The Civil Disobedience Movement – Part 1

Regarding the Hindu-Muslim relations, the temporary entente generated during the Khilafat agitation vanished completely. A series of communal riots broke out in 1923 and with occasional intervals continued to be almost a regular feature of Indian political life. As a consequence, the Muslim League grew in power and revived the old ideas of Sir Syed Muhamad. The Congress, under the leadership of Gandhi was still living in its ivory tower; it did not take sufficient measure of the magnitude and character of the communal problem and underestimated the power and position of the Muslim League. It continued ignoring the Muslim League and tried to rally some Nationalists Muslims as a counterpoise to the League. The result was a total failure and ultimately led to the total alienation of the Muslim League, thus paving the way for the creation of Pakistan.

The slump of political activity and the almost fatal inertia that overtook the nation was fortunately removed by an action of the British Government by the appointment of the Simon Commission in 1928.

The Simon Comission

The Government of India Act, 1919, had a provision that after ten years a Commission should be set up to review the reforms leading to an increase of responsible government by Indians. The Indian leaders had made many attempts to hasten the process with no success whatsoever. But suddenly on November 8 1927, the British Prime Minister sprang a surprise by announcing the decision to constitute a Commission. This Commission was to be composed entirely of members from Britain and quite inevitably leaders all over India received the announcement with disappointment and indignation. It was unanimously decided to boycott the Commission. The Congress party announced a series of measures to make the boycott effective. These included:

• Mass demonstrations all over India on the day the Commission set foot in this country;
• Refusal of legislatures to elect committees to cooperate with the Commission;
• Social boycott of the members of the Commission.

The Congress Party’s boycott was a tremendous success. On February 3,1928, on the day of arrival of the Commission in Bombay, complete hartal was observed and huge demonstrations marched with black flags carrying banners with the words “Go back, Simon”. On February 16, 1928, the Congress Working Committee moved a resolution stating that it would have nothing to do with the Commission. Later when the Commission arrived at the Lahore Railway station, Lala Lajpat Rai was assaulted by the police in the general melee against thousands of people who had assembled to protest against the Simon Commission. A few days later on the 17^th November 1928, Lala Lajpat Rai died. It is generally believed that the assault was the cause of his death.

The Nehru Constitution

One of the consequences of the Simon Commission was that the Indian leaders decided to formulate an Indian Constitution acceptable to all political parties. This idea was taken up at the Congress session of 1927 in Madras. As a result, a committee headed by Pandit Motilal Nehru was set up. An All Parties Conference met at Lucknow in August 1928 where a constitution was framed and was accepted by the Congress Party. However, when the All Parties Convention met later in December, it was not accepted by the Muslim League, which was headed by Mohammed Ali Jinnah.  Jinnah made new demands and put them forward in the form of amendments, which were lost. Jinnah then left the convention in protest. He then joined the Muslim leaders who did not see eye-to-eye with the Congress and on January 1 1929 held an All India Muslim Conference where he issued a manifesto of Muslim claims. This formed the basis of his fourteen demands later.

Jinnah began his political career in the school of Gokhale and was an adherent of the Congress till 1920-21. He was an able debater and a top rank political leader. However, he could not understand the mysticism of Gandhi, which was a mystery to him; but at the same time he was opposed to the reactionary Muslim parties. Not finding himself comfortable in Indian politics, he left for England to settle in that country. Jinnah returned to Indian politics in 1928, a completely changed man and gave a completely new turn to Indian politics. What made him return and the causes of his change are not clear. It is suggested in some quarters that he was piqued by the Congress attitude towards him. His abilities as a parliamentarian and organiser soon brought him into the forefront and he became the leader of the Muslim League.

