The First World War broke out in 1914. The war period witnessed the maturing of Indian nationalism. In the beginning, the Indian nationalists, including Tilak decided to support the war effort of the government in the mistaken belief that the grateful Britain would repay India’s loyalty with gratitude. They did not realize fully that the different powers fighting the First World War precisely to safeguard their existing colonies.
Gokhale’s Political Testament
Before his death in 1915, Gokhale had prepared on the request of Lord Wellington, a scheme of reforms to be given to India after the War. This so called Gokhale’s Political Testament was published in 1917. Gokhale’s main recommendation was the grant of political autonomy and the lessening of the control of the Government of India in the provincial sphere. He wanted the Executive Council or Cabinet of the Governor to consist of 6 members, three of whom were to be Indians.
The Home Rule Movement
Many Indian leaders believed that the Government was not likely to give any concessions unless pressure was brought to bear upon it. The World War led to increased misery among the poorer classes of Indians. They were getting ready to join any militant movement of protest. But this mass agitation could not be carried out under the leadership of the Indian National Congress, which had become, under moderate leadership. Therefore, two Home Rule Leagues were started in 1915-1916, one under the leadership of Lokamanya Tilak and the other under the leadership of Annie Besant, an English admirer of Indian culture and S.Subrahmanya Iyer.
The two Home Rule Leagues worked in cooperation and carried out intense propaganda all over the country in favour of the demand for the grant of Home Rule or self-government to India after the War. It was during this agitation that Tilak gave the popular slogan: “ Swaraj is my birth right, and I will have it”. Tilak started two newspapers – ‘the Keasari’ in Marathi and the ‘Mahratta’ in English. Mrs. Annie Besant also started newspapers for propagating the Home Rule movement, ‘the Commonweal’ and ‘the New India’. The reason why the two leagues did not merge was, in Annie Besant’s words, “Some of his followers disliked me and some of mine disliked him. We however, had no quarrel with each other”. Explaining her mission to audience, she said, “I am an Indian tom tom waking up all the sleepers so that they may wake and work for their motherland. This is my task”.
The two Home rule leagues made rapid progress and the cry of Swaraj resounded throughout the length and breadth of India. Many moderate nationalists, who were dissatisfied with the Congress inactivity, joined the Home Rule agitation. The two leagues demarcated their areas of operation. Tilak’s League was to work in Maharashtra, Karnataka, Central Province and Berar, and Annie Besant’s in the rest of India. The tremendous achievement of the Home Rule Movement was in creating a politically aware and committed band of nationalists who were to play a leading role in the coming mass struggle.
The Home Rule Movement was essentially moderate, mobilizing public opinion, organizing peaceful agitations and basing its claims on India’s contributions to the war effort and Britain’s sense of justice. Newspapers were printed and pamphlets distributed in English as well as in the vernacular languages. Speeches were organized in temples and in more conventional meeting places in the home bases.
The Government could not tolerate the activities of the Home Rule League. Bombay government imposed restrictions on the movement and activities of Tilak. Mrs. Besant too was interned in 1917. These repressive measures however did not weaken the Home Rule Movement. On 20th August 1917 Mr. Montague the new secretary of State made the following statement, “The policy of His Majesty’s government, with whish the Government of India are in complete accord, is that of the increasing association of Indians in every branch of the administration and gradual development of self governing institutions with a view to the progressive realization of responsible government in India as an integral part of the British empire. After this declaration Mrs. Besant dropped her league, but Tilk continued his movement.
The most important contribution of the movement was that it kept alive Indian nationalism during the course of the First World War. It infused the Congress with new strength and vigour.
The Ghadar movement
Indian revolutionaries in the USA and Canada had established the Ghadar[Rebellion] Party in 1913 at Sanfrancisco. The Party was built around the weekly paper the Ghadar. The ideology of the party was strongly secular. In the words of Sohan Singh Bhakna, “We were not Sikhs or Punjabis. Our religion was patriotism”.
Most of the members of the party were Punjabi Sikh peasants and ex-soldiers, who had migrated there in search of livelihood, and face the full burnt of racial and economic discrimination. Lala Har Dayal, Mohammed Barkatullah, Bhagwan Singh, Ram Chandra and Sohan Singh Bhakna were the prominent leaders of the Ghadar Party. The Party had active members in other countries such as Mexico, Japan, China, Philippines, Malaya, Singapore, Thailand, Indo- China and East and South Africa.
