A Brief History

of Modern India

Rajiv Ahir

I.P.S.

With contributions from

R. Vidya

Sabina Madan

Shashi Kumar Saxena

Kalpana Rajaram

Editor

Kalpana Rajaram

Revised and Enlarged Edition

2020

SPECTRUM BOOKS (P) LTD.

A1 291, First Floor, Janakpuri,

New Delhi 110 058

join us http://telegram.me/bpsc65thmains66thprelims (BPSC CCE 65th,66th & 67th )

Editor’s Note

Several books have been written by justly famous authors and
historians of India’s struggle for freedom which is the major
strand in any consideration of the history of Modern India.
But these volumes are extensive and in-depth studies, and
often suffer from an overemphasis on one aspect at the cost
of another. The present small effort, however, brings together
various aspects of the turbulent period (from the arrival of
the Europeans on Indian soil and the establishment of British
rule in India to the day India won independence and the years
after freedom) in a systematic and succinct manner: major
and important details and milestones are effectively discussed
while several relevant but little known details are also
highlighted.

It is not just the mainstream freedom struggle that has

been considered; the disparate efforts—small but significant—
of several groups have also been discussed. The political and
socio-economic developments that have influenced the growth
of modern India have been dealt with in independent chapters.

The endeavour has been to present complex and truly

vast material in a brief and easy-to-understand manner, and
we hope our readers find the book of use and interest.

The present edition includes chapters on the advent of

(iii)

the Europeans in India and the British consolidation of power
in India besides incorporating additional information under
several chapters. There are also chapters on the challenges
that a newly independent nation faced in the wake of a brutal
partition. The Nehruvian era is also briefly discussed. The
chapter on India after Nehru discusses various developments
under the governments that came after 1964. In the Appendices,
a survey of personalities associated with various movements
is given. Also included for easy ready reference are several
charts relating to modern India and the freedom struggle.

We are grateful for the feedback we have received from

our readers. We have incorporated many of their valuable
suggestions in the present edition.

Suggestions for improvement are welcome.

Kalpana Rajaram

November 2020

Editor’s Note

(iv)

join us http://telegram.me/bpsc65thmand66thp (BPSC CCE 65th,66th and 67th)

(v)

Contents

UNIT 1

SOURCES AND APPROACHES

Chapter 1
Sources for the History of Modern India

Archival Materials

Central Government Archives

Archives of the State Governments

Archives of Three Presidencies

Archives of Other European Powers

Judicial Records

Published Archives

Private Archives

Foreign Repositories

Biographies, Memoirs and Travel Accounts

Newspapers and Journals

Oral Evidence

Creative Literature

Painting

Summary

Chapter 2
Major Approaches to the History of Modern India

Colonial Approach/ Historiography

Nationalist Historiography/ Approach

Marxist Historiography/ Approach

Subaltern Approach/ Historiography

Communalist Approach

Cambridge School

Liberal and Neo-Liberal Interpretations

(vi)

Contents

Feminist Historiography

Summary

UNIT 2

ADVENT OF EUROPEANS AND

CONSOLIDATION OF BRITISH

POWER IN INDIA

Chapter 3
Advent of the Europeans in India

The Portuguese in India

The Quest for and Discovery of a

Sea Route to India

From Trading to Ruling

Portuguese State

Portuguese Lose Favour with the Mughals

Decline of the Portuguese

Significance of the Portuguese

The Dutch

Dutch Settlements

Anglo-Dutch Rivalry

Decline of the Dutch in India

The English

Charter of Queen Elizabeth I

Progress of the English Company

The French

Foundation of French Centres in India

The Anglo-French Struggle for Supremacy: the

Carnatic Wars

Causes for the English Success and the

French Failure

The Danes

Why the English Succeeded against

Other European Powers

Structure and Nature of the Trading Companies

Naval Superiority

Industrial Revolution

Military Skill and Discipline

Stable Government

Lesser Zeal for Religion

Use of Debt Market

Summary

Boxes

Portuguese Rise and Fall

Formative Years of the East India Company

Rise and Fall of Dupleix in India

About the Goods in Trade Initially

Chapter 4
India on the Eve of British Conquest

Challenges before the Mughals

External Challenges

Weak Rulers after Aurangzeb—An

Internal Challenge

Causes of Decline of Mughal Empire

Shifting Allegiance of Zamindars

Jagirdari Crisis

Rise of Regional Aspirations

Economic and Administrative Problems

Rise of Regional States

Survey of Regional Kingdoms

Nature and Limitations of Regional States

Socio-Economic Conditions

Agriculture

Trade and Industry

Status of Education

Societal Set-up

Developments in Art, Architecture

and Culture

Summary

Boxes

Why Many Empire-shaking Battles at Panipat?

Causes of the Mughals’ Downfall in a Nutshell

Chapter 5
Expansion and Consolidation of British

Power in India

The British Imperial History

Was the British Conquest

Accidental or Intentional?

When did the British Period Begin in India?

Causes of British Success in India

Superior Arms, Military, and Strategy

(vii)

Contents

Better Military Discipline and Regular Salary

Civil Discipline and Fair Selection System

Brilliant Leadership and Support of

Second-Line Leaders

Strong Financial Backup

Nationalist Pride

British Conquest of Bengal

Bengal on the Eve of British Conquest

Alivardi Khan and the English

Challenges Before Siraj-ud-Daulah

The Battle of Plassey

Mir Kasim and the Treaty of 1760

The Battle of Buxar

The Treaty of Allahabad

Dual Government in Bengal (1765–72)

Mysore’s Resistance to the Company

The Wodeyar / Mysore Dynasty

Rise of Haidar Ali

First Anglo-Mysore War (1767-69)

Second Anglo-Mysore War (1780–84)

Third Anglo-Mysore War

Fourth Anglo-Mysore War

Mysore After Tipu

101

Anglo-Maratha Struggle for Supremacy

102

Rise of the Marathas

102

Entry of the English into Maratha Politics

102

First Anglo-Maratha War (1775–82)

103

Second Anglo-Maratha War (1803–05)

105

Third Anglo-Maratha War (1817–19)

107

Why the Marathas Lost

108

Conquest of Sindh

110

Rise of Talpuras Amirs

110

Gradual Ascendancy over Sindh

110

Criticisms of the Conquest of Sindh

114

Conquest of Punjab

114

Consolidation of Punjab under the Sikhs

114

Ranjit Singh and the English

116

Punjab After Ranjit Singh

117

First Anglo-Sikh War (1845–46)

117

Second Anglo-Sikh War (1848–49)

119

Significance of the Anglo-Sikh Wars

120

Extension of British Paramountcy

120

(viii)

Contents

(ix)

Contents

Through Administrative Policy

The Policy of Ring-Fence

120

Subsidiary Alliance

121

Doctrine of Lapse

124

Relations of British India with

126

Neighbouring Countries

Anglo-Bhutanese Relations

126

Anglo-Nepalese Relations

127

Anglo-Burmese Relations

127

Anglo-Tibetan Relations

129

Anglo-Afghan Relations

130

John Lawrence and the Policy of

131

Masterly Inactivity

Lytton and the Policy of Proud Reserve

132

British India and the North-West Frontier

133

Summary

134

Boxes

Robert Clive

Estimate of Tipu Sultan

100

Annexation of Awadh

125

UNIT 3

RISING RESENTMENT AGAINST

137

COMPANY RULE

Chapter 6
People’s Resistance Against British Before 1857

137

People’s Resistance: Meaning

138

Genesis of People’s Resistance

138

Causative Factors for People’s Uprisings

139

Civil Uprisings

139

Major Causes of Civil Uprisings

139

General Characteristics of Civil Uprisings

140

Important Civil Uprisings

140

Peasant Movements with Religious Overtones

153

Tribal Revolts

155

Different Causes for Mainland and

155

North-Eastern Tribal Revolts

Characteristics of Tribal Revolts

156

Important Tribal Movements

157

of the Mainland

Tribal Movements of the North-East

167

Sepoy Mutinies

169

Causes

169

Important Mutinies

170

Weaknesses of People’s Uprisings

170

Summary

171

Boxes

Some Tribal Movements after 1857

162

Tribal Movements: Period, Region, Causes at a Glance 166

North-East Frontier Tribal Movements: Year,

168

Region, Major Causes

Chapter 7
The Revolt of 1857

174

Simmering Discontent

174

The 1857 Revolt: the Major Causes

175

Economic Causes

175

Political Causes

176

Administrative Causes

177

Socio-Religious Causes

177

Influence of Outside Events

177

Discontent Among Sepoys

177

Beginning and Spread of the Revolt

178

The Spark

178

Starts at Meerut

179

Choice of Bahadur Shah as Symbolic Head

179

Civilians Join

180

Storm Centres and Leaders of the Revolt

181

Suppression of the Revolt

183

Why the Revolt Failed

184

All-India participation was absent

184

All classes did not join

184

Poor Arms and Equipment

185

Uncoordinated and Poorly Organised

185

No Unified Ideology

185

Hindu-Muslim Unity Factor

186

Nature of the Revolt

186

Consequences

189

Significance of the Revolt

192

(x)

Contents

(xi)

Contents

Summary

193

Box

White Mutiny

188

UNIT 4

REFORM MOVEMENTS

195

Chapter 8
Socio-Religious Reform Movements:

195

General Features

Factors Giving Rise to Desire for Reform

195

Impact of British Rule

196

Social Conditions Ripe for Reform

196

Opposition to Western Culture

197

New Awareness among Enlightened Indians

197

Social and Ideological Bases of Reform

198

Middle Class Base

198

The Intellectual Criteria

199

Two Streams

200

Direction of Social Reform

201

Fight for Betterment of Position of Women

202

Struggle Against Caste-Based Exploitation

209

Summary

215

Chapter 9
A General Survey of Socio–Cultural

217

Reform Movements and their Leaders

Socio-Cultural Reform Movements and their Leaders 217

Raja Rammohan Roy and Brahmo Samaj

217

Prarthana Samaj

222

Young Bengal Movement and

223

Henry Vivian Derozio

Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar

224

Balshastri Jambhekar

225

Paramahansa Mandali

225

Jyotirao Phule and Savitribai Phule

226

Gopal Baba Walangkar

228

Kisan Faguji Bansod

229

Vitthal Ramji Shinde

229

Gopalhari Deshmukh ‘Lokahitawadi’

230

Gopal Ganesh Agarkar

230

(xii)

Contents

The Servants of India Society

231

Social Service League

231

The Ramakrishna Movement and

231

Swami Vivekananda

Dayananda Saraswati and Arya Samaj

235

Seva Sadan

238

Dev Samaj

239

Dharma Sabha

239

Bharat Dharma Mahamandala

239

Radhaswami Movement

239

Sree Narayana Guru Dharma

240

Paripalana (SNDP) Movement

Vokkaliga Sangha

241

Justice Movement

241

Self-Respect Movement

241

Temple Entry Movement

241

Indian Social Conference

242

Wahabi/Walliullah Movement

242

Titu Mir’s Movement

243

Faraizi Movement

243

Ahmadiyya Movement

244

Sir Syed Ahmed Khan and the

244

Aligarh Movement

The Deoband School (Darul Uloom)

246

Parsi Reform Movements

247

Sikh Reform Movements

247

The Theosophical Movement

248

Significance of Reform Movements

249

Positive Aspects

249

Negative Aspects

251

Summary

252

UNIT 5

THE STRUGGLE BEGINS

254

Chapter 10
Beginning of Modern Nationalism in India

254

Factors in the Growth of Modern Nationalism

254

Understanding of Contradictions in

255

Indian and Colonial Interests

Political, Administrative, and Economic

255

Unification of the Country

Western Thought and Education

256

Role of Press and Literature

256

Rediscovery of India’s Past

257

Progressive Character of Socio-religious

257

Reform Movements

Rise of Middle-Class Intelligentsia

257

Impact of Contemporary Movements

257

in the World

Reactionary Policies and Racial

258

Arrogance of Rulers

Political Associations Before the

258

Indian National Congress

Political Associations in Bengal

259

Political Associations in Bombay

260

Political Associations in Madras

260

Pre-Congress Campaigns

261

Summary

261

Chapter 11
Indian National Congress: Foundation and the

262

Moderate Phase

Foundation of the Indian National Congress

262

Was It a Safety Valve?

263

Aims and Objectives of the Congress

264

Era of Moderates (1885–1905)

264

Important Leaders

264

Moderate Approach

264

Contributions of Moderate Nationalists

265

Economic Critique of British Imperialism

265

Constitutional Reforms and Propaganda

266

in Legislature

Campaign for General Administrative

268

Reforms
Protection of Civil Rights

268

An Evaluation of the Early Nationalists

269

Role of Masses

270

Attitude of the Government

270

Summary

271

(xiii)

Contents

(xiv)

Contents

UNIT 6

NATIONAL MOVEMENT (1905–1918)

272

Chapter 12
Era of Militant Nationalism (1905–1909)

272

Growth of Militant Nationalism

272

Why Militant Nationalism Grew

272

The Swadeshi and Boycott Movement

276

Partition of Bengal to Divide People

276

Anti-Partition Campaign Under

277

Moderates (1903–05)

The Congress Position

278

The Movement under Extremist Leadership

279

The Extremist Programme

279

New Forms of Struggle and Impact

280

Extent of Mass Participation

283

All India Aspect

285

Annulment of Partition

285

Evaluation of the Swadeshi Movement

285

The Movement Fizzles Out

285

Movement a Turning Point

286

The Surat Split

289

Run-up to Surat

289

Split Takes Place

290

Government Repression

291

The Government Strategy

292

Morley-Minto Reforms of 1909

293

The Reforms

293

Evaluation

295

Summary

296

Box

Differences between Moderates and Extremists

287

Chapter 13
First Phase of Revolutionary Activities

299

(1907–1917)

Why the Surge of Revolutionary Activities

299

The Revolutionary Programme

300

A Survey of Revolutionary Activities

300

Bengal

300

Maharashtra

303

Punjab

304

(xv)

Contents

Revolutionary Activities Abroad

304

Decline

308

Summary

308

Chapter 14
First World War and Nationalist Response

311

Home Rule League Movement

312

Factors Leading to the Movement

312

The Leagues

313

The Home Rule League Programme

314

Government Attitude

315

Why the Agitation Faded Out by 1919

315

Positive Gains

316

Lucknow Session of the Indian

317

National Congress (1916)

Readmission of Extremists to Congress

317

Lucknow Pact between Congress and

317

Muslim League

Montagu’s Statement of August 1917

320

Indian Objections

320

Summary

321

UNIT 7

ERA OF MASS NATIONALISM BEGINS

322

(1919–1939)

Chapter 15
Emergence of Gandhi

322

Why Nationalist Resurgence Now

323

Post-War Economic Hardships

323

Expectations of Political Gains

323

for Cooperation in the War

Nationalist Disillusionment with

324

Imperialism Worldwide

Impact of Russian Revolution

324

(November 7, 1917)

Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms and

325

Government of India Act, 1919

Main Features

325

Drawbacks

327

Congress Reaction

328

Making of Gandhi

329

Early Career and Experiments with

329

Truth in South Africa

Gandhi’s Experience in South Africa

332

Gandhi’s Technique of Satyagraha

332

Gandhi in India

333

Champaran Satyagraha (1917)—First Civil

333

Disobedience

Ahmedabad Mill Strike (1918)—

334

First Hunger Strike

Kheda Satyagraha (1918)—First

335

Non-Cooperation

Gains from Champaran, Ahmedabad,

336

and Kheda

Rowlatt Act, Satyagraha, and

337

Jallianwala Bagh Massacre

The Rowlatt Act

337

Satyagraha against the Rowlatt Act—

338

First Mass Strike

Jallianwala Bagh Massacre (April 13, 1919)

339

The Hunter Committee of Inquiry

341

Congress View

343

Summary

344

Box

Tolstoy Farm

331

Chapter 16
Non-Cooperation Movement and

345

Khilafat Aandolan

Background

345

The Khilafat Issue

346

Development of the Khalifat-Non-Cooperation

347

Programme

Congress Stand on Khilafat Question

347

Muslim League Support to Congress

348

The Non-Cooperation Khilafat Movement

348

Spread of the Movement

350

People’s Response

351

Government Response

353

The Last Phase of the Movement

353

Why Gandhi Withdrew the Movement

354

Evaluation of Khilafat Non-Cooperation Movement

355

Summary

356

(xvi)

Contents

Chapter 17
Emergence of Swarajists, Socialist Ideas,

357

Revolutionary Activities and Other New Forces

Swarajists and No-Changers

357

Genesis of Congress-Khilafat Swarajya Party

357

Swarajists’ Arguments

358

No-Changers’ Arguments

358

Agree to Disagree

358

The Swarajist Manifesto for Elections

359

Gandhi’s Attitude

359

Swarajist Activity in Councils

360

Constructive Work by No-Changers

362

Emergence of New Forces: Socialistic Ideas,

362

Youth Power, Trade Unionism

Spread of Marxist and Socialist Ideas

363

Activism of Indian Youth

364

Peasants’ Agitations

364

Growth of Trade Unionism

364

Caste Movements

364

Revolutionary Activity with a Turn

365

towards Socialism

Revolutionary Activity During the 1920s

365

Why Attraction for Revolutionary Activity

365

after Non-Cooperation Movement

Major Influences

366

In Punjab-United Provinces-Bihar

366

In Bengal

369

Official Reaction

371

Ideological Rethinking

371

Summary

373

Chapter 18
Simon Commission and the Nehru Report

375

Appointment of the Indian Statutory Commission

375

Indian Response

376

Police Repression

378

Impact of Appointment of Simon Commission

379

on the National Movement

The Simon Commission Recommendations

379

Nehru Report

380

(xvii)

Contents

Main Recommendations

381

The Muslim and Hindu Communal Responses

381

Amendments Proposed by Jinnah

383

Nehru Report Found Unsatisfactory

384

Summary

384

Box

Dr Ambedkar and the Simon Commission

378

Chapter 19
Civil Disobedience Movement and Round

385

Table Conferences

The Run-up to Civil Disobedience Movement

385

Calcutta Session of Congress

385

Political Activity during 1929

386

Irwin’s Declaration (October 31, 1929)

386

Delhi Manifesto

387

Lahore Congress and Purna Swaraj

387

January 26, 1930: the Independence Pledge

388

Civil Disobedience Movement—the Salt

389

Satyagraha and Other Upsurges

Gandhi’s Eleven Demands

389

Why Salt was Chosen as the Important Theme

390

Dandi March (March 12–April 6, 1930)

390

Spread of Salt Law Disobedience

391

Impact of Agitation

396

Extent of Mass Participation

396

Government Response—Efforts for Truce

397

Gandhi-Irwin Pact

398

Evaluation of Civil Disobedience Movement

399

Karachi Congress Session—1931

400

Congress Resolutions at Karachi

400

The Round Table Conferences

401

First Round Table Conference

401

Second Round Table Conference

403

Third Round Table Conference

406

Civil Disobedience Resumed

407

During Truce Period (March–December 1931)

407

Changed Government Attitude After Second RTC 407

Government Action

408

Popular Response

408

(xviii)

Contents

Communal Award and Poona Pact

408

Main Provisions of the Communal Award

409

Congress Stand

410

Gandhi’s Response

410

Poona Pact

411

Impact of Poona Pact on Dalits

411

Gandhi’s Harijan Campaign and thoughts on Caste

412

Ideological Differences and Similarities

414

between Gandhi and Ambedkar

Summary

418

Chapter 20
Debates on the Future Strategy after Civil

420

Disobedience Movement

The First Stage Debate

420

Nehru’s Vision

421

Nehru’s Opposition to Struggle-

421

Truce-Struggle Strategy

Finally, Yes to Council Entry

422

Government of India Act, 1935

423

Main Features

423

Evaluation of the Act

425

Nationalists’ Response

426

The Second Stage Debate

427

Divided Opinion

427

Gandhi’s Position

428

Congress Manifesto for Elections

428

Congress’ Performance

429

Summary

429

Chapter 21
Congress Rule in Provinces

430

Gandhi’s Advice

430

Work under Congress Ministries

430

Civil Liberties

430

Agrarian Reforms

430

Attitude Towards Labour

432

Social Welfare Reforms

433

Evaluation

433

Summary

434

(xix)

Contents

(xx)

Contents

UNIT 8

TOWARDS FREEDOM AND

435

PARTITION (1939–1947)

Chapter 22
Nationalist Response in the Wake of

435

World War II

Congress Crisis on Method of Struggle

435

Haripura and Tripuri Sessions: Subhash

436

Bose’s Views

Gandhi and Bose: Ideological Differences

440

Non-Violence versus Militant Approach

440

Means and Ends

441

Form of Government

442

Militarism

445

Ideas on Economy

445

Religion

447

Caste and Untouchability

449

Women

449

Education

452

Second World War and Nationalistic Response

453

Congress Offer to Viceroy

453

CWC Meeting at Wardha

453

Government Attitude and Congress Ministries’

455

Resignation

Government’s Hidden Agenda

455

August Offer

458

Responses

458

Evaluation

459

Individual Satyagraha

459

Gandhi Designates Nehru as his Successor

460

Cripps Mission

461

Why Cripps Mission Was Sent

461

Main Proposals

461

Departures from the Past and Implications

462

Why Cripps Mission Failed

462

Summary

464

Chapter 23
Quit India Movement, Demand for Pakistan,

466

and the INA

Quit India Movement

466

Why Start a Struggle Now

466

The ‘Quit India’ Resolution

467

Gandhi’s General Instructions to

467

Different Sections

Spread of the Movement

468

Extent of Mass Participation

470

Government Repression

470

Estimate

471

Gandhi Fasts

471

Famine of 1943

472

Rajagopalachari Formula

472

The Formula

472

Objections

473

Desai-Liaqat Pact

473

Wavell Plan

473

Why the Government was Keen on

474

a Solution Now

The Plan

474

Muslim League’s Stand

474

Congress Stand

475

Wavell’s Mistake

475

The Indian National Army and Subhas Bose

475

Origin and First Phase of the Indian

476

National Army

Summary

479

Chapter 24
Post-War National Scenario

481

Two Strands of National Upsurge

481

Change in Government’s Attitude

481

Congress Election Campaign and INA Trials

483

Election Campaign for Nationalistic Aims

483

Congress Support for INA Prisoners

484

The INA Agitation—A Landmark on

484

Many Counts

Three Upsurges—Winter of 1945–46

485

Three-Stage Pattern

485

Evaluation of Potential and Impact of the

487

Three Upsurges

Congress Strategy

488

Election Results

488

Performance of the Congress

488

(xxi)

Contents

Muslim League’s Performance

489

Significant Features of Elections

489

The Cabinet Mission

489

Why British Withdrawal Seemed Imminent Now 489

On the Eve of Cabinet Mission Plan

491

Cabinet Mission Arrives

491

Cabinet Mission Plan—Main Points

491

Different Interpretations of the Grouping Clause 493

Main Objections

493

Acceptance and Rejection

494

Communal Holocaust and the Interim Government

495

Changed Government Priorities

495

Interim Government

495

Obstructionist Approach and Ulterior

496

Motives of the League

Birth and Spread of Communalism in India

497

Characteristic Features of Indian Communalism

497

Reasons for Growth of Communalism

498

Evolution of the Two-Nation Theory

504

Summary

508

Box

Wavell’s ‘Breakdown Plan’

494

Chapter 25
Independence with Partition

510

Attlee’s Statement of February 20, 1947

510

main points of Attlee’s Statement

510

Why a Date Fixed by Government for Withdrawal511

Congress Stand

511

Independence and Partition

511

Mountbatten as the Viceroy

512

Mountbatten Plan, June 3, 1947

512

Indian Independence Act

514

Problems of Early withdrawal

515

Integration of States

515

Inevitability of Partition

516

Why Congress Accepted Partition

516

Gandhi’s Helplessness

519

Summary

519

Box

Plan Balkan

515

(xxii)

Contents

(xxiii)

Contents

UNIT 9

INDIA UNDER BRITISH RULE:

520

GOVERNANCE AND OTHER ASPECTS

Chapter 26
Constitutional, Administrative, and Judicial

520

Developments

Contents

Constitutional Development between 1773

521

and 1858

The Regulating Act of 1773

521

Pitt’s India Act of 1784

522

The Act of 1786

523

The Charter Act of 1793

523

The Charter Act of 1813

523

The Charter Act of 1833

524

The Charter Act of 1853

525

The Act for Better Government of India 1858

526

Developments after 1858 till Independence

526

Indian Councils Act 1861

526

Indian Councils Act 1892

527

Indian Councils Act 1909

527

Government of India Act 1919

528

Simon Commission

530

Government of India Act 1935

530

Evolution of Civil Services in India

532

Cornwallis’ Role

532

Wellesley’s Role

533

Charter Act of 1853

533

Indian Civil Service Act of 1861

533

Statutory Civil Service

534

Congress Demand and Aitchison Committee

534

Montford Reforms 1919

534

Lee Commission (1924)

535

Evaluation of Civil Services under British Rule

535

Evolution of Police System in Modern India

536

Military Under the British

538

Development of Judiciary in British India

540

Reforms under Warren Hastings (1772–85)

541

Reforms under Cornwallis (1786–93)—

541

Separation of Powers

Reforms under William Bentinck (1828–33)

542

Later Developments

542

Evaluation

543

Positive Aspects of Judiciary under the British

543

The Negative Aspects

543

Major Changes in Administrative

543

Structure after 1857

Genesis of Administrative Changes:

543

New Stage of Colonialism

Administration: Central, Provincial, Local

544

Central Government

544

Provincial Government

546

Local Bodies

547

Summary

551

Chapter 27
Survey of British Policies in India

553

Administrative Policies

553

Divide and Rule

553

Hostility Towards Educated Indians

553

Attitude Towards the Zamindars

554

Attitude Towards Social Reforms

554

Underdeveloped Social Services

554

Labour Legislations

555

Restrictions on Freedom of the Press

556

White Racism

556

Revenue Policies

557

Hastings’ System

557

Permanent Settlement

558

Ryotwari System

559

Mahalwari System

562

Overall Impact of the British Land

564

revenue Systems

British Social and Cultural Policy in India

565

Characteristics of New Thought

566

Schools of Thought

566

Indian Renaissance

567

Dilemma Before the Government

567

Role of Christian Missionaries

567

British Retreat

568

British Policy Towards Princely States

568

(xxiv)

Contents

British Foreign Policy in India

569

Summary

570

Chapter 28
Economic Impact of British Rule in India

571

Deindustrialisation—Ruin of

571

Artisans and Handicraftsmen

One-Way Free Trade

571

No Steps towards Modern Industrialisation

572

Ruralisation

572

Impoverishment of Peasantry

572

Emergence of Intermediaries, Absentee

573

Landlordism, Ruin of Old Zamindars

Stagnation and Deterioration of Agriculture

574

Famine and Poverty

574

Commercialisation of Indian Agriculture

574

Destruction of Industry and Late

575

Development of Modern Industry

Nationalist Critique of Colonial Economy

578

British Policies Making India Poor

579

Growth of Trade and Railways to

579

Help Britain

One-Way Free Trade and Tariff Policy

581

Effect of Economic Drain

581

Economic Issue a Stimulant to National Unrest

582

Stages of Colonialism in India

582

First Stage

583

Second Stage

584

Third Stage

585

Summary

586

Box

Economic Drain

578

Chapter 29
Development of Indian Press

587

Early Regulations

587

Struggle by Early Nationalists to

588

Secure Press Freedom

Vernacular Press Act, 1878

589

Repression against Nationalist

590

Journalists Continues

During and After the First World War

592

(xxv)

Contents

During the Second World War

593

Summary

593

Chapter 30
Development of Education

594

Under Company Rule

594

A Humble beginning by Charter Act of 1813

595

Orientalist-Anglicist Controversy

595

Lord Macaulay’s Minute (1835)

595

Efforts of Thomson

596

Wood’s Despatch (1854)

596

After the Crown Takeover

597

Hunter Education Commission (1882–83)

597

Indian Universities Act, 1904

598

Government Resolution on

599

Education Policy—1913

Sadler University Commission (1917–19)

600

Education Under Dyarchy

602

Hartog Committee (1929)

602

Sargent Plan of Education

604

Development of Vernacular Education

607

Development of Technical Education

608

Evaluation of British Policy on Education

608

Summary

609

Box

Wardha Scheme of Basic Education (1937)

606

Chapter 31
Peasant Movements 1857–1947

610

Peasantry Under Colonialism

610

A Survey of Early Peasant Movements

611

Indigo Revolt (1859–60)

611

Pabna Agrarian Leagues

611

Deccan Riots

612

Changed Nature of Peasant Movements after 1857

613

Weaknesses

613

Later Movements

614

The Kisan Sabha Movement

614

Eka Movement

615

Mappila Revolt

615

Bardoli Satyagraha

616

(xxvi)

Contents

(xxvii)

Contents

The All India Kisan Congress/Sabha

617

Under Congress Ministries

617

Peasant Activity in Provinces

617

During the War

618

Post-War Phase

619

Balance-Sheet of Peasant Movements

620

Summary

521

Chapter 32
The Movement of the Working Class

622

Early Efforts

622

During Swadeshi Upsurge

623

During the First World War and After

624

The AITUC

624

The Trade Union Act, 1926

625

Late 1920s

625

Meerut Conspiracy Case (1929)

625

Under Congress Ministries

626

During and After the Second World War

626

After Independence

626

Summary

626

UNIT 10

INDEPENDENCE AND AFTER

627

Chapter 33
Challenges before the Newborn Nation

627

First Day of Independent India

627

First Government after Independence

628

Challenges

629

Radcliffe’s Boundary Award and the

629

Communal Riots

Challenges before the Boundary Commission

630

Regions Most Affected by Riots

631

Challenges Associated with Division of Resources

632

Division of Civil Government

633

Division of Finances

633

Division of Defence Personnel and Equipment

634

Assassination of Gandhi

634

Rehabilitation and Resettlement of Refugees

635

East Punjab

635

Bengal

636

Delhi Pact on Minorities

636

Centres of Refugee Settlements in India

637

Communists and Independence

637

Why Communists were Sceptical

638

about Independence

Shift from Antagonistic Strategy to

639

Constitutional Democracy

Chapter 34
The Indian States

640

I. The Company’s Struggle for Equality from

640

a Position of Subordination (1740–1765)

II. Policy of Ring Fence (1765–1813)

641

III. Policy of Subordinate Isolation (1813–1857)

641

IV. Policy of Subordinate Union (1857–1935)

642

Curzon’s Approach

642

Post-1905

643

V. Policy of Equal Federation (1935–1947):

644

A Non-Starter

VI. Integration and Merger

644

Plebiscite and Army Action

645

Gradual Integration

645

Chapter 35
Making of the Constitution for India

647

Background

647

Constituent Assembly

650

Formation

650

Two Constituent Assemblies: India and Pakistan 651

Evaluation of the Assembly for India

652

After Independence

653

Work : Committees and Consensus

653

Box

Drafting Committee

653

Chapter 36
The Evolution of Nationalist Foreign Policy

656

From 1880 to First World War: Anti-imperialism

657

and Pan-Asian Feeling

World War I

658

(xxviii)

Contents

1920s and 1930s—Identifying with Socialists

658

After 1936—Anti-Fascism

659

After Independence

659

Panchsheel and Non-Alignment

660

Boxes

Historical Perspective on Panchsheel

661

Five Criteria of Non-alignment

663

Chapter 37
First General Elections

665

Groundwork for the Elections

665

The Election Commission

665

Legislation for Polls

666

Independent India Goes to the Polls for

666

the First Time

Challenges

667

Parties in the Fray for the Lok Sabha

668

Conduct of Elections

669

Results

670

Box

First General Elections: Winners

671

Chapter 38
Developments under Nehru’s Leadership (1947–64)

672

Political Developments

673

Debate over National Language

673

Linguistic Reorganisation of the States

674

Growth of Other Political Parties

676

An Undemocratic Deed

681

Concept of Planning for Economic Development

681

Progress of Science and Technology

683

Social Developments

684

Developments in Education

684

Social Change under Nehru

685

Foreign Policy

685

Relations with Neighbours

686

India and Pakistan

686

India and China

687

India and Nepal

689

India and Bhutan

689

India and Sri Lanka

689

(xxix)

Contents

Chapter 39
After Nehru. . .

690

The Lal Bahadur Shastri Years

690

(June 1964 – January 1966)

Early Life

691

Political Journey after Independence

691

Economic Ideas

693

Foreign Relations

697

The Indo-Pak War

698

Shastri’s Death

701

Indira Gandhi: the First Phase

701

(January 1966 – March 1977)

Early Life

701

Political Journey after Independence

702

Developments in the Political System

714

Socio-Economic Policies

723

Tackling Economic Problems

726

The Indo-Pak War of 1971 and the Birth

729

of Bangladesh

Foreign Policy and Relations with other Countries737

The Smiling Buddha

739

The Janata Party Years

741

(March 1977 – January 1980)

Morarji Desai the First Non-Congress

741

Prime Minister

Fresh State Assembly Elections

741

New President of India

742

Downslide of the Janata and Rise

742

of Congress (I)

Charan Singh the Prime Minister

744

Who Never Faced Parliament

Fresh Lok Sabha Elections and End of

745

Janata Party Rule

Legacy of the Janata Rule

745

Social Changes and Movements

749

Indira Gandhi: the Second Phase

750

(January 1980 – October 1984)

Economy

750

Foreign Relations

751

Unrest in States

753

(xxx)

Contents

Punjab Turmoil and Operation Blue Star

753

Legacy

756

The Rajiv Years (October 1984 – December 1989)

757

Problems at the Very Outset

757

The 1985 General Elections

759

Tackling the Tensions in States

760

Positive Steps taken on the Domestic Front

762

The Negative Side

765

Agrarian Unrest

768

Foreign Relations

769

General Elections of 1989

772

The V.P. Singh Years

773

(December 1989 – November 1990)

Kashmir Situation Worsens

773

Implementation of the Mandal

774

Commission Report

Mandal to Mandir: the Rath Yatra and

776

Fall of the Government

The Chandra Shekhar Government

777

(November 1990 – June 1991)

Troubled Economy

777

Elections of 1991

778

The Narasimha Rao Years (June 1991 – May 1996) 779

Economic Reform

779

Panchayati Raj and Nagarpalika Acts

781

Handling Security Issues and Space Tech

782

Foreign Policy

782

Negative Aspects

783

Kashmir

785

General Elections of 1996

786

Rise of the Dalit Voice

786

Between 1996 and 1999: Three Prime Ministers

787

Vajpayee’s Short-Lived Term as Prime Minister 788

United Front Government: Deve

788

Gowda and I.K. Gujral

General Elections

790

NDA Years (March 1998 – October 1999)

790

Pokhran II: Operation Shakti

791

The Lahore Summit

792

Kargil War

792

NDA: Second Stint (October 1999 – May 2004)

793

Economic and Social Steps

793

(xxxi)

Contents

Terrorist Trouble and Relations with Pakistan

794

Relations with the US

795

Kashmir Elections

795

The Downside

795

Significance of NDA

796

2004 General Election

796

The UPA Years

797

(May 2004 – May 2009; May 2009 – May 2014)

UPA Government: First Term

797

2009 Election and UPA Back in Power

801

The 2014 General Election

812

The NDA Government (May 2014 – May 2019)

814

Digital India: a Step Forward in e-Governance

815

Socio-Economic Policies and

815

Programmes of Importance

Security

825

Foreign Relations

829

Social Situation

832

General Election and Return of the NDA

836

Factors behind the NDA Victory

837

APPENDICES

1. Personalities Associated with Specific Movements 840

Swadeshi Movement

840

Non-cooperation Movement

845

Civil Disobedience Movement

849

Quit India Movement

852

2. Governors-General and Viceroys of India:

855

Significant Events in their Rule

3. Indian National Congress Annual Sessions

864

4. Socio-Religious Reform Movements

869

(late 18th to mid-20th century)

5. Famous Trials of the Nationalist Period

876

6. Caste Movements

878

7. Peasant Movements

880

8. Newspapers and Journals

883

(xxxii)

Contents

CHAPTER 1

Sources for the History

of Modern India

An abundance of historical material is available for studying
India from the mid-18th century to the mid-20th century. In

constructing the history of modern India, priority needs to
be given to the archives. Archives refer to a collection of
historical records and documents, usually primary source

documents, i.e., those documents that have been created as
a necessary part of some activity—administrative, legal,
social, or commercial. They are unique/original documents,

not consciously written or created to convey information to
a future generation. An important part of archives relating
to modern India are the official records, i.e., the papers of

government agencies at various levels.

UNIT 1

Sources and

Approaches

Chapters 1 and 2

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

The records of the East India Company provide a

detailed account of trading conditions during the period

1600–1857. When the British crown took over the
administration, it also kept a large variety and volume of
official records. These records help historians to trace every

important development stage-by-stage and follow the
processes of decision-making and the psychology of the
policymakers. The records of the other European East India

companies (the Portuguese, Dutch, and French) are also
useful for constructing the history of the 17th and 18th
centuries. They are primarily important from the point of

view of economic history, but much can be gathered from
them about the political set-up as well.

There are also many contemporary and semi-

contemporary works such as memoirs, biographies, and travel
accounts which give us interesting as well as useful glimpses
into the history of the 18th and early 19th centuries.

Newspapers and journals made their appearance in the later
part of the 18th century, and they provide very valuable
information on almost all aspects of the Indian society,

especially in the 19th and 20th centuries. Other sources of
modern Indian history include oral evidence, creative literature,
and paintings.

Archival Materials

There are four categories of official records: (i) central
government archives; (ii) state government archives; (iii)
records of intermediate and subordinate authorities; and (iv)

judicial records. Apart from these, there are private archives
and archival sources available abroad.

Central Government Archives

The National Archives of India, located in New Delhi,

contains most of the archives of the Government of India.
These provide authentic and reliable source materials on
varied aspects of modern Indian history. The records with

the National Archives come under various groups, representing

Sources for the History of Modern India

✫

different branches of the secretariat at different stages of
its development. This happened as the work of the East India

Company was distributed among various branches—public or
general, revenue, political, military, secret, commercial,

judicial, education, etc.—and a separate set of records was

kept for each of these branches or departments. With the

appointment of James Rennell as the first Surveyor General

of Bengal in 1767, the Survey of India began to scientifically

map the unknown regions of the country and its bordering

lands. The records of the Survey of India as well as the

journals and memoirs of the surveyors provide valuable

information not only on geographical matters but also on

contemporary socio-economic conditions and other important

historical aspects.

The proceedings of the public, judicial, and legislative

departments provide ample data for studying the social and

religious policies of the colonial government. The

government’s policies on education and the growth of the

education system during the colonial rule are mentioned in

the educational records of the central archives. The papers

bearing on the emergence of the nationalist movement were

part of the public series of the home department records,

but in 1907, a new series of records—Home Political—was

started to deal exclusively with political and communal

issues. The records of the Reforms Office are very useful

for an analytical study of the constitutional developments

from 1920 to 1937.

Archives of the State Governments

The source material in the state archives comprise the

records of: (i) the former British Indian provinces; (ii) the

erstwhile princely states which were incorporated in the

Indian Union after 1947; and (iii) the foreign administrations

other than those of the British. Apart from these, the records

of those Indian powers which were taken over by the British,

for instance, the archives of the Kingdom of Lahore (popularly

known as Khalsa Darbar records from 1800 to 1849), are

important source material. Another important collection of

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

the pre-British public archives in India is the Peshwa Daftar
housed in the Alienation Office, Pune. It forms the most

valuable single source for the study of Maratha history for
a period of almost a century before the fall of the Peshwas.

For studying the history of the princely states of

Rajasthan, viz., Jaipur, Bikaner, Jodhpur, Udaipur, etc., the
archives of these states, now housed in the Rajasthan State
Archives at Bikaner, are valuable. Similarly, the history of

Dogra rule from 1846 in Jammu and Kashmir can be studied
in the valuable collection of state papers housed at Jammu.
The other significant archives of the princely states are those

of Gwalior, Indore, Bhopal, and Rewa, all in Madhya Pradesh;
Travancore and Cochin in Kerala; Mysore in Karnataka; and
Kolhapur in Maharashtra.

Archives of Three Presidencies

The early records of Fort Williams (Bengal Presidency) were

lost during the sack of Calcutta in 1756, but the archives
of the Bengal presidency after the British victory at Plassey
have survived more or less in a complete series, which are

partly available in the National Archives of India and partly
in the State Archives of West Bengal. The records of the
Madras Presidency begin from AD 1670 and include records

of the Governor and Council of Fort St. George. In these
records, there is plenty of information bearing on the rise
of the English East India Company as a political power in

the south and in the Deccan, including the Anglo-French
struggle and the English conflicts with other Indian powers.
The archives of Bombay Presidency, housed in the Maharashtra

Secretariat Record Office, Mumbai, are extremely useful in
studying the history of Western India—Maharashtra, Gujarat,
Sindh, and the Kannada-speaking districts of the erstwhile

Bombay Presidency which were incorporated in Mysore in
1956.

Archives of Other European Powers

The archives related to the Portuguese preserved in Goa,
mainly belonging to the period from 1700 to 1900, are

Sources for the History of Modern India

✫

valuable for the history of Portuguese possessions in India.
The orders and dispatches from Lisbon received in Goa and

the responses and reports dispatched from India to Portugal
constitute the most significant historical material among the
Portuguese archives. The Dutch records of Cochin and

Malabar are in the Madras Record Office and those of
Chinsura in the state archives of West Bengal. The French
archives of Chandernagore and Pondicherry (now Puducherry)

were taken to Paris by the French authorities before they
relinquished these settlements. The archives of the Danish
possessions were also transferred to Copenhagen when the

Danes sold Tranquebar and Serampore to the English East
India Company in 1845. The remaining Danish records,
mainly relating to Tranquebar (1777–1845), are now housed

in the Madras Record Office.

Judicial Records

Housed in the Madras Record Office, the archives of the
Mayor’s Court at Fort St. George, beginning from AD 1689,
are the earliest available judicial archives. The pre-Plassey

records of the Mayor’s Court at Fort Williams have been
lost, but those for the years 1757–73 are kept in the record
room of the Calcutta High Court, along with the archives of

the Supreme Court of Bengal (1774–1861). Similarly, the
records of the Mayor’s Court at Bombay established in 1728
are available in the Maharashtra Secretariat Record Office,

which also has the custody of the archives of the Bombay
Recorder’s Court and the Supreme Court. Apart from
containing the proceedings and minutes, this category of

records contains copies of wills, probates, and letters of
administration which are useful for genealogical studies and
for investigations pertaining to the state of society and

economic conditions in the respective regions.

Published Archives

The most significant archival publications are the Parliamentary
Papers which include many excerpts from the records of the
East India Company and the Government of India under the

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Crown. The reports of the parliamentary select committees;
various royal commissions constituted on specific subjects

like education, civil reforms and famines, and the parliamentary
debates on the Indian empire are indispensable. The
proceedings of the Indian and provincial legislatures, the

weekly gazettes published by the central and the provincial
governments, and collections of laws and regulations issued
from time to time also serve as useful source material for

historical research.

Private Archives

Private archives comprise papers and documents of individuals
and families of note, who played a significant role in the
development of modern India. The papers of eminent leaders

of the nationalist movement and the records of organisations
like the Indian National Congress are housed in the Nehru
Memorial Museum and Library in New Delhi. The archives

of banks, business houses, and chambers of commerce are
extremely helpful in the study of economic changes.

Foreign Repositories

A vast body of historical material related to the history of
modern India is available in the repositories of erstwhile

imperialist powers, who ruled in different parts of the Indian
subcontinent as well as in some other countries. In England,
the India Office Records, London and the records kept in

the British Museum are very valuable. The India Office
Records possesses various important documents: the minutes
of the Courts of Directors and the General Court of the East

India Company and various committees constituted from time
to time; the minutes and correspondence of the Board of
Control or the Board of Commissioners for the Affairs of

India; and the records of the Secretary of State and the India
Council. The British Museum possesses collections of
papers of British viceroys, secretaries of states, and other

high-ranked civil and military officials who were posted in
India. The archives of the missionary societies, for instance,
of the Church Missionary Society of London, provide insight

Sources for the History of Modern India

✫

into the educational and social development in pre-independent
India.

The Archives Nationale, Paris, and the Archives of the

French Ministries of Foreign Affairs, Colonies and War, have
records that throw light on the history of French possessions

as well as the socio-political conditions. The records of the
Dutch East India Company is available in Rijksarchief, The
Hague, and that of the Danish and Portuguese are kept in

Copenhagen and Lisbon, respectively.

Apart from the archives of the European nations, the

archives preserved in Pakistan are of utmost importance. The

West Pakistan Record Office, Lahore, Record Office,
Peshawar, records available in Sind, etc., give information
about the regional history of the Indian subcontinent besides

shedding light on India’s relations with Afghanistan, Iran, and
other neighbouring countries in the colonial era.

Biographies, Memoirs, and
Travel Accounts

Many travellers, traders, missionaries, and civil servants who

came to India have left accounts of their experiences and

their impressions of various parts of India. An important

group among these writers was that of the missionaries who

wrote to encourage their respective societies to send more

missionaries to India for the purpose of envangelising its

inhabitants. In this genre, Bishop Heber’s Journal and Abbe

Dubois’s Hindu Manners and Customs, provide useful

information on the socio-economic life of India during the

period of decline of the Indian powers and the rise of the

British.

Some of the famous British travellers who wrote travel

accounts were—George Forster, Benjamin Heyne, James

Burnes (Narrative of a Visit to the Court of Sinde),

Alexander Burnes (Travels Into Bokhara), C.J.C. Davidson

(Diary of the Travels and Adventures in Upper India), and

John Butler (Travels and Adventures in the Province of

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Assam). Famous non-British travellers who wrote about India
include Victor Jacquemont (Letters from India: Describing

a Journey in the British Dominions of India, Tibet, Lahore,
and Cashmere During the Years 1828, 1829, 1830 1831.),
Baron Charles (Travels in Kashmir and the Punjab), and

William Moorcroft. These travel accounts are indispensable
and generally reliable sources for constructing the history
of modern India, especially as they supplement the official

papers.

Newspapers and Journals

Newspapers and journals of the 19th and 20th centuries,
published in English as well as in the different vernacular
languages, form an important and authentic source of
information for the construction of the history of modern
India. The first attempts to publish newspapers in India were
made by the disgruntled employees of the English East India
Company who sought to expose the malpractices of private
trade. For instance, in 1776, William Bolts, being censured
by the Court of Directors for private trading, resigned from
the Company and announced his intention to publish a
newspaper. The official response to Bolts’ scheme was strong
and his plan ended before materialising. In 1780, James
Augustus Hickey published the first newspaper in India
entitled  The Bengal Gazette or Calcutta  General Advertiser.
Hickey’s press was seized within two years, owing to his
outspoken criticism of government officials. Afterwards,
many publications appeared such as The Calcutta Gazette
(1784),  The Madras Courier (1788), and The Bombay
Herald  (1789). The newspapers and journals of the early
period primarily aimed at catering to the intellectual
entertainment of the Europeans and Anglo-Indians.

From the second half of the 19th century, many

powerful newspapers appeared, edited/published by
distinguished and fearless journalists. Interestingly, nearly

Sources for the History of Modern India

✫

one-third of the founding fathers of the Indian National
Congress in 1885 were journalists. Some of their publications
were:  The Hindu and Swadesamitran under the editorship
of G. Subramaniya Iyer; Kesari and Mahratta under Bal
Gangadhar Tilak; Bengalee under Surendranath Banerjea;
Amrita Bazaar Patrika under Sisir Kumar Ghosh and Motilal
Ghosh;  Sudharak  under Gopal Ganesh Agarkar; Indian
Mirror under N.N. Sen; Voice of India under Dadabhai
Naoroji; and Hindustan and Advocate under G.P. Varma. The
Tribune  and  Akhbar-i-Am in Punjab; Indu Prakash, Dnyan
Prakash, Kal, and  Gujarati in Bombay; and Som Prakash
Banganivasi and Sadharani in Bengal were other noted
newspapers of the time. Indian nationalists and revolutionaries
living abroad published newspapers and journals—Indian
Sociologist (London, Shyamji Krishnavarma), Bande Matram
(Paris, Madam Cama), Talwar  (Berlin, Virendranath
Chattopadhyay), and Ghadar (San Francisco, Lala Hardayal)—
to infuse a feeling of nationalism among Indians living
abroad.

Newspapers depict almost all aspects of life in colonial

India from around the 1870s onwards. From the 1920s
onwards, newspapers tracked the major events during the
freedom struggle. However, newspaper accounts cannot be
seen as unprejudiced or completely objective. The accounts
that were published in a newspaper in London by the pro-
British Raj people were bound to be different from the report
in an Indian nationalist paper.

Oral Evidence

Oral history refers to the construction of history with the

help of non-written sources, for instance, personal

reminiscence. Oral sources allow historians to broaden the

boundaries of their discipline and corroborate their findings

from other sources of history. However, many historians

remain sceptical of the veracity of oral history.

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Creative Literature

The most significant outcome of the Indo-European contact

was the literary genre of the novel which emerged in the latter
half of the 19th century. The first important writer of that
period was the Bengali novelist, Bankim Chandra Chatterjee

(1838-94). His novels are mostly historical, the best known
among them being Anandamath (1882), noted for its powerful
lyric ‘Vandemataram’ and depiction of the Sanyasi Revolt

(1760s). His last novel Rajasimha can be called the grand
finale to his remarkable career. Iccharam Suryaram Desai
(1853–1912) was a fine scholar of medieval Gujarati literary

history. His first novel Hind ane Britannia was one of the
earliest Indian novels with political overtones. Tamil writers
like Girija Devi and Ramatirthammal, who wrote Mohana

Rajani (1931) and Dasikalin Mosavalai (1936) respectively,
also made the novel an effective vehicle of social experience.
G.V. Krishna Rao’s Keelubommalu (The Puppets, 1956) in

Telugu was concerned with the moral aspects and behaviour
of the rural people. Vaikom Muhammad Basheer (1910–
1994) was one of the eminent writers in Malayalam whose

famous novel Balyakalasakhi (The Childhood Friends, 1944)
was a tragic tale of love. Similarly, Thakazhi Sivasankara
Pillai became prominent for his two extremely well-written

works in Malayalam, Tottiyude Makan (Son of a Scavenger,
1948) and Chemmeen (Shrimps, 1956). Despite having
different educational backgrounds and social outlooks, all

these writers shared a strong sense of realism and deep
interest in the life of the marginalised and oppressed sections
of the society. These novels give a picture of the social

milieu of the days they relate to.

Painting

Some information on the socio-economic, political, and
cultural life during the colonial period can be obtained from
the paintings of that period. The Company Paintings, also

Sources for the History of Modern India

✫

referred as ‘Patna Kalam’ emerged under the patronage of
the East India Company. They picturise the people and scenes

as they existed at the time. Trades, festivals, dances, and the
attire of people are visible in these works. Company paintings
continued to be popular in the 19th century until the

introduction of photography in India in the 1840s.

The pictorial images produced by the British and

Indians—paintings, pencil drawings, etchings, posters, cartoons,

and bazaar prints—are especially important records of the

great revolt of 1857. The British pictures offer images that

were meant to provoke a range of different emotions and

reactions. Some of them commemorate the British heroes

who saved the English and repressed the rebels. Relief of

Lucknow, painted by Thomas Jones Barker in 1859, is one

such example. Another painting of this period, In Memoriam

by Joseph Noel Paton, recorded in painting two years of the

revolt of 1857. One can see English women and children

huddled in a circle, looking helpless and innocent, seemingly

waiting for the inevitable—dishonour, violence, and death.

These paintings of the mutiny period are important for the

historian to interpret and understand the worldviews of the

British and the Indians regarding this major event.

Kalighat painting that came to the fore in Calcutta in

the 19th century depicted not only mythological figures but

also ordinary people engaged in their everyday lives. The

latter pictures captured the social changes taking place in the

Calcutta of the time. These paintings made a comment on

the social evils of the time; some of these paintings satirised

certain modes adopted by the people of the time.

In the last decades of the 19th century, a new art

movement emerged, which received its primary stimulus

from the growing nationalism in India. Artists like Nandalal

Bose and Raja Ravi Varma were representatives of this new

trend. In the rise of the Bengal School led by Abanindranath

Tagore (nephew of Rabindranath Tagore), E.B. Havell (who

joined the art school in Calcutta as principal), and Ananda

Kentish Coomaraswamy (son of an important Tamil political

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Summary

Sources of Modern Indian History

Archival Materials consist of public, private, and foreign repositories
Public Archives include the archives of the Governments of India,

archives of state governments, archives of the three Presidencies
of Bengal, Madras, and Bombay, and judicial records.

Private Archives Papers and documents of individuals and families

of note who played a significant role in the development of
modern India.

Foreign Repositories Indian office Records in London, Record

Office, Lahore, etc.

Biographies and Memoirs Accounts of travellers, traders,

missionaries and civil servants during the 18th and 19th
centuries as well as memoirs written by Indian leaders during
the Independence movement.

Newspapers and Journals Published in India as well as abroad.
Others Oral tradition, creative literature, painting

leader in Sri Lanka) played a vital role. Though many of the

paintings of this new trend primarily focused on themes of

Indian mythology and cultural heritage, they are important

sources for studying the modern art movement in India and

for the art historians.

CHAPTER 2

Major Approaches to the

History of Modern India

Looking at how histories are written is part of the study of
the intellectual history of the period under discussion and
can provide a variety of ideas and explanations. The starting

point in the history of a society, therefore, has to be a
familiarity with its historiography—the study of historical
interpretation. This provides recognition of the intellectual

context of history, instead of seeing history as just a narration
of events. The modern history of India, for the convenience
of understanding, can be read broadly under four

historiographic approaches—the Colonial (or the Imperialist),
Nationalist, Marxist, and Subaltern—each with its own distinct
characteristics and modes of interpretation. However, there

are other approaches—Communalist, Cambridge, Liberal and
Neo-liberal, and Feminist interpretations—which have also
influenced historical writing on modern India.

View

The production of histories of India has become very frequent
in recent years and may well call for some explanations… The
reason is a two-fold one: changes in the Indian scene requiring
a reinterpretation of the facts and changes in the attitudes of
historians about the essential elements of Indian history.

—Percival Spear

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Colonial Approach

For the major part of the 19th century, the Colonial School
occupied a high position in India. The term ‘colonial approach’
has been used in two senses. One relates to the history of
the colonial countries, while the other refers to the works
which were influenced by the colonial ideology of domination.
It is in the second sense that most historians today write
about the colonial historiography. In fact, the practice of
writing about the colonial countries by the colonial officials
was related to the desire for domination and justification of
the colonial rule. Hence, in most such historical works, there
was criticism of indigenous society and culture.
Simultaneously, there was praise for the Western culture and
values and glorification of the individuals who established the
colonial empires. The histories of India written by James
Mill, Mountstuart Elphinstone, Vincent Smith, and many
others are pertinent examples of the colonial historiographical
trend. Certain characteristics common to most of the works
of these historians are the following:

(i) ‘Orientalist’ representation of India;

(ii) the opinion that the British brought unity to India;

(iii) the notions of Social Darwinism—the English

considered themselves superior to the ‘natives’ and
the fittest to rule;

(iv) India viewed as a stagnant society which required

guidance from the British (White Man’s burden); and

(v) establishing Pax Britannica to bring law and order

and peace to a bickering society.

Nationalist Approach

The nationalist approach to Indian history can be described
as one which tends to contribute to the growth of nationalist
feelings and to unify people in the face of religious, caste,

or linguistic differences or class differentiation. This approach

Major Approaches to the History of Modern India

✫

looks at the national movement as a movement of the Indian
people, which grew out of the growing awareness among all
people of the exploitative nature of colonial rule. This
approach developed as a response to and in confrontation with
the colonial approach. It should be noted that the nationalist
historians of modern India did not exist before 1947. Before
1947, nationalist historiography mainly dealt with the ancient
and medieval periods of Indian history. However, in the last
quarter of the 19th century, a detailed and scientific critique
of colonialism for the adverse economic aspects of alien rule
was developed by nationalists like Dadabhai Naoroji, M.G.
Ranade, G.V. Joshi, R.C. Dutt, K.T. Telang, G.K. Gokhale,
and D.E. Wacha. (Sakharam Ganesh Deuskar, a close associate
of Sri Aurobindo, popularised the ideas of Naoroji and
Ranade in his Desher Katha published in 1904 in Bengali.)
The only accounts of the national movement was by nationalist
leaders (not historians) such as R.G. Pradhan, A.C. Mazumdar,
J.L. Nehru, and Pattabhi Sitaramayya. R.C. Majumdar and Tara
Chand are noted nationalist historians of modern India.

Marxist Approach

The beginning of the Marxist approach in India was heralded
by two classic books—Rajni Palme Dutt’s India Today and
A.R. Desai’s Social Background of Indian Nationalism.
Originally written for the famous Left Book Club in England,
India Today, first published in 1940 in England, was later
published in India in 1947. A.R. Desai’s Social Background
of Indian Nationalism, was first published in 1948.

Unlike the imperialist/colonial approach, the Marxist

historians clearly see the primary contradiction between the
interests of the colonial masters and the subject people, as
well as the process of the nation-in-the-making. Unlike the
nationalists, they also take full note of the inner contradictions
between the different sections of the people of the Indian
society. However, some of them, particularly Rajni Palme

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Dutt, were unable to fully integrate their treatment of the
primary anti-imperialist contradiction and the secondary

inner contradictions and tended to counterbalance the anti-
imperialist struggle with the class or social struggle. They
tend to see the national movement as a structured bourgeois

movement, if not the bourgeoisie’s movement, and miss its
open-ended and all-class character. Another noted Marxist
historian, who made a critique of R.P. Dutt’s paradigm, is

Sumit Sarkar; he considers Dutt’s paradigm as a “simplistic
version of the Marxian class approach”. He looks at the
nationalist leaders in the light of intelligentsia which acts as

a “kind of proxy for as yet passive social forces with which
it had little organic connection”.

A.R. Desai traces the growth of the national movement

in five phases, each phase based on particular social classes
which supported and sustained it.

Subaltern Approach

This school of thought began in the early 1980s under the
editorship of Ranajit Guha, as a critique of the existing

historiography, which was faulted for ignoring the voice of

the people. Right from the beginning, subaltern historiography

took the position that the entire tradition of Indian

historiography had had an elitist bias. For the subaltern

historians, the basic contradiction in Indian society in the

colonial epoch was between the elite, both Indian and foreign,

on the one hand, and the subaltern groups, on the other, and

not between colonialism and the Indian people. However, they

do not subscribe to the Marxist theory of the nature of the

exploitation by the nationalist movement: they point out that

the Indian society of the time could not be seen in terms

of class alone, as capitalism in the country was just nascent

at the time. This school sees nationalism as exploitative in

terms of caste, gender, religious, and creed divisions.
Nationalism, say the subalterns, ignored the internal
contradictions within the society as well as what the

Major Approaches to the History of Modern India

✫

marginalised represented or had to say. They believe that the
Indian people were never united in a common anti-imperialist
struggle, that there was no such entity as the Indian national
movement. Instead, they assert, there were two distinct
movements or streams: the real anti-imperialist stream of the
subalterns and the bogus national movement of the elite. The
elite streams, led by the ‘official’ leadership of the Indian
National Congress, were little more than a cloak for the
struggle for power among the elite.

Communalist Approach

The historians of this school, relying completely on the
colonial historiography of medieval India and colonial era
textbooks, viewed Hindus and Muslims as permanent hostile
groups whose interests were mutually different and
antagonistic to each other. This view was not only reflected
in the writings of the historians but also took a more virulent
form in the hands of the communal political leaders. In their
view, India’s medieval history was one long story of Hindu-
Muslim conflict. As a corollary of this view, it was then
argued that the 19th- and 20th-century Muslims had the
‘happy’ and ‘proud’ everpresent memory of having been the
ruling class, while Hindus had the ‘sad’ and ‘humiliating’
memory of having been the subject race. This, ultimately,
developed mutual hatred among these groups often resulting
in communal riots and, in the end, led to the partition of
India.

View

A few historians have of late initiated a new trend, described
by its proponents as subaltern, which dismisses all previous
historical writing, including that based on a Marxist perspective,
as elite historiography, and claims to replace this old, ‘blinkered’
historiography with what it claims is a new people’s or subaltern
approach.

—Bipan Chandra

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Cambridge School Approach

According to this school of thought, the fundamental
contradiction under colonial rule was not between imperialism
and the Indian people, but among the Indians themselves.

Further, Indian nationalism was not the product of a struggle
of the Indian people against colonial exploitation, but what
arose from conflict among the Indians for getting the benefits

given to them by the British rulers. The leaders of the national
movement, according to this school, were inspired by the
quest for power and material benefits. This approach has been

criticised by many scholars on the ground that it takes the
mind or ideals out of human behaviour and reduces nationalism
to ‘animal politics’.

Liberal and Neo-Liberal

Approach

According to this interpretation, the economic exploitation

of the colonies was not beneficial to the British people as
a whole. The availability of markets for British industrial
goods in the colonial world and capital investment in overseas

markets (like laying of railways in India) might have actually
discouraged domestic investment and delayed the development
of the ‘new’ industries in Britain. The proponents of this

school of thought are Patrick O’Brian, Hopkins, and Cain.

Feminist Approach

The shift in terms of the writing of women’s history began
with the women’s movement of the 1970s which provided
the context and impetus for the emergence of women’s

studies in India. Very soon, women’s history broadened and
assumed the more complex shape of gender history. In the
early years, the endeavour was to write a history of women

to supplement the writings of mainstream history. Also, an
attempt was made to research and compile an archive of

Major Approaches to the History of Modern India

✫

women’s writing. An important area of research has been
analysis of the way in which colonial structures, such as the
legal structure, affected women’s lives. Women’s vulnerability
due to the denial of ownership of productive resources has
been focused on, in the analysis of how progressive laws
shaped gender relations. In the colonial period, two works
based upon the women’s question in India—The High Caste
Hindu Woman (1887) by Pandita Ramabai, and Mother India
(1927) by Katherine Mayo—attracted international attention.

Summary

Different Approaches

Colonial Approach is influenced by the colonial ideology of

domination. It focuses on criticism of indigenous society and
culture, and praises the Western culture and values. James
Mill, Vincent Smith, etc., followed this approach.

Nationalist Approach evolved as a response to and in confrontation

with the colonial approach. Before independence, this school
dealt with the ancient and medieval periods of Indian history,
and not the modern period. After independence, this school
focused on modern India. R.C. Majumdar and Tara Chand
belonged to this school.

Marxist Approach focuses on the primary contradiction between

the interests of the colonial masters and the native subjects.
It also takes notice of the inner contradictions between the
different sections of Indian society. R.P. Dutt and A.R. Desai
were noted Marxist historians of India.

Subaltern Approach takes the position that the entire tradition

of Indian historiography has an elitist bias and the role of
the common masses has been neglected. Ranajit Guha
belonged to this school.

Communalist Approach views Hindus and Muslims as permanently

hostile groups whose interests are mutually different and
antagonistic to each other.

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Cambridge School envisages Indian nationalism as a product

of conflicts among the Indians themselves for getting the
benefits from the British rulers. For them, Indian nationalist
leaders were inspired by the greed of power and material
benefits.

Liberal and Neo-liberal Interpretations imply that the economic

exploitation of the colonies was not beneficial to the people
of Britain as it delayed the development of the ‘new’ industries
in Britain.

Feminist Historiography focuses on areas of research that

analyse colonial structures, such as the legal structure, which
affected women’s lives. It also focuses on women’s vulnerability
due to the denial of ownership of productive resources.

join us http://telegram.me/bpsc65thmains66thprelims (BPSC CCE 65th,66th & 67th )

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

The Portuguese in India

The Quest for and Discovery of a
Sea Route to India

After the decline of the Roman Empire in the 7th century,
the Arabs had established their domination in Egypt and
Persia. Direct contact between the Europeans and India

declined, and, with that, the easy accessibility to the Indian
commodities like spices, calicoes, silk, and various precious
stones that were greatly in demand was affected. In 1453,

Constantinople fell to the Ottoman Turks, who were on the
ascendant. Merchandise from India went to the European

markets through Arab Muslim intermediaries. The Red Sea

trade route was a state monopoly from which Islamic rulers

earned tremendous revenues. The land routes to India were

also controlled by the Arabs. In the circumstances, the

Europeans were keen to find a direct sea route to India.

Fifteenth-century Europe was gripped by the spirit of

the Renaissance with its call for exploration. At the same

time, Europe made great advances in the art of ship-building

and navigation. Hence, there was an eagerness all over Europe

for adventurous sea voyages to reach the unknown corners

of the East.

The economic development of many regions of Europe

was also progressing rapidly with expansion of land under

cultivation, the introduction of an improved plough, scientific

crop management such as crop rotation, and increased supply

of meat (which called for spices for cooking as well as for

preservation). Prosperity also grew, and with it the demand

for oriental luxury goods also increased.

Venice and Genoa which had earlier prospered through

trade in oriental goods were too small to take on the mighty

Ottoman Turks or to take up major exploration on their own.

The north Europeans were ready to aid Portugal and Spain

with money and men, even as the Genoese were ready to
provide ships and technical knowledge. It is also to be noted
that Portugal had assumed the leadership in Christendom’s

Advent of the Europeans in India

✫

resistance to Islam even as it had taken on itself the spirit
of exploration that had characterised the Genoese.

Historians have observed that the idea of finding an

ocean route to India had become an obsession for Prince
Henry of Portugal, who was nicknamed the ‘Navigator’; also,

he was keen to find a way to circumvent the Muslim
domination of the eastern Mediterranean and all the routes
that connected India to Europe. Pope Nicholas V gave Prince

Henry a bull in 1454, conferring on him the right to navigate
the “sea to the distant shores of the Orient”, more specifically
“as far as India” in an attempt to fight Islamic influence and

spread the Christian faith. However, Prince Henry died before
his dream could become a reality.

In 1497, under the Treaty of Tordesillas (1494), the

rulers of Portugal and Spain divided the non-Christian world
between them by an imaginary line in the Atlantic, some
1,300 miles west of the Cape Verde Islands. Under the treaty,

Portugal could claim and occupy everything to the east of
the line while Spain could claim everything to the west. The
situation was thus prepared for the Portuguese incursions into

the waters around India.

It was in 1487 that the Portuguese navigator,

Bartholomew Dias, rounded the Cape of Good Hope in Africa

and sailed up the eastern coast; he was well convinced that
the long-sought-after sea route to India had been found. But
it was only ten years later that an expedition of Portuguese

ships set out for India (in 1497) and arrived in India in slightly
less than 11 months’ time, in May 1498.

From Trading to Ruling

Vasco Da Gama
The arrival of three ships under Vasco Da Gama, led by a

Gujarati pilot named Abdul Majid, at Calicut in May 1498
profoundly affected the course of Indian history. The Hindu
ruler of Calicut, the Zamorin (Samuthiri), however, had no

apprehensions as to the European’s intentions. As the prosperity
of his kingdom was due to Calicut’s position as an entrepot,

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

he accorded a friendly reception to Vasco Da Gama. The Arab
traders, who had a good business on the Malabar Coast were

apprehensive and were not keen on the Portuguese getting

a hold there.

For centuries, the trading system in the Indian Ocean

had had numerous participants—Indians, Arabs, Africans from

the east coast, Chinese, Javanese, among others—but these
participants had acted according to some tacit rules of

conduct and none had sought overwhelming dominance

though all were in it for profit. The Portuguese changed that:

they wanted to monopolise the hugely profitable eastern trade
by excluding competitors, especially the Arabs.

Vasco da Gama stayed in India for three months. When

he returned to Portugal, he carried back with him a rich cargo

and sold the merchandise in the European market at a huge
profit. The importance of direct access to the pepper trade

was made clear by the fact that elsewhere the Europeans, who

had to buy through Muslim middlemen, would have had to

spend ten times as much for the same amount of pepper.
Not surprisingly, other profit-seeking merchants of European

nations were tempted to come to India and trade directly.

A voyage was undertaken by Pedro Alvarez Cabral to

trade for spices; he negotiated and established a factory at
Calicut, where he arrived in September 1500. There was an

incident of conflict when the Portuguese factory at Calicut

was attacked by the locals, resulting in the death of several

Portuguese. In retaliation, Cabral seized a number of Arab
merchant ships anchored in the harbour, and killed hundreds

of their crew besides confiscating their cargo and burning

the ships. Calicut was bombarded by Cabral. Later, Cabral

succeeded in making advantageous treaties with the local
rulers of Cochin and Cannanore.

Vasco da Gama once again came to India in 1501. The

Zamorin declined to exclude the Arab merchants in favour

of the Portuguese when Vasco Da Gama combined commercial

greed with ferocious hostility and wreaked vengeance on Arab

shipping wherever he could. His rupture with the Zamorin

Advent of the Europeans in India

✫

thus became total and complete. Vasco da Gama set up a

trading factory at Cannanore. Gradually, Calicut, Cannanore,

and Cochin became the important trade centres of the

Portuguese.

Gradually, under the pretext of protecting the factories

and their trading activities, the Portuguese got permission to

fortify these centres.
Francisco De Almeida

In 1505, the King of Portugal appointed a governor in India

for a three-year term and equipped the incumbent with

sufficient force to protect the Portuguese interests. Francisco

De Almeida, the newly appointed governor, was asked to

consolidate the position of the Portuguese in India and to

destroy Muslim trade by seizing Aden, Ormuz, and Malacca.

He was also advised to build fortresses at Anjadiva, Cochin,

View

The landing of Vasco da Gama at Calicut in 1498 ... is generally
regarded as the beginning of a new era in world history, especially
in the relationship between Asia and Europe. Although Asia and
Europe had been in commercial relations with each other since
antiquity, the opening of the direct sea-relations between the two
was not only the fulfilment of an old dream (according to the
Greek historian, Herodotus, the Phoenicians had rounded Africa
in the 6th century BC), it presaged big increase of trade between
the two. This, however, was only one of the objectives of the
Portuguese. For the Portuguese, the opening of a new sea-route
to India would give a big blow to the Muslims, the Arabs, and
the Turks, who were the traditional enemies of Christianity, and
were posing a new threat to Europe by virtue of the growing
military and naval power of the Turks. A direct sea-link with
India would displace the virtual monopoly of the Arabs and Turks
over the trade in eastern goods, especially spices. They also
vaguely hoped by their exploration of Africa they would be able
to link up with the kingdom of the legendary Prester John, (also
called Presbyter John or John the Elder, believed to have been
a Christian ruler of the East and popularised as such in medieval
chronicales of the West) and be in a position to attack the
Muslims from two sides. Thus, the commercial and religious
objectives supported and justified each other.

—Satish Chandra

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Cannanore, and Kilwa. What Almeida, however, encountered

along with the opposition of the Zamorin, was a threat from

the Mameluke Sultan of Egypt. Encouraged by the merchants

of Venice, whose lucrative commerce was now at risk due

to the Portuguese interference, the Egyptians raised a fleet

in the Red Sea to stop the advance of the Portuguese. In 1507,

the Portuguese squadron was defeated in a naval battle off

Diu by the combined Egyptian and Gujarat navies, and

Almeida’s son was killed. Next year, Almeida avenged his

defeat by totally crushing the two navies. Almeida’s vision

was to make the Portuguese the master of the Indian Ocean.

His policy was known as the Blue Water Policy (cartaze

system).
Alfonso de Albuquerque

Albuquerque, who succeeded Almeida as the Portuguese

governor in India, was the real founder of the Portuguese

power in the East, a task he completed before his death. He

secured for Portugal the strategic control of the Indian Ocean

by establishing bases overlooking all the entrances to the sea.

There were Portuguese strongholds in East Africa, off the

Red Sea, at Ormuz; in Malabar; and at Malacca. The Portuguese,

under Albuquerque bolstered their stranglehold by introducing

a permit system for other ships and exercising control over

the major ship-building centres in the region. The non-

availability of timber in the Gulf and Red Sea regions for

ship-building also helped the Portuguese in their objectives.

Albuquerque acquired Goa from the Sultan of Bijapur in 1510

with ease; the principal port of the Sultan of Bijapur became

“the first bit of Indian territory to be under the Europeans

since the time of Alexander the Great”. An interesting feature

of his rule was the abolition of sati.

View

As long as you may be powerful at sea you will hold India as
yours; and if you do not possess this power, little will avail you
a fortress on shore.

—Francisco De Almeida

Advent of the Europeans in India

✫

The Portuguese men who had come on the voyages and

stayed back in India were, from Albuquerque’s day, encouraged

to take local wives. In Goa and the Province of the North,

they established themselves as village landlords, often building

new roads and irrigation works, introducing new crops like

tobacco and cashew nut, or better plantation varieties of

coconut besides planting large groves of coconut to meet

the need for coir rigging and cordage. In the cities, they

settled as artisans and master-craftsmen, besides being traders.

Most of such Portuguese came to look upon their new

settlements, rather than Portugal, as home.
Nino da Cunha

Nino da Cunha assumed office of the governor of Portuguese

interests in India in November 1529 and almost one year later

shifted the headquarters of the Portuguese government in

India from Cochin to Goa. Bahadur Shah of Gujarat, during

his conflict with the Mughal emperor Humayun, secured help

from the Portuguese by ceding to them in 1534 the island

of Bassein with its dependencies and revenues. He also

promised them a base in Diu. However, Bahadur Shah’s

relations with the Portuguese became sour when Humayun

withdrew from Gujarat in 1536. Since the inhabitants of the

town started fighting with the Portuguese, Bahadur Shah

wanted to raise a wall of partition. Opposing this, the

Portuguese started negotiations, in the course of which the

ruler of Gujarat was invited to a Portuguese ship and killed

in 1537. Da Cunha also attempted to increase Portuguese

influence in Bengal by settling many Portuguese nationals

there with Hooghly as their headquarters.

View

Bitter persecution of Muslims was one serious drawback of
Albuquerque’s policy. This could have been due to his resolve
to further the interests of his countrymen by complete extinction
of Muslim commercial interests in the East. During his rule,
Albuquerque did his best to strengthen the fortifications of Goa
and enhance its commercial importance. In order to secure a
permanent Portuguese population in India he encouraged his men
to take Indian wives.

The Gazetteer of India, Vol. II

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Favourable Conditions for Portuguese

In India, excepting Gujarat, which was ruled by the powerful

Mahmud Begarha (or Begada) from 1458 to 1511, the

northern part was much divided among many small powers.

In the Deccan, the Bahmani Kingdom was breaking up into

smaller kingdoms. None of the powers had a navy worth its

name, nor did they think of developing their naval strength.

In the Far East, the imperial decree of the Chinese emperor

limited the navigational reach of the Chinese ships. As

regards the Arab merchants and ship-owners who until then

dominated the Indian Ocean trade, they had nothing to match

the organisation and unity of the Portuguese. Moreover, the

Portuguese had cannons placed on their ships.

Portuguese State

The general tendency is to underestimate the Portuguese hold

in India. However, the Estado Português da India (State of

the Portuguese India) was in fact a larger element in Indian

history than it is given credit for. Many of the coastal parts

of India had come under Portuguese power within fifty years

of Vasco da Gama’s arrival. The Portuguese had occupied

some sixty miles of coast around Goa. On the west coast

from Mumbai to Daman and Diu to the approaches to Gujarat,

they controlled a narrow tract with four important ports and

hundreds of towns and villages. In the south, they had under

them a chain of seaport fortresses and trading-posts like

Mangalore, Cannanore, Cochin, and Calicut. And though their

power in Malabar was not consolidated, it was enough to

ensure influence or control over the local rulers who held

the spice-growing land. The Portuguese established further

military posts and settlements on the east coast at San Thome

(in Chennai) and Nagapattinam (in Tamil Nadu). Towards the

end of the 16th century, a wealthy settlement had grown at

Hooghly in West Bengal.

Envoys and ambassadors were exchanged between Goa

and many of the major kingdoms in India of the time. Treaties

were signed between Goa and the Deccan sultans in 1570,

which were regularly renewed as long as their kingdoms

Advent of the Europeans in India

✫

lasted. The Portuguese always had a role to play in the

successive battles for the balance of power between

Vijayanagara and the Deccan sultans, between the Deccanis

and the Mughals, and between the Mughals and the Marathas.

Interestingly, the Portuguese, the first Europeans to

come to India, were also the last to leave this land. It was

1961 before the Government of India recaptured Goa, Daman

and Diu from them.
Portuguese Administration in India

The head of the administration was the viceroy who served

for three years, with his secretary and, in later years, a

council. Next in importance came the Vedor da Fazenda,

responsible for revenues and the cargoes and dispatch of

fleets. The fortresses, from Africa to China, were under

captains, assisted by ‘factors’, whose power was increased

by the difficulties of communication and was too often used

for personal ends.
Religious Policy of the Portuguese

The Moors were the bitter enemies of the Portuguese in

North Africa. So were the Arabs. Arriving in the East, the

Portuguese brought with them the same zeal to promote

Christianity and the wish to persecute all Muslims. Intolerant

towards the Muslims, the Portuguese were initially quite

tolerant towards the Hindus. However, over time, after the

introduction of the Inquisition in Goa, there was a change

and Hindus were also persecuted.

But, in spite of this intolerant behaviour, the Jesuits

made a good impression at the court of Akbar, mainly due

to the Mughal emperor’s interest in questions of theology.

In September 1579, Akbar forwarded a letter to the

authorities at Goa, requesting them to send two learned

priests. The Church authorities in Goa eagerly accepted the

invitation, seeing in it a chance to convert the emperor to

Christianity, and with him his court and the people. Jesuit

fathers, Rodolfo Aquaviva and Antonio Monserrate, were

selected for the purpose. When they reached Fatehpur Sikri

on February 28, 1580, they were received with honour.

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Aquaviva and Monserrate went back in 1583, belying the

hopes the Portuguese entertained of Akbar’s conversion to

the Christian faith. The second mission called by Akbar in

1590 also ended on a similar note in 1592. The third mission,

again invited by Akbar, arrived in 1595 at Lahore (where the

court was then residing) and continued as a sort of permanent

institution, thereby extending its influence on secular politics.

Fathers Jerome Xavier and Emanuel Pinheiro were the

leaders of the mission, and their letters from the court

became very widely known for the information they provided

on the later part of Akbar’s reign.

Prince Salim, on ascending the throne as Jahangir,

assuaged the Muslims by neglecting the Jesuit fathers.

Gradually, however, his temporary estrangement from the

Jesuits ended, and in 1606, he renewed his favours to

them. The elegant and spacious church at Lahore was allowed

to be retained by them along with the collegium or the

priests’ residence. In 1608, a number of baptisms were

carried out in Agra, the priests publicly acting with as much

liberty as in Portugal.

Jahangir’s conduct was such that the Jesuit priests

became hopeful of bringing him within the Christian fold.

However, these hopes were belied. Moreover, arrogant

actions on the part of the Portuguese viceroys created a rift

with the Mughal emperor.

Portuguese Lose Favour with

the Mughals

In 1608, Captain William Hawkins with his ship Hector

reached Surat. He brought with him a letter from James I,

King of England, to the Mughal court of Jahangir, requesting

permission to do business in India. Father Pinheiro and the

Portuguese authorities did their best to prevent Hawkins from

reaching the Mughal court, but they did not succeed. Jahangir

accepted the gifts Hawkins brought for him and gave Hawkins

a very favourable reception in 1609. As Hawkins knew the

Turki language well, he conversed with the emperor in that

language without the aid of an interpreter. Pleased with

Advent of the Europeans in India

✫

Hawkins, Jahangir appointed him as a mansabdar of 400 at

a salary of Rs 30,000 (apparently, he never received it).

Hawkins was also married to the daughter of an Armenian

Christian named Mubarak Shah (Mubarikesha).

The grant of trading facilities to the English offended

the Portuguese. However, after negotiations, a truce was

established between the Portuguese and the Mughal emperor.

The Portuguese stopped the English ships from entering the

port of Surat. A baffled Hawkins left the Mughal court in

1611, unable to counter the Portuguese intrigues or check

the vacillating Mughal policies. However, in November 1612,

the English ship Dragon under Captain Best along with a

little ship, the Osiander, successfully fought a Portuguese

fleet. Jahangir, who had no navy worth its name, learnt of

the English success and was greatly impressed.

The Portuguese acts of piracy also resulted in conflict

with the imperial Mughal government. In 1613, the Portuguese

offended Jahangir by capturing Mughal ships, imprisoning

many Muslims, and plundering the cargoes. An enraged

Jahangir ordered Muqarrab Khan, who was then in charge of

Surat, to obtain compensation. However, it was during the

reign of Shah Jahan, that the advantages which the Portuguese

enjoyed in the Mughal court were lost forever. Also lost were

the hopes of converting the royal family and Mughal India

to Christianity, a hope that the Portuguese held because of

the welcome accorded to them and their religion by Akbar

and Jahangir.
Capture of Hooghly

On the basis of an imperial farman circa 1579, the Portuguese

had settled down on a river bank which was a short distance

from Satgaon in Bengal to carry on their trading activities.

Over the years, they strengthened their position by constructing

big buildings which led to the migration of the trade from

Satgaon to the new port known as Hooghly. They monopolised

the manufacture of salt, built a custom house of their own,

and started enforcing strictly the levy of duty on tobacco,

which had become an important article of trade since its

introduction at the beginning of the 17th century.

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

The Portuguese not only made money as traders but

also started a cruel slave trade by purchasing or seizing Hindu

and Muslim children, whom they brought up as Christians.

In the course of their nefarious activities, they seized two

slave girls of Mumtaz Mahal. On June 24, 1632, the Mughal

siege of Hooghly began, ending in its capture three months

later. Shah Jahan ordered the Bengal governor Qasim Khan

to take action against the Portuguese. The siege of Hooghly

finally led to the Portuguese fleeing. The Mughals suffered

a loss of 1,000 men, but also took 400 prisoners to Agra.

The prisoners were offered the option to convert to Islam

or become slaves. The persecution of Christians continued

for some time after which it died down gradually.

Decline of the Portuguese

By the 18th century, the Portuguese in India lost their

commercial influence, though some of them still carried on

trade in their individual capacity and many took to piracy and

robbery. In fact, Hooghly was used by some Portuguese as

a base for piracy in the Bay of Bengal. The decline of the

Portuguese was brought about by several factors. The local

advantages gained by the Portuguese in India were reduced

with the emergence of powerful dynasties in Egypt, Persia,

and North India and the rise of the turbulent Marathas as their

immediate neighbours. (The Marathas captured Salsette and

Bassein in 1739 from the Portuguese.)

The religious policies of the Portuguese, such as the

activities of the Jesuits, gave rise to political fears. Their

antagonism for the Muslims apart, the Portuguese policy of

conversion to Christianity made Hindus also resentful.

Their dishonest trade practices also evoked a strong

reaction. The Portuguese earned notoriety as sea pirates.

Their arrogance and violence brought them the animosity of

the rulers of small states and the imperial Mughals as well.

The discovery of Brazil diverted colonising activities

of Portugal to the West.

The union of the two kingdoms of Spain and Portugal

in 1580–81, dragging the smaller kingdom into Spain’s wars

Advent of the Europeans in India

✫

with England and Holland, badly affected Portuguese monopoly

of trade in India.

The earlier monopoly of knowledge of the sea route

to India held by the Portuguese could not remain a secret

forever; soon enough the Dutch and the English, who were

learning the skills of ocean navigation, also learnt of it. As

new trading communities from Europe arrived in India, there

began a fierce rivalry among them. In this struggle, the

Portuguese had to give way to the more powerful and

enterprising competitors. The Dutch and the English had

greater resources and more compulsions to expand overseas,

and they overcame the Portuguese resistance. One by one,

View

The Portuguese entered India with the sword in one hand and
the crucifix in the other; finding much gold, they laid aside the
crucifix to fill their pockets, and not being able to hold them
up with one hand, they were grown so heavy, they dropped the
sword, too; being found in this posture by those who came after,
they were easily overcome.

—Alfonso de Souza, the Portuguese

Governor in India (1542–45)

Portuguese Rise and Fall

1498:

Arrival of Vasco-da-Gama at Calicut and his grand
reception by the local king, Zamorin

1503:

Establishment of the first Portuguese fort at Cochin

1505:

Establishment of the second Portuguese fort at Cannanore

1509:

Defeat of the combined fleet of Gujarat, Egypt, and
Zamorin by the Portuguese governor Francisco Almeida

1510:

Alfonso Albuquerque, the Portuguese governor, captures
Goa from Bijapur

1530:

Declaration of Goa as the Portuguese capital

1535:

Subjugation of Diu

1559:

The Portuguese capture Daman

1596:

Ouster of the Portuguese by the Dutch from South-East
Asia

1612:

Loss of Surat to the English

1663:

The Dutch win all Portuguese forts on the Malabar Coast
to oust the Portuguese

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

the Portuguese possessions fell to its opponents. Goa which

remained with the Portuguese had lost its importance as a

port after the fall of the Vijayanagara empire and soon it did

not matter in whose possession it was. The spice trade came

under the control of the Dutch, and Goa was superseded by

Brazil as the economic centre of the overseas empire of

Portugal. In 1683, after two naval assaults, the Marathas

invaded Goa.

Significance of the Portuguese

Most historians have observed that the coming of the

Portuguese not only initiated what might be called the

European era, it marked the emergence of naval power. The

Cholas, among others, had been a naval power, but it was

now for the first time a foreign power had come to India

by way of the sea. The Portuguese ships carried cannon, and

this was the first step in gaining monopoly over trade—with

the threat or actual use of force. The Portuguese declared

their intention to abide by no rules except their own, and

they were intent on getting a decisive advantage over the

Indians and over the Indian Ocean trading system.

In the Malabar of the 16th century, the Portuguese

showed military innovation in their use of body armour,

matchlock men, and guns landed from the ships. The Portuguese

may have contributed by example to the Mughal use of field

guns, and the ‘artillery of the stirrup’. However, an important

military contribution made by the Portuguese onshore was

the system of drilling groups of infantry, on the Spanish

model, introduced in the 1630s as a counter to Dutch

pressure. The practice was adopted first by the French and

English, and later taken up by the Marathas and Sikhs, and

such armies of sepoys became new tools of empire in India.

The Portuguese were masters of improved techniques

at sea. Their multi-decked ships were heavily constructed,

designed as they were to ride out Atlantic gales rather than

run before the regular monsoons; this permitted them to carry

a heavier armament. Their use of castled prow and stern was

a noteworthy method by which to repel or launch boarding

Advent of the Europeans in India

✫

parties. Indian builders adapted both to their own use.

However, the Portuguese skill at organisation—as in the

creation of royal arsenals and dockyards and the maintenance

of a regular system of pilots and mapping and pitting state

forces against private merchant shipping—was even more

noteworthy. The Mughals and Marathas may certainly have

learnt from the Portuguese, but the more certain heirs of

this knowledge were other Europeans, especially the Dutch

and English, in Asia.

In India, the memory of religious persecution and

cruelty detracts from the other contributions made by the

Portuguese in the cultural field. However, it cannot be

forgotten that the missionaries and the Church were also

teachers and patrons in India of the arts of the painter, carver,

and sculptor. As in music, they were the interpreters, not just

of Portuguese, but of European art to India.

The art of the silversmith and goldsmith flourished in

Goa, and the place became a centre of elaborate filigree

work, fretted foliage, work, and metal work embedding

jewels. However, though the interior of churches built under

the Portuguese have plenty of woodwork and sculpture and

sometimes painted ceilings, they are generally simple in their

architectural plan.

The Dutch

Commercial enterprise led the Dutch to undertake voyages

to the East. Cornelis de Houtman was the first Dutchman

to reach Sumatra and Bantam in 1596. In 1602, the States-

General of the Netherlands amalgamated many trading

companies into the East India Company of the Netherlands.

This company was also empowered to carry on war, to

conclude treaties, to take possession of territory, and to erect

fortresses.

Dutch Settlements

After their arrival in India, the Dutch founded their first

factory in Masulipatnam (in Andhra) in 1605. They went on

to establish trading centres in different parts of India and thus

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

became a threat to the Portuguese. They captured Nagapatam

near Madras (Chennai) from the Portuguese and made it their

main stronghold in South India.

The Dutch established factories on the Coromandel

coast, in Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, Bengal, and Bihar. In 1609,

they opened a factory in Pulicat, north of Madras. Their other

principal factories in India were at Surat (1616), Bimlipatam

(1641), Karaikal (1645), Chinsura (1653), Baranagar,

Kasimbazar (near Murshidabad), Balasore, Patna, Nagapatam

(1658), and Cochin (1663). Participating in the redistributive

or carrying trade, they took to the islands of the Far East

various articles and merchandise from India. They carried

indigo manufactured in the Yamuna valley and Central India,

textiles and silk from Bengal, Gujarat and the Coromandel,

saltpetre from Bihar, and opium and rice from the Ganga

valley.

Anglo-Dutch Rivalry

The English were also at this time rising to prominence in

the Eastern trade, and this posed a serious challenge to the

commercial interests of the Dutch. Commercial rivalry soon

turned into bloody warfare.

The climax of the enmity between the Dutch and the

English in the East was reached at Amboyna (a place in

present-day Indonesia, which the Dutch had captured from

the Portuguese in 1605) where they massacred ten Englishmen

and nine Japanese in 1623.

This incident further intensified the rivalry between the

two European companies. After prolonged warfare, both the

parties came to a compromise in 1667 by which the British

agreed to withdraw all their claims on Indonesia, and the

Dutch retired from India to concentrate on their more

profitable trade in Indonesia. They monopolised the trade in

black pepper and spices. The most important Indian

commodities the Dutch traded in were silk, cotton, indigo,

rice, and opium.

Decline of the Dutch in India

The Dutch got drawn into the trade of the Malay Archipelago.

Further, in the third Anglo-Dutch War (1672–74),

Advent of the Europeans in India

✫

communications between Surat and the new English settlement

of Bombay got cut due to which three homebound English

ships were captured in the Bay of Bengal by the Dutch forces.

The retaliation by the English resulted in the defeat of the

Dutch, in the Battle of Hooghly (November 1759), which

dealt a crushing blow to Dutch ambitions in India.

The Dutch were not much interested in empire building

in India; their concerns were trade. In any case, their main

commercial interest lay in the Spice Islands of Indonesia

from where they earned a huge profit through business.

The English

Charter of Queen Elizabeth I

Francis Drake’s voyage around the world in 1580 and the

English victory over the Spanish Armada in 1588 generated

a new sense of enterprise in the British, encouraging sailors

to venture out to the East. As the knowledge grew of the

high profits earned by the Portuguese in Eastern trade,

English traders too wanted a share. So, in 1599, a group of

English merchants calling themselves the ‘Merchant

Adventurers’ formed a company. On December 31, 1600,

Queen Elizabeth I issued a charter with rights of exclusive

trading to the company named the ‘Governor and Company

of Merchants of London trading into the East Indies’.

Initially, a monopoly of 15 years was granted, which in May

View

The Dutch rivalry with the English, during the seventeenth
century, was more bitter than that of the Portuguese. The policy
of the Dutch in the East was influenced by two motives: one
was to take revenge on Catholic Spain, the foe of their
independence, and her ally Portugal, and the other was to
colonise and establish settlements in the East Indies with a view
to monopolising commerce in that region. They gained their first
object by the gradual decline of Portuguese influence. The
realisation of their second object brought them into bitter
competition with the English.

—R.C. Majumdar, H.C. Raychaudhuri and K. Datta

An Advanced History of India

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

1609 was extended indefinitely by a fresh charter. As the

Dutch were already concentrating more on the East Indies,

the English turned to India in search of textiles and other

commodities of trade.

Progress of the English Company

Foothold in West and South

Captain Hawkins arrived in the court of Jahangir in April

1609 itself. But the mission to establish a factory at Surat

did not succeed due to opposition from the Portuguese, and

Hawkins left Agra in November 1611. In 1611, the English

had started trading at Masulipatnam on the south-eastern

coast of India and later established a factory there in 1616.

It was in 1612 that Captain Thomas Best defeated the

Portuguese in the sea off Surat; an impressed Jahangir granted

permission to the English in early 1613 to establish a factory

at Surat under Thomas Aldworth. In 1615, Sir Thomas Roe

came as an accredited ambassador of James I to the court

of Jahangir, staying on there till February 1619. Though he

was unsuccessful in concluding a commercial treaty with the

Mughal emperor, he was able to secure a number of

privileges, including permission to set up factories at Agra,

Ahmedabad, and Broach.

The English company did not have a smooth progress.

It had to contend with the Portuguese and the Dutch in the

beginning. But the changing situation helped them and turned

things in their favour. Bombay had been gifted to King

Charles II by the King of Portugal as dowry when Charles

married the Portuguese princess Catherine in 1662. Bombay

was given over to the East India Company on an annual

payment of 10 pounds only in 1668. Later, Bombay was made

the headquarters by shifting the seat of the Western Presidency

from Surat to Bombay in 1687. So, there was tacit peace

between the English and the Portuguese now. There was also

an Anglo-Dutch compromise as mentioned earlier by which

the Dutch agreed not to interfere with the English company’s

trade in India. Thus, the English were rid of two arch-rivals

in India.

Advent of the Europeans in India

✫

The English company’s position was improved by the

‘Golden Farman’ issued to them by the Sultan of Golconda

in 1632. On a payment of 500 pagodas a year, they earned

the privilege of trading freely in the ports of Golconda. A

member of the Masulipatnam council, the British merchant

Francis Day in 1639 received from the ruler of Chandragiri

permission to build a fortified factory at Madras which later

became the Fort St. George and replaced Masulipatnam as

the headquarters of the English settlements in south India.

Thereafter, the English extended their trading activities to the

east and started factories at Hariharpur in the Mahanadi delta

and at Balasore (in Odisha) in 1633.
Foothold in Bengal

Bengal was then a large and rich province in India, advanced

in trade and commerce. Commercial and political control

over Bengal naturally appeared an attractive proposition to

the profit-seeking English merchants. Bengal was also an

important province of the Mughal empire.

Shah Shuja, the subahdar (or governor) of Bengal in

1651, allowed the English to trade in Bengal in return for

an annual payment of Rs 3,000, in lieu of all duties. Factories

in Bengal were started at Hooghly (1651) and other places

like Kasimbazar, Patna, and Rajmahal. Nevertheless, despite

the privileges of the farmans, the Company’s business was

now and then obstructed by customs officers in the local

checkposts who asked for payment of tolls. In pursuance of

its changed policy, the Company wanted to have a fortified

settlement at Hooghly so that force could be used if

necessary. William Hedges, the first agent and governor of

the Company in Bengal, appealed to Shaista Khan, the Mughal

governor of Bengal in August 1682, for redressal of the

grievance. As nothing came out of the appeal, hostilities

broke out between the English and the Mughals. Four years

later, Hooghly was sacked by the imperial Mughals in

October 1686. The English retaliated by capturing the

imperial forts at Thana (modern Garden Reach), raiding Hijli

in east Midnapur and storming the Mughal fortifications at

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Balasore. However, the English were forced to leave Hooghly

and were sent to an unhealthy location at the mouth of River

Ganga.

After the Mughal raid on Hooghly, Job Charnock, a

company agent, started negotiations with the Mughals so as

to return to a place called Sutanuti. Charnock signed a treaty

with the Mughals in February 1690, and returned to Sutanuti

in August 1690. Thus, an English factory was established on

February 10, 1691, the day an imperial farman was issued,

permitting the English to “continue contentedly their trade

in Bengal” on payment of Rs 3,000 a year in lieu of all dues.

A zamindar in Bardhaman district, Sobha Singh, rebelled,

subsequently giving the English the pretext they were looking

for, to fortify their settlement at Sutanuti in 1696. In 1698,

the English succeeded in getting the permission to buy the

zamindari of the three villages of Sutanuti, Gobindapur, and

Kalikata (Kalighat) from their owners on payment of Rs

1,200. The fortified settlement was named Fort William in

the year 1700 when it also became the seat of the eastern

presidency (Calcutta) with Sir Charles Eyre as its first

president.
Farrukhsiyar’s Farmans

In 1715, an English mission led by John Surman to the court

of the Mughal emperor Farrukhsiyar secured three famous

farmans, giving the Company many valuable privileges in

Bengal, Gujarat and Hyderabad. The farmans thus obtained

were regarded the Magna Carta of the Company. Their

important terms were:

●

In Bengal, the Company’s imports and exports were

exempted from additional customs duties excepting

the annual payment of 3,000 rupees as settled

earlier.

●

The Company was permitted to issue dastaks (passes)

for the transportation of such goods.

●

The Company was permitted to rent more lands

around Calcutta.

●

In Hyderabad, the Company retained its existing

Advent of the Europeans in India

✫

privilege of freedom from duties in trade and had

to pay the prevailing rent only for Madras.

●

In Surat, for an annual payment of 10,000 rupees,

the East India Company was exempted from the levy

of all duties.

●

It was decreed that the coins of the Company minted

at Bombay were to have currency throughout the

Mughal empire.

Apparently, the English East India Company managed

to earn a number of trading concessions in Bengal from the

Mughal authority by means of flattery and diplomacy.

But the English had to vanquish the French before they

Formative Years of the East India Company

1600 : The East India Company is established.
1609 : William Hawkins arrives at Jahangir’s court.
1611 : Captain Middleton obtains the permission of the Mughal

governor of Surat to trade there.

1613 : A permanent factory of East India Company is established

at Surat.

1615 : Sir Thomas Roe, the ambassador of King James I, arrives

at Jahangir’s court. By 1618, the ambassador succeeds
in obtaining two

farmans (one each from the emperor and

Prince Khurram) confirming free trade with exemption from
inland tolls.

1616 : The Company establishes its first factory in the south in

Masulipatnam.

1632 : The Company gets the golden

farman from the Sultan of

Golconda ensuring safety and prosperity of their trade.

1633 : The Company establishes its first factory in east India in

Hariharpur, Balasore (Odisha).

1639 : The Company gets the lease of Madras from a local king.
1651 : The Company is given permission to trade at Hooghly

(Bengal).

1662 : The British King, Charles II, is given Bombay as dowry

for marrying a Portuguese princess (Catherine of Braganza).

1667 : Aurangzeb gives the English a

farman for trade in Bengal.

1691 : The Company gets the imperial order to continue their trade

in Bengal in lieu of payment of Rs 3,000 a year.

1717 : The Mughal emperor Farrukhsiyar issues a

farman, called

Magna Carta

of the Company, giving the Company a large

number of trade concessions.

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

could be rid of competitors and establish their complete sway

over India.
Merging of Two English Companies

After the English revolution of 1688, the Whigs, with their

enhanced influence, opposed the monopoly of the East India

Company. Thus, a rival company was formed which deputed

Sir William Norris as its ambassador to the court of

Aurangzeb (January 1701–April 1702) to gain trading privileges

for itself. The new company, however, proved a failure. Under

pressure from the Crown and the Parliament, the two

companies were amalgamated in 1708 under the title of

‘United Company of Merchants of England Trading to the

East Indies’. This was the East India Company—from 1708

to 1873—which was to establish British political power in

India.

The French

Foundation of French Centres in India

Although the French harboured a wish to engage in the

commerce of the East since the opening years of the 16th

century, their appearance on the Indian coasts was late.

Indeed, the French were the last Europeans to come to India

with the purpose of trade. During the reign of Louis XIV,

the king’s famous minister Colbert laid the foundation of the

Compagnie des Indes Orientales (French East India Company)

in 1664, in which the king also took a deep interest. The

Compagnie des Indes Orientales was granted a 50-year

monopoly on French trade in the Indian and Pacific Oceans.

The French king also granted the company a concession in

perpetuity for the island of Madagascar, as well as any other

territories it could conquer. The Company spent a lot of its

money and resources in trying to revive the colonies of

Madagascar but without any success. Then, in 1667, Francois

Caron headed an expedition to India, setting up a factory in

Surat. Mercara, a Persian who accompanied Caron, founded

another French factory in Masulipatnam in 1669 after

obtaining a patent from the Sultan of Golconda. In 1673, the

Advent of the Europeans in India

✫

French obtained permission from Shaista Khan, the Mughal

subahdar of Bengal, to establish a township at Chandernagore

near Calcutta.
Pondicherry—Nerve Centre of French

Power in India

In 1673, Sher Khan Lodi, the governor of Valikondapuram

(under the Bijapur Sultan), granted Francois Martin, the

director of the Masulipatnam factory, a site for a settlement.

Pondicherry was founded in 1674. In the same year, Francois

Martin replaced Caron as the French governor.

The French company established its factories in other

parts of India also, particularly in the coastal regions. Mahe,

Karaikal, Balasore, and Qasim Bazar were a few important

trading centres of the French East India Company.

After taking charge of Pondicherry in 1674, Francois

Martin developed it as a place of importance. It was, indeed,

the stronghold of the French in India.
Early Setbacks to the French East India Company

The French position in India was badly affected with the

outbreak of war between the Dutch and the French. Bolstered
by their alliance with the English since the Revolution of
1688, the Dutch captured Pondicherry in 1693. Although the

Treaty of Ryswick concluded in September 1697 restored
Pondicherry to the French, the Dutch garrison held on to it
for two more years. Once again, under Francois Martin’s able

guidance, Pondicherry flourished and turned out to be the
most important settlement of the French in India. Again there
was a bad turn in the fortunes of the French company in India

when the War of Spanish Succession broke out in Europe.
Consequent to this, they had to abandon their factories at
Surat, Masulipatnam, and Bantam in the early 18th century.

The French in India had another setback when Francois Martin
died on December 31, 1706.
Reorganisation of the French Company

In 1720, the French company was reorganised as the ‘Perpetual

Company of the Indies’ which revived its strength. This was

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

further enhanced by the stewardship of two active and wise

governors, Lenoir and Dumas, between 1720 and 1742.

Further, the French India was backed by the French possession

of Mauritius and Reunion in the southern Indian Ocean.

The Anglo-French Struggle for Supremacy:
the Carnatic Wars

Background of Rivalry

Though the British and the French came to India for trading

purposes, they were ultimately drawn into the politics of

India. Both had visions of establishing political power over

the region. The Anglo-French rivalry in India reflected the

traditional rivalry of England and France throughout their

histories; it began with the outbreak of the Austrian War of

Succession and ended with the conclusion of the Seven

Years’ War. Specifically in India, the rivalry, in the form of

three Carnatic wars, decided once for all that the English and

not the French were to become masters of India.

In 1740, the political situation in south India was

uncertain and confused. Nizam Asaf Jah of Hyderabad was

old and fully engaged in battling the Marathas in the western

Deccan while his subordinates were speculating upon the

consequences of his death. To the south of his kingdom lay

the Coromandel Coast without any strong ruler to maintain

a balance of power. Instead, there was the remnant of the

old Vijayanagara empire in interior Mysore, Cochin, and

Travancore on the Malabar Coast, and in the east the small

states of Madura (Madurai), Tanjore (Thanjavur), and

Trichinopoly (Thiruchirapally). The decline of Hyderabad was

the signal for the end of Muslim expansionism and the

English adventurers got their plans ready. Also, there was the

Maratha kingdom of Tanjore, providing the Peshwa of Pune

an excuse for interference whenever he pleased.
First Carnatic War (1740–48)

Background Carnatic was the name given by the

Europeans to the Coromandel Coast and its hinterland. The

First Carnatic War was an extension of the Anglo-French War

Advent of the Europeans in India

✫

in Europe which was caused by the Austrian War of

Succession.

Immediate Cause Although France, conscious of its

relatively weaker position in India, did not favour an extension

of hostilities to India, the English navy under Barnet seized

some French ships to provoke France. France retaliated by

seizing Madras in 1746 with the help of the fleet from

Mauritius, the Isle of France, under Admiral La Bourdonnais,

the French governor of Mauritius. Thus began the first

Carnatic War.

Result The First Carnatic War ended in 1748 when the

Treaty of Aix-La Chapelle was signed, bringing the Austrian

War of Succession to a conclusion. Under the terms of this

treaty, Madras was handed back to the English, and the

French, in turn, got their territories in North America.

Significance The First Carnatic War is remembered

for the Battle of St. Thome (in Madras) fought between the

French forces and the forces of Anwaruddin, the Nawab of

Carnatic, to whom the English appealed for help. A small

French army under Captain Paradise defeated the strong

Indian army under Mahfuz Khan at St. Thome on the banks

of the River Adyar. This was an eye-opener for the Europeans

in India: it revealed that even a small disciplined army could

easily defeat a much larger Indian army. Further, this war

adequately brought out the importance of naval force in the

Anglo-French conflict in the Deccan.
Second Carnatic War (1749–54)

Background The background for the Second Carnatic

War was provided by rivalry in India. Dupleix, the French

governor who had successfully led the French forces in the

First Carnatic War, sought to increase his power and French

political influence in southern India by interfering in local

dynastic disputes to defeat the English.

Immediate Cause The opportunity was provided by the

death of Nizam-ul-Mulk, the founder of the independent

kingdom of Hyderabad, in 1748, and the release of Chanda

Sahib, the son-in-law of Dost Ali, the Nawab of Carnatic,

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

by the Marathas in the same year. The accession of Nasir

Jung, the son of the Nizam, to the throne of Hyderabad was

opposed by Muzaffar Jung, the grandson of the Nizam, who

laid claim to the throne saying that the Mughal Emperor had

appointed him as the governor of Hyderabad. In the Carnatic,

the appointment of Anwaruddin Khan as the Nawab was

resented by Chanda Sahib.

The French supported the claims of Muzaffar Jang and

Chanda Sahib in the Deccan and Carnatic, respectively, while

the English sided with Nasir Jang and Anwaruddin.

Course of the War The combined armies of Muzaffar

Jang, Chanda Sahib, and the French defeated and killed

Anwaruddin at the Battle of Ambur (near Vellore) in 1749.

Muzaffar Jang became the subahdar of Deccan, and Dupleix

was appointed governor of all the Mughal territories to the

south of the River Krishna. A French army under Bussy was

stationed at Hyderabad to secure French interests there.

Territories near Pondicherry and also some areas on the

Orissa coast (including Masulipatnam) were ceded to the

French.

Having failed to provide effective assistance to

Muhammad Ali at Trichinopoly, Robert Clive, then an agent

(‘factor’) of the English company, put forward the proposal

for a diversionary attack on the governor of Madras, Saunders.

He suggested a sudden raid on Arcot, the capital of the

Carnatic, so as to relieve the pressure on Trichinopoly. He

reasoned that in such an event Chanda Sahib would rush to

save his capital. Thus, in August 1751, with only a force of

210 men, Robert Clive attacked and captured Arcot. As

expected, Chanda Sahib hastened to his capital, taking a force

of 4,000 men from Trichinopoly, but failed to get back the

fort even after a siege of 53 days, from September 23 to

November 14. Now Mysore, Tanjore, and the Maratha chief,

Morari Rao, came to the aid of Trichinopoly, and of Clive

and Stringer Lawrence. Trichinopoly was first relieved of its

siege, while General Law of France with Chanda Sahib

remained cooped up in the island of Srirangam. They were

forced to surrender in June 1752 when Muhammad Ali

executed Chanda Sahib, the British failing to interfere.

Advent of the Europeans in India

✫

Rise and Fall of Dupleix in India

Joseph Francis Dupleix, born in 1697, was the son of a wealthy
Farmer-General of Taxes and Director-General of the Company of
the Indies. He got a high post at Pondicherry in 1720, allegedly
on the basis of influence of his father. At Pondicherry, he made
a lot of money by private trade, which was then permitted to
servants of the French company. In December 1726, he was
suspended owing to drastic change in the constitution of the French
company and some confusions arising out of that. In 1730, Dupleix
won his case, and was appointed as governor of Chandernagore
as compensation. In 1741, he was appointed as the Director-General
of French colonies in India. Later, he was conferred the title of
Nawab by the Mughal emperor and the subahdar of Deccan,
Muzzaffar Jang.

According to historians, Dupleix possessed qualities of an

administrator, a diplomat, and a leader besides having political
insight with a broad vision.

Dupleix in the Role of Administrator

In 1741, Dupleix became the Governor, General of Pondicherry.

He found Pondicherry facing several problems—Maratha invasion,
famine, uncultivated land, and chaotic conditions in the Carnatic.
Apart from these, the Directors of the Company sought a drastic
cut in expenditure of the French East India Company, owing to
the priority given to the French colonies in North America. So,
Dupleix reduced public expenditure, despite opposition from his
council, and balanced income and expenditure, coupled with a cut
on salaries of officers. However, he decided to disobey the directors
on the matter of fortification of settlements. He enhanced the
defences of Pondicherry, even spending a large sum from his
personal wealth. He made Pondicherry the emporium of commerce
in south India by taking practical steps to develop the trade of
the colony. Later, the Directors of the Company praised Dupleix
for taking the right decisions, even in contradiction of the directors.

Dupleix as a Master of Diplomacy

The analysis of the first two Carnatic wars proves the

diplomacy of Dupleix as a leader who visualised the path of the
European conquest of India.

Dupleix used the Nawab of Carnatic to forbid the English from

waging war in his territories so that the French settlements at
Pondicherry could be protected till the French forces acquired
enough strength. In return, the nawab was promised Madras after
the English got defeated. But Dupleix, using his diplomacy, did

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

not give Madras to the nawab and even defeated him at St. Thome
(1746).

Dupleix convinced Admiral La Bourdonnais to break promises

made to the English, citing examples from history that promises
made under certain circumstances were never binding. Further, he
said that since the position of the governor general was superior
to that of the commander of navy, the compact entered into between
the latter and the English was

ultra vires. Thus, he was able to

convince his subordinate to do what was considered unethical in
general terms, but best suited for one’s nation.

Dupleix was the first European to interfere in the internal

politics of the Indian rulers. He supported Muzzaffar Jang for
Hyderabad and Chanda Sahib for Carnatic, and his candidates
emerged successful and, in return, gave great concessions to
Dupleix.

Dupleix was, in fact, the originator of the practice of subsidiary

alliance in India. He placed a French army at Hyderabad at the
expense of the subahdar.

Why Dupleix Failed in India

Dupleix was recalled in 1754 due to the initial defeat of the

French army in the Second Carnatic War and the heavy cost
incurred by the company due to Dupleix’s political decisions. Many
historians have called the recall of Dupleix by the directors as a
blunder—a result of a compromise between France and England
over issues in America. However, there were some weaknesses
in Dupleix also, which can be put in brief as follows:

(i) Dupleix suffered from an over-sanguine temperament. He

hoped too often for too long, thus losing the advantage in critical
situations.

(ii) The peers of Dupleix did not like his autocratic behaviour

and on many occasions quarrelled with him on this matter.

(iii) Dupleix was not a man of action: he planned a campaign,

directed his lieutenants, but never led an army in the battlefield
like Lawrence or Clive. The French failed to capture Trichinopoly
(1752–53) because the schemes thought out by Dupleix could not
be turned into action by his commanders.

Result The French authorities, annoyed at the heavy

financial losses that Dupleix’s policy involved, decided to

recall him in 1754. Godeheu succeeded Dupleix as the

French governor general in India. Godeheu adopted a policy

of negotiations with the English and concluded a treaty with

them. The English and the French agreed not to interfere in

Advent of the Europeans in India

✫

the quarrels of native princes. Also, each party was left in

possession of the territories actually occupied by them at

the time of the treaty. According to historians, the fear of

serious repercussions in America prompted the French to

suspend hostilities in India.

Implications It became evident that the countenance

of Indian authority was no longer necessary for European

success; rather Indian authority itself was becoming dependent

on European support. Muhammad Ali in the Carnatic and

Salabat Jang in Hyderabad became clients rather than patrons.
Third Carnatic War (1758–63)

Background In Europe, when Austria wanted to recover

Silesia in 1756, the Seven Years’ War (1756–63) started.

Britain and France were once again on opposite sides.

Course of War in India In 1758, the French army

under Count de Lally captured the English forts of St. David

and Vizianagaram. Now, the English became offensive and

inflicted heavy losses on the French fleet under Admiral

D’Ache at Masulipatnam.

Views

The struggle between Dupleix and Clive in India, the defence
of Arcot and the deeds which led to the founding of our Indian
Empire… all these events were part of a desperate struggle for
supremacy between England and France.

—J.R. Seeley

We may regard Dupleix as the most striking figure in the short
Indian episode of that long and arduous contest for transmarine
dominion which was fought out between France and England in
the eighteenth century, although it was far beyond his power
to influence the ultimate destiny of either nation in India, and
although the result of his plans was that ‘we accomplished for
ourselves against the French exactly everything that the French
intended to accomplish for themselves against us’ (Clive). It is
certain, moreover, that the conception of an Indian Empire had
already been formed by others besides Dupleix, and that more
than one clearheaded observer had perceived how easily the
whole country might be subdued by an European power.

—Alfred Lyall

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

View

While the English received supplies of food and money from
Bengal, recruits of men from Europe, and grain from their northern
settlements, the French could receive nothing but what came
to them laboriously by land. The first were constantly strengthened,
the second was constantly weakened. And this enabled Coote
to establish his military superiority over Lally in the field and
to hem him within the walls of Pondicherry.

—H.H. Dodwell

(The Cambridge History of India, Vol V)

Battle of Wandiwash The decisive battle of the Third

Carnatic War was won by the English on January 22, 1760

at Wandiwash (or Vandavasi) in Tamil Nadu. General Eyre

Coote of the English totally routed the French army under

Count Thomas Arthur de Lally and took Bussy as prisoner.

Pondicherry was gallantly defended by Lally for eight

months before he surrendered on January 16, 1761. With the

loss of Jinji and Mahe, the French power in India was reduced

to its lowest. Lally, after being taken as prisoner of war at

London, returned to France where he was imprisoned and

executed in 1766.

Result and Significance The Third Carnatic War

proved decisive. Although the Treaty of Peace of Paris

(1763) restored to the French their factories in India, the

French political influence disappeared after the war. Thereafter,

the French, like their Portuguese and Dutch counterparts in

India, confined themselves to their small enclaves and to

commerce. The English became the supreme European power

in the Indian subcontinent, since the Dutch had already been

defeated in the Battle of Bidara in 1759.

The Battle of Plassey, in 1757, is usually regarded by

historians as the decisive event that brought about ultimate

British rule over India. However, one cannot quite ignore the

view that the true turning point for control of the subcontinent

was the victory of British forces over the French forces at

Wandiwash in 1760. The victory at Wandiwash left the

English East India Company with no European rival in India.

Advent of the Europeans in India

✫

Thus, they were ready to take over the rule of the entire

country.

Significantly, in the Battle of Wandiwash, natives

served in both the armies as sepoys. It makes one think:

irrespective of which side won, there was an inevitability

about the fall of India to European invaders. There was a lack

of sensitivity to geopolitics of the day as well as a lack of

foresight on the part of native rulers.

Causes for the English Success and the
French Failure

The English company was a private enterprise—this created

a sense of enthusiasm and self-confidence among the people.

With less governmental control over it, this company could

take instant decisions when needed without waiting for the

approval of the government. The French company, on the

other hand, was a State concern. It was controlled and

regulated by the French government and was hemmed in by

government policies and delays in decision-making.

The English navy was superior to the French navy; it

helped to cut off the vital sea link between the French

possessions in India and France.

The English held three important places, namely,

Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras, whereas the French had only

Pondicherry.

The French subordinated their commercial interest to

territorial ambition, which made the French company short

of funds.

In spite of their imperialistic motives, the British never

neglected their commercial interests. So, they always had the

funds and the consequent sound financial condition to help

them significantly in the wars against their rivals.

A major factor in the success of the English in India

was the superiority of the commanders in the British camp.

In comparison to the long list of leaders on the English side

—Sir Eyre Coote, Major Stringer Lawrence, Robert

Clive, and many others—there was only Dupleix on the

French side.

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

About the Goods in Trade Initially

There are accounts by various European travellers and traders about
the activities in port towns such as Surat which give details of
the intricate steps that went into the creation of fabrics collectively
called ‘Indian’.

Great demand was there for cotton longcloth, (usually 35 to

50 m in length), salempores (staple cotton cloth), and morees
(superior quality cotton cloth). Other much desired fabrics were the
painted cloths and prints, the silks, and the dyes. These textiles
were not just in demand in Europe but also in other parts of Asia.
Indians had traded in textiles for centuries before the Europeans
arrived. In China, Japan, and the Indonesian archipelago, Indian
cotton was popular for its light weight, yet strong qualities. When
the Dutch, English, and French acquired materials from India, it
was not only for their home countries, but for transport to Malacca
or Java, for example, where they were traded for spices. By the
18th century, the French had coloured patterned handkerchiefs
specially woven for particular island markets, which proved a
successful entrepreneurial effort.

A corollary to the trade in textiles and spices was the trade

in slaves. It is generally considered that slave trade concerned
Europe, Africa, and the Americas (the ‘New World’), but this ignores
the fact that trade between Europe and Asia also helped to sustain
slavery. French ships took European goods to Asia, where they
acquired cowry shells and Indian textiles that were highly valued
in West Africa. Traders exchanged these goods in Africa for slaves,
who were sent to the colonies of France in the Americas. “The
circle was completed,” says the Yale Center for the Study of
Globalisation, “when sugar and other goods from the Americas were
loaded on board and shipped back to France.”

When the French East India Company started trading in India,

they entered an already well-established, complex economic system,
an intricate network of production, negotiation, delivery, and distribution.
Large commercial fleets as well as prosperous shore-based businesses
were run by Indian merchants. Weavers and merchants worked with
overland freight operators and brokers, who worked with exporters
and ship owners. These agents had also to negotiate with local
state officials for commercial privileges. The European traders had
to learn well-established rules and practices and successfully
collaborate with indigenous envoys.

The factories of all the European trading groups were to be

found in practically the same places. At the peak of the Indian
trade, the demand for Indian goods exceeded the supply by weavers
and other artisans; even so there was no serious rivalry initially.

Advent of the Europeans in India

✫

The Danes

The Danish East India Company was established in 1616, and

in 1620, they founded a factory at Tranquebar near Tanjore,

on the eastern coast of India. Their principal settlement was

at Serampore near Calcutta. The Danish factories, which were

not important at any time, were sold to the British government

in 1845. The Danes are better known for their missionary

activities than for commerce.

Why the English Succeeded

against Other European
Powers

Of all the European nations who came as traders to India

after new sea routes were discovered, England emerged as

the most powerful and successful by the end of the 18th

century. The major factors which can be attributed for the

success of the English against other European powers—

Portugal, the Netherlands, France, and Denmark—in the

world in general and in India in particular were as follows.

Structure and Nature of the Trading
Companies

The English East India Company, formed through amalgamation

of several rival companies at home, was controlled by a board

of directors whose members were elected annually. The

shareholders of the company exercised considerable influence,

as the votes could be bought and sold through purchase of

shares. The trading companies of France and Portugal were

largely owned by the State, and their nature was in many ways

feudalistic.

But as the three companies—the Dutch, the English, and the
French—grew more competitive, the English, better funded and
better conversant in local business practices and customs, were
able to expand their factory outposts to larger industrial towns under
their jurisdiction. Gradually, these commercial strongholds turned
into political enclaves, ultimately enabling the English to expand
and consolidate their power and control all over India.

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

In the French company, the monarch had more than 60

per cent share and, its directors were nominated by the

monarch from the shareholders who were supposed to carry

out the decisions of two high commissioners appointed by

the government. The shareholders took very little interest in

promoting the prosperity of the company, because the State

guaranteed a dividend to the shareholders. The lack of public

interest could be inferred from the fact that between 1725

and 1765, there was no meeting of the shareholders and the

company was simply managed as a department of the State.

Naval Superiority

The Royal Navy of Britain was not only the largest, it was

the most advanced of its times. The victory against the

Spanish Armada and against the French at Trafalgar had put

the Royal Navy at the peak of the European naval forces.

In India too, the British were able to defeat the Portuguese

and the French due to strong and fast movement of the naval

ships. The English learnt from the Portuguese the importance

of an efficient navy and improved their own fleet

technologically.

Industrial Revolution

The Industrial Revolution started in England in the early 18th

century, with the invention of new machines like the spinning

Jenny, steam engine, the power loom, and several others.

These machines greatly improved production in the fields of

textiles, metallurgy, steam power, and agriculture. The

industrial revolution reached other European nations late, and

this helped England to maintain its hegemony.

Military Skill and Discipline

The British soldiers were a disciplined lot and well-trained.

The British commanders were strategists who tried new

tactics in warfare. Technological developments equipped the

military well. All this combined to enable smaller groups of

English fighters defeat larger armies.

Stable Government

With the exception of the Glorious Revolution of 1688,

Britain witnessed stable government with efficient monarchs.

Advent of the Europeans in India

✫

Other European nations like France witnessed violent

revolution in 1789 and afterwards the Napoleonic Wars.

Napoleon’s defeat in 1815 significantly weakened France’s

position, and from then on it was forced to side with Britain.

The Italians got united as a nation as late in 1861. The Dutch

and Spain were also involved in the 80-years war in the 17th

century, which weakened Portuguese imperialism. The Dutch

East India Company, affected by bankruptcy in 1800 coupled

with the revolution in 1830, was forced to sell its possessions

to Britain and quit Asia.

Lesser Zeal for Religion

Britain was less zealous about religion and less interested

in spreading Christianity, as compared to Spain, Portugal, or

the Dutch. Thus, its rule was far more acceptable to the

subjects than that of other colonial powers.

Use of Debt Market

One of the major and innovative reasons why Britain succeeded

between the mid-18th century and the mid-19th century,

while other European nations fell, was that it used the debt

markets to fund its wars. The world’s first central bank—

the Bank of England—was established to sell

government debt to the money markets on the promise of

a decent return on Britain’s defeating rival countries like

France and Spain. Britain was thus enabled to spend much

more on its military than its rivals. Britain’s rival France

could not match the expenditure of the English; between

1694 and 1812, first under the monarchs, then under the

revolutionary governments, and finally under Napoleon

Bonaparte, France simply went bankrupt with its outdated

ways of raising money.

Summary

Why a Sea Route to India

(i) Spirit of renaissance in the 15th-century Europe

(ii) European economy growing rapidly, leading to prosperity and

demand for luxury goods; increase in the supply of meat
requiring spices for preservation

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

(iii) Capture of Constantinople in 1453, and Syria and Egypt later

by the Ottoman Turks calling for a new route to reach India
without dealing with Arabs and Turks

(iv) Venice and Genoa too small to stand up to the Turks

(v) Spain and Portugal aided with money and men by the North

Europeans and by ships and technical knowledge by the
Genoese

(vi) The Portuguese the pioneers, followed by the Dutch,

English, Danes, and the French respectively to reach India

The Portuguese
Vasco Da Gama discovered sea route to India in 1498.
Vasco’s second visit in 1502 led to the establishment of trading

stations at Calicut, Cochin, and Cannanore.

Francisco de Almeida (1505–09) First governor, initiated the blue

water policy (cartaze system).

Alfonso de Albuquerque (1509–1515) Considered to be the

founder of the Portuguese power in India: captured Goa from
Bijapur; persecuted Muslims; captured Bhatkal from Sri
Krishna Deva Rai (1510) of Vijayanagara; and initiated the
policy of marrying with the natives of India and banned the
practice of

sati in his area of influence.

Nino da Cunha (1529–38) shifted the capital from Cochin to

Goa in 1530. In his rule, Diu and Bassein came under the
Portuguese occupation from Gujarat King Bahadur Shah.
Bahadur Shah got killed in 1537 at Diu while negotiating
with the Portuguese.

Factors for Decline of the Portuguese in India (a) Emergence

of powerful dynasties in Egypt, Persia, and north India and
the appearance of the Marathas as neighbours; (b) political
fears aroused by the activities of Jesuit missionaries, and
hatred of persecution (such as inquisition) that caused
reaction against Portuguese spiritual pressure; (c) rise of
the English and Dutch commercial ambitions challenging the
Portuguese supremacy; (d) rampant corruption, greed, and
selfishness along with piracy and clandestine trade practices
of the Portuguese administration in India; (e) diversion of
Portuguese colonising ambitions towards the West due to
the discovery of Brazil.

The Dutch

(i) The United East India Company of the Netherlands

(Verehgidge Oost Indische Compagnie), formed in March

Advent of the Europeans in India

✫

1602 by the Charter of Dutch Parliament, had the powers
to wage wars, make treaty, and build forts.

(ii) Dutch Factories in India Masulipatnam (1605), Pulicat

(1610), Surat (1616), Bimlipatam (1641), Karikal (1645),
Chinsurah (1653), Cassimbazar (Kasimbazar), Baranagore,
Patna, Balasore, Nagapatam (1658), and Cochin (1663)

(iii) Decline in India The defeat of the Dutch in the Anglo-Dutch

rivalry and the shifting of Dutch attention towards the Malay
Archipelago

(iv) Battle of Bidara (1759) The English defeated the Dutch.

The English

Factors for Foundation Drake’s voyage round the world, and
English victory over the mighty Spanish Armada leading to
great ambitions
Formation English East India Company was formed on
December 31, 1600 by the charter issued by Queen Elizabeth
I, which gave the company monopoly to trade in the East
Indies for 15 years.

Settlements in India (i) With Captain Thomas Best’s victory over

the Portuguese (1612), the English established their first
factory at Surat (1613). Subsequently, Sir Thomas Roe
secured permission from Jehangir to establish factories at
Agra, Ahmedabad, and Broach.

(ii) Bombay came under the control of the Company, with Charles

II (who received it as a part of the Portuguese dowry) leasing
it out to the English Company for an annual rent of 10 pounds.

(iii) Madras with the Fort St. George replaced Masulipatnam as

the English headquarters on the east coast, when the former
was given by the Chandragiri chief to the English in 1639.

(iv) The city of Calcutta grew from the development of three

villages Sutanuti, Gobindapur, and Kalikata secured from the
Mughal governor of Bengal. The fortified settlement was
named Fort William (1700), and it became the seat of British
power in India till 1911.

Farrukhsiyar’s Farmans In 1717, the Mughal Emperor Farrukhsiyar’s

farmans, called Magna Carta of the East India Company, gave
significant privileges to the Company in Bengal, Gujarat, and
Hyderabad.

Merger of Companies In 1635, a rival company named Courteen

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Association later called the Assada company, formed by Sir
William Courteen, was given license to trade by Charles I.
In 1657, both the companies merged.
In 1698, another rival company emerged. In 1702, the rivalry
between the old and the new company came to an end, but
their final amalgamation took place in 1708 under the title
‘The United Company of Merchants of England Trading to the
East Indies’, after the arbitration of the Earl of Godolphin.
This Company ruled in India till 1858.

The French
Foundation In 1664, Colbert, a minister of Louis XIV, laid the

foundations of

Compagnie des Indes Orientales.

Settlements in India Pondicherry, developed as headquarters, was

granted to Francois Martin, the director of Masulipatnam
factory, by Valikondapuram governor Sher Khan Lodi in 1673.
Finally incorporated into the Indian Union in 1954.

Anglo-French Rivalry in India The Anglo-French rivalry in India

coincided with the wars between the English and French in
Europe.

Causes

●

For protection and expansion of commercial interests.

●

Political developments in southern India and Europe

provided pretexts to contest their claims which culminated
in three Carnatic wars.
First Carnatic War (1740–48) It was an extension of the

Anglo-French rivalry in Europe and ended in 1748 with the
Treaty of Aix-La Chapelle.

Second Carnatic War (1749–54) Although inconclusive, it

undermined the French power in South India vis-à-vis the
English.

Third Carnatic War (1758–63)

●

A decisive war, known for

the Battle of Wandiwash (1760–61)

●

An echo of the Anglo-French struggle in Europe

●

By the Treaty of Paris (1763), the French were allowed
to use Indian settlements for commercial purposes only
and fortification of settlements were banned.

Causes of the French Failure

●

Inadequate Military and Financial

Support

●

France’s Involvement in Europe

●

Ill-managed Policy of Imperial France

●

Lack of Commercial Incentive to the French Company

●

Sound Commercial Base of the English Company

CHAPTER 4

India on the Eve of

British Conquest

The first half of the 18th century saw the decline of the

mighty Mughals, who had been the envy of their

contemporaries for almost two centuries. The reign of

Aurangzeb (1658–1707) proved to signify the beginning of

the end of Mughal rule in India. It is argued that Aurangzeb’s

misguided policies weakened the stability of the state and

the decline gained momentum after his death due to wars

of succession and weak rulers. Though Muhammad Shah ruled

for a long spell of 29 years (1719–48), a revival of the

imperial fortunes did not take place as he was an incompetent

ruler. Muhammad Shah’s reign witnessed the establishment

of the independent states of Hyderabad, Bengal, Awadh, and

Punjab. Several local chiefs began to assert their independence

and the Marathas began to make their bid to inherit the
imperial mantle.

Challenges before the Mughals

External Challenges

In the absence of internal strength, the Mughals could not

put a tough front against external challenges which came in

the form of several invasions from the north-west. The north-
western borders had been neglected by the later Mughals and
not much effort was expended in protecting the border.

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Nadir Shah, the Persian emperor, attacked India in

1738–39, conquered Lahore, and defeated the Mughal army

at Karnal on February 13, 1739. Later, Muhammad Shah was

captured, and Delhi was looted and devastated. According to

an estimate, apart from the Peacock Throne and the Kohinoor

diamond, seventy crore rupees were collected from the

official treasury and the safes of the rich nobles. Nadir Shah

gained the strategically important Mughal territory to the

west of the Indus including Kabul. Thus, India once again

became vulnerable to the attacks from the north-west.

Ahmad Shah Abdali (or Ahmad Shah Durrani), who

was elected the successor of Nadir Shah after the latter’s

death in 1747, invaded India several times between 1748 and

1767. He continuously harassed the Mughals who tried to

buy peace in 1751–52 by ceding Punjab to him. In 1757,

Abdali captured Delhi and left behind an Afghan caretaker

to watch over the Mughal emperor. Before his return, Abdali

had recognised Alamgir II as the Mughal emperor and the

Rohilla chief, Najib-ud-Daula, as Mir Bakhshi of the empire,

who was to act as personal ‘supreme agent’ of Abdali. In

1758, Najib-ud-Daula was expelled from Delhi by the

Maratha chief, Raghunath Rao, who also captured Punjab. In

1759, Ahmad Shah Abdali returned to India to take revenge

on the Marathas. In 1761, Abdali defeated the Marathas in

the Third Battle of Panipat. The last of Abdali’s invasions

came in 1767.

View

Nader Shah was Mughal emperor for only fifty-seven days, in
1739, but those days created aftershocks that transformed India's
politics. They broke existing centres of authority, massively
shrinking the scope of Mughal power. They set loose bands of
mounted warriors who ransacked the countryside seeking wealth
from villages and towns. They pushed traders behind the walls
of whichever power had the strongest forts. For a short period
plunder, rather than negotiation, became the most effective tool
for creating new centres of wealth. Those fifty-seven days laid
the ground which allowed the East India Company to conquer
territory in India for the first time.

—Jon Wilson,

India Conquered

India on the Eve of British Conquest

✫

Why Many Empire-shaking Battles at Panipat?

Panipat and its adjacent region, located in present Haryana on the
banks of the Yamuna and between the fertile plains of the Ganga
and Indus rivers, have witnessed several battles. These battles
changed the course of Indian history at different points of time.

●

The first Battle of Panipat in 1526 was between Babur and

Ibrahim Lodi. The result of the battle laid the foundation of the
Mughal Empire by ending the rule of the Delhi Sultanate.

●

The Second Battle of Panipat in 1556 was between Akbar

and Hemu; it decided in favour of the continuation of the Mughal
rule.

●

The Third Battle of Panipat in 1761 between the Marathas

and Ahmad Shah Abdali put an end to the Maratha ambition of
ruling over India.

Why Panipat was a favourite battlefield

●

Panipat had a strategic location. One of the parties of the

war generally came from the north/northwest through the Khyber
Pass to get hold over Delhi, the political capital of northern India.
To move a military through rough terrains—deserts of Rajasthan
or the other northern areas infested with dense forests—was very
risky and difficult. On the other hand, the rulers at Delhi considered
Panipat as a confrontable strategic ground and hence they preferred
to take the fight there.

●

Its proximity to Delhi made it easier for the Indian rulers

to transport weapons, military, and food supplies, etc., to the
battleground, and still keep the capital insulated from the conflict
at hand.

●

Panipat’s surrounding region has a flat ground which was

suitable for cavalry movement—the main mode of warfare at the
time.

●

After the construction of the Grand Trunk Road by Sher Shah

Suri (1540–45), Panipat was on this route. It became easier for
conquerors to find their way there.

●

The duration of monsoon rainfall in the region is short in

comparison to other areas, making it easier to fight.

●

The artisans/smiths of these regions were experts in making

warfare-related materials, and, hence, it became easier for forces
of both parties to replenish their war materials.

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Weak Rulers after Aurangzeb—An
Internal Challenge

Bahadur Shah I (ruled 1707–12) After a nearly two-

year-long war of succession, the 63-year-old Prince Mu’azzam,

the eldest son of Aurangzeb, became the emperor, taking the

title Bahadur Shah. He was later called Bahadur Shah I). He

had killed his brothers Muhammad Azam and Kam Bakhsh

in the war of succession. Khafi Khan gave the title of ‘Shah-

i-Bekhabar’ to Bahadur Shah.

He adopted a pacific policy with the Marathas, the

Rajputs, and the Jats. Shahu, the Maratha prince, was released

from Mughal captivity, and Rajput chiefs were confirmed in

their respective states. However, the Sikh leader Banda

Bahadur attacked the Muslims in Punjab, and, hence, the

emperor took action against him. Bahadur Shah I died in

February 1712.

Jahandar Shah (ruled 1712–13) With the help of

Zulfikar Khan, Jahandar Shah became the emperor. Zulfikar

Khan was appointed prime minister; he introduced izara

system to improve the financial condition of the empire.

Jahandar Shah abolished Jaziya.

Farrukhsiyar (ruled 1713–1719) After killing Jahandar

Shah with the help of Sayyid brothers—Abdulla Khan and

Hussain Ali (known as ‘King Makers’), Farrukhsiyar became

the new emperor. He followed a policy of religious tolerance

by abolishing Jaziya and pilgrimage tax. In 1717, he gave

farmans to the British. In 1719, the Sayyid brothers, with

the help of Peshwa Balaji Vishwanath, dethroned Farrukhsiyar.

Later, he was blinded and killed. It was the first time in the

Mughal history that an emperor was killed by his nobles.

Rafi-ud-Darajat (ruled Feb. 28–June 6, 1719) He

ruled for the shortest period among the Mughals.

View

He (Bahadur Shah I) was the last Emperor of whom anything
favourable can be said. Henceforth, the rapid and complete
abasement and practical dissolution of the Empire are typified
in the incapacity and political insignificance of its sovereigns.

—Sidney Owen

India on the Eve of British Conquest

✫

Rafi-ud-Daula (ruled June 6–Sep. 17, 1719) The

Sayyid brothers placed Rafi-ud-Daula with the title Shah

Jahan II on the throne. The new emperor was an opium

addict.

Muhammad Shah (ruled 1719–48) After the death of

Rafi-ud-Daula, Raushan Akhtar became the choice of the

Sayyid Brothers. Muhammad Shah, as he came to be known

in history, was given the title of ‘Rangeela’ due to his

luxurious lifestyle.

Muhammad Shah, with the help of Nizam-ul-Mulk,

killed the Sayyid Brothers. In 1724, Nizam-ul-Mulk became

the wazir and founded the independent state of Hyderabad.

In 1737, Baji Rao I, the Maratha Peshwa, invaded Delhi with

a small army of 500 horsemen. In 1739, Nadir Shah defeated

the Mughals in the Battle of Karnal and later imprisoned

Muhammad Shah and annexed areas west of the Indus into

the Persian empire.

Ahmad Shah Bahadur (ruled 1748–1754) Ahmad

Shah was an incompetent ruler who left the state affairs in

the hands of Udham Bai, the ‘Queen Mother’. Udham Bai,

given the title of Qibla-i-Alam, was a lady of poor intellect

who ruled with the help of her paramour, Javid Khan (a

notorious eunuch).

Alamgir II (ruled 1754–59) Alamgir II was a son of

Emperor Jahandar Shah. Ahmed Shah Abdali, the Iranian

invader, reached Delhi in January 1757. During his reign, the

Battle of Plassey was fought in June 1757. Alamgir II was

assassinated.

Shah Jahan III (ruled 1759–60) Also known as Muhi-

ul-millat, he was placed on the throne as a result of the

intrigues in Delhi, but was latter deposed through Maratha

intervention.

Shah Alam II (ruled Oct. 1760–July 1788; Oct.

1788–Nov. 1806) His reign saw two decisive battles—the

Third Battle of Panipat (1761) and the Battle of Buxar

(1764). In 1765, according to the terms of Treaty of

Allahabad (August 1765), he was taken under the East India

Company’s protection and resided at Allahabad. He also

issued a farman granting to the Company in perpetuity the

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Diwani (the right to collect revenue) of Bengal, Bihar, and

Orissa. In 1772, the Marathas took him to Delhi where he

lived till 1803. In 1803, he again accepted the protection

of the English, after the defeat of Daulat Rao Scindia by the

English. Afterwards, the Mughal emperor became the pensioner

of the English.

Akbar Shah II (ruled 1806–37) He gave the title of

‘Raja’ to Rammohan Roy. During his regime, in 1835, the

East India Company discontinued calling itself subject of the

Mughal emperor, and stopped issuing coins in the name of

the Mughal emperor.

Bahadur Shah II (ruled 1837–57) Bahadur Shah II or

Bahadur Shah Zafar (Zafar being his surname) was the last

Mughal emperor. The Revolt of 1857 had made a futile

attempt to declare him the Emperor of India. He was captured

by the English and sent to Rangoon where he died in 1862.

In legal terms, the Mughal Empire came to an end on

November 1, 1858 with the declaration of Queen Victoria.

Causes of Decline of the
Mughal Empire

Why the Mughal Empire declined has been a subject of

debate among historians. Scholarly opinion can be divided

along two broad lines—those who view the matter as

generally empire-related and those who regard the

developments as region-related. The empire-related or

Mughal-centric view sees the causes of the decline within

the structure and functioning of the empire itself. The region-

related view finds the causes of Mughal decline in the turmoil

and instability in the different parts of the empire. The

decline was due to both aspects.

The process of disintegration of the Mughal Empire

began during the reign of Aurangzeb, but it picked up

momentum only after his death in 1707. At his death,

conditions were not such that the process of decline could

not be checked. Although Mughal authority was challenged

by several chiefs and rulers, none could assert independence

India on the Eve of British Conquest

✫

in the face of the imperial might. The Sikhs, Marathas, and

Rajputs did not possess the capacity to overthrow the empire;

they merely resisted Mughal power to gain and keep their

independence in their respective territories. Thus, if the

successors of Aurangzeb had been capable rulers, the empire

might not have fallen. Most of the emperors who came after

Aurangzeb proved to be incapable, weak, and licentious

monarchs who hastened the process of disintegration of the

empire and, finally, its collapse.

The major factors which contributed to the downfall

of the Mughal Empire are discussed below.

Shifting Allegiance of Zamindars

Two classes shared the power of the State with the emperor

during the medieval period—the zamindars and the nobles.

The zamindars were hereditary owners of their lands who

enjoyed certain privileges on hereditary basis, and were

variously known as rais, rajas, thakurs, khuts, or deshmukhs.

They occupied an important place in the empire because they

helped in the collection of revenue and in local administration,

for which they maintained soldiers. Though the Mughals had

tried to curb the power of the zamindars and maintain direct

contact with the peasants, they had not wholly succeeded.

During the reign of Aurangzeb itself, there was a marked

increase in the power and influence of the zamindars. The

biggest fallout of this was that regional loyalties were

encouraged. Many local zamindars helped the nobility, the

other powerful class within the empire, to take advantage of

the weakness of the empire and carve out independent

kingdoms for themselves.

Jagirdari Crisis

The nobility comprised people who were either assigned

large jagirs and mansabs or appointed subahdars of Mughal

subas and given the responsibility of maintaining these. To

this class belonged many Rajput rulers, subahdars, and

mansabdars. Mughal rule has often been defined as “the rule

of the nobility”, because these nobles played a central role

in administering the empire. Although Akbar had provided a

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Views

The roots of the disintegration of the Mughal empire may be
found in the Medieval Indian economy; the stagnation of trade,
industry and scientific development within the limits of that
economy; the growing financial crisis which took the form of
a crisis of the

jagirdari system and affected every branch of

state activity; the inability of the nobility to realise in the
circumstances their ambitions in the service of the state and
consequently the struggle of factions and the bid of ambitious
nobles for independent dominion; the inability of the Mughal
emperors to accommodate the Marathas and to adjust their
claims within the framework of the Mughal empire, and the
consequent breakdown of the attempt to create a composite
ruling class in India; and the impact of all these developments
on politics at the court and in the country, and upon the security
of the north-western passes. Individual failings and faults of
character also played their due role but they have necessarily
to be seen against the background of these deeper, more
impersonal factors

—Satish Chandra,

Parties and Politics

at the Mughal Court, 1707–40

Various explanations are put forward for the revolts which brought
about the collapse of the Mughal Empire... Here our main concern
is with what our 17th and early 18th century authorities have
to say. And it will be seen that they, at any rate, put the greatest
store by the economic and administrative causes of the upheaval
and know little of religious reaction or national consciousness...
Thus was the Mughal Empire destroyed. No new order was, or
could be, created by the forces ranged against it.

—Irfan Habib,

The Agrarian System of

Mughal India

The more I study the period, the more I am convinced that
military inefficiency was the principal, if not the sole, cause of
that empire’s final collapse. All other defects and weaknesses
were as nothing in comparison with this...Long before it
disappeared, it had lost all military energy at the centre, and
was ready to crumble to pieces at the first touch. The rude
hand of no Persian or Afghan conqueror, no Nadir, no Ahmad
Abdali, the genius of no European adventurer, a Dupleix or a

India on the Eve of British Conquest

✫

Clive, was needed to precipitate it into the abyss. The empire
of the Mughals was already doomed before any of these had
appeared on the scene; and had they never been heard of there
can be little doubt that some Mahratta bandit or Sikh freebooter
would in due time have seated himself on the throne of Akbar
and Shahjahan.

—William Irvine,

Army of the Indian Mughals

A common impression is, that...the decline, fall of the Mughal
Empire were due to the degeneracy of its sovereigns. But...it
was irretrievably ruined in the reign of Aurangzeb, a monarch
of great ability, energy and determination, but lacking in political
insight, and a bigoted Mussulman. He struck the first mortal
blow by reversing Akbar’s wise and generous policy of ignoring
distinctions of race and religion, and reimposing the

jizya or poll

tax, on his Hindu subjects; whereby he estranged them, and
turned the noblest and most warlike of them—the Rajputs,
hitherto the staunchest supporters of the throne—into deadly and
persistent enemies. And Shivaji and his followers not only
vindicated their independence, but struck a second mortal blow
at the integrity of the Empire. They destroyed its military
reputation. They exhausted its accumulated treasure. They
spread disorder and devastation over the Deccan and beyond
it...They established an

imperium in imperio. Thus the Empire,

though not dissolved, was hopelessly debilitated. The effective
authority of the central government was thenceforth in
abeyance...Nadir Shah, after inflicting the extremity of humiliation
on the Emperor and his capital, annexed the Imperial territory
west of the Indus. The dissolution of the Empire was complete.

—Sidney Owen,

The Fall of the Mughal Empire

The Mughal Empire and with it the Maratha overlordship of
Hindustan fell because of the rottenness at the core of Indian
society. The rottenness showed itself in the form of military and
political helplessness. The country could not defend itself; royalty
was hopelessly depraved or imbecile; the nobles were selfish
and short-sighted; corruption, inefficiency and treachery disgraced
all branches of the public service. In the midst of this decay
and confusion, our literature, art and even true religion had
perished.

—J.N. Sarkar,

Fall of the Mughal Empire, Vol. IV

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

well-knit organisation for them, there was divisiveness among

the nobility on the basis of religion, homeland, and tribe, and

each category formed a group of its own. Mutual rivalry,

jealousy, and contest for power among the various groups

during the rule of the later Mughals (in the absence of a

strong central leadership) not only reduced the prestige of

the emperor but also contributed to the decline of the empire.

Rise of Regional Aspirations

Aurangzeb’s reign itself witnessed rebellions by regional

groups like the Jats, Sikhs, and Marathas. They defied the

authority of the Mughal state in their bid to create kingdoms

of their own. They did not succeed in their efforts, but they

influenced the future course of political events in their

respective regions. Their continuous struggle against the

empire for political ascendancy weakened the empire

Causes of the Mughals’ Downfall in a Nutshell

Some of the main causes for the decline of the Mughals, briefly

put, were as follows:

(i) The government of the Mughals was a personal despotism,

and so its success depended on the character of the reigning
ruler. The later Mughals were worthless and neglected the
administration of the state.

(ii) With the absence of a definite law of succession, there always

occurred a war of succession; this weakened the stability of
the government and fostered partisanship at the cost of
patriotism.

(iii) The degeneration of the rulers led to the degeneration of the

nobility, with factious quarrels and intrigues costing the empire
heavily.

(iv) The deterioration of the army also proved disastrous for the

empire.

(v) The empire had become too vast and unwieldy to be efficiently

governed from a central authority under weak rulers, especially
under the existing conditions of transport and communication.

(vi) Aurangzeb’s religious policy was largely responsible for leading

to revolts by Rajputs, Sikhs, Jats, and Marathas.

(vii) Aurangzeb’s Deccan policy was a complete failure and was

an important cause of the downfall of the Mughal empire.

(viii) Invasions of Irani and Durrani kingdoms gave a death blow

to the Mughal empire.

India on the Eve of British Conquest

✫

considerably. Aurangzeb, and after him Bahadur Shah I, by

attempting to suppress the Rajputs, spurred them to battle

against the Mughals. The later Mughals made an effort to

follow a policy of reconciliation with the Rajputs, but by then

it was already too late: the Rajputs no longer trusted the

Mughals enough to ally with them for the welfare of the

empire.

The Marathas too were becoming a formidable enemy.

Their aim was at first limited only to regaining control over

the region of Maharashtra; but it soon went on to include

getting legal sanction from the Mughal emperor for collecting

sardeshmukhi and chauth throughout India. They forged

northwards and, by 1740, succeeded in spreading their

influence over the provinces of Gujarat, Malwa, and

Bundelkhand. The Rajput struggle against the empire and the

growing ambition and power of the Marathas, thus, adversely

affected the Mughal might.

Economic and Administrative Problems

The number of amirs and their ranks or mansabs had increased

sharply over time; there was little land left to be distributed

among them as jagirs. Aurangzeb tried to solve the problem

of acute shortage of jagirs or bejagiri by showing enhanced

income from the jagirs on record. But this was a short-

sighted measure as the amirs tried to recover the recorded

income from their jagirs by pressurising the peasantry. So,

both the amirs and the peasantry were antagonised. Then there

were the wars, the luxurious lifestyles of the emperors and

amirs alike, and the reduction in khalisa land, all of which

burdened the state. The result was that the expenditure of

the state much exceeded its income.

There was, moreover, no significant scientific and

technological advance that could have improved a stagnant

economy. The once flourishing trade did not enrich the

empire’s coffers even as the inroads by European traders

grew along coastal India.

These economic and administrative problems only

multiplied following the death of Aurangzeb. The empire had

become too vast to be efficiently administered by a centralised

system when the rulers were weak and incompetent.

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Rise of Regional States

The states that emerged as a result of the decline of the

Mughal Empire can be classified into the following three

broad categories:

(i) Successor States These were the Mughal provinces

that turned into states after breaking away from the empire.

Though they did not challenge the sovereignty of the Mughal

ruler, the establishment of virtually independent and hereditary

authority by their governors showed the emergence of

autonomous polity in these territories. Some examples are

Awadh, Bengal, and Hyderabad.

(ii) Independent Kingdoms These states came into

existence primarily due to the destabilisation of the Mughal

control over the provinces, examples being Mysore and the

Rajput states.

(iii) The New States These were the states set up by

the rebels against the Mughal empire, examples being the

Maratha, the Sikh, and the Jat states.

Survey of Regional Kingdoms

Hyderabad

The founder of the Asaf-Jah house of Hyderabad was Kilich

Khan, popularly known as Nizam-ul-Mulk. It was Zulfikar

Khan who had first conceived the idea of an independent state

in the Deccan. But with his death in 1713, the dream

remained unfulfilled. Kilich Khan, disgusted with the Mughal

emperor who had appointed Mubariz Khan as a full-fledged

viceroy of the Deccan, decided to fight Mubariz Khan. He

defeated and later killed Mubariz Khan in the Battle of Shakr-

Kheda (1724). He now assumed control of the Deccan. In

1725, he became the viceroy and conferred on himself the

title of Asaf-Jah.
Awadh

The founder of the independent principality of Awadh was

Saadat Khan, popularly known as Burhan-ul-Mulk. Saadat

Khan was a Shia. He had joined in a conspiracy against the

Sayyid brothers, which resulted in his being given an increased

mansab. Later, driven out of the court, he was prompted to

found a new independent state. Saadat Khan committed

India on the Eve of British Conquest

✫

suicide due to pressure from Nadir Shah who was demanding

a huge booty from him. He was succeeded by Safdar Jang

as the Nawab of Awadh.
Bengal

Murshid Kuli Khan was the founder of the independent state

of Bengal. He was a capable ruler and made Bengal a

prosperous state. He was succeeded in 1727 by his son Shuja-

ud-din. His successor, Sarfaraz Khan, was killed in 1740 by

Alivardi Khan, the deputy governor of Bihar at Gheria, who

assumed power and made himself independent of the Mughal

emperor by giving yearly tribute.
The Rajputs

The Rajputs tried to re-establish their independence in the

18th century. This forced the Mughal ruler Bahadur Shah I

to march against Ajit Singh (1708), who had formed an

alliance with Jai Singh II and Durgadas Rathor. But the

alliance was broken and the situation was saved for the

Mughals. At one time the Rajputs controlled the entire

territory extending from the south of Delhi up to the western

coast.
Mysore

Another important state to make its appearance in the 18th

century was that of Mysore. This territory located at the

junction of the Eastern and Western Ghats was ruled by the

Wodeyars. Various powers, interested in this territory, turned

the area into a constant battlefield. In the end, the Mysore

state was brought under the rule of Haider Ali who ruled the

state but not without trouble. He was involved in constant

warfare with the British and so was his son Tipu Sultan.
Kerala

Martanda Varma established an independent state of Kerala

with Travancore as his capital. He extended the boundaries

of his state from Kanyakumari to Cochin. He made efforts

to organise his army along the Western model and adopted

various measures to develop his state.
The Jats

The agriculturist Jat settlers living around Delhi, Mathura, and

Agra revolted against the oppressive policies of Aurangzeb.

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

The first major rebellion by the Jats against Mughal imperial

forces occurred in Mathura district in 1669. It was led by

Gokula. It was not successful. After some initial setbacks,

Churaman and Badan Singh succeeded in setting up the Jat

kingdom of Bharatpur in the 18th century. But it was under

Suraj Mal that Jat power reached its zenith. He not only

provided an efficient system of administration but also

greatly extended the territory of the state. His state included

territories from Ganga in the east to Chambal in the south

and included the Subahs of Agra, Mathura, Meerut, and

Aligarh. However, the Jat state suffered a decline after the

death of Suraj Mal in 1763. Thereafter, the state split into

small areas controlled by petty zamindars who mainly lived

by plunder.
The Sikhs

In 1675, Aurangzeb arrested and executed the ninth Sikh guru,

Guru Tegh Bahadur, who had refused to embrace Islam.

According to Sikh tradition, the guru had supported the rights

of Kashmiri Pandits and protected them against persecution

by the Mughals. Guru Gobind Singh, who succeeded Guru

Tegh Bahadur, openly rebelled against Aurangzeb. He

transformed the Sikhs into a militant sect in defence of their

religion and liberties. Banda Bahadur, who later assumed the

leadership of the Sikhs in 1708, was defeated and killed. In

the wake of the invasions of Nadir Shah and Ahmad Shah

Abdali, the Sikhs once again asserted their authority. At this

stage, they organised themselves into 12 misls or

confederacies which exercised control over different parts

of the kingdom. The credit for establishing a strong kingdom

of Punjab goes to Ranjit Singh. He was the son of Mahan

Singh, the leader of the Sukarchakiya misl. Ranjit Singh

brought under control the area extending from the Sutlej to

the Jhelum. He conquered Lahore in 1799 and Amritsar in

1802. By the Treaty of Amritsar with the British, Ranjit Singh

acknowledged the British right over the Cis-Sutlej territories.

Ranjit Singh proved to be an efficient administrator. He

greatly modernised his army with the help of Europeans. But

towards the close of his reign, the English forced him to

sign the Tripartite Treaty in 1838 with Shah Shuja and the

India on the Eve of British Conquest

✫

English Company whereby he agreed to provide passage to

the British troops through Punjab with a view to placing Shah

Shuja on the throne of Kabul. Ranjit Singh died in 1839. His

successors could not keep the state intact, and, soon enough,

the British took control over it.
The Marathas

Perhaps the most formidable province to emerge was that

of the Marathas. Under the capable leadership of the Peshwas,

the Marathas uprooted the Mughal authority from Malwa and

Gujarat and established their rule. At one time they claimed

the right to be the chief inheritors of the Mughal dominion,

but their authority was challenged by Ahmad Shah Abdali in

the Third Battle of Panipat (1761). The Marathas quickly

recovered from the defeat and offered the most formidable

challenge to the English East India Company in the struggle

for political supremacy in India.
Rohilakhand and Farukhabad

The states of Rohilakhand and the kingdom of the Bangash

Pathans were a fallout of the Afghan migration into India.

Large-scale immigration of Afghans into India took place in

mid-18th century because of political and economic turmoil

in Afghanistan. Ali Muhammad Khan took advantage of the

collapse of authority in North India following Nadir Shah’s

invasion, to set up a petty kingdom, Rohilakhand. This was

the area of the Himalayan foothills between Kumaon in the

north and the Ganga in the south. The Rohillas, as the

inhabitants of Rohilakhand were known, suffered heavily at

the hands of the other powers in the area, the Jats and the

Awadh rulers and, later, the Marathas and the British.

Mohammad Khan Bangash, an Afghan, set up an independent

kingdom to the east of Delhi in the area around Farrukhabad,

during the reigns of Farrukhsiyar and Muhammad Shah.

Nature and Limitations of Regional States

The independent political systems that emerged in the

provinces continued to maintain ties with the Mughal imperial

authority and acknowledged the emperor’s importance as an

umbrella. Even rebel chieftains of the Marathas and Sikhs

recognised the Mughal emperor as the supreme authority.

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

The polity that emerged in these states was regional

in character, and functional with the collaborative support of

the different local groups like the zamindars, merchants, local

nobles, and chieftains. The provincial rulers had to take care

of these various local interests in order to maintain themselves.

Of course, there were exceptions; for instance, in Mysore,

rulers did not recognise the local chieftains.

The regional states had certain limitations. The provincial

rulers failed to develop a system based on sound financial,

administrative, and military organisation. Though some of

them tried to modernise, notably Mysore, on the whole, they

were backward in science and technology. Another drawback

was the constant warfare these states had with the neighbouring

regional powers—wars in which none could ultimately

dominate. In fact, these states were strong enough to

challenge Mughal power, but none was able to replace it with

a stable polity at an all-India level.

The jagirdari crisis intensified as income from

agriculture declined, and the number of contenders for a

share of the surplus multiplied. Though trade, internal and

foreign, continued without disruption and even prospered, the

rest of the economy stagnated.

Socio-Economic Conditions

India, in the 18th century, failed to make progress

economically, socially, or culturally, at an adequate pace.

India became a land of contrasts because extreme poverty

and extreme luxury existed side by side. The common

populace remained impoverished, backward, and oppressed

and lived at the bare subsistence level; the rich and the

powerful enjoyed a life of luxury and lavishness. But it is

worth noting that the life of the Indian masses was, by and

large, better in the 18th century than it was after 100 years

of British rule.

Agriculture

Though agriculture was technically backward, it was worked

by the hard labour of peasants. But this hard-working class

seldom got the fruits of their labour. Even though the

India on the Eve of British Conquest

✫

Views

Bear in mind that the commerce of India is the commerce of
the world and… he who can exclusively command it is the
dictator of Europe.

—Peter the Great

India was a far greater industrial and manufacturing nation than
any in Europe or any other in Asia. Her textile goods—the fine
products of her looms, in cotton, wool, linen and silk—were
famous over the civilised world; so were her exquisite jewellery
and her precious stones cut in every lovely form; so were her
pottery, porcelains, ceramics of every kind, quality, color and
beautiful shape; so were her fine works in metal—iron, steel,
silver and gold.
She had great architecture—equal in beauty to any in the
world. She had great engineering works. She had great merchants,
great businessmen, great bankers and financiers. Not only was
she the greatest shipbuilding nation, but she had great commerce
and trade by land and sea which extended to all known civilised
countries. Such was the India which the British found when they
came.

—J.T. Sunderland

For centuries the handloom weavers of Bengal had produced
some of the world’s most desirable fabrics, especially the fine
muslins, light as ‘woven air’, that were coveted by European
dressmakers. As late as the mid-eighteenth century, Bengal’s
textiles were still being exported to Egypt, Turkey and Persia
in the West, and to Java, China and Japan in the East, along
well-established trade routes, as well as to Europe.

—Shashi Tharoor,

An Era of Darkness

agricultural produce supported the rest of the society, a

peasant’s own reward was miserably inadequate. They were

forced to pay exorbitant amounts to the state, the zamindars,

the jagirdars, and the revenue-farmers. But this worsened

under the British rule.

Trade and Industry

On account of being self-sufficient in handicrafts and

agricultural products, India did not import foreign goods on

a large scale. On the other hand, its industrial and agricultural

products were in good demand in foreign markets. Hence,

its exports were more than its imports; trade was balanced

by import of silver and gold. India was known as a sink of

precious metals.

Items of Import From the Persian Gulf Region—

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

pearls, raw silk, wool, dates, dried fruits, and rose water; from

Arabia—coffee, gold, drugs, and honey; from China—tea,

sugar, porcelain, and silk; from Tibet—gold, musk, and

woollen cloth; from Africa—ivory and drugs; from Europe—

woollen cloth, copper, iron, lead and paper.

Items of Export Cotton textiles, raw silk and silk

fabrics, hardware, indigo, saltpetre, opium, rice, wheat, sugar,

pepper and other spices, precious stones, and drugs.

Important Centres of Textile Industry Dacca,

Murshidabad, Patna, Surat, Ahmedabad, Broach, Chanderi,

Burhanpur, Jaunpur, Varanasi, Lucknow, Agra, Multan, Lahore,

Masulipatnam, Aurangabad, Chicacole, Vishakhapatnam,

Bangalore, Coimbatore, Madurai, etc.; Kashmir was a centre

of woollen manufactures.

Ship-building Industry Maharashtra, the Andhra region,

and Bengal were the leaders in ship-building. Indian shipping

also flourished on the Kerala coast at Calicut and Quilon.

The Zamorin of Calicut used the Muslim Kunjali Maraikkars

(who were well known for their seafaring ability) for his navy.

Shivaji Bhonsle’s navy put up a good defence on the west

coast against the Portuguese. According to Bipan Chandra,

the European companies bought many Indian-made ships for

their use.

Status of Education

The education imparted in 18th-century India was still

traditional which could not match with the rapid developments

in the West. The knowledge was confined to literature, law,

religion, philosophy, and logic and excluded the study of

physical and natural sciences, technology, and geography. In

fact, due to over-reliance placed on ancient learning, any

original thought got discouraged. Elementary education among

the Hindus and the Muslims was quite widespread. The Hindu

and Muslim elementary schools were called pathshalas and

maktabs respectively. The education was confined to reading,

writing, and arithmetic. Children from the lower caste

sometimes attended the schools, but female presence was

rare.

Chatuspathis or Tols, as they were called in Bihar and

Bengal, were the centres of higher education. Some of the

India on the Eve of British Conquest

✫

View

A Hindu woman can go anywhere alone, even in the most
crowded places, and she need never fear the impertinent looks
and jokes of idle loungers.

—Abbe Dubois, commented at beginning

of the 19th century

famous centres for Sanskrit education were Kasi (Varanasi),

Tirhut (Mithila), Nadia, and Utkala. Madrasahs were the

institutions of higher learning for Persian and Arabic, Persian

being the court language and learnt by the Muslims as well

as the Hindus. Azimabad (Patna) was a famous centre for

Persian education. People interested in the study of the Quran

and Muslim theology had to acquire proficiency in Arabic.

Societal Set-up

Many Castes, Many Sects

The society of 18th-century India was characterised by

traditional outlook and stagnation. Though there existed a

certain degree of broad cultural unity, people were divided

by caste, religion, region, tribe, and language. The family

system was primarily patriarchal and caste was the central

feature of the social life of the Hindus. Apart from the four

varnas, Hindus were divided into numerous sub-castes which

permanently fixed their place in the social scale. Though the

choice of profession was mainly determined by caste

considerations, exceptions occurred on a large scale, making

caste status quite fluid in some parts of the country. Caste

councils and panchayats enforced caste norms and regulations.

Even though Islam enjoined social equality on the Muslims,

they too were divided by considerations of caste, race, tribe,

and status. Religious considerations not only kept the Sunni

and Shia nobles apart but also the Irani, Afghan, Turani, and

Hindustani Muslim nobles and officials apart from one

another. The sharif Muslims consisting of nobles, scholars,

priests, and army officers often looked down upon the ajlaf

Muslims or the lower-class Muslims in a manner similar to

the way of the higher-caste Hindus treated the lower-caste

Hindus. Religious conversions occurred and caste proved to

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

be a major divisive force and element of disintegration in

18th-century India.
Position of Women in Society

In the patriarchal family system in India (except in some

social groups in Kerala), women possessed little individuality

of their own, though there were a few exceptions. While

upper-class women remained at home, lower-class women

worked in fields and outside their homes supplementing the

family income. Certain outdated and exploitative social

customs and traditions such as the purdah, sati, child

marriage, and polygamy did exist which hindered the progress

of women. The plight of the Hindu widow was usually

miserable. The evil of dowry was especially widespread in

Bengal and Rajputana. Sensitive Indians were often touched

by the hard and harsh life of the widows. Raja Sawai Jai Singh

of Amber and the Maratha General Prashuram Bhau tried to

promote widow remarriage but failed.
Menace of Slavery

European travellers and administrators, who came in the 17th

century, reported the widespread prevalence of slaves in

India. It is believed that some people were compelled to sell

their offspring due to economic distress, famines, natural

calamities, and extreme poverty. Generally, higher classes of

Rajputs, Khatris, and Kayasthas kept women slave for domestic

work. However, the status of slaves in India was better than

that in Europe. Slaves were usually treated as hereditary

servants rather than as menials. Marriages took place among

the slaves, and the offspring coming out of such wedlock

were considered free citizens.

The advent of Europeans heightened the slavery and

slave trade in India. European trading companies purchased

slaves from the markets of Bengal, Assam, and Bihar and took

them to the European and American market. Abyssinian slaves

were sold at Surat, Madras, and Calcutta.

Developments in Art, Architecture,

and Culture

The decline of the imperial Mughals forced talented people

to seek the patronage of newly established state courts like

India on the Eve of British Conquest

✫

Hyderabad, Lucknow, Jaipur, Murshidabad, Patna, Kashmir,

etc.

At Lucknow, Asaf-ud-Daula built the Bara Imambara

in 1784. In the first half of the 18th century, Sawai Jai Singh

built the pink city of Jaipur and five astronomical observatives

at Delhi, Jaipur, Benares, Mathura, and Ujjain. He also

prepared a set of timetables called Jij Muhammad-shahi, to

help the people in the study of astronomy. In the south, in

Kerala, the Padmanabhapuram Palace, famous for its

architecture and mural paintings, was constructed.

New schools of painting were born and achieved

distinction. The paintings of the Rajputana and Kangra

schools became prominent and revealed new vitality and taste.

A distinct feature of the literary life of the 18th century

was the growth of Urdu language and poetry. It was the period

of Urdu poets like Mir, Sauda, Nazir, and Mirza Ghalib (19th

century). In South India, Malayalam literature flourished

under the patronage of the Travancore rulers. Kalakkathu

Kunchan Nambiar was a noted Malayalam poet. The Tamil

language was enriched by sittar poetry. Tayumanavar (1706–

44), one of the best exponents of sittar poetry, protested

against the abuses of temple rule and the caste system. Heer

Ranjha, the romantic epic in Punjabi literature, was composed

by Warris Shah. In Sindhi literature, Shah Abdul Latif

composed Risalo, a collection of poems. These are just some

examples of literary works in regional languages.

Summary

Why the Mughal Empire Decined

●

Weak Successors The Mughal empire was a personal despotism,
and its success depended upon a strong and capable monarch.

●

Absence of Definite Law of Succession Continuous wars of
succession (absence of law of primogeniture) fostered
partisanship at the cost of patriotism.

●

Aurangzeb’s Religious and Deccan Policies The religious
policy antagonised the Rajputs, Sikhs, Jats, and Marathas;
Deccan policy kept the emperor away from the capital for a
long duration.

●

Degeneration of Rulers and Nobles

●

Deterioration of Army

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

●

Too Vast an Empire The vast empire became a difficult task
for weak rulers to administer efficiently.

●

External Invasions Invasions of Irani and Durrani kingdoms
(Nadir Shah, Ahmad Shah Abdali) gave a death blow.

●

Economic Decline Endless wars, stagnation in agriculture, and
decline in trade and industry emptied the royal treasury.

●

Advent of Europeans European companies interfered in native
politics, hastening the disintegration of empire.

●

Shifting Allegiance of Zamindars

●

Jagirdari Crisis

●

Rise of Regional Aspirations Rise and establishment of
Awadh, Bengal, Hyderabad, Mysore, Kerala, Rajput states, and
Jat states accelerated the process of disintegration.

Rise of Regional States

●

Three categories

●

Successor States Hyderabad (1724, Nizam-ul-Mulk), Bengal
(1717, Murshid Quli Khan), and Awadh (1722, Saadat Khan
Burhan-ul-Mulk).

●

Independent States Mysore (under Haidar Ali), Kerala (King
Martanda Varma), and Rajput States (Raja Sawai Singh of
Amber).

●

New States Marathas, Sikhs, Jats, and Afghans

Socio-Economic Conditions

Agriculture

●

Stagnant and technologically backward agriculture,

compensated by very hard labour of peasants

●

Peasants paid revenues to state, zamindars, jagirdars, and
revenue farmers.

●

Major produce/crops: rice, wheat, sugar, pepper, spices,
cotton, etc.

Trade and Industry Trade flourished. Cotton textiles, raw silk,

silk fabrics, hardware, indigo, saltpetre, opium, rice, wheat,
sugar, pepper, spices, precious stones, and drugs were
exported.
Gold, musk, woollen cloth, copper, iron, lead, paper,
porcelain, pearls, dates, dried fruits, coffee, tea, ivory, rose
water, etc., were imported.
The textile industry was famous for its produce. The ship-
building industry flourished. The metal industry was also well-
developed.

Education

●

Elementary education imparted through

pathshalas

and

maktabs

●

Chatuspathis or Tols among Hindus, and Madrasahs among
Muslims were the institutes of higher learning.

●

Absence of the study of science and technology and
geography was a general feature.

Society

●

Apart from the four

varnas, Hindus were divided into

many

sub-castes which differed in their nature from place

to place.

India on the Eve of British Conquest

✫

●

Muslims were also divided by considerations of caste, race,
tribe, and status, even though their religion propagated
equality.

Art, Architecture, and Culture

●

Asaf-ud-Daula, in 1784, built

Bara Imambara at Lucknow.

●

Sawai Jai Singh built pink city of Jaipur and five astronomical
observatories (Delhi, Jaipur, Mathura, Benares, and Ujjain).

●

Painting schools of Kangra and Rajputana came into
prominence.

●

In northern India, growth of Urdu language and poetry took
place. Prominent Urdu poets were Mir, Sauda, Nazir, and
Mirza Ghalib.

●

Regional languages developed. Tamil language was enriched
by

Sittar poetry.

join us http://telegram.me/bpsc65thmand66thp (BPSC CCE 65th,66th and 67th )

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

CHAPTER 5

Expansion and

Consolidation of British

Power in India

The British Imperial History

The entire imperial history of Britain can be periodised into

two phases, the ‘first empire’ stretching across the Atlantic

towards America and the West Indies, and the ‘second

empire’ beginning around 1783 (Peace of Paris) and swinging

towards the East—Asia and Africa. The imperial history of

Britain started with the conquest of Ireland in the 16th

century. The English then sprang up as the ‘new Romans’,

charged with civilising so-called backward races throughout

the world. For this, the post-Enlightenment intellectuals of

Britain, in particular, and of Europe, in general, started

certifying themselves as civilised vis-a-vis the Orient peoples

and others. Owing to various spatial and situational forces,

the nature of imperial ideology of Britain changed over time

but its fundamentals remained the same.

Was the British Conquest
Accidental or Intentional?

Historians have debated over the fundamental query, whether

the British conquest of India was accidental or intentional.

John Seeley leads the group which says that the British

Expansion and Consolidation of British Power

✫

conquest of India was made blindly, unintentionally, and

accidentally, and in a “fit of absent-mindedness”. This school

of opinion argues that the British came to trade in India and

had no desire to acquire territories or to squander their

profits on war waged for territorial expansion. The English,

it is argued, were unwillingly drawn into the political turmoil

created by the Indians themselves and were almost forced

to acquire territories.

The other group says that the British came to India with

the clear intention of establishing a large and powerful

empire, a plan which they completed by working on it bit

by bit over the years. They dismiss as propaganda the claim

of the peaceful intent and political neutrality of the English

East India Company in its early days.

Both the schools of opinion appear to be overstating

their viewpoints. Initially, perhaps, the Company officials

started acquiring territory just to promote and protect their

trade interests, especially when they saw how factionalised

the political situation was. They came to realise how easily

they could pit one local ruler against another and began to

interfere in local politics and, in the process, acquired

territories. But later on, the British politicians back in Britain

and the administrators sent by them to India worked on a

clear desire and plan to acquire territories and establish an

empire.

The enormous profits from the trade in the East,

Views

Our acquisition of India was made blindly. Nothing great that
has ever been done by Englishman was done so unintentionally
and so accidentally, as the conquest of India.

—John Seeley

The deeper reasons of intention and motive for the Company’s
acquisition of vast areas of territory are more obscure...for the
expansion occurred in such different parts of India at different
times. In each particular situation the precise British interests
at stake varied, and the perceived danger to them; as did the
relative weight in decision-making of different British groups
concerned in Indian affairs.

—Judith Brown

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

notably India, attracted the English traders (the Company) as

it did other Europeans. A desire for quick profits, personal

ambitions of individuals, plain avarice, and effects of political

developments in Europe were some of the factors that made

the British increase their political clout in India. At times,

they waged wars to protect their commercial interests, and

at others, they did so to protect their Indian allies from the

attacks of potential rivals. B.L. Grover writes: “Lord Wellesley

resorted to aggressive application of the subsidiary alliance

system to extend British dominion in India as a defensive

counter measure against the imperialistic designs of France

and Russia. From 1798 to 1818 the British motives were

consciously imperialistic. Lord Hastings further carried the

policy of Wellesley and treated India as a conquered rather

than an acquired country. Thereafter, the British seemed to

work on a set design to conquer the whole of India, and even

some neighbouring states.”

When did the British
Period Begin in India?

In mid-18th-century India, various historical forces were at

work, consequent to which the country moved towards a new

direction. Some historians regard the year 1740, when the

Anglo-French struggle for supremacy in India began in the

wake of the War of Austrian Succession in Europe, as the

beginning of the British period. Some see the year 1757,

when the British defeated the Nawab of Bengal at Plassey,

as the designated date. Still others regard 1761, the year of

the Third Battle of Panipat when the Marathas were defeated

by Ahmad Shah Abdali, as the beginning of this phase of

Indian history. However, all such chronological landmarks are

somewhat arbitrary because the political transformation which

began around that time took about eighty years to complete.

