“Nationalism and the Struggle for Independence” is a critical phase in India’s history that witnessed the rise of a strong sense of national identity and the fervent demand for freedom from British colonial rule. This period, spanning from the late 19th century to mid-20th century, saw the emergence of various nationalist movements, political ideologies, and leaders who played pivotal roles in shaping the course of India’s struggle for independence. During this time, the Indian people, irrespective of caste, creed, or region, came together with a common goal of reclaiming their sovereignty and shaping the destiny of their nation. This article will explore the key events, ideologies, and leaders that characterized this momentous period in India’s journey towards independence.
Moderates and Extremists in the Indian National Congress
During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Indian National Congress, the primary political organization of India’s freedom movement, witnessed a divergence in its approach towards British colonial rule. This division gave rise to two distinct ideological groups within the Congress – the Moderates and the Extremists. These two factions had differing perspectives on how to attain India’s freedom, and their contrasting approaches shaped the course of India’s nationalist movement.
The Moderates: The Moderates were the early leaders of the Indian National Congress, advocating for gradual reforms and constitutional methods to seek self-government within the British Empire. They believed in a peaceful and diplomatic approach to achieve their objectives. Some of the prominent Moderate leaders were Dadabhai Naoroji, Gopal Krishna Gokhale, and Pherozeshah Mehta.
Ideologies and Objectives: The Moderates aimed to create a strong and united platform to present Indian grievances to the British government and work towards a gradual process of constitutional reforms. They sought representation for Indians in the civil services, legislative councils, and increased participation in governance. They emphasized the importance of education, social reforms, and economic development to uplift the Indian masses.
Methods and Strategies: The Moderates mainly used constitutional means such as petitions, resolutions, and representations to the British government to address Indian grievances. They believed in working within the existing British political framework to achieve their goals.
The Extremists: The Extremists were a group of younger leaders who emerged within the Indian National Congress, advocating for more assertive and radical approaches to challenge British colonial rule. Some notable Extremist leaders were Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Bipin Chandra Pal, and Lala Lajpat Rai.
Ideologies and Objectives: The Extremists believed that the British government would not willingly grant India its freedom and that direct action was necessary to achieve independence. They demanded complete swaraj (self-rule) and criticized the slow pace of the Moderates’ reforms. The Extremists were also vocal about the economic exploitation of India by the British and stressed the need for self-reliance and industrialization.
Methods and Strategies: Unlike the Moderates, the Extremists were more confrontational in their approach. They organized mass movements, public meetings, and agitations to mobilize public support against British policies. They advocated the use of boycotts, strikes, and civil disobedience as tools of resistance.
Impact and Consequences: The ideological divide between the Moderates and the Extremists led to intense debates and differences within the Indian National Congress. However, these two factions eventually worked together towards a common goal of achieving independence. The Extremist methods laid the groundwork for the later non-violent civil disobedience movements, which became the hallmark of India’s freedom struggle.
It is important to note that both the Moderates and the Extremists played significant roles in shaping the nationalist movement in India. Their combined efforts laid the foundation for India’s eventual independence in 1947. The legacy of the Moderates and the Extremists continues to inspire generations of Indians in their quest for democracy, social justice, and a united, independent nation.
Revolutionary Movements: Ghadar Party and Anushilan Samiti
The Ghadar Party and the Anushilan Samiti were two prominent revolutionary movements that emerged during the early 20th century in India’s struggle for independence. Both organizations sought to overthrow British colonial rule through armed revolution and were instrumental in igniting a spirit of militant nationalism among Indians. While the Ghadar Party had its roots among Indian immigrants in North America, the Anushilan Samiti was primarily active in Bengal and other parts of British India.
The Ghadar Party: The Ghadar Party was founded in 1913 by Indian immigrants in the United States and Canada, predominantly Punjabis and Sikhs. The term “Ghadar” means “mutiny” or “rebellion,” reflecting the party’s revolutionary ideology. The party’s primary objective was to liberate India from British rule through armed resistance and establish a sovereign, democratic, and socialist Indian republic.
Ideologies and Objectives: The Ghadar Party believed in the need for complete independence from British rule, and it rejected the moderate approach of the Indian National Congress. It emphasized the importance of unity among all Indians, irrespective of caste, religion, or region. The party was deeply influenced by socialist ideas and envisioned a society free from exploitation and inequality.
