Nationalism in India

The First World War created a new economic and political situation in India. It led to a huge increase in defence expenditure, which was financed by war loans and increasing taxes, customs duties, and income tax. This led to extreme hardship for the common people. Forced recruitment in rural areas caused widespread anger. Crop failures in many parts of India, coupled with an influenza epidemic, resulted in millions of deaths. All these factors intensified resentment against the British and helped in the growth of the nationalist movement.

Mahatma Gandhi's idea of 'Satyagraha' emphasised the power of truth and the need to search for truth. It suggested that if the cause was true, if the struggle was against injustice, then physical force was not necessary to fight the oppressor. Without seeking vengeance or being aggressive, a satyagrahi could win the battle through non-violence. This could be done by appealing to the conscience of the oppressor, persuading them to see the truth instead of forcing them to accept truth through the use of violence.

The Rowlatt Act (1919) was hurriedly passed through the Imperial Legislative Council despite the united opposition of the Indian members. It gave the government enormous powers to repress political activities, and allowed detention of political prisoners without trial for two years. This was seen as a tyrannical and unjust law by Indians, who felt their basic rights were being violated. Gandhiji called for a nationwide satyagraha against this 'black law'.

The main aim of the Khilafat Movement was to defend the temporal powers of the Ottoman Emperor (the Khalifa), who was the spiritual head of the Islamic world. A Khilafat Committee was formed in Bombay in March 1919 by Muhammad Ali and Shaukat Ali. Mahatma Gandhi saw this as an opportunity to bring Muslims under the umbrella of a unified national movement. By supporting the Khilafat cause, Gandhi aimed to foster Hindu-Muslim unity, which he considered crucial for any mass movement against British rule.

Mahatma Gandhi decided to withdraw the Non-Cooperation Movement in February 1922 because of the Chauri Chaura incident. In Chauri Chaura (Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh), a peaceful demonstration in a bazaar turned into a violent clash with the police. The agitated crowd set fire to a police station, killing several policemen. Gandhiji felt that the movement was turning violent in many places and that satyagrahis needed to be properly trained before they could be ready for mass struggles.

The Non-Cooperation Movement unfolded in several stages:

• Surrender of Titles and Honours: The movement began with the surrender of titles that the government had awarded and a boycott of civil services, army, police, courts, and legislative councils, schools, and foreign goods.
• Boycott of Foreign Goods: Foreign cloth was burnt in huge bonfires, liquor shops were picketed, and foreign goods were boycotted. This led to a significant drop in the import of foreign cloth.
• Promotion of Swadeshi: As the boycott movement spread, people began discarding imported clothes and wearing only Indian ones, leading to an increase in the production of Indian textile mills and handlooms.
• Boycott of Institutions: Many students and teachers left government-controlled schools and colleges. Lawyers gave up their legal practices.

The movement gradually slowed down in the cities for several reasons:

• Lack of Alternatives: Khadi cloth was often more expensive than mill-produced foreign cloth, and poor people could not afford to buy it. Similarly, the boycott of British institutions posed a problem as there were no Indian alternatives (e.g., educational institutions, courts) for them to join.
• Limited Impact on Professions: Students and teachers began trickling back to government schools, and lawyers joined back work in government courts as they faced a dilemma without alternative institutions or job opportunities.
• Loss of Enthusiasm: The initial enthusiasm for the boycott wore off as economic hardship and lack of alternatives became apparent.

The Salt March became an effective tool of resistance against British rule because:

• Symbolic Significance: Salt was a vital food item consumed by everyone, rich and poor alike. The British monopoly over its production and the imposition of a tax on salt was seen as the most oppressive aspect of British rule. Gandhi's choice of salt as a symbol highlighted the exploitative nature of colonial laws.
• Mass Mobilisation: The Salt March was a highly visible and public act of defiance. Gandhi's journey from Sabarmati Ashram to Dandi with thousands of followers generated immense publicity and united various sections of society.
• Direct Challenge to Authority: By deliberately breaking the Salt Law, Gandhi directly challenged British authority and encouraged widespread civil disobedience, inspiring people across the country to violate other colonial laws.
• International Attention: The march garnered international attention, putting pressure on the British government.

Main features of the Civil Disobedience Movement:

• Breaking Colonial Laws: People were now asked not only to refuse cooperation with the British but also to break colonial laws, starting with the Salt Law.
• Widespread Participation: Thousands broke the salt law, manufactured salt, and demonstrated in front of government salt factories.
• Boycott of Foreign Goods and Institutions: Foreign cloth and liquor shops were picketed. Peasants refused to pay revenue and chaukidari taxes. Village officials resigned.
• Forest Laws Violation: In many places, forest people violated forest laws by going into Reserved Forests to collect wood and graze cattle.
• Women's Participation: Women participated in large numbers in protests, manufacturing salt, and picketing foreign cloth and liquor shops.
• Industrial Workers' Involvement: Railway workers, dockworkers, and other industrial workers also participated in strikes and protests.

Different social groups participated in the Civil Disobedience Movement with their own specific aspirations:

• Rich Peasants (Patidars of Gujarat and Jats of Uttar Pradesh):
  • Aspirations: Were hard hit by the trade depression and falling prices. They demanded reduction of revenue.
  • Participation: Actively participated, organised their communities, and sometimes forced reluctant members to participate in boycotts. For them, the fight for Swaraj was a struggle against high revenues.
• Poor Peasants:
  • Aspirations: Wanted unpaid rent to landlords to be remitted. Many were small tenants cultivating land they had rented from landlords.
  • Participation: Joined radical movements often led by Socialists and Communists, driven by a desire for rent reduction. Their relationship with the Congress was often uncertain due to Congress's reluctance to support 'no-rent' campaigns for fear of alienating rich peasants and landlords.
• Business Classes:
  • Aspirations: Wanted protection against imports of foreign goods and a rupee-sterling foreign exchange ratio that would discourage imports. They formed organisations like the Indian Industrial and Commercial Congress (1920) and the Federation of the Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industries (FICCI) in 1927.
  • Participation: Supported the movement, gave financial assistance, and refused to buy or sell imported goods. For them, Swaraj meant an end to colonial restrictions on trade and industry.
• Industrial Working Classes:
  • Aspirations: Demanded better wages, working conditions, and rights against exploitation.
  • Participation: Did not participate in large numbers except in the Nagpur region. Some workers selectively adopted aspects of the Gandhian programme, like boycotts of foreign goods. Railway workers and dockworkers went on strikes.
• Women:
  • Aspirations: Saw service to the nation as a sacred duty.
  • Participation: Participated in large numbers, especially during the Salt March. They picketed liquor shops, boycotted foreign cloth, and marched in protests. For many, this was a radical break from traditional roles.