| Latest History NCERT Notes, Solutions and Extra Q & A (Class 8th to 12th) | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8th | 9th | 10th | 11th | 12th | |||||||||||||||
Chapter 11 Mahatma Gandhi And The Nationalist Movement
Introduction
In the study of nationalism, specific individuals are often prominently associated with the formation or struggle of a nation, such as Garibaldi with Italy or George Washington with the American independence. Similarly, Mahatma Gandhi is widely recognised as the 'Father' of the Indian nation, reflecting his unparalleled influence and reverence among freedom fighters (Fig. 11.1 shows people gathering before the Salt March).
However, it's important to acknowledge that even influential figures like Gandhi are shaped by the historical and social context in which they live. Individuals make history, but history also makes them. This chapter focuses on Gandhiji's activities in India between 1915 and 1948, examining his interactions with different segments of Indian society and the popular movements he inspired and led.
The chapter also introduces the sources historians use to reconstruct Gandhi's career and the social movements associated with him, such as autobiographies, private letters, government records, and newspaper reports.
A Leader Announces Himself
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi returned to India in January 1915 after spending two decades abroad, primarily in South Africa, where he initially worked as a lawyer. In South Africa, he emerged as a leader of the Indian community and developed his unique methods of non-violent protest, known as satyagraha. Historian Chandran Devanesan notes that South Africa was "the making of the Mahatma," as it was there that Gandhi first promoted inter-religious harmony and challenged discriminatory practices against lower castes and women among Indians (Fig. 11.2 shows Gandhi in South Africa).
Upon his return, India was politically more active than when he left in 1893. The Indian National Congress had expanded its network, and the Swadeshi movement (1905-07) had increased its popularity among the middle classes, producing prominent leaders like Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Bipin Chandra Pal, and Lala Lajpat Rai ("Lal, Bal, Pal"), who advocated militant nationalism. In contrast, a group of "Moderates," including Gandhi's political mentor Gopal Krishna Gokhale and Mohammad Ali Jinnah, favored a more gradual approach.
A Leader Announces Himself
Following Gokhale's advice, Gandhi spent a year travelling across British India to familiarise himself with the country and its people. His first significant public appearance was at the opening of the Banaras Hindu University (BHU) in February 1916. Surrounded by prominent figures like princes, philanthropists, and Congress leaders, Gandhi, still relatively unknown in India, used the platform to make a striking statement.
Instead of celebrating the elite initiative behind the BHU, Gandhi criticised the lack of concern shown by the Indian elite for the poor masses. He contrasted the wealth displayed by the "richly bedecked noblemen" with the absence of the "millions of the poor" Indians. He urged the elite to shed their wealth and hold it in trust for the poor, stating that true self-governance was impossible if peasants were deprived of the fruits of their labor. According to him, India's salvation lay with the farmer, not with lawyers, doctors, or landlords (Fig. 11.3 shows Gandhi in Karachi). This speech was a factual observation about the elite nature of Indian nationalism and a clear statement of Gandhi's intention to make the nationalist movement more inclusive and representative of the entire population.
In December 1916, at the annual Congress session in Lucknow, Gandhi met a peasant from Champaran, Bihar, who informed him about the oppressive conditions faced by peasants under British indigo planters. This encounter presented Gandhi with an opportunity to act on his commitment to the poor.
The Making And Unmaking Of Non-Cooperation
Mahatma Gandhi dedicated much of 1917 to the Champaran campaign, working to secure fair treatment and freedom of crop choice for the peasants there. In 1918, he led two campaigns in Gujarat: intervening in a labour dispute in Ahmedabad for better conditions for textile workers and supporting peasants in Kheda who sought tax remission after a harvest failure. These early actions established Gandhi as a nationalist deeply committed to the poor.
In 1919, the British passed the Rowlatt Act, which continued wartime measures like press censorship and detention without trial. Gandhi saw this as an opportunity for a broader movement and called for a nationwide campaign against the Act. This led to a countrywide bandh, bringing life to a standstill in many towns, particularly in Punjab, where resentment was high after many had served in the war expecting rewards, not repressive laws. Gandhi was arrested while trying to go to Punjab, and local leaders were also detained. Tensions escalated, culminating in the tragic Jallianwala Bagh massacre in Amritsar in April 1919, where hundreds were killed when British troops fired on a peaceful meeting.
Knitting A Popular Movement
The success of the Rowlatt satyagraha propelled Gandhi to national leadership. He then launched the Non-cooperation Movement, urging Indians to withdraw voluntary association with the British government – boycotting schools, colleges, courts, and refusing to pay taxes. Gandhi claimed that effective non-cooperation would bring swaraj (self-rule) within a year. To broaden the movement, he allied with the Khilafat Movement (1919-20), which sought to restore the Caliphate in Turkey, a symbol of Pan-Islamism (Source on Khilafat Movement details its demands).
Gandhi hoped this alliance would unite Hindus and Muslims against colonial rule. The Non-cooperation Movement unleashed unprecedented popular action. Students and lawyers boycotted institutions, workers went on strike (396 strikes in 1921, involving 600,000 workers), and rural areas saw widespread discontent: hill tribes violated forest laws, farmers in Awadh refused taxes, and peasants in Kumaun refused forced labor. These actions sometimes went beyond the instructions of nationalist leaders, as participants interpreted "non-cooperate" based on their own grievances and interests.
American biographer Louis Fischer saw Non-cooperation as a defining epoch for India and Gandhi, a movement that was peaceful yet effective, demanding denial, self-discipline, and training for self-rule. It significantly shook the British Raj. However, in February 1922, violence erupted when peasants torched a police station at Chauri Chaura, killing several constables. Gandhi, believing violence undermined the movement, immediately called it off. He was arrested in March 1922 and charged with sedition. Justice C.N. Broomfield, acknowledging Gandhi's stature as a patriot and leader, sentenced him to six years but expressed hope for his early release.
A People’S Leader
By 1922, Gandhi had fulfilled his promise from the BHU speech to make Indian nationalism a mass movement. It now included hundreds of thousands of peasants, workers, and artisans alongside professionals. Many revered him as "Mahatma" (Great Soul), appreciating his simple lifestyle (dressing in dhoti or loincloth), living like them, and speaking their language. Unlike other leaders, he connected with the common folk, empathising and identifying with them.