For instance, as we think of 1761, the British would

certainly come to mind (because of their victory over the

Nawab of Bengal at Plassey and over the French) but we

would not entirely write off the Marathas and would probably

also consider the prospects of Haidar Ali. In fact, it was a

Expansion and Consolidation of British Power

✫

period of Indian history which it would probably be a mistake

to interpret in terms of what we know in the present.

Nonetheless, the circumstances under which the British

succeeded are not clear, and the few bottlenecks which they

faced were not of a serious nature. It is this paradox which

makes the causes of British success in establishing an empire

in India a matter of considerable interest.

Causes of British Success
in India

The entire process of expansion and consolidation of the

British power in India took almost a century. In these hundred

odd years, the English used many diplomatic and military

tactics, apart from other mechanisms, to finally emerge as

the rulers of India. Both war and administrative policies were

used by the English to impose their power over various

kingdoms and finally to consolidate their own rule over the

entire India. The British were not averse to using unscrupulous

tactics to exploit a situation or a regional ruler to get their

own way. The causational forces and factors for the success

of the British are as follows:

Superior Arms, Military, and Strategy

The firearms used by the English, which included muskets

and cannons, were better than the Indian arms both in speed

of firing and in range. On realising this, many Indian rulers

imported European arms and employed European officers to

train their troops, but, unfortunately, the Indian military

officers and the ranks could never match the English officers

and English armies; in the absence of originality, the

military officers and armies of Indian rulers became mere

imitators.

Better Military Discipline and
Regular Salary

A regular system of payment of salaries and a strict regime

of discipline were the means by which the English Company

ensured that the officers and the troops were loyal. On their

part, most of the Indian rulers did not have enough money

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

to pay salaries regularly. The Marathas at times diverted their

military campaigns to collect revenue so as to pay their

troops. Also, the Indian rulers were dependent on personal

retinues or a rabble of mercenary elements who were not

amenable to discipline and could turn rebellious or join the

opponents when the going was not good.

Civil Discipline and Fair Selection System

The Company officers and troops were given charge on the

basis of their reliability and skill and not on hereditary or

caste and clan ties. They themselves were subject to strict

discipline and were aware of the objectives of their campaigns.

In contrast, the Indian administrators and military officers

were appointed on the basis of caste and personal relations,

often disregarding merit and ability. As a result, their

competence was doubtful and they often tended to be

rebellious and disloyal in order to pursue their own interests.

Brilliant Leadership and Support of
Second-Line Leaders

Clive, Warren Hastings, Elphinstone, Munro, Marquess of

Dalhousie, etc., displayed rare qualities of leadership. The

English also had the advantage of a long list of secondary

leaders like Sir Eyre Coote, Lord Lake, and Arthur Wellesley,

who fought not for the leader but for the cause and the glory

of their country. The Indian side too had brilliant leaders like

Haidar Ali, Tipu Sultan, Chin Qilich Khan, Madhu Rao

Scindia, and Yashwant Rao Holkar, but they often lacked a

team of second-line trained personnel. Moreover, the Indian

leaders were as much fighting against one another as against

the British. The spirit of fighting for a united cause was not

their motivation. Thus, they often supported the British

against neighbouring rulers. The consciousness of ‘India’ was

lacking.

Strong Financial Backup

The income of the Company was adequate enough to pay its

shareholders handsome dividends as also to finance the

English wars in India. Furthermore, England was earning

fabulous profits from its trade with the rest of the world.

This vast amount of resources in money, materials, and men

Expansion and Consolidation of British Power

✫

was available to the British in times of need, thanks to their

superiority in sea power.

Nationalist Pride

An economically thriving British people believing in material

advancement and proud of their national glory faced the

‘weak, divided-amongst-themselves Indians’ bereft of a sense

of unified political nationalism. The lack of materialistic

vision among Indians was also a reason for the success of

the English Company.

British Conquest of Bengal

Bengal on the Eve of British Conquest

Bengal, the richest province of the Mughal Empire, included

present-day Bangladesh, and its Nawab had authority over the

region constituting present-day states of Bihar and Odisha.

Exports from Bengal to Europe consisted of raw products

such as saltpetre, rice, indigo, pepper, sugar, silk, cotton

textiles, handicrafts, etc. The English East India Company had

vital commercial interests in trading in Bengal, as nearly 60

per cent of the British imports from Asia consisted of goods

from Bengal. During the 1630s, regular contact of the British

with Bengal continued when they established factories in

Balasore, Hooghly, Kasimbazar, Patna, and Dacca. By the

1690s, the foundation of Calcutta by the English company

completed the process of English commercial settlement in

Bengal. The Company paid a sum of Rs 3,000 (£ 350) per

annum to the Mughal emperor who allowed them to trade

freely in Bengal. In contrast, the Company’s exports from

Bengal were worth more than £ 50,000 per annum.

In 1700, Murshid Quli Khan became the Dewan of

Bengal and ruled till his death in 1727. He was succeeded

by his son-in-law, Shujauddin, who ruled till 1739. After that,

for a year (1739–40), Sarfaraz Khan, an incapable son of

Murshid Quli Khan, became the ruler; he was killed by

Alivardi Khan. Alivardi Khan ruled till 1756 and also stopped

paying tributes to the Mughal emperor. Under the rule of

these rulers, Bengal made unprecedented progress. There

were other factors too, which made Bengal prosperous, for

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

instance, the rest of India was disturbed by inter-border

disputes, the Maratha invasions, Jat revolts, and external

invasions by Nadir Shah and Ahmed Shah Abdali. The region

of Bengal was fortunate enough to escape these challenges.

The population of Calcutta rose from 15,000 (in 1706) to

100,000 (in 1750), and other cities like Dacca and

Murshidabad became highly populous.

Almost all the governors of Bengal strongly resented

the special privileges enjoyed by the English company as it

meant a huge loss to the provincial exchequer. So, the friction

between the English commercial interests and the Bengal

government became the chief cause for conflict between the

two. During a short period between 1757 and 1765, the power

gradually got transferred from the Nawabs of Bengal to the

British, with the latter defeating the former.

Alivardi Khan and the English

In 1741, Alivardi Khan, the Deputy Governor of Bihar, killed

the Nawab of Bengal Sarfaraz Khan in a battle and certified

his own position as the new Subahdar of Bengal by paying

a large sum of money to the Mughal Emperor, Muhammad

Shah. Alivardi Khan ruled for 15 years, during which he

fought off the Marathas. The English, too, took the advantage

of the Maratha incursions in Bengal, by obtaining a permission

from the nawab to dig a ditch and throw up an entrenchment

around their settlement of Fort William. Later, Alivardi

Khan’s apprehensions were drawn to the Carnatic region,

where the European companies had usurped all power; on

realising this, he was urged to expel the Europeans from

Bengal. But he died in April 1756 and was succeeded by his

grandson, Siraj-ud-Daulah, the son of Alivardi’s youngest

daughter.

Challenges Before Siraj-ud-Daulah

A youth just in his twentieth year, Siraj inherited many

troubles from his grandfather. He had a rival in his cousin,

the Nawab of Purnea, Shaukat Jang; a hostile aunt, Ghasiti

Begum, a childless widow; a rebellious commander of the

army, Mir Jafar, husband of Alivardi Khan’s sister; and an

alarmed (Hindu) subject population. There was a dominant

Expansion and Consolidation of British Power

✫

group in his court comprising Jagat Seth, Omichand, Rai

Ballabh, Rai Durlabh, and others who were opposed to him.

To these internal rivals were added the threat to Siraj’s

position from the ever-growing commercial activity of the

English company. Impulsive by nature and lacking experience,

Siraj felt insecure, and this prompted him to act in ways

which proved counter-productive. He defeated Shaukat Jang

and killed him in a battle, divested Ghasiti Begum of her

treasures and secured her, and dismissed Mir Jafar, appointing

Mir Madan in his place. A Kashmiri officer, Mohan Lal, was

appointed as the overall administrator, and he acted almost

like a prime minister.

The Battle of Plassey

Prelude to the Battle

The officials of the Company made rampant misuse of its

trade privileges that adversely affected the nawab’s finances.

The English fortified Calcutta without the nawab’s permission.

The Company further tried to mislead him, and compounded

their sin by giving asylum to a political fugitive, Krishna Das,

son of Raj Ballabh who had fled with immense treasures

against the nawab’s will. The Company, on its part, suspected

that Siraj would drastically reduce its trade privileges in

collusion with the French in Bengal. Thus, when Siraj attacked

and seized the English fort at Calcutta, it brought their

hostility into the open.

Mention may be made here of the much propagated

‘Black Hole Tragedy’. Siraj-ud-Daulah is believed to have

imprisoned 146 English persons, who were lodged in a very

tiny room due to which 123 of them died of suffocation.

However, historians either do not believe this story, or say

that the number of victims must have been much smaller.
The Battle

The arrival of a strong force under the command of Robert

Clive at Calcutta from Madras strengthened the English

position in Bengal. Clive forged a secret alliance with the

traitors of the nawab—Mir Jafar, Rai Durlabh, Jagat Seth (an

influential banker of Bengal), and Omichand. Under the deal,

Mir Jafar was to be made the nawab, who, in turn, would

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

reward the Company for its services. The secret alliance of

the Company with the conspirators further strengthened the

English position. So, the English victory in the Battle of

Plassey (June 23, 1757) was decided before the battle was

even fought. Due to the conspiracy of the nawab’s officials,

the 50,000-strong force of Siraj was defeated by a handful

of Clive’s forces. Siraj-ud-Daulah was captured and murdered

by the order of Mir Jafar’s son, Miran. The Battle of Plassey

placed at the disposal of the English vast resources of Bengal.

After Plassey, the English virtually monopolised the trade and

commerce of Bengal.
Significance of the Battle of Plassey

As a result of this victory, Mir Jafar became the Nawab of

Bengal. He gave large sums of money plus the zamindari

of 24 parganas to the English.

The Battle of Plassey had political significance, for it

laid the foundation of the British empire in India; it has been

rightly regarded as the starting point of British rule in India.

The battle established the military supremacy of the English

in Bengal. Their main rivals, the French, were ousted. They

obtained a grant of territories for the maintenance of a

properly equipped military force, and their prestige increased

manifold. But there was no apparent change in the form of

government, though the supreme control of affairs passed to

Clive, on whose support the new nawab, Mir Jafar, was

entirely dependent for maintaining his newly acquired position.

The sovereignty of the English over Calcutta was recognised,

and the English posted a resident at the nawab’s court.

Mir Kasim and the Treaty of 1760

Mir Jafar was increasingly irritated by the interference of

Clive. He entered into a conspiracy with the Dutch at

Chinsura. But the Dutch were defeated and humbled by the

English forces at Bedara in November 1759. The treachery

of Mir Jafar and his failure to make the payments due to

the Company, annoyed the English. Meanwhile, Miran, the

son of Jafar died and there started a fight for the nawabship

of Bengal between Mir Kasim, the son-in-law of Mir Jafar,

and Miran’s son. Vansittart, the new Governor of Calcutta,

Expansion and Consolidation of British Power

✫

agreed to support Mir Kasim’s claim after a treaty between

Mir Kasim and the Company was signed in 1760. Important

features of the treaty were as follows:

(i) Mir Kasim agreed to cede to the Company the

districts of Burdwan, Midnapur, and Chittagong.

(ii) The Company would get half of the share in chunam

trade of Sylhet.

(iii) Mir Kasim agreed to pay off the outstanding dues

to the Company.

(iv) Mir Kasim promised to pay a sum of five lakh rupees

towards financing the Company’s war efforts in

southern India.

(v) It was agreed that Mir Kasim’s enemies were the

Company’s enemies, and his friends, the Company’s

friends.

(vi) It was agreed that tenants of the nawab’s territory

would not be allowed to settle in the lands of the

Company, and vice-versa.

Under the pressure of the Company, Mir Jafar decided

to resign in favour of Mir Kasim. A pension of Rs 1,500

per annum was fixed for Mir Jafar.
Steps taken by Mir Kasim

Mir Kasim was the ablest nawab among the successors of

Alivardi Khan. After assuming power, Mir Kasim shifted the

capital from Murshidabad to Munger in Bihar. The move was

taken to allow a safe distance from the Company at Calcutta.

His other important steps were reorganising the bureaucracy

with the men of his own choice and remodelling the army

to enhance its skill and efficiency.

The Battle of Buxar

Prelude to the Battle

The Company had thought that Mir Kasim would prove to

be an ideal puppet for them. However, Mir Kasim belied the

expectations of the Company. Ram Narayan, the deputy-

governor of Bihar, was not responding to repeated requests

by the nawab to submit the accounts of the revenues of Bihar.

Mir Kasim could not tolerate this open defiance of his

authority. But Ram Narayan was supported by the English

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

officials of Patna. The misuse of the Company’s dastak or

trade permit (a permit which exempted the goods specified

from payment of duties) by Company officials also resulted

in tensions between the nawab and the English.

The misuse of the dastak meant the loss of tax revenue

to the nawab. It also made the local merchants face unequal

competition with the Company merchants. By an imperial

farman, the English company had obtained the right to trade

in Bengal without paying transit dues or tolls. However, the

servants of the Company also claimed the same privileges

for their private trade. The Company’s servants also sold

dastak to Indian merchants for a commission. Besides, they

used coercive methods to get goods at cheaper rates, which

was against the spirit of the duty-free trade. The duty-free

trade simply meant buying cheap in an otherwise competitive

market. Mir Kasim decided to abolish the duties altogether,

but the British protested against this and insisted upon having

preferential treatment as against other traders.

The Nawab-Company tussle over transit duty led to the

outbreak of wars between the English and Mir Kasim in 1763.

The English gained successive victories at Katwah,

Murshidabad, Giria, Sooty, and Munger. Mir Kasim fled to

Awadh (or Oudh) and formed a confederacy with the Nawab

of Awadh, Shuja-ud-Daulah, and the Mughal Emperor, Shah

Alam II, with a view to recover Bengal from the English.
The Battle

The combined armies of Mir Kasim, the Nawab of Awadh,

and Shah Alam II were defeated by the English forces under

Major Hector Munro at Buxar on October 22, 1764 in a

closely contested battle. The English campaign against Mir

Kasim was short but decisive.

The importance of this battle lay in the fact that not

only the Nawab of Bengal but also the Mughal Emperor of

India was defeated by the English. The victory made the

English a great power in northern India and contenders for

the supremacy over the whole country.

After the battle, Mir Jafar, who was made Nawab in

1763 when relations between Mir Kasim and the Company

became strained, agreed to hand over the districts of

Expansion and Consolidation of British Power

✫

Midnapore, Burdwan, and Chittagong to the English for the

maintenance of their army. The English were also permitted

duty-free trade in Bengal, except for a duty of 2 per cent

on salt. After the death of Mir Jafar, his minor son, Najim-

ud-daula, was appointed nawab, but the real power of

administration lay in the hands of the naib-subahdar, who

could be appointed or dismissed by the English.

The Treaty of Allahabad

Robert Clive concluded two important treaties at Allahabad

in August 1765—one with the Nawab of Awadh and the other

with the Mughal Emperor, Shah Alam II.

Nawab Shuja-ud-Daula agreed to:

(i) surrender Allahabad and Kara to Emperor Shah

Alam II;

(ii) pay Rs 50 lakh to the Company as war indemnity;

and

(iii) give Balwant Singh, Zamindar of Banaras, full

possession of his estate.

Shah Alam II agreed to:

(i) reside at Allahabad, to be ceded to him by the

Nawab of Awadh, under the Company’s protection;

(ii) issue a farman granting the diwani of Bengal,

Bihar, and Orissa to the East India Company in lieu

of an annual payment of Rs 26 lakh; and

(iii) a provision of Rs 53 lakh to the Company in return

for nizamat functions (military defence, police,

and administration of justice) of the said provinces.

Clive did not want to annex Awadh because it would

have placed the Company under an obligation to protect an

Robert Clive

A survey of this period of British rule cannot be complete without
a reference to Robert Clive, who joined the army after resigning
from a clerk’s post. He was instrumental in laying the foundations
of British power in India. He was made the Governor of Bengal
twice from 1757 to 1760 and then from 1765 to 1767. He
administered Bengal under the dual government system till his return
to England where he allegedly committed suicide in 1774.

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

extensive land frontier from the Afghan and the Maratha

invasions. The treaty made the Nawab a firm friend of the

Company, and turned Awadh into a buffer state. Similarly,

Clive’s arrangement with Shah Alam II was inspired by

practical considerations. It made the emperor a useful ‘rubber

stamp’ of the Company. Besides, the emperor’s farman

legalised the political gains of the Company in Bengal.

Mir Kasim, the dethroned Nawab of Bengal, spent the

rest of his life in abject misery as a homeless wanderer and

died in June 1777.

Dual Government in Bengal (1765–72)

After the battle of Buxar, the East India Company became

the real masters of Bengal. Robert Clive introduced the dual

system of government, i.e., the rule of the two—the Company

and the Nawab—in Bengal in which both the diwani, i.e.,

collecting revenues, and nizamat, i.e., police and judicial

functions, came under the control of the Company. The

Company exercised diwani rights as the diwan and the

nizamat rights through its right to nominate the deputy

subahdar. The Company acquired the diwani functions from

the emperor and nizamat functions from the subahdar of

Bengal.

The system held a great advantage for the Company.

It left the appearance of authority to the puppet Indian ruler

while keeping the sovereign power in the hands of the

Company. The nawab was responsible for maintaining peace

and order, but he depended both for funds and forces upon

the Company because the latter controlled the army and

revenues.

For the exercise of diwani functions, the Company

appointed two deputy diwans, Mohammad Reza Khan for

Bengal and Raja Sitab Roy for Bihar. Mohammad Reza Khan

also acted as deputy nazim or deputy subahdar.

The dual system led to an administrative breakdown and

proved disastrous for the people of Bengal. Neither the

Company nor the Nawab cared for administration and public

welfare. Warren Hastings did away with the dual system in

1772.

Expansion and Consolidation of British Power

✫

Mysore’s Resistance to the
Company

The Wodeyar / Mysore Dynasty

After the battle of Talikota (1565) gave a deadly blow to

the great kingdom of Vijayanagara, many small kingdoms

emerged from its remnants. In 1612 a Hindu kingdom under

the Wodeyars emerged in the region of Mysore. Chikka

Krishnaraja Wodeyar II ruled from 1734 to 1766. During the

second half of the 18th century, Mysore emerged as a

formidable power under the leadership of Haidar Ali and Tipu

Sultan. The English felt their political and commercial

interests in South India was threatened because of Mysore’s

proximity with the French and Haidar Ali and Tipu’s control

over the rich trade of the Malabar Coast. Mysore’s power

was also seen as a threat to the control of the English over

Madras.

Rise of Haidar Ali

In the early 18th century two brothers, Nanjaraj (the

sarvadhikari) and Devaraj (the Dulwai) had reduced Chikka

Krishnaraja Wodeyar to a mere puppet. Haidar Ali, born in

1721 in an obscure family, started his career as a horseman

in the Mysore army under the ministers, Nanjaraj and Devaraj.

Views

Whether regarded as a duel between the foreigner and the native,
or as an event pregnant with vast permanent consequences,
Buxar takes rank amongst the most decisive battles ever fought.
Not only did the victory of the English save Bengal, not only
did it advance the British frontier to Allahabad, but it bound the
rulers of Awadh to the conqueror by ties of admiration, of
gratitude, of absolute reliance and trust, ties which made them
for the ninety-four years that followed the friends of his friends
and the enemies of his enemies.

—G.B. Malleson

Clive was not a founder but a harbinger of the future. He was
not a planner of empire but an experimenter who revealed
something of the possibilities. Clive was the forerunner of the
British Empire.

—Percival Spear

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Though uneducated, he possessed a keen intellect and was

a man of great energy and determination.

Repeated incursions of the Marathas and of the Nizam’s

troops into the territories of Mysore resulted in heavy

financial demands made by the aggressors from Mysore.

Mysore became financially and politically weak. The need

of the hour was a leader with high degree of military powers

and diplomatic skill. Haidar Ali fulfilled that need and

usurped the royal authority by becoming the de facto ruler

of Mysore in 1761. He realised that the exceedingly mobile

Marathas could be contained only by a swift cavalry, that the

cannons of the French-trained Nizami army could be silenced

only by an effective artillery, and that the superior arms from

the West could only be matched by arms brought from the

same place or manufactured with the same know-how.

Haidar Ali took the help of the French to set up an

arms factory at Dindigul (now in Tamil Nadu), and also

introduced Western methods of training for his army. He also

started to use his considerable diplomatic skill to

outmanoeuvre his opponents. With his superior military skill,

he captured Dod Ballapur, Sera, Bednur, and Hoskote in

1761–63, and brought to submission the troublesome Poligars

of South India (in what is now Tamil Nadu). Recovering from

their defeat at Panipat, the Marathas under Madhavrao attacked

Mysore, and defeated Haidar Ali in 1764, 1766, and 1771.

To buy peace, Haidar Ali had to give them large sums of

money, but after Madhavrao’s death in 1772, Haidar Ali

raided the Marathas a number of times during 1774–76 and

recovered all the territories he had previously lost, besides

capturing new areas.

First Anglo-Mysore War (1767-69)

Background

After their easy success in Bengal, the English were confident

of their military strength. They concluded a treaty with the

Nizam of Hyderabad (1766), persuading him to give them

the Northern Circars (region) in lieu of which they said they

would protect the Nizam from Haidar Ali. Haidar already had

territorial disputes with the Nawab of Arcot and differences

with the Marathas.

Expansion and Consolidation of British Power

✫

Changing Alliances

The Nizam, the Marathas, and the English allied together

against Haidar Ali. Haidar acted with considerable tact and

diplomatic skill. He paid the Marathas to turn them neutral

and, promising to share conquered territories with the Nizam,

converted the Nizam into his ally. He then joined the Nizam

to attack the Nawab of Arcot.
Course of War

The war continued for a year-and-a-half without any conclusion.

Haidar changed his strategy and suddenly appeared before the

gates of Madras. There was complete chaos and panic at

Madras forcing the English to conclude a very humiliating

treaty with Haidar on April 4, 1769—the Treaty of Madras.

The treaty provided for the exchange of prisoners and mutual

restitution of conquests. Haidar Ali was promised the help

of the English in case he was attacked by any other power.

Second Anglo-Mysore War (1780–84)

Background

Haidar Ali accused the English of breach of faith and non-

observance of the Treaty of Madras when in 1771 he was

attacked by the Marathas, and the English failed to come to

his aid. Also, he found that the French were much more

helpful than the English in meeting his army’s requirement

of guns, saltpetre, and lead. Consequently, through Mahe, a

French possession on the Malabar Coast, some French war

material was brought to Mysore. Meanwhile, the American

war of independence had broken out in which the French were

on the side of the rebels against the English. Under the

circumstances, Haidar Ali’s friendship with the French caused

even more concern to the English. They, therefore, tried to

capture Mahe, which Haidar regarded to be under his

protection. Haidar considered the English attempt to capture

Mahe a direct challenge to his authority.
Course of War

Haidar forged an anti-English alliance with the Marathas and

the Nizam. He followed it up by an attack in the Carnatic,

capturing Arcot, and defeating the English army under

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Colonel Baillie in 1781. In the meantime, the English (under

Sir Eyre Coote) detached both the Marathas and the Nizam

from Haidar’s side, but the undeterred Haidar faced the

English boldly only to suffer a defeat at Porto Novo in

November 1781. However, he regrouped his forces and

defeated the English and captured their commander,

Braithwaite.

Treaty of Mangalore Haidar Ali died of cancer on

December 7, 1782. Now his son, Tipu Sultan, carried on the

war for one year without any positive outcome. Fed up with

an inconclusive war, both sides opted for peace, negotiating

the Treaty of Mangalore (March, 1784) under which each

party gave back the territories it had taken from the other.

Third Anglo-Mysore War

Background

A dispute arose between Tipu and the state of Travancore.

Travancore had purchased Jalkottal and Cannanore from the

Dutch in the Cochin state. As Cochin was a feudatory of Tipu,

he considered the act of Travancore as a violation of his

sovereign rights. So, in April 1790, Tipu declared war against

Travancore for the restoration of his rights.
Course of War

The English, siding with Travancore, attacked Tipu. In 1790,

Tipu defeated the English under General Meadows. In 1791,

Cornwallis took the leadership and at the head of a large army

marched through Ambur and Vellore to Bangalore (captured

in March 1791) and from there to Seringapatam. Coimbatore

fell to them, but they lost it again, and at last with the support

of the Marathas and the Nizam, the English attacked

Seringapatam for the second time. Tipu offered serious

opposition, but the odds were against him. Consequently, he

had to pay heavily under the Treaty of Seringapatam.

Treaty of Seringapatam Under this treaty of 1792,

nearly half of the Mysorean territory was taken over by the

victors. Baramahal, Dindigul, and Malabar went to the English,

while the Marathas got the regions surrounding the Tungabhadra

and its tributaries and the Nizam acquired the areas from the

Krishna to beyond the Pennar. Besides, a war damage of three

Expansion and Consolidation of British Power

✫

crore rupees was also taken from Tipu. Half of the war

indemnity was to be paid immediately, while the rest was

to be given in installments, for which Tipu’s two sons were

taken as hostages by the English.

Fourth Anglo-Mysore War

Background

The English as well as Tipu Sultan used the period 1792 to

1799 to recoup their losses. Tipu fulfilled all the terms of

the Treaty of Seringapatam and got his sons released. In 1796,

when the Hindu ruler of Wodeyar dynasty died, Tipu refused

to place Wodeyar’s minor son on the throne and declared

himself sultan. He also decided to avenge his humilitating

defeat and the terms put by the Treaty of Seringapatam.

In 1798, Lord Wellesley succeeded Sir John Shore as

the new governor general. An imperialist to the core,

Wellesley was concerned about Tipu’s growing friendship

with the French and aimed at annihilating Tipu’s independent

existence or force him to submission through the system of

Subsidiary Alliance. So, the chargesheet against Tipu mentioned

that he was plotting against the English with the Nizam and

the Marathas and that he had sent emissaries to Arabia,

Afghanistan, Kabul, and Zaman Shah, as also to Isle of France

(Mauritius) and Versailles, with treasonable intent. Tipu’s

explanation did not satisfy Wellesley.
Course of War

The war began on April 17, 1799 and ended on May 4, 1799

with the fall of Seringapatam. Tipu was defeated first by

English General Stuart and then by General Harris. Arthur

Wellesley, the brother of Lord Wellesley, also participated

in the war. The English were again helped by the Marathas

and the Nizam. The Marathas had been promised half of the

View

We have crippled our enemy effectively without making our
friends too formidable.

—Lord Cornwallis

100

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Estimate of Tipu Sultan

Tipu Sultan was born in November 1750 to Haidar Ali and Fatima.
A well-educated man, he could freely converse in Arabic, Persian,
Kanarese, and Urdu.

Tipu was a great warrior (he was known as the ‘Tiger of

Mysore’) and gave maximum care to the raising and maintenance
of an efficient military force. He organised his army on the European
model with Persian words of command. Though he took the help
of the French officers to train his soldiers, he never allowed them
(French) to develop into a pressure group. Like his father, Tipu
realised the importance of a naval force. In 1796, he set up a Board
of Admiralty and planned for a fleet of 22 battleships and 20 large
frigates. Three dockyards were established at Mangalore, Wajedabad,
and Molidabad. However, his plans did not fructify.

Tipu was a patron of science and technology. He is credited

as the ‘pioneer of rocket technology’ in India. He wrote a military
manual explaining the operation of rockets. He was also a pioneer
in introducing sericulture to the Mysore State.

Tipu was a great lover of democracy and a great diplomat.

He gave his support to the French soldiers at Seringapatam in setting
up a Jacobin Club in 1797. He ordered a salute of 2,300 cannons
and 500 rockets to celebrate the occasion. Tipu himself became
a member of the Jacobin Club and allowed himself to be called
Citizen Tipu. He planted the Tree of Liberty at Seringapatam.

Some historians have depicted Tipu as a bigoted monarch.

This was the main view of colonial historians. This estimation of
the sultan is not fully correct. It is true that he crushed the Hindu
Coorgs and Nairs. But at the same time he also punished the Muslim
Moplahs when they defied his authority. Though he is reported to
have demolished temples in Kerala when he conquered places there,
Tipu is also known to have protected Hindu temples within his own
kingdom. He sanctioned funds for the repair of the Sringeri Temple
and installation of the idol of Goddess Sarada (the idol had been
damaged during a Maratha raid in 1791). It is necessary not to
judge characters of the past with modern yardsticks of secularism
and democracy.

Tipu despised the use of palanquins and described them as

fit only for use of women and the disabled. He is also credited
with beginning capitalist development at a time when feudalism was
prevalent.

Tipu was a man representing multiple traditions.

Expansion and Consolidation of British Power

✫

101

territory of Tipu and the Nizam had already signed the

Subsidiary Alliance. Tipu laid down his life fighting bravely;

his family members were interned at Vellore, and his

treasures were confiscated by the English. The English chose

a boy from the earlier Hindu royal family of Mysore as the

maharaja and also imposed on him the subsidiary alliance

system.

Mysore After Tipu

●

Wellesley offered Soonda and Harponelly districts

of Mysore Kingdom to the Marathas, which the latter refused.

●

The Nizam was given the districts of Gooty and

Gurramkonda.

●

The English took possession of Kanara, Wynad,

Coimbatore, Dwaraporam, and Seringapatam.

●

The new state of Mysore was handed over to the old

Hindu dynasty (Wodeyars) under a minor ruler Krishnaraja

III, who accepted the subsidiary alliance.

●

In 1831, William Bentinck took control of Mysore

on grounds of misgovernance.

●

In 1881, Lord Ripon restored the kingdom to its ruler.

Views

Tipu has been regarded by some writers as the first Indian
nationalist and a martyr for India’s freedom. But this is a wrong
view arrived at by projecting the present into the past. In the
age in which Tipu lived and ruled there was no sense of
nationalism or an awareness among Indians that they were a
subject people. It will, therefore, be too much to say that Tipu
waged war against the English for the sake of India’s freedom.
Actually he fought in order to preserve his own power and
independence...

—Mohibbul Hasan,

History of Tipu Sultan

When a person travelling through a strange country finds it well
cultivated, populous with industrious inhabitants, cities newly
founded, commerce extending, towns increasing and everything
flourishing so as to indicate happiness he will naturally conclude
it to be under a form of government congenial to the minds
of the people. This is a picture of Tippoo’s country.

—Lieutenant Moore

102

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Anglo-Maratha Struggle for
Supremacy

Rise of the Marathas

As the Mughal Empire declined, one of the staunchest and

hardiest of the empire’s adversaries, the Marathas, got a

chance to rise in power. They controlled a large portion of

the country; besides, they also received tributes from areas

not directly under their control. By the middle of the 18th

century, they were in Lahore thinking of becoming rulers of

the North Indian empire and in the court of the Mughals

playing the role of kingmakers.

Though the Third Battle of Panipat (1761), in which

they were defeated by Ahmad Shah Abdali, changed the

situation, they regrouped, regained their strength, and, within

a decade, achieved a position of power in India.

Bajirao I (1720–40), considered greatest of all the

Peshwas, had started a confederacy of prominent Maratha

chiefs to manage the rapidly expanding Maratha power, and

to some extent appease the kshatriya section of the Marathas

(Peshwas were brahmins) led by the senapati Dabodi. Under

the arrangement of the Maratha confederacy, each prominent

family under a chief was assigned a sphere of influence which

he was supposed to conquer and rule, but in the name of

the then Maratha king, Shahu. The Maratha families which

emerged prominent were: (i) the Gaekwad of Baroda;

(ii) the Bhonsle of Nagpur; (iii) the Holkars of Indore;

(iv) the Sindhias of Gwalior; and (v) the Peshwa of Poona.

The confederacy, under Bajirao I to Madhavrao I, worked

cordially but the Third Battle of Panipat (1761) changed

everything. The defeat at Panipat and later the death of the

young Peshwa, Madhavrao I, in 1772, weakened the control

of the Peshwas over the confederacy. Though the chiefs of

the confederacy united on occasion, as against the British

(1775–82), more often they quarrelled among themselves.

Entry of the English into Maratha Politics

The years between the last quarter of the 18th century and

the first quarter of the 19th century witnessed the Marathas

Expansion and Consolidation of British Power

✫

103

and the English clashing thrice for political supremacy, with

the English emerging victorious in the end. The cause of

these conflicts was the inordinate ambition of the English,

and the divided house of the Marathas that encouraged the

English to hope for success in their venture. The English in

Bombay wanted to establish a government on the lines of

the arrangement made by Clive in Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa.

So, it was a longed-for opportunity for the English when

dissensions over a succession divided the Marathas.

First Anglo-Maratha War (1775–82)

Background

After the death of Madhavrao in 1772, his brother Narayanrao

succeeded him as the fifth peshwa. However, Narayanrao’s

uncle, Raghunathrao, had his nephew assassinated and named

himself as the next peshwa, although he was not a legal heir.

Narayanrao’s widow, Gangabai, gave birth to a son after her

husband’s death. The newborn infant was named ‘Sawai’ (One

and a Quarter) Madhavrao and he was legally the next peshwa.

Twelve Maratha chiefs (Barabhai), led by Nana Phadnavis,

made an effort to name the infant as the new peshwa and

rule for him as regents.

Treaties of Surat and Purandhar Raghunathrao,

unwilling to give up his position in power, sought help from

the English at Bombay and signed the Treaty of Surat in

1775. Under the treaty, Raghunathrao ceded the territories

of Salsette and Bassein to the English along with a portion

of the revenues from Surat and Bharuch districts. In return,

the English were to provide Raghunathrao with 2,500 soldiers.

The British Calcutta Council, on the other side of India,

condemned the Treaty of Surat (1775) and sent Colonel

Upton to Pune to annul it and make a new treaty (Treaty

of Purandhar, 1776) with the regency renouncing Raghunath

and promising him a pension. The Bombay government

rejected this and gave refuge to Raghunath. In 1777, Nana

Phadnavis violated his treaty with the Calcutta Council by

granting the French a port on the west coast. The English

retaliated by sending a force towards Pune.

104

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Course of War

The English and the Maratha armies met on the outskirts of

Pune. Though the Maratha army had a larger number of

soldiers than the English, the latter had highly superior

ammunition and cannons. However, the Maratha army was

commanded by a brilliant general named Mahadji Scindia

(also known as Mahadji Shinde). Mahadji lured the English

army into the ghats (mountain passes) near Talegaon and

trapped the English from all sides and attacked the English

supply base at Khopali. The Marathas also utilised a scorched

earth policy, burning farmland and poisoning wells. As the

English began to withdraw to Talegaon, the Marathas attacked,

forcing them to retreat to the village of Wadgaon. Here, the

English army was surrounded on all sides by the Marathas

and cut off from food and water supplies. The English

surrendered by mid-January 1779 and signed the Treaty of

Wadgaon that forced the Bombay government to relinquish

all territories acquired by the English since 1775.

Treaty of Salbai (1782): End of the First Phase of

the Struggle Warren Hastings, the Governor General in

Bengal, rejected the Treaty of Wadgaon and sent a large force

of soldiers under Colonel Goddard, who captured Ahmedabad

in February 1779, and Bassein in December 1780. Another

Bengal detachment led by Captain Popham captured Gwalior

in August 1780. In February 1781, the English, under General

Camac, finally defeated Sindhia at Sipri.

Sindhia proposed a new treaty between the Peshwa and

the English, and the Treaty of Salbai was signed in May 1782;

it was ratified by Hastings in June 1782 and by Phadnavis

in February 1783. The treaty guaranteed peace between the

two sides for twenty years. The main provisions of the Treaty

of Salbai were:

(i) Salsette should continue in the possession of the

English.

(ii) The whole of the territory conquered since the

Treaty of Purandhar (1776), including Bassein, should be

restored to the Marathas.

(iii) In Gujarat, Fateh Singh Gaekwad should remain in

possession of the territory which he had before the war and

should serve the Peshwa as before.

Expansion and Consolidation of British Power

✫

105

(iv) The English should not offer any further support

to Raghunathrao and the Peshwa should grant him a

maintenance allowance.

(v) Haidar Ali should return all the territory taken from

the English and the Nawab of Arcot.

(vi) The English should enjoy the privileges at trade

as before.

(vii) The Peshwa should not support any other European

nation.

(viii) The Peshwa and the English should undertake that

their several allies should remain at peace with one another.

(ix) Mahadji Scindia should be the mutual guarantor for

the proper observance of the terms of the treaty.

Second Anglo-Maratha War (1803–05)

Background

The Second Anglo-Maratha war started in circumstances

similar to those of the first. After Peshwa Madhavrao Narayan

committed suicide in 1795, Bajirao II, the worthless son of

Raghunathrao, became the Peshwa. Nana Phadnavis, a bitter

foe of Bajirao II, became the chief minister. The dissensions

among the Marathas provided the English with an opportunity

to intervene in Maratha affairs. The death of Nana Phadnavis

in 1800 gave the British an added advantage.
Course of War

On April 1, 1801, the Peshwa brutally murdered the brother

of Jaswantrao (also called Yashwantrao by some historians)

Holkar, Vithuji. A furious Jaswant arrayed his forces against

the combined armies of Scindia and Bajirao II. The turmoil

continued, and on October 25, 1802, Jaswant defeated the

armies of the Peshwa and Scindia decisively at Hadapsar near

Poona and placed Vinayakrao, son of Amritrao, on the

Peshwa’s seat. A terrified Bajirao II fled to Bassein where,

on December 31, 1802, he signed a treaty with the English.

Treaty of Bassein (1802) Under the treaty, the Peshwa

agreed:

(i) to receive from the Company a native infantry

(consisting of not less than 6,000 troops), with the usual

proportion of field artillery and European artillery men

attached, to be permanently stationed in his territories;

106

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

(ii) to cede to the Company territories yielding an

income of Rs 26 lakh;

(iii) to surrender the city of Surat;

(iv) to give up all claims for chauth on the Nizam’s

dominions;

(v) to accept the Company’s arbitration in all differences

between him and the Nizam or the Gaekwad;

(vi) not to keep in his employment Europeans of any

nation at war with the English; and

(vii) to subject his relations with other states to the

control of the English.

Reduced to Vassalage After the Peshwa accepted the

subsidiary alliance, Scindia and Bhonsle attempted to save

Maratha independence. But the well-prepared and organised

army of the English under Arthur Wellesley defeated the

combined armies of Scindia and Bhonsle and forced them

to conclude separate subsidiary treaties with the English.

In 1804, Yashwantrao Holkar made an attempt to form

a coalition of Indian rulers to fight against the English. But

his attempt proved unsuccessful. The Marathas were defeated,

reduced to British vassalage and isolated from one another.

[(i) Defeat of Bhonsle (December 17, 1803, Treaty of

Deogaon); (ii) Defeat of Scindia (December 30, 1803,

Treaty of Surji-Anjangaon); and (iii) Defeat of Holkar

(1806, Treaty of Rajpurghat)].

Significance of the Treaty of Bassein Admittedly, the

treaty was signed by a Peshwa who lacked political authority,

but the gains made by the English were immense. The

provision of keeping English troops permanently in Maratha

territory was of great strategical benefit. The Company

already had troops in Mysore, Hyderabad, and Lucknow. The

addition of Poona on the list meant that the Company’s troops

were now more evenly spread and could be rushed to any

place without much delay in times of need. Though the Treaty

of Bassein did not hand over India to the Company on a

platter, it was a major development in that direction; the

Company was now well placed to expand its areas of

influence. In the circumstances, the observation that the

treaty “gave the English the key to India,” may be exaggerated,

but appears understandable.

Expansion and Consolidation of British Power

✫

107

Third Anglo-Maratha War (1817–19)

Background

Lord Hastings had the imperialistic design of imposing

British paramountcy. By the Charter Act of 1813, the East

India Company’s monopoly of trade in China (except tea)

ended and, hence, the company needed more markets.

The Pindaris, made up of many castes and classes, were

attached to Maratha armies as mercenaries. When the Marathas

became weak, the Pindaris could not get regular employment.

As a consequence, they started plundering neighbouring

territories, including those of the Company. The English

charged the Marathas with giving shelter to the Pindaris.

Pindari leaders like Amir Khan and Karim Khan surrendered,

while Chitu Khan fled into the jungles.

The Treaty of Bassein, described as “a treaty with a

cipher (the Peshwa)”, wounded the feelings of the other

Maratha leaders. They saw the treaty as an absolute surrender

of independence.

Lord Hastings’ actions taken against the Pindaris were

seen as a transgression of the sovereignty of the Marathas;

they served to once again unite the Maratha confederacy. A

repentant Bajirao II made a last bid in 1817 by rallying

together the Maratha chiefs against the English in course of

the Third Anglo-Maratha War.
Course of War

The Peshwa attacked the British Residency at Poona. Appa

Sahib of Nagpur attacked the residency at Nagpur, and the

Holkar made preparations for war. But, by then, the Marathas

had lost almost all those elements which are needed for the

growth of a power. The political and administrative conditions

of all the Maratha states were confused and inefficient. After

the death of Jaswantrao Holkar, Tulsi Bai, the Holkar’s

favourite mistress, came to the helm of affairs in Poona.

Though a clever and intelligent woman, she could not

administer the state properly because she was influenced by

some unworthy men such as Balram Seth and Amir Khan.

The Bhonsle at Nagpur and the Scindia at Gwalior had also

become weak. So, the English, striking back vigorously,

108

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

succeeded in not allowing the Peshwa to exert his authority

again on the Maratha confederacy.

Result The Peshwa was defeated at Khirki, Bhonsle at

Sitabuldi, and Holkar at Mahidpur.

Some important treaties were signed. These were:

●

June 1817, Treaty of Poona, with Peshwa.

●

November 1817, Treaty of Gwalior, with Scindia.

●

January 1818, Treaty of Mandasor, with Holkar.

In June 1818, the Peshwa finally surrendered and the

Maratha confederacy was dissolved. The peshwaship was

abolished. Peshwa Bajirao became a British retainer at Bithur

near Kanpur. Pratap Singh, a lineal descendant of Shivaji, was

made ruler of a small principality, Satara, formed out of the

Peshwa’s dominions.

Why the Marathas Lost

There were several reasons for the Marathas’ defeat by the

English. The main reasons were as follows:

(i) Inept Leadership The Maratha state was despotic

in character. The personality and character of the head of

the state had a great bearing on the affairs of the state. But,

unfortunately, the later Maratha leaders Bajirao II, Daulatrao

Scindia and Jaswantrao Holkar were worthless and selfish

leaders. They were no match for the English officials such

as Elphinstone, John Malcolm, and Arthur Wellesley (who

later led the English to conquer Napoleon).

(ii) Defective Nature of Maratha State The cohesion

of the people of the Maratha state was not organic but

artificial and accidental, and hence precarious. There was no

effort, right from the days of Shivaji, for a well-thought-out

organised communal improvement, spread of education, or

unification of the people. The rise of the Maratha state was

based on the religio-national movement. This defect of the

Maratha state became glaring when they had to contend with

a European power organised on the best pattern of the West.

(iii) Loose Political Set-up The Maratha empire was

a loose confederation under the leadership of the Chhatrapati

and later the Peshwa. Powerful chiefs such as the Gaikwad,

the Holkar, the Scindia, and the Bhonsle carved out semi-

independent kingdoms for themselves and paid lip service to

Expansion and Consolidation of British Power

✫

109

the authority of the Peshwa. Further, there existed

irreconcilable hostility between different units of the

confederacy. The Maratha chief often took sides with one

or the other. The lack of a cooperative spirit among the

Maratha chiefs proved detrimental to the Maratha state.

(iv) Inferior Military System Though full of personal

prowess and valour, the Marathas were inferior to the English

in organisation of the forces, in war weapons, in disciplined

action, and in effective leadership. The centrifugal tendencies

of divided command accounted for much of the Maratha

failures. Treachery in the ranks was instrumental in weakening

the Maratha forces. The adoption of the modern techniques

of warfare by the Marathas was inadequate. The Marathas

neglected the paramount importance of artillery. Though the

Poona government set up an artillery department, it hardly

functioned effectively.

(v) Unstable Economic Policy The Maratha leadership

failed to evolve a stable economic policy to suit the changing

needs of time. There were no industries or foreign trade

openings. So, the economy of the Maratha was not conducive

to a stable political set-up.

(vi) Superior English Diplomacy and Espionage The

English had better diplomatic skill to win allies and isolate

the enemy. The disunity among the Maratha chiefs simplified

the task of the English. Diplomatic superiority enabled the

English to take a quick offensive against the target.

Unlike the Marathas’ ignorance and lack of information

about their enemy, the English maintained a well-knit spy

system to gather knowledge of the potentialities, strengths,

weaknesses, and military methods of their foes.

(vii) Progressive English Outlook The English were

rejuvenated by the forces of Renaissance, emancipating them

from the shackles of the Church. They were devoting their

energies to scientific inventions, extensive ocean voyages,

and acquisition of colonies. Indians, on the other hand, were

still steeped in medievalism marked by old dogmas and

notions. The Maratha leaders paid very little attention to

mundane matters of the state. Insistence on maintenance of

traditional social hierarchy based on the dominance of the

priestly class made the union of an empire difficult.

110

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

In the end, it can be concluded that the English attacked

a ‘divided house’ which started crumbling after a few pushes.

Conquest of Sindh

In the early 19th century, the English started to show an

interest in Sindh where they enjoyed some trade facilities

authorised by a farman of the Mughal Emperor in 1630. The

farman provided the English with such privileges in the ports

of Sindh which they enjoyed elsewhere.

Rise of Talpuras Amirs

In the 18th century, prior to the rule of Talpuras Amirs, Sindh

was ruled by the Kallora chiefs. In 1758, an English factory

was built at Thatta, owing to a parwana given by the Kallora

prince, Ghulam Shah. In 1761, Ghulam Shah, on the arrival

of an English resident in his court, not only ratified the

earlier treaty, but also excluded other Europeans from trading

there. This advantage was enjoyed by the English up to 1775

when a not-too-friendly ruler, Sarfraz Khan, made the English

close their factory.

In the 1770s, a Baluch tribe called Talpuras, descended

from the hills and settled in the plains of Sindh. They were

excellent soldiers as well as adapted to hard life. They

acquired great influence and soon usurped power in the new

region. In 1783, the Talpuras, under the leadership of Mir

Fath (Fatah) Ali Khan, established complete hold over Sindh

and sent the Kallora prince into exile. The then Durrani

monarch confirmed the claims of Mir Fath Khan and ordered

the latter to share the country with his brothers (Mir’s

brothers, popularly known as ‘Char Yar’). When Mir Fath

died in 1800, the Char Yar divided the kingdom among

themselves, calling themselves the Amirs or Lords of Sindh.

These amirs extended their dominion on all sides. They

conquered Amarkot from the Raja of Jodhpur, Karachi from

the chief of Luz, and Shaikarpur and Bukkar from the Afghans.

Gradual Ascendancy over Sindh

A common belief in the late 18th century was that Napoleon

was conspiring with Tipu Sultan to invade India. In 1799,

behind Lord Wellesley’s efforts to revive commercial relations

Expansion and Consolidation of British Power

✫

111

with Sindh was the hidden aim to counteract the alliance of

the French, Tipu Sultan and Shah Zaman, the Kabul monarch.

Negotiations were opened with Fath Ali Khan. But under the

influence of Tipu Sultan and the jealousy of the local traders,

aided by the anti-British party at Hyderabad (Sindh), the amir

in October 1800, ordered the British agent to quit Sindh

within ten days. The British agent (Crow) left Sindh and the

Company quietly suffered the insult.
Treaty of ‘Eternal Friendship’

In June 1807, the alliance of Tilsit with Alexander I of Russia

was joined by Napoleon Bonaparte. The alliance had as one

of its conditions a combined invasion of India by the land

route. Now the British wanted to create a barrier between

Russia and British India. To achieve this, Lord Minto sent

three delegations under the leadership of various prominent

persons to forge alliances. Accordingly, Metcalfe was sent

to Lahore, Elphinstone to Kabul, and Malcolm to Teheran.

Sindh was visited by Nicholas Smith, who met the Amirs to

conclude a defensive arrangement. After negotiations, the

Amirs agreed to a treaty—their first-ever treaty with the

English. After professing eternal friendship, both sides

agreed to exclude the French from Sindh and to exchange

agents at each other’s court. The treaty was renewed in 1820,

with the addition of an article excluding the Americans and

resolving some border disputes on the side of Kachch after

the final defeat of the Maratha confederacy in 1818.
Treaty of 1832

In 1832, William Bentinck sent Colonel Pottinger to Sindh

to sign a treaty with the Amirs. The provisions of the treaty

were as follows:

(i) Free passage through Sindh would be allowed to the

English traders and travellers and the use of Indus for trading

purposes; however, no warships would ply, nor any materials

for war would be carried.

(ii) No English merchant would settle down in Sindh,

and passports would be needed for travellers.

(iii) Tariff rates could be altered by the Amirs if found

high and no military dues or tolls would be demanded.

112

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

(iv) The Amirs would work with the Raja of Jodhpur

to put down the robbers of Kachch.

(v) The old treaties were confirmed and the parties

would not be jealous of each other.
Lord Auckland and Sindh

Lord Auckland, who became the Governor General in 1836,

looked at Sindh from the perspective of saving India from

a possible Russian invasion and wished to obtain a counteracting

influence over the Afghans. Ranjit Singh in Punjab was strong

enough to resist coercion in this regard, but the Amirs were

not. Thus, the English view was that they had to consolidate

their position in Sindh as a necessary first step for their plans

on Afghanistan. They got an opportunity when Ranjit Singh

captured a frontier town of Sindh, Rojhan, and Pottinger was

sent to Hyderabad to sign a new treaty with the Amirs. The

treaty offered protection to the Amirs on the condition that

the Company troops would be kept in the capital at the Amir’s

expense or alternatively the English would be given suitable

concessions in return. The Amirs initially refused but later

agreed reluctantly to sign the treaty in 1838 when the

possibility of Ranjit Singh getting help from others was

pointed out to them. The treaty permitted the English to

intervene in the disputes between the Amirs and the Sikhs

as also to establish the presence of a British resident who

could go anywhere he liked escorted by English troops. Thus,

Sindh was turned into a British protectorate in 1838.

Tripartite Treaty of 1838 To address the Afghan

problem (as the British imagined it), the Company resorted

to further duplicity. Firstly, they persuaded Ranjit Singh to

sign a tripartite treaty in June 1838 agreeing to British

mediation in his disputes with the Amirs, and then made

View

Under Auckland and his cabinet of secretaries British policy in
India had fallen to a lower level of unscrupulousness than ever
before and the plain fact is that the treatment of Sindh from
this time onward, however expedient politically, was morally
indefensible.

—P.E. Roberts

Expansion and Consolidation of British Power

✫

113

Emperor Shah Shuja give up his sovereign rights on Sindh,

provided the arrears of tribute were paid. The exact amount

of the tribute was to be determined by the English whose

main objective was to obtain finances for the Afghan

adventure and obtain so much of the Amirs’ territory as would

secure a line of operation against Afghanistan through Sindh.

Sindh Accepts Subsidiary Alliance (1839) The

Company intended to persuade or compel the Amirs to pay

the money and also to consent to the abrogation of that article

in the treaty of 1832, which prohibited the movement of

English troops in Sindh by land or by river. B.L. Grover

writes: “Under threat of superior force, the Amirs accepted

a treaty in February 1839 by which a British subsidiary force

had to be stationed at Shikarpur and Bukkar and the Amirs

of Sindh were to pay Rs 3 lakh annually for the maintenance

of the Company’s troops.” Henceforth, the Amirs were

debarred from having any negotiations with foreign states

without the knowledge of the Company. Further, they were

to provide a storeroom at Karachi for the Company’s military

supplies, besides abolishing all tolls on the Indus, and

furnishing an auxiliary force for the Afghan war if called upon

to do so.

Capitulation of Sindh The first Anglo-Afghan War

(1839–42), fought on the soil of Sindh, was never liked by

the Amirs of Sindh; neither did they like the presence of

the British troops in their region. However, under the treaty

they were asked to pay for all this, which they did. They were

not rewarded or thanked for their services, but were charged

with hostility and disaffection against the British government.

The Amirs were charged with treasonable activities against

the British, and Ellenborough, placed in a precarious position

due to the Afghan war reverses, sent Outram to Sindh to

negotiate a new treaty. Under this treaty, the Amirs were

required to cede important provinces as the price of their

past transgressions, to supply fuel to the Company’s steamers

plying on the Indus, and to stop minting coins. Furthermore,

in a succession dispute, the English intervened through

Napier and started a war when the Amirs rose in revolt. The

whole of Sindh capitulated within a short time, and the Amirs

114

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

were made captives and banished from Sindh. In 1843, under

Governor General Ellenborough, Sindh was merged into the

British Empire and Charles Napier was appointed its first

governor.

Criticisms of the Conquest of Sindh

Historians generally condemn the acquisition of Sindh by the

British in strong words. The causes for annexation were

deliberately manufactured. Like many episodes in the British

conquest of India, the Afghan war is also a tale of bullying

tactics and deceit. However, in the instance of the First

Afghan War, the English suffered terribly at the hands of the

Afghans with a corresponding loss of prestige. To compensate

for this, they annexed Sindh, which prompted Elphinstone to

comment: “Coming from Afghanistan it put one in mind of

a bully who has been knocked in the street and went home

to beat his wife in revenge.”

Conquest of Punjab

Consolidation of Punjab under the Sikhs

After the murder of the last Sikh guru, Guru Gobind Singh,

a section of Sikhs under the leadership of Banda Bahadur

revolted against the Mughals during the rule of Bahadur Shah.

In 1715, Banda Bahadur was defeated by Farrukhsiyar and put

to death in 1716. Thus, the Sikh polity, once again, became

Views

We have no right to seize Sindh, yet we shall do so, and a
very advantageous, useful, humane piece of rascality it will be.

—Charles Napier

...to remove such brutal tyrants (the Amirs) was worthy of
England’s greatness. The conquest of Sindh is therefore no
iniquity...

—Charles Napier

I am sick of your policy; I will not say yours is the best, but
it is undoubtedly the shortest, that of the sword...

—James Outram, Deputy of Napier at

the time of annexation of Sindh.

Expansion and Consolidation of British Power

✫

115

leaderless and later got divided into two groups—Bandai

(Liberal) and Tat Khalsa (Orthodox). This rift among the

followers ended in 1721 under the influence of Bhai Mani

Singh. Later, in 1784, Kapur Singh Faizullapuria organised

the Sikhs under Dal Khalsa, with the objective of uniting

followers of Sikhism, politically, culturally, and economically.

The whole body of the Khalsa was formed into two sections—

Budha Dal, the army of the veterans, and Taruna Dal, the

army of the young.

The weakness of the Mughals and invasions of Ahmad

Shah Abdali created a general confusion and anarchy in

Punjab. These political conditions helped the organised Dal

Khalsa to consolidate further. The Sikhs consolidated in

misls, which were military brotherhoods with a democratic

set-up. Misl is an Arabic word which means equal or alike.

Another meaning of Misl is State. During the period, 1763

to 1773, many misls started to rule the Punjab region under

Sikh chieftains, from Saharanpur in the east to Attock in the

west, from the mountaineous regions of the north to Multan

in the south.
Sukarchakiya Misl and Ranjit Singh

At the time of the birth of Ranjit Singh (November 2, 1780),

there were 12 important misls—Ahluwaliya, Bhangi,

Dallewalia, Faizullapuria, Kanhaiya, Krorasinghia, Nakkai,

Nishaniya, Phulakiya, Ramgarhiya Sukharchakiya, and

Shaheed. The central administration of a misl was based on

Gurumatta Sangh, which was essentially a political, social,

and economic system. Ranjit Singh was the son of Mahan

Singh, the leader of the Sukarchakiya misl. Mahan Singh died

when Ranjit Singh was only 12 years old. But Ranjit Singh

showed an early acumen at political affairs. Towards the close

of the 18th century, all the important misls (except

Sukarchakiya) were in a state of disintegration. Afghanistan

was also engulfed in a civil war due to a power struggle which

went on for the next three decades. These events in the

neighbouring regions were fully exploited by Ranjit Singh,

who followed a ruthless policy of ‘blood and iron’ and carved

out for himself a kingdom in the central Punjab. In 1799,

Ranjit Singh was appointed as the governor of Lahore by

116

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Zaman Shah, the ruler of Afghanistan. In 1805, Ranjit Singh

acquired Jammu and Amritsar, and, thus, the political capital

(Lahore) and religious capital (Amritsar) of Punjab came

under the rule of Ranjit Singh. He also maintained good

relations with the Dogras and the Nepalese and enlisted them

in his army.

Ranjit Singh and the English

The prospects of a joint Franco-Russian invasion of India

through the land-route had alarmed the English. In 1807, Lord

Minto sent Charles Metcalfe to Lahore. Ranjit Singh offered

to accept Metcalfe’s proposal of an offensive and defensive

alliance on the condition that the English would remain

neutral in case of a Sikh-Afghan war and would consider

Ranjit Singh the sovereign of the entire Punjab, including the

Malwa (cis-Sutlej) territories. However, the negotiations

failed. In the changed political scenario in which the

Napoleonic danger receded and the English became more

assertive, Ranjit Singh agreed to sign the Treaty of Amritsar

(April 25, 1809) with the Company.
Treaty of Amritsar

The Treaty of Amritsar was significant for its immediate as

well as potential effects. It checked one of the most

cherished ambitions of Ranjit Singh to extend his rule over

the entire Sikh nation by accepting the river Sutlej as the

boundary line for his dominions and the Company’s. Now

he directed his energies towards the west and captured Multan

(1818), Kashmir (1819), and Peshawar (1834).

In June 1838, Ranjit Singh was compelled by political

compulsions to sign the Tripartite Treaty with the English;

however, he refused to give passage to the British army

through his territories to attack Dost Mohammad, the Afghan

Amir.

The relations of Raja Ranjit Singh with the Company,

from 1809 to 1839, clearly indicate the former’s weak

position. Although he was conscious of his weak position,

he took no step to organise a coalition of other Indian princes

or maintain a balance of power. Ranjit Singh died in June

1839, and, with his death, the process of the decline of his

empire began.

Expansion and Consolidation of British Power

✫

117

Punjab After Ranjit Singh

Beginning of Court Factions

Ranjit Singh’s only legitimate son and successor, Kharak

Singh, was not efficient, and during the brief period of his

reign, court factions became active. Kharak Singh’s sudden

death in 1839 and the accidental death of his son, Prince

Nau Nihal Singh (when he was returning from his father’s

funeral), led to an anarchic situation in Punjab. Plans and

counter plans of various groups to capture the throne of

Lahore provided an opportunity for decisive action by the

English. The army—the pillar of the Sikh state—was far less

strong than it appeared to be. Ranjit Singh’s able generals—

Mokham Chand, Dewan Chand, Hari Singh Nalwa, and Ram

Dayal—were already dead. Already discontent was growing

among the troops as a result of irregularity of payment. The

appointment of unworthy officers led to indiscipline. The

Lahore government, continuing the policy of friendship with

the English company, permitted the British troops to pass

through its territory—once, when they were fleeing from

Afghanistan, and again, when they were marching back to

Afghanistan to avenge their defeat. These marches resulted

in commotion and economic dislocation in Punjab.
Rani Jindal and Daleep Singh

After the death of Nau Nihal Singh, Sher Singh, another son

of Ranjit Singh succeeded, but he was murdered in late 1843.

Soon afterwards, Daleep Singh, a minor son of Ranjit Singh,

was proclaimed the Maharaja with Rani Jindan as regent and

Hira Singh Dogra as wazir. Hira Singh himself fell a victim

to a court intrigue and was murdered in 1844. The new wazir,

Jawahar Singh, the brother of Rani Jindan, soon incurred the

displeasure of the army and was deposed and put to death

in 1845. Lal Singh, a lover of Rani Jindan, won over the army

to his side and became the wazir in the same year, and Teja

Singh was appointed as the commander of the forces.

First Anglo-Sikh War (1845–46)

Causes

The outbreak of the first of the Anglo-Sikh wars has been

attributed to the action of the Sikh army crossing the River

118

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Sutlej on December 11, 1845. This was seen as an aggressive

manoeuvre that provided the English with the justification to

declare war. The causes were, however, much more complex

and may be listed as follows:

(i) the anarchy in the Lahore kingdom following the

death of Maharaja Ranjit Singh resulting in a power

struggle for domination between the court at Lahore

and the ever-powerful and increasingly local army;

(ii) suspicions amongst the Sikh army arising from

English military campaigns to achieve the annexation

of Gwalior and Sindh in 1841 and the campaign in

Afghanistan in 1842; and

(iii) the increase in the number of English troops being

stationed near the border with the Lahore kingdom.

Course of War

The war began in December 1845, with 20,000 to 30,000

troops in the British side, while the Sikhs had about 50,000

men under the overall command of Lal Singh. But the

treachery of Lal Singh and Teja Singh caused five successive

defeats to the Sikhs at Mudki (December 18, 1845),

Ferozeshah (December 21–22, 1845), Buddelwal, Aliwal

(January 28, 1846), and at Sobraon (February 10, 1846).

Lahore fell to the British forces on February 20, 1846

without a fight.

Treaty of Lahore (March 8, 1846) The end of the

first Anglo-Sikh War forced the Sikhs to sign a humiliating

treaty on March 8, 1846. The main features of the Treaty

of Lahore were as follows:

●

War indemnity of more than 1 crore rupees was to

be given to the English.

●

The Jalandhar Doab (between the Beas and the Sutlej)

was annexed to the Company’s dominions.

●

A British resident was to be established at Lahore

under Henry Lawrence.

●

The strength of the Sikh army was reduced.

●

Daleep Singh was recognised as the ruler under Rani

Jindan as regent and Lal Singh as wazir.

●

Since the Sikhs were not able to pay the entire war

indemnity, Kashmir, including Jammu, was sold to Gulab Singh

Expansion and Consolidation of British Power

✫

119

and he was required to pay 75 lakh rupees to the Company

as the price. The transfer of Kashmir to Gulab Singh was

formalised by a separate treaty on March 16, 1846.

Treaty of Bhairowal The Sikhs were not satisfied with

the Treaty of Lahore over the issue of Kashmir, so they

rebelled. In December, 1846, the Treaty of Bhairowal was

signed. According to the provisions of this treaty, Rani Jindan

was removed as regent and a council of regency for Punjab

was set up. The council consisted of 8 Sikh sardars presided

over by the English Resident, Henry Lawrence.

Second Anglo-Sikh War (1848–49)

Causes

The defeat in the first Anglo-Sikh War and the provisions

of the treaties of Lahore and Bhairowal were highly humiliating

for the Sikhs. Inhuman treatment meted out to Rani Jindan,

who was sent to Benares as a pensioner, added to the

resentment of the Sikhs.

Mulraj, the governor of Multan, was replaced by a new

Sikh governor over the issue of increase in annual revenue.

Mulraj revolted and murdered two English officers

accompanying the new governor. Sher Singh was sent to

suppress the revolt, but he himself joined Mulraj, leading to

a mass uprising in Multan. This could be considered as the

immediate cause of the war. The then Governor General of

India, Lord Dalhousie, a hardcore expansionist, got the

pretext to annex Punjab completely.
Course of War

Lord Dalhousie himself proceeded to Punjab. Three important

battles were fought before the final annexation of Punjab.

These three battles were:

(i) Battle of Ramnagar, led by Sir Hugh Gough, the

commander-in-chief of the Company

(ii) Battle of Chillhanwala, January, 1849

(iii) Battle of Gujarat, February 21, 1849; the Sikh army

surrendered at Rawalpindi, and their Afghan allies were

chased out of India. (Gujarat is a small town on the banks

of River Jhelum.)

120

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Result At the end of the war came:

●

surrender of the Sikh army and Sher Singh in 1849;

●

annexation of Punjab; and for his services the Earl

of Dalhousie was given the thanks of the British

Parliament and a promotion in the peerage, as

Marquess;

●

setting up of a three-member board to govern Punjab,

comprising of the Lawrence brothers (Henry and

John) and Charles Mansel.

In 1853, the board was nullified and Punjab was placed

under a chief commissioner. John Lawrence became the first

chief commissioner.

Significance of the Anglo-Sikh Wars

The Anglo-Sikh wars gave the two sides a mutual respect for

each other’s fighting prowess. The Sikhs were to fight loyally

on the British side in the Revolt of 1857 and in many other

campaigns and wars uptil the Indian independence in 1947.

Extension of British
Paramountcy Through
Administrative Policy

The process of imperial expansion and consolidation of

British paramountcy was carried on by the Company during

the 1757–1857 period through a two-fold method: (a) policy

of annexation by conquest or war; and (b) policy of annexation

by diplomacy and administrative mechanisms. We have

already discussed how the Company defeated and subjugated,

one by one, the major Indian powers like Bengal, Mysore,

the Marathas, and the Sikhs, mainly by waging wars against

them and through considerable deceit. But in the case of

many other powers, the British applied diplomatic and

administrative policies. In this context, we may cite examples

of Warren Hastings’ ‘ring-fence’ policy, Wellesley’s system

of ‘subsidiary alliance’, and Dalhousie’s ‘doctrine of lapse’

to see how the British dominion expanded in India.

The Policy of Ring-Fence

Warren Hastings took charge as the governor general at a

critical period of British rule when the British were to

Expansion and Consolidation of British Power

✫

121

encounter the powerful combination of the Marathas, Mysore,

and Hyderabad. He followed a policy of ring-fence which

aimed at creating buffer zones to defend the Company’s

frontiers. Broadly speaking, it was the policy of defence of

their neighbours’ frontiers for safeguarding their own

territories. This policy of Warren Hastings was reflected in

his war against the Marathas and Mysore. The chief danger

to the Company’s territories was from the Afghan invaders

and the Marathas. To safeguard against these dangers, the

Company undertook to organise the defence of the frontiers

of Awadh on the condition that the Nawab would defray the

expenses of the defending army. The defence of Awadh

constituted the defence of Bengal during that time. Thus, the

states brought under the ring-fence system were assured of

military assistance against external aggression—but at their

own expense. In other words, these allies were required to

maintain subsidiary forces which were to be organised,

equipped, and commanded by the officers of the Company

who, in turn, were to be paid by the rulers of these states.

Wellesley’s policy of subsidiary alliance was, in fact,

an extension of the ring-fence system which sought to reduce

the Indian states into a position of dependence on the British

government.

Subsidiary Alliance

The subsidiary alliance system was used by Lord Wellesley,

who was governor general from 1798–1805, to build an

empire in India. Under the system, the allying Indian state’s

ruler was compelled to accept the permanent stationing of

a British force within his territory and to pay a subsidy for

its maintenance. The Indian ruler had to agree to the posting

of a British resident in his court. The Indian ruler could not

employ any European in his service without the prior

consultation with the Company. Nor could he go to war or

negotiate with any other Indian ruler without consulting the

governor general. In return for all this, the British would

defend the ruler from his enemies and adopt a policy of non-

interference in the internal matters of the allied state.

One of the objectives behind Wellesley’s strengthening

122

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

of the subsidiary alliance system was to keep the French from

reviving and expanding their influence in India. Around this

time, the fear of Napoleon’s expedition towards the East was

very real for the British who felt that the French could attack

the western coast of India from their colony of Mauritius.

Hence, the clause in the alliance treaty the Indian rulers to

dismiss Europeans (other than the British) from their service

and not employ any. By means of this system, the Company

could station its forces at strategic locations and keep the

French at bay. Besides, the subsidiary alliance would expand

the Company’s hold over the Indian states and gradually bring

more and more territory into the Company’s fold.

The Indian rulers lost their independence by buying

security. They were not free of interference from the British

Resident. They lost much of their revenue, paying for the

British troops. Also, the alliance made the Indian rulers weak

and irresponsible; the subjects were exploited and it was

practically impossible to depose the oppressive rulers as they

were protected by the British.
Evolution and Perfection

It was probably Dupleix, who first gave on hire (so to say)

European troops to Indian rulers to fight their wars. Since

then, almost all the governor generals from Clive onwards

applied the system to various Indian states and brought it to

near perfection.

The first Indian state to fall into this protection trap

(which anticipated the subsidiary alliance system) was Awadh,

which, in 1765, signed a treaty under which the Company

pledged to defend the frontiers of Awadh on the condition

of the Nawab defraying the expenses of such defence. It was

in 1787 that the Company first insisted that the subsidiary

state should not have foreign relations. This was included in

the treaty with the Nawab of Carnatic which Cornwallis

signed in February 1787. It was Wellesley’s genius to make

it a general rule to negotiate for the surrender of territory

in full sovereignty for the maintenance of the subsidiary

force.

Expansion and Consolidation of British Power

✫

123

View

Wellesley converted the British Empire

in India to the British

Empire

of India. From one of the political powers in India, the

Company became the supreme power in India and claimed the
whole country as its sole protectorate. From Wellesley’s time
onwards the defence of India was the Company’s responsibility.

—Sidney J. Owen (Selection from

Wellesley’s Despatches)

Stages of Application of Subsidiary Alliance

There were four stages in the evolution of the subsidiary

alliance. In the first stage, the Company offered to help a

friendly Indian state with its troops to fight any war the state

might be engaged in. The second stage consisted of making

a common cause with the Indian state now made friendly and

taking the field with its own soldiers and those of the state.

Now came the third stage when the Indian ally was asked

not for men but for money. In return, the Company promised

that it would recruit, train, and maintain a fixed number of

soldiers under British officers, and that the contingent would

be available to the ruler for his personal protection as also

for keeping out aggressors. In the fourth or the last stage,

the money or the protection fee was fixed, usually at a high

level; when the state failed to pay the money in time, it was

asked to cede certain parts of its territories to the Company

in lieu of payment.

The Company’s entry into the affairs of the state had

begun; now it would be for the British resident (installed in

the state capital under the treaty) to initiate, sustain, and

hasten the process of eventual annexation.

States which Accepted Alliance

The Indian princes who accepted the subsidiary system were:

the Nizam of Hyderabad (September 1798 and 1800), the

ruler of Mysore (1799), the ruler of Tanjore (October 1799),

the Nawab of Awadh (November 1801), the Peshwa (December

1801), the Bhonsle Raja of Berar (December 1803), the

Scindia (February 1804), the Rajput states of Jodhpur, Jaipur,

Macheri, Bundi, and the ruler of Bharatpur (1818). The

Holkars were the last Maratha confederation to accept the

Subsidiary Alliance in 1818.

124

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Views

A 1950 Colonial Office paper disarmingly says that Britain ‘as
a seafaring and trading nation... had long been a “collector of
islands and peninsulas”’. In a much-quoted remark, Sir John
Seeley, the Regius Professor of Modern History at Cambridge,
said something similar in 1883: ‘We seem, as it were, to have
conquered and peopled half the world in a fit of absence of mind.
That didn’t mean quite what it seemed to say: what Seeley meant
was that there had not been a

coherent policy behind Britain’s

imperial expansion. There had been an incoherent set of policies.
The 1950 paper explained that the collection of islands and
peninsulas was assembled to protect trade and the sea routes.
The motive for Empire was selfish… the motivation consisted
of desires which interlocked: desires for wealth, for strategic
possessions from which to defend the wealth, and for prestige,
the inevitable concomitant of wealth. In the process, numberless
hundreds of thousands of native populations were slaughtered,
… Almost always, the subject races, even the most sophisticated
and educated amongst them, were regarded as and made to
feel inferior to the ruling caste.

—Walter Reid,

Keeping the Jewel in the Crown

In the hundred years after Plassey, the East India Company,
with an army of 260,000 men at the start of the nineteenth
century and the backing of the British government and Parliament
(many of whose members were shareholders in the enterprise),
extended its control over most of India. The Company conquered
and absorbed a number of hitherto independent or autonomous
states, imposed executive authority through a series of high-
born Governors General appointed from London, regulated the
country’s trade, collected taxes and imposed its fiat on all
aspects of Indian life.

Shashi Tharoor,

An Era of Darkness

Doctrine of Lapse

In simple terms, the doctrine stated that the adopted son

could be the heir to his foster father’s private property, but

not the state; it was for the paramount power (the British)

to decide whether to bestow the state on the adopted son

or to annex it. The doctrine was stated to be based on Hindu

law and Indian customs, but Hindu law seemed to be

somewhat inconclusive on this point, and the instances of

Expansion and Consolidation of British Power

✫

125

Annexation of Awadh

Awadh was the oldest of the surviving states brought under the
Subsidiary Alliance, and the cruel impact of the system resulted
in its continuous maladministration under profligate and extravagant
nawabs for a long spell of 80 years.

The people suffered from the heavy taxes imposed by the

Nawab as also the illegal exactions by his officials and the
talukdars. The chronic bankruptcy of the treasury was partly due
to the heavy charges realised by the British government for
maintenance of the subsidiary troops. In addition, large contributions
were realised by Lord Hastings, Lord Amherst, and Lord William
Bentinck for purposes entirely unconnected with the affairs of
Awadh. In 1819, the Nawab was given the title and status of a
king.

Lord Dalhousie directed Sleeman, the Resident in Awadh, to

make a tour throughout the state and ascertain the actual situation
by personal inspection. The resident submitted a report describing
the anarchical condition in the state. He was succeeded as resident
in 1854 by Outram who submitted a report supporting that of his
predecessor. Dalhousie hesitated to take the extreme step, i.e.,
annexation; he preferred permanent British administration, with the
Nawab retaining his titles and rank. But the Court of Directors
ordered annexation and abolition of the throne (1856). Wajid Ali Shah
refused to sign a treaty giving away his rights, and was exiled
to Calcutta. It was a political blunder for which the British had to
pay a heavy price during the Revolt of 1857.

an Indian sovereign annexing the state of his vassal on account

of ‘lapse’ (i.e., leaving no issue as heir) were rather rare.

Maharaja Ranjit Singh had annexed a few of his feudatory

principalities on account of ‘lapse’. Likewise, the Company

in 1820 acquired a few petty Cis-Sutlej states on the absence

of heirs. Nonetheless, there was no clear-cut instance of an

adopted son being deprived of an entire state or of such a

state being regarded as a ‘lapse’.

Though this policy is attributed to Lord Dalhousie

(1848–56), he was not its originator. It was a coincidence

that during his governor-generalship several important cases

arose in which the ‘Doctrine’ could be applied. Dalhousie

showed too much zeal in enforcing this policy which had been

theoretically enunciated on some previous occasions. His

126

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

predecessors had acted on the general principle of avoiding

annexation if it could be avoided; Dalhousie, in turn, acted

on the general principle of annexing if he could do so

legitimately.
Annexed Lapsed States

It was a matter of chance that during Lord Dalhousie’s term

many rulers of states died without a male issue and seven

states were annexed under the Doctrine of Lapse. The most

important of these were Satara (1848), Jhansi, and Nagpur

(1854). The other small states included Jaitpur (Bundelkhand),

Sambhalpur (Orissa), and Baghat (Himachal Pradesh).

Lord Dalhousie annexed Awadh in 1856 after deposing

Nawab Wajid Ali Shah on grounds of misgovernment.

Thus, Dalhousie annexed eight states during his eight-

year tenure (1848–56) as governor general. In these eight

years, he annexed some quarter million square miles of the

territory of India. His reign almost completed the process

of expansion of British power in India, which began with the

victory over Siraj-ud-Daulah at Plassey in 1757.

Relations of British India with
Neighbouring Countries

The desire of the British imperialists to consolidate their

administrative and political power in the region led them into

conflict with countries neighbouring India.

Anglo-Bhutanese Relations

The occupation of Assam in 1826 brought the British into

close contacts with the mountain state of Bhutan. Frequent

raids by Bhutanese into adjoining territories in Assam and

Bengal and the bad treatment meted out to Elgin’s envoy in

1863–64 and the treaty imposed on him, by which the British

were forced to surrender the passes leading to Assam, led

to British annexation of these passes and the stopping of

allowance paid to the Bhutanese. In 1865, the Bhutanese were

forced to surrender the passes in return for an annual subsidy.

It was the surrendered district which became a productive

area with tea gardens.

Expansion and Consolidation of British Power

✫

127

Anglo-Nepalese Relations

The Gorkhas wrested control of Nepal from the successors

of Ranjit Malla of Bhatgaon in 1760. They began to expand

their dominion beyond the mountains. They found it easier

to expand in the southern direction, as the north was well

defended by the Chinese. In 1801, the English annexed

Gorakhpur, which brought the Gorkhas’ boundary and the

Company’s boundary together. The conflict started due to the

Gorkhas’ capture of Butwal and Sheoraj in the period of Lord

Hastings (1813–23). The war ended in the Treaty of Sagauli

in 1816, which was in favour of the British.

As per the treaty,

●

Nepal accepted a British resident.

●

Nepal ceded the districts of Garhwal and Kumaon,

and abandoned claims to Terai.

●

Nepal also withdrew from Sikkim.

This agreement brought many advantages to the British:

●

the British empire now reached the Himalayas;

●

it got better facilities for trade with Central Asia;

●

it acquired sites for hill stations, such as Shimla,

Mussoorie, and Nainital; and

●

the Gorkhas joined the British Indian Army in large

numbers.

Anglo-Burmese Relations

In the beginning of the 19th century, Burma was a free

country and wanted to expand westward. The expansionist

urges of the British, fuelled by the lure of the forest

resources of Burma, market for British manufactures in

Burma and the need to check French ambitions in Burma and

the rest of South-East Asia, resulted in three Anglo-Burmese

Wars, and in the end, the annexation of Burma into British

India in 1885.
First Burma War (1824–26)

The first war with Burma was fought when the Burmese

expansion westwards and occupation of Arakan and Manipur,

and the threat to Assam and the Brahmaputra Valley led to

continuous friction along the ill-defined border between

Bengal and Burma, in the opening decades of the 19th

128

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

century. The British expeditionary forces occupied Rangoon

in May 1824 and reached within 72 km of the capital at Ava.

Peace was established in 1826 with the Treaty of Yandabo,

which provided that the Government of Burma:

●

pay one crore rupees as war compensation;

●

cede its coastal provinces of Arakan and Tenasserim;

●

abandon claims on Assam, Cachar, and Jaintia;

●

recognise Manipur as an independent state;

●

negotiate a commercial treaty with Britain; and

●

accept a British resident at Ava while posting a

Burmese envoy at Calcutta.

Second Burma War (1852)

The second war was the result of the British commercial need

and the imperialist policy of Lord Dalhousie. The British

merchants were keen to get hold of timber resources of upper

Burma and also sought further inroads into the Burmese

market. This time, the British occupied Pegu, the only

remaining coastal province of Burma. An intense guerrilla

resistance had to be overcome before complete British

control of lower Burma could be established.
Third Burma War (1885)

After the death of Burmese King Bhindan, his son Thibaw

succeeded to the throne. Thibaw, from the beginning itself,

was hostile towards the British. The British merchants at

Rangoon and lower Burma had been complaining about the

stepmotherly treatment by Thibaw, who had also been

negotiating commercial treaties with the rival powers of

France, Germany, and Italy. The French also planned to lay

a rail link from Mandalay to the French territory at a time

when the British were in conflict with the French in Niger,

Egypt, and Madagascar. A humiliating fine had been imposed

on a British timber company by Thibaw. Dufferin ordered

the invasion and final annexation of upper Burma in 1885.

[The British had to face a strong guerrilla uprising in

the whole of Burma soon after, and a nationalist movement

after the First World War. The Burmese nationalists joined

hands with the Indian National Congress. To weaken this link,

Burma was separated from India in 1935. The Burmese

Expansion and Consolidation of British Power

✫

129

nationalist movement further intensified under U Aung San

during the Second World War, which finally led to the

independence of Burma on January 4, 1948.]

Anglo-Tibetan Relations

Tibet was ruled by a theocracy of Buddhist monks (lamas)

under nominal suzerainty of China. The British efforts to

establish friendly and commercial relations with Tibet had

not yielded any result in the past and a deadlock had been

reached by the time of Curzon’s arrival in India. The Chinese

suzerainty over Tibet was ineffective and Russian influence

at Lhasa was increasing. There were reports of Russian arms

and ammunition coming into Tibet. Curzon felt alarmed and

sent a small Gorkha contingent under Colonel Younghusband

on a special mission to Tibet to oblige the Tibetans to come

to an agreement. The Tibetans refused to negotiate and

offered non-violent resistance. Younghusband pushed his way

into Lhasa (August 1904) while the Dalai Lama fled.
Treaty of Lhasa (1904)

Younghusband dictated terms to the Tibetan officials which

provided that:

●

Tibet would pay an indemnity of 75 lakh rupees at

the rate of one lakh rupees per annum;

●

as a security for payment, the Indian Government

would occupy the Chumbi Valley (territory between Bhutan

and Sikkim) for 75 years;

●

Tibet would respect the frontier of Sikkim;

●

Trade marts would be opened at Yatung, Gyantse,

Gartok; and

●

Tibet would not grant any concession for railways,

roads, telegraph, etc., to any foreign state, but give Great

Britain some control over foreign affairs of Tibet.

Later, on the insistence of the Secretary of State and

true to the pledge given to Russia, the treaty was revised

reducing the indemnity from Rs 75 lakh to Rs 25 lakh and

providing for evacuation of Chumbi valley after three years

(the valley was actually evacuated only in January 1908).

Significance Only China gained in the end out of the

whole affair because the Anglo-Russian convention of 1907

130

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

provided that the two great powers would not negotiate with

Tibet, except through the mediation of the Chinese government.

However, Curzon’s policy counteracted all Russian schemes

in Tibet.

Anglo-Afghan Relations

In the early 19th century, increased Russian influence in

Persia replaced British influence and thwarted an English

scheme for establishment of a new route by River Euphrates

to India. Especially after the Treaty of Turkomanchai (1828),

the English got alarmed about possible Russian plans regarding

India. Soon, there was a search for a scientific frontier from

the Indian side. Passes of the north-west seemed to hold the

key to enter India. The need was felt for Afghanistan to be

under control of a ruler who would be friendly to the British.
Forward Policy of Auckland

Auckland who came to India as the governor general in 1836,

advocated a forward policy. This implied that the Company

government in India itself had to take initiatives to protect

the boundary of British India from a probable Russian attack.

This objective was to be achieved either through treaties with

the neighbouring countries or by annexing them completely.

The Amir of Afghanistan, Dost Mohammed, wanted British

friendship but made it conditional on the British helping him

to recover Peshawar from the Sikhs—a condition which the

British government in India rejected. Dost Mohammed now

turned to Russia and Persia for help. This prompted the

British government to go ahead with the forward policy, and

a Tripartite Treaty (1838) was entered into by the British,

the Sikhs, and Shah Shuja (who had been deposed from the

Afghan throne in 1809 and had been living since then as a

British pensioner at Ludhiana). The treaty provided that:

●

Shah Shuja be enthroned with the armed help of the

Sikhs, the Company remaining in the background, ‘jingling

the money-bag’;

●

Shah Shuja conduct foreign affairs with the advice

of the Sikhs and the British;

●

Shah Shuja give up his sovereign rights over Amirs

of Sindh in return for a large sum of money;

Expansion and Consolidation of British Power

✫

131

●

Shah Shuja recognise the Sikh ruler, Maharaja Ranjit

Singh’s claims over the Afghan territories on the right bank

of the River Indus.
First Anglo-Afghan War (1839–42)

Soon after the tripartite treaty of 1838, there came about

a drastic change in the political situation of the region

because of the removal of the original irritants—Persia lifted

its siege of Herat, and Russia recalled its envoy from Kabul.

Nevertheless, the British decided to go ahead with their

forward policy. This resulted in the First Afghan War (1839–

42). The British intention was to establish a permanent barrier

against schemes of aggression from the north-west.

An English army entered triumphantly into Kabul

(August 1839) after a successful attack. Most of the tribes

had already been won over by bribes. Dost Mohammed

surrendered (1840), and Shah Shuja was made the Amir of

Afghanistan. But Shah Shuja was unacceptable to the Afghans.

As soon as the British withdrew, the Afghans rose in

rebellion, killing the garrison commander in Kabul. The

British were compelled to sign a treaty (1841) with the

Afghan chiefs by which they agreed to evacuate Afghanistan

and restore Dost Mohammed. But the English plan failed.

Under a new expedition, the British re-occupied Kabul in

September 1842, but having learned their lesson well, they

arrived at a settlement with Dost Mohammed by which the

British evacuated from Kabul and recognised him as the

independent ruler of Afghanistan.

The First Afghan War cost India about 1.5 crore rupees

and nearly 20,000 men.

John Lawrence and the Policy of
Masterly Inactivity

John Lawrence (1864–69) started a policy of masterly

inactivity, which was a reaction to the disasters of the First

Afghan War and an outcome of practical common sense and

an intimate knowledge of the frontier problem and of Afghan

passion for independence. Even when Dost Mohammed died

in 1863, there was no interference in the war of succession.

Lawrence’s policy rested on the fulfilment of two conditions:

132

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

(i) that the peace at the frontier was not disturbed, and (ii)

that no candidate in civil war sought foreign help. And as

Sher Ali established himself on the throne, Lawrence tried

to cultivate friendship with him.

Lytton and the Policy of Proud Reserve

Lytton, a nominee of the Conservative government under

Benjamin Disraeli (1874–80), became the Viceroy of India

in 1876. He started a new foreign policy of ‘proud reserve’,

which was aimed at having scientific frontiers and safeguarding

‘spheres of influence’. According to Lytton, the relations

with Afghanistan could no longer be left ambiguous.
Second Anglo-Afghan War (1870–80)

Lytton made an offer of a favourable treaty to Sher Ali, but

the Amir wanted friendship with both his powerful neighbours,

Russia and British India, while keeping both of them at an

arm’s length. Later, Sher Ali refused to keep a British envoy

in Kabul while having earlier granted a similar concession

to the Russians. Lytton was displeased, and when the Russians

withdrew their envoy from Kabul, Lytton decided to invade

Afghanistan. Sher Ali fled in face of the British invasion, and

the Treaty of Gandamak (May 1879) was signed with Yakub

Khan, the eldest son of Sher Ali.

Treaty of Gandamak (May 1879) The treaty signed

after the Second-Anglo Afghan War provided that:

●

the Amir conduct his foreign policy with the advice

of the Government of India;

●

a permanent British resident be stationed at Kabul;

and

●

the Government of India give Amir all support against

foreign aggression, and an annual subsidy.

But soon, Yakub had to abdicate under popular pressure

View

Sir John Lawrence’s foreign policy was a policy of self-reliance
and self-restraint, of defence not defiance, of waiting and
watching that he might be able to strike harder and in the right
direction, if the time for aggressive action should ever come.

—R.B. Smith,

Biographer of John Lawrence

Expansion and Consolidation of British Power

✫

133

and the British had to recapture Kabul and Kandhar. Abdur

Rehman became the new Amir. Lytton chalked out a plan for

the dismemberment of Afghanistan, but could not carry it out.

Ripon abandoned this plan and decided on a policy of keeping

Afghanistan as a buffer state.

[After the First World War and the Russian Revolution

(1917), the Afghans demanded full independence. Habibullah

(who succeeded Abdur Rahman in 1901) was killed in 1919

and the new ruler Amamullah declared open war on the

British. Peace came in 1921 when Afghanistan recovered

independence in foreign affairs.]

British India and the
North-West Frontier

Successive Indian rulers tried to reach out to this region lying

between the Indus and Afghanistan in their search for a

scientific frontier. The conquest of Sindh (1843) and

annexation of Punjab (1849) carried British boundaries

beyond the Indus and brought them in contact with Baluch

and Pathan tribes, who were mostly independent, but the Amir

of Afghanistan claimed nominal suzerainty over them.

During 1891–92 the British occupation of Hunza and

Nagar in Gilgit Valley, which were passes commanding

communications with Chitral, alarmed Abdur Rahman (Amir

of Afghanistan). A compromise was finally reached by

drawing a boundary line known as Durand Line between

Afghan and British territories. Amir received some districts,

and his subsidy was increased. But the Durand Agreement

(1893) failed to keep peace and soon there were tribal

uprisings. To check these, a permanent British garrison was

established at Chitral and troops posted to guard Malakand

Pass, but tribal uprisings continued till 1898.

Curzon, the viceroy between 1899 and 1905, followed

a policy of withdrawal and concentration. British troops

withdrew from advanced posts, which were replaced by tribal

levies, trained and commanded by British officers. He also

encouraged the tribals to maintain peace. He created the

North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) directly under the

134

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Government of India (earlier, it was under control of the

lieutenant-governor of Punjab). Overall, Curzon’s policies

resulted in a peaceful north-west frontier. The peaceful

conditions continued thereafter with occasional tribal

uprisings. In January 1932, it was announced that the NWFP

was to be constituted as a governor’s province. Since 1947,

the province belongs to Pakistan.

Summary

Factors Which Gave Success to British in India

Superior Arms
Military Discipline
Civil Discipline
Brilliant Leadership (which did not bother about adopting
unscrupulous practices)
Financial Strength
Nationalist Pride

Conflict Between English and Nawabs of Bengal

●

Battle of Plassey (June 23, 1757): Robert Clive’s victory
over Siraj-ud-Daulah laid the territorial foundation of British
rule in India.

●

Battle of Buxar (1764): Clive’s victory over the combined
armies of Nawab of Bengal, Nawab of Awadh, and the
Mughal Emperor at Buxar laid the real foundation of the
English power

●

Treaty of Allahabad (1765): Granted the

Diwani Rights of

Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa to the English.
(i) Treaty with Nawab of Awadh
(ii) Treaty with Shah Alam II, Mughal Emperor

●

Dual Government—1765–72

British Conquest of Mysore

●

First Anglo-Mysore War (1767–69); Treaty of Madras

●

Second Anglo-Mysore War (1779–1784); Treaty of
Mangalore

●

Third Anglo-Mysore War (1790–92); Treaty of Seringapatam

●

Fourth Anglo-Mysore War (1799); Mysore is conquered
by British forces

Anglo-Maratha Struggle for Supremacy

●

First Anglo-Maratha War (1775–82); Treaty of Surat (1775),
Treaty of Purandhar (1776), and Treaty of Salbai (1782)

●

Second Anglo-Maratha War (1803–05); Treaty of Bassein,
1802

Expansion and Consolidation of British Power

✫

135

●

Third Anglo-Maratha War (1817–19)

●

Causes for the defeat of the Marathas

(i) Inept leadership

(ii) Defective nature of state

(iii) Loose political set-up

(iv) Inferior military system

(v) Ustable economic policy

(vi) Superior English diplomacy and espionage

(vii) Progressive English outlook

Conquest of Sindh (1843)

●

Lord Ellenborough was the Governor General of India

Conquest of Punjab

●

Treaty of Amritsar (1809), Ranjit Singh, and the British

●

First Anglo-Sikh War (1845–46)

●

Second Anglo-Sikh War (1848–49)

British Paramountcy in Action

●

Ring-fence Policy of Warren Hastings

Subsidiary Alliance of Wellesley

●

Subsidised States:
Hyderabad (1798; 1800)
Mysore (1799)
Tanjore (October 1799)
Awadh (November 1801)
Peshwa (December 1801)
Bhonsle of Berar (December 1803)
Sindhia (February 1804)
Jodhpur (1818)
Jaipur (1818)
Macheri (1818)
Bundi (1818)
Bharatpur (1818)

Doctrine of Lapse

●

Lapsed States under Lord Dalhousie (1848-56)
Satara (1848)
Sambhalpur (1849)
Baghat (1850)
Udaipur (1854)
Nagpur (1854)
Jhansi (1854)
Awadh (1856; on charge of mal-administration)

136

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Relations of British India with Neighbouring Countries

●

Anglo-Nepal Relations (Treaty of Sagauli, 1816)

●

Anglo-Burma Relations
First Anglo-Burma War, 1824–26
Second Anglo-Burma War, 1852
Third Anglo-Burma War, 1885

●

Anglo-Tibetan Relations
Treaty of Lhasa (1904)

●

Anglo-Afghan Relations
Forward Policy of Auckland
First Anglo-Afghan War (1839–1842)
John Lawrence’s Policy of Masterly Inactivity
Lytton and the Policy of Proud Reserve
Second Anglo-Afghan War (1870–80)
Treaty of Gandamak (May 1879)

●

North-West Frontier
Durand Agreement (1893)

join us http://telegram.me/bpsc65thmand66thp (BPSC CCE 65th,66th and 67th)

People’s Resistance Against British Before 1857

✫

137

CHAPTER 6

People's Resistance

Against British

Before 1857

Most of us think of the 1857 Revolt as the first major show

of resentment against the British who were represented by

the rule of the East India Company. However, there were

many incidents before the 1857 revolt that indicated all was

not well and that there was a building resentment against the

alien rule. This resentment manifested itself in several bouts

of resistance by different groups of people in different

regions of India.

137

UNIT 3

Rising Resentment

against Company

Rule

Chapters 6 and 7

138

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

People’s Resistance: Meaning

In the context of people’s resistance against the British rule,

the word ‘people’ encompasses several sections of the Indian

society who were affected by the alien rule. The peasants,

artisans, tribals, ruling classes (active or dispossessed),

military personnel (those under the Company as well as the

demobilised soldiers of ex-rulers), religious leaders (Hindu

and Muslim), etc., fought for the protection of their interests,

at times separately and at times together. The agitation in

Benares in 1810 against a house tax imposed by the colonial

government, the Surat riots in 1814 against the salt duty, the

rising in Bareilly in 1816 against police tax and municipal

taxes, are some examples of urban movements in which

people from lower strata like artisans, petty shopkeepers, and

the urban poor fought together with the prosperous urban

gentry. The interests of these resistances differed in the

sense that each section had different grievances, but converged

on a common objective—to end the British rule.

According to Bipan Chandra, people’s resistance took

three broad forms: civil rebellions, tribal uprisings, and

peasant movements. We have also considered military

revolts as a form of people’s resistance, which involved

Indians employed in the Company’s forces, to make the study

of people’s resistance more comprehensive.

Genesis of People’s Resistance

In pre-colonial India, people’s protests against the rulers and

their officials were not uncommon—high land revenue

demand by the State, corrupt practices, and hard attitude of

the officials being some of the instigating factors. However,

the establishment of colonial rule and its policies had a much

more annihilative effect on the Indians as a whole. There was

no one to hear their grievances or pay attention to their

problems. The Company was merely interested in extracting

revenue.

The colonial law and judiciary safeguarded the interest

of the government and its collaborators—the landlords, the

merchants, and the moneylenders. Thus, the people left with

no options, chose to take up arms and defend themselves.

People’s Resistance Against British Before 1857

✫

139

The conditions of the tribal people were not different from

those of the people living in the mainland, but the encroachment

by outsiders into their independent tribal polity made them

more aggrieved and violent.

Causative Factors for People’s Uprisings

The major factors responsible for the people’s resentment

and uprisings against the Company rule are as follows:

●

Colonial land revenue settlements, heavy burden of

new taxes, eviction of peasants from their lands, and

encroachments on tribal lands.

●

Exploitation in rural society coupled with the growth

of intermediary revenue collectors, tenants, and money-

lenders.

●

Expansion of revenue administration over tribal lands,

leading to the loss of tribal people’s hold over agricultural

and forest land.

●

Promotion of British manufactured goods, heavy

duties on Indian industries, especially export duties, leading

to devastation of Indian handloom and handicraft industries.

●

Destruction of indigenous industry leading to migration

of workers from industry to agriculture, increasing the

pressure on land/agriculture.

Civil Uprisings

The word ‘civil’ encompasses everything which is not related

to defence/military, but here we have included those uprisings

which were generally led by deposed native rulers or their

descendants, former zamindars, landlords, poligars (—in

South India, holders of territory or palayam, consisting of

a few villages granted to them by the rulers—mainly the

Nayakas—in return for military service and tribute), ex-

retainers and officials of the conquered kingdoms, or

sometimes by religious leaders. The mass support generally

came from rack-rented peasants, unemployed artisans, and

demobilised soldiers, although at the centre of these uprisings

were erstwhile power-wielding classes.

Major Causes of Civil Uprisings

●

Under the Company rule, there were rapid changes in

the economy, administration, and land revenue system that went

against the people.

140

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

●

Several zamindars and poligars, who had lost control

over their land and its revenues due to the colonial rule, had

personal scores to settle with the new rulers.

●

The ego of traditional zamindars and poligars was hurt

due to being sidelined in rank by government officials and a

new class comprising of merchants and money-lenders.

●

The ruin of Indian handicraft industries due to colonial

policies impoverished millions of artisans whose misery was

further compounded by the disappearance of their traditional

patrons and buyers—princes, chieftains, and zamindars.

●

The priestly classes instigated hatred and rebellion

against alien rule, because the religious preachers, priests,

pundits, maulvis, etc., had been dependent on the traditional

landed and bureaucratic elite. The fall of zamindars and feudal

lords directly affected the priestly class.

●

The foreign character of the British rulers, who always

remained alien to this land, and their contemptuous treatment

of the native people hurt the pride of the latter.

General Characteristics of Civil Uprisings

These uprisings in most cases represented common conditions,

though separated in time and place.

The semi-feudal leaders of civil uprisings were backward

looking and traditional in outlook. Their basic objective was to

restore earlier forms of rule and social relations.

These uprisings were the result of local causes and

grievances and were also localised in their consequences.

Important Civil Uprisings

Sanyasi Revolt (1763–1800)

The disastrous famine of 1770 and the harsh economic order

of the British compelled a group of sanyasis in Eastern India

to fight the British yoke. Originally peasants, even some

evicted from land, these sanyasis were joined by a large

number of dispossessed small zamindars, disbanded soldiers,

and rural poor. They raided Company factories and the

treasuries, and fought the Company’s forces. It was only after

a prolonged action that Warren Hastings could subdue the

sanyasis. Equal participation of Hindus and Muslims

characterised the uprisings, sometimes referred to as the

People’s Resistance Against British Before 1857

✫

141

Fakir Rebellion. Majnum Shah (or Majnu Shah), Chirag Ali,

Musa Shah, Bhawani Pathak, and Debi Chaudhurani were

important leaders. Debi Chaudhurani’s participation recognises

the women’s role in early resistances against the British.

Anandamath, a semi-historical novel by Bankim Chandra

Chattopadhyay, is based on the Sanyasi Revolt. Bankim

Chandra also wrote a novel, Devi Chaudhurani, as he saw

the importance of women too taking up the struggle against

an alien rule that posed a threat to traditional Indian values.
Revolt in Midnapore and Dhalbhum (1766–74)

The English took hold of Midnapore in 1760 and at that time

there were about 3,000 zamindars and talukdars having cordial

relations with their ryots. But this harmonious scenario

changed after the introduction of new land revenue system

by the English in 1772. According to the British governor

Vansittart, the zamindars of Midnapore sided with the ryots

in case of conflict between the ryots and the English revenue-

collecting officials. The zamindars of Dhalbhum, Manbhum,

Raipur, Panchet, Jhatibuni, Karnagarh, and Bagri, living in the

vast tract of Jungle Mahals of west and north-west

Midnapore—were ultimately dispossessed of their zamindaries

by 1800s. The important leaders of the uprisings were

Damodar Singh and Jagannath Dhal.
Revolt of Moamarias (1769–99)

The revolt of the Moamarias in 1769 was a potent challenge

to the authority of Ahom kings of Assam. The Moamarias

were low-caste peasants who followed the teachings of

Aniruddhadeva (1553–1624), and their rise was similar to

that of other low-caste groups in North India. Their revolts

weakened the Ahoms and opened the doors for others to

attack the region, for instance, in 1792, the King of Darrang

(Krishnanarayan), assisted by his band of burkandazes (the

demobilised soldiers of the Muslim armies and zamindars)

revolted. To crush these revolts, the Ahom ruler had to

request for British help. The Moamarias made Bhatiapar their

headquarters. Rangpur and Jorhat were the most affected

region. Although, the Ahom kingdom survived the rebellion,

the weakened kingdom fell to a Burmese invasion and finally

came under British rule.

142

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Civil Uprisings in Gorakhpur, Basti,

and Bahraich (1781)

Warren Hastings, in order to meet the war expenses against

the Marathas and Mysore, made a plan to earn money by

involving English officers as izaradars (revenue farmers) in

Awadh. He involved Major Alexander Hannay, who was well

acquainted with the region, as an izaradar in 1778. Hannay

secured the izara of Gorakhpur and Bahraich to the amount

of 22 lakh rupees for one year. In fact, it was a secret

experiment by the Company to see for itself just how much

surplus money was accessible in practice.

However, Hannay’s oppression and excessive demand

of revenue made the region, which had been in a flourishing

state under the Nawab, panic-striken. The zamindars and

cultivators rose against the unbearable exactions in 1781, and,

within weeks of the initial uprising, all of Hannay’s

subordinates were either killed or besieged by zamindari

guerilla forces. Although the rebellion was suppressed,

Hannay was dismissed and his izara forcibly removed.
Revolt of Raja of Vizianagaram (1794)

In 1758, a treaty was made between the English and Ananda

Gajapatiraju, the ruler of Vizianagaram, to jointly oust the

French from the Northern Circars. In this mission they were

successful, but the English, as was usual in their case in India,

went back on their word to honour the terms of the treaty.

Anand Raju died before he could seriously tackle the English.

The East India Company went on to demand a tribute of three

lakh rupees from Vizayaramaraju, the Raja of Vizianagaram,

and asked him to disband his troops. This angered the raja

as there were no dues to be paid to the Company. The raja

supported by his subjects rose up in revolt. The English

captured the raja in 1793 and ordered him to go into exile

with a pension. The raja refused. The raja died in a battle

at Padmanabham (in modern Visakhapatnam district in Andhra

Pradesh) in 1794. Vizianagaram came under the Company’s

rule. Later, the Company offered the estate to the deceased

raja’s son and reduced the demand for presents.
Revolt of Dhundia in Bednur (1799–1800)

After the conquest of Mysore in 1799, the English had to

confront many native leaders. Dhundia Wagh, a local Maratha

People’s Resistance Against British Before 1857

✫

143

leader, who was converted to Islam by Tipu Sultan and put

into jail due to his misadventures, got released with the fall

of Seringapatam. Very soon, Dhundia organised a force,

which consisted of anti-British elements, and carved out a

small territory for himself. A defeat by the English in August

1799 forced him to take refuge in Maratha region from where

he instigated the disappointed princes to fight against the

English and he himself took on the leadership. In September

1800, he was killed while fighting against the British forces

under Wellesley. Though Dhundia failed, he became a

venerated leader of the masses.
Resistance of Kerala Varma Pazhassi Raja

(1797; 1800–05)

Kerala Varma Pazhassi Raja, popularly known as Kerala

Simham (Lion of Kerala) or ‘Pyche raja’, was the de facto

head of Kottayam (Cotiote) in Malabar region. Apart from

resisting Hyder Ali and Tipu Sultan, Kerala Varma fought

against the British between 1793 and 1805.

The Third Anglo-Mysore War (1790–92) extended

English paramountcy over Kottayam in violation of an earlier

agreement of 1790 which had recognised the independence

of Kottayam. The English appointed Vira Varma, the uncle

of Pazhassi Raja, as the Raja of Kottayam. The new raja, to

meet the revenue target fixed by the Company, levied

exorbitant rates of tax on the peasants. This led to a mass

resistance by the peasants under the leadership of Pazhassi

Raja in 1793. Pazhassi Raja fought bravely using guerilla

warfare, and, in 1797, a peace treaty was made. But a conflict

over a dispute on Wayanad in 1800 started an insurgent

warfare. Pazhassi Raja organised a large force of Nairs which

was supplemented by Mappilas and Pathans, the latter being

demobilised soldiers of Tipu who had become unemployed

after Tipu’s death. In November 1805, the Kerala Simham

died in a gunfight at Mavila Todu near present-day Kerala-

Karnataka border.
Civil Rebellion in Awadh (1799)

Wazir Ali Khan, the fourth Nawab of Awadh, with the help

of the British, had ascended the throne in September 1797.

But, very soon, his relations with the British became sour

144

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

and he got replaced by his uncle, Saadat Ali Khan II. Wazir

Ali Khan was granted a pension in Benares. However, in

January 1799, he killed a British resident, George Frederick

Cherry, who had invited him to lunch. Wazir Ali’s guards

killed two other Europeans and even attacked the Magistrate

of Benares. The whole incident became famous as the

Massacre of Benares. Wazir Ali was able to assemble an

army of several thousand men, which was defeated by General

Erskine. Wazir Ali fled to Butwal and was granted asylum

by the ruler of Jaipur. Arthur Wellesley requested the Raja

of Jaipur to extradite Wazir Ali. Wazir Ali was extradited

on the condition that he would neither be hanged nor be put

in fetters. After surrender in December 1799, he was placed

in confinement at Fort William, Calcutta.
Uprisings in Ganjam and Gumsur (1800, 1835–37)

In the Northern Circars, Ganjam and its adjoining regions

rose in revolt against the British rule. Strikara Bhanj, a

zamindar of Gumsur in Ganjam district, refused to pay

revenues in 1797. In 1800, he openly rebelled and defied

the public authorities. Snodgrass, an oppressive and corrupt

collector, was replaced to suppress the insurrection. Strikara

was joined by Jlani Deo of Vizianagar (Poddakimedi) and

Jagannath Deo of Pratapgiri (Chinakimedi). In 1804, Jagannath

Deo was captured and sent to Masulipatnam. But the English

had to assign certain districts to Strikara Bhanj. In 1807–

08, Dhananjaya Bhanj, son of Strikara, forced his father to

leave the estate. Dhananjaya rebelled against the English but

was forced to surrender in June 1815.

Strikara, who had returned to Ganjam, was reappointed

as the zamindar in a compromise with the government. He

managed the estate between 1819 and 1830 but, failing to

liquidate the arrears, retired in favour of his son, Dhananjay.

However, unable to pay the enormous arrears, Dhananjay

Bhanj rose in rebellion for the second time when the British

forces occupied Gumsur and Kolaida in November 1835. The

revolt greatly reduced the government’s authority, but

Dhananjay died in December 1835 and his followers continued

the resistance. The government appointed Russell, with full

discretionary powers, to deal with the situation. The struggle

People’s Resistance Against British Before 1857

✫

145

lasted till February 1837, when Doora Bisayi, a formidable

leader, was arrested. The zamindari of Gumsur was forfeited.
Uprisings in Palamau (1800–02)

The political situation of Palamau was complicated by the

crises of agrarian landlordism and feudal system. In 1800,

Bhukhan Singh, a Chero chief, rose in rebellion. Colonel

Jones camped for two years in Palamau and Sarguja to

suppress the rebellion. Bhukhan Singh died in 1802, and,

subsequently, the insurrection calmed down.
Poligars’ Revolt (1795–1805)

The poligars (or palayakkarargal) of South India gave a stiff

resistance to the British between 1795 and 1805. The main

centres of these strong uprisings were Tinneveli (or

Thirunelveli), Ramanathapuram, Sivaganga, Sivagiri, Madurai,

and North Arcot. The problem started in 1781, when the

Nawab of Arcot gave the management and control of Tinneveli

and the Carnatic Provinces to the East India Company. This

arrangement caused resentment among the poligars who had,

for long, considered themselves as independent sovereign

authorities within their respective territories. The first revolt

of the poligars against the Company was basically over

taxation, but had a larger political dimension in that the

English considered and treated the poligars as enemies.

Kattabomman Nayakan, the poligar of Panjalankurichi, led

the insurrection between 1795 and 1799. After a fierce battle

in which the Company forces were defeated by Veerapandiya

Kattabomman, a price was put on the latter’s head. This led

to greater rebellion by the poligars. With reinforcements, the

Company forces were finally able to defeat Kattabomman.

Kattabomman fled into the Pudukottai forests. Once again

a betrayal—this time by Ettappan, the Raja of Pudukottai, who

entered into an agreement with the British—led to the capture

of Kattabomman. Kattabomman was hanged in a conspicuous

place. A close associate, Subramania Pillai was also hanged

and Soundara Pandian, another rebel, brutally killed. The

palayam of Panjalankurichi and the estates of five other

poligars who had joined the rebellion were confiscated and

the prominent poligars executed or sent to prison.

The second phase, which was more violent than the

146

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

previous one, started in February 1801 when the poligars

imprisoned in the fort of Palamcotta were able to escape.

The rebels took control of many forts and even captured

Tuticorin. The British forces were soon reinforced from

Malabar. The fugitives led by Oomathurai, brother of

Kattabomman, who fled to Sivaganga in Ramnad joined the

rebellion of the ‘Marudus’ led by Marathu Pandian which was

suppressed in October 1801. The fort of Panjalankurichi was

razed to the ground and the name of the place was expunged

from all the documents of the district. Meanwhile, the nawab

surrendered the civil and military administration of all the

territories and dependencies of the Carnatic exclusively to

the Company in perpetuity.

Between 1803 and 1805, the poligars of North Arcot

rose in rebellion, when they were deprived of their right to

collect the kaval fees. (Kaval or ‘watch’ was an ancient

institution of Tamil Nadu. It was a hereditary village police

office with specified rights and responsibilities.) The region

was in a lawless condition, particularly in the palayams of

Chittur and Chandragiri. The poligar of Yedaragunta, who

proved most daring and desperate among the insurgent chiefs,

was joined by the dispossessed poligar of Charagallu. By

February 1805, the rebels were suppressed. Several chiefs

were ordered to reside in Madras, while some others were

granted an allowance of 18 per cent upon revenues of their

estates.

The poligar rebellion spread over a vast area of South

India. The proclamations by the rebels, says A. Shunmugaiah,

indicate that they believed in a mass movement against the

alien rule, seeking independence of them.
Uprisings in Haryana Region (1803-1810)

The region of the present-day Haryana, with other possessions

of Scindia, was taken over by the British East India Company

by the treaty of Surji-Arjungaon in 1803. But the people of

this region opposed the new set up. There was strong

opposition to Company rule from the Sikh chiefs of Ambala,

Karnal, and Thanesar. In the western Haryana region, opposition

to the British was organised by the Muslim Bhatti Rajputs

under the leadership of Zabita Khan of Sirsa and Rania and

Khan Bahadur Khan of Fatehabad against the British. After

People’s Resistance Against British Before 1857

✫

147

a number of failed efforts to subdue the uprising, a large

contingent under Col. Adams is said to have been sent by

the British in November 2009 to attack Fatehabad, Sirsa, and

Rania. The British were victorious in all the battles during

this expedition. The people of the region comprising Rohtak,

Bhiwani, and the eastern part of Hisar were not ready to

accept the authority of the rulers chosen by the Company.

They continued with their rebellion against the British. Lord

Minto, the Governor General, advised military action against

the rebels. The British Resident at Delhi, Archibald Seton,

sent a big force under the charge of Gardiner, Assistant to

the Resident at Delhi in March 1810 to subdue the rebelling

people, mainly Jats and Ranghars. The people of Bhiwani

managed to check the advance of the British for a short while,

but the British with their heavy artillery breached the walls

of the town and soon captured Bhiwani after a bloody battle.

The fort of Hansi was converted into a military cantonment.
Diwan Velu Thampi’s Revolt (1808–09)

The East India Company’s harsh conditions imposed on the

state of Travancore, after both of them agreed to a subsidiary

alliance arrangement under Wellesley in 1805, caused deep

resentment in the region. The ruler was not able to pay the

subsidy and fell in arrears. The British resident of Travancore

was meddling in the internal affairs of the state. The high-

handed attitude of the Company compelled Prime Minister

(or Dalawa) Velu Thampi to rise against the Company,

assisted by the Nair troops. Velu Thampi addressed a

gathering in Kundara, openly calling for taking up arms

against the British to oust them from the native soil. This

was later known as the Kundara Proclamation. There was

large-scale rebellion against the British as a result. A large

military operation had to be undertaken to restore peace. The

Maharaja of Travancore had not wholly supported the rebellion

and defected to the side of the Company. Velu Thampi killed

himself to avoid capture. The rebellion petered out.
Disturbances in Bundelkhand (1808–12)

The vast province of Bundelkhand, conquered by the British

during the Second Anglo-Maratha Wars (1803–05), was put

within the Presidency of Bengal. The Bundela chiefs offered

resistance to the new government as long as they could fight

148

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

from their forts, numbering nearly 150. The first major

resistance came from Lakshaman Dawa, the killadar (fort

commander) of Ajaygarh Fort. Lakshman was permitted to

retain the fort as a temporary arrangement for two years

ending in 1808, but he wanted to continue his hold after the

expiry of the term. He surrendered in February 1809 and was

taken to Calcutta. The next resistance came from Killadar

of Kalanjar, Darya Singh, which was suppressed in January

1812. But the most serious threat came from a famous

military adventurer named Gopal Singh, who had a dispute

with his uncle who was supported by the British. For four

years, Gopal Singh eluded all vigilance and military tactics

of British forces. To put a stop to these disturbances, the

British had to adopt a policy of binding down the hereditary

chieftains of Bundelkhand by a series of contractual

obligations—Ikarnamahs.
Parlakimedi Outbreak (1813–34)

Parlakimedi, situated in the western border of Ganjam district

(now in Odisha), witnessed resistance from the zamindars and

rajas. When the Company acquired Ganjam, Narayan Deo was

the raja of Parlakimedi, whose resistance forced the British

to dispatch an army under Colonel Peach. Peach defeated

Narayan Deo in 1768 and made Gajapathi Deo (son of

Narayan) a zamindar. But Narayan Deo, supported by his son

and brothers, revolted again. As the resistance failed to calm

down, the Presidency of Madras appointed George Russell

as commissioner of the region in 1832. Russell, provided

with full-fledged powers to suppress the revolt, pacified the

region by 1834.
Kutch or Cutch Rebellion (1816–32)

There was a treaty between the British and Maharaja Bharamal

II of Kutch in 1816, by which power was vested in the throne.

There was, however, a power struggle between the maharaja

and a group of chieftains.

The British interfered in the internal feuds of the Kutch

and, in 1819, Raja Bharmal II raised Arab and African troops

with the firm intention of removing the British from his

territory. The chieftains ranged on his side. The British

defeated and deposed the Kutch ruler Rao Bharamal in favour

People’s Resistance Against British Before 1857

✫

149

of his infant son. A British resident governed the areas as

the de facto ruler with the help of a regency council. The

administrative innovations made by the regency council,

coupled with excessive land assessment caused deep

resentment. In the meanwhile, some of the chieftains continued

their rebellion against alien rule. The news of the British

reverses in the Burma War emboldened the chiefs to rise

in revolt and demand the restoration of Bharamal II. After

extensive military operations failed to control the situation,

the Company’s authorities were compelled to follow a

conciliatory policy.
Rising at Bareilly (1816)

The immediate cause of upsurge was the imposition of the

police tax which aroused the burning indignation of the

citizens. The issue became religious when Mufti Muhammad

Aiwaz, a venerated old man, gave a petition to the magistrate

of the town in March 1816.

The situation aggravated further when the police, while

collecting tax, injured a woman. This event led to a bloody

scuffle between the followers of the Mufti and the police.

Within two days of the event, several armed Muslims from

Pilibhit, Shahjahanpur, and Rampur rose in rebellion for the

defence of the faith and the Mufti. In April 1816, the

insurgents murdered the son of Leycester (judge of provincial

court of Bareilly). The uprising could only be suppressed with

heavy deployment of military forces in which more than 300

rebels were killed and even more wounded and imprisoned.

The upsurge seems to have been the product more of

discontent than of actual grievance—the elements of discontent

lying in the very nature of the alien administration.
Upsurge in Hathras (1817)

Dayaram, a talukdar of several villages in the district of

Aligarh, had a strong base in the fort of Hathras. The fort,

considered to be among the strongest in India—a ‘second

Bharatpur’—had walls of great height, and thickness, defended

by a deep ditch and artillery mounted at the top. The English

had concluded the settlement of Hathras estate with Dayaram

as a farmer. But due to progressively increasing high

revenues, Dayaram constantly failed to pay arrears and even

150

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

committed many acts of hostility by giving harbour to

government fugitives. So, the Company with a large army

attacked Hathras in February 1817. Dayaram fought bravely

for more than 15 days and escaped unharmed. But, ultimately,

he was obliged to come back on the condition of submission

and settled down with a pension. Another noted rebel

Bhagwant Singh, Raja of Mursan, frightened to dismantle his

fort, submitted to the government.
Paika Rebellion (1817)

The Paiks of Odisha were the traditional landed militia (‘foot

soldiers’ literally) and enjoyed rent-free land tenures for

their military service and policing functions on a hereditary

basis. The English Company’s conquest of Odisha in 1803,

and the dethronement of the Raja of Khurda had greatly

reduced the power and prestige of the Paiks. Further, the

extortionist land revenue policy of the Company caused

resentment among zamindars and peasants alike. Common

masses were affected by the rise in prices of salt due to

taxes imposed on it, abolition of cowrie currency, and the

requirement of payment of taxes in silver, etc.

Bakshi Jagabandhu Bidyadhar had been the military

chief of the forces of the Raja of Khurda. In 1814,

Jagabandhu’s ancestral estate of Killa Rorang was taken over

by the Company, reducing him to penury. The spark was

lighted by the arrival of a body of Khonds from Gumsur into

the Khurda territory in March 1817. With active support of

Mukunda Deva, the last Raja of Khurda, and other zamindars

of the region, Bakshi Jagabandhu Bidyadhar led a sundry army

of Paikas forcing the East India Company forces to retreat

for a time. The rebellion came to be known as the Paika

Bidroh (rebellion). The initial success of the rebels set the

whole province covering Odisha in arms against the British

government for some time. Jagabandhu, declared an outlaw,

along with other rebels, was sheltered by the Raja of

Nayagarh. Although Dinabandhu Santra and his group

surrendered in November 1818, Jagabandhu evaded British

vigilance. In spite of rewards offered, none of the people

of the province betrayed their leaders. Though Khurda was

back under Company control by mid-1817, the Paika rebels

People’s Resistance Against British Before 1857

✫

151

resorted to guerilla tactics. The rebellion was brutally

repressed by 1818. Priests at the Puri temple who had

sheltered Jagabandhu were caught and hanged. Paikas on the

whole suffered greatly. In 1825, Jagabandhu surrendered

under negotiated terms. (Some sources say he was captured

and died in captivity in 1829.)

The Paika Rebellion succeeded in getting large

remissions of arrears, reductions in assessments, suspension

of the sale of the estates of defaulters at discretion, a new

settlement on fixed tenures, and other adjuncts of a liberal

governance.
Waghera Rising (1818–20)

Resentment against the alien rule, coupled with the exactions

of the Gaekwad of Baroda supported by the British

government, compelled the Waghera chiefs of Okha Mandal

to take up arms. The Wagheras carried out inroads into

British territory during 1818–19. A peace treaty was signed

in November 1820.
Ahom Revolt (1828)

The British had pledged to withdraw from Assam after the

First Burma War (1824–26). But, after the war, instead of

withdrawing, the British attempted to incorporate the Ahoms’

territories in the Company’s dominion. This sparked off a

rebellion in 1828 under the leadership of Gomdhar Konwar,

an Ahom prince, alongwith compatriots, such as Dhanjay

Borgohain, and Jairam Khargharia Phukan. Assembling near

Jorhat, the rebels formally made Gomdhar Konwar the king.

Finally, the Company decided to follow a conciliatory policy

and handed over Upper Assam to Maharaja Purandar Singh

Narendra and part of the kingdom was restored to the

Assamese king.
Surat Salt Agitations (1840s)

A strong anti-British sentiment resulted in attacks by the

local Surat population on the Europeans in 1844 over the

issue of the government’s step to raise the salt duty from

50 paise to one rupee. Faced with a popular movement, the

government withdrew the additional salt levy. Again in 1848,

the government was forced to withdraw its measure to

introduce Bengal Standard Weights and Measures in face of

152

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

people’s determined bid to resort to boycott and passive

resistance.
Kolhapur and Savantvadi Revolts

The Gadkaris were a hereditary military class which was

garrisoned in the Maratha forts. These garrisons were disbanded

during administrative reorganisation in Kolhapur state after

1844. Facing the spectre of unemployment, the Gadkaris rose

in revolt and occupied the Samangarh and Bhudargarh forts.

Similarly, the simmering discontent caused a revolt in

Savantvadi areas. The people here had already revolted against

the British in 1830, 1836, and 1838, the last because the

British had deposed their ruler. The British authorities

introduced many laws to bring the region under control.
Wahabi Movement

The Wahabi Movement was essentially an Islamic revivalist

movement founded by Syed Ahmed of Rai Bareilly who was

inspired by the teachings of Abdul Wahab (1703–87) of Saudi

Arabia and Shah Waliullah of Delhi. Syed Ahmed condemned

the Western influence on Islam and advocated a return to

pure Islam and society as it was in the Arabia of the Prophet’s

time.

Syed Ahmed was acclaimed as the desired leader

(Imam). A countrywide organisation with an elaborate secret

code for its working under spiritual vice-regents (Khalifas)

was set up, and Sithana in the north-western tribal belt was

chosen as a base for operations. In India, its important centre

was at Patna though it had its missions in Hyderabad, Madras,

Bengal, United Provinces, and Bombay. Since Dar al-Harb

(territory of war or chaos) was to be converted into Dar al-

Islam (the land of Islam), a jihad was declared against the

Sikh kingdom of Punjab. After the defeat of the Sikh ruler

and incorporation of Punjab into the East India Company’s

dominion in 1849, the English dominion in India became the

sole target of the Wahabis’ attacks.

The Wahabis played an important role in spreading anti-

British sentiments. A series of military operations by the

British in the 1860s on the Wahabi base in Sithana and

various court cases of sedition on the Wahabis weakened the

Wahabi resistance, although sporadic encounters with the

authorities continued into the 1880s and 1890s.

People’s Resistance Against British Before 1857

✫

153

Kuka Movement

The Kuka Movement was founded in 1840 by Bhagat Jawahar

Mal (also called Sian Saheb) in western Punjab. A major

leader of the movement after him was Baba Ram Singh. (He

founded the Namdhari Sikh sect.) After the British took

Punjab, the movement got transformed from a religious

purification campaign to a political campaign. Its basic tenets

were abolition of caste and similar discriminations among

Sikhs, discouraging the consumption of meat and alcohol and

drugs, permission for intermarriages, widow remarriage, and

encouraging women to step out of seclusion. On the political

side, the Kukas wanted to remove the British and restore Sikh

rule over Punjab; they advocated wearing hand-woven clothes

and boycott of English laws and education and products. So,

the concepts of Swadeshi and non-cooperation were propagated

by the Kukas, much before they became part of the Indian

national movement in the early 20th century. As the movement

gained in popularity, the British took several steps to crush

it in the period between 1863 and 1872.

In 1872, Ram Singh was deported to Rangoon.

Peasant Movements with
Religious Overtones

Peasant uprisings were protests against evictions, increase in

rents of land, and the moneylenders’ greedy ways; and their

aim was occupancy rights for peasants among other things.

They were revolts and rebellions of the peasants themselves

though led by local leaders in many cases. The peasant

movements in India till the outbreak of the Revolt of 1857

(and in its immediate aftermath) are given below.
Narkelberia Uprising

Mir Nithar Ali (1782–1831) or Titu Mir inspired the Muslim

tenants in West Bengal to rise against landlords, mainly

Hindu, who imposed a beard-tax on the Faraizis and British

indigo planters. Often considered the first armed peasant

uprising against the British, this revolt soon took on a

religious hue. The revolt later merged into the Wahabi

Movement.

154

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

The Pagal Panthis

The Pagal Panthi, a semi-religious group mainly constituting

the Hajong and Garo tribes of Mymensingh district (earlier

in Bengal), was founded by Karam Shah. But the tribal

peasants organised themselves under Karam Shah’s son, Tipu,

to fight the oppression of the zamindars. From 1825 to 1835,

the Pagal Panthis refused to pay rent above a certain limit

and attacked the houses of zamindars. The government

introduced an equitable arrangement to protect these peasants,

but the movement was violently suppressed.
Faraizi Revolt

The Faraizis were the followers of a Muslim sect founded

by Haji Shariatullah of Faridpur in Eastern Bengal. They

advocated radical religious, social, and political changes.

Shariatullah and his son Muhsinuddin Ahmad, popularly

known as Dudu Miyan (1819–62) organised their followers

with an aim to expel the English intruders from Bengal. The

sect also supported the cause of the tenants against the

zamindars. The Faraizi disturbances continued from 1838 to

1857. Most of the Faraizis joined the Wahabi ranks.
Moplah Uprisings

Hike in revenue demand and reduction of field size, coupled

with the oppression of officials, resulted in widespread

peasant unrest among the Moplahs of Malabar. Twenty-two

rebellions took place between 1836 and 1854. None, however,

proved successful.

(The second Moplah uprising occurred after the Moplahs

came to be organised by the Congress and the Khilafat

supporters during the Non-Cooperation Movement. But Hindu-

Muslim differences distanced the Congress and the Moplahs

from each other. By 1921, the Moplahs had been subdued.)
Peasants’ Role in the 1857 Revolt

Peasant participation was active only in some areas affected

by the 1857 rebellion, mainly those in western Uttar Pradesh.

Moreover, the peasants united with the local feudal leaders

in many places to fight against foreign rule. After the revolt,

the plight of the peasants worsened with the British

Government’s decision to gain the support of the landed

People’s Resistance Against British Before 1857

✫

155

classes while ignoring the peasants. Occupancy peasants’

interests suffered. In Avadh, for instance, land was restored

to the taluqdars and they were given revenue and other powers

as well, and the peasants could not avail of the provisions

of the 1859 Bengal Rent Act. As a punishment for their

participation in the 1857 revolt, the peasants had to pay an

additional cess in some regions.

Tribal Revolts

Tribal movements under British rule were the most frequent,

militant, and violent of all movements.

Different Causes for Mainland and
North-Eastern Tribal Revolts

The tribal movements can be analysed better if categorised

into mainland tribal revolts, and frontier tribal revolts

concentrated mainly in the north-eastern part of India.

The mainland tribal rebellions were sparked off by a

number of factors, an important one concerned with the tribal

lands or forests.

The land settlements of the British affected the joint

ownership tradition among the tribals and disrupted their

social fabric.

As agriculture was extended in a settled form by the

Company government, the tribals lost their land, and there

was an influx of non-tribals to these areas.

Shifting cultivation in forests was curbed and this added

to the tribals’ problems. The government further extended its

control over the forest areas by setting up reserved forests

and restricting timber use and grazing. This was the result

of the increasing demand from the Company for timber—

for shipping and the railways.

Exploitation by the police, traders, and moneylenders

(most of them ‘outsiders’) aggravated the tribals’ sufferings.

Some general laws were also abhorred for their intrusive

nature as the tribals had their own customs and traditions.

With the expansion of colonialism, Christian

missionaries came to these regions and their efforts interfered

with the traditional customs of the tribals. The missionaries,

156

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

perceived as representatives of the alien rule, were resented

by the tribals.

The movements of the tribes of the north-eastern

frontier were different from the non-frontier tribal revolts

in some aspects.

For one thing, the tribes which shared tribal and cultural

links with countries across the border did not concern

themselves much with the nationalist struggle. Their revolts

were often in favour of political autonomy within the Indian

Union or complete independence.

Secondly, these movements were not forest-based or

agrarian revolts as these tribals were generally in control of

land and forest area. The British entered the north-eastern

areas much later than the non-frontier tribal areas.

Thirdly, the frontier tribal revolts under the British

continued for a longer time than the non-frontier tribal

movements. De-sanskritisation movements also spread among

the frontier tribals. The Meiteis organised a movement during

Churchand Maharaja’s rule (between 1891 and 1941) to

denounce the malpractices of the neo-Vaishnavite Brahmins.

Sanskritisation movements were almost totally absent in the

north-east frontier region in the colonial period.

Characteristics of Tribal Revolts

There were some common characteristics of the tribal

uprisings even though they were separated from one another

in time and space.

●

Tribal identity or ethnic ties lay behind the solidarity

shown by these groups. Not all ‘outsiders’ were, however,

seen as enemies: the poor who lived by their manual labour

or profession and had a socially/economically supportive role

in the village were left alone; the violence was directed

towards the moneylenders and traders who were seen as

extensions of the colonial government.

●

A common cause was the resentment against the

imposition of laws by the ‘foreign government’ that was seen

as an effort at destroying the tribals’ traditional socio-

economic framework.

●

Erosion of the tribal rights over land and forest

because of the rules imposed by the British was at the root

of many tribal movements. As land came to be seen as private

People’s Resistance Against British Before 1857

✫

157

property and market forces came to dominate, there was

large-scale alienation of land from the tribes as the non-tribe

people slowly took over the land; this was especially so after

the building of roads and railways linked tribal areas.

●

Many uprisings were led by messiah-like figures who

encouraged their people to revolt and who held out the

promise that they could end their suffering brought about by

the ‘outsiders’.

●

The tribal uprisings were doomed from the beginning,

given the outdated arms they fought with as against the

modern weapons and techniques used by their opponents.

Important Tribal Movements

of the Mainland

Some of the important tribal movements are discussed below.

It may be noted that most tribal movements, if we leave out

the frontier tribal areas, were concentrated in central India,

the west-central region, and the south.

The tribals of Chotanagpur and Santhal Pargana in the

region that is now known as Jharkhand have a long history

of resistance against the British administration and its non-

tribal collaborators, such as the jagirdars and zamindars.
The Pahariyas

The hill folk who lived around the Rajmahal hills were known
as the Pahariyas. They subsisted on forest produce and

practised shifting cultivation. These people considered the

entire region as their land and they were hostile to the

intrusion of outsiders. The Paharias had always maintained
their independence before the British came because of their

geographical isolation. As their means of subsistence was not

adequate, especially in years of scarcity, the Paharias often

raided the plains occupied by settled agriculturists. These
raids also symbolised a way of asserting power over the

settled communities. The zamindars on the plains generally

paid a regular tribute to the Pahariyas to buy peace even as

traders paid the hill chiefs to be permitted to use the passes
controlled by them. However, this rather brittle peace

negotiation disintegrated in the last decades of the eighteenth

158

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

century when settled agriculture was expanded in eastern

India with the British encouraging forest clearance. With the

extension of settled agriculture, the area under forests and

pastures was reduced, increasing the conflict between hill

folk and settled cultivators. The Pahariyas now raided settled

villages more often. In the 1770s, the British resorted to a

brutal attack on the Pahariyas, aimed at hunting them down

and killing them. The Pahariyas rebellion of 1778 led by Raja

Jagganath is notable. In the 1780s, the British initiated a

policy of pacification; Paharia chiefs were given an annual

allowance in return for ensuring that their men conducted

themselves properly. Not all Pahariyas were ready to accept

this policy. Some of them withdrew deep into the mountains,

hiding away from hostile forces, and continuing the war

against the diku or ‘outsiders’.

The Revolt led by Tilka Manjhi

The British faced much opposition and rebellion in Santhal

Pargana under the leadership of Tilka Majhi (or Manjhi), a

Santhal whose real name is said to have been Jabra Paharia.

Tilka was against the British policy of divide and rule. Tilka

Manjhi is reputed to have moved in the hills around Sultanganj,

coming down to attack the boats of the East India Company

moving along the Ganga and loot the British treasury. He was

also reputed to have shared the loot with the poor. The

guerrilla warfare that he organised had many Santhal women

also participating in it. There were many encounters in the

jungles of the Tarai region between Tilka Manjhi and his

followers and the British soldiers. In 1778, Tilka is said to

have taken the Ramgarh Camp from the British after forming

a joint front with the Paharia Sardars. In 1784, Tilka led his

followers to attack Bhagalpur; Tilka is said to have shot the

British magistrate of Rajmahal, Augustus Cleveland. The

British made a concerted attack on Manjhi and his followers,

finally capturing Manjhi and hanging him in 1785. Manjhi

is considered to be the first Adivasi leader to take up arms

against the British.

The main reason for the revolt led by Tilka was the

People’s Resistance Against British Before 1857

✫

159

policy of exploitation, extortion, and harassment by revenue

collectors, police officers, and the agents of the landlords.

Moreover, the drought of 1770 led to starvation in the region

and consequent protests, a situation to which the British

responded with more oppression.

Jungle Mahal Revolt or the Chuar

Uprising

Jungle–or Jungal–Mahals is the name given to an indefinite

administrative unit lying between the Chota Nagpur and the

plains of Bengal. Later this area came to be identified as

made up of some parganas in Birbhum, Bankura, and

Midnapore. (Because of the continued disturbances of the

Bhumij, it was split amongst the neighbouring districts in

1833.)

According to J.C. Jha, the Chuars were the Bhumij

tribals belonging originally to the Mundari main stock. After

moving away from the Chotanagpur plateau, they settled in

large numbers in Midnapur, Bankura, and Purulia districts of

Bengal.

These people were basically farmers and hunters; some

of them worked under the local zamindars. The Chuars were

prominent in Manbhum and Barabhum, especially in the hills

between Barabhum and Ghatsila. They held their lands under

a kind of feudal tenure, but were not strongly attached to

the soil, being always ready to change from farming to

hunting, at the bidding of their jungle chiefs or zamindars.

These jungle zamindars used to hire paiks (guards who

policed the village) from among the Chuars. The head paiks

were known as the sardars.

The Chuar uprisings occurred in phases, each one with

its own characteristics, leaders, and epicentre.

The first Chuar rebellion broke out as a reaction to the

increase of the revenue of the jungle zamindars. The revenue

was difficult to raise as the jungle territory yielded little.

Moreover, in 1767, the British resident of Midnapur was

instructed to demolish their mud forts, something that

offended the zamindars.

In 1768, Jagannath Singh, the zamindar of Ghatsila, (or

160

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

the king of Dhalbhum) went up in arms, along with thousands

of Chuar followers. The Company government capitulated. In

1771, the Chuar sardars, Shyam Ganjan of Dhadka, Subla

Singh of Kaliapal, and Dubraj rose in rebellion. This time,

however, the rebellion was suppressed.

The most significant uprising was under Durjan (or

Durjol) Singh in 1798. The revenue and administrative

policies of the East India Company (the Permanent Settlement

being one of them) as well as the police regulations imposed

in rural Bengal made the system of hiring local paiks

redundant as they came to be replaced by professional police.

The aggrieved paiks and ordinary Chuars joined hands with

the jungle zamindars in the Chuar rebellion of 1798. Durjan

Singh was the zamindar of Raipur from which he was

dispossessed owing to the operations of Bengal Regulations.

In May 1798, his followers, a body of 1,500 Chuars, indulged

in violent activities in Raipur to halt the auction of the estate

of Raipur. The revolt was brutally suppressed by the British

in 1799. Other leaders of the Chuars were Madhab Singh,

the brother of the raja of Barabhum; Raja Mohan Singh,

zamindar of Juriah; and Lachman Singh of Dulma.

All the people in the uprisings were somehow associated

with the land: zamindars, paiks, and ordinary Chuars. One

could say there was a clash of ways of life. The rebels had

so far been living in an agrarian society, in a closed

community. The intrusion by colonial forces into their lands

exposed them to a new situation which upset their way of

life. Also, they were not prepared to accept the outsiders

(or non-Adivasis).

(The term ‘Chuar’ is considered derogatory by some

historians who call this the Revolt of the Jungle Mahal,

instead.)
Tamar Revolt
The tribals of Tamar (in Chotanagpur region) rose in revolt

in 1798 under Bholanath Sahay. (In some sources, he is

named Bholanath Singh.) The uprising was in reaction to the

faulty and alien systems imposed by the British. The Munda

People’s Resistance Against British Before 1857

✫

161

tribals and their chiefs joined forces with Bholanath. The

revolt expressed anger against the diku. The uprising was

firmly suppressed by an expedition led by Lt. Cooper. There

were several more revolts by the tribals of Tamar.
Kol Mutiny (1831)

The Kols, alongwith other tribes, are inhabitants of

Chhotanagpur. This covered Ranchi, Singhbhum, Hazaribagh,

Palamau, and the western parts of Manbhum. The trouble in

1831 started with large-scale transfers of land from Kol

headmen to outsiders like Hindu, Sikh, and Muslim farmers

and moneylenders who were oppressive and demanded heavy

taxes. Besides, the British judicial and revenue policies badly

affected the traditional social conditions of the Kols. The

Kols resented this, and, in 1831, under the leadership of

Buddho Bhagat, the Kol rebels killed or burnt about a

thousand outsiders. Only after large-scale military operations

could order be restored.
Ho and Munda Uprisings (1820–37)

The Raja of Parahat organised his Ho tribals to revolt against

the occupation of Singhbhum (now in Jharkhand). The revolt

continued till 1827 when the Ho tribals were forced to

submit. However, later in 1831, they again organised a

rebellion, joined by the Mundas of Chotanagpur, to protest

against the newly introduced farming revenue policy and the

entry of Bengalis into their region. Though the revolt was

extinguished in 1832, the Ho operations continued till 1837.

Nor were the Mundas to be quiet for long.
The Santhal Rebellions (1833; 1855–56)

It needs to be noted that the Santhals moved into the Rajmahal

area in the late 1770s and early 1780s from the region of

Cuttack, Dhalbhum, Manbhum, Hazaribagh, and Midnapore.

They showed a willingness to give up a nomadic life and lead

a settled life. They were ready to clear the forests, plough

the land, and grow crops. This suited the British interests;

the Company wanted more revenue from land and more crops

for export. The British, therefore, persuaded the Santhals to

settle in the foothills of Rajmahal. But a feud between the

162

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Some Tribal Movements after 1857

Though this chapter is basically about the uprisings before the 1857
Revolt, it cannot be forgotten that some tribal revolts continued
to take place after 1857. Some of these are discussed below.

Bokta Rising, Sardari Larai, or Mukti Larai Movement

Chotanagpur was the scene of this movement between 1858 and
1895. It was aimed at regaining the tribals’ age old right over land
by pushing out the landlords. In the earlier phases of the revolt,
the tribal tenants rose against the landlords because of the increased
rent, eviction from land, and harassment by the landlords. Later,
in the 1890s, the Sardar movement turned against all Europeans
as they were suspected to be colluding with the landlords. British
rule was perceived to be at the root of the problems faced by the
tribals, therefore it had to end. When constitutional methods got
little result, the tribals took to violence, using their traditional
weapons such as bows and arrows. But the struggle lacked
organisation and a good leader.

Birsa Munda Revolt In the 1890s, Birsa Munda emerged at

the head of a movement of the Munda tribes of SInghbhum and
Ranchi districts of Chotanagpur region. The

Ulgulan (‘Great Tumult’),

as this movement was called, and which was aimed at getting
independence establishing a Munda Raj, went on in phases right
into the twentieth century. With the coming of the British, the
traditional ways of the tribals both with regard to their social customs
and with regard to land were drastically affected as the British
policies introduced the zamindari system with the new classes of
landlords and tenants. The tribals were now forced to pay rent to
the landlords and failure to do so resulted in their eviction from
land. Paying rent meant increasing dependence on usurious
moneylenders and ultimately debt. Resenting the harassment by
the landlords, who were encroaching the tribal land and often pushed
them into

begar (forced labour), besides using brute force, the Munda

tribals rose in revolt under Birsa Munda. The objective was to attain
religious and political independence. The arrest and conviction of
Birsa to two years of imprisonment by the British made the rebels
more determined to go ahead with the movement which now took
to violence. The revolt broke out in December 1899 and was directed
against the

dikus who included Christian missionaries as well as

the much-hated landlords, contractors, police, and government
officials. The British response was ruthless suppression. Birsa was
arrested in 1900 and died of illness. Many rebels who were arrested
were imprisoned and sentenced to death. The movement was, thus,
weakened.

People’s Resistance Against British Before 1857

✫

163

Following the Birsa Movement, the authorities felt that the

interests of the tribals needed to be safeguarded. The government
decided to abolish the compulsory

begar system and passed the

Tenancy Act of 1903 under which the Mundas’ Khuntkatti system
was recognised. The Chotanagpur Tenancy Act was passed in 1908.
Birsa assumed legendary fame, and his movement was an
inspiration for the social, religious, and political movements of tribals
in the future.

Tana Bhagat Movement A young man, Jatra Oraon of Ranchi,

proclaimed in April 1914 that he had been divinely ordained to
become a king and his followers in his kingdom would be the Tana
Bhagats. Tana Bhagats were called upon to discard earthly
possessions such as agricultural implements and reject practices
such as spirit worship and sacrifice. They sought to reorder the
Oraon society. The Tana Bhagat Movement in the official history
of the state of Jharkhand is represented as having been initiated
by Jatra Oraon in 1914, and later led by Sibu Oraon in 1919. It
was part of the agrarian discontent in Jharkhand against the
imposition of

begar and the illegal increase in rent by the zamindars

and intermediary tenure-holders with whom the colonial state
collaborated. They opposed moneylenders as well as missionaries.
The Tana Bhagats conducted a satyagraha even before Gandhi’s
satyagraha movement. They differed from the movements led by
Sido and Kanhu Murmu or Birsa Munda in that they were primarily
religious and nonviolent. In 1921, during the Non-Cooperation
Movement, the Tana Bhagats were drawn into the organisational
fold of the Congress.

Devi Movement The Devi movement was initially a social

movement among the tribals of South Gujarat in 1922-23. It was
initiated by the assumption that Devi Salabai was commanding the
tribals to abstain from eating flesh and drinking liquor and to wash
and be clean. By December 1922, the movement spread over the
region inhabited by the tribals as well as Surat city. This movement
soon targeted those classes which exploited the tribals, such as
landlords and moneylenders, and those who were in the liquor trade.
Towards the end of 1922, this movement became a part of the
Non-Cooperation Movement.

Santhals and the Paharias continued for a long time. (It has

been called a battle between the hoe and the plough: the hoe

symbolising the Paharias who used the tool in shifting

cultivation and the plough standing for the Santhals who used

it for settled agriculture.) The British worked out a

compromise between the two groups by forming the Damin-

164

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

i-koh in 1832-33. (Damin-i-koh is a Persian term meaning

the skirts – or outside edges – of the hills.) A portion of

land at the foothills was declared to be that of the Santhals;

they were to live and practise agriculture with the plough

within this area, and become settled peasants. The Pahariyas

were practically forced to retreat into the higher hill tracts.

Over time, the Santhals found that they were gradually

losing the land they had worked on and brought under

cultivation. The Permanent Settlement Act of 1793 proved

to be disastrous for the agriculturists. The taxes levied by

the Company government on their land was heavy and money

had to be borrowed to pay off debts. But the diku moneylenders

charged very high rates of interest and, when debts remained

unpaid, took possession of the land. Slowly, zamindars were

taking over the Damin tracts. By the 1850s, the Santhals felt

the need to rebel against the zamindars and the moneylenders.

The rebellion soon turned into a movement against the British

colonial state. The Santhals called the rebellion ‘hul’, meaning

a movement for liberation. Under Sidhu and Kanhu Murmu,

two brothers, the Santhals proclaimed an end to Company

rule, and declared the area between Bhagalpur and Rajmahal

as autonomous. It is said that emissaries with sal branches

as a form of secret communication were sent by the Murmu

brothers to Santhal lands to gather support. Phulo and Jhano

Murmu, the sisters of Sidhu and Kanhu, participated in the

rebellion and are said to have entered the enemy camp under

cover and killed several soldiers before they themselves died.

The British suppressed the rebellion with a heavy hand by

1856, burning down villages or destroying them with the help

of elephants, and killing thousands of Santhals. Sidhu and

Kanhu were killed.

It was after the Santhal Revolt of 1855-56 that the

Santhal Pargana was created out of the districts of Bhagalpur

and Birbhum. The pargana was to have special laws within

it.
Khond Uprisings (1837–56)

From 1837 to 1856, the Khonds of the hilly tracts extending

from Odisha to the Srikakulam and Visakhapatnam districts

People’s Resistance Against British Before 1857

✫

165

of Andhra Pradesh revolted against Company rule. Chakra

Bisoi, a young raja, led the Khonds, who were joined by the

Ghumsar, Kalahandi, and other tribals to oppose the

suppression of human sacrifice, new taxes, and the entry of

zamindars into their areas. With Chakra Bisoi’s disappearance,

the uprising came to an end.

[A later Khond rebellion in 1914 in the Orissa region

was triggered by the hope that foreign rule would end and

they could gain an autonomous government.]
Koya Revolts

The Koyas of the eastern Godavari track (modern Andhra),

joined by Khonda Sara chiefs, rebelled in 1803, 1840, 1845,

1858, 1861, and 1862. They rose once again in 1879–80

under Tomma Sora. Their complaints were oppression by

police and moneylenders, new regulations, and denial of their

customary rights over forest areas. After the death of Tomma

Sora, another rebellion was organised in 1886 by Raja

Anantayyar.
Bhil Revolts

The Bhils who lived in the Western Ghats controlled the

mountain passes between the north and the Deccan. They

revolted against Company rule in 1817–19, as they had to

face famine, economic distress, and misgovernment. The

British used both force and conciliatory efforts to control

the uprising. However, the Bhils revolted again in 1825,

1831, and in 1846. Later, a reformer, Govind Guru, helped

the Bhils of south Rajasthan (Banswara, Sunth states) to

organise themselves to fight for a Bhil Raj by 1913.
Koli Risings

The Kolis living in the neighbourhood of Bhils rose up in

rebellion against the Company’s rule in 1829, 1839, and again

during 1844–48. They resented the imposition of Company’s

rule which brought with it large-scale unemployment for

them and the dismantling of their forts.
Ramosi Risings

The Ramosis, the hill tribes of the Western Ghats, had not

reconciled to British rule and the British pattern of

administration. They resented the policy of annexation. After

166

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Tribal Movements: Period, Region,

Causes at a Glance

1. Pahariyas’ Rebellion by the martial Pahariyas (1778; Raj Mahal

Hills); against the British expansion on their lands.

2. Chuar Uprisings by the Chuar aboriginal tribesmen (1776);

against rise in demands and economic privation by the British.

3. Kol Uprisings by the Kols of Chottanagpur led by Buddho Bhagat

(1831); against expansion of British rule on their lands and
transfer of their lands to outsiders; the revolt was suppressed.

4. Ho and Munda Uprisings

(a) by Ho tribals by led of Raja Parahat (1827; Singhbhum and

Chottanagpur); against occupation of Singhbhum by British.

(b) by Ho tribals and the Mundas (1831); against the newly

introduced farming revenue policy.

Ranchi); Birsa was captured and imprisoned.

(d) the

Ulgulan uprising, supported by Birsa Munda (1860–1920);

against introduction of feudal, zamindari tenures, and
exploitation by moneylenders and forest contractors.

5. Santhal Rebellion by the Santhals led by Sido and Kanhu (1855–

56; Bihar); against the practices of zamindars and moneylenders;
the rebellion later turned anti-British and was suppressed.

6. Kondh uprisings led by Chakra Bisnoi (1837–56 and later in

1914; hilly region extending from Tamil Nadu to Bengal; in Orissa
in 1914); against interference in tribal customs and imposition
of new taxes.

7. Naikada Movement (1860s; Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat);

against British and caste Hindus.

8. Kharwar Rebellion by the Kharwars (1870s; Bihar); against

revenue settlement activities.

9. Khonda Dora Campaign by Khonda Doras led by Korra Mallaya

(1900; Dabur region in Vishakapatnam).

10. Bhil Revolts (1817–19 and 1913; region of Western Ghats);

against Company Rule (in 1817–19) and to form Bhil Raj.

11. Bhuyan and Juang Rebellions by the Bhuyans, Juangs and Kals;

first uprising was led by Ratna Nayak; second uprising was
led by Dharni Dhar Nayak (1867–68; 1891–93; Kheonjhar,
Orissa); against the installation of a British protege on the throne
after the death of their

raja in 1867.

12. Koya Revolts by the Koyas and the Khonda Sara Chiefs

– led by Tomma Sora in 1879–80
– led by Raja Anantayyar in 1886 (eastern Godavari region
Andhra Pradesh); against oppression by police, moneylenders;
new regulations and denial of their rights over forest areas.

People’s Resistance Against British Before 1857

✫

167

the annexation of the Maratha territories by the British, the

Ramosis, who had been employed by the Maratha

administration, lost their means of livelihood. They rose

under Chittur Singh in 1822 and plundered the country around

Satara. Again, there were eruptions in 1825–26 under Umaji

Naik of Poona and his supporter Bapu Trimbakji Sawant, and

the disturbances continued till 1829. The disturbance occurred

again in 1839 over deposition and banishment of Raja Pratap

Singh of Satara, and disturbances erupted in 1840–41 also.

Finally, a superior British force restored order in the area.

Generally, the British followed a pacifist policy towards the

Ramosis, and even recruited some of them into the hill

police.

Tribal Movements of the North-East

Some famous tribal movements of the north-east frontier

region have been given below.
Khasi Uprising

After having occupied the hilly region between Garo and

Jaintia Hills, the East India Company wanted to build a road

linking the Brahmaputra Valley with Sylhet. For this, a large

number of outsiders including Englishmen, Bengalis, and the

13. Bastar Revolt (1910; Jagdalpur); against new feudal and forest

levies.

14. Tana Bhagat Movements among the Mundas and Oraon tribes

led by Jatra Bhagat, Balram Bhagat who preached that God’s
benevolent delegate would arrive to free the tribals (1914–15;
Chottanagpur); against interference of outsiders; began as
Sanskritisation movement.

15. Rampa Revolts led by Alluri Sitarama Raju of the Koyas (1916,

1922–24; Rampa region in Andhra Pradesh); against British
interference; capture and execution of Raju in 1924.

16. Jharkhand Uprising by tribals of Chottanagpur region (1920

onwards; parts of Bihar, Orissa, and West Bengal); Adivasi
Mahasabha was formed in 1937 which was replaced by Regional
Jharkhand Party in 1949.

17. Forest Satyagrahas (a) by Chenchu tribals (1920s; Guntur district

in Andhra), (b) by Karwars of Palamau (1930s; Bihar); against
increasing British control over forests.

18. Gond Uprising (1940s) to bring together the believers of Gond-

dharma.

168

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

labourers from the plains were brought to these regions. The

Khasis, Garos, Khamptis, and the Singphos organised

themselves under Tirath Singh to drive away the strangers

from the plains. The uprising developed into a popular revolt

against the British rule in the area. By 1833, the superior

English military force had suppressed the revolt.

North-East Frontier Tribal Movements:

Year, Region, Major Causes

Movements Before 1857

1. Ahoms’ Revolt (1828–33; Assam); against the non-fulfilment of

the pledges of the Company after the Burmese War; the uprising
was suppressed by the Company by dividing the kingdom.

2. Khasis’ Revolt (1830s; hilly region between Jaintia and Garo

Hills); led by the Nunklow ruler, Tirath Singh; against the
occupation of the hilly region.

3. Singphos’ Rebellion (1830s; Assam); led to murder of British

political agent of Assam by Singphos in 1839; was ultimately
suppressed.

Movements After 1857

1. Kukis’ Revolt (1917–19; Manipur); against British policies of

recruiting labour during the first World War.

2. Revolts in Tripura; against hike in house tax rates and against

settlement of outsiders in the region
(a) led by Parikshit Jamatia (1863)
(b) the Reangs’ revolt led by Ratnamani (1942–43)
(c) led by Bharti Singh (1920s)

3. Zeliangsong Movement (1920s; Manipur); led by the Zemi,

Liangmei and Rongmei tribes; against the failure of British to
protect them during the Kuki violence in 1917–19.

4. Naga movement (1905-31; Manipur); led by Jadonang; against

British rule and for setting up of a Naga

raj.

5. Heraka Cult (1930s; Manipur); led by Gaidinliu; the movement

was suppressed but Kabui Naga Association was formed in
1946.

6. Other Smaller Movements were the revolt of the Syntengs

of Jaintia Hills in 1860–62; the Phulaguri peasants’ rebellion
in 1861, the revolt of the Saflas in 1872–73; the uprising of
the Kacha Nagas of Cachhar in 1882; and a women’s war in
Manipur in 1904.

People’s Resistance Against British Before 1857

✫

169

Singphos Rebellion

The rebellion of the Singphos in Assam in early 1830 was

immediately quelled, but they continued to organise revolts.

An uprising in 1839 saw the death of the British political

agent. Chief Nirang Phidu led an uprising in 1843, which

involved an attack on the British garrison and the death of

many soldiers.

Some of the smaller movements were those of the

Mishmis (in 1836); the Khampti rebellion in Assam between

1839 and 1842; and the Lushais’ revolt in 1842 and 1844,

when they attacked villages in Manipur.

Sepoy Mutinies

A number of sporadic military uprisings took place before

the Great Revolt of 1857 in different parts of the country.

Causes

There was rising discontent of the sepoys against the British

rule due to the following reasons:

(i) discrimination in payment and promotions;

(ii) mistreatment of the sepoys by the British officials;

(iii) refusal of the government to pay foreign service

allowance while fighting in remote regions;

(iv) religious objections of the high-caste Hindu

sepoys to Lord Canning’s General Service

Enlistment Act (1856) ordering all recruits to be

ready for service both within and outside India.

Further, the sepoys shared all the discontent and

grievances—social, religious, and economic—that afflicted

the civilian population.

Over the years, the upper caste sepoys had found their

religious beliefs in conflict with their service conditions. For

example, in 1806, the replacement of the turban by a leather

cockade caused a mutiny at Vellore. Similarly, in 1844, there

was a mutinous outbreak of the Bengal army sepoys for being

sent to far away Sind, and, in 1824, the sepoys at Barrackpore

rose in revolt when they were asked to go to Burma because

crossing the sea would mean loss of caste.

170

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Important Mutinies

The most important mutinies which broke out during the pre-

1857 period are the following:

(i) The mutiny of the sepoys in Bengal in 1764

(ii) The Vellore mutiny of 1806 when the sepoys protested

against interference in their social and religious

practices and raised a banner of revolt unfurling the

flag of the ruler of Mysore

(iii) The mutiny of the sepoys of the 47th Native Infantry

Unit in 1824

(iv) The revolt of the Grenadier Company in Assam in

1825

(v) The mutiny of an Indian regiment at Sholapur in 1838

(vi) The mutinies of the 34th Native Infantry (N.I.), the

22nd N.I., the 66th N.I., and the 37th N.I. in 1844,

1849, 1850, and 1852 respectively

However, all these mutinies did not spread beyond their

locality and were ruthlessly crushed by the British Indian

government, often inflicting terrible violence, executing

leaders, and disbanding the regiments. But the legacy of these

revolts proved to be of immense significance later.

Weaknesses of People’s
Uprisings

●

These uprisings drew a large number of participants

but were, in fact, localised and occurred at different times

in different regions.

●

They mostly arose out of local grievances.

●

The leadership was semi-feudal in character, backward-

looking, traditional in outlook, and their resistance did not

offer alternatives to the existing social set-up.

●

If many of these revolts seemed similar to one

another in wanting to oust the alien rule, it was not because

of some ‘national’ impulse or common effort, but because

they were protesting against conditions that were common

to them.

●

These rebellions were centuries-old in form and

ideological / cultural content.

People’s Resistance Against British Before 1857

✫

171

●

Those who were not so uncooperative or obstinate

were pacified through concessions by the authorities.

●

The methods and arms used by the fighters in

these uprisings were practically obsolete compared to the

weapons and strategy—as well as deception and

chicanery—employed by their opponents.

Summary

●

Factors Responsible for People’s Resistance
Colonial land revenue settlements; heavy burden of new taxes

and eviction of peasants from their land

Growth of intermediary revenue collectors, tenants, and

moneylenders

Expansion of revenue administration over tribal lands
Destruction of indigenous industry and promotion of British

manufactured goods

End of patronage to priestly and scholarly classes
Foreign character of the British rule

●

Forms of People’s Uprisings
Civil Uprisings
Peasant Movements
Tribal Revolts
Military Revolts

●

Civil Uprisings Before 1857
Sanyasi Revolt (1763–1800)—Bihar and Bengal; Manju Shah,

Musa Shah, Bhawani Pathak, and Debi Chaudhurani were
some important leaders.

Rebellion in Midnapore and Dhalbhum (1766–67)—Bengal;

Damodar Singh, Jagannath Dhal, etc.

Revolt of Moamarias (1769–99)—Assam and parts of present

Bangladesh; Krishnanarayan was important leader.

Civil Uprisings in Gorakhpur, Basti and Bahraich (1781)—Uttar

Pradesh.

Revolt of Raja of Vizianagaram—Northeren Circars; Vizieram

Rauze (Chinna Vijayaramaraju) was supported by his
subjects.

Revolt in Bednur (1797–1800)—Karnataka; Dhundia Wagh.
Revolt of Kerala Varma Pazhassi Raja (1797–1805)—Kerala;

Kerala Varma.

Civil Rebellion of Awadh (1799)—Eastern Uttar Pradesh; Wazir

Ali Khan (Vizier Ali).

172

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Uprising in Ganjam and Gumsur (1800, 1935–37)—Eastern

Orissa; Strikara Bhanj, Dhananjaya Bhanj and Doora Bisayi.

Uprisings in Palamau (1800–02)—Chhotanagpur of Jharkhand;

Bhukhan Singh was the leader of the revolt.

Poligars’s Revolt (1795–1805)—Tinnevelly, Ramnathapuram,

Sivagiri, Madurai and North Arcot of Tamil Nadu; Kattabomman
Nayakan was an important leader.

Revolt of Diwan Velu Thampi (1808–09)—Travancore; led by

Diwan of State, Velu Thampi.

Disturbances in Bundelkhand (1808–12)—Regions of Bundelkhand

in present Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh; Lakshaman
Dawa, the Killadar of Ajaygarh Fort, Darya Singh, the
Killadar of Kalanjar, and Gopal Singh, a military adventurer
were the important insurgents.

Parlakimedi Outbreak (1813–34)—Orissa; Narayan Deo and

Gajapathi Deo.

Kutch Rebellion (1819)—Gujarat; Rao Bharamal.
Rising at Bareilly (1816)—Uttar Pradesh; Mufti Muhammad

Aiwaz, a religious leader; a resistance against municipal tax
turned into a religious

jehad.

Upsurge in Hathras (1817)—Aligarh and Agra in Uttar Pradesh;

Dayaram and Bhagwant Singh were the important insurgents.

Paika Rebellion (1817)—Orissa; Bakshi Jagabandhu Bidyadhar,

Mukunda Deva, and Dinabandhu Santra were important
leaders.

Waghera Rising (1818–20)—Baroda region of Gujarat; led by

Waghera chiefs of Okha Mandal.

Ahom Revolt (1828)—Assam; led by Gomdhar Konwar and

Maharaja Purandhar Singh. Narendra Gadadhar Singh and
Kumar Rupchand were other leaders.

Surat Salt Agitations (1844)—Gujarat; attacks on the Europeans

by the locals of Surat; over the issue of increase in salt
duty.

Gadkari Revolt (1844)—Kolhapur of Maharashtra; Gadakaris, a

hereditary military class, revolted in the wake of
unemployment and agrarians grievances.

Revolt of Savantavadi (1844–59)—North Konkan Coast; Phond

Savant, Subana Nikam, Daji Lakshman, and Har Savant
Dingnekar were important insurrectionists.

Wahabi Movement (1830–61)—Bihar, Bengal, North West Frontier

Province, Punjab, etc., an Islamist revivalist movement
started by Syed Ahmed of Rai Bareilly.

Kuka Movement (1840–72)—Punjab; A religious movement

started by Bhagat Jawahar Mal transformed into political
one. Ram Singh, a noted leader, deported to Rangoon.

People’s Resistance Against British Before 1857

✫

173

●

Peasant Movements
Narkelberia Uprising (1831)—24 Parganas (Bengal); Titu Mir

inspired the Muslim tenants in West Bengal against Hindu
landlords.

Pagal Panthis (1825–35)—Mymensingh district (Bengal); Karam

Shah and his son Tipu rose against

zamindars.

Faraizi Revolt (1838–57)—Faridpur in Eastern Bengal; Shariat-

Allah, son of Dadu Mian, was the founder of the religious
sect (Faraizi).

Moplah Uprisings (1836–1854)—Malabar region of Kerala; against

hike in revenue demand and reduction in field size.

●

Tribal Revolts
Pahariyas’ Rebellion (1778)—Raj Mahal Hills
Chuar Uprisings (1766 to 1772, 1795–1816)—Midnapore district

of Bengal; important leaders—Sham Ganjan, Durjan Singh
and Madhab Singh.

Kol Mutiny (1831)—Ranchi, Singhbhum, Hazaribagh, Palamau and

Manbhum; Buddho Bhagat was an important leader.

Ho and Munda Uprisings (1820–22, 1831–37, 1899–1900)—

Chhotanagpur region; Birsa Munda in 1899–1900 led the
rebellion.

Santhal Rebellion (1855–56)—Rajmahal Hill (Bihar); Sidhu and

Kanhu were important leaders.

Khond Uprisings (1837–1856)—Hilly tracts extending from Tamil

Nadu to Bengal; Chakra Bisoi, an important leader.

Koya Revolts (1803, 1840–62, 1879–80)—Eastern Godavari

region of Andhra Pradesh; Tomma Sora and Raja Anantayyar
were important leaders.

Bhil Revolts (1817–19, 1913)—Khandesh, Dhar, Malwa, Western

Ghats and southern Rajasthan.

Koli Risings (1829, 1839 and 1844–48)—Western Ghats.
Ramosi Risings (1822–29, 1839–41)—Western Ghats; Chittur

Singh was an important rebel leader.

Khasi Uprising (1829–33)—Hilly region between Garo and Jaintia

Hills, Sylhet; Khasis, Garos, Khamptis and Singhphos
organised themselves under Tirath Singh.

Singhphos’ Rebellion (1830–31, 1843)—Assam-Burma Border;

Nirang Phidu led an uprising in 1843.

●

Sepoy Mutinies
Vellore Mutiny (1806)
Mutiny of 47th Native Infantry Unit (1824)
Revolt of Grenadier Company (1825), Assam
Mutiny in Sholapur (1833)
Mutiny of 34th Native Infantry (1844)
Mutiny of 22nd Native Infantry (1849)
Mutiny of 66th Native Infantry (1850)
Mutiny of 37th Native Infantry (1852)

174

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

174

CHAPTER 7

The Revolt of 1857

In 1757, after the Battle of Plassey, the British laid the first

step towards getting power in northern India. And in 1857

took place the major ‘Revolt’, which was a product of the

character and policies of colonial rule after 1757, and after

which noteworthy changes took place in the British policy

of ruling over India.

Simmering Discontent

The cumulative effect of British expansionist policies,

economic exploitation, and administrative innovations over

the years had adversely affected the positions of all—rulers

of Indian states, sepoys, zamindars, peasants, traders, artisans,

pundits, maulvis, etc. The simmering discontent burst in the

form of a violent storm in 1857, which shook the British

empire in India to its very foundations.

However, the period between 1757 and 1857 was not

all peaceful and trouble-free; it saw a series of sporadic

popular outbursts in the form of religio-political violence,

tribal movements, peasant uprisings and agrarian riots, and

civil rebellions. Enhanced revenue demands—even in famine

years—caused anger. Many a times, movements against local

moneylenders turned into rebellion against the Company rule

as the moneylenders had the support of the police. British

interference in native religious/traditional customs also caused

The Revolt of 1857

✫

175

resentment and resulted in rebellions. Almost from the very

early days of the East India Company’s rule, rebellions and

uprisings occurred for various causes in different regions.

Some of the movements continued even after the 1857

Revolt. Major revolts took place in the south, east, west, and

the north-eastern regions which were suppressed with brutality

by the Company.

[The previous chapter discussed some of these uprisings.]

The 1857 Revolt: the

Major Causes

The causes of the revolt of 1857, like those of earlier

uprisings, emerged from all aspects—socio-cultural,

economic, and political—of daily existence of Indian

population cutting through all sections and classes. These

causes are discussed below.

Economic Causes

The colonial policies of the East India Company destroyed

the traditional economic fabric of the Indian society. The

peasantry were never really to recover from the disabilities

imposed by the new and a highly unpopular revenue settlement.

Impoverished by heavy taxation, the peasants resorted to

loans from moneylenders/traders at usurious rates, the latter

often evicting the former from their land on non-payment

of debt dues. These moneylenders and traders emerged as

the new landlords, while the scourge of landless peasantry

and rural indebtedness has continued to plague Indian society

to this day. The older system of zamindari was forced to

disintegrate.

British rule also meant misery to the artisans and

handicrafts people. The annexation of Indian states by the

Company cut off their major source of patronage—the native

rulers and the nobles, who could not now afford to be patrons

of the crafts workers. Added to this, British policy discouraged

Indian handicrafts and promoted British goods. The highly

skilled Indian craftsmen were forced to look for alternate

sources of employment that hardly existed, as the destruction

of Indian handicrafts was not accompanied by the development

of modern industries.

176

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

The Indian trade and mercantile class was deliberately

crippled by the British who imposed high tariff duties on

Indian-made goods. At the same time, the import of British

goods into India attracted low tariffs, thus encouraging their

entry into India. By mid-19th century, exports of cotton and

silk textiles from India practically came to an end. Free

trade—one way, that is—and refusal to impose protective

duties against machine-made goods from Britain simply

killed Indian manufacture.

Zamindars, the traditional landed aristocracy, often saw

their land rights forfeited with frequent use of a quo

warranto by the administration. This resulted in a loss of

status for them in the villages. In Awadh, the storm centre

of the revolt, 21,000 taluqdars had their estates confiscated

and suddenly found themselves without a source of income,

“unable to work, ashamed to beg, condemned to penury”.

These dispossessed taluqdars seized the opportunity presented

by the sepoy revolt to oppose the British and try to regain

what they had lost.

The ruin of Indian industry increased the pressure on

agriculture and land, which could not support all the people;

the lopsided development resulted in pauperisation of the

country in general.

Political Causes

The East India Company’s greedy policy of aggrandisement

accompanied by broken pledges and promises resulted in

contempt for the Company and loss of political prestige,

besides causing suspicion in the minds of almost all the

ruling princes in India, through such policies as of ‘Effective

Control’, ‘Subsidiary Alliance’, and ‘Doctrine of Lapse’. The

right of succession was denied to Hindu princes. The Mughals

were humbled when, on Prince Faqiruddin’s death in 1856,

whose succession had been recognised conditionally by Lord

Dalhousie, Lord Canning announced that the next prince on

View

It was the British intruder who broke up the Indian handloom
and destroyed the spinning-wheel. England began with depriving
the Indian cottons from the European market; it then introduced
twist into Hindustan and in the end inundated the very mother
country of cotton with cottons.

—Karl Marx, in 1853

The Revolt of 1857

✫

177

succession would have to renounce the regal title and the

ancestral Mughal palaces, in addition to the renunciations

agreed upon by Prince Faqiruddin.

The collapse of rulers—the erstwhile aristocracy—also

adversely affected those sections of the Indian society which

derived their sustenance from cultural and religious pursuits.

Administrative Causes

Rampant corruption in the Company’s administration,

especially among the police, petty officials, and lower law

courts, was a major cause of discontent. Indeed, it is the view

of many historians that the rampant corruption we see now

in India is a legacy of the Company rule. Also, the character

of the British rule imparted a foreign and alien look to it

in the eyes of Indians: a kind of absentee sovereignty.

Socio-Religious Causes

Racial overtones and a superiority complex characterised the

British administrative attitude towards the native Indian

population. The activities of Christian missionaries who

followed the British flag in India were looked upon with

suspicion by Indians. The attempts at socio-religious reform

such as abolition of sati, support to widow-marriage, and

women’s education were seen by a large section of the

population as interference in the social and religious domains

of the Indian society by outsiders. These fears were

compounded by the government’s decision to tax mosque and

temple lands and making laws such as the Religious Disabilities

Act, 1856, which modified Hindu customs, for instance,

declaring that a change of religion did not debar a son from

inheriting the property of his ‘heathen’ father.

Influence of Outside Events

The revolt of 1857 coincided with certain outside events in

which the British suffered serious losses—the First Afghan

War (1838–42), Punjab Wars (1845–49), and the Crimean

Wars (1854–56). These had obvious psychological

repercussions. The British were seen to be not so strong and

it was felt that they could be defeated.

Discontent Among Sepoys

The conditions of service in the Company’s Army and

cantonments increasingly came into conflict with the religious

178

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

beliefs and prejudices of the sepoys. Restrictions on wearing

caste and sectarian marks and secret rumours of proselytising

activities of the chaplains (often maintained on the Company’s

expenses which meant at Indian expense) were interpreted

by Indian sepoys, who were generally conservative by nature,

as interference in their religious affairs.

To the religious Hindu of the time, crossing the seas

meant loss of caste. In 1856, Lord Canning’s government

passed the General Service Enlistment Act, which decreed

that all future recruits to the Bengal Army would have to

give an undertaking to serve anywhere their services might

be required by the government. This caused resentment.

The Indian sepoy was equally unhappy with his emolu-

ments compared to his British counterpart. A more immediate

cause of the sepoys’ dissatisfaction was the order that they

would not be given the foreign service allowance (bhatta)

when serving in Sindh or in Punjab. The annexation of Awadh,

home of many of the sepoys, further inflamed their feelings.

The Indian sepoy was made to feel a subordinate at

every step and was discriminated against racially and in

matters of promotion and privileges. The discontent of the

sepoys was not limited to military matters; it reflected the

general disenchantment with and the opposition to British

rule. The sepoy, in fact, was a ‘peasant in uniform’ whose

consciousness was not divorced from that of the rural

population. “The Army voiced grievances other than its own;

and the movement spread beyond the Army”, observes S.

Gopal.

Finally, there had been a long history of revolts in the

British Indian Army—in Bengal (1764), Vellore (1806),

Barrackpore (1825), and during the Afghan Wars (1838–42)

to mention just a few.

Beginning and Spread of the

Revolt

The Spark

The reports about the mixing of bone dust in atta (flour)

and the introduction of the Enfield rifle enhanced the sepoys’

The Revolt of 1857

✫

179

growing disaffection with the government. The greased

wrapping paper of the cartridge of the new rifle had to be

bitten off before loading and the grease was reportedly made

of beef and pig fat. The cow was sacred to the Hindus, while

the pig was taboo for the Muslims. The Army administration

did nothing to allay these fears, and the sepoys felt their

religion was in grave danger.

The greased cartridges did not create a new cause of

discontent in the Army, but supplied the occasion for the

simmering discontent to come out in the open.

Starts at Meerut

The revolt began at Meerut, 58 km from Delhi, on May 10,

1857 and then, gathering force rapidly, soon embraced a vast

area from the Punjab in the north and the Narmada in the

south to Bihar in the east and Rajputana in the west.

Even before the Meerut incident, there were rumblings

of resentment in various cantonments. The 19th Native

Infantry at Berhampore (West Bengal), which refused to use

the newly introduced Enfield rifle and broke out in mutiny

in February 1857, was disbanded in March 1857. A young

sepoy of the 34th Native Infantry, Mangal Pande, went a

step further and fired at the sergeant major of his unit at

Barrackpore. He was overpowered and executed on April 8

while his regiment was disbanded in May. The 7th Awadh

Regiment which defied its officers on May 3 met with a

similar fate.

And then came the explosion at Meerut. On April 24,

90 men of the 3rd Native Cavalry refused to accept the

greased cartridges. On May 9, 85 of them were dismissed,

sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment, and put in fetters. This

sparked off a general mutiny among the Indian soldiers

stationed at Meerut. The very next day, on May 10, they

released their imprisoned comrades, killed their officers, and

unfurled the banner of revolt. They set off for Delhi after

sunset.

Choice of Bahadur Shah as
Symbolic Head

In Delhi, the local infantry joined them, killed their own

European officers, including Simon Fraser, the political

180

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

agent, and seized the city. Lieutenant Willoughby, the officer-

in-charge of the magazine at Delhi, offered some resistance,

but was overcome. The aged and powerless Bahadur Shah

Zafar was proclaimed the Emperor of India.

