IDC : HISTORY

NON – COOPERATION MOVEMENT:

This came as result of the Indian National Congress (INC)
withdrawing its support for British reforms following the Rowlatt Act
of 18 March 1919— which suspended the rights of political prisoners
in sedition trials, and was seen as a "political awakening" by Indians
and as a "threat" by the British and the Jallianwala Bagh massacre of
13 April 1919.
The movement was one of Gandhi’s first organized acts of largescale
satyagraha (civil disobedience). Gandhi's planning of the
noncooperation movement included persuading all Indians to
withdraw their labour from any activity that "sustained the British
government and also economy in India,“including British industries
and educational institutions. Through non-violent means, or Ahinsa,
protesters would refuse to buy British goods, adopt the use of local
handicrafts, and picket liquor shops.
In addition to promoting "self-reliance" by spinning khadi, buying
Indianmade goods only, and boycotting British goods, Gandhi's non-
cooperation movement called for the restoration of the Khilafat
(Khilafat movement) in Turkey and the end to untouchability. This
resulted in publicly-held meetings and strikes (hartals), which led to
the first arrests of both Nehru and his father, Motilal Nehru, on 6
December 1921. The non-cooperation movement was among the
broader movement for Indian independence from British ruleand
ended, as Nehru described in his autobiography, "suddenly" on 4
February 1922 after the Chauri Chaura incident. Subsequent
independence movements were the Civil Disobedience Movement
and the Quit India Movement. Though intended to be non-violent, the
movement was eventually called off by Gandhi in February 1922
following the Chauri Chaura incident, in which numerous policemen
were murdered by a mob at Chauri Chaura, United
Provinces.Nonetheless, the movement marked the transition of Indian
nationalism from a middle-class basis to the masses.
The Rise of Leftism in India
The rise of leftism in India has been a significant and complex
phenomenon, influenced by both internal socio-economic conditions
and global ideological movements. Leftist ideology, particularly in the
form of socialism and communism, found fertile ground in India due
to the country's colonial history, socio-economic inequalities, and the
global impact of Marxism and Leninism. This essay traces the
historical trajectory of leftism in India, highlighting key
developments, figures, and events that contributed to its rise.
Early Influences and the Pre-Independence Phase
The origins of leftism in India can be traced back to the late 19th and
early 20th centuries. The nationalist struggle against British colonial
rule created a space for various political ideologies, including leftist
thought. The first seeds of leftism were planted in the Indian
intellectual and political circles, influenced by Marxist ideas from
Europe, especially after the Russian Revolution of 1917. Indian
intellectuals such as M.N. Roy and Lala Lajpat Rai were among the
first to embrace socialist and communist ideals.
M.N. Roy, in particular, played a pioneering role in introducing
Marxism to India. A founding member of the Communist Party of
India (CPI) in 1925, Roy's work laid the groundwork for the spread of
leftist ideas. During the same period, the labor movement began to
gain momentum, as industrialization and the expansion of the
working class created new social dynamics. These workers were often
subjected to exploitation, poor working conditions, and minimal
rights, leading to the rise of trade unions and the eventual appeal of
socialist and communist ideas among workers and intellectuals.
The Post-Independence Growth of Leftist Ideology
After India gained independence in 1947, the country’s political
landscape was shaped by the Indian National Congress (INC), which
led the freedom struggle. However, leftist parties, particularly the
Communist Party of India (CPI), began to grow in influence,
especially in states like West Bengal, Kerala, and Andhra Pradesh.
The CPI and its offshoots became strong advocates for land reforms,
workers' rights, and social justice, appealing to the lower and working
classes who had been marginalized during colonial rule.
In the 1950s and 1960s, the CPI aligned itself with the Soviet Union
and the global communist movement. The Soviet influence gave the
CPI a platform to push for industrialization, land redistribution, and
social reforms. However, the party's early influence was limited due
to internal divisions and competition from the Congress Party, which
remained the dominant force in Indian politics. Nevertheless, the
CPI’s emphasis on workers’ rights and its commitment to social and
economic equality helped bring leftist ideas into the mainstream
political discourse.
