NIOS Class 12 History Chapter 15 Mahatma Gandhi And The Nationalist Movement

Mahatma Gandhi was a towering leader of his era. From 1920 to 1947, he led the national movement, basing his efforts on the principles of truth, non-violence, and Satyagraha. He awakened political consciousness across the entire nation and transformed the Congress-led national movement into a mass movement involving the common people. Ultimately, through his tireless efforts, India attained independence on August 15, 1947; for this reason, he is revered as the “Father of the Nation.” During this period, alongside politics, he exerted a profound influence on all spheres of life—social, economic, educational, and religious. Consequently, this epoch in history—spanning from 1920 to 1947—is renowned as the “Gandhian Era.”

A Brief Biography of Gandhiji

Mahatma Gandhi’s full name was Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. He was born on October 2, 1869, in the town of Porbandar in the Kathiawar district. His father was Karamchand Gandhi, who served as the *Diwan* (Chief Minister) of the princely state of Rajkot, and his mother was Putlibai—a woman of deep religious inclination.

At the age of 13, Gandhiji was married to Kasturba Gandhi. After completing his undergraduate education in India, he decided to travel to England in 1888 to pursue studies in law and become a barrister. Before departing for England, he made a solemn promise to his mother that he would abstain from associating with women, as well as from consuming meat and alcohol. He upheld this pledge with unwavering integrity.

Upon completing his legal studies in 1891, Gandhiji returned to India and began practicing law in Mumbai.

Gandhiji in South Africa

In 1893, Gandhiji had to travel to South Africa to handle a legal case. There, the British harbored deep prejudice against Indians based on a policy of racial discrimination (*apartheid*) and subjected them to humiliating treatment. They would address Indians using derogatory epithets such as “coolie,” “black man,” or “toy.” Indians in South Africa were accorded no dignity or respect. They possessed no right to own personal property.

He observed that Indians were not permitted to move about in the market after 9:00 PM. Gandhiji dispatched a petition to British officials in England, in which he criticized the humiliating treatment meted out to him. Furthermore, he published a newspaper titled *Indian Opinion* to generate necessary publicity and advocate for the cause of Indians.

Gandhiji waged a non-violent struggle for twenty years—from 1893 to 1914. As a result of his efforts, the South African government repealed the discriminatory laws enacted against Indians and lifted various restrictions imposed upon them. This remarkable success brought Gandhiji great renown, and his popularity across India soared. Commenting on Gandhiji’s work in Africa, Gokhale remarked

“Undoubtedly, it was Mahatma Gandhi who initiated the struggle to safeguard the rights of Indians in South Africa. Selflessly and without personal ambition, he undertook a monumental struggle for India—a debt for which India remains eternally grateful.”

Gandhiji’s Arrival in India

In 1915, Gandhiji returned to India from South Africa. He established his ashram in the village of Sabarmati, near Ahmedabad. Thereafter, he immersed himself in public welfare activities. Gandhiji stated: “I wish to adopt in India the very methods I employed in South Africa, and I seek to determine the extent to which their application is feasible within the Indian context.” Through the practice of *Satyagraha*

Gandhiji succeeded in putting an end to the practice of forcibly transporting Indians to British colonies for indentured labor. In 1917, he liberated the farmers of the Champaran district in Bihar from the oppressive tyranny of the British government. In 1919

Mahatma Gandhi undertook a fast unto death in support of the demands of mill workers, thereby ensuring that their grievances were redressed. By this time, Gandhiji’s influence over the Indian National Congress had grown immensely.

**Gandhiji as an Ally of the British Government**

Gandhiji became known as an ally of the British government, even as he began to actively participate in Indian politics. However, he was influenced by Gokhale’s policy of constitutional reform and cooperation with the government. At the time Gandhiji returned to India, the First World War was underway; Gandhiji was in favor of assisting the government in this conflict.

Consequently, by delivering speeches at various locations, he appealed to his countrymen to extend their assistance to the British residing in India. Thus, during the World War, Gandhiji rendered commendable services to the British government. According to Sitaramayya, Gandhiji believed in the citizenship of the British Empire and even took pride in it.

Therefore, he offered his services to the government of India for the recruitment of soldiers and the care of the wounded. In recognition of the services rendered during the First World War, the government even awarded him a medal. Following the conclusion of the First World War, the British did not grant *Swaraj* (self-rule) to India.

Nevertheless, Gandhiji continued to cooperate consistently with the British government. All nationalists were dissatisfied with the Act of 1919; however, in the December 31, 1919 issue of his newspaper, *Young India*, Gandhiji appealed to the public to cooperate with the government in the implementation of this Act.

**The National Movement Under Gandhiji’s Leadership**

After 1919, a series of events unfolded that led Gandhiji to decide against cooperating with the government and to take the leadership of the national movement into his own hands.

Until 1919, this movement had remained confined primarily to the educated class; however, Gandhiji transformed it into a mass movement.

At this juncture, the British government was perpetrating severe atrocities against the Indian populace; consequently, Gandhiji resolved to launch the Non-Cooperation Movement.

The Non-Cooperation Movement (1920–1922)

Causes of the Movement:-
The primary reasons for Gandhiji initiating the Non-Cooperation Movement were as follows:-

1. The Rowlatt Act (March 21, 1919)

The most significant cause of the Non-Cooperation Movement was the Rowlatt Act. The British government sought to suppress the nationalist sentiments of the Indian people. Consequently, in 1918, they constituted a committee under the chairmanship of Justice Rowlatt and tasked it with recommending measures to quell revolutionary activities.

The bill enacted based on this committee’s recommendations became known as the Rowlatt Act. Under this repressive legislation, any individual could be prosecuted without prior intimation or formal notice; they could be detained in prison for an indefinite period or even punished following a trial conducted in secrecy. Furthermore, a person could be arrested based solely on suspicion. Thus, this law empowered the British government to harass any innocent individual.

