Gandhian Mass Movements, Praja Mandal & 1937 Ministries (1919–1939)
0. Philosophy, Ideology & Core Principles of Mahatma Gandhi
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| Analyze Gandhi's views on Western Civilization, Khadi, Education, Trusteeship, Sarvodaya, and Constructive Programme. | Gandhian Social, Economic & Philosophical Framework:
|
1. Dawn of Gandhian Era, Early Satyagrahas & Rowlatt Anti-Imperialist Surge
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| Detail Mahatma Gandhi's early life in South Africa, evolution of Satyagraha methodology, and initial local experiments in India (1917–1918). | Gandhi's Arrival & Early Experiments (1915–1918):
|
| Examine the Rowlatt Act (1919), Rowlatt Satyagraha, Jallianwala Bagh Massacre, and Hunter Committee inquiry. | Rowlatt Act & Jallianwala Bagh Tragedy (1919):
|
2. Khilafat Movement, Non-Cooperation Movement & Swarajist Phase (1920–1927)
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| Analyze the origin of the Khilafat issue, merger with Non-Cooperation Movement (NCM), Nagpur session (1920), and withdrawal after Chauri Chaura. | Khilafat & Non-Cooperation Movement (1920–1922):
|
| Examine the Pro-Changers vs. No-Changers debate, foundation of Swaraj Party (1923), legislative achievements, and downfall. | Swarajists vs. No-Changers & Council Entry (1922–1927):
|
3. Simon Commission, Nehru Report, Civil Disobedience Movement & Round Table Conferences (1927–1934)
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| Detail the Simon Commission boycott, Nehru Report (1928), Jinnah's 14 Points, and Lahore Purna Swaraj Declaration (1929). | Constitutional Struggle & Purna Swaraj (1927–1929):
|
| Analyze the Civil Disobedience Movement (CDM), Dandi March, regional manifestations, Gandhi-Irwin Pact, and Karachi Session (1931). | Civil Disobedience Movement & Salt Satyagraha (1930–1931):
|
| Examine the Communal Award (1932), Poona Pact, Yerwada Fast, and 2nd/3rd Round Table Conferences. | Communal Award, Poona Pact & Second CDM Phase (1931–1934):
|
4. Praja Mandal Movements in Princely States & Administrative Experiments
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| Detail the origins, All India States Peoples' Conference (AISPC), Rajkot Satyagraha, and Praja Mandal agitations across princely states. | Praja Mandal Movements & Princely States Agitations:
|
| Examine the Southborough Franchise Committee (1918–19) and evolution of voting rights. | Southborough Franchise Committee & Electoral Evolution:
|
5. Role of Women in Indian National Movement & Revolutionary Activities
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| Detail the participation of women in Swadeshi, Non-Cooperation, Civil Disobedience, Quit India, and Revolutionary movements. | Women's Contribution to the Freedom Struggle:
|
6. Government of India Act 1935, 1937 Elections & 28-Month Congress Ministries
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| Analyze the provisions of GOI Act 1935, 1937 Provincial Elections, administration of Congress Ministries, Pirpur Report, and resignation in Oct 1939. | GOI Act 1935 & 1937 Provincial Governance:
|
Converting lines 201–450 plus the contiguous strategy block (S-T-S, Gandhi 1938/1939 quotes, constructive work, council entry) that those concepts require, into zero-loss VitePress + Cornell Notes markdown.```markdown
Surya Sen’s IRA and End of Revolutionary Stream
Surya Sen’s IRA: Chittagong Insurrection, Khanda Juddha and Dissolution
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| What distinguished Bengal’s revolutionary goal from the socialist orientation of HSRA? | Priority of National Independence: In Bengal, national independence, and not a socialist revolution, remained the more urgent and hallowed goal. |
| Who was Surya Sen and how did he reorganise revolutionary work? | Surya Sen and Reorganisation: Surya Sen was a revolutionary from Chittagong who had escaped the police in Shovabazar, to reorganize revolutionary work in Bengal, Bihar, Assam and UP. |
| When and on what model was the Indian Revolutionary Association founded? | IRA (1928) on Sinn Fein Lines: In 1928 he along with his friends established the Indian Revolutionary Association (IRA) in Chittagong, on the lines of the Irish Sinn Fein. |
| What was the IRA’s military plan and what happened on 22 April 1930? | Military Insurrection and Gun Battle: They planned a military insurrection to take over Chittagong and to declare it a republic. On 22 April 1930, the IRA was engaged in a fierce gun battle with the police, in which they lost 13 of their ranks. |
| What was ‘khanda juddha’ and when were Surya Sen and his aides arrested? | Khanda Juddha and Arrests: After this the IRA started ‘khanda juddha’ or guerilla warfare against the state. This ‘war’ continued for a long time until Surya Sen was arrested in February 1933, and his closest aides Tarakeswar Dastidar and Kalpana Datta in May 1933. |
| How did the revolutionary stream wind down after 1931–34? | Endgame and Dissolution of Yugantar: Bhagat Singh and his aides, including Chandrashekhar Azad, were killed in 1931. Surya Sen and Tarakeswar were sentenced to death and Kalpana for life, in 1934. After this, some revolutionary activity continued sporadically, often to avenge the death of these heroes, but with little impact. In 1938, the most long-lived revolutionary organization, the Yugantar, formally decided to dissolve itself. |
The Left within the Congress and Rise of Leftism (Part I)
Leftism in India: Three Streams and Factors Responsible for Rise
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| Out of what circumstances did leftism in India grow? | Post–First World War Politico-Economic Matrix: Leftism in India grew out of the special politico-economic circumstances prevailing in India towards the end of the First World War. The emergence of left can be seen in three streams. |
| What were the three streams of left emergence in India? | Three Streams of Left:
|
| List all factors responsible for the rise of left in colonial India. | Factors Responsible for Rise of Left:
|
Rise and Growth of Leftism within Congress: Awareness to Socialist Vision
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| How early was Congress aware of Socialism, and why did early leaders not adopt it? | Early Awareness vs Class Struggle Barrier: The Congress during the Indian national movement covered within itself a diverse range of ideological groups; however, the left trend was most prominent. The leaders of the Congress were aware of Socialism from the beginning. Dadabhai Naoroji, for example, had close contacts with British Socialists and attended the International Socialist Conference in Amsterdam in 1904. But still early leaders did not seriously concern themselves with the Socialist ideology as it encouraged class struggle. |
| When did the clear left-wing group emerge within Congress? | Post–First World War Recession: The clear emergence of the left-wing group occurred during the post–First World War years of recession — the period in which the rising prices of commodities and increasing repression of the Government played havoc with the lives of Indians. |
| What characterised the 1920s left-wing within Congress? | Soviet Inspiration and Dissatisfaction with Gandhian Programme: During the 1920s, there was a rise of left-wing within the Congress who were inspired by the Soviet Revolution and dissatisfied with Gandhian ideas and political programme, and began advocating radical solutions for economic, political and social ills of the country. |