The Emergence of the Naxalite Movement
The 1960s witnessed a dramatic shift in the leftist movement with the
rise of the Naxalite movement, which was a radical and militant
offshoot of the CPI. In 1967, Charu Majumdar and Kanu Sanyal,
leaders of the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist)
(CPI(ML)), initiated an armed struggle against the Indian state, based
on Maoist principles. The movement advocated for a violent
overthrow of the government, land redistribution, and the
empowerment of the rural peasantry.
The Naxalite movement gained significant traction in rural India,
particularly in states like West Bengal, Bihar, and Andhra Pradesh,
where large numbers of landless peasants and tribals faced
exploitation. However, the movement was eventually suppressed by
the Indian government, which saw it as a threat to national security.
Despite its decline as a mass movement, the Naxalite ideology
continues to influence left-wing groups in India, especially in rural
and tribal areas, where issues of land rights and social justice remain
central.
The Left's Role in Indian Politics
In the 1970s and 1980s, leftist parties began to play a more significant
role in state and national politics. The most notable achievement of
the leftist movement during this period was the success of the
Communist Party of India (Marxist) [CPI(M)] in West Bengal. In
1977, the CPI(M) formed a government in the state, which it held for
over three decades, making it the longest-serving democratically
elected communist government in the world.
The West Bengal model of governance emphasized land reforms,
rural development, and the creation of a welfare state. This success of
the left in a large, diverse state demonstrated that socialist policies
could be implemented within the framework of democratic
governance. Similarly, the left also played an important role in Kerala,
where the CPI(M) has alternated in power with other political parties.
Despite these successes, the 1990s and early 2000s saw a decline in
the influence of leftist parties at the national level. The rise of
neoliberal economic policies and globalization led to a shift away
from traditional leftist concerns, as economic reforms and
privatization dominated the political agenda. However, leftist parties
continued to hold power in states like West Bengal and Kerala, where
they focused on maintaining social welfare programs and worker
protections.
Conclusion
The rise of leftism in India is a story of ideological evolution, marked
by the adaptation of Marxist and socialist principles to the unique
Indian context. From its roots in the anti-colonial struggle to its role in
post-independence politics, leftism in India has evolved in response to
the country’s social, economic, and political challenges. Although the
influence of leftist parties has waned at the national level in recent
decades, they continue to play an important role in state politics and
in advocating for issues of social justice, equality, and environmental
sustainability. The trajectory of leftism in India reflects the ongoing
struggles of marginalized communities and the quest for a more
equitable society, ensuring that leftist ideals remain an essential part
of India's political discourse.
The Civil Disobedience Movement (1930-1934)
The Civil Disobedience Movement was one of the most significant
movements in the Indian freedom struggle against British colonial
rule. Launched by Mahatma Gandhi in 1930, it marked a new phase
of direct confrontation with the British authorities. The movement
sought to defy British laws and policies through peaceful means,
particularly through the refusal to obey unjust laws, culminating in
acts of civil disobedience. This essay delves into the origins, key
events, and impact of the Civil Disobedience Movement, illustrating
its pivotal role in India's journey to independence.
Origins and Background
The origins of the Civil Disobedience Movement can be traced back
to the growing discontent among Indians with British colonial
policies. By the late 1920s, the struggle for freedom had entered a
critical phase, with widespread dissatisfaction regarding British
economic exploitation, repressive policies, and social inequalities.
The most significant precursor to the Civil Disobedience Movement
was the Non-Cooperation Movement (1920-1922), led by Gandhi,
which aimed to make India ungovernable through non-violent
resistance. However, the movement was abruptly halted after the
Chauri Chaura incident in 1922, leading to Gandhi’s decision to call
off the agitation.
Despite the setback, the desire for independence persisted. By the
mid-1920s, the British government’s refusal to grant significant
constitutional reforms through the Simon Commission (1928), which
did not include any Indian representatives, further alienated the Indian
masses. The Nehru Report (1928), which proposed self-government
for India, was also rejected by the British. This set the stage for more
radical methods of resistance.
