Qs: .

Drawing primarily on the readings, list at least two nationalist movements and
discuss what was their approach in terms of the movement and what were the
challenges for the movements? Also, discuss the successes or achievements of the
movements. 

1939 made it quite evident that the Indian nationalists had been successful is

grasping British attention. Satyagraha, which they had never had to deal with

before was drawn to the subcontinent by organising itself through nationalist

bodies allowing a specific method of agitation and protests which resulted in

concessions like like Montagu-Chelmsford reforms in 1919 and the

Government of India Act of 1935 on behalf of the British. Bose and Jalal noted

that the concept of a gradual movement against the Raj formed the praxis of

Gandhi's strategy, and he considered that swiftness in moving towards

nationalism would accelerate the powers of radicalism that could endanger the

movement. “he had always insisted on leading a controlled movement against

the raj and was afraid of giving the forces of popular radicalism their head.”

(Jalal & Bose,118)

Until Gandhi ultimately assumed leadership through his rise in the Indian

Congress, the nationalist movement before was limited to smaller groups with

different agendas fighting a less effective fight. Before Gandhi ascended to

Congress we see that the nationalist movement relied on Home Rule League

networks like the Muslim league under influence Islamic universalism, in the
immediate aftermath of the First World War, something that was perpetuated by

the loss of Ottoman Turkey and the British treatment of Muslims there. So

Gandhi “seized the moment to call for an all-India mass protest movement,

relying on political networks like the Home Rule Leagues,…groups inspired by

Islamic universalism and anxious about the fate of the Khilafat in the aftermath

of the defeat of Ottoman Turkey, as well as his own creature – the Satyagraha

Sabha.’(Jalal & Bose,110). Although the creation of All India Trade Union of

Congress in 1929 signified one of many divides in the nationalist movements.

Regardless of the initial divides within nationalist movements the after effects

of the first world war instantiated circumstances enabling the nationalist

movement to thrive. It wasn’t the war that instantiated nationalist aspirations,

they already existed but the war proved as an accelerant. During the war, the

British exploitation of India intensified anti-British sentiment and generated

newfound activism within Congress and in other groups across the world who

no longer content to merely write letters or disagree politically in protest, the

mass organised nationalist movements as consequences pf war demanded

British attention and garnered British fear. By 1919, it was clear that India had

been exploited as an economic and military source, with a 1:2 ratio of British

and Indian army troops and an Indian army at 1.2 million, “By the time war

ended in 1918 the total strength of the Indian army stood at 1.2 million” (Bose

& Jalal, 102). Some areas were afflicted by starvation due to large amounts of
food and fodder imported to the Middle East, “In some military

campaigns,..Indian troops were themselves used as cannon fodder…nearly

60,000 Indian soldiers were killed fighting for Britain in Europe and Middle

East during World War I” (Bose & Jalal,102) Despite financial constraints

India’s military spending increased by 300 percent. The countryside was the

most extreme region where the effect of high prices and shortages of

commodities due to inflation could be felt - “where grain prices rocketed and

articles of daily use, such as cloth, kerosene oil and medicines, were scarce and

expensive.” (Bose & Jalal, 103). These hardships to be significant on a national

scale - the troubles of the war generated problems felt by all the provinces

across India rather than individual problems, giving fuel to nationalism.

Gandhi's ultimate aim was to bring together the forces of Indian nationalism

under one umbrella much bigger than class, religious or caste divisions

demonstrated through Gandhi's use of language and the Satyagraha movement.

But this dream of unity was hindered by the Hindu-Muslim conflict and how

deep within Indian roots ran caste and class differences.

Gandhi’s efforts of unification of the nationalist movement although failed quite

clearly by 1939 his ideology deserves to be revered as it’s psychological impact

on the mind-set of a country was central to the movement. This change in

mentality when paired with shaking global events such as the First World War
or the global economic crisis, the success of nationalist movements could be

clearly felt.