The Ghadar Party highlighted the point that Indians were not respected in the world abroad because they were not free. With the outbreak of the First World War, Lala Har Dayal and several other Indians abroad moved up to Germany and set up “The Indian Independence Committee” at Berlin. The Ghhadarites decided to send arms and men to India to start an uprising with the help of soldiers and local revolutionaries. 21 February 1915 was fixed as the date for an armed revolt in the Punjab. Unfortunately the authorities came to know of these plans and took immediate action. The rebellious regiments were disbanded and their leaders were either imprisoned or hanged.
The Komagata maree case
The Komagata maree case created an explosive situation in the Punjab. Baba Gurdit Singh chartered a Japanese ship Komagata maree for Vancouver and sought to carry 351 Sikhs and 21 Punjabi Muslims to that town. The Canadian authorities refused permission to the ship to land and the ship returned to Budge Budge, Calcutta on 27 September 1914. The inmates of the ship believed that the British Government persuaded the Canadian authorities. The Government of India ordered all the passengers to be carried direct by train to the Punjab. The already exploitative situation in the Punjab worsened with a band of fresh malcontents. Large-scale political atrocities were committed in Jullunder, Amritsar, Ludhiana etc.
The Government unleashed repressive legislation to meet revolutionary activities. The prevention of Seditious Meetings Act[1907], the Explosive Substance Act[1908], the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act[1908], the Newspaper Act[1908], the Press Act[1910] etc were passed to meet the challenge. A temporary respite came in revolutionary activities with the close of the First World War. The discussions on the new scheme of constitutional reforms also created an atmosphere of compromise and conciliation. Above all Gandhiji’s emergence on the national scene with a new weapon of non violence also halted the pace of revolutionary activities.
The Lucknow Pact of 1916
In 1916 the Indian National Congress session was held at Lucknow. It marked the reunion of the moderate and extremist parties after the Surat split of 1907. The Lucknow session provided the Home Rule Leagues an opportunity of demonstrating their strength. In the Session Congress and Muslim League signed the Lucknow Pact. Congress and Muslim League accepted a united scheme of constitutional reforms. The resultant efforts produced the Congress-League scheme and the Nineteen Memorandum to give concrete shape to political thinking in the country.
Revolutionary movements inside and outside India
The Montagu- Chelmsford Reforms- 1919
By 1916 all parties in India began to think that some changes in the structure of the government was necessary. As a response to the political pressure in India during the war years and to buy support of the Indians, the Montagu- Chelmsford reforms were introduced by the Government.
In 1918, Edwin Montagu, the Secretary of State, and Lord Chelmsford, the Viceroy, produced their scheme of constitutional reforms, which led to the enactment of the Government of India Act of 1919.The Government of India Act made many changes in the administration of India. The Act provided that in future the Secretary of State was to be paid out of the Indian revenues.
The Act of 1919 set up a bicameral legislature of the centre in place of the Imperial Council. The names of the two houses were the Central Legislative Assembly and the Council of State. The life of the Central Legislative Assembly was 3 years and the Council of State 5 years. The franchise was restricted for both houses of the Central Legislature. The governor- General was given the power to summon and dissolve the chambers. The Central Legislature was given very wide powers. It could make laws for the whole of British India. The Act introduced responsive and not responsible Government at the Centre.
The Act provided for two lists of subjects: Central list and Provincial List. It is to be noted that the division was not clear-cut or definite. There was lot of overlapping. The size of Provincial Legislative Council was considerably enlarged.
The Act introduced diarchy in the provinces. Under this system, the subjects to be dealt with by the Provincial Governments were divided into two parts: Transferred and Reserved subjects. The Reserved subjects were administered by the Governor with the help of the Executive Council and the Transferred subjects were dealt with by the Governor with the help of his ministers.
While the members of the Executive Council were nominated by the Governor, the ministers were chosen by the Governor from the members of the legislature. The system of diarchy worked in the provinces from 1921 to 1937, but the experience shows that the system did not work satisfactorily. Many factors were responsible for the failure of the system. The very principle of diarchy was faulty. The division of administration into two parts, each independent of the other, is opposed to political theory and the practice of Governments. The position of the ministers was very weak. They had to serve two masters. Those were the Governor and the Legislative Council.
The Indian nationalists had advanced far beyond such halting concessions. They were no longer willing to be satisfied with the shadow of political power. The Indian National Congress condemned the Reforms as “ disappointing and unsatisfactory” and demanded effective self government instead. Some of the leaders led by Surendranath Banerjea were in favour of accepting the government proposals. They left the Congress and founded the Indian Liberal Federation. They came to be known as Liberals.