In 1929, the Lahore Session of the Indian National Congress, under
the leadership of Jawaharlal Nehru, formally declared that the goal of
the Congress would be full independence or "Purna Swaraj"
(complete independence) instead of dominion status. The stage was
now set for a new form of struggle.
Gandhi’s Salt March and Launch of the Civil Disobedience
Movement
The Civil Disobedience Movement was launched by Gandhi on
March 12, 1930, when he began the famous Salt March (Dandi
March) from Sabarmati Ashram in Ahmedabad to the coastal village
of Dandi in Gujarat, a distance of approximately 240 miles. The
reason for choosing salt was its importance in the daily lives of
Indians and the fact that the British monopoly on salt production and
its heavy taxation on salt were symbols of British tyranny. The march
was a direct challenge to British authority, as it violated the salt laws,
which prohibited Indians from producing or collecting salt.
The Salt March was a massive success in mobilizing the Indian
masses, as it highlighted the unjust nature of British rule in a simple
yet symbolic way. Upon reaching Dandi on April 6, Gandhi and his
followers made salt from seawater, directly defying British laws. This
act of civil disobedience sparked widespread protests across India, as
people took to making salt and refusing to pay the salt tax.
Mass Participation and Spread of Civil Disobedience
The Salt March marked the beginning of mass participation in the
movement. People from various walks of life, including peasants,
students, workers, and women, joined the protests in their local areas.
The movement soon spread to various parts of the country, and
protests erupted against the salt tax, the monopoly on salt production,
and other colonial laws. In many regions, people boycotted foreign
goods, refused to pay taxes, and staged protests at various government
institutions.
As the movement spread, the British authorities responded with
repression. Thousands of people were arrested, including prominent
leaders such as Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Patel, and Subhas Chandra
Bose. Despite this, the movement continued to gain strength. Gandhi
was arrested in May 1930, but the protests continued, with new
leaders emerging in his absence. The movement also saw the active
participation of women, who were encouraged by Gandhi to play a
significant role, making the struggle a truly national and inclusive
one.
Repression and Negotiations
The British government, under Lord Irwin, the Viceroy of India,
responded to the growing unrest with severe repression, including the
arrest of thousands of protestors and the use of violence by the police.
The salt raids and other acts of defiance were met with brutal force,
as seen in incidents such as the Salt Satyagraha at Dharasana in
May 1930, where police brutally beat peaceful protestors, drawing
international attention to the cruelty of British rule.
Despite the repression, the movement had already gained widespread
attention, both domestically and internationally. The British were
under increasing pressure. In 1931, Gandhi was released from prison
and invited to London for the Round Table Conference. However,
the conference failed to produce any significant results. Upon his
return, Gandhi resumed the Civil Disobedience Movement, though its
momentum had begun to wane due to internal divisions within the
Indian National Congress and the failure of the negotiations.
Conclusion of the Movement
By 1934, the movement had lost much of its initial momentum. The
British authorities had managed to suppress large-scale protests, and
the internal divisions within the Congress, particularly between the
more radical and moderate factions, also contributed to the decline of
the movement. However, the Civil Disobedience Movement was far
from insignificant. It played a crucial role in further politicizing the
Indian masses and in strengthening the resolve for full independence.
Although the movement did not immediately achieve its objectives, it
laid the foundation for future struggles. It signaled a shift towards
more widespread, non-violent, and mass-based resistance to British
rule. It also marked the beginning of the end for British colonial rule
in India, as the demand for full independence became more insistent.
Impact and Legacy
The Civil Disobedience Movement had a profound impact on the
Indian independence struggle. It shifted the focus from elite-led
politics to mass mobilization, making the freedom movement a truly
national struggle. It showed the strength of non-violent resistance and
garnered international support for India’s cause. The movement also
highlighted the leadership qualities of Mahatma Gandhi and
established him as the central figure in the Indian struggle for
independence.
The Civil Disobedience Movement not only exposed the unjust nature
of British rule but also set the stage for future campaigns, including
the Quit India Movement of 1942. The movement also had a lasting
effect on the Indian National Congress, which became more inclusive
and representative of the entire nation, transcending regional and
caste divisions.
