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 16: Emergence of Swarajists, Socialist Ideas, Revolutionary Activities
Chapter Test8 topics•Estimated reading: 24 minutes
Swarajists and No-Changers (Post-NCM Politics, 1923–1930)
Key Point
The abrupt suspension of the Non-Cooperation Movement (NCM) in 1922 created a political vacuum within the Congress, leading to the division between the Swarajists (Pro-Changers), who advocated Council entry to wreck reforms from within, and the No-Changers, who emphasized Gandhian constructive work outside legislatures. This strategic division served as a dual strategy that sustained the nationalist struggle throughout the politically dormant 1920s.
The abrupt suspension of the Non-Cooperation Movement (NCM) in 1922 created a political vacuum within the Congress, leading to the division between the Swarajists (Pro-Changers), who advocated Council entry to wreck reforms from within, and the No-Changers, who emphasized Gandhian constructive work outside legislatures. This strategic division served as a dual strategy that sustained the nationalist struggle throughout the politically dormant 1920s.
Detailed Notes (13 points)
Tap a card to add note • Use the highlight Listen button to play the full section
I. The Crisis of Strategy (Post-NCM):
The Dilemma: After Gandhi's arrest in 1922, the movement lacked a clear mass action program. The Congress faced the dilemma of continuing the triple boycott (legislatures, courts, schools) or engaging in limited constitutional politics under the Montford Reforms (1919).
Swarajists (Pro-Changers): Led by C.R. Das (President of Gaya Session, 1922) and Motilal Nehru. They argued for ending the boycott of legislative councils.
No-Changers (Gandhians): Led by Mahatma Gandhi, Rajendra Prasad, Vallabhbhai Patel, and C. Rajagopalachari. They insisted on the strict adherence to the Gandhian Constructive Programme and the complete boycott of councils.
II. Strategies, Objectives, and Activities:
Swarajist Objective: Council Entry —their aim was not to cooperate but to wreck the reforms from within by creating continuous deadlock and obstruction, thereby exposing the limited, deceptive nature of the 1919 reforms.
Swarajist Activities: They fought and won significant seats in the 1923 elections. Inside the councils, they acted as a strong opposition, often defeating budget votes, walking out on important bills, and using the legislative floor for nationalist propaganda.
No-Changer Objective: To strengthen the mass base by continuing the Gandhian programme—promotion of khadi, abolition of untouchability, establishment of national schools, and maintaining Hindu-Muslim unity.
No-Changer Belief: They believed that true strength lay in disciplined mass work and preparing the country for the *next* phase of mass civil disobedience.
III. Reconciliation and Dual Strategy (Legacy):
Reconciliation: The political impasse and the death of C.R. Das in 1925 weakened the Swarajists. Reconciliation was brokered by Gandhi (the only time he served as Congress President) at the Belgaum Congress Session (1924).
Dual Strategy: The agreement legitimized both approaches: Swarajists inside the legislatures to maintain political pressure and No-Changers outside to maintain Gandhian discipline and mass contact.
Impact: This dual approach was critical. The Swarajists prevented the political vacuum from causing stagnation, while the No-Changers sustained the essential moral and organizational base needed for the launch of the Civil Disobedience Movement a decade later.
Comparison: Swarajists vs No-Changers
| Aspect | Swarajists | No-Changers |
|---|---|---|
| Leaders | C.R. Das, Motilal Nehru, N.C. Kelkar | Gandhi, Rajendra Prasad, Vallabhbhai Patel |
| Strategy | Enter legislatures, wreck from within (obstructionism) | Boycott legislatures, focus on constructive work |
| Focus | Political engagement in councils, propaganda | Khadi, social reform, national education |
| Belief | Legislatures useful for propaganda | Mass movements more powerful than councils |
| Impact | Prevented political vacuum in legislatures | Sustained Gandhian programs and mass discipline |
Fun Facts
Belgaum Session (1924) was the only time Gandhi accepted Congress presidency.
The Swarajists achieved their biggest electoral victory in the Central Provinces .
The debate between Swarajists and No-Changers was the first major internal crisis faced by Congress after Gandhi took control.
Mains Key Points
Strategic Necessity: The division was strategically necessary as it prevented political stagnation by keeping the nationalist challenge alive in two different arenas during a dormant period.
Constitutional Challenge: Swarajists fulfilled the role of a political opposition, effectively challenging the legitimacy of the Montford Reforms from within and providing a platform for nationalist propaganda.
Preservation of Ahimsa: The No-Changers ensured the preservation of the Gandhian mass base and discipline (Ahimsa) through constructive work, which was vital for the launch of the Civil Disobedience Movement.
