| Political Unity | Moderates and extremists, Hindus and Muslims opposed the Act |
| Mass Politics | First all-India satyagraha by Gandhi |
| Civil Liberties | Freedom of press and personal liberty suppressed |
| Trust Deficit | Betrayal of Montagu Declaration (1917) |
| Escalation | Led to violence and Jallianwala Bagh massacre |
Fun Facts
Even loyalists like Madan Mohan Malaviya and Annie Besant strongly opposed the Act.
The Act was officially called the 'Anarchical and Revolutionary Crimes Act of 1919'.
The nationwide hartal of April 1919 was among India’s first coordinated mass strikes.
Mains Key Points
Rowlatt Act united diverse political groups in opposition to British repression.
It marked Gandhi’s entry into national leadership with his first satyagraha.
The act undermined faith in British reforms and promises.
Its impact culminated in Jallianwala Bagh massacre, a turning point in Indian freedom struggle.
Prelims Strategy Tips
Rowlatt Act (1919) → Called 'Black Act'.
Led to first all-India satyagraha by Gandhi.
Deepened distrust in British promises of reforms.
Direct precursor to Jallianwala Bagh massacre.
Jallianwala Bagh Massacre (1919) and Its Outcome
Key Point
On 13 April 1919, thousands of unarmed men, women, and children had gathered at Jallianwala Bagh, Amritsar, to protest peacefully against the Rowlatt Act. General Dyer ordered troops to fire without warning, killing hundreds. The massacre shocked India, destroyed trust in British rule, and became a turning point in the freedom struggle.
On 13 April 1919, thousands of unarmed men, women, and children had gathered at Jallianwala Bagh, Amritsar, to protest peacefully against the Rowlatt Act. General Dyer ordered troops to fire without warning, killing hundreds. The massacre shocked India, destroyed trust in British rule, and became a turning point in the freedom struggle.
Detailed Notes (8 points)
Tap a card to add note • Use the highlight Listen button to play the full section
Background: Following protests against Rowlatt Act in Punjab, meetings were banned, but people assembled peacefully at Jallianwala Bagh on Baisakhi day (April 13, 1919).
The Incident: General Reginald Dyer blocked exits and ordered troops to fire on the unarmed crowd without warning.
Casualties: Official British figures claimed around 379 deaths, but Indian estimates placed deaths over 1,000 with many more injured.
Nature of Attack: Continuous firing until ammunition was exhausted; no escape route for people inside the walled garden.
Hunter Commission (1919): Set up by the British to investigate, it condemned Dyer’s actions but no major punishment was given.
Tagore’s Protest: Rabindranath Tagore renounced his knighthood in protest against the massacre.
Gandhi’s Reaction: Gandhi called it a 'national humiliation' and intensified his non-cooperation campaign.
Public Shock: The massacre destroyed any remaining faith in British justice among Indians.
Key Outcomes of Jallianwala Bagh Massacre
| Outcome | Details |
|---|---|
| National Outrage | Massacre condemned across India; protests intensified |
| Tagore’s Protest | Renounced knighthood in protest |
| Gandhi’s Response | Strengthened call for non-cooperation with British |
| Political Shift | Moderates lost faith in British rule; unity with extremists increased |
| International Condemnation | Global criticism of British actions damaged empire’s image |
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
The massacre was a turning point, destroying faith in British justice among moderates.
It radicalized Indian politics and pushed Congress towards mass non-cooperation.
Symbolized brutality of colonial rule and united Indians in anger and resistance.
International criticism weakened moral legitimacy of British empire.
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)
Key Point
The Hunter Committee was appointed by the British Government in October 1919 to investigate the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre and disturbances in Punjab. Though it condemned General Dyer’s actions as excessive, it recommended no severe punishment, causing widespread anger in India.
The Hunter Committee was appointed by the British Government in October 1919 to investigate the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre and disturbances in Punjab. Though it condemned General Dyer’s actions as excessive, it recommended no severe punishment, causing widespread anger in India.
Detailed Notes (8 points)
Tap a card to add note • Use the highlight Listen button to play the full section
Formation: The Disorders Inquiry Committee (popularly called Hunter Committee) was set up in October 1919 by the Government of India.
Composition: Chaired by Lord William Hunter; included 7 members (3 British, 4 Indians).
Mandate: To inquire into the disturbances in Bombay, Delhi, and Punjab, including the Jallianwala Bagh massacre.