| Which global developments of the 1930s made socialist ideas attractive? | Depression, Soviet Plans and Anti-Fascism: The Great Depression of the 1930s in the capitalist world, the Russian Revolution and the success of the Soviet Five Year Plans, and the anti-fascist wave the world over during the 1930s made socialist ideas attractive. |
| What was Nehru’s role and how was left-wing tendency reflected in Congress presidencies? | Nehru, Bose and Economic Emancipation: Nehru played an important part in popularising the vision of a socialist India both within the national movement and in the Congress. Nehru argued that political freedom must mean the economic emancipation of the masses. The left-wing tendency found reflection in the election of Jawaharlal Nehru as president for 1929, 1936 and 1937 and of Subhas Chandra Bose for 1938 and 1939. |
| Why was the Congress Socialist Party formed in 1934? | CSP Mandate: Congress Socialist Party was formed in 1934 to work within the Congress, to give the national movement a socialist direction, and to organize workers and peasants in their struggles. |
Left Impact on Congress Socio-Economic Agenda: Karachi, Faizpur, Planning and Zamindari
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| How did radicalism and socialist vision enter Congress policy? | Fundamental Constituent of Policy: Radicalism, socialist vision and freedom defined in socio-economic terms became a fundamental constituent of the policy of Congress. The Congress took radical stand on economic and class issues, it took up the cause of workers and peasants, it began to show concern for agrarian problem and problems of industrial labour. |
| How did Gandhi turn left in the 1930s and 1940s? | Gandhi’s Left Turn: Gandhiji also turned radically to left in 1930s and 1940s. He talked about removal of vested interests, emphasised on economic equality, condemned exploitation of masses by capitalists and zamindars. |
| How did left impact the right wing and lower-rung Congress cadres? | Internal Socio-Economic Structure Thesis: The impact was also felt on the right wing of leadership and lower rung of Congress cadres. They also accepted that the poverty and misery of the Indian people was the result of not only colonial domination but also of the internal socioeconomic structure of Indian society. |
| What did Nehru declare at the Lahore Session of 1929 after Purna Swaraj? | Lahore Session Quote (Nehru):“I am a socialist, a republican and I am not a believer in kings, capitalists and landlords.” Nehru had criticized Gandhian Trusteeship Theory in the light of British role as Trustee under white men’s burden. |
| Which major Congress sessions institutionalised left influence? | Karachi, Lucknow, Faizpur and Haripura Anchors:
|
| What were the components of the Faizpur Agrarian Programme? | Faizpur Agrarian Programme Components:
|
| How else was socialist impact expressed in Congress practice and goals? | Manifestos, Ministries, India Independent League, Zamindari and States:
|
| What limited full radicalisation of Congress socio-economic agenda? | Compromise, Pro-Zamindar Views and Post-1937 Frustration: However, in several aspects, the radicalisation in socio-economic agenda of Congress did not happen due to necessity to reach compromise among different sections within Congress. There were conflicts within Congress regarding socio-economic agenda. Many in Congress still had pro-zamindar views and they opposed the radical agenda of the Congress. After the formation of Congress ministry, there was some frustration among farmers and industrial workers as steps taken by Congress was not enough to satisfy them. |
Communists and the Nationalist Movement (1925–1947)
Q. Communists’ Love–Hate Relationship with Congress (1925–1947) — Critical Examination
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| What dual inspiration created the internal dilemma of Indian communists? | Marxism + Nationalism + Comintern Dictate: The Communist Party of India was inspired by Marxism and nationalism at the same time. They wanted to free India from the imperial yoke but at the same time they believed in the Marxist principles i.e. struggle between working class and the capitalist (and feudal elements). Added to this internal dilemma was the dictate of the Communist International advocating change in strategy from time to time. As compared to this, Indian National Congress was a conglomeration of people of India founded with the objective to undertake struggle against the colonial rule. In fact, the communists had a love–hate relationship with the Congress which is evident from their approach and attitude during the nationalist movement from 1925–1947. |
| How did communists work initially when unable to work openly? | Workers and Peasants Party (WPP) Phase: Initially due to the suspicion of the British government, the communists were not able to work openly. Hence they worked through The Workers and Peasants Party (WPP). The communists working through the WPP were able to create a strong momentum within and outside the Congress party in favour of communist ideas. |
| What was the Sixth Party Congress (1929) Comintern line and its consequence for CPI–Congress relations? | 1929: Bourgeois National Movement Thesis: Since the communists of India thought themselves as a part of the international communist movement, they were guided by the strategic decisions of the Comintern. In the Sixth Party Congress in 1929, the Comintern revised its policy towards the national movement run by non-communists in colonial countries. They said that these national movements are bourgeois-led national movements and actually they are not against imperialism. As a consequence, the Communist Party of India decided that the Congress party is a bourgeois party and therefore there should not be any connection with the Congress party. The communist party under the direction of the Comintern decided to become more militant against the imperialism of the British government. |
| What was CPI’s radical turn after 1929–1934? | Armed Struggle, Programme and CD Rejection: The CPI declared that its goal was to establish socialism in India through revolution. In 1934 the party was accepted as the Indian section of the Communist International. The party moved toward more radicalism. The CPI, with its new policy orientation, had rejected non-violent forms of political struggle and committed itself to the policy of armed struggle against British imperialism. The Communist Party put forward a number of demands including abolition of zamindari, nationalization of banks, tea gardens and shipping industries and a host of other radical programs. In keeping with the new policy line, it not only dissociated itself from the Civil Disobedience Movement but also denounced the Gandhi–Irwin Pact as an act of the betrayal of the Indian people. |
| How did the Seventh Party Congress (1935) and Dun–Bradley Thesis reverse the line? | 1935–36 United Front with Congress: The Seventh Party Congress in Moscow, 1935, revised its policy in light of the threats of fascism. The Comintern went in favor of a united front with the bourgeois national movement against imperialism. The Indian Communists were to once again participate in the activities of the mainstream of the national movement led by the National Congress. The theoretical and political basis for the change in communist politics in India was laid in early 1936 by a document popularly known as the Dun–Bradley Thesis. According to this thesis, the National Congress could play a great part and a foremost part in the work of realizing the anti-imperialist people’s front. The communist party accepted the central role of the Congress in the struggle against imperialism in India and they gave national movement ultimate importance. The united front with Congress had brought the communists into the mainstream. |