References
Bipan Chandra :India's Struggle for Independence
Bipan Chandra edtd : Freedom Struggle
Tara Chand : Freedom Movement
NCERT Text book
Gokhale’s Political Testament
Before his death in 1915, Gokhale had prepared on the request of Lord Wellington, a scheme of reforms to be given to India after the War. This so called Gokhale’s Political Testament was published in 1917. Gokhale’s main recommendation was the grant of political autonomy and the lessening of the control of the Government of India in the provincial sphere. He wanted the Executive Council or Cabinet of the Governor to consist of 6 members, three of whom were to be Indians.
The Home Rule Movement
Many Indian leaders believed that the Government was not likely to give any concessions unless pressure was brought to bear upon it. The World War led to increased misery among the poorer classes of Indians. They were getting ready to join any militant movement of protest. But this mass agitation could not be carried out under the leadership of the Indian National Congress, which had become, under moderate leadership. Therefore, two Home Rule Leagues were started in 1915-1916, one under the leadership of Lokamanya Tilak and the other under the leadership of Annie Besant, an English admirer of Indian culture and S.Subrahmanya Iyer.
The two Home Rule Leagues worked in cooperation and carried out intense propaganda all over the country in favour of the demand for the grant of Home Rule or self-government to India after the War. It was during this agitation that Tilak gave the popular slogan: “ Swaraj is my birth right, and I will have it”. Tilak started two newspapers – ‘the Keasari’ in Marathi and the ‘Mahratta’ in English. Mrs. Annie Besant also started newspapers for propagating the Home Rule movement, ‘the Commonweal’ and ‘the New India’. The reason why the two leagues did not merge was, in Annie Besant’s words, “Some of his followers disliked me and some of mine disliked him. We however, had no quarrel with each other”. Explaining her mission to audience, she said, “I am an Indian tom tom waking up all the sleepers so that they may wake and work for their motherland. This is my task”.
The two Home rule leagues made rapid progress and the cry of Swaraj resounded throughout the length and breadth of India. Many moderate nationalists, who were dissatisfied with the Congress inactivity, joined the Home Rule agitation. The two leagues demarcated their areas of operation. Tilak’s League was to work in Maharashtra, Karnataka, Central Province and Berar, and Annie Besant’s in the rest of India. The tremendous achievement of the Home Rule Movement was in creating a politically aware and committed band of nationalists who were to play a leading role in the coming mass struggle.
The Home Rule Movement was essentially moderate, mobilizing public opinion, organizing peaceful agitations and basing its claims on India’s contributions to the war effort and Britain’s sense of justice. Newspapers were printed and pamphlets distributed in English as well as in the vernacular languages. Speeches were organized in temples and in more conventional meeting places in the home bases.
The Government could not tolerate the activities of the Home Rule League. Bombay government imposed restrictions on the movement and activities of Tilak. Mrs. Besant too was interned in 1917. These repressive measures however did not weaken the Home Rule Movement. On 20th August 1917 Mr. Montague the new secretary of State made the following statement, “The policy of His Majesty’s government, with whish the Government of India are in complete accord, is that of the increasing association of Indians in every branch of the administration and gradual development of self governing institutions with a view to the progressive realization of responsible government in India as an integral part of the British empire. After this declaration Mrs. Besant dropped her league, but Tilk continued his movement.
The most important contribution of the movement was that it kept alive Indian nationalism during the course of the First World War. It infused the Congress with new strength and vigour.
The Ghadar movement
Indian revolutionaries in the USA and Canada had established the Ghadar[Rebellion] Party in 1913 at Sanfrancisco. The Party was built around the weekly paper the Ghadar. The ideology of the party was strongly secular. In the words of Sohan Singh Bhakna, “We were not Sikhs or Punjabis. Our religion was patriotism”.
Most of the members of the party were Punjabi Sikh peasants and ex-soldiers, who had migrated there in search of livelihood, and face the full burnt of racial and economic discrimination. Lala Har Dayal, Mohammed Barkatullah, Bhagwan Singh, Ram Chandra and Sohan Singh Bhakna were the prominent leaders of the Ghadar Party. The Party had active members in other countries such as Mexico, Japan, China, Philippines, Malaya, Singapore, Thailand, Indo- China and East and South Africa.
The Ghadar Party highlighted the point that Indians were not respected in the world abroad because they were not free. With the outbreak of the First World War, Lala Har Dayal and several other Indians abroad moved up to Germany and set up “The Indian Independence Committee” at Berlin. The Ghhadarites decided to send arms and men to India to start an uprising with the help of soldiers and local revolutionaries. 21 February 1915 was fixed as the date for an armed revolt in the Punjab. Unfortunately the authorities came to know of these plans and took immediate action. The rebellious regiments were disbanded and their leaders were either imprisoned or hanged.
