Indians Challenge the British Raj PDF

Part II: Indians Challenge the British Raj Introduction Queen Victoria’s proclamation marked the start of a century of massive social and political change in India. The British pursued reforms, industrialization, and war with their own interests in mind. Focused on the economic and military value of...

Part II: Indians Challenge the British Raj Introduction Queen Victoria’s proclamation marked the start of a century of massive social and political change in India. The British pursued reforms, industrialization, and war with their own interests in mind. Focused on the economic and military value of the colony, the British were rarely concerned with how change affected Indian communities and people. Indians responded with demands for rights and, eventually, freedom. In Part II, you will read about life in the British Raj (the Hindi word for “reign”) and Indian calls for change. You will examine how class, religion, and region affected the ability of various Indian groups to protest British rule on the subcontinent. You will also consider how global events transformed the debate in India on governance and representation. Part II Definitions Peasants—Peasants lived in rural areas and made a living in the agricultural industry. The majority of the people on the subcontinent during British rule were peasants. Elites—Indians who were members of the upper class. They were landholders, lawyers, business owners, or politicians. Many also were English-educated and worked in or with the British administration. All-India Politics—A level of politics dealing with issues across all provinces. Crown Rule Summer headquarters for the British in Darjeeling, Bengal. © The British Library Board (Photo 27/(91)). Following the Great Revolt of 1857, the British enacted a series of laws to protect their authority in India and prevent future rebellions. These attempts to strengthen Crown rule often came at the expense of Indians, who faced a rapidly changing economy and had limited political say in their own future. How did British rule change after the Great Revolt? After 1857, the British began to heavily recruit soldiers from areas that had remained loyal during the Great Revolt, like the Punjab. To prevent sepoys from challenging their authority, the British banned them from top military positions and kept them isolated from society. Sepoys were used to put down protests such as workers’ strikes, peasant revolts, riots, and later, nationalist movements seeking freedom from colonial rule. In addition to reorganizing the military, British officials restricted Indians through legislation. For example, laws passed in the 1860s and 1870s made natural resources (minerals, forests, etc.) and public spaces “state property” of the colonial government. In 1878, the government passed the Vernacular Press Act to halt the publication of articles that criticized British authority. The British also used segregation to enhance their power. In urban areas, houses and buildings were constructed exclusively for the British within boundaries known as “civil lines.” Indian villages were often replaced with paved roads, government offices, homes, and parks. British officials also retreated to isolated towns located in the mountains, called “hill-stations,” to govern Indian society from afar. Why did the British conduct a census in India? In 1871, British officials began conducting the first All-India Census. British census officials recorded information on where Indians lived and worked, what language(s) they spoke, and other elements of their identity. With this new information, the British planned to tailor policies to communities across the subcontinent so that they could better control the population. The All-India Census paid particular attention to religion. The census noted which religious communities made up a majority and a minority of the population in all areas. Final reports emphasized regions or populations where a particular religion was in decline. The religious focus of the census affected communities of faith throughout India. With the ability to calculate whether their following was growing or diminishing, some religious leaders began to publicize or redefine their beliefs to attract new followers. How did the British influence Indian identity? Vazira Zamindar, Brown University How did the use of caste in the census change Indian society? The census also documented Indians’ caste identity—a category used to rank society. Brahmans—Hindu scholars and leaders—had convinced the British that caste was critical to understanding the structure of Indian society. (Brahmans were ranked the highest in this arrangement.) With its basis in religion and local politics, the British saw the caste system as a way to organize and rule Indians. In some regions, over three hundred caste groups were recorded in the census. In the decades following the first All-India Census, the British implemented laws that linked caste identity to property rights, military recruitment, and policing. Caste groups that were historically landholders or farmers were given more freedom to own and develop land than castes involved in trade or commerce. The British recruited more military personnel from “warrior castes.” Castes identified as the lowest groups in local societies were deemed “criminals” and required to contact the police on a weekly basis. The Caste System In India, a method for ranking society is called the caste system. The caste system has multiple origins, including the ones below. Although some Indians recognize the caste system today, or are born into strict caste communities, other Indians refuse to follow the caste system because they believe it is discriminatory. Religion: The Hindu Vedas (scriptures) describe a strict ordering of people. According to Vedic law, people are born into four varnas (or castes): Brahmans, kshatriyas, vaishas, and shudras. Varnas indicate an individual’s responsibilities or occupational status. The first three varnas are considered upper castes, while the shudras are considered members of a lower class. An outcast group, referred to as the untouchables, fall below the shudras. Local Politics: In the centuries before and during Mughal rule, Indians struggled to defend their rights to land or claim new territories. Warrior kings turned to myths and religious texts to find evidence of their divine right to rule regions. These warriors took on specific titles and classes below them were also given names and rankings based on their occupation and worth to the community. Eventually, group names were also considered caste identities. Other: Other caste identities originate simply from names passed down through generations. Some castes refer to membership in a family, tribe, geographic location, occupation, or other religion. European colonial powers also grouped people into caste identities based on class, language, military abilities, loyalty, or perceived race. Indentured Servitude Facing economic hardships, many Indians were forced to become indentured servants. Indentured servants signed contracts that committed them to work a set number of years for the British. Between 1834 and 1920, roughly 1.2 million Indians worked as indentured servants in other British colonies, such as the territories of present-day Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Kenya, and Uganda, for up to ten years. In the 1830s, after the abolition of slavery in the British Empire, indentured servants from India replaced slaves in the sugarcane fields of tropical colonies. Others built railways in British colonies in East Africa or worked on the rubber plantations of Malaysia. Indentured servitude was gradually abolished in British colonies between 1911 and 1920. How did the railway system strengthen the British Raj?  