| How did WWII and the Stalin–Hitler pact reshape communist stand (1939–41)? | ‘Imperialist War’ and Proletariat Path: The declaration of the Second World War (WW II) in September 1939 by the British Indian government had suddenly changed the course of the Indian national movement. The war presented a dilemma to the Congress party, whether to support or not the war efforts of the government. The Congress said that if the government sets a definite road map for India’s independence, the Congress will support the war efforts. The communists took a totally different stand. Their stand was derived from the Russian interaction with Germany. Russian leader Stalin had signed a pact of mutual interest with Germany in 1939. Therefore, for communists, Germany was on their side. So they declared that the British war efforts are imperialist war. The communists planned wide-scale anti-British activities in India so that they can disrupt the British war efforts. The CPI formulated a new policy statement known as ‘Proletariat Path’ through which it committed itself to open rebellion against the British rule in India by organizing a ‘general strike’ in the major industries along with ‘a no rent, no tax campaign’. Not only that, it also wanted to make an open attack on all symbols of the British authority including police and army structure. In pursuance of this new policy, they organized a major strike in the textile mills of Bombay in March 1941. |
| How did Hitler’s attack on USSR reverse CPI policy again (1941–42)? | People’s War Line and Quit India Boycott: But within two years everything was about to change fully. In June 1941, Hitler attacked Russia. And on 12 July 1941 the Soviet Union and Great Britain concluded an agreement on joint operation in the war against Hitler. This also brought a change in the CPI’s thinking and the CPI decided to support the British war efforts against the Fascists. In order to stick to their latest stand, the communists directed its cadres to stay away from the Quit India Movement. Even the communists played as collaborators of British to quell the movement. They helped the police and Criminal Investigation Department (CID) in arresting the Congress leaders and workers. |
| What was CPI’s verdict on 1947 independence and what does the full trajectory show? | ‘Yeh Azadi Jhooti Hai’ and Extraneous Guidance: After independence of India in 1947, the CPI declared that this freedom was fake (yeh azadi jhooti hai). It is evident from above that the communists were guided by various extraneous variables and looked outside India for political guidance and this contributed in development of love–hate relationship with the Congress. |
Circumstances Favouring Left and Growth of Left within Congress
Q. Circumstances Favouring Growth of Left Ideologies; Growth of Left within Congress
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| Summarise circumstances favouring growth of Left ideologies in colonial India. | Circumstantial Matrix: Leftism in India grew out of the special politico-economic circumstances prevailing in India towards the end of the First World War. These circumstances were:
|
| Trace growth of Left within Congress in key points. | Growth of Left within Congress: The Congress during the Indian national movement covered within itself a diverse range of ideological groups; however, the left trend was most prominent. Its growth is traced as follows:
|
Radicalisation of Congress Socio-Economic Agenda by Left Wing
Q. “Emergence of left-wing group in Congress radicalized its socio-economic agenda.” Critical Evaluation
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| How did left-wing emergence set the stage for radicalisation? | From Awareness to Frustration and Leadership: The leaders of the Congress were aware of Socialism from the beginning. Dadabhai Naoroji had close contacts with British Socialists and attended the International Socialist Conference in Amsterdam in 1904. But still early leaders did not seriously concern themselves with Socialist ideology as it encouraged class struggle. The clear emergence of the left-wing group occurred during the post–First World War years of recession — rising prices and increasing Government repression. The sudden withdrawal of the Non-Cooperation movement left many frustrated and some of them in Congress chose the path of socialism. The emergence of left-wing leaders like Nehru and Bose who were elected Congress presidents and the formation of Congress Socialist Party in 1934 within Congress helped in turning the socio-economic agenda of the Congress to left. |
| How was socio-economic agenda of Congress radicalised? | Radicalisation — Full Inventory:
|
| What critical limits constrained radicalisation? | Compromise and Incomplete Satisfaction: However, in several aspects, radicalisation did not happen due to necessity to reach compromise among different sections within Congress. There were conflicts regarding socio-economic agenda. Many still had pro-zamindar views and opposed the radical agenda. After formation of Congress ministry, there was frustration among farmers and industrial workers as steps taken by Congress were not enough to satisfy them. |
Congress and Peoples’ Movements in Princely States (Praja Mandal)
Congress Attitude towards Praja Mandal Movements in Princely States
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| How did nationalist movement spill into Princely States? | Impact, Praja Mandals and Twin Struggle: The onset of the nationalist movement in British India also had an impact on the people of the Princely States. Many revolutionary nationalists fleeing British authority came to the Princely States in the first and second decades of the 20th century and initiated political activities there. The launching of the non-cooperation and Khilafat movements stirred the entire Indian population cutting across the borders of British India. Under the national movement, the subjects of the princely states established people’s organizations in Mysore, Hyderabad, Baroda, Kathiawad, Jamnagar, Indore, Nawanagar, etc. The people’s organisations started by the people of princely states for the national movement were called ‘Praja Mandals’. The people of Praja Mandal movement fought against their feudal princes and the British administration simultaneously for their rights. The main demand of the Praja Mandal movements was democratic rights. |
| What was Congress policy at Nagpur (1920) towards States’ people? | Nagpur 1920 Formula: The Congress, for the first time at its Nagpur Session in 1920, enunciated its policy towards the peoples’ movement in the Princely States. It called upon the Princes to grant full responsible government in their States. However, it was pointed out that though the people belonging to the States could enroll themselves as members of the Congress, they could not initiate political activity in the State in the name of the Congress. They could carry on political activity in their individual capacity as members of the local Praja Mandals. |