Delhi was soon to become the centre of the Great

Revolt and Bahadur Shah, its symbol. This spontaneous

raising of the last Mughal king to the leadership of the

country was a recognition of the fact that the long reign of

the Mughal dynasty had become the traditional symbol of

India’s political unity. With this single act, the sepoys had

transformed a mutiny of soldiers into a revolutionary war,

while all Indian chiefs who took part in the revolt hastened

to proclaim their loyalty to the Mughal emperor. It also

signified that the rebels were politically motivated. Though

religion was a factor, the broad outlook of the rebels was

not influenced by religious identity but by the perception of

the British as the common enemy.

Bahadur Shah, after initial vacillation, wrote letters to

all the chiefs and rulers of India, urging them to organise

a confederacy of Indian states to fight and replace the British

regime. The entire Bengal Army soon rose in revolt, which

spread quickly. Awadh, Rohilkhand, the Doab, Bundelkhand,

central India, large parts of Bihar and East Punjab shook off

British authority.

Civilians Join

The revolt of the sepoys was accompanied by a rebellion of

the civil population, particularly in the north-western provinces

and Awadh. Their accumulated grievances found immediate

expression and they rose en masse to give vent to their

opposition to British rule. It is the widespread participation

in the revolt by the peasantry, the artisans, shopkeepers, day

labourers, zamindars, religious mendicants, priests, and civil

servants which gave it real strength as well as the character

of a popular revolt. Here the peasants and petty zamindars

gave free expression to their grievances by attacking the

moneylenders and zamindars who had displaced them from

the land. They took advantage of the revolt to destroy the

moneylenders’ account books and debt records. They also

attacked the British-established law courts, revenue offices

(tehsils), revenue records, and police stations.

The Revolt of 1857

✫

181

According to one estimate, of the total number of about

1,50,000 men who died fighting the English in Awadh, over

1,00,000 were civilians.

Within a month of the capture of Delhi by the rebels,

the revolt spread to different parts of the country.

Storm Centres and Leaders of the Revolt

At Delhi, the nominal and symbolic leadership belonged to

the Mughal emperor, Bahadur Shah, but the real command

lay with a court of soldiers headed by General Bakht Khan

who had led the revolt of Bareilly troops and brought them

to Delhi. The court consisted of ten members, six from the

army and four from the civilian departments. The court

conducted the affairs of the state in the name of the emperor.

Emperor Bahadur Shah was perhaps the weakest link in the

chain of leadership of the revolt. His weak personality, old

age, and lack of leadership qualities created political weakness

at the nerve centre of the revolt and did incalculable damage

to it.

At Kanpur, the natural choice was Nana Saheb, the

adopted son of the last peshwa, Baji Rao II. He was refused

the family title and banished from Poona, and was living near

Kanpur. Nana Saheb expelled the English from Kanpur,

proclaimed himself the peshwa, acknowledged Bahadur Shah

as the Emperor of India, and declared himself to be his

governor. Sir Hugh Wheeler, commanding the station,

surrendered on June 27, 1857 and was killed on the same

day.

Begum Hazrat Mahal took over the reigns at Lucknow

where the rebellion broke out on June 4, 1857 and popular

sympathy was overwhelmingly in favour of the deposed

nawab. Her son, Birjis Qadir, was proclaimed the nawab and

a regular administration was organised with important offices

shared equally by Muslims and Hindus. Henry Lawrence, the

British resident, the European inhabitants, and a few hundred

loyal sepoys took shelter in the residency. The residency was

besieged by the Indian rebels, and Sir Henry was killed during

the siege. The command of the besieged garrison devolved

on Brigadier Inglis who held out against heavy odds. The early

attempts of Sir Henry Havelock and Sir James Outram to

182

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

recover Lucknow met with no success. Finally, Sir Colin

Campbell, the new commander-in-chief, evacuated the

Europeans with the help of Gorkha regiments. In March 1858,

the city was finally recovered by the British, but guerrilla

activity continued till September of the same year.

At Bareilly, Khan Bahadur, a descendant of the former

ruler of Rohilkhand, was placed in command. Not enthusiastic

about the pension being granted by the British, he organised

an army of 40,000 soldiers and offered stiff resistance to

the British.

In Bihar, the revolt was led by Kunwar Singh, the

zamindar of Jagdishpur. An old man in his 70s, he nursed

a grudge against the British who had deprived him of his

estates. He unhesitatingly joined the sepoys when they

reached Arrah from Dinapore (Danapur).

Maulvi Ahmadullah of Faizabad was another

outstanding leader of the revolt. He was a native of Madras

and had moved to Faizabad in the north where he fought a

stiff battle against the British troops. He emerged as one of

the revolt’s acknowledged leaders once it broke out in Awadh

in May 1857.

The most outstanding leader of the revolt was Rani

Laxmibai, who assumed the leadership of the sepoys at

Jhansi. Lord Dalhousie, the governor general, had refused to

allow her adopted son to succeed to the throne after her

husband Raja Gangadhar Rao died, and had annexed the state

by the application of the infamous ‘Doctrine of Lapse’.

Driven out of Jhansi by British forces, she gave the battle

cry—”main apni Jhansi nahin doongi” (I shall not give

away my Jhansi). She was joined by Tantia Tope, a close

associate of Nana Saheb, after the loss of Kanpur. The Rani

of Jhansi and Tantia Tope marched towards Gwalior where

they were hailed by the Indian soldiers. The Scindia, the local

ruler, however, decided to side with the English and took

View

Here lay the woman who was the only man among the rebels.

—Hugh Rose

(a tribute to the Rani of Jhansi from the man

who defeated her)

The Revolt of 1857

✫

183

shelter at Agra. Nana Saheb was proclaimed the Peshwa and

plans were chalked out for a march into the south. Gwalior

was recaptured by the English in June 1858.

The sacrifices made by the common masses were

immense and innumerable. The name of Shah Mal, a local

villager in Pargana Baraut (Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh), is most

notable. He organised the headmen and peasants of 84

villages (referred as chaurasi desh), marching at night from

village to village, urging people to rebel against the British

hegemony. The people attacked government buildings,

destroyed the bridges over the rivers, and dug up metalled

roads—partially to stop government forces from coming into

the area, and partly because bridges and roads were viewed

as symbols of the British rule. Shah Mal sent supplies to

the mutineers in Delhi and prevented all official

communication between British headquarters and Meerut. He

made his headquarters at the bungalow of an irrigation

department on the banks of the Yamuna and supervised and

controlled his operations from there. In fact, the bungalow

was turned into a ‘hall of justice’, resolving disputes and

dispensing judgements. He also organised an effective network

of intelligence for a short duration, the people of the area

felt that the British rule was over, and their own rule had

come. Unfortunately, in July 1857, Shah Mal was killed by

an English officer, Dunlap. It is alleged that Shah Mal’s body

was cut into pieces and his head displayed on July 21, 1857

to terrify the public. For more than a year, however, the

rebels carried on their struggle against heavy odds.

Suppression of the Revolt

The revolt was finally suppressed. The British captured Delhi

on September 20, 1857 after prolonged and bitter fighting.

John Nicholson, the leader of the siege, was badly wounded

and later succumbed to his injuries. Bahadur Shah was taken

prisoner. The royal princes were captured and butchered on

the spot, publicly shot at point-blank range by Lieutenant

Hudson himself. The emperor was exiled to Rangoon where

he died in 1862. Thus, the great House of Mughals was finally

and completely extinguished. Terrible vengeance was wreaked

184

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

on the inhabitants of Delhi. With the fall of Delhi, the focal

point of the revolt disappeared.

One by one, all the great leaders of the revolt fell.

Military operations for the recapture of Kanpur were closely

associated with the recovery of Lucknow. Sir Colin Campbell

occupied Kanpur on December 6, 1857. Nana Saheb, defeated

at Kanpur, escaped to Nepal in early 1859, never to be heard

of again. His close associate Tantia Tope escaped into the

jungles of central India, but was captured while asleep in April

1859 and put to death. The Rani of Jhansi had died on the

battlefield earlier in June 1858. Jhansi was recaptured by Sir

Hugh Rose. By 1859, Kunwar Singh, Bakht Khan, Khan

Bahadur Khan of Bareilly, Rao Sahib (brother of Nana Saheb)

and Maulvi Ahmadullah were all dead, while the Begum of

Awadh was compelled to hide in Nepal. At Benaras, a

rebellion had been organised which was mercilessly suppressed

by Colonel Neill, who put to death all suspected rebels and

even disorderly sepoys.

By the end of 1859, British authority over India was

fully re-established. The British government had to pour

immense supplies of men, money, and arms into the country,

though the Indians had to later repay the entire cost through

their own suppression.

Why the Revolt Failed

All-India participation was absent

Limited territorial spread was one factor; there was no all-

India veneer about the revolt. The eastern, southern, and

western parts of India remained more or less unaffected. This

was probably because the earlier uprisings in those regions

had been brutally suppressed by the Company.

All classes did not join

Certain classes and groups did not join and, in fact, worked

against the revolt.

Big zamindars acted as ‘break-waters to storm’; even

Awadh taluqdars backed off once promises of land restitution

were spelt out. Moneylenders and merchants suffered the

wrath of the mutineers badly and, anyway, saw their class

interests better protected under British patronage.

The Revolt of 1857

✫

185

Educated Indians viewed this revolt as backward-looking,

supportive of the feudal order, and as a reaction of traditional

conservative forces to modernity; these people had high

hopes that the British would usher in an era of modernisation.

Most Indian rulers refused to join and often gave active

help to the British. Rulers who did not participate included

the Scindia of Gwalior; the Holkar of Indore; the rulers of

Patiala, Sindh, and other Sikh chieftains; and the Maharaja

of Kashmir. Indeed, by one estimate, not more than one-

fourth of the total area and not more than one-tenth of the

total population was affected.

Poor Arms and Equipment

The Indian soldiers were poorly equipped materially, fighting

generally with swords and spears and very few guns and

muskets. On the other hand, the European soldiers were

equipped with the latest weapons of war like the Enfield rifle.

The electric telegraph kept the commander-in-chief informed

about the movements and strategy of the rebels.

Uncoordinated and Poorly Organised

The revolt was poorly organised with no coordination or

central leadership. The principal rebel leaders—Nana Saheb,

Tantia Tope, Kunwar Singh, Laxmibai—were no match to

their British opponents in generalship. On the other hand, the

East India Company was fortunate in having the services of

men of exceptional abilities in the Lawrence brothers, John

Nicholson, James Outram, Henry Havelock, etc.

No Unified Ideology

The mutineers lacked a clear understanding of colonial rule;

nor did they have a forward-looking programme, a coherent

ideology, a political perspective, or a societal alternative. The

rebels represented diverse elements with differing grievances

and concepts of current politics.

The lack of unity among Indians was perhaps unavoidable

at this stage of Indian history. Modern nationalism was as

yet unknown in India. In fact, the revolt of 1857 played an

important role in bringing the Indian people together and

imparting to them the consciousness of belonging to one

country.

186

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Hindu-Muslim Unity Factor

During the entire revolt, there was complete cooperation

between Hindus and Muslims at all levels—people, soldiers,

leaders. All rebels acknowledged Bahadur Shah Zafar, a

Muslim, as the emperor, and the first impulse of the Hindu

sepoys at Meerut was to march to Delhi, the Mughal imperial

capital. According to Maulana Azad, “Two facts stand out

clearly in the midst of the tangled story of the Rising of

1857. The first is the remarkable sense of unity among the

Hindus and the Muslims of India in this period. The other

is the deep loyalty which the people felt for the Mughal

Crown.” Rebels and sepoys, both Hindu and Muslim, respected

each other’s sentiments. Immediate banning of cow slaughter

was ordered once the revolt was successful in a particular

area. Both Hindus and Muslims were well represented in

leadership, for instance Nana Saheb had Azimullah, a Muslim

and an expert in political propaganda, as an aide, while

Laxmibai had the solid support of Afghan soldiers.

Thus, the events of 1857 demonstrated that the people

and politics of India were not basically communal or

sectarian before 1858.

Nature of the Revolt

Views differ on the nature of the 1857 revolt. It was a mere

‘Sepoy Mutiny’ to some British historians—“a wholly

unpatriotic and selfish Sepoy Mutiny with no native leadership

and no popular support”, said Sir John Seeley. However, that

is not a complete picture of the event as it involved many

sections of the civilian population and not just the sepoys.

The discontent of the sepoys was just one cause of the

disturbance.

Dr K. Datta considers the revolt of 1857 to have been

“in the main a military outbreak, which was taken advantage

of by certain discontented princes and landlords, whose

interests had been affected by the new political order”. The

last mentioned factor gave it an aura of a popular uprising

in certain areas. It was “never all-Indian in character, but was

localised, restricted, and poorly organised”. Further, says

The Revolt of 1857

✫

187

Datta, the movement was marked by absence of cohesion and

unity of purpose among the various sections of the rebels.

It was at the beginning of the 20th century that the 1857

revolt came to be interpreted as a “planned war of national

independence”, by V.D. Savarkar in his book, The Indian War

of Independence, 1857. Savarkar called the revolt the first

war of Indian independence. He said it was inspired by the

lofty ideal of self-rule by Indians through a nationalist

upsurge. Dr S.N. Sen in his Eighteen Fifty- Seven considers

the revolt as having begun as a fight for religion but ending

as a war of independence.

Dr R.C. Majumdar, however, considers it as neither the

first, nor national, nor a war of independence as large parts

of the country remained unaffected and many sections of the

people took no part in the upsurge.

According to some Marxist historians, the 1857 revolt

was “the struggle of the soldier-peasant democratic combine

against foreign as well as feudal bondage”. However, this view

can be questioned in the light of the fact that the leaders

of the revolt themselves came from a feudal background.

Jawaharlal Nehru considered the revolt of 1857 as

essentially a feudal uprising though there were some

nationalistic elements in it (Discovery of India). M.N. Roy

felt the revolt was a last-ditch stand of feudalism against

commercial capitalism. R.P. Dutt also saw the significance

of the revolt of the peasantry against foreign domination

even as he acknowledged it to be a defence of the old feudal

order.

The revolt of 1857 is not easy to categorise. While

one can easily dismiss some views such as those of L.E.R.

Rees, who considered it to be a war of fanatic religionists

against Christians, or T.R. Holmes, who saw in it a conflict

between civilisation and barbarism, one cannot quite go so

far as to accept it as a war for independence. It had seeds

of nationalism and anti-imperialism, but the concept of

common nationality and nationhood was not inherent to the

revolt of 1857.

It is doubtful if the separate communities that

participated in the revolt did so because they felt a common

nationhood. Furthermore, what of the southern section which

188

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

was not a part of the revolt? Each of the leaders had a

personal cause for revolting; each had a personal interest to

protect. However, as Dr Sen points out, national revolutions

are mostly the work of a minority, with or without the active

support of the masses. From that point of view, the 1857

rebellion can claim a national character.

One may say that the revolt of 1857 was the first great

struggle of Indians to throw off British rule. Even this view

has been questioned by some historians who feel that some

of the earlier uprisings had been equally serious efforts at

throwing off the foreign yoke, but have not got the same kind

of attention. However, S.B. Chaudhuri observes, the revolt

was “the first combined attempt of many classes of people

to challenge a foreign power. This is a real, if remote,

approach to the freedom movement of India of a later age”.

Views

1857 stands firmly in a historical continuum. Not of course it
was the direct product of social forces blowing off the political
crust but rather fortuitous conjuncture that laid these forces bane.
Like 1848 in Europe—despite obvious disparities—it was on
uprising sans issue that could catch a society moving into the
early stages of modernisation.

Eric Stokes

First War of Independence it certainly was, as in the whole
canvas of the recorded history of India it would be difficult to
find a parallel to this gigantic anti-foreign combine of all classes
of people and of many provinces of India. There was never a
war in India lasting continuously for more than a year and
simultaneously in all the regions which had for its objective the
abasement and ejectment of the alien ruling power.

S.B. Chaudhuri

It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the so-called First
National War of Independence of 1857 is neither First, nor
National, nor War of Independence.

R.C. Majumdar

It has to be admitted that the war against the British was not
inspired by any sentiment of nationalism, for in 1857 India was
not yet politically a nation. It is a fact that the Hindus and
Muslims cooperated, but the leaders and the followers of the
two communities were moved by personal loyalties rather than
loyalty to a common motherland.

Tara Chand

The Revolt of 1857

✫

189

Views

The passions of the mutineers were centred on their grievances,
not on larger ideals.

Percival Spear

The Mutiny became a Revolt and assumed a political character
when the mutineers of Meerut placed themselves under the king
of Delhi and a section of the landed aristocracy and civil
population decided in his favour. What began as a fight for religion
ended as a war of independence.

S.N. Sen

... had a single leader of ability arisen among them (the rebels),
we must have been lost beyond redemption.

John Lawrence

The revolt of 1857 was a struggle of the soldier-peasant
democratic combine against foreign imperialism as well as
indigenous landlordism.

Marxist Interpretation

It was far more than a mutiny, ... yet much less than a first
war of independence.

Stanley Wolpert

Consequences

The revolt of 1857 marks a turning point in the history of

India. It led to far-reaching changes in the system of

administration and the policies of the British government.

Even before the revolt could be suppressed fully, the

British Parliament, on August 2, 1858, passed an act for the

Better Government of India. The act declared Queen Victoria

as the sovereign of British India and provided for the

appointment of a Secretary of State for India (a member of

the British cabinet). The direct responsibility for the

administration of the country was assumed by the British

Crown and Company rule was abolished.

The assumption of the Government of India by the

sovereign of Great Britain was announced by Lord Canning

at a durbar at Allahabad in the ‘Queen’s Proclamation’ issued

on November 1, 1858. (It was by this proclamation that the

governor general acquired the additional title of ‘Viceroy’.)

190

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Many of the promises made in that proclamation appeared

to be of a positive nature to the Indians.

As per the Queen’s proclamation, the era of annexations

and expansion had ended and the British promised to respect

the dignity and rights of the native princes.

The Indian states were henceforth to recognise the

paramountcy of the British Crown and were to be treated as

parts of a single charge.

The people of India were promised freedom of religion

without interference from British officials.

The proclamation also promised equal and impartial

protection under law to all Indians, besides equal opportunities

in government services irrespective of race or creed. It was

also promised that old Indian rights, customs, and practices

would be given due regard while framing and administering

the law.

The army, which was at the forefront of the outbreak,

was thoroughly reorganised and British military policy came

to be dominated by the idea of “division and counterpoise”.

The British could no longer depend on Indian loyalty, so the

number of Indian soldiers was drastically reduced even as

the number of European soldiers was increased. The concept

of divide and rule was adopted, with separate units being

created on the basis of caste/community/region. Recruits

were to be drawn from the ‘martial’ races of Punjab, Nepal,

and north-western frontier who had proved loyal to the British

during the revolt. Effort was made to keep the army away

from civilian population.

The Army Amalgamation Scheme, 1861 moved the

Company’s European troops to the services of the Crown.

Further, the European troops in India were constantly revamped

by periodical visits to England, sometimes termed as the

‘linked-battalion’ scheme. All Indian artillery units, except a

few mountain batteries, were made defunct. All higher posts

in the army and the artillery departments were reserved for

the Europeans. Till the first decade of the 20th century, no

Indian was thought fit to deserve the king’s commission and

a new English recruit was considered superior to an Indian

officer holding the viceroy’s commission.

The earlier reformist zeal of a self-confident Victorian

The Revolt of 1857

✫

191

White Mutiny

In the wake of the transfer of power from the British East India
Company to the British Crown, a section of European forces
employed under the Company resented the move that required the
three Presidency Armies to transfer their allegiance from the defunct
Company to the Queen, as in the British Army. This resentment
resulted in some unrest termed as White Mutiny.

Prior to 1861, there were two separate military forces in India,

operating under the British rule. One was the Queen’s army and
the other comprised the units of the East India Company. The
Company’s troops received

batta, extra allowances of pay to cover

various expenditures related to operations in areas other than the
home territories. With transfer of power, the

batta was stopped.

Lord Canning’s legalistic interpretation of the laws surrounding the
transfer also infuriated the affected White soldiers.

The White Mutiny was seen as a potential threat to the already

precarious British position in India with a potential of inciting renewed
rebellion among the ‘still excited population in India’. The demands
of the ‘European Forces’ included an enlistment bonus or a choice
of release from their obligations. Finally, the demand for free and
clear release with free passage home was accepted, and men opted
to return home. It is also believed that open rebellion and physical
violence on the part of ‘European Forces’ were such that there
was little possibility of being accepted into the ‘Queen’s Army’.

liberalism evaporated as many liberals in Britain began to

believe that Indians were beyond reform. This new approach—

‘conservative brand of liberalism’, as it was called by Thomas

Metcalf—had the solid support of the conservative and

aristocratic classes of England who espoused the complete

non-interference in the traditional structure of Indian society.

Thus, the era of reforms came to an end.

The conservative reaction in England made the British

Empire in India more autocratic; it began to deny the

aspirations of the educated Indians for sharing power. In the

long term, this new British attitude proved counter-productive

for the Empire, as this caused frustrations in the educated

Indian middle classes and gave rise to modern nationalism

very soon.

The policy of divide and rule started in earnest after

the Revolt of 1857. The British used one class/community

192

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

against another unscrupulously. Thus, socially, there was

irremediable deterioration. While British territorial conquest

was at an end, a period of systematic economic loot by the

British began. The Indian economy was fully exploited

without fear.

In accordance with Queen’s Proclamation of 1858, the

Indian Civil Service Act of 1861 was passed, which was to

give an impression that under the Queen all were equal,

irrespective of race or creed. (In reality, the detailed rules

framed for the conduct of the civil service examination had

the effect of keeping the higher services a close preserve

of the colonisers.)

Racial hatred and suspicion between the Indians and the

English was probably the worst legacy of the revolt. The

newspapers and journals in Britain picturised the Indians as

subhuman creatures, who could be kept in check only by

superior force. The proponents of imperialism in India

dubbed the entire Indian population as unworthy of trust and

subjected them to insults and contempt. The complete

structure of the Indian government was remodelled and based

on the notion of a master race—justifying the philosophy

of the ‘Whiteman’s burden’. This widened the gulf between

the rulers and the ruled, besides causing eruptions of political

controversies, demonstrations, and acts of violence in the

coming period.

Significance of the Revolt

For the British, the Revolt of 1857 proved useful in that it

showed up the glaring shortcomings in the Company’s

administration and its army, which they rectified promptly.

These defects would never have been revealed to the world

if the Revolt had not happened.

For the Indians, the 1857 Revolt had a major influence

View

In conceptual terms, the British who had started their rule as
‘outsiders’, became ‘insiders’ by vesting in their monarch the
sovereignty of India.

Bernard Cohn (

in context of the Queen’s Proclamation)

The Revolt of 1857

✫

193

on the course of the struggle for freedom. It brought out

in the open grievances of people and the sepoys, which were

seen to be genuine. However, it was also obvious that the

primitive arms which the Indians possessed were no match

for the advanced weapons of the British. Furthermore, the

senseless atrocities committed by both sides shocked the

Indian intellectuals who were increasingly convinced that

violence was to be eschewed in any struggle for freedom.

The educated middle class, which was a growing section, did

not believe in violence and preferred an orderly approach.

But the Revolt of 1857 did establish local traditions of

resistance to British rule which were to be of help in the

course of the national struggle for freedom.

Summary

Revolt—a product of character and policies of colonial rule

Economic causes—heavy taxation under new revenue settlement,
summary evictions, discriminatory tariff policy against Indian
products, destruction of traditional handicrafts industry, and
absence of concomitant industrialisation on modern lines that
hit peasants, artisans, and small zamindars.
Political causes—greedy policy of aggrandisement, absentee
sovereigntyship character of British rule, British interference in
socio-religious affairs of the Indian public.
Military causes—discontent among sepoys for economic,
psychological, and religious reasons, coupled with a long history
of revolts.

●

Centres of Revolt and Leaders

Delhi

- General Bakht Khan

Kanpur

- Nana Saheb

Lucknow

- Begum Hazrat Mahal

Bareilly

- Khan Bahadur

Bihar

- Kunwar Singh

Faizabad

- Maulvi Ahmadullah

Jhansi

- Rani Laxmibai

Baghpat

- Shah Mal

●

The British Resistance

Delhi

- Lieutenant Willoughby, John Nicholson,

Lieutenant Hudson

Kanpur

- Sir Hugh Wheeler, Sir Colin Campbell

194

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Lucknow

- Henry Lawrence, Brigadier Inglis,

Henry Havelock, James Outram,
Sir Colin Campbell

Jhansi

- Sir Hugh Rose

Benaras

- Colonel James Neill

●

Causes of Failure

Limited territorial and social base
Crucial support of certain sections of Indian public to British
authorities
Lack of resources as compared to those of the British
Lack of coordination and a central leadership
Lack of a coherent ideology and a political perspective

●

Nature

R.C. Majumdar and S.N. Sen

— “Not an organised ‘national’

revolt”

R.C. Majumdar

— “Neither first, nor National War of

Independence”

V.D. Savarkar

—“War of independence”

Eric Stokes

—“Elitist in character”

Lawrence and Seeley

—“Mere sepoy mutiny”

T.R. Holmes

—“A conflict between civilisation and barbarism”

James Outram

—“A Mohammedan conspiracy making capital

of Hindu grievances”

Percival Spear—Three phases of the revolt

Conclusion: Not quite the first war of independence but
sowed the seeds of nationalism and quest for freedom from
alien rule.

●

Effect

Crown took over; Company rule abolished. Queen’s
Proclamation altered administration. Army reorganised. Racial
hatred deepened.
White Mutiny.

Socio-Religious Reform Movements

✫

195

CHAPTER 8

Socio-Religious Reform

Movements: General

Features

Factors Giving Rise to
Desire for Reform

The dawn of the 19th century witnessed the birth of a new

vision—a modern vision among some enlightened sections

of the Indian society. This enlightened vision was to shape

the course of events for decades to come and even beyond.

This process of reawakening, sometimes, but not with full

justification, defined as the ‘Renaissance’, did not always

follow the intended line and gave rise to some undesirable

by-products as well, which have become as much a part of

195

UNIT 4

Reform

Movements

Chapters 8 and 9

196

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

daily existence in the whole of the Indian subcontinent as

have the fruits of these reform movements.

Impact of British Rule

The presence of a colonial government on Indian soil played

a complex, yet decisive role in this crucial phase of modern

Indian history. The impact of British rule on Indian society

and culture was widely different from what India had known

before. Most of the earlier invaders, who had come to India

settled within its frontiers, were either absorbed by its

superior culture or interacted positively with it and had

become part of the land and its people. However, the British

conquest was different. It came at a time when India, in

contrast to an enlightened Europe of the 18th century

affected in every aspect by science and scientific outlook,

presented the picture of a stagnant civilisation and a static

and decadent society.

Social Conditions Ripe for Reform

Religious and Social Ills

Indian society in the 19th century was caught in a vicious

web created by religious superstitions and social obscurantism.

Hinduism had become steeped in magic and superstition. The

priests exercised an overwhelming and, indeed, unhealthy

influence on the minds of the people. Idolatry and polytheism

helped to reinforce their position, and their monopoly of

scriptural knowledge imparted a deceptive character to all

religious systems. There was nothing that religious ideology

could not persuade people to do.
Depressing Position of Women

Social conditions were equally depressing. The most

distressing was the position of women. Attempts to kill

female infants at birth were not unusual. Child marriage was

another bane of society. The practice of polygamy prevailed,

and in Bengal, under Kulinism, even old men took very young

girls as wives. Several women hardly had a married life worth

the name, yet (at least among the higher castes) when their

husbands died they were expected to commit sati, which Raja

Rammohan Roy described as a “murder according to every

Socio-Religious Reform Movements

✫

197

shastra”. If they escaped this social coercion, they were

condemned to a life of misery and humiliation.
The Caste Problem

Another debilitating factor was caste. This entailed a system

of segregation, hierarchically ordained on the basis of ritual

status. At the bottom of the ladder came the untouchables

or scheduled castes, as they came to be called later. The

untouchables suffered from numerous and severe disabilities

and restrictions. The system splintered people into numerous

groups. In modern times it became a major obstacle in the

growth of a united national feeling and the spread of

democracy. It may also be noted that caste consciousness,

particularly with regard to marriage, prevailed also among

Muslims, Christians, and Sikhs who also practised

untouchability, though in a less virulent form. Under a rigid

caste system, social mobility was checked, social divisions

grew, and individual initiative was thwarted. Above all, the

humiliation of untouchability—so much a part of the caste

system—militated against human dignity.

Opposition to Western Culture

The establishment of colonial rule in India was followed by

a systematic attempt to disseminate colonial culture and

ideology as the dominant cultural current. Faced with the

challenge of the intrusion of colonial culture and ideology,

an attempt to reinvigorate traditional institutions and to

realise the potential of traditional culture developed during

the 19th century.

New Awareness among Enlightened

Indians

The impact of modern Western culture and consciousness

of defeat by a foreign power gave birth to a new awakening.

There was an awareness that a vast country like India had been

colonised by a handful of foreigners because of weaknesses

within the Indian social structure and culture. For some time

it seemed that India had lagged behind in the race of

civilisation. This produced diverse reactions. Some English-

educated Bengali youth developed a revulsion for Hindu

religion and culture; they gave up old religious ideas and

198

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

traditions and deliberately adopted practices most offensive

to Hindu sentiments, such as drinking wine and eating beef.

The response, indeed, was varied, but the need to reform

social and religious life was a commonly shared conviction.

During the last decades of the 19th century, the rising

tide of nationalism and democracy also found expression in

movements to reform and democratise the social institutions

and religious outlook of the Indian people. Factors such as

growth of nationalist sentiments, emergence of new economic

forces, spread of education, impact of modern Western ideas

and culture, and increased awareness of the world strengthened

the resolve to reform.

The socio-cultural regeneration of the India of the 19th

century was occasioned by the colonial presence, but not

created by it.

Social and Ideological Bases of
Reform

Middle-Class Base

The social base of the regeneration seen in the 19th century

was the newly emerging middle class and the educated (both

traditionally educated and the Western educated) intellectuals,

but there was a significant contrast between the broadly

middle-class ideals derived from a growing awareness of

contemporary developments in the West, and a predominantly

non-middle-class social base.

The 19th century intelligentsia searched for its model

in the European ‘middle class’, which, as it learnt through

Western education, had brought about the great transformation

in the West from medieval to modern times through

movements like the Renaissance, the Reformation, the

Enlightenment, and democratic revolution or reform. However,

the intelligentsia of the 19th century India did not grow from

trade or industry (which were firmly under the control of

British agencies); their roots lay in government service or

the professions of law, education, journalism, or medicine—

Socio-Religious Reform Movements

✫

199

with which was often combined some connection with land

in the form of the intermediate tenures.

The Intellectual Criteria

What gave these reform movements an ideological unity were

rationalism, religious universalism, and humanism. Rationalism

was brought to judge social relevance. Raja Rammohan Roy

firmly believed in the principle of causality linking the whole

phenomenal universe and demonstrability as the sole criterion

of truth. Akshay Kumar Dutt, while declaring that “rationalism

is our only preceptor”, held that all natural and social

phenomena could be analysed and understood by purely

mechanical processes. They thus used a rational approach to

study tradition; they evaluated the contemporary socio-

religious practices from the standpoint of social utility and

to replace faith with rationality. As a consequence, in the

Brahmo Samaj, the infallibility of the Vedas was repudiated,

while the Aligarh Movement emphasised reconciliation of

Islamic teachings with the needs of the modern age. Syed

Ahmed Khan went to the extent of emphasising that religious

tenets were not immutable.

Many of the intellectuals set aside the authority of

religion and evaluated truth in any religion by the criteria

of logic, reason, or science. According to Swami Vivekananda,

the same method of investigation which applies to sciences

should be the basis on which religion must justify itself.

Although some reformers tended to appeal to faith and

ancient authority to support their appeal, on the whole, a

rational and secular outlook was very much evident in putting

forward an alternative to prevalent social practices. Akshay

Kumar Dutt, for instance, brought medical opinion to support

his views against child marriage. Reference to the past was

to be used only as an aid and an instrument. Neither a revival

of the past nor a total break with tradition was envisaged.

Though the reformers tried to reform their religions,

there was a universalistic aspect to their religious perspective.

Raja Rammohan Roy considered different religions as national

embodiments of universal theism. He defended the basic and

universal principles of all religions—such as the monotheism

of the Vedas and the unitarianism of Christianity—while

200

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

attacking the polytheism of Hinduism and trinitarianism of

Christianity. Syed Ahmed Khan said that all prophets had the

same ‘din’ (faith) and every country and nation had different

prophets.

The social reformers used the universalist perspective

to contend with the influence of religious identity on the

social and political outlook of the people which was indeed

strong.

A new humanitarian morality was embodied in the

social reform movements, which included the notion that

humanity can progress and has progressed, and that moral

values are ultimately those values which favour human

progress. The humanist aspect of the religious reform

movements was to be seen in the emphasis on the individual’s

right to interpret religious scriptures in the light of human

reason and human welfare and in a general attack on priestly

domination of religious practices.

Religious reformation was an important but not the

exclusive concern of these movements. Attention was focused

on worldly existence and not on issues of salvation or other

worldliness. Because of the strong religious element in

social practices and the fact that religion was the dominant

ideology of the times, it was not possible to undertake any

social action without coming to grips with it.

These movements took into their ambit the entire

cultural existence, the way of life. The evolution of an

alternative cultural-ideological system and the regeneration

of traditional institutions were two concerns of these

movements. These concerns were manifest in the attempts

to reconstruct traditional knowledge, the use and development

of vernacular languages, creation of an alternative system of

education, defence of religion, efforts to regenerate Indian

art and literature, the emphasis on Indian dress and food,

attempts to revitalise the Indian systems of medicine, and

to research the pre-colonial technology for its potential.

Two Streams

The reform movements could broadly be classified into two

categories—the reformist movements like the Brahmo Samaj,

the Prarthana Samaj, the Aligarh Movement, and the revivalist

Socio-Religious Reform Movements

✫

201

movements like the Arya Samaj movement and the Deobandi

movement. The reformist as well as the revivalist movement

depended, to varying degrees, on an appeal to the lost purity

of the religion they sought to reform. The only difference

between one reform movement and the other lay in the degree

to which it relied on tradition or on reason and conscience.

Direction of Social Reform

The humanistic ideals of social equality and the equal worth

of all individuals which inspired the newly educated middle

class influenced the field of social reform in a major way.

The social reform movements were linked to the religious

reforms primarily because nearly all social ills like

untouchability and gender-based inequity derived legitimacy

from religion in one way or the other. In later years, though,

the social reform movement gradually dissociated itself from

religion and adopted a secular approach. Moreover, earlier

the reform movements had a rather narrow social base, being

limited to the upper and middle classes and upper castes who

tried to balance their modernised views and the existing

social conditions. But later on, the social reform movements

penetrated the lower strata of society to revolutionise and

reconstruct the social sphere.

In the beginning, organisations such as the Social

Conference, Servants of India Society, and the Christian

missionaries were instrumental in social reform along with

many enlightened individuals like Jyotiba Phule, Gopalhari

Deshmukh, K.T. Telang, B.M. Malabari, D.K. Karve, Sri

Narayana Guru, E.V. Ramaswami Naicker, and B.R. Ambedkar.

In later years, especially with the onset of the 20th century,

the national movement provided the leadership and organisation

for social reform.

To reach the masses, the reformers used the Indian

languages to propagate their views. They used a variety of

media—novels, dramas, poetry, short stories, the press, and,

in the 1930s and later on, the cinema—to spread their

opinions.

Broadly, the social reform movements had a two-point

agenda—fight for the betterment of status of women in

202

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

society and fight to remove disabilities arising out of

untouchability.

Fight for Betterment of Position

of Women

The reformers had to work against great odds. Women were

generally accorded a low status and were considered to be

inferior adjuncts to men, with no identity of their own. They

enjoyed no scope of giving expression to their talents as they

were suppressed by practices such as purdah, early marriage,

ban on widow-marriage, sati, etc. Both Hindu and Muslim

women were economically and socially dependent on male

relatives, while education was generally denied to them. The

Hindu women did not enjoy the right to inherit property or

to terminate an undesirable marriage. Muslim women could

inherit property but only half as much as men could, while

in matters of divorce there was no equality between men and

women. Polygamy was prevalent among Hindus as well as

Muslims.

Their glorification as wives and mothers was the only

way in which society recognised the contribution of women

as members of society. The improvement of the status of

women in the society was considered to be vital, and social

reformers worked towards this since a radical change in the

domestic sphere—where initial socialisation of the individual

takes place and where a crucial role is played by women—

was the need of the hour. It was clearly understood that this

change would translate into reformed homes and reformed

men, and that no country whose females were sunk in

ignorance could ever make significant progress in civilisation.

The social reform movements, the freedom struggle,

movements led by enlightened women themselves and, later,

free India’s Constitution have done much for the emancipation

of women.

The reformers basically appealed to the doctrines of

individualism and equality, and argued, to bolster their appeal,

that true religion did not sanction an inferior status to women.

They raised their voice against degrading customs such as

polygamy, purdah, child marriage, restrictions on widow

marriage, and worked relentlessly to establish educational

Socio-Religious Reform Movements

✫

203

facilities for women, to persuade the government to enact

favourable legislations for women and in general to propagate

the uselessness of medieval, feudal attitudes which required

to be given up.
Steps taken to Ameliorate Women’s Position

Because of the indefatigable efforts of the reformers, a

number of administrative measures were adopted by the

government to improve the condition of women.

Abolition of Sati Influenced by the frontal attack

launched by the enlightened Indian reformers led by Raja

Rammohan Roy, the government under Governor-General

William Bentinck declared the practice of sati illegal and

punishable by criminal courts as culpable homicide. The

regulation of 1829 (Regulation XVII, A.D. 1829 of the

Bengal Code) was applicable in the first instance to Bengal

Presidency alone, but was extended in slightly modified

forms to Madras and Bombay Presidencies in 1830.

(Historians have observed that the practice of sati was

sought to be banned in the regions under the control of the

Portuguese, Dutch, and French in the early 16th century. In

1582, the Mughal emperor, Akbar is said to have issued

orders that sati was not be coerced, and appointed inspectors

to see that no widow was compelled to follow the custom.)

Preventing Female Infanticide The practice of

murdering female infants immediately after their birth was

a common practice among upper-class Bengalis and Rajputs

who considered females to be an economic burden. The

Bengal regulations of 1795 and 1804 declared infanticide

illegal and equivalent to murder. An act passed in 1870 made

it compulsory for parents to register the birth of all babies,

and it provided for verification of female children for some

years after birth, particularly in areas where the custom was

resorted to in utmost secrecy.

Widow Remarriage The Brahmo Samaj had the issue

of widow remarriage high on its agenda and did much to

popularise it. But it was mainly due to the efforts of Pandit

Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar (1820–91), the principal of Sans-

krit College, Calcutta, that the Hindu Widows’ Remarriage

204

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Act, 1856, was passed; it legalised marriage of widows and

declared issues from such marriages as legitimate. Vidyasagar

cited Vedic texts to prove that the Hindu religion sanctioned

widow remarriage.

Vishnu Shastri Pandit founded the Widow Remarriage

Association in the 1850s. Another prominent worker in this

field was Karsandas Mulji who started the Satya Prakash

in Gujarati in 1852 to advocate widow remarriage. Similar

efforts were made by Professor D.K. Karve in western India

and by Veerasalingam Pantulu in Madras. Karve himself

married a widow in 1893. He dedicated his life to the

upliftment of Hindu widows and became the secretary of the

Widow Remarriage Association. He opened a widows’ home

in Poona to give the high-caste widows an interest in life

by providing them with facilities for vocational training. The

right of widows to remarriage was also advocated by B.M.

Malabari, Narmad (Narmadashankar Labhshankar Dave), Justice

Govind Mahadeo Ranade, and K. Natarajan among others.

Jyotiba Phule and his wife Savitribai were also vociferous

advocates of widow remarriage and campaigned against

widows being subjected to degrading practices.

Controlling Child Marriage The Native Marriage

Act (or Civil Marriage Act), 1872 signified legislative action

in prohibiting child marriage. It had a limited impact as the

act was not applicable to Hindus, Muslims, and other

recognised faiths. The relentless efforts of a Parsi reformer,

B.M. Malabari, were rewarded by the enactment of the Age

of Consent Act (1891), which forbade the marriage of girls

below the age of 12. The case of Rukhmabai pushed the

reformers to get the Age of Consent Act passed. Rukhmabai

Raut, who went on to become India’s first woman physician

to practise medicine, was married to Dadaji Bhikaji at the

age of 11. However, with the support of her step father,

Sakharam Arjun, she did not join her husband for some time

during which she continued with her education. When, after

some 12 years of the marriage, Dadaji Bhikaji demanded that

she join him as his wife, she refused. This led to the Dadaji

Bhikaji vs Rukhmabai case of 1884. Dadaji petitioned the

Bombay High Court for restitution of conjugal rights of a

Socio-Religious Reform Movements

✫

205

husband. Rukhmabai questioned the validity of her marriage
with Dadaji, as the marriage had taken place before she had

“arrived at years of discretion” and, as such, she refused to
be bound to it. Justice Robert Hill Pinhey dismissed Dadaji’s
petition, saying that Rukhmabai had been married off in

“helpless infancy” and hence could not be forced to join her
husband. However, an appeal was sought against the judgement
after many criticised it as diminishing Hindu customs and,

in 1887, Pinhey’s decision was overturned by Chief Justice
Sir Charles Sargent and Justice Farran. Rukhmabai was told
to live with her husband. Rukhmabai declared that she would

rather undergo any punishment meted out by the court rather
than go to live with her husband. It is said that it was only
with Queen Victoria’s intervention that the sentence of

imprisonment was set aside. It is also said that even the
conservatives among the Indians as well as the British
government did not want Rukhmabai to be punished for her

stand. The Rukhmabai case became one of the most publicised
court cases in India in the 19th century, and brought the issue
of child marriage and the rights of the women to the

forefront. A group of Indian reformers, such as Behramji
Malabari and Ramabai Ranade, formed the Rukhmabai Defence
Committee to bring the case to public attention. (After

finishing her studies, Rukhmabai obtained a position as Chief
Medical Officer in Surat. During her long and distinguished
career in medicine, she continued writing against child

marriage and women’s seclusion or purdah system.)

The Child Marriage Restraint Act 1929, popularly

known as the Sarda Act, which came into force in 1930,

further pushed up the marriage age to 18 and 14 for boys
and girls, respectively. (Harbilas Sarda was an Indian academic
and judge, who became Member of the Central Legislative

Assembly from Ajmer-Merwara. He was a follower of
Dayanand Saraswati and a member of the Arya Samaj.) In free
India, the Child Marriage Restraint (Amendment) Act, 1978

raised the age of marriage for girls from 15 to 18 years and

for boys from 18 to 21.

206

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Education of Women The Christian missionaries were

the first to set up the Calcutta Female Juvenile Society in

1819. The Bethune School, founded by J.E.D. Bethune,

president of the Council of Education in Calcutta in 1849

was the first fruit of the powerful movement for women’s

education that arose in the 1840s and 1850s. Pandit Ishwar

Chandra Vidyasagar was associated with no less than 35 girls’

schools in Bengal and is considered one of the pioneers of

women’s education.

Jagannath Shankarsheth ‘Nana’ and Bhau Daji were

among the active promoters of girls’ schools in Maharashtra.

Jagannath ‘Nana’ Shankarsheth (the name is spelt variously

– Jugonnath Sunkersett, Jagannath Shankarshet, or Jagannath

Shankar Seth) was one of the founders of the School Society

and Native School of Bombay. (The school changed names

a number of times: it became the Bombay Native Institution

in 1824; in 1840, it became the Board of Education; and in

1856 it became the Elphinstone Educational Institution.)

When Dr Wilson belonging to the Scottish was unable to

get accommodation for a girls’ school, Nana provided

accommodation for the school and even sent the female

members of his family to the school in Girgaum. In 1856,

the British government had announced some grant in aid to

private institutions. Nana took advantage of this and started

an English Marathi school in Girgaum. He contributed funds

to the girl’s school started by Student’s Literary and Scientific

Society. Bhau Daji Lad (Ram Krishna Lad) was another ardent

promoter of education. As the first Indian president of the

Students’ Literary and Scientific Society, he championed the

cause of female education, and a girls’ school was founded

in his name. Perhaps the most notable pioneers in promoting

the education of women was Jyotirao Phule (also called

Jyotiba Phule) and his wife Savitribai. Phule held radical

views for the times on the necessity of education for girls.

His first gender-sensitive act was to encourage his wife

Savitri to read and write. Later, impressed by the school for

girls run by the American missionaries in Ahmednagar, he

and his wife opened the first school for girls at Bhidewada,

Pune in 1848. Not many were willing to teach in the school,

Socio-Religious Reform Movements

✫

207

given the opposition to girls’ education, so Phule and

Savitribai shared the work of teaching. Savitribai could be

said to have become the first female school teacher of

modern India. She went on to become headmistress, and

taught alongside her trainee Fatima Sheikh and Jyotirao’s

emancipated aunt, Sagunabai. The Phules went on to open

several more schools in and around Pune. Phule also opened

night schools for those working during the day and unable

to attend regular schools. The school established by the

Students’ Literary and Scientific Society were assisted by

European officials, but Phule’s venture was without help from

the authorities. It was an ‘indigenous’ effort and that too by

a non-brahmin, in the face of huge opposition from the

orthodox sections of society.

The Alexandra Society of Parsis opened in 1863 was

aimed at educating Parsi girls. Incidentally, the first woman

graduate of Bombay University was a Parsi woman, Cornelia

Sorabji, in 1887. She later worked for equal opportunities

for women in education.

It will be seen that it was largely the private enterprise

of Indians themselves that encouraged women’s education.

After Lord Dalhousie declared that female education

must be given “frank and cordial support”, Charles Wood’s

Despatch on Education (1854) laid great stress on the need

for female education. In 1914, the Women’s Medical Service

did a lot of work in training nurses and midwives.

The Indian Women’s University set up by Professor

D.K. Karve in 1916 was one of the outstanding institutions

imparting education to women. In the same year, Lady

Hardinge Medical College was opened in Delhi.

Health facilities began to be provided to women with

the opening of Dufferin hospitals in the 1880s.

Participation in the swadeshi and anti-partition and the

Home Rule movements during the opening decades of the

20th century was a major liberating experience for the

otherwise home-centred Indian women. After 1918, they

faced lathis and bullets and were jailed during political

processions, picketing, etc. They actively participated in trade

union and kisan movements, or revolutionary movements.

208

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

They voted in, stood for, and got elected to various legislatures

and local bodies. Sarojini Naidu went on to become the

president of the Indian National Congress (1925) and later

the governor of the United Provinces (1947–49).

After 1920, aware and self-confident women led a

women’s movement. Many organisations and institutions such

as the All India Women’s Conference (established in 1927)

came up.

Women’s Organisations In 1910, Sarla Devi

Chaudhurani convened the first meeting of the Bharat Stree

Mahamandal in Allahabad. Considered as the first major

Indian women’s organisation set up by a woman, its objectives

included promotion of education for women, abolition of the

purdah system, and improvement in the socio-economic and

political status of woman all over India. Sarla Devi believed

that the man working for women’s upliftment lived ‘under

the shade of Manu’.

Ramabai Ranade founded the Ladies Social Conference

(Bharat Mahila Parishad), under the parent organisation

National Social Conference, in 1904 in Bombay.

Pandita Ramabai Saraswati founded the Arya Mahila

Samaj to serve the cause of women. She pleaded for

improvement in the educational syllabus of Indian women

before the English Education Commission, which was referred

to Queen Victoria. This resulted in medical education for

women which started in Lady Dufferin College. Later,

Ramabai Ranade established a branch of Arya Mahila Samaj

in Bombay.

In 1925, the National Council of Women in India, a

national branch of the International Council of Women, was

formed. Mehribai Tata played a vital role in its formation

and advancement. She opined that the purdah system, caste

differences, and lack of education prevented women from

working to solve societal problems. Other women who held

important positions on the executive committee of the

council included Cornelia Sarabji, India’s first lady barrister;

Tarabai Premchand, wife of a wealthy banker; Shaffi Tyabji,

a member of one of Mumbai’s leading Muslim families; and

Maharani Sucharu Devi, daughter of Keshab Chandra Sen.

Socio-Religious Reform Movements

✫

209

However, according to critics, the philanthropic style that was

being followed by these women was that of upper-class

English women.

The All India Women’s Conference (AIWC), founded

by Margaret Cousins in 1927, was perhaps the first women’s

organisation with an egalitarian approach. Its first conference

was held at Ferguson College, Pune. Important founding

members included Maharani Chimnabai Gaekwad, Rani Sahiba

of Sangli, Sarojini Naidu, Kamla Devi Chattopadhyaya, and

Lady Dorab Tata. Its objectives were to work for a society

based on principles of social justice, integrity, equal rights

and opportunities; and to secure for every human being, the

essentials of life, not determined by accident of birth or sex

but by planned social distribution. For this purpose, the AIWC

worked towards various legislative reforms before and after

India’s independence, some examples being Sarda Act (1929),

Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act (1937), Factory Act

(1947), Hindu Marriage and Divorce Act (1954), Special

Marriage Act (1954), Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act

(1956), Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act (1956), the

Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women Act (1958),

Maternity Benefits Act (1961), Dowry Prohibition Act

(1961), and Equal Remuneration Act (1958, 1976).

Struggle Against Caste-Based Exploitation

The later-Vedic conception of four-fold division of Hindu

society got further subdivided into numerous sub-castes due

to racial admixture, geographical expansion, and diversification

of crafts which gave rise to new vocations.

The concept of Hindu chaturvarnashrama dictated that

the caste of a person determined the status and relative purity

of different sections of population. It was caste that determined

who could get education or ownership of landed property,

the kind of profession one should pursue, whom one could

dine with or marry, etc. In general, caste decided a person’s

social loyalties even before birth. The dress, food, place of

residence, sources of water for drinking and irrigation, entry

into temples—all these were regulated by the caste factor.

The worst-hit by the discriminatory institution of caste

were the ‘untouchables’ or the scheduled castes/dalits, as they

210

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

came to be called later. The disabilities imposed on them

were humiliating, inhuman, and based on the principle of

inequality by birth.
Factors that Helped to Mitigate Caste-based

Discrimination

●

British rule, perhaps without intention, created

certain conditions that undermined caste consciousness

to an extent. British rule in India unleashed certain forces,

sometimes through direct administrative measures and

sometimes indirectly by creating suitable conditions. Though

these measures had negative effects in one way, they had a

positive effect too. For instance, the creation of private

property in land and free sale of land upset caste equations.

A close interlink between caste and vocation could not

survive as village autarchy crumbled. Besides, modern

commerce and industry gave rise to several economic

avenues, while growing urbanisation and modern means of

transport added to the mobility of populations. The British

administration introduced the concept of equality before law

in a uniformly applied system of law which dealt a severe

blow to social and legal inequalities, while the judicial

functions of caste panchayats were taken away. The

administrative services were made open to all castes and the

new education system was on totally secular lines.

●

The social reform movements also strove to

undermine caste-based exploitation. From the mid-19th

century onwards, numerous organisations and groups such as

the Brahmo Samaj, Prarthana Samaj, Arya Samaj, Ramakrishna

Mission, the Theosophists, the Social Conference, and

individuals worked to spread education among the untouchables

and remove restrictions imposed on them from entering

temples or using ponds, tanks, etc. Although many of them

defended the chaturvarna system, they criticised

untouchability. The social reformers attacked the rigid

hereditary basis of caste distinctions and the law of karma

which formed the basis of the religio-philosophic defence

of the undemocratic authoritarian caste institution. They

called on people to work for betterment in the real world

in which they lived, rather than strive for salvation after death.

Socio-Religious Reform Movements

✫

211

For instance, the Arya Samaj while crusading against the

disintegration of Hindu society into myriad sub-castes, aimed

at reconstructing it on the original four-fold division and

upholding the right of even the lowest castes to study the

scriptures.

●

The national movement took inspiration from the

principles of liberty and equality against the forces

which tended to divide the society. The national leaders

and organisations opposed caste privileges, fought for equal

civic rights and free development of the individual. The caste

divisions were diluted, although in a limited manner, because

of mass participation in demonstrations, meetings and

satyagraha struggles. The Congress governments in various

provinces after 1937 did some useful work for the upliftment

of the depressed classes; for instance, free education for

Harijans (‘untouchables’) was introduced in some provinces.

The rulers of states like Travancore, Indore, and Devas took

the initiative in opening all state temples by proclamation.

Gandhi always had in mind the objective of eradicating

untouchability by root and branch. His ideas were based on

the grounds of humanism and reason. He argued that the

Shastras did not sanction untouchability and, even if they

did, they should be ignored since truth cannot be confined

within the covers of a book. In 1932, he founded the All

India Harijan Sangh.

●

With increasing opportunities of education and

general awakening, there were stirrings among the

lower castes themselves. This awakening gradually developed

into a powerful movement in defence of their rights and

against upper-caste oppression. In Maharashtra, Jyotiba Phule,

born in a low-caste Mali family, led a movement against the

brahminical domination of Hindu society. He accorded the

highest priority to education of lower castes, especially girls

for whom he opened several schools.

Gopal Baba Walangkar, also known as Gopal Krishna,

is considered to be a pioneer in the movement to uplift the

untouchable people from the socio-economic oppression that

they had been subject to for ages. He worked against caste

discrimination in Raigad district. He expanded on Phule’s

212

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

theory of the Aryan invasion, that the indigenous inhabitants

of India were actually the untouchable people, and that caste

was created by the invading Aryans to subjugate and control

the indigenous people. He founded the Anarya Dosh-Parihar

Mandali (Society for the Removal of Evils Among the Non-

Aryans). Walangkar became the first Dalit to launch a

newspaper, the Vital Vidhvasak (Destroyer of Brahmanical

or Ceremonial Pollution). Walangkar strove to remove the

mark of untouchability by trying to bring caste Hindus to a

consciousness of their inhuman behaviour.

Another pioneer in the Dalit uplift movement was Kisan

Faguji Bansod. He was a proponent of upliftment of Dalits

within the fold of Hinduism. He opened his press which

published journals aimed at awakening the Dalits, such as

Walangkar’s Vital Vidhwansak.

Babasaheb Ambedkar, who had experienced the worst

form of casteist discrimination during his childhood, fought

against upper-caste tyranny throughout his life. In the 1920s,

Ambedkar started a fortnightly newspaper, Mooknayak (Leader

of the Voiceless) in 1920. He stated in the Mooknayak that

a nationalist consciousness could not develop if social

divisions were ignored. The newspaper presented the sufferings

of the untouchables in the context of the caste system. He

also formed the Bahushkrit Hitakarani Sabha in 1924 with

the motto of “educate, agitate and organise”, the focus being

on mobilising the masses. It marked the beginning of a new

socio-economic and political movement striving to bring

about equality for the oppressed classes. Another newspaper

he started with the aim of defending the rights of the

depressed classes was Bahishkrit Bharat (1927). Ambedkar

organised the All India Scheduled Castes Federation in 1942,

while several other leaders of the depressed classes had

founded the All India Depressed Classes Association in the

1920s. Ambedkar condemned the hierarchical and insular

caste system as a whole, and advocated the annihilation of

the institution of caste for the real progress of the nation.

The struggle of the depressed classes led to the provision

of special representation for these classes in the Government

of India Act, 1935.

Socio-Religious Reform Movements

✫

213

Others in the 1900s, such as the Maharaja of Kolhapur,

encouraged the non-brahmin movement which spread to the

southern states in the first decade of the 20th century and

was joined by the Kammas, Reddis, Vellalas (the powerful

intermediate castes), and the Muslims.

During the 1920s in South India, the non-brahmins

organised the Self-Respect Movement led by E.V. Ramaswamy

Naicker. There were numerous other movements demanding

that the ban on the entry of lower castes into temples be

lifted. Sri Narayana Guru in Kerala led a lifelong struggle

against upper-caste domination. He coined the slogan “one

religion, one caste, one God for mankind”, which his disciple

Sahadaran Ayyapan changed into “no religion, no caste, no

God for mankind”.

Dr Bhimrao Ambedkar led the Mahad Satyagraha in

March 1927 to challenge the regressive customs of the caste

Hindus. He stressed the necessity of removing ideas of ‘high’

and ‘low’ and inculcating self-elevation through self-help,

self-respect, and self-knowledge. He led a procession of

some 2,500 ‘untouchables’ through the town of Mahad to the

Chawdar tank, a public source of water tank from which the

untouchables were not allowed to draw water. Dr Ambedkar

took water from the tank and drank it. There were huge

protests by caste Hindus. Later, in December 1927, Ambedkar

and his colleagues burnt the ‘Manusmriti’ at the same place

as a gesture of getting rid of inequalities.

Dr Ambedkar established the Bahishkrit Hitakarini

Sabha in 1924 to highlight the difficulties and grievances of

the dalits before the government. Its motto was: ‘Educate,

Agitate and Organise’.

●

The Constitution of free India has made equality

and non-discrimination on the basis of caste imperative.

The struggle against caste discrimination could not be

successful during the British rule. The foreign government

had its limitations—it could not afford to invite hostile

reaction from the orthodox sections by taking up any radical

measures. Also, no social uplift was possible without economic

and political upliftment. All this could be realised only under

the government of a free India. The Constitution of free India

214

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

abolishes untouchability and declares the endorsement of any

disability arising out of untouchability as unlawful. It also

forbids any restriction on access to wells, tanks, bathing

ghats, hotels, cinemas, clubs, etc. In one of the Directive

Principles, the Constitution has laid down that “the State shall

strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and

protecting as effectively as it may a social order in which

justice—social, economic and political—shall inform all the

institutions of the national life”.

Views

Nationalist power to stir up discontent would be immensely
increased if every cultivator could read.

—Bombay Governor

[in a private letter to the Viceroy (1911)]

The rising middle classes were politically inclined and were not
so much in search of a religion; but they wanted some cultural
roots to cling on to...that would reduce the sense of frustration
and humiliation that foreign conquest and rule had produced.

—Jawaharlal Nehru

The dead and the buried are dead, buried and burnt once for all
and the dead past cannot, therefore, be revived except by a
reformation of the old materials into new organised forms.

—Mahadeo Govind Ranade

Unfortunately, no brahmin scholar has so far come forward to play
the part of a Voltaire who had the intellectual honesty to rise
against the doctrines of the Catholic church in which he was
brought up...A Voltaire among the brahmins would be a positive
danger to the maintenance of a civilisation which is contrived to
maintain brahminic supremacy.

—B.R. Ambedkar

Untouchability question is one of life and death for Hinduism. If
untouchability lives, Hinduism perishes, and even India perishes;
but if untouchability is eradicated from the Hindu heart, root and
branch, then Hinduism has a definite message for the world.

—M.K. Gandhi

I want the culture of all lands to be blown about my house

as freely as possible. But I refuse to be blown off my feet

by any. I refuse to live in other people’s houses as an

interloper, a beggar or a slave.

—M.K. Gandhi

Socio-Religious Reform Movements

✫

215

Summary

●

Factors which gave Rise to Reform Movements
Presence of colonial government on Indian soil.
Various ills plaguing Indian society—obscurantism, superstition,
polytheism, idolatry, degraded position of women, exploitative
caste hierarchy.
Spread of education and increased awareness of the world.
Impact of modern Western culture and consciousness of
defeat by a foreign power.
Rising tide of nationalism and democracy during the late 19th
century.

●

Social Base
Emerging middle class and Western-educated intellectuals.

●

Ideological Base
Rationalism, religious universalism, humanism, secularism.

●

Social Reform Components
Betterment of Position of Women Degraded position due
to

Purdah system
Early marriage
Lack of education
Unequal rights in marriage, divorce, inheritance
Polygamy
Female infanticide
Restrictions on widow remarriage
Sati

Major Contributors to Reforms

Social reform movements, freedom struggle, movements led
by enlightened women, free India’s Constitution.

Legislative Measures for Women

Bengal Regulation (1829) banning sati
Bengal Regulations (1795, 1804)—declaring infanticide illegal.
Hindu Widows’ Remarriage Act, 1856.
Age of Consent Act, 1891
Sarda Act, 1930
Special Marriage Act, 1954
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act
Maternity Benefits Act, 1961
Equal Remuneration Act, 1976
Child Marriage Restraint (Amendment) Act, 1978
Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act in Women and Girls, 1956
(amended in 1986)
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (amended in 1986)

216

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

●

Struggle Against Caste-based Exploitation

Factors Undermining Caste Rigidities

Forces unleashed by colonial administration
Social reform movements
National movement
Gandhi’s campaign against untouchability
Stirrings among lower castes due to better education and
employment
Free India’s Constitution

join us http://telegram.me/bpsc65thmains66thprelims (BPSC CCE 65th,66th & 67th )

Survey of Reform Movements and Leaders

✫

217

217

CHAPTER 9

A General Survey of

Socio-Cultural Reform

Movements and

their Leaders

Socio-Cultural Reform
Movements and their Leaders

Raja Rammohan Roy and Brahmo Samaj

Raja Rammohan Roy (1772–1833), often called the the

father of Indian Renaissance and the maker of Modern India,

was a man of versatile genius.

Rammohan Roy believed in the modern scientific

approach and principles of human dignity and social equality.

He put his faith in monotheism. He wrote Gift to Monotheists

(1809) and translated into Bengali the Vedas and the five

Upanishads to prove his conviction that ancient Hindu texts

support monotheism.

In 1814, he set up the Atmiya Sabha (or Society of

Friends) in Calcutta to propagate the monotheistic ideals of

the Vedanta and to campaign against idolatry, caste rigidities,

meaningless rituals, and other social ills. Strongly influenced

by rationalist ideas, he declared that Vedanta is based on

218

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

reason and that, if reason demanded it, even a departure from

the scriptures is justified.

He said the principles of rationalism applied to other

sects also, particularly to the elements of blind faith in them.

In his Precepts of Jesus (1820), he tried to separate the

moral and philosophical message of the New Testament,

which he praised, from its miracle stories. He earned the

wrath of missionaries over his advocacy to incorporate the

message of Christ into Hinduism.

He stood for a creative and intellectual process of

selecting the best from different cultures, over which, again,

he faced orthodox reaction.

Raja Rammohan Roy founded the Brahmo Sabha in

August 1828; it was later renamed Brahmo Samaj. Through

the Sabha he wanted to institutionalise his ideas and mission.

The Samaj was committed to “the worship and adoration of

the Eternal, Unsearchable, Immutable Being who is the

Author and Preserver of the Universe”. Prayers, meditation,

and readings of the Upanishads were to be the forms of

worship, and no graven image, statue or sculpture, carving,

painting, picture, portrait, etc., were to be allowed in the

Samaj buildings, thus underlining the Samaj’s opposition to

idolatry and meaningless rituals. The long-term agenda of the

Brahmo Samaj—to purify Hinduism and to preach

monotheism—was based on the twin pillars of reason and

the Vedas and Upanishads. The Samaj also tried to incorporate

teachings of other religions and kept its emphasis on human

dignity, opposition to idolatry, and criticism of social evils

such as sati.

Rammohan Roy did not want to establish a new religion.

He only wanted to purify Hinduism of the evil practices

which had crept into it. Roy’s progressive ideas met with

strong opposition from orthodox elements like Raja Radhakant

Deb who organised the Dharma Sabha to counter Brahmo

View

Raja Rammohan Roy and his Brahmo Samaj form the starting
point for all the various reform movements—whether in Hindu
religion, society or politics—which have agitated modern India.

—H.C.E. Zacharias

Survey of Reform Movements and Leaders

✫

219

Samaj propaganda. Roy’s death in 1833 was a setback for

the Samaj’s mission.

The features of Brahmo Samaj may be summed up in

this way.

●

It denounced polytheism and idol worship;

●

It discarded faith in divine avataras (incarnations);

●

It denied that any scripture could enjoy the status

of ultimate authority transcending human reason and

conscience.

●

It took no definite stand on the doctrine of karma

and transmigration of soul and left it to individual

Brahmos to believe either way.

●

It criticised the caste system.

His ideas and activities were also aimed at political

uplift of the masses through social reform and, to that extent,

can be said to have had nationalist undertones.
Raja Rammohan Roy’s Efforts at Social Reform

Rammohan was a determined crusader against the inhuman

practice of sati. He started his anti-sati struggle in 1818,

and he cited sacred texts to prove his contention that no

religion sanctioned the burning alive of widows, besides

appealing to humanity, reason, and compassion. He also

visited the cremation grounds, organised vigilance groups,

and filed counter petitions to the government during his

struggle against sati. His efforts were rewarded by the

Government Regulation in 1829, which declared the practice

of sati a crime.

As a campaigner for women’s rights, Roy condemned

the general subjugation of women and opposed prevailing

misconceptions which formed the basis of according an

inferior social status to women. Roy attacked polygamy and

the degraded state of widows and demanded the right of

inheritance and property for women.

Rammohan Roy did much to disseminate the benefits

of modern education to his countrymen. He supported David

Hare’s efforts to found the Hindu College in 1817, while

Roy’s English school taught mechanics and Voltaire’s

philosophy. In 1825, he established a Vedanta college where

courses in both Indian learning and Western social and

220

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

physical sciences were offered. He also helped enrich the

Bengali language by compiling a Bengali grammar book and

evolving a modern elegant prose style.

Rammohan was a gifted linguist. He knew more than

a dozen languages including Sanskrit, Persian, Arabic, English,

French, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. A knowledge of different

languages helped him broadbase his range of study.

As a bold supporter of freedom of the Press and as

a pioneer in Indian journalism, Roy brought out journals in

Bengali, Hindi, English, Persian to educate and inform the

public and represent their grievances before the government.

As a political activist, Roy condemned oppressive

practices of Bengali zamindars and demanded fixation of

maximum rents. He also demanded abolition of taxes on tax-

free lands. He called for a reduction of export duties on

Indian goods abroad and abolition of the East India Company’s

trading rights. He demanded the Indianisation of superior

services and separation of the executive from the judiciary.

He demanded judicial equality between Indians and Europeans

and that trial be held by jury.

Rammohan was an internationalist with a vision beyond

his times. He stood for cooperation of thought and activity

and brotherhood among nations. His understanding of the

universal character of the principles of liberty, equality and

justice indicated that he well understood the significance of

the modern age. He supported the revolutions of Naples and

Spanish America and condemned the oppression of Ireland

by absentee English landlordism and threatened emigration

from the empire if the reform bill was not passed.

Roy had David Hare, Alexander Duff, Debendranath

Tagore, P.K. Tagore, Chandrashekhar Deb, and Tarachand

Chakraborty as his associates.

Views

I regret to say that the present system of religion adhered to by
the Hindus is not well calculated to promote their political
interests.... it is, I think, necessary that some change should take
place in their religion at least for the sake of their political
advantage and social comfort.

—Raja Rammohan Roy

Survey of Reform Movements and Leaders

✫

221

Debendranath Tagore and Brahmo Samaj

Maharishi Debendranath Tagore (1817–1905), father of

Rabindranath Tagore and a product of the best in traditional

Indian learning and Western thought, gave a new life to

Brahmo Samaj and a definite form and shape to the theist

movement, when he joined the Samaj in 1842. Earlier, Tagore

headed the Tattvabodhini Sabha (founded in 1839) which,

along with its organ Tattvabodhini Patrika in Bengali, was

devoted to the systematic study of India’s past with a rational

outlook and to the propagation of Rammohan’s ideas. A new

vitality and strength of membership came to be associated

with the Brahmo Samaj due to the informal association of

the two sabhas. Gradually, the Brahmo Samaj came to include

prominent followers of Rammohan, the Derozians and

independent thinkers such as Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar and

Ashwini Kumar Datta. Tagore worked on two fronts: within

Hinduism, the Brahmo Samaj was a reformist movement;

outside, it resolutely opposed the Christian missionaries for

their criticism of Hinduism and their attempts at conversion.

The revitalised Samaj supported widow remarriage, women’s

education, abolition of polygamy, improvement in ryots’

conditions, and temperance.
Keshab Chandra Sen and the Brahmo Samaj

The Brahmo Samaj experienced another phase of energy,

when Keshab Chandra Sen (1838–84) was made the acharya

by Debendranath Tagore soon after the former joined the

Samaj in 1858. Keshab (also spelt Keshub) was instrumental

in popularising the movement, and branches of the Samaj

were opened outside Bengal—in the United Provinces,

Punjab, Bombay, Madras, and other towns. Unfortunately,

Debendranath did not like some of Sen’s ideas which he

found too radical, such as cosmopolitanisation of the Samaj’s

meetings by inclusion of teachings from all religions and his

strong views against the caste system, even open support to

Views

Whoever worships the True God daily must learn to recognise all
his fellow countrymen as brethren.

—Keshab Chandra Sen

222

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

inter-caste marriages. Keshab Chandra Sen was dismissed

from the office of acharya in 1865.

Keshab and his followers founded the Brahmo Samaj

of India in 1866, while Debendranath Tagore’s Samaj came

to be known as the Adi Brahmo Samaj.

In 1878, Keshab’s inexplicable act of getting his 13-

year-old daughter married to the minor Hindu Maharaja of

Cooch-Behar with all the orthodox Hindu rituals caused

another split in Keshab’s Brahmo Samaj of India. Earlier,

Keshab had begun to be considered as an incarnation by some

of his followers, much to the dislike of his progressive

followers. Further, Keshab had begun to be accused of

authoritarianism.

After 1878, the disgusted followers of Keshab set up

a new organisation, the Sadharan Brahmo Samaj. The

Sadharan Brahmo Samaj was started by Ananda Mohan Bose,

Sib Chandra Deb, and Umeshchandra Dutta. It reiterated the

Brahmo doctrines of faith in a Supreme being, one God, the

belief that no scripture or man is infallible, belief in the

dictates of reason, truth, and morality.

A number of Brahmo centres were opened in Madras

province. In Punjab, the Dayal Singh Trust sought to implant

Brahmo ideas by the opening of Dayal Singh College at

Lahore in 1910.
Significance of the Brahmo Samaj

In matters of social reform, the Samaj attacked many dogmas

and superstitions. It condemned the prevailing Hindu prejudice

against going abroad. It worked for a respectable status for

women in society—condemned sati, worked for abolition of

the purdah system, discouraged child marriage and polygamy,

crusaded for widow remarriage and for provisions of

educational facilities. It also attacked casteism and

untouchability though in these matters it attained only limited

success.

The influence of the Brahmo Samaj, however, did not

go much beyond Calcutta and, at most, Bengal. It did not have

a lasting impact.

Prarthana Samaj

In 1867, Keshab Chandra Sen helped Atmaram Pandurang

found the Prarthana Samaj in Bombay. Earlier, the Brahmo

Survey of Reform Movements and Leaders

✫

223

ideas spread in Maharashtra. A precursor of the Prarthana

Samaj was the Paramahansa Sabha, something like a secret

society to spread liberal ideas and encourage the breakdown

of caste and communal barriers. Mahadeo Govind Ranade

(1842–1901), joined the samaj in 1870, and much of the

popularity of and work done by the society was due to his

efforts. His efforts made the samaj gain an all-India character.

Other leaders of the samaj were R.G. Bhandarkar (1837–

1925) and N.G. Chandavarkar (1855–1923). The emphasis

was on monotheism, but on the whole, the samaj was more

concerned with social reforms than with religion. The

Prarthana Sabha was very attached to the bhakti cult of

Maharashtra. The samaj relied on education and persuasion

and not on confrontation with Hindu orthodoxy. There was

a four-point social agenda also: (i) disapproval of caste

system; (ii) women’s education; (iii) widow remarriage; and

(iv) raising the age of marriage for both males and females.

Dhondo Keshav Karve and Vishnu Shastri were champions

of social reform with Ranade. Along with Karve, Ranade

founded the Widow Remarriage Movement as well as Widows’

Home Association with the aim of providing education and

training to widows so that they could support themselves.

Young Bengal Movement and
Henry Vivian Derozio

During the late 1820s and early 1830s, there emerged a

radical, intellectual trend among the youth in Bengal, which

came to be known as the ‘Young Bengal Movement’. A young

Anglo-Indian, Henry Vivian Derozio (1809–31), who taught

at the Hindu College from 1826 to 1831, was the leader and

inspirer of this progressive trend. Drawing inspiration from

the great French Revolution, Derozio inspired his pupils to

think freely and rationally, question all authority, love liberty,

equality and freedom, and oppose decadent customs and

traditions. The Derozians also supported women’s rights and

education. Also, Derozio was perhaps the first nationalist

poet of modern India.

The Derozians, however, failed to have a long-term

impact. Derozio was removed from the Hindu College in

1831 because of his radicalism. The main reason for their

224

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

limited success was the prevailing social conditions at that

time, which were not ripe for the adoption of radical ideas.

Further, there was no support from any other social group

or class. The Derozians lacked any real link with the masses;

for instance, they failed to take up the peasants’ cause. In

fact, their radicalism was bookish in character. But, despite

their limitations, the Derozians carried forward Rammohan

Roy’s tradition of public education on social, economic, and

political questions. For instance, they demanded induction of

Indians in higher grades of services, protection of ryots from

oppressive zamindars, better treatment to Indian labour

abroad in British colonies, revision of the Company’s charter,

freedom of press, and trial by jury.

Later, Surendranath Banerjea was to describe the

Derozians as “the pioneers of the modern civilisation of

Bengal, the conscript fathers of our race whose virtues will

excite veneration and whose failings will be treated with

gentlest consideration”.

Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar

The great scholar and reformer, Vidyasagar’s ideas were a

happy blend of Indian and Western thought. He believed in

high moral values, was a deep humanist, and was generous

to the poor. In 1850, he became the principal of Sanskrit

College. He was determined to break the priestly monopoly

of scriptural knowledge, and for this he opened the Sanskrit

College to non-brahmins. He introduced Western thought in

Sanskrit College to break the self-imposed isolation of

Sanskritic learning. As an academician, he evolved a new

methodology to teach Sanskrit. He also devised a new Bengali

primer and evolved a new prose style.

Vidyasagar started a movement in support of widow

remarriage which resulted in legalisation of widow remarriage.

He was also a crusader against child marriage and polygamy.

He did much for the cause of women’s education. As

government inspector of schools, he helped organise 35

girls’ schools many of which he ran at his own expense. As

secretary of Bethune School (established in 1849), he was

one of the pioneers of higher education for women in India.

Survey of Reform Movements and Leaders

✫

225

The Bethune School, founded in Calcutta, was the result

of the powerful movement for women’s education that arose

in the 1840s and 1850s. The movement had to face great

difficulties. The young students were shouted at and abused

and, sometimes, even their parents subjected to social

boycott. Many believed that girls who had received Western

education would make slaves of their husbands.

Balshastri Jambhekar

Balshastri Jambhekar (1812–46) was a pioneer of social

reform through journalism in Bombay; he attacked brahminical

orthodoxy and tried to reform popular Hinduism. He started

the newspaper Darpan in 1832. Known as the father of

Marathi journalism, Jambhekar used the Darpan to awaken

the people to awareness of social reforms, such as widow

remarriage, and to instil in the masses a scientific approach

to life. In 1840, he started Digdarshan, which published

articles on scientific subjects as well as history.

Jambhekar founded the Bombay Native General Library

and started the Native Improvement Society of which an

offshoot was the Students Literary and Scientific Library. He

was the first professor of Hindi at the Elphinston College,

besides being a director of the Colaba Observatory.

Paramahansa Mandali

Founded in 1849 in Maharashtra, the founders of the

Paramahansa Mandali—Dadoba Pandurang, Mehtaji Durgaram

and others—began as a secret society that worked to reform

Hindu religion and society in general. The ideology of the

society was closely linked to that of the Manav Dharma

Sabha. Besides believing that one god should be worshipped,

the society also said real religion is based on love and moral

conduct. Freedom of thought was encouraged as was

rationality. The founders of the mandali were primarily

interested in breaking caste rules. At their meetings, food

cooked by lower caste people was taken by the members.

These mandalis also advocated widow remarriage and women’s

education. Branches of Paramahansa Mandali existed in

Poona, Satara, and other towns of Maharashtra.

226

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Jyotirao Phule and Savitribai Phule

Jyotirao or Jyotiba Phule (1827–90), born in Satara,

Maharashtra, belonged to the mali (gardener) community and

organised a powerful movement against upper caste domination

and brahminical supremacy. Phule founded the Satyashodhak

Samaj (Truth Seekers’ Society) in 1873, with the leadership

of the samaj coming from the backward classes, malis, telis,

kunbis, saris, and dhangars. The main aims of the movement

were (i) social service, and (ii) spread of education among

women and lower caste people.

Phule wanted social transformation, not just social

reform. He was of the view that until the oppressed classes

or the masses were educated, there would be no mass

awakening, and social revolution would not be possible.

Jyotiba wanted a society free of exploitation. Many believe

that Phule introduced the Marathi word ‘dalit’ (meaning

crushed) to describe those outside the varna system.

He propagated what came to be called the Satyashodhak

marriage ceremony – simple and inexpensive, besides making

the services of the brahmin priest redundant.

Phule’s works, Sarvajanik Satyadharma and Gulamgiri,

became sources of inspiration for the common masses. Phule

used the symbol of Rajah Bali as opposed to the brahmins’

symbol of Rama. Phule aimed at the complete abolition of

the caste system and socio-economic inequalities; he was

against Sanskritic Hinduism. This movement gave a sense of

identity to the depressed communities as a class against those

brahmins who used religion and the blind faith of the masses

to exploit the masses for personal monetary gain.

Jyotiba Phule was given the title of Mahatma in 1888

by another Maharashtrian social reformer, Vithalrao Krishnaji

Vandekar.

Jyotiba was not allowed to continue schooling because

of his caste. However, with help and encouragement from

the Persian scholar Ghaffar Baig Munshi and a British

official, Lizit Sahab, Jyotiba was admitted in a Scottish

missionary school. The society of the day was against

education of girls as well. Yet, he along with his wife,

Survey of Reform Movements and Leaders

✫

227

Savitribai, were instrumental in opening a school for girls

in Pune. The school syllabus included mathematics, science,

and social studies.

Savitribai, also of the mali community, was born in

1831 at Naigaon in Maharashtra’s Satara district and was

married to Jyotiba Phule when a child of nine. Jyotiba, a firm

believer in education for all, including women, taught his wife
at home. Later, she took a teacher’s training course. She

faced abuse and humiliation from the people along the way

when she walked to the school to teach, but she braved it

to persist with her vocation. Savitribai also began to teach
women and children from the downtrodden castes including

Mang and Mahar. She and her husband established two

educational trusts, namely the Native Female School, Pune,

and the Society for Promoting the Education of Mahars,
Mangs, and others.

Savitribai went on from girls’ education to question

many social evils and work towards eradicating them. She

started the Mahila Seva Mandal to raise awareness about
women’s rights. She and her husband rigorously campaigned

against the dehumanisation of widows and advocated widow

remarriage. Savitribai is said to have organised a successful

barbers’ strike to denounce the inhumane practice of shaving
widows’ heads. With her husband, she set up a home called

Balhatya Pratibandhak Griha (home to prevent infanticide) in

1863, where unwed mothers and widows who became pregnant

under unfortunate circumstances could have safe deliveries
instead of resorting to killing the infants or themselves.

Savitribai is said to have organised a successful barbers’

strike to denounce the inhumane practice of shaving widows’

heads. She and her husband set an example against the evil
of untouchability by opening their own water storage to

everyone.

After Jyotiba’s death, Savitribai took over the Satya

Shodhak Samaj, presiding over the meetings, guiding the
workers, and working for plague victims. She died in 1897,

getting infected by the plague while caring for a patient.

228

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Savitribai wrote poetry, and two of her collections are

Kavyaphule and Bavankashi Subodh Ratnakar.

(In August 2014, the name of the University of Pune

was changed to Savitribai Phule Pune University in honour

of Savitribai Phule.)

Gopal Baba Walangkar

Gopal Baba Walangkar, also known as Gopal Krishna, (circa

1840–1900) was a pioneer in the cause of uplifting the Dalits

from the socio-economic oppression that they suffered.

Indeed, Walangkar is generally considered by Ambedkar to

be the pioneer of the Dalit movement. Born into a Mahar

family near Mahad in what is now Raigad district of

Maharashtra, Gopal Krishna served in the army till he retired

in 1886. He was deeply influenced by Jyotiba Phule.

Walangkar subscribed to Phule’s idea of the Aryan

invasion theory, and said that the untouchable people of India

were the indigenous inhabitants and that the brahmins came

from the invading Aryans. He contended that the concept of

caste was contrived by the Aryan invaders to subjugate and

control the Anaryans (who were the indigenous people). He

formed a group of Mahar astrologers so as to give a sense

of empowerment to the Mahars and reduce the importance

of the brahmins as the service of setting the time for

ceremonies was the only one that brahmins had been willing

to perform for the Mahars.

Walangkar founded the Anarya Dosh-Parihar Mandali

(Society for the Removal of Evils Among the Non-Aryans).

It was through this society that a petition was sought to be

raised against the policy of the government to discontinue

the recruitment of Mahars in the army.

In 1888, Walangkar began publishing the monthly

journal Vital Vidhvansak (Destroyer of Brahmanical or

Ceremonial Pollution). In 1889, he followed with a pamphlet,

Vital Viduvansan (Annihilation of Ceremonial Pollution),

which spoke against the position of untouchables in society.

He has been called “the first intellectual rebel from the Dalit

community to have launched a scathing criticism of the caste

Survey of Reform Movements and Leaders

✫

229

system and the position of Dalits in it.” His approach was

not so much a direct opposition to the elites of society; it

was rather an appeal aimed at making them change their

attitude. He also wrote Hindu Dharma Darpan published in

1894. He contributed to Marathi language journals such as

Sudharak and Deenbandhu to arouse awareness and inspire

the depressed classes.

The attitude of the upper castes is manifest in the

opposition they showed when Walangkar was appointed to

the local taluk board of Mahad in 1895.

Kisan Faguji Bansod

Kisan Faguji Bansod (1879–1946) was born in a Mahar

family at Mohapa village near Nagpur in Maharashtra. He

wanted the Dalits boys and girls to be educated. He established

the Chokhamela girls’ school at Nagpur. Setting up his own

press in 1910, Bansod published the journals Nirashrit Hind

Nagarik, Vital Vidhvansak, and Majur Patrika. He was one

of the secretaries of the All India Depressed Classes

Conference in 1920.

Bansod was influenced by the Bhakti cult and the work

of the Brahmo Samaj and the Prarthana Samaj. Though he

also subscribed to the theory of the enslavement of the Dalits

because of the Aryan invasion, he advocated reforms within

Hinduism for the upliftment of the Dalits.

Vitthal Ramji Shinde

Maharshi Vitthal Ramji Shinde (1873–1944) was born in a

Marathi family in Karnataka. He was influenced in his

spiritual journey by the works of Tukaram, Eknath, and

Ramdas. Brought up in a liberal intellectual atmosphere, he

was also influenced by Hari Narayan Apte, Gopal Ganesh

Agarkar, Mahadev Govind Ranade, Ramakrishna Gopal

Bhandarkar, G.B. Kotkar among other thinkers. He joined the

Prarthana Samaj and worked towards the removal of

untouchability in India. He established a night school for the

children of untouchables in Pune in 1905. He established the

Depressed Classes Mission in Bombay in 1906. The mission

was aimed at trying to get rid of untouchability; to provide

230

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

educational facilities for the untouchables; and try to solve

the problems of the untouchables.

Shinde gave evidence before the Southborough Franchise

Committee in 1919, and expressed the need for giving special

representation to the untouchable class. He resigned as the

executive of the Depressed Classes Mission when some of

the members wanted the mission’s affairs to be managed by

their own people. He, however, continued to work for the

depressed classes. He was in favour of a united front from

the depressed classes and the caste Hindus as he feared the

British rulers would otherwise exploit the divisions in Indian

society for their own advantage.

He expressed his opposition to the caste system, idol

worship, and inequities forced on women and the depressed

classes even as he was against meaningless rituals, the

dominance of hereditary priesthood, and the very need for

a priest to mediate between a devotee and God.

He took part in the Civil Disobedience Movement and

was imprisoned in the Yerawda Central Jail.

Shinde was the author of Bharatiya Asprushyatecha

Prashna.

Gopalhari Deshmukh ‘Lokahitawadi’

Gopalhari Deshmukh (1823–92) was a social reformer and

rationalist from Maharashtra. He held the post of a judge

under British raj, but wrote for a weekly Prabhakar under

the pen name of Lokahitawadi on social reform issues.

He advocated a reorganisation of Indian society on rational

principles and modern, humanistic, secular values. He attacked

Hindu orthodoxy and supported social and religious equality.

He wrote against the evils of the caste system. He said, “If

religion does not sanction social reform, then change religion.”

He started a weekly, Hitechhu, and also played a leading role

in founding the periodicals, Gyan Prakash, Indu Prakash,

and Lokahitawadi.

Gopal Ganesh Agarkar

Gopal Ganesh Agarkar (1856–95) was an educationist and

social reformer from Maharashtra. A strong advocate of the

power of human reason, he criticised the blind dependence

on tradition and false glorification of the past. He was a co-

Survey of Reform Movements and Leaders

✫

231

founder of the New English School, the Deccan Education

Society and Fergusson College. He was a principal of

Fergusson College. He was also the first editor of Kesari,

the journal started by Lokmanya Tilak. Later, he started his

own periodical, Sudharak, which spoke against untouchability

and the caste system.

The Servants of India Society

Gopal Krishna Gokhale (1866–1915), a liberal leader of the

Indian National Congress, founded the Servants of India

Society in 1905 with the help of M.G. Ranade. The aim of

the society was to train national missionaries for the service

of India; to promote, by all constitutional means, the true

interests of the Indian people; and to prepare a cadre of

selfless workers who were to devote their lives to the cause

of the country in a religious spirit. In 1911, the Hitavada

began to be published to project the views of the society.

The society chose to remain aloof from political activities

and organisations like the Indian National Congress.

After Gokhale’s death (1915), Srinivasa Shastri took

over as president. The society still continues to function,

though with a shrunken base, at many places in India. It works

in the field of education, providing ashram type of schools

for tribal girls and balwadis at many places.

Social Service League

A follower of Gokhale, Narayan Malhar Joshi founded the

Social Service League in Bombay with an aim to secure for

the masses better and reasonable conditions of life and work.

They organised many schools, libraries, reading rooms, day

nurseries, and cooperative societies. Their activities also

included police court agents’ work, legal aid and advice to

the poor and illiterate, excursions for slum dwellers, facilities

for gymnasia and theatrical performances, sanitary work,

medical relief, and boys’ clubs and scout corps. Joshi also

founded the All India Trade Union Congress (1920).

The Ramakrishna Movement and
Swami Vivekananda

The didactic nationalism of the Brahmo Samaj appealed more

to the intellectual elite in Bengal, while the average Bengali

232

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

found more emotional satisfaction in the cult of bhakti and

yoga. The teachings of Ramakrishna Paramahamsa (1836–

86), a poor priest at the Kali temple in Dakshineshwar, on

the outskirts of Calcutta (who was known in childhood as

Gadadhar Chattopadhyay) found many followers. Ramakrishna

experienced spiritual trances (ecstasy) from a very early age.

He is considered to have attained the highest spiritual

experience available to Hindus. He did not write books, but

his conversations with people formed the basis of what were

considered his teachings. He spoke simply, in the form of

parables and metaphors, drawn from the observation of

ordinary life and nature. But what he said was of universal

relevance. Two objectives of the Ramakrishna movement

were—(i) to bring into existence a band of monks dedicated

to a life of renunciation and practical spirituality, from among

whom teachers and workers would be sent out to spread the

universal message of Vedanta as illustrated in the life of

Ramakrishna, and (ii) in conjunction with lay disciples to

carry on preaching, philanthropic and charitable works, looking

upon all men, women and children, irrespective of caste,

creed, or colour, as veritable manifestations of the Divine.

Paramahamsa himself laid the foundations of the Ramakrishna

Math with his young monastic disciples as a nucleus to fulfil

the first objective. The second objective was taken up by

Swami Vivekananda after Ramakrishna’s death when he founded

the Ramakrishna Mission in 1897. The headquarters of the

Ramakrishna Math and Mission are at Belur near Calcutta.

The two are twin organisations, though legally and financially

separate

Paramahamsa sought salvation through traditional ways

of renunciation, meditation, and bhakti amidst increasing

westernisation and modernisation. He recognised the

fundamental oneness of all religions and emphasised that

Krishna, Hari, Ram, Christ, Allah are different names for the

same God, and that there are many ways to God and salvation:

“As many faiths, so many paths.” Paramahamsa’s spirituality

and compassion for the suffering humanity inspired those

who listened to him. He used to say, “Service of man is the

service of God.”

Survey of Reform Movements and Leaders

✫

233

Incidentally, Ramakrishna was married to Saradmani

Mukherjee, later known as Sarada Devi. Ramakrishna

considered Sarada as the embodiment of the Divine Mother.

It was as ‘holy mother’ that the disciples also knew her as.

She played an important role in the work of the math and

encouraging the young disciples in their mission.
Swami Vivekananda

Narendranath Datta (1862–1902), who later came to be

known as Swami Vivekananda, spread Ramakrishna’s message

and tried to reconcile it to the needs of contemporary Indian

society. He emerged as the preacher of neo-Hinduism.

Certain spiritual experiences of Ramakrishna, the teachings

of the Upanishads and the Gita and the examples of the

Buddha and Jesus are the basis of Vivekananda’s message to

the world about human values. He subscribed to the Vedanta,

which he considered a fully rational system with a superior

approach. His mission was to bridge the gulf between

paramartha (service) and vyavahara (behaviour), and between

spirituality and day-to-day life.

Vivekananda believed in the fundamental oneness of

God and said, “For our own motherland a junction of the two

great systems, Hinduism and Islam, is the only hope.”

Emphasising social action, he declared that knowledge

without action is useless. He lamented the isolationist

tendencies and the touch-me-not attitude of Hindus in

religious matters. He frowned at religion’s tacit approval of

the oppression of the poor by the rich. He believed that it

was an insult to God and humanity to teach religion to a

starving man. He pointed out that the masses needed two

kinds of knowledge—secular knowledge about how to work

for their economic uplift and the spiritual knowledge to have

faith in themselves and strengthen their moral sense. He

called upon his countrymen to imbibe a spirit of liberty,

equality, and free thinking.

At the Parliament of Religions held at Chicago in

1893, Swami Vivekananda made a great impression on people

by his learned interpretations. The keynote of his opening

address was the need for a healthy balance between spiritualism

234

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

and materialism. Envisaging a new culture for the whole

world, he called for a blend of the materialism of the West

and the spiritualism of the East into a new harmony to

produce happiness for mankind. Vivekananda gave several

lectures on Vedanta in the USA and in London before

returning to India in 1897.

In India he delivered a series of lectures, the focus of

which were to infuse into the new generation a sense of pride

in India’s past, a new faith in India’s culture, and a rare sense

of confidence in India’s future; to bring about a unification

of Hinduism by pointing out the common foundation of its

sects; to make the educated people see the misery of the

downtrodden and work for their uplift by the application of

practical Vedanta principles. His emphasis was not only on

personal salvation but also on social good and reform.

In 1897, he founded the Ramakrishna Mission.

Vivekananda was a great humanist and used the Ramakrishna

Mission for humanitarian relief and social work. The Mission

stands for religious and social reform. Vivekananda advocated

the doctrine of service—the service of all beings. The service

of jiva (living objects) is the worship of Siva. Life itself

is religion. By service, the Divine exists within man.

Vivekananda was for using technology and modern science

in the service of mankind.

Ever since its inception, the Mission has been running

Views

No other religion preaches the dignity of humanity in such a lofty
strain as Hinduism and no other religion on earth treads upon the
poor and the low in such a fashion as Hinduism.

—Swami Vivekananda

A country where millions have nothing to eat and where few
thousand holy men and brahmins suck the blood of the poor and
do nothing at all for them, is not a country but a living hell. Is
this religion or a dance of death?

—Swami Vivekananda

Forget not that the lower classes, the ignorant, the poor, the
illiterate, the cobbler, the sweeper are thy flesh and blood, thy
brothers.

—Swami Vivekananda

Survey of Reform Movements and Leaders

✫

235

a number of schools, hospitals, dispensaries. It offers help

to the afflicted in times of natural calamities like earthquakes,

famines, floods, and epidemics. The Mission has developed

into a worldwide organisation. It is a deeply religious body,

but it is not a proselytising body. It does not consider itself

to be a sect of Hinduism. In fact, this is one of the strong

reasons for the success of the Mission. Unlike the Arya

Samaj, the Mission recognises the utility and value of image

worship in developing spiritual fervour and worship of the

eternal omnipotent God, although it emphasises on the

essential spirit and not the symbols or rituals. It believes that

the philosophy of Vedanta will make a Christian a better

Christian, and a Hindu a better Hindu.

It was in 1898 that Swami Vivekananda acquired a large

piece of land at Belur where the Ramakrishna Math was

finally shifted and registered as such. The monastic order is

open to all men without discrimination on the basis of caste

or creed.

Dayananda Saraswati and Arya Samaj

The Arya Samaj Movement, revivalist in form though not in

content, was the result of a reaction to Western influences.

Its founder, Dayananda Saraswati or Mulshankar (1824–83)

was born in the old Morvi state in Gujarat in a brahmin family.

He wandered as an ascetic for 15 years (1845–60) in search

of truth. The first Arya Samaj unit was formally set up by

him at Bombay in 1875, and later the headquarters of the

Samaj were established at Lahore.

Dayananda’s views were published in his famous work,

Satyarth Prakash (The True Exposition). His vision of India

included a classless and casteless society, a united India

(religiously, socially, and nationally), and an India free from

foreign rule, with Aryan religion being the common religion

of all. He took inspiration from the Vedas and considered

View

So far as Bengal is concerned Vivekananda may be regarded
as the spiritual father of the modern nationalist movement.

—Subash Chandra Bose

236

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

them to be ‘India’s Rock of Ages’, the infallible and the true

original seed of Hinduism. He gave the slogan “Back to the

Vedas”.

Dayananda’s slogan of ‘Back to the Vedas’ was a call

for a revival of Vedic learning and Vedic purity of religion

and not a revival of Vedic times. He accepted modernity and

displayed a patriotic attitude to national problems.

Dayananda had received education on Vedanta from a

blind teacher named Swami Virajananda in Mathura. Along

with his emphasis on Vedic authority, he stressed the

significance of individual interpretation of the scriptures and

said that every person has the right of access to God. He

criticised later Hindu scriptures such as the Puranas and the

ignorant priests for perverting Hinduism.

Dayananda strongly criticised the escapist Hindu belief

in maya (illusion) as the running theme of all physical

existence and the aim of human life as a struggle to attain

moksha (salvation) through escape from this evil world to

seek union with God. Instead, he advocated that God, soul,

and matter (prakriti) were distinct and eternal entities and

every individual had to work out his own salvation in the light

of the eternal principles governing human conduct. Thus, he

attacked the prevalent popular belief that every individual

contributed and got back from the society according the

principles of niyati (destiny). Dayananda believed in the

theory of karma and reincarnation. But he also said the good

deeds should be primarily for the good of others and not

for self.

Dayananda launched a frontal attack on Hindu orthodoxy,

caste rigidities, untouchability, idolatry, polytheism, belief in

magic, charms and animal sacrifices, taboo on sea voyages,

feeding the dead through shraddhas, etc.

Dayananda subscribed to the Vedic notion of

chaturvarna system in which a person was identified as a

brahmin, kshatriya, vaishya, or shudra not by birth but

according to the occupation and merit of the person.

The Arya Samaj fixed the minimum marriageable age

at 25 years for boys and 16 years for girls. Swami Dayananda

once lamented the Hindu race as “the children of children”.

Survey of Reform Movements and Leaders

✫

237

The ten guiding principles of the Arya Samaj are—

(i) God is the primary source of all true knowledge; (ii) God,

as all-truth, all-knowledge, almighty, immortal, creator of

Universe, is alone worthy of worship; (iii) the Vedas are the

books of true knowledge; (iv) an Arya should always be ready

to accept truth and abandon untruth; (v) dharma, that is, due

consideration of right and wrong, should be the guiding

principle of all actions; (vi) the principal aim of the Samaj

is to promote world’s well-being in the material, spiritual

and social sense; (vii) everybody should be treated with love

and justice; (viii) ignorance is to be dispelled and knowledge

increased; (ix) one’s own progress should depend on uplift

of all others; (x) social well-being of mankind is to be placed

above an individual’s well-being.

The Arya Samaj’s social ideals comprise, among others,

the fatherhood of God and brotherhood of Man, equality of

the sexes, absolute justice and fair play between man and man

and nation and nation. Intercaste marriages and widow

remarriages were also encouraged.

Dayananda also met other reformers of the time—

Keshab Chandra Sen, Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar, Ranade,

Deshmukh, etc.

The Arya Samaj came to be known for the social service

it rendered in times of calamities such as earthquake, famine

and floods. It also took initiative in promoting education.

After the death of Dayananda in 1883, the work of the

samaj was carried on by illustrious members. Education was

an all-important field for the samaj. The Dayananda Anglo-

Vedic (D.A.V.) College was established in 1886 at Lahore.

But a difference of opinion between two groups in the samaj

arose over the curriculum of the D.A.V. College. One group

was known as the College Party (some sources say ‘Culture’

Party), among whose leaders were Lala Hansraj, Lala Lal

Chand and Lala Lajpat Rai, and the other was the Mahatma

(later Gurukul) Party led by Guru Datta Vidyarthi and Lala

Munshi Ram (who later came to be known as Swami

Shraddhanand). While the College Party favoured the

government curriculum and English education to meet

economic and professional needs, the Mahatma Party was

interested in introducing the study of Sanskrit and Vedic

238

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

philosophy in the tradition of ancient gurukuls. Later, the

issue of vegetarianism also became a point of contention:

the College Party had nothing against non-vegetarianism,

claiming that diet was a personal choice and it was not

mentioned in the principles of the samaj; the Mahatma Party

was in favour of all the Aryas being strict vegetarians. In the

end, the Arya Samaj split in 1893 over these issues.

The College Party retained control over the D.A.V.

School and College, while the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Punjab,

and a majority of the local Arya Samaj branches were taken

over by the Mahatma Party. Swami Shraddhanand opened the

Gurukul in 1900 at Gujaranwala (in West Punjab, now in

Pakistan). In 1902, the Gurukul was moved to Kangri near

Haridwar, hence the name, Gurukul Kangri. The gurukul

aimed at providing an indigenous alternative to Lord

Macaulay’s education policy by offering education in the

areas of vedic literature, Indian philosophy, Indian culture as

well as modern sciences and research. The Gurukul believed

in radical social reform. It founded the Kanya Mahavidyalaya

at Jalandhar in 1896 and sponsored education for widows.

The Arya Samaj was able to give self-respect and self-

confidence to the Hindus which helped to undermine the

myth of superiority of whites and the Western culture.

In its zeal to protect the Hindu society from the

onslaught of Christianity and Islam, the Samaj started the

shuddhi (purification) movement to reconvert to the Hindu

fold the converts to Christianity and Islam. An aggressive

campaign of shuddhi led to increasing communalisation of

social life during the 1920s and later snowballed into

communal political consciousness. The shuddhi movement

also attempted to uplift those regarded as untouchables and

outside the caste system of Hindus into pure caste Hindus.

Seva Sadan

A Parsi social reformer, Behramji M. Malabari (1853–1912),

founded the Seva Sadan in 1908 along with a friend, Diwan

Dayaram Gidumal. Malabari spoke vigorously against child

marriage and for widow remarriage among Hindus. It was his

efforts that led to the Age of Consent Act, regulating the

age of consent for females, Seva Sadan specialised in taking

Survey of Reform Movements and Leaders

✫

239

care of those women who were exploited and then discarded

by society. It catered to all castes and provided the destitute

women with education, and medical and welfare services.

[Behramji Malabari acquired and edited the Indian

Spectator.]

Dev Samaj

Founded in 1887 at Lahore by Shiv Narayan Agnihotri (1850–

1927), earlier a Brahmo follower, Dev Sadan is a religious

and social reform society. The society emphasised on the

eternity of the soul, the supremacy of the guru, and the need

for good action. It called for an ideal social behaviour such

as not accepting bribes, avoiding intoxicants and non-vegetarian

food, and keeping away from violent actions. Its teachings

were compiled in a book, Deva Shastra. Agnihotri spoke

against child marriage.

Dharma Sabha

Radhakant Deb founded this sabha in 1830. An orthodox

society, it stood for the preservation of the status quo in

socio-religious matters, opposing even the abolition of sati.

However, it favoured the promotion of Western education,

even for girls.

Bharat Dharma Mahamandala

An all-India organisation of the orthodox educated Hindus,

it stood for a defence of orthodox Hinduism against the

teachings of the Arya Samajists, the Theosophists, and the

Ramakrishna Mission. Other organisations created to defend

orthodox Hinduism were the Sanatana Dharma Sabha (1895),

the Dharma Maha Parishad in South India, and Dharma

Mahamandali in Bengal. These organisations combined in

1902 to form the single organisation of Bharat Dharma

Mahamandala, with headquarters at Varanasi. This organisation

sought to introduce proper management of Hindu religious

institutions, open Hindu educational institutions, etc. Pandit

Madan Mohan Malaviya was a prominent figure in this

movement.

Radhaswami Movement

Tulsi Ram, a banker from Agra, also known as Shiv Dayal

Saheb, founded this movement in 1861. The Radhaswamis

240

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

believe in one supreme being, supremacy of the guru, a

company of pious people (satsang), and a simple social life.

Spiritual attainment, they believe, does not call for renunciation

of the worldly life. They consider all religions to be true.

While the sect has no belief in temples, shrines, and sacred

places, it considers as necessary duties, works of faith and

charity, service and prayer.

Sree Narayana Guru Dharma Paripalana

(SNDP) Movement

The SNDP movement was an example of a regional movement

born out of conflict between the depressed classes and upper

castes. It was started by Sree Narayana Guru Swamy (1856–

1928) among the Ezhavas of Kerala, who were a backward

caste of toddy-tappers and were considered to be untouchables,

and were denied education and entry into temples. The

Ezhavas were the single largest caste group in Kerala

constituting 26 per cent of the total population. Narayana

Guru, himself from the Ezhava caste, took a stone from the

Neyyar river and installed it as a Sivalinga at Aruvippuram

on Sivaratri in 1888. It was intended to show that consecration

of an idol was not the monopoly of the higher castes. With

this, he began a revolution that soon led to the removal of

many discriminations in Kerala’s society. The movement

(Aruvippuram Movement) drew the famous poet Kumaran

Asan as a disciple of Narayana Guru. In 1889, the Aruvippuram

Kshetra Yogam was formed, which was decided to expand

into a big organisation to help the Ezhavas to progress

materially as well as spiritually.

Thus, the Aruvippuram Sree Narayana Guru Dharma

Paripalana Yogam (in short SNDP) was registered in 1903

under the Indian Companies Act, with Narayana Guru as its

permanent chairman, and Kumaran Asan as the general

secretary. (In the formation of SNDP, the efforts of Dr Palpu

must be acknowledged. He had started the fight for social

justice through movements like Ezhava Memorial, Malayali

Memorial, etc.)

Sree Narayana Guru held all religions to be the same

and condemned animal sacrifice besides speaking against

Survey of Reform Movements and Leaders

✫

241

divisiveness on the basis of caste, race, or creed. On the wall

of the Aruvippuram temple he got inscribed the words,

“Devoid of dividing walls of caste or race, or hatred of rival

faith, we all live here in brotherhood.” He urged the Ezhavas

to leave the toddy-tapping profession and even to stop

drinking liquor.

The SNDP Yogam took up several issues for the

Ezhavas, such as: (i) right of admission to public schools;

(ii) recruitment to government services; (iii) access to roads

and entry to temples; and (iv) political representation. The

movement as a whole brought transformative structural

changes such as upward social mobility, shift in traditional

distribution of power, and a federation of ‘backward castes’

into a large conglomeration.

Vokkaliga Sangha

The Vokkaliga Sangha in Mysore launched an anti-brahmin

movement in 1905.

Justice Movement

This movement in Madras Presidency was started by C.N.

Mudaliar, T.M. Nair, and P. Tyagaraja to secure jobs and

representation for the non-brahmins in the legislature. In

1917, Madras Presidency Association was formed which

demanded separate representation for the lower castes in the

legislature.

Self-Respect Movement

This movement was started by E.V. Ramaswamy Naicker, a

Balija Naidu, in the mid-1920s. The movement aimed at

nothing short of a rejection of the brahminical religion and

culture which Naicker felt was the prime instrument of

exploitation of the lower castes. He sought to undermine the

position of brahmin priests by formalising weddings without

brahmin priests.

Temple Entry Movement

Significant work in this direction had already been done by

reformers and intellectuals like Sree Narayana Guru and

N. Kumaran Asan. T.K. Madhavan, a prominent social reformer

and editor of Deshabhimani, took up the issue of temple

242

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

entry with the Travancore administration. Nothing transpired.

In the meanwhile, Vaikom, in the northern part of Travancore,

became a centre of agitation for temple entry. In 1924, the

Vaikom Satyagraha, led by K.P. Kesava, was launched in

Kerala demanding the throwing open of Hindu temples and

roads to the untouchables. The satyagraha was reinforced by

jathas from Punjab and Madurai. Gandhi undertook a tour

of Kerala in support of the movement.

Again, in 1931, when the Civil Disobedience Movement

was suspended, temple entry movement was organised in

Kerala. Inspired by K. Kelappan, poet Subramaniyam

Tirumambu (the ‘singing sword of Kerala’) led a group of

16 volunteers to Guruvayur. Leaders like P. Krishna Pillai

and A.K. Gopalan were among the satyagrahis. Finally, on

November 12, 1936, the Maharaja of Travancore issued a

proclamation throwing open all government-controlled

temples to all Hindus.

A similar step was taken by the C. Rajagopalachari

administration in Madras in 1938.

Indian Social Conference

Founded by M.G. Ranade and Raghunath Rao, the Indian

Social Conference met annually from its first session in

Madras in 1887 at the same time and venue as the Indian

National Congress. It focused attention on the social issues

of importance; it could be called the social reform cell of

the Indian National Congress, in fact. The conference advocated

inter-caste marriages, opposed polygamy and kulinism. It

launched the ‘Pledge Movement’ to inspire people to take

a pledge against child marriage.

Wahabi/Walliullah Movement

The teachings of Abdul Wahab of Arabia and the preachings

of Shah Walliullah (1702–63) inspired this essentially

revivalist response to Western influences and the degeneration

which had set in among Indian Muslims and called for a return

to the true spirit of Islam. He was the first Indian Muslim

leader of the 18th century to organise Muslims around the

two-fold ideals of this movement: (i) desirability of harmony

among the four schools of Muslim jurisprudence which had

Survey of Reform Movements and Leaders

✫

243

divided the Indian Muslims (he sought to integrate the best

elements of the four schools); (ii) recognition of the role

of individual conscience in religion where conflicting

interpretations were derived from the Quran and the Hadis.

The teachings of Walliullah were further popularised

by Shah Abdul Aziz and Syed Ahmad Barelvi who also gave

them a political perspective. Un-Islamic practices that had

crept into Muslim society were sought to be eliminated. Syed

Ahmad called for a return to the pure Islam and the kind of

society that had existed in the Arabia of the Prophet’s time.

India was considered to be dar-ul-Harb (land of the kafirs),

and it needed to be converted to dar-ul-Islam (land of Islam).

Initially, the movement was directed at the Sikhs in Punjab,

but after the British annexation of Punjab (1849), the

movement was directed against the British. During the 1857

Revolt, the Wahabi’s played an important role in spreading

anti-British feelings. The Wahabi Movement fizzled out in

the face of British military might in the 1870s.

Titu Mir’s Movement

Syed Mir Nisar Ali, popularly known as Titu Mir, was a

disciple of Syed Ahmad Barelvi (of Rae Bareilly), an adherent

of the Wahabi movement. Titu Mir adopted Wahabism and

advocated the Sharia. He organised the Muslim peasants of

Bengal against the landlords, who were mosly Hindu, and the

British indigo planters. The movement was not as militant

as the British records made it out to be; only in the last year

of Titu’s life was there a confrontation between him and

the British police. He was killed in action in 1831.

Faraizi Movement

The movement, also called the Fara’idi Movement because

of its emphasis on the Islamic pillars of faith, was founded

by Haji Shariatullah in 1819. Its scene of action was East

Bengal, and it aimed at the eradication of social innovations

or un-Islamic practices current among the Muslims of the

region and draw their attention to their duties as Muslims.

Under the leadership of Haji’s son, Dudu Mian, the movement

became revolutionary from 1840 onwards. He gave the

movement an organisational system from the village to the

244

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

provincial level with a khalifa or authorised deputy at every

level. The Fara’idis organised a paramilitary force armed with

clubs to fight the zamindars who were mostly Hindu, though

there were some Muslim landlords too, besides the indigo

planters. Dudu Mian asked his followers not to pay rent. The

organisation even established its own law courts.

Dudu Mian was arrested several times, and his arrest

in 1847 finally weakened the movement. The movement

survived merely as a religious movement without political

overtones after the death of Dudu Mian in 1862.

Ahmadiyya Movement

The Ahmadiyya forms a sect of Islam which originated from

India. It was founded by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in 1889. It

was based on liberal principles. It described itself as the

standard-bearer of Mohammedan Renaissance, and based

itself, like the Brahmo Samaj, on the principles of universal

religion of all humanity, opposing jihad (sacred war against

non-Muslims). The movement spread Western liberal education

among the Indian Muslims. The Ahmadiyya community is the

only Islamic sect to believe that the Messiah had come in

the person of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to end religious wars

and bloodshed and to reinstate morality, peace, and justice.

They believed in separating the mosque from the State as

well as in human rights and tolerance. However, the Ahmadiyya

Movement, like Baha’ism which flourished in the West Asian

countries, suffered from mysticism.

Sir Syed Ahmed Khan and the Aligarh

Movement

The British view on the revolt of 1857 held the Muslims

to be the main conspirators. This view was further strengthened

by the activities of the Wahabis. But later, an opinion got

currency among the rulers that the Muslims could be used

as allies against a rising tide of nationalist political activity

represented, among others, by the foundation of the Indian

National Congress. This was to be achieved through offers

of thoughtful concessions to the Muslims. A section of

Muslims led by Syed Ahmed Khan (1817–98) was ready to

allow the official patronage to stimulate a process of growth

Survey of Reform Movements and Leaders

✫

245

among Indian Muslims through better education and

employment opportunities.

Syed Ahmed Khan, born in a respectable Muslim

family, was a loyalist member of the judicial service of the

British government. After retirement in 1876, he became a

member of the Imperial Legislative Council in 1878. His

loyalty earned him a knighthood in 1888. He wanted to

reconcile Western scientific education with the teachings of

the Quran, which were to be interpreted in the light of

contemporary rationalism and science even though he also

held the Quran to be the ultimate authority. He said that

religion should be adaptable with time or else it would

become fossilised, and that religious tenets were not

immutable. He advocated a critical approach and freedom of

thought and not complete dependence on tradition or custom.

He was also a zealous educationist—as an official, he opened

schools in towns, got books translated into Urdu, and started

the Mohammedan Anglo-Oriental College (later, the Aligarh

Muslim University) at Aligarh in 1875. He also struggled to

bring about an improvement in the position of women through

better education and by opposing purdah and polygamy,

advocating easy divorce, and condemning the system of piri

and muridi. He believed in the fundamental underlying unity

of religions or ‘practical morality’. He also preached the

basic commonality of Hindu and Muslim interests.

Syed Ahmed Khan argued that Muslims should first

concentrate on education and jobs and try to catch up with

their Hindu counterparts who had gained the advantage of an

early start. Active participation in politics at that point, he

felt, would invite hostility of the government towards the

Muslim masses. Therefore, he opposed political activity by

the Muslims. Unfortunately, in his enthusiasm to promote

the educational and employment interests of the Muslims,

he allowed himself to be used by the colonial government

in its obnoxious policy of divide and rule and, in later years,

started propagating divergence of interests of Hindus and

Muslims.

Syed’s progressive social ideas were propagated through

246

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

his magazine Tahdhib-ul-Akhlaq (Improvement of Manners

and Morals).

The Aligarh Movement emerged as a liberal, modern

trend among the Muslim intelligentsia based in Mohammedan

Anglo-Oriental College, Aligarh. It aimed at spreading:

(i) modern education among Indian Muslims without weakening

their allegiance to Islam; (ii) social reforms among Muslims

relating to purdah, polygamy, widow remarriage, women’s

education, slavery, divorce, etc. The ideology of the followers

of the movement was based on a liberal interpretation of the

Quran and they sought to harmonise Islam with modern

liberal culture. They wanted to impart a distinct socio-cultural

identity to Muslims on modern lines. Soon, Aligarh became

the centre of religious and cultural revival of the Muslim

community.

The Deoband School (Darul Uloom)

The Deoband Movement was organised by the orthodox

section among the Muslim ulema as a revivalist movement

with the twin objectives of propagating pure teachings of the

Quran and Hadis among Muslims and keeping alive the spirit

of jihad against the foreign rulers.

The Deoband Movement was begun at the Darul Uloom

(or Islamic academic centre), Deoband, in Saharanpur district

(United Provinces) in 1866 by Muhammad Qasim Nanautavi

(1832–80) and Rashid Ahmad Gangohi (1828–1905) to train

religious leaders for the Muslim community. In contrast to

the Aligarh Movement, which aimed at the welfare of

Muslims through Western education and support of the

British government, the aim of the Deoband Movement was

moral and religious regeneration of the Muslim community.

The instruction imparted at Deoband was in original Islamic

religion.

On the political front, the Deoband school welcomed

the formation of the Indian National Congress and in 1888

issued a fatwa (religious decree) against Syed Ahmed Khan’s

organisations, the United Patriotic Association and the

Mohammaden Anglo-Oriental Association. Some critics

attribute Deoband’s support to the nationalists more to its

Survey of Reform Movements and Leaders

✫

247

determined opposition to Syed Ahmed Khan than to any

positive political philosophy.

Mahmud-ul-Hasan, the new Deoband leader, gave a

political and intellectual content to the religious ideas of the

school. He worked out a synthesis of Islamic principles and

nationalist aspirations. The Jamiat-ul-Ulema gave a concrete

shape to Hasan’s ideas of protection of the religious and

political rights of the Muslims in the overall context of Indian

unity and national objectives.

Shibli Numani, a supporter of the Deoband school,

favoured the inclusion of English language and European

sciences in the system of education. He founded the Nadwatal

Ulama and Darul Uloom in Lucknow in 1894–96. He

believed in the idealism of the Congress and cooperation

between the Muslims and the Hindus of India to create a state

in which both could live amicably.

Parsi Reform Movements

The Rahnumai Mazdayasnan Sabha (Religious Reform

Association) was founded in 1851 by a group of English-

educated Parsis for the “regeneration of the social conditions

of the Parsis and the restoration of the Zoroastrian religion

to its pristine purity”. The movement had Naoroji Furdonji,

Dadabhai Naoroji, K.R. Cama, and S.S. Bengalee as its

leaders. The message of reform was spread by the newspaper

Rast Goftar (Truth-Teller). Parsi religious rituals and practices

were reformed and the Parsi creed redefined. In the social

sphere, attempts were made to uplift the status of Parsi

women through removal of the purdah system, raising the

age of marriage and education. Gradually, the Parsis emerged

as the most westernised section of the Indian society.

Sikh Reform Movements

The Sikh community could not remain untouched by the

rising tide of rationalist and progressive ideas of the 19th

century.

The Singh Sabha Movement was founded at Amritsar

in 1873 with a two-fold objective: (i) to make available

modern western education to the Sikhs, and (ii) to counter

the proselytising activities of Christian missionaries as well

as the Brahmo Samajists, Arya Samajists, and Muslim maulvis.

248

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

For the first objective, a network of Khalsa schools was

established by the Sabha throughout Punjab. In the second

direction, everything that went against the Gurus’ teachings

was rejected, and rites and customs considered to be

consistent with Sikh doctrine were sought to be established.

The Akali Movement (also known as Gurudwara

Reform Movement) was an offshoot of the Singh Sabha

Movement. It aimed at liberating the Sikh gurudwaras from

the control of corrupt Udasi mahants (the post having become

hereditary). These mahants were a loyalist and reactionary

lot, enjoying government patronage. The government tried its

repressive policies against the non-violent non-cooperation

satyagraha launched by the Akalis in 1921, but had to bow

before popular demands; it passed the Sikh Gurudwaras Act

in 1922 (amended in 1925) which gave the control of

gurudwaras to the Sikh masses to be administered through

Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC) as the

apex body.

The Akali Movement was a regional movement but not

a communal one. The Akali leaders played a notable role in

the national liberation struggle though some dissenting voices

were heard occasionally.

The Theosophical Movement

A group of westerners led by Madame H.P. Blavatsky (1831–

91) and Colonel M.S. Olcott, who were inspired by Indian

thought and culture, founded the Theosophical Society in

New York City, United States in 1875. In 1882, they shifted

their headquarters to Adyar, on the outskirts of Madras (at

that time) in India. The society believed that a special

relationship could be established between a person’s soul and

God by contemplation, prayer, revelation, etc. It accepted the

Hindu beliefs in reincarnation and karma, and drew inspiration

from the philosophy of the Upanishads and samkhya, yoga,

and Vedanta schools of thought. It aimed to work for

universal brotherhood of humanity without distinction of

race, creed, sex, caste, or colour. The society also sought

to investigate the unexplained laws of nature and the powers

latent in man. The Theosophical Movement came to be allied

with the Hindu renaissance. (At one time it allied with the

Survey of Reform Movements and Leaders

✫

249

Arya Samaj too.) It opposed child marriage and advocated

the abolition of caste discrimination, uplift of and improvement

in the condition of widows.

In India, the movement became somewhat popular with

the election of Annie Besant (1847–1933) as its president

after the death of Olcott in 1907. Annie Besant had come

to India in 1893. She laid the foundation of the Central Hindu

College in Benaras in 1898 where both Hindu religion and

Western scientific subjects were taught. The college became

the nucleus for the formation of Benaras Hindu University

in 1916. Annie Besant also did much for the cause of the

education of women.

The Theosophical Society provided a common denomi-

nator for the various sects and fulfilled the urge of educated

Hindus. However, to an average Indian, the Theosophist

philosophy seemed to be vague and lacking a positive

programme; to that extent, its impact was limited to a small

segment of the westernised class. As religious revivalists, the

Theosophists did not attain much success, but as a movement

of westerners glorifying Indian religious and philosophical

traditions, it gave much-needed self-respect to the Indians

fighting British colonial rule. Viewed from another angle, the

Theosophists also had the effect of giving a false sense of

pride to the Indians in their outdated and sometimes backward-

looking traditions and philosophy.

Significance of Reform
Movements

Positive Aspects

The orthodox sections of society could not accept the

scientific ideological onslaught of the socio-religious rebels.

As a result of this, the reformers were subjected to abuse,

persecution, issuing of fatwas, and even assassination attempts

by the reactionaries.

However, in spite of opposition, these movements

managed to contribute towards the liberation of the individual

from the conformity born out of fear and from uncritical

submission to exploitation by the priests and other classes.

250

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

The translation of religious texts into vernacular languages,

emphasis on an individual’s right to interpret the scriptures,

and simplification of rituals made worship a more personal

experience.

The movements emphasised the human intellect’s

capacity to think and reason.

By weeding out corrupt elements, religious beliefs and

practices, the reformers enabled their followers to meet the

official taunt that their religions and society were decadent

and inferior.

The reform movements gave the rising middle classes

the much-needed cultural roots to cling to, and served the

purpose of reducing the sense of humiliation which the

conquest by a foreign power had produced.

A realisation of the special needs of modern times,

especially in terms of scientific knowledge, and thus promoting

a modern, this-worldly, secular, and rational outlook was a

major contribution of these reform movements. Socially, this

attitude reflected in a basic change in the notions of

‘pollution and purity’. Although traditional values and customs

were a prominent target of attack from the reformers, yet

the reformers aimed at modernisation rather than outright

westernisation based on blind imitation of alien Western

cultural values. In fact, the reform movements sought to

create a favourable social climate for modernisation. To that

extent, these movements ended India’s cultural and intellectual

isolation from the rest of the world. The reformers argued

that modern ideas and culture could be best imbibed by

integrating them into Indian cultural streams.

The underlying concern of these reformist efforts was

revival of the native cultural personality which had got

distorted by various factors over the years. This cultural

ideological struggle was to prove to be an important instrument

in the evolution of national consciousness and a part of Indian

national resolve to resist colonial cultural and ideological

hegemony. However, not all these progressive, nationalist

tendencies were able to outgrow the sectarian and obscurantist

outlook. This was possibly due to the divergent duality of

Survey of Reform Movements and Leaders

✫

251

cultural and political struggles, resulting in cultural

backwardness despite political advancement.

Negative Aspects

One of the major limitations of the religious reform

movements was that they had a narrow social base, namely

the educated and urban middle classes, while the needs of

the vast masses of peasantry and the urban poor were ignored.

The tendency of reformers to appeal to the greatness

of the past and to rely on scriptural authority encouraged

mysticism in new garbs and fostered pseudo-scientific thinking

while exercising a check on the full acceptance of the need

for a modern scientific outlook. But, above all, these

tendencies contributed, at least to some extent, in

compartmentalising Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, and Parsis, as

also alienating high-caste Hindus from low-caste Hindus.

The emphasis on religious and philosophical aspects of

the cultural heritage got somewhat magnified by an insufficient

emphasis on other aspects of culture—art, architecture,

literature, music, science, and technology. To make matters

worse, the Hindu reformers confined their praise of the

Indian past to its ancient period and looked upon the medieval

period of Indian history, essentially as an era of decadence.

This tended to create a notion of two separate peoples, on

the one hand; on the other, an uncritical praise of the past

was not acceptable to the low-caste sections of society which

had suffered under religiously sanctioned exploitation during

the ancient period. Moreover, the past itself tended to be

placed into compartments on a partisan basis. Many in the

Muslim middle classes went to the extent of turning to the

history of West Asia for their traditions and moments of

pride.

The process of evolution of a composite culture which

was evident throughout Indian history showed signs of being

arrested with the rise of another form of consciousness—

communal consciousness—along with national consciousness

among the middle classes.

Many other factors were certainly responsible for the

252

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

birth of communalism in modern times, but, undoubtedly, the

nature of religious reform movements also contributed to it.

On the whole, however, whatever the net outcome of

these reform movements, it was out of this struggle that a

new society evolved in India.

Summary

●

Reform Movements: Among Hindus and for
Depressed classes

Bengal

Raja Rammohan Roy and Brahmo Samaj
Debendranath Tagore and Tattvabodhini Sabha
Keshub Chandra Sen and Brahmo Samaj of India
Prarthana Samaj
Derozio and Young Bengal Movement
Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar

Western India

Bal Shastri Jambekar
Students’ Literary and Scientific Societies
Paramhansa Mandalis
Jyotiba Phule and Satyashodhak Samaj
Gopal Walangkar
Kisan Faguji Bansod
Vitthal Ramji Shinde
Gopalhari Deshmukh ‘Lokahitawadi’
Gopal Ganesh Agarkar
Servants of India Society

Southern India

Sri Narayana Dharma Paripalana Movement
Vokkaliga Sangha
Justice Movement
Self-respect Movement
Temple Entry Movement

All India

Ramakrishna Movement and Vivekananda
Dayananda Saraswati and Arya Samaj
Theosophical Movement

●

Among Muslims

Wahabi/Walliullah Movement
Ahmadiyya Movement

Survey of Reform Movements and Leaders

✫

253

Syed Ahmed Khan and Aligarh Movement
Deoband Movement

●

Among Parsis

Rahnumai Mazdayasnan Sabha

●

Among Sikhs

Singh Sabha Movement
Akali Movement

●

Positive Aspects

Liberation of individual from conformity out of fear psychosis.
Worship made a more personal affair
Cultural roots to the middle classes—thus mitigating the
sense of humiliation; much needed self-respect gained
Fostered secular outlook
Encouraged social climate for modernisation
Ended India’s cultural, intellectual isolation from rest of the
world
Evolution of national consciousness

●

Negative Aspects

Narrow social base
Indirectly encouraged mysticism
Overemphasis on religious, philosophical aspects of culture
while underemphasising secular and moral aspects
Hindus confined their praise to ancient Indian history and
Muslims to medieval history—created a notion of two separate
peoples and increased communal consciousness
Historical process of evolution of composite culture arrested
to some extent

254

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

254

CHAPTER 10

Beginning of Modern

Nationalism in India

Factors in the Growth of
Modern Nationalism

The rise and growth of Indian nationalism has been traditionally

explained in terms of Indian response to the stimulus

generated by the British Raj through creation of new

institutions, new opportunities, resources, etc. In other

words, Indian nationalism grew partly as a result of colonial

policies and partly as a reaction to colonial policies. In fact,

it would be more correct to see Indian nationalism as a

product of a mix of various factors:

(i) Worldwide upsurge of the concepts of nationalism

and the right of self-determination initiated by the

French Revolution

(ii) Indian Renaissance

UNIT 5

The Struggle

Begins

Chapters 10 and 11

Beginning of Modern Nationalism in India

✫

255

(iii) Offshoot of modernisation initiated by the British in

India

(iv) Strong reaction to British imperialist policies in

India

Understanding of Contradictions in Indian
and Colonial Interests

People came to realise that colonial rule was the major cause

of India’s economic backwardness and that the interests of

the Indians involved the interests of all sections and classes—

peasants, artisans, handicraftsmen, workers, intellectuals, the

educated, and the capitalists. The nationalist movement arose

to take up the challenge of these contradictions inherent in

the character and policies of colonial rule.

Political, Administrative, and Economic
Unification of the Country

The British rule in the Indian subcontinent extended from the

Himalayas in the north to the Cape Comorin in the south

and from Assam in the east to Khyber Pass in the west. While

large areas of India had been brought under a single rule in

the past—under the Mauryas or later under the Mughals—

the British created a larger state than that of the Mauryas

or the great Mughals. While Indian provinces were under

‘direct’ British rule, the princely states were under ‘indirect’

British rule. The British sword imposed political unity in

India. A professional civil service, a unified judiciary and

codified civil and criminal laws throughout the length and

breadth of the country imparted a new dimension of political

unity to the hitherto cultural unity that had existed in India

for centuries. The necessities of administrative convenience,

considerations of military defence, and the urge for economic

penetration and commercial exploitation (all in British

interests) were the driving forces behind the planned

development of modern means of transport and communication

such as railways, roads, electricity, and telegraph.

From the nationalists’ point of view, this process of

unification had a two-fold effect:

(i) The economic fate of the people of different regions

got linked together; for instance, failure of crops in one

region affected the prices and supply in another region.

256

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

(ii) Modern means of transport and communication

brought people, especially the leaders, from different regions

together. This was important for the exchange of political

ideas and for mobilisation and organisation of public opinion

on political and economic issues.

Western Thought and Education

The introduction of a modern system of education afforded

opportunities for assimilation of modern Western ideas. This,

in turn, gave a new direction to Indian political thinking,

although the English system of education had been conceived

by the rulers in the self-interest of efficient administration.

The liberal and radical thought of European writers like

Milton, Shelley, John Stuart Mill, Rousseau, Paine, Spencer

and Voltaire helped many Indians imbibe modern rational,

secular, democratic, and nationalist ideas.

The English language helped nationalist leaders from

different linguistic regions to communicate with each other.

Those among the educated who took up liberal professions

(lawyers, doctors, etc.) often visited England for higher

education. There they saw the working of modern political

institutions in a free country and compared that system with

the Indian situation where even basic rights were denied to

the citizens. This ever-expanding English educated class

formed the middle-class intelligentsia who constituted the

nucleus for the newly arising political unrest. It was this

section which provided leadership to the Indian political

associations.

Role of Press and Literature

The second half of the 19th century saw an unprecedented

growth of Indian-owned English and vernacular newspapers,

despite numerous restrictions imposed on the press by the

colonial rulers from time to time. In 1877, there were about

169 newspapers published in vernacular languages and their

circulation reached the neighbourhood of 1,00,000.

The press while criticising official policies, on the one

hand, urged the people to unite, on the other. It also helped

spread modern ideas of self-government, democracy, civil

rights, and industrialisation. The newspapers, journals,

pamphlets, and nationalist literature helped in the exchange

of political ideas among nationalist leaders from different

regions.

Beginning of Modern Nationalism in India

✫

257

Rediscovery of India’s Past

The historical researches by European scholars, such as Max

Mueller, Monier Williams, Roth and Sassoon, and by Indian

scholars such as R.G. Bhandarkar, R.L. Mitra, and later Swami

Vivekananda, created an entirely new picture of India’s past.

This picture was characterised by well-developed political,

economic, and social institutions, a flourishing trade with the

outside world, a rich heritage in arts and culture and

numerous cities. The theory put forward by European scholars,

that the Indo-Aryans belonged to the same ethnic group from

which other nations of Europe had evolved, gave a

psychological boost to the educated Indians. The self-respect

and confidence so gained helped the nationalists to demolish

colonial myths that India had a long history of servility to

foreign rulers.

Progressive Character of Socio-religious
Reform Movements

These reform movements sought to remove social evils

which divided the Indian society; this had the effect of

bringing different sections together and proved to be an

important factor in the growth of Indian nationalism.

Rise of Middle-Class Intelligentsia

British administrative and economic innovations gave rise to

a new urban middle class in towns. According to Percival

Spear, “The new middle class was a well-integrated all-India

class with varied background but a common foreground of

knowledge, ideas and values.... It was a minority of Indian

society, but a dynamic minority.... It had a sense of unity

of purpose and of hope.”

This class, prominent because of its education, new

position, and its close ties with the ruling class, came to the

forefront. The leadership to the Indian National Congress in

all its stages of growth was provided by this class.

Impact of Contemporary Movements
in the World

Rise of a number of nations on the ruins of the Spanish and

Portuguese empires in South America, and the national

liberation movements of Greece and Italy in general and of

Ireland in particular deeply influenced the nationalist ranks.

258

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Reactionary Policies and Racial
Arrogance of Rulers

Racial myths of white superiority were sought to be perpetuated

by the British through a deliberate policy of discrimination

and segregation. Indians felt deeply hurt by this. Lytton’s

reactionary policies such as reduction of maximum age limit

for the I.C.S. examination from 21 years to 19 years (1876),

the grand Delhi Durbar of 1877 when the country was in the

severe grip of famine, the Vernacular Press Act (1878), and

the Arms Act (1878) provoked a storm of opposition in the

country. Then came the Ilbert Bill controversy. Ripon’s

Government had sought to abolish “judicial disqualification

based on race distinctions” and to give the Indian members

of the covenanted civil service the same powers and rights

as those enjoyed by their European colleagues. Ripon had

to modify the bill, thus almost defeating the original purpose,

because of the stiff opposition from the European community.

It became clear to the nationalists that justice and fair

play could not be expected where interests of the European

community were involved. However, the organised agitation

by the Europeans to revoke the Ilbert Bill also taught the

nationalists how to agitate for certain rights and demands.

Political Associations Before the
Indian National Congress

The Indian National Congress was not the first political

organisation in India. However, most of the political

associations in the early half of the 19th century were

dominated by wealthy and aristocratic elements. They were

local or regional in character. Through long petitions to the

British Parliament most of them demanded—

●

administrative reforms;

●

association of Indians with the administration; and

●

spread of education.

The political associations of the second half of the 19th

century came to be increasingly dominated by the educated

middle class—the lawyers, journalists, doctors, teachers,

etc.,—and they had a wider perspective and a larger agenda.

Beginning of Modern Nationalism in India

✫

259

Political Associations in Bengal

The Bangabhasha Prakasika Sabha was formed in

1836 by associates of Raja Rammohan Roy.

The Zamindari Association, more popularly known as

the ‘Landholders’ Society’, was founded to safeguard the

interests of the landlords. Although limited in its objectives,

the Landholders’ Society marked the beginning of an organised

political activity and use of methods of constitutional agitation

for the redressal of grievances.

The Bengal British India Society was founded in

1843 with the object of “the collection and dissemination

of information relating to the actual condition of the people

of British India... and to employ such other means of peaceful

and lawful character as may appear calculated to secure the

welfare, extend the just rights and advance the interests of

all classes of our fellow subjects”.

In 1851, both the Landholders’ Society and the Bengal

British India Society merged into the British Indian

Association. It sent a petition to the British Parliament

demanding inclusion of some of its suggestions in the

renewed Charter of the Company, such as:

(i) establishment of a separate legislature of a popular

character;

(ii) separation of executive from judicial functions;

(iii) reduction in salaries of higher officers; and

(iv) abolition of salt duty, abkari, and stamp duties.

These were partially accepted when the Charter Act of

1853 provided for the addition of six members to the

governor general’s council for legislative purposes.

The East India Association was organised by Dadabhai

Naoroji in 1866 in London to discuss the Indian question

and influence public men in England to promote Indian

welfare. Later, branches of the association were started in

prominent Indian cities.

The Indian League was started in 1875 by Sisir Kumar

Ghosh with the object of “stimulating the sense of nationalism

amongst the people” and of encouraging political education.

The Indian Association of Calcutta (also known as

the Indian National Association) superseded the Indian

260

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

League and was founded in 1876 by younger nationalists of

Bengal led by Surendranath Banerjea and Ananda Mohan

Bose, who were getting discontented with the conservative

and pro-landlord policies of the British Indian Association.

The Indian Association was the most important of pre-

Congress associations and aimed to “promote by every

legitimate means the political, intellectual and material

advancement of the people.” It set out to:

(i) create a strong public opinion on political questions;

and

(ii) unify Indian people in a common political

programme.

It protested against the reduction of age limit in 1877

for candidates of the Indian Civil Service examination. The

association demanded simultaneous holding of civil service

examination in England and India and Indianisation of higher

administrative posts. It led a campaign against the repressive

arms act and the vernacular press act.

Branches of the association were opened in other towns

and cities of Bengal and even outside Bengal. The membership

fee was kept low in order to attract the poorer sections to

the association.

The association sponsored an all-India conference

which first took place in Calcutta from December 28 to 30,

1883. More than hundred delegates from different parts of

the country attended. So, in a way, the association was a

forerunner of the Indian National Congress as an all-India

nationalist organisation. It later merged with the Indian

National Congress in 1886.

Political Associations in Bombay

The Poona Sarvajanik Sabha was founded in 1867 by

Mahadev Govind Ranade and others, with the object of

serving as a bridge between the government and the people.

The Bombay Presidency Association was started by

Badruddin Tyabji, Pherozeshah Mehta, and K.T. Telang in

1885.

Political Associations in Madras

The Madras Mahajan Sabha was founded in 1884 by

M. Viraraghavachari (also, Veeraraghavachariar), B.

Subramania

Aiyer, and P.

Ananda- charlu.

Beginning of Modern Nationalism in India

✫

261

Pre-Congress Campaigns

The associations organised various campaigns before the

Indian National Congress appeared on the scene. These

campaigns were:

(i) for imposition of import duty on cotton (1875)

(ii) for Indianisation of government service (1878–79)

(iii) against Lytton’s Afghan adventure

(iv) against Arms Act (1878)

(v) against Vernacular Press Act (1878)

(vi) for right to join volunteer corps

(vii) against plantation labour and against Inland Emigration

Act

(viii) in support of Ilbert Bill

(ix) for an All-India Fund for Political Agitation

(x) campaign in Britain to vote for pro-India party

(xi) against reduction in maximum age for appearing in

Indian Civil Service; the Indian Association took up

this question and organised an all-India agitation

against it, popularly known as the Indian Civil

Service agitation.

Summary

●

Factors in Growth of Modern Nationalism
Understanding of contradictions in Indian and colonial interests
Political, administrative, and economic unification of the country
Western thought and education
Role of press and literature
Rediscovery of India’s past—historical researches
Rise of middle-class intelligentsia
Impact of contemporary movements worldwide
Reactionary policies and racial arrogance of rulers

●

Political Associations Before Indian National Congress
1836—Bangabhasha Prakasika Sabha

Zamindari Association or Landholders’ Society

1843—Bengal British India Society
1851—British Indian Association
1866—East India Association
1870—Poona Sarvajanik Sabha
1875—Indian League
1876—Indian Association of Calcutta or Indian National
Association
1885—Bombay Presidency Association
1884—Madras Mahajan Sabha

262

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

262

CHAPTER 11

Indian National Congress:

Foundation and the

Moderate Phase

Foundation of the Indian

National Congress

In the later 1870s and early 1880s, a solid ground had been
prepared for the establishment of an all-India organisation.

The final shape to this idea was given by a retired English

civil servant, A.O. Hume, who mobilised leading intellectuals

of the time and, with their cooperation, organised the first

session of the Indian National Congress at Gokuldas Tejpal

Sanskrit College in Bombay in December 1885. As a prelude

to this, two sessions of the Indian National Conference had

been held in 1883 and 1885, which had representatives drawn

from all major towns of India. Surendranath Banerjea and

Ananda Mohan Bose were the main architects of the Indian

National Conference.

The first session of the Indian National Congress was

attended by 72 delegates and presided over by Womesh

Chandra (or Chunder) Bonnerjee. Hereafter, the Congress

met every year in December, in a different part of the country

each time. Some of the great presidents of the Congress

during this early phase were Dadabhai Naoroji (thrice

Indian National Congress

✫

263

president), Badruddin Tyabji, Pherozeshah Mehta, P.

Anandacharlu, Surendranath Banerjea, Romesh Chandra Dutt,

Ananda Mohan Bose, and Gopal Krishna Gokhale. Other

prominent leaders included Mahadev Govind Ranade, Bal

Gangadhar Tilak, Sisir Kumar Ghosh, Motilal Ghosh, Madan

Mohan Malaviya, G. Subramania Aiyar, C. Vijayaraghavachariar,

Dinshaw E. Wacha.

In 1890, Kadambini Ganguly, the first woman graduate

of Calcutta University, addressed the Congress session,

which symbolised the commitment of the freedom struggle

to give the women of India their due status in national life.

Apart from the Indian National Congress, nationalist

activity was carried out through provincial conferences and

associations, newspapers, and literature.

Was It a Safety Valve?

There is a theory that Hume formed the Congress with the

idea that it would prove to be a ‘safety valve’ for releasing

the growing discontent of the Indians. To this end, he

convinced Lord Dufferin not to obstruct the formation of

the Congress. The extremist leaders like Lala Lajpat Rai

believed in the ‘safety valve’ theory. Even the Marxist

historian’s ‘conspiracy theory’ was an offspring of the ‘safety

valve’ notion. For example, R.P. Dutt opined that the Indian

National Congress was born out of a conspiracy to abort a

popular uprising in India and the bourgeois leaders were a

party to it.

Modern Indian historians, however, dispute the idea of

‘safety valve’. In their opinion, the Indian National Congress

represented the urge of the politically conscious Indians to

set up a national body to express the political and economic

demands of the Indians. If the Indians had convened such a

body on their own, there would have been unsurmountable

opposition from the officials; such an organisation would not

have been allowed to form. In the circumstances, as Bipan

Chandra observes, the early Congress leaders used Hume as

a ‘lightning conductor’, i.e., as a catalyst to bring together

the nationalistic forces even if under the guise of a ‘safety

valve’.

264

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Aims and Objectives of the Congress

The main aims of the Indian National Congress in the initial

stage were to:

(i) found a democratic, nationalist movement;

(ii) politicise and politically educate people;

(iii) establish the headquarters for a movement;

(iv) promote friendly relations among nationalist

political workers from different parts of the

country;

(v) develop and propagate an anti-colonial nationalist

ideology;

(vi) formulate and present popular demands before the

government with a view to unifying the people

over a common economic and political

programme;

(vii) develop and consolidate a feeling of national unity

among people irrespective of religion, caste, or

province.

(viii) carefully promote and nurture Indian nationhood.

Era of Moderates (1885–1905)

Important Leaders

The national leaders like Dadabhai Naoroji, Pherozeshah

Mehta, D.E.

Wacha, W.C.

Bonnerjea, S.N.

Banerjea who

dominated the Congress policies during the early period

(1885–1905) were staunch believers in ‘liberalism’ and

‘moderate’ politics and came to be labelled as Moderates to

distinguish them from the neo-nationalists of the early

twentieth century who were referred to as the Extremists.

Moderate Approach

The moderate political activity involved constitutional agitation

within the confines of law and showed a slow but orderly

political progress. The Moderates believed that the British

basically wanted to be just to the Indians but were not aware

of the real conditions. Therefore, if public opinion could be

created in the country and public demands be presented to

the government through resolutions, petitions, meetings, etc.,

the authorities would concede these demands gradually.

Indian National Congress

✫

265

To achieve these ends, they worked on a two-pronged

methodology—one, create a strong public opinion to arouse

consciousness and national spirit and then educate and unite

people on common political questions; and two, persuade the

British Government and British public opinion to introduce

reforms in India on the lines laid out by the nationalists. They

used the method of ‘prayer and petition’ and if that failed,

they resorted to constitutional agitation.

A British committee of the Indian National Congress

was established in London in 1889 which had India as its

organ. Dadabhai Naoroji spent a substantial portion of his

life and income campaigning for India’s case abroad. In 1890,

it was decided to hold a session of the Indian National

Congress in London in 1892, but owing to the British

elections of 1891 the proposal was postponed and never

revived later.

The Moderate leaders believed that political connections

with Britain were in India’s interest at that stage of history

and that the time was not ripe for a direct challenge to the

British rule. Therefore, it was considered to be appropriate

to try and transform the colonial rule to be as close to a

national rule as possible.

Contributions of Moderate
Nationalists

Economic Critique of British Imperialism

The early nationalists, led by Dadabhai Naoroji, R.C. Dutt,

Dinshaw Wacha and others, carefully analysed the political

economy of British rule in India, and put forward the “drain

theory” to explain British exploitation of India. They opposed

the transformation of a basically self-sufficient Indian economy

into a colonial economy (i.e., a supplier of raw materials and

food stuff, an importer of finished goods and a field of

investment for British capital). Thus, the Moderates were able

to create an all-India public opinion that British rule in India

was the major cause of India’s poverty and economic

backwardness.

To mitigate the deprivation characterising Indian life,

266

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

the early nationalists demanded severance of India’s economic

subservience to Britain and development of an independent

economy through involvement of Indian capital and enterprise.

The early nationalists demanded reduction in land revenue,

abolition of salt tax, improvement in working conditions of

plantation labour, reduction in military expenditure, and

encouragement to modern industry through tariff

protection and direct government aid. (Also refer to chapter

on Economic Impact of British Rule in India.)

Constitutional Reforms and Propaganda in

Legislature

Legislative councils in India had no real official power till

1920. Yet, work done in them by the nationalists helped the

growth of the national movement. The Imperial Legislative

Council constituted by the Indian Councils Act (1861) was

an impotent body designed to disguise official measures as

having been passed by a representative body. Indian members

were few in number—in the 30 years from 1862 to 1892

only 45 Indians were nominated to it, most of them being

wealthy, landed, and with loyalist interests. Only a handful

of political figures and independent intellectuals such as Syed

Ahmed Khan, Kristodas Pal, V.N. Mandlik, K.L. Nulkar, and

Rashbehari Ghosh (also written as Rash Behari Ghose) were

among those nominated.

From 1885 to 1892, the nationalist demands for

constitutional reforms were centred around:

(i) expansion of councils—i.e., greater participation of

Indians in councils; and

(ii) reform of councils—i.e., more powers to councils,

especially greater control over finances.

The early nationalists worked with the long-term

objective of a democratic self-government. Their demands

for constitutional reforms were meant to have been conceded

in 1892 in the form of the Indian Councils Act.

These reforms were severely criticised at Congress

sessions, where the nationalists made no secret of their

dissatisfaction with them. Now, they demanded: (i) a majority

of elected Indians; and (ii) control over the budget, i.e., the

power to vote upon and amend the budget. They gave the

Indian National Congress

✫

267

slogan—“No taxation without representation”. Gradually, the

scope of constitutional demands was widened. Dadabhai

Naoroji (1904), Gopal Krishna Gokhale (1905), and Lokmanya

Tilak (1906) demanded self-government on the lines of the

self-governing colonies of Canada and Australia. Also, leaders

like Pherozeshah Mehta and Gokhale put government policies

and proposals to severe criticism.

The British had intended to use the councils to

incorporate the more vocal among Indian leaders, so as to

allow them to let off their “political steam”, while the

impotent councils could afford to remain deaf to their

criticism. But the nationalists were able to transform these

councils into forums for ventilating popular grievances, for

exposing the defects of an indifferent bureaucracy, for

criticising government policies/proposals, raising basic

economic issues, especially regarding public finance.

Indian Councils Act, 1892

Main Provisions

●

Number of additional members in Imperial Legislative Councils
and the Provincial Legislative Councils was raised. In Imperial
Legislative Council, now the governor general could have 10
to 16 non-officials (instead of six to ten previously).

●

The non-official members of the Indian legislative council were
to be nominated by the Bengal Chamber of Commerce and
provincial legislative councils. The members could be
recommended by universities, municipalities, zamindars, and
chambers of commerce. So, the principle of representation was
introduced.

●

Budget could be discussed.

●

Questions could be asked.

Limitations

●

The officials retained their majority in the council, thus making
ineffective the non-official voice.

●

The ‘reformed’ Imperial Legislative Council met, during its tenure
till 1909, on an average for only 13 days in a year, and the
number of unofficial Indian members present was only five out
of twenty-four.

●

The budget could not be voted upon, nor could any amendments
be made to it.

●

Supplementaries could not be asked, nor could answers to any
question be discussed.

268

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

The nationalists were, thus, able to enhance their

political stature and build a national movement while

undermining the political and moral influence of imperialist

rule. This helped in generating anti-imperialist sentiments

among the public. But, at the same time, the nationalists

failed to widen the democratic base of the movement by not

including the masses, especially women, and not demanding

the right to vote for all.

Campaign for General Administrative

Reforms

The Moderates campaigned on the following grounds:

(i) Indianisation of government service: on the economic

grounds that British civil servants got very high emoluments

while inclusion of Indians would be more economical; on

political grounds that, since salaries of British bureaucrats

were remitted back home and pensions paid in England (all

drawn from Indian revenue), this amounted to economic drain

of national resources; and on moral grounds that Indians

were being discriminated against by being kept away from

positions of trust and responsibility.

(ii) Call for separation of judicial from executive

functions.

(iii) Criticism of an oppressive and tyrannical

bureaucracy and an expensive and time-consuming judicial

system.

(iv) Criticism of an aggressive foreign policy which

resulted in annexation of Burma, attack on Afghanistan, and

suppression of tribals in the North-West—all costing heavily

for the Indian treasury.

(v) Call for increase in expenditure on welfare (i.e.,

health, sanitation), education—especially elementary and

technical—irrigation works and improvement of agriculture,

agricultural banks for cultivators, etc.

(vi) Demand for better treatment for Indian labour

abroad in other British colonies, where they faced oppression

and racial discrimination.

Protection of Civil Rights

Civil rights included the right to speech, thought, association,

and a free press. Through an incessant campaign, the nationalists

Indian National Congress

✫

269

were able to spread modern democratic ideas, and soon the

defence of civil rights became an integral part of the freedom

struggle. It was due to the increased consciousness that there

was a great public outrage at the arrest of Tilak and several

other leaders and journalists in 1897 and at the arrest and

deportation of the Natu brothers without a trial. (Also refer

to chapter on Development of Press in India.)

An Evaluation of the
Early Nationalists

The early nationalists did a great deal to awaken the national

sentiment, even though they could not draw the masses to

them.

(i) They represented the most progressive forces of the

time.

(ii) They were able to create a wide national awakening

of all Indians having common interests and the need to rally

around a common programme against a common enemy, and

above all, the feeling of belonging to one nation.

(iii) They trained people in political work and popularised

modern ideas.

(iv) They exposed the basically exploitative character

of colonial rule, thus undermining its moral foundations.

(v) Their political work was based on hard realities, and

not on shallow sentiments, religion, etc.

(vi) They were able to establish the basic political truth

that India should be ruled in the interest of Indians.

(vii) They created a solid base for a more vigorous,

militant, mass-based national movement in the years that

followed.

(viii) However, they failed to widen their democratic

base and the scope of their demands.

Views

You don’t realise our place in the history of our country. These
memorials are nominally addressed to the Government. In reality
they are addressed to the people, so that they may learn how
to think in these matters. This work must be done for many
years, without expecting any other results, because politics of
this kind is altogether new in this land.

—Justice Mahadev Govind Ranade to Gokhale (1891)

270

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Role of Masses

The moderate phase of the national movement had a narrow

social base and the masses played a passive role. This was

because the early nationalists lacked political faith in the

masses; they felt that there were numerous divisions and sub-

divisions in the Indian society, and the masses were generally

ignorant and had conservative ideas and thoughts. The

Moderates felt that these heterogeneous elements had first

to be welded into a nation before they entered the political

sphere. But they failed to realise that it was only during a

freedom struggle and with political participation that these

diverse elements could come together.

Because of the lack of mass participation, the Moderates

could not take militant political positions against the autho-

rities. The later nationalists differed from the Moderates

precisely on this point. Still, the early nationalists represented

the emerging Indian nation against colonial interests.

Views

We cannot blame them for the attitude they adopted as pioneers
of Indian political reform any more than we can blame the brick
and mortar that is buried six feet deep in the foundation and
plinth of a modern edifice. They have made possible the
superstructure, storey by storey, by colonial self-government,
home rule within the empire, swaraj and on the top of all,
complete independence.

—Pattabhi Sitaramayya

The period from 1858 to 1905 was the seed time of Indian
nationalism; and the early nationalists sowed the seeds well and
deep.

—Bipan Chandra

It was at best an opportunist movement. It opened opportunities
for treacheries and hypocrisies. It enabled some people to trade
in the name of patriotism.

—Lala Lajpat Rai

Attitude of the Government

The British Indian Government was hostile to the Congress

from the beginning despite the latter’s moderate methods and

emphasis on loyalty to the British Crown. The official

attitude stiffened further after 1887 when the government

failed to persuade the Congress to confine itself to social

issues when the Congress was becoming increasingly critical

Indian National Congress

✫

271

Views

The Congress is tottering to its fall, and one of my great
ambitions while in India is to assist it to a peaceful demise.

—Lord Curzon (1900)

of the colonial rule. Now, the government resorted to open

condemnation of the Congress, calling the nationalists

“seditious brahmins”, “disloyal babus”, etc. Dufferin called

the Congress “a factory of sedition”. Later, the government

adopted a ‘divide and rule’ policy towards the Congress. The

officials encouraged reactionary elements like Sir Syed

Ahmed Khan and Raja Shiv Prasad Singh of Benaras to

organise the United Indian Patriotic Association to counter

Congress propaganda. The government also tried to divide

the nationalists on the basis of religion, and, through a policy

of ‘carrot and stick’, pitted the Moderates against the

Extremists. But the government failed to check the rising

tide of nationalism.

Summary

●

Foundation of Indian National Congress
First session held in 1885 (Bombay).
Indian National Union, formed by A.O. Hume, became Indian
National Congress.
Foundational theories of INC and prominent believers:
Safety Valve Theory —Lala Lajpat Rai
Conspiracy Theory—R.P. Dutt
Lightning conductor Theory—G.K. Gokhale
Important leaders of Moderate Phase: Dadabhai Naoroji, Badruddin
Tyabji, Pherozeshah Mehta, P. Ananda Charlu, Surendranath
Banerjea, Romesh Chandra Dutt, Ananda Mohan Bose, G.K.
Gokhale, etc.

●

Early Nationalist Methodology
Constitutional agitation within four walls of law
Create public opinion in India and campaign for support to Indian
demands in England
Political education of people
Political connections with Britain in India’s interests at that stage
Time not ripe for direct challenge to colonial rule

●

Contributions of Moderate Nationalists
Economic critique of British imperialism
Constitutional reforms and propaganda in legislature
Campaign for general administrative reforms
Defence of civil rights

272

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

CHAPTER 12

Era of Militant

Nationalism (1905

–1909)

Growth of Militant Nationalism

A radical trend of a militant nationalist approach to political

activity started emerging in the 1890s, and it took a concrete

shape by 1905. As an adjunct to this trend, a revolutionary

wing also took shape.

Why Militant Nationalism Grew

Many factors contributed to the rise of militant nationalism.
Recognition of the True Nature of British Rule

Having seen that the British government was not conceding

any of their important demands, the more militant among

272

UNIT 6

National Movement

(1905–1918)

Chapters 12 to 14

Era of Militant Nationalism (1905-1909)

✫

273

those politically conscious got disillusioned and started

looking for a more effective mode of political action. Also,

the feeling that only an Indian government could lead India

on to a path of progress started attracting more and more

people. The economic miseries of the 1890s further exposed

the exploitative character of colonial rule. Severe famines

killed 90 lakh persons between 1896 and 1900. Bubonic

plague affected large areas of the Deccan. There were large-

scale riots in the Deccan.

The nationalists were wide awake to the fact that instead

of giving more rights to the Indians, the government was

taking away even the existing ones.

1892 — The Indian Councils Act was criticised by

nationalists as it failed to satisfy them.

1897 — The Natu brothers were deported without trial

and Tilak and others, imprisoned on charges

of sedition.

1898 — Repressive laws under IPC Section 124

were further amplified with new provisions

under IPC Section 156

1899 — The number of Indian members in Calcutta

Corporation were reduced.

1904 — Official Secrets Act curbed freedom of press.

1904 — The Indian Universities Act ensured greater

government control over universities, which

it described as factories producing political

revolutionaries.

Also, British rule was no longer progressive socially

and culturally. It was suppressing the spread of education,

especially mass and technical education.
Growth of Confidence and Self-Respect

There was a growing faith in self-effort. Tilak, Aurobindo,

and Bipin Chandra Pal repeatedly urged the nationalists to

rely on the character and capacities of the Indian people. A

feeling started gaining currency that the masses had to be

involved in the battle against colonial government as they

were capable of making the immense sacrifices needed to

win freedom.
Growth of Education

While, on the one hand, the spread of education led to an

increased awareness among the masses, on the other hand,

274

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

the rise in unemployment and underemployment among the

educated drew attention to poverty and the underdeveloped

state of the country’s economy under colonial rule. This

added to the already simmering discontent among the more

radical nationalists.
International Influences

Remarkable progress made by Japan after 1868 and its

emergence as an industrial power opened the eyes of Indians

to the fact that economic progress was possible even in an

Asian country without any external help. The defeat of the

Italian army by Ethiopians (1896), the Boer wars (1899–

1902) where the British faced reverses, and Japan’s victory

over Russia (1905) demolished myths of European

invincibility. Also, the nationalists were inspired by the

nationalist movements worldwide—in Ireland, Russia, Egypt,

Turkey, Persia, and China. The Indians realised that a united

people willing to make sacrifices could take on the mightiest

of empires.
Reaction to Increasing Westernisation

The new leadership felt the stranglehold of excessive

westernisation and sensed colonial designs to submerge the

Indian national identity in the British Empire. The intellectual

and moral inspiration of the new leadership was Indian.

Intellectuals like Swami Vivekananda, Bankim Chandra

Chatterjee, and Swami Dayananda Saraswati inspired many

young nationalists with their forceful and articulate arguments,

painting India’s past in brighter colours than the British

ideologues had. These thinkers exploded the myth of western

superiority by referring to the richness of the Indian

civilisation in the past. Dayananda’s political message was

‘India for the Indians’.
Dissatisfaction with Achievements of Moderates

The younger elements within the Congress were dissatisfied

with the achievements of the Moderates during the first 15–

20 years. They were strongly critical of the methods of

peaceful and constitutional agitation, popularly known as the

“Three ‘P’s”—prayer, petition and protest—and described

these methods as ‘political mendicancy’.

Era of Militant Nationalism (1905-1909)

✫

275

Reactionary Policies of Curzon

A sharp reaction was created in the Indian mind by Curzon’s

seven-year rule in India which was full of missions,

commissions, and omissions. He refused to recognise India

as a nation and insulted Indian nationalists and the intelligentsia

by describing their activities as “letting off of gas”. He spoke

derogatorily of Indian character in general. Administrative

measures adopted during his rule—the Official Secrets Act,

the Indian Universities Act, the Calcutta Corporation Act, and,

above all, the partition of Bengal—left no doubt in Indian

minds about the basically reactionary nature of British rule

in India.
Existence of a Militant School of Thought

By the dawn of the 20th century, a band of nationalist thinkers

had emerged who advocated a more militant approach to

political work. These included Raj Narain Bose, Ashwini

Kumar Dutta, Aurobindo Ghosh, and Bipin Chandra Pal in

Bengal; Vishnu Shastri Chiplunkar and Bal Gangadhar Tilak

in Maharashtra; and Lala Lajpat Rai in Punjab. Tilak emerged

as the most outstanding representative of this school of

thought.

The basic tenets of this school of thought were:

●

hatred for foreign rule; since no hope could be

derived from it, Indians should work out their own

salvation;

●

swaraj to be the goal of national movement;

●

direct political action required;

Views

If there is a sin in the world, it is weakness; avoid all weakness,
weakness is sin, weakness is death.

Swami Vivekananda

The Extremists of today will be the Moderates of tomorrow, just
as the Moderates of today were the Extremists of yesterday.

B.G. Tilak

What one Asiatic has done, others can do... if Japan can drub
Russia, India can drub England with equal ease... let us drive
the British into the sea and take our place side by side with
Japan among the great powers of the world.

Karachi Chronicle (June 18, 1905)

276

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

●

belief in the capacity of the masses to challenge the

authority;

●

personal sacrifices required and a true nationalist to

be always ready for it.

Emergence of a Trained Leadership

The new leadership could provide a proper channelisation of

the immense potential for political struggle which the masses

possessed and, as the militant nationalists thought, were ready

to give expression to. This energy of the masses got a release

during the movement against the partition of Bengal, which

acquired the form of the swadeshi agitation.

The Swadeshi and Boycott
Movement

The Swadeshi Movement had its genesis in the anti-partition

movement which was started to oppose the British decision

to partition Bengal.

Partition of Bengal to Divide People

The British government’s decision to partition Bengal had

been made public in December 1903. The idea was to have

two provinces: Bengal comprising Western Bengal as well

as the provinces of Bihar and Orissa, and Eastern Bengal,

and Assam. Bengal retained Calcutta as its capital, while

Dacca became the capital of Eastern Bengal. The official

reason given for the decision was that Bengal, with a

population of 78 million (about a quarter of the population

of British India), had become too big to be administered. It

was also stated that partition would help in the development

of Assam if it came under the direct jurisdiction of the

government. This was true to some extent, but the real motive

behind the partition plan was seen to be the British desire

to weaken Bengal, the nerve centre of Indian nationalism. This

it sought to achieve by putting the Bengalis under two

administrations by dividing them:

(i) on the basis of language, thus reducing the Bengalis

to a minority in Bengal itself (as in the new

proposal Bengal proper was to have 17 million

Era of Militant Nationalism (1905-1909)

✫

277

Bengalis and 37 million Hindi and Oriya speakers);

and

(ii) on the basis of religion, as the western half was

to be a Hindu majority area (42 million out of a

total 54 million) and the eastern half was to be a

Muslim majority area (18 million out of a total of

31 million).

Trying to woo the Muslims, Curzon, the viceroy at that

time, argued that Dacca could become the capital of the new

Muslim majority province, which would provide them with

a unity not experienced by them since the days of old Muslim

viceroys and kings. Thus, it was clear that the government

was up to its old policy of propping up Muslim communalists

to counter the Congress and the national movement.

Anti-Partition Campaign Under

Moderates (1903–05)

In the period 1903–05, the leadership was provided by men

like Surendranath Banerjea, K.K. Mitra, and Prithwishchandra

Ray. The methods adopted were petitions to the government,

public meetings, memoranda, and propaganda through

pamphlets and newspapers such as Hitabadi, Sanjibani, and

Bengalee. Their objective was to exert sufficient pressure

on the government through an educated public opinion in

India and England to prevent the unjust partition of Bengal

from being implemented.

Ignoring a loud public opinion against the partition

proposal, the government announced the partition of Bengal

in July 1905. Within days, protest meetings were held in

small towns all over Bengal. It was in these meetings that

the pledge to boycott foreign goods was first taken. On

August 7, 1905, with the passage of the Boycott Resolution

in a massive meeting held in the Calcutta Townhall, the

View

Bengal united is a power. Bengal divided will pull in several
different ways........ One of our main objects is to split up and
thereby to weaken a solid body of opponents to our rule.

—Risley

(home secretary to the

Government of India, 1904)

278

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

formal proclamation of Swadeshi Movement was made.

After this, the leaders dispersed to other parts of Bengal to

propagate the message of boycott of Manchester cloth and

Liverpool salt.

October 16, 1905, the day the partition formally came

into force, was observed as a day of mourning throughout

Bengal. People fasted, bathed in the Ganga, and walked

barefoot in processions singing Bande Mataram (which

almost spontaneously became the theme song of the

movement). ‘Amar Sonar Bangla’, the national anthem of

present-day Bangladesh, was composed by Rabindranath Tagore

and sung by huge crowds marching in the streets. Rabindranath

Tagore and Ramendrasundar Trivedi, secretary of the Bangiya

Sahitya Parishad at the time, appealed to the people to

observe Rakshabandhan day on the date the partition came

into effect, i.e., on October 6, 1905. People tied rakhis on

each other’s hands as a symbol of unity of the two halves

of Bengal. Later in the day, Surendranath Banerjea and Ananda

Mohan Bose addressed huge gatherings (perhaps the largest

till then under the nationalist banner). Within a few hours

of the meeting, Rs 50,000 was raised for the movement.

Soon, the movement spread to other parts of the

country—in Poona and Bombay under Tilak; in Punjab under

Lala Lajpat Rai and Ajit Singh; in Delhi under Syed Haider

Raza; and in Madras under Chidambaram Pillai.

The Congress Position

The Indian National Congress meeting in 1905, under the

presidentship of Gokhale, resolved to: (i) condemn the

partition of Bengal and the reactionary policies of Curzon,

and (ii) support the anti-partition and Swadeshi Movement

of Bengal.

The militant nationalists led by Tilak, Lajpat Rai, Bipin

Chandra Pal, and Aurobindo Ghosh wanted the movement to

be taken outside Bengal to other parts of the country and

go beyond a boycott of foreign goods to become a full-

fledged political mass struggle with the goal of attaining

swaraj. But the Moderates, dominating the Congress at that

time, were not willing to go that far. However, a big step

forward was taken at the Congress session held at Calcutta

Era of Militant Nationalism (1905-1909)

✫

279

(1906) under the presidentship of Dadabhai Naoroji, where

it was declared that the goal of the Indian National Congress

was “self-government or swaraj like the United Kingdom or

the colonies” of Australia or Canada. The Moderate-Extremist

dispute over the pace of the movement and techniques of

struggle reached a deadlock at the Surat session of the Indian

National Congress (1907) where the party split with serious

consequences for the Swadeshi Movement.

The Movement under
Extremist Leadership

After 1905, the Extremists acquired a dominant influence

over the Swadeshi Movement in Bengal. There were three

reasons for this:

(i) The Moderate-led movement had failed to yield

results.

(ii) The divisive tactics of the governments of both the

Bengals had embittered the nationalists.

(iii) The government had resorted to suppressive

measures, which included atrocities on students—many of

whom were given corporal punishment; ban on public singing

of Vande Mataram; restriction on public meetings; prosecution

and long imprisonment of swadeshi workers; clashes between

the police and the people in many towns; arrests and

deportation of leaders; and suppression of freedom of the

press.

The Extremist Programme

Emboldened by Dadabhai Naoroji’s declaration at the Calcutta

session (1906) that self-government or swaraj was to be the

goal of the Congress, the Extremists gave a call for passive

resistance in addition to swadeshi and boycott which would

include a boycott of government schools and colleges,

government service, courts, legislative councils,

municipalities, government titles, etc. The purpose, as

Aurobindo put it, was to “make the administration under

present conditions impossible by an organised refusal to do

anything which will help either the British commerce in the

280

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

exploitation of the country or British officialdom in the

administration of it”.

The militant nationalists tried to transform the anti-

partition and Swadeshi Movement into a mass struggle and

gave the slogan of India’s independence from foreign rule.

“Political freedom is the lifebreath of a nation,” declared

Aurobindo. Thus, the Extremists gave the idea of India’s

independence the central place in India’s politics. The goal

of independence was to be achieved through self-sacrifice.

New Forms of Struggle and Impact

The militant nationalists put forward several fresh ideas at

the theoretical, propaganda, and programme levels. Among

the several forms of struggle thrown up by the movement

were the following:
Boycott of Foreign Goods
Boycott included boycott and public burning of foreign cloth,

boycott of foreign-made salt or sugar, refusal by priests to

ritualise marriages involving exchange of foreign goods,

refusal by washermen to wash foreign clothes. This form of

protest met with great success at the practical and popular

level.
Public Meetings and Processions
Public meetings and processions emerged as major methods

of mass mobilisation. Simultaneously, they were forms of

popular expression.
Corps of Volunteers or ‘Samitis’
Samitis such as the Swadesh Bandhab Samiti of Ashwini

Kumar Dutta (in Barisal) emerged as a very popular and

powerful means of mass mobilisation. In Tirunelveli, Tamil

Nadu, V.O. Chidambaram Pillai, Subramania Siva, and some

lawyers formed the Swadeshi Sangam which inspired the local

masses. These samitis generated political consciousness

among the masses through magic lantern lectures, swadeshi

songs, providing physical and moral training to their members,

social work during famines and epidemics, organisation of

schools, and training in swadeshi crafts and arbitration courts.

Era of Militant Nationalism (1905-1909)

✫

281

Views

Swaraj or self-government is essential for the exercise of
swadharma. Without swaraj there could be no social reform, no
industrial progress, no useful education, no fulfilment of national
life. That is what we seek, that is why God has sent us to
the world to fulfil Him.

—B.G. Tilak

Swadeshism during the days of its potency coloured the entire
texture of our social and domestic life.

—Surendranath Banerjea

Swaraj is the fulfilment of the ancient life of India under modern
conditions, the return of

satyuga of national greatness, the

resumption by her of her great role of the teacher and guide,
self-liberation of the people for final fulfilment of the Vedantic
idea in politics, that is the true swaraj for India.

—Aurobindo Ghosh

Imaginative use of Traditional Popular

Festivals and Melas
The idea was to use traditional festivals and occasions as a

means of reaching out to the masses and spreading political

messages. For instance, Tilak’s Ganapati and Shivaji festivals

became a medium of swadeshi propaganda not only in western

India but also in Bengal. In Bengal also, the traditional folk

theatre forms were used for this purpose.
Emphasis Given to Self-Reliance

Self-reliance or ‘atma shakti’ was encouraged. This implied

re-assertion of national dignity, honour and, confidence and

social and economic regeneration of the villages. In practical

terms, it included social reform and campaigns against caste

oppression, early marriage, dowry system, consumption of

alcohol, etc.
Programme of Swadeshi or National Education

The movement to boycott British educational institutions

gathered momentum in the wake of the British government’s

efforts to suppress the participation of students in the

Swadeshi Movement and the threat to stop grants, affiliation,

and scholarships of the institutions that were dominated by

nationalists. The British action led to the founding of national

schools. In this context, it may be recalled that Raja Subodh

Mullick made a contribution of Rs 100,000 towards the

282

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

foundation of a national university in Bengal. A National

Council of Education was set up on August 15, 1906, and

the Bengal National College and Bengal Technical Institute

were established. The first principal of the Bengal National

College was Aurobindo Ghosh and its first president was

Rashbehari Ghosh. The college was inspired by Tagore’s

school at Shantiniketan which had been set up in 1901.

Several more national schools were established in Bengal and

Bihar.

Satishchandra Mukherjee’s role in encouraging national

education should not be ignored. His newspaper Dawn, in

circulation since 1897, and his Dawn Society, set up in 1902,

had already been propagating the message of self-help in

industry and education. Mukherjee pioneered the national

education movement by founding the Bhagabat Chatuspathi

in 1895. He took a leading part in the formation of the

National Council of Education and later became a lecturer

in the Bengal National College, and its principal when

Aurobindo resigned. The National Council of Education was

set up to organise a system of education—literary, scientific,

and technical—on national lines and under national control.

Education was to be imparted through the vernacular medium.

Funds were even raised to send students to Japan for advanced

learning.
Swadeshi or Indigenous Enterprises

The swadeshi spirit also found expression in the establishment

of swadeshi textile mills, soap and match factories, tanneries,

banks, insurance companies, shops, etc. These enterprises

were based more on patriotic zeal than on business acumen.

Sakharam Ganesh Deuskar, a close associate of Aurobindo Ghosh,
published

Desher Katha in 1904. The work inspired the swadeshi

activists. He popularised the ideas of Dadabhai Naoroji and Mahadev
Govind Ranade and promoted swadeshi in a popular idiom.

Desher

Katha, writes Ishita Banerjee-Dube, warned against the colonial
state’s “hypnotic conquest of the mind”. Before the book was banned
by the colonial government in 1910, it had sold over 15,000 copies.
It was the inspiration for many swadeshi street plays and folk songs,
besides becoming mandatory reading for the swadeshi activists.

Era of Militant Nationalism (1905-1909)

✫

283

V.O. Chidambaram Pillai’s venture into a national shipbuilding

enterprise—Swadeshi Steam Navigation Company—at

Tuticorin, however, gave a challenge to the British Indian

Steam Navigation Company.

There had been a consciousness even in the 1890s that

Indian products should be encouraged in the face of the

onslaught of the imported foreign goods. To this effect,

members of the Tagore family and other leaders had been

organising melas (fairs) to exhibit Indian handicrafts and

putting up stores for their sale so that their production could

be encouraged. Rabindranath’s Swadeshi Bhandar (1897),

Jogeshchandra Chaudhuri’s Indian Stores (1901), and Sarala

Debi’s Lakshmir Bhandar (1903) were all efforts in this

direction. The Bengal Chemicals factory had been established

by Prafullachandra Ray in 1893, and attempts were made to

manufacture porcelain in 1901, as pointed out by Sumit

Sarkar. Such efforts gained in momentum with the mood of

the Swadeshi Movement.
Impact in the Cultural Sphere

The nationalists of all hues took inspiration from songs

written by Rabindranath Tagore, Rajnikant Sen, Dwijendralal

Ray, Mukunda Das, Syed Abu Muhammad, and others. Tagore’s

Amar Sonar Bangla written on this occasion was later to

inspire the liberation struggle of Bangladesh and was adopted

by it as its national anthem. In Tamil Nadu, Subramania

Bharati wrote Sudesha Geetham.

In painting, Abanindranath Tagore broke the domination

of Victorian naturalism over the Indian art scene and took

inspiration from Ajanta, Mughal, and Rajput paintings. Nandalal

Bose, who left a major imprint on Indian art, was the first

recipient of a scholarship offered by the Indian Society of

Oriental Art, founded in 1907.

In science, Jagdish Chandra Bose, Prafullachandra Roy,

and others pioneered original research which was praised the

world over.

Extent of Mass Participation

Students Students came out in large numbers to

propagate and practise swadeshi, and to take a lead in

organising picketing of shops selling foreign goods. Student

284

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

participation was visible in Bengal, Maharashtra, especially

in Poona, and in many parts of the South—Guntur, Madras,

Salem. Police adopted a repressive attitude towards the

students. Schools and colleges whose students participated

in the agitation were to be penalised by disaffiliating them

or stopping of grants and privileges to them. Students who

were found guilty of participation were to be disqualified for

government jobs or for government scholarships, and

disciplinary action—fine, expulsion, arrest, beating, etc.—

was to be taken against them.

Women Women, who were traditionally home-centred,

especially those of the urban middle classes, took active part

in processions and picketing. From now onwards, they were

to play a significant role in the national movement.

