Post-NCM Disillusionment and Debate within Congress
Gandhi's withdrawal of the Non-Cooperation Movement (NCM) created a political vacuum and widespread demoralization among nationalists.
Gaya Session of Congress (December 1922)
- The annual session of the Congress held at Gaya, presided over by C.R. Das, became the main forum for the debate on the future course of action.
- The central point of contention was "Council Entry" – whether Congressmen should contest elections and enter the legislative councils established under the Government of India Act, 1919 (Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms), which had been boycotted during the NCM.
- Two distinct factions emerged:
- "Pro-Changers" (later Swarajists): Advocated for council entry.
- "No-Changers": Opposed council entry and favored continuing the boycott and focusing on constructive work.
- The No-Changers, led by C. Rajagopalachari, defeated the proposal for council entry at the Gaya session. This led C.R. Das to resign from the presidentship of the Congress.
Swarajists (Congress-Khilafat Swarajya Party, formed January 1923)
Dissatisfied with the Gaya resolution, the Pro-Changers formed their own party within the Congress.
Leaders & Formation
- C.R. Das (Chittaranjan Das): President of the Swarajya Party.
- Motilal Nehru: Secretary of the Swarajya Party.
- Other prominent leaders included Hakim Ajmal Khan, Vithalbhai Patel (elder brother of Sardar Patel), and N.C. Kelkar.
Arguments for Council Entry
- "End or Mend" the Councils: They argued that entering the councils was not about cooperating with the British but about wrecking the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms from within. Their slogan was to "end or mend" these councils.
- Obstruct British Policies: By gaining a majority or significant presence, they aimed to obstruct government functioning, reject unpopular bills, and expose the undemocratic nature of the councils.
- Expose Limitations of Reforms: They wanted to use the council platform to highlight the inadequacy of the existing constitutional reforms and demand genuine self-government.
- Prevent Councils from Being Filled by Loyalists: If nationalists boycotted the councils, these bodies would be filled by pro-government, loyalist elements who would not represent popular interests. It was better to capture these seats and use them for nationalist purposes.
- Keep political enthusiasm alive during a period of lull in mass movements.
Performance in Elections (November 1923)
- The Swarajists contested the elections held in November 1923 and achieved significant success.
- They won a clear majority in the Central Provinces legislative council.
- They emerged as the largest party in the Bengal council and fared well in Bombay and U.P.
- In the Central Legislative Assembly, they won 42 out of 101 elected seats.
Work in Legislative Councils
- Raised Nationalist Demands: Vigorously voiced nationalist grievances, demanded constitutional reforms, and called for the release of political prisoners.
- Exposed the Government: Through powerful speeches and debates, they exposed the hollowness of the reforms and the autocratic nature of British rule.
- Obstructionist Tactics: They often resorted to obstructionist tactics, defeating government bills and motions, and walking out of councils in protest.
- Vithalbhai Patel Elected Speaker: A major achievement was the election of Vithalbhai Patel as the President (Speaker) of the Central Legislative Assembly in 1925. He upheld the dignity of the office and often used his position to support nationalist causes.
- They were instrumental in the defeat of the government on several budget proposals.
Limitations and Decline
- Obstructionist Tactics Had Limits: Constant obstructionism had its limitations and could not fundamentally alter the system. The Viceroy and Governors had overriding powers.
- Internal Divisions: Differences emerged within the Swarajists themselves:
- Responsivists: (e.g., M.R. Jayakar, N.C. Kelkar, Lala Lajpat Rai) advocated for cooperating with the government if certain conditions were met and accepting office.
- Non-Responsivists: Stuck to the original policy of consistent obstruction.
- Loss of Leaders: The death of C.R. Das in June 1925 was a major blow to the Swarajya Party, as he was its principal architect and unifying force.
- Lure of Office: Some members were gradually drawn towards accepting positions and perks offered by the government, diluting their oppositional stance.