| What did Nehru say at Lahore (1929) about Indian States? | Lahore Presidential Observation: From the mid-20s, the Congress started taking keen interest in the states’ people’s movements. In 1929, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru in his presidential address of Lahore Congress observed: “The Indian States cannot live apart from the rest of India…. The only people who have a right to determine the future of the States must be the people of those States.” |
| What compromise formula governed Congress–States relations till mid-1930s? | Committees Permitted; Unparliamentary Activity Barred: This position continued till 1935 though cooperation between leaders of the States’ People’s Conferences and Congress leaders gradually increased. Finally, it was decided that Congress Committees could be formed in the Indian States but they were not to engage in any unparliamentary activity or direct action. This compromise formula helped to bring about harmony between the Congress and the freedom movement in the States. |
| What did Lucknow Session (1936) resolve on rights of States’ people? | Lucknow 1936 Self-Determination Resolution: In a resolution passed at the Lucknow session of Congress in 1936, it was observed that: “Congress… desires to make it clear that, in its opinion, the people of the States should have the same rights of self-determination as those of the rest of India, and that the Congress stands for the same political, civil and democratic liberties for every part of India. The Congress, however, desires to point out that the struggle for liberty within the States has to be carried on by the people of the State themselves.” |
| What regional flashpoints and Haripura (1938) policy marked States politics? | Rajkot, Hyderabad, Kashmir; Haripura Integrity Thesis: In Rajkot, the Satyagraha movement drew personalities like Gandhiji and Sardar Patel. Though Gandhiji ultimately withdrew the Satyagraha accepting his failure to change the heart of the ruler, its impact was far reaching. In Hyderabad also, a very powerful people’s movement built up. In Kashmir, under Sheikh Abdullah the people organized themselves. The Congress also started showing more interest in various political activities in the States, though adhering to its old stand that the movement in the Princely States should not be conducted in the name of the Congress but in the name of the local organizations. After this, the Haripura session of Congress in 1938 dealt with the problems of the States in detail. It considered the states to be integral parts of India and desired the same political, social and economic freedom in the States as in the rest of India. The demand for ‘Purna Swaraj’ put forward by the Congress was for the whole of India inclusive of the States. But Haripura Congress of 1938 reiterated its policy that movements in the States should not be launched in the name of Congress but should rely on their own local strength. |
| How and why did Congress policy shift in 1939 (Gandhi’s quote and Tripuri)? | From Non-Intervention to Removal of Restraint: A few months later, on seeing the spirit of people and their capacity to struggle, Gandhi and Congress changed their attitude on this question. The radicals and socialists in Congress as well as political workers in the States had already been pressing for this change for quite some time. Explaining this shift in policy in January 1939, Gandhi said: The policy of nonintervention by the Congress was in my opinion a perfect piece of statesmanship when the people of the States were not awakened. That policy would be cowardice when there is all-round awakening among them and a determination to go through a long-term suffering for vindication of their just rights. The moment they became ready, the legal, constitutional and artificial boundary was destroyed. Congress at Tripuri in March 1939 passed a resolution enunciating its new policy by complete removal of restraint on itself. |
| What was Nehru’s role in AISPC and how did Quit India extend to States? | AISPC Presidency and Organic Relationship: Jawaharlal Nehru was invited to become the President of the All India States’ People’s Conference in 1935, and elected president of the All India States’ People’s Conference in 1939 at its session held in Ludhiana (he remained President until 1946). He exhorted the Praja Mandals to step up the agitations in the States to uphold the rights and dignities of the people. During the Quit India movement, 1942, Congress formally extended the call for launching a struggle to the people of the States as well. The constitutional changes, likely to take place in the near future, also underlined the necessity of having an organic relationship between the Princely States and the Government of India. |
Ideology of Subhas Chandra Bose: Nationalism, Fascism and Communism
Q. “Ideology of Subhash Chandra Bose was a combination of nationalism, fascism and communism.” Comment
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| What statement of Bose at Tokyo (1944) frames the fascism–communism synthesis claim? | Tokyo University Address and National Socialism: The given statement was made by Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose while addressing students at Tokyo University in 1944, which shows his inclination towards Fascism and Communism. What Netaji refers to as National Socialism is nothing else but Nazism, the socio-political ideology of Hitler. |
| Which prison readings modified Bose’s long-held socialist views? | Mandalay and Alipore Intellectual Turn: During his years in Mandalay prison and another short term of imprisonment in Alipore jail in 1930, he read many works on political theory, including Francesco Nitti’s Bolshevism, Fascism and Democracy and Ivanoe Bonomi’s From Socialism to Fascism. These works on fascism probably influenced him and caused an immediate modification of his long-held socialist views. |
| What did Bose say as Mayor of Calcutta (1930) about Socialism and Fascism? | Mayor’s Address — Synthesis of Socialism and Fascism: The very first address made by Bose on being elected as the Mayor of Calcutta in early 1930 validates his inclination towards fascism. He said: “I would say we have here in this policy and program a synthesis of what modern Europe calls Socialism and Fascism. We have here the justice, the equality, the love, which is the basis of Socialism, and combined with that we have the efficiency and the discipline of Fascism as it stands in Europe today.” |
| What is Samyavad and what common traits of Communism and Fascism did Bose list? | Samyavad / Samyavadi Doctrine of Synthesis: He gave the theory of Samyavad in his book The Indian Struggle (which many call as inspired by Hitler’s autobiography Mein Kampf / My Struggle) where he had shown inclination towards Fascism and Communism by mentioning several common traits in both. According to Netaji, one is inclined to hold that the next phase in world-history will produce a synthesis between Communism and Fascism and that synthesis will be produced in India. He claimed that in spite of the antithesis between Communism and Fascism, there are certain traits in common:
|