The Komagata maree case
The Komagata maree case created an explosive situation in the Punjab. Baba Gurdit Singh chartered a Japanese ship Komagata maree for Vancouver and sought to carry 351 Sikhs and 21 Punjabi Muslims to that town. The Canadian authorities refused permission to the ship to land and the ship returned to Budge Budge, Calcutta on 27 September 1914. The inmates of the ship believed that the British Government persuaded the Canadian authorities. The Government of India ordered all the passengers to be carried direct by train to the Punjab. The already exploitative situation in the Punjab worsened with a band of fresh malcontents. Large-scale political atrocities were committed in Jullunder, Amritsar, Ludhiana etc.
The Government unleashed repressive legislation to meet revolutionary activities. The prevention of Seditious Meetings Act[1907], the Explosive Substance Act[1908], the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act[1908], the Newspaper Act[1908], the Press Act[1910] etc were passed to meet the challenge. A temporary respite came in revolutionary activities with the close of the First World War. The discussions on the new scheme of constitutional reforms also created an atmosphere of compromise and conciliation. Above all Gandhiji’s emergence on the national scene with a new weapon of non violence also halted the pace of revolutionary activities.
The Lucknow Pact of 1916
In 1916 the Indian National Congress session was held at Lucknow. It marked the reunion of the moderate and extremist parties after the Surat split of 1907. The Lucknow session provided the Home Rule Leagues an opportunity of demonstrating their strength. In the Session Congress and Muslim League signed the Lucknow Pact. Congress and Muslim League accepted a united scheme of constitutional reforms. The resultant efforts produced the Congress-League scheme and the Nineteen Memorandum to give concrete shape to political thinking in the country.
Revolutionary movements inside and outside India
The Montagu- Chelmsford Reforms- 1919
By 1916 all parties in India began to think that some changes in the structure of the government was necessary. As a response to the political pressure in India during the war years and to buy support of the Indians, the Montagu- Chelmsford reforms were introduced by the Government.
In 1918, Edwin Montagu, the Secretary of State, and Lord Chelmsford, the Viceroy, produced their scheme of constitutional reforms, which led to the enactment of the Government of India Act of 1919.The Government of India Act made many changes in the administration of India. The Act provided that in future the Secretary of State was to be paid out of the Indian revenues.
The Act of 1919 set up a bicameral legislature of the centre in place of the Imperial Council. The names of the two houses were the Central Legislative Assembly and the Council of State. The life of the Central Legislative Assembly was 3 years and the Council of State 5 years. The franchise was restricted for both houses of the Central Legislature. The governor- General was given the power to summon and dissolve the chambers. The Central Legislature was given very wide powers. It could make laws for the whole of British India. The Act introduced responsive and not responsible Government at the Centre.
The Act provided for two lists of subjects: Central list and Provincial List. It is to be noted that the division was not clear-cut or definite. There was lot of overlapping. The size of Provincial Legislative Council was considerably enlarged.
The Act introduced diarchy in the provinces. Under this system, the subjects to be dealt with by the Provincial Governments were divided into two parts: Transferred and Reserved subjects. The Reserved subjects were administered by the Governor with the help of the Executive Council and the Transferred subjects were dealt with by the Governor with the help of his ministers.
While the members of the Executive Council were nominated by the Governor, the ministers were chosen by the Governor from the members of the legislature. The system of diarchy worked in the provinces from 1921 to 1937, but the experience shows that the system did not work satisfactorily. Many factors were responsible for the failure of the system. The very principle of diarchy was faulty. The division of administration into two parts, each independent of the other, is opposed to political theory and the practice of Governments. The position of the ministers was very weak. They had to serve two masters. Those were the Governor and the Legislative Council.
The Indian nationalists had advanced far beyond such halting concessions. They were no longer willing to be satisfied with the shadow of political power. The Indian National Congress condemned the Reforms as “ disappointing and unsatisfactory” and demanded effective self government instead. Some of the leaders led by Surendranath Banerjea were in favour of accepting the government proposals. They left the Congress and founded the Indian Liberal Federation. They came to be known as Liberals.
References
Bipan Chandra :India's Struggle for Independence
Bipan Chandra edtd : Freedom Struggle
Tara Chand : Freedom Movement
NCERT Text book
No comments:
Post a Comment