Findings: The committee criticized General Dyer’s action as 'inhumane' and 'excessive' but acknowledged that he acted in good faith.
Recommendations: No criminal action against Dyer; only censured and relieved of his command. Michael O’Dwyer, the Punjab Lieutenant Governor, was largely exonerated.
Public Reaction: Nationalists were outraged; they felt the inquiry was biased and unjust. Gandhi, Congress, and moderates strongly criticized it.
National Inquiry: In protest, the Indian National Congress set up its own inquiry committee, which strongly condemned Dyer and British policies.
Legacy: The lenient treatment of Dyer deepened Indian anger and accelerated the demand for complete independence.
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 | Held guilty of inhuman and criminal action |
| Verdict on O’Dwyer | Largely exonerated | Held responsible for repression |
| 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
Hunter Committee exposed British reluctance to punish colonial officials for atrocities.
It deepened Indian anger and highlighted need for self-rule.
Congress parallel inquiry strengthened nationalist narratives against colonial injustice.
The episode contributed directly to rise of Non-Cooperation Movement under Gandhi.
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.
Congress formed its own parallel inquiry, condemning Dyer.
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, introduced dyarchy in provinces, expanded legislatures, and gave Indians limited representation. While projected as a step towards responsible government, they disappointed nationalists by retaining British control over key powers, extending separate electorates, and limiting Indian influence.
The Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms, implemented through the Government of India Act, 1919, introduced dyarchy in provinces, expanded legislatures, and gave Indians limited representation. While projected as a step towards responsible government, they disappointed nationalists by retaining British control over key powers, extending separate electorates, and limiting Indian influence.
Detailed Notes (11 points)
Tap a card to add note • Use the highlight Listen button to play the full section
Positive Aspects: For the first time, Indians were associated with law-making at both central and provincial levels. Dyarchy introduced limited ministerial responsibility in provinces.
Expansion of Councils: Central and provincial legislatures were expanded; some Indians elected through indirect franchise.
Entry of Indians in Executive: A few Indians were admitted to the Viceroy’s Executive Council; S.P. Sinha became the first Indian to hold a law member’s portfolio.
Bicameral Legislature: At the center, bicameralism was introduced for the first time – Council of States and Legislative Assembly.
Provincial Dyarchy: Transferred subjects (education, agriculture, public health) were handled by Indian ministers; Reserved subjects (finance, police, law and order) remained under British officials.
Disappointment: Key powers – finance, police, land revenue – remained under British; Indian ministers lacked real authority.
Separate Electorates: Extended beyond Muslims to Sikhs, Anglo-Indians, Indian Christians, Europeans; deepened communal divide.
Limited Franchise: Only about 10% of population had voting rights; largely based on property and education qualifications.
Governor-General’s Powers: Retained overriding veto; could suspend legislatures.
Nationalist Criticism: Congress rejected reforms as 'disappointing and sham'; Tilak called dyarchy 'a new charter of slavery'.
Long-term Impact: Though inadequate, reforms were a constitutional step, laying groundwork for future debates and the Government of India Act, 1935.
Critical Evaluation of Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms (1919)
| Aspect | Evaluation |
|---|---|
| Dyarchy | Introduced ministerial responsibility but reserved key powers for British |
| Legislatures | Expanded, but limited franchise (10% population) |
| Executive | Some Indian representation; no real power |
| Separate Electorates | Extended to new groups; communal divisions deepened |
| Governor-General Powers | Veto and overriding authority undermined reforms |
| Overall Impact | Step forward constitutionally but disappointing politically |
Fun Facts
S.P. Sinha became the first Indian to join the Viceroy’s Executive Council as Law Member.
Despite reforms, real power still rested with the Governor-General and British officials.
Tilak famously called dyarchy 'a new charter of slavery'.
Mains Key Points
Reforms introduced structural changes like dyarchy and bicameralism, but failed to transfer real power to Indians.
Extended separate electorates deepened communalism, undermining unity.
Limited franchise excluded majority of Indians from political participation.
The reforms disillusioned nationalists and prepared ground for Non-Cooperation Movement.
Prelims Strategy Tips
Government of India Act, 1919 → Introduced dyarchy in provinces.
First bicameral legislature at center under this Act.
Franchise extended but still limited to about 10% of population.
Separate electorates extended to Sikhs, Anglo-Indians, Indian Christians, Europeans.
Chapter Complete!
Ready to move to the next chapter?