| How did Bose display militarism at Calcutta (1928), Haripura (1938) and in the INA phase? | Militarism, Digvijaya Ceremony and INA Authoritarianism: Bose had organized the annual session of the Indian National Congress in 1928 in Calcutta. There, he organized a guard of honour in full military style — over 2,000 volunteers were drilled in military fashion and organized into battalions; half of them wore military uniforms with “officers” wearing metal epaulettes. For himself, Bose got a senior British military officer’s dress; he also assumed the title of general officer commanding, much to the chagrin of Gandhi, who described the whole thing as “Bertram Mills circus”. But Bose’s love for militarism continued. In 1938, at the 51st session of the Congress at Haripura, Bose was the president. He organized for himself a grand ceremony that was no less than a victory march of a triumphant ancient Indian king returning from digvijaya. He would do similar shows in Southeast Asia when he came to the helm of Indian National Army and Indian Independence League. In November 1941 he escaped from India and surfaced in Berlin, where he met Hitler. He organized the Azad Hind Fauj or the Indian National Army with the help of militaristic Japan, to fight for the freedom of India. In October 1943, Bose announced the formation of the Provisional Government of Free India (Arzi Hukumat-i-Azad Hind). He arbitrarily assumed the titles of head of state, prime minister, and minister for war and foreign affairs. He demanded total submission and fealty from Indians everywhere; anybody who opposed him, his army or government could be executed. The INA’s proclamation put this into writing: “If any person fails to understand the intentions of the Provisional Government of Azad Hind and dares to commit such acts which would hamper the sacred task of emancipating India, he shall be executed or severely punished.” |
| What did Bose say about post-independence dictatorship and planned economy? | Dictatorship, Authoritarianism and Socialist Planning: Bose had told during an interview with Singapore Daily in 1944 that for a few years at least, after the end of British rule in India, there must be a dictatorship as no other constitution can flourish in this country and it is so to India’s good that she shall be ruled by a dictator, to begin with. While outlining his vision for a free India, Subhash Chandra Bose proclaimed that socialist authoritarianism would be required to eradicate poverty and social inequalities from a diverse country like India. He openly espoused for an authoritarian state on the lines of Soviet Russia and Kemal Ataturk’s Turkey. Bose was also an exponent of socialism and opined that industrialization and Soviet-style five year plans held the key to a vibrant Indian nation. In his speech before the Bengal Branch of the Independence for India League in October 1928, the League’s manifesto which he helped draft was, for all purposes, a document advocating socialism for India. His proposals included:
|
| What nationalist and anti-communist elements balanced Bose’s ideology? | Enemy’s Enemy Strategy; Rejection of Racial Superiority and Communism: What Netaji did or said was not due to his support to Fascist Germany or expansionist Japan but for India’s freedom. He met Hitler as he was of the view that one’s enemy’s enemy is one’s friend and his main aim was independence of India by any means. His association with Germany, Italy and Japan was dictated by revolutionary strategy and not by ideological kinship. He was totally opposed to the theory of racial superiority which was one of the pillars of Nazi ideology. It was nationalism which was the redeeming feature of Netaji’s synthesis of samyavada. Subhas Bose had explicitly and repeatedly disassociated himself from communism — he considered himself “a socialist, but that was a very different thing from being a communist”. Though some of his ideas were influenced by Communism, he did not entirely agree with Communism. A primary distinction between communists and socialists lay in their respective emphasis on internationalism vis-à-vis nationalism. Bose had ridiculed the internationalism of the communists and had disparaged them for attacking the concept of independence. Independence of India was primary, and unionisation secondary to Bose; radicalisation and organisation of the workers was primary to Indian Communists. |
| How did Bose define genuine anti-imperialism and leftism in sequence? | Independence First, Socialism After: In Bose’s words: “A genuine anti-imperialist is one who believes in undiluted independence as the political objective and in uncompromising national struggle as the means for attaining it. After the attainment of independence, leftism will mean socialism and the task before the people will then be the reconstruction of national life on a Socialist basis. Socialism or socialist reconstruction before attaining our political emancipation is altogether premature.” |
| Why, according to Bose, would Communism not be adopted in India? | Three Reasons Against Indian Communism: As per Bose, there are several reasons why Communism will not be adopted in India:
|
| What were the goals of Forward Bloc as set by Bose? | Forward Bloc — Independence Primary: Bose did not identify Forward Bloc, the party he formed, with Socialism when he founded it and kept its goal primarily as independence of India. Bose set the goals of the Forward Bloc as follows: “Forward Bloc will rally all progressive, radical and anti-imperialist elements in the Congress, whether they be Socialists or not. Through this consolidation, the people will equip themselves for the anti-imperialist struggle that will bring India her birthright of liberty.” |
| How did Nehru tribute Bose after the 1945 air crash? | Nehru’s Tribute: After Bose “died” in that mysterious air crash in August 1945, Pandit Nehru paid a tribute: “In the struggle for the cause of India’s independence he has given his life. He was not only brave but had deep love for freedom. He believed, rightly or wrongly, that whatever he did was for the independence of India … Although I personally did not agree with him in many respects, and he left us and formed the Forward Bloc, nobody can doubt his sincerity. He struggled throughout his life for the independence of India, in his own way.” |
Strategy and Ideologies of the Indian National Movement
Strategy of Indian National Movement: Untheorized but Integral
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| Why is strategy a basic aspect of the long-term dynamics of the Indian national movement? | Capacity to Struggle Depends on Strategy: A very basic aspect of the long-term dynamics of the Indian national movement was the strategy it adopted in its prolonged struggle against colonial rule. The capacity of a people to struggle depends not only on the fact of exploitation and domination and on its comprehension by the people but also on the strategy and tactics on which their struggle is based. |
| Why have existing writings failed to deal with nationalist strategy? | Untheorized Character of Nationalist Strategy: Existing writings have failed to deal with the strategy adopted by the national movement. One reason for this failure is the largely untheorized character of the nationalist strategy. Unlike the leaders of the Russian and Chinese Revolutions, the leaders of the Indian national movement were not theoretically inclined and did not write books and articles putting forth their political strategy in an explicit form. But, in fact, the various phases of the struggle, phases of constitutional activity, constructive work, basic political decisions, forms of struggle, non-violence, Satyagraha, etc., cannot be properly understood or historically evaluated unless they are seen as integral parts of a basic strategy. Large elements of the nationalist strategy were evolved during the Moderate and the Extremist phases of the movement; it was structured and came to fruition during the Gandhian phase of the movement and in Gandhiji’s political practice. |