Despite Mahatma Gandhi’s opposition, the government enforced this law on March 21, 1919. Responding to Gandhiji’s call, a nationwide strike was observed, and protest processions were organized across the country on April 6, 1919, to oppose this legislation. In Delhi, a procession was led by Swami Shraddhanand. When European soldiers threatened to open fire, he bared his chest before them in defiance.

As the procession approached the vicinity of the Delhi Railway Station, shots were fired. Reports emerged indicating that five people were killed and several others sustained injuries in this incident. Firing also took place in Lahore, and civil unrest erupted across Punjab.

At this juncture, as Gandhiji was traveling toward Delhi, the government issued an order banning his entry into both Delhi and Punjab. When Gandhiji refused to comply with this order, he was arrested at Palwal (Haryana) and sent back to Bombay. 2. Jallianwala Bagh Massacre (April 13, 1919)

Following protests against the Rowlatt Act, Mahatma Gandhi and two popular leaders from Amritsar—Dr. Satyapal and Dr. Saifuddin Kitchlew—were arrested and sent to an undisclosed location. This sparked agitation in Amritsar, and a crowd began marching toward the District Magistrate’s residence to demand the release of their leaders. Despite warnings from soldiers, the crowd continued to advance; consequently, shots were fired at them, resulting in the deaths of two individuals. The crowd then carried the bodies of the martyrs on their shoulders and organized a procession. Along the way, the crowd killed five British officials, further inflaming emotions.

On April 10, the administration of Amritsar city was handed over to military authorities. Brigadier General Reginald Dyer arrived in Amritsar on April 12 and began arresting people. On April 13, 1919, a public meeting was organized at Jallianwala Bagh in Amritsar. Its objective was to condemn the government’s repressive policies. Approximately 25,000 men, women, and children attended this gathering. General Dyer declared the assembly illegal; however, the notice prohibiting public meetings had not been adequately circulated throughout the city. On April 13, 1919, General Dyer arrived at Jallianwala Bagh with 50 Indian and 50 British soldiers.

However, he could not take the machine guns inside the Bagh because the entrance to Jallianwala Bagh was extremely narrow—so narrow, in fact, that it was impossible to drive the motor vehicles carrying the machine guns through it. Therefore, he positioned the machine guns mounted on the vehicles to block the exits of the Bagh. The proceedings of the assembly were underway peacefully; demands were being raised for the release of Gandhi, Dr. Kitchlew, and Dr. Satyapal, and the Rowlatt Act was being opposed. Without issuing any warning, General Dyer ordered his troops to open fire on the crowd. A total of 1,650 rounds were fired, and the shooting continued until the entire crowd had dispersed. According to official reports, 400 people were killed and approximately 2,000 were injured.

There is, however, no doubt that the actual number of casualties—both dead and injured—was certainly much higher than these figures. Following this massacre, General Dyer also subjected the residents of Amritsar, Lahore, Gujranwala, and other areas to further repressive measures. Numerous atrocities were committed, and Martial Law was imposed in Punjab. Under this regime, 15 individuals were sentenced to death, and 40 were given life imprisonment.

During the period of Martial Law, atrocities were committed that were truly blood-curdling in nature; in many places, individuals were flogged and forced to crawl on their bellies. In protest against this government policy, Rabindranath Tagore renounced his title of ‘Sir’ (Knighthood). This massacre sowed widespread discontent and hatred throughout the country.

At the request of the Congress, and to investigate the events in Punjab, the government appointed a committee headed by Mr. Hunter on November 14, 1919. While testifying before the Hunter Committee, General Dyer admitted that he had allowed the crowd only three minutes to disperse before opening fire. It is evident that 25,000 people could not possibly have dispersed within a mere three minutes. A member of the Hunter Committee, Justice Ranking, asked Dyer whether the crowd could not have been spared; in response, General Dyer stated, “No, I could not have done that.” He further replied that it was a “terrible duty” that he was compelled to fulfill.

He reasoned, “I felt that I should fire thoroughly and extensively so that I would never again have to open fire on anyone else. I believed it was possible that, after being fired upon, the crowd might disperse; however, I did not want them to return to confront me again—laughing at me—for I had no desire to be made a fool of.”

In March 1920, the Hunter Committee submitted its report, in which the perspective of government officials was deemed correct. General Dyer was dismissed from service for the offense of exercising poor judgment; however, the press in England hailed Dyer as the “Protector of the British Empire.” The public raised funds to provide for his livelihood. The British government lauded General Dyer’s services and bestowed upon him the title of the “Sword of Honour.

” He was also awarded a prize of £2,000. Witnessing this entire sequence of events, discontent spread rapidly among the nationalists. The Congress demanded that the guilty officials be punished and that financial assistance be provided to the families of the deceased; however, the government paid no heed to these demands.

NIOS Class 12 History Chapter 15 Mahatma Gandhi And The Nationalist Movement

(3) The Khilafat Movement (1919)

The Sultan of Turkey was regarded as the Caliph (religious leader) of the Muslims. During the First World War, England had participated in the war against Turkey. During the Great War, on January 5, 1918, British Prime Minister Lloyd George gave an assurance to Indian Muslims that, following the conclusion of the war, they would not harm Turkey, would not adopt a policy of vengeance against it, would not dismember Turkey, and would not undermine the prestige of the Caliph.

Consequently, Indian Muslims extended every possible assistance to the British throughout the war. After the cessation of hostilities, the Treaty of Sèvres was signed on August 10, 1919; under this treaty, the Ottoman Empire was dissolved, and its Sultan was taken prisoner and exiled to Constantinople. Dissatisfied with the British policy toward Turkey, Indian Muslims launched a movement known as the ‘Khilafat Movement.’ Prominent leaders of this movement—notably Maulana Mohammad Ali and Shaukat Ali—began working vigorously to popularize it across the entire country.