In 1857, there were 570 miles of railway. By 1880, railways covered 4,300 miles. At the turn of the century, British India had one of the largest railway systems in the world. The British invested heavily in expanding transportation (roads, railways, and canals) and communication (telegraph) networks on the subcontinent. These networks helped the British achieve two major goals: the quick transport of military troops and the rapid delivery of raw materials to coastal ports. The construction of these projects alone were large moneymakers for the government and British private investors. For example, instead of using the abundance of iron and coal in India, manufactured parts were purchased from Britain. How did the railways affect Indian society? The railways brought many changes to Indians’ everyday lives: forests disappeared, individuals and families were able to travel by train to religious festivals and on pilgrimages, and new towns popped up around railroad terminals. Urban centers and port cities doubled or tripled in size, while communities excluded from transportation routes were vulnerable to unemployment. Railway lines have been constructed in all directions for the benefit of Europeans and of their trade. The interests of natives of India have been sacrificed to the interests of Europeans." Bengali newspaper, Bangabasi, June 11, 1887 A train station in Baluchistan, a northwestern region of the subcontinent. 1895. Courtesy: L. Tom Perry Special Collections, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. MSS 1608. William Henry Jackson. The expanded railway system (see map) drastically changed the flow of goods to and from India. Trains quickly transported raw materials—for example, cotton, indigo, rice, and tea—from rural regions to ports for international export. At the same time, Indian demand for cheap manufactured goods from European markets rose as access to foreign goods increased. These economic changes affected many Indians, especially artisans and peasants. Many lost their jobs because they could not compete with the low cost of foreign products. The global demand for raw materials led to an increase in the percentage of the Indian population working in agriculture. Peasants began to harvest more of the resources demanded by the market—called cash crops—instead of traditional food crops. Peasants were not always able to afford the cost of food with the money they earned from cash crops. Debt, malnutrition, and famine were common in peasant communities. Indian Politics and Protest By the end of the nineteenth century, Indians challenged the policies and economic reforms of the British Raj in greater numbers. While Indians faced severe hardships, including famine, the colonial government had no problem spending massive amounts of money on durbars (festivals) and royal visits. [I]t cannot be denied that if even half of the vast sum spent in connection with the Delhi [Durbar] had been made over for the purposes of famine relief, it might have been the means of saving millions of men, women and children from death by starvation." Lal Mohan Ghose, president of the Indian National Congress, 1903 In the decades to come, growing resistance to colonial rule would lead to more protests and new political organizations. Why did the British want to partition Bengal? At the turn of the century, the colonial capital of Calcutta became the main site of anti-colonial debates among the educated classes and protests among students and workers. Calcutta was located in one of the British Raj’s most profitable provinces: Bengal. The British believed it was critical to maintain control over this province and quell anti-British attitudes that might spread to other regions. The solution of British Viceroy Curzon was to partition (split) the province of Bengal in two along religious lines. The Muslim peasant population in eastern Bengal would be separated from the professional and educated Hindu classes in western Bengal, which included Calcutta. By separating these two groups, Curzon felt that he could prevent the lower classes from joining in the activities of a growing political group, the Indian National Congress (see box) and other debating societies. Bengal united is a power; Bengal divided will pull in different ways. That is perfectly true and is one of the merits of the scheme....​ [O]ne of our main objects is to split up and thereby weaken a solid body of opponents to our rule." Herbert Risley, British home secretary to the government of India, 1904 Members of the Indian National Congress in Bengal believed that the purpose of Curzon’s partition plan was to suppress their activities and divide a unified political front. Meanwhile, some Muslims in Bengal supported Curzon’s plan. Bengal’s administration had long been dominated by a class of wealthy, educated Hindus. Some Muslim elites viewed partition as an opportunity to gain positions of authority in the Muslim-majority regions in the east. The Indian National Congress In 1885, seventy educated Indian men and one former British official gathered in Bombay to discuss their concerns about British rule. Although most had received an education in London and worked in law, teaching, or business, they were frustrated with the British for excluding Indians from the government. Indians lacked a voice in the top levels of administration and in the local assemblies. The group met every year and became known as the Indian National Congress. In Congress’s first two decades, it was more of a debating society than a political party. But by the turn of the century, the Congress took on a new role in mass political organizing. While people of different religions joined the Congress, the majority of its members were Hindu. “We live, not under a National Government, but under a foreign bureaucracy; our foreign rulers are foreigners by birth, religion, language, habits, by everything that divides humanity into different sections. They cannot possibly dive into our hearts; they cannot [understand] our wants, our feelings, our aspirations.”