The fact that the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms were even introduced portrayed

the effectiveness of nationalism during the war - the 1916 Lucknow Pact had

demonstrated Congress' ability to overcome religious differences with the

coalition between the Muslim League and the Indian National Congress on a

national level, and thus gave an impression of unity against the British,

threatening colonial rule. These reforms were a way to redirect Indian political

focus away from the all-India stage and into provincial affairs, portraying

success for the nationalist movements during the First World War in taking

problems to the All-India Stage, as the fact that the British were trying to

dissipate power by spreading it across provinces was clear indication that the

colonial rule was threatened. The expression of disappointment towards these

reforms culminated itself into the tragedy of the Amristar massacre of 1919 and

kick started the first non-cooperation movement. The boycott of British

products in India, the Asssam tea strike, and the boycott of the visit of the

Prince of Wales in 1921 were all peaceful but productive ways of showing

opposition to the British. In more than one occasion, widespread labour strife

and peasant movements in 1919 - 1922 threatened to become violent urging

Congress to press brakes, “we find the Gandhian Congress ready to press the

brakes, fearful of people running ahead of the leadership and redefining the
organization’s cherished goal of swaraj” (Bose & Jalal, 115) The onset of

Chauri Chaura crisis in UP leading to the deaths of 22 police officers in 1922,

led to calling off the non-cooperation movement in by Gandhi to pursue other

means long term benefits.

One such means for demonstrating resistance, Gandhi deemed the Congress,

while evidently beneficial as it was more centrally unified, it was also

disadvantageous that Muslims started to assume that it was Hindu-dominated in

the 1920s. The 1928 Nehru report was a progress in the nationalist movements

as these nationalists proposed a scheme for a federal India, with a strong centre

portraying a unified nationalist agenda that went beyond non-cooperation and

demanded constitutional change. No reservation of seats for Muslims were

proposed, thus the Nehru report clearly rekindled

fears of a Hindu Raj dominating Muslims, turning them away from Congress.

The global economic crisis of 1929 was able to curb such differences. The

prices of India's main cash crops more than halved between 1929 and 1932,

leading to the collapse of rural credit, in Bengal many peasants were unable to

pay rent, leading to the spread of the 'non-payment' movement across the

district, which proved beneficial to the non-cooperation agenda. This trigger led

to the impetus of the Civil disobedience movement and demands were presented

to the viceroy, 5 out of 11 of which were related to economic issues. In the

aftermath of Purna Swaraj's declaration on 26 January 1930, 'salt march' was

declared to show indignation at an unjust law and proved to be a significant

achievement. But Gandhis urge to stay in charge resulted in the Gandhi-Irwin

Pact of 1931 and calling off the civil disobedience movement to allow for long

term successes, but “Gandhi returned politically empty-handed from London,..

and called for a resumption of civil disobedience in January 1932” (Bose &

Jalal, 124)

All nationalist movements in the past decade culminated in the Government of

India act of 1935 which was an ultimate failure in comparison to Congress

desires. Subhas Chandra Bose described the act as “‘not for self-government,

but for maintaining British rule in the new political conditions” (Bose & Jalal,

125) as well as Nehru calling it a “Charter of slavery”, rightfully so. By 1939, a

more distinct failure appeared. Far from the movement being able to unite,

tensions were perpetuated. There was increasing rivalry and tension between

radical left-wing areas of Congress in the late 1930s, something Gandhi had

attempted to overcome by giving Nehru and Bose the presidency but “On the

eve of World War II the Indian National Congress was split into conservative

and radical segments…the nationalist movement’s unifying appeal was being

blunted by concerted Muslim opposition under the leadership of Jinnah” (Bose

& Jalal, 127)

There fore it is clear that when the accomplishments of Indian nationalism are

regarded in the their contributions are somewhat menial in the calibre of

magnification of differences it led to among Indians. The reforms granted were

very restricted, each with disadvantages that attempted to continue to subjugate

and restrict Indian power and control. The nationalist movement ultimately

failed in the crucial aspect of uniting religion, as attempts to further the

movement hindered the relationships between Muslims and Hindus, leaving

them fractured forever Therefore, despite the fact that some British action was

encouraged by the non-cooperation movements and actions of Indian

nationalists, the impact that the divisions had on the movement itself implies

that these achievements were severely limited.

Reference:

Bose, Sugata, and Ayesha Jalal. Modern South Asia: History, Culture, Political Economy.
London: Routledge, 2004.