Activities and Impact: The Ghadar Party actively published a revolutionary newspaper called “Ghadar,” which circulated not only in India but also among Indian communities worldwide. It played a pivotal role in organizing and supporting revolutionary activities in India. The party planned and executed several armed uprisings, including the failed Ghadar Mutiny of 1915. While the mutiny was suppressed by the British authorities, it inspired a sense of nationalist fervor among Indians.
The Anushilan Samiti: The Anushilan Samiti, founded in 1902, was a revolutionary society based in Bengal. It aimed to overthrow British rule and establish a free and independent India. The organization attracted a large number of educated youth who were dissatisfied with the moderate politics of the Indian National Congress.
Ideologies and Objectives: The Anushilan Samiti believed in the use of armed resistance to achieve independence. It emphasized physical training, discipline, and military-style organization among its members. The organization’s leaders, like Aurobindo Ghosh, Barin Ghosh, and Rash Behari Bose, were prominent revolutionary figures who inspired a new wave of militant nationalism in Bengal.
Activities and Impact: The Anushilan Samiti carried out several acts of violence and assassinations targeting British officials and collaborators. One of the most significant incidents was the failed attempt to assassinate the Viceroy, Lord Hardinge, in 1912. These acts of violence and revolutionary activities, coupled with the Ghadar Party’s efforts, put immense pressure on the British administration and added to the momentum of the freedom movement.
Legacy: The Ghadar Party and the Anushilan Samiti played crucial roles in instilling a sense of revolutionary spirit and militant nationalism among Indians. While their direct impact on India’s eventual independence was limited, their activities laid the groundwork for future revolutionary movements and contributed to the broader struggle for freedom.
Both the Ghadar Party and the Anushilan Samiti are remembered for their unwavering commitment to India’s liberation and their role in awakening a new generation of freedom fighters. Their legacy remains an integral part of India’s nationalist history, inspiring future generations to continue the fight for justice, equality, and a free, independent India.
Mahatma Gandhi and the Non-cooperation Movement
Mahatma Gandhi’s leadership and the Non-cooperation Movement were pivotal in shaping India’s struggle for independence and transforming the nature of the freedom movement. The Non-cooperation Movement, launched in 1920, was one of the most significant mass movements in India’s history, and it marked a shift from moderate and constitutional methods to mass civil disobedience and nonviolent resistance.
Background and Context: The aftermath of World War I and the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms of 1919, which fell short of Indian aspirations for self-rule, intensified the discontent among Indians. The Jallianwala Bagh massacre of 1919, where British troops fired upon unarmed Indian civilians, further fueled public anger. In this charged atmosphere, Mahatma Gandhi emerged as the leader of the Indian National Congress and advocated for nonviolent civil disobedience as the means to achieve Swaraj (self-rule) and gain independence from British rule.
Gandhi’s Philosophy of Nonviolence (Ahimsa) and Satyagraha: Central to Mahatma Gandhi’s approach was the principle of nonviolence (ahimsa) and the concept of Satyagraha, meaning “truth-force” or “soul-force.” Gandhi believed that nonviolent resistance could mobilize the masses and win over the hearts of the oppressors, thereby compelling the British to relinquish power.
Launching the Non-cooperation Movement: The Non-cooperation Movement was launched on August 1, 1920, with the passing of a resolution at the special session of the Indian National Congress in Calcutta. The movement aimed to boycott British institutions, products, and services and promote indigenous goods and education.
Mass Participation and Swadeshi Movement: The Non-cooperation Movement witnessed widespread participation from all sections of Indian society, including students, peasants, workers, and women. Indians willingly discarded British-made goods and adopted Swadeshi (indigenous) products, spinning khadi (hand-spun cloth) became a symbol of self-reliance and resistance to foreign rule.
Surrender of Titles and Resignation from Government Offices: As part of the movement, Indians were called upon to surrender their titles and honors conferred by the British government. Many leaders voluntarily resigned from government offices, and students withdrew from government schools and colleges.
Boycott of Legislative Councils and Educational Institutions: The movement advocated the boycott of British-controlled legislative councils, and elected Indian members resigned from these councils. Furthermore, students boycotted government educational institutions, leading to the establishment of alternative indigenous schools and colleges.
Peasants’ Uprisings and Labor Strikes: The Non-cooperation Movement witnessed several instances of peasants’ uprisings against oppressive landlords and the refusal to pay taxes. Labor strikes also increased, as workers demanded better working conditions and higher wages.