​ —Dr. Rajendralal Mitra’s welcome speech to delegates of the Congress, December 28, 1886 What was the swadeshi movement? The British partitioned Bengal on October 16, 1905. Bengal was now administratively divided into two regions, east and west. Outraged members of the Indian National Congress asked those who opposed the decision to join in a boycott of British goods and encouraged people to buy Indian-made goods (called swadeshi). The swadeshi movement gained a large following among educated professionals, students, and a small section of the working class in Bengal. From Calcutta, the swadeshi movement spread to other areas, in particular to the Punjab, Bombay, and Poona. Although the movement began as a protest against the partition of Bengal, the swadeshi movement soon took on the larger goal of gaining greater political representation for Indians everywhere. Our object is not retaliation but vindication of our rights, our motto is ‘Defense, not Defiance.’" Narendranath Sen, Bengali leader of the swadeshi movement, August 7, 1905 Swadeshi activities included bonfires of foreign goods, public rallies, and labor strikes at European companies. Many chose to only wear clothing made out of local khadi, hand-spun cloth. Indian groups patrolled the streets and attempted to close down any shops that sold imported goods. In schools, swadeshi supporters refused to write notes on foreign paper. Under the banner of the swadeshi movement, some extremist groups resorted to violence and terrorism against Europeans and their Indian allies. How did everyday people participate in the Indian nationalist movement? David Gilmartin, North Carolina State University Following orders from British officials, the police and army units responded to the swadeshi activities by banning demonstrations, shutting down printing presses, imprisoning participants, and prohibiting the movement’s anthem “Bande Mataram” (Hail to the Motherland). Not all Indians supported the swadeshi movement. Some peasants could not afford to buy Indian-made goods. Others disapproved of the swadeshi movement’s ties to violence and terrorist activities. Many Muslim elites opposed the movement because they did not want to see partition reversed and lose their newly gained political power. Why did the British reverse the partition of Bengal? The swadeshi movement lost traction when most of its leaders were either imprisoned or deported. But the spread of calls for political change, especially in Bengal and the Punjab, continued to threaten British rule. Seeking to end the tense political situation in Bengal, the British announced in December 1911 that partition would be reversed. Bengal would once again be a unified province. Although the swadeshi movement accomplished its main goal, many political grievances remained. Swadeshi and other forms of political protest had laid the foundation for new organizations and resistance movements across the subcontinent. Why was the Muslim League created? While the swadeshi movement was still underway, British Secretary of State for Indian Affairs John Morley announced that the British planned to give Indians some form of representation in the government. Before details of the plan were released, many members of the Indian National Congress hailed the news as a sign of progress. Resolved—That this Congress desires to give expression to the deep and general satisfaction with which the Reform proposals formulated in Lord Morley’s despatch have been received throughout the country...it tenders to Lord Morley and Lord Minto its most sincere and grateful thanks for their proposals." Resolution of the twenty-third Indian National Congress, December 1908 A group of wealthy Muslim landholders did not share Congress’s enthusiasm and gathered to discuss their concerns. They feared that Congress, as the largest political party at the time, would win all legislative seats open to Indians. From their view, Congress was an organization with a larger number of Hindu members and, therefore, would not be concerned with the interests of the Muslim upper class. A delegation from this group petitioned Viceroy Minto to reserve a number of seats on legislative councils for Muslims. They argued that reserved seats would ensure Muslim interests were heard. The delegation that met with Minto founded a political party known as the Muslim League. What were the Morley-Minto Reforms? In 1909, the British passed the Indian Councils Act. The law, commonly called the Morley-Minto Reforms, added seats for Indians to the provincial legislatures, Executive Council of Calcutta, and London-based Indian Council. The British hoped that these small gains in representation would appease moderate Congress politicians and weaken anti-colonial protests. The reforms also called for reserved seats and separate electorates for Muslim Indians. The British thought that granting reserved seats would secure Muslim elites as loyal British allies and fuel division among Hindus and Muslims in local elections, thereby weakening Congress. The reforms ushered in a new era of political negotiations, as other minority groups began to petition the government for special rights and representation. Division by creeds and classes means the creation of political camps organised against each other, and teaches men to think as partisans and not as citizens...." Montagu-Chelmsford Report based on British observations of the past decade, 1918 World War I: Hopes for Change On August 4, 1914, Britain entered World War I to fight against Germany and its allies. British officials feared that growing protests to colonial rule would interfere with the fight against Germany. Indian soldiers in France during World War I. Library of Congress. LC-DIG-ggbain-17578. Britain forced its colonies to contribute vast sums of money, raw materials, soldiers, and other resources to support the war effort. Tens of thousands of Indian troops fighting for Britain in Europe and the Middle East lost their lives. The price of imported goods and grains rose to unaffordable levels. Some areas of the subcontinent were hit by famine. The Indian National Congress and the Muslim League supported the British government’s decision to enter the war. In return for their support, both parties hoped that the British would offer political change in India, specifically, reforms that expanded Indian participation in politics. Over the course of the war, Congress and the Muslim League became less hopeful. In December 1916, Congress and the Muslim League met in Lucknow to discuss a united front against British rule. The parties signed the Lucknow Pact, an agreement to present shared political goals to the British. These included the demand for self-governance and expanding the number of Indians with the right to vote. Congress also agreed to the Muslim League’s demand for reserved seats and separate electorates for Muslims in the provinces, but not at the central level. Part II Definitions Reserved Seats—A number of positions (or seats) in government that can only be held by a specific group (e.g. Muslims or women). Separate Electorates—In India, this electoral law created separate voter rolls for people belonging to different religions. Self-governance—The right to vote and have representation in government. Self-determination—The right to determine the structure of the government without outside interference. What was the purpose of