Ideological Maturity: The eventual reconciliation demonstrated the Congress's ideological maturity, allowing for divergent tactical approaches while maintaining unity of goal (Swaraj).
Prelims Strategy Tips
Swaraj Party founded in 1923 by C.R. Das and Motilal Nehru.
Swarajists were also known as Pro-Changers.
Belgaum Session (1924) → Gandhi (as Congress President) reconciled both factions.
The Swarajists’ primary objective was to wreck the 1919 reforms from within.
Congress-Khilafat Swarajya Party (1923): Obstructionist Politics
Key Point
The Congress-Khilafat Swarajya Party , formed in 1923 by C.R. Das and Motilal Nehru , represented the Pro-Changer faction that sought to end the NCM's legislative boycott. Its strategic objective was 'Council entry to wreck the councils'—using legislative bodies as platforms for nationalist propaganda and deliberately practicing obstructionist politics against the British colonial administration.
The Congress-Khilafat Swarajya Party , formed in 1923 by C.R. Das and Motilal Nehru , represented the Pro-Changer faction that sought to end the NCM's legislative boycott. Its strategic objective was 'Council entry to wreck the councils'—using legislative bodies as platforms for nationalist propaganda and deliberately practicing obstructionist politics against the British colonial administration.
Detailed Notes (16 points)
Tap a card to add note • Use the highlight Listen button to play the full section
I. Genesis, Formation, and Political Alignment:
Genesis: The party arose from the political vacuum and strategic crisis faced by the Congress after the abrupt suspension of the NCM (1922) and Gandhi’s imprisonment. Leaders felt the continued boycott of legislatures was leading to political stagnation.
Formation (1923): Founded on 1 January 1923.
- Leaders: C.R. Das (President), Motilal Nehru (Secretary), and N.C. Kelkar.
- Name Significance: The inclusion of 'Khilafat' underscored the party's intent to maintain the Hindu-Muslim unity forged during the NCM era, securing support from Khilafat leaders like the Ali Brothers.
Strategic Objective: The clear motto was to "wreck the reforms from within" by creating deadlock and using the council floor as a platform for nationalist propaganda (a new form of non-cooperation against the Government of India Act, 1919).
II. Role in Councils and Achievements:
Electoral Success (1923): The Swarajists achieved notable success, securing 42 seats in the Central Legislative Assembly and clear majorities in some provincial councils (e.g., Central Provinces).
Obstructive Function: Inside the councils, they acted as a strong opposition by rejecting budgets, blocking unjust laws, and exposing the hollowness of the 1919 Montford Reforms by forcing the Governor-General to certify bills.
Keeping Politics Alive: Their most significant achievement was preventing the political vacuum from causing stagnation in the nationalist movement during Gandhi's absence and maintaining a continuous, visible political challenge to the British.
Unity: Their existence allowed for the continuation of Hindu-Muslim cooperation on a political platform, bridging the NCM and future struggles.
III. Limitations and Decline:
Official Majority Hurdle: The Swarajists achieved obstruction, not destruction. They could not prevent the government from ultimately passing laws due to the permanent Official Majority and the Governor-General's veto power (certification power).
Internal Fissures: The party faced internal dissent between 'Responsivists' (who wanted to accept office) and 'Non-responsivists' (who stuck to pure obstruction).
Decline: The death of C.R. Das in 1925 was an irrecoverable blow. By the late 1920s, the focus shifted back to mass action (e.g., Simon Commission boycott), rendering the council entry strategy obsolete.
Outcome: The party was formally dissolved by 1930, having fulfilled its strategic role of keeping the political pressure alive.
Key Features of Congress-Khilafat Swarajya Party
| Aspect | Details | Strategic Intent for Mains |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 1923 by C.R. Das, Motilal Nehru | To fill the political vacuum left by the withdrawn NCM. |
| Strategy | Council entry to wreck councils from within | To use the councils as a platform for nationalist propaganda and obstruct colonial governance. |
| Name Significance | Congress-Khilafat | Demonstrated intent to maintain Hindu-Muslim unity and the NCM alliance. |
| Achievement | Won 42 seats in 1923 ; acted as strong opposition | Prevented political stagnation; exposed hollowness of Montford Reforms. |
| Limitation | Official majority and Governor's veto | Prevented the party from achieving real legislative change; led to internal fissures. |
Fun Facts
C.R. Das was known as 'Deshbandhu' and was the first President of the Swarajya Party.
The Swarajists’ obstructionist tactics forced the British to often dissolve councils before their term ended.
The debate between Swarajists and No-Changers was the first major internal crisis faced by Congress after Gandhi took control.