Stand of Muslims Some of the Muslims participated—

Barrister Abdul Rasul, Liaqat Hussain, Guznavi, Maulana Azad

(who joined one of the revolutionary terrorist groups); but

most of the upper and middle class Muslims stayed away or,

led by Nawab Salimullah of Dacca, supported the partition

on the plea that it would give them a Muslim-majority East

Bengal. To further government interests, the All-India Muslim

League was propped up on December 30, 1905 as an anti-

Congress front, and reactionary elements like Nawab

Salimullah of Dacca were encouraged. Also, the nature of

the Swadeshi Movement, with leaders evoking Hindu festivals

and goddesses for inspiration, tended to exclude the Muslims.

Labour Unrest and Trade Unions In the beginning,

some strikes were organised on the issue of rising prices

and racial insult, primarily in the foreign-owned companies.

In September 1905, more than 250 Bengali clerks of the Burn

Company, Howrah, walked out in protest against a derogatory

work regulation. In July 1906, a strike of workers in the East

Indian Railway resulted in the formation of a Railwaymen’s

Union. Between 1906 and 1908, strikes in the jute mills were

very frequent, at times affecting 18 out of 18 mills.

Subramania Siva and Chidambaram Pillai led strikes in

Tuticorin and Tirunelveli in a foreign-owned cotton mill. In

Rawalpindi (Punjab), the arsenal and railway workers went

on strike led by Lala Lajpat Rai and Ajit Singh. However,

Era of Militant Nationalism (1905-1909)

✫

285

by summer of 1908, the labour unrests subsided under strict

action.

Thus, the social base of the movement expanded to

include certain sections of the zamindari, the students, the

women, and the lower middle classes in cities and towns.

An attempt was also made to give political expression to

economic grievances of the working class by organising

strikes. But the movement was not able to garner support

of the Muslims, especially the Muslim peasantry, because

of a conscious government policy of divide and rule helped

by overlap of class and community at places.

All India Aspect

Movements in support of Bengal’s unity and the swadeshi

and boycott agitation were organised in many parts of the

country. Tilak, who played a leading role in the spread of

the movement outside Bengal, saw in this the ushering in of

a new chapter in the history of the national movement. He

realised that here was a challenge and an opportunity to

organise popular mass struggle against the British rule to

unite the country in a bond of common sympathy.

Annulment of Partition

It was decided to annul the partition of Bengal in 1911,

mainly to curb the menace of revolutionary terrorism. The

annulment came as a rude shock to the Muslim political elite.

It was also decided to shift the capital to Delhi as a sop to

the Muslims, as it was associated with Muslim glory, but the

Muslims were not pleased. Bihar and Orissa were taken out

of Bengal, and Assam was made a separate province.

Evaluation of the
Swadeshi Movement

The Movement Fizzles Out

By 1908, the open phase (as different from the underground

revolutionary phase) of the Swadeshi and Boycott movement

was almost over. This was due to many reasons:

●

There was severe government repression.

286

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

●

The movement failed to create an effective organisation

or a party structure. It threw up an entire gamut of techniques

that later came to be associated with Gandhian politics—non-

cooperation, passive resistance, filling of British jails, social

reform, and constructive work—but failed to give these

techniques a disciplined focus.

●

The movement was rendered leaderless with most of

the leaders either arrested or deported by 1908 and with

Aurobindo Ghosh and Bipin Chandra Pal retiring from active

politics.

●

Internal squabbles among leaders, magnified by the

Surat split (1907), did much harm to the movement.

●

The movement aroused the people but did not know

how to tap the newly released energy or how to find new

forms to give expression to popular resentment.

●

The movement largely remained confined to the upper

and middle classes and zamindars, and failed to reach the

masses—especially the peasantry.

●

Non-cooperation and passive resistance remained

mere ideas.

●

It is difficult to sustain a mass-based movement at

a high pitch for too long.

Movement a Turning Point

Despite its gradual decline into inactivity, the movement was

a turning point in modern Indian history.

●

It proved to be a ‘leap forward’ in more ways than

one. Hitherto untouched sections—students, women, workers,

some sections of urban and rural population—participated.

All the major trends of the national movement, from

conservative moderation to political extremism, from

revolutionary activities to incipient socialism, from petitions

and prayers to passive resistance and non-cooperation emerged

during the Swadeshi Movement.

●

The richness of the movement was not confined to

the political sphere, but encompassed art, literature, science,

and industry also.

●

People were aroused from slumber and now they

learned to take bold political positions and participate in new

forms of political work.

Era of Militant Nationalism (1905-1909)

✫

287

Moderates

1. Social base—zamindars and

upper middle classes in
towns.

2. Ideological inspiration—

western liberal thought and
European history.

3. Believed in England’s

providential mission in India.

4. Believed political connections

with Britain to be in India’s
social, political, and cultural
interests.

5. Professed loyalty to the British

Crown.

6. Believed that the movement

should be limited to middle-
class intelligentsia; masses
not yet ready for participation
in political work.

7. Demanded constitutional

reforms and share for Indians
in services.

8. Insisted on the use of

constitutional methods only.

9. They were patriots and did not

play the role of a comprador
class.

Extremists

1. Social base—educated middle

and lower middle classes in
towns.

2. Ideological inspiration—Indian

history, cultural heritage, and
Hindu traditional symbols.

3. Rejected ‘providential mission

theory’ as an illusion.

4. Believed that political

connections with Britain would
perpetuate British exploitation
of India.

5. Believed that the British Crown

was unworthy of claiming Indian
loyalty.

6. Had immense faith in the

capacity of masses to parti-
cipate and to make sacrifices.

7. Demanded swaraj as the

panacea for Indian ills.

8. Did not hesitate to use extra-

constitutional methods like
boycott and passive resistance
to achieve their objectives.

9. They were patriots who made

sacrifices for the sake of the
country.

Differences between Moderates and Extremists

●

The swadeshi campaign undermined the hegemony of

colonial ideas and institutions.

●

The future struggle was to draw heavily from the

experience gained.
Moderate Methods Give Way to

Extremist Modes

With the coming of the Swadeshi and Boycott Movement,

it became clear that the Moderates had outlived their utility

288

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

and their politics of petitions and speeches had become

obsolete. They had not succeeded in keeping pace with time,

and this was highlighted by their failure to get the support

of the younger generation for their style of politics. Their

failure to work among the masses had meant that their ideas

did not take root among the masses. Even the propaganda

by the Moderates did not reach the masses. No all-India

campaigns of the scale of the Swadeshi and Boycott Movement

had been organised earlier by the Moderates and, in this

campaign, they discovered that they were not its leaders,

which was rather natural.

The Extremist ideology and its functioning also lacked

consistency. Its advocates ranged from open members and

secret sympathisers to those opposed to any kind of political

violence. Its leaders—Aurobindo, Tilak, B.C. Pal, and Lala

Lajpat Rai—had different perceptions of their goal. For Tilak,

swaraj meant some sort of self-government, while for

Aurobindo it meant complete independence from foreign

rule. But at the politico-ideological level, their emphasis on

mass participation and on the need to broaden the social base

of the movement was a progressive improvement upon the

Moderate politics. They raised patriotism from a level of

‘academic pastime’ to one of ‘service and sacrifice for the

country’. But the politically progressive Extremists proved

to be social reactionaries. They had revivalist and obscurantist

undertones attached to their thoughts. Tilak’s opposition to

the Age of Consent Bill (which would have raised the

marriageable age for girls from 10 years to 12 years, even

though his objection was mainly that such reforms must come

from people governing themselves and not under an alien

rule), his organising of Ganapati and Shivaji festivals as

national festivals, his support to anti-cow killing campaigns,

etc., portrayed him as a Hindu nationalist. Similarly, B.C. Pal

and Aurobindo spoke of a Hindu nation and Hindu interests.

This alienated many Muslims from the movement.

Though the seemingly revivalist and obscurantist tactics

of the Extremists were directed against the foreign rulers,

they had the effect of promoting a very unhealthy relationship

between politics and religion, the bitter harvests of which

the Indians had to reap in later years.

Era of Militant Nationalism (1905-1909)

✫

289

The Surat Split

The Congress split at Surat came in December 1907, around

the time when revolutionary activity had gained momentum.

The two events were not unconnected.

Run-up to Surat

In December 1905, at the Benaras session of the Indian

National Congress presided over by Gokhale, the Moderate-

Extremist differences came to the fore. The Extremists

wanted to extend the Boycott and Swadeshi Movement to

regions outside Bengal and also to include all forms of

associations (such as government service, law courts,

legislative councils, etc.) within the boycott programme and

thus start a nationwide mass movement. The Extremists

wanted a strong resolution supporting their programme at the

Benaras session. The Moderates, on the other hand, were not

in favour of extending the movement beyond Bengal and were

totally opposed to boycott of councils and similar associations.

They advocated constitutional methods to protest against the

partition of Bengal. As a compromise, a relatively mild

resolution condemning the partition of Bengal and the

reactionary policies of Curzon and supporting the swadeshi

and boycott programme in Bengal was passed. This succeeded

in averting a split for the moment.

At the Calcutta session of the Congress in December

1906, the Moderate enthusiasm had cooled a bit because of

the popularity of the Extremists and the revolutionaries and

because of communal riots. Here, the Extremists wanted

either Tilak or Lajpat Rai as the president, while the

Moderates proposed the name of Dadabhai Naoroji, who was

widely respected by all the nationalists. Finally, Dadabhai

Naoroji was elected as the president and as a concession to

the militants, the goal of the Indian National Congress was

defined as ‘swarajya or self-government’ like the United

Kingdom or the colonies of Australia and Canada. Also, a

resolution supporting the programme of swadeshi, boycott,

and national education was passed. The word ‘swaraj’ was

mentioned for the first time, but its connotation was not spelt

out, which left the field open for differing interpretations

by the Moderates and the Extremists.

290

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

The Extremists, encouraged by the proceedings at the

Calcutta session, gave a call for wide passive resistance and

boycott of schools, colleges, legislative councils,

municipalities, law courts, etc. The Moderates, encouraged

by the news that council reforms were on the anvil, decided

to tone down the Calcutta programme. The two sides seemed

to be heading for a showdown.

The Extremists thought that the people had been

aroused and the battle for freedom had begun. They felt the

time had come for the big push to drive the British out and

considered the Moderates to be a drag on the movement.

They decided that it was necessary to part company with the

Moderates, even if it meant a split in the Congress.

The Moderates thought that it would be dangerous at

that stage to associate with the Extremists whose anti-

imperialist agitation, it was felt, would be ruthlessly suppressed

by the mighty colonial forces. The Moderates saw in the

council reforms an opportunity to realise their dream of

Indian participation in the administration. Any hasty action

by the Congress, the Moderates felt, under Extremist pressure

was bound to annoy the Liberals, then in power in England.

The Moderates were also ready to part company with the

Extremists.

The Moderates failed to realise that the council reforms

were meant by the government more to isolate the Extremists

than to reward the Moderates. The Extremists did not realise

that the Moderates could act as their front line of defence

against state repression. And neither side realised that in a

vast country like India ruled by a strong imperialist power,

only a broad-based nationalist movement could succeed.

Split Takes Place

The Extremists wanted the 1907 session to be held in Nagpur

(Central Provinces) with Tilak or Lajpat Rai as the president

along with a reiteration of the swadeshi, boycott, and national

education resolutions. The Moderates wanted the session at

Surat in order to exclude Tilak from the presidency, since

a leader from the host province could not be session

president (Surat being in Tilak’s home province of Bombay).

Instead, they wanted Rashbehari Ghosh as the president and

Era of Militant Nationalism (1905-1909)

✫

291

sought to drop the resolutions on swadeshi, boycott, and

national education. Both sides adopted rigid positions, leaving

no room for compromise. The split became inevitable, and

the Congress was now dominated by the Moderates who lost

no time in reiterating Congress’ commitment to the goal of

self-government within the British Empire and to the use of

constitutional methods only to achieve this goal.

Government Repression

The government launched a massive attack on the Extremists.

Between 1907 and 1911, five new laws were brought into

force to check anti-government activity. These legislations

included the Seditious Meetings Act, 1907; Indian Newspapers

(Incitement to Offences) Act, 1908; Criminal Law Amendment

Act, 1908; and the Indian Press Act, 1910. Tilak, the main

Extremist leader, was tried in 1909 for sedition for what he

had written in 1908 in his Kesari about a bomb thrown by

Bengal revolutionaries in Muzaffarpur, resulting in the death

of two innocent European women.

Tilak had written: “This, no doubt, will inspire many

with hatred against the people belonging to the party of

rebels. It is not possible to cause British rule to disappear

from this country by such monstrous deeds. But rulers who

exercise unrestricted power must always remember that there

is also a limit to the patience of humanity … many newspapers

had warned the government that if they resorted to Russian

methods, then Indians too will be compelled to imitate the

Russian methods.”

In another article, Tilak wrote that the real means of

stopping the bombs consisted in making a beginning towards

the grant of rights of ‘Swarajya’ to the people. Tilak was again

arrested; judged guilty, and sentenced to six years’

transportation and a fine of Rs 1,000. He was sent to

Mandalay (Burma) jail for six years. When the judge asked

Tilak if he had anything to say, Tilak said: “In spite of the

View

”…the mischief of the trial and condemnation of Tilak would be
greater than if you left him alone”.

—John Morley, Secretary of State for India in

a letter to Sydenham, Governor of Bombay

292

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

verdict of the jury, I maintain that I am innocent. There are

higher powers that rule the destiny of men and nations and

it may be the will of providence that the cause which I

represent may prosper more by my suffering than my

remaining free.” (In 1956, the then Chief Justice of Bombay

High Court, M.C. Chagla, unveiled a marble plaque with these

words engraved on it outside the central courtroom –

courtroom 46 – where Tilak was tried in the Bombay High

Court.)

Aurobindo and B.C. Pal retired from active politics.

Lajpat Rai left for abroad.

The Extremists were not able to organise an effective

alternative party to sustain the movement. The Moderates

were left with no popular base or support, especially as the

youth rallied behind the Extremists.

After 1908, the national movement as a whole declined

for a time. In 1914, Tilak was released and he picked up the

threads of the movement.

The Government Strategy

The British government in India had been hostile to the

Congress from the beginning. Even after the Moderates, who

dominated the Congress from the beginning, began distancing

themselves from the militant nationalist trend which had

become visible during the last decade of the 19th century

itself, government hostility did not stop. This was because,

in the government’s view, the Moderates still represented an

anti-imperialist force consisting of basically patriotic and

liberal intellectuals.

With the coming of Swadeshi and Boycott Movement

and the emergence of militant nationalist trend in a big way,

the government modified its strategy towards the nationalists.

Now, the policy was to be of ‘rallying them’ (John Morley—

the secretary of state) or the policy of ‘carrot and stick’.

It may be described as a three-pronged approach of repression-

conciliation-suppression. In the first stage, the Extremists

were to be repressed mildly, mainly to frighten the Moderates.

In the second stage, the Moderates were to be placated

through some concessions, and hints were to be dropped that

Era of Militant Nationalism (1905-1909)

✫

293

more reforms would be forthcoming if the distance from the

Extremists was maintained. This was aimed at isolating the

Extremists: With the Moderates on its side, the government

could suppress the Extremists with its full might; the

Moderates could then be ignored.

Unfortunately, neither the Moderates nor the Extremists

understood the purpose behind the strategy. The Surat split

suggested that the policy of carrot and stick had brought rich

dividends to the British India government.

Morley-Minto Reforms of 1909

In October 1906, a group of Muslim elites called the Simla

Deputation, led by the Agha Khan, met Lord Minto and

demanded separate electorates for the Muslims and

representation in excess of their numerical strength in view

of ‘the value of the contribution’ Muslims were making ‘to

the defence of the empire’. The same group quickly took over

the Muslim League, initially floated by Nawab Salimullah of

Dacca along with Nawabs Mohsin-ul-Mulk and Waqar-ul-

Mulk in December 1906. The Muslim League intended to

preach loyalty to the empire and to keep the Muslim

intelligentsia away from the Congress.

Gopal Krishna Gokhale also went to England to meet

the Secretary of State for India, John Morley, to put Congress

demands of self-governing system similar to that in the other

British colonies.

The Reforms

The viceroy, Lord Minto, and the Secretary of State for India,

John Morley, agreed that some reforms were due so as to

placate the Moderates as well as the Muslims. They worked

out a set of measures that came to be known as the Morley-

Minto (or Minto-Morley) Reforms that translated into the

Indian Councils Act of 1909.

●

The elective principle was recognised for the non-

official membership of the councils in India. Indians were

allowed to participate in the election of various legislative

councils, though on the basis of class and community.

●

For the first time, separate electorates for Muslims

for election to the central council was established—a most

detrimental step for India.

294

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

●

The number of elected members in the Imperial

Legislative Council and the Provincial Legislative Councils

was increased. In the provincial councils, non-official majority

was introduced, but since some of these non-officials were

nominated and not elected, the overall non-elected majority

remained.

●

According to Sumit Sarkar, in the Imperial Legislative

Council, of the total 69 members, 37 were to be the officials

and of the 32 non-officials, 5 were to be nominated. Of the

27 elected non-officials, 8 seats were reserved for the

Muslims under separate electorates (only Muslims could

vote here for the Muslim candidates), while 4 seats were

reserved for the British capitalists, 2 for the landlords, and

13 seats came under general electorate.

●

The elected members were to be indirectly elected.

The local bodies were to elect an electoral college, which

in turn would elect members of provincial legislatures, who,

in turn, would elect members of the central legislature.

●

Besides separate electorates for the Muslims,

representation in excess of the strength of their population

was accorded to the Muslims. Also, the income qualification

for Muslim voters was kept lower than that for Hindus.

●

Powers of legislatures—both at the centre and in

provinces—were enlarged and the legislatures could now pass

Views

Reforms may not save the Raj, but if they don’t, nothing else
will.

Lord Morley

The reforms of 1909 afforded no answer, and could afford no
answer to Indian problems.

Montford Report

Political barrier was created round them, isolating them from the
rest of India and reversing the unifying and amalgamating process
which had been going on for centuries... The barrier was a small
one at first, for the electorates were very limited, but with every
extension of franchise it grew and affected the whole structure
of political and social life like some canker which corrupted the
entire system.

Jawaharlal Nehru

Era of Militant Nationalism (1905-1909)

✫

295

resolutions (which may or may not be accepted), ask

questions and supplementaries, vote separate items in the

budget though the budget as a whole could not be voted upon.

●

One Indian was to be appointed to the viceroy’s

executive council (Satyendra Sinha was the first Indian to be

appointed in 1909).

Evaluation

The reforms of 1909 afforded no answer to the Indian

political problem. Lord Morley made it clear that colonial

self-government (as demanded by the Congress) was not

suitable for India, and he was against the introduction of

parliamentary or responsible government in India. He said,

“If it could be said that this chapter of reforms led directly

or indirectly to the establishment of a parliamentary system

in India, I, for one, would have nothing at all to do with it.”

The ‘constitutional’ reforms were, in fact, aimed at

dividing the nationalist ranks by confusing the Moderates and

at checking the growth of unity among Indians through the

obnoxious instrument of separate electorates. The government

aimed at rallying the Moderates and the Muslims against the

rising tide of nationalism. The officials and the Muslim

leaders often talked of the entire community when they talked

of the separate electorates, but in reality it meant the

appeasement of just a small section of the Muslim elite.

Besides, the system of election was too indirect and

it gave the impression of “infiltration of legislators through

a number of sieves”. And, while parliamentary forms were

introduced, no responsibility was conceded, which sometimes

led to thoughtless and irresponsible criticism of the

government. Only some members like Gokhale put to

constructive use the opportunity to debate in the councils

by demanding universal primary education, attacking repressive

policies, and drawing attention to the plight of indentured

labour and Indian workers in South Africa.

What the reforms of 1909 gave to the people of the

country was a shadow rather than substance. The people had

demanded self-government, but what they were given instead

was ‘benevolent despotism’.

296

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Summary

●

Why Militant Nationalism Grew

1. Realisation that the true nature of British rule was

exploitative, and that the British India government, instead
of conceding more, was taking away even what existed

2. Growth of self-confidence and self-respect
3. Impact of growth of education—increase in awareness and

unemployment

4. International influences and events which demolished the

myth of white/European supremacy. These included

— emergence of Japan—an Asian country—as an industrial

power

— Abyssinia’s (Ethiopia) victory over Italy
— Boer Wars (1899–1902) in which the British faced reverses
— Japan’s victory over Russia (1905)
— nationalist movements worldwide

5. Reaction to increasing westernisation
6. Dissatisfaction with the achievements as well as the

methods of the Moderates

7. Reactionary policies of Curzon such as the Calcutta

Corporation Act (1899), the Official Secrets Act (1904),
the Indian Universities Act (1904), and partition of Bengal
(1905)

8. Existence of a militant school of thought
9. Emergence of a trained leadership

●

The Extremist Ideology

(i) Hatred for foreign rule
(ii) Belief in the capacity of the masses
(iii) Swarajya as goal
(iv) Advocacy of direct political action and self-sacrifice

●

The Swadeshi and Boycott Movement

* Began as a reaction to partition of Bengal which became

known in 1903, was formally announced in July 1905 and
came into force in October 1905. The motive behind partition
was to weaken Bengal which was the nerve centre of Indian
nationalist activity; the official reason given for the partition
was that Bengal had become too big to administer—which
was true to some extent.

* Moderate-led anti-partition movement (1903–05) was under

Surendranath Banerjea, K.K. Mitra, Prithwishchandra Ray.
Methods included public meetings, petitions, memoranda,
propaganda through newspapers and pamphlets.

Era of Militant Nationalism (1905-1909)

✫

297

* The movement under Extremists (1905–08) was led by

Tilak, Bipin Chandra Pal, Lajpat Rai, Aurobindo Ghosh.
Methods included boycott of foreign cloth and other goods,
public meetings and processions, forming corps of volunteers
or samitis, use of traditional popular festivals and

melas for

propaganda, emphasis on self-reliance or

atma shakti,

launching programme of swadeshi or national education,
swadeshi or indigenous enterprises, initiating new trends in
Indian painting, songs, poetry, pioneering research in science
and later calling for boycott of schools, colleges, councils,
government service, etc.

* Extremists took over because of the failure of the Moderates

to achieve positive results, divisive tactics of governments
of both Bengals, severe government repression.

* Extent of mass participation—students, women, certain

sections of zamindari, labour, some lower middle and middle
classes in towns and cities participated for the first time while
the Muslims generally kept away.

* Annulment of Partition mainly to curb the ‘menace’ of

revolutionary terrorism

* Why Swadeshi Movement fizzled out by 1908

Severe government repression
Lack of effective organisation and a disciplined focus
With arrest/deportation of all leaders, the movement left
leaderless
Split in nationalist ranks
Narrow social base

Achievements

“A leap forward” because hitherto untouched sections
participated, major trends of later movement emerged;
richness of the movement extended to culture, science, and
literature; people educated in bolder form of politics; colonial
hegemony undermined.

●

Major Cause of Moderate-Extremist Split at Surat (1907)

Moderates wanted to restrict the Boycott Movement to Bengal
and to a boycott of foreign cloth and liquor.
Extremists wanted to take the movement to all parts of the
country and include within its ambit all forms of association
with the government through a boycott of schools, colleges,
law courts, legislative councils, government service, municipalities,
etc.

●

Government Acts for Repression of Swadeshi Movement
Seditious Meetings Act (1907)
Criminal Law (Amendment) Act (1908)

298

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Indian Newspapers (Incitement to Offences) Act (1908)
Explosive Substances Act (1908)
Indian Press Act (1910)

●

Morley-Minto Reforms
Number of elected members in Imperial and Provincial Legislative
Councils increased—elected non-officials still in minority.
Non-officials to be elected indirectly—thus elections introduced for
the first time.
Separate electorates introduced for Muslims
Legislatures could pass resolutions, ask questions and
supplementaries, vote separate items of the budget.
One Indian to be on viceroy’s executive council.
Aimed at dividing the nationalist ranks and at rallying the
Moderates and the Muslims to the government’s side.
No responsibility entrusted to legislators—this resulted in thought-
less criticism sometimes.
System of election was too indirect.

First Phase of Revolutionary Activities (1907–1917)

✫

299

299

CHAPTER 13

First Phase of

Revolutionary Activities

(1907

–1917)

Why the Surge of Revolutionary
Activities

The activities of revolutionary heroism started as a by-

product of the growth of militant nationalism. The first phase

acquired a more activist form as a fallout of the Swadeshi

and Boycott Movement and continued till 1917. The second

phase started as a fallout of the Non-Cooperation Movement.

After the decline of the open movement, the younger

nationalists who had participated in the movement found it

impossible to leave off and disappear into the background.

They looked for avenues to give expression to their patriotic

energies, but were disillusioned by the failure of the leadership,

even the Extremists, to find new forms of struggle to bring

into practice the new militant trends. The Extremist leaders,

although they called upon the youth to make sacrifices, failed

to create an effective organisation or find new forms of

political work to tap these revolutionary energies. The youth,

finding all avenues of peaceful political protest closed to

them under government repression, thought that if nationalist

goals of independence were to be met, the British must be

expelled physically by force.

300

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

The Revolutionary Programme

The revolutionaries considered, but did not find it practical

at that stage to implement, the options of creating a violent

mass revolution throughout the country or of trying to subvert

the loyalties of the army. Instead, they opted to follow in

the footsteps of Russian nihilists or the Irish nationalists.

This methodology involved individual heroic actions, such as

organising assassinations of unpopular officials and of traitors

and informers among the revolutionaries themselves;

conducting swadeshi dacoities to raise funds for revolutionary

activities; and (during the First World War) organising

military conspiracies with an expectation of help from the

enemies of Britain.

The idea was to strike terror in the hearts of the rulers,

arouse people, and remove the fear of authority from their

minds. The revolutionaries intended to inspire the people by

appealing to their patriotism, especially the idealistic youth

who would finally drive the British out.

The Extremist leaders failed to ideologically counter

the revolutionaries as they did not highlight the difference

between a revolution based on activity of the masses and one

based on individual violent activity, thus allowing the

individualistic violent activities to take root.

A Survey of Revolutionary
Activities

A brief survey of revolutionary activities in different parts

of India and abroad before and during the First World War

is given below.

Bengal

By the 1870s, Calcutta’s student community was honeycombed

with secret societies, but these were not very active. The first

revolutionary groups were organised in 1902 in Midnapore

(under Jnanendranath Basu) and in Calcutta (the Anushilan

Samiti founded by Promotha Mitter, and including Jatindranath

Banerjee, Barindra Kumar Ghosh, and others.) But their

activities were limited to giving physical and moral training

to the members and remained insignificant till 1907–08.

First Phase of Revolutionary Activities (1907–1917)

✫

301

In April 1906, an inner circle within Anushilan (Barindra

Kumar Ghosh, Bhupendranath Dutta) started the weekly

Yugantar and conducted a few abortive ‘actions’. By 1905–

06, several newspapers had started advocating revolutionary

violence. For instance, after severe police brutalities on

participants of the Barisal Conference (April 1906), the

Yugantar wrote: “The remedy lies with the people. The 30

crore people inhabiting India must raise their 60 crore hands

to stop this curse of oppression. Force must be stopped by

force.”

Rashbehari (or Rash Behari) Bose and Sachin Sanyal

had organised a secret society covering far-flung areas of

Punjab, Delhi, and United Provinces, while some others like

Hemachandra Kanungo went abroad for military and political

training.

In 1907, an abortive attempt was made by the Yugantar

group on the life of a very unpopular British official, Sir

Fuller (the first Lt. Governor of the new province of Eastern

Bengal and Assam, although he had resigned from the post

on August 20, 1906).

In December 1907, there were attempts to derail the

train on which the lieutenant-governor, Sri Andrew Fraser,

was travelling

In 1908, Prafulla Chaki and Khudiram Bose threw a

bomb at a carriage supposed to be carrying a particularly

sadistic white judge, Kingsford, in Muzaffarpur. Kingsford

was not in the carriage. Unfortunately, two British ladies,

instead, got killed. Prafulla Chaki shot himself dead, while

Khudiram Bose was tried and hanged.

The whole Anushilan group was arrested, including the

Ghosh brothers, Aurobindo and Barindra, who were tried in

the Alipore conspiracy case, variously called Manicktolla

bomb conspiracy or Muraripukur conspiracy. (Barindra

Ghosh’s house was on Muraripukur Road in the Manicktolla

suburb of Calcutta.) The Ghosh brothers were charged with

‘conspiracy’ or ‘waging war against the King’ – the equivalent

of high treason and punishable with death by hanging.

Chittaranjan Das defended Aurobindo. Aurobindo was acquitted

of all charges, with the judge condemning the flimsy nature

of the evidence against him. Barindra Ghosh, as the head of

302

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

the secret society of revolutionaries and Ullaskar Dutt (or

Dutta), as the maker of bombs, were given the death penalty,

which was later commuted to life in prison. During the trial,

Narendra Gosain (or Goswami), who had turned approver and

Crown witness, was shot dead by two co-accused, Satyendranath

Bose and Kanailal Dutta in jail.

In February 1909, the public prosecutor was shot dead

in Calcutta, and in February 1910, a deputy superintendent

of police met the same fate while leaving the Calcutta High

Court. In 1908, Barrah dacoity was organised by Dacca

Anushilan under Pulin Das to raise funds for revolutionary

activities. Rashbehari Bose and Sachin Sanyal staged a

spectacular bomb attack on Viceroy Hardinge while he was

making his official entry into the new capital of Delhi in

a procession through Chandni Chowk in December 1912.

(Hardinge was injured, but not killed.)

Investigations following the assassination attempt led

to the Delhi Conspiracy trial. At the end of the trial, Basant

Kumar Biswas, Amir Chand, and Avadh Behari were convicted

and executed for their roles in the conspiracy. Rashbehari

Bose was known as the person behind the plan, but he evaded

arrest because, it is said, he escaped donning a disguise.

The western Anushilan Samiti found a good leader in

Jatindranath Mukherjee or Bagha Jatin and emerged as the

Jugantar (or Yugantar). Jatin revitalised links between the

central organisation in Calcutta and other places in Bengal,

Bihar, and Orissa.

During the First World War, the Jugantar party arranged

to import German arms and ammunition through sympathisers

and revolutionaries abroad. Jatin asked Rashbehari Bose to

take charge of Upper India, aiming to bring about an all-India

insurrection in what has come to be called the ‘German Plot’

or the ‘Zimmerman Plan’. The Jugantar party raised funds

through a series of dacoities which came to be known as

taxicab dacoities and boat dacoities, so as to work out the

Indo-German conspiracy. It was planned that a guerrilla force

would be organised to start an uprising in the country, with

a seizure of Fort William and a mutiny by armed forces.

Unfortunately for the revolutionaries, the plot was leaked out

by a traitor. Police came to know that Bagha Jatin was in

First Phase of Revolutionary Activities (1907–1917)

✫

303

Balasore waiting for the delivery of German arms. Jatin and

his associates were located by the police. There was a gun-

fight as a result of which the revolutionaries were either

killed or arrested. The German plot thus failed. Jatin Mukherjee

was shot and died a hero’s death in Balasore on the Orissa

coast in September 1915.

“We shall die to awaken the nation”, was the call of

Bagha Jatin.

The newspapers and journals advocating revolutionary

activity included Sandhya and Yugantar in Bengal, and Kal

in Maharashtra.

In the end, revolutionary activity emerged as the most

substantial legacy of swadeshi Bengal, which had an impact

on educated youth for a generation or more. But an

overemphasis on Hindu religion kept the Muslims aloof.

Moreover, it encouraged quixotic heroism. No involvement

of the masses was envisaged, which, coupled with the narrow

upper caste social base of the movement in Bengal, severely

limited the scope of the revolutionary activity. In the end,

it failed to withstand the weight of State repression.

Maharashtra

The first of the revolutionary activities in Maharashtra was

the organisation of the Ramosi Peasant Force by Vasudev

Balwant Phadke in 1879, which aimed to rid the country of

the British by instigating an armed revolt by disrupting

communication lines. It hoped to raise funds for its activities

through dacoities. It was suppressed prematurely.

During the 1890s, Tilak propagated a spirit of militant

nationalism, including the use of violence, through Ganapati

and Shivaji festivals and his journals Kesari and Maharatta.

Two of his disciples—the Chapekar brothers, Damodar and

Balkrishna—murdered the Plague Commissioner of Poona,

Rand, and one Lt. Ayerst in 1897.

Savarkar and his brother organised Mitra Mela, a

secret society, in 1899, which merged with Abhinav Bharat

(after Mazzinni’s ‘Young Italy’) in 1904. Soon Nasik, Poona,

and Bombay emerged as centres of bomb manufacture. In

1909, A.M.T. Jackson, the Collector of Nasik, who was also

a well-known indologist, was killed by Anant Lakshman

Kanhere, a member of Abhinav Bharat.

304

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

It was found that the killing was part of a conspiracy

to overthrow the British government in India by means of

armed revolution. Thirty-eight people were arrested. Among

these, it was found that Savarkar (with his two brothers,) was

the brain, leader, and moving spirit of the conspiracy. At the

trial, Savarkar as the soul, inspiration, and moving spirit of

the conspiracy extending over a number of years, was

sentenced to transportation for life and forfeiture of all his

property.

Punjab

The Punjab extremism was fuelled by issues such as frequent

famines coupled with rise in land revenue and irrigation tax,

practice of ‘begar’ by zamindars and by the events in Bengal.

Among those active here were Lala Lajpat Rai who brought

out Punjabee (with its motto of self-help at any cost) and

Ajit Singh (Bhagat Singh’s uncle) who organised the extremist

Anjuman-i-Mohisban-i-Watan in Lahore with its journal,

Bharat Mata. Before Ajit Singh’s group turned to extremism,

it was active in urging non-payment of revenue and water rates

among Chenab colonists and Bari Doab peasants. Other

leaders included Aga Haidar, Syed Haider Raza, Bhai

Parmanand, and the radical Urdu poet, Lalchand ‘Falak’.

Extremism in Punjab died down quickly after the

government struck in May 1907 with a ban on political

meetings and the deportation of Lajpat Rai and Ajit Singh.

After this, Ajit Singh and a few other associates—Sufi

Ambaprasad, Lalchand, Bhai Parmanand, Lala Hardayal—

developed into full-scale revolutionaries.

During the First World War, Rashbehari Bose was

involved as one of the leading figures of the Ghadr Revolution.

At the close of 1913, Bose met Jatin to discuss the

possibilities of an all-India armed rising of 1857 type. Then,

he worked in cooperation with Bagha Jatin, extending the

Bengal plan to Punjab and the upper provinces. As the plan

for revolution did not succeed, Rashbehari Bose escaped to

Japan in 1915. Much later, he was to play an important part

in the founding of the Indian National Army.

Revolutionary Activities Abroad

The need for shelter, the possibility of bringing out

revolutionary literature that would be immune from the Press

First Phase of Revolutionary Activities (1907–1917)

✫

305

Acts, and the quest for arms took Indian revolutionaries

abroad.

Shyamji Krishnavarma had started in London in 1905

an Indian Home Rule Society—‘India House’—as a centre

for Indian students, a scholarship scheme to bring radical

youth from India, and a journal The Indian Sociologist.

Revolutionaries such as Savarkar and Hardayal became the

members of India House.

Madanlal Dhingra from this circle assassinated the India

office bureaucrat Curzon-Wyllie in 1909. Soon, London

became too dangerous for the revolutionaries, particularly

after Savarkar had been extradited in 1910 and transported

for life in the Nasik conspiracy case.

New centres emerged on the continent—Paris and

Geneva—from where Madam Bhikaji Cama, a Parsi

revolutionary who had developed contacts with French

socialists and who brought out Bande Mataram, and Ajit

Singh operated. And after 1909 when Anglo-German relations

deteriorated, Virendranath Chattopadhyaya chose Berlin as

his base.
The Ghadr
The Ghadr Party was a revolutionary group organised around

a weekly newspaper The Ghadr with its headquarters at San

Views

The ultimate object of the revolutionaries is not terrorism but
revolution and the purpose of the revolution is to install a national
government.

Subhas Chandra Bose

Will you not see the writing that these terrorists are writing with
their blood?

M.K. Gandhi

Neither rich nor able, a poor son like myself can offer nothing
but his blood on the altar of mother’s deliverance... may I be
reborn of the same mother and may I redie in the same sacred
cause, till my mission is done and she stands free for the good
of humanity and to the glory of God.

Madanlal Dhingra

God has not conferred upon the foreigners the grant inscribed
on a copper plate of the kingdom of Hindustan... Do not
circumscribe your vision like a frog in a well; get out of the
Penal Code and enter the extremely high atmosphere of the
Srimat Bhagvad Gita and consider the actions of great men.

B.G. Tilak in

Kesari (June 15, 1897)

306

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Francisco and branches along the US coast and in the Far

East.

These revolutionaries included mainly ex-soldiers and

peasants who had migrated from the Punjab to the USA and

Canada in search of better employment opportunities. They

were based in the US and Canadian cities along the western

(Pacific) coast. Pre-Ghadr revolutionary activity had been

carried on by Ramdas Puri, G.D. Kumar, Taraknath Das,

Sohan Singh Bhakna, and Lala Hardayal who reached there

in 1911. To carry out revolutionary activities, the earlier

activists had set up a ‘Swadesh Sevak Home’ at Vancouver

and ‘United India House’ at Seattle. Finally, in 1913, the

Ghadr was established.

The Ghadr programme was to organise assassinations

of officials, publish revolutionary and anti-imperialist

literature, work among Indian troops stationed abroad, procure

arms, and bring about a simultaneous revolt in all British

colonies.

The moving spirits behind the Ghadr Party were Lala

Hardayal, Ramchandra, Bhagwan Singh, Kartar Singh Saraba,

Barkatullah, and Bhai Parmanand. The Ghadrites intended to

bring about a revolt in India. Their plans were encouraged

by two events in 1914—the Komagata Maru incident and

the outbreak of the First World War.

Komagata Maru Incident and the Ghadr The

importance of this event lies in the fact that it created an

explosive situation in the Punjab. Komagata Maru was the

name of a ship which was carrying 370 passengers, mainly

Sikh and Punjabi Muslim would-be immigrants, from Singapore

to Vancouver. They were turned back by Canadian authorities

after two months of privation and uncertainty. It was generally

believed that the Canadian authorities were influenced by the

British government. The ship finally anchored at Calcutta in

September 1914. The inmates refused to board the Punjab-

bound train. In the ensuing conflict with the police at Budge

Budge near Calcutta, 22 persons died.

Inflamed by this and with the outbreak of the First

World War, the Ghadr leaders decided to launch a violent

attack to oust British rule in India. They urged fighters to

go to India. Kartar Singh Saraba and Raghubar Dayal Gupta

First Phase of Revolutionary Activities (1907–1917)

✫

307

left for India. Bengal revolutionaries were contacted;

Rashbehari Bose and Sachin Sanyal were asked to lead the

movement. Political dacoities were committed to raise funds.

The Punjab political dacoities of January–February 1915 had

a somewhat new social content. In at least 3 out of the 5

main cases, the raiders targeted the moneylenders and the

debt records before decamping with the cash. Thus, an

explosive situation was created in Punjab.

The Ghadrites fixed February 21, 1915 as the date for

an armed revolt in Ferozepur, Lahore, and Rawalpindi garrisons.

The plan was foiled at the last moment due to treachery. The

authorities took immediate action, aided by the Defence of

India Rules, 1915. Rebellious regiments were disbanded,

leaders arrested and deported, and 45 of them hanged.

Rashbehari Bose fled to Japan (from where he and Abani

Mukherji made many efforts to send arms), while Sachin

Sanyal was transported for life.

The British met the wartime threat with a formidable

battery of repressive measures—the most intensive since

1857—and above all by the Defence of India Act passed in

March 1915 primarily to smash the Ghadr movement. There

were large-scale detentions without trial, special courts

giving extremely severe sentences, and numerous court-

martials of armymen. Apart from the Bengal revolutionaries

and the Punjab Ghadrites, radical pan-Islamists—Ali brothers,

Maulana Azad, Hasrat Mohani—were interned for years.

Evaluation of Ghadr The achievement of the Ghadr

movement lay in the realm of ideology. It preached militant

nationalism with a completely secular approach. But politically

and militarily, it failed to achieve much because it lacked

an organised and sustained leadership, underestimated the

extent of preparation required at every level—organisational,

ideological, financial, and tactical strategic—and perhaps

Lala Hardayal was unsuited for the job of an organiser.
Revolutionaries in Europe

The Berlin Committee for Indian Independence was

established in 1915 by Virendranath Chattopadhyay,

Bhupendranath Dutta, Lala Hardayal, and others with the help

of the German foreign office under ‘Zimmerman Plan’. These

308

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

revolutionaries aimed to mobilise the Indian settlers abroad

to send volunteers and arms to India to incite rebellion among

Indian troops there and to even organise an armed invasion

of British India to liberate the country.

The Indian revolutionaries in Europe sent missions to

Baghdad, Persia, Turkey, and Kabul to work among Indian

troops and the Indian prisoners of war (POWs) and to incite

anti-British feelings among the people of these countries.

One mission under Raja Mahendra Pratap Singh, Barkatullah,

and Obaidullah Sindhi went to Kabul to organise a ‘provisional

Indian government’ there with the help of the crown prince,

Amanullah.
Mutiny in Singapore

Among the scattered mutinies during this period, the most

notable was in Singapore on February 15, 1915 by Punjabi

Muslim 5th Light Infantry and the 36th Sikh battalion under

Jamadar Chisti Khan, Jamadar Abdul Gani, and Subedar Daud

Khan. It was crushed after a fierce battle in which many were

killed. Later, 37 persons were executed and 41 transported

for life.

Decline

There was a temporary respite in revolutionary activity after

the First World War because the release of prisoners held

under the Defence of India Rules cooled down passions a

bit; there was an atmosphere of conciliation after Montagu’s

August 1917 statement and the talk of constitutional reforms;

and the coming of Gandhi on the scene with the programme

of non-violent non-cooperation promised new hope.

Summary

●

Revolutionary Activities
* Reasons for Emergence

Younger elements not ready to retreat after the decline of
open phase
Leadership’s failure to tap revolutionary energies of the youth
Government repression left no peaceful avenues open for
protest.

First Phase of Revolutionary Activities (1907–1917)

✫

309

* Ideology

Assassinate unpopular officials, thus strike terror in the hearts
of rulers and arouse people to expel the British with force;
based on individual heroic actions on lines of Irish nationalists
or Russian nihilists and not a mass-based countrywide
struggle.

●

Revolutionary Activities
* Bengal

1902—First revolutionary groups in Midnapore and Calcutta
(The Anushilan Samiti)
1906—

Yugantar, the revolutionary weekly started

By 1905-06—Several newspapers started advocating
revolutionary terrorism.
1907—Attempt on life of the former Lt. governor of East Bengal
and Assam
1908—Prafulla Chaki and Khudiram Bose attempt to murder
Muzaffarpur Magistrate, Kingsford
Alipore conspiracy case involving Aurobindo Ghosh, Barindra
Kumar Ghosh, and others
1908—Burrah dacoity by Dacca Anushilan
1912—Bomb thrown at Viceroy Hardinge by Rashbehari Bose
and Sachin Sanyal
Sandhya, Yugantar—newspapers advocating revolutionary
activity
Jatin Das and Yugantar; the German Plot during World
War I

* Maharashtra

1879—Ramosi Peasant Force by Vasudev Balwant Phadke
1890s—Tilak’s attempts to propagate militancy among the
youth through Shivaji and Ganapati festivals, and his journals
Kesari and Maharatta
1897—Chapekar brothers kill Rand, the plague commissioner
of Poona and Lt. Ayerst
1899—Mitra Mela—a secret society organised by Savarkar and
his brother
1904—Mitra Mela merged with Abhinav Bharat
1909—District Magistrate of Nasik—Jackson—killed

* Punjab

Revolutionary activity by Lala Lajpat Rai, Ajit Singh, Aga
Haidar Syed Haidar Raza, Bhai Parmanand, Lalchand ‘Falak’,
Sufi Ambaprasad

●

Revolutionary Activity Abroad

1905—Shyamji Krishnavarma set up Indian Home Rule Society
and India House and brought out journal

The Sociologist in

London.

310

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

1909—Madan Lal Dhingra murdered Curzon-Wyllie; Madame
Bhikaji Cama operated from Paris and Geneva and brought
out journal

Bande Mataram.

Ajit Singh also active
Berlin Committee for Indian Independence established by
Virendranath Chattopadhyay and others
Missions sent to Baghdad, Persia, Turkey, Kabul.

* In

North America, the Ghadr was organised by Lala Hardayal,

Ramchandra, Bhawan Singh, Kartar Singh Saraba, Barkatullah,
Bhai Parmanand.
The Ghadr Programme
Assassinate officials
Publish revolutionary literature
Work among Indian troops abroad and raise funds
Bring about a simultaneous revolt in all colonies of Britain.
Attempt to bring about an armed revolt in India on February
21, 1915 amidst favourable conditions created by the outbreak
of First World War and the

Komagata Maru incident (September

1914). The plan was foiled due to treachery.
Defence of India Act, 1915 passed primarily to deal with the
Ghadrites

First World War and Nationalist Response

✫

311

311

CHAPTER 14

First World War and

Nationalist Response

In the First World War (1914–19), Britain allied with France,

Russia, USA, Italy, and Japan against Germany, Austria-

Hungary, and Turkey. This period saw the maturing of Indian

nationalism. The nationalist response to British participation

in the First World War was three-fold:

(i) the Moderates supported the empire in the war as

a matter of duty;

(ii) the Extremists, including Tilak (who was released

in June 1914), supported the war efforts in the

mistaken belief that Britain would repay India’s

loyalty with gratitude in the form of self-

government; and

(iii) the revolutionaries decided to utilise the

opportunity to wage a war on British rule and

liberate the country.

The Indian supporters of British war efforts failed to

see that the imperialist powers were fighting to safeguard

their own colonies and markets.

The revolutionary activity was carried out through the

Ghadr Party in North America, Berlin Committee in Europe,

and some scattered mutinies by Indian soldiers, such as the

one in Singapore. In India, for revolutionaries striving for

immediate complete independence, the War seemed a heaven-

312

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

sent opportunity, draining India of troops (the number of

white soldiers went down at one point to only 15,000), and

raising the possibility of financial and military help from

Germany and Turkey—the enemies of Britain. (Details of

revolutionary activities of this period have been covered in

the previous chapter.)

Home Rule League Movement

The Home Rule Movement was the Indian response to the

First World War in a less charged but a more effective way

than the response of Indians living abroad which took the

form of the romantic Ghadr adventure.

Prominent leaders—Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Annie Besant,

G.S. Khaparde, Sir S. Subramania Iyer, Joseph Baptista, and

Muhammad Ali Jinnah among others—got together and

decided that it was necessary to have a national alliance that

would work throughout the year (unlike the Congress which

had annual sessions) with the main objective of demanding

self-government or home rule for all of India within the

British commonwealth. This alliance was to be the All India

Home Rule League along the lines of the Irish Home Rule

League.

In the end, however, two Home Rule Leagues were

launched—one by Bal Gangadhar Tilak and the other by Annie

Besant, both with the aim of beginning a new trend of

aggressive politics.

Factors Leading to the Movement

Some of the factors leading to the formation of the Home

Rule Movement were as follows:

(i) A section of the nationalists felt that popular

pressure was required to attain concessions from the

government.

(ii) The Moderates were disillusioned with the Morley-

Minto reforms.

(iii) People were feeling the burden of wartime miseries

caused by high taxation and a rise in prices, and were ready

to participate in any aggressive movement of protest.

(iv) The war, being fought among the major imperialist

powers of the day and backed by naked propaganda against

each other, exposed the myth of white superiority.

First World War and Nationalist Response

✫

313

(v) Tilak was ready to assume leadership after his

release in June 1914, and had made conciliatory gestures—

to the government reassuring it of his loyalty and to the

Moderates that he wanted, like the Irish Home Rulers, a

reform of the administration and not an overthrow of the

government. He also admitted that the acts of violence had

only served to retard the pace of political progress in India.

He urged all Indians to assist the British government in its

hour of crisis.

(vi) Annie Besant, the Irish theosophist based in India

since 1896, had decided to enlarge the sphere of her

activities to include the building of a movement for home

rule on the lines of the Irish Home Rule Leagues.

The Leagues

Both Tilak and Besant realised that the sanction of a

Moderate-dominated Congress as well as full cooperation of

the Extremists was essential for the movement to succeed.

Having failed at the 1914 session of the Congress to reach

a Moderate-Extremist rapprochement, Tilak and Besant

decided to revive political activity on their own.

By early 1915, Annie Besant had launched a campaign

to demand self-government for India after the war on the lines

of white colonies. She campaigned through her newspapers,

New India and Commonweal, and through public meetings

and conferences. At the annual session of the Congress in

1915, the efforts of Tilak and Besant met with some success.

It was decided that the Extremists be admitted to the

Congress. Although Besant failed to get the Congress to

approve her scheme of Home Rule Leagues, the Congress

did commit itself to a programme of educative propaganda

and to a revival of local-level Congress committees. Not

willing to wait for too long, Besant laid the condition that

if the Congress did not implement its commitments, she

would be free to set up her own league—which she finally

had to, as there was no response from the Congress.

Tilak and Besant set up their separate leagues to avoid

any friction. As Annie Besant said, some supporters of Tilak

were not at ease with her and similarly, some of her own

supporters were not at ease with Tilak. However, both leagues

coordinated their efforts by confining their work to their

specific areas. They cooperated where they could.

314

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Tilak’s League

Tilak set up his Indian Home Rule League in April 1916.

Tilak held his first Home Rule meeting at Belgaum. Poona

was the headquarters of his league. His league was restricted

to Maharashtra (excluding Bombay city), Karnataka, Central

Provinces, and Berar. It had six branches and the demands

included swarajya, formation of linguistic states and education

in the vernacular.
Besant’s League

Annie Besant set up her All-India Home Rule League in

September 1916 in Madras (now Chennai) and covered the

rest of India (including Bombay city). It had 200 branches,

was loosely organised as compared to Tilak’s league and had

George Arundale as the organising secretary. Besides Arundale,

the main work was done by B.W. Wadia and C.P. Ramaswamy

Aiyar.

The Home Rule League Programme

The League campaign aimed to convey to the common man

the message of home rule as self-government. It carried a

much wider appeal than the earlier mobilisations had and also

attracted the hitherto ‘politically backward’ regions of Gujarat

and Sindh. The aim was to be achieved by promoting political

education and discussion through public meetings, organising

libraries and reading rooms containing books on national

politics, holding conferences, organising classes for students

on politics, carrying out propaganda through newspapers,

pamphlets, posters, illustrated post-cards, plays, religious

songs, etc., collecting funds, organising social work, and

participating in local government activities. The Russian

Revolution of 1917 proved to be an added advantage for the

Home Rule campaign.

The Home Rule agitation was later joined by Motilal

Nehru, Jawaharlal Nehru, Bhulabhai Desai, Chittaranjan Das,

K.M. Munshi, B. Chakravarti, Saifuddin Kitchlew, Madan

Mohan Malaviya, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Tej Bahadur Sapru,

and Lala Lajpat Rai. Some of these leaders became heads

of local branches of Annie Besant’s League. Muhammad Ali

Jinnah led the Bombay division. Many of the Moderate

Congressmen who were disillusioned with Congress inactivity,

and some members of Gokhale’s Servants of India Society

First World War and Nationalist Response

✫

315

also joined the agitation. However, Anglo-Indians, most of

the Muslims and non-brahmins from the South did not join

as they felt Home Rule would mean rule of the Hindu

majority, and that too mainly by the high caste.

Government Attitude

The government came down with severe repression, especially

in Madras where the students were prohibited from attending

political meetings. A case was instituted against Tilak which

was, however, rescinded by the high court. Tilak was barred

from entering Punjab and Delhi. In June 1917, Annie Besant

and her associates, B.P. Wadia and George Arundale, were

arrested. This invited nationwide protest. In a dramatic

gesture, Sir S. Subramania Aiyar renounced his knighthood,

while Tilak advocated a programme of passive resistance. The

repression only served to harden the attitude of the agitators

and strengthen their resolve to resist the government. Montagu,

the Secretary of State for India, commented that “Shiva ...cut

his wife into fifty-two pieces only to discover that he had

fifty-two wives. This is what happens to the Government of

India when it interns Mrs Besant.” Annie Besant was released

in September 1917.

Why the Agitation Faded Out by 1919

The Home Rule agitation proved to be short-lived. By 1919,

it had petered out. The reasons for the decline were as

follows:

(i) There was a lack of effective organisation.

(ii) Communal riots were witnessed during 1917–18.

(iii) The Moderates who had joined the Congress after

Annie Besant’s arrest were pacified by talk of reforms

(contained in Montagu’s statement of August 1917 which

held self-government as the long-term goal of the British rule

in India) and Besant’s release.

(iv) Talk of passive resistance by the Extremists kept

the Moderates away from activity from September 1918

onwards.

(v) The Montagu-Chelmsford reforms, which became

known in July 1918, further divided the nationalist ranks.

Annie Besant herself was in two minds about the use of the

league after the announcement of the reforms. Annie Besant

316

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

vacillated over her response to the reforms and the techniques

of passive resistance.

(vi) Tilak had to go abroad (September 1918) in

connection with a libel case against Valentine Chirol whose

book, Indian Unrest, had featured Tilak as responsible for

the agitational politics that had developed in India. With

Besant unable to give a positive lead and Tilak away in

England, the movement was left leaderless.

(vii) Gandhi’s fresh approach to the struggle for

freedom was slowly but surely catching the imagination of

the people, and the mass movement that was gathering

momentum pushed the home rule movement onto the side

lines till it petered out.

[In 1920, Gandhi accepted the presidentship of the All

India Home Rule League and changed the organisation’s name

to Swarajya Sabha. Within a year, however, the league

joined the Indian National Congress.]

Positive Gains

The Home Rule Leagues and the associated activities had

some positive effects and contributed to the fresh direction

that the freedom struggle was to take in the coming years.

The Home Rule Movement marked a transition between the

deliberative and rather inactive nature of the Congress till

then and the Gandhian phase that was to come with its mass

involvement in the struggle for freedom.

(i) The movement shifted the emphasis from the

educated elite to the masses and permanently deflected the

movement from the course mapped by the Moderates.

(ii) It created an organisational link between the town

and the country, which was to prove crucial in later years

when the national movement entered its mass phase in a true

sense.

(iii) It created a generation of ardent nationalists.

(iv) It prepared the masses for politics of the Gandhian

style.

(v) The August 1917 declaration of Montagu and the

Montford reforms were influenced by the Home Rule

agitation.

(vi) The efforts of Tilak and Annie Besant towards the

First World War and Nationalist Response

✫

317

Moderate-Extremist reunion at Lucknow (1916) revived the

Congress as an effective instrument of Indian nationalism.

(vii) The home rule movement lent a new dimension

and a sense of urgency to the national movement.

Lucknow Session of the Indian
National Congress (1916)

Readmission of Extremists to Congress

The Lucknow session of the Indian National Congress,

presided over by a Moderate, Ambika Charan Majumdar,

finally readmitted the Extremists led by Tilak to the Congress

fold. Various factors facilitated this reunion:

(i) Old controversies had become meaningless now.

(ii) Both the Moderates and the Extremists realised that

the split had led to political inactivity.

(iii) Annie Besant and Tilak had made vigorous efforts

for the reunion. To allay Moderate suspicions, Tilak had

declared that he supported a reform of administration and

not an overthrow of the government. He also denounced acts

of violence.

(iv) The death of Pherozeshah Mehta, who had led

the Moderate opposition to the Extremists, facilitated the

reunion.

Lucknow Pact between Congress and

Muslim League

Another significant development to take place at Lucknow

was the coming together of the Muslim League and the

Congress and the presentation of common demands by them

to the government. This happened at a time when the Muslim

League, now dominated by the younger militant nationalists,

was coming closer to the Congress objectives and turning

increasingly anti-imperialist.
Why the Change in the League’s Attitude

There were many reasons for the shift in the League’s

position:

(i) Britain’s refusal to help Turkey (ruled by the Khalifa

who claimed religio-political leadership of all Muslims) in

318

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

View

After nearly ten years of painful separation and wanderings
through the wilderness of misunderstanding and mazes of
unpleasant controversies...both wings of Indian Nationalist Party
have come to realise the fact that united they stand, but divided
they fall.

A.C. Majumdar (president of the Lucknow session of

the INC—1916)

its wars in the Balkans (1912–13) and with Italy (during

1911) had angered the Muslims.

(ii) Annulment of partition of Bengal in 1911 had

annoyed those sections of the Muslims who had supported

the partition.

(iii) The refusal of the British government in India to

set up a university at Aligarh with powers to affiliate colleges

all over India also alienated some Muslims.

(iv) The younger League members were turning to

bolder nationalist politics and were trying to outgrow the

limited political outlook of the Aligarh school. The Calcutta

session of the Muslim League (1912) had committed the

League to “working with other groups for a system of self-

government suited to India, provided it did not come in

conflict with its basic objective of protection of interests

of the Indian Muslims”. Thus, the goal of self-government

similar to that of the Congress brought both sides closer.

(v) Younger Muslims were infuriated by the government

repression during the First World War. Maulana Azad’s Al

Hilal and Mohammad Ali’s Comrade faced suppression,

while the leaders such as Ali brothers, Maulana Azad and

Hasrat Mohani faced internment. This generated anti-

imperialist sentiments among the ‘Young Party’.
The Nature of the Pact

The Lucknow Pact between the Congress and the Muslim

League could be considered an important event in the course

of the nationalistic struggle for freedom.

While the League agreed to present joint constitutional

demands with the Congress to the government, the Congress

accepted the Muslim League’s position on separate electorates

which would continue till any one community demanded joint

electorates. The Muslims were also granted a fixed proportion

First World War and Nationalist Response

✫

319

of seats in the legislatures at all-India and provincial levels.

The joint demands were:

●

Government should declare that it would confer self-

government on Indians at an early date.

●

The representative assemblies at the central as well

as provincial level should be further expanded with an elected

majority and more powers given to them.

●

The term of the legislative council should be five

years.

●

The salaries of the Secretary of State for India should

be paid by the British treasury and not drawn from Indian

funds.

●

Half the members of the viceroy’s and provincial

governors’ executive councils should be Indians.
Critical Comments

Though half the executive was to be elected by the legislature,

the executive as a whole was not to be responsible to the

legislature. The legislature could not remove the elected half

of the executive, but since important matters like the budget

were dependent upon the approval of the legislature, a

constitutional deadlock was most likely. This was the nature

of executive-legislature relations that the Congress seemed

to ask for in any scheme of post-war constitutional reforms.

The Lucknow Pact demands were thus just a significantly

expanded version of the Morley-Minto reforms.

While the effort of the Congress and the Muslim

League to put up a united front was a far-sighted one, the

acceptance of the principle of separate electorates by the

Congress implied that the Congress and the League came

together as separate political entities. This was a major

landmark in the evolution of the two-nation theory by the

Muslim League. Secondly, while the leaders of the two

groups came together, efforts to bring together the masses

from the two communities were not considered. However,

the controversial decision to accept the principle of separate

electorates represented a serious desire on the part of the

Congress to allay minority fears of majority domination.

Moreover, there was a large amount of enthusiasm generated

among the people by this reunion. Even the government

decided to placate the nationalists by declaring its intention

320

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

to grant self-government to Indians in times to come, as

contained in Montagu’s August 1917 declaration.

Montagu’s Statement of August
1917

The Secretary of State for India, Edwin Samuel Montagu,

made a statement on August 20, 1917 in the British House

of Commons in what has come to be known as the August

Declaration of 1917. The statement said: “The government

policy is of an increasing participation of Indians in every

branch of administration and gradual development of self-

governing institutions with a view to the progressive realisation

of responsible government in India as an integral part of the

British Empire.”

From now onwards, the demand by nationalists for self-

government or home rule could not be termed as seditious

since attainment of self-government for Indians now became

a government policy, unlike Morley’s statement in 1909 that

the reforms were not intended to give self-government to

India. Also, in the use of the term ‘responsible government’

was implied the condition that the rulers were to be

answerable to the elected representatives, and not only to the

imperial government in London. However, it was equally

clear that the British had no intention of handing over power

to predominantly elected legislatures with an Indian majority.

So, in order that the executive be made responsible in some

measure to the elected assemblies, whose size and the

proportion of elected members in which was going to be

increased in any case, the concept of ‘dyarchy’ was to be

evolved.

Indian Objections

The objections of the Indian leaders to Montagu’s statement

were two-fold:

(i) No specific time frame was given.

(ii) The government alone was to decide the nature and

the timing of advance towards a responsible government, and

the Indians were resentful that the British would decide what

was good and what was bad for Indians.

First World War and Nationalist Response

✫

321

Summary

●

Home Rule League Movement
Manifestation of a trend of aggressive politics in national
movement; was pioneered by Tilak and Annie Besant on lines
of a similar movement in Ireland
* Factors Favouring the Movement

1. Need being felt for popular pressure to attain concessions
2. Disillusionment with Morley-Minto Reforms
3. Wartime miseries—public ready to protest
4. Tilak, Besant ready to assume leadership

* Aim of the Movement To convey to the common man the

concept of Home Rule as self-government.

* Tilak’s League—Started in April 1916 and operated in

Maharashtra, Karnataka, Central Provinces, and Berar; had
six branches

* Besant’s League—Started in September 1916 and operated

in rest of India; had 200 branches
Later, the leagues were joined by others including Moderate
Congressmen.

* Methods Used Organising discussions, reading rooms,

propaganda through public meetings, newspapers, pamphlets,
posters, etc.

* Positive Gains Emphasis shifted to the masses permanently;

organisational link established between town and country;
prepared a generation of ardent nationalists, influenced
Moderate-Extremist reunion at Lucknow (1916)

●

Lucknow Session of INC—1916
Extremists were readmitted to Congress.
Muslim League and Congress put up joint demands under
Lucknow Pact.
Congress accepted the League’s position on separate electorates.

●

Importance of Montagu’s Statement Attainment of self-
government for Indians became a government policy.

322

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

322

CHAPTER 15

Emergence of Gandhi

Towards the end of the First World War, various forces were

at work in India and on the international scene. After the end

of the war, there was a resurgence of nationalist activity in

India and in many other colonies in Asia and Africa. The

Indian struggle against imperialism took a decisive turn

towards a broad-based popular struggle with the emergence

of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi on the Indian political

scene.

UNIT 7

Era of Mass

Nationalism Begins

(1919–1939)

Chapters 15 to 21

Emergence of Gandhi

✫

323

Why Nationalist Resurgence
Now

After the war, the conditions in India and influences from
abroad created a situation that was ready for a national
upsurge against foreign rule.

Post-War Economic Hardships

India contributed in men and money towards the British war
efforts. Thousands of Indian men died in the war on various
fronts. The food supplies and ammunition and the army’s keep
came from the money raised by taxing Indians. When the war
ended, all sections of the Indian population were experiencing
hardships on various fronts.

Industry First, an increase in prices, then a recession

coupled with increased foreign investment brought many
industries to the brink of closure and loss. They now
demanded protection against imports besides government
aid.

Workers and Artisans This section of the populace

faced unemployment and bore the brunt of high prices.

Peasantry Faced with high taxation and poverty, the

peasants waited for a lead to protest.

Soldiers Soldiers who returned from battlefields abroad

gave an idea of their experience to the rural folk. They were
also surprised to return to a country that was impoverished
and had less liberty than before.

Educated Urban Classes This section was facing

unemployment as well as suffering from an acute awareness
of racism in the attitude of the British.

Expectations of Political Gains for

Cooperation in the War

The contribution of Indians to the British war effort, was

huge, though it has gone unacknowledged. Gandhi and most

nationalists extended cooperation to the war effort, and a

huge number of Indian troops sacrificed their lives on the

324

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

war fronts. So, after the war, there were high expectations
of political gains from the British government and this too
contributed towards the charged atmosphere in the country.

Nationalist Disillusionment with

Imperialism Worldwide

The Allied powers, to rally the colonies to their side during
the war, had promised them an era of democracy and self-
determination after the war. During the war, both sides to
the war had launched vicious propaganda to malign each other
and expose each other’s uncivilised colonial record. But soon
it became clear from the Paris Peace Conference and other
peace treaties that the imperialist powers had no intention
of loosening their hold over the colonies; in fact they went
on to divide the colonies of the vanquished powers among
themselves. All this served to further erode the myth of the
cultural and military superiority of the whites. As a result,
the post-war period saw a resurgence of militant nationalist
activity throughout Asia and Africa—in Turkey, Egypt,
Ireland, Iran, Afghanistan, Burma, Malaya, the Philippines,
Indonesia, Indo-China, China, and Korea.

Impact of Russian Revolution

(November 7, 1917)

The Bolshevik Party of workers overthrew the Czarist regime
and founded the first socialist state, the Soviet Union, under
the leadership of Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov or Lenin. The
Soviet Union unilaterally renounced the Czarist imperialist
rights in China and the rest of Asia, gave rights of self-
determination to former Czarist colonies in Asia, and gave
equal status to the Asian nationalities within its borders.

The October Revolution brought home the message that

immense power lay with the people, and that the masses were
capable of challenging the mightiest of tyrants provided they
were organised, united, and determined.

Emergence of Gandhi

✫

325

Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms
and Government of India Act,
1919

The British government, not prepared to part with or even

share its power with the Indians, once again resorted to the

policy of ‘carrot and stick’. The carrot was represented by

the insubstantial Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms, while

measures such as the Rowlatt Act represented the stick.

In line with the government policy contained in

Montagu’s statement of August 1917, the government

announced further constitutional reforms in July 1918,

known as Montagu-Chelmsford or Montford Reforms. Based

on these, the Government of India Act, 1919 was enacted.

Main Features

The main features of the Montford Reforms were as follows.

●

Provincial Government—Introduction of

Dyarchy

The Act introduced dyarchy for the executive at the level of

the provincial government.

Executive (i) Dyarchy, i.e., rule of two—executive

councillors and popular ministers—was introduced. The

governor was to be the executive head in the province.

(ii) Subjects were divided into two lists: ‘reserved’

which included subjects such as law and order, finance, land

revenue, irrigation, etc., and ‘transferred’ subjects such as

education, health, local government, industry, agriculture,

excise, etc. The reserved subjects were to be administered

by the governor through his executive council of bureaucrats,

and the transferred subjects were to be administered by

ministers nominated from among the elected members of the

legislative council.

(iii) The ministers were to be responsible to the

legislature and had to resign if a no-confidence motion was

passed against them by the legislature, while the executive

councillors were not to be responsible to the legislature.

(iv) In case of failure of constitutional machinery in

326

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

the province the governor could take over the administration

of transferred subjects also.

(v) The secretary of state for India and the governor

general could interfere in respect of reserved subjects while

in respect of the transferred subjects, the scope for their

interference was restricted.

Legislature (i) Provincial legislative councils were

further expanded and 70 per cent of the members were to

be elected.

(ii) The system of communal and class electorates was

further consolidated.

(iii) Women were also given the right to vote.

(iv) The legislative councils could initiate legislation,

but the governor’s assent was required. The governor could

veto bills and issue ordinances.

(v) The legislative councils could reject the budget, but

the governor could restore it, if necessary.

(vi) The legislators enjoyed freedom of speech.

●

Central Government—Still without

Responsible Government

No responsible government was envisaged in the act for the

government at the all-India level. The main points were:

Executive (i) The governor general was to be the chief

executive authority.

(ii) There were to be two lists for administration—

central and provincial.

(iii) In the viceroy’s executive council of eight, three

were to be Indians.

(iv) The governor general retained full control over the

reserved subjects in the provinces.

(v) The governor-general could restore cuts in grants,

certify bills rejected by the central legislature, and issue

ordinances.

Legislature (i) A bicameral arrangement was introduced.

The lower house or Central Legislative Assembly would

consist of 145 members (41 nominated and 104 elected—

52 General, 30 Muslims, 2 Sikhs, 20 Special), and the upper

house or Council of State would have 60 members, of which

26 were to be nominated and 34 elected—20 General, 10

Emergence of Gandhi

✫

327

Muslims, 3 Europeans, and 1 Sikh (as per the figures given

by Subhash Kashyap).

(ii) The Council of State had a tenure of 5 years and

had only male members, while the Central Legislative

Assembly had a tenure of 3 years.

(iii) The legislators could ask questions and

supplementaries, pass adjournment motions, and vote a part

of the budget, but 75 per cent of the budget was still not

votable.

Some Indians found their way into important committees,

including finance.

●

On the home government (in Britain) front, the

Government of India Act, 1919 made an important change—

the Secretary of State for India was henceforth to be paid

out of the British exchequer.

Drawbacks

The reforms had many drawbacks:

(i) Franchise was very limited. The electorate was

extended to some one-and-a-half million for the central

legislature, while the population of India was around 260

million, as per one estimate.

(ii) At the centre, the legislature had no control over

the viceroy and his executive council.

(iii) Division of subjects was not satisfactory at the

centre.

(iv) Allocation of seats for central legislature to the

provinces was based on ‘importance’ of provinces—for

instance, Punjab’s military importance and Bombay’s

commercial importance.

(v) At the level of provinces, division of subjects and

parallel administration of two parts was irrational and, hence,

unworkable. Subjects like irrigation, finance, police, press,

and justice were ‘reserved’.

(vi) The provincial ministers had no control over

finances and over the bureaucrats; this would lead to constant

friction between the two. Ministers were often not consulted

on important matters too; in fact, they could be overruled

328

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

by the governor on any matter that the latter considered

special.

Congress Reaction

The Congress met in a special session in August 1918 at

Bombay under Hasan Imam’s presidency and declared the

reforms to be “disappointing” and “unsatisfactory” and

demanded effective self-government instead.

The Montford reforms were termed “unworthy and

disappointing—a sunless dawn” by Tilak, even as Annie

Besant found them “unworthy of England to offer and India

to accept”.

Views

When the Cabinet used the expression ‘ultimate self-government’
they probably contemplated an intervening period of 500 years.

—Lord Curzon

The Government of India Act, 1919 forged fresh fetters for the
people.

—Subhash Chandra Bose

The Montford Reforms...were only a method of further draining
India of her wealth and of prolonging her servitude.

—M.K. Gandhi

The dyarchy of the double executive was open to almost every
theoretical objection that the armoury of political philosophy can
supply.

—P.E. Roberts

Never in the history of the world was such a hoax perpetrated
upon a great people as England perpetrated upon India, when
in return for India’s invaluable service during the War, we gave
to the Indian nation such a discreditable, disgraceful, undemocratic,
tyrannical constitution.

—Dr. Rutherford, British Member of Parliament

Devolution was intended to tie in a larger element of society
to the status quo. But giving powers to local communities meant
that energies which could have been applied against the imperial
power were dissipated into communal rivalry. Division always
worked for Britain’s benefit ….. In Montford despotism proclaimed
its benevolence.

—Walter Reid,

Keeping the Jewel in the Crown

Emergence of Gandhi

✫

329

Making of Gandhi

Early Career and Experiments with

Truth in South Africa

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was born on October 2, 1869

in Porbandar in the princely state of Kathiawar in Gujarat.

His father was a diwan (minister) of the state. Having studied

law in England, Gandhi, in 1893, went to South Africa in

connection with a case involving his client, Dada Abdullah.

In South Africa, he witnessed the ugly face of white racism

and the humiliation and contempt to which Asians, who had

gone to South Africa as labourers, were subjected. He

decided to stay in South Africa to organise the Indian workers

to enable them to fight for their rights. He stayed there till

1914, after which he returned to India.

The Indians in South Africa consisted of three

categories—one, the indentured Indian labour, mainly from

South India, who had migrated to South Africa after 1890

to work on sugar plantations; two, the merchants—mostly

Meman Muslims who had followed the labourers; and three,

the ex-indentured labourers who had settled down with their

children in South Africa after the expiry of their contracts.

These Indians were mostly illiterate and had little or no

knowledge of English. They accepted racial discrimination

as a part of their daily existence. These Indian immigrants

had to suffer many disabilities. They were denied the right

to vote. They could reside only in prescribed locations which

were insanitary and congested. In some colonies, Asians and

Africans could not stay out of doors after 9 p.m. nor could

they use public footpaths.
Moderate Phase of Struggle (1894–1906)
During this phase, Gandhi relied on sending petitions and

memorials to the authorities in South Africa and in Britain,

hoping that once the authorities were informed of the plight

of Indians, they would take sincere steps to redress their

grievances as the Indians were, after all, British subjects. To

unite different sections of Indians, he set up the Natal Indian

Congress and started a paper Indian Opinion.

330

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Phase of Passive Resistance or Satyagraha

(1906–1914)

The second phase, which began in 1906, was characterised

by the use of the method of passive resistance or civil

disobedience, which Gandhi named satyagraha.

Satyagraha against Registration Certificates (1906)

A new legislation in South Africa made it compulsory for

Indians there to carry at all times certificates of registration

with their fingerprints. The Indians under Gandhi’s leadership

decided not to submit to this discriminatory measure. Gandhi

formed the Passive Resistance Association to conduct the

campaign of defying the law and suffering all the penalties

resulting from such a defiance. Thus was born satyagraha

or devotion to truth, the technique of resisting adversaries

without violence. The government jailed Gandhi and others

who refused to register themselves. Later, the authorities

used deceit to make these defiant Indians register themselves.

The Indians under the leadership of Gandhi retaliated by

publicly burning their registration certificates. All this showed

up the South African government in a bad light. In the end,

there was a compromise settlement.

Campaign against Restrictions on Indian Migration

The earlier campaign was widened to include protest against

a new legislation imposing restrictions on Indian migration.

The Indians defied this law by crossing over from one

province to another and by refusing to produce licences.

Many of these Indians were jailed.

Campaign against Poll Tax and Invalidation of

Indian Marriages A poll tax of three pounds was imposed

on all ex-indentured Indians. The demand for the abolition

of poll tax (which was too much for the poor ex-indentured

Indians who earned less than ten shillings a month) widened

the base of the campaign. Then a Supreme Court order which

invalidated all marriages not conducted according to Christian

rites and registered by the registrar of marriages drew the

anger of the Indians and others who were not Christians. By

implication, Hindu, Muslim, and Parsi marriages were illegal

and children born out of such marriages, illegitimate. The

Indians treated this judgement as an insult to the honour of

Emergence of Gandhi

✫

331

View

“... a man who cares nothing for sensual pleasure, nothing for
riches, nothing for comfort or praise, or promotion, but is simply
determined to do what he believes to be right. He is a dangerous
and uncomfortable enemy, because his body which you can
always conquer gives you so little purchase upon his soul.”

—Gilbert Murray on Gandhi in the

Hibbert Journal

women, and many women were drawn into the movement

because of this indignity.

Protest against Transvaal Immigration Act The

Indians protested the Transvaal Immigration Act, by illegally

migrating from Natal into Transvaal. The government held

these Indians in jails. Miners and plantation workers went on

a lightning strike. In India, Gokhale toured the whole country

mobilising public opinion in support of the Indians in South

Tolstoy Farm

As it became rather difficult to sustain the high pitch of the struggle,
Gandhi decided to devote all his attention to the struggle.

The Tolstoy Farm was founded in 1910 and named as such

by Gandhi’s associate, Herman Kallenbach, after the Russian writer
and moralist, whom Gandhi admired and corresponded with. Besides
being an experiment in education, it was to house the families of
the

satyagrahis and to give them a way to sustain themselves.

The Tolstoy Farm was the second of its kind established by

Gandhi. He had set up the Phoenix Farm in 1904 in Natal, inspired
by a reading of John Ruskin’s

Unto This Last, a critique of

capitalism, and a work that extolled the virtues of the simple life
of love, labour, and the dignity of human beings. As at the Phoenix
settlement, at Tolstoy Farm too, manual work went hand-in-hand
with instruction. Vocational training was introduced to give “all-round
development to the boys and girls”. Co-educational classes were
held, and boys and girls were encouraged to work together. The
activities included general labour, cooking, scavenging, sandal-
making, simple carpentry, and messenger work. Manual work such
as sweeping, scavenging, and fetching water was perceived to be
invaluable to the psychological, social, and moral well-being of an
integrated community. Gandhi’s objective in this context was to
inculcate the ideals of social service and citizenship besides a
healthy respect for manual work from the early formative years itself.
The farm worked till 1913.

332

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Africa. Even the viceroy, Lord Hardinge, condemned the

repression and called for an impartial enquiry.

Compromise Solution Eventually, through a series of

negotiations involving Gandhi, Lord Hardinge, C.F. Andrews,

and General Smuts, an agreement was reached by which the

Government of South Africa conceded the major Indian

demands relating to the poll tax, the registration certificates

and marriages solemnised according to Indian rites, and

promised to treat the issue of Indian immigration in a

sympathetic manner.

Gandhi’s Experience in South Africa

(i) Gandhi found that the masses had immense capacity

to participate in and sacrifice for a cause that moved them.

(ii) He was able to unite Indians belonging to different

religions and classes, and men and women alike under his

leadership.

(iii) He also came to realise that at times the leaders

have to take decisions unpopular with their enthusiastic

supporters.

(iv) He was able to evolve his own style of leadership

and politics and new techniques of struggle on a limited scale,

untrammelled by the opposition of contending political

currents.

Gandhi’s Technique of Satyagraha

Gandhi evolved the technique of Satyagraha during his stay

in South Africa. It was based on truth and non-violence. He

combined some elements from Indian tradition with the

Christian requirement of turning the other cheek and the

philosophy of Tolstoy, who said that evil could best be

countered by non-violent resistance. Its basic tenets were as

follows:

●

A satyagrahi was not to submit to what he considered

as wrong, but was to always remain truthful, non-violent, and

fearless.

●

A satyagrahi works on the principles of withdrawal

of cooperation and boycott.

●

Methods of satyagraha include non-payment of taxes,

and declining honours and positions of authority.

Emergence of Gandhi

✫

333

●

A satyagrahi should be ready to accept suffering in

his struggle against the wrongdoer. This suffering was to be

a part of his love for truth.

●

Even while carrying out his struggle against the

wrongdoer, a true satyagrahi would have no ill feeling for

the wrongdoer; hatred would be alien to his nature.

●

A true satyagrahi would never bow before the evil,

whatever the consequence.

●

Only the brave and strong could practise satyagraha;

it was not for the weak and cowardly. Even violence was

preferred to cowardice. Thought was never to be separated

from practice. In other words, ends could not justify the

means.

Gandhi in India

Gandhi returned to India in January 1915. His efforts in South

Africa were well known not only among the educated but also

among the masses. He decided to tour the country the next

one year and see for himself the condition of the masses.

He also decided not to take any position on any political

matter for at least one year. As for the political currents

prevalent at that time in India, he was convinced about the

limitations of moderate politics and was also not in favour

of Home Rule agitation which was becoming popular at that

time. He thought that it was not the best time to agitate for

Home Rule when Britain was in the middle of a war. He was

convinced that the only technique capable of meeting the

nationalist aims was a non-violent satyagraha. He also said

that he would join no political organisation unless it too

accepted the creed of non-violent satyagraha.

During 1917 and 1918, Gandhi was involved in three

struggles—in Champaran, Ahmedabad, and Kheda—before he

launched the Rowlatt Satyagraha.

Champaran Satyagraha (1917)—First Civil

Disobedience

Gandhi was requested by Rajkumar Shukla, a local man, to

look into the problems of the farmers in context of indigo

334

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

planters of Champaran in Bihar. The European planters had

been forcing the peasants to grow indigo on 3/20 part of

the total land (called tinkathia system). When towards the

end of the 19th century German synthetic dyes replaced

indigo, the European planters demanded high rents and illegal

dues from the peasants in order to maximise their profits

before the peasants could shift to other crops. Besides, the

peasants were forced to sell the produce at prices fixed by

the Europeans.

When Gandhi, joined now by Rajendra Prasad, Mazhar-

ul-Haq, Mahadev Desai, Narhari Parekh, and J.B. Kripalani,

reached Champaran to probe into the matter, the authorities

ordered him to leave the area at once. Gandhi defied the order

and preferred to face the punishment. This passive resistance

or civil disobedience of an unjust order was a novel method

at that time. Finally, the authorities retreated and permitted

Gandhi to make an enquiry. Now, the government appointed

a committee to go into the matter and nominated Gandhi as

a member. Gandhi was able to convince the authorities that

the tinkathia system should be abolished and that the

peasants should be compensated for the illegal dues extracted

from them. As a compromise with the planters, he agreed

that only 25 per cent of the money taken should be

compensated.

Within a decade, the planters left the area. Gandhi had

won the first battle of civil disobedience in India. Other

popular leaders associated with Champaran Satyagraha were

Brajkishore Prasad, Anugrah Narayan Sinha, Ramnavmi Prasad,

and Shambhusharan Varma.

Ahmedabad Mill Strike (1918)—

First Hunger Strike

In March 1918, Gandhi intervened in a dispute between

cotton mill owners of Ahmedabad and the workers over the

issue of discontinuation of the plague bonus. The mill owners

wanted to withdraw the bonus. The workers were demanding

a rise of 50 per cent in their wages so that they could manage

in the times of wartime inflation (which doubled the prices

of food grains, cloth, and other necessities) caused by

Emergence of Gandhi

✫

335

Britain’s involvement in World War I. The mill owners were

ready to give only a 20 per cent wage hike. The workers went

on strike.

The relations between the workers and the mill owners

worsened with the striking workers being arbitrarily dismissed

and the mill owners deciding to bring in weavers from

Bombay. The workers of the mill turned to Anusuya Sarabhai

for help in fighting for justice. Anusuya Sarabhai was a social

worker who was also the sister of Ambalal Sarabhai, one of

the mill owners and the president of the Ahmedabad Mill

Owners Association (founded in 1891 to develop the textile

industry in Ahmedabad), for help in fighting for justice.

Anusuya Behn went to Gandhi, who was respected by the mill

owners and workers, and asked him to intervene and help

resolve the impasse between the workers and the employers.

Though Gandhi was a friend of Ambalal, he took up the

workers’ cause. Anusuya too supported the workers and was

one of the chief lieutenants of Gandhi’s. (It was Anusuya

Behn who went on later to form the Ahmedabad Textile

Labour Association in 1920.) Gandhi asked the workers to

go on a strike and demand a 35 per cent increase in wages

instead of 50 per cent.

Gandhi advised the workers to remain non-violent while

on strike. When negotiations with mill owners did not

progress, he himself undertook a fast unto death (his first)

to strengthen the workers’ resolve. But the fast also had the

effect of putting pressure on the mill owners who finally

agreed to submit the issue to a tribunal. The strike was

withdrawn. In the end, the tribunal awarded the workers a 35

per cent wage hike.

Kheda Satyagraha (1918)—First

Non-Cooperation

Because of drought in 1918, the crops failed in Kheda district

of Gujarat. According to the Revenue Code, if the yield was

less than one-fourth the normal produce, the farmers were

entitled to remission. The Gujarat Sabha, consisting of the

peasants, submitted petitions to the highest governing

336

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

authorities of the province requesting that the revenue

assessment for the year 1919 be suspended. The government,

however, remained adamant and said that the property of the

farmers would be seized if the taxes were not paid.

Gandhi asked the farmers not to pay the taxes. Gandhi,

however, was mainly the spiritual head of the struggle. It was

Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and a group of other devoted

Gandhians, namely, Narahari Parikh, Mohanlal Pandya, and

Ravi Shankar Vyas, who went around the villages, organised

the villagers and told them what to do, and gave the necessary

political leadership. Patel, along with his colleagues, organised

the tax revolt which the different ethnic and caste communities

of Kheda supported.

The revolt was remarkable in that discipline and unity

were maintained. Even when, on non-payment of taxes, the

government seized the farmers’ personal property, land, and

livelihood, a vast majority of Kheda’s farmers did not desert

Sardar Patel. Gujaratis in other parts who sympathised with

the cause of the revolt helped by sheltering the relatives and

property of the protesting peasants. Those Indians who sought

to buy the confiscated lands were socially ostracised.

Ultimately, the government sought to bring about an

agreement with the farmers. It agreed to suspend the tax for

the year in question, and for the next; reduce the increase

in rate; and return all the confiscated property.

The struggle at Kheda brought a new awakening among

the peasantry. They became aware that they would not be free

of injustice and exploitation unless and until their country

achieved complete independence.

Gains from Champaran, Ahmedabad,

and Kheda

●

Gandhi demonstrated to the people the efficacy of

his technique of satyagraha.

●

He found his feet among the masses and came to

have a surer understanding of the strengths and weaknesses

of the masses.

●

He acquired respect and commitment of many,

especially the youth.

Emergence of Gandhi

✫

337

Rowlatt Act, Satyagraha, and
Jallianwala Bagh Massacre

While, on the one hand, the government dangled the carrot

of constitutional reforms (though of an unsatisfactory order),

on the other hand, it decided to arm itself with extraordinary

powers to suppress any discordant voice against the reforms.

The Rowlatt Act

Just six months before the Montford Reforms were to be

put into effect, two bills were introduced in the Imperial

Legislative Council. One of them was dropped, but the

other—an extension to the Defence of India Regulations Act,

1915—was passed in March 1919. It was what was officially

called the Anarchical and Revolutionary Crimes Act, but

popularly known as the Rowlatt Act. It was based on the

recommendations made in the previous year to the Imperial

Legislative Council by the Rowlatt Commission, headed by

the British judge, Sir Sidney Rowlatt, to investigate the

‘seditious conspiracy’ of the Indian people. (The committee

had recommended that activists should be deported or

imprisoned without trial for two years, and that even possession

of seditious newspapers would be adequate evidence of guilt.)

All the elected Indian members of the Imperial Legislative

Council voted against the bill, but they were in a minority

and easily overruled by the official nominees. All the elected

Indian members—who included Muhammed Ali Jinnah,

Madan Mohan Malaviya, and Mazhar Ul Haq—resigned in

protest.

The act allowed political activists to be tried without

juries or even imprisoned without trial. It allowed arrest of

Indians without warrant on the mere suspicion of ‘treason’.

Such suspects could be tried in secrecy without recourse to

legal help. A special cell consisting of three high court judges

was to try such suspects, and there was no court of appeal

above that panel. This panel could even accept evidence not

acceptable under the Indian Evidences Act. The law of habeas

corpus, the basis of civil liberty, was sought to be suspended.

The object of the government was to replace the repressive

338

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

provisions of the wartime Defence of India Act (1915) by

a permanent law. So, the wartime restrictions on freedom

of speech and assembly were re-imposed in India. There was

strict control over the press, and the government was armed

with a variety of powers to deal with anything the authorities

chose to consider as terrorism or revolutionary tactics.

Satyagraha against the Rowlatt Act—

First Mass Strike

Just when the Indians expected a huge advance towards self-

rule as a reward for their contribution to the war, they were

given the Montford Reforms with its very limited scope and

the shockingly repressive Rowlatt Act. Not surprisingly the

Indians felt betrayed—more so Gandhi, who had been at the

forefront in offering cooperation in the British war effort,

and who had even offered to encourage recruitment of Indians

into the British Indian forces. He called the Rowlatt Act the

“Black Act” and argued that not everyone should get

punishment in response to isolated political crimes.

Gandhi called for a mass protest at all-India level. But

soon, having seen the constitutional protest meet with

ruthless repression, Gandhi organised a Satyagraha Sabha and

roped in younger members of Home Rule Leagues and the

Pan Islamists. The forms of protest finally chosen included

observance of a nationwide hartal (strike) accompanied by

fasting and prayer, and civil disobedience against specific

laws, and courting arrest and imprisonment.

There was a radical change in the situation by now.

(i) The masses had found a direction; now they could

‘act’ instead of just giving verbal expression to their grievances.

(ii) From now onwards, peasants, artisans, and the urban

poor were to play an increasingly important part in the

struggle.

(iii) Orientation of the national movement turned to the

masses permanently. Gandhi said that salvation would come

when masses were awakened and became active in politics.

Satyagraha was to be launched on April 6, 1919, but

before it could be launched, there were large-scale violent,

anti-British demonstrations in Calcutta, Bombay, Delhi,

Ahmedabad, etc. Especially in Punjab, the situation became

Emergence of Gandhi

✫

339

so very explosive due to wartime repression, forcible

recruitments, and ravages of disease that the Army had to

be called in. April 1919 saw the biggest and the most violent

anti-British upsurge since 1857. The Lieutenant Governor of

Punjab, Sir Michael O’Dwyer, is said to have used aircraft

strafing against the violent protestors.

Jallianwala Bagh Massacre (April 13, 1919)

Amritsar was the worst affected by violence. In the beginning,

there was no violence by the protestors. Indians shut down

their shops and normal trade, and the empty streets showed

the Indians’ displeasure at the British betrayal. On April 9,

two nationalist leaders, Saifuddin Kitchlew and Dr Satyapal,

were arrested by the British officials without any provocation,

except that they had addressed protest meetings and taken

to some unknown destination. This caused resentment among

the Indian protestors who came out in thousands on April

10 to show their solidarity with their leaders. Soon the

protests turned violent because the police resorted to firing

in which some of the protestors were killed. Tension ran high.

In the riot that followed, five Englishmen are reported to have

been killed and Marcella Sherwood, an English woman

missionary going on a bicycle, was beaten up.

Troops were sent immediately to quell the disturbances.

Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer was the senior British

officer with the responsibility to impose martial law and

restore order. By then the city had returned to calm and the

protests that were being held were peaceful. Dyer, however,

issued a proclamation on April 13 (which was also Baisakhi),

forbidding people from leaving the city without a pass and

from organising demonstrations or processions, or assembling

in groups of more than three.

On Baisakhi day, a large crowd of people mostly from

neighbouring villages, unaware of the prohibitory orders in

the city, gathered in the Jallianwala Bagh, a popular place

for public events, to celebrate the Baisakhi festival. Local

leaders had also called for a protest meeting at the venue.

It is not clear how many in the 20,000 odd people collected

there were political protestors, but the majority were those

who had collected for the festival. Meanwhile, the meeting

had gone on peacefully, and two resolutions, one calling for

340

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

the repeal of the Rowlatt Act and the other condemning the

firing on April 10, had been passed. It was then that Brigadier-

General Dyer arrived on the scene with his men.

The troops surrounded the gathering under orders from

General Dyer and blocked the only exit point and opened

fire on the unarmed crowd. No warning was issued, no

instruction to disperse was given. An unarmed gathering of

men, women, and children was fired upon as they tried to

flee.

According to official British Indian sources, 379 were

identified dead, and approximately 1,100 were wounded. The

Indian National Congress, on the other hand, estimated more

than 1,500 were injured, and approximately 1,000 were

killed. But it is precisely known that 1,650 bullets were fired

into the crowd. The incident was followed by uncivilised

brutalities on the inhabitants of Amritsar. Martial law was

proclaimed in Punjab, and public floggings and other

humiliations were perpetrated. To take just one instance,

Indians were forced to crawl on their bellies down the road

on which the English missionary had been assaulted.

The entire nation was stunned. Rabindranath Tagore

renounced his knighthood in protest. Gandhi gave up the title

of Kaiser-i-Hind, bestowed by the British for his work during

the Boer War. Gandhi was overwhelmed by the atmosphere

of total violence and withdrew the movement on April 18,

1919.

Seen in an objective way, Dyer ensured the beginning

of the end of the British Raj.

What had happened in Amritsar made Gandhi declare

that cooperation with a ‘satanic regime’ was now impossible.

He realised that the cause of Indian independence from

British rule was morally righteous. The way to the non-

cooperation movement was ready.

According to the historian, A.P.J Taylor, the Jallianwala

Bagh massacre was the “decisive moment when Indians were

alienated from British rule”.

The events of 1919 were to shape Punjab’s politics of

resistance. Bhagat Singh was just 11 at the time of the

Jallianwala Bagh massacre. For Bhagat Singh’s Bharat

Naujawan Sabha, the massacre was to act as a symbol that

would help overcome the apathy that came in the wake of

the end of the non-cooperation movement.

Emergence of Gandhi

✫

341

Udham Singh, who bore the name, Ram Mohammad

Singh Azad, later assassinated Michael O’Dwyer, the

Lieutenant Governor who presided over the brutal British

suppression of the 1919 protests in Punjab. Udham Singh

was hanged in 1940 for his deed. (His ashes were returned

to India in 1974.)

The Hunter Committee of
Inquiry

The massacre at Jallianwalla Bagh shocked Indians and many

British as well. The Secretary of State for India, Edwin

Montagu, ordered that a committee of inquiry be formed to

investigate the matter. So, on October 14, 1919, the

Government of India announced the formation of the Disorders

Inquiry Committee, which came to be more widely and

variously known as the Hunter Committee/Commission

after the name of its chairman, Lord William Hunter, former

Solicitor General for Scotland and Senator of the College

of Justice in Scotland. The purpose of the commission was

to “investigate the recent disturbances in Bombay, Delhi and

Punjab, about their causes, and the measures taken to cope

with them”.

There were three Indians among the members, namely,

Sir Chimanlal Harilal Setalvad, Vice-Chancellor of Bombay

Views

The enormity of the measures taken by the Government in the
Punjab for quelling some local disturbances has, with a rude
shock, revealed to our minds the helplessness of our position
as British subjects in India ... [T]he very least that I can do
for my country is to take all consequences upon myself in giving
voice to the protest of the millions of my countrymen, surprised
into a dumb anguish of terror. The time has come when badges
of honour make our shame glaring in the incongruous context
of humiliation...

—Rabindranath Tagore in a letter to the Viceroy

No government deserves respect which holds cheap the liberty
of its subjects.

—M.K. Gandhi in

Young India, after the

Jallianwala Bagh massacre

342

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

University, and advocate of the Bombay High Court; Pandit

Jagat Narayan, lawyer and Member of the Legislative Council

of the United Provinces; and Sardar Sahibzada Sultan Ahmad

Khan, lawyer from Gwalior State.

After meeting in Delhi on October 29, the committee

took statements from witnesses called in from Delhi,

Ahmedabad, Bombay, and Lahore. In November, the committee

reached Lahore and examined the principal witnesses to the

events in Amritsar. Dyer was called before the committee.

He was confident that what he had done was only his duty.

Dyer stated that his intentions had been to strike terror

throughout the Punjab and in doing so, reduce the moral

stature of the ‘rebels’. Dyer is reported to have explained

his sense of honour by saying, “I think it quite possible that

I could have dispersed the crowd without firing but they

would have come back again and laughed, and I would have

made, what I consider, a fool of myself.” He also stated that

he did not make any effort to tend to the wounded after the

shooting as he did not consider it his job.

Though Dyer’s statement caused racial tensions among

the members of the committee, the final report, released in

March 1920, unanimously condemned Dyer’s actions. The

report stated that the lack of notice to disperse from the Bagh

in the beginning was an error; the length of firing showed

a grave error; Dyer’s motive of producing a sufficient moral

effect was to be condemned; Dyer had overstepped the

bounds of his authority; there had been no conspiracy to

overthrow British rule in Punjab. The minority report of the

Indian members further added that the proclamations banning

public meetings were insufficiently publicised; there were

innocent people in the crowd, and there had not been any

violence in the Bagh beforehand; Dyer should have either

ordered his troops to help the wounded or instructed the civil

authorities to do so; Dyer’s actions had been “inhuman and

un-British” and had greatly injured the image of British rule

in India.

The Hunter Committee did not impose any penal or

disciplinary action because Dyer’s actions were condoned by

various superiors (later upheld by the Army Council).

Emergence of Gandhi

✫

343

Also, before the Hunter Committee began its

proceedings, the government had passed an Indemnity Act for

the protection of its officers. The “white washing bill”, as

the Indemnity Act was called, was severely criticised by

Motilal Nehru and others.

In England, it fell to the Secretary of State for War

at the time, Winston Churchill, to review the report of the

commission. In the House of Commons, Churchill (no lover

of Indians) condemned what had happened at Amritsar. He

called it “monstrous”. A former prime minister of Britain,

H.H. Asquith called it “one of the worst outrages in the whole

of our history”. The cabinet agreed with Churchill that Dyer

was a dangerous man and could not be allowed to continue

in his post. The decision that Dyer should be dismissed was

conveyed to the Army Council. In the end, Dyer was found

guilty of a mistaken notion of duty and relieved of his

command in March 1920. He was recalled to England. No

legal action was taken against him; he drew half pay and

received his army pension.

Dyer was not, however, universally condemned. In the

House of Lords, most of the peers favoured Dyer, and the

house passed a motion in his support. And the Morning Post

is reported to have raised a sum of 26,000 pounds for Dyer;

a famous contributor to the fund was Rudyard Kipling.

Strangely enough, the clergy of the Golden Temple, led

by Arur Singh, honoured Dyer by declaring him a Sikh. The

honouring of Dyer by the priests of Sri Darbar Sahib,

Amritsar, was one of the reasons behind the intensification

of the demand for reforming the management of Sikh shrines

already being voiced by societies such as the Khalsa Diwan

Majha and Central Majha Khalsa Diwan. This resulted in the

launch of what came to be known as the Gurudwara Reform

movement.

Congress View

The Indian National Congress appointed its own non-official

committee that included Motilal Nehru, C.R. Das, Abbas

Tyabji, M.R. Jayakar, and Gandhi. The Congress put forward

its own view. This view criticised Dyer’s act as inhuman and

also said that there was no justification in the introduction
of the martial law in Punjab.

344

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Summary

●

Why Nationalist Upsurge at End of First World War?
Post-War economic hardship
Nationalist disillusionment with imperialism worldwide
Impact of the Russian Revolution

●

Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms
Dyarchy in provinces
Two lists—reserved and transferred—for administration. Reserved
subjects to be administered by governor through executive
council and transferred subjects to be administered by ministers
from legislative council.
Extensive powers to governor, governor general, and secretary
of state for interference
Franchise expanded, powers also extended.
Governor general to administer with an executive council of
8—three to be Indians.
Two lists for administration—central and provincial
Bicameral central legislature—Central Legislative Assembly as
the lower house and Council of States as the upper house

Drawbacks

Dyarchy arrangement too complex and irrational to be functional
Central executive not responsible to legislature
Limited franchise

●

Sense of Betrayal by the British specially after Rowlatt Act
British promises of reward after war failed to materialise
Nationalists disappointed

●

Gandhi’s Activism in South Africa (1893–1914)
Set up Natal Indian Congress and started

Indian Opinion

Satyagraha against registration certificates
Campaign against restrictions on Indian migration
Campaign against poll tax and invalidation of Indian marriages
Gandhi’s faith in capacity of masses to fight established; he
was able to evolve his own style of leadership and politics
and techniques of struggle.

●

Gandhi’s Early Activism in India
Champaran Satyagraha (1917)—First Civil Disobedience
Ahmedabad Mill Strike (1918)—First Hunger Strike
Kheda Satyagraha (1918)—First Non-Cooperation
Rowlatt Satyagraha (1918)—First mass-strike
Jallianwalla Bagh Massacre and the Inquiry Committee

Non-Cooperation Movement and Khilafat...

✫

345

345

CHAPTER 16

Non-Cooperation

Movement and

Khilafat Aandolan

During 1919–22, the British were opposed through two mass

movements—the Khilafat and Non-Cooperation. Though the

two movements emerged from separate issues, they adopted

a common programme of action—that of non-violent non-

cooperation. The Khilafat issue was not directly linked to

Indian politics, but it provided the immediate background to

the movement and gave an added advantage of cementing

Hindu-Muslim unity against the British.

Background

The background to the two movements was provided by a

series of events after the First World War, which belied all

hopes of the government’s generosity towards the Indian

subjects. The year 1919, in particular, saw a strong feeling

of discontent among all sections of Indians for various

reasons:

●

The economic situation of the country in the post-

War years had become alarming, with a rise in prices of

commodities, decrease in production of Indian industries,

increase in burden of taxes and rents, etc. Almost all sections

of society suffered economic hardship due to the war, and

this strengthened the anti-British attitude.

●

The Rowlatt Act, the imposition of martial law in

346

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Punjab and the Jallianwalla Bagh massacre exposed the brutal

and uncivilised face of the foreign rule.

●

The Hunter Committee on the Punjab atrocities

proved to be an eyewash. In fact, the House of Lords (of

the British Parliament) endorsed General Dyer’s action and

the British public showed solidarity with General Dyer by

helping The Morning Post collect 30,000 pounds for him.

●

The Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms with their ill-

conceived scheme of dyarchy failed to satisfy the rising

demand of the Indians for self-government.

The post-First World War period also saw the preparation

of the ground for common political action by Hindus and

Muslims—(i) the Lucknow Pact (1916) had stimulated

Congress-Muslim League cooperation; (ii) the Rowlatt Act

agitation brought Hindus and Muslims, and also other sections

of the society, together; and (iii) radical nationalist Muslims

like Muhammad Ali, Abul Kalam Azad, Hakim Ajmal Khan,

and Hasan Imam had now become more influential than the

conservative Aligarh school elements who had dominated the

League earlier. The younger elements advocated militant

nationalism and active participation in the nationalist

movement. They had strong anti-imperialist sentiments.

In this atmosphere, the Khilafat issue emerged, around

which developed the historic Non-Cooperation Movement.

The Khilafat Issue

The Khilafat issue paved the way for the consolidation of

the emergence of a radical nationalist trend among the

younger generation of Muslims and the section of traditional

Muslim scholars who were becoming increasingly critical of

British rule. This time, they were angered by the treatment

meted out to Turkey by the British after the First World War.

The Muslims in India, as the Muslims all over the world,

regarded the sultan of Turkey as their spiritual leader, Khalifa,

so naturally their sympathies were with Turkey. During the

war, Turkey had allied with Germany and Austria against the

British. When the war ended, the British took a stern attitude

towards Turkey—Turkey was dismembered and the Khalifa

removed from power. This incensed Muslims all over the

world.

Non-Cooperation Movement and Khilafat...

✫

347

In India, too, the Muslims demanded from the British

(i) that the Khalifa’s control over Muslim sacred places

should be retained, and (ii) the Khalifa should be left with

sufficient territories after territorial arrangements. In early

1919, a Khilafat Committee was formed under the leadership

of the Ali brothers (Shaukat Ali and Muhammad Ali), Maulana

Azad, Ajmal Khan, and Hasrat Mohani, to force the British

government to change its attitude towards Turkey. Thus, the

ground for a country-wide agitation was prepared.

Development of the Khalifat-Non-
Cooperation Programme

For some time, the Khilafat leaders limited their actions to

meetings, petitions, and deputations in favour of the Khilafat.

Later, however, a militant trend emerged, demanding an active

agitation such as stopping all cooperation with the British.

Thus, at the All India Khilafat Conference held in Delhi in

November 1919, a call was made for the boycott of British

goods. The Khilafat leaders also clearly spelt out that unless

peace terms after the War were favourable to Turkey they

would stop all cooperation with the Government. Gandhi, who

was the president of the All India Khilafat Committee, saw

in the issue a platform from which mass and united non-

cooperation could be declared against the Government.

Congress Stand on Khilafat Question

It was quite clear that the support of the Congress was

essential for the Khilafat movement to succeed. However,

although Gandhi was in favour of launching satyagraha and

non-cooperation against the government on the Khilafat

issue, the Congress was not united on this form of political

action. Tilak was opposed to having an alliance with Muslim

leaders over a religious issue, and he was also sceptical of

satyagraha as an instrument of politics. According to Professor

Ravinder Kumar, Gandhi made a concerted bid to convince

Tilak of the virtues of satyagraha and of the expediency of

an alliance with the Muslim community over the Khilafat

issue. There was opposition to some of the other provisions

of the Gandhi’s non-cooperation programme also, such as

boycott of councils. Later, however, Gandhi was able to get

348

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

the approval of the Congress for his programme of political

action and the Congress felt inclined to support a non-

cooperation programme on the Khilafat question because:

●

it was felt that this was a golden opportunity to

cement Hindu-Muslim unity and to bring Muslim

masses into the national movement; now different

sections of society—Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs,

Christians, peasants, artisans, capitalists, tribals,

women, students—could come into the national

movement by fighting for their own rights and

realising that the colonial rule was opposed to them;

●

the Congress was losing faith in constitutional

struggle, especially after the Punjab incidents and

the blatantly partisan Hunter Committee Report;

●

the Congress was aware that the masses were eager

to give expression to their discontent.

Muslim League Support to Congress

The Muslim League also decided to give full support to the

Congress and its agitation on political questions.

The Non-Cooperation Khilafat
Movement

February 1920 In early 1920, a joint Hindu-Muslim

deputation was sent to the viceroy to seek redress of

grievances on the issue of Khilafat, but the mission proved

abortive.

In February 1920, Gandhi announced that the issues of

Punjab wrongs and constitutional advance had been over-

shadowed by the Khilafat question and that he would soon

lead a movement of non-cooperation if the terms of the peace

treaty failed to satisfy the Indian Muslims.

May 1920 The Treaty of Sevres with Turkey, signed

in May 1920, completely dismembered Turkey.

June 1920 An all-party conference at Allahabad

approved a programme of boycott of schools, colleges, and

law courts, and asked Gandhi to lead it.

Non-Cooperation Movement and Khilafat...

✫

349

August 31, 1920 The Khilafat Committee started a

campaign of non-cooperation, and the movement was formally

launched. (Tilak had, incidentally, breathed his last on August

1, 1920.)

September 1920 At a special session in Calcutta, the

Congress approved a non-cooperation programme till the

Punjab and Khilafat wrongs were removed and swaraj was

established. The programme was to include:

●

boycott of government schools and colleges;

●

boycott of law courts and dispensation of justice

through panchayats instead;

●

boycott of legislative councils (there were some

differences over this as some leaders like C.R. Das

were not willing to include a boycott of councils,

but bowed to Congress discipline; these leaders

boycotted elections held in November 1920, and the

majority of the voters too stayed away);

●

boycott of foreign cloth and use of khadi instead;

also practice of hand-spinning to be done;

●

renunciation of government honours and titles; the

second phase could include mass civil disobedience

including resignation from government service, and

non-payment of taxes.

During the movement, the participants were supposed

to work for Hindu-Muslim unity and for removal of

untouchability, all the time remaining non-violent.

December 1920 At the Nagpur session of the Indian

National Congress:

(i) The programme of non-cooperation was endorsed.

(ii) An important change was made in the Congress

creed: now, instead of having the attainment of self-government

through constitutional means as its goal, the Congress

decided to have the attainment of swaraj through peaceful

and legitimate means, thus committing itself to an extra-

constitutional mass struggle.

(iii) Some important organisational changes were made:

a congress working committee (CWC) of 15 members was

set up to lead the Congress from now onwards; provincial

congress committees on linguistic basis were organised;

350

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

ward committees were organised; and entry fee was reduced

to four annas.

(iv) Gandhi declared that if the non-cooperation

programme was implemented completely, swaraj would be

ushered in within a year.

Many groups of revolutionary terrorists, especially

those from Bengal, also pledged support to the Congress

programme.

At this stage, some leaders like Muhammad Ali Jinnah,

Annie Besant, G.S. Kharpade, and B.C. Pal left the Congress

as they believed in a constitutional and lawful struggle, while

some others like Surendranath Banerjea founded the Indian

National Liberal Federation and played a minor role in

national politics henceforward.

The adoption by the Congress of the non-cooperation

movement initiated earlier by the Khilafat Committee gave

it a new energy, and the years 1921 and 1922 saw an unprece-

dented popular upsurge.

Spread of the Movement

Gandhi accompanied by the Ali brothers undertook a nationwide

tour. Thousands of students left government schools and

colleges and joined around 800 national schools and colleges

which cropped up during this time. These educational

institutions were organised under the leadership of Acharya

Narendra Dev, C.R. Das, Lala Lajpat Rai, Zakir Hussain,

Subhash Bose (who became the principal of National

College at Calcutta) and included Jamia Millia at Aligarh,

Kashi Vidyapeeth, Gujarat Vidyapeeth, and Bihar

Vidyapeeth.

Many lawyers gave up their practice, some of whom

were Motilal Nehru, Jawaharlal Nehru, C.R. Das, C. Raja-

gopalachari, Saifuddin Kitchlew, Vallabhbhai Patel, Asaf Ali,

T. Prakasam, and Rajendra Prasad.

Heaps of foreign cloth were burnt publicly and their

imports fell by half. Picketing of shops selling foreign liquor

and of toddy shops was undertaken at many places.

The Tilak Swaraj Fund was oversubscribed and one

crore rupees were collected.

Non-Cooperation Movement and Khilafat...

✫

351

Congress volunteer corps emerged as the parallel

police.

In July 1921, the Ali brothers gave a call to the

Muslims to resign from the army as it was unreligious. The

Ali brothers were arrested for this in September. Gandhi

echoed their call and asked local Congress committees to

pass similar resolutions to that effect.

Now, the Congress gave a call to local Congress bodies

to start civil disobedience if it was thought that the people

were ready for it. Already, a no-tax movement against union

board taxes in Midnapore (Bengal) and in Guntur (Andhra)

was going on.

In Assam, strikes in tea plantations, steamer services,

and Assam-Bengal Railways had been organised. J.M. Sengupta

was a prominent leader in these strikes.

In November 1921, the visit of the Prince of Wales

to India invited strikes and demonstrations.

The spirit of defiance and unrest gave rise to many local

struggles such as Awadh Kisan Movement (UP), Eka Movement

(UP), Mappila Revolt (Malabar), and the Sikh agitation for

the removal of mahants in Punjab.

People’s Response

The participation in the movement was from a wide range

of the society but to a varying extent.
Middle Class

People from the middle classes led the movement at the

beginning, but later they showed a lot of reservations about

Gandhi’s programme. In places like Calcutta, Bombay, and

Madras, which were centres of elite politicians, the response

to Gandhi’s call was very limited. The response to the call

for resignation from the government service, surrendering of

titles, etc., was not taken seriously. The comparative

newcomers in Indian politics found expression of their

interests and aspirations in the movement. Rajendra Prasad

in Bihar and Vallabhbhai Patel in Gujarat provided solid

support and, in fact, leaders like them found non-cooperation

to be a viable political alternative to terrorism in order to

fight against a colonial government.

352

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Business Class

The economic boycott received support from the Indian

business group because they had benefited from the

nationalists’ emphasis on the use of swadeshi. But a section

of the big business remained sceptical towards the movement.

They seemed to be afraid of labour unrest in their factories.
Peasants

Peasants’ participation was massive. Although the Congress

was against class war, the masses broke this restraint. In

Bihar, the confrontation between the ‘lower and upper castes’

on the issue of the former taking the sacred thread got

merged with the Non-Cooperation Movement. In general, the

peasants turned against the landlords and the traders. The

movement gave an opportunity to the toiling masses to

express their real feelings against the British as well as

against their Indian masters and oppressors (landlords and

traders).
Students

Students became active volunteers of the movement, and

thousands of them left government schools and colleges and

joined national schools and colleges. The newly opened

national institutions like the Kashi Vidyapeeth, the Gujarat

Vidyapeeth, and the Jamila Milia Islamia and others

accommodated many students.
Women

Women gave up purdah and offered their ornaments for the

Tilak Fund. They joined the movement in large numbers and

took active part in picketing before the shops selling foreign

cloth and liquor.
Hindu-Muslim Unity

The massive participation of Muslims and the maintenance

of communal unity, despite the events like Moppila Uprisings,

were great achievements. In many places, two-thirds of those

arrested were Muslims, and such type of participation had

neither been seen in the past nor would be seen in the future.

Gandhi and other leaders addressed the Muslim masses from

mosques, and Gandhi was even allowed to address meetings

of Muslim women in which he was the only male who was

not blindfolded.

Non-Cooperation Movement and Khilafat...

✫

353

Government Response

Talks between Gandhi and Reading, the viceroy, broke down

in May 1921 as the government wanted Gandhi to urge the

Ali brothers to remove those portions from speeches which

suggested violence. Gandhi realised that the government was

trying to drive a wedge between him and the Khilafat leaders

and refused to fall into the trap. In December, the government

came down heavily on the protestors. Volunteer corps were

declared illegal, public meetings were banned, the press was

gagged, and most of the leaders barring Gandhi were arrested.

The Last Phase of the Movement

Gandhi was now under increasing pressure from the Congress

rank and file to start the civil disobedience programme. The

Ahmedabad session in 1921 (presided over, incidentally, by

C.R. Das while still in jail; Hakim Ajmal Khan was the acting

president) appointed Gandhi the sole authority on the issue.

On February 1, 1922, Gandhi threatened to launch civil

disobedience from Bardoli (Gujarat) if (i) political prisoners

were not released, and (ii) press controls were not removed.

The movement had hardly begun before it was brought to an

abrupt end.
Chauri Chaura Incident

A small sleepy village named Chauri-Chaura (Gorakhpur

district in United Provinces) has found a place in history

books due to an incident of violence on February 5, 1922,

which was to prompt Gandhi to withdraw the movement. The

police here had beaten up the leader of a group of volunteers

campaigning against liquor sale and high food prices, and then

opened fire on the crowd which had come to protest before

the police station. The agitated crowd torched the police

station with policemen inside who had taken shelter there;

those who tried to flee were hacked to death and thrown back

into the fire. Twenty-two policemen were killed in the

violence. Gandhi, not happy with the increasingly violent

trend of the movement, immediately announced the withdrawal

of the movement.

The Congress Working Committee met at Bardoli in

February 1922 and resolved to stop all activity that led to

354

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Views

To sound the order of retreat just when public enthusiasm was
reaching the boiling point was nothing short of a national calamity.
The principal lieutenants of the Mahatma, Deshbandhu Das,
Pandit Motilal Nehru and Lala Lajpat Rai, who were all in prison,
shared the popular resentment.

—Subhas Chandra Bose

A mass wave of revolutionary unrest in India in 1919 (evident
from the labour unrest and strike wave of 1919-20 and peasant
protests in UP and Bihar) ..... worked as a kind of popular ground-
swell virtually forcing the leadership to a radical posture...Gandhi
and the Congress bigwigs sensed that a revolutionary mass
movement was in the offing. They decided to take over the
leadership to keep the movement a ‘controlled’ affair and ‘within
safe channels’. The movement was called off just when the
masses seemed to be taking the initiative.

—Marxist Interpretation

I would suffer every humiliation, every torture, absolute ostracism
and death itself to prevent the movement from becoming violent.

—M.K. Gandhi, in

Young India, February 16, 1922

breaking of the law and to get down to constructive work,

instead, which was to include popularisation of khadi, national

schools, and campaigning for temperance, for Hindu-Muslim

unity and against untouchability.

Most of the nationalist leaders including C.R.

Das,

Motilal Nehru, Subhash Bose, Jawaharlal Nehru, however,

expressed their bewilderment at Gandhi’s decision to withdraw

the movement.

In March 1922, Gandhi was arrested and sentenced to

six years in jail. He made the occasion memorable by a

magnificent court speech: “I am here, therefore, to invite and

submit cheerfully to the highest penalty that can be inflicted

upon me for what in law is deliberate crime, and what appears

to me to be the highest duty of a citizen.”

Why Gandhi Withdrew the
Movement

Gandhi felt that people had not learnt or fully understood

the method of non-violence. Incidents like Chauri-Chaura

Non-Cooperation Movement and Khilafat...

✫

355

View

It (Khilafat movement) was a purely retrograde and reactionary
movement, and more importantly for Indian nationalism, it was
an intrinsically anti-nationalist movement pitting specifically
Islamic interests against secular and non-Muslim interests.

—Dr. Koenraad Elst

could lead to the kind of excitement and fervour that would

turn the movement to become generally violent. A violent

movement could be easily suppressed by the colonial regime

who would make the incidents of violence an excuse for using

the armed might of the State against the protestors.

The movement was also showing signs of fatigue. This

was natural as it is not possible to sustain any movement

at a high pitch for very long. The government seemed to be

in no mood for negotiations.

The central theme of the agitation—the Khilafat

question—also dissipated soon. In November 1922, the

people of Turkey rose under Mustafa Kamal Pasha and

deprived the sultan of political power. Turkey was made a

secular state. Thus, the Khilafat question lost its relevance.

A European style of legal system was established in Turkey

and extensive rights granted to women. Education was

nationalised and modern agriculture and industries developed.

In 1924, the caliphate was abolished.

Evaluation of Khilafat
Non-Cooperation Movement

The movement brought the urban Muslims into the national

movement, but at the same time it communalised the national

politics, to an extent. Although Muslim sentiments were a

manifestation of the spread of a wider anti-imperialist

feeling, the national leaders failed to raise the religious

political consciousness of the Muslims to a level of secular

political consciousness.

With the Non-Cooperation Movement, nationalist

sentiments reached every nook and corner of the country and

politicised every strata of population—the artisans, peasants,

356

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

students, urban poor, women, traders, etc. It was this

politicisation and activisation of millions of men and women

which imparted a revolutionary character to the national

movement. Colonial rule was based on two myths—one, that

such a rule was in the interest of Indians and two, that it

was invincible. The first myth had been exploded by the

economic critique by Moderate nationalists. The second myth

had been challenged by satyagraha through mass struggle.

Now, the masses lost the hitherto all-pervasive fear of the

colonial rule and its mighty repressive organs.

Summary

●

Khilafat-Non-Cooperation Movement
*

Three demands—
1. Favourable treaty for Turkey
2. Redressal of Punjab wrongs
3. Establishment of swaraj

Techniques Used
Boycott of government-run schools, colleges, law courts,
municipality and government service, foreign cloth, liquor;
setting up of national schools, colleges, panchayats, and
using khadi; second stage to include civil disobedience by
non-payment of taxes.

Nagpur Congress Session (December 1920)—Congress
goal changed to attainment of swaraj through peaceful and
legitimate means from attainment of self-government through
constitutional means.

Chauri-Chaura Incident (February 5, 1922)—Violence by
agitated mob prompted Gandhi to withdraw the movement.

Emergence of Swarajists, Socialist Ideas, ...

✫

357

357

CHAPTER 17

Emergence of Swarajists,

Socialist Ideas, Revolutionary

Activities, and

Other New Forces

Swarajists and No-Changers

Genesis of Congress-Khilafat Swarajya
Party

After Gandhi’s arrest (March 1922), there was disintegration,

disorganisation, and demoralisation among nationalist ranks.

A debate started among Congressmen on what to do during

the transition period, i.e., the passive phase of the movement.

One section led by C.R. Das, Motilal Nehru, and Ajmal

Khan wanted an end to the boycott of legislative councils

so that the nationalists could enter them to expose the basic

weaknesses of these assemblies and use these councils as

an arena of political struggle to arouse popular enthusiasm.

They wanted, in other words, to ‘end or mend’ these councils,

i.e., if the government did not respond to the nationalists’

demands, then they would obstruct the working of these

councils.

Those advocating entry into legislative councils came

to be known as the ‘Swarajists’, while the other school of

358

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

thought led by C. Rajagopalachari, Vallabhbhai Patel, Rajendra

Prasad, and M.A. Ansari came to be known as the ‘No-

changers’. The ‘No-Changers’ opposed council entry, advocated

concentration on constructive work, and continuation of

boycott and non-cooperation, and quiet preparation for

resumption of the suspended civil disobedience programme.

The differences over the question of council entry

between the two schools of thought resulted in the defeat

of the Swarajists’ proposal of ‘ending or mending’ the

councils at the Gaya session of the Congress (December

1922). C.R. Das and Motilal Nehru resigned from the

presidentship and secretaryship respectively of the Congress

and announced the formation of Congress-Khilafat Swarajya

Party or simply Swarajist Party, with C.R. Das as the

president and Motilal Nehru as one of the secretaries.

Swarajists’ Arguments

The Swarajists had their reasons for advocating the entry into

the councils.

●

Entering the councils would not negate the non-

cooperation programme; in fact, it would be like carrying on

the movement through other means—opening a new front.

●

In a time of political vacuum, council work would

serve to enthuse the masses and keep up their morale. Entry

of nationalists would deter the government from stuffing the

councils with undesirable elements who may be used to

provide legitimacy to government measures.

●

The councils could be used as an arena of political

struggle; there was no intention to use the councils as organs

for gradual transformation of colonial rule.

No-Changers’ Arguments

The No-Changers argued that parliamentary work would lead

to neglect of constructive work, loss of revolutionary zeal,

and to political corruption. Constructive work would prepare

everyone for the next phase of civil disobedience.

Agree to Disagree

Both sides, however, wanted to avoid a 1907-type split and

kept in touch with Gandhi who was in jail. Both sides also

realised the significance of putting up a united front to get

Emergence of Swarajists, Socialist Ideas, ...

✫

359

a mass movement to force the government to introduce

reforms, and both sides accepted the necessity of Gandhi’s

leadership of a united nationalist front. Keeping these factors

in mind, a compromise was reached at a meeting in Delhi

in September 1923.

The Swarajists were allowed to contest elections as a

group within the Congress. The Swarajists accepted the

Congress programme with only one difference—that they

would join legislative councils. The elections to the newly

constituted Central Legislative Assembly and to provincial

assemblies were to be held in November 1923.

The Swarajist Manifesto for Elections

Released in October 1923, the Swarajist manifesto took a

strong anti-imperialist line. The points put forward were as

follows:

●

The guiding motive of the British in governing India

lay in selfish interests of their own country.

●

The so-called reforms were only a blind to further

the said interests under the pretence of granting a responsible

government, the real objective being to continue exploitation

of the unlimited resources of the country by keeping Indians

permanently in a subservient position to Britain.

●

The Swarajists would present the nationalist demand

of self-government in councils.

●

If this demand was rejected, they would adopt a policy

of uniform, continuous, and consistent obstruction within the

councils to make governance through councils impossible.

●

Councils would thus be wrecked from within by

creating deadlocks on every measure.

Gandhi’s Attitude

Gandhi was initially opposed to the Swarajist proposal of

council entry. But after his release from prison on health

grounds in February 1924, he gradually moved towards a

reconciliation with the Swarajists.

●

He felt public opposition to the programme of

council entry would be counterproductive.

●

In the November 1923 elections, the Swarajists had

managed to win 42 out of 141 elected seats and a clear

360

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

majority in the provincial assembly of Central Provinces. In

legislatures, in cooperation with the Liberals and the

independents like Jinnah and Malaviya, they won a majority.

The courageous and uncompromising manner in which the

Swarajists functioned convinced him that they would not

become just another limb of colonial administration.

●

There was a government crackdown on revolutionary

terrorists and the Swarajists towards the end of 1924; this

angered Gandhi and he expressed his solidarity with the

Swarajists by surrendering to their wishes.

Both sides came to an agreement in 1924 (endorsed

at the Belgaum session of the Congress in December 1924

over which Gandhi—the only time—presided over the

Congress session) that the Swarajists would work in the

councils as an integral part of the Congress.

Swarajist Activity in Councils

Gradually, the Swarajist position had weakened because of

widespread communal riots, and a split among Swarajists

themselves on communal and Responsivist-Non-responsivist

lines. The government strategy of dividing the Swarajists—

the more militant from the moderate, the Hindus from the

Muslims—was successful. The Swarajists lost the support of

many Muslims when the party did not support the tenants’

cause against the zamindars in Bengal (most of the tenants

were Muslims). Communal interests also entered the party.

The death of C.R. Das in 1925 weakened it further.

The Responsivists among Swarajists—Lala Lajpat Rai,

Madan Mohan Malaviya, and N.C. Kelkar—advocated

cooperation with the government and holding of office

wherever possible. Besides, they also wanted to protect the

so-called Hindu interests. The communal elements accused

leaders like Motilal Nehru, who did not favour joining the

council, of being anti-Hindu even as Muslim communalists

called the Swarajists anti-Muslim.

Thus, the main leadership of the Swarajist Party reiterated

faith in mass civil disobedience and withdrew from legislatures

in March 1926, while another section of Swarajists went into

the 1926 elections as a party in disarray and did not fare

well on the whole. They won 40 seats in the Centre and some

Emergence of Swarajists, Socialist Ideas, ...

✫

361

seats in Madras but were routed in the United Provinces, the

Central Provinces and Punjab.

In 1930, the Swarajists finally walked out as a result

of the Lahore Congress resolution on purna swaraj and the

beginning of the Civil Disobedience Movement.
Achievements

(i) With coalition partners, they out-voted the government

several times, even on matters relating to budgetary grants,

and passed adjournment motions.

(ii) They agitated through powerful speeches on self-

government, civil liberties, and industrialisation.

(iii) Vithalbhai Patel was elected speaker of Central

Legislative Assembly in 1925.

(iv) A noteworthy achievement was the defeat of the

Public Safety Bill in 1928, which was aimed at empowering

the Government to deport undesirable and subversive

foreigners (because the Government was alarmed by the

spread of socialist and communist ideas and believed that a

crucial role was being played by the British and other foreign

activists being sent by the Commintern).

(v) By their activities, they filled the political vacuum

at a time when the national movement was recouping its

strength.

(vi) They exposed the hollowness of the Montford

scheme.

(vii) They demonstrated that the councils could be used

creatively.
Drawbacks

(i) The Swarajists lacked a policy to coordinate their

militancy inside legislatures with the mass struggle outside.

They relied totally on newspaper reporting to communicate

with the public.

(ii) An obstructionist strategy had its limitations.

(iii) They could not carry on with their coalition

partners very far because of conflicting ideas, which further

limited their effectiveness.

(iv) They failed to resist the perks and privileges of

power and office.

(v) They failed to support the peasants’ cause in Bengal

362

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

and lost support among Muslim members who were pro-

peasant.

Constructive Work by No-Changers

The No-Changers devoted themselves to constructive work

that connected them to the different sections of the masses.

(i) Ashrams sprang up where young men and women

worked among tribals and lower castes (especially in Kheda

and Bardoli areas of Gujarat), and popularised the use of

charkha and khadi.

(ii) National schools and colleges were set up where

students were trained in a non-colonial ideological framework.

(iii) Significant work was done for Hindu-Muslim unity,

removing untouchability, boycott of foreign cloth and liquor,

and for flood relief.

(iv) The constructive workers served as the backbone

of civil disobedience as active organisers.
A Critique of Constructive Work

National education benefited the urban lower middle classes

and the rich peasants only. Enthusiasm for national education

surfaced in the excitement of the movement only. In passivity,

the lure of degrees and jobs took the students to official

schools and colleges.

Popularisation of khadi was an uphill task since it was

costlier than the imported cloth.

While campaigning about the social aspect of

untouchability, no emphasis was laid on the economic

grievances of the landless and agricultural labourers comprising

mostly the untouchables.

Although the Swarajists and the No-Changers worked

in their separate ways, they kept on best of terms with one

another and were able to unite whenever the time was ripe

for a new political struggle.

Emergence of New Forces:
Socialistic Ideas, Youth Power,
Trade Unionism

The third decade of the 20th century is a watershed in modern

Indian history in more ways than one. While, on the one hand,

Emergence of Swarajists, Socialist Ideas, ...

✫

363

this period marked the entry of Indian masses into the

national movement, on the other hand, this period saw the

basic crystallisation of the main political currents on the

national scene. These diverse political currents owed their

origin partly to the coming on the scene of the Gandhian

philosophy of satyagraha based on truth and non-violence, as

they embodied a positive or negative reaction to it. The

international influence on Indian political thinkers during this

phase was also more pronounced than before.

The new forces to emerge during the 1920s included

the following ideas and movements.

Spread of Marxist and Socialist Ideas

Ideas of Marx and Socialist thinkers inspired many groups

to come into existence as socialists and communists. These

ideas also resulted in the rise of a left wing within the

Congress, represented by Jawaharlal Nehru and Subhash

Chandra Bose. These young nationalists, inspired by the

Soviet Revolution and dissatisfied with Gandhian ideas and

political programme, began advocating radical solutions for

economic, political, and social ills of the country. These

younger nationalists—

●

were critical of both Swarajists and No-Changers;

●

advocated a more consistent anti-imperialist line in

the form of a slogan for purna swarajya (complete

independence);

●

were influenced by an awareness, though still vague,

of international currents;

●

stressed the need to combine nationalism and anti-

imperialism with social justice and simultaneously

raised the question of internal class oppression by

capitalists and landlords.

The Communist Party of India (CPI) was formed in

1920 in Tashkent (now, the capital of Uzbekistan) by M.N.

Roy, Abani Mukherji, and others after the second Congress

of Commintern. M.N. Roy was also the first to be elected

to the leadership of Commintern.

In 1924, many communists—S.A. Dange, Muzaffar

Ahmed, Shaukat Usmani, Nalini Gupta—were jailed in the

Kanpur Bolshevik Conspiracy Case.

364

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

In 1925, the Indian Communist Conference at Kanpur

formalised the foundation of the CPI.

In 1929, the government crackdown on communists

resulted in the arrest and trial of 31 leading communists,

trade unionists, and left-wing leaders; they were tried at

Meerut in the famous Meerut conspiracy case.

Workers’ and peasants’ parties were organised all over

the country, and they propagated Marxist and communist

ideas.

All these communist groups and workers’ and peasants’

parties remained an integral part of the national movement

and worked along with the Congress.

Activism of Indian Youth

All over, students’ leagues were being established and

students’ conferences were being held. In 1928, Jawaharlal

Nehru presided over the All Bengal Students’ Conference.

Peasants’ Agitations

In the United Provinces peasant agitations were for revision

of tenancy laws, lower rents, protection against eviction, and

relief from indebtedness. Similar peasant agitations took

place in the Rampa region of Andhra, in Rajasthan, in ryotwari

areas of Bombay and Madras. In Gujarat, the Bardoli Satyagraha

was led by Vallabhbhai Patel (1928).

Growth of Trade Unionism

The trade union movement was led by All India Trade Union

Congress (AITUC) founded in 1920. Lala Lajpat Rai was its

first president and Dewan Chaman Lal its general secretary.

Tilak was also one of the moving spirits. The major strikes

during the 1920s included those in Kharagpur Railway

Workshops,Tata Iron and Steel Works (Jamshedpur), Bombay

Textile Mills (this involved 1,50,000 workers and went on

for 5 months), and Buckingham Carnatic Mills. In 1928, there

were a number of strikes involving 5 lakh workers. In 1923,

the first May Day was celebrated in India in Madras.

Caste Movements

As in earlier periods, the varied contradictions of the Indian

society found expression in caste associations and movements.

These movements could be divisive, conservative, and at

times potentially radical, and included:

Emergence of Swarajists, Socialist Ideas, ...

✫

365

●

Justice Party (Madras)

●

Self-respect movement (1925) under “Periyar”—E.V.

Ramaswamy Naicker (Madras)

●

Satyashodhak activists in Satara (Maharashtra)

●

Bhaskar Rao Jadhav (Maharashtra)

●

Mahars under Ambedkar (Maharashtra)

●

Radical Ezhavas under K. Aiyappan and C. Kesavan

in Kerala

●

Yadavs in Bihar for improvement in social status

●

Unionist Party under Fazl-i-Hussain (Punjab)

Revolutionary Activity with a Turn towards

Socialism

This line was adopted by those dissatisfied with the nationalist

strategy of the political struggle with its emphasis on non-

violence. Here, too, two strands developed:

●

Hindustan Republican Association (H.R.A.)—in

Punjab-UP-Bihar

●

Yugantar, Anushilan groups, and later Chittagong

Revolt Group under Surya Sen—in Bengal

Revolutionary Activity During
the 1920s

Why Attraction for Revolutionary Activity

after Non-Cooperation Movement

The revolutionaries had faced severe repression during the

First World War. But in early 1920, many were released by

the government under a general amnesty to create a harmonious

environment for the Montford Reforms to work. Soon,

Gandhi launched the Non-Cooperation Movement. Under the

persuasion of Gandhi and C.R. Das, many revolutionary

groups either agreed to join the non-cooperation programme

or suspended their activities to give the non-violent Non-

Cooperation Movement a chance.

The sudden withdrawal of the Non-Cooperation

Movement, however, left many of them disillusioned; they

began to question the basic strategy of nationalist leadership

and its emphasis on non-violence and began to look for

alternatives. But since these younger nationalists were not

366

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

attracted to the parliamentary work of the Swarajists or to

the patient, undramatic, constructive work of the No-Changers,

they were drawn to the idea that violent methods alone would

free India. Thus, revolutionary activity was revived.

Nearly all major leaders of revolutionary policies had

been enthusiastic participants in the Non-Cooperation

Movement and included Jogesh Chandra Chatterjee, Surya

Sen, Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev, Chandrasekhar Azad, Shiv Verma,

Bhagwati Charan Vohra, Jaidev Kapur, and Jatin Das. Two

separate strands of revolutionary groups emerged during this

period—one operating in Punjab-UP-Bihar and the other in

Bengal.

Major Influences

(i) Upsurge of working class trade unionism after the

War; the revolutionaries wanted to harness the revolutionary

potential of the new emergent class for nationalist revolution.

(ii) Russian Revolution (1917) and the success of the

young Soviet state in consolidating itself.

(iii) Newly sprouting communist groups with their

emphasis on Marxism, socialism, and the proletariat.

(iv) Journals publishing memoirs and articles extolling

the self-sacrifice of revolutionaries, such as Atmasakti,

Sarathi, and Bijoli.

(v) Novels and books such as Bandi Jiwan by Sachin

Sanyal and Pather Dabi by Sharatchandra Chatterjee (or

Chattopadhyay), a government ban on which only enhanced

its popularity.

In Punjab-United Provinces-Bihar

The revolutionary activity in this region was dominated by

the Hindustan Republican Association/Army or HRA

(later renamed Hindustan Socialist Republican Association

or HSRA). The HRA was founded in October 1924 in Kanpur

by Ramprasad Bismil, Jogesh Chandra Chatterjee, and Sachin

Sanyal, with an aim to organise an armed revolution to

overthrow the colonial government and establish in its place

the Federal Republic of United States of India whose basic

principle would be adult franchise.
Kakori Robbery (August 1925)

The most important action of the HRA was the Kakori

robbery. The men held up the 8-Down train at Kakori, an

Emergence of Swarajists, Socialist Ideas, ...

✫

367

obscure village near Lucknow, and looted its official railway

cash. Government crackdown after the Kakori robbery led

to arrests of many, of whom 17 were jailed, 4 transported

for life and 4—Bismil, Ashfaqullah, Roshan Singh, and

Rajendra Lahiri—were hanged. Kakori proved to be a setback.
The HSRA

Determined to overcome the Kakori setback, the younger

revolutionaries, inspired by socialist ideas, set out to reorganise

Hindustan Republic Association at a historic meeting in the

ruins of Ferozshah Kotla in Delhi (September 1928). Under

the leadership of Chandrashekhar Azad, the name of HRA was

changed to Hindustan Socialist Republican Association

(HSRA). The participants included Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev

Thapar (who was always known as Sukhdev), Bhagwati Charan

Vohra from Punjab and Bejoy Kumar Sinha, Shiv Verma, and

Jaidev Kapur from the United Provinces. The HSRA decided

to work under a collective leadership and adopted socialism

as its official goal.
Saunders’ Murder (Lahore, December 1928)

Just when the HSRA revolutionaries had begun to move away

from individual heroic action, the death of Sher-i-Punjab Lala

Lajpat Rai due to lathi blows received during a lathi charge

on an anti-Simon Commission procession (October 1928)

led them once again to take to individual assassination. Bhagat

Singh and Shivram Rajguru shot dead John P. Saunders. They

had mistaken Saunders for Superintendent of Police James

Scott, who was actually responsible for the lathi charge

against Lala Lajpat Rai and his followers. Chandrashekhar

Azad shot dead an Indian constable when he tried to pursue

Bhagat Singh and Rajguru as they fled. The assassination was,

however, justified with these words: “The murder of a leader

respected by millions of people at the unworthy hands of

an ordinary police officer...was an insult to the nation. It was

the bounden duty of young men of India to efface it... We

regret to have had to kill a person but he was part and parcel

of that inhuman and unjust order which has to be destroyed.”
Bomb in the Central Legislative Assembly

(April 1929)

The HSRA leadership now decided to let the people know

about its changed objectives and the need for a revolution

368

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

by the masses. Bhagat Singh and Batukeshwar Dutt were asked

to throw a bomb in the Central Legislative Assembly on April

8, 1929 to protest against the passage of the Public Safety

Bill and Trade Disputes Bill aimed at curtailing civil liberties

of citizens in general and workers in particular. The bombs

had been deliberately made harmless and were aimed at

making ‘the deaf hear’. The objective was to get arrested and

to use the trial court as a forum for propaganda so that people

would become familiar with their movement and ideology.

“Force when aggressively applied is ‘violence’ and is,

therefore, morally unjustifiable, but when it is used in the

furtherance of a legitimate cause, it has its moral justification,”

said Bhagat Singh.
Action against the Revolutionaries

Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev, and Rajguru were tried in the Lahore

conspiracy case. Many other revolutionaries were tried in a

series of other cases. In jail, these revolutionaries protested

against the horrible conditions through fasting, and demanded

honourable and decent treatment as political prisoners. Jatin

Das became the first martyr on the 63rd day of his fast. The

defence of these young revolutionaries was organised by

Congress leaders. Bhagat Singh became a household name.

Azad was involved in a bid to blow up Viceroy Irwin’s

train near Delhi in December 1929. During 1930, there were

a series of violent actions in Punjab and towns of United

Provinces (26 incidents in 1930 in Punjab alone).

Chandrasekhar Azad arranged a meeting with fellow

revolutionaries on February 27, 1931 at the Alfred Park (now

Chandrashekhar Azad Park) in Allahabad. Betrayed by one of

his associates, he and other revolutionaries were besieged

by the British police. Azad put up a brave resistance but was

injured in the fight with the police. Seeing no other way to

escape, he shot himself dead and, thus, fulfilled his pledge

of not being captured alive by the British. (The Colt pistol

used by him is displayed at the Allahabad Museum.

Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev and Rajguru were hanged on

March 23, 1931 for the assassination of Saunders. (March

23 is now observed as Shaheed Diwas and Sarvodaya Day.)

It is said that the three young men proceeded quite cheerfully

Emergence of Swarajists, Socialist Ideas, ...

✫

369

towards the gallows all the while chanting their favourite

slogans like ‘Inquilab Zindabad’ and ‘Down with British

Imperialism’.

In Bengal

During the 1920s many revolutionary groups reorganised

their underground activities, while many continued working

under the Congress, thus getting access to the masses and

providing an organisational base to the Congress in towns

and villages. Many cooperated with C.R. Das in his Swarajist

work. After Das’s death (1925), the Bengal Congress broke

up into two factions—one led by J.M. Sengupta (Anushilan

group joined forces with him) and the other led by Subhash

Bose (Yugantar group backed him).

The actions of the reorganised groups included an

assassination attempt on the notorious Calcutta Police

Commissioner, Charles Tegart (another man named Day got

killed) by Gopinath Saha in 1924. The government, armed

with a new ordinance, came down heavily on revolutionaries.

Many, including Subhash Bose, were arrested. Gopinath Saha

was hanged.

Because of government repression and factionalism

among the revolutionaries, revolutionary activity suffered a

setback, but soon many of revolutionaries started regrouping.

Among the new ‘Revolt Groups’, the most active and famous

was the Chittagong group under Surya Sen.
Chittagong Armoury Raid (April 1930)

Surya Sen had participated in the Non-Cooperation Movement

and had become a teacher in the national school in Chittagong.

He was imprisoned from 1926 to 1928 for revolutionary

activity and afterwards continued working in the Congress.

He was the secretary of the Chittagong District Congress

Committee. He used to say “Humanism is a special virtue

of a revolutionary”. He was a lover of poetry and an admirer

of Tagore and Qazi Nazrul Islam.

Surya Sen decided to organise an armed rebellion along

with his associates—Anant Singh, Ganesh Ghosh, and Lokenath

Baul—to show that it was possible to challenge the armed

might of the mighty British Empire. They had planned to

370

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

occupy two main armouries in Chittagong to seize and supply

arms to the revolutionaries to destroy telephone and telegraph

lines and to dislocate the railway link of Chittagong with the

rest of Bengal. The raid was conducted in April 1930 and

involved 65 activists under the banner of Indian Republican

Army—Chittagong Branch. The raid was quite successful;

Sen hoisted the national flag, took salute, and proclaimed a

provisional revolutionary government. Later, they dispersed

into neighbouring villages and raided government targets.

Surya Sen was arrested in February 1933 and hanged

in January 1934, but the Chittagong raid fired the imagination

of the revolutionary-minded youth and recruits poured into

the revolutionary groups in a steady stream.
Aspects of the New Phase of Revolutionary

Movement in Bengal

Some noteworthy aspects were as follows:

●

There was a large-scale participation of young

women, especially under Surya Sen. These women provided

shelter, carried messages, and fought with guns in hand.

Prominent women revolutionaries in Bengal during this phase

included Pritilata Waddedar, who died conducting a raid;
Kalpana Dutt who was arrested and tried along with Surya

Sen and given a life sentence; Santi Ghosh and Suniti

Chandheri, school girls of Comilla, who shot dead the

district magistrate. (December 1931); and Bina Das who
fired point blank at the governor while receiving her degree

at the convocation (February 1932).

●

There was an emphasis on group action aimed at

organs of the colonial State, instead of individual action. The
objective was to set an example before the youth and to

demoralise the bureaucracy.

●

Some of the earlier tendency towards Hindu religiosity

was shed, and there were no more rituals like oath-taking,
and this facilitated participation by Muslims. Surya Sen had

Muslims such as Satar, Mir Ahmed, Fakir Ahmed Mian, and

Tunu Mian in his group.

There were some drawbacks too:

Emergence of Swarajists, Socialist Ideas, ...

✫

371

●

The movement retained some conservative elements.

●

It failed to evolve broader socio-economic goals.

●

Those working with Swarajists failed to support the

cause of Muslim peasantry against zamindars in Bengal.

Official Reaction

There was panic at first and then severe government repression.

Armed with 20 repressive acts, the government let loose the

police on the revolutionaries. In Chittagong, several villages

were burned and punitive fines imposed on many others. In
1933, Jawaharlal Nehru was arrested for sedition and given

two years’ sentence because he had condemned imperialism

and praised the heroism of the revolutionaries.

Ideological Rethinking

A real breakthrough was made by Bhagat Singh and his
comrades in terms of revolutionary ideology, forms of

revolutionary struggle, and the goals of revolution. The

rethinking had begun in the mid-1920s. The Founding Council

of HRA had decided to preach revolutionary and communist

principles, and the HRA Manifesto (1925) declared that the

“HRA stood for abolition of all systems which made

exploitation of man by man possible”. The HRA’s main organ

Revolutionary had proposed nationalisation of railways and

other means of transport and of heavy industries such as ship

building and steel. The HRA had also decided to start labour

and peasant organisations and work for an “organised and

armed revolution”. During their last days (late 1920s), these

revolutionaries had started moving away from individual

heroic action and violence towards mass politics.

Bismil, during his last days, appealed to the youth to

give up pistols and revolvers, not to work in revolutionary
conspiracies and instead work in an open movement. He

urged the youth to strengthen Hindu-Muslim unity, unite all

political groups under the leadership of the Congress. Bismil

affirmed faith in communism and the principle that “every
human being has equal rights over the products of nature”.

The famous statement of the revolutionary position is

372

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

contained in the book The Philosophy of the Bomb written

by Bhagwati Charan Vohra.

Even before his arrest, Bhagat Singh had moved away

from a belief in violent and individual heroic action to

Marxism and the belief that a popular broad-based movement

alone could lead to a successful revolution. In other words,

revolution could only be “by the masses, for the masses”.
That is why Bhagat Singh helped establish the Punjab

Naujawan Bharat Sabha (1926) as an open wing of

revolutionaries to carry out political work among the youth,

peasants, and workers, and it was to open branches in villages.

Bhagat and Sukhdev also organised the Lahore Students’

Union for open, legal work among students. Bhagat and his

comrades also realised that a revolution meant organisation

and development of a mass movement of the exploited and
the suppressed sections by the revolutionary intelligentsia.

Bhagat used to say, “...real revolutionary armies are in villages

and factories.”

What then was the need for individual heroic action?

Firstly, effective acquisition of new ideology is a prolonged

and historical process whereas the need of the time was a

quick change in the way of thinking. Secondly, these young

intellectuals faced the classic dilemma of how to mobilise

people and recruit them. Here, they decided to opt for

propaganda by deed, i.e., through individual heroic action and

by using courts as a forum for revolutionary propaganda.
Redefining Revolution

Revolution was no longer equated with militancy and violence.

Its objective was to be national liberation—imperialism was

to be overthrown but beyond that a new socialist order was

to be achieved, ending “exploitation of man by man”. As

Bhagat Singh said in the court, “Revolution does not

necessarily involve sanguinary strife, nor is there a place in

it for personal vendetta. It is not the cult of bomb and pistol.

By revolution we mean the present order of things, which

is based on manifest injustice, must change.”

Bhagat fully accepted Marxism and the class approach

Emergence of Swarajists, Socialist Ideas, ...

✫

373

Summary

●

Swarajists and No-Changers

Swarajists advocated council entry after withdrawal of Non-
Cooperation Movement with an aim to end or mend the
councils.
No-Changers advocated constructive work during the transition
period.

●

Emergence of New Forces during 1920s
1. Spread of Marxism and socialist ideas
2. Activism of Indian youth
3. Peasants’ agitations
4. Growth of trade unionism
5. Caste movements
6. Revolutionary terrorism with a tilt towards socialism

●

Activities of HRA/HSRA
Established—1924
Kakori robbery—1925
Reorganised—1928

to society—“Peasants have to free themselves not only from

the foreign yoke, but also from the yoke of landlords and

capitalists.” He also said, “The struggle in India will continue,

so long as a handful of exploiters continue to exploit labour

of common people to further their own interests. It matters

little whether these exploiters are British capitalists, British

and Indian capitalists in alliance, or even purely Indians.” He

defined socialism scientifically as abolition of capitalism and

class domination.

Bhagat was fully and consciously secular—two of the

six rules drafted by Bhagat for the Punjab Naujawan Bharat

Sabha were that its members would have nothing to do with

communal bodies and that they would propagate a general

feeling of tolerance among people, considering religion to

be a matter of personal belief. Bhagat Singh also saw the

importance of freeing people from the mental bondage of

religion and superstition—“to be a revolutionary, one required

immense moral strength, but one also required criticism and

independent thinking”.

374

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Saunders’ murder—1928
Bomb in Central Legislative Assembly—1929
Bid to blow up viceroy’s train—1929
Azad killed in police encounter—1931
Bhagat Singh, Rajguru, Sukhdev hanged—1931

●

Broadened View of HSRA
In later years, ideology moved away from individual action
towards socialistic ideals.

●

Revolutionaries in Bengal
Attempt on life of Calcutta police commissioner—1924
Surya Sen’s Chittagong Revolt Group and Chittagong robberies—
1930

join us http://telegram.me/bpsc65thmand66thp (BPSC CCE 65th,66th and 67th)

Simon Commission and the Nehru Report

✫

375

375

CHAPTER 18

Simon Commission and

the Nehru Report

Appointment of the Indian
Statutory Commission

The Government of India Act, 1919 had a provision that a

commission would be appointed 10 years from date to study

the progress of the governance scheme and suggest new

steps. An all-white, seven-member Indian Statutory

Commission, popularly known as the Simon Commission

(after the name of its chairman, Sir John Simon), was set

up by the British government under Stanley Baldwin’s prime

ministership on November 8, 1927. The members were

formed from four Conservatives, two Labourites, and one

Liberal. (The commission was actually under the joint

chairmanship of Sir John Simon and Clement Attlee, who was

to be Britain’s prime minister in the future.) The commission

was to recommend to the British government whether India

was ready for further constitutional reforms and along what

lines.

Although constitutional reforms were due only in 1929,

the Conservative government, then in power in Britain, feared

defeat by the Labour Party and thus did not want to leave

the question of the future of Britain’s most priced colony

in “irresponsible Labour hands”. Also by the mid-1920s, the

failure of the 1919 Act to create a stable imperial power

376

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

had led to several parliamentary reports and enquiries. The

Lee Commission was appointed in 1923 to look into the

organisation and general conditions of service as well as the

methods of recruitment for Europeans and Indians in the civil

services. Being concerned only with the superior civil

services, it came to be known as the Royal Commission on

the Superior Civil Services in India. The commission suggested

that the statutory public service commission, as put forward

by the Government of India Act 1919, needed to be established

without delay. The Muddiman Committee, officially known

as the Report of the Reforms Enquiry Committee, was set

up in 1924, mainly to look into the working of the Constitution

as set up in 1921 under the Act of 1919. Its report was not

unanimous: while the majority suggested some minor changes

in the structure of the Constitution, the minority, consisting

of non-official Indians, strongly criticised the system of

dyarchy and wanted it to be abolished immediately and the

Constitution made democratic. In 1926, the Linlithgow

Commission, officially the Royal Commission of Agriculture

was set up to examine and report the condition of India’s

agricultural and rural economy. The commission submitted

its report in 1928 and made comprehensive recommendations

for the improvement of the agrarian economy as the foundation

for the welfare and prosperity of India’s rural population.

Among other things, the commission recommended that the

quality of Indian cattle should be improved and that this

should be done by importing foreign bulls of better quality

and using them to breed with Indian cows.

The Conservative Secretary of State for India, Lord

Birkenhead, who had constantly talked of the inability of

Indians to formulate a concrete scheme of constitutional

reforms which had the support of wide sections of Indian

political opinion, was responsible for the appointment of the

Simon Commission.

Indian Response

The Indian response to the Simon Commission was immediate

and nearly unanimous. What angered the Indians most was

the exclusion of Indians from the commission and the basic

notion behind the exclusion that foreigners would discuss and

decide upon India’s fitness for self-government. This notion

Simon Commission and the Nehru Report

✫

377

was seen as a violation of the principle of self-determination,

and as a deliberate insult to the self-respect of Indians.
Congress Response

The Congress session in Madras (December 1927) meeting

under the presidency of M.A. Ansari decided to boycott the

commission “at every stage and in every form”. Meanwhile,

Nehru succeeded in getting a snap resolution passed at the

session, declaring complete independence as the goal of the

Congress.
Other Groups

Those who decided to support the Congress call of boycott

of the Simon Commission included the liberals of the Hindu

Mahasabha and the majority faction of the Muslim League

under Jinnah. The Muslim league had two sessions in 1927—

one under Jinnah at Calcutta where it was decided to oppose

the Simon Commission, and another at Lahore under

Muhammad Shafi, who supported the government. Some

others, such as the Unionists in Punjab and the Justice Party

in the south, decided not to boycott the commission.
Public Response

The commission landed in Bombay on February 3, 1928. On

that day, a countrywide hartal was organised and mass rallies

held. Wherever the commission went, there were black flag

demonstrations, hartals, and slogans of ‘Simon Go Back’.

(As to who coined the catchy slogan, it is widely believed

the Indian freedom fighter and member of Congress Socialist

Party, and Mayor of Bombay, Yusuf Meharally did so. Some

also believe it was Lala Lajpat Rai who came up with the

slogan.)

A significant feature of this upsurge was that a new

generation of youth got their first taste of political action.

They played the most active part in the protest, giving it a

militant flavour. The youth leagues and conferences got a real

fillip.

Nehru and Subhas Bose emerged as leaders of this new

wave of youth and students. Both travelled extensively,

addressed and presided over conferences.

This upsurge among the youth also provided a fertile

ground for the germination and spread of new radical ideas

378

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

of socialism reflected in the emergence of groups such as

the Punjab Naujawan Bharat Sabha, Workers’ and Peasants’

Parties and Hindustani Sewa Dal (Karnataka).

Police Repression

The police came down heavily on demonstrators; there were

lathicharges not sparing even the senior leaders. Jawaharlal

Dr Ambedkar and the Simon Commission

Dr Ambedkar was appointed by the Bombay Legislative Council to
work with the Simon Commission. In October 1928, Ambedkar went
before the commission.

He argued for ‘universal adult franchise’ for both male and

female alike; for provincial autonomy in the provinces and dyrarchy
at Centre. (Significantly, universal adult franchise was at the time
yet to be guaranteed in most of European countries.)

On behalf of the

Bahishkrita Hitakarini Sabha, he submitted

a memorandum on the rights and safeguards he felt were required
for the depressed classes.

Ambedkar said that there was no link between the depressed

classes and the Hindu community, and stated that the depressed
classes should be regarded as a distinct and independent minority.

He asserted that the depressed classes as a minority needed

far greater political protection than any other minority in British India
because of its educational backwardness, its economically poor
condition, its social enslavement, and for the reason that it suffered
from certain grave political disabilities, from which no other
community suffered.

In the circumstances, Dr Ambedkar demanded, for the political

protection of the depressed classes, representation on the same
basis as the Mohammedan minority. He wanted reserved seats for
the depressed classes if universal adult franchise was granted. In
case universal franchise was not granted, Ambedkar said he would
campaign for a separate electorate for the depressed classes.

He also expressed the need to have certain safeguards either

in the constitution, if it was possible, or else “in the way of advice
in the instrument to the governor regarding the education of the
depressed classes and their entry into the public services”.

[The report of the Simon Commission did grant reserved seats

to the depressed classes, but the condition was that candidates
who would take part in the elections would have, first of all, to
get their competence endorsed by the governor of the province.
Ambedkar was most displeased with this, but, in any case, this
report remained a dead letter.]

Simon Commission and the Nehru Report

✫

379

Nehru and G.B. Pant were beaten up in Lucknow. Lala Lajpat

Rai received severe blows on his chest in October 1928,

which proved fatal and he died on November 17, 1928.

View

The blows, which fell on me today, are the last nails driven
into the coffin of British Imperialism.

—Lala Lajpat Rai

Impact of Appointment of
Simon Commission on the
National Movement

The impact of the appointment of the Simon Commission

on Indian politics was two-fold:

(i) It gave a stimulus to radical forces demanding not

just complete independence but major socio-economic

reforms on socialist lines. When the Simon Commission was

announced, the Congress, which did not have any active

programme in hand, got an issue on which it could once again

forge mass action.

(ii) The challenge of Lord Birkenhead to Indian

politicians to produce an agreed constitution was accepted

by various political sections, and thus prospects for Indian

unity seemed bright at that point of time.

The Simon Commission Recommendations

The Simon Commission published a two-volume report in

May 1930. It proposed the abolition of dyarchy and the

establishment of representative government in the provinces

which should be given autonomy. It said that the governor

should have discretionary power in relation to internal

security and administrative powers to protect the different

communities. The number of members of provincial legislative

council should be increased.

The report rejected parliamentary responsibility at the

centre. The governor general was to have complete power

to appoint the members of the cabinet. And the Government

of India would have complete control over the high court.

380

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

It also recommended that separate communal electorates

be retained (and extended such electorates to other

communities) but only until tensions between Hindus and

Muslims had died down. There was to be no universal

franchise.

It accepted the idea of federalism but not in the near

future; it suggested that a Consultative Council of Greater

India should be established, which should include

representatives of both the British provinces as well as

princely states.

It suggested that the North-West Frontier Province and

Baluchistan should get local legislatures, and both NWFP and

Baluchistan should have the right to be represented at the

centre.

It recommended that Sindh should be separated from

Bombay, and Burma should be separated from India because

it was not a natural part of the Indian subcontinent.

It also suggested that the Indian army should be

Indianised though British forces must be retained. India got

fully equipped.

But by the time the report came out, it was no longer

relevant because several events overtook the importance of

its recommendations.

Nehru Report

As an answer to Lord Birkenhead’s challenge, an All Parties

Conference met in February 1928 and appointed a sub-

committee under the chairmanship of Motilal Nehru to draft

a constitution. This was the first major attempt by the Indians

to draft a constitutional framework for the country. The

committee included Tej Bahadur Sapru, Subhas Chandra Bose,

M.S. Aney, Mangal Singh, Ali Imam, Shuaib Qureshi, and G.R.

Pradhan as its members. The report was finalised by August

1928. The recommendations of the Nehru Committee were

unanimous except in one respect—while the majority favoured

the “dominion status” as the basis of the Constitution, a

section of it wanted “complete independence” as the basis,

with the majority section giving the latter section liberty of

action.

Simon Commission and the Nehru Report

✫

381

Main Recommendations

The Nehru Report confined itself to British India, as it

envisaged the future link-up of British India with the princely

states on a federal basis. For the dominion it recommended:

(i) Dominion status on lines of self-governing dominions

as the form of government desired by Indians (much to the

chagrin of younger, militant section—Nehru being prominent

among them).

(ii) Rejection of separate electorates which had been

the basis of constitutional reforms so far; instead, a demand

for joint electorates with reservation of seats for Muslims

at the Centre and in provinces where they were in minority

(and not in those where Muslims were in majority, such as

Punjab and Bengal) in proportion to the Muslim population

there with right to contest additional seats.

(iii) Linguistic provinces.

(iv) Nineteen fundamental rights including equal rights

for women, right to form unions, and universal adult suffrage.

(v) Responsible government at the Centre and in pro-

vinces—

(a) The Indian Parliament at the Centre to consist of

a 500-member House of Representatives elected on the basis

of adult suffrage, a 200-member Senate to be elected by

provincial councils; the House of Representatives to have a

tenure of 5 years and the Senate, one of 7 years; the central

government to be headed by a governor general, appointed

by the British government but paid out of Indian revenues,

who would act on the advice of the central executive council

responsible to the Parliament.

(b) Provincial councils to have a 5-year tenure, headed

by a governor acting on the advice of the provincial executive

council.

(vi) Full protection to cultural and religious interests

of Muslims.

(vii) Complete dissociation of State from religion.

The Muslim and Hindu Communal

Responses

Though the process of drafting a constitutional framework

was begun enthusiastically and unitedly by political leaders,

communal differences crept in and the Nehru Report got

382

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

involved in controversies over the issue of communal

representation.
Delhi Proposals of Muslim League

Earlier, in December 1927, a large number of Muslim leaders

had met at Delhi at the Muslim League session and evolved

four proposals for their demands to be incorporated into the

draft constitution. These proposals, which were accepted by

the Madras session of the Congress (December 1927), came

to be known as the ‘Delhi Proposals’. These were:

●

joint electorates in place of separate electorates with

reserved seats for Muslims;

●

one-third representation to Muslims in Central

Legislative Assembly;

●

representation to Muslims in Punjab and Bengal in

proportion to their population;

●

formation of three new Muslim majority provinces—

Sindh, Baluchistan, and North-West Frontier Province.

Hindu Mahasabha Demands

The Hindu Mahasabha was vehemently opposed to the proposals

for creating new Muslim-majority provinces and reservation

of seats for Muslims majorities in Punjab and Bengal (which

would ensure Muslim control over legislatures in both). It

also demanded a strictly unitary structure. This attitude of

the Hindu Mahasabha complicated matters.
Compromises

In the course of the deliberations of the All Parties

Conference, the Muslim League dissociated itself and stuck

to its demand for reservation of seats for Muslims, especially

in the central legislature and in Muslim majority provinces.

Thus, Motilal Nehru and other leaders drafting the report

found themselves in a dilemma: if the demands of the Muslim

communal opinion were accepted, the Hindu communalists

would withdraw their support, if the latter were satisfied, the

Muslim leaders would get estranged.

The concessions made in the Nehru Report to Hindu

communalists included the following:

●

Joint electorates proposed everywhere but reservation

for Muslims only where in minority;

●

Sindh to be detached from Bombay only after

Simon Commission and the Nehru Report

✫

383

dominion status was granted and subject to weightage given

to Hindu minority in Sindh;

●

Political structure proposed broadly unitary, as

residual powers rested with the centre.

Amendments Proposed by Jinnah

At the All Parties Conference held at Calcutta in December

1928 to consider the Nehru Report, Jinnah, on behalf of the

Muslim League, proposed three amendments to the report:

(i) one-third representation to Muslims in the central

legislature;

(ii) reservation to Muslims in Bengal and Punjab

legislatures proportionate to their population, till

adult suffrage was established; and

(iii) residual powers to provinces.

These demands were not accommodated.

Jinnah’s Fourteen Points

Jinnah went back to the Shafi faction of the Muslim League

and in March 1929 gave 14 points which were to become

the basis of all future propaganda of the Muslim League. The

14 points were as follows.

1. Federal Constitution with residual powers to

provinces.

2. Provincial autonomy.

3. No constitutional amendment by the centre without

the concurrence of the states constituting the Indian federation.

4. All legislatures and elected bodies to have adequate

representation of Muslims in every province without reducing

a majority of Muslims in a province to a minority or equality.

5. Adequate representation to Muslims in the services

and in self-governing bodies.

6. One-third Muslim representation in the central

legislature.

7. In any cabinet at the centre or in the provinces, one-

third to be Muslims.

8. Separate electorates.

9. No bill or resolution in any legislature to be passed

if three-fourths of a minority community consider such a bill

or resolution to be against their interests.

10. Any territorial redistribution not to affect the

Muslim majority in Punjab, Bengal, and NWFP.

384

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

11. Separation of Sindh from Bombay.

12. Constitutional reforms in the NWFP and

Baluchistan.

13. Full religious freedom to all communities.

14. Protection of Muslim rights in religion, culture,

education, and language.

Nehru Report Found Unsatisfactory

Not only were the Muslim League, the Hindu Mahasabha, and

the Sikh communalists unhappy about the Nehru Report, but

the younger section of the Congress led by Jawaharlal Nehru

and Subhas Chandra Bose were also angered. The younger

section regarded the idea of dominion status in the report

as a step backward, and the developments at the All Parties

Conference strengthened their criticism of the dominion

status idea. Nehru and Subhas Bose rejected the Congress’

modified goal and jointly set up the Independence for India

League.

Summary

●

Simon Commission
Came in 1928 to explore possibility of further constitutional
advance
Boycotted by Indians because no Indian represented in the
commission
Responses of Various Groups/ Ambedkar’s Memorandum
Impact of Simon Commission

●

Nehru Report (1928)
First Indian effort to draft constitutional scheme.
Recommended—
*

dominion status

not separate electorates, but joint electorates with reserved

seats for minorities.

linguistic provinces

19 fundamental rights

responsible government at centre and in provinces.

responses of various groups

CDM and Round Table Conferences

✫

385

385

CHAPTER 19

Civil Disobedience

Movement and Round

Table Conferences

The Run-up to Civil
Disobedience Movement

Calcutta Session of Congress

It was at the Calcutta session of the Congress in December

1928 that the Nehru Report was approved but the younger

elements led by Jawaharlal Nehru, Subhas Chandra Bose and

Satyamurthy expressed their dissatisfaction with dominion

status as the goal of Congress. Instead, they demanded that

the Congress adopt purna swaraj or complete independence

as its goal. The older leaders like Gandhi and Motilal Nehru

wished that the dominion status demand not be dropped in

haste, as consensus over it had been developed with great

difficulty over the years. They suggested that a two-year grace

period be given to the government to accept the demand for

a dominion status. Later, under pressure from the younger

elements, this period was reduced to one year. Now, the

Congress decided that if the government did not accept a

constitution based on dominion status by the end of the year,

the Congress would not only demand complete independence

but would also launch a civil disobedience movement to attain

its goal.

386

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Political Activity during 1929

Gandhi travelled incessantly during 1929, preparing people

for direct political action—telling the youth to prepare for

the fiery ordeal, helping to organise constructive work in

villages, and redressing specific grievances (on lines of the

Bardoli agitation of 1928).

The Congress Working Committee (CWC) organised

a Foreign Cloth Boycott Committee to propagate an aggressive

programme of boycotting foreign cloth and public burning

of foreign cloth. Gandhi initiated the campaign in March

1929 in Calcutta and was arrested. This was followed by

bonfires of foreign cloth all over the country.

Other developments which kept the political temperature

high during 1929 included the Meerut Conspiracy Case

(March), bomb explosion in Central Legislative Assembly by

Bhagat Singh and B.K. Dutt (April), and the coming to power

of the minority Labour government led by Ramsay MacDonald

in England in May. And Wedgewood Benn became the

Secretary of State for India.

Irwin’s Declaration (October 31, 1929)

Before the Simon Commission report came out, the

declaration by Lord Irwin was made. It was the combined

effort of the Labour government (always more sympathetic

to Indian aspirations than the Conservatives) and a Conservative

viceroy. The purpose behind the declaration was to “restore

faith in the ultimate purpose of British policy”. The declaration

was made in the form of an official communique in the Indian

Gazette on October 31, 1929. It said:

“In view of the doubts which have been expressed both

in Great Britain and in India regarding the interpretations to

be placed on the intentions of the British government in

enacting the statute of 1919, I am authorised on behalf of

His Majesty’s Government to state clearly that in their

judgement it is implicit in the Declaration of 1917 that the

natural issue of India’s constitutional progress as they

contemplated is the attainment of Dominion status.”

However, there was no time scale. The dominion status

promised by Irwin would not be available for a long time

to come. There was in reality nothing new or revolutionary

in the declaration.

CDM and Round Table Conferences

✫

387

Lord Irwin also promised a Round Table Conference

after the Simon Commission submitted its report.

Delhi Manifesto

On November 2, 1929, a conference of prominent national

leaders issued a ‘Delhi Manifesto’, which put forward certain

conditions for attending the Round Table Conference:

1. that the purpose of the Round Table Conference

should be not to determine whether or when dominion

status was to be reached but to formulate a constitution

for implementation of the dominion status (thus

acting as a constituent assembly) and the basic

principle of dominion status should be immediately

accepted;

2. that the Congress should have majority representation

at the conference; and

3. there should be a general amnesty for political

prisoners and a policy of conciliation;

Gandhi along with Motilal Nehru and other political

leaders met Lord Irwin in December 1929 (after the viceroy

had narrowly escaped after a bomb was detonated meaning

to hit the train he was travelling in). They asked the viceroy

for assurance that the purpose of the round table conference

was to draft a constitutional scheme for dominion status. That

was not the purpose of the conference, said Irwin. Viceroy

Irwin rejected the demands put forward in the Delhi Manifesto.

The stage for confrontation was to begin now.

Lahore Congress and Purna Swaraj

Jawaharlal Nehru, who had done more than anyone else to

popularise the concept of purna swaraj, was nominated the

president for the Lahore session of the Congress (December

1929) mainly due to Gandhi’s backing (15 out of 18

Provincial Congress Committees had opposed Nehru). Nehru

was chosen

— because of the appositeness of the occasion

(Congress’ acceptance of complete independence

as its goal), and

— to acknowledge the upsurge of youth which had

made the anti-Simon campaign a huge success.

Nehru declared in his presidential address: “We have

388

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

now an open conspiracy to free this country from foreign

rule and you, comrades, and all our countrymen and country-

women are invited to join it.”

Further explaining that liberation did not mean only

throwing off the foreign yoke, he said: “I must frankly

confess that I am a socialist and a republican, and am no

believer in kings and princes, or in the order which produces

the modern kings of industry, who have greater power of the

lives and fortunes of men than even the kings of old, and

whose methods are as predatory as those of the old feudal

aristocracy.”

Spelling out the methods of struggle, he said, “Any

great movement for liberation today must necessarily be a

mass movement, and mass movements must essentially be

peaceful, except in times of organised revolt...”

The following major decisions were taken at the Lahore

session:

●

The Round Table Conference was to be boycotted.

●

Complete independence was declared as the aim of

the Congress.

●

Congress Working Committee was authorised to

launch a programme of civil disobedience, including

non-payment of taxes, and all members of

legislatures were asked to resign their seats.

●

January 26, 1930 was fixed as the first Independence

(Swarajya) Day, to be celebrated everywhere.

December 31, 1929

At midnight on the banks of River Ravi, the newly adopted

tricolour flag of freedom was hoisted by Jawaharlal Nehru

amidst slogans of Inquilab Zindabad.

January 26, 1930: the Independence
Pledge

Public meetings were organised all over the country in

villages and towns and the independence pledge was read out

in local languages and the national flag was hoisted. This

pledge, which is supposed to have been drafted by Gandhi,

made the following points:

●

It is the inalienable right of Indians to have freedom.

●

The British Government in India has not only deprived

CDM and Round Table Conferences

✫

389

us of freedom and exploited us, but has also ruined us

economically, politically, culturally, and spiritually. India

must, therefore, sever the British connection and attain purna

swaraj or complete independence.

●

We are being economically ruined by high revenue,

destruction of village industries with no substitutions made,

while customs, currency and exchange rate are manipulated

to our disadvantage.

●

No real political powers are given—rights of free

association are denied to us and all administrative talent in

us is killed.

●

Culturally, the system of education has torn us from

our moorings.

●

Spiritually, compulsory disarmament has made us

unmanly.

●

We hold it a crime against man and God to submit

any longer to British rule.

●

We will prepare for complete independence by

withdrawing, as far as possible, all voluntary association from

the British government and will prepare for civil disobedience

through non-payment of taxes. By this an end of this inhuman

rule is assured.

●

We will carry out the Congress instructions for

purpose of establishing purna swaraj.

Civil Disobedience Movement—
the Salt Satyagraha and Other
Upsurges

Gandhi’s Eleven Demands

To carry forward the mandate given by the Lahore Congress,

Gandhi presented 11 demands to the government and gave

an ultimatum of January 31, 1930 to accept or reject these

demands. The demands were as follows:
Issues of General Interest

1. Reduce expenditure on army and civil services by

50 per cent.

2. Introduce total prohibition.

390

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

3. Carry out reforms in Criminal Investigation

Department (CID).

4. Change Arms Act allowing popular control of issue

of firearms licences.

5. Release political prisoners.

6. Accept Postal Reservation Bill.

Specific Bourgeois Demands

7. Reduce rupee-sterling exchange ratio to 1s 4d

8. Introduce textile protection.

9. Reserve coastal shipping for Indians.

Specific Peasant Demands

10. Reduce land revenue by 50 per cent.

11. Abolish salt tax and government’s salt monopoly.

With no positive response forthcoming from the

government on these demands, the Congress Working

Committee invested Gandhi with full powers to launch the

Civil Disobedience Movement at a time and place of his

choice. By February-end, Gandhi had decided to make salt

the central formula for the movement

Why Salt was Chosen as the
Important Theme

As Gandhi said, “There is no other article like salt,

outside water, by taxing which the government can reach the

starving millions, the sick, the maimed and the utterly

helpless... it is the most inhuman poll tax the ingenuity of

man can devise.”

Salt in a flash linked the ideal of swaraj with a most

concrete and universal grievance of the rural poor (and with

no socially divisive implications like a no-rent campaign).

Salt afforded a very small but psychologically important

income, like khadi, for the poor through self-help.

Like khadi, again, it offered to the urban populace the

opportunity of a symbolic identification with mass suffering.

Dandi March (March 12–April 6, 1930)

On March 2, 1930, Gandhi informed the viceroy of his plan

of action. According to this plan (few realised its significance

when it was first announced), Gandhi, along with a band of

78 members of Sabarmati Ashram, was to march from his

CDM and Round Table Conferences

✫

391

headquarters in Ahmedabad through the villages of Gujarat

for 240 miles. On reaching the coast at Dandi, the salt law

was to be violated by collecting salt from the beach.

Even before the proposed march began, thousands

thronged to the ashram. Gandhi gave the following directions

for future action.

●

Wherever possible, civil disobedience of the salt law

should be started.

●

Foreign liquor and cloth shops can be picketed.

●

We can refuse to pay taxes if we have the requisite

strength.

●

Lawyers can give up practice.

●

Public can boycott law courts by refraining from

litigation.

●

Government servants can resign from their posts.

●

All these should be subject to one condition—truth

and non-violence as means to attain swaraj should

be faithfully adhered to.

●

Local leaders should be obeyed after Gandhi’s

arrest.

The historic march, marking the launch of the Civil

Disobedience Movement, began on March 12, and Gandhi

broke the salt law by picking up a lump of salt at Dandi on

April 6. The violation of the law was seen as a symbol of

the Indian people’s resolve not to live under British-made

laws and, therefore, under British rule. Gandhi openly asked

the people to make salt from sea water in their homes and

violate the salt law. The march, its progress and its impact

on the people was well covered by newspapers. In Gujarat,

300 village officials resigned in answer to Gandhi’s appeal.