Factor behind Evolution of Nationalist Strategy: Semi-Hegemonic Colonial State
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| On what specific character of British rule was nationalist strategy based? | Semi-Hegemonic, Semi-Authoritarian Colonial State: At the very outset, it is to be noted that the nationalist strategy was based on the specific nature and character of British rule and the colonial state. While fully grasping the exploitative and dominational character of colonial rule, Indian leaders also realized that the colonial state was semi-hegemonic and semi-authoritarian in character. It was not like Hitler’s Germany or Czarist Russia, or Chiang Kai-shek’s China, or Batista’s Cuba. Its character could, perhaps, be best described as legal authoritarianism. |
| How did force and civil institutions coexist under colonial rule? | Force as Ultimate Sanction; Rule of Law as Façade: The colonial state was established by force and force remained its ultimate sanction. Naked force was often used to suppress peaceful movements. But it was not based just on force. It was also based on the creation of certain civil institutions, such as elected assemblies, local government institutions, courts, and schools and colleges, and, above all, on the rule of law. It provided a certain amount of civil liberties in non-movement periods. Moreover, often, even while suppressing popular opposition, it observed certain rules of law and codes of administration. In other words it was semi-democratic, semi-authoritarian. |
| What two notions underpinned colonial hegemony? | Twin Notions: Benevolence and Invincibility: The semi-hegemonic character of the colonial state arose from the fact that it relied very heavily for the acquiescence of the Indian people in their rule on two notions carefully inculcated over a long period of time:
|
War of Position: Hegemonic Struggle as Basic Strategic Perspective
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| What was the basic strategic perspective of the national movement in Gramscian terms? | War of Position / Long-Drawn Hegemonic Struggle: It was in the context of and in opposition to this semi-hegemonic, semi-authoritarian colonial state that the national movement gradually evolved its strategy and tactics. The basic strategic perspective of the national movement was to wage a long-drawn out hegemonic struggle, or, in Gramscian terms, a war of position. By hegemonic struggle, we mean a struggle for the minds and hearts of men and women so that the nationalist influence would continuously grow among the people through different channels and through the different phases and stages of the national movement. The movement alternated between phases of extra-legal or law-breaking mass movements and phases of functioning within the four walls of the law. But both phases were geared to expanding the influence of the national movement among the people. The basic strategy of the national movement was, moreover, not a strategy of gradual reform. It was a strategy of active struggle with the objective of wresting power from the colonial rulers. |
Objectives of Nationalist Strategy: Masses, Ideology, State Apparatuses, Political Space
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| What was the first objective of Gandhian-era nationalist strategy? | Politicise and Activise the Masses: The effectiveness and validity of the nationalist strategy lay in the active participation of the masses in the movement. The masses had, therefore, to be politicized and activised. The political passivity of the masses, especially in the villages, consciously inculcated and nurtured by the colonial authorities, was a basic factor in the stability of colonial rule. The first objective of the movements of the Gandhian era was to bring the masses into active politics and political action. As Gandhiji repeatedly declared, people ‘can have Swaraj for the asking’ when they ‘have attained the power to take it.’ |
| What was the second objective — eroding colonial hegemony? | Battle of Ideas against Benevolence and Invincibility: The second objective of the nationalist strategy was to erode the hegemony or ideological influence of the colonial rulers inch by inch and in every area of life. Since the British did not rule primarily by force but by a carefully organized belief system or ideology, it was necessary to undermine and overthrow this belief system. The battle then had to be one of ideas. The objective was to have more and more people adopt nationalist ideas and ideology. A major objective of the hegemonic colonial ideology was to hide the face of the real enemy — colonialism — that is, to hide the primary contradiction between the interests of the Indian people and colonialism. The basic task of the counter-hegemonic nationalist movement was to expose the face of the colonial enemy and the primary contradiction to the light of day. Hence the most important element of nationalist strategy was its ideological-political work. Above all, this meant the undermining of the twin notions of the benevolence and invincibility of British rule. |
| Who undermined the notion of benevolence and who challenged invincibility? | Division of Labour across Phases: The process of undermining the first, i.e., the notion of benevolence, and creating an intellectual framework for it was initiated and performed brilliantly by Dadabhai Naoroji, Justice Ranade, R.C. Dutt and other Moderates. This framework was carried to the lower middle classes by the Extremists and to the masses during the Gandhian era. The sturdily independent newspapers of the late 19th century, the work in the legislative councils by leaders like Pherozeshah Mehta and G.K. Gokhale, the bold propaganda of Lokamanya Tilak, Aurobindo Ghose and other Extremists, and the death-defying deeds of the Revolutionary Terrorists frontally challenged the notion of the invincibility of the colonial state. But it was the law-breaking mass movements of the post-1918 period which basically performed the task among the mass of the Indian people. The basic objective of these movements was to destroy the notion that British rule could not be challenged, to create among the people fearlessness and courage and the capacity to fight and make sacrifices, and to inculcate the notion that no people could be ruled without their consent. |
| What was the third objective regarding colonial state apparatuses? | Winning Over Civil Services, Police and Armed Forces: A third objective of the Congress strategy was to undermine the hold of the colonial state on the members of its own state apparatuses — members of the civil services, the police and the armed forces — and to win them over to the nationalist cause or at least to weaken their loyalty and obedience to the colonial regime. The nationalist movement was, in fact, quite successful in this task. Gradually, the behaviour of the police and jail officials underwent a qualitative change. A large number of officials of all types actively helped the 1942 movement at great personal risk. As we have seen earlier, the virtual disappearance of loyalty among the police, army and bureaucracy after 1945 and the consequent disarray of the British administrative structure were major reasons for the British decision to finally quit India. |