The Declaration of Independence

However, the very fact that a new constitution was drafted led to the sentiment of independence gaining ground. The people of India wanted complete independence and this was echoed in the annual session of the Indian National Congress in 1928 in Calcutta. However, Gandhi was unwilling to go that far and suggested as a compromise that Dominion Status be accepted with the proviso that the British should accept the Nehru Constitution before the end of 1929. Subhas Bose and Jawaharlal Nehru were not happy with the compromise proposed by Gandhi but eventually had to submit. Thus the Nehru Constitution got a decent burial. In its reply to the demands of the Congress, the British government led by Lord Irwin declared that Dominion Status was the maximum that the government would concede. The Congress then decided to declare Complete Independence in the Lahore session in December 1929. On the 31^st December 1929, Jawaharlal Nehru who was the President of the Congress rose and led a solemn procession to the banks of the Ravi. There he raised India’s national flag amid deafening cries of ‘Inquilab Zindabad’. Two days later the Congress Working Committee met and decided that 26 January 1930 should be observed as the day of Purna Swaraj. On that day a declaration written by Gandhiji was read out all over India. This document begins with these words: “We believe that it is the inalienable right of the Indian people, as of any other people, to have freedom and enjoy the fruits of their toil and have the necessities of life, so that they may have full opportunities of growth. We believe also that if any government deprives a people of these rights and oppresses them, the people have a further right to alter it or to abolish it. The British Government in India has not only deprived the Indian people of their freedom but has based itself on the exploitation of the masses, and has ruined India economically, politically, culturally and spiritually. We believe therefore that India must sever the British connection and attain Purna Swaraj or Complete Independence”. At the same time the Congress definitely rejected the recommendations of the Nehru Committee on the communal problem. In a resolution the Congress party stated: “Regarding the communal question, the Congress believing that in an independent India, the communal question can only be solved on strictly national lines. But as the Sikhs in particular, and the Muslims and the other minorities in general, had expressed dissatisfaction over the solution of communal questions, proposed by the Nehru report, this Congress assures the Sikhs, the Muslims and other minorities that no solution thereof in any future constitution will be acceptable to the Congress that does not give full satisfaction to the parties concerned.”

This gave the minorities the power of veto on any solution to the communal problem. It should have been evident that a settlement, which would ‘give full satisfaction to the parties concerned’ was almost impossible. This stand made all future negotiations very difficult as it put a premium on the intransigence of the minorities.

The Civil Disobedience Movement

Some time later, the Congress Working Committee proclaimed: “We hold it to be a crime against man and God to submit to a rule that has caused this fourfold disaster to our country. … We will therefore prepare ourselves by withdrawing so far as we can all voluntary association from the British Government and will prepare for Civil Disobedience, including non-payment of taxes. We therefore hereby solemnly resolve to carry out Congress instructions issued from time to time for the purpose of establishing Purna Swaraj”.   Thus the Civil Disobedience Movement was started. Gandhi was placed in charge of the movement. He decided to begin with a march from his Ashram near Ahmedabad to the seaside village of Dandi. But then something strange happened. Before the ink with which this manifesto was written had time to dry, Gandhi wrote something in his paper Young India that practically sabotaged the whole thing. Instead of demanding complete independence, he listed eleven administrative reforms and appealed to the Viceroy in the following words: “ This is by no means an exhaustive list of pressing needs, but let the Viceroy satisfy us with regard to these very simple but vital needs of India. He will then hear no talk of civil Disobedience; and the Congress will heartily participate in any Conference where there is perfect freedom of expression and demand”.

However that might be, the whole country was agog with excitement over the Civil Disobedience Movement. All eyes were turned towards the Sabarmati Ashram for Gandhi to determine the hour, place and the precise issue on which the movement would be launched. On March 2, Gandhi wrote a letter to the Viceroy communicating his decision. In this letter he again reiterated the eleven points and asked for immediate removal of these evils. Jawaharlal Nehru was perplexed. He remarked: “What was the point of making a list of our political and social reforms when we were talking in terms of Independence?” But the die was cast and on 12 March the Civil Disobedience Movement was launched. On that day, Gandhi with 79 male and female members left Sabarmati on foot and reached Dandi on 5 April. It was a veritable triumphal progress. The villagers flocked from all sides, sprinkled the roads, strewed leaves on them, and as the pilgrims passed, sank on their knees. Early on the morning of 6 April, Gandhi and his party dipped into the seawater, returned to the beach and picked up some salt left by the waves. It was a technical breach of law but the way the whole thing was managed was of great significance. The slow march over 241 miles in 24 days with full publicity to the world that it was a deliberate act of defiance of the mighty British Government, made a profound appeal to both leaders and masses all over the world. It was a signal to the nation and as a result salt laws were broken all over the country. It is evident that this plan of a slow march was a grand conception and was superbly executed with consummate skill. At first the Government looked upon the whole thing with ridicule and contempt. The Statesman remarked: “the Mahatma could go on boiling seawater till Dominion Status was attained”. But soon this attitude was changed to nervous apprehensiveness. The movement had caught fire and soon the whole country was resorting to an intense and peaceful agitation. The Government responded with brutal repression.