Congress workers engaged themselves in grassroot-level

organisational tasks.

Spread of Salt Law Disobedience

Once the way was cleared by Gandhi’s ritual at Dandi,

defiance of the salt laws started all over the country. Nehru’s

arrest in April 1930 for defiance of the salt law evoked huge

demonstrations in Madras, Calcutta, and Karachi. Gandhi’s

arrest came on May 4, 1930 when he had announced that

he would lead a raid on Dharasana Salt Works on the west

392

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

coast. Gandhi’s arrest was followed by massive protests in

Bombay, Delhi, Calcutta, and in Sholapur, where the response

was the most fierce. After Gandhi’s arrest, the CWC

sanctioned:

●

non-payment of revenue in ryotwari areas;

●

no-chowkidara-tax campaign in zamindari areas; and

●

violation of forest laws in the Central Provinces.

Satyagraha at Different Places

A brief survey of the nature of Civil Disobedience Movement

in different parts of the subcontinent is given below.

●

Tamil Nadu In April 1930, C. Rajagopalachari

organised a march from Thiruchirapalli (Trichinapoly as it

was called by the British) to Vedaranniyam on the Tanjore

(or Thanjavur) coast to break the salt law. The event was

followed by widespread picketing of foreign cloth shops; the

anti-liquor campaign gathered forceful support in interior

regions of Coimbatore, Madura, Virdhanagar, etc. Although,

Rajaji tried to keep the movement non-violent, violent

eruptions of masses and the violent repressions of the police

began. To break the Choolai Mills strike, police force was

used. Unemployed weavers attacked liquor shops and police

pickets at Gudiyattam, while the peasants, suffering from

falling prices, rioted at Bodinayakanur in Madura.

●

Malabar K. Kelappan, a Nair Congress leader famed

for the Vaikom Satyagraha, organised salt marches. P.

Krishna Pillai, the future founder of the Kerala Communist

movement, heroically defended the national flag in the face

of police lathi-charge on Calicut beach in November 1930.

●

Andhra Region District salt marches were organised

in east and west Godavari, Krishna, and Guntur. A number

of sibirams (military style camps) were set up to serve as

the headquarters of the Salt Satyagraha. The merchants

contributed to Congress funds, and the dominant caste

Kamma and Raju cultivators defied repressive measures. But

the mass support like that in the non-cooperation movement

(1921–22) was missing in the region.

●

Orissa Under Gopalbandhu Choudhuri, a Gandhian

leader, salt satyagraha proved effective in the coastal regions

of Balasore, Cuttack, and Puri districts.

CDM and Round Table Conferences

✫

393

●

Assam The civil disobedience failed to regain the

heights attained in 1921–22 due to divisive issues: the

growing conflicts between Assamese and Bengalis, Hindus

and Muslims, and the tensions developing from the inflow

of Muslim peasants from the densely populated east Bengal.

However, a successful student strike against the Cunningham

Circular, which banned students’ participation in politics, was

seen in May 1930. Chandraprabha Saikiani, in December

1930, incited the aboriginal Kachari villages to break forest

laws, which was, however, denied by the Assam Congress

leadership.

●

Bengal The Bengal Congress, divided into two

factions led by Subhas Chandra Bose and J.M. Sengupta, was

involved in the Calcutta Corporation election. This resulted

in alienation of most of Calcutta bhadralok leaders from

the rural masses. Also, communal riots were seen in Dacca

(now Dhakha) and Kishoreganj, and there was little participation

of Muslims in the movements. Despite this, Bengal provided

the largest number of arrests as well as the highest amount

of violence. Midnapur, Arambagh, and several rural pockets

witnessed powerful movements developed around salt

satyagraha and chaukidari tax. During the same period, Surya

Sen’s Chittagong revolt group carried out a raid on two

armouries and declared the establishment of a provisional

government.

●

Bihar Champaran and Saran were the first two

districts to start salt satyagraha. In landlocked Bihar,

manufacture of salt on a large scale was not practicable, and

at most places it was a mere gesture. In Patna, Nakhas Pond

was chosen as a site to make salt and break the salt law under

Ambika Kant Sinha. However, very soon, a very powerful no-

chaukidari tax agitation replaced the salt satyagraha (owing

to physical constraints in making salt). By November 1930,

sale of foreign cloth and liquor dramatically declined, and

administration collapsed in several parts like the Barhee

region of Munger.

The tribal belt of Chhotanagpur (now in Jharkhand), saw

instances of lower-class militancy. Bonga Majhi and Somra

Majhi, influenced by Gandhism, led a movement in Hazaribagh,

394

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

which combined socio-religious reform along ‘sanskritising’

lines, in which followers were asked to give up meat and

liquor, and use khadi. However, the Santhals were reported

to be taking up illegal distillation of liquor on a large scale

under the banner of Gandhi! It was observed that while most

big zamindars remained loyal to the government, small

landlords and better-off tenants participated in the movement.

But several times, increased lower-class-militancy lowered

the enthusiasm of the small landlords and better-off tenants.

Peshawar Here, Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan’s educational

and social reform work among the Pathans had politicised

them. Gaffar Khan, also called Badshah Khan and Frontier

Gandhi, had started the first Pushto political monthly

Pukhtoon and had organised a volunteer brigade ‘Khudai

Khidmatgars’, popularly known as the ‘Red-Shirts’, who were

pledged to the freedom struggle and non-violence.

On April 23, 1930, the arrest of Congress leaders in

the NWFP led to mass demonstrations in Peshawar, which

was virtually in the hands of the crowds for more than a week

till order was restored on May 4. This was followed by a

reign of terror and martial law. It was here that a section

of Garhwal Rifles soldiers refused to fire on an unarmed

crowd. This upsurge in a province with 92 per cent Muslim

population left the British government nervous.

Sholapur This industrial town of southern Maharashtra

saw the fiercest response to Gandhi’s arrest. Textile workers

went on a strike from May 7 and along with other residents

burnt liquor shops and other symbols of government authority

such as railway stations, police stations, municipal buildings,

law courts, etc. The activists established a virtual parallel

government which could only be dislodged with martial law

after May 16.

Dharasana On May 21, 1930, Sarojini Naidu, Imam

Sahib, and Manilal (Gandhi’s son) took up the unfinished task

of leading a raid on the Dharasana Salt Works. The unarmed

and peaceful crowd was met with a brutal lathi-charge which

left 2 dead and 320 injured. This new form of salt satyagraha

was eagerly adopted by people in Wadala (Bombay), Karnataka

(Sanikatta Salt Works), Andhra, Midnapore, Balasore, Puri,

and Cuttack.

CDM and Round Table Conferences

✫

395

Views

Gandhiji’s body is in jail but his soul is with you. India’s prestige
is now in your hands. You must not use any violence under
any circumstances. You will be beaten but you must not resist,
you must not even raise a hand to ward off blows.

—Sarojini Naidu,

on the eve of Dharasana

Salt Satyagraha

Although everyone knew that within a few minutes he would be
beaten down, and perhaps killed, I could detect no signs of
wavering or fear. They marched steadily with heads up….

—Web Miller,

an American journalist, reporting

on Dharasana Salt Satyagraha

Gujarat The impact was felt in Anand, Borsad, and

Nadiad areas in Kheda district, Bardoli in Surat district, and

Jambusar in Bharuch district. A determined no-tax movement

was organised here, which included refusal to pay land

revenue. Villagers crossed the border into neighbouring

princely states (such as Baroda) with their families and

belongings and camped in the open for months to evade

police repression. The police retaliated by destroying their

property and confiscating their land.

Maharashtra, Karnataka, Central Provinces These

areas saw defiance of forest laws such as grazing and timber

restrictions and public sale of illegally acquired forest

produce.

United Provinces A no-revenue campaign was

organised; a call was given to zamindars to refuse to pay

revenue to the government. Under a no-rent campaign, a call

was given to tenants against zamindars. Since most of the

zamindars were loyalists, the campaign became virtually a no-

rent campaign. The activity picked up speed in October 1930,

especially in Agra and Rai Bareilly.

Manipur and Nagaland These areas took a brave part

in the movement. At the young age of 13, Rani Gaidinliu,

a Naga spiritual leader, who followed her cousin Haipou

Jadonang, born in what is now the state of Manipur, raised

the banner of revolt against foreign rule. “We are free people,

the white men should not rule over us,” she declared. She

urged the people not to pay taxes or work for the British—

in the tradition established by the freedom struggle in the

396

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

rest of India. As the reformist religious movement steadily

turned political, the British authorities caught Haipou Jadonang

and hanged him on charges of treason in 1931. A manhunt

was launched for Rani Gaidinliu. She outwitted the British

till October 1932 when she was finally captured. She was

later sentenced to life imprisonment. [It was the Interim

Government of India set up in 1946 that finally ordered her

release from Tura jail.]
Forms of Mobilisation

Mobilisation of masses was also carried out through prabhat

pheries, vanar senas, manjari senas, secret patrikas, and

magic lantern shows.

Impact of Agitation

1. Imports of foreign cloth and other items fell.

2. Government suffered a loss of income from liquor,

excise, and land revenue.

3. Elections to Legislative Assembly were largely

boycotted.

Extent of Mass Participation

Several sections of the population participated in the Civil

Disobedience Movement.

Women Gandhi had specially asked women to play a

leading part in the movement. Soon, they became a familiar

sight, picketing outside liquor shops, opium dens, and shops

selling foreign cloth. For Indian women, the movement was

the most liberating experience and can truly be said to have

marked their entry into the public sphere.

Students Along with women, students and youth played

the most prominent part in the boycott of foreign cloth and

liquor.

Muslims The Muslim participation was nowhere near

the 1920–22 level because of appeals by Muslim leaders to

stay away from the movement and because of active

government encouragement to communal dissension. Still,

some areas such as the NWFP saw an overwhelming

participation. Middle-class Muslim participation was quite

significant in Senhatta, Tripura, Gaibandha, Bagura, and

Noakhali. In Dacca, Muslim leaders, shopkeepers, lower class

people, and upper class women were active. The Muslim

CDM and Round Table Conferences

✫

397

weaving community in Bihar, Delhi, and Lucknow were also

effectively mobilised.

Merchants and Petty Traders They were very

enthusiastic. Traders’ associations and commercial bodies

were active in implementing the boycott, especially in Tamil

Nadu and Punjab.

Tribals Tribals were active participants in Central

Provinces, Maharashtra, and Karnataka.

Workers The workers participated in Bombay, Calcutta,

Madras, Sholapur, etc.

Peasants were active in the United Provinces, Bihar,

and Gujarat.

Government Response—Efforts for Truce

The government’s attitude throughout 1930 was ambivalent

as it was puzzled and perplexed. It faced the classic dilemma

of ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’, if force was

applied, the Congress cried ‘repression’, and if little action

taken, the Congress cried ‘victory’. Either way, the government

suffered an erosion of power. Even Gandhi’s arrest came

after much vacillation. But once the repression began, the

ordinances banning civil liberties were freely used, including

the press being gagged. Provincial governments were given

freedom to ban civil disobedience organisations. The Congress

Working Committee was, however, not declared illegal till

June. There were lathi-charges and firing on unarmed crowds

which left several killed and wounded, while thousands of

satyagrahis besides Gandhi and other Congress leaders were

imprisoned.

The government repression and publication of the

Simon Commission Report, which contained no mention of

dominion status and was in other ways also a regressive

document, further upset even moderate political opinion.

In July 1930, the viceroy, Lord Irwin, suggested a

round table conference and reiterated the goal of dominion

status. He also accepted the suggestion that Tej Bahadur

Sapru and M.R. Jayakar be allowed to explore the possibility

of peace between the Congress and the government.

In August 1930, Motilal and Jawaharlal Nehru were

taken to Yerawada Jail to meet Gandhi and discuss the

398

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

possibility of a settlement. The Nehrus and Gandhi

unequivocally reiterated the demands of:

1. right of secession from Britain;

2. complete national government with control over

defence and finance; and

3. an independent tribunal to settle Britain’s financial

claims.

Talks broke down at this point.

Gandhi-Irwin Pact

On January 25, 1931, Gandhi and all other members of the

Congress Working Committee (CWC) were released

unconditionally. The CWC authorised Gandhi to initiate

discussions with the viceroy. As a result of these discussions,

a pact was signed between the viceroy, representing the

British Indian Government, and Gandhi, representing the

Indian people, in Delhi on March 5, 1931. This Delhi Pact,

also known as the Gandhi-Irwin Pact, placed the Congress

on an equal footing with the government.

Irwin on behalf of the government agreed on:

1. immediate release of all political prisoners not

convicted of violence;

2. remission of all fines not yet collected;

3. return of all lands not yet sold to third parties;

4. lenient treatment to those government servants who

had resigned;

5. right to make salt in coastal villages for personal

consumption (not for sale);

6. right to peaceful and non-aggressive picketing; and

7. withdrawal of emergency ordinances.

The viceroy, however, turned down two of Gandhi’s

demands.

(i) public enquiry into police excesses, and

(ii) commutation of Bhagat Singh and his comrades’

death sentence to life sentence.

Gandhi on behalf of the Congress agreed:

(i) to suspend the civil disobedience movement, and

(ii) to participate in the next Round Table Conference

on the constitutional question around the three

linchpins of federation, Indian responsibility, and

CDM and Round Table Conferences

✫

399

reservations and safeguards that may be necessary

in India’s interests (covering such areas as defence,

external affairs, position of minorities, financial

credit of India, and discharge of other obligations).

Evaluation of Civil Disobedience Movement

Was Gandhi-Irwin Pact a Retreat?

Gandhi’s decision to suspend the civil disobedience movement

as agreed under the Gandhi-Irwin Pact was not a retreat,

because:

(i) mass movements are necessarily short-lived;

(ii) capacity of the masses to make sacrifices, unlike

that of the activists, is limited; and

(iii) there were signs of exhaustion after September

1930, especially among shopkeepers and merchants,

who had participated so enthusiastically.

No doubt, youth were disappointed: they had participated

enthusiastically and wanted the world to end with a bang and

not with a whimper. Peasants of Gujarat were disappointed

because their lands were not restored immediately (indeed,

they were restored only during the rule of the Congress

ministry in the province). But many people were jubilant that

the government had been made to regard their movement as

significant and treat their leader as an equal, and sign a pact

with him. The political prisoners, when released from jails,

were given a hero’s welcome.
Comparison to Non-Cooperation Movement

There were certain aspects in which the Civil Disobedience

Movement differed from the Non-Cooperation Movement.

1. The stated objective this time was complete

independence and not just remedying two specific wrongs and

a vaguely worded swaraj.

2. The methods involved violation of law from the very

beginning and not just non-cooperation with foreign rule.

3. There was a decline in forms of protests involving

the intelligentsia, such as lawyers giving up practice, students

giving up government schools to join national schools and

colleges.

4. Muslim participation was nowhere near that in the

Non-Cooperation Movement level.

400

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

5. No major labour upsurge coincided with the

movement.

6. The massive participation of peasants and business

groups compensated for decline of other features.

7. The number of those imprisoned was about three

times more this time.

8. The Congress was organisationally stronger.

Karachi Congress Session—1931

In March 1931, a special session of the Congress was held

at Karachi to endorse the Gandhi-Irwin Pact. Six days before

the session (which was held on March 29) Bhagat Singh,

Sukhdev, and Rajguru were executed. Throughout Gandhi’s

route to Karachi, he was greeted with black flag demonstrations

by the Punjab Naujawan Bharat Sabha, in protest against his

failure to secure commutation of the death sentence for

Bhagat and his comrades.

Congress Resolutions at Karachi

●

While disapproving of and dissociating itself from

political violence, the Congress admired the ‘bravery’ and

‘sacrifice’ of the three martyrs.

●

The Delhi Pact or Gandhi-Irwin Pact was endorsed.

●

The goal of purna swaraj was reiterated.

●

Two resolutions were adopted—one on Fundamental

Rights and the other on National Economic Programme—

which made the session particularly memorable. The

Resolution on Fundamental Rights guaranteed:

* free speech and free press

* right to form associations

Views

India is one vast prison-house. I repudiate this law.

M.K. Gandhi to Lord Irwin

Gandhi was the best policeman the British had in India.

Ellen Wilkinson

Dandi March is the ‘kindergarten stage of revolution’....... based
on the notion that King Emperor can be unseated by boiling
sea-water in a kettle.

Brailsford,

an English journalist

CDM and Round Table Conferences

✫

401

* right to assemble

* universal adult franchise

* equal legal rights irrespective of caste, creed, and

sex

* neutrality of state in religious matters

* free and compulsory primary education

* protection to culture, language, script of minorities

and linguistic groups

The Resolution on National Economic Programme

included:

* substantial reduction in rent and revenue in the case

of landholders and peasants

* exemption from rent for uneconomic holdings

* relief from agricultural indebtedness

* control of usury

* better conditions of work including a living wage,

limited hours of work and protection of women

workers in the industrial sector

* right to workers and peasants to form unions

* state ownership and control of key industries, mines,

and means of transport

This was the first time the Congress spelt out what

swaraj would mean for the masses—“in order to end

exploitation of masses, political freedom must include

economic freedom of starving millions.”

The Karachi Resolution was to remain, in essence, the

basic political and economic programme of the Congress in

later years.

The Round Table Conferences

The Viceroy of India, Lord Irwin, and the Prime Minister

of Britain, Ramsay MacDonald, agreed that a round table

conference should be held, as the recommendations of the

Simon Commission report were clearly inadequate.

First Round Table Conference

The first Round Table Conference was held in London

between November 1930 and January 1931. It was opened

officially by King George V on November 12, 1930 and

chaired by Ramsay MacDonald.

402

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

This was the first conference arranged between the

British and the Indians as equals.

The Congress and some prominent business leaders

refused to attend, but many other groups of Indians were

represented at the conference.

The Indian princely states were represented by the

Maharaja of Alwar, Maharaja of Baroda, Nawab of Bhopal,

Maharaja of Bikaner, Rana of Dholpur, Maharaja of Jammu

and Kashmir, Maharaja of Nawanagar, Maharaja of Patiala

(Chancellor of the Chamber of Princes), Maharaja of Rewa,

Chief Sahib of Sangli, Sir Prabhashankar Pattani (Bhavnagar),

Manubhai Mehta (Baroda), Sardar Sahibzada Sultan Ahmed

Khan (Gwalior), Akbar Hydari (Hyderabad), Mirza Ismail

(Mysore), Col. Kailas Narain Haksar (Jammu and Kashmir).

The Muslim League sent Aga Khan III (leader of British-

Indian delegation), Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar, Muhammad

Shafi, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Muhammad Zafarullah Khan,

A.K. Fazlul Huq, Hafiz Ghulam Hussain Hidayat Ullah,

Dr.Shafa’at Ahmad Khan, Raja Sher Muhammad Khan of

Domeli, and A.H. Ghuznavi. The Hindu Mahasabha and its

sympathisers were represented by B.S. Moonje, M.R. Jayakar,

and Diwan Bahadur Raja Narendra Nath. The Sikhs were

represented by Sardar Ujjal Singh and Sardar Sampuran Singh.

For the Parsis, Phiroze Sethna, Cowasji Jehangir, and Homi

Mody attended. Begum Jahanara Shahnawaz and Radhabai

Subbarayan represented Women. The Liberals were

represented by J.N. Basu, Tej Bahadur Sapru, C.Y. Chintamani,

V.S. Srinivasa Sastri, and Chimanlal Harilal Setalvad. The

Depressed Classes were represented by B.R. Ambedkar and

Rettamalai Srinivasan. The Justice Party sent Arcot

Ramasamy Mudaliar, Bhaskarrao Vithojirao Jadhav, and Sir

A.P. Patro. Labour was represented by N.M. Joshi and B.

Shiva Rao. K.T. Paul represented the Indian Christians,

while Henry Gidney represented the Anglo-Indians, and the

Europeans were represented by Sir Hubert Carr, Sir Oscar

de Glanville (Burma), T.F. Gavin Jones, C.E. Wood (Madras).

There were also representatives of the landlords (from

Bihar, the United Pronvinces, and Orissa), the universities,

Burma, the Sindh, and some other provinces.

The Government of India was represented by Narendra

CDM and Round Table Conferences

✫

403

Nath Law, Bhupendra Nath Mitra, C.P. Ramaswami Iyer, and

M. Ramachandra Rao.

Outcome Nothing much was achieved at the conference.

It was generally agreed that India was to develop into a

federation, there were to be safeguards regarding defence and

finance, while other departments were to be transferred. But

little was done to implement these recommendations and

civil disobedience continued in India.

The British government realised that the participation

of the Indian National Congress was necessary in any

discussion on the future of constitutional government in

India.

Second Round Table Conference

Members of the Indian Liberal Party such as Tej Bahadur

Sapru, C.Y. Chintamani, and Srinivasa Sastri appealed to

Gandhi to talk with the Viceroy. Gandhi and Irwin reached

a compromise which came to be called the Gandhi-Irwin Pact

(the Delhi Pact).

The second Round Table Conference was held in

London from September 7, 1931 to December 1, 1931.

The Indian National Congress nominated Gandhi as

its sole representative. A. Rangaswami Iyengar and Madan

Mohan Malaviya were also there.

There were a large number of Indian participants,

besides the Congress.

The princely states were represented by Maharaja of

Alwar, Maharaja of Baroda, Nawab of Bhopal, Maharaja of

Bikaner, Maharao of Kutch, Rana of Dholpur, Maharaja of

Indore, Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir, Maharaja of

Kapurthala, Maharaja of Nawanagar, Maharaja of Patiala,

Maharaja of Rewa, Chief Sahib of Sangli, Raja of Sarila, Sir

Prabhashankar Pattani (Bhavnagar), Manubhai Mehta (Baroda),

Sardar Sahibzada Sultan Ahmed Khan (Gwalior), Sir Muhammad

Akbar Hydari (Hyderabad), Mirza Ismail (Mysore), Col. K.N.

Haksar (Jammu and Kashmir), T. Raghavaiah (Travancore),

Liaqat Hayat Khan (Patiala). The Muslims were represented

by Aga Khan III, Maulana Shaukat Ali, Muhammad Ali Jinnah,

A.K. Fazlul Huq, Muhammad Iqbal, Muhammad Shafi,

Muhammad Zafarullah Khan, Syed Ali Imam, Maulvi

404

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Muhammad Shafi Daudi, Raja Sher Muhammad Khan of

Domeli, A.H. Ghuznavi, Hafiz Hidayat Hussain, Sayed

Muhammad Padshah Saheb Bahadur, Dr. Shafa’at Ahmad

Khan, Jamal Muhammad, and Nawab Sahibzada Sayed

Muhammad Mehr Shah. Hindu groups were represented by

M.R. Jayakar, B.S. Moonje and Diwan Bahadur Raja Narendra

Nath. The Liberals at the conference were J. N. Basu, C.Y.

Chintamani, Tej Bahadur Sapru, V.S. Srinivasa Sastri, and

Chimanlal Harilal Setalvad. The Justice Party sent Raja of

Bobbili, Arcot Ramasamy Mudaliar, Sir A.P. Patro, and

Bhaskarrao Vithojirao Jadhav. The Depressed Classes were

represented by B.R. Ambedkar and Rettamalai Srinivasan.

Sardar Ujjal Singh and Sardar Sampuran Singh represented

the Sikhs. The Parsis were represented by Cowasji Jehangir,

Homi Mody, and Phiroze Sethna. Indian Christians were

represented by Surendra Kumar Datta and A.T. Pannirselvam.

Industry was represented by Ghanshyam Das Birla, Sir

Purshottamdas Thakurdas, and Maneckji Dadabhoy. Labour

was represented by N. M. Joshi, B. Shiva Rao, and V. V. Giri.

The representatives for Indian women were Sarojini Naidu,

Begum Jahanara Shahnawaz, and Radhabai Subbarayan. The

universities were represented by Syed Sultan Ahmed and

Bisheshwar Dayal Seth. Representatives of Burma and from

the provinces of Sindh, Assam, Central Provinces, and the

NWFP also attended.

The Government of India was represented by C.P.

Ramaswami Iyer, Narendra Nath Law, and M. Ramachandra

Rao. Not much was expected from the conference because

of the following reasons:

●

By this time, Lord Irwin had been replaced by Lord

Willingdon as viceroy in India. Just before the conference

began, the Labour government in England had been replaced

by a National Government which was an uneasy coalition

between Labour and Conservatives. The British were also

angered by the increased revolutionary activities which had

claimed many European lives in India.

●

The Right Wing or Conservatives in Britain led by

Churchill strongly objected to the British government

negotiating with the Congress on an equal basis. They,

CDM and Round Table Conferences

✫

405

instead, demanded a strong government in India. The Prime

Minister, Ramsay MacDonald headed the Conservative-

dominated cabinet with a weak and reactionary secretary of

state for India, Samuel Hoare.

●

At the conference, Gandhi (and therefore the Congress)

claimed to represent all people of India against imperialism.

The other delegates, however, did not share this view.

Historians point out that many of the delegates were

conservative, government loyalists, and communalists, and

these groups were used by the colonial government to

neutralise the efforts of Gandhi. Because of the participation

of a large number of groups, the British government claimed

that the Congress did not represent the interests of all of

India.

●

Gandhi pointed out that there was a need of a

partnership between Britain and India on the basis of equality.

He put forward the demand for the immediate establishment

of a responsible government at the centre as well as in the

provinces. He also reiterated that the Congress alone

represented political India. Saying that the untouchables were

Hindus, and thus not to be treated as a minority, he discarded

the idea of a separate electorate for them. He also said there

was no need for separate electorates or special safeguards

for Muslims or other minorities. Many of the other delegates

disagreed with Gandhi.

●

The session soon got deadlocked on the question of

the minorities. Separate electorates were being demanded by

the Muslims, depressed classes, Christians, and Anglo-

Indians. All these came together in a ‘Minorities’ Pact’.

Gandhi fought desperately against this concerted move to

make all constitutional progress conditional on the solving

of this issue.

●

The princes were also not too enthusiastic about a

federation, especially after the possibility of the formation

of a Congress government at the centre had receded after

the suspension of civil disobedience movement.

Outcome The lack of agreement among the many

delegate groups meant that no substantial results regarding

India’s constitutional future would come out of the conference.

The session ended with MacDonald’s announcement of:

406

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

(i) two Muslim majority provinces—North-West

Frontier Province (NWFP) and Sindh;

(ii) the setting up of an Indian Consultative Committee;

(iii) setting up of three expert committees—finance,

franchise, and states; and

(iv) the prospect of a unilateral British Communal

Award if Indians failed to agree.

The government refused to concede the basic Indian

demand of freedom. Gandhi returned to India on December

28, 1931.

Third Round Table Conference

The third Round Table Conference, held between November

17, 1932 and December 24, 1932, was not attended by the

Indian National Congress and Gandhi. It was ignored by most

other Indian leaders.

The Indian States were represented by Akbar Hydari

(Dewan of Hyderabad), Mirza Ismail (Dewan of Mysore),

V.T. Krishnamachari (Dewan of Baroda), Wajahat Hussain

(Jammu and Kashmir), Sir Sukhdeo Prasad (Udaipur, Jaipur,

Jodhpur), J.A. Surve (Kolhapur), Raja Oudh Narain Bisarya

(Bhopal), Manubhai Mehta (Bikaner), Nawab Liaqat Hayat

Khan (Patiala), Fateh Naseeb Khan (Alwar State), L.F.

Rushbrook Williams (Nawanagar), and Raja of Sarila (small

states). Other Indian representatives were Aga Khan III, B.R.

Ambedkar, Ramakrishna Ranga Rao of Bobbili, Sir Hubert

Carr, Nanak Chand Pandit, A.H. Ghuznavi, Henry Gidney,

Hafiz Hidayat Hussain, Muhammad Iqbal, M.R. Jayakar,

Cowasji Jehangir, N.M. Joshi, Narasimha Chintaman Kelkar,

Arcot Ramasamy Mudaliar, Begum Jahanara Shahnawaz,

A.P. Patro, Tej Bahadur Sapru, Dr.Shafa’at Ahmad Khan, Sir

Shadi Lal, Tara Singh Malhotra, Sir Nripendra Nath Sircar,

Sir Purshottamdas Thakurdas, Muhammad Zafarullah Khan.

Again, like in the two previous conferences, little was

achieved. The recommendations were published in a White

Paper in March 1933 and debated in the British Parliament

afterwards. A Joint Select Committee was formed to analyse

the recommendations and formulate a new Act for India, and

that committee produced a draft Bill in February 1935, which

was enforced as the Government of India Act of 1935 in

July 1935.

CDM and Round Table Conferences

✫

407

Civil Disobedience Resumed

On the failure of the second Round Table Conference, the

Congress Working Committee decided on December 29,

1931 to resume the civil disobedience movement.

During Truce Period
(March–December 1931)

Some activity during the period March to December 1931

kept alive the spirit of defiance. In the United Provinces, the

Congress had been leading a movement for rent reduction

and against summary evictions. In the NWFP, severe repression

had been unleashed against the Khudai Khidmatgars and the

peasants led by them who were agitating against the brutal

methods of tax-collection by the government. In Bengal,

draconian ordinances and mass detentions had been used in

the name of fighting terrorism. In September 1931, there was

a firing incident on political prisoners in Hijli Jail.

Changed Government Attitude After
Second RTC

The higher British officials had drawn their own lessons from

the Delhi Pact which they thought had raised the political

prestige of the Congress and the political morale of the

people and had undermined British prestige. After the second

Round Table Conference, the British were determined to

reverse this trend. There were three main considerations in

British policy:

1. Gandhi would not be permitted to build up the tempo

for a mass movement again.

2. Goodwill of the Congress was not required, but the

confidence of those who supported the British against the

Congress—government functionaries, loyalists, etc.—was

very essential.

3. The national movement would not be allowed to

consolidate itself in rural areas.

After the CWC decided to resume the civil dis-

obedience movement, Viceroy Willingdon refused a meeting

with Gandhi on December 31. On January 4, 1932, Gandhi

was arrested.

408

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Government Action

A series of repressive ordinances were issued which ushered

in a virtual martial law, though under civilian control, or a

‘Civil Martial Law’. Congress organisations at all levels were

banned; arrests were made of activists, leaders, sympathisers;

properties were confiscated; Gandhi ashrams were occupied.

Repression was particularly harsh on women. Press was

gagged and nationalist literature, banned.

Popular Response

People responded with anger. Though unprepared, the response

was massive. In the first four months alone, about 80,000

satyagrahis, mostly urban and rural poor, were jailed. Other

forms of protest included picketing of shops selling liquor

and foreign cloth, illegal gatherings, non-violent

demonstrations, celebrations of national days, symbolic

hoistings of national flag, non-payment of chowkidara tax,

salt satyagraha, forest law violations, and installation of a

secret radio transmitter near Bombay. This phase of the civil

disobedience movement coincided with upsurges in two

princely states—Kashmir and Alwar. But this phase of the

movement could not be sustained for long because:

(i) Gandhi and other leaders had no time to build up

the tempo; and

(ii) the masses were not prepared.

Finally, in April 1934, Gandhi decided to withdraw the

civil disobedience movement. Though people had been cowed

down by a superior force, they had not lost political faith

in the Congress—they had won freedom in their hearts.

Communal Award and
Poona Pact

The Communal Award was announced by the British prime

minister, Ramsay MacDonald, on August 16, 1932. The

Communal Award, based on the findings of the Indian

Franchise Committee (also called the Lothian Committee),

established separate electorates and reserved seats for

minorities, including the depressed classes, which were

granted 78 reserved seats. Thus, this award accorded separate

CDM and Round Table Conferences

✫

409

electorates for Muslims, Europeans, Sikhs, Indian Christians,

Anglo-Indians, depressed classes, and even to the Marathas

for some seats in Bombay. The award was perceived by the

national leaders led by the Congress as another manifestation

of the British policy of divide and rule.

It should be noted here that Dr B.R. Ambedkar in the

past, in his testimony to the Simon Commission, had stressed

that the depressed classes should be treated as a distinct,

independent minority separate from the caste Hindus. Even,

the Bengal Depressed Classes Association had lobbied for

separate electorates with seats reserved according to the

proportion of depressed class members to the total population

as well as for adult franchise. But the Simon Commission

rejected the proposal of separate electorate for the depressed

classes; however, it retained the concept of reserving seats.

In the second Round Table Conference held in London,

Ambedkar again raised the issue of separate electorate for

the depressed classes. Earlier in the conference, Ambedkar

had attempted to compromise with Gandhi on reserved seats

in a common electorate, but Gandhi, who had declared

himself the sole representative of India’s oppressed masses,

rejected Ambedkar’s proposal, and denounced the other

delegates as unrepresentative. Further, Gandhi attempted to

strike a deal with Muslims, promising to support their

demands as long as the Muslims voted against separate

electorates for the depressed classes. It is argued that

political considerations might have motivated Gandhi to adopt

such a stand. But despite such efforts, a consensus on the

minority representation could not be worked out among the

Indian delegates. In the wake of such a situation, Ramsay

MacDonald, who had chaired the committee on minorities,

offered to mediate on the condition that the other members

of the committee supported his decision. And, the outcome

of this mediation was the Communal Award.

Main Provisions of the Communal Award

●

Muslims, Europeans, Sikhs, Indian Christians, Anglo-

Indians, depressed classes, women, and even the Marathas

were to get separate electorates. Such an arrangement for

the depressed classes was to be made for a period of 20

years.

410

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

●

In the provincial legislatures, the seats were to be

distributed on communal basis.

●

The existing seats of the provincial legislatures were

to be doubled.

●

The Muslims, wherever they were in minority, were

to be granted a weightage.

●

Except in the North West Frontier Province, 3 per

cent seats were to be reserved for women in all provinces.

●

The depressed classes were to be declared/accorded

the status of minority.

●

The depressed classes were to get ‘double vote’, one

to be used through separate electorates and the other to be

used in the general electorates.

●

Allocation of seats were to be made for labourers,

landlords, traders, and industrialists.

●

In the province of Bombay, 7 seats were to be

allocated for the Marathas.

Congress Stand

Though opposed to separate electorates, the Congress was

not in favour of changing the Communal Award without the

consent of the minorities. Thus, while strongly disagreeing

with the Communal Award, the Congress decided neither to

accept it nor to reject it.

The effort to separate the depressed classes from the

rest of the Hindus by treating them as separate political

entities was vehemently opposed by all the nationalists.

Gandhi’s Response

Gandhi saw the Communal Award as an attack on Indian unity

and nationalism. He thought it was harmful to both Hinduism

and to the depressed classes since it provided no answer to

the socially degraded position of the depressed classes. Once

the depressed classes were treated as a separate political

entity, he argued, the question of abolishing untouchability

would get undermined, while separate electorates would

ensure that the untouchables remained untouchables in

perpetuity. He said that what was required was not protection

of the so-called interests of the depressed classes but root

and branch eradication of untouchability.

Gandhi demanded that the depressed classes be elected

CDM and Round Table Conferences

✫

411

through joint and if possible a wider electorate through

universal franchise, while expressing no objection to the

demand for a larger number of reserved seats. And to press

his demands, he went on an indefinite fast on September 20,

1932. Now leaders of various persuasions, including

B.R. Ambedkar, M.C. Rajah, and Madan Mohan Malaviya got

together to hammer out a compromise contained in the Poona

Pact.

Poona Pact

Signed by B.R. Ambedkar on behalf of the depressed classes

on September 24, 1932, the Poona Pact abandoned the idea

of separate electorates for the depressed classes. But the

seats reserved for the depressed classes were increased from

71 to 147 in provincial legislatures and to 18 per cent of

the total in the Central Legislature.

The Poona Pact was accepted by the government as an

amendment to the Communal Award.

Impact of Poona Pact on Dalits

The Poona Pact, despite giving certain political rights to the

depressed classes, could not achieve the desired goal of

emancipation of the depressed class. It enabled the same old

Hindu social order to continue and gave birth to many

problems.

●

The Pact made the depressed classes political tools

which could be used by the majoritarian caste Hindu

organisations.

●

It made the depressed classes leaderless as the true

representatives of the classes were unable to win against the

stooges who were chosen and supported by the caste Hindu

organisations.

●

This led to the depressed classes to submit to the

status quo in political, ideological, and cultural fields and not

being able to develop independent and genuine leadership to

fight the Brahminical order.

●

It subordinated the depressed classes into being part

of the Hindu social order by denying them a separate and

distinct existence.

●

The Poona Pact perhaps put obstructions in the way

of an ideal society based on equality, liberty, fraternity, and

justice.

412

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

●

By denying to recognise the Dalits as a separate and

distinct element in the national life, it pre-empted the rights

and safeguards for the Dalits in the Constitution of independent

India.
Joint Electorates and Its Impact on

Depressed Classes

The Working Committee of the All India Scheduled Caste

Federation alleged that in the last elections held under the

Government of India Act, 1935, the system of joint electorates

deprived the scheduled castes of the right to send true and

effective representatives to the legislatures. The committee,

further, said that the provisions of the joint electorate gave

the Hindu majority the virtual right to nominate members of

the scheduled castes who were prepared to be the tools of

the Hindu majority. The working committee of the federation,

thus, demanded for the restoration of the system of separate

electorates, and nullification of the system of joint electorates

and reserved seats. Even after signing the Poona Pact, Dr

B.R. Ambedkar continued to denounce the Poona Pact till

1947.

Gandhi’s Harijan Campaign and
thoughts on Caste

Determined to undo the divisive intentions of the government’s

divide and rule policy, Gandhi gave up all his other

preoccupations and launched a whirlwind campaign against

untouchability—first from jail and then, after his release in

August 1933, from outside jail.

While in jail, he set up the All India Anti-Untouchability

League in September 1932 and started the weekly Harijan

in January 1933. After his release, he shifted to the Satyagraha

Ashram in Wardha as he had vowed in 1930 not to return

to Sabarmati Ashram unless swaraj was won.

Starting from Wardha, he conducted a Harijan tour of

the country in the period from November 1933 to July 1934,

covering 20,000 km, collecting money for his newly set up

Harijan Sevak Sangh, and propagating removal of untouchability

in all its forms. He urged political workers to go to villages

CDM and Round Table Conferences

✫

413

and work for social, economic, political, and cultural upliftment

of the Harijans. He undertook two fasts—on May 8 and

August 16, 1934—to convince his followers of the seriousness

of his effort and the importance of the issue. These fasts

created consternation in nationalist ranks throwing many into

an emotional crisis.

Throughout his campaign, Gandhi was attacked by

orthodox and reactionary elements. These elements disrupted

his meetings, held black flag demonstrations against him and

accused him of attacking Hinduism. They also offered

support to the government against the Congress and the Civil

Disobedience Movement. The government obliged them by

defeating the Temple Entry Bill in August 1934. Orthodox

Hindu opinion in Bengal was against the acceptance of

permanent caste Hindu minority status by the Poona

Pact.

Throughout his Harijan tour, social work and fasts,

Gandhi stressed on certain themes:

●

He put forward a damning indictment of Hindu

society for the kind of oppression practised on Harijans.

●

He called for total eradication of untouchability

symbolised by his plea to throw open temples to the

untouchables.

●

He stressed the need for caste Hindus to do ‘penance’

for untold miseries inflicted on Harijans. For this reason,

he was not hostile to his critics such as Ambedkar. He said,

“Hinduism dies if untouchability lives, untouchability has to

die if Hinduism is to live.”

●

His entire campaign was based on principles of

humanism and reason. He said that the Shastras do not

sanction untouchability, and if they did, they should be

ignored as it was against human dignity.

Gandhi was not in favour of mixing up the issue of

removal of untouchability with that of inter-caste marriages

and inter-dining because he felt that such restrictions existed

among caste Hindus and among Harijans themselves, and

because the all-India campaign at the time was directed

against disabilities specific to Harijans.

Similarly, he distinguished between abolition of

untouchability and abolition of caste system as such. On this

414

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

point he differed from Ambedkar who advocated annihilation

of the caste system to remove untouchability. Gandhi felt

that whatever the limitations and defects of the varnashram

system, there was nothing sinful about it, as there was about

untouchability. Untouchability, Gandhi felt, was a product of

distinctions of high and low and not of the caste system itself.

If it could be purged of this distinction, the varnashram

could function in such a manner that each caste would be

complementary to the other rather than being higher or lower.

Anyway, he hoped that believers and critics of the caste

system would come together in the fight against untouchability.

He believed that the removal of untouchability would

have a positive impact on communal and other questions

since opposition to untouchability meant opposing the notion

of highness and lowness. He was opposed to using compulsion

against the orthodox Hindus whom he called ‘sanatanis’. They

were to be won over by persuasion, by appealing to “their

reason and their hearts”. His fasts were aimed at inspiring

friends and followers to redouble their work to abolish

untouchability.

Gandhi’s Harijan campaign included a programme of

internal reform by Harijans covering education, cleanliness,

hygiene, giving up eating of beef and carrion and consumption

of liquor, and removing untouchability among themselves.

Impact of the Campaign Gandhi repeatedly described

the campaign as not a political movement but as being

primarily meant to purify Hinduism and Hindu society.

Gradually, the campaign carried the message of nationalism

to Harijans who also happened to be the agricultural labourers

in most parts of the country, leading to their increasing

participation in the national and peasant movements.

Ideological Differences and
Similarities between Gandhi
and Ambedkar

Gandhi, the principal architect of the Indian freedom struggle,

and B.R. Ambedkar, the principal architect of the Constitution

of independent India, shared many ideas, though in many ways

CDM and Round Table Conferences

✫

415

they held different beliefs. There is a striking similarity in

the symbolisim involved in some of the actions of both

individuals. The burning of foreign cloth by Gandhi and the

burning of Manusmriti by Ambedkar are not to be seen as

mere acts of sentiment. Rather, foreign cloth and Manusmriti

represented the bondage and slavery for India. So too, a pinch

of salt from the ocean, and a drop of water from the Mahad

tank were acts of political catharsis and social philosophy.

Gandhi believed that freedom was never to be bestowed

but to be wrested from the authority by the people who desire

it, whereas Ambedkar expected bestowing of freedom by the

imperial rulers.

The two leaders differed over the nature and scope of

democracy as a method of government. Ambedkar advocated

parliamentary system of government for independent India,

but Gandhi had very little respect for the parliamentary

system of governance. Gandhi believed that democracy tends

to get converted into mass democracy with a propensity for

domination by leaders. Ambedkar was inclined towards mass

democracy as it could act as a pressure on the government

with the advancement of the oppressed people.

As a political and social activist, Ambedkar had certain

principles which were very rigid, while Gandhi had no

rigidities of ideology or principles except the uncompromising

notion of non-violence. Gandhi tried to put forward simple

practical alternatives to the political streams of the 20th

century like liberalism, communism, and fascism. Ambedkar,

on the other hand, had a natural inclination for liberal

ideology and desired institutional framework and structures.

Ambedkar’s politics tended to highlight the aspect of Indian

disunity, whereas the Gandhian politics tried to show the

aspect of Indian unity. In ‘Hind Swaraj’, Gandhi tries to prove

that India has always been a nation prior to the beginning

of the imperial rule and it was the British rule who broke

this cultural unity. Ambedkar, on the other hand, believed in

the notion that Indian unity was the by-product of the legal

system introduced by the imperial state.

For Gandhi, ‘Gramraj’ was ‘Ramraj’ and real

independence for Indians. But for Ambedkar, the status-quoist

nature of the Indian villages denied equality and fraternity

and also liberty. As the scourge of casteism and untouchability

416

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

was most dominant in the rural areas of India, Ambedkar

believed that ‘Gramraj’ would continue the social hierarchy

based on discrimination and inequality. So, he vehemently

propagated that there was nothing to be proud of the Indian

village system.

The idea of the use of compulsion or force for social

integration as well as social reforms was negated by Ambedkar.

But the idea of proper education to make the individual desire

for change, reform, and integration was the stance where the

views of two leaders were the same.

The two leaders also differed in their views and

approaches in respect of the context of development for

deprived classes. For instance, when Gandhi named the

depressed classes and the untouchables as ‘Harijan’, Ambedkar

denounced it as a clever scheme. Thus, when the Depressed

Classes League was renamed as Harijan Sevak Sangh (by

Gandhi), Ambedkar left the organisation by claiming that for

Gandhi removal of untouchability was only a platform, not

a sincere programme.

Ambedkar held that the centre of religion must be

between man and man, and not between man and God alone,

as preached by Gandhi. In the beginning, Ambedkar too

wanted to cast away the evil practices prevalent in Hinduism

in an attempt to reform and reconstruct, rather than destroy

it fully. But in the later phase of his life, he left Hinduism,

denouncing it as an entity which couldn’t be reformed.

Ambedkar denounced the Vedas and other Hindu

scriptures. He believed that the Hindu scriptures do not lend

themselves to a unified and coherent understanding, and

reflect strong contradictions within and across sects. And the

caste system and untouchability were the manifestations of

the Hindu religious scriptures. On the contrary, Gandhi held

that caste system in Hinduism has nothing to do with

religious precepts and spirituality. For Gandhi, caste and

varna are different, and caste is perversive degeneration.

In political precepts, Ambedkar believed in freedom of

religion, free citizenship, and separation of State and religion.

Gandhi also endorsed the idea of freedom of religion, but

never approved a separation of politics and religion. But

religion as an agent of social change was well accepted by

both leaders. Both denounced in theory and thinking anything

CDM and Round Table Conferences

✫

417

that either decried or diminished the role of religion in the

life of an individual or in the life of society.

Ambedkar envisaged limited sovereign power of the

State and, following from that, limited authority for the

government. According to him, legal sovereign power should

be limited and people should be the ultimate sovereign.

Gandhi too believed in limited sovereign power of the State.

According to him, absolute sovereign power of the State

would annihilate the spirit and personality of an individual.

Gandhi, in fact, believed in least governance being the best

governance.

The notions of violence and non-violence got differing

explanations from Gandhi and Ambedkar. Ambedkar held

absolute non-violence as an end and relative violence as a

means, whereas Gandhi never made such a distinction and

was an avowed opponent of violence of any kind.

Ambedkar believed in purity of ends and justified means

as just when the ends were just. Whereas in Gandhian

perception it was purity of means that determined the end.

Gandhi and Ambedkar differed greatly in their views

concerning mechanisation of production and utilisation of

heavy machinery. Gandhi was apprehensive about the de-

humanising impact of mechanisation and held it responsible

for the creation as well as sustaining of exploitative socio-

economic orders in the world. Ambedkar, on the other hand,

attributed the evil effect of machinery to wrong social

organisations that gave sanctity to private property and the

pursuit of personal gains. Ambedkar was of the firm belief

that machinery and modern civilisation were of benefit to

all, and held that the slogan of a democratic society must

be machinery and more machinery, civilisation and more

civilisation.

The idea of social transformation through democratic

and peaceful means got support from Ambedkar as well as

View

It would thus appear that Ambedkar and Gandhi had common
allergy for social evil and imperial injustice. But a fundamental
difference, more apparent than real, demarcated the two minds.

—Justice Krishna Iyer

418

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Gandhi. They never sought a violent overthrow of any kind.

Ambedkar desisted from pleading a blunt destruction of the

social order, however, evil it was. And like Gandhi, he wanted

to solve the problem of social disharmony and disintegration

through peaceful rehabilitation of the oppressed classes.

The target groups of Ambedkar and Gandhi were

different, even though they converged at certain points. The

methods and skills of communication and mobilisation of

both were different. Gandhi spoke in plain local vernacular,

whereas Ambedkar spoke in English.

To disobey the law to make the law more just was a

Gandhian principle; its outward manifestations were non-

cooperation, hartal, satyagraha, and civil disobedience.

Ambedkar was more inclined towards the observance of law

and constitutionality in the political process.

Gandhi viewed the untouchables as an integral part of

the Hindu whole, whereas Ambedkar had an ambivalent stand

on the issue. Ambedkar regarded the untouchables as a

religious minority and not a part of the Hindu community,

and preferred to call them a ‘political minority’ or ‘minority

by force’. To Gandhi, untouchability was one of the many

problems confronted by Indian society. To Ambedkar,

untouchability was the major problem that captured his sole

attention. Ambedkar made an exhaustive study of the problem

from its the historical angle, while Gandhi was more concerned

with the problem in its contemporary situation. Ambedkar

wanted to solve the problem of untouchability through laws

and constitutional methods, whereas Gandhi treated

untouchability as a moral stigma and wanted it to be erased

by acts of atonement. Gandhi had little use of legal/

constitutional modes; he looked to morality and thus supported

conscience to remedy the evil.

Summary

●

Calcutta Congress Session (December 1928)
One year ultimatum to government to accept dominion status
or else civil disobedience to be launched for complete
independence

CDM and Round Table Conferences

✫

419

●

Lahore Congress Session (December 1929)
Congress adopted complete independence as its goal.
Congress decided to launch a civil disobedience movement.
January 26, 1930 was celebrated as the first Independence Day
all over the country.

●

Dandi March (March 12

–

April 6, 1930)

Led by Gandhi; resulted in spread of salt satyagraha to Tamil
Nadu, Malabar, Andhra, Assam, Bengal.

●

Spread of the movement with additional avenues of protest
Khudai Khidmatgars active in NWFP
Textile workers active in Sholapur
Salt satyagraha in Dharasana
No-chowkidara tax campaign in Bihar
Anti-chowkidara and anti-union-board tax in Bengal
No-tax movement in Gujarat
Civil disobedience of forest laws in Maharashtra, Karnataka, and
Central Provinces
Agitation against ‘Cunningham Circular’ in Assam
No rent campaign in UP
Mass participation of women, students, some sections of
Muslims, merchants and petty traders, tribals, workers, and
peasants

●

Gandhi-Irwin Pact (March 1931)
Congress agreed to attend Second RTC and to withdraw CDM.

●

Karachi Congress Session (March 1931)
Endorsed Delhi Pact between Gandhi and Irwin.
Passed resolutions on economic programme and fundamental
rights.

●

The Round Table Conference
The Second RTC Right wing in Britain against concessions to
Indians.
Session got deadlocked on question of safeguards to minorities.

●

December 1931–April 1934: Second phase of Civil Disobedience
Movement

●

Communal Award (1932) and Poona Pact
Provided separate electorates to depressed classes
Nationalists felt this to be a threat to national unity.
Gandhi’s fast unto death (September 1932) led to Poona Pact,
which abandoned separate electorates for depressed classes in
favour of increased reserved seats for them.

●

Impact of Poona Pact on depressed classes

●

Joint electorate and its Impact on depressed classes

●

Differences and similarities between thoughts of Gandhi and
Ambedkar

420

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

420

CHAPTER 20

Debates on the Future

Strategy after Civil

Disobedience Movement

Following the withdrawal of the Civil Disobedience Movement,

there was a two-stage debate on the future strategy of the

nationalists: the first stage was on what course the national

movement should take in the immediate future, i.e., during

the phase of non-mass struggle (1934–35); and the second

stage, in 1937, considered the question of office acceptance

in the context of provincial elections held under the autonomy

provisions of the Government of India Act, 1935.

The First Stage Debate

Three perspectives were put forward on what the nationalists

should work on immediately after the end of the Civil

Disobedience Movement. The first two were traditional

responses, while the third one represented the rise of a strong

leftist trend within the Congress. The three perspectives were

as follows:

1. There should be constructive work on Gandhian lines.

2.There should be a constitutional struggle and

participation in elections to the Central Legislature (due in

1934) as advocated by M.A. Ansari, Asaf Ali, Bhulabhai

Desai, S. Satyamurthy, and B.C. Roy among others. They

argued that:

Debates on the Future Strategy after CDM

✫

421

●

in a period of political apathy, elections and council

work could be utilised to keep up the political

interest and morale of the people;

●

participation in elections and council work did not

amount to faith in constitutional politics;

●

another political front would help build up Congress

and prepare the masses for the next phase;

●

this approach would give the Congress a certain

amount of prestige and confidence, and a strong

presence in councils would serve as an equivalent

to the movement.

3. A strong leftist trend within the Congress, represented

by Nehru, was critical of both constructive work and council

entry in place of the suspended civil disobedience movement

as that would sidetrack political mass action and divert

attention from the main issue of the struggle against

colonialism. Instead, this section favoured resumption and

continuation of non-constitutionalist mass struggle because

the situation was still revolutionary owing to continued

economic crisis and the readiness of the masses to fight.

Nehru’s Vision

Nehru said, “The basic goal before Indian people as before

people of the world is abolition of capitalism and establishment

of socialism.” He considered the withdrawal of the Civil

Disobedience Movement and council entry “a spiritual defeat”,

“a surrender of ideals”, and “a retreat from revolutionary to

reformist mentality”.

He suggested that the vested interests be revised in

favour of the masses by taking up the economic and class

demands of peasants and workers, and landlords and capitalists,

organising masses in their class organisations—kisan sabhas

and trade unions. He argued that these class organisations

should be allowed to affiliate with the Congress, thus

influencing its policies and activities. There could be no

genuine anti-imperialist struggle, he said, without incorpora-

ting the class struggle of the masses.

Nehru’s Opposition to Struggle-

Truce-Struggle Strategy

A large number of Congressmen led by Gandhi believed that

a mass phase of movement (struggle phase) had to be

422

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

followed by a phase of reprieve (truce phase) before the next

stage of mass struggle could be taken up. The truce period,

it was argued, would enable the masses to recoup their

strength to fight and also give the government a chance to

respond to the demands of the nationalists. The masses could

not go on sacrificing indefinitely. If the government did not

respond positively, the movement could be resumed again

with the participation of the masses. This was the struggle-

truce-struggle or S-T-S strategy.

Criticising the S-T-S strategy, Nehru argued that the

Indian national movement had reached a stage, after the

Lahore Congress call for purna swaraj programme, in which

there should be a continuous confrontation and conflict with

imperialism till it was overthrown. He advocated maintenance

of a “continuous direct action” policy by the Congress and

without the interposition of a constitutionalist phase. Real

power, he said, cannot be won by two annas and four annas.

Against an S-T-S strategy, he suggested a Struggle-Victory

(S-V) strategy.

Finally, Yes to Council Entry

Nationalists with apprehension and British officials with hope

expected a split in the Congress on Surat lines sooner or

later, but Gandhi conciliated the proponents of council entry

by acceding to their basic demand of permission to enter

the legislatures. He said, “Parliamentary politics cannot lead

to freedom but those Congressmen who could not, for some

reason, offer satyagraha or devote themselves to constructive

work should not remain unoccupied and could express their

patriotic energies through council work provided they are not

sucked into constitutionalism or self-serving.” Assuring the

leftists, Gandhi said that the withdrawal of the Civil

Disobedience Movement did not mean bowing down before

opportunists or compromising with imperialism.

In May 1934, the All India Congress Committee

(AICC) met at Patna to set up a Parliamentary Board to fight

elections under the aegis of the Congress itself.

Gandhi was aware that he was out of tune with powerful

trends in the Congress. A large section of the intelligentsia

favoured parliamentary politics with which he was in

Debates on the Future Strategy after CDM

✫

423

fundamental disagreement. Another section was estranged

from the Congress because of Gandhi’s emphasis on the

spinning wheel as the “second lung of the nation”. The

socialists led by Nehru also had differences with Gandhi. In

October 1934, Gandhi announced his resignation from the

Congress to serve it better in thought, word, and deed. Nehru

and the socialists thought that the British must first be

expelled before the struggle for socialism could be waged,

and in an anti-imperialist struggle unity around the Congress,

still the only anti-imperialist mass organisation, was

indispensable. Thus it was better, they felt, to gradually

radicalise the Congress than to get isolated from the masses.

The right wing was no less accommodating. In the elections

to the Central Legislative Assembly held in November 1934,

the Congress captured 45 out of 75 seats reserved for

Indians.

Government of India Act, 1935

Amidst the struggle of 1932, the Third RTC was held in

November, again without Congress participation. The

discussions led to the formulation of the Act of 1935.

Main Features

The Government of India Act was passed by the British

Parliament in August 1935. Its main provisions were as

follows:

1. An All India Federation It was to comprise all

British Indian provinces, all chief commissioner’s provinces,

and the Indian states (princely states). The federation’s

formation was conditional on the fulfilment of: (i) states with

allotment of 52 seats in the proposed Council of States

should agree to join the federation; and (ii) aggregate

population of states in the above category should be 50 per

cent of the total population of all Indian states.

Since these conditions were not fulfilled, the proposed

federation never came up. The central government carried on

up to 1946 as per the provisions of Government of India

Act, 1919.

2. Federal Level: Executive

●

The governor general

was the pivot of the entire Constitution.

424

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

●

Subjects to be administered were divided into reserved

and transferred subjects. Reserved subjects—foreign affairs,

defence, tribal areas, and ecclesiastical affairs—were to be

exclusively administered by the governor general on the

advice of executive councillors. Executive councillors were

not to be responsible to the central legislature. Transferred

subjects included all other subjects and were to be administered

by the governor general on the advice of ministers elected

by the legislature. These ministers were to be responsible

to the federal legislature and were to resign on losing the

confidence of the body.

●

Governor general could act in his individual judgement

in the discharge of his special responsibilities for the

security and tranquillity of India.

Legislature

●

The bicameral legislature was to have an

upper house (Council of States) and a lower house (Federal

Assembly). The Council of States was to be a 260-member

house, partly directly elected from British Indian provinces

and partly (40 per cent) nominated by the princes. The

Federal Assembly was to be a 375-member house, partly

indirectly elected from British Indian provinces and partly

(one-third) nominated by the princes.

●

Oddly enough, election to the Council of States was

direct and that to the Federal Assembly, indirect.

●

Council of States was to be a permanent body with

one-third members retiring every third year. The duration of

the assembly was to be 5 years.

●

The three lists for legislation purposes were to be

federal, provincial, and concurrent.

●

Members of Federal Assembly could move a vote

of no-confidence against ministers. Council of States could

not move a vote of no-confidence.

●

The system of religion-based and class-based

electorates was further extended.

●

80 per cent of the budget was non-votable.

●

Governor general had residuary powers. He could

(a) restore cuts in grants; (b) certify bills rejected by the

legislature; (c) issue ordinances; and (d) exercise his veto.

3. Provincial Autonomy

●

Provincial autonomy

replaced dyarchy.

Debates on the Future Strategy after CDM

✫

425

●

Provinces were granted autonomy and separate legal

identity.

●

Provinces were freed from “the superintendence,

direction” of the secretary of state and governor general.

Provinces henceforth derived their legal authority directly

from the British Crown.

●

Provinces were given independent financial powers

and resources. Provincial governments could borrow money

on their own security.

Executive

●

Governor was to be the Crown’s nominee

and representative to exercise authority on the king’s behalf

in a province.

●

Governor was to have special powers regarding

minorities, rights of civil servants, law and order, British

business interests, partially excluded areas, princely states,

etc.

●

Governor could take over and indefinitely run

administration.

Legislature

●

Separate electorates based on Communal

Award were to be made operational.

●

All members were to be directly elected. Franchise

was extended; women got the right on the same basis as men.

●

Ministers were to administer all provincial subjects

in a council of ministers headed by a premier.

●

Ministers were made answerable to and removable

by the adverse vote of the legislature.

●

Provincial legislature could legislate on subjects in

provincial and concurrent lists.

●

40 per cent of the budget was still not votable.

●

Governor could (a) refuse assent to a bill; (b)

promulgate ordinances; and (c) enact governor’s Acts.

Evaluation of the Act

●

Numerous ‘safeguards’ and ‘special responsibilities’

of the governor general worked as brakes in the proper

functioning of the act.

●

In provinces, the governor still had extensive powers.

●

The act enfranchised 14 per cent of British Indian

population.

●

The extension of the system of communal electorates

426

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

and representation of various interests promoted separatist

tendencies which culminated in partition of India.

●

The act provided a rigid constitution with no possibility

of internal growth. Right of amendment was reserved with

the British Parliament.

The Long-Term British Strategy

●

Suppression could

only be a short-term tactic. In the long run, the strategy was

to weaken the national movement and integrate large segments

of the movement into colonial, constitutional, and

administrative structure.

●

Reforms would revive the political standing of

constitutionalist liberals and moderates who had lost public

support during the Civil Disobedience Movement.

●

Repression earlier and reforms now would convince

a large section of Congressmen of the ineffectiveness of an

extra-legal struggle.

●

Once Congressmen tasted power, they would be

reluctant to go back to politics of sacrifice.

●

Reforms could be used to create dissensions within

Congress—right wing to be placated through constitutional

concessions and radical leftists to be crushed through police

measures.

●

Provincial autonomy would create powerful provincial

leaders who would gradually become autonomous centres of

political power. Congress would thus be provincialised and

the central leadership would get weakened.

Nationalists’ Response

The 1935 Act was condemned by nearly all sections and

unanimously rejected by the Congress. The Hindu Mahasabha

Views

We framed the Act of 1935 because we thought that was the
best way...of maintaining British influence in India.

Lord Linlithgow, viceroy (1936–43)

We are provided with a car, all brakes and no engine.

Jawaharlal Nehru

The process of constitutional advance in India is determined by
the need to attract Indian collaborators to the Raj.

B.R. Tomlinson

Debates on the Future Strategy after CDM

✫

427

and the National Liberal Foundation, however, declared

themselves in favour of the working of the 1935 Act in the

central as well as at the provincial level. The Congress

demanded, instead, the convening of a Constituent Assembly

elected on the basis of adult franchise to frame a constitution

for independent India.

The Second Stage Debate

In early 1937, elections to provincial assemblies were

announced, and, once again, the debate on the future strategy

to be adopted by the nationalists began.

Everyone in the Congress agreed that the 1935 Act was

to be opposed root and branch, but it was not clear how it

was to be done in a period when a mass movement was not

yet possible. There was full agreement that the Congress

should fight these elections on the basis of a detailed

political and economic programme, thus deepening the anti-

imperialist consciousness of the people. But what to do after

the elections was not yet clear. If the Congress got majority

in a province, was it to agree to form a government?

There were sharp differences over these questions

among the nationalists. The two sides of the debate soon got

identified with the emerging ideological divide along the left

and right lines.

Divided Opinion

Jawaharlal Nehru, Subhash Bose, and Congress

socialists and communists were opposed to office acceptance

and thereby in the working of the 1935 Act because they

argued that it would negate the rejection of the act by the

nationalists. It would be like assuming responsibility without

power. Also, it would take away the revolutionary character

of the movement as constitutional work would sidetrack the

main issues of freedom, economic and social justice, and

removal of poverty.

As a counter-strategy, the leftists proposed entry into

the councils with an aim to create deadlocks, thus making

the working of the act impossible (older Swarajist strategy).

And, as a long-term strategy, they advocated an increased

reliance on workers and peasants, integration of their class

organisations into the Congress, thus imparting a socialist

428

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

direction to the Congress and preparing for the resumption

of a mass movement.

The proponents of office acceptance argued that they

were equally committed to combating the 1935 Act, but work

in legislatures was to be only a short-term tactic since option

of a mass movement was not available at the time, and mass

struggle alone was capable of winning independence. Capture

or rejection of office was not a matter of socialism but of

strategy. They agreed that there was a danger of being sucked

in by wrong tendencies, but the answer was to fight these

tendencies and not to abandon office. The administrative field

should not be left open to pro-government reactionary forces.

Despite limited powers, provincial ministries could be used

to promote constructive work.

Gandhi’s Position

Gandhi opposed office acceptance in the CWC meetings, but

by the beginning of 1936, he was willing to give a trial to

the formation of Congress ministries.

In its sessions at Lucknow in early 1936 and Faizpur

in late 1937, the Congress decided to fight elections and

postpone the decision on office acceptance to the post-

election phase. The Congress resolution was “not to submit

to this constitution or to cooperate with it, but to combat

it both inside and outside the legislatures so that it can be

ended”. In February 1937, elections to the provincial

assemblies were held. Elections were held in 11 provinces—

Madras, Central Provinces, Bihar, Orissa, United Provinces,

Bombay Presidency, Assam, NWFP, Bengal, Punjab, and

Sindh.

These elections were the first in which a larger number

of Indians than ever before were eligible to participate. An

estimated 30.1 million persons, including 4.25 million

women, had been enfranchised (14 per cent of the total

population), and 15.5 million of these, including 917,000

women, actually exercised their franchise, according to

reports.

Congress Manifesto for Elections

The Congress manifesto reaffirmed total rejection of the

1935 Act, and promised release of prisoners, removal of

Debates on the Future Strategy after CDM

✫

429

disabilities on the basis of gender and caste, radical

transformation of the agrarian system, substantial reduction

of rent and revenue, scaling down of rural debts, cheap credit,

and right to form trade unions and to strike.

Gandhi did not attend a single election meeting.

Congress’ Performance

The Congress won 716 out of 1,161 seats it contested. (There

were 1,585 seats in the legislative assemblies of the 11

provinces.) It got a majority in all provinces, except in

Bengal, Assam, Punjab, Sindh, and the NWFP, and emerged

as the largest party in Bengal, Assam, and the NWFP. Because

of this performance, the prestige of the Congress rose and

Nehru was reconciled to the dominant strategy of S-T-S.

Summary

●

First Stage Debate on

(i) Constructive work on Gandhian lines.

(ii) Constitutional struggle and participation in elections.

(iii) Rejection of constructive work and constitutional struggle—

continuation of CDM.

●

Government of India Act, 1935
Proposed—an All India Federation; bicameral legislature at the
centre; provincial autonomy; three lists for legislation—federal,
provincial, and concurrent.
At centre, subjects to be administered divided into reserved
and transferred categories.
Provincial, legislators to be directly elected.
Early 1937—elections to provincial assemblies held. Congress
ministries formed in Bombay, Madras, Central Provinces,
United Provinces, Bihar, Orissa, Assam, and NWFP.

●

Second Stage Debate
Nehru, Subhas, Congress, and socialists opposed office
acceptance.
Leftists proposed entry into the councils with an aim to crease
deadlocks.
Gandhi, in the beginning opposed for office acceptance, but
later gave his approval.
Congress sessions at Lucknow (1936) and Faizpur (1937)
decided to contest elections.

430

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

430

CHAPTER 21

Congress Rule

in Provinces

Congress ministries were formed in Bombay, Madras, Central
Provinces, Orissa, United Provinces, Bihar, and later in the

NWFP and Assam also.

Gandhi’s Advice

Gandhi advised Congressmen to hold these offices lightly and

not tightly. The offices were to be seen as ‘crowns of thorns’

which had been accepted to see if they quickened the pace

towards the nationalist goal. Gandhi advised that these offices

should be used in a way not expected or intended by the

British.

Gandhi urged Congressmen to prove that the Congress

could rule with least assistance from the police and the Army.

Work under Congress
Ministries

There was great enthusiasm among the people; suppressed

mass energy had got released. There was an increase in the

prestige of the Congress as it had showed that it could not

only lead people but could also use State power for their

benefit. But the Congress ministries had some basic

limitations: they could not, through their administration,

change the basic imperialist character of the system and

could not introduce a radical era.

Congress Rule in Provinces

✫

431

In the 28 months of Congress rule in the provinces,

there were some efforts made for people’s welfare.

Civil Liberties

The Congress ministries did much to ease curbs on civil

liberties:

●

Laws giving emergency powers were repealed.

●

Ban on illegal organisations, such as the Hindustan

Seva Dal and Youth Leagues, and on certain books and

journals was lifted.

●

Press restrictions were lifted.

●

Newspapers were taken out of black lists.

●

Confiscated arms and arms licences were restored.

●

Police powers were curbed and the CID stopped

shadowing politicians.

●

Political prisoners and revolutionaries were released,

and deportation and internment orders were revoked.

●

In Bombay, lands confiscated by the government

during the Civil Disobedience Movement were restored.

●

Pensions of officials associated with the Civil

Disobedience Movement were restored.

But there were certain blemishes in the performance

of the Congress ministries regarding civil liberties. Yusuf

Maherally, a socialist, was arrested by the Madras government

for inflammatory speeches and later released. S.S. Batliwala,

a socialist, was arrested by the Madras government for

seditious speech and given a six months’ sentence. Then,

K.M. Munshi, the Bombay home minister, used the CID

against communists and leftists.

Agrarian Reforms

There were certain basic constraints due to which the

Congress ministries could not undertake a complete overhaul

of the agrarian structure by completely abolishing zamindari.

These constraints were:

(i) The ministries did not have adequate powers.

(ii) There were inadequate financial resources as a

lion’s share was appropriated by the Government of India.

(iii) Strategy of class adjustments was another hurdle

since zamindars, etc., had to be conciliated and neutralised.

(iv) There was constraint of time since the logic of

432

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Congress politics was confrontation and not cooperation with

colonialism.

(v) War clouds had started hovering around 1938.

(vi) The reactionary second chamber (Legislative

Council) dominated by landlords, moneylenders, and capitalists

in United Provinces, Bihar, Bombay, Madras, and Assam had

to be conciliated as its support was necessary for legislations.

(vii) The agrarian structure was too complex.

In spite of these constraints, the Congress ministries

managed to legislate a number of laws relating to land

reforms, debt relief, forest grazing fee, arrears of rent, land

tenures, etc.

But most of these benefits went to statutory and

occupancy tenants while sub-tenants did not gain much.

Agricultural labourers did not benefit as they had not been

mobilised.

Attitude Towards Labour

The basic approach was to advance workers’ interests while

promoting industrial peace. This was sought to be achieved

by reducing strikes as far as possible and by advocating

compulsory arbitration prior to striking before the established

conciliation machinery. Goodwill was sought to be created

between labour and capital with mediation of ministries,

while at the same time efforts were made to improve

workers’ condition and secure wage increases for them.

The ministries treated militant trade union protests as

law and order problems, and acted as mediators as far as

possible. This approach was largely successful but not so in

Bombay. Also, leftist critics were not satisfied by this

approach. Generally, the ministries took recourse to Section

144 and arrested the leaders.

Nehru was unhappy about these repressive measures,

but in public supported the ministries to protect them from

petty and petulant criticism. Although Gandhi was against

militant and violent methods, he stood for political education

of the masses. He felt that the popular base of the Congress

should not erode. He appealed to Congressmen against

frequent resort to colonial laws and machinery.

Congress Rule in Provinces

✫

433

Social Welfare Reforms

These included the following:

●

Prohibition imposed in certain areas

●

Measures for welfare of Harijans taken—temple

entry, use of public facilities, scholarships, an increase in

their numbers in government service and police, etc.

●

Attention given to primary, technical, and higher

education and to public health and sanitation

●

Encouragement given to khadi through subsidies and

other measures

●

Prison reforms undertaken

●

Encouragement given to indigenous enterprises

●

Efforts taken to develop planning through National

Planning Committee set up under Congress president Subhas

Chandra Bose in 1938

Extra-Parliamentary Mass Activity of Congress

Such activities included:

●

Launching of mass literacy campaigns

●

Setting up of Congress police stations and panchayats

●

Congress Grievance Committees presenting mass

petitions to government

●

States peoples’ movements

Evaluation

Though by 1939 internal strifes, opportunism, and hunger for

power had started surfacing among Congressmen, yet they

were able to utilise council work to their advantage to a great

extent. The 28-month Congress rule was also significant for

the following reasons:

●

The contention that Indian self-government was

necessary for radical social transformation got confirmed.

●

Congressmen demonstrated that a movement could

use state power to further its ends without being co-opted.

●

The ministries were able to control communal riots.

●

The morale of the bureaucracy came down.

●

Council work helped neutralise many erstwhile hostile

elements (landlords, etc).

●

People were able to perceive the shape of things to

come if independence was won.

434

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

●

Administrative work by Indians further weakened the

myth that Indians were not fit to rule.

The Congress ministries resigned in October, 1939

after the outbreak of the Second World War.

The huge Congress victory in the elections had aroused

the hopes of the industrial working class; there was increased

militancy and industrial unrest in Bombay, Gujarat, the United

Provinces, and Bengal at a time when the Congress was drawn

into a closer friendship with Indian capitalists. This resulted

in what appeared to be an anti-labour shift in Congress

attitudes that led to the Bombay Traders Disputes Act in

1938. The Congress leadership was also faced with another

dilemma: how to react to the situation in the princely states—

should the Congress support the Praja Mandal movement for

greater democracy or not.

In the meanwhile, the All India Muslim League, annoyed

with the Congress for not sharing power with them established

the Pirpur Committee in 1938 to prepare a detailed report

on the atrocities supposedly committed by the Congress

ministries. In its report the committee charged the Congress

with interference in the religious rites, suppression of Urdu

in favour of Hindi, denial of proper representation and of

the oppression of Muslims in the economic sphere.

The Congress was forced to realise that being in power

and actually running the administration was not easy, and all

sections of populations had such high expectations as could

not be fulfilled all at once.

Summary

●

Gandhi’s Advice to Office Bearers
Offices should be used in a way not expected or intended by
the British.
Hold offices lightly, not tightly.

●

Work Under Congress Ministries
Eased curbs on civil liberties
Restrictions on press lifted
Political prisoners and revolutionaries released
Lifted ban from several illegal organisations, books, and journals
Restoration of pensions of officials associated with the CDM

Nationalist Response in the Wake of World War II

✫

435

435

CHAPTER 22

Nationalist Response in

the Wake of World War II

Congress Crisis on Method of
Struggle

In the aftermath of the civil disobedience movement, there

was some disarray within the Congress. In Gandhi’s perception

there was rising corruption and indiscipline in the organisation.

He was also unhappy with the rivalries and petty squabbles

among the Congress leaders. There were issues of bogus

membership and unethical means employed in trying to

getting into the Congress committees and controlling them.

Gandhi firmly believed that the Congress should first put its

house in order before the movement could again be launched;

UNIT 8

Towards Freedom

and Partition

(1939–1947)

Chapters 22 to 25

436

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

besides, he also felt the masses were not in the mood for

a struggle. There were others who felt that the struggle should

continue.

Haripura and Tripuri Sessions: Subhash

Bose’s Views

Subhas Chandra Bose was president of the Bengal Provincial

Congress Committee. His main area of work lay in the

organisation of the youth and promoting the trade union

movement. Bose did not agree with Gandhi and other leaders

of the Congress on many aspects of the struggle for freedom.

He, along with Jawaharlal Nehru, opposed the Motilal Nehru

Report which spoke for dominion status for India. Bose was

all for full independence; he also announced the formation

of the Independence League. When the Lahore Congress

session under Jawaharlal Nehru’s presidency adopted a

resolution that the Congress goal would be ‘Poorna Swaraj’,

Bose fully endorsed the decision. He was again fully active

in the Salt Satyagraha Movement in 1930, forcing the

government to arrest him. He was vehemently against the

suspension of the Civil Disobedience Movement and the

signing of the Gandhi-Irwin Pact in 1931, especially as the

government refused to negotiate on the death sentence for

Bhagat Singh and his associates. From all this we get a clear

idea that Bose was a man of action and radical ideas.
Haripura

At the Congress meeting in Haripura, Gujarat, in February

1938, Bose was unanimously elected president of the session.

He was firm in his belief that the Congress ministries in the

provinces had immense revolutionary potential, as he said in

his presidential address. Bose also talked of economic

development of the country through planning and was

instrumental in setting up a National Planning Committee

later.

The session adopted a resolution that the Congress

would give moral support to those who were agitating against

the governance in the princely states.

In the following months, the international situation was

highly disturbed; there were clear signs that Europe was going

to be embroiled in war.

Nationalist Response in the Wake of World War II

✫

437

1939: Subhas Bose Wins but Congress

Faces Internal Strife

In January 1939, Subhas Chandra Bose decided to stand again

for the president’s post in the Congress. Gandhi was not

happy with Bose’s candidature. Bose said he represented the

“new ideas, ideologies, problems, and programmes” that had

come out of the “the progressive sharpening of the anti-

imperialist struggle in India”. However, Sardar Patel, Rajendra

Prasad, J.B. Kripalani, and some other members of the

Congress Working Committee pointed out that it was in the

various Congress bodies, such as the working committee, that

ideologies and programmes were developed; moreover, the

position of the Congress president was more of a constitutional

one, representative and symbolic of the unity of the nation.

They favoured the candidate supported by Gandhi, namely,

Pattabhi Sitaramayya. Bose won the election by 1580 votes

against 1377; he got the full support of the Congress

Socialist Party and the communists. Gandhi congratulated

Bose on his victory but also declared that “Pattabhi’s defeat

is my defeat”. Now it became a Gandhi versus Bose issue.
Tripuri

In March 1939, the Congress session took place at Tripuri,

in the Central Provinces (near Jabalpur in present Madhya

Pradesh). It was obvious that all was not well within the

Congress. The working committee, the ruling body of the

Congress, is not elected, but nominated by the president; the

election of the president is thus a constitutional opportunity

through which the membership expressed the nature of the

leadership of the Congress. With Bose’s victory, the

polarisation in terms of ideology and method of future

struggle was clear. Thus, the election of Bose, in the face

of the opposition of the official machine, led to a sharp inner

crisis.

Subhas Chandra Bose had accused the working committee

leaders of being ready to reach a compromise with the

government on the matter of federation. Now, those leaders

felt they could not work with a president who had publicly

cast doubts on their nationalistic principles and resigned from

the working committee.

438

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Bose was ill when the Tripuri session took place, but

he attended it and in his presidential speech he prophesied

that an imperialist war was about to take place in Europe.

He declared: “In the first place, we must give clear and

unequivocal expression to what I have been feeling for some

time past, namely, that the time has come for us to raise

the issue of Swaraj and submit our national demand to the

British government in the form of an ultimatum...” He was

in favour of giving a six-month ultimatum to Britain to grant

the national demand of independence; if the ultimatum was

rejected, he said, a mass civil disobedience movement should

be launched.

In his opinion, as Bose was to write later, the Congress

was strong enough just as the masses were ready for such

a struggle. He felt that advantage should be taken of the

international crisis to strive for independence.

Gandhi, on the other hand, was firm in the belief that

it was not the time for such ultimatums as neither the

Congress nor the masses were yet ready for struggle. He was

also aware that there were communal discord and class strife

and a lack of unified vision and that this would undermine

any movement.

A resolution was moved by Govind Ballabh Pant,

reaffirming faith in Gandhian policies and asking Bose to

nominate the working committee “in accordance with the

wishes of Gandhiji”, and it was passed without opposition

from the socialists or the communists. Apparently, the Left

was not keen on discarding Gandhi’s leadership. However,

Gandhi said that he would not like to impose a working

committee on the president and that, since Bose was the

president, he should choose the members of the working

committee and lead the Congress.

Bose continued his effort to win Gandhi’s confidence

but did not succeed. Bose refused to nominate a new working

committee. Bose wanted an immediate struggle led by

Gandhi, whereas Gandhi was firm in his belief that the time

was not ripe for struggle. The problem was that ideologically

Gandhi and Bose were on different platforms. Gandhi was

not willing to lead a Congress struggle based on the radical

lines preferred by Bose, even as Bose was not willing to

Nationalist Response in the Wake of World War II

✫

439

compromise on his ideas. Gandhi was of the view that he

would either lead the Congress on the basis of his own

strategy and style of politics or surrender the position of

the leader. In his reply to a letter from Bose, Gandhi wrote:

“The views you express seem to be so diametrically opposed

to those of the others and my own that I do not see any

possibility of bridging them.”

Bose had misjudged the support he had got in his

election. Even the socialists and the communists for the most

part were not keen on a split in the Congress. They realised

that a split would reduce the Left (which was not very

consolidated at the time) to a splinter group. They preferred

a united Congress led by Gandhi, as the national struggle was

of utmost importance and the Congress was at the time the

main organ of this struggle.

In the circumstances, Bose saw no option but to resign.

He resigned from the president’s post in April 1939. This

led to the election of Rajendra Prasad as president of the

Congress. The crisis in the Congress had been overcome for

the present.

In May, Bose and his followers formed the Forward

Bloc (at Makur, Unnao) as a new party within the Congress.

But when he gave a call for an all-India protest on July 9

against an AICC resolution, the Congress Working Committee

took disciplinary action against Bose: in August 1939, he was

removed from the post of president of the Bengal Provincial

Congress Committee besides being debarred from holding

any elective office in the Congress for a period of three

years.

Among the resolutions at Tripuri was an interesting one relating
to China: “The Congress sends its greetings to the people of China
and its deepest sympathy in their trials and privations in their
struggle against ruthless and inhuman imperialism. It congratulates
them on their heroic resistance.

“The Congress expresses its approval of the sending of a

Medical Mission on its behalf to the people of China and trusts
that this Mission will continue to receive full support, so that it
may carry on its work of succour effectively and be a worthy symbol
of Indian solidarity with China.”

440

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Gandhi and Bose: Ideological
Differences

Gandhi and Bose had a deep respect for one another despite

their hugely differing ideologies. Each appreciated the work

done by the other in the national struggle for freedom.

In 1942, Gandhi called Bose the “Prince among the

Patriots”. When the death of Bose was reported, Gandhi said

that Netaji’s “patriotism is second to none... His bravery

shines through all his actions. He aimed high and failed. But

who has not failed.” On another occasion Gandhi said, “Netaji

will remain immortal for all time to come for his service

to India.”

Bose was fully aware of Gandhi’s importance as a

symbol of Indian nationalism and called him “The Father of

Our Nation” in a radio broadcast from Rangoon in 1944 even

though in the same speech he expressed his own conviction

that force was the only way to win freedom from the British.

When forced to resign at the Tripuri session, Bose said he

would “yield to none in my respect for his (Gandhi’s)

personality”, adding that “it will be a tragic thing for me if

I succeed in winning the confidence of other people but fail

to win the confidence of India’s greatest man.” Later, Bose

said that the “service which Mahatma Gandhi has rendered

to India and to the cause of India’s freedom is so unique

and unparalleled that his name will be written in letters of

gold in our National History—for all time”.

Incidentally, both men considered socialism to be the

way forward in India, though in slightly different ways. Gandhi

did not subscribe to the Western form of socialism which

he associated with industrialisation, but agreed with the kind

of socialism advocated by Jayaprakash Narayan. Both Gandhi

and Bose were religious men and disliked communism. Both

worked against untouchability and spoke for women’s

emancipation. But they differed widely in their ways and

methods and in their political and economic ideologies.

Non-Violence versus Militant Approach

Gandhi was a firm believer in ahimsa and satyagraha, the non-

violent way to gain any goal. He believed that it was the way

Nationalist Response in the Wake of World War II

✫

441

in which the masses could be involved. He objected to

violence firstly because an unarmed masses had little chance

of success in an armed rebellion, and then because he

considered violence a clumsy weapon which created more

problems than it solved, and left behind hatred and bitterness

which could not be overcome through reconciliation.

Bose believed that Gandhi’s strategy based on the

ideology of non-violence would be inadequate for securing

India’s independence. To his mind, violent resistance alone

could oust the alien imperialist rule from India. He considered

the Gandhian civil disobedience campaign as an effective

means of paralysing the administration, but did not think it

to be efficacious unless accompanied by a movement aimed

at total revolution that was prepared, if necessary, to use

violence.

Means and Ends

Bose had his eye on the result of the action. When war clouds

hung over Europe, he saw the situation as an opportunity to

take advantage of the British weakness. He believed in seizing

whatever opportunity was available to carry forward the

struggle for freedom. He openly criticised the British for

professing to fight for the freedom of the European nations

under Nazi control but refusing to grant independence to its

own colonies, including India. He had no compunction in

taking the help of the Nazis or the Fascists and later of

Imperial Japan—the ‘Axis powers’ as they came to be called

when the war broke out—even though he believed in freedom

and equality and other liberal ideals and disapproved of the

arrogant racialism of the Nazis and the suppression of

democratic institutions in Nazi Germany (as his writings

show). However, he admired the Nazis and the Fascists for

their discipline. Bose’s supporters point out that his

association with Germany and Japan was dictated by

revolutionary strategy and not by ideological kinship. In other

words, he was just a pragmatist; he was against the Fascist

theory of racial superiority and the Fascist acceptance of

capitalism.

Gandhi felt that the non-violent way of protest that he

propagated could not be practised unless the means and ends

442

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

were equally good. One could not just use any means to

achieve an end however desirable that end may be. It would

be against the truth that should guide one in all actions.

Besides, he had a deep dislike for the ideas of the Fascists

and the Nazis and would not think of using them to ally

against the British, especially when the latter were in a

difficult situation. He saw Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan

not just as aggressors but as dangerous powers. Gandhi

himself said: “The difference of outlook between him (Bose)

and me as to the means is too well known for comment.”

Bose acknowledged that Gandhi’s methods had their

importance when he said in his speech from Tokyo: “Though

personally I believe that this method will not succeed in

bringing us complete independence, there is no doubt that

it has greatly helped to rouse and unify the Indian people

and also to keep up a movement of resistance against the

foreign government.”

Form of Government

In his early writings, Bose expressed the opinion that

democracy was the acceptable political system for India. But

later, he seemed to have veered towards the idea that, at least

in the beginning, a democratic system would not be adequate

for the process of nation rebuilding and the eradication of

poverty and social inequality. In an address to students in

Tokyo University in 1944, Bose is quoted as saying: “You

cannot have a so-called democratic system, if that system

has to put through economic reforms on a socialistic basis.

Therefore we must have a political system—a State—of an

authoritarian character....”

[When Bose proclaimed, on October 21, 1943, the

formation of the Provisional Government of Azad Hind (Free

India), he held on to his post as Supreme Commander of the

Indian National Army, and also named himself head of state,

prime minister, and minister for war and foreign affairs. He

anticipated retaining the position of head of state in a free

India. This, say some scholars, indicated the authoritative

streak in Bose.]

As early as 1930, Bose expressed the opinion that in

India there should be “a synthesis of what modern Europe

Nationalist Response in the Wake of World War II

✫

443

calls Socialism and Fascism. We have here the justice, the

equality, the love, which is the basis of Socialism, and

combined with that we have the efficiency and the discipline

of Fascism as it stands in Europe today.” He called this

‘samyavada’. Bose admired discipline and orderly approach

to anything. He admired these qualities in the Fascists of Italy

and in the Nazis of Germany. Indeed, it is clear from his

letters that, despite his dislike of colonial power and his

desire to oust the alien British rule from India, he was

impressed by the methodical and systematic approach of the

British and their disciplined way of life.

Bose, however, was not a Nazi or a Fascist, for he

supported empowerment of women, secularism, and other

liberal ideas. Neither was Bose a communist: he considered

himself “a socialist, but that was a very different thing from

being a communist”. He laughed at the idea of internationalism

as espoused by the communists; he said nationalism was

important before going on to internationalism. He also felt

that the theoretical ideals found in Marx’s writings could not

be applied in India without a lot of modification. Nor did

he discard religion which was important to him. Bose was

a leftist in the sense that he was an anti-imperialist and

believed in attaining complete independence. After the

achievement of independence, Bose considered leftism would

mean socialism; the reconstruction of national life would

have to be on a socialist basis. Indeed, it would appear from

many of his writings that, after an initial stage of authoritarian

rule, there could be formed “a new India and a happy India

on the basis of the eternal principles of liberty, democracy

and socialism”.

Gandhi’s ideas on government can be found in the Hind

Swaraj (1909); it was “the nearest he came to producing a

sustained work of political theory”. Gandhi’s idealised state,

his Ramrajya—a utopia, in fact—did not need a representative

government, a constitution, an army or a police force.

Capitalism, communism, exploitation, and religious violence

would be absent. Instead, the country was to be modelled on

the India of the past. In many ways, Gandhi’s writings call

for a pre-modern, morally enlightened, and apolitical Indian

state. Swaraj lays stress on self-governance through individuals

444

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

and community building. “At the individual level Swaraj is

vitally connected with the capacity for dispassionate self-

assessment, ceaseless self-purification and growing self-

reliance.”

Gandhi said: “I look upon an increase in the power of

the state with greatest fear, because although while apparently

doing good by minimising exploitation, it does the greatest

harm to mankind by destroying individuality which is at the

root of progress.” He was sceptical of the party system and

sure that representative democracy could not provide people

with justice. He advocated a stateless society in which life

becomes perfect.

Gandhi was opposed to centralisation. He believed in

decentralisation of political as well as economic power, and

this could come about only by beginning from the basic unit.

In his vision of swaraj, society would be composed of

“innumerable… ever-widening, never-ascending” village

republics. The basic unit would be the village whose people

will always abide by the ideals of truth and non-violence.

Every village would be a self-sufficient republic or panchayat.

(Self-sufficiency did not mean that in times of need help

could not be taken from other villages.) The panchayat, the

unit of local self-government, will consist of five persons—

male and female—elected annually. It would represent the

village community and be the custodian of all authority.

Moreover, it would be an autonomous political institution in

the context of village administration.

Significantly, Gandhi said: “In the ideal State. . . there

is no political power because there is no State. But the ideal

is never fully realised in life. Hence the classical statement

of Thoreau that the government is best which governs the

least—is worthy of consideration.” As Judith Brown writes,

Gandhi “seems to have visualised a loose linkage of

independent village republics as the ideal form of the State…

he can therefore properly be called an anarchist.” In Gandhi’s

view, democracy would not be possible without high morality.

It is morality that develops a sense of responsibility in human

beings, and the strength of this sense of responsibility would

help them to respect and protect the rights of each other.

Gandhi laid more emphasis on duties than on rights.

Nationalist Response in the Wake of World War II

✫

445

Militarism

Subhas Bose was deeply attracted to military discipline and

was thankful for the basic training he received in the

University Unit of the India Defence Force. He volunteered

to form a guard of honour during the ceremonial functions

at the Calcutta session of the Congress in 1930. And it was

done on a massive and grand scale. Bose, in full dress

uniform, reviewed his ‘troops’. Gandhi and most of his

supporters were uneasy with this display.

Gandhi was against the military on the whole. His

Ramrajya, being built on the concept of truth and non-

violence and self-regulation, would be a perfect place and

would not require either police or grandiose armies. All

effort must be made to arrive at peace rather than go to war.

“War”, said Gandhi, “demoralises those who are trained for

it. It brutalises men of naturally gentle nature.” The main

causes of war, according to Gandhi, were racialism,

imperialism, and fascism (in the context of the Second World

War). He also listed economic inequality and exploitation

as additional causes of war and instability in the international

system. If these were eradicated, there need not be any war.

He was not against defensive war: if the innocent were

attacked, there was no option but to defend oneself. So, of

course, the military was required for self-defence, but it was

to be on a minimal scale.

Ideas on Economy

Gandhi’s concept of Swaraj had its own brand of economic

vision. He wanted a decentralised economy without state

control. Gandhi dismissed both capitalism and Western

socialism—the former for its exploitative excesses and the

latter for its connection to industrialisation. Both, he believed,

led human beings to crave for luxury and self-indulgence.

Gandhi wanted people to get rid of greed and make do with

just the bare necessities of life. He developed the idea of

village Sarvodaya. He advocated a “back to the roots” vision

when production was “simultaneous with consumption and

distribution and the vicious circle of money economy was

absent. Production was for immediate use and not for distant

markets”. What he wanted was the revival of ancient village

446

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

communities in which agriculture prospered and industry was

a decentralised business through small-scale cooperative

organisations. He also wanted the participation of people at

all levels. In a letter he wrote to Henry Polak in 1909, Gandhi

expressed the view that India’s salvation lay in unlearning

what had been learnt; he wanted the railways, telegraphs,

hospitals, lawyers, doctors, and other modern trappings to be

discarded, and the so-called upper classes to learn to live

the simple life of the peasant.

He was against large-scale industrialisation. He had

strong objections to labour-saving machinery. “Men go on

saving labour, till thousands are without work and thrown on

the open streets to die of starvation.” He was not against

instruments and machinery that saved individual labour. He

wrote that “mechanisation is good when the hands are too

few for the work intended to be accomplished. It is an evil

when there are more hands than required for the work, as

is the case in India”.

The capitalist who amassed wealth was a thief, according

to Gandhi. In his opinion, if a person had inherited wealth

or had made a lot of money through trade and industry, the

amount was to be shared with the entire society and must

be spent on the welfare of all. He put forward his theory

of trusteeship under which he wanted the capitalists to be

trustees, and as such would take care of not only themselves

but also of others. The workers would consider the capitalists

as their benefactors and would keep faith in them. So, there

would be mutual trust and confidence, and, as a consequence,

the ideal of economic equality could be achieved.

Bose considered economic freedom to be the essence

of social and political freedom. He was all in favour of

modernisation, which was necessarily to be brought about by

industrialisation. He believed that India’s downfall in the

political and material sphere had been brought about by the

people’s inordinate belief in fate and the supernatural

accompanied by an indifference to modern scientific

developments, especially in the field of war weapons. He felt

that backward agriculture had to be modernised. The labour

that was ousted from the agricultural sector as a result of

such modernisation could be helped only with the development

Nationalist Response in the Wake of World War II

✫

447

of industry, which could absorb the surplus labour from

agriculture.

In his speech at the Haripura Congress session, Bose

expressed his opinion that, for India to progress, a

comprehensive scheme of industrial development under state-

ownership and state-control would be indispensable. And he

spoke about the need to set up a planning commission to

advise the national government. He also spoke about abolition

of landlordism and liquidation of agricultural indebtedness.

He was much impressed by the success attained by the Soviet

Union in economic development through rapid industrialisation

within a short period of time.

Bose had his reasons for demanding industrialisation

for India. It would solve the problem of unemployment.

Socialism, he said, was to be the basis of national

reconstruction and socialism presupposed industrialisation.

Moreover, industrialisation was necessary if India were to

compete with foreign countries. Industrialisation was also

necessary for improving the standard of living of the people

at large. Bose classified industry into three categories: heavy,

medium, and cottage. Heavy industries, he said, form the

backbone of the national economy. But he was fully aware

of the great importance of cottage industries. “Industrialisation

does not ... mean that we turn our back on cottage industries.

. . . It only means that we shall have to decide which industries

should be developed on a cottage basis and which on a large-

scale basis.”

Religion

Gandhi said “God is Truth and Love; God is ethics and

morality; God is fearlessness. God is the source of Light

and Life and yet He is above and beyond all these, God is

conscience. He is even the atheism of the atheist. For in His

boundless love God permits the atheist to live.”

Gandhi was primarily a man of religion. He had a

steadfast view on religion, and his religion was the basis of

all his other ideas. Truth and non-violence were the two

principles that helped Gandhi in evolving a comprehensive

view of religion that went beyond narrow sectarianism. For

Gandhi there is no higher way of worshipping God than

serving the poor and identifying God in them.

448

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

He considered different religions to be merely the

different paths towards the same destination. Gandhi, out of

his own experiences and readings, came to the conclusion

that all religions are based on the same principles, namely,

truth and love. He claimed that religion is a binding force

and not a dividing force. He said that each person should

follow his or her own religion freely. He would not conceive

of a state without religion, for the basic tenets of his religion

were at the base of his idea of state too.

Subhas Bose believed in Upanishadic teachings. He

revered the Bhagavad Gita and was inspired by Vivekananda.

He was also inspired by the India of the past as reinterpreted

by thinkers. According to many scholars, Hindu spirituality

formed the essential part of his political and social thought

throughout his adult life. However, he was free of bigotry

or orthodoxy. He was for total non-discrimination on the

basis of religion and in context he took up the Hindus’ cause

when he demanded that Hindu prisoners be given the right

to do Durga Puja just as Muslims and Christians were allowed

to celebrate their festivals. Bose motivated Indians towards

freedom struggle through Hindu symbolisms as appropriate

for the audience. On December 9, 1930, he called upon the

women to participate in the liberation struggle, invoking the

imagery of Durga, a form of Shakti, ready to vanquish evil.

However, he was not a sectarian. He named his force Azad

Hind Fauz, and there were many non-Hindus in that army and

who were close to him. The INA was to be a mixture of

various religions, races, and castes with total social equality

of all soldiers. They were served food cooked in the common

kitchen and shared space in common barracks breaking the

age old caste bonds and practices. Common celebrations of

all religious festivals took place in the INA.

Bose was a secularist with an impartial attitude to all

religions. He said that Free India must have an absolutely

neutral and impartial attitude towards all religions and leave

it to the choice of individuals to profess or follow a particular

religion of his faith. Religion is a private matter; the State

has nothing to do with it. He opined that economic issues

cut across communal divisions and barriers.

Nationalist Response in the Wake of World War II

✫

449

Caste and Untouchability

Gandhi’s goals for society were mainly three: eradicating

untouchability, maintaining the varna distinctions of the caste

system, and strengthening tolerance, modesty, and religiosity

in India.

Gandhi believed that one way of reinvigorating India

was to wipe out untouchability, which he considered to be

a pernicious practice preventing millions of peasants from

realising their dreams and aspirations. It was incompatible

with Swaraj. He said that if any Shastra propounded

untouchability that Shastra should be abandoned. He, however,

supported the varna system; he believed that the laws of caste

were eternal, and were the base for social harmony. In the

India that Gandhi visualised, each village would be organised

around the four-fold divisions, with every member of society

doing his or her own duty. As there would be a complete

system of reciprocity, according to Gandhi, no one would

be subject to feelings of differences in status.

Bose looked forward to an India changed by a socialist

revolution that would bring to an end the traditional social

hierarchy with its caste system; in its place would come an

egalitarian, casteless, and classless society. Subhas Bose

completely rejected social inequality and the caste system.

He spoke in favour of inter-caste marriages. In his public

speeches, Bose spoke vehemently against untouchability. He

was inspired by Vivekananda in his belief that the progress

of India would be possible only with uplift of the downtrodden

and the so-called untouchables.

Women

In Gandhi’s words, “To call women the weaker sex is a libel;

it is man’s injustice to women.” Gandhi played an important

role in uplifting the status of women in India.

Gandhi was instrumental in bringing women out of their

homes to take part in the struggle for freedom. It was, as

scholars point out, the most radical of his ideas. It involved

bringing women out of the purdah—a system that was

prevalent among Hindus as well as Muslims of the time. It

involved the possibility of being jailed and thus being

separated from their families. These were steps that were

revolutionary for those times.

450

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Apart from bringing women into the struggle for swaraj,

he vehemently opposed various social ills affecting women

like child marriage, the dowry system and female infanticide,

and the treatment of widows.

He considered men and women to be equal and declared

that men should treat women with respect and consideration.

However, in the matter of the roles of men and women,

Gandhi would be regarded as patriarchal and traditional by

present standards. He wrote in 1937: “I do believe that woman

will not make her contribution to the world by mimicking

or running a race with man. She can run the race, but she

will not rise to the great heights she is capable of by

mimicking man. She has to be the complement of man.”

Again, in 1940, he wrote: “Whilst both are fundamentally one,

it is also equally true that in the form there is a vital

difference between the two. Hence, the vocations of the two

must also be different. Her duty of motherhood….requires

qualities which man need not possess. She is passive, he is

active. She is essentially mistress of the house. He is the

bread winner, she is the keeper and the distributor of the

bread. She is the caretaker in every sense of the term. The

art of bringing up the infants of the race is her special and

sole prerogative. Without her care, the race must become

extinct.”

Gandhi considered women to be the presiding deities

of the home. It was their dharma to take care of the home.

“If they do not follow dharma, the people would be totally

destroyed,” said Gandhi. However, Gandhi also said that

dharma did not imply brutish behaviour from men treating

women as chattel. Women should not tolerate ill-treatment

from their husbands. But he did not ask women to walk out

of their homes and launch agitations, personal or public,

against their plight or a satyagraha within their exploitative

domestic environments. He did say in 1940 that domestic

slavery of woman is a symbol of our barbarism, and she

should be “freed from this incubus”. He also wrote: “Women

may not look for protection to men. They must rely on their

own strength and purity of character and on God, as did

Draupadi of old.”

Clearly, his ideal woman, as Judith Brown observes, was

Nationalist Response in the Wake of World War II

✫

451

not the ‘modern woman’, free of the restraints imposed on

her physically, socially, and economically by virtue of her

being born female. He drew his symbol of his ideal woman

from the figure of Sita who bore patiently and bravely all

the injustices heaped on her by Rama. “Gandhi preached

female virtues of bravery and independence, and a capacity

to bear suffering; the model he offered to Indian women was

the virtuous and faithful wife,” says Judith Brown.

Subhas Bose had a more robust view of women.

Differing from the German National Socialists (Nazis) and

the Italian Fascists, who stressed the masculine in almost all

spheres of social and political activity, Bose considered

women to be the equals of men, and thus they should be

prepared to fight and sacrifice for the freedom of India. He

arduously campaigned to bring women more fully into the

life of the nation. In his presidential address at the Maharashtra

Provincial Conference in May 1928, he declared: “The status

of women should be raised and women should be trained to

take a larger and more intelligent interest in public affairs…

it is impossible for one half of the nation to win freedom

without the active sympathy and support of the other half.”

When, as Congress President in 1938, Bose set up the

Planning Commission, he insisted that there should be a

separate planning commission for women. This commission

was chaired by Rani Lakshmi Bhai Rajawade and was to deal

with the role of women in planned economy in future India.

Later, in 1943, he called on women to serve as soldiers

in the Indian National Army. This was a most radical view.

He formed a women’s regiment in the INA in 1943, named

the Rani of Jhansi Regiment. Many women were enthused

to join the regiment commanded by Captain Lakshmi

Swaminathan (Sahgal after marriage). While those less suited

to combat duties were employed as nurses and in other

support roles, the majority were trained as soldiers. They

were given the same treatment as the men and received no

special privileges.

In Bose’s view, women should be given a high position

in the family as well as in society. He believed in female

emancipation, in liberating women from age-old bondage to

customs and man-made disabilities—social, economic, and

452

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

political. He wanted women to get all-round education

including not only literacy, but physical and vocational

training. He was all for abolition of purdah and also supported

widow remarriage. Women, he said, should also be made

conscious of their social and legal rights as well as their

duties as citizens.

Education

Gandhi was against the English system of education as also

against the use of English as a medium of instruction. He

wanted education to be in the vernacular. He advocated free

and compulsory education for all boys and girls between 7

and 14 years.

In Gandhi’s view, education should be an integrated

approach to the full development of the personality; it should

include physical training and high moral principles along with

intellectual and cognitive development. He differentiated

between learning and education, knowledge and wisdom,

literacy and lessons of life. According to him, “Literacy in

itself is no education.”

To Gandhi, morality had to be a part of education.

Taking a leaf from Plato, Gandhi said that education should

be a means of attaining knowledge and wisdom that ultimately

place the seeker on the spiritual path. The end of education

was not merely a means to make a career and achieve social

status. Education should be a means to enlightenment. Gandhi

also wanted the Hindu scriptures to be a part of education

as they propounded discipline and self-restraint.

He conceived his Nai Talim or basic education for all

in 1937. Nai Talim aimed to impart education that would lead

to freedom from ignorance, illiteracy, superstition, psyche

of servitude, and many more taboos that inhibited free

thinking of a free India. This scheme of education was to

emphasise on holistic training of mind and body, so along

with academics, there was to be purposeful manual labour.

Handicrafts, art, and drawing were the most fundamental

teaching tools in Nai Talim. As Gandhi wanted to make Indian

villages self-sufficient units, he emphasised on vocational

education which increases the efficiency of students in

undertaking tasks in those villages and make the village a self-

sufficient unit.

Nationalist Response in the Wake of World War II

✫

453

Subhas Bose was for higher education, especially in the

technical and scientific fields, as he wanted an industrial

India. He said, “National Reconstruction will be possible only

with the aid of science and our scientists.” He wanted Indian

students to be sent abroad for “training in accordance with

a clear and definite plan so that as soon as they returned

home, they may proceed straight away to build up new

industries”.

Second World War and
Nationalistic Response

On September 1, 1939, Germany attacked Poland—the action

that led to the Second World War. On September 3, 1939,

Britain declared war against Germany and the British

Government of India declared India’s support for the war

without consulting Indian opinion.

Congress Offer to Viceroy

Though the Congress did not like the unilateral action of the

British of drawing India into the war without consulting the

Indians, it decided to support the war effort conditionally.

The hostility of the Congress to Fascism, Nazism, militarism,

and imperialism had been much more consistent than the

British record. The Indian offer to cooperate in the war effort

had two basic conditions:

1. After the war, a constituent assembly should be

convened to determine political structure of a free India.

2. Immediately, some form of a genuinely responsible

government should be established at the Centre.

The offer was rejected by Linlithgow, the viceroy. The

Congress argued that these conditions were necessary to win

public opinion for war.

CWC Meeting at Wardha

The official Congress position was adopted at the Wardha

session of the Congress Working Committee, but before that

different opinions were voiced on the question of Indian

support to British war efforts.

Gandhi, who had all sympathy for Britain in this war

454

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

because of his total dislike of the fascist ideology, advocated

an unconditional support to the Allied powers. He made a

clear distinction between the democratic nations of western

Europe and the totalitarian Nazis and fascists. He said that

he was not willing to embarrass the British government during

the war.

Subhas Bose and other socialists, such as Acharya

Narendra Dev and Jayaprakash Narayan, who had been invited

by the Congress to attend the Wardha meeting so that

different opinions could be discussed, had no sympathy for

either side in the war. In their opinion, the war was being

fought by imperialists on both sides; each side wanted to

protect its colonial possessions and gain more territories to

colonise, so neither side should be supported by the

nationalists. In fact, they thought it was the ideal time to

launch a civil disobedience movement, to thus take advantage

of the situation and snatch freedom from Britain.

Jawaharlal Nehru was not ready to accept the opinion

of either Gandhi or of the socialists. He was clear in his

mind about the difference between democratic values and

fascism.

He believed that justice was on the side of Britain,

France, and Poland, but he also believed that Britain and

France were imperialist powers, and that “the war was the

result of the inner contradictions of capitalism maturing

since the end of World War I”. He, therefore, advocated no

Indian participation till India itself was free. However, at the

same time, no advantage was to be taken of Britain’s

difficulty by starting an immediate civil disobedience

movement.

Gandhi was more or less isolated in his stand. In the

end, he decided to go with Nehru’s position, which was

adopted by the Congress Working Committee.

The CWC resolution condemned Fascist aggression.

It said that (i) India could not be party to a war being fought,

on the face of it, for democratic freedom, while that freedom

was being denied to India; (ii) if Britain was fighting for

democracy and freedom, it should be proved by ending

imperialism in its colonies and establishing full democracy

in India; (iii) the government should declare its war aims soon

Nationalist Response in the Wake of World War II

✫

455

and, also, as to how the principles of democracy were to

be applied to India after the war.

The Congress leadership wanted “to give every chance

to the viceroy and the British Government”.

Government Attitude and
Congress Ministries’
Resignation

The government’s response was entirely negative. Viceroy

Linlithgow, in his statement, made on October 17, 1939, tried

to use the Muslim League and the princes against the

Congress. The government:

●

refused to define British war aims beyond stating

that Britain was resisting aggression;

●

said it would, as part of future arrangement, consult

“representatives of several communities, parties and

interests in India, and the Indian princes” as to how

the Act of 1935 might be modified;

●

said it would immediately set up a “consultative

committee” whose advice could be sought whenever

required.

Government’s Hidden Agenda

Linlithgow’s statement was not an aberration, but a part of

general British policy—“to take advantage of the war to

regain the lost ground from the Congress” by provoking the

Congress into a confrontation with the government and then

using the extraordinary situation to acquire draconian powers.

Even before the declaration of the War, emergency powers

had been acquired for the Centre in respect of provincial

subjects by amending the 1935 Act. Defence of India

ordinance had been enforced the day the War was declared,

thus restricting civil liberties. In May 1940, a top secret Draft

Revolutionary Movement Ordinance had been prepared, aimed

at launching crippling pre-emptive strikes on the Congress.

The government could then call upon the Allied troops

stationed in India. It could also win an unusual amount of

liberal and leftist sympathy all over the world by painting

an aggressive Congress as being pro-Japan and pro-Germany.

456

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

British Indian reactionary policies received full support

from the Prime Minister of Britain, Winston Churchill, and

the Secretary of State, Zetland, who branded the Congress

as a purely Hindu organisation.

It became clear that the British government had no

intention of loosening its hold, during or after the war, and

was willing to treat the Congress as an enemy.

Gandhi reacted sharply to the government’s insensitivity

to Indian public opinion—“... there is to be no democracy

for India if Britain can prevent it.” Referring to the minorities

and other special interests, Gandhi said, “Congress will

safeguard minority rights provided they do not advance claims

inconsistent with India’s independence.”
Congress Ministries Decide to Resign

On October 23, 1939, the CWC meeting:

●

rejected the viceregal statement as a reiteration of

the old imperialist policy;

●

decided not to support the war; and

●

called upon the Congress ministries to resign in the

provinces.

Debate on the Question of Immediate Mass

Satyagraha

After Linlithgow’s statement of October 1939, the debate on

the question of immediate mass struggle began once again.

Gandhi and his supporters were not in favour of an immediate

struggle because they felt that the:

●

allied cause was just;

●

communal sensitiveness and lack of Hindu-Muslim

unity could result in communal riots;

●

Congress organisation was in shambles and the

atmosphere was not conducive for a mass struggle;

and

●

masses were not ready for a struggle.

They instead advocated toning up the Congress

organisation, carrying on political work among the masses,

and negotiating till all possibilities of a negotiated settlement

were exhausted. Only then would the struggle be begun.

In January 1940, Linlithgow stated, “Dominion status

of Westminster variety, after the war, is the goal of British

policy in India.”

Nationalist Response in the Wake of World War II

✫

457

In its meeting in Allahabad in November 1939, the

Congress Working Committee passed a resolution observing

that “the course of the war and the policy pursued by the

British and the French governments and in particular the

declarations made on behalf of the British government in

regard to India, seem to demonstrate that the present war,

like the World War of 1914–18, is being carried on for

imperialist ends, and the British imperialism is to remain

entrenched in India. With such a war and with this policy

the Congress cannot associate itself, and it cannot countenance

the exploitation of India’s resources to this end”. It was

reiterated that India’s independence and of the right of Indians

to frame their constitution through a constituent assembly

should be recognised and that it was only through such a

constituent assembly that communal and other problems

could be tackled.

The Ramgarh session of the Congress was held in

March 1940 with Maulana Abul Kalam Azad in the president’s

chair. All agreed that a battle must be waged but there was

disagreement over the form. It was decided to leave the form

and timing to Gandhi. But even now, Gandhi was in favour

of continued cooperation at the provincial level. He said that

he would offer the British moral support during the war but

on a non-violent basis. However, Jawaharlal Nehru reiterated

that complete independence for India must be a precondition

for Congress support to the British war effort. Subhas Bose

continued with his strong militant stand of direct action

against the colonial government forcing it to agree to the

grant of freedom. Once again he pointed out that Britain’s

difficulty was to be seized as India’s opportunity.

The Congress finally declared at the session that the

people of India would accept nothing short of complete

independence. Indian freedom could not be in the form of

dominion or any other status within the imperial structure.

Sovereignty, said the Congress resolution, must rest with the

people, whether in the States (the princely states) or the

provinces. It was also decided that “Congress would resort

to civil disobedience as soon as the Congress organisation

is considered fit enough or if circumstances precipitate a

crisis”.

458

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Pakistan Resolution—Lahore (March 1940)

The Muslim League passed a resolution calling for “grouping

of geographically contiguous areas where Muslims are in

majority (North-West, East) into independent states in which

constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign and

adequate safeguards to Muslims where they are in minority”.

August Offer

Hitler’s astounding success and the fall of Belgium, Holland,

and France put England in a conciliatory mood. As the war

in Europe had undertaken a new turn, the dominant Congress

leadership was again in a dilemma. Both Gandhi and Nehru

strongly opposed the idea of taking advantage of Britain’s

position.

The Congress was ready to compromise, asking the

British government to let it form an interim government

during the war period but the government was not interested.

The government came up with its own offer to get the

cooperation of India in the war effort. Linlithgow announced

the August Offer (August 1940) which proposed:

●

dominion status as the objective for India;

●

expansion of viceroy’s executive council which

would have a majority of Indians (who would be

drawn from major political parties);

●

setting up of a constituent assembly after the war

where mainly Indians would decide the constitution

according to their social, economic, and political

conceptions, subject to fulfilment of the obligation

of the government regarding defence, minority rights,

treaties with States, all India services; and

●

no future constitution to be adopted without the

consent of minorities.

Responses

The Congress rejected the August Offer. Nehru said,

“Dominion status concept is dead as a doornail.” Gandhi said

that the declaration had widened the gulf between the

nationalists and the British rulers.

The Muslim League welcomed the veto assurance given

to the League, and reiterated its position that partition was

the only solution to the deadlock.

Nationalist Response in the Wake of World War II

✫

459

Evaluation

For the first time, the inherent right of Indians to frame their

constitution was recognised and the Congress demand for a

constituent assembly was conceded. Dominion status was

explicitly offered.

In July 1941, the viceroy’s executive council was

enlarged to give the Indians a majority of 8 out of 12 for

the first time, but the British remained in charge of defence,

finance, and home. Also, a National Defence Council was

set up with purely advisory functions.

Individual Satyagraha

The government had taken the adamant position that no

constitutional advance could be made till the Congress came

to an agreement with the Muslim leaders. It issued ordinance

after ordinance taking away the freedom of speech and that

of the press and the right to organise associations.

Towards the end of 1940, the Congress once again

asked Gandhi to take command. Gandhi now began taking

steps which would lead to a mass struggle within his broad

strategic perspective. He decided to initiate a limited

satyagraha on an individual basis by a few selected individuals

in every locality.

The aims of launching individual satyagraha were:

(i) to show that nationalist patience was not due to weakness;

(ii) to express people’s feeling that they were not interested

in the war and that they made no distinction between Nazism

and the double autocracy that ruled India; and (iii) to give

another opportunity to the government to accept Congress’

demands peacefully.

The demand of the satyagrahi would be the freedom

of speech against the war through an anti-war declaration. If

the government did not arrest the satyagrahi, he or she would

June 1941: Germany attacks Russia and Russia is dragged into

the War.

December 1941: Japan attacks Pearl Harbour.
March 1942: After having overrun almost the whole of South-

East Asia, Japan occupies Rangoon.

460

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

not only repeat it but move into villages and start a march

towards Delhi, thus precipitating a movement which came to

be known as the ‘Delhi Chalo Movement’.

Vinoba Bhave was the first to offer the satyagraha and

Nehru, the second. By May 1941, 25,000 people had been

convicted for individual civil disobedience.

Gandhi Designates Nehru as his
Successor

The Congress leaders, released in December 1941, in the

midst of Japan’s aggressive actions, were anxious to defend

Indian territory and go to the aid of the Allies. The CWC

overrode Gandhi’s and Nehru’s objections and passed a

resolution offering to cooperate with the government in the

defence of India, if:

(i) full independence was given after the war, and

(ii) substance of power was transferred immediately.

It was at this time that Gandhi designated Nehru as his

chosen successor.

Nehru and Gandhi differed in temperament and attitudes

towards modernity, religion, God, State, and industrialisation.

Nehru was indifferent to religion, Gandhi believed deeply in

his own version of God; Nehru believed that industrialisation

was the only solution to the acute and widespread poverty

of India, while Gandhi called for the reviving of the rural

economy. Nehru believed in the powers of the modern State

to elevate and reform society, while Gandhi was sceptical

of State power, trusting instead to the conscience and

willingness of individuals and communities. Despite having

so many differences, Nehru revered Gandhi, and Gandhi, in

turn, believed in Nehru more than his own sons. Both teacher

and disciple had fundamental similarities—patriotism in an

inclusive sense, i.e., they identified with India as a whole

rather than with a particular caste, language, region, or

religion. Both believed in non-violence and democratic form

of government.

Rajmohan Gandhi, in his book, The Good Boatman,

writes that Gandhi preferred Nehru to the alternatives because

Nationalist Response in the Wake of World War II

✫

461

he most reliably reflected the pluralist, inclusive idea of India

that the Mahatma himself stood for. The alternatives—Patel,

Rajaji, Azad, Kripalani, Rajendra Prasad—had somewhat

sectional interests and affiliations. But Nehru was a Hindu

who could be trusted by Muslims, a north-Indian who was

respected in south India, and a man who was admired by

women. Like Gandhi, Nehru was genuinely an all-India leader,

who gave Indians hope—that they could build a more

prosperous and peaceful society.

Cripps Mission

In March 1942, a mission headed by Stafford Cripps was sent

to India with constitutional proposals to seek Indian support

for the war. Stafford Cripps was a left-wing Labourite, the

leader of the House of Commons, and a member of the

British War Cabinet who had actively supported the Indian

national movement.

Why Cripps Mission Was Sent

●

Because of the reverses suffered by Britain in South-

East Asia, the Japanese threat to invade India seemed real

now and Indian support became crucial.

●

There was pressure on Britain from the Allies (USA,

USSR, China) to seek Indian cooperation.

●

Indian nationalists had agreed to support the Allied

cause if substantial power was transferred immediately and

complete independence given after the war.

Main Proposals

The main proposals of the mission were as follows:

1. An Indian Union with a dominion status would be

set up; it would be free to decide its relations with the

Commonwealth and free to participate in the United Nations

and other international bodies.

2. After the end of the war, a constituent assembly

would be convened to frame a new constitution. Members

of this assembly would be partly elected by the provincial

assemblies through proportional representation and partly

nominated by the princes.

3. The British government would accept the new

462

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

constitution subject to two conditions: (i) any province not

willing to join the Union could have a separate constitution

and form a separate Union, and (ii) the new constitution-

making body and the British government would negotiate a

treaty to effect the transfer of power and to safeguard racial

and religious minorities.

4. In the meantime, defence of India would remain in

British hands and the governor general’s powers would

remain intact.

Departures from the Past and Implications

The proposals differed from those offered in the past in many

respects:

●

The making of the constitution was to be solely in

Indian hands now (and not ‘mainly’ in Indian hands—as

contained in the August Offer).

●

A concrete plan was provided for the constituent

assembly.

●

Option was available to any province to have a

separate constitution—a blueprint for India’s partition.

●

Free India could withdraw from the Commonwealth.

●

Indians were allowed a large share in the administration

in the interim period.

Why Cripps Mission Failed

The Cripps Mission proposals failed to satisfy Indian

nationalists and turned out to be merely a propaganda device

for the consumption of the US and the Chinese. Various

parties and groups had objections to the proposals on

different points:

The Congress objected to:

(i) the offer of dominion status instead of a provision

for complete independence;

(ii) representation of the princely states by nominees

and not by elected representatives;

(iii) right to provinces to secede as this went against the

principle of national unity; and

(iv) absence of any plan for immediate transfer of power

and absence of any real share in defence; the

governor general’s supremacy had been retained,

and the demand that the governor general be only

the constitutional head had not been accepted.

Nationalist Response in the Wake of World War II

✫

463

Nehru and Maulana Azad were the official negotiators

for the Congress.

The Muslim League:

(i) criticised the idea of a single Indian Union;

(ii) did not like the machinery for the creation of a

constituent assembly and the procedure to decide

on the accession of provinces to the Union; and

(iii) thought that the proposals denied the Muslims the

right to self-determination and the creation of

Pakistan.

Other groups also objected to the provinces’ right to

secede. The Liberals considered the secession proposals to

be against the unity and security of India. The Hindu

Mahasabha criticised the basis of the right to secede. The

depressed classes thought that partition would leave them at

the mercy of the caste Hindus. The Sikhs objected that

partition would take away Punjab from them.

The explanation that the proposals were meant not to

supersede the August Offer but to clothe general provisions

with precision cast doubts on the British intentions.

The incapacity of Cripps to go beyond the Draft

Declaration and the adoption of a rigid “take it or leave it”

attitude added to the deadlock. Cripps had earlier talked of

“cabinet” and “national government”, but later he said that he

had only meant an expansion of the executive council.

The procedure of accession was not well-defined. The

decision on secession was to be taken by a resolution in the

legislature by a 60 per cent majority. If less than 60 per cent

Views

I have not become His Majesty’s first Minister to preside over
the liquidation of the British Empire.

Winston Churchill

The offer of Cripps really gave us nothing. If we accepted his
offer, we might have cause to rue it in future. In case the British
went back on their word, we should not even have the justification
for launching a fresh struggle. War had given India an opportunity
for achieving her freedom. We must not lose it by depending
upon a mere promise.

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad

464

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

of members supported it, the decision was to be taken by

a plebiscite of adult males of that province by a simple

majority. This scheme weighed against the Hindus in Punjab

and Bengal if they wanted accession to the Indian Union.

It was not clear as to who would implement and

interpret the treaty effecting the transfer of power.

Churchill (the British prime minister), Amery (the

secretary of state), Linlithgow (the viceroy), and Ward (the

commander-in-chief) consistently torpedoed Cripps’ efforts.

Talks broke down on the question of the viceroy’s veto.

Gandhi described the scheme as “a post-dated cheque”;

Nehru pointed out that the “existing structure and autocratic

powers would remain and a few of us will become the

viceroy’s liveried camp followers and look after canteens and

the like”.

Stafford Cripps returned home leaving behind a frustrated

and embittered Indian people, who, though still sympathising

with the victims of Fascist aggression, felt that the existing

situation in the country had become intolerable and that the

time had come for a final assault on imperialism.

Summary

●

Congress

Stand on World War II:

It would cooperate in the war effort if:

(i) freedom was given after the War.
(ii) some form of genuinely responsible government was
immediately set up.

September 1, 1939: World War-II broke out and Britain
declared India’s support for war.
September 10–14, 1939: At CWC meeting at Wardha:
— Gandhi was for unconditional support to Britain’s war

efforts.

— Subhash Bose and Leftists were for taking advantage of

Britain’s difficulties and starting a mass movement to
dislodge colonialism.

— Nehru recognised the imperialist nature of the war, but

was against taking advantage of Britain’s difficulties, even
as he was against Indian participation in the war.

— The CWC resolved—No Indian participation unless freedom

is granted; Government should declare its war aims soon.

Nationalist Response in the Wake of World War II

✫

465

●

Linlithgow’s Statement (October 17, 1939)
Britain’s war aim is to resist aggression.
All interest groups are to be consulted to modify 1935 Act
for future.
Immediately a “consultative committee” is to be formed for
advising functions.

●

Congress Response

No Indian support to the war
Congress ministries in provinces to resign
But no immediate mass struggle to be launched

●

March 1940

‘Pakistan Resolution’ passed at Lahore session of Muslim
League

●

August Offer (August 1940)

Dominion status to be the long-term objective
After the war, constituent assembly to be formed comprising
mainly Indians
Minorities’ consent to be essential for any future settlement.
Congress rejects the Offer

●

October 1940

Congress launches individual satyagraha; 25,000 satyagrahis
court arrest

●

March 1942

Japan reaches Rangoon after having overrun almost the whole
of South-East Asia.

●

Cripps Mission (March 1942)

It offers:
*

an Indian Union with dominion status, with right to withdraw
from Commonwealth.

after war, a constituent assembly elected by provincial
assemblies to frame the constitution.

freedom to any province unwilling to join the Union to have
a separate agreement with Britain.

Meanwhile, defence of India to remain in British hands.
The Congress objects to

dominion status

right of provinces to secede

no immediate transfer of power

retention of governor-general’s supremacy.

The Muslim League objects to—
*

Pakistan not being explicitly offered

the machinery for creation of Constituent Assembly.

466

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

466

CHAPTER 23

Quit India Movement,

Demand for Pakistan,

and the INA

Quit India Movement

After Cripps’ departure, Gandhi framed a resolution calling

for British withdrawal and a non-violent non-cooperation

movement against any Japanese invasion. The CWC meeting

at Wardha (July 14, 1942) accepted the idea of a struggle.

Why Start a Struggle Now

The reasons were several:

1. The failure of the Cripps Mission to solve the

constitutional deadlock exposed Britain’s unchanged attitude

on constitutional advance and made it clear that any more

silence would be tantamount to accepting the British right

to decide the fate of Indians without consulting them.

2. There was popular discontent because of rising

prices and shortage of rice, salt, etc., and because of factors

such as commandeering of boats in Bengal and Orissa. There

were fears of Britain following a scorched earth policy in

Assam, Bengal, and Orissa against possible Japanese advance.

3. News of reverses suffered by the British in South-

East Asia and an imminent British collapse enhanced popular

willingness to give expression to discontent. The Japanese

troops were approaching the borders of India. Popular faith

Quit India Movement, Demand for Pakistan, ...

✫

467

in the stability of British rule was so low that people were

withdrawing deposits from banks and post offices.

4. The manner in which the British evacuated from

South-East Asia leaving the subjects to their fate (two roads

were provided—Black Road for Indian refugees and White

Road exclusively for European refugees), and the rout of a

European power by an Asian power shattered white prestige

and the British behaviour towards the Indian subjects in

South-East Asia exposed the racist attitude of the rulers.

5. The leadership wanted to condition the masses for

a possible Japanese invasion.

The ‘Quit India’ Resolution

In July 1942, the Congress Working Committee met at

Wardha and resolved that it would authorise Gandhi to take

charge of the non-violent mass movement. The resolution

generally referred to as the ‘Quit India’ resolution. Proposed

by Jawaharlal Nehru and seconded by Sardar Patel, it was to

be approved by the All India Congress Committee meeting

in Bombay in August.

The Quit India Resolution was ratified at the Congress

meeting at Gowalia Tank, Bombay, on August 8, 1942. The

meeting also resolved to:

●

demand an immediate end to British rule in India.

●

declare commitment of free India to defend itself

against all types of Fascism and imperialism.

●

form a provisional Government of India after British

withdrawal.

●

sanction a civil disobedience movement against

British rule.

Gandhi was named the leader of the struggle.

Gandhi’s General Instructions to
Different Sections

Gandhi’s special instructions were spelt out at the Gowalia

Tank meeting but not actually issued. They were directed at

various sections of society.

●

Government servants: Do not resign but declare

your allegiance to the Congress.

●

Soldiers: Do not leave the army but do not fire on

compatriots.

468

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

●

Students: If confident, leave studies.

●

Peasants: If zamindars are anti-government, pay

mutually agreed rent, and if zamindars are pro-government,

do not pay rent.

●

Princes: Support the masses and accept sovereignty

of your people.

●

Princely states’ people: Support the ruler only if

he is anti-government and declare yourselves to be a part of

the Indian nation.

Gandhi followed up with the now-famous exhortation:

“Here is a mantra, a short one, that I give you. You may

imprint 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 our slavery.”

Spread of the Movement

Gandhi had carefully built the tempo through individual civil

disobedience movements or satyagraha, organisational

revamping, and a consistent propaganda campaign. The

government, however, was in no mood to either negotiate

with the Congress or wait for the movement to be formally

launched.

In the early hours of August 9, 1942, in a single sweep,

all the top leaders of the Congress were arrested and taken

to unknown destinations. The Congress Working Committee,

the All India Congress Committee, and the Provincial Congress

Committees were declared unlawful associations under the

Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1908. The assembly of

public meetings was prohibited under rule 56 of the Defence

of India Rules. The removal of established leaders left the

younger and militant elements to their own initiative. With

the major leaders out of the picture, young Aruna Asaf Ali,

till then relatively unknown, presided over the Congress

committee session on August 9, and hoisted the flag.
Public on Rampage

The general public attacked symbols of authority and hoisted

national flags forcibly on public buildings. Satyagrahis offered

themselves up to arrest, bridges were blown up, railway tracks

were removed, and telegraph lines were cut. This kind of

Quit India Movement, Demand for Pakistan, ...

✫

469

activity was most intense in eastern United Provinces and

Bihar. Students responded by going on strike in schools and

colleges, participating in processions, writing and distributing

illegal news sheets (patrikas), and acting as couriers for

underground networks. Workers went on strike in Ahmedabad,

Bombay, Jamshedpur, Ahmednagar, and Poona.
Underground Activity

Many nationalists went underground and took to subversive

activities. The participants in these activities were the

Socialists, Forward Bloc members, Gandhi ashramites,

revolutionary nationalists, and local organisations in Bombay,

Poona, Satara, Baroda, and other parts of Gujarat, Karnataka,

Kerala, Andhra, United Provinces, Bihar, and Delhi. The main

personalities taking up underground activity were Rammanohar

Lohia, Jayaprakash Narayan, Aruna Asaf Ali, Usha Mehta, Biju

Patnaik, Chhotubhai Puranik, Achyut Patwardhan, Sucheta

Kripalani, and R.P. Goenka. Usha Mehta started an underground

radio in Bombay. This phase of underground activity was

meant to keep up popular morale by continuing to provide

a line of command and guidance to distribute arms and

ammunition.

View

. . . though the need for non-violence was always reiterated,
Gandhi’s mantra of Do or Die represents the militant mood of
Gandhi.

—Sumit Sarkar

Parallel Governments

Parallel governments were established at many places:

●

Ballia (in August 1942 for a week)—under Chittu

Pandey. He got many Congress leaders released.

●

Tamluk (Midnapore, from December 1942 to

September 1944)—Jatiya Sarkar undertook cyclone relief

work, sanctioned grants to schools, supplied paddy from the

rich to the poor, organised Vidyut Vahinis, etc.

●

Satara (mid-1943 to 1945)—named “Prati Sarkar”, was

organised under leaders like Y.B. Chavan, Nana Patil, etc.

Village libraries and Nyayadan Mandals were organised,

470

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

prohibition campaigns were carried on, and ‘Gandhi marriages’

were organised.

Active help was provided by businessmen (through

donations, shelter, and material help), students (acting as

couriers), simple villagers (by refusing information to

authority), pilots and train drivers (by delivering bombs and

other material), and government officials including police

(who passed on secret information to the activists).

Extent of Mass Participation

The participation was on many levels.

Youth, especially the students of schools and colleges,

remained in the forefront.

Women, especially school and college girls, actively

participated, and included Aruna Asaf Ali, Sucheta Kripalani,

and Usha Mehta.

Workers went on strikes and faced repression.

Peasants of all strata were at the heart of the movement.

Even some zamindars participated. These peasants concentrated

their offensive on symbols of authority, and there was

complete absence of anti-zamindar violence.

Government officials, especially those belonging to

lower levels in police and administration, participated resulting

in erosion of government loyalty.

Muslims helped by giving shelter to underground

activists. There were no communal clashes during the

movement.

The Communists did not join the movement; in the

wake of Russia (where the communists were in power) being

attacked by Nazi Germany, the communists began to support

the British war against Germany and the ‘Imperialist War’

became the ‘People’s War’.

The Muslim League opposed the movement, fearing

that if the British left India at that time, the minorities would

be oppressed by the Hindus.

The Hindu Mahasabha boycotted the movement.

The Princely states showed a low-key response.

Government Repression

Although martial law was not applied, the repression was

severe. Agitating crowds were lathi-charged, tear-gassed, and

Quit India Movement, Demand for Pakistan, ...

✫

471

fired upon. The number of those killed is estimated at 10,000.

The press was muzzled. The military took over many cities;

police and secret service reigned supreme. Rebellious villages

were fined heavily, and in many villages, mass flogging was

done.

Estimate

●

Left without leaders, there was no restraint and

violence became common.

●

Main storm centres of the movement were in eastern

United Provinces, Bihar, Midnapore, Maharashtra, Karnataka.

●

Students, workers, and peasants were the backbone

of the movement, while the upper classes and the bureaucracy

remained largely loyal.

●

Loyalty to government suffered considerable erosion.

This also showed how deep nationalism had reached.

●

The movement established the truth that it was no

longer possible to rule India without the wishes of Indians.

●

The element of spontaneity was higher than before,

although a certain degree of popular initiative had been

sanctioned by the leadership itself, subject to limitations of

the instructions. Also, the Congress had been ideologically,

politically, and organisationally preparing for the struggle for

a long time.

●

The great significance was that the movement placed

the demand for independence on the immediate agenda of

the national movement. After Quit India, there could be no

retreat.

●

In this struggle, the common people displayed unpara-

lleled heroism and militancy. The repression they faced was

the most brutal, and the circumstances under which resistance

was offered were most adverse.

Gandhi Fasts

In February 1943, Gandhi started a fast as an answer to an

exhortation by the government to condemn violence; the fast

was directed against the violence of the State. The popular

response to the news of the fast was immediate and

overwhelming. Protests were organised at home and abroad

through hartals, demonstrations, and strikes. Three members

472

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

of the viceroy’s executive council resigned. The fast achieved

the following:

●

Public morale was raised.

●

Anti-British feeling was heightened.

●

An opportunity was provided for political activity.

●

Government’s high-handedness was exposed.

Gandhi got the better of his opponents and refused to

oblige by dying.

On March 23, 1943 Pakistan Day was observed.

Famine of 1943

The horror and inconveniences of war were increased by the

famine of 1943. The worst-affected areas were south-west

Bengal comprising the Tamluk-Contai-Diamond Harbour

region, Dacca, Faridpur, Tippera, and Noakhali. Around 1.5

to 3 million people perished in this basically man-made

famine, the epidemics (malaria, cholera, and small pox),

malnutrition and starvation. The fundamental causes of the

famine were as follows:

1. The need to feed a vast army diverted foodstuffs.

2. Rice imports from Burma and South-East Asia had

been stopped.

3. The famine got aggravated by gross mismanagement

and deliberate profiteering; rationing methods were belated

and were confined to big cities.

Rajagopalachari Formula

Meanwhile, efforts were on to solve the ongoing constitutional

crisis, and some individuals also tried to come up with

constitutional proposals.

The Formula

C. Rajagopalachari (CR), the veteran Congress leader,

prepared a formula for Congress-League cooperation in

1944. It was a tacit acceptance of the League’s demand for

Pakistan. Gandhi supported the formula. The main points in

the CR Plan were:

●

Muslim League to endorse Congress demand for

independence.

Quit India Movement, Demand for Pakistan, ...

✫

473

●

League to cooperate with Congress in forming a

provisional government at centre.

●

After the end of the war, the entire population of

Muslim majority areas in the North-West and North-East

India to decide by a plebiscite, whether or not to form a

separate sovereign state.

●

In case of acceptance of partition, agreement to be

made jointly for safeguarding defence, commerce,

communications, etc.

●

The above terms to be operative only if England

transferred full powers to India.

Objections

Jinnah wanted the Congress to accept the two-nation theory.

He wanted only the Muslims of North-West and North-East

to vote in the plebiscite and not the entire population. He

also opposed the idea of a common centre.

While the Congress was ready to cooperate with the

League for the independence of the Indian Union, the League

did not care for independence of the Union. It was only

interested in a separate nation.

Hindu leaders led by Vir Savarkar condemned the CR

Plan.

Desai-Liaqat Pact

Efforts continued to end the deadlock. Bhulabhai Desai,

leader of the Congress Party in the Central Legislative

Assembly, met Liaqat Ali Khan, deputy leader of the Muslim

League in that Assembly, and both of them came up with

the draft proposal for the formation of an interim government

at the centre, consisting of:

●

an equal number of persons nominated by the

Congress and the League in the central legislature.

●

20% reserved seats for minorities.

No settlement could be reached between the Congress

and the League on these lines, but the fact that a sort of

parity between the Congress and the League was decided upon

had far-reaching consequences.

Wavell Plan

Although the war in Europe came to an end in May 1945,

the Japanese threat still remained. The Conservative

474

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

government in Britain led by Churchill was keen to reach

a solution on the constitutional question in India. The viceroy,

Lord Wavell, was permitted to start negotiations with Indian

leaders. Congress leaders were released from jails in June

1945.

Why the Government was Keen on a

Solution Now

1. The general election in England was scheduled for

mid-1945. The Conservatives wanted to be seen as sincere

on reaching a solution.

2. There was pressure from the Allies to seek further

Indian cooperation in the war.

3. The government wanted to divert Indian energies into

channels more profitable for the British.

The Plan

The idea was to reconstruct the governor general’s executive

council pending the preparation of a new constitution. For

this purpose, a conference was convened by the viceroy, Lord

Wavell, at Shimla in June 1945. The main proposals of the

Wavell Plan were as follows:

●

With the exception of the governor general and the

commander-in-chief, all members of the executive council

were to be Indians.

●

Caste Hindus and Muslims were to have equal

representation.

●

The reconstructed council was to function as an

interim government within the framework of the 1935 Act

(i.e. not responsible to the Central Assembly).

●

The governor general was to exercise his veto on the

advice of ministers.

●

Representatives of different parties were to submit

a joint list to the viceroy for nominations to the executive

council. If a joint list was not possible, then separate lists

were to be submitted.

●

Possibilities were to be kept open for negotiations

on a new constitution once the war was finally won.

Muslim League’s Stand

The League wanted all Muslim members to be League

nominees, because it feared that since the aims of other

Quit India Movement, Demand for Pakistan, ...

✫

475

minorities—depressed classes, Sikhs, Christians, etc.—were

the same as those of the Congress, this arrangement would

reduce the League to a one-third minority. (Wavell wanted

Khizr Hyat Khan as the Muslim representative from Western

Punjab.) The League claimed some kind of veto in the council

with decisions opposed to Muslims needing a two-thirds

majority for approval.

Congress Stand

The Congress objected to the plan as “an attempt to reduce

the Congress to the status of a purely caste Hindu party and

insisted on its right to include members of all communities

among its nominees”.

Wavell’s Mistake

Wavell announced a breakdown of talks thus giving the

League a virtual veto. This strengthened the League’s position,

as was evident from the elections in 1945–46, and boosted

Jinnah’s position; and exposed the real character of the

Conservative government of Churchill.

The Indian National Army
and Subhas Bose

Subhas Chandra Bose was an intrepid man. He had always

shown a militant streak and reacted violently to any insult

of Indians by the Europeans. He passed the Indian Civil

Services examination securing fourth position but resigned

from the service in 1921 to join the struggle for freedom

by becoming a member of the Congress. His political guru

was Chittaranjan Das. He became mayor of Calcutta in 1923.

He was jailed many times by the British. Once it became

clear to Subhas Chandra Bose that he could not follow

Gandhi’s way but that the Congress was determined to follow

Gandhi, Bose decided to go his own way to fight for

independence.

In March 1940, Bose convened an Anti-Compromise

Conference at Ramgarh; it was a joint effort of the Forward

Bloc and the Kisan Sabha. It was resolved at the conference

that a worldwide struggle should be launched on April 6, the

476

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

first day of the National Week, with a call to the people not

to help the Imperialist War with any resource—men, money,

or materials. He called for resistance to be offered to all

forms of exploitation of Indian resources for the imperial

cause. There was enthusiastic participation by the people in

the struggle launched on April 6.

Bose was arrested in July when he protested and tried

to launch a satyagraha against a proposed monument for

Holwell in Calcutta. He was released from prison and placed

under house arrest in December 1940 after a hunger strike.

In January 1941, it was reported that Bose had escaped. On

January 26, 1941, he reached Peshawar under the pseudo-

name Ziauddin, helped by Bhagat Ram.

Later it was heard that he had left India “to supplement

from outside the struggle going on at home”. He was

reported to have approached Russia for help in the Indian

struggle for freedom from Britain. But, in June 1941, Russia

joined the Allies in the war, which disappointed Bose. He

then went to Germany.

Bose met Hitler under the pseudo name, Orlando

Mazzotta. With the help of Hitler, the ‘Freedom Army’

(Mukti Sena) was formed, which consisted of all the prisoners

of war of Indian origin captured by Germany and Italy.

Dresden, Germany, was made the office of the Freedom

Army. Bose came to be called ‘Netaji’ by the people of

Germany. He gave the famous slogan, ‘Jai Hind’ from the

Free India Centre, Germany.

He began regular broadcasts from Berlin radio in

January 1942, which enthused Indians. In early 1943, he left

Germany and travelled by German and later by Japanese

submarines to reach Japan and then Singapore in July of the

same year. He was to take over command of the Indian

independence movement from Rashbehari Bose, but that was

the second phase of the Indian National Army.

Origin and First Phase of the Indian
National Army

The idea of creating an army out of the Indian prisoners of

war (POWs) was originally that of Mohan Singh, an Indian

army officer who had decided not to join the retreating

Quit India Movement, Demand for Pakistan, ...

✫

477

British army in Malaya. He decided to turn to the Japanese

for help. The Japanese had till then encouraged Indian

civilians to form anti-British organisations. Mohan Singh

asked for Indian prisoners of war.

The Japanese handed over the Indian prisoners of war

to Mohan Singh who tried to recruit them into an Indian

National Army. After the fall of Singapore, several POWs

were ready to join Mohan Singh. By the end of 1942, 40,000

men were ready to join the INA. It was intended that the INA

would go into action only on the invitation of the Indian

National Congress and the people of India. The move to form

this army has been seen by many as a check against the

misconduct of the Japanese against Indians in South-East Asia

and as a bulwark against a possible future Japanese occupation

of India.

The INA got a boost with the outbreak of the Quit India

Movement in India. In September 1942, the first division of

the INA was formed with 16,300 men. With the Japanese

contemplating an Indian invasion, the idea of an armed wing

of INA seemed more relevant to them. But soon, serious

differences emerged between the Indian Army officers led

by Mohan Singh and the Japanese over the role to be played

by the INA. Actually, the Japanese wanted a token force of

2,000 only while Mohan Singh wanted to raise a much larger

army. Mohan Singh was taken into custody by the Japanese.

The second phase began with the arrival of Subhas Bose

in Singapore. But before that in June 1943, Subhas Chandra

Bose (under pseudo name Abid Hussain) reached Tokyo and

met the Japanese prime minister, Tojo.

The role of Rashbehari Bose, another great freedom

fighter, should also be acknowledged here. He had fled to

Japan in 1915 following the failed revolutionary activities.

In Japan, Rashbehari Bose eventually became a naturalised

citizen. He made a lot of effort in getting the Japanese

interested in the Indian independence movement. He became

active in Pan-Asian circles, founded the Indian Club of Tokyo,

and gave lectures on the evils of Western imperialism.

Very early itself he was impressed by Subhas Chandra

Bose. When the Indian National Army was formed by Mohan

Singh in Singapore, Rashbehari Bose was greatly excited and

478

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

left Tokyo for Southeast Asia. It was at a conference in

Bangkok (also under Japanese occupation at the time) that

it was decided to place the INA under an Indian Independence

League whose chairman would be Rashbehari Bose himself.

He had created the League in 1942 in Tokyo.

When Subhash Bose was sought by the Japanese to lead

the INA, he was ready for it. He went to Singapore and met

Rashbehari Bose, and the latter happily transferred the

control and leadership of the Indian Independence League and

the INA to Subhash in July 1943. It must be noted that it

was on the organisational spadework done by Rashbehari

Bose that Subhas Bose could build up the Indian National

Army. Subhas Bose became Supreme Commander of the INA

on August 25. (In February 1944, after a collapse of his lungs,

Rashbehari’s health steadily deteriorated, and he died on

January 21, 1945, aged 58.)

On October 21, 1943, Subhas Bose formed the

Provisional Government for Free India at Singapore with H.C.

Chatterjee (Finance portfolio), M.A. Aiyar (Broadcasting),

Lakshmi Swaminathan (Women Department), etc. The famous

slogan—“Give me blood, I will give you freedom” was given

in Malaya.

This provisional government declared war on Britain

and the United States, and was recognised by the Axis powers.

Recruits were trained and funds collected for the INA. A

women’s regiment called the Rani Jhansi Regiment was also

formed.

The INA headquarters was shifted to Rangoon (in

Burma) in January 1944, and the army recruits were to march

from there with the war cry “Chalo Delhi!” on their lips.

On November 6, 1943, Andaman and Nicobar islands

was given by the Japanese army to the INA; the islands were

renamed as Shahid Dweep and Swaraj Dweep respectively.

On July 6, 1944, Subhas Bose addressed Mahatma

Gandhi as ‘Father of Nation’—from the Azad Hind Radio (the

first person to call Gandhi, ‘Father of Nation’). He asked for

Gandhi’s blessings for “India’s last war of independence”.

One INA battalion commanded by Shah Nawaz was

allowed to accompany the Japanese Army to the Indo-Burma

front and participate in the Imphal campaign. However, the

Quit India Movement, Demand for Pakistan, ...

✫

479

Indians received discriminatory treatment from the Japanese,

which included being denied rations and arms and being made

to do menial work for the Japanese units, and this disgusted

and demoralised the INA units.

The Azad Hind Fauz crossed the Burma border and

stood on Indian soil on March 18, 1944. The INA units

subsequently advanced up to Kohima and Imphal. On April

14, Colonel Malik of the Bahadur Group hoisted the INA

flag for the first time on the Indian mainland at Moirang,

in Manipur (where the INA Memorial Complex stands today)

to enthusiastic cries of “Jai Hind” and “Netaji Zindabad”. For

three months, the INA carried out military administration

duties at Moirang, but then the Allied forces reclaimed the

territory. The INA met the same fate as the Japanese, and

all brigades began their withdrawal on July 18, 1944.

The steady Japanese retreat thereafter quashed any

hopes of the INA liberating the nation. The retreat continued

till mid-1945.

On August 15, 1945 the surrender of Japan in the

Second World War took place, and with this the INA also

surrendered.

On August 18, 1945, reportedly, Subhas Bose died

mysteriously in an air crash at Taipei (Taiwan).

But when the INA POWs were brought back to India

after the war to be court-martialled, a powerful movement

emerged in their defence.

Summary

●

Quit India Movement

Why launch a movement now?
Failure of Cripps Offer an evidence of British lack of will
to concede Indian demands
Public discontent against wartime hardships
A feeling of imminent British collapse
Indian leadership’s desire to prepare masses for possible
Japanese invasion

AICC Meeting (Bombay—August 8, 1942)
The meeting ratifies Quit India Resolution

August 9, 1942 All prominent leaders arrested

480

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Major Activity
Public on rampage—especially Eastern UP, Bihar, Bengal—
attacking symbols of authority
Underground activity to provide a line of command
Parallel governments in Ballia (UP), Tamluk (Bengal), and
Satara (Maharashtra)
Sections participating included youth, women, workers,
peasants, government officials, some communists

February 1943 Gandhi started a fast.
March 23, 1943 Pakistan was Day observed.

●

C. Rajagopalachari Formula (March 1944)

League should immediately support independence for India and
cooperate in Interim Government:
After War, Muslim majority areas were to exercise right to self-
determination.
In case of partition, common centre for defence, commerce,
communications, etc.
Jinnah rejected the offer as he wanted Congress to accept the
two-nation theory.

●

Desai-Liaqat Pact

Congress and League nominees to have equal representation in
Central Executive
20% of seats reserved for minorities

●

Wavell Plan (Shimla Conference—June 1945)

An all-Indian executive council except the governor general and
commander-in-chief
Equal representation for caste Hindus and Muslims
Muslim League wanted all Muslims to be its nominees and
claimed a communal veto in the executive council
Congress objected to it being painted purely as a caste Hindu
party

●

Subhas Bose and the INA

Origin of INA—Mohan Singh’s role
First Phase of INA
Second Phase of INA
Subhas Bose takes over from Rasbhehari Bose.
INA achievements—flag hoisted on Indian soil
Retreat of INA with the Japanese with the end of Second World
War

481

CHAPTER 24

Post-War National

Scenario

Two Strands of National
Upsurge

Two basic strands of national upsurge can be identified during

the last two years of British rule:

(i) tortuous negotiations involving the government,

Congress, and Muslim League, increasingly accompanied by

communal violence and culminating in freedom and the

partition.

(ii) sporadic, localised, and often extremely militant

and united mass action by workers, peasants, and states’

peoples which took the form of a countrywide strike wave.

This kind of activity was occasioned by the INA Release

Movement, Royal Indian Navy (RIN) revolt, Tebhaga

movement, Worli revolt, Punjab Kisan Morchas, Travancore

peoples’ struggle (especially the Punnapra-Vayalar episode),

and the Telangana peasant revolt.

Change in Government’s
Attitude

When the government lifted the ban on the Congress and

released the Congress leaders in June 1945, they expected

to find a demoralised people. Instead, they found tumultuous

crowds impatient to do something. Popular energy resurfaced

after three years of repression. People’s expectations were

482

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

heightened by the release of their leaders. The Wavell Plan

backed by the Conservative government in Britain failed to

break the constitutional deadlock.

In July 1945, Labour Party formed the government in

Britain. Clement Attlee took over as the new prime minister

and Pethick Lawrence as the new secretary of state for India.

In August 1945, elections to central and provincial

assemblies were announced.

In September 1945, it was announced that a constituent

assembly would be convened after the elections and that the

government was working according to the spirit of the Cripps

Offer.

The government’s change attitude was dictated by the

following factors:

1. The end of the War resulted in a change in balance

of global power—the UK was no more a big power, while

the USA and USSR emerged as superpowers, both of which

favoured freedom for India.

2. The new Labour government was more sympathetic

to Indian demands.

3. Throughout Europe, there was a wave of socialist-

radical governments.

4. British soldiers were weary and tired and the British

economy lay shattered. (By 1945, the British government in

London owed India £1.2 billion and was being drained by the

US Lend-Lease agreement, which was finally paid off only

in 2006.)

5. There was an anti-imperialist wave in South-East

Asia—in Vietnam and Indonesia—resisting efforts to replant

French and Dutch rule there.

6. Officials feared another Congress revolt, a revival

of the 1942 situation but much more dangerous because of

a likely combination of attacks on communications, agrarian

revolts, labour trouble, army disaffection joined by government

officials and the police in the presence of INA men with

some military experience.

7. Elections were inevitable once the war ended since

the last elections had been held in 1934 for the Centre and

in 1937 for the provinces.

The British would have had to retreat; the Labour

government only quickened the process somewhat.

Post-War National Scenario

✫

483

Congress Election Campaign
and INA Trials

Elections were held in the winter of 1945–46.

Election Campaign for Nationalistic Aims

The most significant feature of the election campaign was

that it sought to mobilise the Indians against the British; it

did not just appeal to the people for votes.

The election campaign expressed the nationalist

sentiments against the state repression of the 1942 Quit India

upsurge. This was done by glorifying martyrs and condemning

officials. The brave resistance of the leaderless people was

lauded; martyrs’ memorials were set up; relief funds were

collected for sufferers; the officials responsible for causing

pain were condemned; and promises of enquiry and threats

of punishment to guilty officials were spelt out.

The government failed to check such speeches. This had

a devastating effect on the morale of the services. The

prospect of the return of Congress ministries, especially in

those provinces where repression had been most brutal,

further heightened the fears of those in government services.

A ‘gentleman’s agreement’ with the Congress seemed

necessary to the government.

Mass pressure against the trial of INA POWs, sometimes

described as “an edge of a volcano”, brought about a decisive

shift in the government’s policy. The British had initially

decided to hold public trials of several hundreds of INA

prisoners besides dismissing them from service and detaining

without trial around 7,000 of them. They compounded the

folly by holding the first trial at the Red Fort in Delhi in

November 1945 and putting on dock together a Hindu, Prem

Kumar Sehgal, a Muslim, Shah Nawaz Khan, and a Sikh,

Gurbaksh Singh Dhillon.

Another issue was provided by the use of Indian Army

units in a bid to restore French and Dutch colonial rule in

Vietnam and Indonesia: this enhanced the anti-imperialist

feeling among a section of urban population and the army.

484

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Congress Support for INA Prisoners

●

At the first post-War Congress session in September

1945 at Bombay, a strong resolution was adopted declaring

Congress support for the INA cause.

●

Defence of INA prisoners in the court was organised

by Bhulabhai Desai, Tej Bahadur Sapru, Kailash Nath Katju,

Jawaharlal Nehru, and Asaf Ali.

●

INA Relief and Enquiry Committee distributed small

sums of money and food, and helped arrange employment

for the affected.

●

Fund collection was organised.

The INA Agitation—A Landmark on

Many Counts

The high pitch and intensity at which the campaign for the

release of INA prisoners was conducted was unprecedented.

The agitation got wide publicity through extensive press

coverage with daily editorials, distribution of pamphlets often

containing threats of revenge, grafitti conveying similar

messages, holding of public meetings, and celebrations of

INA Day (November 12, 1945), and INA week (November

5–11).

The campaign spread over a wide area of the country

and witnessed the participation of diverse social groups and

political parties. While the nerve centres of the agitation

were Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta, Madras, United Provinces

towns, and Punjab, the campaign spread to distant places such

as Coorg, Baluchistan, and Assam. The forms of participation

included fund contributions made by many people—from

film stars, municipal committees, Indians living abroad, and

gurudwaras to tongawallas; participation in meetings;

shopkeepers closing shops; political groups demanding release

of prisoners; contributing to INA funds; student meetings and

boycott of classes; organising kisan conferences; and All

India Women’s Conference demanding the release of INA

prisoners.

Those who supported the INA cause in varying degrees,

apart from the Congress, included the Muslim League,

Communist Party, Unionists, Akalis, Justice Party, Ahrars in

Rawalpindi, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, Hindu Mahasabha,

and the Sikh League.

Post-War National Scenario

✫

485

Pro-INA sentiments surfaced in traditional bulwarks of

the Raj. Government employees collected funds. The

loyalists—the gentlemen with titles—appealed to the

government to abandon the trials for good Indo-British

relations. Men of the armed forces were unexpectedly

sympathetic and attended meetings, received those released

(often in uniforms), and contributed funds.

The central theme became the questioning of Britain’s

right to decide a matter concerning Indians. Britain realised

the political significance of the INA issue, which with each

day assumed more and more of an ‘Indian versus British’

colour.

Three Upsurges—Winter of
1945–46

The nationalist sentiment which reached a crescendo around

the INA trials developed into violent confrontations with the

authority in the winter of 1945–46. There were three major

upsurges:

1. November 21, 1945—in Calcutta over the INA trials

2. February 11, 1946—in Calcutta against the seven-

year sentence to INA officer Rashid Ali

3. February 18, 1946—in Bombay, strike by the Royal

Indian Navy ratings

Three-Stage Pattern

All three upsurges showed a similar three-stage pattern.
Stage I. When a Group Defies Authority

and is Repressed

In the first instance of this stage (November 21, 1945), a

student procession comprising some Forward Bloc

sympathisers, Student Federation of India (SFI) activists, and

Islamia College students, who had joined up with the League

and the Congress, tied flags as a symbol of anti-imperialist

unity, marched to Dalhousie Square—the seat of government

in Calcutta. These protestors refused to disperse and were

lathi-charged. They retaliated by throwing stones and brickbats.

The police resorted to firing in which two persons died.

486

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

In the next step (February 11, 1946), the protest was

led by Muslim League students in which some Congress and

communist students’ organisations joined. Some arrests

provoked the students to defy Section 144. There were more

arrests and the agitating students were lathi-charged.

Rebellion by Naval Ratings On February 18, 1946,

some 1100 Royal Indian Navy (RIN) ratings of HMIS Talwar

went on a strike to protest against:

* racial discrimination (demanding equal pay for Indian

and white soldiers);

* unpalatable food;

* abuse by superior officers;

* arrest of a rating for scrawling ‘Quit India’ on HMIS

Talwar;

* INA trials; and

* use of Indian troops in Indonesia, demanding their

withdrawal.

The rebellious ratings hoisted the tricolour, crescent,

and the hammer and sickle flags on the mast of the rebel

fleet. Other ratings soon joined and they went around Bombay

in lorries holding Congress flags threatening Europeans and

policemen. Crowds brought food to the ratings, and shop-

keepers invited them to take whatever they needed.
Stage II. When the City People Join In

This phase was marked by a virulent anti-British mood

resulting in the virtual paralysis of Calcutta and Bombay.

There were meetings, processions, strikes, hartals, and attacks

on Europeans, police stations, shops, tram depots, railway

stations, banks, besides stopping of rail and road traffic by

squatting on tracks and barricading of streets.
Stage III. When People in Other Parts of the

Country Express Sympathy and Solidarity

While the students boycotted classes and organised hartals

and processions to express sympathy with other students and

the ratings, there were sympathetic strikes in military

establishments in Karachi, Madras, Visakhapatnam, Calcutta,

Delhi, Cochin, Jamnagar, Andamans, Bahrain, and Aden. There

were strikes by the Royal Indian Air Force in Bombay, Poona,

Calcutta, Jessore, and Ambala.

Post-War National Scenario

✫

487

Patel and Jinnah persuaded the ratings to surrender on

February 23 with an assurance that national parties would

prevent any victimisation.

Evaluation of Potential and Impact of the

Three Upsurges

The three upsurges were significant in many ways:

●

Fearless action by the masses was an expression of

militancy in the popular mind.

●

Revolt in the armed forces had a great liberating

effect on the minds of people.

●

The RIN revolt was seen as an event marking the end

of British rule.

●

These upsurges prompted the British to extend some

concessions:

(i) On December 1, 1946, the government announced

that only those INA members accused of murder or brutal

treatment of fellow prisoners would be brought to trial.

(ii) Imprisonment sentences passed against the first

batch were remitted in January 1947.

(iii) Indian soldiers were withdrawn from Indo-China

and Indonesia by February 1947.

(iv) The decision to send a parliamentary delegation to

India (November 1946) was taken.

(v) The decision to send Cabinet Mission was taken in

January 1946.

But could the communal unity witnessed during these

events, if built upon, have offered a way out of the communal

deadlock? Or, in other words, what was the potential of these

upsurges?

These upsurges were in the nature of direct and violent

conflict with authority, which had obvious limitations. Only

the more militant sections could participate.

These upsurges were short-lived and were confined to

a few urban centres while the general INA agitation reached

the remotest villages.

Communal unity witnessed was more organisational

than a unity among the people. Muslim ratings went to the

League to seek advice and the rest to the Congress and the

Socialists.

488

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Despite considerable erosion of the morale of the

bureaucracy, the British infrastructure to repress was intact.

They were soon able to control the situation. It was a Maratha

battalion in Bombay that rounded up the ratings and restored

them to their barracks.

Congress Strategy

The leftists claim that the Congress indifference to the

revolutionary situation arose because of two considerations—

that the situation would go out of its control and that a

disciplined armed forces were vital in a free India. They also

claim that if the Congress leaders had not surrendered to

power play, a different path to independence would have

emerged. But actually these upsurges were an extension of

earlier nationalist activity fostered by the Congress through

its election campaign, its advocacy of the INA cause, and

highlighting of the excesses of 1942.

These upsurges were distinguishable from the earlier

activity because of their form of articulation. These were

violent challenges to the authority while the earlier activity

was a peaceful demonstration of national solidarity.

The Congress did not officially support these upsurges

because of their tactics and timing.

Negotiations had been an integral part of the Congress

strategy, to be explored before a mass movement could be

launched, especially when the British were seen to be

preparing to leave soon.

In Gandhi’s opinion, the mutiny was badly advised: if

they mutinied for India’s freedom, they were doubly wrong;

if they had any grievances, they should have waited for the

guidance of leaders.

Election Results

Performance of the Congress

●

It got 91 per cent of non-Muslim votes.

●

It captured 57 out of 102 seats in the Central

Assembly.

●

In the provincial elections, it got a majority in most

provinces except in Bengal, Sindh, and Punjab. The Congress

majority provinces included the NWFP and Assam which

were being claimed for Pakistan.

Post-War National Scenario

✫

489

Muslim League’s Performance

●

It got 86.6 per cent of the Muslim votes.

●

It captured the 30 reserved seats in the Central

Assembly.

●

In the provincial elections, it got a majority in Bengal

and Sindh.

●

Unlike in 1937, now the League clearly established

itself as the dominant party among Muslims.

In Punjab A Unionist-Congress-Akali coalition under

Khizr Hayat Khan assumed power.

Significant Features of Elections

The elections witnessed communal voting in contrast to the

strong anti-British unity shown in various upsurges due to:

1. separate electorates; and

2. limited franchise—for the provinces, less than 10

per cent of the population could vote and for the Central

Assembly, less than 1 per cent of the population was eligible.

The Cabinet Mission

The Attlee government announced in February 1946 the

decision to send a high-powered mission of three British

cabinet members (Pethick Lawrence, Secretary of State for

India; Stafford Cripps, President of the Board of Trade; and

A.V. Alexander, First Lord of Admiralty) to India to find out

ways and means for a negotiated, peaceful transfer of power

to India. (Pethick Lawrence was the chairman of the mission.)

Why British Withdrawal Seemed

Imminent Now

1. The success of nationalist forces in the struggle for

hegemony was fairly evident by the end of the War.

Nationalism had penetrated into hitherto untouched sections

and areas.

2. There was a demonstration in favour of nationalism

among the bureaucracy and the loyalist sections; because the

paucity of European ICS recruits and a policy of Indianisation

had ended the British domination of the ICS as early as the

First World War, and by 1939, there existed a British-Indian

parity. The long war had caused weariness and economic

490

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Views

The British Cabinet saw the growing rift between the Congress
and the Muslim League as their trump card... Both Linlithgow
and the Cabinet looked to the rivalry of the Congress and the
League as their most useful weapon against the demands of
either.

B.R. Tomlinson

Our time in India is limited and our power to control events almost
gone. We have only prestige and previous momentum to trade
on and these will not last long.

Lord Wavell (October 1946)

worries. Now only a depleted, war-weary bureaucracy battered

by the 1942 events remained.

3. The British strategy of conciliation and repression

had its limitations and contradictions.

●

After the Cripps’ Offer, there was little left to offer

for conciliation except full freedom.

●

When non-violent resistance was repressed with

force, the naked force behind the government stood exposed,

while if the government did not clamp down on ‘sedition’

or made offers for truce, it was seen to be unable to wield

authority, and its prestige suffered.

●

Efforts to woo the Congress dismayed the loyalists.

This policy of an unclear mix presented a dilemma for

the services, who nevertheless had to implement it. The

prospect of Congress ministries coming to power in the

provinces further compounded this dilemma.

4. Constitutionalism or Congress Raj had proved to be

a big morale-booster and helped in deeper penetration of

patriotic sentiments among the masses.

5. Demands of leniency for INA prisoners from within

the army and the revolt of the RIN ratings had raised fears

that the armed forces may not be as reliable if the Congress

started a 1942-type mass movement, this time aided by the

provincial ministries.

6. The only alternative to an all-out repression of a

mass movement was an entirely official rule, which seemed

impossible now because the necessary numbers and efficient

officials were not available.

Post-War National Scenario

✫

491

7. The government realised that a settlement was

necessary for burying the ghost of a mass movement and for

good future Indo-British relations.

Now the overarching aim of the British policymakers

was a graceful withdrawal, after a settlement on the modalities

of the transfer of power and nature of post-imperial India-

Britain relations.

On the Eve of Cabinet Mission Plan

The Congress demanded that power be transferred to one

centre and that minorities’ demands be worked out in a

framework ranging from autonomy to Muslim-majority

provinces to self-determination or secession from the Indian

Union—but, only after the British left.

The British bid for a united and friendly India and an

active partner in defence of the Commonwealth, because a

divided India would lack in defence and would be a blot on

Britain’s diplomacy.

The British policy in 1946 clearly reflected a preference

for a united India, in sharp contrast to earlier declarations.

On March 15, 1946, the Prime Minister of Britain, Clement

Attlee said: “...though mindful of the rights of minorities...

cannot allow a minority to place their veto on advance of

the majority.” This was a far cry from the Shimla Conference

where Wavell had allowed Jinnah to wreck the conference.

Cabinet Mission Arrives

The Cabinet Mission reached Delhi on March 24, 1946. It

had prolonged discussions with Indian leaders of all parties

and groups on the issues of:

(i) interim government; and

(ii) principles and procedures for framing a new

constitution giving freedom to India.

As the Congress and the League could not come to any

agreement on the fundamental issue of the unity or partition

of India, the mission put forward its own plan for the solution

of the constitutional problem in May 1946.

Cabinet Mission Plan—Main Points

●

Rejection of the demand for a full-fledged Pakistan,

because:

492

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

(i) the Pakistan so formed would include a large non-

Muslim population—38 per cent in the North-West

and 48 per cent in the North-East;

(ii) the very principle of communal self-determination

would claim separation of Hindu-majority western

Bengal and Sikh- and Hindu-dominated Ambala and

Jullundur divisions of Punjab (already some Sikh

leaders were demanding a separate state if the

country was partitioned);

(iii) deep-seated regional ties would be disturbed if

Bengal and Punjab were partitioned;

(iv) partition would entail economic and administrative

problems, for instance, the problem of

communication between the western and eastern

parts of Pakistan; and

(v) the division of the armed forces would be dangerous.

●

Grouping of existing provincial assemblies into three

sections:

Section-A: Madras, Bombay, Central Provinces, United

Provinces, Bihar, and Orissa (Hindu-majority provinces)

Section-B: Punjab, North-West Frontier Province, and

Sindh (Muslim-majority provinces)

Section-C: Bengal and Assam (Muslim-majority

provinces).

●

Three-tier executive and legislature at provincial,

section, and union levels.

●

A constituent assembly was to be elected by provincial

assemblies by proportional representation (voting in three

groups—General, Muslims, Sikhs). This constituent assembly

would be a 389-member body with provincial assemblies

sending 292, chief commissioner’s provinces sending 4, and

princely states sending 93 members.

(This was a good, democratic method not based on

weightage.)

●

In the constituent assembly, members from groups

A, B, and C were to sit separately to decide the constitution

for provinces and if possible, for the groups also. Then, the

whole constituent assembly (all three sections A, B, and C

combined) would sit together to formulate the union

constitution.

Post-War National Scenario

✫

493

●

A common centre would control defence,

communication, and external affairs. A federal structure was

envisaged for India.

●

Communal questions in the central legislature were

to be decided by a simple majority of both communities

present and voting.

●

Provinces were to have full autonomy and residual

powers.

●

Princely states were no longer to be under paramountcy

of the British government. They would be free to enter into

an arrangement with successor governments or the British

government.

●

After the first general elections, a province was to

be free to come out of a group and after 10 years, a province

was to be free to call for a reconsideration of the group or

the union constitution.

●

Meanwhile, an interim government was to be formed

from the constituent assembly.

Different Interpretations of the Grouping

Clause

Each party or group looked at the plan from its own point

of view.

Congress: To the Congress, the Cabinet Mission Plan

was against the creation of Pakistan since grouping was

optional; one constituent assembly was envisaged; and the

League no longer had a veto.

Muslim League: The Muslim League believed Pakistan

to be implied in compulsory grouping. (The Mission later

clarified that the grouping was compulsory.)

Main Objections

Different parties objected to the plan on different grounds.

Congress

●

Provinces should not have to wait till the

first general elections to come out of a group. They should

have the option of not joining a group in the first place.

(Congress had the Congress-ruled provinces of NWFP and

Assam in mind, which had been included in groups B and

C respectively.)

●

Compulsory grouping contradicts the oft-repeated

insistence on provincial autonomy.

494

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Wavell’s ‘Breakdown Plan’

Wavell presented his plan to the Cabinet Mission in May 1946.
It visualised a middle course between “repression” and “scuttle”.
This plan envisaged the withdrawal of the British Army and
officials to the Muslim provinces of North-West and North-East
and handing over the rest of the country to the Congress. Though
superseded by the Cabinet Mission Plan, Wavell’s plan was an
evidence of:

●

British recognition of the impossibility of suppressing any

future Congress-led rebellion; and

●

desire in some high official circles to make a “Northern

Ireland” of Pakistan.

●

Absence of provision for elected members from the

princely states in the constituent assembly (they could only

be nominated by the princes) was not acceptable.

League

●

Grouping should be compulsory with sections

B and C developing into solid entities with a view to future

secession into Pakistan.

The League had thought that the Congress would reject

the plan, thus prompting the government to invite the League

to form the interim government.

Acceptance and Rejection

The Muslim League on June 6 and the Congress on June 24,

1946 accepted the long-term plan put forward by the Cabinet

Mission.

July 1946 Elections were held in provincial assemblies

for the Constituent Assembly.

July 10, 1946 Nehru stated, “We are not bound by a

single thing except that we have decided to go into the

Constituent Assembly (implying that the Constituent Assembly

was sovereign and would decide the rules of procedure). The

big probability is that there would be no grouping as NWFP

and Assam would have objections to joining sections B

and C.”

July 29, 1946 The League withdrew its acceptance of

the long-term plan in response to Nehru’s statement and gave

a call for “direct action” from August 16 to achieve

Pakistan.

Post-War National Scenario

✫

495

Communal Holocaust and the
Interim Government

From August 16, 1946, the Indian scene was rapidly

transformed. There were communal riots on an unprecedented

scale, which left around several thousands dead.

The worst-hit areas were Calcutta, Bombay, Noakhali,

Bihar, and Garhmukteshwar (United Provinces).

Changed Government Priorities

Wavell was now eager to somehow get the Congress into

the Interim Government, even if the League stayed out (a

departure from Wavell’s stand during the Shimla conference).

This attitude was against the League’s insistence that all

settlements be acceptable to it and also against earlier

government postures of encouraging communal forces, of

denying the legitimacy of nationalism, and of denying the

representative nature of Congress.

Thus, continuance of British rule had demanded one

stance from Britain, and the withdrawal and post-imperial

links dictated a contrary posture.

Interim Government

Fearing mass action by the Congress, a Congress-dominated

Interim Government headed by Nehru was sworn in on

September 2, 1946, with Nehru continuing to insist on his

party’s opposition to the compulsory grouping.

Despite the title, the Interim Government was little

more than a continuation of the old executive of the viceroy

(Wavell overruled the ministers on the issue of the release

of INA prisoners in his very last cabinet meeting in March

1947).

Wavell quietly brought the Muslim League into the

Interim Government on October 26, 1946. The League was

allowed to join:

●

without giving up the ‘direct action’;

●

despite its rejection of the Cabinet Mission’s long-

term and short-term plans; and

●

despite insistence on compulsory grouping with

decisions being taken by a majority vote by a section

496

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

as a whole (which would reduce the opponents of

Pakistan in Assam and NWFP to a position of

helpless minority).

14 Ministers of Interim Government

(September 2, 1946–August 15, 1947)

1. Jawaharlal Nehru: Vice President of Executive

Council, External Affairs and Common Wealth Relations

2. Vallabhbhai Patel: Home, Information and

Broadcasting

3. Baldev Singh: Defence

4. Dr. John Mathai: Industries and Supplies

5. C. Rajagopalachari: Education

6. C.H. Bhabha: Works, Mines and Power

7. Rajendra Prasad: Agriculture and Food

8. Jagjivan Ram: Labour

9. Asaf Ali: Railway

10. Liaquat Ali Khan (Muslim League): Finance

11. Ibrahim Ismail Chundrigar (Muslim League):

Commerce

12. Abdur Rab Nishtar (Muslim League): Communi-

cations

13. Ghazanfar Ali Khan (Muslim League): Health

14. Jogendra Nath Mandal (Muslim League): Law

Obstructionist Approach and Ulterior

Motives of the League

The League did not attend the Constituent Assembly which

had its first meeting on December 9, 1946. Consequently,

the Assembly had to confine itself to passing a general

‘Objectives Resolution’ drafted by Jawaharlal Nehru stating

the ideals of an independent sovereign republic with

autonomous units, adequate minority safeguards, and social,

political, and economic democracy.

The League refused to attend informal meetings of the

cabinet to take decisions.

The League questioned the decisions and appointments

made by the Congress members.

Liaqat Ali Khan as the finance minister restricted and

encumbered the efficient functioning of other ministries.

The League had only sought a foothold in the government

Post-War National Scenario

✫

497

to fight for Pakistan. For them, it was a continuation of the

civil war by other means. The Congress demand that the

British get the League to change its attitude in the Interim

Government or quit was voiced ever since the League joined

the Interim Government.

In February 1947, nine Congress members of the

cabinet wrote to the viceroy demanding the resignation of

League members and threatening the withdrawal of their own

nominees. The last straw came with the League demanding

the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly. A crisis seemed

to be developing rapidly.

Birth and Spread of
Communalism in India

With the rise of nationalism, communalism appeared around

the end of the 19th century. It proved to be a huge threat

to the unity of the Indian people and the national movement.

The legacy, unfortunately, continues.

Characteristic Features of Indian

Communalism

Communalism (more accurately ‘sectarianism’) is basically

an ideology, which gives more importance to one’s own

ethnic/religious group rather than to the wider society as a

whole, evolved through three broad stages in India.

(i) Communal Nationalism: the notion that since a

group or a section of people belong to a particular religious

community, their secular interests are the same, i.e., even

those matters which have got nothing to do with religion

affect all of them equally.

(ii) Liberal Communalism: the notion that since two

religious communities have different religious interests, they

have different interests in the secular sphere also (i.e., in

economic, political, and cultural spheres).