His identification was visible in his dress and his daily work on the charkha (spinning wheel) (Fig. 11.5). Spinning symbolised breaking traditional caste boundaries between mental and manual labor and promoted self-reliance (Source 1 discusses Gandhi's views on machines and the charkha).
Source 1. What I object to … Khaddar does not seek …
Mahatma Gandhi was profoundly critical of the modern age in which machines enslaved humans and displaced labour. He saw the charkha as a symbol of a human society that would not glorify machines and technology. The spinning wheel, moreover, could provide the poor with supplementary income and make them self-reliant.
What I object to, is the craze for machinery as such. The craze is for what they call laboursaving machinery. Men go on “saving labour”, till thousands are without work and thrown on the open streets to die of starvation. I want to save time and labour, not for a fraction of mankind, but for all; I want the concentration of wealth, not in the hands of few, but in the hands of all.
YOUNG INDIA, I3 NOVEMBER 1924
Khaddar does not seek to destroy all machinery but it does regulate its use and check its weedy growth. It uses machinery for the service of the poorest in their own cottages. The wheel is itself an exquisite piece of machinery.
YOUNG INDIA, 17 MARCH 1927
Answer:
In the context of the mantra (Source 1 in Chapter 3) and traditional notions of marriage and family, which often prioritised the birth of sons for the continuity of the patrilineage, Gandhiji's advocacy of the charkha and manual labor represents a significant divergence and challenge to traditional gender roles. The charkha, traditionally associated with women's work in the home, was elevated by Gandhi to a symbol of national self-reliance and economic independence. By encouraging both men and women to spin, and by framing it as a dignified form of labor, he challenged the traditional segregation of labor based on gender and caste.
In the context of marriage as presented in the Rigvedic mantra, a woman's primary role was to bear "fine sons" and be "fortunate in her husband's love," integrating her into the husband's patrilineal family. Gandhiji's emphasis on khadi production through the charkha empowered women economically and gave them a direct role in the nationalist struggle outside the traditional domestic sphere. This implicitly challenges the narrow definition of a woman's value solely based on her reproductive capacity and domestic role within a patriarchal family structure, promoting their agency and contribution in broader social and economic spheres.
Historian Shahid Amin's study of local press reports in eastern Uttar Pradesh reveals how peasants perceived Gandhi as a figure with miraculous powers ("Gandhi baba," "Gandhi Maharaj," "Mahatma") who could redress their grievances (Source 2 recounts rumours of his miraculous powers and dire consequences for opponents). These rumors reflected peasants' hopes for salvation from high taxes and oppressive officials, and their identification with Gandhi's ascetic lifestyle and use of simple symbols.
Source 2. The miraculous and the unbelievable
Wherever Gandhiji went, rumours spread of his miraculous powers. In some places it was said that he had been sent by the King to redress the grievances of the farmers, and that he had the power to overrule all local officials. In other places it was claimed that Gandhiji’s power was superior to that of the English monarch, and that with his arrival the colonial rulers would flee the district. There were also stories reporting dire consequences for those who opposed him; rumours spread of how villagers who criticised Gandhiji found their houses mysteriously falling apart or their crops failing.
Known variously as “Gandhi baba”, “Gandhi Maharaj”, or simply as “Mahatma”, Gandhiji appeared to the Indian peasant as a saviour, who would rescue them from high taxes and oppressive officials and restore dignity and autonomy to their lives. Gandhiji’s appeal among the poor, and peasants in particular, was enhanced by his ascetic lifestyle, and by his shrewd use of symbols such as the dhoti and the charkha. Mahatma Gandhi was by caste a merchant, and by profession a lawyer; but his simple lifestyle and love of working with his hands allowed him to empathise more fully with the labouring poor and for them, in turn, to empathise with him. Where most other politicians talked down to them, Gandhiji appeared not just to look like them, but to understand them and relate to their lives.
While Mahatma Gandhi’s mass appeal was undoubtedly genuine – and in the context of Indian politics, without precedent – it must also be stressed that his success in broadening the basis of nationalism was based on careful organisation. New branches of the Congress were set up in various parts of India. A series of “Praja Mandals” were established to promote the nationalist creed in the princely states. Gandhiji encouraged the communication of the nationalist message in the mother tongue, rather than in the language of the rulers, English. Thus the provincial committees of the Congress were based on linguistic regions, rather than on the artificial boundaries of British India. In these different ways nationalism was taken to the farthest corners of the country and embraced by social groups previously untouched by it.
By now, among the supporters of the Congress were some very prosperous businessmen and industrialists. Indian entrepreneurs were quick to recognise that, in a free India, the favours enjoyed by their British competitors would come to an end. Some of these entrepreneurs, such as G.D. Birla, supported the national movement openly; others did so tacitly. Thus, among Gandhiji’s admirers were both poor peasants and rich industrialists, although the reasons why peasants followed Gandhiji were somewhat different from, and perhaps opposed to, the reasons of the industrialists.
While Mahatma Gandhi’s own role was vital, the growth of what we might call “Gandhian nationalism” also depended to a very substantial extent on his followers. Between 1917 and 1922, a group of highly talented Indians attached themselves to Gandhiji. They included Mahadev Desai, Vallabh Bhai Patel, J.B. Kripalani, Subhas Chandra Bose, Abul Kalam Azad, Jawaharlal Nehru, Sarojini Naidu, Govind Ballabh Pant and C. Rajagopalachari. Notably, these close associates of Gandhiji came from different regions as well as different religious traditions. In turn, they inspired countless other Indians to join the Congress and work for it.
Mahatma Gandhi was released from prison in February 1924, and now chose to devote his attention to the promotion of home-spun cloth (khadi), and the abolition of untouchability. For, Gandhiji was as much a social reformer as he was a politician. He believed that in order to be worthy of freedom, Indians had to get rid of social evils such as child marriage and untouchability. Indians of one faith had also to cultivate a genuine tolerance for Indians of another – hence his emphasis on Hindu-Muslim harmony. Meanwhile, on the economic front Indians had to learn to become self-reliant – hence his stress on the significance of wearing khadi rather than mill-made cloth imported from overseas.
