This section examines the critical political developments in India during 1919–1932, a period marked by escalating nationalist activities and significant shifts in the Indian independence movement.
Aftermath of the First World War
- Economic and Political Impact: The conclusion of the First World War in 1918 had profound effects on British India. The war caused severe economic strain, with increased taxes and high inflation affecting the Indian populace. Additionally, there was a sense of political awakening as many Indians who served in the war returned with heightened expectations of political rights.
- Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms: In 1919, the British government introduced these reforms, aiming to gradually develop self-governing institutions in India. The reforms proposed a dual system of governance, or 'diarchy', where elected Indian ministers would have control over certain aspects of government, while others remained under direct British control.
- Reaction to the Reforms: The reforms fell short of the expectations of Indian leaders. They were criticised for their half-hearted approach to self-governance and complex bureaucracy.
The Amritsar Massacre (1919)
- The Incident: On 13 April 1919, a peaceful crowd gathered at Jallianwala Bagh in Amritsar to protest against the Rowlatt Act, which allowed for detention without trial. General Dyer ordered his troops to fire on the unarmed crowd, resulting in hundreds of deaths.
- Aftermath and Impact: The massacre led to widespread outrage across India and the world. It marked a turning point in the Indian independence movement, with many Indians losing faith in the possibility of fair treatment under British rule. The incident significantly bolstered support for the Indian National Congress (INC) and its fight for independence.
Government of India Act 1919
- Introduction of 'Diarchy': This Act implemented the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms. It introduced a 'diarchy' system in the provinces, where certain subjects like education and health were transferred to Indian ministers, while critical areas like finance and law remained under British control.
- Critique and Limitations: The Act was criticised for its complexity and the limited power it actually transferred. It was seen as a token gesture rather than a genuine step towards self-rule. The diarchy system was often mired in bureaucratic inefficiencies and conflicts.
The Simon Commission (1928)
- Formation and Purpose: The British government appointed the Simon Commission to review the political situation in India and suggest further reforms. Notably, the commission had no Indian members, leading to its immediate rejection by most Indian leaders.
- Protests and Nationalist Mobilisation: The Commission's arrival in India sparked widespread protests. The Indian political spectrum, from the INC to the Muslim League, united in opposition to the Commission, giving a significant impetus to the nationalist movement.
The Round Table Conferences (1930–1932)
- First Round Table Conference (1930): This conference was boycotted by the INC, the largest Indian political party, making its outcomes largely ineffective. However, it did bring Indian issues to an international platform.
- Gandhi-Irwin Pact and Second Round Table Conference (1931): The Gandhi-Irwin Pact led to the suspension of the civil disobedience movement and Gandhi's participation in the second conference in London. However, the conference failed to resolve major issues, particularly concerning the representation and safeguards for religious and social minorities.
- Third Round Table Conference (1932): The final conference was marked by divisions among Indian delegates and a lack of substantial progress. The British government's subsequent Communal Award, which proposed separate electorates for different religious communities, further aggravated communal tensions in India.
Conclusion
The period between 1919 and 1932 was crucial in the Indian struggle for independence. The political developments during these years, from the aftermath of World War I to the Round Table Conferences, significantly influenced the course of the Indian nationalist movement. These events heightened Indian aspirations for self-governance and laid the groundwork for the subsequent phases of the struggle for independence.
FAQ
The Third Round Table Conference, held in 1932, was significant for its outcomes that deepened communal divisions in India. One of the key results was the British Government's announcement of the Communal Award, which proposed separate electorates for different religious and social groups, including Muslims, Sikhs, and Dalits (then referred to as "Depressed Classes"). This decision was met with strong opposition from many Indian leaders, including Gandhi, who viewed it as a divisive policy that undermined Indian unity. The Communal Award laid the groundwork for the eventual partition of India, as it institutionalised communal identities in politics, exacerbating tensions between different religious and social groups.
The primary reasons for the failure of the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms were their half-hearted approach towards self-governance and the complexity of the administrative systems they introduced. The reforms, which aimed to introduce a 'diarchy' system in Indian provinces, were seen as too cautious and failed to address the demands of Indian nationalists for more substantial political power. The dual governance system created confusion and inefficiencies, as the division of responsibilities between British officials and Indian ministers was often unclear. Furthermore, the reforms did not touch upon significant areas such as law and order or finance, leaving key aspects of governance firmly under British control.
The Gandhi-Irwin Pact, signed in March 1931, had a significant impact on the Indian nationalist movement. The pact was an agreement between Mahatma Gandhi and the Viceroy, Lord Irwin, which marked the end of the Civil Disobedience Movement in return for concessions from the British. These concessions included the release of political prisoners and the right for Indians to make salt for their own use. The pact allowed Gandhi to attend the Second Round Table Conference in London as the representative of the Indian National Congress. While it temporarily halted the civil disobedience campaign, the pact was seen as a strategic move by Gandhi to re-engage with the British on equal terms, enhancing his stature and that of the INC in the process.
Indian leaders unanimously opposed the Simon Commission, primarily because it did not include any Indian members. The Commission was tasked with reviewing the political situation in India and suggesting constitutional reforms. However, the exclusion of Indian representatives was seen as a blatant disregard for the opinions and aspirations of the Indian people. This led to a nationwide campaign against the Commission, unified under the slogan "Simon, Go Back!" The opposition to the Simon Commission brought together various strands of the Indian political spectrum, consolidating the nationalist movement and intensifying the demand for self-rule.
The Rowlatt Act, passed in 1919 by the British government, significantly contributed to the unrest that culminated in the Amritsar Massacre. This Act authorised the British colonial government to imprison any individual suspected of terrorist activities and to detain them without trial for up to two years. It was widely seen as a direct attack on the civil liberties of Indians and provoked intense opposition and protests across the country. The Act's repressive nature intensified the existing dissatisfaction with British rule and set the stage for the tragic events at Jallianwala Bagh, where a peaceful protest against this Act turned into a massacre.
Practice Questions
The Amritsar Massacre in 1919 had a profound impact on the Indian independence movement. It marked a significant shift in Indian attitudes towards British rule, catalysing a broader and more intense demand for independence. The brutality of the incident, where hundreds of peaceful protesters were killed, shattered any lingering illusions about benevolent British governance. It galvanised Indian opinion against the British and significantly boosted the support for the Indian National Congress. The Massacre also led to a radicalisation of the movement, with leaders like Mohandas Gandhi intensifying their campaigns for self-rule, notably through non-violent civil disobedience.
The Government of India Act 1919 was a pivotal moment in the Indian nationalist movement, as it represented the first attempt by the British to incorporate elements of self-governance in India. Although the Act introduced the concept of 'diarchy', which allowed Indian ministers to manage certain domains, it was largely seen as inadequate and overly bureaucratic. The Act's failure to meet Indian aspirations for more substantial self-rule resulted in increased dissatisfaction and strengthened the resolve of the nationalist movement. It highlighted the growing chasm between Indian demands and British willingness to relinquish control, fuelling further nationalist agitation for complete independence.