- Withdrawal from Legislatures: By 1926, the Swarajists had largely lost their initial fervor. Many withdrew from the legislatures, and the party formally decided to walk out in March 1926. They boycotted the 1930 elections during the Civil Disobedience Movement.
No-Changers: Constructive Work
This group advocated adherence to Gandhi's constructive program and opposed council entry.
Leaders
- C. Rajagopalachari (Rajaji)
- Dr. Rajendra Prasad
- Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel
- M.A. Ansari
- Jamanalal Bajaj, N.C. Kelkar (initially, later became a Responsivist).
Arguments against Council Entry
- Focus on Gandhian Constructive Work: Believed that the primary task was to engage in quiet, constructive work at the grassroots level to build national strength and prepare the masses for the next phase of mass struggle (Satyagraha).
- Councils as Illusions: Viewed councils as an illusionary trap that would divert energy from real nationalist work and lead to compromise with the colonial regime.
- Danger of Co-option: Feared that council entry would lead to the co-option of nationalist leaders into the colonial system.
Constructive Programme
The No-Changers dedicated themselves to Gandhi's Constructive Programme, which included:
- Promotion of Khadi: Popularizing hand-spinning (Charkha) and hand-weaving (Khadi) to promote self-reliance and provide employment.
- Hindu-Muslim Unity: Working to foster communal harmony.
- Removal of Untouchability (Harijan Uplift): Campaigning against untouchability and working for the upliftment of oppressed castes.
- National Education: Supporting national schools and colleges.
- Village Reconstruction: Promoting rural development and sanitation.
- Prohibition: Campaigning against liquor consumption.
Work through Ashrams: Many No-Changers worked through Gandhian ashrams, which became centers of constructive activity and training for Satyagrahis.
Compromise: Though the Swarajists formed their party, a compromise was reached where they were allowed to contest elections as a group within the Congress, with Gandhi's blessings, to avoid a formal split like Surat (1907). Gandhi himself focused on constructive work after his release from prison in 1924.
Other Developments during this Period
The 1920s was a period of diverse political and social currents.
Resurgence of Revolutionary Nationalism (Second Phase)
- The disillusionment following the withdrawal of NCM led to a resurgence of revolutionary activities.
- Key organizations: Hindustan Republican Association (HRA), later Hindustan Socialist Republican Association (HSRA).
- Notable events: Kakori Train Robbery (1925).
- Prominent figures: Ram Prasad Bismil, Ashfaqulla Khan, Chandrashekhar Azad, Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev, Rajguru. (Details in Module 10)
Growth of Peasant and Worker Movements
- The 1920s saw increased organization and militancy among peasants and workers, often independent of the Congress.
- Formation of Kisan Sabhas and trade unions. (Details in Module 10)
Rise of Communalism
- This period witnessed a significant rise in communal tensions and the growth of communal organizations:
- Hindu Mahasabha (founded 1915, became more active).
- Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) (founded 1925).
- Muslim communal organizations promoting Tabligh (propagation) and Tanzim (organization) movements, partly as a reaction to Hindu Shuddhi and Sangathan movements.
- Frequent communal riots in various parts of the country. (Details in Module 10)
Simon Commission Appointment (November 1927) and Renewed Political Activity
- The British government announced the appointment of an all-white Indian Statutory Commission (Simon Commission) to review the working of the Government of India Act, 1919, and suggest further reforms.
- The exclusion of Indians from the Commission led to widespread protests and a boycott by most Indian political parties, including the Congress.
- This event re-energized the nationalist movement and brought various factions together in opposition, paving the way for the next phase of mass struggle.