Source 2 (contd) There were rumours that those who opposed Mahatma Gandhi invariably met with some tragedy.
1. A gentleman from Gorakhpur city questioned the need to ply the charkha. His house caught fire.
2. In April 1921 some people were gambling in a village of Uttar Pradesh. Someone told them to stop. Only one from amongst the group refused to stop and abused Gandhiji. The next day his goat was bitten by four of his own dogs.
3. In a village in Gorakhpur, the peasants resolved to give up drinking liquor. One person did not keep his promise. As soon as he started for the liquor shop brickbats started to rain in his path. When he spoke the name of Gandhiji the brickbats stopped flying.
FROM SHAHID AMIN, “GANDHI AS MAHATMA”, SUBALTERN STUDIES III, OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, DELHI.
Answer:
These rumours about Gandhiji reflect:
- Peasants' hopes and desires: They reflect the deep desire for liberation from suffering (high taxes, oppressive officials) and for a better life. The rumours about Gandhiji being sent by the King or having power over officials reflect the hope for a saviour figure who can deliver them from oppression.
- Attribution of extraordinary power: The rumours attributing miraculous powers to Gandhiji (splitting boiling pans, turning wheat to sesamum, houses falling apart, crops failing for opponents, brickbats stopping when his name is invoked) reflect a tendency to elevate a charismatic leader to a superhuman or divine status. This is particularly common in rural and less literate communities where traditional beliefs in miracles and divine intervention are strong. They project their hopes and beliefs onto him, seeing him as someone who can defy the normal order and deliver them.
- Sanctioning of the movement: The stories of misfortune befalling those who oppose Gandhiji served to reinforce support for him and the movement. They acted as a form of social pressure and moral justification for aligning with the nationalist cause, portraying it as divinely favoured and opposition as incurring divine wrath.
- Interpretation through existing frameworks: Peasants interpreted Gandhiji's message and actions through the lens of their existing beliefs and cultural frameworks. His ascetic lifestyle, simple dress, and emphasis on symbols like the charkha resonated with traditional Indian ideals of sainthood and spiritual power, making the idea of him possessing miraculous abilities plausible within their worldview.
Overall, these rumours show how Gandhi's message and persona were understood and amplified within specific social contexts, reflecting the blend of political aspirations, economic grievances, and deep-seated religious beliefs of the peasantry.
Gandhi's mass appeal, unprecedented in Indian politics, was also built on careful organisation. New Congress branches, Praja Mandals in princely states, and linguistic provincial committees expanded the nationalist message, bringing in previously untouched social groups. Prominent Indian businessmen and industrialists, seeing potential benefits in a free India, also supported the movement, though their motivations differed from peasants.
Gandhi's success relied significantly on his followers, a talented group of Indians from diverse regions and religions (Mahadev Desai, Vallabh Bhai Patel, Jawaharlal Nehru, etc.) who joined him between 1917 and 1922 and inspired many others.
After his release in 1924, Gandhi focused on social reform: promoting home-spun cloth (khadi) and abolishing untouchability. He believed these reforms were necessary for India to be worthy of freedom. He also stressed Hindu-Muslim harmony and economic self-reliance (khadi over imports).
The Salt Satyagraha A Case Study
After focusing on social reform for several years, Mahatma Gandhi returned to active politics in 1928, coinciding with the opposition to the all-White Simon Commission and a peasant satyagraha in Bardoli (which Gandhi blessed). The 1929 Lahore Congress session, presided over by Jawaharlal Nehru, declared "Purna Swaraj" (complete independence) as the Congress goal, accelerating the pace of politics. Independence Day was observed on 26 January 1930 with flag hoisting and patriotic songs, following precise instructions from Gandhi.
Dandi
Soon after Independence Day, Gandhi announced the Salt March to break the widely resented British monopoly on the manufacture and sale of salt. Salt was essential for every household, yet people were forced to buy it at high prices, forbidden from making it even for domestic use. By targeting this unpopular monopoly, Gandhi aimed to tap into broader discontent against British rule (Source 3 explains why salt was chosen as a symbol).
Source 3. Why the Salt Satyagraha?
Why was salt the symbol of protest? This is what Mahatma Gandhi wrote:
The volume of information being gained daily shows how wickedly the salt tax has been designed. In order to prevent the use of salt that has not paid the tax which is at times even fourteen times its value, the Government destroys the salt it cannot sell profitably. Thus it taxes the nation’s vital necessity; it prevents the public from manufacturing it and destroys what nature manufactures without effort. No adjective is strong enough for characterising this wicked dog-in-the-manger policy. From various sources I hear tales of such wanton destruction of the nation’s property in all parts of India. Maunds if not tons of salt are said to be destroyed on the Konkan coast. The same tale comes from Dandi. Wherever there is likelihood of natural salt being taken away by the people living in the neighbourhood of such areas for their personal use, salt officers are posted for the sole purpose of carrying on destruction. Thus valuable national property is destroyed at national expense and salt taken out of the mouths of the people.
The salt monopoly is thus a fourfold curse. It deprives the people of a valuable easy village industry, involves wanton destruction of property that nature produces in abundance, the destruction itself means more national expenditure, and fourthly, to crown this folly, an unheard-of tax of more than 1,000 per cent is exacted from a starving people.
This tax has remained so long because of the apathy of the general public. Now that it is sufficiently roused, the tax has to go. How soon it will be abolished depends upon the strength the people.
THE COLLECTED WORKS OF MAHATMA GANDHI (CWMG), VOL. 49
Answer:
Salt was destroyed by the colonial government to enforce its monopoly and prevent people from obtaining tax-free salt. This was done to ensure that people were forced to buy salt from government sources, thereby paying the tax and increasing state revenue. Destroying naturally produced salt was a measure to eliminate any alternative source that could circumvent the tax.
Mahatma Gandhi considered the salt tax more oppressive than other taxes because it was a tax on a "nation’s vital necessity," something indispensable for survival. His reasons included:
- Taxing a basic necessity: It burdened everyone, especially the poor, as salt was needed daily.