Gandhiji lent his support to this movement with the objective of fostering Hindu-Muslim unity. On November 24, 1919, the All India Khilafat Conference was held in Delhi, wherein Gandhiji was elected as its President. In accordance with Gandhiji’s directives, the movement was conducted based on the policy of non-cooperation and boycott.

To ensure its success, Gandhiji toured the entire country. Gandhiji supported the Khilafat Movement because, in his view, the British policy towards Turkey constituted a betrayal of the Muslims. Furthermore, in order to secure the cooperation of Muslims in the Non-Cooperation Movement, it was essential to support their demands. Consequently, the Muslims, too, extended their support to Gandhiji’s Non-Cooperation Movement.

**The Non-Cooperation Movement (1920–1922 AD)**

Deeply aggrieved by events such as the Rowlatt Act, the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre, and the Khilafat Movement, Gandhiji launched the Non-Cooperation Movement against the British government on August 20, 1920.

**Program of the Movement**

In 1920, during the Congress sessions held in Calcutta and Nagpur, Gandhiji’s plan for the Non-Cooperation Movement was formally adopted; this plan outlined the following programs:

1. Boycott of foreign goods and liquor.

2. Use of indigenous (Swadeshi) goods.

3. Renunciation of government titles and honorary positions.

4. Boycott of government-run and government-recognized schools and colleges.

5. Boycott of government receptions and festivities.

6. Refusal to participate, in any form, in elections organized by the government.

7. Boycott of British courts of law.

Through these acts of boycott, Gandhiji aimed to completely paralyze the administrative machinery by engaging in total non-cooperation with the government. Alongside this boycott, the Congress emphasized the undertaking of the following constructive activities:

1. Promoting Hindu-Muslim unity.

2. Striving to eradicate untouchability.

3. Establishing national educational institutions for the education of children.

4. Setting up indigenous *Panchayat* courts to resolve disputes.

5. Promoting the use of indigenous goods and encouraging home-spinning of yarn for weaving *Khadi*.

**Progress of the Movement**

Gandhiji’s movement spread with remarkable speed. He returned the medals awarded to him by the government (honors he had received for assisting the government during the First World War). Hundreds of government employees resigned from their jobs. Magistrates tendered their resignations. Lawyers boycotted the courts. Students left their schools and colleges.

To this end, several national educational institutions were established—such as the Gujarat Vidyapith, Bihar Vidyapith, Bengal National Vidyapith, Tilak Maharashtra Vidyapith, Kashi Vidyapith, and the Muslim University, Aligarh. During this period, foreign goods were boycotted, and bonfires of foreign-made clothing were lit in various places.

Emphasis was placed on the use of indigenous goods, leading to the revival of thousands of spinning wheels.

The movement was proceeding successfully. The government attempted to crush it with force. More than 50,000 patriots were imprisoned. As the government continued to take measures to suppress the movement, it…

The movement was assuming an increasingly intense form. Muslim leaders such as Dr. Ansari, Shaukat Ali, Muhammad Ali, and Abul Kalam Azad also participated vigorously in this movement. Consequently, Muslims, too, joined the cause. This lent immense strength to the movement.

**The Chauri Chaura Incident (1922)**

On November 5, 1921, when the British Prince arrived in India, demonstrations were held in protest against him at various locations. While the movement was at its peak and proceeding successfully, on February 5, 1922, at a place called ‘Chauri Chaura’ in the Gorakhpur district of Uttar Pradesh, the police opened fire on non-violent protesters.

When their ammunition ran out, they fled and took shelter inside the police station. The enraged protesters set fire to the police outpost, resulting in the death of one Station House Officer (SHO) and 21 constables, who were burned alive. However, when the movement took a violent turn, Gandhiji was deeply distressed. Consequently, on February 11, 1922, at Bardoli, he announced the suspension of the movement. Dr. R.C. Majumdar has written that “Gandhiji’s decision to suspend the Non-Cooperation Movement in this manner was a grave error.

It dealt a severe blow to the progress of the national movement. If he lacked the foresight to anticipate that violent incidents could occur during a movement in a country of such vast magnitude, then he was certainly not a keen judge of human character.

Either he should have launched the movement only after becoming convinced that three hundred million Indians were true adherents of his principles, or, having launched it, he should not have suspended it merely on account of a single violent incident—no matter how reprehensible that incident might have been. In the words of Shri Subhash Chandra Bose, ‘To issue an order to retreat at a moment when public enthusiasm had reached its zenith was nothing short of a national calamity.

‘” The abrupt suspension of the movement drew criticism from various leaders, and for a time, Gandhiji became unpopular. Capitalizing on this situation, the British government held Gandhiji responsible for the violent incidents; consequently, he was put on trial and sentenced to six years of rigorous imprisonment.

**Causes for the Failure of the Movement**

The Non-Cooperation Movement, under Gandhiji’s leadership, continued for two years. However, the movement failed to achieve its objectives. The primary reasons for its failure were as follows:

1. Through this movement, a boycott of the legislative council elections scheduled for 1920–21 was organized; however, the Moderate leaders participated in these elections and emerged victorious. Consequently, the patriotic leaders of the Congress were unable to secure seats in the legislative councils. Thus, the boycott of the elections yielded no tangible benefit for the Congress. (Source: *A Comprehensive History of Modern India*)

2. Just as the movement reached its zenith, Gandhiji issued the order to suspend it. Had the movement continued for a few more days, the British government would have been compelled to concede to at least some of the demands. However, Gandhiji’s unilateral decision to suspend the movement—without consulting his associates—resulted in no gains whatsoever; furthermore, his associates (including Deshbandhu Chittaranjan Das, Motilal Nehru, and Subhash Chandra Bose) subjected this policy of his to scathing criticism.