(iii) Extreme Communalism: the notion that not only

do different religious communities have different interests,

but also that these interests are incompatible, i.e., two

communities cannot co-exist because the interests of one

community come into conflict with those of the other.

498

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

There is nothing unique about Indian communalism. It

was the result of the conditions which have, in other

societies, produced similar phenomena and ideologies such

as Fascism, anti-Semitism, racism, the Catholic-Protestant

conflict in Northern Ireland and the Christian-Muslim conflict

in Lebanon.

Bypassing basic economic interests, the communalists

claim to protect interests which do not necessarily exist.

Communalism is a modern phenomenon—rooted in the

modern social, economic, and political colonial structure—

that emerged out of modern politics based on mass

mobilisation and popular participation. Modern politics made

it necessary for people to have wider links and loyalties and

to form establish identities. This process involved the spread

of modern ideas of nation, class, and cultural-linguistic

identity. In India, religious consciousness was transformed

into communal consciousness in some parts of the country

and among some sections of the people.

Its social roots lay in the rising middle classes who

propagated imaginary communal interests to further their own

economic interests—communalism was a bourgeois question

par excellence, according to the Left.

Communalists were backed in their communal campaign

by the colonial administration. It was the channel through

which colonialists expanded their social base.

Communalists and colonialists were helped in their

sinister motives by the fact that often socio-economic

distinctions in Indian society coincided with religious

distinctions. The inherent class contradictions were given a

post-facto communal colouring by the vested interests.

Conservative social reactionary elements gave full

support to communalism.

Religiosity itself did not amount to communalism, but

in a country where lack of education and low awareness of

the outside world was a sad reality, religion had the potential

of becoming, and was used as, a vehicle of communalism.

Reasons for Growth of Communalism

Communalism grew in the modern economic, political, and

social institutions where new identities were emerging in a

Post-War National Scenario

✫

499

haphazard manner even as the old, pre-modern identities had

not diminished. A clash of this fundamental dichotomy gave

rise to a communal ideology.
Socio-economic Reasons

Religion did not actually dictate the economic and political

interests of the Hindus and Muslims. One community

(consisting of Hindus as well as Muslims) differed from

another (also consisting of Hindus and Muslims) by language,

culture, caste, social status, food and dress habits, social

practices, or customs and so on. Even socially and culturally

the Hindu and the Muslim masses had developed common

ways of life: a Bengali Muslim has much more in common

with a Bengali Hindu than with a Punjabi Muslim. Moreover,

Hindus and the Muslims were equal victims of oppression

and exploitation by British imperialism.

Modern Western thought and scientific ideas were not

absorbed by Muslim intellectuals, who remained traditional

and backward. Even when, as a result of the efforts of

reformers, modern education spread among Muslims, the

proportion of the educated was far lower among Muslims

than among Hindus, Parsis, or Christians. The Muslims also

lagged behind as participants in the growth of trade and

industry. As the number of educated persons and men of trade

and industry among the Muslims was rather small, it was easy

for the reactionary big landlords and the richer classes to

continue to wield influence over the Muslim masses. Landlords

and zamindars, whether Hindu or Muslim, supported the

British rule out of self-interest. But, among the Hindus, the

modern intellectuals and the rising commercial and industrialist

class had taken over the leadership from the old order of

landlords.

The educated Muslims found few opportunities in

business or the professions; they inevitably looked for

government employment. The British officials and the loyalist

Muslim leaders incited the educated Muslims against the

educated Hindus. Syed Ahmad Khan and others demanded

special treatment for the Muslims in the matter of government

service, on the one hand, and on the other told the Muslims

that if the educated Muslims remained loyal to the British,

500

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Views

There has been a difference of a generation or more in the
development of the Hindu and the Muslim middle classes, and
that difference continues to show itself in many directions,
political, economic, and other. It is this lag which produces a
psychology of fear among the Muslims.

Jawaharlal Nehru in

The Discovery of India

He who does what is beneficial to the people of this country,
be he a Muhammedan or an Englishman, is not alien. ‘Alienness’
has to do with interests. Alienness is certainly not concerned
with white or black skin or religion.

Bal Gangadhar Tilak

the latter would reward them with government jobs and other

special favours. The same arguments were used by some

loyalist Hindus and Parsis with regard to their people, but

they were in a small minority.

As a result of the underdevelopment due to colonial

policies, there was a lack of industrial development; hence,

unemployment was an acute problem in India, especially for

the educated, and there was an intense competition for

existing jobs. In the circumstances there were advocates of

short-sighted and short-term solutions such as reservation in

jobs on communal, provincial, or caste lines. These persons

aroused communal and religious and, later, caste and provincial

passions in an attempt to get a larger share of the existing,

limited employment opportunities. It was easy for those

desperately searching for jobs for employment to fall prey

to such ideas.

Because of the economic backwardness of India and

rampant unemployment, there was ample scope for the

colonial government to use concessions, favours, and

reservations to fuel communal and separatist tendencies.

Also, modern political consciousness was late in developing

among the Muslims and the dominance of traditional

reactionary elements over the Muslim masses helped a

communal outlook to take root.

There was talk of Hindu nationalism and Muslim

nationalism. Politically immature, many Hindus as well as

Post-War National Scenario

✫

501

Muslims did not realise that the economic, educational, and

cultural difficulties they were experiencing were born out of

their subjection to foreign rule and because of economic

underdevelopment.
British Policy of Divide and Rule

Muslims were generally looked upon with suspicion initially,

especially after the Wahabi and 1857 revolts, and were

subjected to repression and discrimination by the British

government. Also, the introduction of English education had

undermined Arabic and Persian learning, which added further

to the economic backwardness and exclusion of the Muslims

from service.

After the 1870s, with signs of the emergence of Indian

nationalism and growing politicisation of the educated middle

classes, the government reversed its policy of repression of

Muslims and, instead, decided to rally them behind the

government through concessions, favours, and reservations,

and used them against nationalist forces. The government

used persons like Sir Syed Ahmed Khan to counter the

growing influence of the Congress. Syed Ahmed Khan had

a broad-minded and reformist outlook initially, but later he

started supporting the colonial government, exhorting the

Muslim masses to stay away from the Congress and not to

get politicised. He also started talking of separate interests

of Hindus and Muslims.
Communalism in History Writing

Initially suggested by imperialist historians and later adopted

by some chauvinist Indian historians, the communal

interpretation of Indian history portrayed the ancient phase

as the Hindu phase and the medieval phase (which included

the rule of the Turks, the Afghans, and the Mughals) as the

Muslim phase. The conflicts of ruling classes during the

medieval phase were distorted and exaggerated as Hindu-

Muslim conflicts.

Historians ignored the fact that politics, ancient and

medieval as of all times and anywhere, was based on

economic and political interests and not on religious

considerations. It was in the interests of the British and

communal historians to refuse to acknowledge the notion of

502

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

a composite culture in India. On its part, the Hindu communal

view of history chose to project the view that Indian society

and culture had reached ideal heights in the ancient period

from which they began to decay in the medieval period

because of ‘Muslim’ rule. In this, there was a refusal to

acknowledge how Indian economy and technology, religion

and philosophy, arts and literature, culture and society had

developed and been enriched in the medieval period.
Side-effects of Socio-religious Reform Movements

Reform movements such as the Wahabi Movement among

Muslims and Shuddhi among Hindus with their militant

overtones made the role of religion more vulnerable to

communalism. Reforms, at times, were seen as a process of

insulating one community from the influence of another

religious community.
Side-effects of Militant Nationalism

The early nationalists made conscious efforts to remove

minority fears. Dadabhai Naoroji, presiding over the second

Congress session (1886), declared the intentions of the

Congress not to raise socio-religious questions in its forums.

In 1889, the Congress decided not to take up any issue

opposed by the Muslims. But later, with the coming of

militant nationalism, a distinct Hindu nationalist tinge was

palpable in the nationalist politics. For instance, Tilak’s

Ganapati and Shivaji festivals and anti-cow slaughter campaigns

created much suspicion. Aurobindo’s vision of an Aryanised

world, the Swadeshi Movement with elements like dips in

the Ganga and revolutionary activity with oath-taking before

goddesses were hardly likely to enthuse Muslims into these

campaigns in a big way. The communal element in the

Lucknow Pact (1916) and the Khilafat agitation (1920–22)

was too visible to be of insignificant consequences.

View

Communal harmony could not be permanently established in our
country so long as highly distorted versions of history were taught
in her schools and colleges, through the history textbooks.

M.K. Gandhi

Post-War National Scenario

✫

503

When the Khilafat question came up, there was unease

among some Congressmen who felt that the issue was not

really nationalistic. The fight against imperialistic Britain in

this case was not about the economic and political

consequences of imperialism, but on the ground that the

Caliph and some holy places of Islam were being threatened.

The Muslims’ sympathy for Turkey was on religious grounds.

Even later, the heroes and myths and cultural traditions the

Muslims appealed to belonged not to the history of India but

to the history of West Asia. Though this tendency did not

immediately clash with Indian nationalism, but in fact made

its supporters anti-imperialist, in the longer term, it encouraged

the habit of looking at political questions from a religious

point of view.
Communal Reaction by Majority Community

The minority communalism met with a reaction from the

majority community. From the 1870s itself, some Hindu

zamindars, moneylenders, and middle-class professionals

began to give expression to anti-Muslim sentiments. They

went to the extent of declaring that the British had liberated

the land from Muslim tyranny and saved the Hindus from

the oppression by Muslims. The cause of Hindi was given

a communal colour by saying that Urdu was the language of

the Muslims (which was not historically quite correct).

Then came organisations to promote a communal

outlook. The Punjab Hindu Sabha, founded in 1909 by U.N.

Mukherjee and Lal Chand, opposed the Congress for trying

to unite Indians of all colours into a single nation. They

argued that Hindus should side with the colonial government

in their fight against Muslims. The All-India Hindu Mahasabha

held its first session in April 1915 with the Maharaja of

Kasim Bazar as president. The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh

(RSS) was established in 1925. However, Hindu communalism

was not a strong force for a long time as the modern secular

intelligentsia and middle class among Hindus wielded a

greater influence. This was not the case with the Muslims;

the Muslim communal elements—landlords, traditional

religious leaders, and bureaucrats—exercised a lot of influence

on the Muslims.

504

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

The one-upmanship of different versions of communal

tendencies was a factor which deterred any effective counter-

offensive against communalism.

Evolution of the Two-Nation Theory

The development of the two-nation theory over the years is

as follows:

1887: There was a frontal attack on the Congress by

Dufferin, the viceroy, and Colvin, the Lt. Governor of the

United Provinces. Syed Ahmed Khan and Raja Shiv Prasad

of Bhinga were propped up as an anti-Congress front by the

government. Syed Ahmed Khan appealed to the educated

Muslims to stay away from the Congress, although some

Muslims did join the Congress. These included Badruddin

Tyabji, Mir Musharraf Hussain, A. Bhimji, and Hamid Ali

Khan.

1906: Agha Khan led a Muslim delegation (called the

Shimla delegation) to the viceroy, Lord Minto, to demand

separate electorates for Muslims at all levels and that the

Muslim representation should be commensurate not only

with their numerical strength but also with their “political

importance and their contribution to the British Empire”.

Minto assured them of special communal representation in

excess of their population for their “extraordinary service”

to the empire.

The All India Muslim League was founded by the Agha

Khan, Nawab Salimullah of Dacca, Nawab Mohsin-ul-Mulk,

and Nawab Waqar-ul-Mulk to preach loyalty to the British

government and to keep the Muslim intelligentsia away from

the Congress.

1909: Separate electorates were awarded under Morley-

Minto Reforms.

Punjab Hindu Sabha was founded by U.N. Mukherji and

Lal Chand.

1915: First session of All India Hindu Mahasabha was

held under the aegis of the Maharaja of Kasim Bazar.

1912–24: During this period, the Muslim League was

dominated by younger Muslim nationalists, but their

nationalism was inspired by a communal view of political

questions.

Post-War National Scenario

✫

505

1916: The Congress accepted the Muslim League

demand of separate electorates, and the Congress and the

League presented joint demands to the government. But the

Congress and the League came together as separate political

entities and the Congress gave political legitimacy to the

existence of the Muslim League.

1920–22: Muslims participated in the Rowlatt and

Khilafat Non-Cooperation agitations, but there was a communal

element in the political outlook of the Muslims.

1920s: The shadow of communal riots loomed large

over the country. The Arya Samajists started Shuddhi

(purification) and Sangathan (organisation) movements. The

Shuddhi movement was aimed at reconverting to Hinduism

those who had converted to Islam. The Muslims started the

Tabligh and Tanzeem movements in retaliation.

Some nationalists also turned communal. The Swarajists

were divided along communal lines, and many of the

Responsivists among them joined the Hindu Mahasabha. The

Ali brothers, after having put up a spectacular united front

with the Congress, accused the Congress of protecting only

Hindu interests.

The Congress failed to evolve a suitable strategy to

counter the rise of communalism.

1928: The Nehru Report on constitutional reforms as

suggested by the Congress was opposed by Muslim hardliners

and the Sikh League. Jinnah proposed 14 points demanding

separate electorates and reservation for Muslims in government

service and self-governing bodies. By negotiating with the

Muslim League, the Congress made a number of mistakes:

1. It gave legitimacy to the politics of the League, thus

giving recognition to the division of society into separate

communities with separate interests.

2. It undermined the role of secular, nationalist Muslims.

3. Concessions to one community prompted other

communities to demand similar concessions.

4. Launching an all-out attack on communalism became

difficult.

1930–34: Some Muslim groups, such as the Jamaat-

i-ulema-i-Hind, State of Kashmir and Khudai Khidmatgars

506

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

participated in the Civil Disobedience Movement, but, overall,

the participation of Muslims was nowhere near the level of

the Khilafat agitation. While the Congress stayed away from

two of the three round table conferences held in London to

discuss further constitutional reforms, the communalists

attended all three of them.

1932: The Communal Award accepted all Muslim

communal demands contained in the 14 points.

After 1937: After the Muslim League performed badly

in the 1937 provincial elections, it decided to resort to

extreme communalism. There began a tendency to project

the Muslims, not as a minority but as a separate nation (in

the early 1930s this idea of a separate Muslim nation was

proposed by a young Muslim intellectual Rahmat Ali and later

developed further by the poet Iqbal). From now onwards,

communalism was organised as a mass movement with its

base among middle and upper classes. Vicious propaganda

was launched against the Congress by Z.A. Suleri, F.M.

Durrani, Fazl-ul-Haq, etc. Extreme communalism was based

on fear, hatred, and violence of word and deed.

Till 1937, there had been liberal communalism, centred

around safeguards and reservations. It was communal while

upholding certain liberal, democratic, humanistic, and

nationalistic values and the notion that these diverse

communities could be welded together into one nation in one

national interest.

The extreme communalism of Muslims found its echo

in the militant communal nationalism of Hindus represented

by organisations such as the Hindu Mahasabha and RSS and

in the thoughts of leaders like Golwalkar. There were several

reasons for the advent of extreme communalism.

1. With increasing radicalisation, the reactionary

elements searched for a social base through channels of

communalism.

2. The colonial administration had exhausted all other

means to divide nationalists.

3. Earlier failures to challenge communal tendencies

had emboldened the communal forces.

Post-War National Scenario

✫

507

1937–39: Jinnah blocked all avenues for conciliation

by forwarding the impossible demand that the Congress

should declare itself a Hindu organisation and recognise the

Muslim League as the sole representative of the Indian

Muslims.

March 24, 1940: The ‘Pakistan Resolution’ was passed

at the Lahore session of the Muslim League calling for

“grouping of all geographically contiguous Muslim majority

areas (mainly north-western and eastern India) into independent

states in which the constituent units shall be autonomous and

sovereign, and adequate safeguards to Muslims in other areas

where they are in a minority”.

During Second World War The British India

Government gave a virtual veto to the League on political

settlement. The League made full use of this privilege and

stuck to its demand of a separate Pakistan throughout the

negotiations under the August Offer, Cripps’ proposals,

Shimla Conference, and Cabinet Mission Plan. Finally, it got

what it had aspired for—an independent Pakistan comprising

Muslim majority areas of Punjab, Sindh, Baluchistan, North-

West Frontier Province, and Bengal in 1947.

Views

The question of majority and minority community is a
creation of the British Government and would disappear with their
withdrawal.

M.K. Gandhi

We divide and they rule.

Maulana Mohammad Ali

After 1940 it was clear as daylight to the Muslims that their
real destiny was neither a second class citizenship in a uni-
national Hindu state, nor even the doubtful partnership in a
multinational India...but a separate nationhood with a separate
homeland.

History of Freedom Movement of Pakistan

The independent sovereign nation of Pakistan was born in the
Muslim University of Aligarh.

Agha Khan

508

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Summary

●

Last Two Years of British Rule

Two basic strands—

1. Tortuous negotiations resulting in freedom and partition,

accompanied by communal violence

2. Sporadic, localised mass action
*

July 1945 Labour government comes to power in Britain

August 1945 Elections to central and provincial assemblies
announced

September 1945 Announcement of a Constituent Assembly
after War

A change in government’s attitude due to
Change in global power equations; UK no longer a power
Labour government sympathetic to India
Tired British soldiers and shattered British economy
Anti-imperialist wave throughout Asia
Officials feared another Congress revolt

Two Main Election Planks for Congress
1. Repression of 1942
2. Mass pressure against trial of INA POWs

INA Agitation—Main Features
Had unprecedented high pitch and intensity
Had wide geographical and social spread
Penetrated traditional bulwarks of Raj—government employees
and loyalists
With each day, became a purely India versus Britain issue

Three Upsurges
1. November 21, 1945 in Calcutta over INA trials
2. February 11, 1946 in Calcutta over seven-year sentence
to an INA officer
3. February 18, 1946 in Bombay, strike by Royal Indian Navy
Ratings

Congress did not support these upsurges because of their timing

and tactics

Election Results
Congress won 57 out of 102 seats in Central Assembly;

— got majority in Madras, Bombay, UP, Bihar, Orissa, and

Central Provinces and coalition partner with Unionists and
Akalis in Punjab
Muslim League won 30 reserved seats in Central Assembly;
got majority in Bengal, Sindh

Why British Withdrawal Seemed Imminent by 1946

Post-War National Scenario

✫

509

Success of nationalist forces in struggle for hegemony

Demoralisation among bureaucracy and the loyalist

sections

Limitations of British strategy of conciliation and

repression

Demands of leniency for INA by armymen and RIN

ratings’ revolt

An entirely official rule was impossible

Main Aim of Government Policy Now
A graceful withdrawal after settlement on modalities of
transfer of power, and post-imperial Indo-British relations

●

Cabinet Mission

Proposals
Rejection of Pakistan
Grouping of existing assemblies into three sections A, B, C
Three-tier executive and legislature at province, princely,
states and union level
Provincial assemblies to elect a constituent assembly
Common centre for defence, communications, external
affairs
Provinces to have autonomy and residual powers
Princely states free to have an arrangement with the
successor government or the British Government
In future, a province free to come out of the section or
the union

Meanwhile, an interim government to be formed from constituent

assembly.

Interpretation Congress claimed that the grouping was
optional, while the League thought that the grouping was
compulsory. Mission decided the matter in the League’s
favour

Acceptance League, followed by Congress, accepted Cabinet
Mission proposals in June 1946.

Further Developments: July 1946 League withdrew from
the Plan after Nehru’s press statement, and gave a call
for “direct action” from August 16, 1946.
September 1946 An Interim Government headed by Nehru
was sworn in.
October 1946 League joins Interim Government and follows
an obstructionist approach.
February 1947 Congress members demand removal of
League members; League demands dissolution of Constituent
Assembly.

●

Birth and Spread of Communalism in India

510

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

510

CHAPTER 25

Independence with

Partition

Attlee’s Statement of February 20,
1947

Clement Attlee, the British prime minister, sensing the

trouble all around, made an announcement on February 20,

1947. The British House of Commons declared the British

intention of leaving the Indian subcontinent.

Main Points of Attlee’s Statement

●

A deadline of June 30, 1948 was fixed for transfer

of power even if the Indian politicians had not agreed by that

time on the constitution.

●

The British would relinquish power either to some

form of central government or in some areas to the existing

provincial governments if the constituent assembly was not

fully representative, i.e., if the Muslim majority provinces

did not join.

●

British powers and obligations vis-a-vis the princely

states would lapse with transfer of power, but these would

not be transferred to any successor government in British

India.

●

Mountbatten would replace Wavell as the viceroy.

The statement contained clear hints of partition and

Independence with Partition

✫

511

even Balkanisation of the country into numerous states and

was, in essence, a reversion of the Cripps Offer.

Why a Date Fixed by Government for

Withdrawal

●

The government hoped that a fixed date would shock

the parties into an agreement on the main question.

●

The government was keen to avert the developing

constitutional crisis.

●

The government hoped to convince the Indians of

British sincerity.

●

The truth in Wavell’s assessment could no longer be

denied—that an irreversible decline of the government’s

authority had taken place.

Congress Stand

The provision of transfer of power to more than one centre

was acceptable to Congress because it meant that the existing

assembly could go ahead and frame a constitution for the

areas represented by it, and it offered a way out of the

existing deadlock.

But the illusory hopes of a settlement were soon

shattered as the statement proved to be a prelude to the final

showdown. The League launched a civil disobedience

movement to overthrow the coalition government in Punjab,

as it felt emboldened by the statement.

Independence and Partition

The communal riots and the unworkability of the Congress-

League coalition compelled many in early 1947 to think in

terms of accepting the so far unthinkable idea of partition.

The most insistent demand now came from the Hindu and

Sikh communal groups in Bengal and Punjab who were

alarmed at the prospect of compulsory grouping which might

find them in Pakistan. The Hindu Mahasabha in Bengal was

assessing the feasibility of a separate Hindu province in West

Bengal.

On March 10, 1947, Nehru stated that the Cabinet

Mission’s was the best solution if carried out; the only real

alternative was the partition of Punjab and Bengal.

512

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

In April 1947, the Congress president, Kripalani,

communicated to the viceroy— “... rather than have a battle,

we shall let them have their Pakistan provided you allow

Bengal and Punjab to be partitioned in a fair manner.”

Mountbatten as the Viceroy

Mountbatten proved more firm and quick in taking decisions

than his predecessors because he was informally given more

powers to decide things on the spot. He also had the

advantage of the firm decision of the British government to

quit at the earliest. His task was to explore the options of

unity and division till October 1947 and then advise the

British government on the form of transfer of power. But

he soon discovered that the broad contours of the scenario

to emerge were discernible even before he came to India.

The Cabinet Mission Plan was a dead horse, and Jinnah was

obstinate about not settling for anything less than a sovereign

state. But a serious attempt at unity would involve supporting

those forces which wanted a unified India and countering

those who opposed it. Mountbatten preferred to woo both

sides.

Mountbatten Plan, June 3, 1947

The freedom-with-partition formula was coming to be widely

accepted well before Mountbatten arrived in India. One major

innovation (actually suggested by V.P. Menon) was the

immediate transfer of power on the basis of grant of

dominion status (with a right of secession), thus obviating

the need to wait for an agreement in the constituent assembly

on a new political structure.
Main Points

The important points of the plan were as follows:

●

Punjab and Bengal Legislative Assemblies would

meet in two groups, Hindus and Muslims, to vote for

partition. If a simple majority of either group voted for

partition, then these provinces would be partitioned.

●

In case of partition, two dominions and two consti-

tuent assemblies would be created.

●

Sindh would take its own decision.

●

Referendums in NWFP and Sylhet district of Bengal

would decide the fate of these areas.

Independence with Partition

✫

513

View

There is, however, no basis for the claim that the Civil
Disobedience Movement directly led to independence. The
campaigns of Gandhi … came to an ignoble end about fourteen
years before India achieved independence … During the First
World War the Indian revolutionaries sought to take advantage
of German help in the shape of war materials to free the country
by armed revolt. But the attempt did not succeed. During the
Second World War Subhas Bose followed the same method and
created the INA. In spite of brilliant planning and initial success,
the violent campaigns of Subhas Bose failed … The Battles
for India’s freedom were also being fought against Britain, though
indirectly, by Hitler in Europe and Japan in Asia. None of these
scored direct success, but few would deny that it was the
cumulative effect of all the three that brought freedom to India.
In particular, the revelations made by the INA trial, and the
reaction it produced in India, made it quite plain to the British,
already exhausted by the war, that they could no longer depend
upon the loyalty of the sepoys for maintaining their authority
in India. This had probably the greatest influence upon their final
decision to quit India.

R.C. Mazumdar

●

Since the Congress had conceded a unified India, all

their other points would be met, namely,

(i) independence for princely states ruled out—they

would join either India or Pakistan;

(ii) independence for Bengal ruled out;

(iii) accession of Hyderabad to Pakistan ruled out

(Mountbatten supported the Congress on this);

(iv) freedom to come on August 15, 1947; and

(v) a boundary commission to be set up if partition was

to be effected.

Thus, the League’s demand was conceded to the extent

that Pakistan would be created and the Congress’ position

on unity was taken into account to make Pakistan as small

as possible. Mountbatten’s formula was to divide India but

retain maximum unity.
Why Congress Accepted Dominion Status

The Congress was willing to accept dominion status despite

its being against the Lahore Congress (1929) spirit because:

514

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

(i) it would ensure a peaceful and quick transfer of

power;

(ii) it was more important for the Congress to assume

authority to check the explosive situation; and

(iii) it would allow for some much-needed continuity in

the bureaucracy and the army.

For Britain, the dominion status offered a chance to

keep India in the Commonwealth, even if temporarily,

considering the economic strength, defence potential, and

greater value of trade and investment in India.
Rationale for an Early Date (August 15, 1947)

Britain wanted to secure Congress’ agreement to the dominion

status. At the same time, the British could escape the

responsibility for the communal situation.

The plan was put into effect without the slightest delay.

The legislative assemblies of Bengal and Punjab decided in

favour of partition of these two provinces. Thus, East Bengal

and West Punjab joined Pakistan; West Bengal and East

Punjab remained with the Indian Union. The referendum in

Sylhet resulted in the incorporation of that district in East

Bengal. Two boundary commissions, one in respect of each

province, were constituted to demarcate the boundaries of

the new provinces. The referendum in NWFP decided in

favour of Pakistan, the Provincial Congress refraining from

the referendum. Baluchistan and Sindh threw in their lot with

Pakistan.

Indian Independence Act

On July 5, 1947 the British Parliament passed the Indian

Independence Act which was based on the Mountbatten Plan,

and the Act got royal assent on July 18, 1947. The Act was

implemented on August 15, 1947.

The Act provided for the creation of two independent

dominions of India and Pakistan with effect from August 15,

1947. Each dominion was to have a governor general to be

responsible for the effective operation of the Act. The

constituent assembly of the each new dominion was to

exercise the powers of the legislature of that dominion, and

the existing Central Legislative Assembly and the Council

of States were to be automatically dissolved. For the

Independence with Partition

✫

515

transitional period, i.e., till a new constitution was adopted

by each dominion, the governments of the two dominions

were to be carried on in accordance with the Government

of India Act, 1935.

As per the provisions of the Indian Independence Act,

1947, Pakistan became independent on August 14 while India

got its freedom on August 15, 1947. M.A. Jinnah became

the first Governor General of Pakistan. India, however,

decided to request Lord Mountbatten to continue as the

Governor General of India.

Problems of Early Withdrawal

The breakneck speed of events under Mountbatten caused

anomalies in arranging the details of partition and totally

failed to prevent the Punjab massacre, because:

●

there were no transitional institutional structures

within which partition problems could be tackled;

●

Mountbatten had hoped to be the common Governor

General of India and Pakistan, thus providing the necessary

link, but Jinnah wanted the position for himself in Pakistan;

●

there was a delay in announcing the Boundary

Commission Award (under Radcliffe); though the award was

ready by August 12, 1947, Mountbatten decided to make it

public after August 15 so that the British could escape all

responsibility of disturbances.

Integration of States

During 1946–47, there was a new upsurge of the State

People’s Movement demanding political rights and elective

Plan Balkan

Between March and May of 1947, Mountbatten decided that the
Cabinet Mission Plan had become untenable and formulated an
alternative plan. This plan envisaged the transfer of power to
separate provinces (or to a confederation, if formed before the
transfer), with Punjab and Bengal given the option to vote for
partition of their provinces. The various units thus formed along
with the princely states (rendered independent by lapse of
paramountcy) would have the option of joining India or Pakistan
or remaining separate. The plan was quickly abandoned after
Nehru reacted violently to it.

516

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

representation in the Constituent Assembly. Nehru presided

over the All India State People’s Conference sessions in

Udaipur (1945) and Gwalior (April 1947). He declared that

the states refusing to join the Constituent Assembly would

be treated as hostile. In July 1947, Vallabhbhai Patel took

charge of the new States Department. Under Patel, the

incorporation of Indian states took place in two phases with

a skilful combination of baits and threats of mass pressure

in both.

Phase I By August 15, 1947, all states except Kashmir,

Hyderabad, and Junagarh had signed an instrument of accession

with the Indian government, acknowledging central authority

over defence, external affairs, and communication. The

princes agreed to this fairly easily because (i) they were

‘surrendering’ only what they never had (these three functions

had been a part of the British paramountcy), and (ii) there

was no change in the internal political structure.

Phase II The second phase involved a much more

difficult process of ‘integration’ of states with neighbouring

provinces or into new units like the Kathiawar Union, Vindhya

and Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan or Himachal Pradesh alongwith

internal constitutional changes in states, which, for some

years, retained their old boundaries (Hyderabad, Mysore,

Travancore-Cochin). This phase was accomplished within a

year. The principal bait offered was a generous privy purse

while some princes were made governors and rajpramukhs

in free India.

This rapid political unification of the country after

independence was Patel’s greatest achievement.

Inevitability of Partition

Why Congress Accepted Partition

●

The Congress was only accepting the inevitable due

to the long-term failure to draw the Muslim masses into the

national movement. The partition reflects the success-failure

dichotomy of the Congress-led anti-imperialist movement.

The Congress had a two fold task—(i) structuring diverse

Independence with Partition

✫

517

classes, communities, groups, and regions into a nation, and

(ii) securing independence for this nation. While the Congress

succeeded in building up sufficient national consciousness

to exert pressure on the British to quit India, it failed to

complete the task of welding the nation, especially in

integrating the Muslims into the nation.

●

Only an immediate transfer of power could forestall

the spread of ‘direct action’ and communal violence. The

Views

The British were neither the foes of the Hindus nor friends of
the Muslims. They set up Pakistan not as a gesture of friendship
towards the Muslims, but under the compulsions of their
international policies.

Wali Khan

It was not so much that Britain pursued a policy of divide and
rule as that the process of devolving power by stages in a
politically and socially desperate country was inherently divisive.

R.J. Moore

The truth is that we were tired men, and we were getting on
in years too. Few of us could stand the prospect of going to
prison again—and if we had stood out for a united India as we
wished it, prison obviously awaited us. We saw the fires burning
in the Punjab and heard every day of the killings. The plan for
partition offered a way out and we took it.

Jawaharlal Nehru

I felt that if we did not accept partition, India would be split
into many bits and would be completely ruined. My experience
of office for one year convinced me that the way we have been
proceeding would lead us to disaster. We would not have had
one Pakistan but several. We would have had Pakistan cells
in every office.

Sardar Patel

Congress, as well as the Muslim League, had accepted parti-
tion...The real position was, however, completely different...The
acceptance was only in a resolution of the AICC of the Congress
and on the register of the Muslim League. The people of India
had not accepted partition with free and open minds. Some had
accepted it out of sheer anger and resentment and others out
of a sense of despair.

Maulana Azad

518

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

virtual collapse of the Interim Government also made the

notion of Pakistan appear unavoidable.

●

The partition plan ruled out independence for the

princely states which could have been a greater danger to

Indian unity as it would have meant Balkanisation of the

country.

●

Acceptance of partition was only a final act of the

process of step-by-step concessions to the League’s

championing of a separate Muslim state.

— During Cripps Mission (1942), autonomy of Muslim

majority provinces was accepted.

— During Gandhi-Jinnah talks (1944), Gandhi accepted

the right of self-determination of Muslim-majority provinces.

— After the Cabinet Mission Plan (1946), Congress

conceded the possibility of Muslim majority provinces

setting up a separate constituent assembly. Later, the Congress

accepted, without demur, that grouping was compulsory

(December 1946).

— Official reference to Pakistan came in March 1947,

when CWC resolution stated that Punjab (and by implication,

Bengal) must be partitioned if the country was divided.

— With the 3rd June Plan, Congress accepted partition.

●

While loudly asserting the sovereignty of the Consti-

tuent Assembly, the Congress quietly accepted compulsory

grouping and accepted the partition most of all because it

could not stop the communal riots.

There was nevertheless much wishful thinking and lack

of appreciation of the dynamics of communal feeling by the

Congress, especially in Nehru who stated at various times—

“Once the British left, Hindu-Muslim differences would

be patched up and a free, united India would be built up.”

“Partition is only temporary.”

“Partition would be peaceful—once Pakistan was

conceded, what was there to fight for?”

View

I alone with the help of my Secretary and my typewriter won
Pakistan for the Muslims.

M.A. Jinnah

Independence with Partition

✫

519

The communalism of the 1920s and the 1930s was

different from that of the 1940s. Now it was an all-out effort

for an assertive ‘Muslim nation’. Congress leadership

underestimated the potential of this type of communalism.

Gandhi’s Helplessness

Gandhi felt helpless because there had been a communalisation

of the people. He had no option but to accept partition

because the people wanted it. How could there be a movement

to fight communalism involving a communalised people? He

asked the Congressmen, however, not to accept it in their

hearts.

Summary

●

Attlee’s Statement (February 20, 1947)

June 30, 1948 as deadline for transfer of power
Power may be transferred to one centre or in some areas to
existing provincial governments.

●

Mountbatten Plan June 3, 1947

Punjab and Bengal Assemblies to take decision on partition.
Sindh to take its own decision
Referendum to be held in NWFP and Sylhet district
Two dominions to be created if partition is to take place, with
two Constituent Assemblies
Freedom to be granted on August 15, 1947

●

July 18, 1947

The Indian Independence Act 1947 got royal assent, and
it was implemented on August 15, 1947.

●

Why partition was seen to be inevitable

520

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

CHAPTER 26

Constitutional, Administrative,

and Judicial Developments

The establishment of the East India Company in 1600 and

its transformation into a ruling body from a trading one in

1765 had little immediate impact on Indian polity and

governance. But the period between 1773 and 1858 under

the Company rule, and then under the British Crown till 1947,

witnessed a plethora of constitutional and administrative

changes. The nature and objective of these changes were to

serve the British imperial ideology, but, unintentionally, they

520

UNIT 9

India under British

Rule: Governance

and Other Aspects

Chapters 26 to 32

Constitutional and other Developments

✫

521

introduced elements of the modern State into India’s political

and administrative system.

Constitutional Development
between 1773 and 1858

After the Battle of Buxar (1764), the East India Company

got the Diwani (right to collect revenue) of Bengal, Bihar,

and Orissa. An annual subsidy was to be paid to the Mughal

Emperor, Shah Alam II, and an annual pension to the Nawab

of Awadh, Shuja-ud-Daula. The Company appointed two

Indians as the deputy diwans—Mohammad Reza Khan for

Bengal and Raja Shitab Rai for Bihar.

1767 The first intervention in Indian affairs by the

British government came in 1767. It demanded 10 per cent

share in the plunder, amounting to 4 million pounds annually.

1765–72 The dual system of government where the

Company had the authority but no responsibility and its Indian

representatives had all the responsibility but no authority

continued for seven years. This period was characterised by:

●

rampant corruption among servants of the Company

who made full use of private trading to enrich

themselves;

●

excessive revenue collection and oppression of

peasantry; and

●

the Company’s bankruptcy, while the servants were

flourishing.

By now the British government decided to regulate the

Company to bring some order into its business. From now,

there would be a gradual increase in controlling laws.

The Regulating Act of 1773

●

The 1773 Regulating Act brought about the British

government’s involvement in Indian affairs in the effort to

control and regulate the functioning of the East India

Company. It recognised that the Company’s role in India

extended beyond mere trade to administrative and political

fields, and introduced the element of centralised

administration.

●

The directors of the Company were required to

522

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

submit all correspondence regarding revenue affairs and civil

and military administration to the government. (Thus, for the

first time, the British cabinet was given the right to exercise

control over Indian affairs.)

●

In Bengal, the administration was to be carried out

by governor general and a council consisting of four members,

representing civil and military government. They were required

to function according to the majority rule. Warren Hastings

and four others were named in the act, later ones were to

be appointed by the Company.

●

A Supreme Court of judicature was to be established

in Bengal with original and appellate jurisdictions where all

subjects could seek redressal. In practice, however, the

Supreme Court had a debatable jurisdiction vis-a-vis the

council which created various problems.

●

The governor general could exercise some powers

over Bombay and Madras—again, a vague provision which

created many problems.

The whole scheme was based on checks and balances.
Amendments (1781)

●

The jurisdiction of the Supreme

Court was defined—within Calcutta, it was to administer the

personal law of the defendant.

●

The servants of the government were immune if they

did anything while discharging their duties.

●

Social and religious usages of the subjects were to

be honoured.

Pitt’s India Act of 1784

●

The Pitt’s India Act gave the British government a

large measure of control over the Company’s affairs. In fact,

the Company became a subordinate department of the State.

The Company’s territories in India were termed ‘British

possessions’.

●

The government’s control over the Company’s affairs

was greatly extended. A Board of Control consisting of the

chancellor of exchequer, a secretary of state, and four

members of the Privy Council (to be appointed by the Crown)

were to exercise control over the Company’s civil, military,

and revenue affairs. All dispatches were to be approved by

the board. Thus, a dual system of control was set up.

●

In India, the governor general was to have a council

Constitutional and other Developments

✫

523

of three (including the commander-in-chief), and the

presidencies of Bombay and Madras were made subordinate

to the governor general.

●

A general prohibition was placed on aggressive wars

and treaties (breached often).

The Act of 1786

●

Cornwallis wanted to have the powers of both the

governor general and the commander-in-chief. The new act

conceded this demand and also gave him the power.

●

Cornwallis was allowed to override the council’s

decision if he owned the responsibility for the decision.

Later, this provision was extended to all the governors

general.

The Charter Act of 1793

●

The act renewed the Company’s commercial privileges

for the next 20 years.

●

The Company, after paying the necessary expenses,

interest, dividends, salaries, etc., from the Indian revenues,

was to pay 5 lakh pounds annually to the British government.

●

The royal approval was mandated for the appointment

of the governor general, the governors, and the commander-

in-chief.

●

Senior officials of the Company were debarred from

leaving India without permission—doing so was treated as

resignation.

●

The Company was empowered to give licences to

individuals as well as the Company’s employees to trade in

India. The licences, known as ‘privilege’ or ‘country trade’,

paved the way for shipments of opium to China.

●

The revenue administration was separated from the

judiciary functions, and this led to disappearing of the Maal

Adalats.

●

The Home Government members were to be paid out

of Indian revenues, which continued up to 1919.

The Charter Act of 1813

In England, the business interests were pressing for an end

to the Company’s monopoly over trade in India because of

a spirit of laissez-faire and the continental system by

Napoleon by which the European ports were closed for

Britain. The 1813 Act sought to redress these grievances:

524

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

●

The Company’s monopoly over trade in India ended,

but the Company retained the trade with China and the trade

in tea.

●

The Company’s shareholders were given a 10.5 per

cent dividend on the revenue of India.

●

The Company was to retain the possession of

territories and the revenue for 20 years more, without

prejudice to the sovereignty of the Crown. (Thus, the

constitutional position of the British territories in India was

defined explicitly for the first time.)

●

Powers of the Board of Control were further

enlarged.

●

A sum of one lakh rupees was to be set aside for

the revival, promotion, and encouragement of literature,

learning, and science among the natives of India, every year.

(This was an important statement from the point of State’s

responsibility for education.)

●

The regulations made by the Councils of Madras,

Bombay, and Calcutta were now required to be laid before

the British Parliament. The constitutional position of the

British territories in India was thus explicitly defined for the

first time.

●

Separate accounts were to be kept regarding

commercial transactions and territorial revenues. The power

of superintendence and direction of the Board of Control was

not only defined but also enlarged considerably.

●

Christian missionaries were also permitted to come

to India and preach their religion.

The Charter Act of 1833

●

The lease of 20 years to the Company was further

extended. Territories of India were to be governed in the

name of the Crown.

●

The Company’s monopoly over trade with China and

in tea also ended.

●

All restrictions on European immigration and the

acquisition of property in India were lifted. Thus, the way

was paved for the wholesale European colonisation of India.

●

In India, a financial, legislative, and administrative

centralisation of the government was envisaged:

— The governor general was given the power to

Constitutional and other Developments

✫

525

superintend, control, and direct all civil and military affairs

of the Company.

— Bengal, Madras, Bombay, and all other territories

were placed under complete control of the governor general.

— All revenues were to be raised under the authority

of the governor general who would have complete control

over the expenditure too.

— The Governments of Madras and Bombay were

drastically deprived of their legislative powers and left with

a right of proposing to the governor general the projects of

law which they thought to be expedient.

●

A law member was added to the governor general’s

council for professional advice on law-making.

●

Indian laws were to be codified and consolidated.

●

No Indian citizen was to be denied employment under

the Company on the basis of religion, colour, birth, descent,

etc. (Although the reality was different, this declaration

formed the sheet-anchor of political agitation in India.)

●

The administration was urged to take steps to

ameliorate the conditions of slaves and to ultimately abolish

slavery. (Slavery was abolished in 1843.)

The Charter Act of 1853

●

The Company was to continue possession of territories

unless the Parliament provided otherwise.

●

The strength of the Court of Directors was reduced

to 18.

●

The Company’s patronage over the services was

dissolved—the services were now thrown open to a competitive

examination.

●

The law member became the full member of the

governor general’s executive council.

●

The separation of the executive and legislative

functions of the Government of British India progressed with

the inclusion of six additional members for legislative

purposes.

●

Local representation was introduced in the Indian

legislature. The legislative wing came to be known as the

Indian Legislative Council. However, a law to be promulgated

526

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

needed the assent of the governor general, and the governor

general could veto any bill of the legislative council.

The Act for Better Government of

India 1858

The 1857 revolt had exposed the Company’s limitations in

administering under a complex situation. Till then, there had

not been much accountability. The 1858 Act sought to rectify

this anomaly:

●

India was to be governed by and in the name of the

Crown through a secretary of state and a council of 15. The

initiative and the final decision was to be with the secretary

of state, and the council was to be just advisory in nature.

(Thus, the dual system introduced by the Pitt’s India Act came

to an end.)

●

Governor general became the viceroy (his prestige,

if not authority, increased).

The assumption of power by the Crown was one of

formality rather than substance. It gave a decent burial to an

already dead horse—the Company’s administration.

Developments after 1858 till
Independence

Indian Councils Act 1861

●

The 1861 Act marked an advance in that the principle

of representatives of non-officials in legislative bodies

became accepted; laws were to be made after due deliberation,

and as pieces of legislation they could be changed only by

the same deliberative process. Law-making was thus no

longer seen as the exclusive business of the executive.

●

The portfolio system introduced by Lord Canning laid

the foundations of cabinet government in India, each branch

of the administration having its official head and spokesman

in the government, who was responsible for its administration.

●

The act by vesting legislative powers in the

Governments of Bombay and Madras and by making provision

for the institution of similar legislative councils in other

provinces laid the foundations of legislative devolution.

Constitutional and other Developments

✫

527

However, the legislative councils established by the Act

of 1861 possessed no real powers and had many weaknesses.

The councils could not discuss important matters and no

financial matters at all without the previous approval of

government. They had no control over budget. They could

not discuss executive action. Final passing of the bill needed

viceroy’s approval. Even if approved by the viceroy, the

secretary of state could disallow a legislation. Indians

associated as non-officials were members of elite sections

only.

Indian Councils Act 1892

●

In 1885, the Indian National Congress was founded.

The Congress saw reform of the councils as the “root of

all other reforms”. It was in response to the Congress demand

that the legislative councils be expanded that the number of

non-official members was increased both in the central

(Imperial) and provincial legislative councils by the Indian

Councils Act, 1892.

●

The Legislative Council of the Governor General (or

the Indian Legislative Council, as it came to be known) was

enlarged.

●

The universities, district boards, municipalities,

zamindars, trade bodies, and chambers of commerce were

empowered to recommend members to the provincial councils.

Thus was introduced the principle of representation.

●

Though the term ‘election’ was firmly avoided in the

act, an element of indirect election was accepted in the

selection of some of the non-official members.

●

The members of the legislatures were now entitled

to express their views upon financial statements which were

henceforth to be made on the floor of the legislatures.

●

They could also put questions within certain limits

to the executive on matters of public interest after giving

six days’ notice.

Indian Councils Act 1909

●

Popularly known as the Morley-Minto Reforms, the

act made the first attempt to bring in a representative and

popular element in the governance of the country.

●

The strength of the Imperial Legislative Council was

increased.

528

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

●

With regard to the central government, an Indian

member was taken for the first time in the Executive Council

of the Governor General (Satyendra Prasad Sinha was the first

Indian to join the Governor General’s—or Viceroy’s—

Executive Council, as law member.)

●

The members of the Provincial Executive Council

were increased.

●

The powers of the legislative councils, both central

and provincial, were increased.

Under this act the real power remained with the

government and the councils were left with no functions but

criticism.

The introduction of separate electorates for Muslims

created new problems.

Besides separate electorates for the Muslims,

representation in excess of their population strength was

accorded to the Muslims. Also, the income qualification for

Muslim voters was kept lower than that for Hindus.

The system of election was very indirect.

Thus, the representation of the people at large remained

remote and unreal.

Government of India Act 1919

This act was based on what are popularly known as the

Montague-Chelmsford Reforms. In August 1917, the British

government for the first time declared that its objective was

to gradually introduce responsible government in India, but

as an integral part of the British Empire.

The Act of 1919, clarified that there would be only

a gradual development of self-governing institutions in India

and that the British Parliament—and not self-determination

of the people of India—would determine the time and manner

of each step along the path of constitutional progress.

●

Under the 1919 Act, the Indian Legislative Council

at the Centre was replaced by a bicameral system consisting

of a Council of State (Upper House) and a Legislative

Assembly (Lower House). Each house was to have a majority

of members who were directly elected. So, direct election

was introduced, though the franchise was much restricted

being based on qualifications of property, tax, or education.

Constitutional and other Developments

✫

529

●

The principle of communal representation was

extended with separate electorates for Sikhs, Christians, and

Anglo-Indians, besides Muslims.

●

The act introduced dyarchy in the provinces, which

indeed was a substantial step towards transfer of power to

the Indian people.

●

The provincial legislature was to consist of one house

only (legislative council).

●

The act separated for the first time the provincial and

central budgets, with provincial legislatures being authorised

to make their budgets.

●

A High Commissioner for India was appointed, who

was to hold his office in London for six years and whose

duty was to look after Indian trade in Europe. Some of the

functions hitherto performed by the Secretary of State for

India were transferred to the high commissioner.

●

The Secretary of State for India who used to get his

pay from the Indian revenue was now to be paid by the British

Exchequer, thus undoing an injustice in the Charter Act of

1793.

●

Though Indian leaders for the first time got some

administrative experience in a constitutional set-up under this

act, there was no fulfilment of the demand for responsible

government. Though a measure of power devolved on the

provinces with demarcation of subjects between centre and

provinces, the structure continued to be unitary and centralised.

Dyarchy in the provincial sector failed.

The Central Legislature, though more representative

than the previous legislative councils and endowed, for the

first time, with power to vote supplies, had no power to

replace the government, and even its powers in the field of

legislation and financial control were limited and subject to

the overriding powers of the governor general. Besides his

existing power to veto any bill passed by the legislature or

to reserve the same for the signification of the British

monarch’s pleasure, the governor general was given the power

to secure the enactment of laws which he considered

essential for the safety, tranquility, or interests of British

India, or any part of British India.

The Indian legislature under the Act of 1919 was only

a non-sovereign law-making body and was powerless before

530

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

the executive in all spheres of governmental activity, as

Subhash Kashyap observes.

Simon Commission

The 1919 Act had provided that a Royal Commission would

be appointed 10 years after the act to report on its working.

In November 1927, two years before schedule, the British

government announced the appointment of such a

commission—the Indian Statutory Commission. The

commission submitted its report in 1930. It recommended

that dyarchy be abolished, responsible government be extended

in the provinces, a federation of British India and the Princely

States be established, and that communal electorates be

continued.

Three Round Table Conferences were called by the

British government to consider the proposals. Subsequently,

a White Paper on Constitutional Reforms was published

by the British government in March 1933 containing provisions

for a federal set-up and provincial autonomy. A joint committee

of the Houses of the British Parliament was set up under

Lord Linlithgow to further consider the scheme. Its report

submitted in 1934 said that a federation would be set up if

at least 50 per cent of the princely states were ready to join

it. The bill prepared on the basis of this report was passed

by the British Parliament to become the Government of India

Act of 1935.

Government of India Act 1935

●

The act, with 321 articles and 10 schedules,

contemplated the establishment of an All-India Federation in

which Governors’ Provinces and the Chief Commissioners’

Provinces and those Indian states which might accede to be

united were to be included. (The ruler of each Princely State

willing to join was to sign an ‘instrument of accession’

mentioning the extent to which authority was to be surrendered

to the federal government.)

●

Dyarchy, rejected by the Simon Commission, was

provided for in the Federal Executive.

●

The Federal Legislature was to have two chambers

(bicameral)—the Council of States and the Federal Legislative

Assembly. The Council of States (the Upper House) was to

be a permanent body.

Constitutional and other Developments

✫

531

●

There was a provision for joint sitting in cases of

deadlock between the houses. There were to be three subject-

lists—the Federal Legislative List, the Provincial Legislative

List, and the Concurrent Legislative List. Residuary

legislative powers were subject to the discretion of the

governor general. Even if a bill was passed by the federal

legislature, the governor general could veto it, while even

acts assented to by the governor general could be disallowed

by the King-in-Council.

●

Dyarchy in the provinces was abolished and provinces

were given autonomy, i.e., the distinction between Reserved

and Transferred Subjects was abolished and full responsible

government was established, subject to certain safeguards.

●

Provinces derived their power and authority directly

from the British Crown. They were given independent financial

powers and resources. Provincial governments could borrow

money on their own security.

●

Provincial legislatures were further expanded.

Bicameral legislatures were provided in the six provinces of

Madras, Bombay, Bengal, United Provinces, Bihar, and Assam,

with other five provinces retaining unicameral legislatures.

●

The principles of ‘communal electorates’ and

‘weightage’ were further extended to depressed classes,

women, and labour.

●

Franchise was extended, with about 10 per cent of

the total population getting the right to vote.

●

The act also provided for a Federal Court (which was

established in 1937), with original and appellate powers, to

interpret the 1935 Act and settle inter-state disputes, but the

Privy Council in London was to dominate this court.

●

The India Council of the Secretary of State was

abolished.

●

The All-India Federation as visualised in the act never

came into being because of the opposition from different

parties of India. The British government decided to introduce

the provincial autonomy on April 1, 1937, but the Central

government continued to be governed in accordance with the

1919 Act, with minor amendments. The operative part of the

Act of 1935 remained in force till August 15, 1947.

The 1935 Act was an endeavour to give India a written

constitution, even though Indians were not involved in its

532

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

creation, and it was a step towards complete responsible

government in India. However, the act provided a rigid

constitution with no possibility of internal growth. Right of

amendment was reserved for the British Parliament. Extension

of the system of communal electorates and representation

of various interests promoted separatist tendencies—

culminating in the partition of India. The 1935 Act was

condemned by nearly all sections and unanimously rejected

by the Congress. The Congress demanded, instead, convening

of a Constituent Assembly elected on the basis of adult

franchise to frame a constitution for independent India.

Various other developments took place after the 1935

Act. There was the August Offer of 1940, the Cripps

Proposals of 1942, the C.R. Formula of 1944 trying to seek

the cooperation of the Muslim League, the Wavell Plan of

1945, and the Cabinet Mission. Then came the Mountbatten

Plan in 1947 and finally the Indian Independence Act, 1947.

[These developments have been extensively discussed

in the earlier chapters. The making of the Constitution of

independent India is discussed in a later chapter.]

Evolution of Civil Services in
India

The civil service system introduced in India by the East India

Company for the benefit of its commercial affairs got

transformed into a well-structured machinery to look after

the administrative affairs of the acquired territories in India.

In fact, in the beginning, the term ‘civil service’ was used

to distinguish the servants of the Company engaged in

commercial affairs from those people employed in the

military and naval services. Gradually, the civil servants were

bestowed with other responsibilities and authority.

Cornwallis’ Role

Cornwallis (governor general, 1786–93) was the first to bring

into existence and organise the civil services. He tried to

check corruption through:

●

raising the civil servants’ salary;

●

strict enforcement of rules against private trade;

Constitutional and other Developments

✫

533

●

debarring civil servants from taking presents, bribes

etc.; and

●

enforcing promotions through seniority.

Wellesley’s Role

In 1800, Wellesley (governor general, 1798–1805) set up

the Fort William College for training of new recruits. In

1806, Wellesley’s college was disapproved by the Court of

Directors and instead the East India College was set up at

Haileybury in England to impart two years’ training to the

recruits.

Charter Act of 1853

The 1853 Charter Act ended the Company’s patronage,

enjoining recruitment to be through an open competition

henceforth.

The Indians, however, were barred from high posts from

the very beginning. Cornwallis thought, “Every native of

Hindustan is corrupt.” The Charter Act of 1793 had reserved

all posts worth 500 pounds per annum for the covenanted

servants of the Company. The reasons for exclusion of

Indians were:

●

the belief that only the English could establish

administrative services serving British interests;

●

the belief that the Indians were incapable, untrust-

worthy, and insensitive to the British interests;

●

the fact that there was high competition among the

Europeans themselves for lucrative posts, so why

offer them to the Indians.

Although the Charter Act of 1833 theoretically threw

open the services to the Indians, the relevant provisions were

never really implemented. After 1857, when the Indians

claimed a share in higher services, the Proclamation of 1858

declared the British intention of including the Indians, freely

and impartially, in offices under the civil service.

Indian Civil Service Act of 1861

This act reserved certain offices for convenanted civil

servants, but the examination was held in England in the

English language, based on classical learning of Greek and

Latin. The maximum permissible age was gradually reduced

534

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

from 23 (in 1859) to 22 (in 1860) to 21 (in 1866) and to

19 (1878).

In 1863, Satyendra Nath Tagore became the first Indian

to qualify for the Indian Civil Service.

Statutory Civil Service

In 1878–79, Lytton introduced the Statutory Civil

Service consisting of one-sixth of covenanted posts to be

filled by Indians of high families through nominations by

local governments subject to approval by the secretary of

State and the viceroy. But the system failed and was

abolished.

Congress Demand and Aitchison

Committee

The Indian National Congress raised the demand,

after it was set up in 1885, for:

●

lowering of age limit for recruitment, and

●

holding the examination simultaneously in India and

Britain.

The Aitchison Committee on Public Services (1886),

set up by Dufferin, recommended:

●

dropping of the terms ‘covenanted’ and

‘uncovenanted’;

●

classification of the civil service into Imperial Indian

Civil Service (examination in England), Provincial

Civil Service (examination in India), and Subordinate

Civil Service (examination in India); and

●

raising the age limit to 23.

In 1893, the House of Commons in England passed a

resolution supporting holding of simultaneous examination

in India and England, but the resolution was never implemented.

Kimberley, the secretary of state, said, “It is indispensable

that an adequate number of members of civil service shall

always be Europeans.”

Montford Reforms 1919

The Montford reforms:

●

stated a realistic policy—“If a responsible government

is to be established in India, the more Indians we

can employ in public service, the better;”

Constitutional and other Developments

✫

535

●

recommended holding of simultaneous examination

in India and England; and

●

recommended that one-third of recruitments be made

in India itself—to be raised annually by 1.5 per cent.

Lee Commission (1924)

The Lee Commission recommended that:

●

the secretary of state should continue to recruit the

ICS, the Irrigation branch of the Service of Engineers,

the Indian Forest Service, etc.;

●

the recruitments for the transferred fields like

education and civil medical service be made by

provincial governments;

●

direct recruitment to ICS on the basis of 50:50 parity

between the Europeans and the Indians be reached

in 15 years; and

●

a Public Service Commission be immediately

established (as laid down in the Government of India

Act, 1919).

Government of India Act, 1935

The 1935 Act recommended the establishment of a Federal

Public Service Commission and Provincial Public Service

Commission under their spheres.

But the positions of control and authority remained in

British hands and the process of Indianisation of the civil

service did not put effective political power in Indian hands

since the Indian bureaucrats acted as the agents of colonial

rule.

Evaluation of Civil Services under

British Rule

Just as Indians were systematically excluded from law and

policy-making bodies, they were mostly kept out of the

institutions responsible for policy implementation. European

supremacy was assured in the civil service as in other spheres

of governance. This was done in mainly two ways.

Firstly, although Indians had begun to enter the coveted

ranks of the Indian Civil Services (ICS) ever since 1863,

entering the civil services was still extremely difficult for

the Indians. The entrance examination for the ICS was held

536

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

in London in English medium only, and the subjects included

classical Greek and Latin learning. Moreover, the maximum

age for appearing at the examination was reduced from 23

in 1859 to 19 in 1878 under Lytton.

Secondly, all key positions of power and authority and

those which were well-paid were occupied by the Europeans.

Though a slow process of Indianisation occurred after

1918 under nationalist pressure, important and senior positions

continued to be occupied by Europeans. But gradually, the

Indians came to realise that Indianisation of civil service had

not, in any way, transferred effective power into Indian hands.

The Indian members of the civil service continued to serve

the imperialist interests of their British masters.

Evolution of Police System in
Modern India

In pre-colonial India, the governments, under the Mughals and

other native states, were autocratic in nature and lacked a

separate or formal police system. However, there have been

watch guards since time immemorial protecting villages at

night. Later, under the Mughal rule there were the faujdars

who helped in maintaining law and order, and amils who were

basically revenue collectors but had to contend with rebels,

if any. The kotwal was responsible for maintenance of law

and order in the cities. Even during the dual rule in Bengal,

Bihar, and Orissa between 1765 and 1772, the zamindars

were expected to maintain the staff including thanedars for

law and order duties and for maintaining peace, as well as

dealing with crime and criminals. But very often, the zamidars

neglected their duties. They are even said to have colluded

with dacoits and shared their loot. In 1770, the institution

of the faujdar and amils were abolished. However, in 1774,

Warren Hastings restored the institution of faujdars and

asked the zamindars to assist them in suppression of dacoits,

violence, and disorder. In 1775, faujdar thanas were

established in the major towns of large districts and were

assisted by several smaller police stations.

An account of steady developments in the police

system under the British have been given below.

Constitutional and other Developments

✫

537

1791 Cornwallis organised a regular police force to

maintain law and order by going back to and modernising the

old Indian system of thanas (circles) in a district under a

daroga (an Indian) and a superintendent of police (SP) at

the head of a district. He relieved the zamindars of their

police duties.

1808 Mayo appointed an SP for each division helped

by a number of spies (goyendas), but these spies committed

depredations on local people.

1814 By an order of the Court of Directors, the

appointment of darogas and their subordinates was abolished

in all possessions of the Company except in Bengal.

Bentinck (governor general, 1828–35) abolished the

office of the SP. The collector/magistrate was now to head

the police force in his jurisdiction, and the commissioner

in each division was to act as the SP. This arrangement

resulted in a badly organised police force, putting a heavy

burden on the collector/magistrate. Presidency towns were

the first to have the duties of collector/magistrate separated.

The recommendations of the Police Commission

(1860) led to the Indian Police Act, 1861. The commission

recommended:

●

A system of civil constabulary—maintaining the

village set-up in the present form (a village watchman

maintained by the village) but in direct relationship

with the rest of the constabulary

●

Inspector-general as the head in a province, deputy

inspector-general as the head in a range, and SP as

the head in a district

The police gradually succeeded in curbing criminal

acts, such as dacoity, thugee, etc. But, while dealing with

the public, the attitude of the police was unsympathetic. The

police was also used to suppress the national movement.

The British did not create an All-India Police. The

Police Act, 1861 presented the guidelines for a police set-

up in the provinces. The ranks were uniformly introduced all

over the country.

1902-03 When Curzon was the governor general, the

Police Commission set up under Sir Andrew Frazer

recommended some far-reaching police reforms. The

538

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

commission suggested that junior police officials should not

be promoted to high official positions and that senior

officials should be recruited directly. It suggested the

opening of training schools where constables and officers

could be trained; increasing the strength of the police force

in all provinces; allowing policemen to visit the villages for

making inquiries; increasing salaries; and creating a Criminal

Intelligence Department at the Centre.

Following the recommendations, the Department of

Criminal Intelligence (DCI) was attached to the Government

of India, and it became the central domestic and foreign

intelligence agency. Criminal investigation departments (CIDs)

were set up in all the provinces of British India. (In 1929,

the CID was divided into Special Branch, CID, and the Crime

Branch).

In the years that followed, the Indian police developed

as an agency of the government to help sustain the huge

structure of the British Raj. The growing nationalist movement

fighting for self-government in India faced the repressive

policies of the government and in this repression the role

of the police was clear. In the process, the police lost the

empathy of the Indian masses.

Military Under the British

The military was the backbone of the Company’s rule in India.

Prior to the revolt of 1857, there were two separate sets

of military forces under the British control, which operated

in India. The first set of units, known as the Queen’s army,

were the serving troops on duty in India. The other was the

Company’s troops—a mixture of European regiments of

Britons and Native regiments recruited locally from India but

with British officers. The Queen’s army was part of the

Crown’s military force.

After 1857, there was a systematic reorganisation of

the army since, as Dufferin warned in December 1888, “...the

British should always remember the lessons which were

learnt with such terrible experience 30 years ago”.

To prevent the recurrence of another revolt was the

Constitutional and other Developments

✫

539

main reason behind this reorganisation. Also, the Indian Army

was to be used to defend the Indian territory of the empire

from other imperialist powers in the region—Russia,

Germany, France, etc. The Indian branch of the army was to

be used for expansion in Asia and Africa, while the British

section was to be used as an army of occupation—the

ultimate guarantee of British hold over India.

To begin with, domination of the European branch over

the Indian branches was ensured. The commissions of 1859

and 1879 insisted on the principle of a one-third white army

(as against 14 per cent before 1857). Finally, the proportion

of Europeans to Indians was carefully fixed at one to two

in the Bengal Army and two to five in the Madras and Bombay

armies. Strict European monopoly over key geographical

locations and departments, such as artillery, tanks, and armed

corps, was maintained. Even the rifles given to Indians were

of an inferior quality till 1900, and Indians were not allowed

in these high-tech departments till the Second World War.

No Indians were allowed in the officer rank, and the highest

rank an Indian could reach till 1914 was that of a subedar

(only from 1918 onwards were Indians allowed in the

commissioned ranks). As late as 1926, the Indian Sandhurst

Committee was visualising a 50 per cent Indianised officer

cadre for 1952!

The Indian branch was reorganised on the basis of the

policy of balance and counterpoise or divide and rule. The

1879 Army Commission had emphasised—“Next to the grand

counterpoise of a sufficient European force comes the

counterpoise of natives against natives.” An ideology of

‘martial races’ and ‘non-martial races’, which assumed that

good soldiers could come only from some specific

communities, developed particularly from the late 1880s,

under Lord Roberts, the commander-in-chief from 1887 to

1892. It was used to justify a discriminatory recruitment

policy directed towards Sikhs, Gurkhas, and Pathans who had

assisted in the suppression of the revolt and were relatively

marginal social groups—therefore less likely to be affected

by nationalism. The soldiers from Awadh, Bihar, Central

India, and South India who had participated in the revolt were

declared to be non-martial. Moreover, caste and communal

540

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

companies were introduced in all the regiments and Indian

regiments were made a mixture of various socio-ethnic

groups so as to balance each other. Communal, caste, tribal,

and regional consciousness was encouraged to check the

growth of nationalist feelings among soldiers. Charles Wood,

the Secretary of State for India, said, “I wish to have a

different and rival spirit in different regiments, so that Sikh

might fire into Hindu, Gorkha into either, without any scruple

in case of need.” Finally, conscious efforts were made to

isolate the soldiers from life and thoughts of rest of the

population through measures such as preventing newspapers,

journals, and nationalist publications from reaching them.

On the whole, the British Indian Army remained a

costly military machine.

Development of Judiciary in
British India

In the India of pre-colonial times—in the Mughal era or even

prior to that (including the ancient period)—the judicial

system, as a whole, neither adopted proper procedures nor

had proper organisation of the law courts—in a regular

gradation from the highest to the lowest—nor had any proper

distribution of courts in proportion to the area to be served

by them. The bulk of the litigation among the Hindus was

decided by caste elders or village panchayats or zamindars.

For Muslims, the unit of judicial administration was the

qazi—an office held by religious persons—located in

provincial capitals, towns, and qasbas (large villages). The

rajas and badshahs were considered as the fountainhead of

justice, and the process of dispensing justice could be

arbitrary.

The beginning of a common law system, based on

recorded judicial precedents, can be traced to the establishment

of ‘Mayor’s Courts’ in Madras, Bombay, and Calcutta in 1726

by the East India Company. With the Company’s

transformation from a trading company into a ruling power,

new elements of judicial system replaced the existing Mughal

legal system. A brief survey of those changes has been

discussed below.

Constitutional and other Developments

✫

541

Reforms under Warren Hastings

(1772–85)

●

District Diwani Adalats were established in districts

to try civil disputes. These adalats were placed under the

collector and had Hindu law applicable for Hindus and the

Muslim law for Muslims. The appeal from District Diwani

Adalats lay to the Sadar Diwani Adalat which functioned under

a president and two members of the Supreme Council.

●

District Fauzdari Adalats were set up to try criminal

disputes and were placed under an Indian officer assisted by

qazis and muftis. These adalats also were under the general

supervision of the collector. Muslim law was administered

in Fauzdari Adalats. The approval for capital punishment and

for acquisition of property lay to the Sadar Nizamat Adalat

at Murshidabad which was headed by a deputy nizam (an

Indian Muslim) assisted by chief qazi and chief mufti.

●

Under the Regulating Act of 1773, a Supreme Court

was established at Calcutta, which was competent to try all

British subjects within Calcutta and the subordinate factories,

including Indians and Europeans. It had original and appellate

jurisdictions. Often, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

clashed with that of other courts.

Reforms under Cornwallis (1786–93)—

Separation of Powers

●

The District Fauzdari Courts were abolished and,

instead, circuit courts were established at Calcutta, Dacca,

Murshidabad, and Patna. These circuit courts had European

judges and were to act as courts of appeal for both civil and

criminal cases.

●

The Sadar Nizamat Adalat was shifted to Calcutta and

was put under the governor general and members of the

Supreme Council assisted by the chief qazi and the chief

mufti.

●

The District Diwani Adalat was now designated as the

District, City, or the Zila Court and placed under a district

judge. The collector was now responsible only for the

revenue administration with no magisterial functions.

●

A gradation of civil courts was established (for both

Hindu and Muslim laws):

542

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

(i) Munsiff’s Court under Indian officers,

(ii) Registrar’s Court under a European judge,

(iii) District Court under the district judge,

(iv) Four Circuit Courts as provincial courts of appeal,

(v) Sadar Diwani Adalat at Calcutta, and

(vi) King-in-Council for appeals of 5,000 pounds and

above.

●

The Cornwallis Code was laid out:

— There was a separation of revenue and justice

administration.

— European subjects were also brought under

jurisdiction.

— Government officials were answerable to the civil

courts for actions done in their official capacity.

— The principle of sovereignty of law was established.

Reforms under William Bentinck

(1828–33)

●

The four Circuit Courts were abolished and their

functions transferred to collectors under the supervision of

the commissioner of revenue and circuit.

●

Sadar Diwani Adalat and a Sadar Nizamat Adalat were

set up at Allahabad for the convenience of the people of

Upper Provinces.

●

Till now, Persian was the official language in courts.

Now, the suitor had the option to use Persian or a vernacular

language, while in the Supreme Court, English language

replaced Persian.

1833 : A Law Commission was set up under Macaulay

for codification of Indian laws. As a result, a Civil Procedure

Code (1859), an Indian Penal Code (1860), and a Criminal

Procedure Code (1861) were prepared.

Later Developments

1860 : It was provided that the Europeans can claim

no special privileges except in criminal cases, and no judge

of an Indian origin could try them.

1865 : The Supreme Court and the Sadar Adalats were

merged into three high courts at Calcutta, Bombay, and

Madras.

Constitutional and other Developments

✫

543

1935 : The Government of India Act provided for a

Federal Court (set up in 1937) which could settle disputes

between governments and could hear limited appeals from

the high courts.

Evaluation

Positive Aspects of Judiciary under the
British

●

The rule of law was established.

●

The codified laws replaced the religious and personal

laws of the rulers.

●

Even European subjects were brought under the

jurisdiction, although in criminal cases, they could be tried

by European judges only.

●

Government servants were made answerable to the

civil courts.

The Negative Aspects

●

The judicial system became more and more

complicated and expensive. The rich could manipulate the

system.

●

There was ample scope for false evidence, deceit,

and chicanery.

●

Dragged out litigation meant delayed justice.

●

Courts became overburdened as litigation increased.

●

Often, the European judges were not familiar with

the Indian usage and traditions.

Major Changes in
Administrative Structure after
1857

Genesis of Administrative Changes:

New Stage of Colonialism

The British were quick to learn from their experience of

1857—an organised mass action could pose a serious

challenge to the existence of British rule in India. The ruler-

subject gap was sought to be narrowed so as to reduce, if

544

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

not eliminate altogether, the alienation of the masses from

the administration. Also, association of natives in

administration could give the rulers an opportunity to have

a better idea of the customs, traditions, and values of the

people they were supposed to rule. This could help them

handle more tactfully an 1857-like situation.

The second half of the 19th century saw further spread

and intensification of the industrial revolution. The emergence

of new industrial powers—the USA, Japan, and European

countries—and a cut-throat competition for colonies and

sub-colonies for raw materials, markets for manufactured

goods and capital investment were the highlights of this new

phenomenon. The British supremacy in the world in finance

and manufactured goods trade came to an end. At this point,

there were large-scale British capital investments in railways

and loans to the Government of India, and to a smaller extent

in tea plantations, coal-mining, jute mills, shipping, trade, and

banking.

All these factors combined to inaugurate a new stage

of colonialism in India. The prime concern of the colonial

authority in India was to consolidate its position here to

secure British economic and commercial interests against

political dangers and to extend its sphere to other parts of

the world, wherever and whenever possible. There was a

renewed upsurge of imperial control and imperialist ideology

which was reflected in the reactionary policies during the

vice-royalties of Lytton, Dufferin, Lansdowne, Elgin, and,

above all, Curzon. The changes in the governmental structure

and policies in India were to shape the destiny of modern

India in many ways.

Administration: Central,
Provincial, Local

Central Government

The Act for Better Government of India, 1858 transferred

the power to govern from the East India Company to the

British Crown. The Company’s limitations in administering

the country in complex situations had been exposed by the

Constitutional and other Developments

✫

545

revolt of 1857; besides, there was not much accountability.

Now, the power to govern was to be wielded through a

secretary of state (earlier this power was exercised by

Directors of the Company and the Board of Control). The

secretary of state was to be a member of the British cabinet,

and was to be assisted by a council of 15. He was answerable

to the British Parliament. All initiatives and final decisions

rested with the secretary and the council was only advisory

in nature. (Thus, the dual system introduced by Pitt’s India

Act, 1784 came to an end.) Also, the ultimate power over

India remained with Parliament.

The Government in India was to be carried on, as

before, by the governor general whose prestige, if not

authority, increased with the new title of viceroy given to

him. The viceroy was to be assisted by an executive council

whose members were to act as the heads of various

departments, as well as viceroy’s official advisors.

The concentration of the main authority in the hands

of the secretary of state based in London, on the one hand,

gradually reduced the viceroy to a subordinate status and

further alienated the Indian public opinion from the government

policy-making. On the other hand, it had the effect of

increasing the influence of British industrialists, merchants,

and bankers over government policy in India. This made the

Indian administration even more reactionary than it had been

before 1858.

By the Indian Councils Act, 1861, a fifth member,

who was to be a jurist, was added to viceroy’s executive

council. For legislative purposes, the viceroy could add six

to twelve additional members, of whom at least half had to

be non-officials who could be either Indian or English. The

legislative council so constituted possessed no real powers

and was merely advisory in nature. Its weaknesses were as

follows:

●

It could not discuss important matters, and no

financial matters at all without previous approval of the

government.

●

It had no control over the budget.

●

It could not discuss executive action.

●

Final passing of the bill needed the viceroy’s approval.

546

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

●

Even if approved by the viceroy, the secretary of state

could disallow a legislation.

●

Indians associated as non-officials were members of

elite sections only—princes, landlords, diwans, etc.—and

were not representative of the Indian opinion.

●

The viceroy could issue ordinances (of six months’

validity) in case of emergency.

The only important function of the legislative council

was to endorse official measures and give them the appearance

of having been passed by a legislative body. The British

Government in India remained, as before, an alien despotism.

Provincial Government

The Indian Councils Act, 1861 returned the legislative powers

to provinces of Madras and Bombay which had been taken

away in 1833. Later, legislative councils were established in

other provinces. The three presidencies of Bombay, Madras,

and Calcutta enjoyed more rights and powers compared to

other provinces. The presidencies were administrated by a

governor and his executive council of three who were

appointed by the Crown, while other provinces were

administered by lieutenant governors and chief commissioners

appointed by the governor general.

In the following decades, some steps towards financial

decentralisation were taken, but these were more in the nature

of administrative reorganisation aimed at increasing revenues

and reducing expenditure and these did not in any way indicate

progress towards provincial autonomy.

The granting of fixed sums out of central revenues for

administration of certain services like police, jails, education,

medical services, and roads to provincial governments signified

the first step in the direction towards bifurcating central and

provincial finances in 1870 by Lord Mayo. Now, the provincial

governments were asked to administer these services as they

liked.

Certain other heads of expenditure like land revenue,

excise, general administration, and law and justice were

transferred to provinces in 1877 by Lord Lytton. Besides

this, a provincial government was to receive a fixed share

Constitutional and other Developments

✫

547

of the income realised within that province from sources like

stamps, excise, and income tax.

In 1882, all sources of revenue were divided into three

groups—general (going entirely to centre), provincial (going

entirely to the provinces), and those to be divided between

the centre and the provinces.

Nevertheless, the central government remained supreme

and retained detailed control over provinces. This was inevi-

table since both the central and provincial governments were

completely subordinated to the secretary of state and the

British Government.

Local Bodies

It was decided to decentralise administration by promoting

local government through municipalities and district boards,

which would administer local services like education, health,

sanitation, water supply, roads, and other basic amenities

financed through local taxes. There were many factors which

made it necessary for the British government in India to work

towards establishing local bodies.

(i) Financial difficulties faced by the government, due

to overcentralisation, made decentralisation imperative.

(ii) It became necessary that modern advances in civic

amenities in Europe be transplanted in India considering

India’s increasing economic contacts with Europe.

(iii) The rising tide of nationalism had improvement in

basic facilities as a point on its agenda.

(iv) A section of British policy-makers saw association

of Indians with the administration in some form or the other,

without undermining the British supremacy in India, as an

instrument to check the increasing politicisation of Indians.

(v) The utilisation of local taxes for local welfare could

be used to counter any public criticism of British reluctance

to draw upon an already overburdened treasury or to tax the

rich upper classes.

The important stages in the evolution of local government

can be identified as follows:
Between 1864 and 1868

Local bodies were first formed in this period, but in most

cases consisted of nominated members and were headed by

548

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

district magistrates. Thus, these were seen not more than as

instruments of additional tax collection.
Mayo’s Resolution of 1870

Financial decentralisation was a legislative devolution

inaugurated by the Indian Councils Act of 1861. Apart from

the annual grant from imperial government, the provincial

governments were authorised to resort to local taxation to

balance their budgets. This was done in context of transfer

of certain departments of administration, such as medical

services, education, and roads, to the control of provincial

governments. This was the beginning of local finance. Mayo’s

Resolution emphasised, “Local interest, supervision and care

are necessary for success in the management of the funds

devoted to education, sanitation, medical relief and local

public works.”

The various provincial governments such as in Bengal,

Madras, North-Western Province, Punjab, passed municipal

acts to implement the policy outlined.
Ripon’s Resolution of 1882

The Government of Ripon desired the provincial governments

to apply in case of local bodies the same principle of

financial decentralisation which Lord Mayo’s Government

had begun towards them. For his contributions, Lord Ripon

is called father of local self-government in India. The main

points of the resolution were as follows:

●

Development of local bodies advocated to improve

the administration and as an instrument of political and

popular education.

●

Policy of administrating local affairs through urban

and rural local bodies charged with definite duties and

entrusted with suitable sources of revenues.

●

Non-officials were to be in majority in these bodies.

who could be elected if the officials thought that it was

possible to introduce elections.

●

Non-officials were to act as chairpersons to these

bodies.

●

Official interference was to be reduced to the

minimum and to be exercised to revise and check the acts

of local bodies, but not to dictate policies.

Constitutional and other Developments

✫

549

●

Official executive sanction required in certain cases,

such as raising of loans, alienation of municipal property,

imposition of new taxes, undertaking works costing more

than a prescribed sum, framing rules and bye-laws, etc.

In pursuance of this resolution, many acts were passed

between 1883 and 1885, which greatly altered the constitution,

powers and functions of municipal bodies in India. But, an

era of effective local self-governing bodies was still a dream

unfulfilled. The existing local bodies had various drawbacks.

●

The elected members were in a minority in all district

boards and in many of the municipalities.

●

The franchise was very limited.

●

District boards continued to be headed by district

officials, though non-officials gradually came to head the

municipalities.

●

The Government retained strict control, and it could

suspend or supersede these bodies at will.

The bureaucracy, in fact, did not share the liberal views

of the viceroy and thought that the Indians were unfit for

self-government. The closing decades of the 19th century

were a period of imperialism, and the high priest of that

creed, Lord Curzon, actually took steps to increase official

control over local bodies.
Royal Commission on Decentralisation (1908)

Pointing out the lack of financial resources as the great

stumbling block in the effective functioning of local bodies,

the commission made the following recommendations:

(i) It emphasised that village panchayats should be

entrusted with more powers like judicial jurisdiction in petty

cases, incurring expenditure on minor village works, village

schools, small fuel and fodder reserves, etc. The panchayats

should be given adequate sources of income.

(ii) It emphasised the importance of sub-district boards

to be established in every taluka or tehsil, with separate

spheres of duties and separate sources of revenue for sub-

district boards and the district boards.

(iii) It urged the withdrawal of existing restrictions on

their powers of taxation, and also, the stoppage of regular

550

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

grants-in-aid from provincial governments except for

undertaking large projects.

(iv) The municipalities might undertake the responsi-

bility for primary education and, if willing, for middle

vernacular schools, otherwise the government should relieve

them of any charges in regard to secondary education,

hospitals, relief, police, veterinary works, etc.
The Government of India Resolution of 1915

This resolution contained the official views on the

recommendations of the Decentralisation Commission, but

most of the recommendations remained on paper and the

condition of local bodies continued to be as it was left by

Lord Ripon.
The Resolution of May 1918

This resolution reviewed the entire question of local self-

government in the light of the announcement of August 20,

1917, which had declared that the future direction of

constitutional advance was towards grant of responsible

government to the people of India, and the first step towards

the progressive realisation of that ideal was to be in the

sphere of local self-government.

The resolution suggested that the local bodies be made

as representative as possible of the people with real and not

nominal authority vested in them.
Under Dyarchy

Local self-government was made a ‘transferred’ subject under

popular ministerial control by Government of India Act,

1919, and each province was allowed to develop local self-

institutions according to provincial needs and requirements.

But, since finance was a ‘reserved’ subject under the charge

of an executive councillor, the Indian ministers could not do

much work in the sphere of local self-government for lack

of funds.

The Simon Commission (May 1930) pointed out the

lack of progress of village panchayats except in the United

Provinces, Bengal, and Madras. The commission suggested

the retrograde step of increasing provincial control over local

bodies for the sake of efficiency. The commission also

Constitutional and other Developments

✫

551

adversely commented on reluctance of elected members to

impose local taxes and observed that, generally speaking, the

management of finances of local bodies had deteriorated

since the introduction of the reforms of 1919.
The Government of India Act, 1935 and After

The provincial autonomy ushered in by the Government of

India Act, 1935 gave further impetus to the development of

local self-governing institutions in India. Portfolio finance

being under the control of popular ministries, now the funds

could be made available for development of local bodies.

Further, the demarcation of taxation between provincial and

local finance, which prevailed since the reforms of 1919,

was scrapped. New acts were passed in the provinces, giving

more authority to local bodies.

However, financial resources and power of taxation of

local institutions remained more or less at the same level

as in the days of Ripon. Rather, after 1935, certain new

restrictions were placed on powers of local bodies to levy

or enhance terminal taxes on trades, callings, and professions

and municipal property. The provincial governments seemed

to have ignored the liberal policy of granting wide powers

of taxation to local institutions as recommended by the

Decentralisation Commission (1908).

[The Constitution of free India directs the state

governments to organise village panchayats as effective

organs of local self-government (Article 40). The Seventy-

third and Seventy-fourth Amendments are aimed at plugging

the loopholes in the structure of local self-governing

institutions in rural and urban areas.]

Summary

●

Constitutional Development between 1773 and 1858
The Regulating Act of 1773; Pitt’s India Act of 1784; the Act of
1786; the Charter Act of 1793; the Charter Act of 1813; the
Charter Act of 1833; the Charter Act of 1853; the Act for Better
Government of India 1858

●

Developments after 1858 till Independence
Indian Councils Act of 1861; Indian Councils Act of 1882; Indian
Councils Act of 1909; Government of India Act of 1919; Simon
Commission; Government of India Act 1935

552

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

●

Evolution of Civil Services
Cornwallis’ Role; Wellesley’s Role; Charter Act of 1853; Indian
Civil Service Act 1861; Statutory Civil Service; Congress
demand and Aitchison Committee; Montford Reforms; Lee
Commission; Evaluation of Civil Services under British Rule

●

Evolution of Police System in Modern India
Institutions of

amil and faujdar abolished in 1770, but institution

faujdar restored by Hastings, and faujdar thanas established

in 1775; landmarks in evolution of police system: 1791 under
Cornwallis; in 1808 under Mayo; 1818; in 1828-35 under
Bentinck; Indian Police Act of 1861 following the recommendations
of Police Commission; Frazer Commission (1902-03) and
changes in the Police; Police becomes an imperialist agency
and loses touch with the common masses

●

Military under the British
The backbone of the British Empire; reorganisation after 1857;
the Indian branch of the army reduced in strength and used
for expansion of British power; European branch of army gets
to dominate and Indians discriminated against; the Indian branch
of the army reorganized on the basis of divide and rule policy;
attempt to isolate the soldiers from the rest of the population

●

Judiciary
Beginnings of a common law system with the establishment
of mayor’s courts in 1726; reforms under Warren Hastings;
Reforms under Cornwallis – separation of powers; Reforms under
Bentinck; later developments and evaluation of the judicial
system established by the British

●

Changes in Administrative Structure after 1857
New stage of colonialism including efforts to the alienation of
the masses from the administration; policy directed towards
consolidating British position to secure commercial interests
against political dangers

●

Administration at Different Levels
Central government changes through the Acts of 1858, 1861;
the provincial government evolution with the Act of 1861 and
various steps in 1870, 1877, and 1882; central government,
however, retains overall control over the provinces; decentralization
of administration at local level; factors necessitating the
establishment of local bodies; important stages in the evolution
of local government – Mayo’s Resolution of 1878, Ripon’s
resolution of 1882, Royal Commission on Decentralisation of
1908, Resolutions of 1915 and 1918, under dyarchy, the 1935
Act and after

Survey of British Policies in India

✫

553

553

CHAPTER 27

Survey of British

Policies in India

Administrative Policies

Contrary to their pre-1857 intentions of trying to modernise

India on progressive lines, now the administration adopted

blatantly reactionary policies on the pretext that Indians were

not fit for self-governance and needed British presence in

their lives.

Divide and Rule

Determined to avoid a united mass action challenging their

authority, the British rulers in India decided to practice a

naked policy of divide and rule, by putting princes against

states’ people, region against region, province against province,

caste against caste, and Hindus against Muslims.

After an immediate spell of repression against Muslims,

following the 1857 revolt, the authorities decided, after

1870, to use the middle and upper educated classes among

Muslims against the rising tide of nationalism, using conflicts

over scarce resources in education, administrative jobs, and

later political spoils (which were inherent in the very logic

of colonial underdevelopment) as a tool to create a split

along religious lines among educated Indians.

Hostility Towards Educated Indians

The emerging middle class nationalist leadership was analysing

the exploitative, colonial character of British rule and

demanding Indian participation in administration. At a time

554

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

when the nationalist movement was born (Indian National

Congress was founded in 1885), the British interpreted the

moves as a challenge to their authority and adopted a hostile

attitude to such leadership. In fact, from then onwards, they

opposed all those who stood for modern education.

Attitude Towards the Zamindars

In their pursuit of reactionary policies and hope to expand

their social base, the British looked for alliances with the

most reactionary of social groups—the princes, zamindars,

etc. The British intended to use them as a counterweight

against nationalist-minded intelligentsia. Now, the zamindars

and landlords were hailed as the ‘natural’ and ‘traditional’

leaders of people. Lands of most of the Awadh taluqdars

confiscated prior to 1857 were restored to them. The

interests and privileges of zamindars and landlords were

protected in opposition to those of the peasants; the former

in turn saw the British as guarantors of their very existence

and became their firm supporters.

Attitude Towards Social Reforms

Having decided to side with the reactionary elements of

Indian society, the British withdrew support to social reforms,

which they felt had aroused the wrath of orthodox sections

against them. Also, by encouraging caste and communal

consciousness, the British helped the reactionary forces.

Underdeveloped Social Services

A disproportionately large expenditure on army and civil

administration and the cost of wars left little to be spent on

social services like education, health, sanitation, physical

infrastructure, etc., a legacy which still haunts this country.

And whatever facilities were established catered to the elite

sections and urban areas.

Views

All experience teaches us that where a dominant race rules
another, the mildest form of government is despotism.

Charles Wood (the Secretary of State for India)

Systems of nomination, representation and election were all
means of enlisting Indians to work for imperial ends.

Anil Seal

Survey of British Policies in India

✫

555

Labour Legislations

As in the early stages of industrial revolution in Europe, the

working conditions in factories and plantations in the 19th-

century India were miserable. Working hours were long—

for women and children as well as for men—and wages were

low. In overcrowded, poorly ventilated and poorly lighted

working places, the safety measures were practically non-

existent.

Ironically, the first-ever demand for regulation of the

condition of workers in factories in India came from the

Lancashire textile capitalist lobby. Apprehending the

emergence of a competitive rival in the Indian textile industry

under conditions of cheap and unregulated labour, they

demanded the appointment of a commission for investigation

into factory conditions. The first commission was appointed

in 1875, although the first Factory Act was not passed before

1881.

The Indian Factory Act, 1881 dealt primarily with the

problem of child labour (between 7 and 12 years of age).

Its significant provisions were:

●

employment of children under 7 years of age prohibited;

●

working hours restricted to 9 hours per day for children;

●

children to get four holidays in a month; and

●

hazardous machinery to be properly fenced off.

The Indian Factory Act, 1891

●

increased the minimum age (from 7 to 9 years) and

the maximum (from 12 to 14 years) for children;

●

reduced maximum working hours for children to 7

hours a day;

●

fixed maximum working hours for women at 11

hours per day with an one-and-a-half hour interval

(working hours for men were left unregulated); and

●

provided weekly holiday for all.

But these laws did not apply to British-owned tea and

coffee plantations where the labour was exploited ruthlessly

and treated like slaves. The government helped these planters

by passing laws such as those which made it virtually

impossible for a labourer to refuse to work once a contract

was entered into. A breach of contract was a criminal offence,

with a planter having the right to get the defaulting labourer

arrested.

556

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

More labour laws were passed under nationalist pressures

in the 20th Century, but the overall working conditions

remained deplorable as ever.

Restrictions on Freedom of the Press

The nationalists had been quick to use new advancements in

press technology to educate public opinion and influence

government policies through criticism and censure and later

to arouse national consciousness.

In 1835, Metcalfe had lifted restrictions imposed on

the Indian press. But Lytton, fearing an increased influence

of the nationalist press on public opinion, imposed restrictions

on Indian language press through the infamous Vernacular

Press Act, 1878. This act had to be repealed under public

protest in 1882. After that, the press enjoyed relative

freedom for about two decades but was under repression

again in the wake of swadeshi and anti-partition movements

as restrictions were imposed in 1908 and 1910. (Also refer

to chapter ‘Development of Press in India’.)

White Racism

The notion of white superiority was maintained very carefully

by the colonial rulers by systematically excluding the Indians

from higher grades of services—both civil and military—

from railway compartments, parks, hotels, clubs, etc., and by

public display of racial arrogance through beatings, blows,

and even murders (reported as accidents). As Elgin once

wrote, “We could only govern by maintaining the fact that

we were the dominant race—though Indians in services

should be encouraged, there is a point at which we must

reserve the control to ourselves, if we are to remain at all.”

Views

I am sorry to hear of the increasing friction between the Hindus
and Mohammedans in the north-west and the Punjab. One hardly
knows what to wish, for unity of ideas and action could be very
dangerous politically; divergence of ideas and collision are
administratively troublesome. Of the two, the latter is least risky,
though it throws anxiety and responsibility upon those on the
spot where the friction exists.

Hamilton

(Secretary of State, 1897)

The English were an imperial race, we were told, with God-given
right to govern us and keep us in subjection; if we protested,
we were reminded of the tiger qualities of an imperial race.

Jawaharlal Nehru

Survey of British Policies in India

✫

557

Revenue Policies

Agriculture has always been the main occupation of the

people in rural India. When the British obtained the Diwani

rights of Bengal in 1765, the agrarian economy was the

mainstay of other sectors of the economy as well. The

policies of the British changed the agrarian structure as they

introduced new systems of land tenures and policies of

revenue administration; the main aim was to extract maximum

income from land with little care about the interests of the

cultivators.

Hastings’ System

The rapacity and corruption of the employees of the Company

were partly responsible for one of the worst famines in

Bengal in 1769-70. When Warren Hastings became the

governor general, he adopted the Izaredari system, also

called the farming system, to bring some order to the revenue

collection. The power to collect land revenue was given to

contractors (called ‘farmers’) chosen on the basis of the

highest bids, i.e., those who offered to pay the largest amount

from a particular district or subdivision. (The land, in other

words, was ‘farmed out’ to the highest bidders.) The power

of revenue collection was for five years at a time (quinquennial

settlement). The collection was made annual in 1777.

The system resulted in extortion and oppression in the

collection of revenue as (i) the contractors were merely

revenue farmers interested in their profit and did not care

for the peasants’ welfare, and (ii) the large amounts promised

by the contractors far exceeded the production capacity of

the land. The policy was based on the assumption that the

traditional zamindars were mere tax gatherers with no

proprietary rights, so the zamindars were even discouraged

from bidding. As a result, many hereditary zamindars were

ousted. Also, corruption reduced the amount of revenue

actually going to the government.

The country was impoverished and as agriculture

diminished so did many items that the British traded in –

558

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

silk and cotton, for example. The surplus the British expected

from the land revenue did not materialise.

Permanent Settlement

In 1776 itself, Philip Francis, a member of Hastings’ council,

recommended a permanent settlement in land revenue. In the

end, Lord Cornwallis was sent as governor general with

instructions that the land revenue settlements with the

zamindars be made permanent. Lord Cornwallis set up a

committee consisting of himself, Sir John Shore, and James

Grant to examine the issue. Cornwallis, himself a member

of the landed aristocracy of Britain, favoured giving the right

of ownership to the zamindars, who, he hoped, would improve

the land as English landlords did. Also, the number of

cultivators being too large, it was seen to be simpler to

collect the revenue from the smaller number of zamindars.

So, every piece of land in the areas where the permanent

settlement was promulgated became a part of some zamindari

or other.

The Permanent Settlement or Zamindari System covered

around 19 per cent of the territory under British rule.

Introduced in Bengal and Bihar, it was extended to Orissa,

Banaras (Varanasi), and northern Madras.

Features

●

The zamindars were given proprietary rights

over their land.

●

In 1790, a ten-year settlement of tax to be paid was

made with the zamindars, and in 1793, the settlement was

made permanent.

●

A fixed tax on the land had to be paid by the zamindar,

and the revenue was to be collected by him from the

cultivators who had now become tenants (the ryots or

raiyyats).

●

The zamindar was allowed to keep one-tenth to one-

eleventh of the revenue and give the rest to the Company

government.

●

The zamindar, as the owner of the land, could sell,

mortgage, or transfer it; his heirs could inherit the land along

with rights and liabilities. But, under the ‘sunset clause’

introduced in 1794, if the tax due was not paid by sunset

Survey of British Policies in India

✫

559

of a certain date, the zamindari would be taken over by the

government and auctioned, and the rights would be transferred

to the new owner.

●

Regulations made in 1793, 1799, and 1812

empowered the zamindar to seize the tenants’ property if the

rent had not been paid and, for this, he did not need the

permission of any court of law.

Shortcomings

●

The revenue was fixed at a very high

rate, leaving many of the zamindaris with very little or no

margin for shortfalls in times of flood, drought, or other

calamity. This resulted in the takeover and sale of many

zamindaris in the years following the permanent settlement.

Absentee-landlordism grew as merchants and government

officials, besides other zamindars, bought these lands.

●

The high rates forced many zamindars to divide up

their estates into small lots of land called patni taluq and

rent them out permanently to holders (patnidar) on the

promise that they would pay a fixed rent. Thus began the

process of subinfeudation.

●

Under the settlement, zamindars were required to

issue written agreements (pattas) to each cultivator, specifying

what tenant was to pay. However, no such agreements were

made; the result was that the peasants were at the mercy of

the zamindars to be exploited and harassed for more rent,

driving the cultivators into the clutch of moneylenders. The

peasantry was reduced to serfdom.

●

The zamindars did nothing to improve the land or

agricultural system, concentrating only on the extraction of

rent.

●

From the government’s point of view, there was no

way of increasing the tax, so the revenue could not increase

to meet the growing expenses of the Company which was

trying to expand its base through wars.

Ryotwari System

Thomas Munro and Captain Alexander Read, who were sent

in 1792 to administer the recently acquired Baramahal region

of Madras Presidency, devised a system of collecting directly

from the villages, fixing the amount that each village had to

560

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

pay. When Munro became governor of Madras Presidency

in 1820, he introduced the system which came to be known

as the Ryotwari System. The most important reason for the

adoption of this system, from the Company’s point of view,

was that it brought in a larger revenue than any other system

could have done as no intermediaries were involved and

whatever was extracted from the cultivator went directly to

the government.

Munro reduced the tax to one-third of the gross

produce and extended the ryotwari system to other areas in

the presidency (excepting those already under permanent

settlement). Unfortunately, this one-third of gross produce

was nearly equal to the economic rental, and the state wanted

its money regardless of the actual yield of the holding and

the prices prevailing in the market. This continued for nearly

thirty years with the peasants getting deeply mired in poverty

As the system was extended to many districts that had

not been surveyed there was no clear picture of how much

land a peasant cultivated, or how much it would produce. The

tax was fixed arbitrarily, often on the basis of what the ryot

had paid in earlier years. This was known as a ‘putcut’

assessment. The tax was so high that very often it was beyond

the ryot’s capacity to pay. But the ryots were coerced and

even tortured to extract revenue. Many ryots were forced into

the clutch of moneylenders.

In 1855, the Madras Torture Commission Report

revealed the practices of coercion, bribery, and corruption

by the subordinate officials of the collectorate. It was from

1855 that a scientific survey of land and a fresh assessment

of revenue were undertaken, resulting in a decline in the

actual burden of tax. Now it was decided that the revenue

rate would be half of the net value of the produce of the

land and the settlement would be made for thirty years. The

reformed system of settlement was introduced in 1864 which

led to agricultural prosperity and extension of agriculture in

coming years although interrupted by two famines in 1865-

66 and 1876-78.

In the Bombay Presidency, beginning in Gujarat,

the British began collecting directly from the peasants in

Survey of British Policies in India

✫

561

1813-14. After 1818, when the British conquered the Peshwa’s

territory, the ryotwari system on the Madras pattern was also

introduced there, under the supervision of Elphinstone, a

disciple of Munro and Governor of Bombay from 1819 to

1827. On the basis of a survey carried out in 1824-28.

The state demand was fixed at 55 per cent of the net

produce. However, most of the surveys were faulty, and the

estimates of produce erroneous, leading to over-assessment.

The harassment of the peasantry reached such levels that the

cultivators deserted their fields and large tracts of land

remained fallow.

Around 1836, Wingate and Goldsmith improved the

system. This modified assessment covered most of the

Deccan by 1865. Each field was to be assessed on the basis

of its soil and location. The land revenue was somewhat

reduced, and land that had become devalued acquired some

saleable value.

The system was extended to Berar, East Bengal, parts

of Assam, and Coorg.

It may be noted that the system was devised at a time

when Utilitarian ideas had begun to influence policy planning

in India, among which was David Ricardo’s theory of rent.

Features

●

Ownership and occupancy rights of land

were vested in the ryot and there was no limit on the extent

of land they could own. They were free to sublet, transfer,

or sell their land.

●

Ryots paid the tax directly to the Company. The

revenue to be paid was in the range of 45 per cent to 55

per cent based on an estimated production of the land.

●

Revenue was not fixed, so it could be raised when

production was higher.

●

The settlement was not permanent and could be

revised periodically.

●

In theory the ryot were allowed to cultivate the land

of their choice, but in practice they were more or less forced

to cultivate land even if they did not want to do so.

●

Barren land under government control was allowed

to be cultivated and the revenue generated would have to be

shared with the government.

562

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

●

Land could be confiscated if the revenue was not paid.

Shortcomings

●

Overassessment of revenue was a

major problem. The land revenue fixed was often more than

the capacity of land.

●

The method of collection was inflexible, often

involving torture to extract tax.

●

Corruption grew as the officers could be bribed while

assessing the land.

●

It was possible for non-cultivating landlords to get

registered as the owners of particular holdings, with the

actual cultivator being reduced to becoming their tenants,

servants, or even bonded labourers.

●

The high tax and the harassment in collection devalued

land value as not many wanted to buy it.

Mahalwari System

The adoption of mahalwari system in parts of Northern India

began to be considered in 1819 when Holt Mackenzie, the

secretary to the board of commissioners, recommended this

form of the settlement of land revenue.

The recommendation was formalised by the Regulation

VII of 1922. The complex method of survey, high revenue

demand, and harsh methods of extraction led to a breakdown

of the scheme. The situation was worsened by the agricultural

depression of 1828. Even as arrears began to accumulate,

land remained uncultivated; and there were few buyers of

land. It was in 1833, when William Bentinck was governor

general, that the Regulation of 1833 simplified the procedure

for estimating the produce.

Merttins Bird, regarded as the Father of Land Settlements

in Northern India, supervised the new scheme. It consisted

of a survey of a tract of land showing field boundaries of

cultivated and fallow lands. The state share was fixed at 66

per cent of the rental value and the settlement was made for

30 years.

Even this rate was too high, so Lord Dalhousie issued

fresh directions to the settlement officers in 1855 under

which the state demand was limited to 50 per cent of the

rental value.

Survey of British Policies in India

✫

563

This system came to be known as a modified zamindari

system because the village headman was a link between the

individual cultivator and the government; however, he did not

have the rights that the zamindar had.

It is to be noted that the settlement had different

versions and operated with different names at different

places. In the North Western Provinces, it went under the

name of ‘mauzawar’; in the region of the Central Provinces

its name was ‘malguzari’.

The system was a dual system in which settlement was

done collectively with the whole community and also with

the individual landlords.

Features

●

Mahal, a Hindi word denoting a house or

by extension an estate, was the basis of revenue assessment

in this system; in the mahalwari system, a mahal could be

a village or a group of villages and was considered as the

unit for assessment of tax.

●

Revenue was determined on the basis of the produce

of a mahal.

●

The village community was considered the owner of

the land. Individual ownership rights lay with the cultivator.

●

Each individual farmer gave his share of the tax.

●

The responsibility of collection of the tax and

payment of that tax to the Company government lay with the

village headman (called lambardar) or a community of village

leaders.

●

Under Bentinck, the state’s revenue share was 66 per

cent of the rental value; later this was modified to 50 per

cent.

●

The concept of average rents for different soil classes

was introduced.

●

In the mahalwari regions, the land revenue was revised

periodically.

Shortcomings

●

The system required the government

officials to record all the rights of cultivators, zamindars,

and others, and fix the tax payable on every piece of land.

This was practically impossible to implement.

●

The calculations the officials made were often quite

inaccurate, often being based on guesswork, and the collectors

564

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

usually manipulated them to increase the revenue due to the

government. There was scope for corruption too.

●

It hardly favoured the village communities; it, in fact,

ruined them by imposing exorbitant tax assessments that

could not be complied with.

●

In the face of inability of cultivators and landholders

to meet the rates of taxation, large tracts of land went to

moneylenders and merchants who ousted the old cultivating

proprietors or turned them into tenants.

●

On the whole, the settlement system led to the

impoverishment and largescale dispossession of the cultivating

communities of North India, and their resentment and

discontent found expression in the popular uprisings in 1857.

●

From the Company point of view, more was spent

for the collection than the revenue collected.

Overall Impact of the British Land

revenue Systems

The Mahalwari Settlement, was introduced in about 30 per

cent of the total area under British rule i.e., in major parts

of the North Western Provinces, Central Provinces, and the

Punjab with some variations.

The Ryotwari System covered about 51 per cent of the

area under British rule comprising part of the Bombay and

Madras Presidencies, Assam, and certain other parts of

British India. All these revenue settlements proved disastrous

for farmers and Zamindars too. As the revenue fixed by the

system was too high, many zamindars defaulted on payments

and their property was seized. High rates of land revenue,

indebted the farmers for lifelong.

Various types of revenue settlement gave rise to a new

form of private ownership of land in which, the benefit of

the innovation did not reach the cultivators. Instead, it led

to the impoverishment of the peasantry and hence rural

indebtedness.

With zamindar’s permanent right on land, the ownership

of land became inequal.

Land became saleable, mortgageable, and alienable to

protect the government’s revenue.

Survey of British Policies in India

✫

565

The village community was divided into two hostile

groups: land owning class and landless peasantry. The stability

and continuity of the Indian village was shaken.

The village artisans became jobless and were converted

into landless labourers.

Under these systems, law courts, lawyer’s fees, and

formal procedures replaced the old body of customs.

The British land revenue systems exposed the Indian

peasantry to the exploitations of the moneylenders and the

middlemen. The government demand of revenues was

arbitrarily high. In such a situation, the landlords delegated

the collection of revenue to middlemen who squeezed high

sums from the peasants.

The new systems gave rise to absentee landlordism as

the practice of subletting revenue collection rights came into

being.

Exorbitant revenue demands led to commercialisation

of agriculture.

British Social and Cultural
Policy in India

Till 1813, the British followed a policy of non-interference

in the social, religious, and cultural life of the country. After

1813, measures were taken to transform Indian society and

its cultural environs because of the emergence of new

interests and ideas in Britain of the nineteenth century in the

wake of significant changes in Europe during the 18th and

the 19th centuries. Some of these changes were:

(i) Industrial Revolution which began in the 18th

century and resulted in the growth of industrial capitalism.

The rising industrial interests wanted to make India a big

market for their goods and therefore required partial

modernisation and transformation of Indian society.

(ii) Intellectual Revolution which gave rise to new

attitudes of mind, manners, and morals.

(iii) French Revolution which with its message of

liberty, equality and fraternity, unleashed the forces of

democracy and nationalism.

566

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

The new trend was represented by Bacon, Locke,

Voltaire, Rousseau, Kant, Adam Smith and Bentham in

thought and by Wordsworth, Byron, Shelley, and Charles

Dickens in literature.

Characteristics of New Thought

Some of the characteristics of the new wave of thought were:

(i) Rationalism which advocated faith in reason and

a scientific attitude.

(ii) Humanism which advocated the love of man—the

belief that every man is an end in himself and should be

respected and prized as such. No man has a right to look

upon another man as a mere agent of his happiness. These

ideals gave rise to liberalism, socialism, and individualism.

(iii) Doctrine of Progress according to which nothing

is static and all societies must change with time. Man has

the capacity to remodel nature and society on just and rational

lines.

Schools of Thought

These new currents of thought caused conflicts among

administrators and produced different schools of thought:

The Conservatives advocated introduction of as few

changes as possible. Indian civilisation, they felt, was different

from the European one but not necessarily inferior to it.

Many of these thinkers respected Indian philosophy and

culture. If at all, Western ideas and practices were to be

introduced gradually and cautiously. Social stability was a

must, they felt. Early representatives of this school of

thought were Warren Hastings and Edmund Burke and later

ones included Munro, Metcalfe, and Elphinstone. The

Conservatives remained influential throughout and most of

the British officials in India were generally of a conservative

persuasion.

The Paternalistic Imperialists became influential,

especially after 1800. They were sharply critical of Indian

society and culture and used to justify economic and political

enslavement of India.

The Radicals went beyond the narrow criticism and

imperialistic outlook of the Conservatives and the Imperialists

Survey of British Policies in India

✫

567

and applied advanced humanistic and rational thought to the

Indian situation. They thought that India had the capacity to

improve and that they must help the country do that. They

wanted to make India a part of the modern progressive world

of science and humanism and therefore advocated the

introduction of modern western science, philosophy, and

literature. Some of the British officials who came to India

after 1820 were Radicals. They were strongly supported by

Raja Rammohan Roy and other like-minded reformers.

But predominantly, the ruling elements in the British

Indian administration continued to be imperialistic and

exploitative. They thought that the modernisation of India had

to occur within broad limits imposed by the needs of an

easier and more thorough exploitation of its resources. In

this respect, often the Radicals also towed a conservative

line. They desired most of all the safety and perpetuation

of the British rule in India; every other consideration was

secondary.

Indian Renaissance

There were many Indians who instigated social reform and

caused legislations to be brought about so as to control and

eradicate social evils imbedded in so-called tradition.

Rammohan Roy, Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar, B.M. Malabari,

to name a few social reformers, worked hard to get legislation

passed by the government to remove social evils. [These

aspects have been discussed in detail in the chapter on

Religious and Social Reform.]

Dilemma Before the Government

The government feared that too much modernisation might

generate forces hostile to their interests; thus it was thought

to be appropriate to opt for partial modernisation—introducing

it in some respects and blocking it in others, in other words,

a ‘colonial modernisation’.

Role of Christian Missionaries

The missionaries regarded Christianity to be a superior

religion and wanted to spread it in India through westernisation

which, they believed, would destroy the faith of the natives

in their own religion and culture. Towards this end, the

Christian missionaries:

568

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

— supported the Radicals whose scientific approach,

they believed, would undermine the native culture

and beliefs;

— supported the Imperialists since law and order and

the British supremacy were essential for their

propaganda; and

— sought business and the capitalist support holding

out the hope to them that the Christian converts

would be better customers of their goods.

British Retreat

After 1858, however, the policy of hesitant modernisation

was gradually abandoned. However, the Indians proved to be

apt pupils and shifted rapidly towards modernisation of their

society and assertion of their culture and demanded a rule

in accordance with the modern principles of liberty, equality,

and justice. Now, the British came to side with the socially

orthodox and conservative elements of society. They also

encouraged casteism and communalism.

British Policy Towards
Princely States

Relations with princely states were to be guided by a two-

point policy—using and perpetuating them as bulwark of the

empire and subordinating them completely to British authority

(the policy of subordinate union).

To cultivate these states as a buffer against future

political unrest and to reward them for their loyalty during

the revolt of 1857, the policy of annexation was abandoned.

The new policy was to depose or punish but not annex. Also,

territorial integrity of states was guaranteed and it was

announced that their right to adopt an heir would be

respected.

The subordination of princely states to British authority

was completed when the fiction of Indian states standing in

a status of equality with the Crown as independent, sovereign

states ended with the Queen adopting the title of Kaiser-i-

Hind (Queen Empress of India) in 1876, to emphasise British

sovereignty over entire India. It was later made clear by Lord

Curzon that the princes ruled their states merely as agents

Survey of British Policies in India

✫

569

of the British Crown. With paramountcy, the British

Government exercised the right to interfere in the internal

affairs of states through their residents or by appointing and

dismissing ministers and officials.

The British were helped further in their encroachment

by modern developments in communication—railways, roads,

telegraph, canals, post offices, etc. The motive for interference

was also provided by the rise of nationalist, democratic

sentiments in these states, the suppression of which, the

British realised, was essential for their survival. As a positive

side to these modern political movements, the British helped

these states adopt modern administrative institutions. (Also

refer to chapter on ‘Indian States under British Rule’.)

British Foreign Policy in India

The pursuance of a foreign policy, guided by interest of

British imperialism, often led to India’s conflicts with

neighbouring countries. These conflicts arose due to various

reasons. Firstly, political and administrative consolidation of

the country coupled with the introduction of modern means

of communication impelled the Government of India to reach

out for natural, geographical frontiers for internal cohesion

and defence, which sometimes resulted in border clashes.

Secondly, the British Government had as its major aims in

Asia and Africa:

(i) protection of the invaluable Indian empire;

(ii) expansion of British commercial and economic

interests; and

(iii) keeping other European imperialist powers, whose

colonial interests came in conflict with those of

the British, at an arm’s length in Asia and Africa.

These aims led to British expansion and territorial

conquests outside India’s natural frontiers, and to conflicts

with other imperialist European powers such as Russia and

France.

View

The British and the princes needed one another; India’s need
for either was highly doubtful.

F.G. Hutchins

570

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

While the interests served were British, the money

spent and the blood shed was Indian.

(A survey of British relations with various neighbours

of India has been made in the chapter ‘British Expansion and

Consolidation in India’).

Summary

●

Administrative Policies
Divide and Rule
Hostility to educated Indians
Zamindars and landlords propped as counterweights to the nationalists
Reversal of policy of support to social reforms
Social services ignored
Half-hearted and inadequate labour legislations introduced
Stifling of press wherever seen to be helping the nationalist upsurge
Racial arrogance

●

Revenue Policies

Hastings’ Efforts
Permanent Settlement
Ryotwari System
Mahalwari System
Overall Impact of British Revenue Policies

●

British Social and Cultural Policies

●

Foreign Policy
Reach out to natural geographical frontiers for internal cohesion and
defence
Keep other European powers at an arm’s length
Promote British economic and commercial interests

Economic Impact of British Rule in India

✫

571

571

CHAPTER 28

Economic Impact of

British Rule in India

The major difference between the British colonists in India

and earlier invaders was that none of the earlier invaders made

any structural changes in Indian economy or drained away

India’s wealth as tribute. British rule in India caused a

transformation of India’s economy into a colonial economy,

i.e., the structure and operation of Indian economy were

determined by the interests of the British economy.

According to historians, at the beginning of the 18th

century, India had some 23 per cent of the world economy.

This share came down to some 3 per cent when India got

independence.

A detailed survey of the economic impact of British

rule follows.

Deindustrialisation—Ruin of
Artisans and Handicraftsmen

One-Way Free Trade

Cheap and machine-made imports flooded the Indian market

after the Charter Act of 1813 allowing one-way free trade

for the British citizens. On the other hand, Indian products

found it more and more difficult to penetrate the European

markets. Tariffs of nearly 80 per cent were imposed on Indian

572

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

textiles so that Indian cloth could no longer be cheap. After

1820, European markets were virtually closed to Indian

exports. Cheap British-made cloth flooded the Indian market.

The newly introduced rail network helped the European

products to reach the remotest corners of the country. From

being a net exporter, India became a net importer.

No Steps towards Modern Industrialisation

The loss of traditional livelihood was not accompanied by

a process of industrialisation in India, as had happened in

other rapidly industrialising countries of the time. This

resulted in deindustrialisation of India at a time when Europe

was witnessing a reintensified Industrial Revolution. This

happened at a time when Indian artisans and handicraftsmen

were already feeling the crunch due to loss of patronage by

princes and the nobility, who were now under the influence

of new western tastes and values.

Ruralisation

Another feature of deindustrialisation was the decline of

many cities and a process of ruralisation of India. Many

artisans, faced with diminishing returns and repressive

policies (in Bengal, during the Company’s rule, artisans were

paid low wages and forced to sell their products at low

prices), abandoned their professions, moved to villages, and

took to agriculture. This resulted in increased pressure on

land. An overburdened agriculture sector was a major cause

of poverty during British rule and this upset the village

economic set-up.

Impoverishment of Peasantry

The government, only interested in maximisation of rents and

in securing its share of revenue, had enforced the Permanent

Views

The misery hardly finds a parallel in the history of commerce;
the bones of cotton weavers are bleaching the plains of north
India.

—William Bentinck

The armour of the isolated self-sufficient village was pierced by
the steel rail, and its life blood ebbed away.

—D.H. Buchanan

Economic Impact of British Rule in India

✫

573

Settlement system in large parts. Transferability of land was

one feature of the new settlement which caused great

insecurity to the tenants who lost all their traditional rights

in land. There was little spending by the government on

improvement of land productivity. The zamindars, with

increased powers, resorted to summary evictions, demanded

illegal dues and ‘begar’ to maximise their share in the

produce and, as such, had no incentive to invest for the

improvement of agriculture. The overburdened peasants had

to approach the moneylenders to be able to pay their dues

to the zamindars. The moneylender, who was often also the

village grain-merchant, forced the farmer to sell the produce

at low prices to clear his dues. The powerful moneylender

was also able to manipulate the judiciary and law in his favour.

The peasant turned out to be the ultimate sufferer under

the triple burden of the government, zamindar, and

moneylender. His hardship increased at the time of famine

and scarcity. This was as much true for the zamindari areas

as for areas under Ryotwari and Mahalwari systems. The

peasant became landless.

Emergence of Intermediaries,
Absentee Landlordism, Ruin of
Old Zamindars

By 1815, half of the total land in Bengal had passed into

new hands—merchants, moneylenders, and other moneyed

View

… for most of the colonial era, the story of India manufacturing
was of dispossession, displacement and defeat. What happened
to India’s textiles was replicated across the board. From the
great manufacturing nation described by Sunderland, India
became a mere exporter of raw materials and foodstuffs, raw
cotton, as well as jute, silk, coal, opium, rice, spices and tea.
With the collapse of its manufacturing and the elimination of
manufactured goods from its export rosters, India’s share of world
manufacturing exports fell from 27 per cent to 2 per cent under
British rule.

—Shashi Tharoor in

An Era of Darkness

574

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

classes living in towns. The new zamindars, with increased

powers but with little or no avenues for new investments,

resorted to landgrabbing and sub-infeudation. Increase in

number of intermediaries to be paid gave rise to absentee

landlordism and increased the burden on the peasant. Since

the demand for land was high, prices went up and so did the

liabilities of the peasant. With no traditional or benevolent

ties with the tenants, the zamindar had no incentive to invest

in the improvement of agriculture. The interests of the

zamindars lay only in the perpetuation of British rule and

in opposing the national movement.

Stagnation and Deterioration of
Agriculture

The cultivator had neither the means nor any incentive to

invest in agriculture. The zamindar had no roots in the

villages, while the government spent little on agricultural,

technical, or mass education. All this, together with

fragmentation of land due to sub-infeudation, made it difficult

to introduce modern technology, which caused a perpetually

low level of productivity.

Famine and Poverty

Regular recurrence of famines became a common feature of

daily existence in India. These famines were not just because

of foodgrain scarcity, but were a direct result of poverty

unleashed by colonial forces in India. Between 1850 and

1900, about 2.8 crore people died in famines.

Commercialisation of Indian
Agriculture

In the latter half of the 19th century, another significant trend

was the emergence of the commercialisation of agriculture.

So far, agriculture had been a way of life rather than a

business enterprise. Now agriculture began to be influenced

by commercial considerations. Certain specialised crops

began to be grown not for consumption in the village but

for sale in the national and even international markets.

Commercial crops like cotton, jute, groundnut, oilseeds,

Economic Impact of British Rule in India

✫

575

sugarcane, tobacco, etc., were more remunerative than

foodgrains. Again, the cultivation of crops like condiments,

spices, fruits, and vegetables could cater to a wider market.

Perhaps, the commercialisation trend reached the highest

level of development in the plantation sector, i.e., in tea,

coffee, rubber, indigo, etc., which was mostly owned by

Europeans and the produce was for sale in a wider market.

The new market trend of commercialisation and

specialisation was encouraged by many factors—spread of

money economy, replacement of custom and tradition by

competition and contract, emergence of a unified national

market, growth of internal trade, improvement in

communications through rail and roads, and boost to

international trade given by entry of British finance capital,

etc.

For the Indian peasant, commercialisation seemed a

forced process. There was hardly any surplus for him to

invest in commercial crops, given the subsistence level at

which he lived, while commercialisation linked Indian

agriculture with international market trends and their

fluctuations. For instance, the cotton of the 1860s pushed

up prices, but this mostly benefited the intermediaries, and

when the slump in prices came in 1866, it hit the cultivators

the most, bringing in its turn heavy indebtedness, famine, and

agrarian riots in the Deccan in the 1870s. Thus, the cultivator

hardly emerged better from the new commercialisation trend.

Destruction of Industry
and Late Development of
Modern Industry

Indian industry was steadily destroyed. The destruction of

textile competition of India is a glaring example of the de-

View

The servants of the Company forced the natives to buy dear
and sell cheap... Enormous fortunes were thus rapidly accumulated
at Calcutta, while thirty millions of human beings were reduced
to the extremity of wretchedness. They had never [had to live]
under tyranny like this...

—Macaulay

576

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

industrialisation of India. The British stopped paying for

Indian textiles in pounds, choosing instead to pay from the

revenue gained from Bengal and at very low rates, thus

impoverishing the peasants further.

A thriving ship-building industry was crushed. Surat and

Malabar on the western coast and Bengal and Masulipatnam

on the eastern coast were known for their ship-building

industries. The British ships contracted by the Company were

given a monopoly over trade routes, while even the Indian

merchant ships plying along the coast were made to face

heavy duties. In 1813, a law by the British parliament

prohibited ships below 350 tonnes from sailing between India

to Britain; this effectively put a large proportion of Bengal-

built ships out of commission on the Indo-British trade

routes. In 1814, another law was passed under which Indian-

built ships were refused to be considered ‘British-registered

vessels’ which could trade with America and the European

continent. So, the decline of the Indian shipping industry was

ensured.

The British did not allow the Indian steel industry to

grow. Industries like the Tatas, which began to produce steel

after a lot of trouble getting the required permissions, were

restricted by being forced to produce a higher standard of

steel for British use. The firms were not able to produce

the lower standard of steel at the same time, so they were

left out of the larger market that demanded the lower quality

of steel. As restrictions were placed by Britain on Indian steel

imports, this steel could only be used in India. Obviously,

the growth of the industry was hampered.

Indian traders, moneylenders, and bankers had amassed

some wealth as junior partners of English merchant capitalists

in India. Their role fitted in the British scheme of colonial

exploitation. The Indian moneylender provided loans to

hardpressed agriculturists and thus facilitated the state

collection of revenue. The Indian trader carried imported

British products to the remotest corners and helped in the

movement of Indian agricultural products for exports. The

indigenous bankers helped both in the process of distribution

and collection. But the colonial situation retarded the

development of a healthy and independent industrial

Economic Impact of British Rule in India

✫

577

bourgeoisie, and its development was different from other

independent countries like Germany and Japan.

It was only in the second half of the 19th century that

modern machine-based industries started coming up in India.

The first cotton textile mill was set up in 1853 in Bombay

by Cowasjee Nanabhoy and the first jute mill came up in

1855 in Rishra (Bengal). But most of the modern industries

were foreign-owned and controlled by British managing

agencies.

There was a rush of foreign capital in India at this time

due to prospects of high profits, availability of cheap labour,

cheap and readily available raw material, ready market in India

and the neighbours, diminishing avenues for investments at

home, willingness of the administration to provide all help,

and ready markets abroad for some Indian exports such as

tea, jute, and manganese.

Indian-owned industries came up in cotton textiles and

jute in the 19th century and in sugar, cement, etc., in the

20th century. Indian-owned industries suffered from many

handicaps—credit problems, no tariff protection by

government, unequal competition from foreign companies,

and stiff opposition from British capitalist interests who were

backed by sound financial and technical infrastructure at

home.

The colonial factor also caused certain structural and

institutional changes. The industrial development was

characterised by a lopsided pattern—core and heavy industries

and power generation were neglected and some regions were

favoured more than the others—causing regional disparities.

These regional disparities hampered the process of nation-

building. In the absence of careful nurturing of technical

View

…deindustrialisation was a deliberate British policy, not an
accident. British industry flourished and Indian industry did not
because of systematic destruction abetted by tariffs and
regulatory measures that stacked the decks in favour of British
industry conquering the Indian market, rather than the other way
around.

—Shashi Tharoor in

An Era of Darkness

578

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Economic Drain

The term ‘economic drain’ refers to a portion of national product
of India which was not available for consumption of its peoples,
but was being drained away to Britain for political reasons and India
was not getting adequate economic or material returns for it. The
drain theory was put forward by Dadabhai Naoroji in his book

Poverty

and UnBritish Rule in India. The major components of this drain
were salaries and pensions of civil and military officials, interests
on loans taken by the Indian Government from abroad, profits on
foreign investment in India, stores purchased in Britain for civil and
military departments, payments to be made for shipping, banking,
and insurance services which stunted the growth of Indian enterprise
in these services.

The drain of wealth checked and retarded capital formation in

India while the same portion of wealth accelerated the growth of
British economy. The surplus from British economy re-entered India
as finance capital, further draining India of its wealth. This had
immense effect on income and employment potential within India.

education, the industry lacked sufficient technical manpower.

Socially, the rise of an industrial capitalist class and the

working class was an important feature of this phase.

Nationalist Critique of
Colonial Economy

The early intellectuals of the first half of the 19th century

supported British rule under the impression that it would

modernise the country based on latest technology and

capitalist economic organisation. After the 1860s,

disillusionment started to set in among the politically conscious

and they began to probe into the reality of British rule in

India.

The foremost among these economic analysts was

Dadabhai Naoroji, the ‘Grand Old Man of India’, who after

a brilliant analysis of the colonial economy put forward the

theory of economic drain in Poverty and UnBritish Rule

in India. Other economic analysts included Justice Mahadev

Govind Ranade, Romesh Chandra Dutt (The Economic History

Economic Impact of British Rule in India

✫

579

of India), Gopal Krishna Gokhale, G. Subramania Iyer, and

Prithwishchandra Ray. The essence of 19th century

colonialism, they said, lay in the transformation of India into

a supplier of foodstuffs and rawmaterials to the metropolis,

a market for metropolitan manufacturers and a field for

investment of British capital. These early nationalist analysts

organised intellectual agitations and advocated a complete

severance of India’s economic subservience to Britain and

the development of an independent economy based on

modern industries.

British Policies Making India Poor

The basic assertion of these early intellectuals was that India

was poor and growing poorer due to British imperialism, and

since the causes of India’s economic backwardness were

man-made, they were explainable and removable. The problem

of poverty was seen as a problem of raising productive

capacity and energy of the people or as a problem of national

development, thus making poverty a national issue. This

helped in rallying all sections of society around common

economic issues. Also, development was equated with

industrialisation. This industrialisation was to be based on

Indian and not foreign capital because, according to the early

nationalists, foreign capital replaced and suppressed instead

of augmenting and encouraging Indian capital. This suppression

caused economic drain, further strengthening British hold

over India. The political consequences of foreign capital

investments were equally harmful as they caused political

subjugation and created vested interests which sought security

for investors, thus perpetuating the foreign rule.

Growth of Trade and Railways to

Help Britain

These analysts exposed the force of British arguments that

the growth of foreign trade and railways implied development

for India. They pointed out that the pattern of foreign trade

was unfavourable to India. It relegated India to a position of

importer of finished goods and exporter of raw materials and

foodstuffs. The development of railways, they argued, was

not coordinated with India’s industrial needs and it ushered

in a commercial rather than an industrial revolution. The net

580

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Views

‘India Reform Tract’ II, p. 3, says: ‘It is an exhausting drain
upon the resources of the country, the issue of which is replaced
by no reflex; it is an extraction of the life blood from the veins
of national industry which no subsequent introduction of
nourishment is furnished to restore.
—Dadabhai Naoroji quoting from Mill’s History of India

Our system acts very much like a sponge, drawing up all the
good things from the banks of the Ganges, and squeezing them
down on the banks of the Thames.

—John Sullivan, President, Board of Revenue, Madras

Where foreign capital has been sunk in a country, the administration
of that country becomes at once the concern of the bondholders.

—

The Hindu (September 1889)

It is not the pitiless operations of economic laws, but it is the
thoughtless and pitiless action of the British policy; it is the
pitiless eating of India’s substance in India, and the further
pitiless drain to England; in short, it is the pitiless perversion
of economic laws by the sad bleeding to which India is subjected,
that is destroying India.

—Dadabhai Naoroji

Taxes spent in the country from which they are raised are totally
different in their effect from taxes raised in one country and
spent in another. In the former case the taxes collected from
the population... are again returned to the industrious classes...
But the case is wholly different when the taxes are not spent
in the country from which they are raised... They constitute [an]
absolute loss and extinction of the whole amount withdrawn from
the taxed country... [The money] might as well be thrown into
the sea. Such is the nature of the tribute we have so long exacted
from India.

—Sir George Wingate

Under the native despot the people keep and enjoy what they
produce, though at times they suffer some violence. Under the
British Indian despot, the man is at peace, there is no violence;
his substance is drained away, unseen, peaceably and subtly—
he starves in peace, and peaceably perishes in peace, with law
and order.

Dadabhai Naoroji

Economic Impact of British Rule in India

✫

581

effect of the railways was to enable foreign goods to outsell

indigenous products. Further, the benefits from impetus to

steel, machinery, and capital investment in railways accrued

to the British. G.V. Joshi remarked, “Expenditure on railways

should be seen as an Indian subsidy to British industries.”

One-Way Free Trade and Tariff Policy

The nationalists claimed that one-way free trade was ruining

the Indian handicrafts industry, exposing it to premature,

unequal, and unfair competition, while tariff policy was

guided by British capitalist interests. On the finance front,

taxes were levied to overburden the poor, sparing British

capitalists and the bureaucrats. They demanded reduction of

land revenue, abolition of salt tax, imposition of income tax,

and excise duties on consumer goods consumed by the rich

middle classes. The government expenditure, it was argued,

was meant to serve colonial needs only, while development

and welfare were ignored.

Effect of Economic Drain

The drain theory incorporated all threads of the nationalist

critique that it denuded India of its productive capital.

According to nationalist estimates, the economic drain at that

time was:

●

more than the total land revenue, or

Views

There can be no denial that there was a substantial outflow which
lasted for 190 years. If these funds had been invested in India
they could have made a significant contribution to raising income
levels.

—Angus Maddison

Taxation raised by the King, says the Indian poet, is like the
moisture sucked up by the sun, to be returned to the earth as
fertilising rain; but the moisture raised from the Indian soil now
descends as fertilising rain largely on other lands, not on India.

—R.C. Dutt

Trade cannot thrive without efficient administration, while the
latter is not worth attending to in the absence of profits of the
former. So, always with the assent and often to the dictates
of the Chamber of Commerce, the Government of India is carried
on, and this is the ‘White Man’s Burden’.

—Sachidanand Sinha

582

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

●

half the total government revenue, or

●

one-third of the total savings (in today’s terms, it

amounted to 8 per cent of the national product).

The concept of drain—one country taking away wealth

from another country—was easily grasped by a nation of

peasants for whom exploitation was a matter of daily

experience.

Economic Issue a Stimulant to
National Unrest

The nationalist agitation on economic issues served to

undermine the ideological hegemony of alien rulers over

Indian minds that the foreign rule was in the interest of

Indians, thus exposing the myth of its moral foundations. It

was also shown clearly that India was poor because it was

being ruled for British interests. This agitation was one of

the stimulants for intellectual unrest and spread of national

consciousness during the moderate phase of freedom struggle

(1875–1905)—the seed-time of national movement.

Till the end of the 19th century, the nationalists had

been demanding some share in political power and control

over the purse. During the first decade of the 20th century,

they started demanding self-rule, like the United Kingdom

or the colonies, and prominent among such nationalists was

Dadabhai Naoroji.

Stages of Colonialism in India

The fundamental character of British rule in India did not

remain the same through its long history of nearly two

centuries. The changing pattern of Britain’s position in the

world economy led to changes in the nature of British

colonialism. Marxist Historians, especially Rajni Palme Dutt,

identified three overlapping stages in the history of imperialist

rule in India. He points out that each stage developed out

of the conditions of the previous stage and the different

modes of colonial exploitation overlapped—old forms of

colonial exploitation never entirely ceased but got integrated

into new patterns of exploitation. These stages are, however,

Economic Impact of British Rule in India

✫

583

marked by distinct dominant features i.e., qualitative changes

from one stage to another.

First Stage

The Period of Merchant Capital (Mercantilism), often

described as the Period of Monopoly Trade and Direct

Appropriation (or the Period of East India Company’s

Domination, 1757–1813), was based on two basic objectives:

(i) to acquire a monopoly of trade with India, against other

English or European merchants or trading companies as well

as against the Indian merchants; (ii) to directly appropriate

or take over governmental revenues through control over

State power.

During this period, no basic changes were introduced

in administration, judicial system, transport and

communication, methods of agricultural or industrial

production, forms of business management or economic

organisation. Nor were any major changes made in education

or intellectual field, culture or social organisation. In fact,

the traditional Indian civilisation, religions, laws, caste system,

family structure, etc., were not seen as obstacles in the

colonial exploitation.

The only changes made were:

(i) in military organisation and technology which

native rulers were also introducing in their armed

forces, and

(ii) in administration at the top of the structure of

revenue collection so that it could become more

efficient and smooth.

In this phase there was large-scale drain of wealth from

India which constituted 2–3 per cent of Britain’s national

income at the time. It was this wealth that played an important

role in financing Britain’s industrial revolution.

In this stage, there was no large-scale import of British

manufactures into India, rather, the reverse occurred—there

was an increase in export of Indian textiles, etc. The weavers

were, however, ruined at this stage by the Company’s

monopoly and exploitation. They were forced to produce for

the Company under uneconomic compulsions.

584

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Second Stage

Owing to its mode of exploitation being trade, this stage is

also termed as Colonialism of Free Trade. It started with the

Charter Act of 1813 and continued till 1860s. Soon after

the East India Company became the ruler over most parts

of India, there was a debate in Britain as to whose interests

the newly acquired colony would serve. The newly emerging

industrial capitalists began to criticise the East India Company

and its exploitation of India. They demanded that colonial

administration and policy in India should now serve British

capitalist interests which were very different from those of

the East India Company. Now India was to serve as a market

for the ever-increasing output of British-manufactured goods

especially textiles. At the same time, the new capitalists in

England, needed from India exports of raw materials, especially

cotton and foodgrains. Moreover, India could buy more

British goods only if it earned foreign exchange by enhancing

its exports.

The export of raw materials was increased sharply to

meet the dividends of the Company and profits of British

merchants. Besides, there was a need of money to pay for

pensions of British officials who would go to Britain after

retirement.

In this phase, the following dominant features were

visible:

(i) India’s colonial economy was integrated with the

British and the world capitalist economy. This was made

possible with the introduction of free trade. All import duties

in India were either totally removed or drastically reduced

to nominal rates.

(ii) Free entry was also granted to the British capitalists

to develop tea, coffee, and indigo plantations, trade, transport,

mining, and modern industries in India. The British Indian

Government gave active State help to such capitalists.

(iii) The Permanent Settlement and the Ryotwari system

in agriculture were introduced to transform traditional agrarian

structure into a capitalist one.

(iv) Administration was made more comprehensive and

included villages and outlying areas of the country. These

changes were brought about to make British goods reach, and

Economic Impact of British Rule in India

✫

585

agricultural products drawn from, interior villages and remotest

parts.

(v) Personal law was largely left untouched since it did

not affect colonial transformation of the economy. However,

the changes related to criminal law, law of contract and legal

procedures were overhauled to promote capitalist commercial

relations and maintain law and order.

(vi) Modern education was introduced to provide cheap

manpower to the vastly expanded administration. However,

it was also aimed at transforming India’s society and culture

for two reasons: (a) create an overall atmosphere of change

and development; and (b) give birth to a culture of loyalty

to the rulers.

(vii) The taxation and the burden on peasants rose

sharply due to economic transformation and costly

administration (civil as well as military).

(viii) India absorbed 10 to 12 per cent of British

exports and nearly 20 per cent of Britain’s textile exports.

After 1850, engine coaches, rail lines, and other railway

stores were imported into India at a large scale.

(ix) The Indian Army was used for British expansion

of colonialism in Asia and Africa.

Third Stage

The third stage is often described as the Era of Foreign

Investments and International Competition for Colonies. It

began around the 1860s in India owing to several changes

in the world economy. These changes were as follows:

(i) Britain’s industrial supremacy was challenged by

several countries of Europe, the United States, and Japan.

(ii) As a result of the application of scientific knowledge

to industry, the pace of industrialisation increased sharply

(use of petroleum as fuel for the internal combustion engine

and the use of electricity for industrial purposes were

significant innovations).

(iii) The world market became more unified due to

revolution in the means of international transport.

During this stage, Britain made strenuous efforts to

consolidate its control over India. Liberal imperialist policies

got replaced with reactionary imperialist policies, which were

reflected in the viceroyalties of Lytton, Dufferin, Lansdowne,

586

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

and Curzon. The strengthening of colonial rule over India was

meant to keep out the rivals as well as to attract British

capital to India and provide it security. As a result, a very

large amount of British capital got invested in railways, loans

(to the Government of India), trade and, to a lesser extent,

in plantations, coal mining, jute mills, shipping, and banking

in India.

The notion of training the Indian people for self-

government vanished (revived only after 1918 because of the

pressure exerted by the Indian national movement). Now, the

aim of British rule was declared as permanent ‘trusteeship’

over the Indians. The Indians were declared to be permanently

immature—a ‘child’ people—needing British control and

trusteeship. Geography, climate, race, history, religion, culture,

and social organisation were all cited as factors in making

the Indians unfit for self-government or democracy. The

British thus tried to justify their rule over Indians for

centuries to come—all in the name of civilising a barbaric

people—“the White Man’s burden”.

Summary

●

Economic Impact of British Rule
Deindustrialisation—ruin of artisans and handicraftsmen
Impoverishment of peasantry—ruralisation of India
Emergence of new land relations—ruin of old zamindars
Stagnation and deterioration of agriculture
Commercialisation of Indian agriculture
Development of modern industry
Rise of Indian national bourgeoisie
Economic drain
Famine and poverty

●

Nationalist Critique
India getting poorer due to colonial exploitation
Problem of poverty—a national problem of raising productive
capacities and energy
Development equated with industrialisation, which should take
place through Indian, not foreign capital
British policies on trade, finance, infrastructure development,
expenditure designed to serve imperialist interests
Need for complete severance of India’s economic subservience
to Britain and development of an independent economy

Development of Indian Press

✫

587

587

CHAPTER 29

Development of

Indian Press

James Augustus Hickey in 1780 started The Bengal Gazette

or Calcutta General Advertiser, the first newspaper in India,

which was seized in 1782 because of its outspoken criticism

of the government. Later more newspapers/journals came

up—The Bengal Journal, The Calcutta Chronicle, The

Madras Courier, The Bombay Herald. The Company’s

officers were worried that these newspapers might reach

London and expose their misdeeds. Thus, they saw the need

for curbs on the press.

Early Regulations

Censorship of Press Act, 1799

Lord Wellesley enacted this, anticipating French invasion of

India. It imposed almost wartime press restrictions including

pre-censorship. These restrictions were relaxed under Lord

Hastings, who had progressive views, and in 1818, pre-

censorship was dispensed with.
Licensing Regulations, 1823

The acting governor general, John Adams, who had reactionary

views, enacted these. According to these regulations, starting

or using a press without licence was a penal offence. Later

on, the act was extended to cover journals, pamphlets, and

books. These restrictions were directed chiefly against Indian

language newspapers or those edited by Indians. Rammohan

Roy’s Mirat-ul-Akbar had to stop publication.

588

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Press Act of 1835 or Metcalfe Act

Metcalfe (governor general—1835–36) repealed the

obnoxious 1823 ordinance and earned the epithet, “liberator

of the Indian press”. The new Press Act (1835) required a

printer/publisher to give a precise account of premises of

a publication and cease functioning, if required by a similar

declaration.

The result of a liberal press policy was a rapid growth

of newspapers.
Licensing Act, 1857

Due to the emergency caused by the 1857 revolt, this act

imposed licensing restrictions in addition to the already

existing registration procedure laid down by Metcalfe Act,

and the government reserved the right to stop publication and

circulation of any book, newspaper, or printed matter.
Registration Act, 1867

This replaced the Metcalfe’s Act of 1835 and was of a

regulatory, not restrictive, nature. As per the act, (i) every

book/newspaper was required to print the name of the printer

and the publisher and the place of the publication; and (ii)

a copy was to be submitted to the local government within

one month of the publication of a book.

Struggle by Early Nationalists
to Secure Press Freedom

Right from the early 19th Century, defence of civil liberties,

including the freedom of the press, had been high on

nationalist agenda. As early as 1824, Raja Rammohan Roy

had protested against a resolution restricting the freedom of

the press.

The early phase of nationalist movement from around

1870 to 1918 focused more on political propaganda and

education, formation, and propagation of nationalist ideology

and arousing, training, mobilisation, and consolidation of

public opinion, than on mass agitation or active mobilisation

of masses through open meetings. For this purpose, the press

proved a crucial tool in the hands of the nationalists. The

Indian National Congress in its early days relied solely on

the press to propagate its resolutions and proceedings.

Many newspapers emerged during these years under

distinguished and fearless journalists. These included The

Hindu and Swadesamitran under G. Subramania Aiyar, The

Development of Indian Press

✫

589

Bengalee under Surendranath Banerjea, Voice of India under

Dadabhai Naoroji, Amrita Bazar Patrika under Sisir Kumar

Ghosh and Motilal Ghosh, Indian Mirror under N.N. Sen,

Kesari (in Marathi) and Mahratta (in English) under Bal

Gangadhar Tilak, Sudharak under Gopal Ganesh Agarkar, and

Hindustan and Advocate under G.P. Verma. Other main

newspapers included, Tribune and Akbhar-i-am in Punjab,

Gujarati, Indu Prakash, Dhyan Prakash and Kal in Bombay

and Som Prakash, Banganivasi and Sadharani in Bengal.

These newspapers were not established as profit-

making business ventures but were seen as rendering national

and public service. In fact, these newspapers had a wide reach

and they stimulated a library movement. Their impact was

not limited to cities and towns; these newspapers reached

the remote villages, where each news item and editorial

would be read and discussed thoroughly in the ‘local libraries’

which would gather around a single newspaper. In this way,

these libraries served the purpose of not only political

education but also of political participation. In these

newspapers, government acts and policies were put to critical

scrutiny. They acted as an institution of opposition to the

government.

The government on its part had enacted many strident

laws, such as Section 124 A of the Indian Penal Code, which

provided that anyone trying to cause disaffection against the

British Government in India was to be transported for life

or for any term or imprisoned up to three years. But the

nationalist-minded journalists had evolved many clever

strategems to subvert these legal hurdles. For instance,

writings hostile to the government used to be prefaced with

sentiments of loyalty to the government or critical writings

of socialists or Irish nationalists from newspapers in England

used to be quoted. This was a difficult task which required

an intelligent mix of simplicity with subtlety.

The national movement, from its very beginning, stood

for the freedom of press. The Indian newspapers became

highly critical of Lord Lytton’s administration, especially

regarding its inhuman treatment to victims of the famine of

1876–77. The government struck back with the Vernacular

Press Act, 1878.

Vernacular Press Act, 1878

A bitter legacy of the 1857 revolt was the racial bitterness

between the ruler and the ruled. After 1858, the European

590

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

press always rallied behind the government in political

controversies while the vernacular press was critical of the

government. There was a strong public opinion against the

imperialistic policies of Lytton, compounded by terrible

famine (1876–77), on the one hand, and lavish expenditure

on the imperial Delhi Durbar, on the other.

The Vernacular Press Act (VPA) was designed to

‘better control’ the vernacular press and effectively punish

and repress “seditious writing” in “publications in oriental

languages”. The provisions of the act included the following:

1. The district magistrate was empowered to call upon

the printer and publisher of any vernacular newspaper to enter

into a bond with the government undertaking not to cause

disaffection against the government or antipathy

between persons of different religions, caste, race through

published material; the printer and publisher could also be

required to deposit security, which could be forefeited if the

regulations were contravened, and press equipment could be

seized if the offence re-occurred.

2. The magistrate’s action was final and no appeal could

be made in a court of law.

3. A vernacular newspaper could get exemption from

the operation of the act by submitting proofs to a government

censor.

The act came to be nicknamed “the gagging Act”. The

worst features of this act were—(i) discrimination between

English and vernacular press, (ii) no right of appeal.

Under VPA, proceedings were instituted against Som

Prakash, Bharat Mihir, Dacca Prakash, and Samachar.

(Incidentally, the Amrita Bazar Patrika turned overnight

into an English newspaper to escape the VPA.)

Later, the pre-censorship clause was repealed, and a

press commissioner was appointed to supply authentic and

accurate news to the press.

There was strong opposition to the act, and finally

Ripon repealed it in 1882.

Repression against Nationalist
Journalists Continues

In 1883, Surendranath Banerjea became the first Indian

journalist to be imprisoned. In an angry editorial in The

Development of Indian Press

✫

591

Bengalee, Banerjea had criticised a judge of Calcutta High

Court for being insensitive to the religious sentiments of

Bengalis in one of his judgements.

Bal Gangadhar Tilak is most frequently associated with

the nationalist fight for the freedom of press. Tilak had been

building up anti-imperialist sentiments among the public

through Ganapati festivals (started in 1893), Shivaji festivals

(started in 1896), and through his newspapers Kesari and

Maharatta. He was among the first to advocate bringing the

lower middle classes, the peasants, artisans, and workers into

the Congress fold. In 1896, he organised an all-Maharashtra

campaign for boycott of foreign cloth in opposition to

imposition of excise duty on cotton. In 1896–97, he initiated

a no-tax campaign in Maharashtra, urging farmers to withhold

the payment of revenue if their crop had failed. In 1897,

plague occurred in Poona. Although Tilak supported

government measures to check plague, there was large-scale

popular resentment against heartless and harsh methods such

as segregation and house searches. The popular unrest

resulted in the murder of the chairman of the Plague

Committee in Poona by the Chapekar brothers. The government

policies on tariff, currency, and famine were also behind this

popular resentment.

The government had been looking for an opportunity

to check this militant trend and hostility in the press. They

decided to make Tilak a victim to set an example to the

public. Tilak was arrested after the murder of Rand on the

basis of the publication of a poem, ‘Shivaji’s Utterances’, in

Kesari, and a speech which Tilak had delivered at the Shivaji

festival, justifying Afzal Khan’s murder by Shivaji. Tilak’s

defence of Shivaji’s killing of Afzal Khan was portrayed by

the prosecution as an incitement to kill British officials. Tilak

was held guilty and awarded rigorous imprisonment of 18

months. Simultaneously, several other editors in Bombay

presidency were tried and given similar harsh sentences.

There were widespread protests against these measures.

Overnight Tilak became a national hero and was given the

title of ‘Lokmanya’ (respected and honoured by the people)—

a new leader who preached with his deeds.

In 1898, the government amended Section 124A and

added another Section 153A to the Penal Code, which made

it a criminal offence for anyone to bring into contempt the

592

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Government of India or to create hatred among different

classes, that is, vis-a-vis the English in India. This also led

to nation-wide protests. During the Swadeshi and Boycott

Movement and due to rise of militant nationalist trends,

several repressive laws were passed.

Newspaper (Incitement to Offences) Act, 1908 Aimed

against Extremist nationalist activity, the act empowered the

magistrates to confiscate press property which published

objectionable material likely to cause incitement to murder/

acts of violence.

Tilak as the leader of militant nationalists was tried on

charges of sedition and transported to Mandalay (Burma) for

six years. This led to countrywide protests. In Bombay, textile

workers and railway workshop workers took on the army in

streets and went on strike for days. Lenin hailed this as the

entrance of the Indian working class on the political stage.

Indian Press Act, 1910 This act revived the worst

features of the VPA—local government was empowered to

demand a security at registration from the printer/publisher

and fortfeit/deregister if it was an offending newspaper, and

the printer of a newspaper was required to submit two copies

of each issue to the local government free of charge.

According to Reba Chaudhuri, “The Press Association of

India in a memorandum on the operation of the Press Act

of 1910 stated that nearly 1,000 papers had been prosecuted

under the act. The total amount of securities and forfeitures

which went into the hands of government during the first five

years of the act was nearly Rs 5 lakh according to another

official return made in 1918. Over 500 publications were

proscribed under the Act.”

During and After the
First World War

Defence of India Rules were imposed for repression of

political agitation and free public criticism during the First

Views

The government has converted the entire nation into a prison
and we are all prisoners. Going to prison only means that from
a big cell one is confined to a smaller one.

Bal Gangadhar Tilak

Development of Indian Press

✫

593

World War. In 1921, on the recommendations of a Press

Committee chaired by Tej Bahadur Sapru, the Press Acts of

1908 and 1910 were repealed.

Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931 This

act gave sweeping powers to provincial governments to

suppress propaganda for Civil Disobedience Movement. It

was further amplified in 1932 to include all activities

calculated to undermine government authority.

During the Second World War

Under the Defence of India Rules, pre-censorship was

imposed and amendments made in Press Emergency Act and

Official Secrets Act. At one time, publication of all news

related to Congress activity was declared illegal.

Summary

●

First newspapers in India

●

Early Regulations – Censorship of Press Act 1799; Licensing

Regulations 1823; Press Act of 1835; Licensing Act 1857; Registra-
tion Act 1867

●

Early Nationalists’ Struggle for Free Press – focus on political

propaganda and education; emergence of many nationalist oriented
newspapers; journalism for public service and not for profit; govern-
ment efforts to suppress nationalist press

●

Vernacular Pres Act 1878: features designed to control the ver-

nacular newspapers; nicknamed ‘gagging act’; discriminated be-
tween the English language and vernacular press; pre-censorship
(later repealed); action against nationalist journals and journalists;
Ripon repeals the act

●

Indian journalists continued to face repression; Surendranath

Banerjea first Indian journalist to be imprisoned; Bal Gangadhar Tilak
as fighter for press freedom and government action against him;
further steps to suppress nationalist press – the Newspaper (Incite-
ment to Offences) Act 1908 and Indian Press Act 1910.

594

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

594

CHAPTER 30

Development of

Education

Under Company Rule

For the first 60 years of its dominion in India, the East India

Company, a trading and profit-making concern, took no

interest in the promotion of education. Some minor exceptions

were efforts by individuals:

●

The Calcutta Madrasah was established by Warren

Hastings in 1781 for the study of Muslim law and related

subjects.

●

The Sanskrit College was established by Jonathan

Duncan, the resident, at Benaras in 1791 for the study of

Hindu law and philosophy.

●

Fort William College was set up by Wellesley in

1800 for training of civil servants of the Company in

languages and customs of Indians (closed in 1802).

The Calcutta Madrasah and the Sanskrit College were

designed to provide a regular supply of qualified Indians to

help the administration of law in the Company’s court, and

the knowledge of classical languages and vernaculars was

useful in correspondence with Indian states.

Enlightened Indians and missionaries started exerting

pressure on the government to promote modern, secular,

Western education, as they thought that Western education

was the remedy for social, economic, and political ills of

the country. Missionaries thought that modern education

Development of Education

✫

595

would destroy the faith of Indians in their own religions and

they would take to Christianity. Serampore missionaries

were, in particular, very enthusiastic about the spread of

education.

A Humble beginning by

Charter Act of 1813

The Charter Act of 1813 incorporated the principle of

encouraging learned Indians and promoting knowledge of

modern sciences in the country. The act directed the Company

to sanction one lakh rupees annually for this purpose.

However, even this petty amount was not made available till

1823, mainly because of the controversy raged on the

question of the direction that this expenditure should take.

Meanwhile, efforts of enlightened Indians such as Raja

Rammohan Roy bore fruit and a grant was sanctioned for

Calcutta College set up in 1817 by educated Bengalis,

imparting English education in Western humanities and

sciences. The government also set up three Sanskrit colleges

at Calcutta, Delhi, and Agra.

Orientalist-Anglicist Controversy

Within the General Committee on Public Instruction, the

Anglicists argued that the government spending on education

should be exclusively for modern studies.

The Orientalists said while Western sciences and litera-

ture should be taught to prepare students to take up jobs,

emphasis should be placed on expansion of traditional Indian

learning.

Even the Anglicists were divided over the question of

medium of instruction—one faction was for English language

as the medium, while the other faction was for Indian

languages (vernaculars) for the purpose.

Unfortunately, there was a great deal of confusion over

English and vernacular languages as media of instruction and

as objects of study.

Lord Macaulay’s Minute (1835)

The famous Lord Macaulay’s Minute settled the row in favour

of Anglicists—the limited government resources were to be

devoted to teaching of Western sciences and literature

596

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

through the medium of English language alone. Lord Macaulay

held the view that “Indian learning was inferior to European

learning”—which was true as far as physical and social

sciences in the contemporary stage were concerned.

The government soon made English as the medium of

instruction in its schools and colleges and opened a few

English schools and colleges instead of a large number of

elementary schools, thus neglecting mass education. The

British planned to educate a small section of upper and

middle classes, thus creating a class “Indian in blood and

colour but English in tastes, in opinions, in morals and in

intellect” who would act as interpreters between the

government and masses and would enrich the vernaculars by

which knowledge of Western sciences and literature would

reach the masses. This was called the ‘downward filtration

theory’.

Modern ideas, if not education, did filter down to the

masses, though not in a form desired by the rulers, but

through political parties, press, pamphlets, public platforms,

etc. Modern education only helped this process by making

available the basic literature on physical and social sciences

to nationalists, thus stimulating their capacity to make social

analysis—otherwise the content, structure, and curricula of

modern education served colonial interests.

Efforts of Thomson

James Thomson, lieutenant-governor of NW Provinces (1843–

53), developed a comprehensive scheme of village education

through the medium of vernacular languages. In these village

schools, useful subjects such as mensuration and agriculture

sciences were taught. The purpose was to train personnel for

the newly set up Revenue and Public Works Department.

Wood’s Despatch (1854)

In 1854, Charles Wood prepared a despatch on an educational

system for India. Considered the “Magna Carta of English

Education in India”, this document was the first comprehensive

plan for the spread of education in India.

1. It asked the government of India to assume

responsibility for education of the masses, thus repudiating

the ‘downward filtration theory’, at least on paper.

Development of Education

✫

597

2. It systematised the hierarchy from vernacular primary

schools in villages at bottom, followed by Anglo-Vernacular

High Schools and an affiliated college at the district level,

and affiliating universities in the presidency towns of Calcutta,

Bombay, and Madras.

3. It recommended English as the medium of instruction

for higher studies and vernaculars at school level.

4. It laid stress on female and vocational education, and

on teachers’ training.

5. It laid down that the education imparted in government

institutions should be secular.

6. It recommended a system of grants-in-aid to

encourage private enterprise.
Developments

In 1857 universities at Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras were

set up, and later, departments of education were set up in

all provinces. The Bethune School founded by J.E.D. Bethune

at Calcutta (1849) was the first fruit of a powerful movement

for education of women which arose in 1840s and 1850s.

Bethune was the president of the Council of Education.

Mostly due to Bethune’s efforts, girls’ schools were set up

on a sound footing and brought under government’s grants-

in-aid and inspection system.

An Agriculture Institute at Pusa (Bihar) and an

Engineering Institute at Roorkee were started.

The ideals and methods of Wood’s Despatch dominated

the field for five decades, which saw rapid westernisation of

education system in India, with educational institutions run

by European headmasters and principals. Missionary

enterprises played their own part. Gradually, private Indian

effort appeared in the field.

After the Crown Takeover

Hunter Education Commission (1882–83)

Earlier schemes had neglected primary and secondary

education. When education was shifted to provinces in 1870,

primary and secondary education further suffered because the

provinces already had limited resources at their disposal. In

1882, the government appointed a commission under the

chairmanship of W.W. Hunter to review the progress of

598

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

education in the country since the Despatch of 1854. The

Hunter Commission mostly confined its recommendations to

primary and secondary education. The commission:

(i) emphasised that state’s special care is required for

extension and improvement of primary education,

and that primary education should be imparted

through vernacular.

(ii) recommended transfer of control of primary

education to newly set up district and municipal

boards.

(iii) recommended that secondary (high school)

education should have two divisions:

●

literary—leading up to university

●

vocational—for commercial careers

(iv) drew attention to inadequate facilities for female

education, especially outside presidency towns

and made recommendations for its spread.

The next two decades saw rapid growth and expansion

of secondary and collegiate education with the participation

of Indians. Also, more teaching-cum-examining universities

were set up like the Punjab University (1882) and the

Allahabad University (1887).

Indian Universities Act, 1904

The dawn of 20th century saw political unrest. The official

view was that under private management the quality of

education had deteriorated and educational institutions acted

as factories producing political revolutionaries. Nationalists

accepted the decline in quality but accused the government

of not doing anything to eradicate illiteracy.

In 1902, Raleigh Commission was set up to go into

conditions and prospects of universities in India and to

suggest measures for improvement in their constitution and

working. The commission precluded from reporting on

primary or secondary education. Based on its

recommendations, the Indian Universities Act was passed in

1904. As per the act,

(i) universities were to give more attention to study

and research;

(ii) the number of fellows of a university and their

period in office were reduced, and most fellows

were to be nominated by the government;

Development of Education

✫

599

(iii) government was to have powers to veto universities’

senate regulations and could amend these

regulations or pass regulations on its own;

(iv) conditions were to be made stricter for affiliation

of private colleges; and

(v) five lakh rupees were to be sanctioned per annum

for five years for improvement of higher education

and universities.

Curzon justified greater control over universities in the

name of quality and efficiency, but actually sought to restrict

education and to discipline the educated towards loyalty to

the government.

The nationalists saw in it an attempt to strengthen

imperialism and to sabotage nationalist feelings. Gokhale

called it a “retrograde measure”.

Government Resolution on Education

Policy—1913

In 1906, the progressive state of Baroda introduced

compulsory primary education throughout its territories.

National leaders urged the government to do so for British

India.

Gokhale, as a member of the Imperial Legislative

Council, raised the issue in his Resolution of 1910; he called

for primary education to be made compulsory in those areas

where at least 35 per cent of 6-to-7-year-old boys were

receiving instruction; state governments and local authorities

to decide cost of education; the need to establish a separate

department of education under the central government for

taking necessary steps to introduce compulsory education;

and for a secretary to be appointed for education to monitor

the progress and prepare budget report. The government

assured him that the idea would be considered, upon which

Gokhale withdrew the resolution.

Though the government established the education

department under the central government and appointed a

secretary for education, the main demand for free and

compulsory primary education was ignored. Gokhale then

raised the issue by bringing in a bill in March 1911 calling

600

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

for the introduction of free and compulsory primary education

in a phased manner. The bill was, however, rejected by a

select committee.

The government came up with its Resolution on

Education Policy in 1913.

The government refused to take up the responsibility

of compulsory education, but accepted the policy of removal

of illiteracy and urged provincial governments to take early

steps to provide free elementary education to the poorer and

more backward sections. Private efforts were to be encouraged

for this and the quality of secondary schools was to be

improved. A university, it was decided, was to be established

in each province and teaching activities of universities were

to be encouraged. Regarding women’s education, it was

suggested that there should be curriculum of practical utility

for girls, and that examination of girls should not get much

importance; however, there should be an increase in the

number of women teachers and inspectors.

Sadler University Commission (1917–19)

In 1917, the Government of India appointed the Calcutta

University Commission, commonly called the Sadler

Commission after its chairman, Michael Sadler. The

commission was set up to study and report on problems of

Calcutta University, but its recommendations were applicable

more or less to other universities also. It reviewed the entire

field from school education to university education. It held

the view that for the improvement of university education,

improvement of secondary education was a necessary pre-

condition. Its observations were as follows:

1. School course should cover 12 years. Students

should enter university after an intermediate stage (rather

than matric) for a three-year degree course in university. This

was done to:

(a) prepare students for university stage;

(b) relieve universities of a large number of below-

university standard students; and

to go through university stage.

Development of Education

✫

601

A separate board of secondary and intermediate education

should be set up for administration and control of secondary

and intermediate education.

2. There should be less rigidity in framing university

regulations.

3. A university should function as a centralised, unitary

residential-teaching autonomous body, rather than as scattered,

affiliated colleges.

4. Female education, applied scientific and technological

education, teachers’ training, including those for professional

and vocational colleges, should be extended.

In 1920, the government recommended the Sadler

Report to the provincial governments.

The Sadler Commission recommendations had a great

influence on the development of education in the next few

decades. In the period from 1916 to 1921, seven new

universities came up: Mysore, Patna, Benaras, Aligarh, Dacca,

Lucknow, and Osmani soon after, came more universities

such as Delhi, Agra, and Annamalai (in Madras).

Teaching so far had been the function of degree

colleges, and there was no provision for post-graduate

education. The functions of the Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras

universities were to provide affiliation, conduct examinations,

and confer degrees. But now, the number of teaching

universities and residential universities increased. With the

introduction of Honours courses, there was an increase in

academic activities in the universities and colleges. Studies

of different Indian languages began. Facilities for higher

studies and research were also created. The post of professor

was created in the universities. The department of education

was opened in Calcutta and Dacca universities. Internal

administration of the universities improved. The Academic

Council was created to deal with such matters as curriculum

construction, examination, and research. This helped to

improve the academic standard of the universities. In 1925,

an Inter University Board was set up to coordinate among

the different Indian universities. For the first time students’

welfare became an important matter in universities, and a

board of students’ welfare was formed in each university.

602

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

However, the recommendations of the commission

have been criticised for being too advanced for the time, and

that many of the new things suggested were not suitable in

the circumstances existing at the time.

Education Under Dyarchy

Under Montagu-Chelmsford reforms, education was shifted

to provincial ministries and the government stopped taking

direct interest in educational matters, while government

grants, liberally sanctioned since 1902, were now stopped.

Financial difficulties prevented any substantial expansion

but still education grew, especially under philanthropic

efforts.

Hartog Committee (1929)

An increase in the number of schools and colleges had led

to deterioration of education standards. The Hartog Committee

was set up by the Simon Commission as an auxiliary

committee under the chairmanship of Phillip Hartog to

prepare a report on education.

The main findings and recommendations of the

committee were as follows:

Primary Education There were serious shortcomings

in the primary education system as it existed. Quantitative

expansion of primary schools was not enough; improvement

in their quality was necessary. There was a lot of wastage

and stagnation. The withdrawal of children from a school at

any stage constituted wastage as the money and time spent

had failed to give the children literacy. The reasons for

children being withdrawn were mainly poverty, ignorance,

caste barriers, religious conservatism, seasonal diseases, and

agricultural failure. Stagnation meant the detention of children

in the same classes for more than one academic year. This,

in turn, led to withdrawal of the children from schools. The

reasons for such stagnation were that most schools were run

by just one teacher, teachers were not well qualified, there

was a lack of women teachers, schools were often short-

lived, and there was a lack of school inspection.

Recognising that primary school education was of

national importance, the committee recommended that the

Development of Education

✫

603

government should be responsible for the control and

inspection of primary schools. It said that primary education

should be for four years. The school timings and the

curriculum should be such as to suit the environment and

conditions of the locality where they are, and the subjects

selected should have practical value for the students.

There should be refresher courses and training

programmes to improve the quality of primary school

teachers. School inspection should increase in number as

well as in efficiency. Primary schools should serve as

community centres that could provide adult education, medical

relief, and facilities for recreation to the people of rural

areas.

●

Secondary School Education The defects of

secondary education included the fact that it was highly

examination oriented, and there was a large number of

failures in the matriculation examination. It recommended the

introduction of a more diversified curriculum. Students

would benefit from the introduction of alternative courses

in the high schools as the students could then choose courses

according to their aptitude. The committee recommended the

inclusion of industrial and commercial subjects.

●

Higher Education Though the focus of the committee

was on primary education, it also evaluated the condition of

higher education. It found that the standard of education was

low, there was overcrowding in universities, and libraries

were not well equipped. The committee suggested that

affiliated universities be established besides unitary and

residential universities, the condition of university libraries

be improved, honours courses be opened, and students be

admitted on the basis of abilities and aptitudes. The committee

asserted the importance of developing learned and liberal-

minded individuals who would be capable of undertaking

responsibilities.

●

Women’s Education Regarding women’s education,

the committee recommended that the education of boys and

girls should get equal importance; more primary schools for

girls should be established; and the curriculum should include

604

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

hygiene, home science, and music in secondary schools.

Attention should also be given to the training of women for

teaching jobs.

The report of the Hartog Committee was effective to

an extent in improving the quality of primary education.

However, the quantitative expansion suffered. Secondary

school education improved. The number of affiliated colleges

also went up.

Sargent Plan of Education

Sir John Sargent, the Educational Advisor to the Government

of India, was deputed to draw up a memorandum for the

development of Indian education after the Second World

War. His memorandum was submitted to the Central Advisory

Board of Education in 1944.

The report analysed the prevailing situation in education

and provided a long-term plan for educational development

in India. It gave details of programmes and schemes directed

towards reconstructing the education system. The aim of the

plan was to bring about universal literacy in India within 40

years of its introduction.

The main recommendations made in the report were

as follows:

●

There should be free pre-primary education for

children between the years of 3 and 6, the objective being

to give the children social experience. The teachers in these

nursery schools should be women adequately trained for the

work.

●

There should be universal, compulsory, and free

education for the 6 to 14 years age group. This group would

be divided into two stages, namely Junior Basic (6-11) and

Senior Basic (11–14). The fundamental principle of education

at this level should be “learning through activity”. There

should be an emphasis on learning some basic craft or crafts

suited to local needs and conditions. Activities at the senior

basic level should include physical training and organised

games.

●

High school education should be for a period of six

Development of Education

✫

605

years for selected children from the age of 11 years. The

selected students must be well above the average ability and
have exceptional aptitude for higher studies. Fees may be

charged, but there would also be studentships, and the poor

could get scholarships. There were to be two streams in high

schools: academic and technical/vocational. The high schools
in the academic sphere will impart instruction in the Arts

and pure sciences, while the high school in the technical

sphere will provide training in applied sciences and industrial

and commercial subjects. The curriculum in both spheres will
include art and music, and all girls should be taught domestic

science. The mother tongue would be the medium of

instruction in all high schools while English would be a

compulsory second language. Students were not to leave
school till the age of 14.

●

As for university education, in the absence of suitable

method of selection, many students not fit for it got admitted

to university education. Too much importance was attached
to examinations. In the circumstances, the university degree

course after the higher secondary examination should be for

three years; the existent intermediate course should be

abolished; university education standard must be improved,

and admission method must be changed in order that university
course could be taken by capable students; poor students

should be given financial assistance; teachers should be

competent and their service conditions improved; a high

standard in post-graduate studies and in pure applied research
should be focused on; an all-India organisation on the lines

of the University Grants Committee of England should be

set up to coordinate the activities of the different universities.

The Sargent report made many other recommendations

such as liquidation of adult illiteracy in 20 years; adult

education which would include general or technical/vocational

education, not just literacy; medical check up for students

in schools; special education for the physically handicapped
and mentally retarded children; setting up of employment

bureaus.

606

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Wardha Scheme of Basic Education (1937)

The Congress had organised an all India Education Conference in
October 1937 in Wardha. In the light of the resolutions passed there,
the Zakir Hussain committee formulated a detailed national scheme
for basic education. (It came to be known as

Nai Talim.) The main

principle behind this scheme was ‘learning through activity’. It was
based on Gandhi’s ideas published in a series of articles in the
weekly

Harijan. Gandhi thought that Western education had created

a gulf between the educated few and the masses and had also
made the educated elite ineffective. Gandhi said: “I am fully
convinced that present system of education is not only wasteful
but positively harmful. They would pick up evil habits. English has
created a permanent bar between the highly educated few and the
uneducated many.”
The scheme, which advocated free and compulsory education for
all from the years of 7 to 14, had the following provisions:

(i) Inclusion of a basic handicraft in the syllabus
(ii) First seven years of schooling to be an integral part of

a free and compulsory nationwide education system (through mother
tongue)

(iii) Teaching to be in the mother tongue; Hindi to be taught

in areas where it was not the mother tongue.

(iv) Ways to be devised to establish contact with the

community around schools through service

(v) A suitable technique to be devised with a view to

implementing the main idea of basic education—educating the child
through the medium of productive activity of a suitable craft such
as spinning and weaving, carpentry, agriculture, pottery, leather work,
home science for girls, etc.

(vi) The social and scientific implications of a craft to be

studied

(vii) Mathematics, general science, social studies, painting,

music, and physical education to be part of the curriculum.

(viii) No religious and moral education included
The system, rather than being a methodology for

education, was an expression of an idea for a new life and a new
society. The basic premise was that only through such a scheme
could India be an independent and non-violent society. This scheme
was child-centred and cooperative.

There was not much development of this idea, because of

the start of the Second World War and the resignation of the
Congress ministries (October 1939).

Development of Education

✫

607

The Sargent plan was not acceptable to many lndian

educationists who felt that the projected period of forty years

for attaining the universalisation of primary education was

too long. The cost of implementing the plan also seemed

to be exorbitant. The idea of creating the same level of

educational attainment in India as prevailed in England was

considered to be utopian and impracticable, besides being

unsuitable for Indian conditions. With hindsight one may say

that the plan was realistic and had several good points about

it. But the plan was a little ahead of its times.

Development of Vernacular
Education

During the early 19th century, vernacular education was in

a sorry state of affairs. It was mostly dependent on

contributions from wealthy zamindars.

1835, 1836, 1838 : William Adam’s reports on

vernacular education in Bengal and Bihar pointed out defects

in the system of vernacular education.

1843–53 : James Jonathan’s experiments in North-

West Provinces (UP), as the lieutenant-governor there,

included opening one government school as model school

in each tehsildari and a normal school for teachers’ training

for vernacular schools.

1853 : In a famous minute, Lord Dalhousie expressed

strong opinion in favour of vernacular education.

1854 : Wood’s Despatch made the following provisions

for vernacular education:

1. Improvement of standards

2. Supervision by government agency

3. Normal schools to train teachers

These gave impetus to the cause of vernacular education

1854–71

The government paid some attention to

secondary and vernacular education. The number of verna-

cular schools increased by more than five-fold.

1882 : The Hunter Commission held that State should

make special efforts for extension and improvement of

608

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

vernacular education. Mass education was to be seen as

instructing masses through vernaculars.

1904 : Education policy put special emphasis on

vernacular education and increased grants for it.

1929 : Hartog Committee presented a gloomy picture

of primary education.

1937

These schools received encouragement from

Congress ministries.

Development of Technical
Education

The Engineering College at Roorkee was set up in 1847; the

Calcutta College of Engineering came up in 1856. In 1858,

Overseers’ School at Poona was raised to the status of Poona

College of Engineering and affiliated to Bombay University.

Guindy College of Engineering was affiliated to Madras

University.

Medical training started with the establishment of a

medical college in Calcutta in 1835. Lord Curzon did much

to broaden the whole basis of professional courses—medicine,

agriculture, engineering, veterinary sciences, etc. He

established an agriculture college at Pusa, which acted as a

parent institution of similar institutions in other provinces.

Evaluation of British Policy
on Education

1. Even the inadequate measures the government took

for the expansion of modern education were guided by

concerns other than philanthropic. The government measures

for promotion of education were influenced by:

●

agitation in favour of modern education by

enlightened Indians, Christian missionaries, and

humanitarian officials;

●

the need to ensure a cheap supply of educated

Indians to man an increasing number of subordinate

posts in administration and in British business

concerns—thus there was an emphasis on English

medium as the language of administration and of

education;

Development of Education

✫

609

●

the hope that educated Indians would help expand

market for British manufactures in India; and

●

an expectation that Western education would

reconcile Indians to British rule, particularly as it

glorified British conquerors and their administration.

The British thus wanted to use modern education to

strengthen the foundations of their political authority in India.

2. Traditional system of Indian learning gradually

declined for want of support, and specially after 1844 when

it was declared that applicants for government employment

should possess knowledge of English.

3. Mass education was neglected leading to widespread

illiteracy (1911—84 per cent and in 1921—92 per cent),

which created a wide linguistic and cultural gulf between the

educated few and the masses.

4. Since education was to be paid for, it became a

monopoly of upper and richer classes and city dwellers.

5. There was an almost total neglect of women’s

education because: (i) the government did not want to arouse

wrath of orthodox sections; and (ii) it had no immediate

utility for the colonial rule.

6. Scientific and technical education was by and large

neglected. By 1857, there were only three medical colleges

at Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras, and only one good

engineering college at Roorkee, which was open only to

Europeans and Eurasians.

Summary

●

Steps taken under Company rule: various colleges established;
under Charter Act of 1813; Orientalist-Anglican Controversy;
Macaulay’s Minute; Efforts of Thomson; Wood’s Despatch of
1854

●

After the Crown Took Over: Hunter Education Commission;
Indian Universities Act of 1904; Government Resolution on
Education Policy 1913; Sadler University Commission 1917-19;
Education under Dyarchy; Hartog Committee 1929; Wardha
Scheme; Sargent Plan 1944;

●

Development of Vernacular Education

●

Development of Technical Education

●

Evaluation of British Policy

610

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

610

CHAPTER 31

Peasant Movements

1857

–1947

Peasantry Under Colonialism

The impoverishment of the Indian peasantry was a direct

result of the transformation of the agrarian structure due to:

●

colonial economic policies;

●

ruin of the handicrafts leading to overcrowding of

land;

●

the new land revenue system; and

●

colonial administrative and judicial system.

The peasants suffered from high rents, illegal levies,

arbitrary evictions, and unpaid labour in zamindari areas. In

Ryotwari areas, the government itself levied heavy land

revenue. The overburdened farmer, fearing loss of his only

source of livelihood, often approached the local moneylender

who made full use of the former’s difficulties by extracting

high rates of interests on the money lent. Often, the farmer

had to mortgage his land and cattle. Sometimes, the

moneylender seized the mortgaged belongings. Gradually,

over large areas, the actual cultivators were reduced to the

status of tenants-at-will, sharecroppers, and landless labourers.

The peasants often resisted the exploitation, and soon

they realised that their real enemy was the colonial state.

Sometimes, the desperate peasants took to crime to come

out of intolerable conditions. These crimes included robbery,

dacoity, and what has been called social banditry.

Peasant Movements 1857–1947

✫

611

A Survey of Early Peasant
Movements

Indigo Revolt (1859–60)

In Bengal, the indigo planters, nearly all Europeans, exploited

the local peasants by forcing them to grow indigo on their

lands instead of the more paying crops like rice. The planters

forced the peasants to take advance sums and enter into

fraudulent contracts which were then used against the peasants.

The planters intimidated the peasants through kidnappings,

illegal confinements, flogging, attacks on women and children,

seizure of cattle, burning and demolition of houses, and

destruction of crops.