- Destroying natural produce: The government actively destroyed natural salt, a gift from nature, preventing its free use.
- Preventing a village industry: The monopoly deprived people of an easy village industry for subsistence.
- Excessive tax rate: An "unheard-of tax of more than 1,000 per cent" was levied, disproportionately affecting the poor and starving.
- National expense: The destruction process itself incurred national expenditure.
He viewed it as a "wicked dog-in-the-manger policy" that was morally unjust and economically harmful to the masses.
The British Raj initially underestimated the significance of Gandhi's "Salt March." On 12 March 1930, Gandhi began walking from his Sabarmati ashram. Three weeks later, upon reaching Dandi on the coast, he made a fistful of salt, symbolically breaking the law and becoming a criminal (Fig. 11.7 shows satyagrahis picking up salt). Parallel salt marches were held elsewhere.
Like Non-cooperation, the Civil Disobedience Movement included diverse protests beyond the official campaign: breaking forest laws, factory strikes, boycotts by lawyers and students. Gandhi's call resonated with various groups expressing discontent. The government responded with mass arrests (nearly 60,000, including Gandhi). (Source 4 is Gandhi's speech at Dandi).
Source 4. “Tomorrow we shall break the salt tax law”
On 5 April 1930, Mahatma Gandhi spoke at Dandi:
When I left Sabarmati with my companions for this seaside hamlet of Dandi, I was not certain in my mind that we would be allowed to reach this place. Even while I was at Sabarmati there was a rumour that I might be arrested. I had thought that the Government might perhaps let my party come as far as Dandi, but not me certainly. If someone says that this betrays imperfect faith on my part, I shall not deny the charge. That I have reached here is in no small measure due to the power of peace and non-violence: that power is universally felt. The Government may, if it wishes, congratulate itself on acting as it has done, for it could have arrested every one of us. In saying that it did not have the courage to arrest this army of peace, we praise it. It felt ashamed to arrest such an army. He is a civilised man who feels ashamed to do anything which his neighbours would disapprove. The Government deserves to be congratulated on not arresting us, even if it desisted only from fear of world opinion.
Tomorrow we shall break the salt tax law. Whether the Government will tolerate that is a different question. It may not tolerate it, but it deserves congratulations on the patience and forbearance it has displayed in regard to this party. …
What if I and all the eminent leaders in Gujarat and in the rest of the country are arrested? This movement is based on the faith that when a whole nation is roused and on the march no leader is necessary.
CWMG, VOL. 49
Answer:
From this speech, Gandhiji saw the colonial state as:
- Restrained (by peace and world opinion): He acknowledges that the government *could* have arrested them but chose not to, attributing this restraint partly to the power of peace and non-violence and partly to fear of world opinion. He suggests that the government felt "ashamed" to arrest such a non-violent group, framing this as a characteristic of a "civilised man" or a government concerned about its international reputation.
- Potentially Intolerant but Exhibiting Some Forbearance: While he says the government "may not tolerate" their law-breaking action the next day, he also congratulates them on their "patience and forbearance" shown towards the march up to that point. This suggests he saw the state as capable of both repression and a degree of restraint.
- Facing a Dilemma: As indicated in the newspaper report (Source 8), he believed that arresting him would lead to discontent, while not arresting him would allow the movement to spread, putting the government in a difficult position regardless of its action.
He viewed the state as a powerful entity, capable of violence and repression, but one that could also be influenced or restrained by moral force (non-violence) and external factors (world opinion). He doesn't portray it as inherently just, but as an entity whose actions can be judged and potentially influenced.
Police reports monitoring Gandhi's march reveal his speeches urging officials to resign and join the freedom struggle, incorporating social reform messages (serving untouchables, Hindu-Muslim unity). Police noted large attendance, volunteer recruitment, and officials resigning. American newsmagazine Time initially mocked Gandhi but later acknowledged the march's impact and called him a "Saint" and "Statesman."
Dialogues
The Salt March was significant for three main reasons: 1) It brought Gandhi international attention, widely covered by foreign press. 2) It was the first major nationalist activity with large-scale women's participation (Kamaladevi Chattopadhyay advocated for their inclusion). 3) It forced the British to recognise the need to eventually transfer power to Indians.
The British convened Round Table Conferences in London to discuss future governance. The first (Nov 1930) lacked key Indian leaders. Gandhi was released in Jan 1931 and negotiated the Gandhi-Irwin Pact (March 1931): civil disobedience ended, prisoners were released, and coastal salt manufacture was allowed. Radical nationalists criticised the pact for not securing political independence, only talks towards it.
Gandhi attended the Second Round Table Conference (late 1931) representing the Congress, but faced challenges to the Congress's claim to represent all Indians from the Muslim League (representing Muslims), Princes (representing their territories), and B.R. Ambedkar (representing lowest castes). (Source 5 & 6 are statements by Gandhi and Ambedkar on separate electorates).
Source 5. The problem with separate electorates
At the Round Table Conference Mahatma Gandhi stated his arguments against separate electorates for the Depressed Classes:
Separate electorates to the “Untouchables” will ensure them bondage in perpetuity … Do you want the “Untouchables” to remain “Untouchables” for ever? Well, the separate electorates would perpetuate the stigma. What is needed is destruction of “Untouchability”, and when you have done it, the barsinister, which has been imposed by an insolent “superior” class upon an “inferior” class will be destroyed. When you have destroyed the barsinister to whom will you give the separate electorates?
Answer:
In Source 5, Mahatma Gandhi argues against separate electorates for the Depressed Classes (those considered 'untouchable'). He believes such electorates would perpetuate untouchability, permanently segregating this group and preventing their integration into mainstream Hindu society. He argues that the focus should instead be on destroying untouchability itself, making separate electorates unnecessary once that is achieved.
In Source 6, B.R. Ambedkar argues *for* separate electorates for the Depressed Classes. He highlights their extreme social and economic vulnerability within Hindu society, calling them 'lepers' branded by their religion and entirely dependent on high-caste Hindus, with deliberate barriers preventing their advancement. He argues that given this "organised tyranny," some share of political power through separate electorates is a "paramount necessity" for the community to protect itself in the struggle for life.