3. In the face of the British government’s repressive policies, it was impossible for the movement to sustain itself for a prolonged period.

**Significance of the Movement**

**Despite its Failure**

Although the movement did not achieve its immediate objectives, it proved to be significant from several perspectives:

1. This was the first mass movement to be conducted on a national scale. For the first time, a new consciousness and awakening emerged across the entire nation. Workers, farmers, and the common people actively participated in this movement.

2. Mahatma Gandhi provided the protesters with the weapon of non-violence in the form of *Satyagraha*. When the government unleashed *lathi* (baton) charges or opened fire upon peaceful *Satyagrahis*, the sympathies of the common people shifted in their favor, and discontent against the British government intensified.

3. During the movement, foreign goods were boycotted. On one hand, this disrupted the British government’s policy of economic exploitation; on the other, it emphasized the use of indigenous (*Swadeshi*) goods. Consequently, thousands of unemployed weavers found work.

Regarding the achievements of the Non-Cooperation Movement, Subhash Chandra Bose remarked: “The year 1921 undoubtedly endowed the country with a well-organized party structure. Prior to this, the Congress was merely a constitutional body—and that too, primarily a deliberative institution. Mahatmaji gave it a new constitution and transformed it into a nationwide entity. He converted it into a revolutionary organization.

From one corner of the country to the other, identical slogans began to be raised; a uniform policy and a shared ideology became visible everywhere. The prominence of the English language waned, and the Congress adopted Hindi as the national language.” “Khadi became the regular attire for all Congress members.”

**The Swaraj Party (1923 AD)**

The Swaraj Party of the Congress emerged during the period when the Non-Cooperation Movement had lost its momentum. This party was founded in 1923 by ‘Deshbandhu’ Chittaranjan Das and Motilal Nehru. They advocated for securing *Swaraj* (self-rule) for India. The party also enjoyed the support of Gandhiji.

The party participated in the elections held in 1923. Its leader, Motilal Nehru, adopted a strategy of obstruction—or a policy of pressure—within the legislative bodies. This made it evident to the government that the public was dissatisfied with the Act of 1919. Consequently, the government appointed the Simon Commission ahead of schedule.

 

**The Simon Commission (1927 AD)**

According to the Act of 1919, there was a provision to appoint a commission ten years later to assess the progress of responsible government in India. However, compelled by the prevailing circumstances in India, the British Prime Minister appointed a commission on November 8, 1927, under the chairmanship of Sir John Simon—a commission in which, alongside Simon…There were six additional members. Because all of its members were British, Indians opposed and boycotted it.

When the commission arrived in Bombay on February 3, 1928, demonstrations were held against it. Wherever the commission went, the Indian public demonstrated their discontent by welcoming it with strikes, processions, black flags, and slogans like “Simon go back!” The police resorted to repression to suppress this protest. However, this did not lead to any significant disruption.

The Gandhi-Irwin Pact (1931)

While the nationalist movement was underway in India, the British government organized a Round Table Conference in London on September 12, 1930. The Congress Party did not participate in this conference; consequently, the event failed to achieve its intended objectives.

In an effort to foster a conducive atmosphere across the country, the government released Gandhiji from prison on January 26, 1931. Through the mediation efforts of Tej Bahadur Sapru and Mr. Jayakar, an agreement was reached between Gandhiji and Lord Irwin on March 15, 1931—an accord that subsequently became renowned as the Gandhi-Irwin Pact.

**Key Terms of the Agreement**

The principal terms of this agreement were as follows:

1. The government would withdraw all its ordinances and discontinue all pending legal prosecutions.

2. All political prisoners associated with the movement—with the exception of those accused of violent crimes—would be released from prison.

3. The confiscated property of Satyagrahis (non-violent resisters) would be restored to them.

4. Individuals would be permitted to stage peaceful pickets outside shops selling liquor, opium, and foreign goods.

5. People residing in coastal areas would be granted the right by the government to manufacture salt without being subject to taxation.

On behalf of the Congress, Gandhiji provided the following assurances:

1. The Congress would suspend the Civil Disobedience Movement.

2. The Congress would participate in the Second Round Table Conference.

3. The demand for an impartial inquiry into alleged atrocities committed by the police would be dropped.

**Assessment of the Gandhi-Irwin Pact**

The Gandhi-Irwin Pact evoked a mixed response. In Gandhiji’s view, this agreement held immense significance. According to him, it marked the first instance in which the British government had engaged in dialogue with Indian leaders on a footing of equality. However, prominent Congress leaders such as Subhash Chandra Bose and Jawaharlal Nehru were not pleased with this agreement.

At that juncture, the Congress’s declared objective was *Purna Swaraj* (complete independence); yet, Gandhiji had concluded the agreement without securing this specific objective. The young leaders of the Congress were also dissatisfied because, prior to concluding the pact, Gandhiji had been unable to secure the commutation of the death sentences of three revolutionaries—Bhagat Singh, Rajguru, and

Sukhdev—into life imprisonment. On March 25, 1931, the Congress convened its session in Karachi; by that time, the three revolutionaries (Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev, and Rajguru) had already been executed. Consequently, the youth opposed Gandhiji. It was with great difficulty that Gandhiji managed to get this pact ratified by the Congress.

The Second Round Table Conference (1931)

The British government organized the Second Round Table Conference in November 1931, in which Gandhiji participated as the representative of the Congress.

Due to the hostile stance of the British government, Jinnah’s insistence on having his “Fourteen Points” accepted, and Ambedkar’s demand for separate representation for the Harijans, no consensus could be reached at the conference. Gandhiji returned to India.