Home Rule Leagues? In 1916, some Indians formed organizations known as Home Rule Leagues across the subcontinent. The leagues petitioned the British to transfer political power at the provincial and central level to Indian hands immediately. The Home Rule Leagues took a more radical stance compared to other political parties. By 1918, Home Rule Leagues had sixty thousand participants and hundreds of branches. Many published political pamphlets to inform the public about politics. The leagues drew members from regions previously unaffected by the anti-colonial movement and involved the middle class in politics for the first time on a large scale. Collaboration between the Home Rule Leagues, Congress, and the Muslim League placed mounting pressure on the British to implement change. How did the British respond to Indians’ demands for self-governance? In August 1917, the secretary of state for India, Edwin Montagu, announced that Britain would gradually grant self-governance to Indians. The policy of His Majesty’s Government...is that of the increasing association of Indians in every branch of the administration, and the gradual development of self-governing institutions...." Edwin Montagu, August 20, 1917 In July 1918, the British published the Montagu-Chelmsford Report, which listed the ways that Indian participation in government would increase. While Indians would not gain control over the functions of the central government, the British planned to transfer control over education, health, and agriculture in the provinces. Most politically active Indians felt that the promised reforms were inadequate. Despite this disappointment, Indians sought to gain more political power in the provinces as it was the only level of government open to them. Wartime Recruitment In desperate need of soldiers, the British Indian Army adopted a high-recruitment strategy during World War I. The army grew to 1.2 million Indian men, of which eight hundred thousand filled combat positions. The British often used bribery and coercion to force Indian officials to recruit a set number of soldiers from specific regions. Large numbers of Indian civilians were also recruited to serve as medics, clerks, and cooks in hospitals on the war fronts. Some Indians volunteered to serve for income or family honor, but not all willingly joined the war effort. Over sixty thousand Indians lost their lives. Many Indian soldiers returned to India with a critical view of British colonialism. They saw the contradiction in fighting on behalf of freedom for others while lacking rights in their own country. “[W]e Indians are treated like prisoners.... If you ask me the truth, I can say that I have never experienced such hardship in all my life. True, we are well fed, and are given plenty of clothing but the essential thing—freedom—is denied.”​ —A wounded Indian solider describing his experience at a hospital in Britain, December 2, 1915 How did the idea of self-determination influence Indians’ political goals? Towards the end of World War I, the revolutionary idea of self-determination began to circulate in the Indian press and political pamphlets. While the goal of self-government meant getting Indians on the ballots, self-determination was an even larger goal. It involved obtaining the freedom to structure the entire government, determine India’s international alliances, and make decisions involving war. It was a call for Indians to be fully in charge. The speeches of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, an international spokesperson for all people’s right to self-determination, were reprinted in Indian newspapers and pamphlets. [W]e shall fight for the things which we have always carried nearest our hearts, for democracy, for the right of those who submit to authority to have a voice in their own governments...." U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, April 2, 1917 How did the two World Wars impact demands for Indian Independence? David Gilmartin, North Carolina State University Indians noted that the British were fighting for democracy and self-determination in Europe, while Indians lacked these same political freedoms. Following a global trend, Congress and the Muslim League pressed for self-determination and sought complete Indian control of the government. Why did the British refuse to grant self-determination to Indians? World War I ended in November 1918. Britain kept India under colonial rule on the basis that Indians were “unfit” or not adequately “civilized” to independently manage their own government. On what lines can Indians, who have scarcely yet acquired the most elementary notions of self-government, be...effectively educated up to democratic institutions unknown to their past history and regarded by many as unfitted to their temperament?" Times, a London newspaper, June 6, 1918 In 1919, the Government of India Act implemented the policies laid out in the Montagu-Chelmsford Report and denied Indians the right to draft their own constitution. Indians were outraged that Britain had rejected the global demand for democracy and self-determination. A New Era: Mass Movements Profound disappointment and memories of the hardships endured during World War I cast a gloom across the subcontinent. Rallying cries for self-determination set the stage for a different form of political organizing: mass movements. Hundreds of thousands of Indians joined in anti-colonial protests. If the British would not listen to Indians in the legislature, they would hear them on the streets. Although there were numerous movements and political leaders at the time, in the following section you will read about three particular mass protests that gained attention both at home and abroad. Rowlatt Satyagraha In March 1919, the British enacted the Rowlatt Bills, which allowed Indians to be detained and tried without jury. Mohandas Gandhi, a well-known activist, seized the moment to launch a public campaign against the Rowlatt Bills and the British government. Gandhi urged the public to adopt satyagraha, a strategy of nonviolent resistance. It is a fundamental principle of Satyagraha that the tyrant, whom the Satyagrahi seeks to resist, has power over his body and material possessions, but he can have no power over the soul. The soul can remain unconquered and unconquerable even when the body is imprisoned." Mohandas Gandhi, Young India, May 21, 1931 Gandhi hoped that the Rowlatt Satyagraha would bring about swaraj, self-rule for Indians. He encouraged supporters to participate in a nationwide general strike. Indians held street demonstrations, boycotted imported goods, and risked arrest by provoking officials. The participation of the general public in the Rowlatt Satyagraha set in motion the transformation of politics from an elite activity dominated by the upper class to a strategy involving the masses. What was the Jallianwala Bagh massacre? Despite Gandhi’s emphasis on nonviolent strikes and boycotts, violent riots broke out at the end of March 1919. In the Punjab city of Amritsar, people attacked and killed British officials and