The core difference lies in their approach to achieving equality and protection for the Depressed Classes. Gandhi believes that integration through the abolition of untouchability is the path, and separate electorates would hinder this. Ambedkar believes that given the deeply entrenched discrimination and oppression, political power obtained through separate electorates is essential as a means of self-protection and empowerment *before* true integration can be achieved. Gandhi focuses on social reform and moral transformation, while Ambedkar prioritizes political safeguards and representation for the vulnerable group.
Source 6. Ambedkar on separate electorates
Fig. 11.9 At the Second Round Table Conference, London, November 1931
Mahatma Gandhi opposed the demand for separate electorates for “lower castes”. He believed that this would prevent their integration into mainstream society and permanently segregate them from other caste Hindus.
In response to Mahatma Gandhi’s opposition to the demand for separate electorates for the Depressed Classes, Ambedkar wrote:
Here is a class which is undoubtedly not in a position to sustain itself in the struggle for existence. The religion, to which they are tied, instead of providing them an honourable place, brands them as lepers, not fit for ordinary intercourse. Economically, it is a class entirely dependent upon the high-caste Hindus for earning its daily bread with no independent way of living open to it. Nor are all ways closed by reason of the social prejudices of the Hindus but there is a definite attempt all through our Hindu Society to bolt every possible door so as not to allow the Depressed Classes any opportunity to rise in the scale of life.
In these circumstances, it would be granted by all fairminded persons that as the only path for a community so handicapped to succeed in the struggle for life against organised tyranny, some share of political power in order that it may protect itself is a paramount necessity …
FROM DR BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR, “WHAT CONGRESS AND GANDHI HAVE DONE TO THE UNTOUCHABLES”, WRITINGS AND SPEECHES, VOL. 9, P. 312
Answer:
See previous answer comparing Source 5 and 6.
The Conference was inconclusive. Gandhi resumed civil disobedience upon return. The new Viceroy, Lord Willingdon, was hostile to Gandhi, expressing scepticism about his motivations in private letters while noting his saintly image among superstitious Indians.
The Government of India Act of 1935 promised representative government. In 1937, the Congress won provincial elections based on a restricted franchise, forming ministries in 8 out of 11 provinces. The Second World War began in Sept 1939. Congress offered support if the British promised independence post-war. The offer was rejected. Congress ministries resigned (Fig. 11.10 shows Gandhi and Prasad before meeting Viceroy Linlithgow).
Individual satyagrahas were organised in 1940-41. The Muslim League passed a resolution for autonomy in Muslim-majority areas in March 1940, making the political struggle tripartite: Congress, Muslim League, British. Prime Minister Churchill, a staunch imperialist, resisted granting independence.
In 1942, Sir Stafford Cripps was sent to negotiate, but talks failed as Congress demanded an Indian Defence Member in the Viceroy's Executive Council if they were to help defend India against the Axis powers (Fig. 11.11 shows Gandhi with Cripps).
Quit India
After the Cripps Mission's failure, Mahatma Gandhi launched the Quit India campaign in August 1942. Despite his immediate arrest, younger activists organised widespread strikes and sabotage, with socialist Congress members like Jayaprakash Narayan active underground. "Independent" governments were declared in some districts (Satara, Medinipur). The British used force, taking over a year to suppress the rebellion. (Fig. 11.12 shows a women's procession during Quit India).
Quit India was a genuine mass movement, involving hundreds of thousands, particularly the youth who left colleges to join. However, while Congress leaders were jailed, the Muslim League expanded its influence, gaining ground in provinces where it had been weak (Punjab, Sind). (Source on Satara, 1943 describes a parallel government).
Satara, 1943
From the late 19th century, Maharashtra saw the growth of a non-Brahman movement opposing the caste system and landlordism. By the 1930s, it linked with the national movement. During the Quit India Movement, younger leaders in Satara district established a parallel government (prati sarkar) with volunteer corps (seba dals) and village units (tufan dals). This government ran people's courts and organised constructive work. Dominated by Kunbi peasants and supported by Dalits, the Satara prati sarkar operated until the 1946 elections despite repression and disapproval from the Congress in its later stages.
The Last Heroic Days
Gandhi was released in June 1944. Later that year, he met Jinnah to bridge the gap between Congress and the League. In 1945, a Labour government in Britain committed to granting independence. Viceroy Lord Wavell convened talks between Congress and the League.
Provincial elections in early 1946 showed complete political polarisation: Congress won most "General" seats, while the League overwhelmingly won seats reserved for Muslims. The Cabinet Mission (summer 1946) failed to achieve agreement on a federal system to keep India united. After talks failed, Jinnah called for "Direct Action Day" (16 August 1946) to press for Pakistan. Bloody riots erupted, spreading across the subcontinent, with both Hindus and Muslims suffering.
In February 1947, Lord Mountbatten replaced Wavell. His final talks proved inconclusive, leading him to announce that British India would be freed but also divided, with power transfer set for 15 August. Independence Day was celebrated across India. In Delhi, Gandhi was invoked as the Father of the Nation amidst cheers. (Fig. 11.13 shows Gandhi with Nehru and Patel, mediating within the Congress).
Mahatma Gandhi did not participate in the independence festivities in Delhi or Calcutta on 15 August 1947. He marked the day with a fast, grieving the nation's division and communal violence. He worked tirelessly in riot-torn areas, appealing for peace and unity between Hindus and Muslims (Fig. 11.14 shows him on the way to a riot-torn village).
Congress, despite accepting Partition, affirmed India as a secular state protecting all citizens' rights regardless of religion, contrasting with the situation in Pakistan. Many consider this period Gandhi's "finest hour" for his peace efforts. In Delhi, his meetings faced disruption from refugees angry about his focus on Muslim suffering, questioning why he didn't address Hindu/Sikh plight in Pakistan, though he was equally concerned.
An assassination attempt occurred on 20 January 1948, but Gandhi was undaunted. On 26 January, he spoke of the disillusionment despite freedom, hoping for equality among all communities and friendly relations between India and Pakistan, despite the division. He advocated for a free and united India throughout his life but, post-Partition, urged mutual respect between the two nations.