Mains Key Points
Strategic Necessity: The Swaraj Party filled the political vacuum left by the NCM, ensuring the nationalist challenge remained visible in the constitutional arena during a period of mass inaction.
Constitutional Critique: Swarajists were successful as critics. They exposed the hollowness and anti-democratic nature of the Montford Reforms from within, demonstrating that the only purpose of the reforms was to maintain British power.
Preservation of Unity: The Congress-Khilafat alliance in the party helped maintain the crucial Hindu-Muslim cooperation established during the NCM, even as the movement itself declined.
Limitations: Their ultimate failure to *destroy* the councils and their subsequent internal fragmentation (Responsivists vs. Non-Responsivists) confirmed Gandhi’s belief that mass action outside the councils remained the only path to genuine Swaraj.
Prelims Strategy Tips
Swarajya Party founded in 1923 by C.R. Das and Motilal Nehru.
Also called Congress-Khilafat Swarajya Party.
Main slogan → 'Enter the councils to wreck the councils'.
Acted as opposition in legislative councils under Government of India Act, 1919.
Achievements and Failures of the Swaraj Party (1923–1927)
Key Point
The Swaraj Party , founded in 1923 by C.R. Das and Motilal Nehru , adopted the strategic motto: 'Council entry to wreck the councils.' Its tenure was crucial for sustaining nationalist politics after the NCM withdrawal. Its achievements lay in exposing colonial rule and keeping Congress relevant inside legislatures, while its failures were determined by structural limits of the Montford Reforms, internal dissent, and the decline after C.R. Das’s death.
The Swaraj Party , founded in 1923 by C.R. Das and Motilal Nehru , adopted the strategic motto: 'Council entry to wreck the councils.' Its tenure was crucial for sustaining nationalist politics after the NCM withdrawal. Its achievements lay in exposing colonial rule and keeping Congress relevant inside legislatures, while its failures were determined by structural limits of the Montford Reforms, internal dissent, and the decline after C.R. Das’s death.
Detailed Notes (12 points)
Tap a card to add note • Use the highlight Listen button to play the full section
I. Key Achievements and Strategic Success:
Prevented Political Vacuum: The party ensured that the Congress remained politically visible and active during Gandhi’s absence, preventing stagnation in the nationalist movement.
Exposed Montford Reforms: They effectively used obstructionist politics (blocking budgets, rejecting proposals) to expose the hollowness of the Government of India Act, 1919, proving that the reforms were a façade for continued British official dominance.
Gave Voice to Propaganda: Swarajists successfully utilized the legislative floor as a powerful platform for nationalist propaganda, carrying the anti-colonial message into the public domain.
Maintained Unity: The party (Congress-Khilafat Swarajya Party) maintained cooperation between Congress and Khilafat leaders, preserving the crucial Hindu-Muslim unity achieved at Lucknow.
Prepared Future Leadership: Leaders gained invaluable experience in parliamentary politics, essential for future nationalist governance.
II. Inherent Failures and Structural Constraints:
Structural Barrier: The Swarajists achieved obstruction, but not destruction. They could not stop the passage of government bills due to the permanent Official Majority and the Governor-General's overriding veto power.
Internal Fragmentation: The party suffered from severe internal divisions, notably between the original Non-responsivists (pure obstruction) and 'Responsivists' (who sought cooperation for minor gains, undermining the core strategy).
Loss of Leadership: The death of C.R. Das in 1925 was an irrecoverable organizational blow, leading to fragmentation and leadership vacuum.
Neutralisation: The British skillfully exploited internal fissures by offering minor concessions to the Responsivists, thereby neutralizing the Swarajists' political effectiveness.
Decline: By 1927, the party’s relevance declined as the national focus shifted back to mass movements (e.g., Simon Commission boycott).
Achievements vs Failures of Swaraj Party
| Aspect | Achievements | Failures | Mains Evaluation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legislative Role | Strong opposition, exposed colonial reforms | Could not stop bills due to official majority | Exposed the structural deceit of the 1919 Act. |
| Political Impact | Kept Congress active inside legislatures | Limited to obstruction; no positive legislative reforms | Prevented political vacuum and sustained morale. |
| Leadership | Provided dynamic parliamentary leadership (Motilal Nehru) | Declined severely after C.R. Das’s death in 1925 | Loss confirmed reliance on centralized leadership . |
| Unity | Congress-Khilafat cooperation maintained | Succumbed to internal ideological fissures (Responsivism) | Validated the strategic failure of accepting council office. |
| Long-term Impact | Prepared future leaders for parliamentary roles | Declined by 1927 as focus shifted to mass movements | The experience confirmed mass action outside the council was the only path to Swaraj. |
Fun Facts
Motilal Nehru’s involvement in Swarajist politics laid the foundation for his son Jawaharlal’s prominence in the 1930s.