Suspension of the Movement: The Non-cooperation Movement gained significant momentum, and the British administration faced immense pressure. However, the movement took a sudden turn when violence erupted at Chauri Chaura in Uttar Pradesh in February 1922, where a police station was attacked, resulting in the death of policemen. In response, Gandhi called off the movement, believing that it had strayed from its nonviolent principles.
Significance and Legacy: Although the Non-cooperation Movement was suspended, it left a profound impact on the Indian freedom struggle. It inspired a new generation of leaders and activists committed to nonviolent resistance. Gandhi’s methods of nonviolence and civil disobedience became the hallmark of India’s struggle for independence in the coming years.
The Non-cooperation Movement demonstrated the power of mass mobilization and nonviolence as tools for political change. It also exposed the limitations of the British colonial administration and strengthened the resolve of the Indian people to continue their struggle for freedom. Gandhi’s leadership during this movement established him as the preeminent figure in the Indian nationalist movement and laid the foundation for future campaigns for independence.
Civil Disobedience Movement and Salt Satyagraha
The Civil Disobedience Movement and the Salt Satyagraha were two significant phases in India’s struggle for independence, led by Mahatma Gandhi. These movements aimed to challenge British authority, demand self-rule, and promote the idea of nonviolent resistance as a powerful tool for achieving freedom.
Background and Context: The Civil Disobedience Movement was launched by Mahatma Gandhi on March 12, 1930, as a response to the failure of the Round Table Conferences to address Indian demands for self-rule and the promulgation of the British government’s repressive salt laws.
Dandi March and Salt Satyagraha: The most iconic event of the Civil Disobedience Movement was the Dandi March, also known as the Salt March or Salt Satyagraha. On March 12, 1930, Gandhi and a group of 78 followers set out on a 240-mile journey from Sabarmati Ashram in Ahmedabad to the coastal village of Dandi in Gujarat. The purpose of the march was to produce salt in violation of the British monopoly on salt production and to defy the salt tax imposed by the British.
Breaking the Salt Laws: On April 6, 1930, after covering the long distance on foot, Gandhi reached Dandi, where he ceremoniously picked up a lump of salt from the Arabian Sea’s shore, symbolizing the defiance of the unjust salt laws. This act was followed by millions of Indians across the country, who also began producing salt from seawater and refusing to pay taxes on salt.
Mass Civil Disobedience: The Salt Satyagraha led to widespread acts of civil disobedience across India. People started boycotting British goods, institutions, and services, leading to economic hardships for the colonial government.
Repressive Measures by the British: The British administration responded to the civil disobedience with harsh measures, arresting thousands of protesters, including Mahatma Gandhi himself. However, the movement continued to gain momentum, and the jails were filled with nonviolent protesters.
Negotiations and the Gandhi-Irwin Pact: As the movement intensified, negotiations were initiated between the British Viceroy Lord Irwin and Mahatma Gandhi. The negotiations resulted in the Gandhi-Irwin Pact in March 1931, wherein the British agreed to release political prisoners and allow Indians to make salt for personal use.
Suspension of Civil Disobedience: Gandhi agreed to suspend the Civil Disobedience Movement in return for the British concessions mentioned in the Gandhi-Irwin Pact. However, the movement’s suspension did not imply a complete end to the struggle for independence.
Significance and Legacy: The Civil Disobedience Movement and the Salt Satyagraha marked a turning point in India’s freedom struggle. The movement brought the issue of Indian independence to the forefront of international attention and significantly weakened the British colonial authority in India.
The Salt Satyagraha demonstrated the power of nonviolent resistance in mobilizing the masses and challenging unjust laws. It inspired similar movements in other parts of the world, becoming a significant influence on the civil rights movements in the United States and other nations.
Furthermore, the Civil Disobedience Movement revealed the unity and determination of the Indian people to achieve independence. It strengthened the resolve of the Indian National Congress and other nationalist organizations to continue their fight for self-rule.
In conclusion, the Civil Disobedience Movement and the Salt Satyagraha were pivotal events in India’s struggle for independence. These movements not only exposed the weaknesses of the British colonial rule but also established Mahatma Gandhi as the undisputed leader of India’s freedom movement. The spirit of nonviolent resistance and civil disobedience that emerged during this period continued to shape India’s political landscape and left a lasting legacy in the global history of liberation struggles.