On 30 January 1948, Nathuram Godse shot Gandhi dead during his prayer meeting. His death caused immense grief globally. Tributes poured in. Time magazine compared his martyrdom to Abraham Lincoln's, both killed by bigots for believing in equality (Lincoln for race, Gandhi for faith). (Fig. 11.15 is a popular print depicting Gandhi's death and his unifying influence).
Knowing Gandhi
Reconstructing Mahatma Gandhi's political career and the history of the nationalist movement involves drawing on a variety of sources.
Public Voice And Private Scripts
Writings and speeches by Gandhi and his contemporaries (associates and opponents) are crucial. Speeches reveal an individual's public stance, while private letters offer glimpses into personal thoughts, emotions, and anxieties. However, the public/private distinction can be blurred, as letters might be written with potential publication in mind, or fear of publication might limit frankness. Gandhi regularly published letters in his journal Harijan, and Nehru published a collection of letters in A Bunch of Old Letters (Source 7 provides excerpts from letters between Nehru, Rajendra Prasad, and Gandhi).
Source 7. One event through letters
In the 1920s, Jawaharlal Nehru was increasingly influenced by socialism, and he returned from Europe in 1928 deeply impressed with the Soviet Union. As he began working closely with the socialists (Jayaprakash Narayan, Narendra Dev, N.G. Ranga and others), a rift developed between the socialists and the conservatives within the Congress. After becoming the Congress President in 1936, Nehru spoke passionately against fascism, and upheld the demands of workers and peasants.
Worried by Nehru’s socialist rhetoric, the conservatives, led by Rajendra Prasad and Sardar Patel, threatened to resign from the Working Committee, and some prominent industrialists in Bombay issued a statement attacking Nehru. Both Prasad and Nehru turned to Mahatma Gandhi and met him at his ashram at Wardha. The latter acted as the mediator, as he often did, restraining Nehru’s radicalism and persuading Prasad and others to see the significance of Nehru’s leadership.
In A Bunch of Old Letters, 1958, Nehru reprinted many of the letters that were exchanged at the time.
Read the extracts in the following pages.
My Dear Bapu,
I arrived here last night. Ever since I left Wardha I have been feeling weak in body and troubled in mind.
… Since my return from Europe, I found that meetings of the Working Committee exhaust me greatly; they have a devitalising effect on me and I have almost the feeling of being older in years after every fresh experience …
I am grateful to you for all the trouble you took in smoothing over matters and in helping to avoid a crisis.
I read again Rajendra Babu’s letter to me (the second one) and his formidable indictment of me ... For however tenderly the fact may be stated, it amounts to this that I am an intolerable nuisance and the very qualities I possess – a measure of ability, energy, earnestness, some personality which has a vague appeal – become dangerous for they are harnessed to the wrong chariot (socialism). The conclusion from all this is obvious.
I have written at length, both in my book and subsequently, about my present ideas. There is no lack of material for me to be judged. Those views are not casual. They are part of me, and though I might change them or vary them in future, so long as I hold them I must give expression to them. Because I attached importance to a larger unity I tried to express them in the mildest way possible and more as an invitation to thought than as fixed conclusions. I saw no conflict in this approach and in anything that the Congress was doing. So far as the elections were concerned I felt that my approach was a definite asset to us as it enthused the masses. But my approach, mild and vague as it was, is considered dangerous and harmful by my colleagues. I was even told that my laying stress always on the poverty and unemployment in India was unwise, or at any rate the way I did it was wrong …
You told me that you intended issuing some kind of a statement. I shall welcome this for I believe in every viewpoint being placed before the country.
Yours affectionately
Jawaharlal
Allahabad, July 5, 1936
My dear Jawaharlalji,
Since we parted yesterday we have had a long conversation with Mahatmaji and a prolonged consultation among ourselves. We understand that you have felt much hurt by the course of action taken by us and particularly the tone of our letter has caused you much pain. It was never our intention either to embarrass you or to hurt you and if you had suggested or indictated that it hurt you we would have without the least hesitation amended or altered the letter. But we have decided to withdraw it and our resignation on a reconsideration of the whole situation.
We have felt that in all your utterances as published in the Press you have been speaking not so much on the general Congress programme as on a topic which has not been accepted by the Congress and in doing so you have been acting more as the mouthpiece of the minority of our colleagues on the Working Committee as also on the Congress than the mouthpiece of the majority which we expected you as Congress President to do.
There is regular continuous campaign against us treating us as persons whose time is over, who represent and stand for ideas that are worn out and that have no present value, who are only obstructing the progress of the country and who deserve to be cast out of the positions which they undeservedly hold … we have felt that a great injustice has been and is being done to us by others, and we are not receiving the protection we are entitled from you as our colleague and as our President …
Yours sincerely
Rajendra Prasad
Wardha, July 1, 1936
From A Bunch of Old Letters
Dear Jawaharlal,
Your letter is touching. You feel the most injured party. The fact is that your colleagues have lacked your courage and frankness. The result has been disastrous. I have always pleaded with them to speak to you freely and fearlessly. But having lacked the courage, whenever they have spoken they have done it clumsily and you have felt irritated. I tell you they have dreaded you, because of your irritability and impatience with them. They have chafed under your rebukes and magisterial manner and above all your arrogation of what has appeared to them your infallibility and superior knowledge. They feel you have treated them with scant courtesy and never defended them from socialist ridicule and even misrepresentation.
I have looked at the whole affair as a tragi-comedy. I would therefore like you to look at the whole thing in a lighter vein.
I suggested your name for the crown of thorns (Presidentship of the Congress). Keep it on, though the head be bruised. Resume your humour at the committee meetings. That is your most usual role, not that of care-worn, irritable man ready to burst on the slightest occasion.
How I wish you could telegraph me that on finishing my letter you felt as merry as you were on that new year’s day in Lahore when you were reported to have danced around the tricolour flag.
You must give your throat a chance.