The Struggle at Dharsana

Gandhi then took his next step. He decided to raid the Salt Depot of Dharsana in Surat District. As usual a letter to the Viceroy requesting him to remove the salt tax and the prohibition on private salt making preceded this. But before Gandhi could set out for Dharsana, he was arrested; Abbas Tyabji took his place but he too was arrested. Then Sarojini Naidu hurried to Dharsana and directed the raid on the Salt Depot.

An important offshoot of this movement was the special appeal Gandhi made to the women of India to take up the work of picketing and spinning. The effect was miraculous. Thousands of women responded and even women of orthodox and aristocratic families offered themselves for arrest and imprisonment. Many foreign tourists were greatly impressed by the great change that had taken place on the women of India, almost overnight. This emancipation of women in India was one of the great contributions of the Movement. The first raid led by Sarojini Naidu took place on 21 May, but the most demonstrative raid took place on 1 June.  

Here is an extract of the events that took place as recorded by Webb Miller, Foreign correspondent of the United Press, U.S.A.: “Mrs Naidu called for prayer before the march started and the entire assemblage knelt. She exhorted them: ‘Gandhi’s body is in jail but his soul is with you. India’s prestige is in your hands, you must not use any violence under any circumstances. You will be beaten but you must not resist; you must not even raise a hand to ward off blows’.

Slowly the throng commenced the half-mile to the salt deposits. Ditches filled with water and guarded by four hundred native Police commanded by a half dozen British officials surrounded the salt deposits. In complete silence the Gandhi men drew up and halted a hundred yards from the stockade. The police officials ordered the marchers to disperse. The column of men ignored the warning and slowly walked forward.

“Suddenly at a word of command, scores of police rounded up the advancing marchers and rained blows on their heads with their steel-shod lathis. They went down like ten-pins. Not one of the members raised their arms to fend the blows. Those struck down fell sprawling, unconscious or writhing in pain with fractured skulls or broken shoulders. In two or three minutes the ground was quilted with bodies. Great patches of blood whitened their white clothes. The survivors without breaking ranks silently and doggedly marched on until struck down. When everyone of the first column had been knocked down, stretcher-bearers rushed up unmolested by the Police and carried of the injured to a thatched hut which had been arranged as a temporary hospital.”

This is just a brief description but this kind of scene was enacted in other places too in the country. All in all, the repression was strong and brutal. The Congress was declared illegal; Gandhi and other leaders were arrested. Over a hundred thousand persons were put in jail. The press was gagged and newspapers were not permitted to report on the numerous firings that took place.

The Civil Disobedience Movement - Part 2

The Round Table Conferences

While all this was going on, the report of the Simon Commission was published and the promised Round Table Conference was summoned to discuss the recommendations. The Congress refused to take part in it but representatives of other parties including the Muslim League took part. The absence of the Congress rendered the work of the Conference pointless. After the return of the representatives from London, they appealed to Gandhi to seek an interview with the Viceroy. Gandhi consented and on the 17 February, the first of a series of meetings between him and Lord Irwin was held. These meetings dragged on for many days and finally Gandhi made certain proposals, which he discussed with Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Vallabhai Patel. Nehru described it thus: “He came back at about two AM, and we were awakened and told that an agreement had been reached. We saw the draft. I knew most of the clauses, for they had often been discussed, but at the very top, Clause 2, with its reference to safeguards, etc, gave me a tremendous shock. I was wholly unprepared for it. …. I saw that in clause 2 that even this (independence) seemed to be jeopardised…. “Was it for this that our people had behaved so gallantly for a year? Were all our brave words and deeds to end in this? The independence resolution of the Congress of January 26 so often repeated?” So, I lay and pondered on that March night, and in my heart there was a great emptiness as of something precious gone, almost beyond recall.” But then Nehru and other Congress leaders capitulated and in Nehru’s words: ”So I decided, not without great mental and physical distress, to accept the agreement and work for it wholeheartedly.”

These meetings led to the Gandhi-Irwin pact; as a result of the pact all the political prisoners were released, property was returned and in return Gandhi called off the Civil Disobedience Movement. The pledge to strive for Purna Swaraj was thrown away in exchange for some bureaucratic measures.

This cleared the way for the Second Round Table Conference and the participation of the Congress; it was held in London between September and December in 1931. Gandhi was the sole representative of the Congress. Gandhi was not given a proper hearing, rather it was the Depressed Classes led by Ambedkar and the Muslim League led by Jinnah that got the attention of the British Government. They pressed their claims and Gandhi, disgusted by the proceedings left England in December 1931.