In conclusion, the Civil Disobedience Movement was a turning point
in India's struggle for independence. It not only brought millions of
Indians into active political participation but also showcased the
effectiveness of non-violent civil disobedience as a tool for political
change. Although it did not immediately achieve its goals, it
weakened British control over India and paved the way for the
eventual success of the Indian independence movement in 1947.
The Partition of India (1947)
The Partition of India in 1947 stands as one of the most significant
and traumatic events in the history of the Indian subcontinent. It
marked the end of British colonial rule and the birth of two
independent nations—India and Pakistan. The partition, however, did
not come without immense human cost, leading to widespread
violence, mass displacement, and the loss of lives. This essay
examines the key events, causes, consequences, and impact of the
Partition of India in 1947.
Historical Background
The British Raj in India was characterized by a policy of "divide and
rule," which exacerbated the religious, cultural, and social divisions in
Indian society. The seeds of division were sown long before
independence, with British officials promoting policies that magnified
the differences between Hindus and Muslims. The first significant
signs of communal tensions emerged in the form of the Great
Rebellion of 1857, where the rebellion was fueled by the participation
of both Hindu and Muslim soldiers. However, the British authorities
soon began to adopt policies that favored a divide between the two
communities.
The Indian National Congress (INC), established in 1885, initially
represented the interests of both Hindus and Muslims, and its main
goal was the participation of Indians in the governance of their
country. Over time, however, as the INC pushed for greater autonomy,
Muslim leaders began to fear that the Hindu majority would dominate
the political landscape of post-colonial India. This fear gave rise to the
demand for separate political representation for Muslims.
The creation of the All-India Muslim League in 1906 further
deepened the division. Under the leadership of Mohammad Ali
Jinnah, the Muslim League pushed for separate electoral
representation and eventually demanded the creation of a separate
Muslim state.
The Role of the British in the Partition
By the 1940s, the British, weakened by World War II, were
increasingly eager to leave India. The British government had grown
increasingly frustrated with the growing demand for independence
from the Congress, as well as the rise of communal violence. The
British, under the leadership of Lord Louis Mountbatten, the last
Viceroy of India, began to realize that the growing rift between
Hindus and Muslims had made a united India increasingly unfeasible.
The Cabinet Mission of 1946 was an attempt by the British to devise
a political solution that would keep India united. However, the
differences between the INC and the Muslim League were too vast.
The Muslim League, led by Jinnah, insisted on the creation of
Pakistan, a separate state for Muslims, while the INC, under
Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Patel, insisted on a united India. The
inability of the two sides to come to an agreement, combined with
growing communal violence and instability, led the British to decide
on the partition of India.
The Partition Plan and Creation of India and Pakistan
In response to the growing tensions, Lord Mountbatten presented the
Mountbatten Plan (also known as the Partition Plan) in June 1947.
The plan called for the partition of British India into two independent
dominions—India and Pakistan. The provinces of Punjab and Bengal,
which had significant Muslim populations, would be divided between
the two new nations. The plan was accepted by both the Indian
National Congress and the Muslim League, and on August 14, 1947,
Pakistan was born as a separate nation, with Jinnah as its first
Governor-General. India gained its independence on August 15, 1947,
with Jawaharlal Nehru as its first Prime Minister.
The Consequences of Partition
The partition of India had catastrophic consequences for the people of
the subcontinent. The division of British India was accompanied by
large-scale violence, with Hindus, Sikhs, and Muslims engaged in
communal riots. The violence was particularly intense in regions
where borders were drawn between India and Pakistan, notably in
Punjab and Bengal. The massacre of thousands of people became
commonplace, with estimates of the death toll varying widely from
several hundred thousand to a few million.
One of the most significant outcomes of the partition was the mass
displacement of populations. Around 10-15 million people were
forced to leave their homes, often under violent and coercive
conditions, to migrate to the newly formed states of India or Pakistan
based on their religious identity. The mass migration led to the
formation of refugee camps and a humanitarian crisis of unparalleled
scale. Families were separated, and entire communities were torn
apart.