Resumption of the Civil Disobedience Movement

In Gandhiji’s absence, the cycle of repression had resumed. Therefore, immediately upon his return to India, Gandhiji relaunched the Civil Disobedience Movement. The government intensified its repressive measures.

The Congress was declared an unlawful organization. Along with Gandhiji and Patel, 120,000 people were imprisoned. Taking into account the changed circumstances within the country, Gandhiji called off the Civil Disobedience Movement on April 7, 1934.

When Gandhiji suspended the movement without offering any explanation, Congress leaders such as Subhash Chandra Bose and Vallabhbhai Patel severely criticized his decision. They remarked, “Gandhiji has undone the hard work and sacrifices of the past thirteen years.

” In their view, Gandhiji’s suspension of the movement amounted to an admission of his own failures. Dr. R.C. In the words of Majumdar, “The suspension of the movement by Gandhiji in this manner was not merely a grave error, but also a tragic event. He had no right to trifle so unjustifiably with the lives and property of the people.

” After suspending the Satyagraha, when Mahatmaji sought an appointment to meet with the Viceroy, the latter rejected his request. While this attitude of the Viceroy constituted a national insult, it also served as a challenge to continue the movement.

Gandhiji proved unable to respond to this challenge. His political weapon of Satyagraha was proven ineffective. In 1932, the Third Round Table Conference was held in London. However, the Congress did not participate in it, as the Civil Disobedience Movement had resumed within the country.

**The Communal Award**

To resolve India’s communal problem, British Prime Minister MacDonald announced the ‘Communal Award’ on August 18, 1932—also famously known as the MacDonald Award. According to this award, the Harijans (Dalits)—much like the Christians and Muslims—were recognized as a minority distinct from the Hindus, and a system of separate representation was instituted for them. The British government sought to weaken the national movement; therefore, it endeavored to segregate the Harijans from the Hindus. This arrangement failed to do justice to the Hindus as well. In provinces where Muslims constituted a minority, certain concessions were granted to them; however, Hindus in minority provinces were not accorded similar concessions. In Punjab, provisions were made to grant the Sikhs representation disproportionate to their population, and the same applied to Europeans in Bengal. The Indian Christians had never demanded separate representation; nevertheless, this system was imposed upon them.

**The Poona Pact: September 26, 1932**

In protest against this Communal Award, Gandhiji commenced a fast unto death while in prison on September 20, 1932. Ultimately, Through the efforts of Malaviyaji and Dr. Rajendra Prasad, an agreement was reached between the Harijan leader Dr. Ambedkar and the Congress, which is known as the Poona Pact. According to this agreement, the Harijans withdrew their demand for separate electorates.

…abandoned the separate electorate system, and seats reserved for ‘untouchables’ in the legislative assemblies were retained within the Hindu category.

**The Act of 1935 and the Elections of 1937:** To appease the Indian populace, the British government enacted a law in 1935 that transferred the administration of provincial governance into Indian hands. Based on the government’s assurance—that the Governors would not interfere in the day-to-day functioning of the Indian ministers—the Congress participated in the 1937 elections and formed ministries in eight provinces. These Congress ministries made every possible effort to implement Gandhiji’s constructive programs.

**The Second World War and the Constitutional Deadlock**

When the Second World War broke out in 1939, the British government—without consulting the Congress ministries—dragged India into the war in support of Britain. Consequently, in protest against this policy of the British government, the Congress ministries tendered their resignations. Reacting to this, Jinnah remarked, “Indian Muslims have been liberated from the tyranny, injustice, and cruel rule of the Hindus.” Jinnah appealed to Indian Muslims to observe December 22, 1939, as ‘Deliverance Day’ (Mukti Divas). In 1940, the Muslim League passed the ‘Pakistan Resolution,’ and securing the fulfillment of this demand became its primary objective.

**The Cripps Mission (1942)**

Due to the British failure to accede to the Congress’s demands, Gandhiji launched the ‘Individual Satyagraha’ movement in 1940 to mobilize Indians against assisting the British government in the war effort. Thousands of people were once again imprisoned. However, observing the rapid advances made by Japan—which had captured Rangoon on March 8, 1942, and had announced its intention to invade India in order to liberate it from British control—Mahatma Gandhi suspended this movement on December 30, 1941. In this situation, the government attempted to reach a settlement, and for this purpose, Sir Stafford Cripps was sent to India in 1942. After holding consultations with representatives of all political parties, he announced his proposals on March 30, 1942. These are known as the Cripps Proposals.

Although these proposals recommended granting India Dominion Status, both the Congress and the Muslim League rejected them. The Congress argued that the proposals implicitly accepted the demand for Pakistan, whereas the Muslim League was aggrieved because the demand for Pakistan had not been explicitly acknowledged, nor was there any provision made for a separate constitution for it. Consequently, the Cripps Mission proved to be a complete failure. According to some scholars, the Cripps Plan was more progressive than Linlithgow’s August 1940 Plan. However, Gandhiji remarked regarding it: “It was a post-dated cheque on a crashing bank.”

**The Quit India Movement (August 8, 1942)**

Following the failure of the Cripps Mission, Indians were left with no alternative but to launch a freedom struggle. Consequently, the Congress was compelled to initiate the Quit India Movement.

**Causes of the Movement**

The primary causes of this movement were as follows:

1. Following the failure of the Cripps Mission, Indians had no option left other than to launch a movement.

2. The Congress sought complete independence—a demand the British government was unwilling to concede. Consequently, the public’s yearning for the attainment of freedom intensified even further.

3. During the Second World War, Japan had defeated the British and occupied Singapore, Malaya, and Burma. This made it immediately apparent to Mahatma Gandhi that Britain was incapable of defending India. Gandhiji held the conviction that if the British continued to retain control over India, Japan would inevitably launch an invasion. Conversely, if the British were to withdraw from India, Japan might perhaps refrain from attacking the country. Therefore, Gandhiji asked the British to leave India.