civilians, burned down government buildings, derailed trains, and looted shops. On April 13, 1919, a crowd of villagers from surrounding towns met in the square of Jallianwala Bagh in Amristar without realizing that a ban on public gatherings had gone into the effect the previous day. They had no intention to riot or use violence, but the British perceived them as a threat. British General Reginald Dyer ordered his troops to fire upon the crowd. At least 370 Indians were killed and approximately one thousand wounded. As news of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre spread, Indians launched strikes and riots. In one Punjabi town, British officials ordered bombs to be dropped from airplanes to quell the riots. On April 18, Gandhi called off the satyagraha campaign, fearing that he could not control the swell of violence. Non-Cooperation Movement After the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, protests against colonial authority intensified. In June 1920, Gandhi launched a new campaign known as the Non-Cooperation Movement. The campaign rallied against three main issues: the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, the harsh peace treaty Britain and its allies had imposed on the Ottoman Empire, and the injustices of colonial rule. Gandhi identified these three “wrongs” to unite diverse groups under one movement. The movement’s tactics were similar to those of the swadeshi movement of 1905 and included the boycott of foreign goods and the promotion of khadi (home-spun cloth). The decision to boycott foreign goods was opposed by Indian traders and merchants who profited from global trade. What were different groups’ perspectives on Gandhi? David Gilmartin, North Carolina State University Who supported the Non-Cooperation Movement? The Non-Cooperation Movement attracted a large following from rural regions where peasants had already organized themselves around specific issues, such as oppressive landholders who mistreated peasants with high rents. In urban regions, middle-class participants—students, professionals, etc.—joined the movement by leaving their schools or resigning from their jobs. Muslim Indians provided some of the most important support to the Non-Cooperation Movement. Specifically, a group of Muslim Indians known as the Khilafat Movement opposed the decision made by Britain and its wartime allies to break apart the Ottoman Empire (defeated in World War I) and create European colonial territories. The sultan (Muslim ruler) of the Ottoman Empire was viewed by many Muslim Indians as the Khalifa, or symbolic leader of the global Muslim community. We must, therefore, co-operate with our [Muslim] brethren in their attempt to save the Turkish empire in Europe from extinction." Mohandas Gandhi, Young India, June 29, 1921 In September 1920, Gandhi also convinced Congress to join the Non-Cooperation Movement. During this time, Congress’s membership grew by tens of thousands. Why did public opinion turn against the Non-Cooperation Movement? In February 1922, Indian peasants gathered in the town of Chauri Chaura to protest Britain’s unfair economic policies. Police officers fired upon the crowd and arrested some of the protesters. A crowd of peasants then lit the local police station on fire, killing the twenty-two police officers inside. Indian public opinion turned against the Non-Cooperation Movement due to the violence that broke out. To the outrage of different groups that participated in the campaign, Gandhi called off the movement. The British arrested Gandhi in March and sentenced him to six years in prison for inciting rebellion. Civil Disobedience When the Great Depression hit the United States in 1928, its effects did not take long to reach India. The prices of India’s main cash crops plummeted, in some cases by more than 50 percent. Despite the downturn, the British continued to demand taxes from Indians. In cities, many factory owners imposed longer workweeks and lower wages on employees to make up for their losses in sales. Indians in every province responded to the dire situation with workers’ strikes and “no rent” campaigns in which tenants refused to pay their landlords. Many middle- and upper-class Indians boycotted British goods and foreign businesses. Even wealthy textile business owners, who had often been loyal to the British, began demanding economic protection for Indian industries. The British feared what they saw as a trend toward more radical forms of protest, including terrorism. I have been considerably disturbed by the fact that the millowners opened a section of their mills on several occasions, and although adequate police protection was given, not a single man returned to work." Bombay governor writing to the secretary of state for India, August 16, 1928 Recently released from jail, Gandhi approached the viceroy at the time, Lord Irwin, with a list of eleven demands ranging from releasing political prisoners to reducing land taxes, which he hoped would rally the support of all Indians. When Viceroy Irwin refused to compromise, Gandhi declared the start of a new mass campaign: Civil Disobedience. Like the Non-Cooperation Movement, Civil Disobedience called on Indians to engage in nonviolent demonstrations and peacefully break laws. Indians were encouraged to boycott British stores and refuse payment of certain taxes. Why did Gandhi focus on the salt tax? Gandhi organized a mass demonstration protesting the salt tax—a British-imposed law that made it illegal for Indians to gather and sell salt. The salt tax banned Indians from this source of income and made salt more expensive. Gandhi believed that a protest of the salt tax would unite Indians of all backgrounds. Different movements, such as “no rent” campaigns, pitted the poor and wealthy against each other, but all Indians resented the salt tax. On March 12, 1930, Gandhi began the Salt March to the coast of Dandi. Gandhi began the march with a few dozen people, but by the time he reached the shore, tens of thousands of Indians had joined in the 240-mile trek. On April 6, Gandhi was arrested and placed in jail. Arrests were one of the many ways the British suppressed the movement. Who participated in Civil Disobedience? Mohandas Gandhi with Sarojini Naidu (far right) during the Salt March. Naidu was an Indian activist, poet, and politician. She was the first woman to serve as president of the Indian National Congress (1925). Wikimedia Commons. Tens of thousands of Indians joined in the Salt March and protests during Civil Disobedience. Participation was particularly strong among women and business owners, two groups that were less active in the earlier Non-Cooperation Movement. The movement also gave momentum to the activities of more radical groups. At the same time, Muslim participation in Civil Disobedience was low. This was the result of a rise in Hindu nationalist organizations. The Hindu Mahasabha was one such group growing in size and working with the Congress in some regions. As a result of Congress’s focus on Hindu Indians’ concerns, many Muslims joined the Muslim League