The Third Round Table Conference was held in 1932 and this time the Congress boycotted it. Nothing much came out of this session, but it became the basis of the later constitutional changes. In August 1932, the British Prime Minister, Ramsay Macdonald, announced the Communal Award. This statement granted separate electorates to the Depressed Classes. Later, in September 1932, Gandhi undertook a fast unto death in protest against the Communal Award. The Congress then called for a resumption of the Civil Disobedience Movement; and as usual the Government reacted with the most severe repressive measures that it had resorted to. The Congress was outlawed and Gandhi and thousands of others were taken prisoners. But the Indian people refused to be cowed into submission. Picketing of cloth and liquor shops, salt satyagrahas and refusal to pay rent continued. The banned Congress held an illegal session in Delhi. However, while the heroic fight of the Congress was still fresh in public memory, Gandhi threw a bombshell. He made an announcement on May 8, 1933, that he would suspend the movement. Instead there was to be an Individual Civil Disobedience Movement. The reason given was that he would begin a fast of 21 days for purification of himself and his associates for greater vigilance and watchfulness in connection with the Harijan cause. He said: ‘The whole purpose of the fast will be frustrated if I allowed my brain to be occupied by any extraneous matter, that is any matter outside the Harijan cause.”

He then appealed to the Viceroy to withdraw the oppressive measures and release the Civil Disobedience prisoners. The Viceroy haughtily turned down his request and even refused a request for interview with Gandhi. The Movement was dead as a doornail. It was an ignoble retreat for which so many had sacrificed so much. The death knell of the fight for Independence was sounded for which thousands had undergone untold miseries and sufferings. In the meanwhile, Gandhi had signed a pact with Dr Ambedkar. This pact known as the ‘Poona Pact’ worked out a compromise by increasing the number of seats in legislatures reserved for the Depressed Classes.

By the end of 1934, a hush seemed to have fallen over the country. Gandhi had withdrawn from active politics and was involved in the Harijan uplift. Just when it seemed that all political activity had stopped, the British brought forward an ill-considered legislative measure, which prodded India once again into another bout of political activity.

Let us now take a look at the consequences of the Civil Disobedience Movement.

·        Firstly, the ideal of complete independence or Purna Swaraj became the accepted ideal of the whole nation; it included all the sections of the people from the upper classes to the poorest peasant.

·        Secondly, the people dared to challenge the British Government and were prepared to go through any sufferings to attain the goal. A tremendous awakening had taken place and a new spirit was born. It was clear that Independence would come sooner rather than later.

However, there were also some negative consequences whose effects would be felt later. One of these consequences was that the nation became deeply divided. Instead of bringing the different sections of society into the mainstream of Indian nationhood, all the groups - the Muslims, the Sikhs and the Depressed Classes- began to raise their narrow sectarian demands even at the cost of the national movement. Instead of concentrating on the central issue of National Independence, the Congress Party turned its attention to side issues giving them undue prominence; the result was a diversion from the central aim to secondary issues. It is true that all these issues were important but by placing them above the demand for Purna Swaraj or Complete Independence, the Congress got its priorities wrong. Another factor was the inconsistency of Gandhi, taking up a course of action and then abandoning it, suddenly in mid-stream. Just when it seemed that the movement was about to make great gains, there was an abandonment of the movement. So pronounced was this tendency that it left many of his followers and admirers in deep distress. In this context, it would be worthwhile to see what Sri Aurobindo had to say regarding Gandhi and some aspects of this movement. As we have already seen even Jawaharlal Nehru was at loss to understand Gandhi’s ways. In the words of Nehru: “I told him [Gandhi, in March, 1931] that his way of springing surprises upon us frightened me, there was something unknown about him which, in spite of the closest association for fourteen years, I could not understand at all and which filled me with apprehension. He admitted the presence of this unknown in him, and said that he himself could not answer for it or foretell what it might lead to.” Here is what Sri Aurobindo has to say:  “I do not call it faith at all, but a rigid mental belief and what he calls soul-force is only a strong vital will which has taken a religious turn. That, of course, can be a tremendous force for action, but unfortunately Gandhi spoils it by his ambition to be a man of reason, while in fact he has no reason in him at all, never was reasonable at any moment in his life and, I suppose, never will be. What he has in its place is a remarkable type of unintentionally sophistic logic. Well, what this reason, this amazingly precisely unreliable logic brings about is that nobody is even sure and, I don't think, he is himself really sure what he will do next. He has not only two minds but three or four minds, and all depends on which will turn up topmost at a particular moment and how it will combine with the others. There would be no harm in that, on the contrary these might be an advantage if there were a central Light somewhere choosing for him and shaping the decision to the need of the action. He thinks there is and calls it God—but it has always seemed to me that it is his own mind that decides and most often decides wrongly. Anyhow I cannot imagine Lenin or Mustapha Kemal not knowing their own minds or acting in this way—even their strategic retreats were steps towards an end clearly conceived and executed. But whatever it be it is all mind action and vital force in Gandhi. So why should he be taken as an example of the defeat of the Divine or of a spiritual Power? I quite allow that there has been something behind Gandhi greater than himself and you can call it the Divine or a Cosmic Force which has used him, but then there is that behind everybody who is used as an instrument for world ends, — behind Kemal and Lenin also; so that is not germane to the matter.