Under these circumstances, on August 8, 1942, in Bombay, the Congress Working Committee passed the historic resolution for the ‘Quit India Movement.’ Thus, in accordance with this resolution, the British government was warned that if they did not leave India immediately, a massive non-violent movement would be launched across the entire country under Gandhiji’s leadership.

(Having already occupied [territories] and declared their intention to invade India in order to liberate it from British control)—Mahatma Gandhi suspended this movement on December 30, 1941. In this situation, the government attempted to reach a settlement, and for this purpose, Sir Stafford Cripps was sent to India in 1942. After holding consultations with representatives of all political parties, he announced his proposals on March 30, 1942. These are known as the Cripps Proposals.

Although these proposals recommended granting India Dominion Status, both the Congress and the Muslim League rejected them. The Congress argued that the proposals implicitly accepted the demand for Pakistan, whereas the Muslim League was displeased because the demand for Pakistan had not been explicitly accepted, nor was there any provision for a separate constitution for it. Consequently, the Cripps Mission proved to be a complete failure. According to some scholars, the Cripps Plan was more progressive than Linlithgow’s August 1940 Plan. However, regarding this, Gandhiji remarked: “It was a post-dated cheque on a crashing bank.”

(On a Crashing Bank)

**The Quit India Movement (August 8, 1942)**

Following the failure of the Cripps Mission, Indians were left with no alternative but to launch a freedom struggle. Consequently, the Congress was compelled to initiate the Quit India Movement.

**Causes of the Movement**

The primary causes of this movement were as follows:

1. After the failure of the Cripps Mission, Indians had no option left other than to launch a movement.

2. The Congress sought complete independence—a demand the British government was unwilling to concede. Consequently, the public’s yearning for the attainment of freedom intensified significantly.

3. During the Second World War, Japan had defeated the British and seized control of Singapore, Malaya, and Burma. This made it immediately apparent to Mahatma Gandhi that Britain was incapable of defending India. Gandhi firmly believed that as long as the British retained their hold over India, Japan would inevitably launch an invasion. Conversely, if the British were to withdraw from India, Japan might refrain from attacking. Therefore, Gandhi called upon the British to leave India.

Under these circumstances, on August 8, 1942, in Bombay, the All India Congress Committee passed the historic resolution for the ‘Quit India Movement.’ Thus, in accordance with this resolution, the British government was issued a warning: if they did not immediately withdraw from India, a massive, nationwide, non-violent movement—under the leadership of Gandhi—would be launched.

At this juncture, Gandhi gave the nation the clarion call: “Do or Die.”

**Suppression of the Movement by the Government**

On August 9, 1942, the government arrested numerous Congress leaders—including Gandhi himself—and detained them at undisclosed locations. The Congress was officially declared an unlawful organization. Yet, the movement continued unabated even in Gandhi’s absence. Strikes, demonstrations, and processions were organized across the country. The government imprisoned thousands of individuals. To crush the movement, security forces resorted to firing live ammunition and carrying out *lathi-charges* (baton charges). Many people were killed and numerous others were injured during these events. Consequently, people attacked government buildings, structures, railway stations, post offices, and police stations, setting them on fire. In many places, railway tracks were uprooted and telegraph lines were severed. The agitators responded to the government’s repressive policies by hurling bombs. Following these violent incidents, Gandhiji undertook a fast while in prison. The government succeeded in crushing the movement by 1944.

**The Stance of Other Political Parties Towards the Movement**

Not all political parties in India were sympathetic to this movement. The Communist Party was influenced by Russia’s policies; therefore, it criticized the movement and appealed to Indians to assist the British government. The Muslim League was greatly pleased by the arrest of Congress leaders. While criticizing the movement, it continued its policy of extending support to the British government. Veer Savarkar, the prominent leader of the Hindu Mahasabha, also sharply criticized the movement and appealed to Hindus not to participate in it. The Liberal Party, the Harijan leader Ambedkar, the Akali Dal, and others also opposed the movement.

**The Significance of the Movement**

The movement of 1942 was, after the uprising of 1857, the second nationwide rebellion against the British government on a massive scale. To suppress the movement, the police and the army opened fire on 538 occasions. According to official statistics, 7,000 people lost their lives during the agitation. However, according to unofficial estimates, the death toll ranged from 10,000 to 40,000. A total of 60,229 individuals were incarcerated in prisons. According to Dr. Amba Prasad, “Although this movement failed to secure independence for India, it nevertheless instilled in the public a spirit of defiance against the government. It laid the groundwork for India’s independence.”

As a result of this movement, the British realized that it was no longer possible for them to continue ruling India for much longer. The Muslim League and the Congress remained mutually antagonistic throughout this period. During the Second World War, Jinnah extended every possible assistance to the British government and appealed to Muslims to remain aloof from the movement. Consequently, both the British and the Muslims began to draw closer to one another.

When Japan was preparing to invade India, the British government regarded Jinnah’s assistance as being of paramount importance.

**Causes for the Failure of the Movement**

According to Dr. Amba Prasad, there were three primary reasons for the failure of this movement:

1. There were several inherent flaws in the organization and planning of the movement. The leaders lacked foresight. They should have gone underground to undisclosed locations *before* formally announcing the movement; however, once the government arrested them, the movement was left leaderless. Furthermore, there was a lack of unity regarding the objectives of the movement; one faction favored conducting the agitation through non-violent means, while the other advocated for violent methods.

2. During the course of this movement, government employees, the military, the police, and the native princes extended their full cooperation to the government in every possible way, ensuring that government operations faced no disruption. These loyal servants regularly conveyed confidential information regarding the agitators to the government. Consequently, the government was able to ruthlessly crush the movement and its participants.