| What was the fourth objective and how was British public opinion targeted? | Expand Semi-Democratic Political Space: The national movement, from the beginning, made efforts to weaken the hegemony of colonial ideology among the British people and public opinion. There was a basic continuity in this respect from the work of the British Committee of the National Congress during the 1890s using the services of William Digby, William Wedderburn, and others to the work of the India League in which persons like V.K. Krishna Menon and Fenner Brockway were active. This as well as efforts to win the support of non-Congress leaders and public opinion within India also aided the achievement of a fourth objective of the nationalist strategy: to constantly expand the semi-democratic political space, and to prevent the colonial authorities from limiting the existing space, within which legal activities and peaceful mass struggles could be organized. |
S-T-S Strategy: Struggle–Truce–Struggle (War of Movement ↔ War of Position)
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| What is the Struggle–Truce–Struggle (S-T-S’) strategy? | Definition and Two-Phase Rhythm: The second major aspect of nationalist strategy was the long-drawn out character of the hegemonic struggle. Under this strategy, which may be described as Struggle–Truce–Struggle or S-T-S’, a phase of vigorous extra-legal mass movement and open confrontation with colonial authority was followed by a phase during which direct confrontation was withdrawn, and political concessions, if any, wrested from the colonial regime were worked and shown to be inadequate. During this latter, more ‘passive,’ phase, intense political and ideological work was carried on among the masses within the existing legal and constitutional framework, and forces were gathered for another mass movement at a higher level. |
| What was the culmination of S-T-S’ and how did both phases function? | Quit India as Culmination; Upward Spiral through Stages: The culmination of this strategy of S-T-S’ came with a call for ‘Quit India’ and the achievement of independence. Both phases of the movement were utilized, each in its own way, to undermine colonial hegemony, to recruit and train nationalist workers and to build up the people’s capacity to struggle. The entire political process of S-T-S’ was an upward spiralling one. This strategy also assumed advance through stages. Each stage represented an advance over the previous one. At the same time, it was realized that the task of national liberation was incomplete till state power was transferred. Even an advanced stage of constitutional reforms did not mean that freedom had been partially transferred. Freedom was a whole; till it was fully won, it was not won at all. Any other view would tend to make Indians ‘partners’ of colonialism during the ‘reform’ phases of the movement, and the national movement would tend to be co-opted by the colonial state. The Indian nationalists avoided this trap by treating the non-mass movement phases also as phases of political, anti-colonial struggle. |
| What forms of struggle characterised extra-legal vs passive phases? | Perpetual Political Struggle; Changing Forms: A basic feature of the nationalist strategy was to move from stage to stage without getting co-opted by the colonial regime which was opposed and struggled against at each stage. Only the form of struggle changed. In the extra-legal mass movement phases, laws were broken and civil disobedience was practised; in the non-mass movement or ‘passive’ phases, there was mass agitation, intense ideological work, including extensive tours by leaders, organization of public meetings on an extensive scale, and the organization of workers, peasants and students and youth and their struggles, mostly by the left-wing, during the late 1920s and the 1930s. Thus, both types of phases were seen as political phases of the anti-imperialist struggle equally rich in anti-imperialist content, and parts of the same anti-imperialist strategy. So the political struggle was perpetual; only its forms underwent change. As Gandhiji put it, ‘suspension of civil disobedience does not mean suspension of war. The latter can only end when India has a Constitution of her own making.’ |
| Why must war of position follow war of movement? Why not continuous mass struggle? | Limits of Mass Capacity and Strength of Colonial State: A basic question regarding the S-T-S’ strategy is: why did there have to be two types of phases in the national movement? Why should a phase of non-mass movement or ‘war of position’ inevitably follow a phase of extra-legal mass struggle or ‘war of movement’? Why could the national movement not take the form of one continuous mass struggle till freedom was won? Would this not have brought freedom much earlier? The nationalist strategy, under Gandhiji’s leadership, was based on the assumptions that by its very nature a mass movement could not be carried on or sustained indefinitely or for a prolonged period, that a mass movement must ebb sooner or later, that mass movements had to be short-lived, and that periods of rest and consolidation, of ‘breathing time,’ must intervene so that the movement could consolidate, recuperate and gather strength for the next round of struggle. This was so because the masses on whom the movement was based invariably got exhausted after some time. Their capacity to confront the state or to make sacrifices was not unlimited. The national leadership made continuous efforts to increase the people’s capacity to sacrifice and face colonial repression through ideological work. Simultaneously, it recognized the limits of their capacity to suffer, and therefore did not overstrain this capacity over much. It also based its tactics on the fact that the colonial state was not yet, at least till 1945, in disarray, that its state apparatuses were still loyal to it, that it was till 1945 a strong state, and that it had, consequently, a considerable capacity to crush a movement, as it did in 1932–33 and 1942. |
| What role did the ‘standing army’ / steel-frame play relative to the masses? | Cadre Necessary; Masses Provide Striking Power: The strategic perspective that there should be two types of phases of the national movement was also based on the perception that though a mass movement needed a ‘standing army’ or ‘steel frame’ of whole-time political workers, it could not be based only on them. Its real striking power could come only from the masses. The national movement produced thousands of these whole-time workers who devoted their entire lives to the freedom struggle. But while they played a crucial role in organizing and mobilizing the masses, the movement had to be based on the masses. Consequently, recourse to a mass movement that confronted the colonial state and then its shift to a phase of non-confrontation were an inherent part of a strategy of political struggle that was based on the masses. The Gandhian strategy was thus based on a specific understanding of the limits to which both the people and the Government could go. |
Gandhi 1938 & 1939 Quotes: Wise General, Initiative and Timing of Truce
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| Once S-T-S’ is accepted, what becomes of the decision to shift phases? | Tactical, Not Principled Decision: Once it was realized that the S-T-S’ strategy of the mass movement required the launching of a massive mass movement as well as shifting it to a non-mass movement phase, the decision to shift from one phase to the other became a purely tactical one and not a matter of principle. The question then was: When was the decision to make the shift to be made in keeping with the reality on the ground? |