Love
Bapu
Segaon, July 15, 1936
Answer:
(a) The letters reveal tensions and differing viewpoints within the Congress regarding its direction and ideology. Nehru's letter shows a push towards incorporating socialist ideas (stressing poverty, unemployment, advocating socialism) and aligning with global anti-fascist movements, suggesting a move towards a more radical and economically progressive stance. Prasad's letter reflects the views of the conservative wing, who felt Nehru's emphasis on socialism went beyond the accepted Congress program and that he was not adequately representing the majority view. This indicates that Congress ideals were not monolithic but were developing and being debated, particularly between traditional nationalist approaches and newer socialist influences.
(b) The letters reveal Mahatma Gandhi's crucial role as a central mediator and unifying figure within the national movement and the Congress leadership. Both Nehru and Prasad turn to "Bapu" (Gandhi) during a crisis, seeking his intervention and guidance. Gandhi's letter confirms he is actively trying to resolve the conflict ("smoothing over matters," "helping to avoid a crisis," "pleaded with them"). He is portrayed as someone who understands the personalities and tensions within the leadership ("dreaded you because of your irritability"). He uses his moral authority and personal relationships ("My dear Jawaharlalji," "Dear Jawaharlal," "Love Bapu") to restrain radicalism (Nehru's) and persuade the conservatives (Prasad and others), demonstrating his indispensable role in holding together the disparate factions within the Congress.
(c) Yes, such private letters provide special insights into the working of the Congress and the nature of the national movement that are not readily available in official accounts or public speeches. They reveal:
- Internal Tensions and Debates: The letters expose the existence of ideological rifts and personal frictions among top leaders, showing that the Congress was not a perfectly unified body.
- Mahatma Gandhi's Behind-the-Scenes Influence: They highlight Gandhi's vital role as a resolver of conflicts and a binding force, often working behind the scenes to mediate disputes and maintain unity.
- Personal Dynamics of Leadership: The tone and language used (Nehru's expression of being "hurt" and "troubled," Prasad's description of feeling wronged, Gandhi's understanding of Nehru's "irritability") provide glimpses into the personal relationships and dynamics among leaders, which influenced political decisions.
- Authenticity of Sentiment: While conscious of potential publication, private letters are often more candid in expressing feelings (hurt, irritation, dread, desire for unity) than formal public statements.
These insights demonstrate that the national movement, while presenting a united front publicly, was a complex process involving internal negotiations, ideological struggles, and the crucial role of personal relationships and mediation by figures like Gandhi.
Framing A Picture
Autobiographies are another rich source, offering detailed personal accounts of the past. However, they are retrospective, written from memory, and selectively highlight what the author considers important or wants to convey about their life. They are a way of 'framing' a specific image of oneself. Historians need to read autobiographies critically, considering potential biases, selective memory, and intentional or unintentional omissions ('silences') to understand the author's perspective and purpose.
Through Police Eyes
Government records provide a different perspective. The colonial rulers kept close surveillance on those perceived as threats. Letters and reports by police and officials, initially secret, are now accessible in archives. Fortnightly reports from the Home Department (early 20th century) exemplify this (Source 8 provides excerpts from these reports on the Salt March period).
These reports, based on local police information, often reflect the higher officials' views or desired narratives. During the Salt March, they initially downplayed public enthusiasm, portraying the march as theatrical and ineffective. They sought to reassure themselves that fears of rebellion were unwarranted and that the masses were not genuinely against British rule (Fig. 11.16 shows a police clash, potentially contrasting with the police reports' narrative).
From Newspapers
Contemporary newspapers, in English and Indian languages, are also important sources. They reported on Gandhi's activities and public opinion. However, newspapers had their own political biases and worldviews, shaping what was reported and how. Reports in a London newspaper would differ significantly from those in an Indian nationalist paper.
Newspaper accounts should be read with caution. They don't always represent ground reality literally but can reflect the fears, anxieties, or propaganda efforts of the publishers or sources (e.g., worried officials). They are valuable for understanding public discourse and perceptions, but need critical interpretation and comparison with other sources.
Source 8. Fortnightly Reports of the Home Department (Confidential)
FOR THE FIRST HALF OF MARCH 1930
The rapid political developments in Gujarat are being closely watched here. To what extent and in what directions they will affect political condition in this province, it is difficult to surmise at present. The peasantry is for the moment engaged in harvesting a good rabi; students are pre-occupied with their impending examinations.
Central Provinces and Berar
The arrest of Mr. Vallabh Bhai Patel caused little excitement, except in Congress circles, but a meeting organised by the Nagpur Nagar Congress Committee to congratulate Gandhi on the start of his march was attended by a crowd of over 3000 people at Nagpur.
Bengal
The outstanding event of the past fortnight has been the start of Gandhi’s campaign of civil disobedience. Mr. J.M. Sengupta has formed an All-Bengal Civil Disobedience Council, and the Bengal Provincial Congress Committee has formed an All Bengal Council of Disobedience. But beyond forming councils no active steps have yet been taken in the matter of civil disobedience in Bengal.
The reports from the districts show that the meetings that have been held excite little or no interest and leave no profound impression on the general population. It is noticeable, however, that ladies are attending these meetings in increasing numbers.
Bihar and Orissa
There is still little to report regarding Congress activity. There is a good deal of talk about a campaign to withhold payment of the chaukidari tax, but no area has yet been selected for experiment. The arrest of Gandhi is being foretold freely but it seems quite possible that nonfulfilment of the forecast is upsetting plans.
Madras
The opening of Gandhi’s civil disobedience campaign has completely overshadowed all other issues. General opinion inclines to regard his march as theatrical and his programme as impracticable, but as he is held in such personal reverence by the Hindu public generally, the possibility of arrest which he seems deliberately to be courting and its effect on the political situation are viewed with considerable misgiving.
The 12th of March was celebrated as the day of inaugurating the civil disobedience campaign. In Bombay the celebrations took the form of saluting the national flag in the morning.
Bombay
Press Kesari indulged in offensive language and in its usual attitude of blowing hot and cold wrote: “If the Government wants to test the power of Satyagraha, both its action and inaction will cause injury to it. If it arrests Gandhi it will incur the discontent of the nation; if it does not do that, the movement of civil disobedience will go on spreading. We therefore say that if the Government punishes Mr. Gandhi the nation will have won a victory, and if it lets him alone it will have won a still greater victory.”
On the other hand the moderate paper Vividh Vritt pointed out the futility of the movement and opined that it could not achieve the end in view. It, however, reminded the government that repression would defeat its purpose.