The Swarajists sometimes joined hands with independents and moderates to oppose government budgets.
The British often dissolved legislatures when Swarajists created deadlocks by rejecting proposals.
Mains Key Points
Strategic Necessity: The Swaraj Party filled the political vacuum left by the NCM, ensuring the nationalist challenge remained visible in the constitutional arena during a period of mass inaction.
Constitutional Critique: Swarajists were successful as critics. They exposed the hollowness and anti-democratic nature of the Montford Reforms from within, demonstrating that the only purpose of the reforms was to maintain British power.
Preservation of Unity: The Congress-Khilafat alliance in the party helped maintain the crucial Hindu-Muslim cooperation established during the NCM, even as the movement itself declined.
Limitations: Their ultimate failure to *destroy* the councils and their subsequent internal fragmentation (Responsivists vs. Non-Responsivists) confirmed Gandhi’s belief that mass action outside the councils was the only path to genuine Swaraj.
Prelims Strategy Tips
Swaraj Party founded in 1923 by C.R. Das (President) and Motilal Nehru (Secretary).
Slogan → 'Enter the councils to wreck the councils'.
C.R. Das’s death in 1925 weakened the party.
By 1927, Congress shifted focus to Civil Disobedience, causing the decline of Swarajists.
Revolutionary Activity during the 1920s (Punjab–United Provinces–Bihar)
Key Point
The revival of revolutionary activity in the Punjab, United Provinces (UP), and Bihar during the 1920s marked a significant ideological and tactical evolution. Driven by disillusionment with Gandhian non-violence and inspired by Socialist and Russian revolutionary ideas, groups like the HRA and later HSRA shifted their focus from individual assassinations to establishing a Socialist Republic through propaganda by deed.
The revival of revolutionary activity in the Punjab, United Provinces (UP), and Bihar during the 1920s marked a significant ideological and tactical evolution. Driven by disillusionment with Gandhian non-violence and inspired by Socialist and Russian revolutionary ideas, groups like the HRA and later HSRA shifted their focus from individual assassinations to establishing a Socialist Republic through propaganda by deed.
Detailed Notes (15 points)
Tap a card to add note • Use the highlight Listen button to play the full section
I. Ideological and Organizational Evolution:
Crisis of Non-Violence: The abrupt withdrawal of the Non-Cooperation Movement (1922) following Chauri Chaura convinced many educated youth that Gandhian non-violence was ineffective against British repression, pushing them toward organized militancy.
HRA (Republicanism, 1924): The initial organization, the Hindustan Republican Association (HRA), was founded in Kanpur (UP) by older revolutionaries like Sachindranath Sanyal and Jogesh Chandra Chatterjee, alongside Ram Prasad Bismil and Chandrashekhar Azad. Its objective was a Federal Republic of India.
HSRA (Socialist Republicanism, 1928): After the setback of the Kakori Conspiracy, the organization was revamped in 1928 at Feroz Shah Kotla, Delhi, into the Hindustan Socialist Republican Association (HSRA) by Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev, and Chandrashekhar Azad.
Ideological Shift: The HSRA explicitly incorporated Socialist and Marxist ideas, shifting the revolutionary goal from merely overthrowing British rule to establishing a socialist restructuring of Indian society (anti-exploitation).
II. Key Actions and Political Objectives:
Kakori Conspiracy (1925): HRA members (including Bismil, Ashfaqullah Khan) looted a government train near Kakori (UP) to acquire funds for arms. This action, though financially necessary, was strategically aimed at demonstrating the capacity for armed action.
Saunders’ Assassination (1928): The HSRA assassinated British police officer J.P. Saunders in Lahore. This was framed as a direct retaliation for the death of Lala Lajpat Rai during the Simon Commission boycott, marking a shift toward politically motivated vengeance.
Assembly Bomb Incident (1929): Bhagat Singh and B.K. Dutt threw non-lethal bombs in the Central Legislative Assembly in Delhi. The goal was not to kill ( "to make the deaf hear" ) but to use the resulting court trials as a platform for nationalist and socialist propaganda against repressive laws (Trade Disputes Bill).
Naujawan Bharat Sabha (1926): Founded by Bhagat Singh as a parallel, open youth organization to cultivate secularism and socialist consciousness among students and workers, linking intellectual ideology with revolutionary action.
III. Legacy and Impact:
Shift in Methodology: The HSRA successfully evolved revolutionary methods, moving from individual assassinations (First Phase/HRA) to using acts of violence primarily for propaganda and political communication to the masses.