| What did Gandhi write in 1938 about the wise general? | 1938 Quote — Orderly Withdrawal: In two of the rare instances when Gandhiji theorized his political practice, he gave an inkling of how he perceived the role of leadership in this context. He wrote in 1938: ‘A wise general does not wait till he is actually routed: he withdraws in time in an orderly manner from a position which he knows he would not be able to hold.’ |
| What did Gandhi write in 1939 about the able general and Satyagraha tactics? | 1939 Quote — Initiative, Ground of Choice, Constructive Work as Tactic: And again in 1939: ‘An able general always gives battle in his own time on the ground of his choice. He always retains the initiative in these respects and never allows it to pass into the hands of the enemy. In a Satyagraha campaign the mode of fight and the choice of tactics, e.g., whether to advance or retreat, offer civil resistance or organize non-violent strength through constructive work and purely selfless humanitarian service, are determined according to the exigencies of the situation.’ |
| On what basis was timing of start/withdrawal and negotiation decided? | Perception of Strength, Staying Power and Government Reserves: In other words, the very important question of the timing of starting or withdrawing a movement was decided by Gandhiji and the national leadership on the basis of their perception of the strength or weakness of the movement, the staying power of the masses and the political and administrative reserves of the Government. Similarly, the question was not whether negotiations with the Government should or should not be held. The question was — when one negotiated, how did one choose the right psychological moment to negotiate, how did one actually negotiate, what did one negotiate about, what would the outcome of the negotiations be, and what would the terms on which a truce was signed be, if there was a truce. |
Constructive Work: Role in War of Position and Cadre Formation
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| Around what themes was constructive work primarily organized? | Content and Ashram Network: Constructive work played an important role in Gandhian (and even pre-Gandhian) strategy. It was primarily organized around the promotion of khadi, spinning and village industries, national education, Hindu–Muslim unity, the struggle against untouchability and the social upliftment of the Harijans, and the boycott of foreign cloth and liquor. Constructive work was symbolized by hundreds of Ashrams which came up all over the country, almost entirely in the villages. |
| Why was constructive work basic to a war of position? | Filling Political Space; Activism without Jail: Constructive work was basic to a war of position. It played a crucial role during the ‘passive’ or non-mass movement phase in filling the political space left vacant by the withdrawal of civil disobedience. It solved a basic problem that a mass movement faces — the sustenance of a sense of activism in the non-mass movement phases of the struggle. Constructive work had also the advantage of involving a large number of people. Parliamentary and intellectual work could be done by relatively few; constructive work could involve millions. Moreover, not all could go to jail. But constructive work was within the reach of all. The hard core of constructive workers also provided a large cadre for the Civil Disobedience Movement. They were Gandhiji’s steel-frame or standing army. |
Council Entry Analysis: Working Reforms without Co-option
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| Why did constitutional reforms and legislatures demand a complex nationalist approach? | Dual Character of Councils: Constitutional reforms and legislative councils formed a basic element of the complex colonial strategy to meet the challenge of Indian nationalism. The Indians had to evolve an equally complex approach towards legislatures. Complexity also arose from the fact that, on the one hand, the constitutional structure and constitutional reforms represented instruments of colonial domination and of colonial efforts to co-opt and derail the national movement; while, on the other hand, they represented the fruits of the anti-colonial struggle of the Indian people, a measure of the changing balance of forces and the widening of the democratic space in which the national movement could operate. |
| What did colonial authorities hope constitutional work would achieve? | Colonial Calculation: The colonial authorities hoped that constitutional work would weaken the nationalist urge to take to mass politics, promote dissensions and splits within the nationalist ranks on the basis of constitutionalist vs. non-constitutionalist and Right vs. Left. |
| How did national leaders answer the question of working reforms? | Occupy Political Space; Upset Imperialist Calculations: In opposing the colonial strategy, the national leaders had to follow the logic of the constitutional reforms as well as the logic of their own strategy. Once colonialism was forced to yield a political space, the space had to be occupied so that political-ideological struggle against colonialism could be waged from it. The reforms had to be worked; the question was in what manner. The answer, found after a great deal of experimentation and debate within the nationalist ranks, was to work the reforms but in a way that would upset imperialist calculations and advance the nationalist cause. In fact, the dominant sections of the national leadership from 1880 onwards looked upon the councils in the wider perspective of undermining colonial hegemony. Work in the legislative councils, municipal bodies, and, after 1937, through popular ministries was also used to promote reforms so as to give relief to the hard-pressed people, to build up confidence among the people in their capacity to govern themselves and to acquire prestige for the Congress and the national movement. |
| Did nationalist strategy vis-à-vis councils succeed? What avoided co-option and split? | Success Criteria and Lessons of Surat 1907: The nationalist strategy vis-à-vis legislative councils and constitutional reforms did register considerable success. Work in the councils did fill the political void at a time when the national movement was recouping its strength. And those working in the legislatures and municipal bodies did, on the whole, avoid getting co-opted or absorbed by the colonial state. They also successfully exposed the hollowness of colonial reforms and showed that India was, despite these reforms, being ruled from Britain in British interests and with the aid of ‘lawless laws’ whenever the rulers found it in their interests to do so. The National Congress also successfully avoided a split once the lessons of the Surat split of 1907 had been learnt. All this was possible because Congressmen after 1919 were as a whole committed to mass politics and not to constitutional politics. Whenever the mass upsurge came, Congressmen abandoned the legislatures and plunged into the mass movement. They saw legislatures not as instruments of the gradual reform of the colonial structure but as arenas for the struggle against, or rather the struggle for the overthrow of, the colonial state. |