or parties that focused on local issues. How did the British government respond to Civil Disobedience? The British responded to Civil Disobedience as they had in the past—with mass arrests and force. Thousands were arrested, including over two thousand Indian children below the age of seventeen. British police brutally beat peaceful participants in the Salt March. Detention camps were set up in some provinces. There was no fight, no struggle; the marchers simply walked forward until struck down.... At times the spectacle of unresisting men being methodically bashed into a bloody pulp sickened me so much that I had to turn away. The Western mind finds it difficult to grasp the idea of nonresistance." Webb Miller, U.S. press correspondent, May 21, 1930 Yet again, Gandhi feared the growing use of violence by activists and the British. He also came under pressure from the Indian business community, which felt that an extended campaign would prolong the economic depression. In March 1931, Gandhi reached an agreement with the British. Gandhi would call off Civil Disobedience and the British would release the majority of political prisoners and remove the salt tax. Many in Congress were upset with the agreement. They questioned how Gandhi could compromise when issues of police brutality were unsettled. The growing number of radicals in Congress felt that Gandhi’s approach was far too moderate. Negotiating Independence In the late 1930s, Indians were unified in their demand for an end to British rule, but divided on what the future of India should be. The visions held by the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League clashed in talks over the next decade. The Congress insisted it should represent all Indians and take over the government. Meanwhile, the Muslim League disapproved of Congress’s claim to represent the entire public and fought to be the sole representative of the Muslim minority. Who were the key groups negotiating the terms of independence? Ayesha Jalal, Tufts University Did the Government of India Act give Indians more political power? Hoping to preserve a hold on India, a British parliamentary committee crafted a strategic law in 1935—the Government of India Act. The law was intended to appease some groups, while maintaining tight control over the colony. The act maintained Britain’s control over the central government in matters of defense, the railway system, and finances. In the provinces, the act turned over governance to Indian representatives. (British governors could override legislation and, at any point, abolish Indian-led governments in the provinces.) The act also expanded the electorate from 1 percent to 10 percent of the population. Thirty million Indians were now eligible to vote. After all we framed the constitution as it stands in the Act of 1935 because we thought that way the best way—given the political position in both countries—of maintaining British influence in India." Viceroy Linlithgow reflecting on the 1935 Government of India Act What were the results of the 1937 elections? Mohammad Ali Jinnah (sitting in the center of the front row) with other members of the Muslim League, Lahore, 1940. © The British Library Board. (Photo 429/(6)). Used with permission. Having gained popularity during Civil Disobedience, Congress won the majority of provincial seats and ministries in the 1937 elections. Despite their overall success, the polls showed weak ties between Congress and rural, Muslim communities. None of the reserved Muslim seats were won by Congress representatives. The Muslim League received less than 5 percent of the Muslim vote. Many eligible Muslim voters—living in the provinces of Bengal and Punjab—instead cast their ballots for regional parties that focused on agricultural reforms and the rights of peasants. After their poor showing in the 1937 elections, the Muslim League knew it needed to work hard to catch up to Congress. Mohammad Ali Jinnah, who had previously been a member of Congress, took on a leading role in directing the future of the party. The League’s support of a law that would allow Muslims to live under Islamic codes, as opposed to colonial law, gained it new and widespread support. By 1939, over three million Indians had joined the Muslim League. How did World War II affect Congress and the Muslim League? A World War II poster published by the British government to show the expansion of Indians’ role in the government of India since 1861. The figures shaded in black depict British members of government and the other figures represent Indians. British Information Services. World War Posters Collection. UNT Digital Library. In September 1939, British Viceroy Linlithgow declared that India was at war with Hitler’s Germany. The Muslim League and the Communist Party, another growing political party, supported the decision even though the British did not consult them or other Indian groups. These parties believed challenging the growing threat from Germany, Japan, and Italy outweighed resisting the British Raj. Meanwhile, the Indian National Congress stated that it would only support the British war effort on two conditions: 1) Indians must be immediately included in the central government and 2) India must unconditionally receive independence after the war. The British refused to meet these demands. In protest, Congress members in every provincial ministry across the subcontinent resigned. The British quickly passed a new law, the Defense of India Ordinance, to limit the power of the other parties. What was the Lahore Resolution? Jinnah viewed Congress’s boycott of the legislatures as an opportunity for the Muslim League to have more influence with the British. This required asserting more strongly than ever before what the Muslim League stood for. Who was Mohammad Ali Jinnah? Vazira Zamindar, Brown University At the Muslim League’s 1940 annual convention in Lahore, a city in Punjab, Jinnah demanded that Muslims be recognized as a nation deserving of its own “homelands.” Jinnah’s declaration became known as the Lahore Resolution. The resolution, although important, was somewhat vague. While Jinnah called for Muslim-majority provinces to become independent states (autonomous territories with their own governments), he was not clear on how this would be achieved. Would each province become a separate state, or would they be grouped together into a single Muslim country? Would some form a union with non-Muslim provinces? Despite its vagueness, the Lahore Resolution had a powerful effect. Jinnah’s claim that Muslims represented a separate nation, not just a religious minority, showed to Congress and the British that the League expected an equal seat at the table when it came to discussing India’s future. [N]o constitutional plan would be workable in this country or acceptable to the Muslims unless...the areas in which Muslims are numerically in the majority...should be grouped to constitute, ‘Independent states’...." Fazlul Huq, premier of Bengal, March 23, 1940 The Pakistan Movement “We who were a crowd without organization without a platform without a flag and without an ideal have now been brought up by you under one flag, on one platform and [the] wonderful ideal of Pakistan before us.”