Summary Table: Interlude (1922-1929)
| Aspect | Description |
|---|---|
| Debate within Congress | Gaya Session (Dec 1922): Debate over Council Entry. "Pro-Changers" vs. "No-Changers". Council entry proposal defeated. |
| Swarajists (Congress-Khilafat Swarajya Party, Jan 1923) |
Leaders: C.R. Das (President), Motilal Nehru (Secretary), Hakim Ajmal Khan, Vithalbhai Patel. Arguments for Council Entry: "End or mend" councils from within, obstruct British policies, expose reforms. Performance: Won significant seats in 1923 elections; Vithalbhai Patel became Speaker (Central Legislative Assembly, 1925). Limitations: Obstructionism had limits, internal divisions (Responsivists vs. Non-Responsivists), C.R. Das's death (1925), lure of office, eventual withdrawal. |
| No-Changers |
Leaders: C. Rajagopalachari, Rajendra Prasad, Vallabhbhai Patel, M.A. Ansari. Arguments against Council Entry: Focus on Gandhian constructive work, prepare masses for next struggle. Constructive Programme: Khadi, Hindu-Muslim unity, anti-untouchability, national education. |
| Other Developments | Resurgence of Revolutionary Nationalism (HRA/HSRA, Kakori, Bhagat Singh). Growth of Peasant & Worker Movements. Rise of Communalism (Hindu Mahasabha, RSS, Tabligh, Tanzim). Simon Commission (1927) spurred renewed activity. |
Prelims-ready Notes
- Post-NCM Debate: Swarajists (Pro-Changers) vs. No-Changers.
- Gaya Session (Dec 1922): C.R. Das presided; Council entry proposal defeated.
- Swarajya Party (Congress-Khilafat Swarajya Party): Formed Jan 1923.
- Leaders: C.R. Das (President), Motilal Nehru (Secretary).
- Aim: "End or mend" councils from within.
- Vithalbhai Patel: Elected Speaker of Central Legislative Assembly (1925).
- Decline Factors: C.R. Das's death (1925), internal divisions (Responsivists vs. Non-Responsivists).
- No-Changers' Leaders: C. Rajagopalachari, Rajendra Prasad, Vallabhbhai Patel.
- No-Changers' Focus: Gandhian Constructive Programme (Khadi, Hindu-Muslim unity, anti-untouchability).
- Royal Commission on Decentralization (Hobhouse Commission): 1907-09 (Note: Included for context, not directly central to 1922-29 debate).
- Other Trends: Resurgence of Revolutionary Nationalism (HRA, Bhagat Singh), rise of Peasant/Worker movements, growth of Communalism.
- Simon Commission (1927): Re-energized political activity.
Mains-ready Analytical Notes
- The Dichotomy: Council Entry vs. Constructive Work: Genuine dilemma post-NCM. Swarajists wanted to sustain momentum via legislatures; No-Changers believed in grassroots work to build national strength and avoid co-option.
- Swarajists in Councils: A Mixed Legacy: Achievements (vocal opposition, Vithalbhai Patel Speaker, exposed reforms); Limitations (obstructionism limits, internal divisions, C.R. Das's death, lure of office).
- The Significance of Constructive Work: Crucial for long-term nation-building through mass contact, cadre building, social reform (untouchability, communal unity), and economic self-reliance (Khadi).
- The Multi-stranded Nature of Nationalism: Beyond Congress factions, revolutionary nationalism, peasant/worker movements, and communalism also active, showcasing a complex political landscape.
- Contemporary Relevance/Significance/Impact: Debates on parliamentary participation, importance of constructive work, challenges of unity in diverse movements.
Trend Analysis (UPSC Questioning Style)
Prelims:
- Key Leaders: Identifying leaders of Swarajists and No-Changers.
- Key Events/Commissions: Gaya Session, Simon Commission.
- Ideological Differences: Understanding the core debate over council entry vs. constructive work.
Mains:
- Swarajists vs. No-Changers: Classic theme for comparative analysis (ideologies, methods, contributions, limitations).
- Constructive Programme: Its significance and components.
- Impact of this Interlude: How this period contributed to the broader nationalist movement.
- Linkages: To other developments of the 1920s (revolutionary nationalism, communalism, peasant movements).