The anger of the peasants exploded in 1859 when, led

by Digambar Biswas and Bishnu Biswas of Nadia district, they

decided not to grow indigo under duress and resisted the

physical pressure of the planters and their lathiyals (retainers)

backed by police and the courts. They also organised a

counter force against the planters’ attacks. The planters also

tried methods like evictions and enhanced rents. The ryots

replied by going on a rent strike, by refusing to pay the

enhanced rents, and by physically resisting the attempts to

evict them. Gradually, they learned to use the legal machinery

and initiated legal action supported by fund collection.

The Bengali intelligentsia played a significant role by

supporting the peasants’ cause through newspaper campaigns,

organisation of mass meetings, preparing memoranda on

peasants’ grievances, and supporting them in legal battles.

The government appointed an indigo commission to

enquire into the problem of indigo cultivation. Based on its

recommendations, the government issued a notification in

November 1860 that the ryots could not be compelled to

grow indigo and that it would ensure that all disputes were

settled by legal means. But the planters were already closing

down factories and indigo cultivation was virtually wiped out

from Bengal by the end of 1860.

Pabna Agrarian Leagues

During the 1870s and 1880s, large parts of Eastern Bengal

witnessed agrarian unrest caused by oppressive practices of

612

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

the zamindars. The zamindars resorted to enhanced rents

beyond legal limits and prevented the tenants from acquiring

occupancy rights under Act X of 1859. To achieve their ends,

the zamindars resorted to forcible evictions, seizure of cattle

and crops, and prolonged, costly litigation in courts where

the poor peasant found himself at a disadvantage.

Having had enough of the oppressive regime, the

peasants of Yusufshahi Pargana in Pabna district formed an

agrarian league or combination to resist the demands of the

zamindars. The league organised a rent strike—the ryots

refused to pay the enhanced rents, challenging the zamindars

in the courts. Funds were raised by ryots to fight the court

cases. The struggles spread throughout Pabna and to other

districts of East Bengal. The main form of struggle was that

of legal resistance; there was very little violence.

Though the peasant discontent continued to linger on

till 1885, most of the cases had been solved, partially through

official persuasion and partially because of zamindars’ fears.

Many peasants were able to acquire occupancy rights and

resist enhanced rents. The government also promised to

undertake legislation to protect the tenants from the worst

aspects of zamindari oppression. In 1885, the Bengal Tenancy

Act was passed.

Again, a number of young Indian intellectuals supported

the peasants’ cause. These included Bankim Chandra Chatterjee,

R.C. Dutt, and the Indian Association under Surendranath

Banerjea.

Deccan Riots

The ryots of Deccan region of western India suffered heavy

taxation under the Ryotwari system. Here again the peasants

found themselves trapped in a vicious network with the

moneylender as the exploiter and the main beneficiary. These

moneylenders were mostly outsiders—Marwaris or Gujaratis.

The conditions had worsened due to a crash in cotton prices

after the end of the American Civil War in 1864, the

government’s decision to raise the land revenue by 50 per

cent in 1867, and a succession of bad harvests.

In 1874, the growing tension between the moneylenders

and the peasants resulted in a social boycott movement

organised by the ryots against the “outsider” moneylenders.

Peasant Movements 1857–1947

✫

613

The ryots refused to buy from their shops. No peasant would

cultivate their fields. The barbers, washermen, shoemakers

would not serve them. This social boycott spread rapidly to

the villages of Poona, Ahmednagar, Sholapur, and Satara.

Soon, the social boycott was transformed into agrarian riots

with systematic attacks on the moneylenders’ houses and

shops. The debt bonds and deeds were seized and publicly

burnt.

The government succeeded in repressing the movement.

As a conciliatory measure, the Deccan Agriculturists Relief

Act was passed in 1879.

This time also, the modern nationalist intelligentsia of

Maharashtra supported the peasants’ cause.

Changed Nature of Peasant
Movements after 1857

●

Peasants emerged as the main force in agrarian

movements, fighting directly for their own demands.

●

The demands were centred almost wholly on

economic issues.

●

The movements were directed against the immediate

enemies of the peasant—foreign planters and indigenous

zamindars and moneylenders.

●

The struggles were directed towards specific and

limited objectives and redressal of particular grievances.

●

Colonialism was not the target of these movements.

●

It was not the objective of these movements to end

the system of subordination or exploitation of the peasants.

●

Territorial reach was limited.

●

There was no continuity of struggle or long-term

organisation.

●

The peasants developed a strong awareness of their

legal rights and asserted them in and outside the courts.

Weaknesses

●

There was a lack of an adequate understanding of

colonialism.

●

The 19th-century peasants did not possess a new

ideology and a new social, economic, and political programme.

●

These struggles, however militant, occurred within the

614

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

framework of the old societal order lacking a positive

conception of an alternative society.

Later Movements

The peasant movements of the 20th century were deeply

influenced by and had a marked impact on the national

freedom struggle. (Refer to the chapters on Freedom

Movement for ‘Champaran’ and ‘Kheda Satyagraha’.)

The Kisan Sabha Movement

After the 1857 revolt, the Awadh taluqdars had got back their

lands. This strengthened the hold of the taluqdars or big

landlords over the agrarian society of the province. The

majority of the cultivators were subjected to high rents,

summary evictions (bedakhali), illegal levies, renewal fees

or nazrana. The First World War had hiked the prices of

food and other necessities. This worsened the conditions of

the UP peasants.

Mainly due to the efforts of the Home Rule activists,

kisan sabhas were organised in UP. The United Provinces

Kisan Sabha was set up in February 1918 by Gauri Shankar

Mishra and Indra Narayan Dwivedi. Madan Mohan Malaviya

supported their efforts. By June 1919, the UP Kisan Sabha

had 450 branches. Other prominent leaders included Jhinguri

Singh, Durgapal Singh and Baba Ramchandra. In June 1920,

Baba Ramchandra urged Nehru to visit these villages. During

these visits, Nehru developed close contacts with the villagers.

In October 1920, the Awadh Kisan Sabha came into

existence because of differences in nationalist ranks. The

Awadh Kisan Sabha asked the kisans to refuse to till

bedakhali land, not to offer hari and begar (forms of unpaid

labour), to boycott those who did not accept these conditions,

and to solve their disputes through panchayats.

From the earlier forms of mass meetings and

mobilisation, the patterns of activity changed rapidly in

January 1921 to the looting of bazaars, houses, granaries, and

clashes with the police. The centres of activity were primarily

the districts of Rai Bareilly, Faizabad, and Sultanpur.

The movement declined soon, partly due to government

repression and partly because of the passing of the Awadh

Rent (Amendment) Act.

Peasant Movements 1857–1947

✫

615

Eka Movement

Towards the end of 1921, peasant discontent resurfaced in

some northern districts of the United Provinces—Hardoi,

Bahraich, Sitapur. The issues involved were:

(i) high rents—50 per cent higher than the recorded

rates;

(ii) oppression of thikadars in charge of revenue

collection; and

(iii) practice of share-rents.

The meetings of the Eka or the Unity Movement

involved a symbolic religious ritual in which the assembled

peasants vowed that they would:

●

pay only the recorded rent but would pay it on time;

●

not leave when evicted;

●

refuse to do forced labour;

●

give no help to criminals; and

●

abide by panchayat decisions.

The grassroot leadership of the Eka Movement came

from Madari Pasi and other low-caste leaders, and many

small zamindars.

By March 1922, severe repression by authorities

brought the movement to an end.

Mappila Revolt

The Mappilas were the Muslim tenants inhabiting the Malabar

region where most of the landlords were Hindus. The

Mappilas had expressed their resentment against the

oppression of the landlords during the 19th century also.

Their grievances centred around lack of security of tenure,

high rents, renewal fees, and other oppressive exactions.

The Mappila tenants were particularly encouraged by

the demand of the local Congress body for a government

legislation regulating tenant-landlord relations. Soon, the

Mappila movement merged with the ongoing Khilafat agitation.

The leaders of the Khilafat-Non-Cooperation Movement like

Gandhi, Shaukat Ali, and Maulana Azad addressed Mappila

meetings. After the arrest of national leaders, the leadership

passed into the hands of local Mappila leaders.

Things took a turn for the worse in August 1921 when

the arrest of a respected priest leader, Ali Musaliar, sparked

off large-scale riots. Initially, the symbols of British

616

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

authority—courts, police stations, treasuries, and offices—

and unpopular landlords (jenmies who were mostly Hindus)

were the targets. But once the British declared martial law

and repression began in earnest, the character of the rebellion

underwent a definite change. Many Hindus were seen by the

Mappilas to be helping the authorities. What began as an anti-

government and anti-landlord affair acquired communal

overtones. The communalisation of the rebellion completed

the isolation of the Mappilas from the Khilafat-Non-

Cooperation Movement. By December 1921, all resistance

had come to a stop.

Bardoli Satyagraha

The Bardoli taluqa in Surat district had witnessed intense

politicisation after the coming of Gandhi on the national

political scene. The movement sparked off in January 1926

when the authorities decided to increase the land revenue by

30 per cent. The Congress leaders were quick to protest and

a Bardoli Inquiry Committee was set up to go into the issue.

The committee found the revenue hike to be unjustified. In

February 1926, Vallabhbhai Patel was called to lead the

movement. The women of Bardoli gave him the title of

“Sardar”. Under Patel, the Bardoli peasants resolved to refuse

payments of the revised assessment until the government

appointed an independent tribunal or accepted the current

amount as full payment. To organise the movement, Patel set

up 13 chhavanis or workers’ camps in the taluqa. Bardoli

Satyagraha Patrika was brought out to mobilise public

opinion. An intelligence wing was set up to make sure all

the tenants followed the movement’s resolutions. Those who

opposed the movement faced a social boycott. Special

emphasis was placed on the mobilisation of women. K.M.

Munshi and Lalji Naranji resigned from the Bombay Legislative

Council in support of the movement.

By August 1928, massive tension had built up in the

area. There were prospects of a railway strike in Bombay.

Gandhi reached Bardoli to stand by in case of any emergency.

The government was looking for a graceful withdrawal now.

It set the condition that first the enhanced rent be paid by

all the occupants (not actually done). Then, a committee went

into the whole affair and found the revenue hike to be

unjustified and recommended a rise of 6.03 per cent only.

Peasant Movements 1857–1947

✫

617

During the 1930s, the peasant awakening was influenced

by the Great Depression in the industrialised countries and

the Civil Disobedience Movement, which took the form of

no-rent, no-revenue movement in many areas. Also, after the

decline of the active phase movement (1932), many new

entrants to active politics started looking for suitable outlets

for release of their energies and took to organisation of

peasants.

The All India Kisan Congress/Sabha

This sabha was founded in Lucknow in April 1936 with Swami

Sahajanand Saraswati as the president and N.G. Ranga as the

general secretary. A kisan manifesto was issued and a

periodical under Indulal Yagnik started. The AIKS and the

Congress held their sessions in Faizpur in 1936. The

Congress manifesto (especially the agrarian policy) for the

1937 provincial elections was strongly influenced by the

AIKS agenda.

Under Congress Ministries

The period 1937–39 was the high watermark of the peasant

movements and activity under the Congress provincial rule.

The chief form of mobilisation was through holding kisan

conferences and meetings where demands were aired and

resolutions were passed. Mobilisation campaigns were carried

out in the villages.

Peasant Activity in Provinces

Kerala

In the Malabar region, the peasants were mobilised mainly

by the Congress Socialist Party activists. Many “Karshak

Sanghams” (peasants’ organisations) came into existence. The

most popular method was the marching of jaths or peasants

groups to the landlords to get their demands accepted. One

significant campaign by the peasants was in 1938 for the

amendment of the Malabar Tenancy Act, 1929.
Andhra

This region had already witnessed a decline in the prestige

of zamindars after their defeat by Congressmen in elections.

Anti-zamindar movements were going on in some places.

618

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Many provincial ryot associations were active. N.G. Ranga

had set up, in 1933, the India Peasants’ Institute. After 1936,

the Congress socialists started organising the peasants. At

many places, the summer schools of economics and politics

were held and addressed by leaders like P.C. Joshi, Ajoy

Ghosh, and R.D. Bhardwaj.
Bihar

Here, Sahjanand Saraswati was joined by Karyanand Sharma,

Yadunandan Sharma, Rahul Sankritayan, Panchanan Sharma,

Jamun Karjiti, etc. In 1935, the Provincial Kisan Conference

adopted the anti-zamindari slogan. The Provincial Kisan Sabha

developed a rift with the Congress over the ‘bakasht land’

issue because of an unfavourable government resolution

which was not acceptable to the sabha. The movement died

out by August 1939.
Punjab

The earlier peasant mobilisation here had been organised by

the Punjab Naujawan Bharat Sabha, the Kirti Kisan Party, the

Congress, and the Akalis. A new direction to the movement

was given by the Punjab Kisan Committee in 1937. The main

targets of the movement were the landlords of western Punjab

who dominated the unionist ministry. The immediate issues

taken up were resettlement of land revenue in Amritsar and

Lahore and increase in water rates in canal colonies of

Multan and Montgomery where feudal levies were being

demanded by the private contractors. Here, the peasants went

on a strike and were finally able to win concessions.

The peasant activity in Punjab was mainly concentrated

in Jullundur, Amritsar, Hoshiarpur, Lyallpur, and Shekhupura.

The Muslim tenants-at-will of west Punjab and the Hindu

peasants of south-eastern Punjab (today’s Haryana) remained

largely unaffected.

Peasant activity was also organised in Bengal (Burdwan

and 24 Parganas), Assam (Surma Valley), Orissa, Central

Provinces, and NWFP.

During the War

Because of a pro-War line adopted by the communists, the

AIKS was split on communist and non-communist lines and

many veteran leaders like Sahjanand, Indulal Yagnik, and N.G.

Peasant Movements 1857–1947

✫

619

Ranga left the sabha. But the Kisan Sabha continued to work

among the people. It did notable work during the famine of

1943.

Post-War Phase

Tebhaga Movement

In September 1946, the Bengal Provincial Kisan Sabha gave

a call to implement, through mass struggle, the Flood

Commission recommendations of tebhaga—two-thirds’

share—to the bargardars, the sharecroppers also known as

bagchasi or adhyar, instead of the one-half share. The

bargardars worked on lands rented from the jotedars. The

communist cadres, including many urban student militias,

went to the countryside to organise the bargardars. The

central slogan was “nij khamare dhan tolo”—i.e.,

sharecroppers taking the paddy to their own threshing floor

and not to the jotedar’s house, as before, so as to enforce

tebhaga.

The storm centre of the movement was north Bengal,

principally among Rajbanshis—a low caste of tribal origin.

Muslims also participated in large numbers. The movement

dissipated soon, because of the League ministry’s sop of the

Bargardari Bill, an intensified repression, the popularisation

of the Hindu Mahasabha’s agitation for a separate Bengal and

renewed riots in Calcutta which ended the prospects of

sympathetic support from the urban sections.
Telangana Movement

This was the biggest peasant guerrilla war of modern Indian

history affecting 3,000 villages and 3 million population. The

princely state of Hyderabad under Asajahi Nizams was

marked by a combination of religious-linguistic domination

(by a mall Urdu-speaking Muslim elite ruling over

predominantly Hindu-Telugu, Marathi, Kannada-speaking

groups), total lack of political and civil liberties, grossest

forms of forced exploitation by deshmukhs, jagirdars,

doras (landlords) in forms of forced labour (vethi) and

illegal exactions.

During the war, the communist-led guerrillas had built

a strong base in Telangana villages through Andhra Mahasabha

and had been leading local struggles on issues such as

620

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

wartime exactions, abuse of rationing, excessive rent, and

vethi.

The uprising began in July 1946 when a deshmukh’s

thug murdered a village militant in Jangaon taluq of Nalgonda.

Soon, the uprising spread to Warrangal and Khammam.

The peasants organised themselves into village sanghams

and attacked using lathis, stone slings, and chilli powder. They

had to face brutal repression. The movement was at its

greatest intensity between August 1947 and September 1948.

The peasants brought about a rout of the Razaqars—the

Nizam’s stormtroopers. Once the Indian security forces took

over Hyderabad, the movement fizzled out.

The Telangana movement had many positive achievements

to its credit.

●

In the villages controlled by guerrillas, vethi and

forced labour disappeared.

●

Agricultural wages were raised.

●

Illegally seized lands were restored.

●

Steps were taken to fix ceilings and redistribute lands.

●

Measures were taken to improve irrigation and fight

cholera.

●

An improvement in the condition of women was

witnessed.

●

The autocratic-feudal regime of India’s biggest princely

state was shaken up, clearing the way for the formation of

Andhra Pradesh on linguistic lines and realising another aim

of the national movement in this region.

Balance-Sheet of Peasant
Movements

These movements created an atmosphere for post-

independence agrarian reforms, for instance, abolition of

zamindari.

They eroded the power of the landed class, thus adding

to the transformation of the agrarian structure.

These movements were based on the ideology of

nationalism.

The nature of these movements was similar in diverse

areas.

Peasant Movements 1857–1947

✫

621

Summary

●

Peasantry under colonialism

●

Early Peasant Movements: Indigo Revolt; Pabna Agrarian
Leagues; Deccan Riots

●

Change in Nature of Movements after 1857

●

Weaknesses

●

Latter Movements; Kisan Sabha; Eka; Mappila Revolt; Bardoli
Satyagraha; All India Kisan Congress, under Congress Ministries;

●

Peasant Activity in the Past: During the War; Post-War Period;

●

Balance-Sheet

join us http://telegram.me/bpsc65thmains66thprelims (BPSC CCE 65th,66th & 67th )

622

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

622

CHAPTER 32

The Movement of the

Working Class

The beginning of the second half of the 19th century heralded

the entry of modern industry into India. The thousands of

hands employed in construction of railways were harbingers

of the modern Indian working class. Further industrialisation

came with the development of ancillary industries along with

the railways. The coal industry developed fast and employed

a large working force. Then came the cotton and the jute

industries.

The Indian working class suffered from the same kind

of exploitation witnessed during the industrialisation of

Europe and the rest of the West, such as low wages, long

working hours, unhygienic and hazardous working conditions,

employment of child labour, and the absence of basic

amenities. The presence of colonialism in India gave a

distinctive touch to the Indian working class movement. The

Indian working class had to face two basic antagonistic

forces—an imperialist political rule and economic exploitation

at the hands of both foreign and native capitalist classes.

Under the circumstances, inevitably, the Indian working class

movement became intertwined with the political struggle for

national emancipation.

Early Efforts

The early nationalists, especially the Moderates,

●

were indifferent to the labour’s cause;

●

differentiated between the labour in the Indian-

The Movement of the Working Class

✫

623

owned factories and those in the British-owned

factories;

●

believed that labour legislations would affect the

competitive edge enjoyed by the Indian-owned

industries;

●

did not want a division in the movement on the basis

of classes; and

●

did not support the Factory Acts of 1881 and 1891

for these reasons.

Thus, earlier attempts to improve the economic

conditions of the workers were in the nature of the

philanthropic efforts which were isolated, sporadic, and

aimed at specific local grievances.

1870 Sasipada Banerjea started a workingmen’s club

and newspaper Bharat Shramjeevi.

1878 Sorabjee Shapoorji Bengalee tried to get a bill,

providing better working conditions to labour, passed in the

Bombay Legislative Council.

1880 Narayan Meghajee Lokhande started the newspaper

Deenbandhu and set up the Bombay Mill and Millhands

Association.

1899 The first strike by the Great Indian Peninsular

Railways took place, and it got widespread support. Tilak’s

Kesari and Maharatta had been campaigning for the strike

for months.

There were many prominent nationalist leaders like

Bipin Chandra Pal and G. Subramania Aiyar who demanded

better conditions for workers and other pro-labour reforms.

During Swadeshi Upsurge

Workers participated in wider political issues. Strikes were

organised by Ashwini Coomar Banerjee, Prabhat Kumar Roy

Chaudhuri, Premtosh Bose, and Apurba Kumar Ghosh. These

strikes were organised in government press, railways, and the

jute industry.

There were attempts to form trade unions, but these

were not very successful.

Subramaniya Siva and Chidambaram Pillai led strikes

in Tuticorin and Tirunelvelli and were arrested.

The biggest strike of the period was organised after

Tilak’s arrest and trial.

624

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

During the First World War
and After

The War and its aftermath brought a rise in exports, soaring

prices, massive profiteering opportunities for the industrialists

but very low wages for the workers. This led to discontent

among workers.

The emergence of Gandhi led to a broad-based national

movement, and the emphasis was placed on the mobilisation

of the workers and peasants for the national cause.

A need was felt for the organisation of the workers

in trade unions.

International events like the establishment of a socialist

republic in the Soviet Union, formation of the Comintern,

and setting up of International Labour Organisation (ILO) lent

a new dimension to the movement of the working class in

India.

The AITUC

The All India Trade Union Congress was founded on October

31, 1920. The Indian National Congress president for the

year, Lala Lajpat Rai, was elected as the first president of

AITUC and Dewan Chaman Lal as the first general secretary.

Lajpat Rai was the first to link capitalism with imperialism—

“imperialism and militarism are the twin children of

capitalism”.

The prominent Congress and swarajist leader C.R. Das

presided over the third and the fourth sessions of the AITUC.

The Gaya session of the Congress (1922) welcomed the

formation of the AITUC, and a committee was formed to

assist it. C.R. Das advocated that the Congress should take

up the workers’ and peasants’ cause and incorporate them in

the struggle for swaraj or else they would get isolated from

the movement. Other leaders who kept close contacts with

the AITUC included Nehru, Subhas Bose, C.F. Andrews, J.M.

Sengupta, Satyamurthy, V.V. Giri, and Sarojini Naidu. In the

beginning, the AITUC was influenced by social democratic

ideas of the British Labour Party. The Gandhian philosophy

of non-violence, trusteeship, and class-collaboration had

great influence on the movement. Gandhi helped organise the

Ahmedabad Textile Labour Association (1918) and through

a protest secured a 27.5 per cent wage hike. (Later, the

arbitrator’s award ensured a 35 per cent raise.)

The Movement of the Working Class

✫

625

The Trade Union Act, 1926

The Trade Union Act, 1926:

●

recognised trade unions as legal associations;

●

laid down conditions for registration and regulation

of trade union activities; and

●

secured immunity, both civil and criminal, for trade

unions from prosecution for legitimate activities, but

put some restrictions on their political activities.

Late 1920s

A strong communist influence on the movement lent a

militant and revolutionary content to it. In 1928, there was

a six-month-long strike in Bombay Textile Mills led by the

Girni Kamgar Union. The whole of 1928 witnessed

unprecedented industrial unrest. This period also saw the

crystallisation of various communist groups, with leaders like

S.A. Dange, Muzaffar Ahmed, P.C. Joshi, Sohan Singh Joshi,

etc.

Alarmed at the increasing strength of the trade union

movement under extremist influence, the government resorted

to legislative restrictions. It passed the Public Safety Ordinance

(1929) and the Trade Disputes Act (TDA), 1929. The TDA,

1929:

●

made compulsory the appointment of Courts of

Inquiry and Consultation Boards for settling industrial

disputes;

●

made illegal the strikes in public utility services like

posts, railways, water and electricity, unless each

individual worker planning to go on strike gave an

advance notice of one month to the administration;

and

●

forbade trade union activity of coercive or purely

political nature and even sympathetic strikes.

Meerut Conspiracy Case (1929)

In March 1929, the government arrested 31 labour leaders,

and the three-and-a-half-year trial resulted in the conviction

of Muzaffar Ahmed, S.A. Dange, Joglekar, Philip Spratt, Ben

Bradley, Shaukat Usmani, and others. The trial got worldwide

publicity but weakened the working class movement.

The workers participated during 1930 in the Civil

Disobedience Movement, but after 1931, there was a dip in

626

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

the working class movement because of a split in 1931 in

which the corporatist trend led by N.M. Joshi broke away

from the AITUC to set up the All India Trade Union

Federation. In 1935, the communists rejoined the AITUC.

Now, the left front consisted of the communists, Congress

socialists, and the leftist nationalists like Nehru and Subhas.

Under Congress Ministries

During the 1937 elections, the AITUC had supported the

Congress candidates. The Congress governments in provinces

gave a fillip to the trade union activity. The Congress

ministries were generally sympathetic to the workers’

demands. Many legislations favourable to the workers were

passed.

During and After the
Second World War

Initially, the workers opposed the War, but after 1941, when

Russia joined the war on behalf of the Allies, the communists

described the war as a “peoples’ war” and supported it. The

communists dissociated themselves from the Quit India

Movement. A policy of industrial peace was advocated by

the communists.

In the period 1945 to 1947, workers participated

actively in the post-War national upsurges. In 1945, the dock

workers of Bombay and Calcutta refused to load ships taking

supplies to the warring troops in Indonesia. During 1946, the

workers went on a strike in support of the Naval Ratings.

During the last year of foreign rule, there were strikes by

workers of posts, railways, and many other establishments.

After Independence

The working class movement came to be associated with the

various political ideologies.

Summary

●

Early Efforts

●

During Swadeshi Movement

●

First World War and After

●

During and After the Second World War

Challenges Before the Newborn Nation

✫

627

627

CHAPTER 33

Challenges before the

Newborn Nation

First Day of Independent
India

August 15, 1947 started an epoch that ended India’s colonial

subjugation and looked forward to a new India—India as an

independent country. The Constituent Assembly of India met

at 11 p.m. on August 14, 1947. Rajendra Prasad presided over

the session. In a ceremony held in the Constituent Assembly

(in Parliament House) at midnight of August 14–15, 1947,

Jawaharlal Nehru, speaking as the first prime minister of

Independent India, gave his historic speech. Nehru said, “Long

UNIT 10

Independence

and After

Chapters 33 to 39

628

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

years ago we made a tryst with destiny, and now the time

comes when we shall redeem our pledge, not wholly or in

full measure, but very substantially. At the stroke of midnight

hour, when the world sleeps, India will wake to life and

freedom...”

On August 15, 1947, Jawaharlal Nehru, as Prime

Minister of India, hoisted the Indian national flag above the

Lahori Gate of Red Fort in Delhi.

First Government after Independence

The governor general and the ministers were sworn in.

Jawaharlal Nehru took charge as the first Prime Minister of

India on August 15, 1947, and was assisted by 15 other

members. Sardar Patel served as the deputy prime minister

till his death in December 1950. Lord Mountbatten, and later

C. Rajagopalachari served as governor-general till January 26,

1950, when India became a republic and elected Rajendra

Prasad as its first president.

The first Council of Ministers of Independent India was

as follows:

1. Jawaharlal Nehru: Prime Minister; Minister of

External Affairs and Commonwealth Relations; Minister

of Scientific Research

2. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel: Deputy Prime Minister;

Minister of Home Affairs and States; Minister of

Information and Broadcasting

3. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad: Minister of Education

4. John Mathai: Minister of Railways and Transport

5. Sardar Baldev Singh: Minister of Defence

6. Jairamdas Daulatram: Minister of Food and

Agriculture

7. Jagjivan Ram: Minister of Labour

8. C.H. Bhabha: Minister of Commerce

9. Amrit Kaur: Minister of Health

10. Rafi Ahmad Kidwai: Minister of Communications

11. Narhar Vishnu Gadgil: Minister of Works, Mines

and Power

12. R.K. Shanmukham Chetty: Minister of Finance

13. K.C. Neogy: Minister of Relief and Rehabilitation

14. B.R. Ambedkar: Minister of Law (belonged to the

Challenges Before the Newborn Nation

✫

629

Scheduled Castes Federation; resigned in 1951)

15. Shyama Prasad Mookherjee: Minister of Industries

and Supplies [Hindu Mahasabha; first to resign from

the cabinet in April 1950]

16. Narasimha Gopalaswami Ayyangar: Minister without

portfolio; assigned the task to act as a link between

the union government and the cabinet of East Punjab

government

17. Mohanlal Saxena: Minister without portfolio

Challenges

Independent India, however, had to face several challenges.

Immediate Challenges—territorial and administrative

integration of princely states, communal riots, rehabilitation

of nearly 60 lakh refugees migrated from Pakistan, protection

of Muslims living in India as well as those going to Pakistan

from communal gangs, need to avoid war with Pakistan,

Communist insurgency, etc.

Medium-term Challenges—framing of the

Constitution for India, building of a representative, democratic,

and civil libertarian political order, elections, and abolition

of feudal set-up in agriculture, etc.

Long-term Challenges—national integration, economic

development, poverty alleviation, etc.

India, as well as Pakistan, faced the consequences of

partition. The Independence Act had laid the procedure for

the resolution of three major problems—(i) the settlement

of boundaries between the two nations; (ii) the division of

apparatus and personnel of Indian Civil Services and some

other services; and (iii) division of military assets and

formations.

Radcliffe’s Boundary Award and
the Communal Riots

In accordance with the partition plan, the respective legislative

assemblies of Punjab and Bengal met in two sections (one

representing the Muslim majority districts and other of the

rest of the province) and decided by simple majority in favour

of the partition of the two provinces. West Punjab which went

630

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

to Pakistan received 62,000 square miles of territory and

15.7 million people (census 1941), of whom 11.85 million

were Muslims. East Punjab (India’s share) received 37,000

square miles of land area, with a population of 12.6 million,

of whom 4.37 million were Muslims. Likewise, West Bengal

became part of India with a territory of 28,000 square miles,

and a population of 21.2 million, of whom 5.3 million were

Muslims. East Bengal, which constituted East Pakistan, got

49,400 square miles of territory and 39.10 million people

(27.7 million Muslims and the rest non-Muslims). Thus, on

both sides of the Radcliffe Line, sizeable sections of

populations became minority (religion-wise)—20 million

non-Muslims in Pakistan and 42 million (later reduced to

35 million) Muslims in India.

Challenges before the Boundary
Commission

In absurd hurry, the British government appointed the Boundary

Commission under the chairmanship of Sir Cyril Radcliffe.

The Boundary Commission consisted of two Muslims and

two non-Muslim judges in each case, and worked under

serious constraints. Radcliffe, with very limited knowledge

of India, and with the use of out-of-date maps and census

materials, was required to draw the boundaries and decide

disputed points within a period of six weeks.

Although the religious demography was the deciding

factor, other factors such as rivers as natural boundaries,

administrative units, economic viability, railway and roadway

connectivity, and other infrastructural facilities such as the

canal system were also to be taken into consideration. The

Sikhs, as a third party (Hindus and Muslims being two

parties), were demographically scattered throughout Punjab.

Their demand that all Sikh holy shrines be included in East

Punjab (part of India) further complicated the situation. In

the face of such legal intricacies, a rational approach gave

way to political considerations. The census of 1941, the basis

of decisions, was also faulty. So, the resultant boundary lines

were bound to create several problems and leave many people

unhappy.

The report of the Boundary Commission was ready by

August 12, but Lord Mountbatten intentionally made it

Challenges Before the Newborn Nation

✫

631

public after August 15, so that the responsibility of the

consequences—communal riots and its repercussions—would

not fall on the British.

The way in which the British government decided to

demarcate the boundary and leave the country amidst unrest

was a most callous way to behave.

Regions Most Affected by Riots

The communal riots had started in August 1946 itself, but

with the announcement of partition and independence, the

situation became more inflamed. The regions through which

the Radcliffe Line was drawn became most violent, and

maximum number of murders, rapes, and abduction of women

and children took place. Armed bands of Sikhs (and Hindus)

and Muslims roamed the cities and countryside of Punjab,

committing unbelievable crimes.

A war of extermination was launched on both sides of

the border, when refugee trains are reported to have arrived,

sometimes carrying only dead bodies. According to an

estimate, around 180,000 were killed (60,000 from the west

and 120,000 from the east).

The regions of Bengal, due to the presence of Gandhi

and his efforts through fasts, experienced less violence in

comparison to Punjab.

Riots began in Delhi, with a massacre of Muslims in

revenge for Punjab (Gandhian fasts had a temporary impact).

In Bihar, prior to partition, in October 1946, Hindu

peasants, allegedly instigated by Hindu landlords to divert

attention from agrarian problems, killed Muslims. This was

followed by violence in Garhmukteswar in the United Province

where Hindu pilgrims killed thousand Muslims. But after

partition, due to Gandhi’s initiatives, no massacres took place

in these regions.

Why so many casualties The governor general

anticipated the danger of riots and assembled a boundary

force of 50,000 men. But Nehru’s decision to not allow

British troops into the matter proved devastating—the boundary

force themselves got divided along communal affiliations.

Further, the European officers were busy preparing to leave

India. According to Lockhart, the Commander-in-Chief of the

632

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Indian Army (August 15–December 31, 1947), the widespread

disorder would have been under control if all the personnel

from civil and armed services had been placed in their

respective new countries.

Challenges Associated with
Division of Resources

The partition of India was accompanied by division of

resources of the civil government as well as division of the

military forces and equipment.

Views

The systematic failure of British governments to contemplate or
prepare for any planned transfer of power to India is epitomised
by the fact that a man of Radcliffe’s background and lack of
experience (he had never been east of Gibraltar before he came
to India) should have been asked to embark on such a
fundamental task so very late in the day.

—Walter Reid,

Keeping the Jewel in the Crown

With limitations of time, knowledge and understanding, it was
virtually impossible to deal adequately with the often vital
accessories of a boundary line—such as the location of the canal
head waters in relation to the canals themselves, communications
by road and rail, the fate of mixed or isolated populations and
such ‘invisible’ problems as the location of pasture lands in
relation to villagers’ flocks and herds.

—Percival Spear

He (Radcliffe) tried to take account of irrigation canals and water
supplies so that there was enough water in the central Punjab,
but on the scale with which he was dealing, he was bound to
make mistakes. If villages weren’t bisected by the boundary they
were separated from the villagers’ fields, railway stations from
the towns they served and communities from the resources on
which they relied.

—Walter Reid,

Keeping the Jewel in the Crown

They had absolutely no conception. They asked me to come
in and do this sticky job for them, and when I had done it they
hated it. But what could they expect in the circumstances?
Surely, they must have realised what was coming to them once
they had decided on partition. But they had made absolutely
no plans for coping with the situation.

—Radcliffe, quoted by Leonard Mosley,

The Last Days of the British Raj

Challenges Before the Newborn Nation

✫

633

Division of Civil Government

To resolve the division of civil government amicably, a

partition council, presided over by the governor general and

consisting of two representatives each of India and Pakistan,

was set up. The council was helped by a steering committee,

consisting of H.M. Patel and Muhammad Ali, at operational

level. All civil servants were offered to give their option

about the Dominion they wanted to serve. Around 1,60,000

employees opted for transfer from India to Pakistan or from

Pakistan to India.

For the personnel of the Indian Civil Services, a

distinction was made between the Europeans and the Indians.

The Indian members were to continue in service in their

country of choice (India or Pakistan) on the existing scale

of service. The European officers could continue in service

on their existing pay, leave, pension rights, etc., but if they

wished to retire, they were entitled to special compensation

and early retirement.

Division of Finances

The division of cash balances as well as allocation of public

debt created tensions between the two countries. Pakistan

wanted a one-fourth share of the total cash balances, but India

had to point out that only a small portion of the cash balances

represented the real cash needs of the undivided India and

the rest was maintained only as an anti-inflationary mechanism.

Ramachandra Guha writes in his India After Gandhi that the

Indian government had withheld Pakistan’s share of the

‘sterling balance’ which the British owed jointly to the two

dominions, a debt incurred on account of Indian contributions

to the Second World War. The amount was some Rs 550

million. The Indian government was not keen to release the

money due to Pakistan as it was angry with Pakistan for

having attempted to seize Kashmir by force. Gandhi saw this

as being unnecessarily spiteful. He went on a fast and made

the ending of the fast conditional on the transfer of the

money owed to Pakistan. He succeeded in pressurising the

Congress leadership to decide to give more cash resources

to Pakistan. (According to some scholars, this became one

of the reasons for the assassination of Gandhi by a Hindu

fanatic.)

634

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Division of Defence Personnel and

Equipment

For a smooth division of the armed forces and their plants,

machinery, equipment and stores, a joint defence council,

headed by Auchinleck as its Supreme Commander, was set

up. The council decided that Muslim-majority units should

be transferred to Pakistan and non-Muslim units to India, but

due to serious differences between the two parties, the post

of Supreme Commander was abolished. Amidst serious

chaos, the British troops started to leave India from August

17, 1947 and the process was completed by February 1948.

Assassination of Gandhi

On the evening of January 30, 1948, as he carried on his

usual prayer meeting at Birla mansion (New Delhi), Mahatma

Gandhi was shot dead by Nathuram Godse. The event sent

shock waves through the nation in making. Communalism and

misinterpretation of nationalism were two fundamental factors

under whose influence Godse killed Gandhi.

In an address to the nation on the All India Radio, Nehru

summed up the mood and spirit of the time, “The light has

gone out of our lives and there is darkness everywhere…

The best prayer we can offer him and his memory is to

dedicate ourselves to truth and to the cause for which the

great countryman of ours lived and for which he died.”

Sardar Patel appealed to the people not to seek revenge

but to follow Gandhi’s message of love and non-violence.

He said, “It is a shame for us that the greatest man of the

world has had to pay with his life for the sins which we have

committed. We did not follow him when he was alive; let

us at least follow his steps now he is dead.”

Nathuram Godse was tried and sentenced to death. At

his trial he declared that he had acted as he had because of

Gandhi’s consistent pandering to the Muslims, “culminating

in his last pro-Muslim fast [which] at last goaded me to the

conclusion that the existence of Gandhi should be brought

to an end immediately”.

On February 4, 1948, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh

(RSS) was banned by the government. It was felt by the

Challenges Before the Newborn Nation

✫

635

government that the right wing extremism which the RSS was

seen to represent would be very harmful for the unity of the

nation. Though not directly involved in the assassination of

Gandhi, the organisation was seen to have a hand in the Punjab

violence. It also attracted the support of many of the

refugees. It was also rumoured that the members of the RSS

had celebrated the death of Gandhi. Nehru considered that

groups such as the RSS had “the blood of Mahatma Gandhi

on their hands” even though they dissociated themselves from

his killing. The ban was lifted in July 1949, when the RSS

accepted the conditions laid down by the government. These

conditions were that the Sangh would restrict itself to cultural

activities and not meddle with politics; renounce its agenda

of violence and secrecy; profess publicly loyalty to the Indian

Constitution and flag (tri-colour); and organise itself on

democratic principles.

Rehabilitation and Resettlement
of Refugees

The people displaced by partition were ‘refugees’ in the sense

that they had not left their homes voluntarily. The two new

governments did not organise an orderly exchange of

population. Refugee resettlement became the immediate

challenge for both governments (India and Pakistan). The

Indian government established an emergency committee of

the cabinet to deal with the crisis in Delhi, and a Ministry

of Relief and Rehabilitation to look after the refugees. In

view of large-scale influx of displaced people, the notion of

‘evacuee property’ to be protected by government, for any

future return of those who had left for Pakistan, became an

empty rhetoric because it was almost impossible to force

the refugees who settled in the empty houses of Muslims.

(This, at a later time, made the return of the refugees

impossible.)

East Punjab

Some refugees were accommodated temporarily in refugee

camps, which were run till 1949. For urban refugees, the

government started industrial and vocational training schemes,

636

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

and even grants were given to start small businesses or

industries. The rural refugees were given land, agricultural

loans, and housing subsidies. Although, the state government

and the central government mobilised massive resources, it

was still not adequate and a general trend of differentiated

entitlements to such benefits was observed. For example,

refugees with social and cultural capital—class and caste

status and political connections—often got the better deal,

while the depressed classes were given little or no

consideration.

Bengal

The problem was much more prolonged and complicated in

Bengal. By 1948, only a small group of high-caste, landed

or middle-class Hindus migrated to West Bengal by arranging

exchange of property or jobs on individual levels. But during

December 1949 and January 1950, due to a fresh outbreak

of violence in Khulna, a large number of peasants started to

leave East Pakistan. In revenge, anti-Muslim riots started in

February 1950 and forced about one million Muslims to

leave West Bengal. This further aggravated anti-Hindu violence

in East Pakistan and by 1951, about 15 lakh Hindu refugees

arrived in West Bengal. But the Indian government did not

recognise these migrants as refugees and Nehru tried to send

them back.

Delhi Pact on Minorities

To resolve the problems of refugees and restore communal

peace in the two countries, especially in Bengal (East

Pakistan as well as West Bengal), the Indian prime minister,

Jawaharlal Nehru, and the Pakistani prime minister, Liaquat

Ali Khan, signed an agreement on April 8, 1950. The

agreement, known as the Delhi Pact on Minorities or Nehru-

Liaquat Pact, envisaged the appointment of ministers from

minority communities in both Pakistan and India at both

central and provincial levels. Under the pact, minority

commissions were to be set up, together with the Commissions

of Inquiry to look into the probable causes behind the

communal riots on both sides of border (in Bengal) and to

recommend steps to prevent recurrence of such incidents.

Under the pact, India and Pakistan also agreed to include

Challenges Before the Newborn Nation

✫

637

representatives of the minority community in the cabinets

of East Pakistan and West Bengal and decided to depute two

central ministers, one from each government, to remain in

the affected regions for such period as might be necessary.

The pact provided for the creation of an agency

entrusted with the task of recovering and rehabilitating

‘abducted’ women (the idea was criticised by many scholars).

The idea to encourage refugees to return to their original

homes failed, because the two governments failed to restore

confidence among the refugees. Further, the properties of

the refugees were declared as enemy property. [India brought

amendments in the Enemy Property Act, 1968 in 2016 also.]

The provisions of the Nehru-Liaquat Pact were severely

criticised by Hindu nationalists like Syama Prasad Mukherjee

(also spelt Shyama Prasad Mookerjee) and K.C. Neogy.

Mukherjee resigned from the Nehru cabinet in protest, as

he believed that the refugee problem could only be solved

through a transfer of population and acquisition of certain

territories from Pakistan to rehabilitate the people who came

into India.

Centres of Refugee Settlements in India

In Delhi, Lajpat Nagar, Rajinder Nagar, Punjabi Bagh,

Nizamuddin East, and Kingsway Camp were some areas

developed into housing complexes to settle the refugees

permanently. People who came from West Pakistan settled

in states like Punjab (which at the time included the present

day Haryana) and Himachal Pradesh. The Sindhi Hindus

settled in Gujarat, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, and Madhya Pradesh.

Ulhasnagar (city of joy), in Maharashtra, was especially

developed to settle refugees from Sindh areas.

West Bengal, Assam, Tripura, and other north-eastern

states accommodated the refugees from East Pakistan (present

Bangladesh). The government settled some refugees in the

Andaman Islands too (at present, Bengalis form the largest

linguistic group in some parts of Andaman Islands).

Communists and Independence

On September 1948, on the pretext of maintaining law and

order situation in South India, the Indian army intervened and

638

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

took control of Hyderabad without much resistance from the

Nizam. But the internal politics of Hyderabad became

complicated due to the Telangana movement led by the

communists. The alliance between the Congress and the

communists had broken before the accession of Hyderabad

into India.

In December 1947, the Communist Party of India (CPI)

had denounced the Indian independence as ‘fake’—with the

slogan, ‘ye azadi jhooti hai’—and termed the Congress

government led by Nehru as the stooges of Anglo-American

imperialism and the feudal forces within the country. In

February–March 1948, in its Second Congress in Calcutta,

the CPI adopted its ‘Political Thesis’, which formally declared

that the national government established on August 15, 1947

was indeed the major enemy of the Indian people and hence

required to be changed through general revolution. To achieve

this goal, the communist leaders decided to follow what

popularly came to be known as the B.T. Ranadive line (after

the name of CPI’s then general secretary). They declared,

“The present state will be replaced by a people’s democratic

republic—a republic of workers, peasants and oppressed

middle classes.” The Communist insurgency spread to other

parts of India, especially in West Bengal, which saw the

revival of the Tebhaga Movement and an urban insurgency

in Calcutta.

Why Communists were Sceptical about
Independence

1. They believed that a policy of class struggle and

armed insurgency against the State run by the Congress,

alleged as collaborationist bourgeoisie, was necessary to

shift the attention of the masses from the politics of

communal hatred that shrouded the country after partition.

2. The late 1940s and the early 1950s witnessed

communist successes in Asian countries like China, Malaya,

Indonesia, the Philippines, and Burma (Myanmar). In

September 1947, Russia announced its ‘A. Zhdanov thesis’

as an answer to the Marshall Plan, encouraging more activism

on the part of the international communist parties. The Indian

communists thus geared up for an armed insurgency.

Challenges Before the Newborn Nation

✫

639

3. According to Ramachandra Guha, the CPI leadership,

encouraged by the initial successes of the Telangana

Movement, misconceived the scattered disillusionment with

the Congress as revolutionary potential and thought this as

the ‘beginning of Red India’.

Shift from Antagonistic Strategy to
Constitutional Democracy

The communist movement remained localised in Hyderabad

and West Bengal. The mass support was sporadic and

conditional as people were not ready to reject the Congress

so soon after Independence. The government also decided to

take stern action; while in the Hyderabad region, the Indian

armed forces continued its ‘police action’, in West Bengal

the CPI was banned in March 1948 and in January, a security

act was passed to imprison the communist leaders without

trial. Within the Communist leadership, there were divisions

on the ‘Chinese line’ and the ‘Russian line’ which became

wider after the failure of a proposed railway strike on May

9, 1949.

In September 1950, the prominent communist leaders

like Ajoy Ghosh, S.A. Dange, and S.V. Ghate criticised the

organisation for its faulty strategies and its failure to take

notice of the true picture of independent India. Consequently,

in October 1951, at the Third Party Congress of the CPI,

held in Calcutta, a significant shift in its policy was endorsed.

It decided to withdraw the Telangana Movement and forge

an inclusive front of the peasants, workers, and middle

classes. Consequently, the ban was lifted by the government,

and the Indian communists participated in the general election

of 1951–52, thus moving from an insurrectionist path to the

path of constitutional democracy.

640

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

640

CHAPTER 34

The Indian States

The princely states, also called the Indian states, which

covered a total area of 7,12,508 square miles and numbered

no fewer than 562, included tiny states such as Bilbari with

a population of 27 persons only and some big ones like

Hyderabad (as large as Italy) with a population of 14 million.

The East India Company acquired, in the process of conquest,

important coastal tracts, the valleys of the great navigable

rivers and such tracts which were rich in agricultural products

and densely populated by prosperous people, while, generally,

the Indian states were “the inaccessible and less fertile tracts

of the Indian peninsula”.

The making of Indian states was largely governed by

the same circumstances which led to the growth of East India

Company’s power in India. The evolution of relations between

the British authority and states can be traced under the

following broad stages.

I. The Company’s Struggle for

Equality from a Position of
Subordination (1740–1765)

Starting with Anglo-French rivalry with the coming of

Dupleix in 1751, the East India Company asserted political

identity with the capture of Arcot (1751). With the Battle

of Plassey in 1757, the East India Company acquired political

The Indian States

✫

641

power next only to the Bengal nawabs. In 1765, with the

acquisition of the Diwani of Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa, the

East India Company became a significant political power.

II. Policy of Ring Fence

(1765–1813)

This policy was reflected in Warren Hastings’ wars against

the Marathas and Mysore, and aimed at creating buffer zones
to defend the Company’s frontiers. The main threat was from
the Marathas and Afghan invaders (the Company undertook

to organise Awadh’s defence to safeguard Bengal’s security).
Wellesley’s policy of subsidiary alliance was an extension
of ring fence—which sought to reduce states to a position

of dependence on British Government in India. Major powers
such as Hyderabad, Awadh, and the Marathas accepted
subsidiary alliance. Thus, British supremacy was established.

III. Policy of Subordinate

Isolation (1813–1857)

Now, the imperial idea grew and the theory of paramountcy

began to develop—Indian states were supposed to act in

subordinate cooperation with the British government and

acknowledge its supremacy. The states surrendered all forms

of external sovereignty but retained sovereignty in internal

administration. British Residents were transformed from

diplomatic agents of a foreign power to executive and

controlling officers of a superior government.

In 1833, the Charter Act ended the Company’s

commercial functions even as it retained political functions.

It adopted the practice of insisting on prior approval/sanction

for all matters of succession. In 1834, the Board of Directors

issued guidelines to annex states wherever and whenever

possible. This policy of annexation culminated in usurpation

of eight states by Dalhousie, including some big states such

as Satara and Nagpur.

642

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

IV. Policy of Subordinate Union

(1857–1935)

The year 1858 saw the assumption of direct responsibility

by the Crown. Because of the states’ loyalty during the 1857

revolt and their potential use as breakwaters in political

storms of the future, the policy of annexation was abandoned.

The new policy was to punish or depose but not to annex.

After 1858, the fiction of authority of the Mughal emperor

ended; sanction for all matters of succession was required

from the Crown since the Crown stood forth as the

unquestioned ruler and the paramount power. Now the ruler

inherited the gaddi not as a matter of right but as a gift from

the paramount power, because the fiction of Indian states

standing in a status of equality with the Crown as independent,

sovereign states ended with the Queen adopting the title of

‘Kaiser-i-Hind’ (Queen Empress of India). The paramount

supremacy of the Crown presupposed and implied the

subordination of states. The British government exercised the

right to interfere in the internal spheres of states—partly in

the interest of the princes, partly in the interest of people’s

welfare, partly to secure proper conditions for British

subjects and foreigners, and partly in the interest of the whole

of India.

The British government was further helped in this

encroachment by modern developments in communication—

railways, roads, telegraph, canals, post offices, press, and

public opinion. The Government of India exercised complete

and undisputed control in international affairs—it could

declare war, peace, or neutrality for states. According to the

Butler Commission in 1927, “For the purpose of international

relations, state territory is in the same position as British

territory and state subjects in the same position as British

subjects.”

Curzon’s Approach

Curzon stretched the interpretation of old treaties to mean

that the princes, in their capacity as servants of people, were

supposed to work side-by-side with the governor general in

The Indian States

✫

643

the scheme of Indian government. He adopted a policy of

patronage and ‘intrusive surveillance’. He thought the relations

between the states and government were neither feudal nor

federal, but a type not based on a treaty but consisting of

a series of relationships having grown under different historical

conditions that, in the course of time, gradually conformed

to a single line.

The new trend seemed to reduce all states to a single

type—uniformly dependent on the British government and

considered as an integral part of the Indian political system.

Post-1905

A policy of cordial cooperation began to counter progressive

and revolutionary developments in the face of large-scale

political unrests.

According to the recommendations of the Montford

Reforms (1921), a Chamber of Princes (Narendra Mandal)

was set up as a consultative and advisory body having no say

in the internal affairs of individual states and having no

powers to discuss matters concerning existing rights and

freedoms. For the purpose of the chamber, the Indian states

were divided into three categories:

1. Directly represented—109

2. Represented through representatives—127

3. Recognised as feudal holdings or jagirs

Butler Committee

The question of extent of sovereignty and paramountcy was

still undefined. The Butler Committee (1927) was set up to

examine the nature of relationship between the

princely states and the government. It gave the following

recommendations:

1. Paramountcy must remain supreme and must fulfil

its obligations, adopting and defining itself according to the

shifting necessities of time and progressive development of

states.

2. States should not be handed over to an Indian

Government in British India, responsible to an Indian

legislature, without the consent of states.

Thus, paramountcy was left undefined and this hydra-

headed creature was left to feed on usage, Crown’s prerogative

and the princes’ implied consent.

644

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

V. Policy of Equal Federation

(1935–1947): A Non-Starter

The Government of India Act, 1935 proposed a Federal

Assembly with 125 out of 375 seats for the princes and the

Council of States with 104 out of 160 seats for the princes,

under its scheme of an all-India federation, which was subject

to ratification by states representing more than half of the

population and entitled to more than half of the seats in the

Council of States.

This scheme never came into existence and after the

outbreak of World War II (September 1939), it was dropped

altogether.

VI. Integration and Merger

After World War II began and a position of non-cooperation

was adopted by the Congress, the British government tried

to break the deadlock through the Cripps Mission (1942),

Wavell Plan (1945), Cabinet Mission (1946), and Attlee’s

Statement (February 1947).

Cripps held that the British government did not

contemplate transferring paramountcy of Crown to any other

party in India. The states tried various schemes to forge a

union of their own, envisaging themselves as sovereign in

status or as a third force in the Indian political scene. The

June 3 Plan and Attlee’s Statement made it clear that the

states were free to join either of the two dominions, and

Mountbatten refused to give a sovereign status to the states.

Sardar Patel, who was in charge of the states’ ministry

in the interim cabinet, helped by V.P. Menon, the secretary

in the ministry, appealed to the patriotic feeling of rulers

to join the Indian dominion in matters of defence,

communication, and external affairs—the three areas which

had been part of the paramountcy of the Crown and over

which the states had anyway no control. By August 15, 1947,

136 states had joined the Indian Union but others remained

precariously outside.

The Indian States

✫

645

Plebiscite and Army Action

1. Junagarh The Muslim Nawab wanted to join Pakistan,

but a Hindu majority population wanted to join the Indian

Union. In the face of the repressive attitude of the nawab,

there was a plebiscite which decided in favour of India.

2. Hyderabad Hyderabad wanted a sovereign status. It

signed a Standstill Agreement with India in November 1947.

Indian troops withdrew and the Nizam’s police and

stormtroopers (Razakkars) took over. The Nizam wanted an

outlet to the sea (Goa). The violence and supply of foreign

arms prompted Indian troops to move in again in 1948—

described as “a police action to restore law and order”.

Hyderabad acceded in November 1949.

3. Kashmir The state of Jammu and Kashmir had a

Hindu prince and a Muslim majority population. The prince

envisaged a sovereign status for the state and was reluctant

to accede to either of the dominions. As he procrastinated,

the newly established state of Pakistan sent its forces behind

a front of tribal militia and moved menacingly towards

Srinagar. It was now that the prince was forced to sign an

Instrument of Accession (October 1947) with the Indian

Union, endorsed by the popular leader Sheikh Abdullah.

Indian troops were despatched to defend the state against the

raiders from Pakistan. India’s complaints to the UN Security

Council regarding raids from Pakistan and the Indian offer

to settle the status of the state through a plebiscite led to

a ceasefire but left 84,000 square km of area under Pakistani

occupation. The special status of Jammu and Kashmir was

recognised under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution

which implied a limited jurisdiction of the Indian Union over

the state as compared to other states.

Gradual Integration

The problem now was two-fold:

(i) of transforming the states into viable administrative

units, and

(ii) of absorbing them into the constitutional units.

This was sought to be solved by:

1. incorporating smaller states (216 such states) into

contiguous provinces and listed in Part A; for

646

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

instance, 39 states of Orissa and Chhattisgarh were

incorporated into Central Provinces, Orissa. Gujarat

states were incorporated into Bombay;

2. making some states as centrally administered for

strategic or special reasons, listed in Part-C (61

states)— Himachal Pradesh, Vindhya Pradesh,

Manipur, Tripura, Bhopal, etc.; and

3. creating five unions—United States of Kathiawar,

United States of Matsya, Patiala and East Punjab

States Union, Rajasthan, and United States of

Travancore-Cochin (later Kerala).

Initially, these states acceded with respect to defence,

communication, external affairs; later they felt that a closer

association was necessary. The five unions and Mysore

accepted Indian jurisdiction in Union, concurrent subjects

except taxation and subject to differences as under Article

238 and the supervisory power of Union for 10 years.

The Seventh Amendment (1956) abolished Part-B states

as a class and formed one class out of Parts A and B; thus

special provisions relating to Part B states were deleted.

The Indian states thus became part of one uniform

political set-up.

Making of the Constitution for India

✫

647

647

CHAPTER 35

Making of the

Constitution for India

The Indian Constitution, which came into effect on January

26, 1950, has the distinction of being the longest in the world

in terms of its length, content, the and complexity owing to

the country’s size and diversity. At the time of framing of

the constitution, India was deeply divided besides being large

and diverse, and hence it was designed in a way to keep the

country together. If in one way, it sought to make Indians

of different classes, castes, and communities come together

for a shared vision, in another way it sought to nurture

democratic institutions in what had long been a culture of

hierarchy and deference.

Background

Although the Constitution of India was framed between

December 1946 and December 1949, its roots lie deep in

the Indian national movement against the colonial rule as well

as in the movements for responsible and constitutional

government in the princely states.

Mridula Mukherjee, in her work, India Since

Independence, has rejected the idea that the British initiated

a modern, responsible, and constitutional government in India

and that the 1950 Constitution was merely the culmination

of the series of constitutional initiatives made by the British

in 1861, 1892, 1909, 1919, and 1935. The fact that British

648

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

concessions, at every stage, fell far short of what nationalists

were demanding for.

In the modern sense, there appeared the Constitution

of India Bill, also known as the Home Rule Bill in 1895,

which envisaged basic human rights such as freedom of

expression, equality before the law, right to the inviolability

of one’s home, right to property, etc., for all citizens of India.

Although, there is no conclusive evidence to prove the

authorship of the Home Rule Bill, Annie Besant believed that

the bill was inspired by Tilak.

In 1922, Mahatma Gandhi, in an article titled

‘Independence’ published in Young India, wrote that Swaraj

would not be a free gift of the British Parliament but a

declaration of India’s full self-expression—the Constitution

of India would be framed as per the wishes of the Indians.

The Commonwealth of India Bill, which was drafted in

India and to which Annie Besant, Tej Bahadur Sapru, V.S.

Srinivasa Shastri made important contributions, was accepted

unanimously by the executive committee of the Parliamentary

Labour Party. The bill had its first reading in the House of

Commons in December 1925; it was defeated, but it proved

crucial as it had the support of very wide sections of Indian

opinion, and it specified in clear words that “India shall be

placed on an equal footing with the self-governing dominions”.

After the Non-Cooperation Movement, Motilal Nehru

in February 1924 introduced in the Central Legislative

Assembly a resolution that gave due regard to minority rights

and interests and came to be known as the National Demand.

It was passed by a large majority in the Assembly. For the

first time, a demand for a constitution and the procedure for

its adoption were expounded in clear terms.

Britain, in response to the National Demand, appointed

the all-white Simon Commission in November 1927 to

recommend further constitutional changes.

In response to Lord Birkenhead’s challenge, the Nehru

Report, submitted on August 1928, was an outline of a draft

constitution for India. Most of its features were later

incorporated in the Constitution of independent India.

The report embodied not only the perspective of the

contemporary nationalist opinion but also an outline of a draft

Making of the Constitution for India

✫

649

constitution for India. The latter was based on the principle

of dominion status with full responsible government on the

parliamentary pattern. It asserted the principle that sovereignty

belongs to the Indian people, laid down a set of fundamental

rights and provided for a federal system with maximum

autonomy granted to the units but residuary powers vesting

in the central government and joint electorates for elections

to the federal lower house and the provincial legislatures with

reservation of seats for minorities in certain cases for a

limited period.

In the aftermath of the Nehru Report, the Simon

Commission was boycotted, and in December 1929, the

Congress declared complete independence as its ultimate

goal. The idea that India’s Constitution should be framed via

a Constituent Assembly elected for this very purpose and

based on the widest possible franchise gained support.

Although, M.N. Roy had made such a suggestion earlier,

Jawaharlal Nehru was the first national leader to enunciate

the idea in 1933.

The Congress took up the demand for a constituent

assembly as a part of its official policy in 1934 after refusing

the Simon Commission’s recommendations of 1933 as not

expressive of the will of the people. Jawaharlal Nehru

declared that the Congress had proposed “the Constitution

of India must be framed, without outside interference, by a

Constituent Assembly elected on the basis of adult franchise”,

and, the Working Committee of the Congress reiterated the

stand. At the Lucknow session of the Congress in 1936, it

was declared that “no constitution imposed by an outside

authority and no constitution which curtails the sovereignty

of the people” would be acceptable to the Congress.

In July 1937, after the Congress accepted office in a

majority of provinces, Nehru pressed the legislators to

introduce resolutions in the assemblies rejecting the present

constitution and demanding a Constituent Assembly. In

August, the CWC accepted a draft resolution prepared under

Acharya Kripalani. Between August and October 1937, all the

Congress-ruled provinces and Sind passed this resolution and

demanded repealment of the Government of India Act, 1935.

In September 1937 itself, a resolution recommending the

650

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

replacement of the 1935 Act by a constitution framed by

a constituent assembly was introduced in the Central

Legislative Assembly by S. Satyamurti. The same demand was

reiterated in the Haripura session of 1938.

The Cripps Proposals of 1942, though rejected by the

Congress as unacceptable, had one redeeming feature in that

it conceded the request of Indians to frame their own

constitution through a constituent assembly.

In September 1945, the newly elected Labour

government in England announced that it planned to create

a constituent assembly in India. On March 15, 1946, the

Cabinet Mission came to India and, in the course of its stay,

recommended the forming of (a) the Constituent Assembly,

and (b) an interim government.

Constituent Assembly

Formation

It was decided that the Constituent Assembly was to be

elected indirectly by the Provincial Assemblies. According

to the plan, the provinces of British India were grouped into

three categories, A, B, and C. Each province was allotted

seats on the basis of the population, in the ratio of one

member for a million. The seats given to a province were

decided among three communities on the basis of their

number, the three communities being the Muslims, Sikhs, and

General including Hindus and all others who were not

Muslims and Sikhs. They were to be elected by the

representatives of each community in their respective

legislative assemblies by the method of proportional

representation with single transferable vote. The number of

members allotted to the Indian states was also to be fixed

on the same basis of population as adopted for British India,

but the method of their selection was to be settled later by

consultation. The strength of the constitution-making body

was to be 389. Of these, 296 representatives were to be from

British India, (292 representatives drawn from the eleven

Governors’ Provinces of British India and a representative

each from the four Chief Commissioners’ Provinces of

Delhi, Ajmer-Merwara, Coorg, and British Baluchistan) and

Making of the Constitution for India

✫

651

93 representatives from the Indian states. The states’

representatives were to be nominated by the respective rulers.

Elections for the 296 seats assigned to the British

Indian Provinces were completed by July–August 1946. The

Congress won 208 seats including all the General seats

except 9 and the Muslim League 73 seats, that is, all but

5 of the seats allotted to Muslims.

The 93 seats meant for the states’ representatives

remained vacant and the princely states decided not to

participate in the Constituent Assembly. However,

representatives of some of the states (Baroda, Bikaner,

Jaipur, Patiala, Rewa, and Udaipur) entered the Assembly by

April 1947 and by August 15, 1947 and, soon after, all the

states had sent their representatives to the Assembly.

The Assembly was, however, not able to start its work

immediately as Jinnah withdrew his acceptance and caused

the Muslim League to boycott it. The Congress went ahead

with its plan and appointed an expert committee to draft

Fundamental Rights and arrange an early session of the

Assembly. The party also accepted the viceroy’s invitation

to form an interim government, with Jawaharlal Nehru as

prime minister. The Constituent Assembly opened on

December 9, 1946 in the Constitution Hall—now the Central

Hall of Parliament House at New Delhi. Jawaharlal Nehru

moved the historic Objectives Resolution on 13 December

1946, after it had been in session for some days. The

resolution envisaged a federal polity with the residuary

powers vesting in the autonomous units and sovereignty

belonging to the people. The resolution gave to the Assembly

its guiding principles and the philosophy of constitution-

making.

Two Constituent Assemblies: India and

Pakistan

By the end of January 1947, it was clear that there was no

possibility of the Muslim League’s joining the Assembly; an

uncompromising call for a separate constituent assembly for

Pakistan had been given by Jinnah. On June 26, 1947, Lord

Mountbatten, the Governor General of India, announced the

setting up of a separate Constituent Assembly for Pakistan.

652

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

The Indian Independence Act, 1947, passed with surprising

speed, came into force on July 18, 1947.

The Indian Independence Act, 1947 declared the

Constituent Assembly of India to be a fully sovereign body,

and on the midnight of August 14–15, 1947, the Assembly

assumed full powers of the governance of the country.

Section 8 of the act conferred on the Constituent Assembly

full legislative power.

Evaluation of the Assembly for India

The assembly, set up under the Cabinet Mission Plan, was

a result of compromises made by the Congress on its

ideological and philosophical sphere. The assembly was not

fully sovereign despite the efforts of the Congress, whereas

the Congress’ demand was for a fully sovereign assembly.

Nor was it elected on the basis of universal adult franchise

as the Congress had demanded. The Congress caved in to

accept communal representation too, and the grouping plan

for the provinces. It also went along with the limits imposed

on the powers of the central government. So, the Constituent

Assembly set up was quite far from what the Congress had

demanded in the later years of the freedom struggle.

The Constituent Assembly was indirectly elected by the

provincial assemblies, which themselves were elected on the

basis of a limited franchise established by the Government

of India Act of 1935. The 1935 Act imposed qualifications

on the basis of tax, property, and education. This kept out

more than 70 per cent of the adult population from the voting.

The Constituent Assembly thus reflected the composition of

the provincial assemblies in which the Congress had a

comfortable majority (which rose to more than 80 per cent

after partition).

The composition of the Assembly reflected the different

ideological views present in the country at the time. There

were Socialists, the Marxian as well as the democratic

variety. Both groups were opposed to private ownership of

important means of production and wanted an egalitarian

society, while the Marxian variety wanted a revolutionary

reconstruction. It was the more moderate group (of which

Nehru was a member) preferring peaceful parliamentary

Making of the Constitution for India

✫

653

Drafting Committee

(1) Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (Chairman) (2) G.B. Pant (3) K.M. Munshi
(4) Alladi Krishnaswamy Iyer (5) N. Gopalaswami Ayengar (6) B.L.
Mitra (later replaced with Madhav Rao) (7) Sayyid Muhammad
Sadullah (7) D.P. Khaitan died in 1948 and hence T.T. Krishnamachari
was appointed.

methods that held sway. Sardar Patel may be considered a

leader of the Rightist views supporting private enterprise. The

rightist point of view was also represented by Purushottam

Das Tandon and S.P. Mukherjee. There were also the

Gandhians proposing decentralised village government through

panchayats. All these viewpoints influenced the Constitution,

to an extent, but the dominant influence was that of the

liberals and the democratic socialists.

After Independence

With the independence of India on August 15, 1947, the

Constituent Assembly became a sovereign body responsible

for framing the Constitution as well as making ordinary laws.

Now the work of Constituent Assembly was organised into

five stages: first—committees were required to present

reports on basic issues; second—Benegal Narsing Rau, a

judge of the Calcutta High Court and also the constitutional

adviser of the constituent assembly, prepared an initial draft

on the basis of the reports of these committees and on his

own research into the constitutions of other countries;

third—the drafting committee, under the chairmanship of Dr

B.R. Ambedkar, presented a detailed draft constitution which

was published for public discussion and comments. Criticisms

and counter-criticisms in the press in turn moulded the nature

of the consensus that was ultimately reached on specific

issues; fourth—the draft constitution was debated and

amendments proposed; fifth—the Constitution of India was

adopted.

Work : Committees and Consensus

When the Constituent Assembly first met on December 9,

1946, J.B. Kripalani, the then Congress president, proposed

654

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

the name of Dr Sachhidanand Sinha, the oldest member of

the Assembly, for the post of the provisional president. Later,

on December 11, Dr Rajendra Prasad was elected as the

President of the Constituent Assembly.

The Constituent Assembly appointed several committees

for framing the Constitution.

These committees submitted their reports between

April and August 1947, and on the basis of these reports,

Dr B.N. Rau, the Constitutional Adviser, submitted a draft

of the Constitution by the end of October 1947. This draft

contained 240 Clauses and 13 Schedules. In order to consider

this Draft Constitution, a Drafting Committee under the

chairmanship of Dr B.R. Ambedkar (the law minister at the

time) was set up. (The other members were: Alladi

Krishnaswami Iyer, N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar, K.M. Munshi,

Saiyad Mohammad Saadulla, Sir B.L. Mitter, and D.P. Khaitan.

After the first meeting Sir B.L. Mitter resigned and in his

place N. Madhava Rao was nominated, and T.T. Krishnamachari

took the place of D.P. Khaitan on the latter’s death in 1948.)

The Drafting Committee prepared the first draft of the

Constitution. This was then circulated for the comments of

jurists, lawyers, judges, and other publicmen. In the light of

their comments and criticism, the Drafting Committee

prepared a second draft which consisted of 315 Articles and

9 Schedules. This second draft was placed before the

Constituent Assembly on February 21, 1948. The draft was

then considered clause by clause by the Assembly. The third

reading commenced on November 14 and was finished on

November 26, 1949. The Preamble was adopted last. It had

taken 2 years, 11 months, and 18 days to complete the task.

As many as 7,000 odd amendments had been proposed and

nearly 2,500 were actually discussed before the Draft

Constitution was accepted.

Dr Ambedkar then moved a motion that the Constitution,

as settled by the Constituent Assembly, be passed. On

November 26, 1949, the people of India in the Constituent

Assembly adopted, enacted, and gave to themselves the

Constitution of the Sovereign Democratic Republic of India.

Dr Rajendra Prasad, as president of the assembly, signed the

document.

The members of the Constituent Assembly appended

Making of the Constitution for India

✫

655

View

[a]ny claim for the sharing of power by the minority...[is] called
communalism while the monopolising of the whole power by the
majority...[is] called Nationalism.

—B.R. Ambedkar

their signatures to it on January 24, 1950—the last day of

the Assembly. In all, 284 members actually signed the

Constitution.

The Constituent Assembly, besides drafting the

Constitution of India, adopted the National Flag on July 22,

1947, and adopted the National Anthem and National Song

on January 24, 1950—the last day of its session.

The Constituent Assembly elected Dr Rajendra Prasad

as the first President of India on January 24, 1950.

Late in the evening of August 14, 1947, the Assembly

met in the Constitution Hall, and at the stroke of midnight,

took over as the Legislative Assembly of an Independent

India.

The Assembly continued as the provisional Parliament

of India from January 26, 1950 till the new Parliament was

installed after the first general elections.

It must, however, be noted that while the formal centres

of the work of drafting the Constitution were, no doubt, the

Constituent Assembly and the Drafting Committee, the

Congress leaders held the important powers of decision-

making. In a way, the Congress Working Committee was the

real architect of the Constitution in that most of the

important decisions were arrived at on the basis of what the

Congress leaders suggested. Granville Austin points out that

four men—Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Patel, Rajendra Prasad,

and Abul Kalam Azad—constituted a virtual oligarchy in the

Assembly and dominated the proceedings by virtue of the

prestige and power they enjoyed both in the Congress and

in the government.

The manner in which the Constituent Assembly arrived

at decisions was that of consensus, defined by Granville

Austin as “the manner of making decisions by unanimity or

near unanimity”. An effort was made to smoothen differences

and arrive at compromises and agreement. The objective was

to overcome the biases, and an element of overruling dissent,

ingrained in decision by majority.

656

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

656

CHAPTER 36

The Evolution of

Nationalist Foreign Policy

One of the factors that facilitated India’s ready interaction

with the world outside, immediately on independence, was

the already well-established diplomatic engagement even

under colonial rule. At independence, India was a member

of 51 international organisations and a signatory to 600 odd

treaties. India had signed the Versailles Treaty after the First

World War, largely as a result of having contributed more

than a million soldiers to that war. In the 1920s, it was a

founding member of the League of Nations, the International

Labour Organisation, and the International Court of Justice.

It participated in the Washington Conference on Naval

Armaments in 1921–22. From 1920, there was an Indian high

commissioner in London. Even before the First World War,

Indian nationals were staffing a few diplomatic posts. It was

no accident that Indians formed the largest and most influential

non-Western contingent in the United Nations and allied

agencies very soon after independence.

The basic framework of India’s foreign policy was

structured much before 1947.

A significant and inevitable fallout of the Western

influence on the nationalist intelligentsia was a growing

interest in and contact with the dominant international

currents and events. Gradually, the nationalist thinkers came

to realise that colonialism and imperialism had an international

The Evolution of Nationalist Foreign Policy

✫

657

character and much wider implications. With the development

and crystallisation of an anti-imperialist nationalist ideology,

there emerged a nationalist foreign policy perspective. The

evolution of this policy perspective can be traced under these

broad phases.

From 1880 to First World War:
Anti-imperialism and Pan-Asian
Feeling

After 1878, the British undertook a number of expansionist

expeditions which were opposed by the nationalists. These

expeditions included:

●

the Second Afghan War (1878–80);

●

the dispatch of troops by England in 1882, to

suppress the nationalist uprising by Colonel Arabi

in Egypt;

●

annexation of Burma in 1885;

●

invasion of Tibet under Curzon in 1903; and

●

a number of annexations during the 1890s in the

north-west to stop the Russian advance. The

nationalists supported the tribal resistance to these

adventures by the British.

In place of an aggressive imperialism, the nationalists

advocated a policy of peace. C. Sankaran Nair, the Congress

president in 1897, said, “Our true policy is a peaceful policy.”

So, the emerging themes during 1880–1914 were:

1. Solidarity with other colonies fighting for freedom,

such as Russia, Ireland, Egypt, Turkey, Ethiopia, Sudan,

Burma, and Afghanistan;

2. Pan-Asian feeling reflected in:

●

condemnation of annexation of Burma in 1885;

●

inspiration from Japan as an example of industrial

development;

●

condemnation of the participation of Japan in the

international suppression of the I-Ho-Tuan uprising

(1895);

●

condemnation of the imperialist efforts to divide

China;

658

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

●

defeat of the Czarist Russia by Japan which exploded

the myth of European superiority; and

●

Congress support for Burma’s freedom.

World War I

The nationalists supported the British Indian Government in

the belief that Britain would apply the same principles of

democracy for which they were supposed to be fighting. After

the conclusion of the War, the Congress insisted on being

represented at the Peace Conference. In 1920, the Congress

urged the people not to join the army to fight in the West.

In 1925, the Congress condemned the dispatch of Indian

Army to suppress the Chinese nationalist army under Sun-

Yat-Sen.

1920s and 1930s—Identifying
with Socialists

In 1926 and 1927, Nehru was in Europe where he came in

contact with the socialists and other leftist leaders. Earlier,

Dadabhai Naoroji attended the Hague session of the

International Socialist Congress. He was a close friend of

H.M. Hyndman, the famous socialist. Lajpat Rai also made

contacts with the American socialists during his visit to the

USA from 1914 to 1918. Gandhi had close relations with

Tolstoy and Rolland Romain. In 1927, Nehru attended the

Congress of Oppressed Nationalists at Brussels on behalf of

the Indian National Congress. The conference was organised

by political exiles and revolutionaries from Asia, Africa, and

Latin America, suffering from political and economic

imperialism. Nehru was one of the honorary presidents along

with Einstein, Madam Sun-Yet-Sen, Rolland Romain, and

George Lansbury. Nehru came to understand the international

character of US imperialism during his European experience.

Nehru was also nominated to the executive council of the

League Against Imperialism. The Congress also decided to

open a foreign department to be in touch with the other

peoples’ movements. In 1927, Nehru also visited the Soviet

The Evolution of Nationalist Foreign Policy

✫

659

Union and was very impressed by the achievements of the

infant socialist state. He saw Russia as a bulwark against

imperialism.

After 1936—Anti-Fascism

The 1930s saw the rise of Fascism in Europe and the struggle

against it. The nationalists saw imperialism and fascism as

organs of capitalism. They lend support to the struggle against

fascism in other parts of the world in Ethiopia, Spain, China,

and Czechoslovakia. In 1939, at the Tripuri session, the

Congress dissociated itself from the British policy which

supported fascism in Europe.

In 1939, the Japanese attack on China was condemned

by the nationalists. The Congress also sent a medical mission

under Dr Atal to China.

On the Palestine issue, the Congress lent support to

the Palestinians. It expressed sympathy with the Jews, but

urged that the Palestinians not be displaced and that the issue

be settled by direct dealing between the Jews and the Arabs

without Western intervention. It also opposed the partition

of Palestine.

After Independence

Nehru is often called the architect of independent India’s

foreign policy. He realised the importance of the need to

have direct contact with other nations and to cooperate with

them in enhancing world peace and freedom; he also

understood the importance of maintaining an identity as a free

nation and not become a satellite of any other nation, however

mighty. In his address to the Constituent Assembly on

December 4, 1947, Nehru laid the foundations of India’s

foreign policy: “....the art of conducting the foreign affairs

of a country lies in finding out what is most advantageous

to the country. We may talk about peace and freedom and

earnestly mean what we say. But in the ultimate analysis, a

government functions for the good of the country it governs,

and no government dare do anything which in the short or

long run is manifestly to the disadvantage of the country.”

660

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

The main challenge to Nehru was to evolve a policy

that could help India compete on the world arena with the

modern states, and for that, he realised, a drastic socio-

economic and technological transformation of the country

was required. His objective was to transform India without

becoming dependent on any particular country or group of

countries to the extent of losing independence of thought

or policy. What India needed was peaceful relations with all

nations so that it could concentrate on its developmental

efforts, and relations good enough for it to get the necessary

help in that direction without compromising its freedom. In

the circumstances, non-alignment seemed to be the right

policy.

Panchsheel and Non-Alignment

Panchsheel and Non-Alignment are the foundations of India’s

foreign policy.
Panchsheel

It was on April 29, 1954, that Panchsheel, or the Five

Principles of Peaceful Co-existence, were first formally

enunciated in the Agreement on Trade and Intercourse

between the Tibet region of China and India. It was stated

in the preamble to this agreement that the two governments

had resolved to enter into the agreement on the basis of five

principles, namely,

(i) Mutual respect for each other’s territorial integrity

and sovereignty

(ii) Mutual non-aggression

(iii) Mutual non-interference

(iv) Equality and mutual benefit

(v) Peaceful co-existence

In June 1954, when the Chinese premier, Zhou Enlai

visited India, he and his Indian counterpart, Jawaharlal Nehru

in a joint statement elaborated their vision of Panchsheel as

the framework for the relations between the two countries

as well as the basis on which relations with other countries

should be maintained. The two leaders expressed the hope

that Panchsheel “will also help in creating an area of peace

which as circumstances permit can be enlarged thus lessening

the chances of war and strengthening the cause of peace all

over the world”.

The Evolution of Nationalist Foreign Policy

✫

661

Historical Perspective on Panchsheel

In the classical language, the word ‘sheel’ doesn’t mean ‘principle’
but ‘character’. The term is taken from the Indonesian usage of
the word — and Indonesians may have been influenced by the
Buddhist use of the word ‘sheel’. Most Indians think ‘Panchsheel’
was Jawaharlal Nehru’s valuable contribution to the world, as it first
received world attention when he and Zhou Enlai issued a joint
statement in Delhi on June 18, 1954. In fact, the credit for
formulating these principles should go to Zhou. While receiving the
Indian delegation to the Tibetan trade talks on December 31, 1953,
he enunciated them as “five principles governing China’s relations
with foreign countries”.

T.N. Kaul, a joint secretary in the external affairs ministry

at the time or Director General for Asian Affairs in Delhi, was
impressed and conveyed his appreciation and the significance of
these principles to Nehru, with whom he enjoyed a close rapport.
Nehru agreed and Kaul took the initiative to mention them at the
very outset of his draft text of agreement. That was in January
1954. However, the response from the Chinese foreign office was
in the negative. At the time Zhou wasn’t in China.

When Zhou returned to Peking, he, with his native genius for

compromise, found a via-media. He suggested that the five
principles may not be included in the main text prominently, but
could appear in the preamble. India accepted the compromise. But
two months later, when Zhou visited Delhi, Nehru and Kaul
emphasised these principles in the joint statement issued on June
18, 1954. China’s hesitant formulation caught worldwide attention
because of Indian sponsorship. Zhou propounded the principles, but
Kaul picked them up and Nehru propagated them. Nehru enjoyed
high regard in the NAM, and soon, other Asian countries like Burma
and Indonesia followed suit.

Nehru and Zhou were leaders who strove hard to forge close

ties between India and China and usher in a better world order
through Panchsheel. Their efforts, however, were undermined and
undone by the machinations of self-seeking or vindictive colleagues
and they died disenchanted men.

Source: An article by V.V. Paranjpe, formerly Chinese

language expert to the Government of India, in

The Hindustan Times

of June 2004.

662

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

As per the documents of the Ministry of External

Affairs, Panchsheel was incorporated into the Ten Principles

of International Peace and Cooperation put forward in the

Declaration issued by the April 1955 Bandung Conference

of 29 Afro-Asian countries. The universal relevance of

Panchsheel was emphasised when its tenets were incorporated

in a resolution on peaceful co-existence presented by India,

Yugoslavia, and Sweden, and unanimously adopted on

December 11, 1957, by the United Nations General Assembly.

And in 1961, the Conference of Non-Aligned Nations in

Belgrade accepted Panchsheel as the basic principles at the

centre of the Non-Aligned Movement.
Non-Alignment

The global environment that India faced after independence

was very different from what existed before the Second

World War. The major players on the world stage before the

War, namely, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and

Japan, lay subdued, their vast empires shrunken or shrinking

fast. The United States, which had followed an isolationist

policy, keeping aloof from active international involvement,

became dramatically active. The Soviet Union had acquired

unprecedented influence in Eastern Europe besides gaining

recognition as a powerful state for crushing the German

might on the Eastern Front where most of the German

military casualties had occurred. If the US demonstrated its

nuclear weapon capability in 1945, the USSR followed suit

with its own nuclear test in 1949. The Cold War that began

in the wake of the Second World War had no precedent in

history. Almost the entire developed world was divided into

two opposing nuclear-armed blocs, with the US and the USSR

leading as ‘superpowers’. The balance of power diplomacy

of the pre-war years thus disappeared from the industrialised

countries. The Third World became a surrogate field for

superpower competition. Meanwhile, decolonisation was

proceeding apace, and more and more independent countries

were emerging, mostly in Asia and Africa. China was aligned

with the Soviet Union till the mid-1950s. India found itself

the largest country with the ability to manoeuvre between the

two blocs.

The Evolution of Nationalist Foreign Policy

✫

663

At this point of time, the Soviet Union did not possess

the economic or military support capability to influence the

countries emerging from the colonial yoke. It was the West,

which tried to incorporate the newly independent countries

into its strategic grouping. Alignment with the West was

economically attractive, but it would have created a dependent

relationship, which was seen by most of the newly independent

countries as obstructive to a self-reliant development. The

idea of aligning with the communist bloc was not possible

for India, in spite of its socialist leanings; it could not

visualise a Chinese-type restructuring of the society and

economy, being basically attuned to a liberal democratic

political vision. Political non-alignment was, therefore,

prudent as well as pragmatic.

The principles of non-interference in the domestic

affairs of other countries and maintenance of one’s own

sovereignty (which are the basic postulates of India’s foreign

policy) evolved into the crystallisation of the concept of

non-alignment. The term ‘non-alignment’ got currency in the

post-Bandung Conference (1955). Non-alignment implies

Five Criteria of Non-alignment

The Preparatory Committee of the first non-aligned conference laid
down the following five criteria of non-alignment:

(i) A country should follow an independent policy based on

peaceful co-existence and non-alignment.

(ii) It should have consistently supported national freedom

movements in other countries.

(iii) It should not be a member of multilateral military alliances

concluded in the context of superpower conflicts.

(iv) If it has conceded military bases, these concessions should

not have been made in the context of superpower conflicts.

(v) If it is a member of a bilateral or regional defence arrangements,

this should not be in the context of superpower politics.

Five Pioneering Leaders of the NAM

(i) President Tito (original name Josip Broz) of Yugoslavia

(ii) President Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt

(iii) President Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana

(iv) President Sukarno of Indonesia

(v) Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru of India

664

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

the active refusal of a state to align itself with either party

in a dispute between two power blocs. In the conference of

non-aligned powers—the first non-aligned movement or

NAM summit—held in Belgrade in 1961 and attended by

36 Mediterranean and Afro-Asian powers, Jawaharlal Nehru

explained the essence of non-alignment: “We call ourselves

the conference of non-aligned countries. Now the word non-

aligned may be differently interpreted but basically it was

used and coined almost with the meaning: non aligned with

greater power blocs of the world. Non-aligned has a negative

meaning but if you give it a positive connotation it means

nations which object to this lining up for war purpose,

military blocs, military alliances and the like. Therefore, we

keep away from this and we want to throw our weight, such

as it is, in favour of peace.”

Non-alignment is the characteristic feature of India’s

foreign policy. India was one of the founder-members of

NAM. In the Cold War era, India refused to favour any super

power and remained non-aligned. Non-alignment, however, is

not to be confused with neutrality. A neutral state remains

inactive or passive during hostilities between two blocs.

Neutrality is maintained basically; in times of war, whereas

non-alignment has relevance both in times of war and peace.

Neutrality is equivalent to passivity, a neutral country has no

opinions (positive or negative) on issues at all. However,

adherence to non-alignment is to have positive and constructive

opinions on international issues. India has firmly and

convincingly asserted its ‘non-aligned’ and not ‘neutral’ stand

on various issues. Non-alignment as one of the principles

of India’s foreign policy attempts to promote international

peace, disarmament, and territorial independence. It aims at

democratisation of international relations by putting an end

to imperialism and hegemony and establishing a just and equal

world order.

First General Elections

✫

665

665

CHAPTER 37

First General Elections

With the Constitution coming into force in 1950, India no

longer had a dominion status and could sever any remaining

links with Britain; it was a sovereign democratic republic.

The provisions of the Constitution relating to citizenship and

Article 324 (the Election Commission) were brought into

force on November 26, 1949, while the rest of the

Constitution came into force on January 26, 1950. The next

year, the government wanted to go in for general elections

to constitute the House of the People—the Lok Sabha—as

provided for in the Constitution.

The founding fathers of the Indian Constitution

incorporated certain aspects of the electoral procedure in the

Constitution itself (Part XV, Articles 324 to 329).

Groundwork for the Elections

The Election Commission

The office of the Election Commission had been set up in

a small way on January 25, 1950. The first Chief Election

Commissioner of India was Sukumar Sen, an ICS officer, who

assumed office on March 21, 1950. Although the Constitution

provides for the appointment of other members of the

Election Commission as and when necessary, for long after

India became a republic the commission was a single-member

one.

The Election Commission of India is a permanent

constitutional body, established in accordance with the

Constitution. It has been made independent of the government

666

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

of the day. Under Article 324, the Election Commission of

India has been vested with the power of the superintendence,

direction, and control of the entire process for conduct of

elections to Parliament and legislature of every state and to

the offices of President and Vice-President of India. The

Election Commission had to do a lot of ground work before

the first polls were held.

Legislation for Polls

Two major measures were passed by Parliament which

provided the detailed law under which elections were to be

held. The first of these measures was the Representation of

the People Act, 1950, which provided for the qualifications

of voters and matters connected with the preparation and

publication of electoral rolls. It also allocated the number

of seats in the House of the People to the several states

and fixed the number of seats in each state legislature. The

second legislation was the Representation of the People Act,

1951, which laid down other provisions relating to

qualifications and disqualifications of members, the conduct

of elections, poll expenses, the poll itself, counting of votes,

etc.

It was only after these laws were passed that the

electoral machinery could be put in place. So, though the

government was in a hurry to hold the elections as early as

1950 and then by the spring of 1951, the first phase of the

elections could be held only from October 15, 1951.

Of the 489 seats in the House of the People to be filled

by election, 72 seats were reserved for candidates belonging

to the Scheduled Castes, and 26 for candidates belonging to

the Scheduled Tribes.

The total number of seats in the Legislative Assemblies

of the states was 3,283. Out of these, 477 seats were reserved

for the Scheduled Castes, and 192 for the Scheduled Tribes.

Independent India Goes to the
Polls for the First Time

The elections were held based on universal adult franchise,

with all those 21 years of age or older having the right to

vote. The total number of voters enrolled in the whole of

India (excluding Jammu and Kashmir) was 17,32,13,635

First General Elections

✫

667

(roughly more than 173 million). Of these, approximately 45

per cent were women voters. The total population of India

(excluding Jammu and Kashmir) according to the 1951

census was 35,66,91,760. As much as 49 per cent of the

total population was thus enrolled as voters.

Challenges

Most of the voters were poor, illiterate, and came from rural

areas, and had no experience of elections. There was much

scepticism about such an electorate being able to exercise

its right to vote in a politically mature and responsible

manner. The electoral exercise was described by some as ‘a

leap in the dark’ and by others as ‘fantastic’ and as ‘an act

of faith’ before the elections took place.

The Election Commission faced many challenges. There

was a house-to-house survey to register the voters. Many

eligible voters could not be included in the electoral rolls

despite much effort on the part of the Election Commission

because of (i) ignorance and apathy of the common voter;

(ii) lack of adequate organisation and experience on the part

of the political parties; and (iii) inexperience and poor

organisation of the governmental machinery in some of the

states.

According to the report by Sukumar Sen after the

elections were over, a large number of women voters had

been enrolled in some states not by their own names but by

the description of the relationship they bore to their male

relations, e.g., as the mother of so and so or the wife of

so and so; this was because local custom dictated that women

do not disclose their proper names to strangers. The Election

Commission had to issue firm instructions that, as the name

of an elector was an essential part of his or her identity,

the correct name must be included in the electoral rolls and

that no elector should be enrolled unless sufficient particulars,

including the name, were given. If a woman did not give her

proper name, she was not to be registered as a voter. As a

result, the names of nearly two to three million out of a total

of nearly 80 million women voters in the country were unable

to be registered as they failed to disclose their proper names,

and these women could not exercise their vote. Most of these

women, says the report, were from the states of Bihar, Uttar

Pradesh, Madhya Bharat, Rajasthan, and Vindhya Pradesh.

668

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

The Election Commission also faced a major problem

with regard to the displaced persons (who had migrated from

Pakistan in the wake of partition) in West Bengal, Punjab,

Delhi and, to some extent, in Assam. These migrants

constituted a considerable floating population, and it was very

difficult to register those of them that were eligible for

registration under the law.

Political parties in a mature democracy participate in

all stages of the process of elections. The parties could be

of great help in the preparation of electoral rolls. However,

India was a nascent democracy and political parties lacked

experience; they took little interest in doing their bit. As it

was, the huge task of preparing the electoral rolls in a country

of some 173 million voters had to be borne almost entirely

by the governmental machinery in the states acting under the

directions of the Election Commission.

With over 70 per cent of the voters being illiterate,

it was necessary for candidates to be identified by symbols.

The Election Commission had to allot a symbol to each major

party and independent candidate. At the time of allotment of

symbols, the political parties became more active. Indeed,

according to the Sen report, a remarkable feature of the

increasing tempo was the formation of new political parties

all over the country, some of them ultimately proving to be

a mushroom growth. There were as many as 178 parties, but

most of these parties virtually disappeared after the elections,

with many of their candidates forfeiting their deposits.

The symbols were painted on the ballot-boxes (this was

later changed to symbols on the ballot papers). “A voter had

to simply insert the ballot paper given to him in the ballot

box of the candidate of his choice in the voting compartment,”

writes former Chief Election Commissioner S.Y. Quraishi

in his book, An Undocumented Wonder: The Making of the

Great Indian Election. The ballot was secret.

Parties in the Fray for the Lok Sabha

Though it was generally accepted that the Congress had the

largest following, various other political strands in India were

also beginning to take shape. Just before the first elections,

Syama Prasad Mukherjee (industries minister under Nehru)

broke away to set up the Bharatiya Jana Sangh (a proto-BJP)

in October 1951. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar revived the Scheduled

First General Elections

✫

669

Castes Federation (which was later named the Republican

Party). Another high-profile Congress leader, J. B. (Acharya)

Kripalani, founded the Kisan Mazdoor Praja Party. Ram

Manohar Lohia and Jayaprakash Narayan, were the forces

behind the Socialist Party. And the communists (then united),

having just abandoned an armed struggle in Telangana, too

contested.

There were 53 political parties participating in the first

general elections for the Lok Sabha seats. These included

the 14 national parties, according to the report by the

Election Commission of India. Besides, there were the

independents. There were a total number of 1,874 candidates,

including 533 independents.

The national parties were:

1. All India Bharatiya Jana Sangh (BJS)

2. Bolshevik Party of India (BPI)

3. Communist Party of India (CPI)

4. Forward Bloc (Marxist Group) FBL (MG)

5. Forward Bloc (Ruikar Group) FBL (RG)

6. Akhil Bharatiya Hindu Mahasabha (HMS)

7. Indian National Congress (INC)

8. Krishikar Lok Party (KLP)

9. Kisan Mazdoor Praja Party (KMPP)

10. Revolutionary Communist Party of India (RCPI)

11. Akhil Bharatiya Ram Rajya Parishad (RRP)

12. Revolutionary Socialist Party (RSP)

13. All India Scheduled Caste Federation (SCF)

14. Socialist Party (SP)

Conduct of Elections

In the first general elections of the nation, there were three

types of constituencies: 314 with single seats, 86 with two

seats, and one with 3 seats. The total seats thus were 489

from 401 constituencies.

There were over 224,000 polling booths, one for

almost every 1,000 voters, and these were equipped with over

2 million steel ballot-boxes, one box for every candidate.

About a million officials supervised the conduct of the polls.

Indelible ink was introduced as a precautionary step:

a mark was put on the voter’s finger as he/she went in to

vote so as to prevent impersonation. (The practice continues

to this day.)

670

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

The first-past-the-post system was the mode, so of the

many candidates, whoever got the plurality or the largest

number of votes would be elected; the winning candidate did

not need to have a majority.

The voter turnout for the elections was 45.7 per cent.

The people demonstrated their ability to vote with knowledge

even though the majority of them were illiterate. The number

of invalid votes was as low as 3 to 4 per cent. The

participation of women was significant with some 40 per cent

of the eligible women voters exercising their vote.

Results

Lok Sabha

The Indian National Congress contested 472 seats and won

364, a stupendous majority of the seats to the Lok Sabha.

The CPI won 16 and the Socialist Party won 12—the only

other parties to get two-digit number of seats. The KMPP

won 9 seats.The BJS won 3 seats. The independents got the

highest number of seats after the Congress.

The Congress polled close to 45 per cent of the total

vote. The CPI got about 3.29 per cent votes. The Socialist

Party got 10.59 per cent votes.

Some prominent winners were: Gulzari Lal Nanda and

Lal Bahadur Shastri who were to be future prime ministers;

Delhi’s first chief minister to be, Chaudhry Brahm Prakash;

Humayun Kabir, A.K. Gopalan, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai, K.D.

Malviya, and Subhadra Joshi.

Dr B. R. Ambedkar was defeated in the Bombay (North

Central), which was a reserved constituency, as a candidate

of the Scheduled Castes Federation by his little-known

former assistant and Congress candidate, Narayan Sadoba

Kajrolkar. (Dr Ambedkar later entered Parliament as a Rajya

Sabha member.)

Acharya Kripalani as the KMPP candidate lost from

Faizabad in UP, but his wife Sucheta Kripalani defeated the

Congress candidate, Manmohini Sahgal, in Delhi.

After the votes were counted and results declared, the

first Lok Sabha or the House of the People was constituted

by the Election Commission on April 2, 1952. Until this

point, the Indian Constituent Assembly had served as an

interim legislature.

First General Elections

✫

671

The Speaker of the first Lok Sabha was Ganesh Vasudev

Mavalankar.

Jawaharlal Nehru became the first prime minister after

the general elections.
State Leislatures

In the state legislature elections, too, the Indian National

Congress swept the polls. The party won 2,248 seats on the

whole. It formed the government in all the states, though it

did not get the majority on its own in four states, namely,

Madras, Travancore-Cochin, Orissa, and PEPSU.

First General Elections: Winners

Winning Parties

Percentage

Seats

of Votes

Indian National Congress (INC)

44.99

364

Communist Party of India (CPI)

3.29

Socialist Party

10.59

Kisan Mazdoor Praja Party (KMPP)

5.79

Peoples Democratic Front (PDF)

1.29

Ganatantra Parishad

0.91

Akhil Bharatiya Hindu Mahasabha

0.95

Shiromani Akali Dal

0.99

Tamil Nadu Toilers Party

0.84

Akhil Bharatiya Ram Rajya Parishad

1.97

Bharatiya Jan Sangh

3.06

Revolutionary Socialist Party

0.44

Commonwealth Party

0.31

Jharkhand Party

0.71

Scheduled Caste Federation

2.38

Lok Sevak Sangh

0.29

Peasants and Workers Party of India

0.94

Forward Bloc (Marxist Group)

0.91

Krishikar Lok Party

1.41

Chhota Nagpur Santhal Parganas Janta Party

0.22

Madras State Muslim League Party

0.08

Travancore Tamil Nadu Congress Party

0.11

Independents

15.9

Anglo-Indians (Nominated)

672

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

672

CHAPTER 38

Developments under

Nehru's Leadership

(1947

–1964)

Jawaharlal Nehru, as the first prime minister of independent

India, along with other leaders, laid the foundation of a new

India. The period between India’s independence and the death

of Nehru, in May 1964, has been often termed as ‘Nehruvian

Era’ due to Nehru’s influence on almost all aspects of

decisions taken in India during that time.

Nehru was influenced by many streams of thought,

some imported from his association with Europe and some

imbibed from his close association with Gandhi, besides what

he perceived in the nation on his tours across its regions.

As a result, he enunciated a framework of democracy

committed to secularism, socialistic approach, and social

justice, besides the creation of an institutional base for

speedy development of the country not only large but marked

by huge diversity. He never forgot the idea of keeping the

country united. He tried his best to arouse in his people an

awareness of the need for social concern for the poor and

the marginalised and a respect for democratic values. Nehru

is noted for having tried to impart modern values and ways

of thinking that were adapted to Indian conditions. He was

committed to carry India into an age of scientific discovery

and technological development.

A brief survey of different events and aspects of the

Nehruvian period follows.

Developments under Nehru’s Leadership (1947–1964)

✫

673

Political Developments

In the first general elections in 1952, the Congress won a

huge majority and formed the government at the Centre

headed by Jawaharlal Nehru. Rajendra Prasad was elected

president by the electoral college of the first Parliament of

India.

Nehru led the Congress to major election victories in

1957 and 1962, though the winning majority was reduced

towards the end.

Parliament in this period legislated various noteworthy

laws that were directed towards social change and equity.

(These aspects are dealt with under separate headings later.)

Debate over National Language

At the time of Independence, there were eleven major

languages in India, each spoken by more than a million

people. In colonial India, English was used as the official

language, but with the attainment of independence, the

question arose about having a ‘national’ or ‘official’ language,

replacing English. Gandhi had recommended the use of

Hindustani as the national language of the country for the

sake of national integration. Nehru too acknowledged the

potential of Hindustani—not too Sanskritised, not too

Persianised—to become the national language. On the whole,

the idea of Hindi as a national language was not appreciated

by the non-Hindi speaking southern and eastern regions of

India. In the wake of serious resistance, the Language

Committee of Constituent Assembly came up with a

compromise formula. The Committee decided that the Hindi

in Devanagari script was to be the ‘official’ language, but

transition to Hindi would be gradual. For the first fifteen

years, English would continue to be used for all official

purposes, and each province could choose one of the regional

languages, for official work within the province, which were

to be listed in the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution. Thus,

by referring to Hindi as the official language rather than

national, the committee hoped to placate the opposition.

The language issue was further clarified by Parliament

in 1963 through the Official Languages Act, which stated that

Hindi was to become the official language in India from

674

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

1965. But as a concession to the non-Hindi speakers, English

was accorded the status of ‘associate additional official

language’. Despite this, among non-Hindi speakers, especially

in South India, the resentment against Hindi continued, and

in late 1964 and in early 1965, violent demonstrations

erupted over the language issue. The Official Languages

(Amendment) Act of 1967 provided a bilingual (English-

Hindi) solution for any official communication between the

Centre and states, and gave a concession to the diverse

multiplicity of languages by recognising regional languages

in provincial administration and in public service examinations.

Linguistic Reorganisation of the States

The demand for reorganisation of the states on the basis of

language was an outcome of linguistic pluralism in India. The

demand surfaced immediately after independence. The

boundaries of provinces in pre-independent India were the

outcome of the British conquest of India. The state boundaries

were drawn either for administrative convenience or simply

coincided with the territories annexed by the British

government or the territories ruled by the princely states.

The Congress in its 1920’s session in Nagpur had made

efforts to recognise regional linguistic identities and divided

India into 21 linguistic units for its organisational set-up.

Many provincial Congress committees were set up on the

basis of linguistic zones, which often did not coincide with

the administrative divisions of British India.

However, when demands for the linguistic reorganisation

of the provinces came up in the Constituent Assembly in

1946 and after independence, the national leadership under

the Congress opposed it on the ground of national unity. The

situation in the newly independent country was difficult.

India’s partition had created serious administrative, economic,

and political challenges. The post-War world faced serious

economic and law and order problems. The Kashmir problem

and a war-like situation with Pakistan needed urgent attention.

However, due to continuous demands, the Constituent

Assembly, in June 1948, appointed the Linguistic Provinces

Commission, headed by Justice S.K. Dhar, to enquire into

the need of linguistic provinces. The Dhar Commission,

however, opposed such a move in the interest of national

Developments under Nehru’s Leadership (1947–1964)

✫

675

integration. Consequently, the Constituent Assembly decided

not to include the linguistic principle in the Constitution.

In December 1948, to pacify the vocal votaries of

linguistic states, the Congress appointed a committee (JVP),

with Jawaharlal Nehru, Vallabhbhai Patel, and Pattabhi

Sitaramayya as its members. Its report which is known as

the JVP Report—also went against the creation of linguistic

states in the interests of national unity. There was widespread

agitation, especially in southern India, in the wake of the JVP

report.

The first demand for a linguistic province was seen in

the Telugu-speaking region of Andhra. In August 1951, Swami

Sitaram, a Congressman and Gandhian leader, started a fast

unto death. While he broke his fast after 35 days, the

movement was renewed in December 1952, by another

Gandhian follower, Potti Sriramulu who died after fasting for

56 days. Sriramulu’s death was followed by rioting,

demonstrations, hartals, and violence all over the Andhra

region. The government conceded the demand for a separate

state of Andhra, which finally came into existence on October

1, 1953, with the region being separated from the Tamil-

speaking Madras state.

The creation of Andhra encouraged other linguistic

groups to intensify their movements for their own state or

for rectification of their boundaries on a linguistic ground.

Under popular pressure, Nehru government appointed the

States Reorganisation Commission (SRC) in August 1953.

The commission, comprising Justice Fazl Ali, K.M. Panikkar,

and Hridaynath Kunzru as members, submitted its report in

October 1955; its recommendations were accepted with

some modifications and implemented quickly.

In November 1956, the States Reorganisation Act was

passed which provided for 14 states and 6 centrally

administered territories, but many of these states still

contained sizeable linguistic minorities and regional economic

disparities. The Telangana region of Hyderabad state was

merged into Andhra; Kerala was formed by merging the

Malabar district of the old Madras Presidency with Travancore-

Cochin. Bombay state was enlarged further by merging the

states of Kutch and Saurashtra and the Marathi-speaking

676

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

regions of Hyderabad state. The Mysore state was enlarged

by adding Kannada-speaking areas of adjoining states—

Bombay, Madras, Hyderabad, and Coorg.

As the SRC had opposed the splitting of Bombay and

Punjab, a widespread rioting broke out in January 1956 in

Bombay city. The government finally agreed in May 1960

to bifurcate the state of Bombay into Maharashtra and

Gujarat, with Bombay city being included in Maharashtra and

Ahmedabad being made the capital of Gujarat.

The Nagas, the first to raise the issue of ethnic identity,

forced the Government of India to concede to demand for

a separate state of Nagaland in 1960, inaugurated in 1963.

In an exception to the linguistic principle, in 1956, the

states of PEPSU were merged with Punjab. Punjab remained

a trilingual state having three language speakers—Punjabi,

Hindi, and Pahari. The demand for a separate Punjabi Suba

(Punjabi-speaking state) assumed communal overtones because

of the Sikh and Hindu communalists. The problem remained

unsolved in Nehru’s time. It was to be addressed later by

Indira Gandhi. Over the years since then, many new states

have been formed, not necessarily along linguistic lines.

Growth of Other Political Parties

Through the 1950s and 1960s, the Congress party ruled at

the Centre and in most of the states. The people voted for

the Congress mainly because they saw it as the legatee of

the freedom struggle and because its leaders were perceived

to be individuals of character and integrity. Perhaps the first

time people exercised their right of choice for a party other

than the Congress was when they voted the Communists into

power in Kerala in 1957. Then, in 1963, three notable

opponents of the Congress were elected to the Lok Sabha,

namely, the socialist Ram Manohar Lohia, the liberal M.R.

Masani, and the Gandhian Acharya Kripalani. All this signified

that the people of India were getting well acquainted with

the mores of democracy.

The period also saw the start and growth of political

parties other than the Congress and the Communist Party of

India and notable changes within the communist groups.
The Socialist Party

Formed in 1934 as Congress Socialist Party (SP), with its

own constitution, membership, discipline, and ideology, it

Developments under Nehru’s Leadership (1947–1964)

✫

677

remained within the Congress Party till March 1948. Their

disassociation as a protest against the Congress’s move

towards the right and its growing authoritarian tendencies was

announced at a meeting in Nashik on March 28, 1948.

In September 1952, the CSP merged with the Kisan

Mazdoor Praja Party (KMPP) to form a new party—Praja

Socialist Party (PSP).
Praja Socialist Party

In September 1952, the Socialist Party and the KMPP

merged to form Praja Socialist Party (PSP), with J.B.

Kripalani as the chairman and Ashoka Mehta as the general

secretary. With the merger, it became the largest opposition

party to the Congress with all-India presence. But the party

could not maintain its cohesion for long.

In June 1953, at the party’s Betul conference, Ashok

Mehta called for support to the ruling party, as he believed

that in a backward country like India the crucial task was

economic development—a common challenge for all political

parties. Mehta’s thesis was rejected by the rest of the party,

which accepted Ram Manohar Lohia’s approach.

Lohia believed in a position of equidistance from both

the Congress and the Communists, and supported the

organisation of militant mass movements.

Lohia and his group left the PSP at the end of 1955.

While Acharya Narendra Dev died in 1956, Jayaprakash

Narayan, in 1954, announced that he would dedicate his life

to Bhoodan and other constructive activities. In 1957, after

the general elections, Jayaprakash Narayan left active politics,

declaring that party politics was not suitable for India and

campaigned for ‘partyless democracy’. Kripalani, in 1960,

left the party too, and three years later, Ashok Mehta agreed

to become the deputy chairman of the Planning Commission.

Ashok Mehta joined the Congress Party with almost one-third

of PSP cadres with him.

Lohiya formed the Socialist Party, which in 1964,

merged with the PSP to form the Samyukta (or United)

Socialist Party (SSP). In 1965, the party split again—Lohia’s

group kept the SSP label, while his critics started a fresh

PSP.

678

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

The Communist Party

In the period following independence, the official stand taken

by the Communist Party of India towards the changing socio-

political dynamics went through alterations. It first accepted

India’s independent foreign policy though it still considered

the government to be an agent of imperialism. It later went

on to accept that India had become a sovereign republic but

also felt its policies were pro-capitalist and anti-people. The

communists would offer a ‘democratic front’ to replace the

Congress Party. In 1958, at its Amritsar meeting, the party

declared that it was possible to advance to socialism through

peaceful and parliamentary means. And, if the party came to

power, it would grant full civil liberties, including the right

to oppose the socialist government and the socialist system

through constitutional mechanisms. Then, in 1961, at

Vijayawada, it was decided to follow a policy of struggle as

well as unity towards Congress—progressive policies were

to be supported, while struggle against other policies were

to continue.

Split in CPI Within the party, there were several

differences on issues like attitude towards the Soviet critique

of Stalin, Russia-China ideological differences, and Sino-

India War of 1962. Some communists supported the

government fully against the Chinese invasion, while others,

though opposed to the Chinese stand on the question of India-

China frontiers, also opposed the unqualified support to the

Nehru government because of its class character.

The Sino-Soviet ideological split also witnessed a great

deal of resonance on the Indian Communists—many

sympathetic to the Chinese position. In fact, the Chinese call,

which asked the revolutionary elements in the communist

parties of the world to distance themselves from those

supporting the ‘revisionist’ soviet line, had great influence

on the Indian Communists. In 1964, the party got divided into,

CPI—representing the earlier ‘right’ and ‘centrist’ trends,

and CPM or the Communist Party (Marxist)—representing

the earlier ‘left’ trend.

The CPM believed that the Indian State was being ruled

by big bourgeoisie who collaborated with foreign finance

capital and hence have to be destroyed. They had contempt

Developments under Nehru’s Leadership (1947–1964)

✫

679

for Indian Constitution as they thought it to be anti-

democratic and hence did not believe in peaceful and

parliamentary means. For them, an agrarian revolution coupled

with an armed struggle led by the working class and the CPM

was necessary to bring changes in the social relations.
Bharatiya Jan Sangh

The Bharatiya Jan Sangh, founded on October 21, 1951, was

based on right wing ideology. According to Bipan Chandra,

the Jana Sangh was a communal party, and to understand its

basic character and politics, the genesis of the Rashtriya

Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) is to be analysed first. The Jan

Sangh was a creation of the RSS and drew its organised

strength, centralised character, and ideological homogeneity

from it.

The party in the beginning was strongly anti-Pakistan.

The propagation of Bharatiya culture and the establishment

of Bharatiya nationalism were its core agenda, and it gave

the slogan of ‘one country one culture, one nation’. Similarly,

it took a strident stand in favour of Sanskritised Hindi as

an official link language of India. (In 1965, it gave up this

demand in view of expansion of party in non-Hindi belt and

accepted the decision to retain English along with Hindi so

long as the non-Hindi states wanted this.)

Dr Syama Prasad Mukherjee, who had resigned from

the Nehru cabinet in April 1951 over the Nehru–Liaquat Pact,

was the main force behind the formation of the Jana Sangh.

Mukherjee claimed it to be a non-communal party aiming

to build a broad-based democratic opposition to the Congress.

But in the absence of any effective alternative ideology or

programme, and mass support, the party became a subsidiary

of the RSS. It won 3 Lok Sabha seats, with 3.06 per cent

of votes. Incidentally, Mauli Chandra Sharma, the second

president of the Jana Sangh, resigned in protest against the

RSS domination of the party.

In later years, the party was to be a part of the coalition

Janata Party against the Emergency.
The Swatantra Party

Founded in August 1959, the Swatantra Party was a non-

socialist, constitutionalist, and secular conservative party

having distinguished leaders like C. Rajagopalachari (who

resigned from the Congress), Minoo Masani, N.G. Ranga, and

680

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

K.M. Munshi, most of them being veteran Congress leaders.

The social base of the party was narrow and consisted of:

(i) a section of industrialists and business class discontented

with government control, quotas and licences, and fearful of

nationalisation; (ii) landlords, jagirdars, and princes, annoyed

due to loss of fiefdoms, social power and status, and

deteriorating economic conditions; (iii) ex-landlord-turned-

capitalist farmers and rich and middle peasants, who had

welcomed the abolition of landlordism but were fearful of

losing part of their land; and (iv) a few retired civil servants.

The Swatantra Party favoured the notion of the ‘night

watchman’ or laissez-faire State and stood for free, private

enterprise. It opposed the active role of the State in economic

development and nationalisation of private enterprises and

extension of land reforms.

In international relations, the party denounced non-

alignment as well as Indo-Soviet collaboration and wanted a

close relation with the US and countries of Western Europe.

In fact, it advocated for a defence coalition with non-

communist countries of Asia including Pakistan, under the

capitalist superpower, United States.

In the 1962 elections, it won 18 seats in the Lok Sabha

and emerged as the main opposition party in four states

(Bihar, Rajasthan, Gujarat, and Orissa).

Factions, defections, and death of C. Rajagopalachari

in 1967, proved detrimental to the Swatantra Party. Most of

the party leaders joined the Bharatiya Lok Dal in 1974, while

a small group led by Masani tried to survive the party.
Communal and Regional Parties

●

The Hindu Mahasabha, which was founded in 1915

at Haridwar by Madan Mohan Malaviya, gradually disappeared

from the political scene after 1952 and lost its support base

to the Bharatiya Jana Sangh.

●

The Muslim League, owing to its association with

the demand for Pakistan, lay dormant and many of its leaders

joined the Congress Party and other parties. Later, it revived

in parts of Tamil Nadu and in Kerala and was to become

coalition partners of the Congress, CPI, and CPM in the

coming years.

●

The Akali Dal gave way to Shiromani Akali Dal and

remained limited to Punjab.

Developments under Nehru’s Leadership (1947–1964)

✫

681

●

The other regional parties which came into prominence

were—The DMK (Tamil Nadu), the Jammu and Kashmir

National conference (J & K), Jharkhand Party (in undivided

Bihar), Ganatantra Parishad (Orissa), All Parties Hill Leaders’

Conference (Assam), Scheduled Castes Federation

(Maharashtra), etc. Forward Bloc (West Bengal) and Peasants

and Workers’ Party (Maharashtra) were parties inclined

towards left ideology but restricted to only one state.

An Undemocratic Deed

In 1957, the Congress Party faced an unexpected defeat in

the State of Kerala when the CPI emerged as the largest

single party in the legislative assembly. E.M.S. Namboodiripad

formed the government with the support of some independents.

It was perhaps the first time that a communist government

was formed on the basis of democratic elections.

Trouble began with the introduction of the Education

Bill, which was, in actuality, a progressive measure. It was

vehemently opposed by the Catholic Church in the state

which ran several educational institutions and saw the bill as

an encroachment on its power. Seeing in this situation an

apt opportunity, the local Congress party members who had

lost in the elections, organised state-wide protests. There

were strikes as well. The government resorted to lathi-

charges and firing. Several persons were jailed.

Nehru, though he had little objection to the education

bill, maintained a neutral front in public. He admonished the

state government for its excessive use of force even as he

tried to rein in the Congress workers. But he failed to change

anything on the ground. In the end, he succumbed to pressure

from within and outside his party and advised the dismissal

of the EMS government and imposition of President’s Rule

in Kerala in July 1959. A democratically elected government

was thus, for the first time in independent India, dismissed

under emergency powers.

Concept of Planning for
Economic Development

Nehru believed in effective planning through the democratic

process for extensive land reforms, industrialisation, and

682

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

development of various infrastructural facilities like power

plants, transport projects, irrigation dams, etc. In his ideas

on economic development, he was not in favour of Gandhi’s

ideas. So, he envisaged the State intervening in the economy,

and guiding its growth and acting directly to promote the

welfare of the population. Nehru, together with several

national leaders, was fascinated with the success of economic

planning in the Soviet Union in the 1930s and 1940s. The

genesis of the Planning Commission could be traced to the

National Planning Committee established in 1938 by

Congress, and the Bombay Plan of 1944.

The Planning Commission, an extra-constitutional

body, was set up in March 1950 by a simple resolution of

the Government of India. The body was assigned the task of

economic planning in the form of five-year plans. The prime

minister, himself, was the ex-officio chairman of the

commission. The National Development Council (NDC),

which was to give final approval to the plans, was established

on August 6, 1952.

The First Five-Year Plan (1951–56), based on Harrod–

Domar model, sought to get the nation’s economy out of

the cycle of poverty. It addressed, mainly, the agrarian sector

including investments in dams and irrigation. Huge allocations

were made for large-scale projects like the Bhakhra Nangal

Dam. It also focused on land reforms.

The Second Plan, drafted under the leadership of P.C.

Mahalanobis, stressed on heavy industries. The plan reflected

the ‘socialistic pattern of society’, as the government imposed

substantial tariffs on imports in order to protect domestic

industries.

The Third Plan was not significantly different from

the Second. However, the plan strategies, according to critics,

from this time around displayed an unmistakable ‘urban bias’

as well as the industry was wrongly given priority over

agriculture.

Under the guidance of Nehru, who believed in

‘democratic socialism’, India opted for a ‘mixed economy’,

i.e., elements from the capitalist model and socialist model

were taken and mixed together. Much of the agriculture,

trade, and industry were left in private hands. The State

Developments under Nehru’s Leadership (1947–1964)

✫

683

controlled key heavy industries, provided industrial

infrastructure, regulated trade, and made some important

interventions in agriculture. However, a mixed model like this

was open to criticism from both the left and the right.

According to the critics, the five-year plans did not

provide the private sector with enough space and the stimulus

to grow. Further, the systems of licences and permits for

investment discouraged private sector and gave rise to

corruption and red tapism. On the other hand, the sympathisers

of the socialist model alleged that the State did not spend

significant amounts on public education and health care. The

State intervention ended up creating a new ‘middle class’ that

enjoyed the privileges of high salaries without much

accountability, according to critics.

Despite criticism of the shortfalls in plan targets, none

can deny that a solid industrial base and infrastructure

facilities were created under the plans.

Bhakhra-Nangal, Damodar Valley Corporation, and

Hirakud mega-dams were constructed for irrigation and

power generation. Some of the heavy industries in the public

sector—steel plants, oil refineries, manufacturing units,

defence production, etc., were started. The Hindustan Machine

Tools, Sindri Fertiliser, Chittaranjan Rail Factory, Integral

Coach Factory, Hindustan Antibiotics, etc., proved to be of

great help to the new nation.

Progress of Science and
Technology

Nehru believed that science and technology were crucial to

the solution of India’s problems. The Scientific Policy

Resolution, acknowledging the role of science and technology

in the economic, social, and cultural advancement of the

country, was passed by the Lok Sabha in March 1958. But

prior to the passing of SPR in 1958, many scientific and

technological institutes were set up in the country. To

emphasise the value of science and scientific research, Nehru

himself assumed the chairmanship of the Council of Scientific

and Industrial Research (CSIR). Some of the strides taken

in this direction are given below.

684

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

●

In January 1947, to promote self-sustaining, scientific,

and technological growth, the National Physical Laboratory—

India’s first national laboratory—was set up, which was

followed by the setting up of a network of 17 national

laboratories, focusing on different areas of research.

●

In 1952, the first of the five institutes of technology,

patterned after the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,

was set up at Kharagpur.

●

The Atomic Energy Commission, headed by Homi J.

Bhabha, was set up in August 1948. Nehru personally

encouraged Bhabha to do his best. In 1954, the government

created a separate Department of Atomic Energy with Homi

Bhabha as secretary. In August 1956, India’s first nuclear

reactor in Trombay (Asia’s first also), became critical.

●

In 1962, the Indian National Committee for Space

Research (INCOSPAR), together with a Rocket Launching

Facility at Thumba (TERLS), was established.

●

Steps were taken to increase India’s capacity in the

production of defence equipment.

●

A changeover to decimal coinage and a metric system

of weights and measures, in line with international standards,

was made in phases between 1955 and 1962.

Social Developments

Developments in Education

In 1951, only 16.6 per cent of the total population was

literate and the percentage was much lower in rural areas.

Between 1951 and 1961, school enrolment doubled for boys

and tripled for girls. Through the personal interest and efforts

of Nehru, several policies were introduced to improve the

educational situation. By 1964, the number of universities

increased from 18 (in 1947) to 54.

In 1949, the Indian University Education Commission,

under the chairmanship of Dr. S. Radhakrishnan was set up.

On the recommendation of the commission, the University

Grants Commission (UGC) was set up in 1953, and University

Grants Commission Act was passed in 1956.

For improvements in the secondary education, the

government appointed Mudaliar Commission in 1952, with

Dr. A. Lakshmanswami Mudaliar as chairperson. Further, to

Developments under Nehru’s Leadership (1947–1964)

✫

685

assist and advise the Central and state governments on

academic matters related to school education, the National

Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) was

established in September 1961 as a literary, scientific, and

charitable society.

Social Change under Nehru

The Constitution of India ensured that Indian social organisation

underwent change, leading to the social liberation of the

hitherto socially backward and suppressed sections of society.

In 1955, the government passed the Anti-Untouchability Law,

making the practice of untouchability punishable and a

cognisable offence. The clauses mentioned in the Constitution

regarding reservations in educational institutions and

government employment in favour of weaker sections of the

society were implemented.

For women’s equal rights in the society, the Hindu

Code Bill was moved in Parliament in 1951. Despite facing

sharp opposition from conservative sections of society, the

bill was passed in the form of four separate acts. These acts

introduced monogamy and the right of divorce to both men

and women, raised the age of consent and marriage, and gave

women the right to maintenance and to inherit family

property. But unfortunately, in the absence of a uniform civil

code, the revolutionary step benefited only Hindu women.

There was much more that needed to be done for Hindu

women too.

Foreign Policy

To pursue an independent foreign policy, for a nascent nation,

was a great challenge for the leaders of independent India.

The broad parameters which had evolved during the freedom

struggle had to be kept at the core while taking any decisions

on international affairs. Nehru gave this voice a shape in the

form of the idea of non-alignment and an organisational

structure through the non-aligned movement (NAM).

The basic principles of India’s foreign policy, during

the Nehruvian Era, broadly revolved around the premises

given below.

(i) Disapproval of participation in any military alliance

either bilaterally or multilaterally

686

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

(ii) An independent foreign policy not tied to any of

the two contending power blocs, though this was

not a synonym for a neutral foreign policy

(iii) A policy of friendship with every country, whether

of the American bloc or of the Soviet bloc

(iv) An active anti-colonial policy which supported

decolonisation in Asian-African-Latin American

countries

(v) Open support to the policy of anti-apartheid

(vi) Promotion of disarmament as the key to world

peace

[The basic principles of non-alignment and NAM have

already been discussed at length in the chapter, ‘The Evolution

of Nationalistic Foreign Policy’.]

India’s commitment to disarmament at the international

level could be seen in the time of framing of UN’s Charter.

Article 11 of the Charter advocates international disarmament.

India supported the formation of the Atomic Energy

Commission in 1947 and sponsored the Eighteen Nations

Disarmament Conference in 1962.

Relations with Neighbours

India and Pakistan

The unnaturalness and artificiality of partition impelled

Pakistan to try and establish its identity independent of India,

of which it was till 1947 a part by geography, history,

tradition, and culture. Pakistan, since its birth, has the

aspiration for achieving parity with India in all fields. Thus,

Pakistan started competing with India at all international fora

and used all kinds of means to acquire prominence.
Kashmir Issue

Pakistan refused to accept Kashmir’s accession to India on

October 26, 1947. In response to the Pakistan-sponsored

tribal attack, India, supported by the local population under

Sheikh Abdullah, undertook a swift military action. But,

unfortunately, before the task of rescuing the territory could

be accomplished, a complaint was lodged by Nehru with the

Security Council in January 1948. This resulted in a ceasefire

on January 1, 1949. India also agreed to hold a plebiscite

Developments under Nehru’s Leadership (1947–1964)

✫

687

in 1947 under international supervision, but due to changed

circumstances, India finally withdrew from the offer in 1955.

Although diplomatic battles for Kashmir were fought in the

UNO and other international forums, no actual war took place

between the two countries up to 1964.
Indus River Water Dispute

Equitable sharing of the waters of the Indus system had been

an issue of discord since partition. The partition gave India

5 million of the 28 million acres of land irrigated by the

Indus. Most of the waters of the western parts of the Indus

system went into the Arabian Sea. Some canals in Pakistan

depended on the eastern rivers flowing through the East

Punjab (India) for supplies. The headworks of some vital

canals in Pakistan come within the Indian territory. The

successive governments in Pakistan blamed India for any

calamity created by natural factors like droughts and floods

in Pakistan. So, under the guidance of the World Bank, an

interim agreement on canal waters was signed on April 17,

1959. Subsequently, a comprehensive agreement between the

two countries was signed on September 19, 1960 in Karachi.

Unfortunately, till today, on several occasions, the Indus

Water Treaty has caused discord between the two nations.

India and China

One of the first countries with which independent India

established diplomatic relations was the Nationalist

Government of China led by Chiang Kaishek. When the

Nationalist Government was overthrown by the Communists

in 1949, India was once more among the first countries to

recognise the new government led by Mao Tse Tung. India

consistently supported the efforts of the People’s Republic

of China to get admitted to the United Nations. But the

results of all these efforts proved frustrating for India.
Developments in Tibet and Panchsheel

The Chinese army entered Tibet in 1950 and occupied it.

India, apart from sharing about 2000 miles of frontier in the

Tibet region, had inherited several rights and obligations over

Tibet from the British rule. However, to maintain peace,

Nehru in 1954 concluded an agreement with China, which

formalised the Chinese occupation of Tibet. The agreement

is popularly known as Panchsheel.

688

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

In 1959, a popular uprising took place in Tibet against

Chinese dominance. Though the upsurge was suppressed by

China, the religious head of Tibet, Dalai Lama fled and took

asylum in India. Taking this as an excuse, China in 1959

occupied Longju and 12,000 square miles of Indian territory

in Ladakh. This followed a series of protest notes,

memorandums, and aide memoires being exchanged between

the two countries. In the next move, China laid claims on

large parts of Indian territories, after which the Chinese

prime minister, Chou-En-Lai came to New Delhi in April

1960 to negotiate border disputes. Official teams of the two

countries also visited each other, but no agreement could be

reached and the border dispute continued.
Sino-Indian War, 1962

In October 1962, China attacked India in NEFA (Arunachal

Pradesh) and Ladakh. Thus, a war between the two countries

started, which ended in a military debacle for India. The

Chinese had a geographical advantage as well as superior

arms. Nehru turned to the USA and Britain for help. The

Western powers—the USA as well as Britain—pledged

support to India and were already flying arms to India. In

November 1962, China made a unilateral declaration of its

withdrawal. But China continued its occupation of a large

chunk of Ladakh—a much coveted strategic link between Sin

Kiang and southern China.

India’s diplomatic efforts to pressurise China to return

the territories yielded no results. Even the Afro-Asian

mediation by Indonesia, Cambodia, Burma, UAR, Ghana, and

Ceylon to find a peaceful solution of Sino-Indian border

dispute, at Colombo in December 1962, failed to get a

favourable response from China. In 1964, China tested its

first nuclear explosion, further alarming India.
Consequences of Sino-Indian War

(i) The war gave a big blow to the self-respect of India.

(ii) The policy of non-alignment came under question.

(iii) The Congress lost three parliamentary by-elections in

a row and Nehru had to face the first no-confidence

motion of his life.

(iv) The Third Five-Year Plan was badly affected as

resources were diverted for defence.

Developments under Nehru’s Leadership (1947–1964)

✫

689

(v) India’s foreign policy took a change, as the US and

the UK had responded positively in the crisis, they

were to be considered in future. US intelligence

agencies developed links in the name of countering

the Chinese threat and even planted a nuclear-powered

device in the Himalayas.

(vi) Pakistan, encouraged by the Indian debacle in the war,

was to attack India in 1965, covertly helped by China.

India and Nepal

The geographical location of Nepal has made it inseparable

from India from the point of view of India’s external security.

Being conscious of this factor, India signed a treaty with

Nepal in July 1950 by which it recognised Nepal’s sovereignty,

territorial integrity, and independence. The two countries

made a commitment to each other to inform each other of

any serious friction or misunderstanding arising on any

problem.

India and Bhutan

In August 1949, the two countries signed a treaty for

perpetual peace and friendship. India undertook to exercise

non-interference in the internal administration of Bhutan,

while Bhutan agreed to be guided by the advice of the

Government of India in regard to its external relations.

India and Sri Lanka

The Tamil-Sinhalese riots of 1958 and thereafter attracted

the sympathy of some Indian leaders for the Tamilian

population of Sri Lanka. This open sympathy, inside and

outside Indian Parliament, was disliked by the Sri Lankan

government. But the Indian government, considering the

ethnic disputes in Sri Lanka to be an internal matter of that

country, remained friendly towards Sri Lanka. Both nations

forged mutually beneficient economic and trade relations. In

fact, Sri Lanka supported NAM and did not join any military

alliance.

690

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

690

CHAPTER 39

After Nehru. . .

Towards the last years of Nehru’s prime ministership itself,
there were serious debates on what would happen to India

after him. And when he died in May 1964, many in India

and abroad were almost sure that the Indian political system

would be severely and adversely affected, and could even

collapse, with a fight within the Congress party over who

would take charge. However, there was no such turmoil; a

smooth succession took place. Indeed, since the Nehruvian

era, India has seen not only several prime ministers but also

certain changes in its political history. Down the years there

have been some upheavals to threaten the smooth functioning

of a vibrant democracy, but these challenges have been met

and overcome. Amidst the coups and military takeovers in

the neighbouring countries, India has managed to survive as

a democracy and witness smooth change of government from

time to time though democratic elections.

Immediately after Nehru’s death, Gulzarilal Nanda was

appointed as the interim prime minister, pending the election

of a new parliamentary leader of the Congress party who

would then become prime minister.

The Lal Bahadur Shastri Years

(June 1964 – January 1966)

It is generally accepted that a group within the Congress,

formed in 1963, which came to be known as the Syndicate

and included the president of the party, K. Kamaraj, and some

After Nehru. . .

✫

691

others, guided the succession to the prime minister’s post

after Jawaharlal Nehru. The choice was between Morarji

Desai and Lal Bahadur Shastri. The former was the senior

and experienced Congressman who was known for his

administrative skills and honesty but also considered to be

conservative, somewhat rigid, and leaning towards the ‘right’;

the latter was seen to be mild, soft-spoken, and flexible even

though a man of integrity and of incorruptible nature. Shastri

was supported more widely across the party than was Desai.

In the end, Shastri was chosen by the party as the next

parliamentary leader, hence the prime minister, as Desai

decided not to contest.

Early Life

Lal Bahadur Shastri was born on October 2, 1904, in Uttar

Pradesh (known as United Provinces at the time). Firmly

opposed to the caste system, he decided to leave out his

surname of Srivastava. ‘Shastri’ was a title he got on

completing his graduation at Kashi Vidyapeeth, Varanasi, in

1928. When he married Lalita Devi in 1928, Lal Bahadur

Shastri, very much opposed to the idea of dowry, is said to

have accepted just five yards of khadi and a spinning wheel

on the insistence of his father-in-law to accept something.

Swayed by Mahatma Gandhi, Lal Bahadur Shastri joined

the freedom movement; in the Non-cooperation Movement

of 1921, he was arrested for taking part in a demonstration

but, as he was then a minor, he was let off. Later he was

part of the major movements of the struggle against the

British rule, such as the Salt Satayagraha and the individual

satyagraha movement, and then in the 1942 Quit India

Movement. Imprisoned several times, he made use of his

time in prison reading the works of the social reformers and

western philosophers.

Shastri was very much part of the Congress political

organisation, becoming the secretary of the local unit of the

party and later the president of the Allahabad Congress

Committee. He was elected to the Legislative Assembly of

the United Provinces in 1937.

Political Journey after Independence

After independence, Shastri became a minister in Uttar

Pradesh state, in charge of the Police and Transport portfolio

692

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

in Govind Ballabh Pant’s cabinet. Among his initiatives in

that position were the appointment of women as bus

conductors, and a direction to the police that water jets be

used instead of lathis to disperse unruly mobs.

Shastri was made the General Secretary of the All-India

Congress Committee, with Jawaharlal Nehru as the President,

in 1951. The same year he was nominated to the Rajya Sabha.

Nehru drew him into the union cabinet. Shastri was the

railways minister, though he resigned in 1956, taking moral

responsibility for a serious rail accident. But he was soon

drawn back into the cabinet, and in 1961, he was appointed

home minister; in this capacity he achieved a reputation of

being a skilful mediator, and he also formed the Committee

on Prevention of Corruption headed by K. Santhanam—on

the basis of whose recommendations the Central Vigilance

Commission was established. He had also been Minister for

Transport and Communications; Minister for Commerce and

Industry; and, during Nehru’s illness, Minister without

Portfolio.
Prime Minister: Continuing Nehru’s Legacy but

with Change

Lal Bahadur Shastri was sworn in as the second prime

minister of India on June 9, 1964. He kept with himself the

portfolios of external affairs and atomic energy, though he

later transferred the external affairs ministry to Swaran Singh.

In his first broadcast to the nation as prime minister,

Shastri said: “There comes a time in the life of every nation

when it stands at the cross-roads of history and must choose

which way to go. But for us there need be no difficulty or

hesitation, no looking to right or left. Our way is straight

and clear—the building up of a socialist democracy at home

with freedom and prosperity for all, and the maintenance of

world peace and friendship with all nations.”

A true secularist at heart, Shastri said: “The unique thing

about our country is that we have Hindus, Muslims, Christians,

Sikhs, Parsis, and people of all other religions. We have

temples and mosques, gurdwaras, and churches. But we do

not bring all this into politics. This is the difference between

India and Pakistan. Whereas Pakistan proclaims herself to be

an Islamic State and uses religion as a political factor, we

After Nehru. . .

✫

693

Indians have the freedom to follow whatever religion we may

choose, and worship in any way we please. So far as politics

is concerned, each of us is as much an Indian as the other.”

As prime minister, Shastri retained the main ministers

of Nehru’s cabinet, but also drew Indira Gandhi, Nehru’s

daughter, into his cabinet as information and broadcasting

minister. He respected Nehru and kept true to the general

policies created by the first prime minister of India, but he

was not a blind follower of Nehru. In several ways, he showed

he had a mind of his own.

Shastri was the first prime minister to have a secretary

to the prime minister when he drew upon L.K. Jha, a senior

ICS officer, to advise him. He thus laid the foundation of

what later took the form of the Prime Minister’s Secretariat

or the Prime Minister’s Office.
Challenges

Shastri’s short tenure saw some major developments. It also

showed that Shastri was no weakling but had a vision of his

own besides being capable of taking tough decisions quickly.

He said: “Perhaps due to my being small in size and soft

of tongue, people are apt to believe that I am not able to

be very firm. Though not physically strong, I think I am

internally not so weak.” The three major crises that his

government faced were the violent anti-Hindi demonstrations

in the state of Madras (later to be named Tamil Nadu), the

widespread food shortages, and the second war with Pakistan.

The country was disturbed in 1965 by major protests

in the non-Hindi speaking states against the possibility of

Hindi being imposed as the only national language of India.

The agitation was especially intense and violent in Madras

state. There were agitations by students and even riots in

some places over the issue. Shastri brought peace to prevail

by assuring the people that English would continue to be used

as the official language as long the non-Hindi speaking states

wanted, though the army had to be called in to quell riots

in some places.

Economic Ideas

Though few people seem to have realised it, Lal Bahadur

Shastri took some important steps to meet the challenges

694

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Views

He (Shastri) wore no ideological blinkers; he saw facts as they
were in all their starkness. Chronic food shortages made him
sift from basic industries to agriculture. Roaring black markets
persuaded him to make relative shift from controls to incentives,
and the glaring inefficiency of the public sector made him accept
a larger role for the private sector and foreign investment. He
also took measures to shift the locus of economic decision-
making from the Planning Commission to the ministries and from
the Centre to the states.

P.N. Dhar

that faced the country, steps that were very different from

Nehruvian economics.
A Forerunner of Economic Reform

Not many seem to know that Shastri tried to decentralise

governance by moving decision-making on projects from the

Planning Commission to the ministries dealing with economic

subjects. Indeed, there was an attempt to reduce the dominance

of the Planning Commission by the setting up of a national

planning council. In 1965, Shastri announced in Parliament

that there would be a reconsideration of government controls

over the economic activities; consequently, there was a

relaxation in regulations for some sectors, such as steel and

cement. Shastri’s economic team comprised people like L.K.

Jha, I.G. Patel, Dharma Vira, and S. Bhoothalingam who were

tilted towards reforming the economy through modernising

agriculture and allowing more private sector freedom. Even

the decision to devalue the rupee was taken in principle by

Shastri though the actual step was implemented by Indira

Gandhi. Unfortunately, Shastri died before effective steps

could be taken in all the fields. If he had lived longer, it

is possible, as P.N. Dhar says, that Shastri might have pursued

“an agenda of economic reform of the kind that was taken

up only twenty-five years later” (under the prime ministership

of Narasimha Rao).

The slogan that he gave India during the war with

Pakistan aptly reflected his view: “Jai Jawan Jai Kisan”

showed Shastri’s firm belief that the security of the nation

upheld by the soldier was closely linked with food security,

After Nehru. . .

✫

695

food production that was the farmer’s forte. The slogan

implied that the farmers’ work on the field was equivalent

to the soldier’s action on the battlefield in the service of

the nation.
The Seeds of Green Revolution and White Revolution

India faced a food shortage and things were in a bad shape

when Shastri drew in C. Subramaniam as his food and

agriculture minister. Shastri gave full support to his minister

in laying the foundations of the Green Revolution, although

it was Indira Gandhi who is usually given the credit, as the

gains of the new methods came to be seen only after about

a decade. But in fact, it was the result of Shastri’s initiatives

to transform Indian agriculture.

The Green Revolution involved a threefold thrust—

technological, economic, and organisational. The Indian

Council of Agricultural Research was reorganised and, for

the first time, a scientist, Dr B.P. Pal, was appointed as its

head. M.S. Swaminathan of the Indian Agricultural Research

Institute brought the government to an awareness of the new

high-yielding wheat varieties developed by Norman Borlaug’s

team in Mexico and how India must launch field

demonstrations. In the face of opposition from various

quarters, including the Congress party, Shastri approved the

import of 250 tonnes of wheat seeds in 1965. Later, in 1966,

some many thousands of tonnes were to be imported. And

the Green Revolution in wheat was set in motion, as Indian

scientists improved upon these varieties. In November 1965,

when C.S. Subramaniam and Orville Freeman, the US

agriculture secretary, met in Rome, they signed an accord

that put on paper what had already been launched with the

support of Shastri. As per the accord, India was committed

to end imports of food grains by 1971 by investing more

in agriculture, irrigation, research, seeds, fertilisers, and put

in place suitable economic and marketing policies. The

Americans, for their part, agreed to send more wheat to India

in 1965 and 1966.

Incentives to support the new technology were also put

in place. The Agricultural Prices Commission (APC) and the

Food Corporation of India (FCI) came into being in January

1965. The National Seeds Corporation and the Central

Warehousing Corporation were also set up around this time.

696

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Shastri was also instrumental in setting in motion the

White Revolution – a national campaign to raise the production

and supply of milk. On his visit to Anand in Gujarat in

October 1964 to inaugurate the Cattle Feed Factory of Amul

at Kanjari, he was impressed by the milk cooperative. He

wished that Verghese Kurien, who was the General Manager

of Kaira District Co-operative Milk Producers’ Union Ltd

(Amul) at the time, would help in creating such cooperatives

in other parts of the country so as to improve the conditions

of farmers. The National Dairy Development Board (NDDB)

was established, as a consequence, at Anand in 1965.
Skip a Meal Idea

The chronic food shortage in the country was a worrying fact.

Also, during the 1965 war with Pakistan, Lyndon B. Johnson,

the then President of the US, tried to put pressure on India

by warning that if India did not stop the war, the US would

stop providing wheat to the country under the PL-480

agreement. (India needed to import wheat at that time to meet

its requirement of food grains.) Shastri refused to be budged.

“We may go hungry, but not bow before the US,” he told

the Indians.

Shastri motivated the people to voluntarily give up one

meal a week so that food could be saved to be distributed

to the people who required it. However, before asking the

public to do so, he got his family members to first try the

system. Surprisingly, the public response was huge, with even

restaurants closing down on Monday evenings.
New Institutions and Projects

Several new institutions were inaugurated during Shastri’s

tenure. Some of these were the Central Institute of Technology

Campus at Tharamani, Chennai, in November 1964; the

Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University at Hyderabad in

March 1965 (renamed Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural

University in 1996, and separated into two universities after

the formation of the Telangana State, with the university in

Telangana being named in July 2014 as Professor Jayashankar

Agricultural University); and the National Institute of

Technology, Allahabad.

The Jawahar Dock of the Chennai Port Trust was

After Nehru. . .

✫

697

inaugurated by Shastri, and the construction work of Tuticorin

Port was begun in November 1964.

The foundation stone for the Upper Krishna Project,

of which the Alamatti Dam is a part, was laid by Shastri in

1964. (It was decided by the government to name the Almatti

Dam after Lal Bahadur Shastri.)

It was Shastri who inaugurated the plutonium

reprocessing plant at Trombay in 1965. This followed the

suggestion by Dr. Homi Bhabha that India should develop

nuclear explosives for peaceful purposes, an idea which

Shastri endorsed. At the initiative of Homi Bhabha, the

nuclear explosive design group Study of Nuclear Explosions

for Peaceful Purposes (SNEPP) was set up.

Foreign Relations

Shastri made no basic changes in the policy of non-alignment.

However, he was deeply conscious that, in the wake of India’s

war with China (1962) and the growth of military ties

between Pakistan and the People’s Republic of China, the

Indian government should increase the defence budget of the

country. So, he tried to modernise the armed forces of India.

He also decided that India should build closer ties with the

Soviet Union.

He made overtures to neighbouring states to solve

outstanding problems. The Bandarnaike-Shastri accord of

1964 between India and Ceylon (as Sri Lanka was then called)

was signed by Lal Bahadur Shastri and his Ceylonese

counterpart, Sirimavo Bandaranaike. Concerned with the

status of Indian Tamils in Ceylon, the pact settled for the

repatriation of 6,00,000 Indian Tamils to India and Ceylonese

citizenship to be granted to 3,75,000 Tamils in Ceylon—to

be accomplished by 1981. Shastri, however, died soon after,

and the accord was not fulfilled, and some years later India

considered the agreement to have lapsed.

Burma had undergone a military coup in 1962, and

following that, many Indian families settled there had been

repatriated by the Burmese government in 1964. Relations

between India and Burma were strained. However, Shastri

made an official visit to Rangoon in December 1965, and

cordial relations were again established between India and the

Burmese government under General Ne Win.

698

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Considering the situation in the subcontinent and the

disturbed relations with Pakistan and China, Lal Bahadur

Shastri did not hesitate to initiate a nuclear explosives

programme. In 1965, he gave authorisation to the Atomic

Energy Commission to work on achieving a nuclear test. He

faced strong opposition on this issue from his own government

and party as well as others, but he did not waver. Unfortunately,

Lal Bahadur Shastri died in January 1966 as did the prominent

personality on the nuclear science programme in India, Homi

J. Bhabha, before the programme could proceed.

The Indo-Pak War

In 1965, India faced threats of war from Pakistan. General

Mohammad Ayub Khan had come to power in Pakistan

through a military coup in 1958, forcibly taking over from

President Iskander Mirza and assuming the president’s post

himself. The US was giving Pakistan a great deal of military

support. The war with China in 1962 had left the Indians,

including the armed forces, feeling demoralised. So, Ayub

Khan probably thought it was the right time to test the

strength of the Indian forces at the frontier. In April 1965,

Pakistan tested the situation in Sindh. It seemed as if the

Pakistanis could win after the first clashes in the Rann of

Kachchh. Both sides were, at Britain’s intervention, made to

agree to a ceasefire and withdrawal of forces to the positions

held before the clashes. Confident that the Indian Army was

weak, and trying to capitalise on the unrest created in the

valley by the followers of Sheikh Abdullah and some other

dissidents, the leadership in Pakistan decided to launch an

attack in Kashmir. ‘Operation Grandslam’ was launched in

August with the idea of using the only significant overland

route to Kashmir before India could muster its forces and

outmoded tanks. Pakistan’s foreign minister at the time,

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, encouraged Ayub Khan in this venture.

Well-trained infiltrators were sent into the valley with the

idea of creating an uprising there.

The Indian prime minister showed his strength of mind

at this point of time. Pakistan claimed that there was a

spontaneous uprising against the Indian occupation of Kashmir.

India pointed out that Pakistan had instigated trouble inside

After Nehru. . .

✫

699

Indian territory by sending armed raiders into Jammu and

Kashmir from so-called ‘Azad Kashmir’ (Pakistan-occupied

Kashmir). Declaring that force would be met with force,

Shastri gave orders that the Indian Army should cross the

ceasefire line and close the passes used by the infiltrators.

By early September, the second Indo-Pakistan war had begun.

Shastri proved that he could be decisive in a way that Nehru

had not been. He took little time to grant the Indian forces

the permission to take the needed retaliatory steps. His

defence minister, Y.B. Chavan, also proved to be outstanding.

In September, Indian forces launched a three-pronged

attack, with their tanks aiming at Lahore and Sialkot across

the border in Punjab. Soon, Lahore was within the range of

Indian fire. It was also the first time that the Indian Air Force

was to take part in war after independence.

The United Nations intervened and a ceasefire was

brokered to which both sides agreed on September 23.
Peace Agreement at Tashkent

A South Asian peace conference was held in January 1966

at Tashkent (the capital of Uzbekistan, then one of the

republics of the Soviet Union), which was sponsored by the

Soviet President, Alexei Kosygin. It was with the mediation

of Kosygin that President Ayub Khan of Pakistan and Prime

Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri of India met and signed the

Tashkent Declaration on January 10, 1966 to “restore normal

and peaceful relations between their countries and to promote

understanding and friendly relations between their peoples”.

The Tashkent Declaration was meant to form a

framework for lasting peace between India and Pakistan. It

is believed that the two sides were not able to reach an

agreement on their own and that they were compelled by the

Soviet leaders to sign a draft that they had prepared. However,

it did not meet with complete approval in India. Critics felt

that the agreement should have but did not include a no-war

pact, nor was there any provision that Pakistan should give

up guerrilla aggression in Kashmir. In Pakistan, the agreement

was received even more angrily: there were riots and

demonstrations against it. Zulfikar Bhutto distanced himself

from Ayub Khan and the pact, and in the end broke away

to subsequently form his own political party.

700

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

The Tashkent Declaration

The points of the Tashkent Declaration signed by President Ayub
Khan of Pakistan and Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri of India
that was directed towards bringing peace after the September war
are as follows:

1. Both sides will exert all efforts to create good neighbourly

relations between India and Pakistan in accordance with the
United Nations Charter. They reaffirm their obligation under the
Charter not to have recourse to force and to settle their
disputes through peaceful means. They considered that the
interests of peace in their region and particularly in the Indo-
Pakistan Sub-Continent and, indeed, the interests of the
peoples of India and Pakistan were not served by the
continuance of tension between the two countries. It was
against this background that Jammu and Kashmir was
discussed, and each of the sides set forth its respective
position.

2. All armed personnel of the two countries shall be withdrawn

not later than 25 February, 1966 to the positions they held
prior to 5 August, 1965, and both sides shall observe the
ceasefire terms on the ceasefire line.

3. Relations between India and Pakistan shall be based on the

principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of each other.

4. Both sides will discourage any propaganda directed against

the other country and will encourage propaganda which
promotes the development of friendly relations between the two
countries.

5. The High Commissioner of India to Pakistan and the High

Commissioner of Pakistan to India will return to their posts
and that the normal functioning of diplomatic missions of both
countries will be restored. Both governments shall observe the
Vienna Convention of 1961 on Diplomatic Intercourse.

6. Measures will be considered towards the restoration of

economic and trade relations, communications, as well as
cultural exchanges between India and Pakistan, and to take
measures to implement the existing agreements between India
and Pakistan.

7. The two leaders would give instructions to their respective

authorities to carry out the repatriation of the prisoners of war.

8. Both sides will continue the discussion of questions relating

to the problems of refugees and evictions/illegal immigrations.
Both sides will create conditions which will prevent the exodus
of people. The return of the property and assets taken over

After Nehru. . .

✫

701

Shastri’s Death

Early in the morning of January 11, 1966, the morning

following the signing of the Tashkent Declaration, Lal

Bahadur Shastri died of a heart attack. There was a controversy

over the death, with rumours floating that Shastri had been

poisoned. The hand of the Central Intelligence Agency (of

the USA) has been suspected in the matter (as also in

engineering the death of Homi Bhabha in an air crash) as

the West was wary of the nuclear aspirations of India and

a disturbance in the balance of power in South Asia. The

controversy has still not ended, especially as RTIs asking for

relevant information have been turned down by the government.

Indira Gandhi: the First Phase

(January 1966 – March 1977)

After the sudden and unexpected death of Lal Bahadur Shastri

in January 1966, once again, Gulzarilal Nanda was appointed

the interim prime minister pending elections. Morarji Desai

was a contender for the post of the Congress party

parliamentary leader and, as a corollary, the prime minister.

The Syndicate supported Indira Gandhi, Nehru’s daughter, and

most party members also were in favour of her. She won

the election; it is said most of the senior Congressmen

supported her as they thought she was weak enough to be

manipulated as they wanted. Time was to prove them wrong.

Early Life

Indira Priyadarshini was born on November 19, 1917 in

Allahabad to Jawaharlal Nehru and Kamala Nehru. India was

in the midst of a struggle for freedom from the British, and

the Nehru family was fully involved in the struggle. So,

by either side in connection with the conflict would be
discussed.

9. Both sides will continue meetings both at the highest and at

other levels on matters of direct concern to both countries.
Both sides have recognised the need to set up joint Indian-
Pakistani bodies which will report to their governments in order
to decide what further steps should be taken.

Source:

Ministry of External Affairs website

702

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

almost from childhood, Indira was closely in touch with the

events of those days of turmoil.

It is reported that when bonfires of foreign goods were

made during the freedom movement, Indira, then a child, gave

up a doll made in England to be thrown into the fire. At the

age of 12, she brought together and led a group of children—

calling it the Vanar Sena—to do their bit for the freedom

struggle. These youngsters addressed envelopes, made flags,

helped put up notices and carried messages to the freedom

fighters.

Indira attended several schools and colleges, sometimes

just for brief periods: these included the Ecole de Bex in

Switzerland, Rabindranath Tagore’s Visva-Bharati, the

university at Santiniketan, Bengal, and Somerville College,

Oxford, UK, among others.

In 1936, Indira joined the Indian National Congress, and

in 1938, she became a member of the India League. It was

during her stay in England that she met Feroze Jehangir

Ghandy (later changed to Gandhi), who was also a member

of the India League and studying in London. Feroze was a

Parsi. Indira returned to India in 1941 with Feroze Gandhi,

and she married him in 1942. Feroze too was a member of

the Indian National Congress and took part in the freedom

struggle. Indira was an active participant in the Quit India

Movement and was imprisoned in Naini Central Jail for some

time. Feroze and Indira had two sons—Rajiv and Sanjay—

both of whom were later to be part of India’s political scene

in their different ways.

Political Journey after Independence

After independence, when the Congress party came to power

and Jawaharlal Nehru became the country’s prime minister,

Indira often acted as her father’s hostess for events and

accompanied him on his travels. In the 1951–52 General

Elections, Indira Gandhi handled the campaigns of Feroze,

who was contesting from Rae Bareilly in Uttar Pradesh.

Feroze was elected to the Lok Sabha. But they had differences

in personal life and soon separated. Feroze soon became a

major spokesman against the corruption in the government.

He was instrumental in exposing a scam involving major

After Nehru. . .

✫

703

insurance companies and the finance minister in Nehru’s

cabinet, T.T. Krishnamachari. He died in September 1960.

Indira joined the Congress party’s working committee

in 1955, and in 1959, she was elected the party’s president.

Following the death of her father in 1964, she became a

member of the Rajya Sabha and was inducted into the cabinet

by Lal Bahadur Shastri as the information and broadcasting

minister.
Prime Minister

On January 19, 1966, Indira Gandhi became the third prime

minister of India—the first woman to occupy the post in the

country.

The General Elections of 1967 came amidst economic

problems—stagnation and food crisis, rising prices,

unemployment—which caused much disenchantment among

the people. The decision on devaluation of the rupee was

criticised by many. Also, political disputes obstructed the

import of wheat from the US. In the 1967 General Elections,

Indira Gandhi won the Lok Sabha seat from Rae Bareilly. The

Congress party managed to win the elections but managed

only a thin majority in the Lok Sabha. Indira Gandhi was now

prime minister but also had Morarji Desai as deputy prime

minister and finance minister.

The Congress either lost power or failed to get a

majority in several states in the assembly elections. The

coalition governments that took power in many states,

however, led to unstable governments and the practice of

defections from party to party.
Congress Split and Minority Government at the

Centre

In the following years, there was much turmoil within the

Congress party. So far, the Congress party had been

accommodative of diverse interests. There was now a growing

divide in ideology between the right and the left. The

Congress right was in favour of tackling the protest movements

and putting down the left, giving more space to the private

sector in the economy and improving relations with the US.

Indira Gandhi did not agree with many of the ideas of the

senior leaders of the party. She was in favour of radical

704

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

economic reform which did not meet the approval of the

conservative senior members of the party. A 10-point

programme adopted by the Congress Working Committee

under Indira Gandhi’s aegis referred to the need for social

control of banks, the government taking up foreign trade,

nationalisation of general insurance, ceilings on property,

public distribution of food grains, accelerated implementation

of land reforms, provision of subsidised plots for housing

the rural poor, etc. Indira Gandhi was in favour of abolishing

the privy purses to former rulers of the princely states. Her

decision to nationalise a set of banks without consulting her

finance minister was not approved by the senior party

members. In the end, Morarji Desai was forced to resign

from the cabinet.

With the death of President Zakir Hussain in May 1969,

things came to a head; there were strong differences over

the choice of candidates for the election to the post of

President of India. The official Congress candidate was

Neelam Sanjiva Reddy, a member of the Syndicate, but Indira

Gandhi, now increasingly leaning towards socialistic ideology,

and fearing that the Syndicate would use Sanjiva Reddy to

get her out of power, was in favour of V.V. Giri (erstwhile

vice-president now standing as an independent candidate).

V.V. Giri won the election and became the President of India

in August 1969.

Consequently, in November, the Congress party

president, S. Nijalingappa, expelled Indira Gandhi from the

party on ground of indiscipline. India Gandhi managed to win

over a majority of the party members to her side and created

her own faction, the Congress (R) where R stood for

‘Requisitionists’, in 1969, while the other group was the

Congress (O) with O for ‘Organisation’ headed by Ram

Subhag Singh. Indira Gandhi no longer had a majority in the

Lok Sabha, but with the issue-based support of regional

parties such as the DMK, the Akali Dal, and the two

communist parties, she retained power at the Centre.
The 1971 Elections: Indira Triumphant

Indira Gandhi found she could not take independent action

as head of a minority government. Her efforts at progressive

After Nehru. . .

✫

705

legislations were obstructed by the Supreme Court as well

as the Parliament. She got the nationalisation of banks

through a presidential ordinance after clearing the legal

lacunae pointed out by the court. The abolition of privy purses

not only failed to get passed in Parliament (the constitutional

amendment fell through just by one vote in the Rajya Sabha),

but the presidential order derecognising the princes that

Indira Gandhi brought in was nullified by the Supreme Court.

In December 1970, Indira Gandhi recommended dissolution

of the Lok Sabha and called for early elections. The nation

thus went to the polls in 1971. The catchy slogan of the

Congress (R) was ‘Garibi Hatao’ (Remove Poverty). Indira

Gandhi campaigned for social change and removal of

disparities in income and for stability of government.

The non-Communist opposition parties (Swatantra,

Congress-O, SSP) came together in what was called the

Grand Alliance with the election cry of ‘Indira Hatao’

(Remove Indira).

Congress (R) won the election with a good majority,

probably because the voters showed maturity in preferring

to vote on national issues rather than fall prey to political

patronage. Indira Gandhi was now well on her way to

dominating the political scene for a long time to come.

India’s victory over Pakistan in December 1971 and the

subsequent creation of independent Bangladesh out of the

erstwhile East Pakistan in the liberation war gave a big boost

to the image of Indira Gandhi. In the state assembly elections

in March 1972, the Congress (R) came to power in many

states. The elections of 1971 and 1972 had virtually reduced

the importance of the Congress (O) and the Swatantra Party

as significant opponents.
Problems

The huge enthusiasm for Indira Gandhi, however, started

fading by 1973, in spite of some important achievements of

the government. Economic problems grew. The main issue

was high inflation that followed from the wartime expenses,

drought in some parts of the country and the oil crisis of

1973. Food grains production declined due to poor monsoons,

and low agricultural growth had its adverse impact on industry

706

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

as well. As world crude prices soared, India was affected by

high costs of import and the resulting high prices of

petroleum products. Unemployment grew. There were strikes,

the most notable one being the all-India railway strike in May

1974. Most the influential social classes got gradually

alienated from Indira Gandhi—the rich peasants resented land

reforms, the industrialists resented the wide-scale

nationalisation and socialistic policies, and the middle classes

were deeply affected by the price rise and were critical of

the spreading corruption among officials and politicians. The

fact that Sanjay Gandhi, Indira Gandhi’s second son, was

entrusted with the venture of producing a small fuel-efficient

Indian car and was handed the contract and the exclusive

production licence, though he had little experience in the

field, was seen by most people as nepotism.
The JP Movement

There were protest movements in many places, especially in

Gujarat and Bihar, against the rising prices of essential

commodities.

The Nav-Nirman Movement in Gujarat between

December 1973 and March 1974 was serious enough for the

central government to decide to dissolve the assembly in the

state. The chief minister, Chimanbhai Patel, had to resign,

and the Centre promulgated president’s rule over Gujarat.

The movement in Bihar began as a series of student

protests, but it was soon taken up by Jayaprakash Narayan

(popularly known as JP) on a larger issue of corruption in

high places. JP called for ‘Total Revolution’ against the very

system that he said had forced people to become corrupt.

He demanded that the Congress government in Bihar resign

and the assembly be dissolved. People were asked to gherao

the legislature and offices and refuse to pay taxes – in other

words, obstruct government functioning. Jayaprakash Narayan

went beyond Bihar to try and draw the rest of the country

into the protest with the aim of bringing down Indira Gandhi’s

government which was portrayed as corrupt and undemocratic.

People in many parts of North India were enthused by JP’s

call; besides, the non-left opposition parties rallied behind

him. The movement, however, lost momentum by the end of

After Nehru. . .

✫

707

1974. Indira Gandhi challenged Jayaprakash Narayan to test

the strength of his group against the Congress in the 1976

elections and JP accepted the challenge. However, before the

‘contest’ could be settled democratically, things changed

drastically.
The Allahabad High Court Decision and the

Imposition of Emergency

On June 12, 1975, Justice Sinha of the Allahabad High Court

delivered a verdict in an election petition filed by Raj Narain,

Indira Gandhi’s opponent in the Rae Bareilly contest in 1971.

Raj Narain had accused Indira Gandhi of corrupt practices

during her election campaign. The court verdict declared

Indira Gandhi’s election to the Lok Sabha in 1971 invalid

on grounds of electoral malpractice, excessive election

expenditure, and using government machinery and officials

for party purposes; this meant that she could no longer be

the prime minister and could not try for election to Parliament

for six years.

An appeal against the judgement was made in the

Supreme Court, but before that could be settled, other events

took place. For one, in the Gujarat assembly elections the

Congress party suffered reverses and could not form a

government. The JP movement was revived with greater zeal

and the demand grew for Indira Gandhi’s resignation. There

was a call for nationwide agitation, and an announcement was

made that a civil disobedience would begin on June 29.

Indira Gandhi responded by recommending to President

Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed that a state of internal emergency

should be declared all over the country because of the

lawlessness. The president, accordingly, declared a State of

Emergency due to internal disorder, in accordance with the

provisions of Article 352(1) of the Constitution, on June 25–

26, 1975. (The prime minister’s decision had not yet been

endorsed by the cabinet, and the cabinet could agree to it

only after the event.)
State of Emergency (1975–77)

“The President has proclaimed the Emergency. This is

nothing to panic about. I am sure you are all aware of the

deep and widespread conspiracy which has been brewing ever

708

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Indira Gandhi and JP—

Both to be Blamed?

The agitation led by JP was getting increasingly chaotic and
certainly posed issues of law and order for the government. JP
even exhorted the army and the police not to obey ‘illegal’ orders.
When the Allahabad Court judgement came, the cry for Indira
Gandhi’s resignation/removal became strident.

Indira Gandhi’s appeal to the Supreme Court led to an interim

decision by the vacation judge, Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, who,
on June 24, allowed a conditional stay of the Allahabad verdict
—that Indira Gandhi could remain in her post, speak in Parliament
but could not vote in it. This stay order reinforced the demand
of JP and the Janata Morcha for the removal of Indira Gandhi
as the prime minister.

JP seems to have forgotten the Gandhian principles on

which he had been nurtured. He could have had the patience to
wait for the general elections which were due in March 1976: if
people were dissatisfied, they would have thrown out Indira Gandhi
and the Congress. But JP and his allies were not even willing
to abide by the Supreme Court judgement and wait for the final
decision.

In her broadcast to the nation on the evening of June 26,

1975, Indira Gandhi said: “In the name of democracy it has been
sought to negate the very functioning of democracy, duly elected
governments have not been allowed to function… agitations have
surcharged the atmosphere, leading to violent incidents… certain
persons have gone to the length of inciting our armed forces to
mutiny and our police to rebel… How can any government worth
the name stand by and allow the country’s stability to be
imperilled?”

Indira Gandhi, for her part, seems to have forgotten or

deliberately discarded her father’s democratic ideals. But then,
perhaps, she was always a little autocratic; she was after all
instrumental in getting an elected Communist government in Kerala
dismissed. After the Allahabad Court judgement, she could have
gracefully resigned, dissolved the Lok Sabha, and called for early
general elections or waited a few months on the sidelines for the
elections on their due date. But she was not interested in giving
up power: she claimed later that resignation would have strengthened
the forces that were, according to her thinking, threatening
democracy.

As Joe Elder, a British sociologist pointed out, “JP erred

After Nehru. . .

✫

709

since I began to introduce certain progressive measures of

benefit for the common man and woman in India.” Those were

Indira Gandhi’s words to the nation in her broadcast over All

India Radio.

President’s rule was soon imposed on Gujarat and

Tamil Nadu, the two states where parties other than the

Congress ruled; the entire country thus came under direct

central rule or were under Congress governments. Emergency

powers were used to replace with compliant men those

Congress chief ministers who were strong and could offer

opposition to Indira Gandhi. All pending legislative assembly

elections were indefinitely postponed.

Most opposition leaders—Jayaprakash Narayan, Atal

Behari Vajpayee, L.K. Advani, Morarji Desai, Charan Singh,

Asoka Mehta—and some Congress dissidents such as Chandra

Shekhar, as also many journalists (Ajit Bhattacharjea and

Kuldip Nayar to name two), trade union leaders, student

leaders, and academicians were arrested under the Maintenance

of Internal Security Act (MISA). Several organisations of

extreme ideologies—the Anand Marg, the RSS, the Jamaat-

i-Islami, the CPI(ML)—were banned.

As a result of the Emergency, the fundamental rights

in launching a mass movement without a cadre of disciplined, non-
violent volunteers… his movement’s credibility was weakened by
the presence within it of extremists of the Left and Right. On
the other hand, the Prime Minister clearly over-reacted in imposing
the Emergency.”

P.N. Dhar said: “When the fateful moment arrived, JP did

not let the law take its own course. Whether it was his mistrust
of Indira Gandhi’s motives, or his own lack of faith in the democratic
method, or his ambition to go down in history as a political messiah
of the Indian people is beside the point. Similarly, Indira Gandhi
showed more faith in the repression of political opponents and
dissidents in her party than in her own ability to engage them
constructively or fight them politically. Whether she opted for the
Emergency to save herself from loss of power or as shock
treatment to bring the country back to sanity is also beside the
point. The fact remains that both JP and Indira Gandhi, between
whom the politics of India was then polarized, failed democracy
and betrayed their lack of faith in the rule of law.”

710

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

were suspended and civil liberties were curtailed with the

amendments to MISA and the Defence of India Act in July

1975. Parliament was practically ineffective as there was no

effective opposition to debate issues. Several decrees, laws,

and even constitutional amendments were passed to reduce

the power of the judiciary and to declare that Parliament’s

right to amend the Constitution was unlimited. In this context,

the 42nd Amendment is memorable.

Censorship was imposed on the press and some

newspapers used to come out with blank spaces on the

editorial pages to signify that their views had been blacked

out for being critical of the situation. The Indian Express

and The Statesman will be remembered for trying their best

to put across criticism of the Emergency and the government.

The Emergency will be remembered for the ruthlessness

of the State: people were detained without charges, the law

enforcement authorities abused and even tortured those

arrested, and so-called programmes for development were

thrust on an unprepared people. The rise of Indira Gandhi’s

younger son, Sanjay Gandhi, to wield a power he did not hold

officially seemed ominous. He spearheaded the programmes

of destruction of crowded housing settlements and forced

sterilisation for controlling the population, causing misery

to thousands of people. He was, in the opinion of many,

instrumental in helping to set up what was in effect a police

state.

Support for the Emergency The imposition of

Emergency was not condemned outright by everyone. In fact,

considering that such a mass movement had been curbed and

JP arrested, no spontaneous demonstration took place. The

JP movement clearly did not have the support of people

across the socio-economic spectrum.

The middle classes on the whole initially welcomed the

Emergency: they were tired of the protest atmosphere and

were all in favour of some discipline and the control on

prices, for instance. Law and order certainly improved as did

administration, and there was a sense of calm that was

welcome. MISA was used to arrest smugglers, hoarders, and

those indulging in black market. The suppression of strikes

also met with general approval.

After Nehru. . .

✫

711

The announcement of the Twenty Point Programme

enthused the poorer and rural sections of population as well.

The economy improved initially, though it was mainly

because of the good monsoons. And, on the whole, people

believed that the Emergency was a temporary step to bring

the country back on the path of progress.

Even if the Congress party president Dev Kant Baruah’s

sycophantic praise of Indira Gandhi in 1976 that “India is

Indira, and Indira is India” was not shared by all, many eminent

personalities supported her step, at least initially.

The Communist Party of India was all in support of

the Emergency “to thwart right reactionary forces that is

using all the rights and liberties of parliamentary democracy

set up in order to destroy the freedom of the country”. The

party regretted its position later. The Communist Party

(Marxist), though, opposed it, and some of its members were

jailed.

Acharya Vinobha Bhave appreciated that it was time for

discipline to be imposed. Mother Teresa too supported Indira

Gandhi’s step for bringing calm and peace in the country.

Eminent journalist Khushwant Singh, surprisingly,

supported the Emergency in the beginning as he believed that

the JP movement would have led to anarchy in the country.

Later on, he was to change his view of the Emergency,

especially in light of the atrocities that were perpetrated.

Growth of Popular Discontent By mid-1976, the

popular mood had changed: there was discontent everywhere

as the economic improvement could not be sustained; the

criminals were back at their work, and the welfare programmes

failed to move at a fast enough pace to please the poor. Also,

it was the same corrupt and callous bureaucracy and

sycophantic and exploitative politicians who were handling

these programmes and the impact was therefore poor. The

strict and rigid discipline imposed did not meet with the

approval of government officials and teachers who also

resented being compelled to fulfil targets of getting people

sterilised. The police and bureaucracy had too much power

which they abused. Above all, the atmosphere of fear and

insecurity that had been created made people angry and

resentful, but these feelings had no vent as protest was

712

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

forbidden even as there was no alternate way for getting

grievances against corrupt and abusive officials redressed.

Sanjay Gandhi’s rise to power without responsibility

created great unease and anger, not only among intellectuals

who feared the erosion of democratic values, but more so

among the common people who had to bear the brunt of the

demolition and sterilisation drives. Surprisingly, the points

he put forward were not in themselves bad, for he advocated

abolition of dowry, planting of trees and beautification of

cities, encouraging literacy, and limiting family size. But the

ruthless and insensitive way in which these ideas were

implemented caused great misery and shocked people. Abuse

of authority, apparently under the direction of Sanjay Gandhi,

was rampant. With no effective press to report with at least

some accuracy on the situation and with people disbelieving

the official publicity news, rumours of atrocities and violent

protest put down forcefully spread and were believed.

The scale of the Emergency atrocities were more in

the northern parts of the country than in the southern parts.

This was to be reflected in the election results of 1977.

In retrospect, the Emergency was one of the darkest

periods of post-independent history of India; the two-year-

long period was also perhaps a very significant episode in

the political evolution of the Indian National Congress.

A lasting effect of the Emergency was to be felt in

the way the Congress party worked since then. At the 1976

AICC session in Guwahati, the stage was set for sycophancy

as an important political need. In fact, sycophancy was

institutionalised and prepared the way for dynastic politics.

The Guwahati session marked the debut of Sanjay Gandhi in

politics, and the Youth Congress cemented the rise to power

by considering Sanjay to be the heir to the throne, so to say.

On Sanjay’s death, Rajiv Gandhi was to step into the space

created, even if reluctantly.
Elections of 1977

The Emergency was extended twice, and then most

unexpectedly Indira Gandhi called for elections. It is possible

that with just sycophants reporting to her about the situation

and the absence of a free press to give a correct picture,

After Nehru. . .

✫

713

she thought people would endorse the policies brought in

under the Emergency rule and thus give them a popular

legitimacy. It has also been put forward by some that her

inherent democratic instincts were against continuing with

the draconian emergency rule. Yet others observe that when

she got an idea of the excesses being perpetrated she wanted

to get out of a situation that was getting out of her control.

The announcement of the elections came in January

1977. Political prisoners were released and press censorship

lifted, even as political parties were allowed to campaign

freely.

Opposition Gets Together In the elections, the

Congress of Indira Gandhi was opposed by an alliance of

opposition parties. The Jan Sangh, Congress (O), Bharatiya

Lok Dal led by Charan Singh, and the Socialist Party got

together to form the Janata Party. In February, Jagjivan Ram,

Nandini Satpathy, and Hemvati Nandan Bahuguna left the

Congress of Indira Gandhi to form their own party, Congress

for Democracy (CFD). The CFD, Akali Dal, DMK, and the

CPM allied with the Janata Party to fight the elections in

opposition to the Congress and its allies, the CPI and

AIADMK. After the elections, the CFD merged with the

Janata Party.

A Historic Election The Janata alliance made the

excesses of the Emergency and the issue of civil liberties

the major planks of its election campaign. The people voted

in March 1977; the elections seemed to be practically a

referendum on the Emergency. The Janata alliance got a huge

mandate with 330 out of the 542 seats in the Lok Sabha.

The Congress was trounced, especially in the north, and its

allies did not perform well either. Both Indira Gandhi and

Sanjay Gandhi lost their seats. Incidentally, the Congress did

well in the south where it got most of the 150 odd seats

View

“. . . democracy not only throws up the mediocre

person but gives strength to the most vocal howsoever

they may lack knowledge and understanding.”

—Indira Gandhi

714

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

it won. (The election results reflected the fact that the south

escaped much of the Emergency excesses; furthermore, the

pro-poor programmes were better implemented there than in

the north.)

Before the elections, many political observers of India

had despaired that democracy had no place in a country in

which a majority of the populace was illiterate and presumably

unaware of democratic values. They predicted that with the

Emergency, India would cease to be a democracy in the true

sense. But the elections proved that the Indian people were

astute and used their political power to good effect. The poor

too understood the value of civil rights. The elections which

brought a non-Congress government at the Centre for the first

time since independence showed that democracy was well

imbedded in the country.

The Emergency came to an end on March 21, 1977.

Developments in the Political System

The elections over time showed how the voters had changed.

The 1967 and the 1971 showed a marked increase in electoral

malpractices with booth capturing and rigging becoming

rampant. The Election Commission observed that casteism

that was becoming prominent, especially in Bihar, “vitiates

in no mean degree the political atmosphere”. This feature

has become practically entrenched in the country’s voting

behaviour.
Changes in the Congress

The 1971 elections—the fifth general elections since India

became independent—came earlier than the due date, thus

dissociating the national elections from the elections for the

state assemblies (the two had so far taken place

simultaneously). After the triumph in these elections, the

Congress led by Indira Gandhi dropped the (R) and adopted

the (I) to become Congress (I) and soon after dropped the

(I) as well: the margin of victory for her faction seemed to

confirm that it was the ‘real’ Congress. From now on, the

inner party democracy within the Congress was to get more

and more eroded.

A lasting effect of the Emergency was to be felt in

the way the Congress party worked since then. At the 1976

After Nehru. . .

✫

715

AICC session in Guwahati, the stage was set for sycophancy

as an important political need. In fact, sycophancy was

institutionalised and it prepared the way for dynastic politics.

The Guwahati session marked the debut of Sanjay Gandhi in

politics, and the Youth Congress reinforced the rise to power

by considering Sanjay to be the heir to the throne, so to say.

On Sanjay’s death, Rajiv Gandhi was to step into the space

created, even if reluctantly.
Growth of Regional Interests

Regional interests grew and took hold in many parts of the

country. At the level of the states, after the 1967 elections

the Congress had lost out in many; governments formed by

the Samyukta Vidhayak Dal (SVD)—composed of the Jana

Sangh, socialists, the Swatantra Party, and defectors from the

Congress—came and went in the northern states. The rise

of the SVD is considered as the manifestation of the growing

political consciousness of the lower castes who had benefited

from the land reforms but had not got the political clout.