​ —Address presented to Mohammad Ali Jinnah by the Baluchistan Muslim Students Federation While Gandhi was leading civil disobedience campaigns from the 1920s through the 1940s, some people across the subcontinent were rallying behind another idea—Pakistan. “Pakistan” was first introduced in 1933 as a title for the Muslim community in the northwest provinces of Punjab, North-West Frontier Province (the Afghan border), Kashmir, Sind, and Baluchistan. The Muslim League later promoted Pakistan as a political identity that connected Muslims across all provinces. People joined the Pakistan movement for different reasons. Some felt discriminated against as religious minorities and did not believe the Congress would protect them after a British withdrawal. Others, who were members of the Congress as politicians and students, were upset with the ways Hinduism had been incorporated into the nationalist struggle against British rule. Lastly, Islamic leaders believed a separate territory was necessary for Islam to survive changes in the subcontinent. With different visions of what Pakistan would look like, men and women organized study groups, public meetings, and published books on the subject of Pakistan. Following the Lahore Resolution, many turned to the Muslim League and Jinnah to argue their stance to the British. In each province (especially in Punjab and Bengal), Muslims canvassed homes encouraging people to support the Muslim League in the pivotal 1945 elections. In April 1946, the League announced a new vision for Pakistan: the establishment of one independent country made up of all the Muslim-majority provinces in the northwest and northeast, including Bengal. This decision was a change from the original Lahore Resolution, which proposed that there might be multiple Muslim states. Why did Churchill send the Cripps Mission to India? In December 1941, news of the rapid victories of Japan in the nearby British colonies of Malaya, Singapore, and Burma spread across the subcontinent. Refugees from the east brought stories of Japanese brutality and of how British officials fled instead of protecting their war-torn communities. In the province of Bengal, the British destroyed all forms of communication, including boats and bicycles, to prevent these stories from reaching other areas of India. By mid-1942, large numbers of Indians believed that British rule would collapse if Japan invaded. If power were to fall into Japanese hands, Indian politicians wanted to be the ones at the negotiating table. Facing the threat of Japanese invasion in India, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill sent Stafford Cripps and a delegation of British politicians to seek the cooperation of Indian leaders. The Cripps Mission promised self-determination to Indians at the end of the war through the establishment of an “Indian union,” a collection of provinces, each with the right to leave the union if it disagreed with the new constitution. In return for this offer, Congress and the Muslim League had to sign an agreement pledging to protect Britain’s wartime interests. Both parties rejected the offer. Congress did not want to wait for the end of the war to gain power. Jinnah and the Muslim League believed an “Indian union” ignored their demand for Pakistan. Why did the Quit India Movement gain a large following? During World War II, a group of revolutionary Indians formed the Indian National Army (INA). Led by Subhas Chandra Bose from Bengal, the INA fought against British forces. The INA’s forty-five thousand members included former soldiers of the British Indian Army and Indian plantation laborers and shopkeepers from Malaya, Burma, and Thailand. Unlike the Quit India Movement, the INA involved a large number of women and Muslims. The INA surrendered to the British in March 1944, but was hailed by the Indian public as a defender of freedom. www.oldindianphotos.in. Wikimedia Commons. After the failure of the Cripps Mission, Congress organized a massive campaign to liberate India from nearly two hundred years of colonial rule. Jawaharlal Nehru and other members of the Congress leadership launched the Quit India Movement on August 8, 1942. Their strategy included strikes, destroying communication networks, manufacturing salt, and establishing a government separate from the British. After only a few days, the British arrested all national and provincial Congress leaders. As a result, the movement fell into the hands of lower-level members and the general public. Here is a mantra, a short one that I give you. You may print it on your hearts and let every breath of yours give expression to it. The mantra is ‘Do or Die.’ We shall either free India or die in the attempt; we shall not live to see the perpetuation of slavery." Mohandas Gandhi’s speech to the All-India Congress Committee, April 8, 1942 The Quit India Movement developed into the largest threat against British rule since the Great Revolt of 1857. It began in urban areas, where factory workers and students launched strikes, boycotts, and attacks on the police. Rallying cries calling for the British to “Quit India” spread to farmers and laborers in the countryside. Large-scale rebellions broke out in Bengal and other areas, leading to the widespread destruction of government buildings, police stations, telegraph lines, and railways. In the spring of 1943, the British decided to use the army to suppress the Quit India Movement. By the end of the year, around one hundred thousand people had been arrested and at least one thousand killed. How did the imprisonment of Congress leaders offer the Muslim League an opportunity? While the British kept the Congress leadership imprisoned, the Muslim League grew rapidly. The Muslim League gained the favor of the British by opposing the Quit India Movement and preventing its spread to Muslim-majority provinces in the northwest. At the same time, the Pakistan Movement gained increasing attention and interest from Muslims across India. Muslims defined “Pakistan” in different ways, but most agreed that they wanted the same political and economic rights as Hindus. They also did not want a strong central government run by Congress. Regional parties that had previously distanced themselves from the Muslim League began looking to Jinnah, its leader, for direction. Why did the British organize the Simla conference? Even though the British suppressed the Quit India Movement, global changes made Indians’ demands for independence impossible to overlook. When World War II ended, Britain did not have the money to maintain its global empire. It also faced international criticism, especially from the newly formed United Nations, over its colonial empire. The British government knew it needed to leave India. In the summer of 1945, the British organized a conference in Simla between the viceroy, the Congress leadership (recently released from prison), and the Muslim League. The British offered to