Ideological Depth: The emphasis on Socialism demonstrated a recognition that the struggle needed an underlying socio-economic vision (anti-exploitation) beyond just political independence.
Martyrdom and Inspiration: The executions of the Kakori martyrs and later Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev, and Rajguru cemented their status as national symbols of courage and sacrifice, keeping radical nationalism alive.
Strategic Collaboration: Bihar played a crucial logistical role, providing shelter, safe houses, and funding links to the Bengal network, enabling the HSRA to operate across North India.
Key Revolutionary Activities in Punjab–UP–Bihar (1920s)
| Year | Event/Organization | Region | Leaders |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1924 | Formation of HRA | United Provinces | Sachindranath Sanyal, Ram Prasad Bismil |
| 1925 | Kakori Conspiracy | UP–Bihar | Bismil, Ashfaqullah Khan, Rajendra Lahiri |
| 1926 | Naujawan Bharat Sabha | Punjab | Bhagat Singh |
| 1928 | HSRA founded | Delhi (Punjab–UP) | Bhagat Singh, Azad, Sukhdev, Rajguru |
| 1928 | Saunders’ Assassination | Punjab (Lahore) | Bhagat Singh, Azad, Rajguru |
| 1929 | Assembly Bomb Incident | Delhi | Bhagat Singh, B.K. Dutt |
Fun Facts
The Kakori case created the first nationwide sensation about revolutionary activities in UP–Bihar.
Bhagat Singh read Marx, Lenin , and international revolutionary literature in Lahore Jail.
The Assembly Bomb was intentionally low-powered , designed only to produce noise, not casualties.
Mains Key Points
Ideological Evolution: The shift from HRA's republicanism to HSRA's Socialism broadened the revolutionary vision from political freedom to socio-economic equality (anti-exploitation).
Propaganda by Deed: HSRA used targeted acts (Assembly Bomb) primarily for propaganda and political communication to the masses, turning court trials into revolutionary platforms.
Strategic Disillusionment: Revolutionary activity in the 1920s was a direct reflection of disillusionment with Gandhian methods (post-1922) and the failure of constitutional politics (Swarajists).
Legacy of Sacrifice: The martyrdom of leaders like Bhagat Singh cemented their status as national symbols and ensured that radical nationalism, characterized by secularism and socialist thought, remained a powerful force.
Prelims Strategy Tips
Hindustan Republican Association (HRA) founded in 1924.
HRA became HSRA (Socialist) in 1928.
Kakori Conspiracy (1925) involved Ram Prasad Bismil and Ashfaqullah Khan.
Bhagat Singh founded Naujawan Bharat Sabha in 1926.
Revolutionary Activity during the 1920s in Bengal
Key Point
Bengal remained the most dynamic and enduring centre of revolutionary activity in the 1920s. This phase was defined by the organizational continuity of the Anushilan Samiti and Jugantar , and their ideological shift towards Socialist Republicanism. Leaders like Surya Sen (Masterda) and Jatin Das maintained militant pressure against the British, inspiring youth across India.
Bengal remained the most dynamic and enduring centre of revolutionary activity in the 1920s. This phase was defined by the organizational continuity of the Anushilan Samiti and Jugantar , and their ideological shift towards Socialist Republicanism. Leaders like Surya Sen (Masterda) and Jatin Das maintained militant pressure against the British, inspiring youth across India.
Detailed Notes (15 points)
Tap a card to add note • Use the highlight Listen button to play the full section
I. Organizational Continuity and Ideological Shift:
Background: Post Non-Cooperation, Bengal youth turned to armed struggle, disillusioned with non-violence.
Organizational Backbone: The Anushilan Samiti and the Jugantar Group (originally active since early 1900s) revived their networks, providing organizational continuity to the movement.
Ideological Adaptation: Bengal’s revolutionaries increasingly adopted socialist and Marxist ideas, shifting the focus from individual revenge to mass mobilization and establishing a new social order (similar to HSRA in UP/Punjab).
Key Leaders: Surya Sen (Masterda) organized Chittagong revolutionaries (leading to the 1930 Armoury Raid). Jatin Das became a martyr, dying in Lahore Jail (1929) after a 63-day hunger strike in protest against the inhuman treatment of political prisoners.
II. Activities, Inter-Regional Links, and Repression:
Inter-Regional Links: Bengal revolutionaries maintained crucial links, actively cooperating with the Hindustan Republican Association (HRA), providing funds and organizational assistance for the Kakori Conspiracy (1925).
Funding: Numerous political dacoities (armed robberies) were conducted in Bengal (1926–27) to raise funds for arms and bomb-making, sustaining the underground resistance.