3. The agitators lacked the necessary resources and power to contend with the government. To suppress the movement, the government unleashed a campaign of repression so severe that it became exceedingly difficult for the common people to withstand it.

Although India did not attain independence directly through this movement, it cannot be denied that the sacrifices made during this struggle brought the realization of Indian independence significantly closer. Sardar Patel remarked, “In the entire history of British rule in India, there has never been an uprising quite like the one witnessed over the past three years. We take immense pride in the response demonstrated by the people.”

**The Rajagopalachari Plan**

The Gandhi-Jinnah Talks (1944)

By this time, communal riots had escalated significantly. Under the leadership of Jinnah, the Muslim League was demanding the creation of a separate nation for Muslims—Pakistan. In 1944, upon his release from prison, Gandhiji—seeking to resolve the communal issue—published a formula or plan devised by Rajagopalachari; this proposal subsequently became renowned as the ‘C.R. Formula,’ named after its author. This formula effectively conceded the Muslim demand for Pakistan, based on the principle of the right to self-determination. Acting upon the basis of this formula, Gandhiji held talks with Jinnah in 1944; however, these negotiations yielded no concrete results. Jinnah remained adamant in his demand for the creation of Pakistan without recourse to a public plebiscite; consequently, the talks ended in failure.

Gandhiji’s engagement with Jinnah on this subject served to significantly elevate Jinnah’s stature. The partition of the country had now firmly established itself as a central topic of national discourse. As Gandhiji repeatedly sought to engage Jinnah in dialogue to resolve this issue, Jinnah’s political significance grew even further. Furthermore, by addressing Jinnah—for the first time—as “Quaid-e-Azam” (the Great Leader), Gandhiji effectively solidified Jinnah’s standing in the eyes of Indian Muslims. According to Maulana Azad, at that time, Gandhiji’s meeting with Jinnah was a grave political blunder; for, due to Gandhiji’s pursuit of Jinnah and his repeated appeals, Jinnah acquired a newfound stature and significance in Indian politics.

**The Simla Conference (1945)**

Lord Wavell arrived in India as the Governor-General in 1944. To foster a conducive atmosphere in the country, he released several Congress leaders—including Gandhiji—from prison. Subsequently, he convened a conference of all political parties in Simla. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad participated in the conference on behalf of the Congress. The conference ended in failure, primarily due to the excessive importance accorded to Jinnah by Wavell, as well as Jinnah’s own intransigence.

**The Trials of the Azad Hind Fauj and the Naval Mutiny**

The Azad Hind Fauj (Indian National Army) was formed in Japan in 1942 by the Indian revolutionary Rash Behari Bose. Approximately 60,000 Indian soldiers, who had been taken prisoner by the Japanese, enlisted in this army.

Japan provided military assistance to this force. In June 1942, Rash Behari invited Subhash Chandra Bose to come to East Asia. Subhash arrived in Singapore on October 21, 1943, and assumed command of the Azad Hind Fauj. The objective of this army was to liberate India by defeating the British with the assistance of Germany and Japan. Addressing the soldiers, he issued a stirring call: “Give me blood, and I will give you freedom!”

Under Subhash’s leadership, and with the support of the Japanese army, the Azad Hind Fauj fought battles along India’s eastern frontier and in Burma in an attempt to liberate the country; however, they did not succeed in achieving their objective. Subhash himself met a heroic end in an aircraft crash. In November 1945, the British government initiated trials at the Red Fort in Delhi against those soldiers and officers of this army who had been defeated and taken prisoner. Among those tried were three officers of the Azad Hind Fauj: Colonel Sehgal, Colonel Dhillon, and Major Shah Nawaz Khan. Certain names stand out as particularly noteworthy—those whom the government charged with sedition because, during the war, they had deserted the Indian Army to join the Azad Hind Fauj (Indian National Army). This development sparked widespread agitation among the Indian public. Legal stalwarts such as Pandit Nehru, Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, and Bhulabhai Desai presented brilliant arguments in their defense. Despite these efforts, the British government sentenced all three to death. The people of India, across the entire nation, protested this verdict, and a rallying cry began to resonate throughout the country: “Demolish the Red Fort; release the Azad Hind Fauj!” Compelled by the pressure of Indian public opinion, the Governor-General exercised his special prerogatives and commuted the death sentences of the three men.

These trials rapidly awakened a sense of national consciousness throughout India. The exploits of the Azad Hind Fauj were lauded across the entire nation. Inspired by these events, the Royal Indian Navy mutinied in Bombay during 1945–46, and several British soldiers were killed.

This incident made it abundantly clear that it would no longer be possible for the British to retain their hold over India for much longer.

**The Cabinet Mission**

Following the conclusion of the Second World War in 1945, elections were held in England, leading to the formation of a Labour Party government under the leadership of Clement Attlee. This party held a sympathetic stance toward India. Consequently, the British government dispatched a three-member mission to India—comprising Sir Stafford Cripps, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, and A.V. Alexander—to seek a resolution to the Indian political impasse; this mission became famously known as the Cabinet Mission. The Commission announced its proposed plan on May 16, 1946.

This represented a sincere attempt to resolve the constitutional deadlock facing India. While the demand for a separate Pakistan was not accepted, an effort was made to appease the Muslim League by proposing a weak central government. Furthermore, attempts were made to satisfy the Indian populace through the establishment of a Constituent Assembly and the provision for an Interim Government. However, by grouping the provinces together and granting them the authority to frame their own separate constitutions, the plan—regarding the aspect of national unity… …had been rendered insignificant. The Congress decided to participate in the Interim Government; however, Jinnah resolved to resort to ‘Direct Action’ in pursuit of the demand for Pakistan.