The partition also had long-lasting political consequences. The
creation of Pakistan resulted in the division of the Muslim population,
with West Pakistan (modern-day Pakistan) and East Pakistan (now
Bangladesh) being geographically and culturally distinct, eventually
leading to the secession of East Pakistan in 1971.
Impact on Indo-Pakistani Relations
The partition left a legacy of hostility between India and Pakistan that
persists to this day. The dispute over the region of Kashmir, which
was contested by both nations at the time of partition, remains one of
the most enduring sources of conflict between India and Pakistan. The
division of India also led to several wars, including the Indo-Pakistani
wars of 1947-1948, 1965, and 1971.
Communalism and the legacy of partition continue to haunt both
countries. The deep divisions created by partition, including
animosities between Hindus and Muslims, continue to affect Indian
society and have contributed to instances of religious violence and
tensions between communities. The scars of partition are still visible
in the form of communal conflicts and the complex political
relationship between India and Pakistan.
Conclusion
The Partition of India in 1947 remains a dark chapter in the history of
the Indian subcontinent. While it led to the creation of two
independent nations, it also resulted in unprecedented violence, the
displacement of millions, and the loss of countless lives. The political,
social, and economic consequences of the partition continue to shape
the dynamics of South Asia to this day.
The partition was the result of a culmination of complex factors,
including colonial policies, the rise of communalism, and the failure
of political negotiations. The division of India and Pakistan was not
just a territorial issue but a profound human tragedy, leaving behind a
legacy of division that remains a poignant reminder of the challenges
of nation-building in a diverse and complex society.
The History of the Revolutionary Movement in Bengal in the 20th
Century
The revolutionary movement in Bengal in the early 20th century was
one of the most significant aspects of the Indian freedom struggle.
This movement emerged as a reaction to British colonial rule, marked
by disillusionment with moderate political approaches and a growing
desire for more radical, direct action. While the mainstream political
discourse was dominated by the Indian National Congress (INC),
which pursued constitutional methods and non-violent resistance, a
more radical fringe emerged, particularly in Bengal, advocating for
armed struggle against British imperialism. This essay examines the
key events, organizations, and leaders of the revolutionary movement
in Bengal, highlighting its contributions and impact on India’s
freedom struggle.
Early Roots of Revolutionary Ideas
The roots of revolutionary movements in Bengal can be traced back to
the 19th century when social and political reforms were taking place.
The intellectual and cultural awakening during the Bengal
Renaissance, particularly in the late 19th century, laid the foundation
for radical political ideas. Leaders like Raja Ram Mohan Roy and
Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar advocated for social reforms, but their
efforts were mainly focused on social, cultural, and educational
issues, without direct confrontation with the British authorities.
However, as British colonial rule continued to exploit India
economically and politically, the Indian masses became more restless.
The failure of the First War of Independence (1857) had shown the
limits of armed revolt, but the subsequent British crackdown fueled
nationalist sentiments. It was in this climate of growing discontent
that the revolutionary movement in Bengal began to take shape in the
early 20th century.
The Rise of Revolutionary Nationalism
By the early 20th century, dissatisfaction with the moderate political
approach of the Indian National Congress, especially after the 1905
Partition of Bengal, led to the growth of radical nationalism. The
Partition of Bengal was viewed by many as a deliberate attempt by
the British to divide Hindus and Muslims and weaken the nationalist
movement. The resentment against this decision led to widespread
protests, and this became a catalyst for the rise of revolutionary
organizations in Bengal.
The most prominent early revolutionary organization was the
Anushilan Samiti, founded by Pulin Das in 1902. The Samiti was
initially formed as a cultural and athletic organization but soon took
on political overtones. Its members, including Aurobindo Ghosh and
Barindra Kumar Ghosh, began to focus on more direct action,
including the use of violence to overthrow British rule.
The Role of Aurobindo Ghosh and the Ghosh Brothers
The revolutionary movement gained significant momentum with the
involvement of Aurobindo Ghosh, a prominent intellectual and
spiritual leader. Initially, Aurobindo was involved in the moderate
nationalist movement and even participated in the Bengal Provincial
Congress. However, after his disillusionment with the Congress’s
constitutional approach, he embraced more radical ideas. Aurobindo,
along with his brother Barindra Kumar Ghosh, became a key figure
in the revolutionary movement in Bengal.