Propaganda through Protest: Bengal student and youth groups actively supported mainstream nationalist action, such as the protests against the Simon Commission (1928).
The Chittagong Plan: The period concluded with the meticulous planning by Surya Sen's group, which aimed at disrupting communication lines and capturing armouries (Chittagong Armoury Raid, executed in 1930).
British Repression: The British used extreme force, including press censorship and mass arrests, to suppress the resilient Anushilan-Jugantar networks.
III. Legacy and Youth Mobilisation:
Youth Base: The movement maintained a particularly strong base of student and youth participation in cities like Calcutta and Chittagong.
Inspiration to Women: Bengal’s radical tradition directly inspired the next generation of women revolutionaries, such as Pritilata Waddedar and Kalpana Dutta (later in the 1930s), who participated in armed actions.
Sustaining Militancy: The continuity of Jugantar and Anushilan ensured that the spirit of militant nationalism remained a potent political force, acting as a crucial counterpoint to Gandhian methods throughout the 1920s.
Major Revolutionary Activities in Bengal (1920s)
| Year | Event/Activity | Leaders/Organizations | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1924–25 | Reorganization of Jugantar and Anushilan Samiti | Hemchandra Kanungo, Ganesh Ghosh | Organizational continuity post-NCM decline. |
| 1925 | Participation in Kakori Conspiracy | Ram Prasad Bismil (HRA), Bengal contacts | Key inter-regional financing and support. |
| 1928 | Simon Commission protests | Bengal student and youth groups | Maintained militant presence during a major political crisis. |
| 1929 | Jatin Das’s Martyrdom | Jatin Das | Died after 63-day hunger strike; transformed image to political prisoner. |
Fun Facts
Surya Sen , a schoolteacher, was affectionately called 'Masterda' by his followers.
Jatin Das’s martyrdom in 1929 inspired nationwide protests and sympathy for revolutionaries, forcing the British to acknowledge the status of political prisoners.
Calcutta University became a hotbed of student radicalism during the 1920s.
Mains Key Points
Organizational Continuity: Bengal provided the essential organizational continuity for the militant movement, preventing a political vacuum after the NCM through the revival of Anushilan and Jugantar.
Ideological Evolution: The movement adapted to the times by embracing Socialist thought, shifting the focus from individual retaliation to establishing a new socio-economic order (propaganda).
Symbolism of Sacrifice: The martyrdom of Jatin Das and the daring of Surya Sen’s planning elevated the revolutionary image from mere terrorism to dedicated political warfare and sacrifice.
Inter-Regional Links: Bengal maintained crucial inter-regional links (e.g., funding the Kakori Conspiracy), ensuring the revolutionary struggle was a pan-Indian, coordinated effort against the colonial state.
Prelims Strategy Tips
Jugantar and Anushilan Samiti were key revolutionary groups in Bengal during the 1920s.
Surya Sen (Masterda) organized Chittagong revolutionaries, later famous for the 1930 Armoury Raid .
Jatin Das died in 1929 in Lahore Jail after a 63-day hunger strike.
Nehru Report (1928): The Indian Constitution
Key Point
The Nehru Report (1928), drafted by a committee headed by Motilal Nehru, was the first major attempt by Indians to draft a comprehensive constitutional framework for India. It marked a national consensus on the political structure, but its demand for Dominion Status was rejected by the younger, radical leaders, leading to the demand for Purna Swaraj.
The Nehru Report (1928), drafted by a committee headed by Motilal Nehru, was the first major attempt by Indians to draft a comprehensive constitutional framework for India. It marked a national consensus on the political structure, but its demand for Dominion Status was rejected by the younger, radical leaders, leading to the demand for Purna Swaraj.
Detailed Notes (13 points)
Tap a card to add note • Use the highlight Listen button to play the full section
I. Background and Goal:
Context (Lord Birkenhead's Challenge): The report was produced in response to a challenge by Lord Birkenhead (Secretary of State for India) who claimed Indians could not agree on a mutually acceptable constitutional scheme.
All Parties Conference: The All Parties Conference appointed a committee chaired by Motilal Nehru (with Jawaharlal Nehru as secretary) to draft a constitutional blueprint based on consensus.
II. Key Recommendations:
Status: Recommended Dominion Status (self-governing status within the British Empire), similar to Canada or Australia.
Secular State: Advocated for a secular state with no state religion.
Fundamental Rights: Included a strong charter of Fundamental Rights for all citizens, including the right to vote for all adults (universal adult franchise).
Political Structure: Proposed a federal structure with a bicameral legislature and responsibility of the Executive to the Legislature.
Communal Issue: The Report rejected separate electorates (a structural flaw of the Montford Reforms and Lucknow Pact). Instead, it recommended joint electorates with reservation of seats for Muslims in provinces where they were minorities.