It will be of interest to note that as early as 1936, Sri Aurobindo had remarked about the consequences of the movement led by Gandhi in the following words: “It (the Swadeshi movement) laid down a method of agitation which Gandhi took up and continued with three or four startling additions, khaddar, Hindiism, Satyagraha - getting beaten with joy, Khilafat, Harijan etc. All these had an advertisement value, a power of poking up things, which was certainly livelier than anything, we put into it. Whether the effects of these things have been good is a more doubtful question.

As a matter of fact the final effects of Gandhi's movement have been:

• A tremendous fissure between the Hindus and Mohamedans which is going to be kept permanent by communal representation;
• A widening fissure between the Harijans and caste Hindus, to be made permanent in the same way;
• A great confusion in Indian politics which leaves it a huge mass of division, warring tendencies, no clear guide or compass anywhere;
• A new constitution which puts the conservative class in power to serve as a means of maintaining British domination or at least as an intolerable brake on progress - also divides India into five or six Indias, Hindu, Moslem, Paria, Christian, Sikh etc;
• A big fiasco of the Non-co-operation movement, which is throwing politics back on one side to reformism, on the other to a blatant and insincere Socialism.

That, I think is the sum and substance of the matter. I am referring to my prophecy made at the beginning of the Non-co-operation movement "it will end in a great confusion or a great fiasco." I was not an accurate prophet, as I have pointed out before. It should have run "It will end in a great confusion and a great fiasco."

Another point to note is the method of absolute non-violence that was followed during the Satyagraha movement. As already seen, it led to the breaking of skulls and a great deal of suffering for the freedom fighters. Two questions arise: Was it right and healthy for the nation to go through this kind of non-violence? And secondly, does Indian culture and spirituality enjoin this kind of Non-Violence? To justify this attitude, one is given the well-known aphorism: Ahimsa paramo dharma, while completely ignoring the next line: dharma himsa tathaiva ca. The English translation reads thus: “Non-violence is the highest principle, and so is violence in defence of the righteous.”

Here again is what Sri Aurobindo has to say: “Politics is concerned with masses of mankind and not with individuals. To ask masses of mankind to act as saints, to rise to the height of divine love and practise it in relation to their adversaries or oppressors is to ignore human nature. It is to set a premium on injustice and violence by paralysing the hand of the deliverer when raised to strike. The Gita is the best answer to those who shrink from battle as a sin, and aggression as a lowering of morality.”

And again: “Hinduism recognises human nature and makes no such impossible demand. It sets one ideal for the saint, another for the man of action, a third for the trader, a fourth for the serf. To prescribe the same ideal for all is to bring about varnasankara, the confusion of duties and destroy society and race. … Politics is the ideal of the Kshatriya, and the morality of the Kshatriya ought to govern our political actions. To impose in politics the Brahmanical duty of saintly sufferance is to preach varnasankara.….

The sword of the warrior is as necessary to the fulfillment of justice and righteousness as the holiness of the saint. Ramdas is not complete without Shivaji. To maintain justice and prevent the strong from despoiling, and the weak from being oppressed, is the function for which the Kshatriya was created. "Therefore", says Sri Krishna in the Mahabharata, "God created battle and armour, the sword, the bow and the dagger."

The Web site and administration does not take any responsiblities of any kind for the material published in Books/Articles .And also the Opinions and Views published in Books/Articles are solely of the writers and contributors.For any Query you may directly contact them either by e-mail address or by Mailing address.
Terms and Condition for Publication of Book/Article