establish an interim government run by an almost all Indian executive council. Congress agreed, but the Muslim League rejected the offer because Congress would be allowed to nominate Muslim members to the council. The League wanted to be the sole nominator of Muslim seats. What was the Cabinet Mission? In February 1946, revolts broke out in the Indian British Navy. Indian sailors launched a hunger strike against their officers, which quickly spread far and wide. In response to the escalating protests, the British sent another delegation, the Cabinet Mission, to negotiate the terms of a British withdrawal. What plans were proposed for India’s independence? Ayesha Jalal, Tufts University The Cabinet Mission held meetings with the leaders of Congress and the Muslim League between March and May 1946. By this point, the parties were set on entirely different goals. The Muslim League wanted Pakistan: a self-governing, independent state made up of the Muslim-majority provinces in the northwest and northeast. Congress rejected the idea of a separate Pakistan and demanded that independence should be given to a united India. The Cabinet Mission offered a compromise of sorts. Its proposal grouped provinces into three clusters, each with its own government. The plan would keep India united, but give the Muslim League control over policies in the Muslim-majority groupings. At first, Congress and the League gave their support to the plan. However, divisions surfaced over the grouping of provinces. Congress wanted these groupings to be optional, while the Muslim League saw them as a necessary step for the creation of Pakistan. Congress also desired a stronger central government than the plan provided, while the Muslim League favored more power being given to the group-level and provincial governments. Ultimately, both parties rejected the Cabinet Mission plan. Why did Jinnah announce the strategy of “direct action”? In response to the collapse of the Cabinet Mission negotiations, Jinnah called on Muslims to take to the streets. Fearing that negotiations alone would not result in the creation of Pakistan, Jinnah encouraged Muslims to participate in a mass rally on August 16, 1946 known as “Direct Action Day.” Today Muslims of India dedicate their lives and all they possess to the cause of freedom. Direct Action is now their only course. Because they offered peace but peace was spurned. They honoured their word but they were betrayed. Now Might alone can secure their Right." Newspaper advertisement in Dawn and Eastern Times, August 16, 1946 The Bengal branch of the Muslim League declared Direct Action Day a provincial holiday. Both the police and military were given the day off, which created a dangerous situation. Violence broke out that could not be stopped. Some participants in a mass rally looted Hindu-owned shops, attacked and killed Hindus and Sikhs, and shouted the slogan “Larke Lenge Pakistan” (We shall win Pakistan by force). Some four thousand Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs died in just four days. Thousands more were wounded and left homeless. These events became known as the Great Calcutta Killings. Seven weeks later, violence spread to other areas of Bengal, the southeastern districts of Noakhali and Tippera. Some five thousand people were slaughtered, primarily Hindus, but also Muslims in large numbers. In late October and November, communal violence (violent conflict between religious communities) spread westward. Entire Muslim villages were destroyed leaving no or few survivors. Intense fear and paranoia swept over the north, and not just in areas directly hit by violence. News traveled over the radio and refugees poured into cities and towns bringing with them stories of the brutal massacres. The Transfer of Power The British knew they could no longer stall. British Prime Minister Clement Attlee announced on February 20, 1947 that Britain would leave the subcontinent by June 1948 and transfer power to the people of India. Much was left to be determined, including how the Indian government would be structured, who would become national leaders, and if all territories in British India would form a unified nation. Why did Britain want to transfer power to a unified India? Prime Minister Attlee wanted to transfer power to a unified, central Indian government due to the international politics of the time. Britain was caught in the beginning of the Cold War, a global struggle for political and military domination between communist bloc countries led by the Soviet Union and capitalist, democratic countries led by the United States. If Britain transferred power to a unified Indian state, then India could become an important ally in the Cold War. But if multiple provinces became independent, the Soviet Union could more easily exert influence over parts of the subcontinent. Attlee instructed the new viceroy of India, Louis Mountbatten, to ensure that the upcoming transfer of power led to a unified India, or, if necessary, the smallest number of states possible. From Attlee’s perspective, the fight against communism and Britain’s reputation worldwide were at stake. [H]is Majesty’s Government will have to consider to whom the powers of the Central Government in British India should be handed over on the due date, whether as a whole to some form of central Government...or in some areas to the existing Provincial Governments, or in such other way as may seem reasonable and in the best interests of the Indian people." British Prime Minister Clement Attlee, February 20, 1947 How did Indians react to Attlee’s announcement? Indian political leaders were stunned by Prime Minister Attlee’s announcement. From the failure of the Cripps Mission to the breakdown of negotiations with the Cabinet Mission, it seemed as if Britain would never announce its withdrawal. But many unanswered questions weighed on their minds. Would there be a single central government? Would some provinces become independent? How would power be shared by political parties? Would the Muslim League be successful in its efforts to create Pakistan, a homeland for Muslims? Although Attlee’s announcement did not state it explicitly, both Congress and the Muslim League understood that if their parties could not agree on a constitution for a united India, then the British would allow some of the Muslim-majority provinces to separate and form Pakistan. The All-India Muslim League and Congress turned their attention to the Muslim-majority provinces. The Muslim League hoped that the British would allow all provinces with Muslim-majority populations to separate from India to form Pakistan. Meanwhile, Congress feared that if the British allowed too many provinces to gain autonomy, it would place the unity of the entire subcontinent in jeopardy. The All-India Congress and Muslim League only had a couple of months to convince the British that their visions for the subcontinent were in the best interests of the people. The already intense struggle between Congress and the Muslim League to win over the favor of British opinion grew even more heated.