Aurobindo Ghosh’s writings, particularly his article “Bande
Mataram,” popularized the idea of armed struggle and self-reliance.
His influence helped transform the Anushilan Samiti into a more
organized and militant force, advocating for armed resistance against
British rule. Aurobindo’s spiritual and philosophical approach to
revolution, which emphasized inner strength and self-discipline,
became a guiding principle for many revolutionaries.
The Alipore Bomb Case (1908)
One of the most significant events in the history of the Bengal
revolutionary movement was the Alipore Bomb Case of 1908. The
case involved a group of revolutionaries, including Barindra Ghosh
and Jatindranath Mukherjee (also known as Jatin), who were
involved in a bombing plot to assassinate the British officials. The
plot was intended to send a strong message of resistance to the
British.
The bomb plot failed, and several revolutionaries were arrested,
including Aurobindo Ghosh. However, the case became a turning
point in the revolutionary movement, as it drew widespread attention
to the struggle for independence and the role of radical methods in
achieving it. Aurobindo, who was acquitted in the case, became a
national symbol of resistance, and the trial highlighted the growing
disillusionment with British rule and the willingness of many Indians
to take up arms against the empire.
The Role of the Jugantar and the Indian National Army
Another key organization in the Bengal revolutionary movement was
the Jugantar Party, founded by Bagha Jatin (Jatindranath
Mukherjee). The Jugantar Party adopted a more aggressive stance and
was involved in numerous bombings, assassinations, and violent
confrontations with the British authorities. Bagha Jatin’s leadership
and charisma made him a prominent figure among revolutionaries in
Bengal.
Bagha Jatin’s most famous act was the attempt to procure weapons
from German agents during World War I, with the goal of using them
in a revolt against the British. His efforts to form an Indian National
Army with the help of the German government were thwarted when
he was arrested and killed in 1915. However, his legacy continued to
inspire later revolutionary movements.
The Role of the Youth in the Movement
The Bengali revolutionary movement was characterized by significant
youth participation. Inspired by the ideas of Swami Vivekananda and
Sri Aurobindo, young men and women across Bengal became
involved in secret societies, which aimed at overthrowing the British
government through armed struggle. The leaders of these
organizations, such as Khudiram Bose, Master Da Surya Sen, and
Lalita (female revolutionary), became icons of youthful rebellion.
One of the most notable acts of the youth was the Chittagong
Armoury Raid in 1930, led by Surya Sen. The raid aimed to seize
weapons from the British armoury in Chittagong to use in the
revolution. Though the raid was unsuccessful, it demonstrated the
commitment of young revolutionaries to fight for India's
independence, even at the cost of their lives.
The Decline of the Revolutionary Movement
By the 1920s and 1930s, the revolutionary movement in Bengal began
to decline. The rise of Mahatma Gandhi’s Non-Cooperation
Movement and the Salt Satyagraha (1930) shifted the focus of the
Indian independence movement toward non-violent civil
disobedience. The British authorities also clamped down harder on
revolutionary organizations, and many key leaders were arrested or
killed. The lack of sufficient mass support for armed struggle, along
with internal divisions, led to the diminishing influence of
revolutionary groups in Bengal.
However, the legacy of the Bengal revolutionaries lived on, and many
of them contributed to the struggle in different ways during the Quit
India Movement of 1942 and beyond.
Conclusion
The revolutionary movement in Bengal in the early 20th century
played a crucial role in shaping the Indian struggle for independence.
Although it did not succeed in overthrowing British rule, it
demonstrated the resolve and determination of a segment of Indian
society to fight for freedom through direct, often violent means. The
sacrifices and struggles of revolutionaries like Aurobindo Ghosh,
Bagha Jatin, Surya Sen, and countless others remain an integral part
of India's freedom history, contributing to the diverse and
multifaceted nature of the Indian independence movement. The
movement also sowed the seeds for future generations of freedom
fighters who would eventually bring about India’s independence in
1947.