III. Nationalist Response and Significance:
Challenge from Radicals: Younger leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru and Subhas Chandra Bose rejected the demand for Dominion Status, insisting on Purna Swaraj (Complete Independence). They formed the Independence for India League to push their demand.
Communal Opposition: The Muslim League rejected the report (Jinnah’s 14 Points) because it rejected the principle of separate electorates.
Significance: The Nehru Report served as the nationalist response to British arrogance, proving that Indians could draft their own constitution. Although rejected by the League, its principles (Fundamental Rights, Secularism, Adult Franchise) became the foundation for the Constitution of Independent India.
Key Recommendations of the Nehru Report (1928)
| Aspect | Recommendation | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Political Status | Dominion Status | Rejected by younger radicals (J.L. Nehru, S.C. Bose) |
| Electorate | Joint Electorates with reserved seats (rejected separate electorates) | Sought national unity over communal division |
| Rights | Universal Adult Franchise and Fundamental Rights | Foundation for the Constitution of Independent India |
Fun Facts
The Nehru Report led to Jinnah’s 14 Points (1929), put forth by the Muslim League as a counter-proposal.
The Report was debated at the Calcutta Congress Session (1928), where the young radicals pushed for immediate Purna Swaraj.
Mains Key Points
National Consensus: The Nehru Report was a milestone in the constitutional history of India, demonstrating the unity and political maturity of Indians to draft their own constitution.
Clash of Ideologies: The debate over Dominion Status vs. Purna Swaraj highlighted the ideological maturation of the nationalist movement, leading directly to the Lahore Session (1929) demand for complete independence.
Communal Divide: The rejection of the report by the Muslim League (due to the rejection of separate electorates) deepened the communal rift in Indian politics, formalizing the split between the Congress and the League's vision for India's future structure.
Prelims Strategy Tips
Nehru Report was the first Indian-drafted constitutional blueprint (1928).
Drafted by a committee headed by Motilal Nehru.
It demanded Dominion Status, which was rejected by Jawaharlal Nehru and Subhas C. Bose (Purna Swarajists).
It recommended Joint Electorates (rejected by the Muslim League).
Growth of Modern Trade Unionism (Post-1920)
Key Point
The All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC), founded in 1920, marked the beginning of modern, organized trade unionism in India. The movement grew significantly in the 1920s, driven by economic hardships and the need for a unified labor voice, although it soon faced ideological splits between nationalist, communist, and moderate factions.
The All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC), founded in 1920, marked the beginning of modern, organized trade unionism in India. The movement grew significantly in the 1920s, driven by economic hardships and the need for a unified labor voice, although it soon faced ideological splits between nationalist, communist, and moderate factions.
Detailed Notes (12 points)
Tap a card to add note • Use the highlight Listen button to play the full section
I. Formation and Initial Growth (1920s):
Formation of AITUC (1920): The All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC) was formed in Bombay in 1920. Lala Lajpat Rai was its first President, and Dewan Chaman Lal was its first General Secretary.
Context: Its formation was hastened by the economic impact of WWI, the subsequent inflation and wage cuts, and the need for Indian representation at the International Labour Organisation (ILO).
Initial Leadership: AITUC initially attracted both Nationalist Leaders (Motilal Nehru, V.V. Giri, Sarojini Naidu) and early Communist/Socialist Leaders.
II. Ideological Splits and Communist Influence:
Early Factions: The 1920s saw AITUC become a battleground for three factions: Nationalists (Moderates/Gandhians), Communists (inspired by the Russian Revolution), and Reformists (cooperation with the British).
Communist Influence: The rise of Communist ideas (Socialist thought) among the labor leaders led to a demand for radical, class-based action, often clashing with the Congress's nationalist priorities.
Split (1929): Ideological conflict led to a major split at the Nagpur Session (1929). The Reformists/Moderates (led by N.M. Joshi) broke away and formed the Indian Trade Union Federation (ITUF). This fragmentation weakened the movement.
III. Significance and Legacy:
Unity: AITUC was the first central coordinating body for trade unions across India, providing a unified voice for industrial workers.
Link to Politics: It formally linked the workers’ struggle with the national struggle (Congress), broadening the social base of the freedom movement.
Government Repression: The British responded to the organized power of labor with severe measures, most notably the Meerut Conspiracy Case (1929), designed to crush the Communist and radical labor leadership.