FOR THE SECOND HALF OF MARCH 1930
Bengal
Interest has continued to centre round Gandhi’s march to the sea and the arrangements which he is making to initiate a campaign of civil disobedience. The extremist papers report his doings and speeches at great length and make a great display of the various meetings that are being held throughout Bengal and the resolutions passed thereat. But there is little enthusiasm for the form of civil disobedience favoured by Gandhi …
Generally people are waiting to see what happens to Gandhi and the probability is that if any action is taken against him, a spark will be set to much inflammable material in Bengal. But the prospect of any serious conflagration is at present slight.
Central Provinces and Berar
In Nagpur these meetings were well attended and most of the schools and colleges were deserted on the 12th March to mark the inauguration of Gandhi’s march.
The boycott of liquor shops and the infringement of forest laws appear to be the most probable line of attack.
Punjab
It seems not improbable that organised attempts will be made to break the Salt Law in the Jhelum district; that the agitation relating to the non-payment of the water-tax in Multan will be revived; and that some movement in connection with the National Flag will be started probably at Gujranwala.
United Provinces
Political activity has undoubtedly intensified during the last fortnight. The Congress party feels that it must do something spectacular to sustain public interest. Enrolment of volunteers, propaganda in villages, preparations for breaking the salt laws on receipt of Mr. Gandhi’s orders are reported from a number of districts.
FOR THE FIRST HALF OF APRIL 1930
United Provinces
Events have moved rapidly during the fortnight. Apart from political meetings, processions and the enrolment of volunteers, the Salt Act has been openly defied at Agra, Cawnpore, Benaras, Allahabad, Lucknow, Meerut, Rae Bareli, Farukhabad, Etawah, Ballia and Mainpuri. Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru was arrested at Cheoki railway station early on the morning of April 14 as he was proceeding to the Central Provinces to attend a meeting of Youth League. He was at once taken direct to Naini Central Jail, where he was tried and sentenced to six months simple imprisonment.
Bihar and Orissa
There have been, or are now materialising, spectacular, but small-scale, attempts at illicit salt manufacture in a few places …
Central Provinces
In Jubbalpore Seth Govinddass has attempted to manufacture chemical salt at a cost many times in excess of the market price of clean salt.
Madras
Considerable opposition was shown at Vizagapatam to the Police when they attempted to seize salt made by boiling sea water, but elsewhere resistance to the seizure of illicit salt has been half hearted.
Bengal
In the mufassal efforts have been made to manufacture illicit salt, the main operation areas being the districts of 24-Parganas and Midnapore.
Very little salt has actually been manufactured and most of it has been confiscated and the utensils in which it was manufactured destroyed.
Answer:
(1) The nature of the source (confidential reports from the colonial Home Department) significantly affects what is being said. These reports were internal documents meant for government eyes, aimed at assessing the political situation and planning responses. They are cautious ("difficult to surmise"), sometimes dismissive of nationalist efforts ("little enthusiasm," "little or no interest," "leave no profound impression," "theatrical," "impracticable"), and concerned with potential threats ("spark will be set to much inflammable material," "prospect of any serious conflagration"). They prioritise maintaining law and order and assessing the effectiveness of control measures. Quotes illustrating this: "difficult to surmise at present," "meetings ... excite little or no interest," "regarded his march as theatrical and his programme as impracticable," "prospect of any serious conflagration is at present slight." The reports reveal the government's attempt to downplay the movement's significance publicly while internally monitoring its spread and potential for trouble.
(2) The Home Department was continuously reporting on what people thought about the possibility of Mahatma Gandhi's arrest because they understood his immense personal influence and the potential for his arrest to ignite widespread unrest. As noted in the Madras report, he was held in "personal reverence by the Hindu public generally," making his arrest a matter of "considerable misgiving" for the authorities. They needed to gauge the likely public reaction to prepare for repression or consider alternative strategies. Rereading Gandhi's speech (Source 4), he himself anticipates the possibility ("I was not certain in my mind that we would be allowed to reach this place," "rumour that I might be arrested") and addresses it directly, asserting that the movement is based on the faith that "when a whole nation is roused and on the march no leader is necessary," suggesting that his arrest would not halt the movement but potentially empower the masses further. The Home Department's focus on this reflects their awareness of this dynamic and the dilemma it posed.
(3) Mahatma Gandhi was likely not arrested immediately (until April) because the government was hesitant about the potential fallout. As indicated in the Bombay press report (quoted in Source 8), arresting him could "incur the discontent of the nation," leading to wider protests. Letting him continue allowed the movement to spread, but arresting him risked turning him into a martyr and unleashing even more intense resistance. The government was in a Catch-22 situation and was trying to assess the level of risk and public mood before taking action. They might have hoped the movement would fizzle out on its own or were waiting for the opportune moment to act while minimising repercussions, possibly influenced by concerns about international opinion ("fear of world opinion" as mentioned by Gandhi in Source 4).
(4) The Home Department likely continued to say that the march was not evoking much response, despite evidence to the contrary (well-attended meetings, schools/colleges deserted, definite acts of defiance reported from multiple districts in later reports), for several reasons:
- Self-Reassurance: It was a way for the colonial administration to reassure itself that the situation was under control and that the challenge was not as significant as it appeared.
- Maintaining Confidence: Reporting low enthusiasm helped maintain confidence within the administration and potentially among the British public or moderate elements in India.
- Downplaying the Movement: By portraying it as theatrical or limited to Congress circles, they tried to delegitimise the movement and reduce the perceived threat it posed to British authority.
- Bureaucratic Bias: Official reports can sometimes reflect what higher-ups want to hear or reinforce existing biases within the system.
Despite the later reports showing increasing activity and defiance, the initial narrative of low enthusiasm might have persisted due to these factors.
Fig. 11.17 shows a popular print depicting Gandhi as a towering central figure within the tree of nationalism, surrounded by smaller images of other leaders and sages. This visual indicates how he was perceived and represented by the common people and in popular media – as the spiritual and unifying force of the national movement, elevated to an almost divine status ('Mahatma'), around whom all other nationalist figures orbit.