UPSC Previous Year Questions (PYQs)
Prelims MCQs
UPSC Prelims 2015: The "Swadeshi" and "Boycott" were adopted as methods of struggle for the first time during the:
(a) Agitation against the Partition of Bengal
(b) Home Rule Movement
(c) Non-Cooperation Movement
(d) Visit of the Simon Commission to India
Answer: (a)
Hint: The debate between Swarajists and No-Changers followed the Non-Cooperation Movement, which itself drew lessons from the Swadeshi period.
UPSC Prelims 2012: Mahatma Gandhi undertook fast unto death in 1932, mainly because:
(a) Round Table Conference failed to satisfy Indian political aspirations.
(b) Congress and Muslim League had differences of opinion.
(c) Ramsay MacDonald announced the Communal Award.
(d) None of the statements (a), (b) and (c) given above is correct in this context.
Answer: (c)
Hint: This relates to a later period but touches upon the issue of communal representation, which had its roots partly in the divisions seen in the 1920s.
UPSC Prelims 2019: With reference to the British colonial rule in India, consider the following statements:
1. Mahatma Gandhi was instrumental in the abolition of the system of ‘indentured labour’.
2. In Lord Chelmsford’s ‘War Conference’, Mahatma Gandhi did not support the resolution on recruiting Indians for World War.
3. Consequent upon the breaking of Salt Law by Indian people, the Indian National Congress was declared illegal by the colonial rulers.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
(a) 1 and 2 only
(b) 1 and 3 only
(c) 2 and 3 only
(d) 1, 2 and 3
Answer: (b)
Hint: This question deals with Gandhian actions. The period 1922-1929 was when Gandhi, after his release in 1924, focused heavily on constructive work while the Swarajists engaged in council politics.
Mains Questions
UPSC Mains 2017: Why did the ‘moderates’ fail to carry conviction with the nation about their proclaimed political objectives?
Direction: While about Moderates, the emergence of Swarajists (who were initially Extremists or had Extremist leanings) and No-Changers reflects the evolution of political thought beyond the Moderate era, partly due to the perceived failures of Moderates.
UPSC Mains 2018: Throw light on the significance of the thoughts of Mahatma Gandhi in the present times.
Direction: The Constructive Programme championed by No-Changers was central to Gandhi's philosophy. The answer can discuss how these ideals (Khadi, anti-untouchability, Hindu-Muslim unity, village self-sufficiency) are relevant today.
UPSC Mains (Hypothetical): "The period following the withdrawal of the Non-Cooperation Movement (1922-1929) was marked by a creative tension within the Congress between parliamentary politics and constructive work." Discuss the differing approaches of the Swarajists and the No-Changers and their respective contributions.
Direction:
- Introduction: Briefly explain the context of post-NCM disillusionment and the emergence of two factions.
- Swarajists (Parliamentary Politics):
- Leaders (C.R. Das, Motilal Nehru).
- Arguments for council entry ("end or mend," obstruct, expose).
- Performance in councils (Vithalbhai Patel as Speaker, obstruction).
- Contributions: Kept political pressure, exposed reforms, provided some political activity.
- Limitations: Obstructionism's limits, internal divisions, loss of C.R. Das.
- No-Changers (Constructive Work):
- Leaders (Rajagopalachari, Patel, Prasad).
- Arguments against council entry (focus on grassroots, prepare for next struggle).
- Constructive Programme (Khadi, anti-untouchability, Hindu-Muslim unity, national education).
- Contributions: Strengthened Congress at grassroots, social reform, economic self-reliance, trained cadre.
- Creative Tension & Compromise: Explain how, despite differences, a split was avoided (unlike Surat 1907). Gandhi's role in allowing Swarajists to pursue their path while he focused on constructive work.
- Conclusion: Conclude that both approaches, though different, contributed in their own ways to keeping the nationalist spirit alive and preparing the ground for future mass movements. The Swarajists kept the political battle going in the legislatures, while the No-Changers strengthened the organizational and social base of the Congress.