AITUC Timeline and Leadership (Post-1920)
| Year | Event/Split | Key Leaders/Faction |
|---|---|---|
| 1920 | AITUC Formation (Bombay) | Lala Lajpat Rai (President), Dewan Chaman Lal (Secretary) |
| 1929 | Nagpur Split | N.M. Joshi, V.V. Giri (Moderate/Reformist faction left) |
| 1929 onwards | Communist Influence | S.A. Dange, Muzaffar Ahmed (Prominent leaders targeted in Meerut Conspiracy Case) |
Fun Facts
The AITUC's first session was attended by prominent figures from various ideological spectrums, including Jawaharlal Nehru.
The AITUC split was essentially a political battle between the Nationalists and the Communists for control over the working class movement.
Mains Key Points
The rise of modern trade unionism transformed the social base of the national movement, integrating the industrial proletariat into the anti-colonial struggle.
The ideological splits within AITUC reflected the broader political currents of the 1920s—the conflict between Gandhian nationalism, which prioritized unity, and Communist internationalism, which prioritized class struggle.
British reaction (Meerut Conspiracy) demonstrated the colonial state’s fear of an organized, radical, and socialist-influenced working class movement.
Prelims Strategy Tips
AITUC was founded in 1920 in Bombay.
Lala Lajpat Rai was the first President of AITUC.
AITUC's formation was influenced by the need for ILO representation.
The major split occurred in 1929 at Nagpur.
Meerut Conspiracy Case (1929): Targeting the Communists
Key Point
The Meerut Conspiracy Case (1929) was a highly publicized legal case launched by the British government to crush the emerging Communist leadership and the radical labor movement in India. The government charged 32 prominent trade union leaders with conspiracy to overthrow the King-Emperor, exposing the colonial state's deep fear of Communism and Socialist ideas.
The Meerut Conspiracy Case (1929) was a highly publicized legal case launched by the British government to crush the emerging Communist leadership and the radical labor movement in India. The government charged 32 prominent trade union leaders with conspiracy to overthrow the King-Emperor, exposing the colonial state's deep fear of Communism and Socialist ideas.
Detailed Notes (10 points)
Tap a card to add note • Use the highlight Listen button to play the full section
I. Context and Charges:
Context: The late 1920s saw a rapid rise in Communist influence within the working class (e.g., strong unions in Bombay, Calcutta, UP Railway). This led to significant labor strikes, such as the Bombay Textile Mill Strike (1928), which alarmed the British.
The Case: The British government arrested 32 labor leaders, including Indian communists (S.A. Dange, Muzaffar Ahmed) and three British communists sent by the Communist International (Comintern).
Charges: They were charged under Section 121A of the Indian Penal Code (Conspiracy to wage war against the King-Emperor).
II. Nationalist Response and Outcome:
Nationalist Support: The Congress recognized the political nature of the trial. Jawaharlal Nehru and Motilal Nehru defended the accused in court, and the public trial became a platform for nationalist and socialist propaganda.
Length and Outcome: The trial lasted for nearly four years (1929–1933). Although many were convicted, the harsh sentences were reduced on appeal. The trial's length and political nature gave the labor and communist movements massive publicity and sympathy.
Political Impact: The Meerut Case severely crippled the Communist Party of India (CPI) organizationally, but it popularized Socialist and Communist ideology among the youth and intellectuals, leading directly to the formation of the Congress Socialist Party (CSP) in 1934.
III. Significance:
The case was a clear articulation of the colonial state's fear of the anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist, and internationalist nature of the Communist movement, which threatened both British rule and Indian capitalist allies.
Meerut Conspiracy Case (1929)
| Year | Key Accused | Significance | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1929 | S.A. Dange, Muzaffar Ahmed, Philip Spratt (British Communist) | Targeted Communist and militant labor leadership; exposed fear of Socialist ideas. | Crippled CPI organizationally but popularized Socialist ideology among public. |
Fun Facts
The trial proceedings became so long and drawn out that they turned into a political spectacle that exposed the oppressive nature of the British government.
The three British communists involved used the trial to further the cause of Indian independence and socialist revolution on the international stage.
Mains Key Points
The Meerut Case was a calculated political maneuver by the British to decapitate the rising Communist leadership which threatened their capitalist interests and their colonial allies (Indian industrialists).
The trial inadvertently served the propaganda goals of the Communists, providing a platform for the widespread diffusion of Socialist and anti-exploitation ideology among the intellectual classes.
The nationalist response, led by Nehru, demonstrated the growing convergence of Congress's political objectives and the Communists' social vision.
Prelims Strategy Tips
Meerut Conspiracy Case occurred in 1929.
It targeted the Communist and Trade Union leaders.
S.A. Dange and Muzaffar Ahmed were key Indian accused.
The case was used to prosecute the spread of Socialist ideas.
Chapter Complete!
Ready to move to the next chapter?