The Interim Government

On September 2, 1946, an Interim Government was formed under the leadership of Nehru. Although the Muslim League joined the Interim Government through the efforts of Wavell, it nevertheless prevented the Congress’s policies from succeeding, constantly creating obstacles in its functioning.

During this period, the country witnessed a surge in communal riots fueled by the demand for Pakistan.

**The Lord Mountbatten Plan and the Attainment of Independence**

At this critical juncture, the British government replaced Lord Wavell with Lord Mountbatten as the Governor-General of India; he assumed this office on March 24, 1947.

Lord Mountbatten realized that the Muslim League was adamant about creating Pakistan and that any compromise with the Congress was utterly impossible. Consequently, in his view, there was no alternative other than partition. Having secured the consent of Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, Mahatma Gandhi, and others, Lord Mountbatten unveiled the plan for the partition of India on June 3, 1947—a plan subsequently known as the ‘Mountbatten Plan.’ To implement this scheme, the British Parliament passed the ‘Indian Independence Act’ on July 16, 1947. This Act came into force on August 15, 1947. In accordance with this legislation, India was declared an independent nation on August 15, 1947; however, this independence was accompanied by the partition of India and the creation of a new nation: Pakistan. Thus, after a prolonged struggle, India attained its freedom, and Mahatma Gandhi’s dream was realized.

**The Assassination of Mahatma Gandhi (January 30, 1948)**

Following the attainment of independence, the Muslim League incited communal riots across India. As a result, horrific bloodshed and violence erupted between Hindus and Muslims. Through the tireless efforts of Mahatma Gandhi, peace was eventually restored in regions such as Noakhali and Bihar. Subsequently, upon reaching Calcutta, he undertook a 72-hour fast. Gandhiji made every conceivable effort to quell these riots. On January 30, 1948, as he was proceeding to attend a prayer meeting at Birla House in Delhi, an assassin named Nathuram Godse opened fire on him. Upon being struck by the bullet, he collapsed to the ground uttering the words “He Ram” and passed away within a few moments. Thus, while struggling against communalism, he attained martyrdom. Upon Gandhiji’s death, Dr. Stanley Jones aptly wrote: “The assassin fired the bullets to put an end to Mahatma Gandhi and his ideas; however, the result was that those ideas were liberated and became the heritage of humanity. Through death, he became even more powerful than he was in life.”

**Factors Contributing to India’s Independence**

The following factors proved instrumental in securing India’s independence:

**(1) Gandhiji’s Contribution**

The national movement, conducted under Gandhiji’s leadership, made a significant contribution to India’s independence. Although movements such as the Non-Cooperation Movement, the Civil Disobedience Movement, and the Quit India Movement did not achieve their immediate objectives, they nevertheless transformed the national struggle into a mass movement. The public began to harbor deep resentment toward British rule, and a spirit of defiance—a willingness to confront the government—was awakened within them.

**(2) Britain’s Weakness**

Due to the Second World War, Britain’s position had deteriorated significantly. It had become impossible for the country to continue ruling India for much longer. British Prime Minister Attlee himself acknowledged this fact in the British Parliament.

**(3) The Naval Mutiny**

The wave of national consciousness had spread beyond the general public to reach the police and the armed forces as well. When the British government initiated trials against officers of the *Azad Hind Fauj* (Indian National Army), this wave of awakening spread rapidly throughout the military ranks. Consequently, in 1946, Indian naval personnel mutinied against the British, resulting in casualties among several British officials. This made it abundantly clear to the British government that the Indian naval forces no longer possessed the same degree of loyalty toward the government as they had in the past; therefore, relying on the Indian military, it was no longer possible to rule India by force.

**(4) The Labour Party Government in Britain**

Britain’s Labour Party was a staunch supporter of Indian independence. Prior to assuming power, during the general elections, the party had declared that if it were to form the government, it would grant independence to India. When the Labour Party government was formed in Britain in 1945, the prospect of India’s independence drew much closer. (5) The Impact of Communal Riots

The Muslim League instigated communal riots across the entire country in furtherance of its demand for Pakistan. The repercussions of these riots had spread even into the police, the army, and the administrative machinery. Consequently, it became increasingly difficult for the British government to continue ruling India solely with the assistance of the Muslim League.

(6) International Pressure on Britain

Allied nations—such as the United States, Russia, and China—had been exerting pressure on Britain for several years to grant independence to India. Consequently, England could not afford to disregard global public opinion. Under these circumstances, granting independence to India became an imperative necessity.

(7) Congress’s Acceptance of the Partition Plan

The Congress party accepted the plan for the partition of the country in order to secure immediate independence from England. Had the Congress not accepted the partition of the nation, no settlement could have been reached with the Muslim League; in such a scenario, the British government would likely have exploited this rift between the Congress and the League to continue ruling India for several more years. Thus, the Congress consented to the partition of the country to ensure the speedy attainment of independence.

(8) England’s Compulsion

It was out of sheer compulsion that England granted independence to India. During the war, England’s economic condition had deteriorated significantly; it was borrowing heavily from the United States. Furthermore, during the wartime period, England had also incurred a substantial debt to India. In this context, British politicians argued that, from an economic standpoint, continuing to rule India was proving to be a financial liability for England.

Although the Congress played a pivotal role in the attainment of independence, revolutionaries, too, made an immense contribution through their sacrifices. There were times when the government, acting with absolute authoritarianism, was perpetrating atrocities against the populace, and the morale of the Congress leaders had hit rock bottom. It was precisely during such critical moments that the revolutionaries…He led the national movement and gave a fittingly strong response to the British government. Furthermore, Indian newspapers, writers, and students also made a commendable contribution towards the attainment of independence.

🧠 टेक्नोलॉजी क्या है? (Technology in Hindi) – पूरी जानकारी