Original MCQs for Prelims
1. The Congress-Khilafat Swarajya Party (Swarajists) was formed in 1923 with the primary objective of:
Show Answer & Explanation
Answer: (c)
Explanation: The Swarajists, or Pro-Changers, believed in entering the legislative councils to either "end or mend" them by obstructing government functioning and exposing the limitations of the reforms.
2. Which of the following leaders were prominently associated with the "No-Changers" faction within the Indian National Congress after the withdrawal of the Non-Cooperation Movement?
Show Answer & Explanation
Answer: (b)
Explanation: C.R. Das and Motilal Nehru were the main leaders of the Swarajists (Pro-Changers). Vallabhbhai Patel and C. Rajagopalachari were prominent leaders of the No-Changers, who advocated for constructive work.
Original Descriptive Questions for Mains
"The schism between the Swarajists and the No-Changers in the 1920s, though reflecting a divergence in strategy, ultimately demonstrated the resilience and adaptability of the Indian National Congress." Discuss.
Key Points/Structure:
- Introduction: Briefly explain the context of the debate post-NCM withdrawal.
- Divergence in Strategy:
- Swarajists: Council entry ("end or mend"), legislative obstruction.
- No-Changers: Constructive work, preparing for mass Satyagraha.
- Highlight the fundamental differences in their immediate approach.
- Resilience and Adaptability of Congress:
- Avoiding a Repeat of Surat Split (1907): Despite strong differences, a formal split was averted. Gandhi's role in allowing Swarajists to pursue their program within Congress.
- Dual Strategy: Congress effectively allowed two parallel streams of activity – parliamentary work by Swarajists and grassroots constructive work by No-Changers.
- Learning from Experience: The Swarajist experiment, despite its limitations, provided valuable lessons. The constructive work strengthened the party's mass base.
- Reunification of Focus: The Simon Commission boycott later provided a common platform for both groups to reunite in active mass protest.
- Flexibility: Showed Congress's capacity to accommodate different viewpoints and adapt its strategy to changing political circumstances.
- Conclusion: Conclude that the Swarajist-No-Changer debate, while highlighting internal differences, ultimately showcased the Congress's maturity as a political organization. Its ability to contain these differences and allow for diverse strategies without a debilitating split (like Surat) demonstrated its resilience and adaptability, enabling it to maintain its position as the premier nationalist platform.
Evaluate the significance of the Constructive Programme championed by the 'No-Changers' during the 1920s. How did it contribute to strengthening the Indian nationalist movement in the long run?
Key Points/Structure:
- Introduction: Define the Constructive Programme and identify the No-Changers as its main proponents.
- Components of the Constructive Programme:
- Promotion of Khadi and village industries.
- Hindu-Muslim unity.
- Removal of untouchability (Harijan uplift).
- National education.
- Prohibition.
- Village reconstruction and sanitation.
- Significance and Long-term Contributions:
- Mass Contact and Mobilization: Took the message of Congress to the grassroots, especially in rural areas, broadening its social base.
- Social Reform: Addressed crucial social evils, attempting to create a more egalitarian and united Indian society, essential for a strong national movement.
- Economic Self-Reliance: Promoted Swadeshi in a practical way, providing alternative employment and challenging colonial economic structures.
- Building a Cadre of Workers: Trained a dedicated and disciplined cadre of nationalist workers committed to Gandhian ideals, who became the backbone of future mass movements.
- Moral Authority: Enhanced the moral authority of the Congress and Gandhi by demonstrating a commitment to social upliftment alongside political struggle.
- Preparing for Satyagraha: Aimed to build the inner strength (Atmashakti) and discipline of the masses, making them better prepared for future non-violent struggles.
- Limitations (if any): Progress in areas like untouchability removal and Hindu-Muslim unity was often slow and faced significant societal resistance.
- Conclusion: The Constructive Programme, though less glamorous than direct political agitation, was of profound significance. It strengthened the organizational and social foundations of the nationalist movement, fostered self-reliance, addressed critical social issues, and prepared the ground for sustained mass struggles, making it an indispensable component of the Gandhian strategy for achieving Swaraj.