Most of these castes belonged to the intermediary position

below the brahmins and above the lowest, and formed the

dominant group in their respective areas. Incidentally, the

politics increasingly became affected by the politics of

defection.

In southern India, especially in the Madras State (later

Tamil Nadu), a North-South divide was perceived: it was felt

that the North was trying to dominate and exploit the South.

Brahminism was, in fact, seen as a manifestation of this

exploitation as it was seen to have come from the North.

Language became a prominent bone of contention. The South,

especially Madras, viewed the possible imposition of Hindi

as official language with resentment. While the knowledge

of English was more or less evenly spread over the regions

of the country, imposition of Hindi would be very much to

the advantage of the people in the Hindi belt in the fields

of education and employment.

The three-language formula calling for learning Hindi,

English, and the regional language—each one with a different

script—was unsatisfactory as Tamilians would still have to

become proficient in all three while their ‘northern’

716

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

counterpart would have no extra difficulty with their mother

tongue. Kerala, Mysore State (later Karnataka), and Andhra

adopted the three-language formula. The southern demand

that northern states also include a southern language in a

three-language policy for themselves was generally ignored.

The northern states either refused to adopt a three-language

formula, or if it was adopted, there was an option for taking

Sanskrit instead of the southern language, so the formula

itself had no meaning. It was in this background that the

Dravida parties gained prominence.

The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), formed of the

middle castes of the region and firmly anti-brahmin in its

outlook, gained power in Madras; it came to power in the

state in the 1967 elections with a huge majority and formed

the first non-Congress government there under C.N. Annadurai.

Since then, the state has in most elections brought to power

either the DMK or the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra

Kazhagam (AIADMK), the group that separated from the

DMK under M.G. Ramachandran.

In Kerala, the Congress failed; CPI and the CPM came

together to form the government with E.M.S. Namboodiripad

once again becoming the chief minister.

In West Bengal after the 1969 election, the Congress

lost power, and a coalition government was formed by the

CPM and the Bangla Congress. Ajoy Mukherjee of the Bangla

Congress was the chief minister and Jyoti Basu of the CPM,

the home minister. There was trouble in the alliance, and the

state government also had problems with the Centre. There

was also the conflict with the Naxalites, chiefly the Communist

Party Marxists-Leninists, in short, the CP(ML) formed in

1969 and led by Charu Mazumdar, consisting of those rebels

who left the CPM saying it had betrayed the ‘revolution’. It

was in the Naxalbari area that bordered Nepal and Pakistan

(at the time East Pakistan) that the rural poor had been

mobilised around 1967 by Kanu Sanyal of the CPM to

demonstrate against landlords who had evicted tenants. The

protests soon turned violent, leading to the beheading of

some landlords. From the name of the place, the term

‘Naxalites’ grew to represent those who would resort to

violence against the State to protect the interests of the

After Nehru. . .

✫

717

oppressed. Now the CP(ML) also attacked rival communists

as agents of the government and the police in urban areas;

the police took repressive action. They looked to China and

Maoism for inspiration. In the end, they were successfully

suppressed by the government, though they continued to

influence certain areas of the country.

In Andhra Pradesh, there was a fresh agitation demanding

the creation of Telengana, with Hyderabad as its capital. The

Naxalites also established themselves in the rural areas here.

In Maharashtra, a new party Shiv Sena was founded in

1966 by Balasaheb Thackeray (more popularly called Bal

Thackeray), a cartoonist, in Mumbai. This party was vociferous

in its demand of ‘Bombay for Maharashtrians’, and targeted

the South Indians residing there, who, according to it, were

taking away jobs from the natives. There were even attacks

on the homes of South Indians and commercial establishments

run by South Indians. The Maharashtra for Maharashtrians

approach seemed to find favour with many of the inhabitants,

and the Shiv Sena came second to the Congress in the

municipal elections of Bombay.

The calls for greater autonomy were reflected in the

border areas as well. Kashmir had gone through an election

in 1967, which was, to all purposes unfair, with Congress

candidates being elected without opposition as other

candidates’ nomination papers were rejected. Sheikh Abdullah,

under house arrest for some time, was released. His attitude

to the position of Kashmir vis-à-vis India remained ambivalent,

but according to some reports, he was more ready than before

with the idea of Kashmir’s accession to India. After the Indo-

Pakistani war of 1971, the new order in South Asia seemed

to indicate that India’s control over Kashmir was quite firm.

Sheikh Abdullah was in a mood for a more conciliatory

approach to the Centre, and Indira Gandhi was ready to open

a dialogue with him. He agreed not to raise the issue of self-

determination for Kashmir but to limit his demand to just

greater autonomy within the Indian Union. He became the

Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir and the leader of the

National Conference. There was relative peace and, in 1975,

Indira Gandhi declared the state of Jammu and Kashmir to

be a constituent of India.

718

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

In 1966, Indira Gandhi accepted the Akalis’ demand that

Punjab be reorganised on linguistic lines. In consequence,

the southern part of Punjab which was predominantly Hindi-

speaking became a separate state, Haryana. At the same time,

the hilly areas in north-eastern Punjab were merged with

Himachal Pradesh. However, the contentious issue on the

status of Chandigarh, which the Akalis wanted to be the

capital of Punjab alone, was declared a union territory to be

shared by both the states as a capital. Though demonstrations

over the status of Chandigarh went on in 1968 and 1969,

and a veteran freedom fighter, Darshan Singh Pheruman,

fasted unto death, the initially temporary arrangement

continued indefinitely.

The north-eastern region of India has a strategic

importance. The Mizos rose up against the Government of

India in 1966, with the Mizo National Front (MNF) under

the leadership of Laldenga demanding sovereign independence

of Greater Mizoram. Indira Gandhi had to use the army to

quell the rebellion; the air force carried out strikes in Aizawl,

the only time the IAF was used in this way in civilian Indian

territory. With the 1971 war victory, the Mizo separatist

movement slowed down. Negotiating with the Mizo leaders,

the union government offered to turn Mizo Hills into a union

territory in July 1971. The Mizo leaders accepted the offer

on condition that the status of union territory would soon

be upgraded to statehood. In January 1972, the Union

Territory of Mizoram came into being. (Later, under Rajiv

Gandhi as prime minister, Mizoram was to become a full-

fledged state in 1987.)

There was insurgency in Nagaland too. Nagaland had

been a part of Assam at the time of India’s independence,

but in 1963, it had become a separate state of India. But there

were extremists in the state who demanded a separate identity

outside the State of India. The radicals in charge of the

movement were ready to get help and training from China.

Violent clashes took place between the Naga rebels and the

Indian Army. Indira Gandhi handled the situation with firmness,

especially during the Emergency. In March 1975, president’s

rule was imposed on the state. The leaders of the largest rebel

groups agreed under the Shillong Accord in November 1975

After Nehru. . .

✫

719

to lay down arms and accept the Indian Constitution. However,

a small group did not agree and spurts of violence and

conflict continued.

Statehood had also, in the meanwhile, been granted to

Meghalaya, Manipur, and Tripura in 1972, while the North-

East Frontier Agency was made into a union territory and

renamed Arunachal Pradesh.
Annexation of Sikkim

Sikkim had become a protectorate of India in 1950. By 1974,

several elections had been held in Sikkim; in the last

elections, two rival parties merged to form the Sikkim

Congress and won a massive victory in the polls. This party

campaigned for greater political rights. The chogyal, the ruler

of Sikkim, tried to suppress the movement but was not

successful. He turned to India, and India prepared a constitution

for Sikkim. The constitution was approved by the national

assembly of Sikkim in 1974. In 1975, a special referendum

was held in which an overwhelming majority of the electorate

voted in favour of Sikkim’s merger with India. As a

consequence, Sikkim was incorporated into the Indian Union

as its 22nd state in May 1975 after the Thirty-sixth

Amendment of the Indian Constitution. Sikkim is of great

strategic importance for India because of its location bordering

on China.
Language Policy to Curb the Anti-Hindi

Disturbances

Indira Gandhi assuaged the sentiments of the non-Hindi

speaking states by getting the Official Languages Act amended

in 1967 to provide that the use of English could continue

until a resolution to end the use of the language was passed

by the legislature of every state that had not adopted Hindi

as its official language, and by each house of the Indian

Parliament. This was a guarantee of de facto use of both Hindi

and English as official languages, thus establishing the

official government policy of bilingualism in India. The step

led to the end of the anti-Hindi protests and riots in some

states.
Centralisation of Power and the Socialistic Path

After she came back to power in 1967, Indira Gandhi

improved upon what Lal Bahadur Shastri had begun—having

720

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

a number of advisers to the prime minister in the prime

minister’s secretariat (which came to be known as the prime

minister’s office when Morarji Desai became prime minister

in 1977). The real expansion of the prime minister’s secretariat

and its emergence as a power centre in its own right occurred

under Indira Gandhi with P.N. Haksar becoming the first

principal secretary to a prime minister. There was an increase

in the number of joint secretaries in the secretariat as well.

Indira Gandhi needed to show her independence of the

Syndicate within her party; she did not trust the politicians

and was not sure when they may conspire to get her removed.

She chose to depend on the advice of a team of advisers:

besides Haksar, there were T.N. Kaul, a career diplomat, D.P.

Dhar, politician-turned diplomat, P.N. Dhar, economist-

turned bureaucrat, and R.N. Kao, security analyst. Incidentally,

the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) was established in

1968 on the CIA model, with Kao as its head.

Haksar, with a firm orientation towards the Left, was

the principal influence in the socialist path taken by Indira

Gandhi. Her other advisers were also enthusiastic about this

as they believed in socialistic ideals. They felt that the State

needed to have a greater role in the economy for social equity

to be ensured and national integration to be nurtured and

advanced. They were in favour of the public sector too for

promoting social integration. It is not certain that Indira

Gandhi held these ideals, but she was pragmatic in her

awareness that it was what she needed to follow. Her advisers

helped develop her image as a socialist in economics, a

secularist in religious matters, and as one who was pro-poor

and wanted development for all, says Ramachandra Guha.
Clipping the Wings of the Judiciary

The judiciary came in the way of implementing many of the

steps to facilitate quick social reforms. The contention over

property as a fundamental right was severe. The court had

obstructed the implementation of the abolition of privy

purses as well as the nationalisation of banks (which was

almost immediately implemented through a presidential

ordinance).

In 1971, the Twenty-fourth Constitutional Amendment

After Nehru. . .

✫

721

Act was put in place that authorised Parliament to amend any

provision of the Constitution; this was to overcome the

restrictions placed by the Supreme Court on Parliament

regarding amendment of fundamental rights (Golaknath case).

In 1972 came the Twenty-fifth Constitutional Amendment

Act providing that giving effect to certain directive principles

could not be challenged in court on the grounds of their being

inconsistent with certain fundamental rights.

In 1973, the practice of appointing the senior-most

Supreme Court judge as the Chief Justice of India was set

aside, and Justice A.N. Ray was made Chief Justice of India

though there were three other judges senior to him. The

appointment was politically motivated as A.N. Ray was seen

to be on the government’s side. When the law passed by

Parliament giving it greater powers to amend the Constitution

had been challenged in the apex court, Justice Ray had voted

in favour of the government’s view: this was seen as having

influenced his promotion.

Then in 1975 came the Thirty-eighth Amendment Act

specifying that the satisfaction of the president or the

governor to declare emergency or issue ordinances could not

be challenged in court.

The Thirty-ninth Amendment Act of 1975 provided that

disputes regarding the election of the president, vice-president,

speaker, and prime minister could not be heard by the high

courts or Supreme Court, but only by a special court to be

set up by Parliament.

The Forty-second Amendment was to further curtail the

power of the judiciary.
The Forty-Second Amendment Act: A Mini

Constitution of Sorts

In 1976 came the Forty-second Constitutional Amendment

Act that was the longest one till then and brought about

sweeping changes in the Constitution, so much so that it came

to be called a mini constitution in itself. It added some 40

articles and a new chapter to the Constitution, besides adding

new words to the Preamble. The main ideas were to exclude

the courts entirely from election disputes; to concentrate

power in the central government as against the states so that

722

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

the country could be ruled as a unitary and not a federal

polity; to protect revolutionary social legislation from judicial

scrutiny; and to further curb the power of the judiciary so

that it would be difficult for the court to upset parliament’s

policy regarding certain matters.

Some of the huge changes the amendment brought

about that affected the democratic system are given below.

Some of these steps would be repealed by the Janata

government that came in 1977.

The 42nd Amendment placed amendments outside the

purview of courts, further declaring that there was to be no

limitation on the power of Parliament to amend the

Constitution. It curtailed the powers of the high courts and

the Supreme Court in matters of judicial review and writ

jurisdiction.

In the Preamble, India was now characterised as

‘sovereign, socialist secular democratic republic’ instead of

the original ‘sovereign democratic republic’. Besides, the

words ‘unity of the nation’ were changed to ‘unity and

integrity of the nation’.

New directive principles were added to the Constitution,

and the directive principles were, on the whole, accorded

primacy over the fundamental rights.

A new chapter on fundamental duties was added to the

Constitution.

The term of the Lok Sabha was extended from 5 years

to 6 years. It further froze the number of seats in

constituencies for election to Lok Sabha, and state legislative

assemblies at the 1971 census level till the first census after

2000; there was to be no readjustment every 10 years after

every census as was the practice till then.

The laws made by Parliament to deal with anti-national

activities were declared to take precedence over fundamental

rights. The necessity of quorum in Parliament as well as in

state legislatures was discarded.

As per its provisions, the proclamation of national

emergency could be made for a part of territory of India.

The duration of president’s rule without Parliament’s approval

was extended from six months to one year. The Centre was

given the power to deploy armed forces in a state if a serious

situation of law and order arose.

After Nehru. . .

✫

723

Socio-Economic Policies

It was P.N. Haksar who apparently advised Indira Gandhi that

if she wanted to get control of her party she must oppose

the Syndicate on ideological lines. So, she presented the

socialistic path to be adopted for the good of the country.

Several steps were taken in keeping with this socialistic

ideology.
Nationalisation of Banks and Other Sectors of

Economy

Bank nationalisation was a step on this path, as Indira Gandhi

sided with the Young Turks (one of whose leaders was

Chandra Shekhar). She relieved Morarji Desai of his finance

portfolio as he opposed the idea, pointing out that the step

would cause a strain on the government administration and

lead to lower resources for economic development even as

it increased bureaucratic control. Indira Gandhi then adopted

the ordinance way to nationalise 14 major private banks in

July 1969. The ordinance was later passed by Parliament to

become the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of

Undertakings) Act. (In 1980, when Indira Gandhi came back

to power, another six banks were nationalised.)

The prime minister explained over the radio that India

might be an ancient country but was a young democracy and,

as such, should remain vigilant against the “domination of

the few over the social, economic, or political systems”.

Banks, she said, should be publicly owned so that they catered

to not just large industries, and big business but also to

agriculturists, small industries, and entrepreneurs.

Furthermore, the private banks had been functioning erratically,

with hundreds of them failing and causing loss to the

depositors who were given no guarantee against such loss.

The nationalisation did result in a huge expansion of

the banking sector, with branches not only increasing in

numbers but also coming up in remote and rural areas where

the formal credit system was hitherto unknown. Household

savings increased, with deposits increasing. Investments rose

in the informal sector. The nationalisation of banks led to

credit being provided to agriculture and small and medium

industries. It was stipulated that banks had to reserve a certain

724

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

percentage of credit to the priority sectors (agriculture and

small and medium industries). Differential interest rates

scheme introduced in 1972 required the public sector banks

to provide at lower than normal rates of interest to the weaker

sections of the society.

After being re-elected in 1971 on a campaign that

endorsed nationalisation, Indira Gandhi went on to nationalise

the coal, steel, copper, refining, cotton textiles, and insurance

industries. The main reasons were to protect employment and

the interests of the organised labour. Whatever industries

remained in private hands were strictly regulated. The foreign-

owned private oil companies in India created obstructions for

India by refusing to supply fuel to the Indian forces during

the war of 1971. In consequence, Indira Gandhi nationalised

the oil companies in 1973; since then, the major oil

companies have to maintain a minimum stock of oil for

military use when needed.
Abolition of Princely Privileges

After India got independence, the rulers of the princely states,

on merging with the State of India (thus losing the right to

rule), were granted a ‘privy purse’ by the Government of

India. This ‘purse’ was a certain amount of money, payable

annually to the rulers (and their successors) of such states

in proportion to their revenue, ranking as a salute state under

the British Raj, the antiquity of the dynasty, etc. Article 291

of the Constitution of India, the privy purse would be a fixed,

tax-free amount guaranteed to the former princely rulers and

their successors. The quantum of these ‘purses’ ranged from

Rs 5,000 per annum to Rs 26 lakh per annum.

The privileges enjoyed by erstwhile rulers were often

questioned and considered by many to be a relic of the past.

The 1969 attempt by the Indira Gandhi government to abolish

the ‘privy purse’ system and the official recognition of the

titles did not meet with success: the Constitutional Amendment

Bill to this effect was passed in the Lok Sabha, but it failed

to get the required two-thirds majority in the Rajya Sabha.

It was only in 1971 that with the passage of the Twenty-sixth

Amendment to the Constitution of India that the privy purses

were abolished.

After Nehru. . .

✫

725

As per the objectives and reason stated in the amendment

bill, “The concept of rulership, with privy purses and special

privileges unrelated to any current functions and social

purposes was incompatible with an egalitarian social order.

The Government, therefore, decided to terminate the privy

purses and privileges of the rulers of former Indian States.

It was necessary for this purpose, apart from amending the

relevant provisions of the Constitution, to insert a new article

therein so as to terminate expressly the recognition already

granted to such rulers and to abolish privy purses and

extinguish all rights, liabilities and obligations in respect of

privy purses.” Thus, Article 363-A was inserted in the

Constitution. Besides, the abolition of the privy purses would

reduce the government’s revenue deficit.
MRTP Act

In 1969, the Indira Gandhi government was able to get the

Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (MRTP) Act

passed after abolishing the managing agency system; the

latter, it was thought, enabled a small number of capitalists

to control a large number of industrial enterprises even

though they had little or no financial stake in them. The

MRTP Commissioner was to check the concentration of

economic power wielded by a few leading business families.
Steps for Equity and Poverty Reduction

It was under Indira Gandhi’s administration that a clause

calling for equal pay for equal work for both men and women

was enshrined in the Indian Constitution.

It was also in the cause of social equity that the princely

privileges were withdrawn.

Her programme for poverty reduction and redistribution

of wealth included rapid enforcement of land ceilings—

agricultural as well as urban land ownership; legislation for

redistribution of land to the marginal farmers was also passed

in many states.

A programme was initiated for distribution of food

grains at low cost to the economically vulnerable sections

of population. A crash programme for creation of employment

in rural areas was also devised.

726

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Views

“. . . even the late prime minister’s critics would concede
that the maximum number of legislations of social significance
was brought about during her tenure.”

Pankaj Vohra

“I suppose you could call me a socialist, but you have to
understand what we mean by that term...we used the word
[socialism] because it came closest to what we wanted to
do here – which is to eradicate poverty. You can call it
socialism; but if by using that word we arouse controversy,
I don’t see why we should use it. I don’t believe in words
at all.”

Indira Gandhi

Programmes for building houses for landless labourers

were designed. At least on paper, bonded labour was abolished

and there was a moratorium on the debts of the poor.

As already mentioned, the nationalised banks had to

keep in mind priority sector lending.

The nature of the reforms has been criticised, but it

cannot be denied that the social changes had the long-term

effect of bringing to prominence middle-ranking farmers

from the lower castes. And these classes were to pose a

challenge in the political system in the North.

Tackling Economic Problems

In the mid-1960s, Indian economy was going through a crisis.

There was shortage of food grains, a huge fiscal deficit, and

a deterioration in the balance of payments situation. This led

to a greater dependence on foreign aid. The war with Pakistan

in 1965 resulted in the suspension of food aid from the US,

which refused to renew the PL-480 agreement. In the

circumstances, five-year planning was suspended in favour of

annual plans (between 1966 and 1969).

Inflation remained high except during the Emergency.

Unemployment too was a grave problem.
Devaluation of the Rupee

There was pressure from the US, the World Bank, and the

International Monetary Fund on India to reduce its controls

over trade and industry and to devalue the rupee. Indira Gandhi

After Nehru. . .

✫

727

did devalue the rupee in June 1966 by 36.5 per cent,

increasing the dollar’s value against it by 57.4 per cent.

(According to B.K. Nehru’s account in Nice Guys Finish

Second, Lal Bahadur Shastri had decided upon devaluation

as early as January 1966 before he went to Tashkent.) The

idea behind the step was that devaluation would help India

sell more abroad and get the dollars to pay for its imports

of food, oil, and capital goods.

The step was severely criticised. The critics seemed

to be vindicated when the World Bank fell short on its

commitment to quickly organise more aid. Foreign capital

did not come as expected. Indira Gandhi felt betrayed and

lost faith in promises made by the West—this could have

been a factor in her subsequent shift leftward. Furthermore,

another drought added to macroeconomic difficulties, and the

effect of devaluation was ineffective due to contradictory

export-import policies. Devaluation thus came to be seen as

a failure. The medium-term effect of devaluation was, in fact,

beneficial: India managed to avert famine as well as bankruptcy,

and the trade deficit reduced drastically by 1970–71. In the

short term, however, it led to inflation and failed to the extent

that it was not accompanied by other reforms.

In the circumstances, the idea of liberalising the

economy became politically unacceptable and was abandoned.

Indira Gandhi chose to control the deficit through drastically

cutting down government expenditure. This led to an industrial

slowdown. Indira Gandhi had by now turned leftwards and

launched some radical policies—nationalising banks and

insurance, enacting the MRTP Act, enacting the Foreign

Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) which placed restrictions

on foreign investment and foreign companies functioning in

India, taking over ‘sick’ companies (especially in the textiles

sector) rather than letting them close down. In the long term,

some of these steps weakened the Indian economy, causing

stagnation and slow growth, but in the short term, they led

to an improvement in the economic situation, so much so

that India was able to stay clear of a debt crisis. Foreign

exchange was painstakingly built up. The resolve was to avoid

food aid; it seemed sensible to use the foreign exchange to

buy food grains commercially—as was done after the poor

728

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

harvests in 1972. Of course, the success of the Green

Revolution helped to restore the food economy.
Fourth Five-Year Plan

The much postponed Fourth Five-Year Plan (1969–74) was

at last launched. Its investment outlay was almost double than

that of the Third Plan. The goal was stated to be “growth

with stability and progressive achievement of self-reliance”.

The plan was dovetailed to the socialist principles

adopted by Indira Gandhi by then. The rationale was the Ten

Point Programme put forward by Indira Gandhi in 1967, her

first economic policy formulation soon after taking office

of prime minister. The programme placed an emphasis on

greater state control of the economy as it was believed that

government control ensured greater welfare than leaving the

economy to the private sector. So, the private sector needed

to be regulated. By the end of the 1960s, the liberalisation

process had been reversed and India’s policies could be called

as ‘protectionist’.

The government intended that India should be free of

dependence on foreign aid and emphasise on increasing

agricultural and industrial production.

The objectives of the Fourth Plan included: increasing

the income of the rural population and augmenting the supply

of food; making efforts towards maximising production;

attaining stability of prices; making policies to encourage

mixed economy; and bringing about human resource

development, especially in rural areas. It was intended to

provide for the minimum needs of the community through

a rural works programme.

The performance of the plan was not as good as

expected, though many of the social goals were realised. The

shortfall in targets was mainly because the war with Pakistan

and dealing with the refugees from East Pakistan took their

toll, and because of the 1973 oil crisis.
Green Revolution Success

The bright spot on the economic scene was the success of

the new agricultural strategy. The Green Revolution, the

seeds of which had been sown in Lal Bahadur Shastri’s tenure,

bore fruit and benefited the government of Indira Gandhi. The

After Nehru. . .

✫

729

new dwarf varieties of wheat that the Punjab and Haryana

farmers adopted led to bumper harvests. The new varieties

of rice, groundnut, and cotton too did well. Production of

wheat, especially, grew sensationally. There were shortcomings

in the strategy: huge regional variations, large areas unaffected

by the ‘revolution’ still depending on the erratic monsoons,

growth in the disparity of farmers’ income and what was to

be seen much later—the damage to the environment overuse

of chemical fertilisers and wastage of water. But at the time,

the feeling was that endemic food shortage had ended.
Fifth Five-Year Plan

The Fifth Five-year Plan (1974–79) did not last its full term,

but its programmes mostly coincided with the Emergency

period. The plan was targeted at reducing poverty through

addressing the consumption needs of the poor and by enacting

a range of socio-economic reforms. This was more or less

an aspect of the Twenty Point Programme. With the

Emergency in place, the economic programmes could be

implemented forcefully. Indeed, with the economy growing

at the rate of 9 per cent in 1975–76 alone, the Fifth Plan

was the first plan during which the per capita income grew

by over 5 per cent. However, with the elections of 1977 and

the Janata government coming to power, the Fifth Plan period

was curtailed and it was ended in 1978.

The Indo-Pak War of 1971 and the Birth
of Bangladesh

The war between India and Pakistan in 1971 was a milestone

in that it saw the liberation of East Pakistan resulting in the

birth of a new nation, Bangladesh.
The 1970 Polls in Pakistan and Unrest in East

Pakistan

In 1970, General Yahya Khan, who had succeeded Ayub Khan

as president and chief martial law administrator in Pakistan,

promised to restore democracy in Pakistan and duly called

for general elections—the first ever election based on adult

franchise in that country. Also, the number of seats to the

National Assembly was to be in proportion to the population.

East Pakistan, the more populous of the two wings of

730

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Pakistan, was thus, naturally, allotted more seats than West

Pakistan.

In West Pakistan, the dominant party was the Pakistan

People’s Party (PPP) led by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, while in

East Pakistan, the Awami League led by Mujibur Rahman was

the dominant party. Mujibur Rahman spoke of the eastern

wing being repressed by the military rulers and treated as

a colony to cater to West Pakistan’s interests. The East

Pakistanis resented their language—Bengali—being sidelined

and the low representation of their people in the higher

administrative sections of the country. Mujibur Rahman

demanded greater autonomy and a true federal constitution

with greater powers for the East wing. The poll was held in

December 1970 and the results showed where Pakistan was

heading. While the PPP won a majority of seats in West

Pakistan, the Awami League simply swept the elections in

East Pakistan and, in the process, got a majority over all.

Yahya Khan did not like the prospect of an assembly

led by an East Pakistani and dominated by East Pakistanis

with their demand for autonomy in framing a new democratic

constitution. There was also a fear among the West Pakistan

rulers that the Hindus in East Pakistan, many of whom were

well-educated professionals, might influence the writing of

the constitution. Yahya Khan with the endorsement of

Zulfiqar Bhutto postponed convening the National Assembly.

This angered the East Pakistanis, and the call for a general

strike by the Awami League met with a good response. In

March 1971, the Pakistani military regime took steps to

crush the protest and sent tanks and forces into East Pakistan.

Mujibur Rahman was arrested and moved to an unknown

destination. There seemed little chance for reconciliation

after the violent clashes and the brutal killing of civilians,

especially students, by the Pakistani Army.
Refugee Influx in India and Indian Response

One consequence of the civil war in East Pakistan was the

exodus of refugees (mostly Hindus) from that country into

India, the numbers running into millions by August 1971.

India allowed these refugees in and set up camps for them

(in West Bengal, Tripura, and Meghalaya, and even in Madhya

After Nehru. . .

✫

731

Pradesh and Orissa) and fed them. It was the central

government that bore the cost of all this.

In the beginning, India mounted diplomatic efforts at

convincing the world powers of the desperate situation

building up. Indira Gandhi contacted the US on the matter.

Henry Kissinger, the national security adviser to the US

president at the time, brought a letter from the US president

asking India to send back the refugees under UN supervision.

Indira Gandhi pointed out that the American arms given to

Pakistan, which were once used against India in 1965, were

now being used by Pakistan against its own people. She also

asked if the refugees from Hitler’s Germany would have been

repatriated under the conditions that existed at the time. It

is now known that Kissinger and Nixon differed in their

opinions on the situation. Nixon favoured Pakistan, especially

as it had secretly helped Kissinger establish contact on behalf

of the US with China, and did not want to help India.

The USSR, as opposed to the US, agreed with India on

the situation on the subcontinent—that the two wings of

Pakistan had drifted too apart for a possible reconciliation.

The USSR offered military equipment to India. It also

proposed a friendship treaty with India, which would act as

a deterrent to Pakistan and China if they thought of getting

together and indulging in military adventurism. When India’s

foreign minister at the time, Swaran Singh, visited Moscow

in June 1971 and met his Soviet counterpart, Andrei Gromyko,

and the president, Alexei Kosygin, it was decided that such

a friendship treaty would be signed. In August 1971, the

foreign ministers of the two countries signed the Treaty of

Peace, Friendship and Cooperation. The most significant part

of the treaty spoke of the mutual consultations on suitable

measures to be taken in the face of any attack or threat of

an attack on either country so as to remove the threat and

ensure peace and security of their countries.

By the summer of 1971, India had decided to intervene

actively in the situation. Indian forces began to provide

instruction in the use of weapons to Bengali guerrillas in

training camps. The group of these fighters, comprising

regular soldiers of the erstwhile united Pakistan as well as

fresh volunteers, was known as the Mukti Bahini. These

732

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

guerrillas were to sneak across the border into East Pakistan

to attack army camps and communication installations. The

Mukti Bahini was to play an important role in the liberation

of East Pakistan.

Indira Gandhi toured the world to acquaint the leaders

of the situation on the subcontinent. The country that could

have made a difference, namely the USA, remained

unimpressed. In November 1971, Richard Nixon and Indira

Gandhi met but did not agree on the situation; Nixon said

that the US would not agree to overthrow Yahya Khan and

warned India against taking military action.

In the meanwhile, the situation along the border between

India and East Pakistan had reached conflict stage, with

shelling taking place across the line. It was an opportunity

for the members of the Mukti Bahini to use the exchange

of fire to cross the border to carry out their insurgent

activity.
War and Liberation of East Pakistan

Pakistan chose to attack India on the western border on

December 3, 1971. As their bombers targeted airfields along

the western borders, their artillery regiments attacked Kashmir.

India, under the generalship of Sam Manekshaw, took swift

action in Kashmir and Punjab on the ground and with massive

air strikes. The Indian Navy got into action for the first time

and moved towards Karachi. The Western Naval Command,

under Vice Admiral S.N. Kohli, successfully launched a

surprise attack on Karachi port under the codename Trident.

India now had every reason to push across into Eastern

Pakistan with its troops and tanks and to turn the secret

skirmishes into open confrontation.

It must be pointed out here that India had modernised

its armed forces, besides starting indigenous weapons’

manufacture. The Pakistani military was no match for the

Indian forces. There was a further handicap that the Pakistanis

were working under—the low morale of its forces due to

the civil unrest and defection of Bengali personnel and the

stress of having to fight people of their own country. It has

been pointed out that Yahya Khan’s strategy was difficult to

understand. If Chinese help was anticipated, it did not come;

After Nehru. . .

✫

733

perhaps the snow in the Himalayas in December did not allow

any Chinese action. The Indian forces, on the other hand, had

no problem with weather on the eastern front and furthermore

were helped by the locals and the Mukti Bahini. Moving

towards Dacca (now Dhaka) from four directions, the Indian

forces captured strategic installations. The Indian Eastern

Naval Command, under Vice Admiral Nilakanta Krishnan,

created a naval blockade in the Bay of Bengal and isolated

East Pakistan. From December 4 onwards, the aircraft carrier

INS Vikrant was deployed to carry out attacks on the major

ports of East Pakistan.

India’s intention for East Pakistan became clear on

December 6, 1971 when the Indian government formally

recognised the Provisional Government of the People’s

Republic of Bangladesh.

The US sent Task Force 74 led by the aircraft carrier

USS Enterprise into the Bay of Bengal, but it was just a

show of power and an indication of the US stand. It did not

affect the course of what happened to East Pakistan. It was

now clear that Dacca was going to fall to the Indian forces

and, what is more, once the East Pakistan issue was settled,

India might turn its full attention to West Pakistan and also

cause its disintegration.

On December 13, the Yahya Khan sent a message to

Lieutenant-General A.A.K. Niazi, the Commander of the

Pakistan Eastern Command, to give up arms. But it was

December 16, 1971 before the Instrument of Surrender of

Pakistan Eastern Command stationed in East Pakistan, was

signed between the Lieutenant-General Jagjit Singh Aurora,

the GOC-in-C of Indian Eastern Command and Lieutenant-

General A.A.K. Niazi, the Commander of the Pakistan Eastern

Command, at the Ramna Race Course in Dacca.

East Pakistan had been liberated and a new independent

nation Bangladesh had come into being. Mujibur Rahman,

released from captivity, assumed the leadership of the new

nation.

On December 16, Indira Gandhi announced on radio a

unilateral ceasefire on the western front as well. The next

day, Pakistan too announced a ceasefire.

734

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Indira Gandhi’s image was greatly enhanced as an effect

of the victory. Many in India called her ‘Durga’. There was

a new confidence and a sense of power and achievement in

the Indians. The country seemed to have established a

dominant position in the subcontinent.
The Simla Agreement

In Pakistan, following the war, Yahya Khan resigned and

Zulfiqar Bhutto took over. Bhutto was reported to be in

favour of beginning a new relationship with India. India was

not against the idea. Bhutto was invited for a summit at Simla

in June 1972. At the meeting, the Indians expressed the need

for a comprehensive treaty settling all outstanding problems

including Kashmir. But the Pakistanis preferred a step by step

approach. In the end, whereas the Indian side wanted a ‘no-

war pact’, it had to agree to a ‘renunciation of force’ by both

sides. The Kashmir issue was left hanging, and regarding the

Line of Control which India wanted to be respected by both

sides, Pakistan added the caveat, ‘without prejudice to the

recognised position of either side’. Many of India’s demands

were watered down, and India apparently went with it because

it realised the precarious position held by Bhutto in Pakistan

and pushing too hard may have deposed him and made the

situation worse. The agreement (not treaty, as India wanted)

was signed on July 2.

The Simla Agreement was considered to be a

comprehensive blue print for good neighbourly relations

between India and Pakistan. Under the agreement, both

countries undertook to abjure conflict and confrontation, and

to work towards the establishment of durable peace, friendship,

and cooperation.

The two countries agreed to follow a set of guiding

principles in managing relations with each other: respect for

each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty; non-

interference in each other’s internal affairs; respect for each

other’s unity, political independence; sovereign equality; and

abjuring hostile propaganda.

There was a mutual commitment to the peaceful

resolution of all issues through direct bilateral approaches,

and to build the foundations of a cooperative relationship with

special focus on people-to-people contacts.

After Nehru. . .

✫

735

Text of the Simla Agreement

1.The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan

are resolved that the two countries put an end to the conflict and
confrontation that have hitherto marred their relations and work
for the promotion of a friendly and harmonious relationship and
the establishment of durable peace in the subcontinent, so that
both countries may henceforth devote their resources and energies
to the pressing talk of advancing the welfare of their peoples.

In order to achieve this objective, the Government of India

and the Government of Pakistan have agreed as follows:

●

That the principles and purposes of the Charter of the
United Nations shall govern the relations between the two
countries;

●

That the two countries are resolved to settle their differences
by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any
other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them.
Pending the final settlement of any of the problems between
the two countries, neither side shall unilaterally alter the
situation and both shall prevent the organization, assistance,
or encouragement of any acts detrimental to the maintenance
of peaceful and harmonious relations;

●

That the pre-requisite for reconciliation, good neighbourliness,
and durable peace between them is a commitment by both
the countries to peaceful co-existence, respect for each
other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, and non-
interference in each other’s internal affairs, on the basis
of equality and mutual benefit;

●

That the basic issues and causes of conflict which have
bedevilled the relations between the two countries for the
last 25 years shall be resolved by peaceful means;

●

That they shall always respect each other’s national unity,
territorial integrity, political independence, and sovereign
equality;

●

That in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations
they will refrain from the threat or use of force against
the territorial integrity or political independence of each
other.

2. Both governments will take all steps within their power

to prevent hostile propaganda directed against each other. Both
countries will encourage the dissemination of such information as
would promote the development of friendly relations between them.

736

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

3. In order progressively to restore and normalize relations

between the two countries step by step, it was agreed that;

●

Steps shall be taken to resume communications, postal,
telegraphic, sea, land including border posts, and air links
including overflights.

●

Appropriate steps shall be taken to promote travel facilities
for the nationals of the other country.

●

Trade and co-operation in economic and other agreed fields
will be resumed as far as possible.

●

Exchange in the fields of science and culture will be
promoted.

In this connection, delegations from the two countries will

meet from time to time to work out the necessary details.

4. In order to initiate the process of the establishment of

durable peace, both the Governments agree that:

●

Indian and Pakistani forces shall be withdrawn to their side
of the international border.

●

In Jammu and Kashmir, the line of control resulting from
the ceasefire of December 17, 1971 shall be respected by
both sides without prejudice to the recognized position of
either side. Neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally,
irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations.
Both sides further undertake to refrain from the threat or
the use of force in violation of this Line.

●

The withdrawals shall commence upon entry into force of
this Agreement and shall be completed within a period of
30 days thereof.

5. This Agreement will be subject to ratification by both

countries in accordance with their respective constitutional
procedures, and will come into force with effect from the date on
which the Instruments of Ratification are exchanged.

6. Both Governments agree that their respective Heads will

meet again at a mutually convenient time in the future and that,
in the meanwhile, the representatives of the two sides will meet
to discuss further the modalities and arrangements for the
establishment of durable peace and normalization of relations,
including the questions of repatriation of prisoners of war and
civilian internees, a final settlement of Jammu and Kashmir and
the resumption of diplomatic relations.

Source: Ministry of External Affairs website

After Nehru. . .

✫

737

However, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s speech in Pakistan’s

National Assembly soon after the agreement indicated that

the Kashmir issue was very much alive and that Pakistan was

ready to help the people of Kashmir if they started a freedom

movement.

In 1976, in spite of the Pokhran nuclear test by India

and the hostile reception to it in Pakistan, the two countries

agreed to reopen diplomatic establishments and normalise

relations.

Foreign Policy and Relations with other
Countries

Bangladesh India’s relations with Bangladesh were

specially cordial with Mujibur Rahman in power. However,

Mujibur Rahman’s policies that were pro-India did not meet

with approval of many in the political and military circles

of Bangladesh as they feared Bangladesh would become some

kind of satellite state to India. Mujibur Rahman was

assassinated in 1975, following which came Islamist and

military regimes. Indira Gandhi’s relations with these regimes

was uncomfortable. But, on the whole, the relations between

the two countries remained amicable.

Sri Lanka Indira Gandhi had cordial relations with her

Sri Lankan counterpart, Sirimavo Bandaranaike, and was

initially accommodative about the ethnic problem involving

the Tamils in that island country.

In 1974, India ceded the tiny islet of Katchatheevu to

Sri Lanka in order to save Bandaranaike’s socialist government

from a political disaster. In 1974, India ceded the small islet

Katchatheevu to Sri Lanka through the Indo-Sri Lankan

Maritime Agreement that was intended to settle the maritime

boundary in the Palk Strait. Sirimavo’s popularity was rather

low at the time, and Indira Gandhi decided to cede the island

so as to improve the image of the Sri Lankan prime minister

and to help stabilise the Bandranaike regime in Sri Lanka.

The agreement, which did not specify fishing rights,

allowed Indian fishermen to fish around Katchatheevu and to

dry their nets on the island. However, in 1976, without

consulting the Tamil Nadu assembly or Parliament Indira

Gandhi’s government finalised another agreement to determine

738

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

the boundary in the Gulf of Mannar and Bay of Bengal and

restricted both the countries’ fishermen from fishing in the

other’s waters: “The fishing vessels and fishermen of India

shall not engage in fishing in the historic waters, the

territorial sea and the Exclusive Economic Zone of Sri Lanka,

nor shall the fishing vessels and fishermen of Sri Lanka

engage in fishing in the historic waters, the territorial sea

and the Exclusive Economic Zone of India, without the

express permission of Sri Lanka or India, as the case may

be,” said the agreement.

Soviet Union Under Indira Gandhi, India’s relations

with the Soviet Union deepened, especially in light of the

attitudes of the US and China regarding Pakistan. The Treaty

of Friendship with the USSR was a move to counter the

Chinese closeness with Pakistan. When the US introduced

a resolution in the UN Security Council calling for a cease-

fire and the withdrawal of armed forces by India and Pakistan

after Pakistan began the attack on the western front, the

Soviet Union vetoed the resolution. Though the Soviet Union

was not happy with India’s nuclear test of 1974, it did not

support further action against India. Certainly, there was a

tilt towards the Soviet Union for pragmatic reasons during

the times of Indira Gandhi.

United States From the time Indira Gandhi came to

power, the relations with the US were strained. When Lyndon

Johnson was president and India was reliant on the US for

food aid, Indira Gandhi resented aid with strings attached—

that in return for food, India was expected to agree to the

policies of the US. She was also firm about not signing the

Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).

After Nixon came to power in the US, relations deteriorated;

Nixon disliked Indira Gandhi as well as the Indians and had

a clear bias for Pakistan. Indira Gandhi expressed her

criticism of the Vietnam war as well.

West Asia Indira Gandhi fully supported the Palestinians’

cause and against Israel. The pro-Arab stand had mixed

results, especially after the war with Pakistan. While some

of the Arab governments remained neutral (Egypt, Algeria,

Syria, for instance), the conservative pro-American Arab

monarchies in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and United Arab

After Nehru. . .

✫

739

Emirates supported Pakistan. Libya saw the Indian intervention

in East Pakistan as an attack on Islam.

Ties with Iran floundered for a while in the wake of

the Indo-Pak war, with Iran viewing India’s tilt towards

Moscow and the break-up of Pakistan as part of a larger

conspiracy against Iran involving India, Iraq, and the Soviet

Union. However, Iran had not agreed to activate the Baghdad

Pact and draw in the Central Treaty Organisation (CENTO)

into the conflict at Pakistan’s instigation. By 1974, the

relations had recovered enough for Iran and India to come

to an agreement that led to Iran supplying a substantial amount

of crude to India.

Asia-Pacific In 1967, the Association of Southeast

Asian Nations (ASEAN) was formed. In India’s view, ASEAN

was a pro-US organisation with links to the SEATO. The

ASEAN countries were not happy about India’s stance over

Vietnam and the close ties with Moscow. Nor did India’s

nuclear test meet with their approval; they saw it as contributing

to the tension in the region.

Africa India’s image as a vigorous opponent of

colonialism suffered in African eyes because of the cordial

relations India maintained with the Commonwealth of Nations.

Initially, India condemned the armed struggle in Kenya and

Algeria for independence. Under Indira Gandhi, relations

began to be repaired. Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria, and Libya—

the countries that had supported India during the Sino-Indian

War in 1962 got special attention after she came to power.

Diplomatic and economic relations with these states were

expanded. Unlike her father, Indira Gandhi openly supported

the liberation struggles in Africa. India’s image too had

improved in the world with the nuclear test and the refusal

to be bullied by the US in the Indo-Pak War of 1971.

Furthermore, Indira Gandhi firmly connected the Indian anti-

imperialist interests in Africa and those of the Soviet Union.

The experience of Indians in Uganda, however, was depressing:

they suffered persecution in the Idi Amin regime and were

eventually expelled from that nation.

The Smiling Buddha

Though it could be seen as a part of the national security

policy, it was scientific endeavour that led to India’s successful

740

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

detonation of a nuclear device. On May 18, 1974, India

conducted its first nuclear test in the Thar Desert of

Rajasthan, at the army base near the village of Pokhran.

Officially termed Pokhran I but code-named ‘Smiling Buddha’,

the exercise was an underground detonation. It was formally

called a ‘peaceful nuclear explosion’. It was the first time

that a confirmed nuclear test was done by a nation that was

not one of the five permanent members of the United Nations

Security Council.

It is believed that Indira Gandhi authorised the

development of nuclear weapon system, presumably in light

of China slowly and steadily becoming a nuclear power. She

was guided by the belief that it was in the interests of the

stability and security of India if it was to develop independently

of the nuclear superpowers. The nuclear device, which was

of the implosion type and was said to resemble the American

nuclear bomb called ‘Fat Man’, was developed under the

guidance of Raja Ramanna who was then the Director of the

Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC). The project was

overseen by the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission,

Homi Sethna. Some of the other scientists of renown

involved in the projects were P.K. Iyengar, R. Chidambaram,

Basanti Nagchaudhuri, and Waman Dattatreya Patwardhan.

Though there was euphoria in many sections of the

population, there was also a perception that the test was

authorised by Indira Gandhi to divert attention from the unrest

that was going on in the country.

International Reaction Though India called it a test

for ‘peaceful purposes’, the rest of the world was not too

happy about it. The Nuclear Suppliers Group was formed to

check nuclear proliferation.

As the plutonium used in the test came from the CIRUS

reactor supplied by Canada and the heavy water was supplied

by the US, the two countries were unhappy. Canada suspended

assistance for the two heavy water reactors then under

construction.

Pakistan was furious and cancelled the talks that were

soon to take place for the normalisation of relations.

Pakistan’s prime minister, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, declared that

he would not be blackmailed by India and would not accept

After Nehru. . .

✫

741

India’s domination in the subcontinent. The Indian test,

according to Pakistani opinion, pushed Pakistan into the

nuclear field.

The Janata Party Years

(March 1977 – January 1980)

The Janata Party contesting under the symbol of ‘chakra-

haldhar’ and its allies won a massive majority in the 1977

elections.

Morarji Desai the First Non-Congress
Prime Minister

There were three contenders for the post of prime minister,

namely, Morarji Desai, Charan Singh, and Jagjivan Ram. It

was left to Acharya Kripalani and Jayaprakash Narayan to

decide who would become prime minister. Their choice was

Morarji Desai who duly took the oath as prime minister on

March 23, 1977. Charan Singh (minister of home, and later

of finance) and Jagjivan Ram (defence minister) were deputy

prime ministers.

Fresh State Assembly Elections

It was felt that the nation had expressed its dissatisfaction

with the Congress and hence the states under Congress rule

should also have fresh elections. These state assemblies were

dissolved and elections were held in June. As a result of the

elections, the Janata Party was able to form governments in

Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Haryana, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh,

Rajasthan, and Himachal Pradesh. In Punjab, the Janata Party

and the Akali Dal formed a coalition government. In Tamil

Nadu, the AIADMK swept the elections and its leader, M.G.

Ramachandran formed the government. His government was

not interested in confrontational politics with the Centre; it

was also to be the pioneer in launching the midday meal

scheme to encourage children, specially girls, to attend

school. In West Bengal, a coalition of left parties won a good

majority, with the CPM doing exceptionally well, and Jyoti

Basu became the chief minister. The left government was to

undertake agrarian reforms from which a large number of

poor peasants benefited.

742

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

In Jammu and Kashmir, Sheikh Abdullah had led the

Congress government consequent to an accord with Indira

Gandhi before the Emergency. Now the Morarji Desai

government dissolved the assembly and initiated fresh polls

to install a mandated government in the state. Sheikh Abdullah

revived his party, the National Conference, and, in the first

truly fair and free polls in the state since independence, his

party won a comfortable majority. However, the divide

between the Muslim-dominated Valley and the Hindu-

dominated Jammu became apparent, with the National

Conference not doing so well in Jammu.

New President of India

With a hold on most states, the Janata Party was able to get

its candidate, Neelam Sanjiva Reddy, elected as the President

of India in June 1977. The presidential election was

necessitated by the death of Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed in

February of that year.

Downslide of the Janata and Rise of
Congress (I)

The Janata government began with full popular support and

high hopes, but cracks soon started showing with marked

differences on ideological and political lines coming up.

What is more, the concentration of some leaders on revenge

against Indira Gandhi worked against the party and revived

the Congress leader’s popularity. In combination, these two

factors worked towards the fall of the first non-Congress

government at the Centre.

Futile Commissions Various commissions of enquiry

were set up to look into alleged malpractices and wrongdoing

by Indira Gandhi and her son. The most famous of these was

set up under the chairmanship of Justice J.C. Shah, a retired

judge of the Supreme Court, to enquire into the atrocities

and excesses of the Emergency. Most of the allegations,

however, could not be proved, and few convictions could be

obtained. The cases against Indira Gandhi could not be

maintained as there was lack of evidence.

Belchi and Indira’s Masterstroke Then in May 1977,

came the violence in Belchi, a village in Bihar: a group of

After Nehru. . .

✫

743

Harijans were burnt to death by a mob from the upper castes,

allegedly over a dispute over land. It may be noted here that

the social set-up in India was undergoing a transformation.

There was a rise to prominence of the backward castes (who

later came to be called the ‘other backward classes’) who

had got rich in the wake of the Green Revolution and the

White Revolution and bought land from the forward castes

and had elected representatives to further their cause.

Unfortunately, they also took this as a licence to act as they

wanted. The Harijans worked on these lands, but they were

at the receiving end of much abuse from the landlords. With

the spread of education and scope for political representation,

the younger among the Harijans, especially, were no longer

ready to meekly accept the ill treatment handed out. They

too gave a fight. There was thus a spurt in caste violence.

The Belchi incident was exploited to her own advantage

by Indira Gandhi. She travelled to Belchi, the last bit on an

elephant as there was no clear path on which to even walk

to reach the village, and showed her sympathy for the affected

people. Besides showing up the Janata government as callous

to the poor and marginalised, Indira Gandhi’s action built up

her own image as a friend of the poor and the Harijans even

as her party members were made to realise that she was the

leader to follow if power was to be regained.

Indira makes Gains Charan Singh’s single-minded

hounding of Indira Gandhi and her son Sanjay worked in her

favour. Indira Gandhi was arrested on some vague corruption

charges and kept in police custody for a day, after which the

magistrate released her, rejecting the charges as insubstantial.

She was now very much back in the game and made speeches

critical of the government.

The Congress split once again in January 1978; the

group led by Indira Gandhi becoming the Congress-I (for

Indira). Her party won the Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh state

assembly elections, defeating the Janata Party as well as the

rival Congress party. She herself contested elections from

Chikmagalur in Karnataka and won a seat to the Lok Sabha.

Now, a parliamentary committee reported on Indira Gandhi

having misled the house on the Maruti enterprise, and the

744

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

house said she should go to jail. She was disqualified from

her seat. However, she won again from Chikmagalur. Indira

Gandhi was now seen as a victim of a witch-hunt, and her

popularity grew.

Differences within the Janata Party and Fall of

Morarji’s Government The Janata Party was in the meanwhile

disintegrating, with growing factionalism and personal rivalries

overshadowing the efforts at governance. The antagonism

between Morarji Desai and Charan Singh, who was not

satisfied with his second number position in the cabinet, grew

to such an extent that Desai was forced to dismiss Charan

Singh as well as Raj Narain from office in mid-1978. Charan

Singh retaliated by organising a farmers’ protest march to

Delhi in December 1978. In an effort to keep peace, Charan

Singh was recalled to the cabinet by Desai in February 1979

and allotted the finance portfolio as well as the post of deputy

prime ministership. Things, however, failed to move smoothly.

The divide was getting deeper, with two sides being formed:

the Socialists siding with Charan Singh and the Jana Sangh

with Desai. There was further the issue of ‘dual membership’

of the Jana Sangh members who maintained their ties with

the RSS. They would not give up the membership of the

Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS) as they considered it

to be merely a cultural entity. The Socialists and Charan

Singh’s party walked out of the coalition reducing the

government to a minority. Desperate bids to get support from

the Congress factions did not succeed and the Morarji Desai

government resigned in July 1979.

Charan Singh the Prime Minister Who
Never Faced Parliament

In a brazen show of opportunism, Charan Singh negotiated

with his erstwhile bitter enemy Indira Gandhi to get support

for a government led by him. With a letter of support from

the Congress, Charan Singh was able to convince the president

that he could have a majority in the Lok Sabha. He was sworn

in as prime minister towards the end of July subject to

proving the confidence of the House. So, he gave the prime

minister’s speech from the rampart of the Red Fort on

Independence Day but never got to face the Parliament: just

a day before the confidence vote, Indira Gandhi withdrew her

After Nehru. . .

✫

745

support to his government. Charan Singh had not accepted

Indira Gandhi’s demand that the special courts set up to

prosecute her be disbanded. Charan Singh had no option but

to resign. The president explored other options of government

formation but none was feasible. In the end, Lok Sabha was

dissolved and fresh elections called for. Charan Singh

remained caretaker prime minister till elections could take

place.

Fresh Lok Sabha Elections and End of
Janata Party Rule

Lok Sabha elections took place in January 1980. The parties

in the fray were the Congress (I), Congress (U), Lok Dal,

the new party floated by Charan Singh and the Socialists, and

Janata, now consisting primarily of Jana Sangh and of the

old Congressmen such as Jagjivan Ram and Chandra Shekhar.

The presence of the CPM and CPI was only in West Bengal

and Kerala. The Janata Party campaigned again on the planks

of threats to democracy, and Charan Singh spoke of power

to the farmers, but this time round Indira Gandhi ignored

ideology and astutely focused on an issue close to the

people’s heart at the time, namely, the offer of a government

that could govern. The people, tired of the Janata’s lack of

governance and incessant mutual quarrels, gave their mandate

in favour of the Congress led by Indira Gandhi, also thus

endorsing the view that hers was the real Congress.

The Janata Party split into various parties, like Janata

Dal, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Samajwadi Party, etc.

Legacy of the Janata Rule

Short-lived its rule might have been and marked by strife and

contradictions within, but the Janata Party government

contributed something valuable to the Indian polity even as

its negative aspects cannot be ignored.

It was the first non-Congress government at the Centre

since India’s independence. It was also the first coalition

dispensation at the central level.
Restoration of Democratic Rights

An unforgettable contribution of the Janata Party government

was the restoration of democracy and civil rights in the

country.

746

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

The Janata government was prompt to take steps to

reverse the draconian measures of the Emergency: media

censorship was removed and several controversial executive

decrees were repealed.

It repaired the Constitution from the Emergency

‘depredations’ and revived ‘open parliamentary practice through

its consultative style when repairing the Constitution’ and

restored the independence of the judiciary, as Granville

Austin points out. Arbitrary powers of the executive were

curbed and the power of an independent judiciary restored.

Under the supervision of the law minister, Shanti

Bhushan, amendments were devised to nullify the democracy-

throttling steps of the Forty-second Amendment. The Forty-

third and Forty-fourth Amendments to the Constitutions were

landmarks in India’s political history.

The Forty-third Amendment passed in 1977 deleted

Article 3ID which gave powers to Parliament to curtail even

legitimate trade union activity under the guise of preventing

anti-national activities. Ratified by more than half the states

as required, the amendment gave back to the states the

legislative powers to make appropriate provision for anti-

national activities consistent with the Fundamental Rights.

The power of the judiciary to invalidate laws was restored.

The high courts were given the power of going into the

question of constitutional validity of central laws, thus

making it possible for persons living in distant places to seek

justice without having to come all the way to the Supreme

Court.

The Forty-fourth Amendment of 1978 made the

promulgation of Emergency more difficult than it was. It

would now require the ‘written advice’ of the cabinet and not

the prime minister alone before the president could proclaim

Emergency. The proclamation would have to be approved

within one month of the reassembly of Parliament, and that

too by a two-thirds majority; its renewal would need a

parliamentary vote on it every six months. Furthermore, the

term ‘internal disturbances’ was replaced with ‘armed rebellion’

as a cause for imposing emergency. A special session of the

Lok Sabha could be called, one-tenth of its members

requesting the president for the purpose of revoking the

After Nehru. . .

✫

747

emergency; such a revocation could be achieved by simple

majority. It was also asserted that Article 20 and Article 21

would never be suspended even during emergency, while

other fundamental rights would not get suspended automatically

but would require a separate order by president. All important,

the emergency provisions could be challenged in courts.

The amendment restored the term of the Lok Sabha and

the state assemblies to the original term of five years. The

courts also got back the power to decide the election disputes

of the president, prime minister, speaker, etc.

The president would now be allowed to return the

advice tendered by the cabinet once for a review.

The amendment deleted Article 31, the Right to Property

from the list of Fundamental Rights to become just a legal

right.
Economic Contradictions

The Janata Party had no single ideology; its members were

a mix of veteran socialists, trade unionists, and pro-business

leaders. It made the achievement of major economic reforms

difficult. With Charan Singh in a prominent position, it was

inevitable that agriculture and the rural sector got importance.

The Sixth Five-Year Plan (meant for 1978–83 but also

curtailed due to change of regime in 1980), launched by the

government after curtailing the Fifth Plan, aimed to boost

agricultural production and rural industries. It was called the

rolling plan. In a rolling plan, planning is at three levels: first,

for the current year as decided by the annual budget; second,

a plan for a slightly longer fixed period which allows

flexibility to change priorities as per the need of the

economic and political situation; and third, a perspective plan

which is for 10, 15, or 20 years. There are no fixed dates

and the targets can be revised every now and then as per the

annual reviews which are very important. While flexibility

is a plus point with this type of planning, a major drawback

is that targets are difficult to achieve as they could keep

changing.

With the fiery Socialist George Fernandes in charge

of the industries ministry, the aim was to promote economic

self-reliance and indigenous industries and, if need be, even

748

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

expel the American multinational companies, such as Coca-

Cola and IBM (which indeed was accomplished). Such

policies led to a reduction in foreign investment. However,

the problems of resurging inflation, fuel shortages,

unemployment, and poverty could not be effectively addressed

as no effective alternative economic policy was evolved to

deal with the economic situation.

The government failed to work on the radical reforms

the party had promised in the run-up to the elections.

There were some bright spots. The Food for Work

programme, launched in April 1977, envisaged some of the

stocks of food grains with the government to be used for

payment as wages in kind to workers in rural areas who helped

to build roads and water ponds during the season when

agricultural employment was low.

Madhu Dandavate, also a socialist but on the moderate

side, undertook some important reforms of the railways of

which he was in charge. It was he who initiated steps to

reduce the corruption in ticket reservation. He initiated steps

to repair worn-out tracks. He did a huge favour to the

travellers in the sleeper second class compartments: he

directed that the hard bare wooden seats be cushioned with

two inches of foam.
Foreign Relations

There was a belief that the Janata government would move

closer to the West to compensate for the Indira Gandhi tilt

towards the Soviet Union. The Janata government certainly

tried to improve ties with the US, with the result that the

US president, Jimmy Carter became the first US president

to visit India after Eisenhower. Efforts were made to improve

trade and expand cooperation in science and technology.

However, the Janata government made it clear that it would

practise genuine non-alignment, so maintained cordial relations

with the USSR too, with Morarji Desai and Vajpayee (the

foreign minister) paying visits to Moscow. Representing

India at the UN conference on nuclear disarmament, Vajpayee

continued with India’s earlier policy and spoke in defence

of India’s nuclear programme and its refusal to sign the non-

proliferation treaty on the ground of discrimination.

After Nehru. . .

✫

749

One of the firsts in foreign relations of the Janata

government was the effort at normalisation of ties with the

People’s Republic of China. In 1979, Vajpayee became the

highest-ranking Indian official so far to visit Beijing to meet

the Chinese leaders. Diplomatic ties were re-established

between India and China; ties had been suspended since the

1962 war. The two sides agreed to establish regular dialogue

to resolve long-standing territorial disputes, expand trade, and

improve border security.

Social Changes and Movements

The late 1970s, observes Ramachandra Guha, saw a churn in

political and social terms. Politicians seemed to have

abandoned ideology in favour of expediency and the polity

had become fragmented. On the social level, the sections of

society that had been oppressed for so long began to assert

themselves, and this led to a certain amount of social turmoil.

There were new social movements, such as the feminist and

the environmentalist. The older movements, such as the trade

union movement, spread out into fresh areas, such as mines,

and there were campaigns for equal wages for men and

women, education, health, and safety. The liberated press

wrote at length and on a wide range of subjects. And

technology in the form of the new offset printing presses

helped disseminate the location of newspapers and journals.

Investigative journalism began with its lens on crime and

corruption. Readership expanded, especially in small towns

as did journalism in Indian languages. And a civil liberties

movement became active.

The social classes—the OBCs—had reaped economic

power through the Green Revolution, and the land reforms

and also gained political power. (The Socialists and the Lok

Dal were mostly formed of the OBCs.) They now sought a

space in the administrative system. The Janata government

in January 1979 appointed the Second Backward Classes

Commission, popularly known as the Mandal Commission

after its chairman Bindeshwari Prasad Mandal, a former chief

minister of Bihar. Its remit was to examine whether reservation

in jobs for OBCs should be there in the central administrative

system.

750

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Indira Gandhi: the Second
Phase

(January 1980 – October 1984)

In the 1980 General Elections for the Seventh Lok Sabha,

the Congress (I) was returned to power with a strong

majority. Indira Gandhi won from Rae Bareilly in Uttar

Pradesh as well as from Medak in Andhra Pradesh. She chose

to keep the Medak seat. Chosen as the Congress parliamentary

leader, she became the Prime Minister of India once again.

Indira Gandhi trusted very few and had come to rely

more and more on her son, Sanjay, who had also been elected

to the Lok Sabha. She was not ready to share power with

anyone else. But in June 1980 Sanjay died when he tried out

some stunts in the plane he was flying and lost control. And

Rajiv Gandhi, Indira’s elder son, an airline pilot with no

experience in politics, was reluctantly forced into politics.

Soon enough he was elected from Amethi to the Lok Sabha

and most people knew he was heir apparent to the Congress

leadership.

Economy

Indira Gandhi paid immediate attention to the economy. The

Janata Sixth Five-Year Plan was curtailed and a new Sixth

Year Plan (1980–85) was launched. The objectives of the

new Sixth Five-Year Plan India were mainly focused on

increasing growth and industrialisation and reducing poverty

and unemployment. There was to be promotion of efficiency

in the use of resources and improved productivity, besides

the strengthening of the impulses of modernisation for the

achievement of economic and technological self-reliance. A

minimum needs programme was envisaged for the

economically underprivileged, designed to ensure that all

parts of the country attained, within a prescribed period,

nationally accepted standards.

The Integrated Rural Development Programme (IRDP)

was launched on October 2, 1980 all over the country. The

National Rural Employment Programme (NREP), launched

in October 1980, became a regular programme under the Plan

from April 1981.

After Nehru. . .

✫

751

The National Bank for Agriculture and Rural

Development was established for the development of rural

sector in 1982 on the recommendation of the Shivaraman

Committee.

The Sixth Plan is considered to have initiated the first

steps towards economic liberalisation, with the government

subsequently launching Operation Forward in 1982. They

were the first cautious attempt at reform, but they were too

cautious to have much effect. Indira Gandhi was wary of the

multinational companies eroding the country’s self-reliance.

Improvement in the ecological and environmental aspects

of the country was also to be given attention, according to

the Sixth Plan. It is worth recalling that Indira Gandhi had

attended and spoken at the first UN conference on environment

in 1972. In her earlier stint as prime minister, she was behind

the implementation of the Wildlife Protection Act of 1972

and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act of

1974. The Wildlife Protection Act facilitated the establishment

of wildlife sanctuaries and national parks, and Project Tiger

was launched in 1973. Now, in her second stint in power,

the Forest (Conservation) Act of 1980, and the Air (Prevention

and Control of Pollution) Act of 1981 were enacted.

Foreign Relations

Sri Lanka and Tamils Problem In the area of foreign

relations, Indira Gandhi was unhappy with Sri Lanka’s turn

away from socialism after Sirimavo Bandaranaike lost power

to J.R. Jayewardene, who, Indira Gandhi felt was a puppet

of the West. Though it is alleged that India under Indira

supported LTTE militants in the 1980s to pressurise

Jayewardene to be sensitive of Indian interests, the Indian

prime minister refused demands that India attack Sri Lanka

after the incidents of Black July 1983, in which Sinhalese

mobs targeted the Tamils of Sri Lanka.

Pakistan: Siachen Conflict India-Pakistan relations

reached low depths after the rise to power of General

Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq in Pakistan in 1978. It was strongly

felt in India that General Zia supported Khalistani militants

in Punjab. In 1984, there were military skirmishes on the

border. In the end, it became a conflict over the Siachen

752

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

India’s Man in Space

It was during the rule of Indira Gandhi that an Indian went
travelling in space. As a part of the joint programme between
Indian Space Research Organisation and the Soviet Intercosmos,
Rakesh Sharma, an Indian Air Force pilot, was selected in 1982
as a cosmonaut for a joint Soviet-Indian spaceflight. On April
2, 1984, Sharma flew on board Soyuz T-11 with two Soviet
cosmonauts to the space station Salyut 7. During his stay of
nearly eight days on the space station, he performed certain
experiments in the fields of bio-medicine and remote sensing and
exercises to study the effects of yoga on the body during
weightlessness.

The most memorable aspect of that space mission for many

Indians is the episode of Indira Gandhi asking Sharma, on a hazy
live video link, how India looked from space, and he replied in
Hindi: “Sare jahan se achcha (the best in the world). Today that
would have become viral tweet!

Glacier lying between the Saltoro ridge line to the west and

the main Karakoram range to the east in the Himalayas;

located in the disputed Kashmir region, it is claimed by India

and Pakistan. The water melting off the glacier ultimately

feeds the Indus, crucial to both countries.

The roots of the conflict lie in the lack of proper

demarcations of the territory on the map beyond the map

coordinate known as NJ9842. Before 1984, neither India nor

Pakistan had any permanent presence in the area. However,

in order to reinforce their claim on the area, the Pakistanis

encouraged expeditions to the glacier on the basis of permits

given by their government. Becoming aware of this in about

1978, an Indian Army expedition was also sent to Teram

Kangri peaks as a counter-exercise. To free the glacier from

Pakistani domination, the Indian armed forces launched

Operation Meghdoot in April 1984, and Siachen became the

world’s highest battlefield. India was victorious in the conflict;

two passes, namely, Sia La and Bilfond La, were secured by

India while Pakistan retained control of the Gyong La pass.

Non-Aligned Movement Under Indira Gandhi, India

reasserted its prominence in the Non-Aligned Movement.

India hosted the 1983 summit of NAM at Delhi, and thus

After Nehru. . .

✫

753

Indira Gandhi became its chairperson. She brought attention

to bear on the relationship between disarmament and economic

development. She actively worked to project the need for a

new international economic order that would be of benefit

to the developing countries.

Unrest in States

Political and communal tensions rose in many parts of India

during the second term of Indira Gandhi as prime minister.

Naxalites were once again active in the tribal areas of

Andhra Pradesh.

There was a movement for separate statehood in

Jharkhand region, which was then a part of Bihar. Less intense

but very much present were movements for separate states

in Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh.

In Nagaland, militancy reared its head again with Muivah

setting up the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN)

with ideas of separating from India and to that end working

with separatists from Kashmir and Sikh militants.

There were also movements for greater autonomy for

states even if these states did not desire to leave the Union

of India. The most serious disturbance was in Assam with

the growth of the All-Assam Students Union which wanted

the Bengalis out of the state in fear of being culturally

dominated.

In Andhra Pradesh a new political party under the aegis

of N.T. Rama Rao, a very popular film star, was formed in

1982. The Telugu Desam party spoke for the self-respect of

the Telugu-speaking people. And his party came to power in

the state elections at the end of the year.

Punjab Turmoil and Operation Blue Star

The political turmoil was greatest in Punjab with strong

communal overtones to it. In fact, there were many strands

in the turmoil. There was the strident demand for greater

autonomy. Many Sikhs increasingly saw themselves in terms

of their separate religion and resented that a Sikh political

party (the Akalis) could not rule the state on its own free

on central interference; they had waited for a long time to

get a state of their own, but Chandigarh was still a shared

territory with Haryana. There was trouble over sharing of

754

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

river water as well. In 1973, the Akalis had brought out the

Anandpur Resolution that on one level just demanded greater

autonomy—as did all states. On another level, by using the

term ‘Sikh nation’, it lent itself to the interpretation of

separation from the Indian Union.

The Akalis opposed the Nirankari Sikhs whom they

called heretics. It was in this context that Jarnail Singh

Bhindranwale rose to prominence. As a priest and head of

the Damdami Taksal, he spoke vehemently against the

Nirankaris. But he also orated against being slaves in

independent India, and mocked at Hindus as well as the

‘modern’ Sikh. It has been said that Bhindranwale had been

encouraged and built up by the Congress as a counterpoise

to the Akalis. If so, he became a Frankenstein’s monster, and

very soon broke free to create an independent image of

himself. He attracted a large number of followers.

In 1980, the Akalis suffered a blow when they were

dismissed from power in the state and the Congress came

to power.

The impetus to form a state free of India was given

mainly by Sikhs in England, US, and Canada. In June 1980,

a group of students meeting at the Golden Temple in Amritsar

declared the formation of an independent Sikh republic—

Khalistan; its president was to be Jagjit Singh Chauhan from

London.

The situation became worse and worse, with

Bhindranwale gaining greater power and suspected to be

behind several assassinations of prominent men, including the

Nirankari leaders. The government proved ineffective in

bringing him to book.

In an effort to up the ante against Bhindranwale, the

Akalis became more extreme in their views. Their legislators

resigned en masse from the state assembly on Republic Day

of 1983. It seemed to indicate that their commitment to the

Indian Constitution was not firm.

Bhindranwale, in the meantime, was becoming more

virulent towards the Hindus in his speeches and instigating

Sikhs to violence against the Hindus in order to drive them

out. Conflict between Hindus and Sikhs seemed impossible

in light of the origin of the Sikhs, but it had now come about.

After Nehru. . .

✫

755

The central government sent a team led by Narasimha

Rao to try to convince Bhindranwale to make peace; the

negotiations failed and the law and order situation in Punjab

continued to deteriorate.

Khalistani terrorists, reported to be encouraged by

Pakistan, were slowly entrenching themselves in Punjab and

killings took place to eliminate prominent Hindus and Sikh

officials. In October 1983, a bus was stopped and the Hindu

passengers on it shot. The Centre imposed President’s Rule

on the state. Bhindranwale moved without facing any hindrance

into the Akal Takht, the seat of temporal authority for the

Sikhs near the Golden Temple, which was the seat of spiritual

authority. By 1984 beginning, Bhindranwale and his associates

had begun to fortify the Golden Temple complex and arms

and ammunition as well as food stocked. It was all under the

command of Shubeg Singh, once a major general and hero

of the Indian Army but later dismissed from it.

Clearly, strong action needed to be taken. Indira Gandhi

gave her permission to initiate Operation Blue Star on the

recommendation of Army Chief A.S. Vaidya. By the night

of June 25 and June 3, 1984, curfew had been imposed on

the state of Punjab, all means of communication and public

travel suspended, and electricity supply interrupted. Media

was strictly censored. It was on the night of June 5 that the

actual army action began, with the army storming Harmandir

Sahib under the command of Major General K.S. Brar who

acted under the direction of General K Sundarji. The militants

were not easy to subdue as they had sophisticated weaponry.

In the end, tanks had to be used against the Akal Takht before

the army had full control of Harmandir Sahib by the morning

of June 7. Bhindranwale was found dead as was Shubeg Singh.

While many militants were killed, there were also many

casualties among the army personnel as well as civilians.

Aftermath The operation caused great disturbance to

the Sikhs all round the world. Many Sikhs left the Indian

Army. Even mutinies by Sikh soldiers were reported. But it

did put an end to militancy in the state and cleared the Golden

Temple complex of arms and ammunitions, at least for the

present.

756

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

But the assassination of a prime minister is also to be

seen as the result of Operation Blue Star. On the morning

of October 31, 1984, while walking over from her house to

her office, she was shot by her Sikh security guards, Beant

Singh and Satwant Singh. She was rushed to the All India

Institute of Medical Sciences, but she did not survive. Though

it was generally known that Indira Gandhi had died, All India

Radio and Doordarshan made the official announcement only

in the evening.

The Indira Gandhi era was over. Her son Rajiv Gandhi

was sworn in as prime minister by President Zail Singh that

very evening after Congress leaders unanimously decided that

he should take the post.

Legacy

Indira Gandhi was in power for a long time. As a result of

economic programmes and spread of education, the middle

social castes/classes as well as the lower castes/classes were

asserting themselves and there was a growth in the middle

classes in urban India. One consequence of the changing

social situation was widespread social unrest; there were

caste clashes as well as communal violence.

Though Indira Gandhi was liberal minded and not

discriminatory as a political leader, there was a deterioration

in values of democracy in her time. Indira Gandhi’s style of

functioning began with a reliance on the prime minister’s

secretariat formed of persons she could trust, but who were

also of indubitable integrity and intellect, but went on to

depend more and more on her son and a small coterie. It

was the same at party level: fearing competitive power

centres, she weakened the Congress party structure.

Sycophancy grew, and a party that had developed a well-

organised structure with grassroots presence and a range of

regional leaders across the country gradually lost strong

leadership at state level and gave up the democratic style of

choosing its leader and officials. A member of the Gandhi

family had now become indispensable for holding the party

together. Ideology was no longer the basis of politics. And

this was true of other political parties as well. Corruption

spread, and the state apparatus was more and more manipulated

by the powerful for personal gain.

After Nehru. . .

✫

757

Indira Gandhi’s grit and decisiveness in the face of

external aggression, however, was exemplary. She showed

that India was not to be bullied and brought the country to

prominence in the world map.

The Rajiv Years

(October 1984 – December 1989)

Problems at the Very Outset

Appointed prime minister after the assassination of his

mother, Indira Gandhi, on October 31, 1984, Rajiv Gandhi

faced major problems from the very outset on the domestic

front.
Anti-Sikh Riots

Even as the news of Indira Gandhi’s death became known,

there were sporadic incidents of violence showing anger at

the assassination—perhaps a spontaneous reaction in the

circumstances. But as her body lay in state at Teen Murti

House (Nehru’s residence as prime minister), these sporadic

incidents had deepened and widened; by November 1 there

seemed to be an organised and brutal mob violence against

Sikhs. There was a continual replay on Doordarshan, the state-

owned and only television channel available at the time, of

the crowds filing past paying their respects to the assassinated

prime minister with the grieving son beside the body and the

shots of the crowds outside shouting revenge; this would have

further instigated the mob.

While most of the Sikhs targeted were in the

resettlement colonies in North Delhi, inhabited by the poorer

section of the population, there was some looting and killing

in middle-and upper middle-class localities, as well. The

mobs, composed mainly of Hindus drawn from the “scheduled

caste sweepers who worked in the city, and Jat farmers and

Gujjar pastoralists from villages on the fringes”, as pointed

out by Ramachandra Guha and many newspaper reports of

the time, killed thousands of Sikhs, burnt their homes, and

looted their houses and businesses. Witnesses indicated that

several Congress leaders instigated and encouraged these

mobs. Rumours stoked the violence.

758

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

The role of the police and the administration was

shocking; the police either turned a blind eye, refused to take

action or, more reprehensibly, actively helped the mob. The

riots went on unabated for two days. The prime minister and

his home minister, Narasimha Rao, did not call in the army

immediately; the army could have quelled the riots at once

and effectively. It was late on November 2 that Rajiv Gandhi

declared over radio and television that acts of rioting should

be stopped and that these were casting a slur on the late prime

minister. It was only by November 3 that the army got its

orders to take steps to control the situation.

On the birth anniversary of Indira Gandhi on November

19, Rajiv Gandhi in a speech said that when a great tree falls,

the earth around it shakes; it was taken to imply a justification

of the riots. Even if one agrees with the view that the public

anger was great after the assassination, it was an insensitive

remark for a prime minister to make.

The anti-Sikh riots was the official term given to the

violence, but many called it ‘genocide’. It was an unforgettable

and tragic blot in the history of India since independence.

The silver lining in an otherwise dark spot in India’s

history lay in the efforts made by many Hindus to hide and

help Sikh families during the rioting.
The Bhopal Gas Tragedy

On December 3, 1984, India faced another great tragedy: a

leak of the toxic methyl isocyanate (MIC) gas from the

pesticide plant of the US multinational company Union

Carbide (UCC) at Bhopal killed thousands and left many more

impaired for life. The gas caused internal haemorrhage, lung

failure, and death. Worst affected were the inhabitants of the

villages and slums in the neighbouring areas of the factory.

View

Though we boast of being the world’s largest democracy and
Delhi being its national capital, the sheer mention of the incidents
of 1984 anti-Sikh riots in general and the role played by Delhi
Police and state machinery in particular makes our heads hang
in shame in the eyes of the world polity.

Delhi High Court in 2009

After Nehru. . .

✫

759

It was one of the worst industrial tragedies of the world. The

plant should not have been allowed in the city in the first

place; further, it seemed to have disregarded safety measures

several times.

After the disaster, UCC tried its best to disown

responsibility for the gas leak by shifting culpability to the

Indian subsidiary UCIL, stating that the plant was wholly built

and operated by UCIL. Soon after, the first multi-billion

dollar lawsuit was filed by an American attorney in a US

court. And the legal battles and machinations began with the

ethical implications of the tragedy and its effect on the

people being pushed to the background. In March 1985, the

Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster Act was enacted by the Indian

government so as to ensure speedy and equitable settlement

of claims arising from the accident. As per the act, the

government became the sole representative of the victims in

legal proceedings anywhere in the world. Eventually, all cases

were removed from US jurisdiction and shifted to Indian

jurisdiction. Under the aegis of the Supreme Court of India,

UCC agreed to pay $470 million to the Indian government

to be distributed to claimants as a full and final settlement.

The figure was based on a number of claimants that was on

the lower side, whereas the actual number came to be much

larger.

There were allegations that American pressure and

political influence had resulted in the UCC chairman, Warren

Anderson, being allowed to leave India for the US without

being arrested. The controversy continues and so do the

troubles of the people who suffered from the fallout of the

gas leak and had to do with such low compensation.

The 1985 General Elections

Rajiv Gandhi on assuming the post of prime minister in

October 1984 recommended early elections. General

elections were to be held in January 1985; instead, they were

held in December 1984. The Congress (I) won an

overwhelming majority, securing more than 400 seats, the

largest ever majority in independent India’s Lok Sabha

election history till then. The mandate was partly the result

of a sympathy wave and largely from a desire to keep

extremism and separatism down. Rajiv Gandhi, who now

760

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

assumed the post of prime minister, was also the youngest

person to do so in India.

The March 1985 elections to assemblies in 11 states

brought the Congress (I) to power in 8 of them.

Tackling the Tensions in States

Several ethnic conflicts raged in different parts of the country

when Rajiv Gandhi took over as prime minister. Some of

these were settled, but others continued to cause trouble.

Punjab was a burning problem. Akali leaders were freed

and an agreement was signed by the Akali leader Sant

Harcharan Singh Longowal and Rajiv Gandhi in July1985. But

in August, Longowal was shot dead. However, state elections

were held in September and in what was seen as a vote against

extremism, the Akali Dal came to power with a comfortable

majority. But militancy was not to end so easily. It reared

its head soon and the Golden Temple was once again being

used by militants. This time round, strong—in fact, even

ruthless—action by the police under J.F. Ribeiro and K.P.S.

Gill brought the situation under control, after Operation

Black Thunder was launched in May 1988 to flush out

militants from the Golden Temple. It was a smoother and

cleaner operation, but then there was no charismatic leader

like Bhindranwale this time round to whip up emotions. Even

so, militancy did not quite die down for quite some time

in the state. The Chandigarh issue continues to rankle.

Assam was torn by violent agitation in the 1970s and

the 1980s over the influx of foreigners. Rajiv Gandhi and

the All Assam Students Union (AASU) signed an accord on

August 15, 1985. President’s Rule was removed and elections

held in December. The AASU became a political party—the

Asom Gana Parishad—and contested the polls; it emerged

victorious leaving the Congress far behind.

Yet another agreement was that between the Centre and

the Mizos in 1986, whereby the Mizo rebels surrendered

their arms. Mizoram was granted statehood. The Mizo

National Front under the leadership of Laldenga—once a

fiery rebel calling for secession from India—came to power

as chief minister of Mizoram which became the 23rd state

of India in February 1987.

After Nehru. . .

✫

761

Problems, however, arose in other parts of the country

as well as in the same states later. The Gorkha National

Liberation Front under Subhash Ghisingh represented the

interests of the Nepali-speaking population in the Darjeeling

district of West Bengal and began demanding a separate state

for themselves. Ghisingh after meeting Rajiv Gandhi was

persuaded to accept an autonomous district council.

Tripura was torn by agitations and clashes between the

tribals and Bengalis who had come into the state after

Partition. The Tripura National Volunteers (TNV) adopted the

way of terrorists intimidating civilians and the police with

kidnappings and murders. In August 1988, a memorandum of

understanding was signed under which TNV decided to abjure

violence, give up secessionist demands, and to hold

negotiations for a peaceful solution of all the problems of

Tripura within the Constitution of India. It was agreed by the

Indian government that the seats for the tribals in the

legislative assembly would be increased and that some more

villages would be brought under the purview of the autonomous

tribal councils. The terms of surrender were chalked out

through talks between the Centre, the Tripura government,

and the TNV. The troubles were not, however, quite over.

In Assam there was a violent agitation led by the Bodo

tribals against local Assamese. The leadership was given by

the All-Bodo Students Union. Some kind of resolution of

the problem lay some years in the future.

In Jammu and Kashmir, a different kind of problem

arose. On Sheikh Abdullah’s death, his son Farooq Abdullah

had become the chief minister of the state, but Indira Gandhi

had removed him. Now, with Rajiv Gandhi as prime minister,

the Congress and the National Conference formed a coalition

caretaker government in Jammu and Kashmir in 1986.

Elections were held in 1987. The Muslim United Front

(MUF) formed by a group of Kashmiris who sought greater

autonomy from the Centre was also in the fray. There was

wide-ranging rigging in the elections to favour the Congress-

National Conference so that the results went overwhelmingly

in favour of that group. This was a most unfortunate thing

to happen; even in fair and free election, the Congress-NC

group would probably have won, but now the unfair practices

762

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

created disappointment and anger and alienation from the

Indian State. This was the beginning of the militancy in

Kashmir, with some of the Kashmiri youth turning to Pakistan

for help.

Positive Steps taken on the Domestic
Front

Rajiv Gandhi as a fresh face in politics came to power with

a lot of goodwill from the people. He tried to change the

way things worked. Within his party he indicated that he

would not tolerate incompetency, corruption, or sycophancy.

He introduced modern managerial techniques and tried to

bring younger, more dynamic people into the decision-

making process of the Congress. In the long run, the effort

did not work. The ‘Congress culture’ was too entrenched, and

even the young who began hopefully were soon drawn into

the old ways.

He tried to cut red tape and make the administration

more open and less rigid.
Anti-Defection Act

One of the first things Rajiv Gandhi did as prime minister

was to get the anti-defection law passed in January 1985.

As a result, an elected member of a legislature at the central

or state level could not join an opposition party until the

next election, or he/she would be disqualified as a member

of the house. The measure was aimed at curbing corruption

and bribery of MPs and MLAs to switch parties so as to

manipulate the numbers in the house to form the government.
Environmental Legislation

An outcome of the Bhopal tragedy was the increase in

environmental awareness and activism in India. Rajiv Gandhi

as prime minister responded positively. In 1986 came the

Environment Protection Act (EPA) under which the Ministry

of Environment and Forests (MoEF) was created, with overall

responsibility for administering and enforcing environmental

laws and policies. EPA gave authority to the Centre to issue

direct orders to close, prohibit, or regulate any industry. An

enabling law, it delegates wide powers to the executive,

allowing it to make rules to manage different issues. In 1987,

After Nehru. . .

✫

763

amendments to the Factories Act, 1948 empowered states

to appoint site appraisal committees to guide the location

of factories using hazardous processes. Systems were also

set up to ensure the safety of workers and nearby residents

and emergency disaster control plans specified. By 1989, the

Hazardous Waste (Management and Handling) Rules had been

enacted for management, storage, and import of hazardous

chemicals. But it would be 1991 before the enactment of

the Public Liability Insurance Act to provide for immediate

relief to persons affected by accidents while handling

hazardous substances.
Improving Local Government

Rajiv Gandhi saw the ineffective manner in which the

panchayati raj system worked in states and tried to amend

the situation through a constitutional amendment that called

for regular panchayati elections being mandatory; the law

could not be passed in his tenure, but the effort had been

made, and in the coming years, the local government system

would get constitutional sanction.
First Steps towards Liberalising the Economy

The first budget presented by the Rajiv Gandhi government—

by the finance minister, V.P. Singh—sought to remove some

of the controls that were stifling the growth of the economy.

Besides simplifying the licensing scheme, the trade regime

was liberalised with reduction in duties on several import

items and incentives to promote exports. Tax rates were

reduced and curbs on company assets were loosened. As a

result of these steps, business houses did well, and the growth

rate of industry was good. However, the period also saw

businessmen and politicians getting closer, with the former

doling out gifts (even of money) that were eagerly accepted

by the latter for favours done. Real estate became a potent

source of corruption and unaccounted money with the

politicians.

However, by the end of his term as prime minister,

Rajiv Gandhi, faced with several problems in the country,

went back to populism. Taxes were increased on consumer

durables and air travel made more expensive. In April 1989,

the National Rural Employment Programme (NREP) and the

764

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Rural Landless Employment Guarantee Programme (RLEGP)

were merged into a single programme, the Jawahar Rozgar

Yojana.
Technology Missions

Imbued with the desire to reform the socio-economic

situation in India, six technology missions were set up under

Rajiv Gandhi’s direction. The idea was to use science and

technology to tackle underdevelopment. The scientific

approach was to be applied for solving problems. The #page

oriented projects intended that India should enter the

millennium as a modern nation.

The drinking water mission aimed at using satellites and

the disciplines of geology, civil engineering, and biochemistry

in locating, extracting, and purifying water so that all people

in the country could have safe drinking water. There were

missions directed towards improving milk yield and health

of cows; expanding the production of edible oil so that

imports could be curbed; improving health of people,

especially through immunisation of children against polio;

and increasing literacy, by spreading the television network

to rural areas and using it as a medium. These were all good

ideas and evolved into other programmes over time.

The best known of the missions was that of

telecommunications. Realising the importance of

communications to reach remote corners of the vast country,

Rajiv Gandhi wanted improvement of service, dependability,

and accessibility of telecom across India. Indigenous

development, local talent, and privatisation were part of the

mission. Sam Pitroda, a young US-trained Indian telecom

expert, became Rajiv Gandhi’s adviser on this as well as the

other technology missions; he was made the chairman of the

Telecom Commission. The Mahanagar Telephone Nigam

Limited, popularly known as MTNL was set up.
Computerisation

Computerisation was another field in which Rajiv Gandhi’s

initiative has to be appreciated. His government took steps

to make it easy for large-scale computerisation with reduction

of import duties on components so that domestic

manufacturers could increase production. Laws were liberalised

After Nehru. . .

✫

765

to allow foreign manufacturers to enter the market so that

quality and competitive prices could be ensured. Use of

computers in schools and offices was encouraged. As a result

of these measures, India was soon to emerge as a major

software exporter. Some people have called these steps as

initiating the ‘information revolution’ in India.
Education Policy

In 1968, the government under Indira Gandhi launched the

first national Policy of Education (NPE). In 1986, Rajiv

Gandhi promulgated the new NPE that stressed on “special

emphasis on the removal of disparities and to equalise

educational opportunity”. The policy called for expanding

scholarships, adult education, recruiting more teachers from

among the SCs, incentives for poor families to send their

children to school regularly, development of new institutions

and provision of housing and services. Under the policy, Rajiv

Gandhi included Operation Blackboard to improve the

educational infrastructure at primary schools all over India.

Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU), a by-

product of this policy, was directed towards promoting adult

education. The concept of having a Navodaya Vidyalaya in

every district of India was born as a part of the 1986 NPE,

the aim being to provide excellence along with social justice.

These residential schools were meant to provide quality

education free of charge to children of poor families, chosen

by merit, who could stay in the schools.

The Negative Side

There were several areas in which the Rajiv Gandhi government

failed to act in a statesmanlike manner or made grave tactical

mistakes.
The Shah Bano Case

In 1985, the Supreme Court gave a decision in a case

involving a Muslim divorcee, Shah Bano, upholding the

decision of a lower court. The lower court verdict was that

Shah Bano’s erstwhile husband should pay her maintenance

every month, while Mohammed Ahmed Khan (the husband)

contended that he had paid three months allowance as

required, according to him, by Islamic law. Invoking Section

766

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), the apex court

said that Shah Bano, not having remarried and not in a position

to maintain herself, was entitled to get an allowance from

the ex-husband. The court was clear that Section 125 of the

CrPC would prevail over personal law in case there is a

conflict between the two. The Supreme Court even went on

to say that a uniform civil code, as mentioned in the Directive

Principles of State Policy in the Constitution, would help

national integration.

Conservative Muslims resented the court decision as

interfering with their personal law. Sometime later, an MP

moved a private member’s bill in Parliament to the effect

that Muslims be exempted from the purview of Section 125

of the CrPC. This was opposed by Arif Mohammed Khan,

the minister of state in the home ministry. The bill was

defeated in the House. But dissatisfaction among a section

of Muslims was deep. With thousands of Muslims

demonstrating against the Supreme Court decision, the Rajiv

Gandhi government bowed to the pressure. The Muslim

Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Bill was introduced

in the House in 1986 to overturn the Supreme Court

judgement and a whip issued to Congress MPs to vote in

its favour. The bill was passed, thereby denying divorced

Muslim women the right to claim maintenance under the

CrPC and confining the maintenance to the iddat or a three-

month period. The bill placed the onus of supporting the

divorced wife on her relatives or the Wakf Board.

Arif Mohammed Khan resigned in protest.

The Babri Mosque Gates Opening

In British times, the Babri Mosque in Ayodhya was used by

Muslims for worship; there was a platform outside the

mosque where Hindus worshipped Ram. It was believed that

the place was the birthplace of Ram. In 1949, an idol of Ram

Lalla (baby) is said to have been placed inside the mosque

one night. Hindu devotees saw this appearance of the idol

as a miracle and now wanted the place for worship. In the

wake of disturbances, it was decided by the local authorities

to lock the disputed premises in Ayodhya so that neither

Hindus nor Muslims could use the act of worship to press

their claims.

After Nehru. . .

✫

767

Appeals were made before Faizabad court that the Ram

Janmabhoomi gates be unlocked on the grounds that it was

the Faizabad district administration, and not a court, that had

ordered its closure. In the 1980s, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad

(VHP) and other such Hindu groups launched a campaign to

construct a Ram Mandir at the site. On February 1, 1986,

the Faizabad district judge ordered that the doors to the

mosque be opened so that the devotees could pray. According

to reports at the time, the Congress government under Rajiv

Gandhi ensured that the locks of the mosque were opened

almost immediately after the Faizabad judge’s ruling. Television

cameras were present to cover the opening, suggesting that

the judge’s decision was known by the administration

beforehand.

There was a strong belief that the Rajiv Gandhi

government’s decision in the Ayodhya matter was made to

balance the Muslim Women’s Act by placating the hard core

Hindus. If the Congress thought it could undercut the BJP’s

temple campaign, it was mistaken; the initiative was grabbed

by the Sangh Parivar. The VHP was emboldened and its

attitude hardened: now the demand for the demolition of the

mosque to build a temple at the site became vociferous.

The image of Rajiv Gandhi as a modern forward-looking

leader was tarnished after these two issues. As political

analysts warned at the time, the policy of appeasement of

communities for electoral gains could become a vicious

cycle and cause much damage to the social fabric.
The Bofors Scandal

There was more trouble for the prime minister. In March

1986, India signed an agreement with the Swedish arms

manufacturer AB Bofors (once owned by Alfred Nobel) for

the supply of four hundred 155mm Howitzer guns for the

Indian Army. The deal included an option to license-produce

1,000 more guns. The deal amounted to $285 million (about

Rs 1,500 crore), which was huge for the time.

Almost a year later, in April 1987, a Swedish radio

report claimed that the Bofors deal involved payment of

bribes to top Indian politicians and defence personnel as well

as Swedish officials.

768

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

The Hindu correspondent in Geneva, Chitra Subramaniam,

investigated the matter on behalf of her paper and collected

several documents on the basis of which she revealed that

over Rs 64 crore was indeed paid to some very powerful

people. One name that appeared amidst it all was that of

Ottavio Quattrocchi, an Italian businessman who represented

the Italian petrochemicals firm Snamprogetti and was alleged

to have become a powerful broker between the Indian

government and international businesses, mainly because of

his reported closeness to the Gandhi family. The Indian

Express and The Statesman also carried long reports on what

came to be known as the Bofors scandal.

In the meanwhile, V.P. Singh who had been shifted from

finance to defence also seemed to have uncovered details

of corruption in the Bofors deal. V.P Singh was finally left

out of the cabinet. This seems to have increased the suspicion

against the Rajiv Gandhi government, and even against the

prime minister himself. There was scepticism about Rajiv

Gandhi’s declaration in Parliament that no bribe was paid and

no middleman was involved. Rajiv Gandhi who had been

nicknamed ‘Mr Clean’ suffered an irreparable damage to his

image.

In July 1988, Rajiv Gandhi introduced what has been

termed as one of the most draconian bills drafted by the

Indian government. The bill was aimed at checking the

freedom of the press: it provided that an editor or proprietor

of a newspaper/ journal could be imprisoned for ‘criminal

imputation’ and ‘scurrilous writings’, terms which would be

defined by the State. Apparently, he was pushed into

introducing the measure because of the investigative journalism

into the Bofors scandal. The bill was in the end dropped, but

further damage had been done to the image of the government.

Agrarian Unrest

The failure of monsoons still plagued the country, and the

drought in 1987 was severe, causing much rural distress.

Kalahandi district in Orissa was particularly affected. The

discontent in the countryside went beyond the rain-fed areas

to the irrigated areas. Farmers’ organisations were formed.

The most famous were the Shetkari Sanghatana led by Sharad

After Nehru. . .

✫

769

Joshi, who had once been a civil servant, and the Bharatiya

Kisan Union led by Mahendra Singh Tikait. While the

former’s base was in Maharashtra, the latter covered Punjab

and Haryana. These leaders spoke of a divide in the country—

between the Bharat of villagers and the India of the urban

middle class, with the former getting little attention in the

economic policies formulated by the government. Their

demand was that there should be a higher price for agricultural

produce and subsidised power for agricultural use. In actual

fact, however, these organisations were representatives of the

rich and middle-level farmers, not the really poor sections

of rural society. The poor all over India, whether in the urban

or in the rural areas, shared the same problems, which seldom

found voice.

Foreign Relations

Rajiv Gandhi set out to improve relations with the US and

expanded scientific and economic ties with that country. His

policies of economic liberalisation and emphasis on

information technology brought him closer to the US and

other western nations. Rajiv Gandhi is said to have used a

direct private channel to Ronald Reagan, the US president,

which led to the cancellation of proposed supplies of

AWACS aircraft to Pakistan.

Despite moving closer to the West, Rajiv Gandhi did

not succumb to pressure on the nuclear non-proliferation

issue which he linked, as Indian policy had always done, to

universal disarmament. In June 1988, at the 15th special

session of the United Nations General Assembly, Rajiv

spoke about a world free of nuclear weapons, and put forward

his ‘Action Plan for Ushering in a Nuclear-Weapon Free and

Non-Violent World Order’.

In 1986, the President of Seychelles faced a coup and

sought India’s help. The Rajiv Gandhi government authorised

the Indian Navy to reach the coasts of Seychelles to help

avert the coup in a mission named ‘Operation Flowers are

Blooming’.

Then, in 1988, Maldives faced an attempted coup whose

perpetrator was apparently assisted by armed mercenaries of

a Tamil secessionist organisation from Sri Lanka, the People’s

770

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Liberation Organisation of Tamil Eelam (PLOTE). The

Maldives government sought India’s help, upon which Rajiv

Gandhi ordered the deployment of the Indian forces in an

operation code-named Cactus. The coup was averted.

In 1987, India re-occupied the Quaid Post in the

disputed Siachen region in what was termed Operation Rajiv.

In December 1988, Rajiv Gandhi became the first

Indian prime minister since Jawaharlal Nehru in 1954 to visit

China. In 1986–87, there had been a standoff between Indian

and Chinese troops at Sumdorong Chu on the north-eastern

border. However, Rajiv Gandhi’s visit led to better relations.

He had a cordial meeting with Deng Xiaoping who, though

he was not the head of state, or head of government or general

secretary (of the Communist Party), was an all-important

person in China.

India and China signed two crucial agreements to

establish a joint working group (JWG)—to seek fair,

reasonable, and mutually acceptable solution on the boundary

question—and a joint economic group (JEG) and agreed to

expand and develop bilateral relations in all fields.
The IPKF Misadventure

Sri Lanka was faced with an ethnic conflict between the

Sinhala majority and the Tamil minority who were inhabitants

mostly of the northern part of the island. After Sri Lanka

got independence from the British, Sinhalese was imposed

as the sole official language in the island country. The Tamils

wanted parity on all fronts with their language given the same

status as Sinhalese. There were protests when discrimination

continued. Opposition to the official repressive measures

took a violent turn. Soon, a number of militant groups were

operating in the Jaffna Peninsula against the Sri Lankan armed

forces. Over time, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam

(LTTE) became the most prominent under Velupillai

Prabakaran and took over the struggle using violence against

the Lankan forces as well as civilians; their demand had

progressed from autonomy to liberation from the Sri Lankan

government to form an independent Tamil state. Though it

was an internal affair of Sri Lanka, the events in Jaffna raised

tensions in Tamil Nadu, where many felt close to the Sri

After Nehru. . .

✫

771

Lankan Tamils. The LTTE used Tamil Nadu as a refuge, and

the state government was sympathetic to their cause, even

as the central government kept quiet. It is believed that the

governments under Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi

surreptitiously supported the Tamil militants.

When the Sri Lankan forces responded with brutal force

and blockaded the Tamil majority district of Jaffna, Rajiv

Gandhi first tried to resolve the problem diplomatically. But

the siege continued. India hoped the Sri Lankan government

would be amenable to India, sending relief supplies to the

beleaguered Tamils by sea. A flotilla of Indian ships with

relief supplies was locked by the Sri Lankan Navy as they

approached the territorial waters of Sri Lanka. On June 4,

1987, the Indian government ordered relief supplies to be

air-dropped into the area on humanitarian grounds—in what

was called Operation Poomalai (also Eagle-Mission-4)—

after warning Sri Lanka not to try and stop the planes.

India was criticised by some nations for the action even

as Sri Lanka accused India of “blatant violation of sovereignty”.

The US expressed regret over the incident but added no

further comment. India wanted the airdrop to send a message;

the siege of Jaffna was lifted, and there was a declaration

of ceasefire.

Indo-Sri Lanka Accord 1987 In July 1987, the Sri

Lankan president, J.R. Jayawardene, asked Rajiv Gandhi to

mediate in the island country’s ethnic conflict. As a result,

the Indo-Sri Lanka Peace Accord was signed by the two

leaders in Colombo on July 29, 1987.

Incidentally, it was on the occasion of this visit to

Colombo that Rajiv Gandhi was assaulted by a Sri Lankan

in the Guard of Honour held for the Indian prime minister

in what seemed an attempted assassination. Rajiv Gandhi

escaped serious injury.

The peace accord was perhaps too ambitious in its

scope, seeking to address three contentious issues: strategic

interests, people of Indian origin in Sri Lanka, and rights of

the Tamils in Sri Lanka. Under the terms of the agreement,

the Sri Lankan government would devolve power to the Tamil-

majority areas, the Sri Lankan troops would withdraw to their

barracks in the north, and the Tamil militants would surrender

772

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

their arms. Besides the LTTE being dissolved, Tamil was to

be designated an official language of Sri Lanka. Significantly,

the Tamil groups were not party to the talks that led to the

agreement.

It was under the accord that the Indian Peace Keeping

Force (IPKF) was sent to Sri Lanka’s northern and eastern

provinces where the Tamils were in majority to “guarantee

and enforce the cessation of hostilities” between the Tamil

separatist groups and the government. The LTTE, however,

refused to surrender arms and began threatening Tamils who

opposed the militant group. The IPKF and the LTTE became

involved in a military confrontation.

The IPKF was working under severe strategic constraints.

The scene of action was an island-nation; the war was an

unconventional one being waged against a group that had

strong emotional connections with Tamil Nadu; and the Indian

intervention evoked hostile reaction from the Sinhalese as

well as they felt their sovereignty to be undermined.

Finally, the IPKF captured the LTTE headquarters in

Jaffna, but the militants retreated into the jungles from where

they used guerrilla tactics to keep the forces at bay. A large

number of Indian soldiers died and the cost of the operation

was huge. Back in India, the pressure was on the government

to recall the force.

In the end, the IPKF misadventure was to be the cause

for the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi on May 21, 1991 during

his election campaign in Tamil Nadu. At Sriperumbudur, a

woman bent to touch his feet and exploded an explosive

device attached to her. The suicide bomber belonged to the

LTTE and her action was in retaliation of India’s role in Sri

Lanka.

General Elections of 1989

V.P. Singh, on leaving the Congress, floated the Jan Morcha

along with Arun Nehru and Arif Mohammed Khan, both of

whom had parted ways with Rajiv Gandhi. Later, this group

merged with the Janata Party, Lok Dal, and Congress (S) to

form a new party, the Janata Dal, with the idea of bringing

together centrist parties opposing the Congress government

under Rajiv Gandhi. The Janata Dal then joined a set of

After Nehru. . .

✫

773

regional parties (which included the DMK, the Telugu Desam

party, and the Asom Gana Parishad) in a coalition which came

to be called the National Front.

In November 1989, general elections were held for the

Lok Sabha. By then, the opposition to Rajiv Gandhi had

consolidated, and a coordinated strategy was adopted. The

Congress did badly in the elections, though it still manged

to be the largest single party in the Lok Sabha. People had

lost faith in Rajiv Gandhi in the face of the accusations of

corruption.

The 1989 election was the first in which no single party

got a majority on its own. At that time itself, some

commentators indicated that the elections marked a milestone,

the beginning of coalitions, and a period of political instability.

Rajiv Gandhi resigned in December 1989. His party

chose to sit in the opposition as it did not have the majority

or the support to form the government after the elections.

The V.P. Singh Years

(December 1989 – November 1990)

The National Front did not have a majority of its own in the

Lok Sabha after the 1989 elections. But it staked the claim

to form the government and did so with the BJP and the Left

parties offering to support it from the outside.

Vishwanath Pratap Singh was sworn in as India’s prime

minister on December 2, 1989.

Rajiv Gandhi, as head of the Congress party, was leader

of the opposition in the Lok Sabha.

Soon, after state legislative elections in March 1990,

the governing coalition at the Centre achieved control of both

houses of Parliament.

One of the first decisions taken by V.P. Singh was to

recall the IPKF from Sri Lanka.

V.P. Singh was prime minister for less than a year, but

he faced major problems in that short period.

Kashmir Situation Worsens

In Kashmir, in December 1989, militants of the Jammu and

Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) kidnapped the daughter of

774

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Mufti Mohammad Sayeed, the Union home minister. The

Centre capitulated to the demands of the JKLF and released

jailed militants. Another prominent militant group, which was

soon to sideline the JKLF, was the Hizb-ul Mujahideen led

by Syed Salauddin, with more hard core ideas of turning the

state into an Islamic regime. Salauddin, incidentally, had left

mainstream politics after the rigged elections of 1987.

With armed attacks on banks and grenade attacks on

police stations, the militants were becoming more defiant and

daring. The Centre decided to take strong action and sent in

forces to control the situation. The governor was changed

and Jagmohan was appointed to the post.

A series of incidents turned many Kashmiris into

supporting the militants. ‘Jihad’ became a prominent cry as

religion became an important factor in the militants’ game.

The Hindu minority suffered as a consequence: the Kashmiri

Pandits, who formed an integral part of the Valley and shared

a common culture with the Muslims in that state in almost

every aspect except religion, became the target of brutal

violence, with many of them being killed by the militants.

There was an exodus of Pandits from the Kashmir valley to

Jammu and farther afield; they became refugees in their own

land. Many of them still live in refugee camps and makeshift

buildings, afraid to go back.

Implementation of the Mandal Commission
Report

The Mandal Commission appointed during the Janata Party

rule had submitted its report in December 1980. The

Congress governments under Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi

had quietly shelved the report.

The Mandal Commission or the Backward Classes

Commission—to give it its official name—said that caste and

backwardness were linked, and that the other backward castes,

despite forming a significant proportion of the country’s

population, had very low representation in the administration,

especially at the higher levels. In this context, the main

recommendation made by the commission was that 27 per

cent of jobs in the central government be reserved for these

castes beyond the percentage reserved for the scheduled

After Nehru. . .

✫

775

castes and scheduled tribes. The same kind of relaxation in

age was also to be made for the OBCs as existed for SC/

ST in being considered for posts.

V.P. Singh thought it would be a good idea to implement

the Mandal Commission recommendations to gain popularity

with the decidedly large group of OBCs whose importance

as a ‘vote bank’ was not to be ignored. There were rising

politicians from the group, Lalu Yadav in Bihar and Mulayam

Singh Yadav in Uttar Pradesh, the two states that had a

decisive say in most elections in India. A move forward on

social justice-related issues, Singh calculated, would

consolidate the caste coalition that formed the support base

of the Janata Dal in northern India. In this context, it might

be worth noting that in the southern states a large proportion

of government jobs were reserved for the non-brahmins, and,

it was pointed out by those who agreed with the Mandal

recommendations, efficiency had not suffered.

On August 7, 1990, V.P. Singh announced in Parliament

that his government had accepted the Mandal Commission

report and would implement 27 per cent reservation at all

levels of central government services for the Socially and

Educationally Backward Classes as identified by the Mandal

Commission.

Large-scale protests greeted the government’s order.

There were self-immolation bids and even suicides by

youngsters from the upper castes, as these people felt their

chance of getting government jobs had become more difficult.

The protests were intense in the northern part of the country

while the south was not affected. In the south, with the

reservation policy being in place for quite some time,

youngsters over time had become less dependent on

government for their livelihood as the industrial sector

offered a good alternative for jobs. Also, the proportion of

upper castes in the population in the south was less compared

to the north.

[The matter had been taken to the Supreme Court which

stayed the order. But it was only in November 1992 that the

nine-judge bench of the court gave its decision. Six judges

upheld the constitutionality of the Mandal Commission as

well as the government order based on its recommendations.

776

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Three judges offered a dissenting view that impersonal

criteria rather than caste should be used in deciding who was

disadvantaged. The apex court, however, laid down two

conditions: reservations in toto should not exceed 50 per

cent and that caste criterion should be restricted to the

recruitment level and not apply in case of promotions. By

the time the judgement came, most political parties were

reconciled to the reservation order; they realised that opposing

it would prove to be politically harmful. Even the Congress

which had been lukewarm to the matter had realised the

importance of the OBC factor in winning elections in the

north. The Narasimha Rao government which came to power

in 1991 had already issued a fresh order in September 1991

in favour of the Mandal recommendations, with a condition

attached that within the 27 per cent reservation preference

would be given to the poorer sections of the OBCs.]

Mandal to Mandir: the Rath Yatra and Fall
of the Government

One issue on which the Bharatiya Janata Party had gained

popularity was the campaign to build a Ram temple in place

of the Babri Masjid at Ayodhya. With the implementation

of the Mandal recommendation, the BJP was itself divided

over whether to support the move or oppose it. While some

thought it was a plan to fragment Hindu society, others felt

OBC aspirations needed to be met. The BJP in the end

decided to play the mandir card to mobilise the Hindus.

The party president, L.K. Advani, decided to set out on

a yatra or tour in a rath (which was a van converted to

look like a chariot). The Ram rath yatra beginning in

Somnath in September 1990 was to culminate in Ayodhya

after touring several of the states in between. V.P. Singh

faced a dilemma; whatever he did—stop the procession or

let it continue—would prove counterproductive for the

government. In the end, it was left to the chief minister of

Bihar, Lalu Prasad Yadav, to prevent the yatra from reaching

Ayodhya; he got Advani arrested on the charges of disturbing

the peace and fomenting communal tension and placed under

preventive detention in a guest house when the procession

passed through Bihar.

After Nehru. . .

✫

777

There were widespread disturbances after many of the

kar sevaks, who were to build the temple, were also arrested

by the Mulayam Singh government in Uttar Pradesh. Clashes

took place between security forces and supporters of the

mandir, and there were communal clashes as well.

The BJP withdrew its support to the National Front

government. V.P. Singh lost the confidence vote in the Lok

Sabha and resigned in November 1990.

The Chandra Shekhar
Government

(November 1990 – June 1991)

With the imminence of the fall of the V.P. Singh government,

Chandra Shekhar and Devi Lal had left the Janata Dal along

with several others who supported him to form the Samajwadi

Janata Party. Once again, the Congress, as in the case of

Charan Singh earlier, offered to support from outside a

minority government, this time led by Chandra Shekhar who

had just 64 MPs with him.

Chandra Shekhar won a confidence motion and was

sworn in as prime minister on November 10, 1990.

Troubled Economy

The economic situation was in a bad shape, and foreign

exchange levels had reduced to a dangerous low. The

economic crisis was mainly due to the large and growing

fiscal imbalances over the 1980s. The loans that earlier

governments under Congress had taken from world financial

institutions and, in Rajiv Gandhi’s case, from the market had

created a huge debt. India was struggling to finance its

essential imports, especially of oil and fertilisers, and to

repay official debt. The situation was made worse because

of the Gulf war and the resultant hike in oil prices.

By January 1991, the Chandra Shekhar government,

with Yashwant Sinha as the finance minister, had convinced

IMF to approve two loans. In return, the government promised

to initiate economic reforms through the budget due to be

presented in February. By the middle of February, it was clear

that the Congress would create trouble. During the motion

778

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

of thanks to the president’s speech at the beginning of the

budget session, the Congress withdrew its support to the

government on some flimsy grounds, with the result that the

minority government was unable to present the full budget.

In March 1991, the government was forced to pledge

gold reserves of the country to manage the foreign exchange

situation. According to news reports, economic advisers to

the prime minister pointed out India could use the plentiful

gold that it held. The State Bank of India was asked to put

up a proposal to the Reserve Bank to lease gold confiscated

from smugglers on the government account. The central bank

approved the proposal and the government approved it too.

By mid-March, global credit-rating agencies had placed

India on watch. It was impossible to raise even short-term

funds. In the absence of a full budget and a firm commitment

to reforms, there was no more funding available from

multilateral institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank.

It was in these circumstances of a severe liquidity crisis

with the possibility of a default in sovereign payments that

Chandra Shekhar, though only a caretaker prime minister at

the time, authorised the decision to pledge the gold to raise

money; it was an inevitable move. Though there was a public

outcry when it came to be known, and criticism that it had

humiliated India, it was this move that helped meet the

balance of payment crisis besides helping the next government

begin its much vaunted process of economic reform.

With Chandra Shekhar’s resignation in March 1991, the

Lok Sabha was dissolved and fresh elections announced.

President Venkataraman asked Chandra Shekhar to continue

as caretaker prime minister till June when the new government

would take over.

Elections of 1991

The first phase of the General Elections took place in May.

Then, on the night of May 21, tragedy struck: Rajiv Gandhi

was assassinated while campaigning in Sriperumbudur in

Tamil Nadu. The next phase of elections were held in June.

In the first phase, voting took place for 211

constituencies while the rest of constituencies voted in June.

The results showed a marked variation between the two

After Nehru. . .

✫

779

phases: the Congress did not do well in the constituencies

that voted before Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination, whereas in the

constituencies that went to the poll after the tragedy the

Congress did remarkably well. The results reflected the

sympathy and horror felt by the people over the young

leader’s assassination. Incidentally, that act by the LTTE led

to the total loss of support for it in India. In the end, the

Congress was the largest party with 244 seats, which,

however, did not reach the level of a simple majority in the

House. The BJP improved upon its earlier tally creditably.

The Narasimha Rao Years

(June 1991 – May 1996)

Pamulaparti Venkata (P.V.) Narasimha Rao was chosen to

lead the Congress (I) after Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated.

Narasimha Rao was an erudite scholar and knew several

languages, and he was a Congress loyalist. He had held

important ministerial posts—external affairs, defence, human

resources, and home—in the governments of Indira Gandhi

and Rajiv Gandhi.

After the elections, he formed a minority government.

Narasimha Rao himself had not contested elections in 1991,

probably with the intention of retiring from politics. But after

he was sworn in as prime minister, he won in a by-election

from Nandyal in Andhra Pradesh to become a member of

the Lok Sabha.

Rao is best remembered for the economic reforms

undertaken by his government; however, he has other

achievements to his credit as well. And a few blots as well.

Economic Reform

On becoming prime minister, Narasimha Rao inducted

Manmohan Singh, a non-political economist who was at the

time Chairman of the University Grants Commission, into

his cabinet as finance minister. He backed his finance

minister in all the steps he took and took a few on his own

as industries minister. He also managed the reactions,

especially within the Congress party, which were not initially

in favour of reform when socialism had been the basic

approach under Nehru and Indira Gandhi.

780

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

The economy of India was in shambles. Besides the

precarious balance of payment situation, domestic scene was

not good with high inflation.

When Rao became prime minister, the Soviet economic

model was discredited. China under Deng Xiao Ping had

undertaken market-oriented reforms. Narasimha Rao also

opted for market reforms, but not the free market type; he

opted for the middle path. He focused on reforms that would

produce the least pain to the masses in general even while

producing high growth rates. The government approach was

not radically reformist. There was to be no bank privatisation

or staff reforms. Nor would there be no opening up of the

farm sector.

The New Economic Policy of 1991 aimed at correcting

the weaknesses on the fiscal and balance of payments fronts

to stabilise the economy. On the structural reform side, the

policy sought to remove the rigidities that infested the

various sectors of the economy. An effort was to be made

to control inflation and release industries from unnecessary

controls and regulations so that hurdles in the way of growth

would be removed. The fundamentals of the new economic

model were to be liberalisation, privatisation, and globalisation.

The rupee was devalued. Manmohan Singh explained

that this would help export. The budget took a bold step of

correcting fiscal imbalance by reducing the fiscal deficit.

Singh initiated the gradual reduction of import duties, income

tax, and corporate tax.

The finance minister, with the support of his prime

minister, specifically targeted the highly restrictive trade and

industrial policies. The quotas on the imports of most

machinery and equipment and manufactured intermediate

goods were removed. There was a rationalisation of the tariff

structure and reduction in custom duties, especially on capital

goods. Imports of technology were freed.

The Industrial Policy of 1991 was revolutionary for

the times. Significantly, Narasimha Rao himself held the

industries portfolio. The industrial licensing system was

made applicable to a much shortened list of environmentally

sensitive or security-related industries. The MRTP Act was

modified to remove sections that restricted growth or

After Nehru. . .

✫

781

prevented merger of large business houses. The industries

reserved for the public sector was drastically reduced. The

public sector was also granted more autonomy. Private

investment was made welcome in the infrastructural sector.

The restrictions on foreign ownership were liberalised.

Foreign investment was gradually liberalised.

The service sector was also liberalised, with private

sector allowed to invest in insurance, banking, telecom, and

air travel sectors.

The Rao government abolished the Controller of Capital

Issues which governed capital issues in India; introduced the

SEBI Act of 1992 and the Security Laws (Amendment) to

regulate all security market intermediaries; and started the

National Stock Exchange as a computer-based trading system.

The system may not have been wholly reformed:

because of bureaucratic controls it still took much more time

to start a business in India when compared to China or

Malaysia; labour laws were not reformed, and the process

of exit for losing enterprises continued to be difficult.

Panchayati Raj and Nagarpalika Acts

Though it was Rajiv Gandhi who had initiated the move, it

was during the time when Narasimha Rao was prime minister

that the Panchayati Raj and municipal government got

constitutional status. With the enactment of the 73rd

Constitutional Amendment, a new chapter, Part-IX, was

inserted in the Constitution of India. A new Eleventh Schedule

covering 29 subjects within the functions of the Panchayats

was also added. The amendment is an implementation of one

of the Directive Principles of State Policy. States have been

given flexibility to take into consideration their geographical,

politico-administrative, and other conditions while adopting

the Panchayati Raj system.

With the enactment of the 74th Amendment to the

Constitution, a new chapter, Part-IX A, has been added to

the Constitution. States now have a constitutional obligation

to adopt municipalities as per the system prescribed in the

Constitution.

In both panchayats and municipal bodies there is

reservation for SC/ST and women; this is an attempt to ensure

that there is inclusiveness in local self-government.

782

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Handling Security Issues and Space Tech

The Punjab situation was controlled. Rao went in for state

elections though there were misgivings. It was for the good

as after the 2002 elections, militancy died down.

The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act

was passed mainly directed towards eliminating the infiltrators

from Pakistan.

The modernisation of the defence sector was given

importance, and military spending was increased. Prithvi 1

missile was inducted into the army.

It is widely believed that it was Narasimha Rao who

made sure that India’s nuclear programme made progress.

Space technology progressed with the successful tests

of the Augmented Satellite Launch Vehicle as well as the

Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle.

Foreign Policy

The Soviet Union disintegrated in 1991, and the Indians were

forced to rethink their foreign policy as there was no Cold

War, and bloc politics now had no place in international

relations. India’s relations with the US gradually improved.

But India also tried to build up strong relations with other

nations of the West as well as with Japan, Israel, Brazil, and

South Africa. Post Cold War, India’s foreign policy became

closely linked with its economic policy.

Rao launched the Look East policy in an attempt to

bring India closer to ASEAN (Association of South East

Asian Nations). The strategy involved the creation of close

economic and commercial ties, bringing about an increased

cooperation in strategic and security matters, and an emphasis

on age-old cultural and ideological connections between India

and the region. The policy has over time served to strengthen

India’s political, economic, and cultural relations with the

countries of Southeast Asia and the Pacific, besides helping

India become an important part of the economic and security

dynamics of the region. Significantly, the policy was taken

up by governments that came after Narasimha Rao’s.

Rao’s overture to China, which he visited in 1993, and

Iran were useful when Pakistan brought a resolution on India’s

violation of human rights in Kashmir in the human rights body

of the UN: China and Iran did not favour it.

After Nehru. . .

✫

783

Negative Aspects

There were two main criticisms against Narasimha Rao. One

was that he allowed the Babri Masjid demolition and the other

was corruption.
The Babri Masjid Demolition

In the late 1980s, the Bharatiya Janata Party had raked up

the issue of the Ram Janmabhoomi to its advantage in the

1991 elections. The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) was even

more vociferous and aggressive on the issue and began

organising protests and demonstrations in Ayodhya and in

other parts of the country demanding a temple at the site

of the Babri Masjid. There was apparently some demolition

and building at the site earlier itself, but the administration

took no notice. Uttar Pradesh was under BJP rule, and the

chief minister at the time was Kalyan Singh.

The VHP announced that on December 6, 1992, work

on the temple would begin. Thousands of volunteers—the kar

sevaks—converged on Ayodhya. While the plan announced

was that prayers would be held on a platform near the mosque,

when the time came, groups of kar sevaks were moving

towards the mosque despite being asked not to by the RSS

and the police. The crowd became quite uncontrollable and

not amenable to reason, their one intention being to demolish

the mosque. They were armed with iron rods and other tools

and had soon scaled the mosque walls. The BJP leaders

gathered there, such as L.K. Advani, are reported to have

called these kar sevaks back but to no avail. The police did

little to control the situation. The mosque was soon attacked

and reduced to rubble. The BJP clarified that it was not a

party to the vandalism and that it was an unfortunate thing

to have happened. It was more than unfortunate; it was tragic

and ominous and would have long-term repercussions. BJP

leaders were arrested. Communal riots broke out in Uttar

Pradesh and many other parts of the country resulting in many

deaths. Bombay was one of the worst sufferers, with the Shiv

Sena stoking the violence. In 1993, there were bomb blasts

in the city at strategic locations orchestrated by a couple of

mafia dons based in Dubai, apparently in retaliation for the

attacks on Muslims earlier.

784

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

The fact that Kalyan Singh did nothing to stop the

situation from turning ugly cannot be condoned; as a chief

minister, he was an authority of the State and he should have

upheld the law and enforced it. What shocked many and

aroused criticism was the non-action of the Centre. Surely,

it was pointed out, president’s rule should have been imposed

in anticipation of trouble and central forces should have been

given firm orders to intervene and control the situation.

Maybe the prime minister did not want himself and his party

to be dubbed anti-Hindu by taking firm action. The Uttar

Pradesh government was dismissed and president’s rule

imposed on the state only after the destruction had taken

place.

India’s image was damaged world over because of this

event and its aftermath of riots. There were dire predictions

that India wold be reduced to one of those lawless countries

with ineffective government or become a dictatorship of

some kind. The predictions did not come true, but the Babri

Masjid demolition remains a blot in the history of modern

India that continues to echo down the years ominously. In

society, where there had so far been no open antagonism

between Hindus and Muslims, though a sense of victimhood

was felt by both and communal riots did occur, now there

was open suspicion and even hostility between the two

communities. It would not be fair or true to say that every

Muslim and every Hindu felt that way, but the general

impression to that effect had been created.

Liberhan Commission A commission was appointed

10 days after the Babri Masjid demolition by order of the

home ministry. The one-man commission, comprising Justice

Liberhan, a sitting judge of the Punjab and Haryana High

Court, was assigned the task of probing the sequence of

events that led to the occurrences at the Ram Janmabhoomi-

Babri Masjid complex on December 6, 1992, resulting in

the destruction of the structure. The commission submitted

its report some 17 years later in June 2009 when the UPA

was in the government.

The commission indicted top BJP leaders, and held 68

people culpable, including L K Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi,

Atal Bihari Vajpayee, and Kalyan Singh, the then-Chief

After Nehru. . .

✫

785

Minister of Uttar Pradesh. It identified the Kalyan Singh-led

BJP government in Uttar Pradesh as the key to the execution

of the conspiracy to demolish Babri Masjid. The report of

the commission apparently contained no criticism of the

1992 Indian government and then Prime Minister P.V.

Narasimha Rao. It accepted Rao’s contention that it was not

possible to legally and constitutionally impose president’s

rule in Uttar Pradesh in December 1992 before the event.
Corruption Scandals

Till July 1993, the Narasimha Rao government ran smoothly

though technically it was a minority government. But in July

1993, the opposition decided to test the strength of the

government and brought in a no-confidence motion. The

government side on its own did not have the numbers to pass

the test. When the no-confidence motion was put to vote,

it was found that some members belonging to the Jharkhand

Mukti Morcha (JMM) and the Janata Dal (Ajit Singh group)

had voted against the motion, thus enabling the government

to win the vote and remain in power for the full five-year

term. It was later alleged that the JMM members had been

bribed by Narasimha Rao through a representative.

In 1996, after Rao was no longer prime minister,

investigations in the case took place. A special court

convicted Rao and his colleague, Buta Singh (who is alleged

to have taken the MPs to the prime minister). However, on

appeal to a higher court, the decision was overturned, mainly

due to the doubt attached to the credibility of Mahato who

said he had taken the bribe. Both Rao and Buta Singh were

cleared of the charges in 2002.

Rao’s name was also dragged into the Harshad Mehta

stock market scam and then in the hawala and Lakhubhai

cheating cases. Rao was cleared in both cases.

Rao may not have been convicted in any of the cases,

but in the public mind the whiff of corruption never faded.

Kashmir

Even as Hindu religious feelings were being whipped up in

India by certain groups, there was growing Islamic

fundamentalism in the Kashmir valley. It was in the 1980s

and the 1990s that militancy grew with the active help of

Pakistan. Religious sentiment was intensified and linked to

786

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

the liberation of Kashmir from the Indian State. The cry was

for ‘jihad’ and groups such as the Lashkar-e-Toiba wanted

Kashmir to join Pakistan. This group was rapidly gaining

prominence, trying to suppress other groups such as JKLF

which wanted independence rather than joining Pakistan, and

working for vengeance against India for its role in the

creation of Bangladesh. The fundamentalism was not confined

to fighting the Indian State machinery but extended to

changing the way of life with banning cinema, smoking, and

drinking alcohol besides compelling women to wear the

burqa. The Pandits bore the brunt of the actions of the

militants: they were forced to leave their homes and Kashmir

and become refugees.

General Elections of 1996

In May 1996, Narasimha Rao resigned following the

resounding defeat of the Congress in the General Elections.

He also resigned from the post of party chief later.

The elections were fought along three themes—Ayodhya,

economy, corruption. Lines were drawn along religious and

caste; besides the Congress was torn by factions, and many

accusations were made against the Narasimha Rao government

from within the party itself for mishandling situations and

corruption charges. In the circumstances, the verdict was

fractured. No party got enough seats to form a government

on its own.

The BJP won the most seats (161), while its allies

formed of Samata Party, Shiva Sena, and Haryana Vikas Party

won a total of 26 seats, thus making the BJP group get a

total 187 seats. The Congress got the second position, while

the National Front composed of Janata Dal, Telugu Desam,

and Left Front won 114 seats. Another feature that marked

the 1996 general elections was that several strong regional

and state parties showed no interest in allying with any of

the three main contenders for power.

Rise of the Dalit Voice

Even as political parties were getting to represent people on

the basis of religion and the OBCs, the Dalits (much more

commonly used now than the official scheduled caste or the

Gandhian term ‘Harijan’) were also being consolidated into

being represented by their own party. In earlier times, the

After Nehru. . .

✫

787

Congress had always drawn the Dalit votes, and after the death

of Ambedkar, the Dalits found a leader in Jagjivan Ram. The

Congress in this aspect was challenged only by the Republican

Party in Maharashtra and by the more militant Dalit Panthers,

also in the same state. But alongside, as far back as in the

1970s, Kanshi Ram, having quit his government job, had

mobilised Dalit government employees into an organisation—

the All India Backward and Minority Communities Employees

Federation (BAMCEF). This organisation attracted a large

number of followers. Encouraged, Kanshi Ram started a

political party, the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), which, as

indicated by the choice of the name ‘bahujan’, was to

represent not just Dalits but other backward castes as well

as Muslims and others as well over time. The area of

influence was mainly Uttar Pradesh.

The Dalits were drawn by the narrative that the BSP

presented—that the Congress was merely using them as vote

banks whereas the BSP stood for social justice and change

that would take the Dalits along the path of progress. The

BSP fought the 1984 elections but won no seat though it

got quite a few votes. In the Uttar Pradesh state elections,

it made an impressive showing. In 1993, the party won more

than 60 seats, mostly drawing away votes from the Congress,

and became a major player in Uttar Pradesh politics alongside

the Samajwadi Party and the BJP.

Mayawati, a protégé of Kanshi Ram, succeeded him as

the leader of the BSP. She was the one who built up alliances

with other caste groups and political parties. She won a Lok

Sabha seat in 1989. In 1995, In June 1995, she created

history by becoming the first-ever Dalit woman in India to

serve as the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh. Though her term

in office was short, in later years she was to come back as

chief minister of the state. In 2007, she became chief

minister, and this time she stayed in that post till 2012.

Between 1996 and 1999: Three
Prime Ministers

Now began a period of quick change of governments; the

period 1996–1999 saw three prime ministers at the helm.

The BJP won its largest tally so far in the 1996

788

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

elections, but, even with its allies, it was far from the simple

majority required to form a government on its own. The

National Front emerged as a contender with the agenda of

replacing the Congress or the BJP. The elections also for

the first time showed the strength of regional and state

parties.

Vajpayee’s Short-Lived Term as Prime
Minister

As it was the largest party in the Lok Sabha, the BJP was

called by President Shankar Dayal Sharma to try and form

a government. Atal Bihari Vajpayee, leader of the Bharatiya

Janata Party, was elected the new Prime Minister of India,

replacing P.V. Narasimha Rao of the Indian National Congress

in May 1996. However, the party just found no allies to

support it, and Vajpayee resigned after just 13 days later

rather than lose a confidence vote in the House.

The Congress, as the second largest party, declined the

invitation to form a government.

United Front Government: Deve Gowda
and I.K. Gujral

In the end, the United Front, composed of some 13 parties

including the National Front, Tamil Maanila Congress, the

DMK, and Asom Gana Parishad, and led by Deve Gowda,

formed the government with outside support extended by the

Congress party. The Communists later joined the government.

The government, however, fell in April 1997 when the

Congress party withdrew its support.

During its short tenure, the government signed an

agreement on confidence-building measures with China and

the Ganga water accord with Bangladesh. The government

maintained its refusal to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban

Treaty.

The government, however, fell in April 1997 when the

Congress party withdrew its support. A compromise was

reached so as to avoid elections: the Congress agreed to

support a government led by a new leader. The United Front

elected I. K. Gujral as the new leader, and he was sworn in

as prime minister on April 21, 1997.

After Nehru. . .

✫

789

I.K. Gujral is best known for what has come to be

known as the Gujral Doctrine. This was a policy which

sought friendship, on the basis of sovereign equality and non-

interference, with the neighbouring countries of India. Its aim

was to create an atmosphere of peace in South Asia.

It enunciated five principles:

(i) With the neighbours like Nepal, Bangladesh, Bhutan,

Maldives, and Sri Lanka, India does not ask for reciprocity

but gives all that it can in good faith and trust.

(ii) No South Asian country will allow its territory to

be used against the interest of another country of the region.

(iii) None will interfere in the internal affairs of

another.

(iv) All South Asian countries must respect each other’s

territorial integrity and sovereignty.

(v) All South Asian countries will settle all their

disputes through peaceful bilateral negotiations.

Though theoretically praiseworthy, critics have pointed

out that it may not work very well to believe in the ‘inherent

goodwill’ of openly hostile neighbours.

Gujral managed to maintain good relations with the

Congress, which supported his government from outside.

Trouble, when it came, came from within his party. The

Governor of Bihar gave the Central Bureau of Investigation

the permission to take up a corruption case against the chief

minister of the state, Lalu Prasad Yadav in the matter of the

purchase of fodder (what has come to be called the Fodder

Scam). Yadav refused to resign in the face of demands from

within and outside the United Front. Gujral personally told

him to resign. In the end, Lalu Yadav left the party and formed

his own party, the Rashtriya Janata Dal in July 1997.

However, as the new party extended its support to the United

Front, the government did not fall.

The Gujral government took a controversial decision

when it recommended to the president that president’s rule

be imposed in Uttar Pradesh which was then under Kalyan

Singh of the BJP when violence marred the assembly.

President K.R. Narayanan sent it back to the government for

reconsideration. A decision by the Allahabad High Court also

went against the idea of president’s rule in Uttar Pradesh.

790

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Then the Jain Commission which had enquired into the

conspiracy aspects of the Rajiv Gandhi assassination submitted

its report to the government. The government finally tabled

the report in Parliament in November. The report criticised

the DMK for tacitly supporting the Tamil militants accused

in the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi. This created uproar in

the House, and the Congress demanded that the prime

minister dismiss the DMK ministers from his government.

Gujral refused and the Congress party finally withdrew

support from the government on November 28. 1997. Gujral

resigned as a result, though he continued to be caretaker

prime minister till the next government took over.

General Elections

Fresh elections were held in February–March, 1998. Sonia

Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi’s widow, entered the political fray and

campaigned for the Congress. It was the fourth time since

1989 when a parliamentary election yielded a ‘hung’ house,

indicating that the era of coalitions had become established.

The BJP once again came ahead of the other parties

though without a majority of its own. This time round,

however, the BJP had formed an alliance with regional parties

from Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Orissa (now

Odisha), and West Bengal. This enabled it to increase its tally

of seats, besides attracting new post-poll allies.

NDA Years

(March 1998 – October 1999)

After the elections of 1998, the BJP joined up with several

regional parties to stake its chance to form the government.

The group became known as the National Democratic Alliance

(NDA). Atal Bihari Vajpayee of the BJP was chosen to lead

the NDA, and in March 1998, he was sworn in as prime

minister, for the second time. The NDA proved its majority

in the Lok Sabha.

The government lasted till April 1999 when the

AIADMK withdrew from the NDA. In a dramatic no-

confidence motion in the Lok Sabha on April 17, 1999, the

government lost by a single vote. This loss is generally

After Nehru. . .

✫

791

attributed to the vote of Giridhar Gamang, who, despite having

been chief minister of Orissa for a couple of months, had

not yet resigned from the Lok Sabha, so was technically still

an MP.

With the Opposition not able to come up with an

alternative to form the new government, the Lok Sabha was

dissolved by President K.R. Narayanan, and fresh elections

were held in September–October 1999. Vajpayee remained

caretaker prime minister till the elections.

In the meanwhile, Sharad Pawar and some leaders left

the Congress when the party chose Sonia Gandhi as its head.

The few months the Vajpayee government was in power

were marked by some notable events.

Pokhran II: Operation Shakti

In May 1998, a series of five nuclear explosions was

conducted by India at the Indian Army’s Pokhran Test Range.

This was the second time, the first time being in 1974, that

such devices were being tested. Termed Operation Shakti, it

involved the underground detonation of a regular fission

device, fusion devices, as well as a ‘sub-kiloton’ device.

Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee convened a press

conference to declare India a full-fledged nuclear state. The

main scientists involved were A.P.J. Abdul Kalam (a future

President of India) who was a scientific adviser to the prime

minister and head of the Defence Research and Development

Organisation, and R. Chidambaram who was Director of the

Department of Atomic Energy.

May 11, incidentally, is celebrated as National

Technology Day.

The world, especially the US, was shocked, as the

detonations were conducted with utmost secrecy. The relations

between the US and India plunged to an all-time low. The

US implemented the Glenn Amendment for the first time.

Newer sanctions were imposed, and at one point it looked

that relations would never recover.

Pakistan reacted with its own nuclear tests, Chagai I

and II, also in May 1998, as if it were responding in kind

to India.

In June, the UN Security Council adopted a resolution

condemning the Indian and Pakistani tests.

792

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

The Lahore Summit

In late 1998 and early 1999, Vajpayee worked towards a

diplomatic peace process with Pakistan.

The Delhi-Lahore bus service was inaugurated in

February 1999, and Prime Minister Vajpayee travelled to

Lahore by the bus. An attempt was made by Vajpayee now

to begin a new peace process between India and Pakistan so

as to permanently resolve the Kashmir dispute and other

conflicts. At a summit at Lahore in February 1999, Prime

Minister Vajpayee of India and Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif

of Pakistan signed the Lahore Declaration, espousing a

commitment to dialogue, expansion of trade relations and

mutual friendship, undertaking to refrain from intervention

and interference in each other’s internal affairs, and expressing

a commitment to take immediate steps for reducing the risk

of accidental or unauthorised use of nuclear weapons and

discuss concepts and doctrines with a view to elaborating

measures for confidence-building in the nuclear and

conventional fields, aimed at prevention of conflict, reaffirming

their condemnation of terrorism in all its forms and

manifestations and their determination to combat this menace

and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Kargil War

The bonhomie of the bus and the summit at Lahore did not

last long. Barely three months after the summit, it was found

that a steady infiltration was taking place into the Kashmir

valley by armed militants and Pakistanis soldiers, and these

intruders had got control of hilltops at the border and

unmanned border posts. It came out later that the incursion

was planned by the military of Pakistan which was under

General Pervez Musharraf, and the civilian prime minister

was only told after the plan was under way. The Kargil district

was the main centre of this incursion.

The Indian Army first came to know of the incursion

from a group of shepherds in May 1999. Swift action was

taken to counter the Pakistani infiltration. Both army and the

air force (with its operation called ‘Safed Sagar’) were

coordinated in their action. (But the military were told clearly

that they were not to cross the Line of Control.) Operation

After Nehru. . .

✫

793

Vijay was successful and the peaks taken over by the

Pakistanis recaptured. The vantage points included Tiger Hill

in the Drass sector. These points were crucial as they

overlooked the Srinagar-Leh highway which the Pakistanis

aimed at occupying and so cutting off this only all-weather

road link between the two towns.

In June, Nawaz Sharif of Pakistan is reported to have

asked the US to intervene, but the then US president Bill

Clinton declined to do so until Pakistani troops were

withdrawn from the Line of Control. Nawaz Sharif ordered

the operation of the Pakistanis to stop. By July 26, the war

was over with India victorious.

The Indians fought a fierce battle in cold and treacherous

terrain, and over 500 of the soldiers were killed. The Kargil

victory boosted the image of Vajpayee as a decisive and

sensible leader and also enthused the public with patriotic

feelings.

NDA: Second Stint

(October 1999 – May 2004)

The Kargil war was fresh in the public mind when the country

went to the polls in 1999. There was public support for the

NDA and the prime minister, in particular. The election

results gave the NDA led by the BJP a majority with the

support of new constituents such as the Janata Dal (United)

and the DMK. Atal Bihari Vajpayee was sworn in as prime

minister for the third time on October 13, 1999.

Economic and Social Steps

The NDA government carried forward the economic reforms

that had been initiated by the Narasimha Rao government.

Infrastructure development got special attention and

encouragement. Telecom, highways—the National Highways

Development Project and the Golden Quadrilateral—got

importance. Rural sector was not ignored: the Pradhan Mantri

Gram Sadak Yojana was launched to improve rural connectivity

with all-weather roads

The services sector was growing and software industry

was given a boost. Outsourcing of work from the West

created tremendous increase in jobs in India.

794

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

The government came out with a new telecom policy

that announced a shift from the high fixed licence fee to a

more reasonable revenue-share based fee. The government

also privatised state monopolies such as VSNL and brought

about fiscal changes in the form of duty-free imports.

The Disinvestment Commission was upgraded into a

ministry.

With the economy being opened up, foreign companies

began tapping Indian markets. Indian pharmaceuticals exported

their medicines and brought in precious foreign exchange.

Efforts were made to encourage foreign investment,

especially from Europe and the United States.

The government was instrumental in getting through the

Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Act in 2003

to institutionalise financial discipline, reduce India’s fiscal

deficit, improve macroeconomic management and the overall

management of the public funds by moving towards a

balanced budget and strengthen fiscal prudence.

The government tried to spread education through the

Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan for achieving universalisation of

primary education.

A highlight of the period was the Constitution 86th

Amendment Act, 2002, which placed the right to education

among the Fundamental Rights in Part-III of the Constitution.

Terrorist Trouble and Relations with
Pakistan

In December 1999, an Indian Airlines flight (IC 814 from

Nepal) was hijacked by Pakistani terrorists and flown to

Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. The government ultimately met the

demands of the terrorists and released certain terrorists

including Maulana Masood Azhar from prison. There was no

explanation forthcoming from the Indian government as to

why the external affairs minister personally escorted the

terrorists to Afghanistan to exchange them for the passengers.

Relations with Pakistan dipped.

But again in July 2001, Vajpayee made an effort to

improve relations with Pakistan by inviting Pakistan’s President

Pervez Musharraf to Delhi and Agra for a summit and peace

talks. No breakthrough was possible as Musharraf did not

agree to leave aside the Kashmir issue.

After Nehru. . .

✫

795

Then, in December 2001, came the attack on the

Parliament House in Delhi, which was carried out by Lashkar-

e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed terrorists. Once again Indo-

Pakistani relations dipped. Following this attack and other

terrorist attacks, the government got the Prevention of

Terrorism Act (POTA) passed.

Relations with the US

With the US, India improved relations with President

Clinton coming on a visit to India and efforts were made

to expand trade and cooperation on strategic issues.

Kashmir Elections

Kashmir went to elections in September 2002, which were

firmly made free and fair with the Election Commission

making its effort in that direction. Despite militants threatening

the people and telling them to boycott the elections, large

numbers of people voted. The National Conference which was

in power was voted out. An alliance of the Congress and

Peoples Democratic Party was voted to power. Mufti

Mohammad Sayeed became the chief minister.

The Downside

In 2001, the defence minister, George Fernandes, was forced

to resign following the Barak Missile Deal scandal and

another scandal involving the supplies of coffins for the

soldiers killed in Kargil. There was also the report of an

enquiry commission that the government could have prevented

the incursion in Kargil.

Then there was the episode of the BJP party chief,

Bangaru Laxman, apparently accepting a bribe which was

videoed and telecast—one of the first sting operations by

the media.

The Godhra incident and the riots that followed put a

blot on the image of India. In February 2002, the Sabarmati

Express caught fire at Godhra (in Gujarat) and several

pilgrims returning from Ayodhya were killed. It was widely

believed that a mob of Muslims had set fire to the

compartments, whereas reports also said the fire started

inside the compartment was due to a gas cylinder or a stove

796

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

catching fire. Riots followed, with Ahmedabad and Baroda

being chiefly affected. The riots have been called a pogrom

as Muslims were targeted and the violence was unbelievable.

It recalled the anti-Sikh riots of 1984. Narendra Modi, who

was chief minister of Gujarat at the time, was severely

criticised for being unable or unwilling to control the

situation. It is believed that Prime Minister Vajpayee was

deeply disturbed by the happenings in Gujarat and officially

condemned it. It is also believed that he wanted Modi to

resign, but others in the party dissuaded him from pursuing

that.

Significance of NDA

The NDA government lasted almost its full term, the first

non-Congress government to do so. Vajpayee turned out to

be an efficient prime minister, ably managing the coalition

tightrope politics. With the NDA completing its term, it

appeared as if a credible alternative was available to the

Congress at the national level. And this was necessary in a

truly democratic State. Some of the programmes it launched

were noteworthy. Its freeing the economy further helped

India.

2004 General Election

The Lok Sabha term was to end in October 2004, but the

government decided on early polls; the Lok Sabha was

dissolved in February itself and the country went to polls

in April–May 2004. Perhaps the BJP thought that the

government had done exceptionally well and took the slogan

‘India Shining’ seriously and misread the feelings on the

ground. Perhaps it was encouraged by the party’s recent

successes in state assembly elections in Rajasthan, Madhya

Pradesh, and Chattisgarh. Even newspapers and magazines

misread the situation and predicted that the NDA would win

without difficulty. But the NDA was defeated. It is possible

that the BJP lost the support of a section of the population

because its campaign stressed economic issues rather than

the controversial and ideological questions.

The Congress, led by Sonia Gandhi, emerged as the

single largest party.

After Nehru. . .

✫

797

The UPA Years

(May 2004 – May 2009; May 2009 – May

2014)

After the elections, the Congress joined up with minor parties

to form the United Progressive Alliance (UPA), which

managed more numbers than the NDA. President Abdul

Kalam called the UPA to form the government. The UPA

with external support from the BSP, Samajwadi Party, Kerala

Congress, and the Left parties managed a comfortable

majority.

It was expected that Sonia Gandhi, as party president,

would be the natural choice for the prime minister’s post.

She declined the office, despite dramatic entreaties by her

party members and the allies, stating that she was following

her ‘inner voice’. She nominated Manmohan Singh for prime

minister. She probably understood that her foreign origin

would be exploited by the opposition to create trouble for

the government. She, however, remained Congress party

president and the UPA chairperson.

UPA Government: First Term

Manmohan Singh, former finance minister, who had initiated

the economic reforms when in Narasimha Rao’s government,

was sworn in as Prime Minister of India on May 22, 2004.

He was a member of the Rajya Sabha.

A common minimum programme (CMP) was formulated

to guide the policies of the UPA government. As the

communist parties had an important role in devising this

CMP, the government’s policies were perceived to be ‘left-

of-centre’.
Social Welfare Measures
The reformist tendency of Manmohan Singh in the field of

economy was probably curbed by Sonia Gandhi. A National

Advisory Council (NAC) had been formed, which Sonia

Gandhi chaired. This council had, as its members, social

activists with a welfare agenda. The ideas for social welfare

that came from the council needed to be adopted by the

government.

798

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

The National Rural Employment Guarantee Act

(NREGA)—to which the name of Mahatma Gandhi was added

later to become MNREGA—was the largest welfare scheme

of its kind in the world; it was started in 2006. It guaranteed

rural households 100 days of paid labour in a year, with the

aim of tackling rural poverty. The programme also sought

to help women with one-third of the work mandated for

women.

In 2005, the government’s health ministry started the

National Rural Health Mission.

Under the provisions of the Right to Information Act

of 2005, any citizen of India may request information from

a ‘public authority’ which is required to reply expeditiously

or within thirty days. The act also requires every public

authority to computerise their records for wide dissemination

of certain categories of information so that citizens do not

have to formally request for information.

In 2005, Manmohan Singh’s government introduced

VAT (value added tax) to replace the complicated sales tax.
Foreign Relations

The Manmohan Singh government made efforts for stronger

ties with the United States. The prime minister visited the

US in July 2005 to initiate negotiations over the Indo-US

civilian nuclear agreement. When, in 2006, President George

W. Bush visited India, the declaration over the nuclear

agreement was made. This gave India access to American

nuclear fuel and technology, though in return India would have

to allow its civil nuclear reactors to be inspected by the IAEA

(International Atomic Energy Agency). It was only in October

2008 that India and the US finally signed the agreement after

further negotiations and approval from the IAEA, the Nuclear

Suppliers Group, and the US Congress. With this agreement,

the thirty-year-long ban that the US had placed on nuclear

trade with India came to an end.

Manmohan Singh was adamant over the Indo-US nuclear

deal saying he would not backtrack from an international

commitment even if it led to the fall of his government. In

After Nehru. . .

✫

799

July 2008, the UPA government faced a confidence vote over

the issue, as the Left parties withdrew support to the

government. The government managed to win the trust vote.

Manmohan Singh tried to ease relations between India

and the People’s Republic of China. In 2006, China’s

President Hu Jintao visited India, and in 2008, the Indian

prime minister visited Beijing. In the process, the Nathula

Pass was reopened in 2006 after having been closed for more

than four decades.
New President

In the meanwhile, in 2007, Pratibha Patil was elected and

sworn in as the President of India, the first woman to hold

the post in the country. Not very well known, Pratibha Patil

was a Congress member, who had been the Governor of

Rajasthan, and a close associate of the Nehru-Gandhi family.

She was favoured by Sonia Gandhi as a candidate for the

president’s post.
Terror Attacks

India faced several terror attacks in 2007–08. Even as

terrorist acts were carried out by Islamic groups, there were

also a number of bomb attacks in which the ostensible targets

were Muslims, investigations into which pointed to the role

of Hindu groups and individuals. In 2006, a series of

explosions occurred at a Muslim cemetery in Malegaon, in

Maharashtra. In May 2007, a blast took place in the Mecca

Masjid in Hyderabad, then in Andhra Pradesh. In 2007, a

bomb exploded at the Ajmer Dargah in Rajasthan. These

blasts claimed many lives.

In February 2007, a blast on the Samjhauta Express took

place as the train was on its way to Attari in Amritsar, the

last railway station on the Indian side. Many Pakistanis were

killed as well as some Indians. Initially, it was reported that

the main suspects in the terrorist act were the Lashkar-e-

Toiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed. In 2009, the United States

Treasury and the United Nations Security Council put in place

sanctions on Lashkar-e-Toiba, and Arif Qasmani was named

for having had a part in the Samjhauta Express bombing.

800

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

However, in 2011, the National Investigation Agency (NIA),

established after the NIA Bill was passed in December 2008

following the Mumbai terror attacks, accused eight people

of involvement in the Samjhauta blasts. These were all Hindus

with extremist views who were, said the NIA, “angry with

attacks on Hindu temples by jihadi terrorist activities”. They

included Naba Kumar Sarkar, alias Swami Aseemanand,

Lokesh Sharma, Kamal Chauhan, and Rajinder Chaudhary

among others. [In March 2019, however, the four were

acquitted by the NIA court citing lack of evidence.]

There was a series of bomb blasts in 2008 in Jaipur,

the capital of Rajasthan. In September 2008, bombs were set

off in a busy marketplace in Delhi. These acts of terrorism

were carried out by Islamic fundamentalists often aided by

Pakistan. The worst incident was the attack on November 26,

2008, perpetrated by Pakistani terrorists when a group of

these young men went through Mumbai and created havoc.

They entered the prestigious Taj hotel and held the guests

hostage before killing many. They attacked the busy Shivaji

rail terminus, again causing the death of innocent people.

India’s security weaknesses were exposed as these terrorists

had apparently reached the coast of India in a small boat and

entered the country unnoticed. In the end, nine of the

terrorists were killed and one, Ajmal Amir Kasab, was

captured. The captive’s confession confirmed that Pakistan

and, more particularly, the Lashkar-e-Toiba, had masterminded

the attack. [On November 11, 2012, a special court issued

Kasab’s death warrant after a trial. He was hanged to death

after being held guilty of 80 offences, including waging war

against India.]
Situation in States

Before the country went in for general elections, there were

noteworthy changes in state governments. The Bahujan Samaj

Party (BSP), led by Mayawati, won a majority in the assembly

elections and formed the government in Uttar Pradesh. Her

party’s victory is attributed to the fact that it had reached

out to the higher castes among the Hindus besides the

After Nehru. . .

✫

801

Muslims and not confined itself to the Dalits. After a long

time, the state was free of a coalition government. This
brought stability to the state. In May 2008, the Bharatiya

Janata Party (BJP) made an inroad in the South for the first
time, forming the government in the state of Karnataka. In
Jammu and Kashmir, the National Conference emerged with

the largest number of seats and formed a government, with
the Congress joining as a junior coalition partner. In Gujarat,
Chattisgarh, and Madhya Pradesh, the BJP was in power.
Trouble in Kashmir
Kashmir witnessed unrest once again in 2008. When it was
decided to allot some forest land for shelters for pilgrims

to Amarnath, there were protests in the Valley. There were
counter-protests in Jammu, which was dominated by Hindus.
Several people were killed in police firing. The series of

protests and counter-protests subsided for a time in the
winter before a fresh series or protests erupted in 2010, this
time over a youth killed in police firing. A large number of

people, mostly the young, came out on the streets and they
resorted to throwing stones and rocks at the police. The army
was called in to control the situation, and this served to

increase the resentment of the people. Protests continued,
with violence every now and then. The situation worsened
when it was reported that a copy of the Quran had been burnt

by a Christian priest abroad. Protestors burnt down a school
of the Christians. The protestors in Kashmir were getting
more and more influenced by the fundamentalists even as the

central government would not even think of withdrawing the
Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) from the state.

The Kashmir situation continues to simmer.

2009 Election and UPA Back in Power

The country went to the polls in April–May 2009 to elect

the 15th Lok Sabha. Posters for the Congress campaign

showed three faces: those of Manmohan Singh, Sonia Gandhi

(party president), and her son, Rahul Gandhi (who had become

general secretary of the party in 2007), confirming the hold

802

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

of the ‘First Family’ and the dynastic trend in the party. The

main opposition party, the BJP, projected L.K. Advani as the

prime ministerial candidate. (Atal Bihari Vajpayee was not

keeping well by this time.) Several regional parties too were

in the fray, some of them allied with the BJP and some ready

to support the Congress if the occasion demanded.

The election results showed that the Congress was able

to increase its tally of seats, though it could not get a

majority on its own. The reasons for the endorsement

probably were that the middle classes were satisfied with the

economy which was doing quite well, and they favoured the

nuclear deal with the US; the welfare schemes initiated by

the government at the behest of the NAC under Sonia Gandhi

appealed to many in the rural sector, especially the women

and the underprivileged, and had begun to show positive

results; and Rahul Gandhi was expected to and, probably did,

appeal to the younger voters.

The UPA was once again in a position to form the

government. Manmohan Singh was sworn in as the prime

minister on May 22; as per norms, he had submitted his

resignation on May 18 to President Pratibha Patil. Manmohan

Singh, thus, became the first prime minister since Jawaharlal

Nehru in 1962 to be re-elected after completing a full term.
Telangana Issue
The second term of the UPA government was marked by the

agitation for a separate state for Telangana. Before the 2004

elections, the Congress had allied with the Telangana Rashtra

Samiti (TRS) and promised to create a separate state of

Telangana out of Andhra Pradesh if it came to power at the

Centre. The Congress did very well in Andhra Pradesh in the

2009 elections, but the chief architect of that victory, Y.S.R.

Reddy, who was the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, was

totally opposed to the bifurcation of the state. In the

circumstances, the Congress government, now in power at

the Centre, went back on its promise on Telangana. [Also

ignored was another promise—that a fresh states

reorganisation committee would be formed to divide up some

After Nehru. . .

✫

803

of the larger states. This was because the Left, without whose

support the government would not have survived, was strongly

opposed to the idea.]

Y.S.R. Reddy died in an air crash, and the agitation for

Telangana got a fresh lease of life, with the movement being

led by K. Chandrasekhar Rao (KCR). In November 2009,

KCR went on a fast unto death in the cause of Telangana

as a separate state; life in Hyderabad was badly disrupted,

with KCR’s supporters coming out in thousands to protest.

The government at the Centre gave in and, in December 2009,

announced that the process to form the state was being

initiated. The decision caused much resentment among the

Congress MPs from coastal Andhra, but it had to be accepted

in the end. The Centre appointed a commission headed by

a retired judge of the Supreme Court, B.N. Srikrishna, to look

into the matter of bifurcation. The commission submitted its

report in December 2010, but it was rejected by the TRS.

After much negotiation, Parliament cleared the Telangana Bill

in February 2014. As per the act, Andhra Pradesh was

formally divided to form the new state of Telangana. While

the two states were to share Hyderabad as capital for ten

years, the Centre was to provide funds to Andhra Pradesh

(also Seemandhra) to build a new capital. [It was only in June

2014, after a new government took over at the Centre, that

Telangana actually came into existence, with KCR as the

chief minister.]

Incidentally, in May 2011, there was a historic

development on the state government level. West Bengal,

where the Left Front had ruled without break since 1977

(itself constituting a record), decided to switch allegiance,

and put the Trinamool Congress (TMC) in power. Mamata

Banerjee, who had once been in the Congress but had broken

away to form and lead the TMC, became the new chief

minister of the state.
Social Welfare Measures and Legislations

The UPA government brought in some important social

welfare measures in its second term. The Right of Children

804

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

to Free and Compulsory Education Act, known as the RTE

Act, came into being in 2009. The Constitution (Eighty-sixth

Amendment) Act, 2002 had already inserted Article 21-A in

the Constitution of India to provide free and compulsory
education to all children in the age group of six to fourteen

years as a Fundamental Right in such a manner as the State

may, by law, determine. The RTE Act, 2009 put in place what

is envisaged under Article 21-A; it means that every child
has a right to full-time elementary education of satisfactory

and equitable quality in a formal school, which satisfies

certain essential norms and standards. All private schools

(except those recognised as ‘minority’ educational institutions)
are required to enrol children from weaker sections and

disadvantaged communities in their incoming class to the

extent of 25 per cent of the school enrolment, through the

means of simple random selection. These children are to be
treated on par with other children in the school, but they will

be subsidised by the State. Article 21-A along with the RTE

Act came into effect on April 1, 2010.

An attempt was made to get the bill on reserving 33

per cent of seats in the union and state legislatures passed;

the bill was introduced in the Rajya Sabha, but the government

was compelled to shelve it as its own allies, especially the

Rashtriya Janata Dal, refused to support it.

The government was, in a way, forced to formulate the

Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 to deal with sexual

offences against women.

One night in December 2012, a horrific gang rape of

a young woman took place in Delhi. Jyoti Singh, accompanied

by her friend, got on to a private bus, which had some other

men in it. These men, one of whom was a juvenile, with the

collusion of the driver and the conductor, brutally raped and
tortured the woman and beat up the young man accompanying

her as the bus travelled around, even passing police check

posts. In the end, the woman and her friend were thrown out

on to the roadside. They were found by a passerby who
notified the police, and the victims were taken to hospital.

After Nehru. . .

✫

805

Doctors could not save Jyoti. According to police reports,

Jyoti had bravely attempted to fight off her attackers, hence

she came to be called ‘Nirbhaya’ in the media as the real

name of the rape victim could not be published. (Her real

name was later revealed openly by her mother.) The police

were quick to arrest the six culprits. In March 2014, the Delhi
High Court found all the defendants guilty of rape, murder,

unnatural offences, and destruction of evidence. The high

court confirmed death sentence for all four men convicted

earlier. (The juvenile was tried under a different law and
escaped with a few years in prison, and one of the accused

died in jail.) The case went in appeal to the Supreme Court.

[It was not till 2018 that the case was finally settled. In May

2017, the Supreme Court rejected the convicts’ appeal and
upheld the death sentence of the four who had been charged

in the murder. The convicts exercised their right to file a

review petition to the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court

rejected the review petition in July 2018.]

The gang rape incident led to widespread protests in

Delhi and in many other places in India, in spite of the police

arresting the culprits quickly. (Incidentally, the protests in

India sparked protests across South Asia; marches and rallies

took place in Nepal, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, and Bangladesh.)
The demonstrators who came from all walks of life, but

mostly from among the youth, wanted the death penalty to

be meted out to the criminals. The protestors in Delhi turned

violent and clashed with the security forces. The government
was initially high-handed, but ultimately it was forced to

climb down.

The government appointed a three-member judicial

committee on December 22, 2012. It was headed by J.S.
Verma, a former Chief Justice of India and an eminent jurist,

and was asked to recommend amendments to the criminal

law so as to provide for quicker trial and greater punishment

for criminals accused of committing sexual assault against
women. In its report, submitted in January 2013, the committee

was critical of the government, the police, and even the public

806

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

for its apathy. It identified ‘failure of governance’ as the

fundamental cause for sexual crime. The committee made

recommendations on laws related to rape, sexual harassment,
trafficking, child sexual abuse, medical examination of victims,

police, electoral and educational reforms.

The committee did not recommend the death penalty

for rapists. It suggested a range of prison sentences—from
seven years to life—for different situations arising from rape

and gang rape. Recognising the need to curb all forms of

sexual offence, the committee recommended suitable

punishments for acid attacks and trafficking. It made it
incumbent on the police to register every complaint of rape.

It called for the police to be sensitised and trained to handle

sexual assault cases appropriately. Civil society, it said,

should report every case of rape that came to its knowledge.
It wanted all marriages to be registered. Under the Indian

Penal Code, though sexual intercourse without consent is

prohibited, an exception is made for sexual intercourse

without consent within marriage. The committee
recommended that there should be no such exception to

marital rape.

Besides suggesting time-bound trials for rape cases and

the need for stringent punishment for all forms of sexual
harassment, including stalking and groping, the committee

also called for a review of the Armed Forces Special Powers

Act (AFSPA) in conflict areas so that sexual offences by

those in the forces are brought under ordinary criminal law.

The panel strongly recommended that ‘law enforcement

agencies do not become tools at the hands of political

masters’. It pointed out that members of the police force

must understand ‘their accountability is only to the law and
to none else in the discharge of their duty’.

The committee also observed that the primary

responsibility of the judiciary is to enforce fundamental

rights. It called upon the judiciary to be vigilant.

Calling for reforms to deal with criminalisation of

politics, the committee suggested that a candidate be

After Nehru. . .

✫

807

disqualified from participating in the electoral process for
sexual offences, and that filing of a charge sheet and
cognisance by the court should be sufficient for
disqualification of a candidate.

The committee wanted education facilities to be provided

by the State to the homeless and abandoned children.

In February 2013, the government promulgated an

ordinance amending the Indian Penal Code, the Indian Evidence
Act, the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act in matters relating to
sexual offences. In March 2013, the Criminal Law
(Amendment) Act was passed by Parliament to replace the
ordinance. Several new sections were inserted in the existing
laws to define and bring within the ambit of law such offences
as acid attack, which would attract a 10-year jail term
extendable to life imprisonment or fine or both; sexual
harassment, with punishment of imprisonment ranging from
1 year to 3 years, fine or both; voyeurism, punishable with
imprisonment from 3 years to 7 years; stalking, punishable
with imprisonment of 1 year to 5 years; and gang rape,
punishable with imprisonment up to 20 years extendable to
life imprisonment. The age of consent has been increased
from 16 years to 18 years. Repeat offences in certain cases
have been made punishable with life imprisonment or death.
Besides, a quick trial and conviction is called for in cases
of rape.

The law has been criticised mainly for not bringing

marital rape within its ambit, and for doing away with gender
neutrality in the cases of sexual offences and rape because
it recognises these offences only against women.

In 2013, the government pushed through the National

Food Security Act and the Right to Food Act. This was
aimed at providing subsidised food grains to the beneficiaries
of the targeted public distribution system. Though it was
pointed out that this kind of distribution may not reach the
targeted population due to the corrupt and inefficient

808

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

functioning of the public distribution system, NAC did not

favour the idea of cash transfers/ food coupons. As one critic

has observed, the contribution of the NAC to the agenda of

‘inclusive growth’ was to ensure that inclusiveness was to

be through patronage and protection rather than promotion

of livelihood and employment opportunities for the poor.

Clearly, the government faced some difficulties is reconciling

its own priorities with those of the NAC.
Space Venture to Mars
Amidst all the negative aspects that occupied the political
discussion, it was heartening to watch the success of Indian
space scientists. In November 2013, the first interplanetary
mission of the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO),
officially called the Mars Orbiter Mission and popularly
known as Mangalyaan, was launched. [On September 24,
2014, India’s space agency became the fourth agency to have
launched a spacecraft that was successful in reaching Mars
orbit, after the Russian, American, and the European space
agencies. What is more, India became the first country to
have succeeded in reaching Mars in its very first attempt,
and at a remarkably low cost.]
Corruption Charges and Lokpal Act
The UPA government in its second term could also be
credited with having got the Lokpal and Lokayuktas bill
passed in December 2013. But here too it was compelled
by circumstances to do so.

The second term of the UPA government was fraught

with allegations of corruption against it. There was a
controversy over the allocation of the 2G and 3G spectrum
(telecom licences), which were alleged to have been given
away at very low rates. In 2010, the Comptroller and Auditor
General’s report seemed to confirm this. Then came the
Commonwealth Games scandal, with reports of huge sums
of money changing hands for the procurement of contracts
for various infrastructure projects. While the 2G/ 3G scam
could be laid at the doors of an ally of the Congress, the

After Nehru. . .

✫

809

Commonwealth Games scam led to a Congress minister. The
report of the Comptroller and Auditor General in 2012
charged that coal block allocations had led to a loss to the
exchequer because the allocations were based on favouritism;

this report actually cast an aspersion on Manmohan Singh’s
reputation, which had always been that of a clean politician,
as the allocations had been made when the coal portfolio was

with him (2006–09). The corruption stories were extensively
covered and debated on the numerous television channels and
brought the subject to a large number of people.

Anti-corruption movements became prominent in 2011.

Anna Hazare, a well-known social worker from Ralegaon
Siddhi village in Maharashtra, came to Delhi in April 2011

and sat on a 12-day fast to protest against the corruption in
government and the failure to tighten anti-corruption
legislation. His specific demand was that a Lokpal be

established. Many activists joined him in the protest. ‘India
Against Corruption’ was an organisation created to support
Anna Hazare in his efforts. One of its main founders was

Arvind Kejriwal, a Magsaysay Award winner and an activist
for the right to information movement. Many of its members
were prominent persons in public life–lawyers, civil servants,

and academicians. Large numbers of people, including
celebrities, came out to support Anna Hazare. And the media
coverage added to the importance of the event. The 2011

movement was significant in Indian political history in that
it provided people the opportunity to express frustration.
Most people had experience of having had to bribe officials

and politicians for getting even legitimate work done. A
series of demonstrations and protests against official
corruption took place across India.

The government seemed to be rattled by the protests

and responded by announcing that it would set up a committee
to hammer out a lokpal bill. It said the committee would have

five cabinet members and five persons nominated by India
Against Corruption. Anna Hazare broke his fast and expressed
the belief that the bill would be passed before Independence

810

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Day that year. The committee, however, failed in its effort

as there was deep distrust between the government

representatives and the activists, and they could not agree on

some major aspects.

Soon there was another protest meeting, this time led

by the yoga guru, Baba Ramdev, demanding the repatriation

of unaccounted money from Swiss and other foreign banks.

Though he was not like Anna Hazare in that he had political

ambitions (he was considered close to the BJP), he had a

large following. Once again, there were large numbers joining

in the protest. The government came down hard on the

protestors after its efforts at conciliation failed. Ramdev was

ordered to stay out of Delhi.

The Lokpal Bill, approved by the government in July

2011, was rejected by the activists on the ground that it

excluded several high functionaries from the ambit of the

lokpal’s jurisdiction.

Anna Hazare declared that he would once again go on

a fast in the cause of a better lokpal bill. Now a fiasco

occurred, with the government arresting him. Anna Hazare

willingly went to jail and refused bail, and began his fast right

there, putting the officials in a quandary. The streets of Delhi

filled with protestors supporting him. The government had

no option but to release him. Anna Hazare continued his fast

at the Ramlila Grounds. A throng of supporters gathered to

express solidarity. The protests were, on the whole, non-

partisan, with most protesters unwilling to let political parties

make use of them in pushing political agendas. The movement

was nowhere near Jaya Prakash Narayan’s ‘Sampurna Kranti’

(total revolution) agitation of 1974–77. The difference was

that the protest in 2011 was held in full media glare; after

all, the era of the 24×7 television had arrived. The government

failed in its efforts to move Anna Hazare from his position.

In the end, towards the end of August, Parliament passed a

resolution moved by the then finance minister, Pranab

Mukheree, that a revised Lokpal Bill would be passed, which

would meet the main demands made by Anna Hazare and his

supporters. This led to Anna Hazare breaking his fast.

After Nehru. . .

✫

811

The Anna Hazare protest did not succeed in making the

government to immediately legislate on the lokpal. Also, the

supporters split on the issue of forming a political party.
Anna Hazare and some of the protesters were not ready to
enter the political arena. However, Arvind Kejriwal was in

favour of entering politics. Kejriwal and some others formed
the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) on November 26, 2012. It was
going to create history by getting a stupendous majority in

the Delhi Assembly elections of 2015, decimating the
Congress and reducing the BJP to a few seats.

The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Bill was first tabled in the

Lok Sabha in December 2011 and, after being passed, was
tabled in the Rajya Sabha in the same month. The vote failed
to take place after a marathon debate. In May 2012, the bill

was referred to a select committee of the Rajya Sabha. In
December 2013, it was passed by both the Houses of
Parliament. On January 1, 2014, it received assent from

President Pranab Mukherjee (who had been elected President
of India in 2012).

The Lokpal and Lokayukta Act, 2013 mandates the

establishment of Lokpal for the Union and Lokayukta for
states to enquire into allegations of corruption against certain
public functionaries and for related matters. The act extends

to whole of India, including Jammu and Kashmir, and is
applicable to ‘public servants’ within and outside India. The
act laid out the organisation, jurisdiction, and powers of the

Lokpal.

The jurisdiction of the Lokpal will include the prime

minister. If, however, a complaint is filed against the prime

minister, certain conditions will apply.

The Lokpal will also have jurisdiction over ministers

and MPs but not in the matter of anything said in Parliament

or a vote given there.

The Lokpal’s jurisdiction will cover all categories of

public servants. The Lokpal’s own members have been

included in the definition of ‘public servant’.

Critics have found two important shortcomings in the

812

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Lokpal Act: the Lokpal was not made a constitutional body;

and the judiciary was excluded from the ambit of the Lokpal.
Conditions Before General Election

When the country went to the general elections in April–

May 2014, much of the positive achievements of the UPA

in its second term was relegated to the background, while

the corruption allegations remained in most people’s minds.

The rural sector faced problems. Farmers committed suicide

on a large scale, mainly due to indebtedness, crop failure,

drought, and socio-economic factors. Farmer distress did not

seem to have come down even though the UPA government

in 2008 had announced a loan waiver of Rs 70,000 crore.

The UPA government rolled out several socio-economic

programmes, but their implementation was poor in most

cases.

There was also dissatisfaction on a more general level.

Common people were hit by price rise and unemployment,

not to say lack of development. There was what analysts

called ‘a policy paralysis’ in the second term of the UPA

that led to stagnation on the development front, and many

progressive economic ideas remained on paper. The fiscal

deficit and a sharp downslide of the rupee led to instability

in the economy.

It did not seem as if the UPA was coming back to power

in 2014.

The 2014 General Election

The 2014 General Election, according to many analysts, was

fought as if it were a presidential election. However, most

of the elections to the Lok Sabha down the years have been

based on projecting a strong personality: it was Jawaharlal

Nehru’s campaigning which, in the main, drew the people’s

support; then Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi too were the

main draws. Even Sonia Gandhi when she took over the

Congress leadership and campaigned was considered to be

the future prime minister, though there were rumblings about

her ‘foreign origin’. In those times, however, the other parties

After Nehru. . .

✫

813

lacked a matching figure to project. The Congress now
fielded Rahul Gandhi as the face of the party, who, if the
party won, would be the prime minister. Manmohan Singh
had clearly stated that he was not ready to be prime minister
again. Rahul Gandhi had been appointed vice-president of his
party in January 2013, reinforcing the perception that the
party followed the dynastic path and was full of sycophants.
The BJP, on the other hand, did have a more credible party
structure in place: party decisions were based on discussion
rather than on what a single individual said, party posts were
filled through elections, and at this point of time, there were
several young leaders, including state chief ministers, who
could be projected as a future leader of the country. It was
Narendra Modi, Chief Minister of Gujarat, who was chosen
as the prime ministerial candidate of the BJP.

Rahul Gandhi, as an opponent of Narendra Modi, had

little political experience and was a lackadaisical politician
lacking the skills of an effective speaker. In his years in the
Lok Sabha, he had made no noteworthy contribution. He was
no match for Modi’s oratory skills and his indefatigable
energy as he campaigned through the country. Even as Modi
referred more than once to the dynastic nature of the
Congress leadership, the lustre of the ‘First Family’ was
fading, on the whole, in the public mind. Modi pushed
sectarian concerns that were associated with the BJP to the
back burner and made ‘development’ the plank of his campaign.
The methods of campaigning adopted by the BJP were also
modern; the party made wide and effective use of the social
media, hiring professionals who gave striking slogans and
brought the latest electioneering methods to work for the
BJP. The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) cadres went
all out to help the BJP. Also, the BJP fought the elections
as part of the NDA. It made effective alliances with the
regional parties, which were part of the NDA.

The electorate was slowly but steadily changing. The

public, especially the youth, had a new outlook. With growing

814

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

urbanisation and accompanying migration, caste equations had
changed. Modi minimised appeals for votes on the basis of
caste. Modi’s firm commitment to development,
industrialisation, and job creation appealed to the young and
inspired hope in the public.

The country went to the polls to elect the 16th Lok

Sabha in April–May 2014. When the votes were counted, the
BJP emerged with a majority on its own, with 282 seats.
The Congress won just 44 seats, its worst performance in
elections so far. The BJP showed remarkable success in most
states; the exceptions were West Bengal, Odisha, Tamil Nadu,
and Kerala. Its vote share on all-India basis increased from
about 19 per cent to about 31 per cent.

The NDA Government

(May 2014 – May 2019)

Though the BJP had a majority on its own, it did not ignore

its allies; it was the NDA that formed the government on

May 26, 2014. Narendra Modi took his oath as prime

minister along with some members of his council of

ministers; the President of India, Pranab Mukherjee,

administered the oath of office. The venue was the forecourts

of the Rashtrapati Bhavan in Delhi. The swearing-in ceremony

was the first where all SAARC heads were invited, and all

attended. A non-Congress government was in power after 10

years, and a single party had a full majority after a long while.

The Modi government declared its intention to adopt

a developmental agenda–Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas (roughly

translated, ‘together with all, development for all’). There was

to be greater inclusion, social and financial, and better

accountability and transparency of government working. There

was to be less government and more governance. The

government said it would work for cooperative federalism,

economic prosperity, and improving the image of India in

the world. Its work at the end of five years was a mix of
positives and negatives.

After Nehru. . .

✫

815

Digital India: a Step Forward in
e-Governance

One of the basic aims of the Modi government was to

encourage electronic governance. Considering the importance

of reducing the paperwork involved in the public-government

interface and thereby lowering the corruption levels, the

Modi government launched the Digital India campaign within

three months of taking office, in August 2014. The success

of several socio-economic and governance programmes,

existing as well as intended to be launched, depended upon

the efficacy of Digital India.

The idea was to electronically empower the Indian

citizen and the economy. The programme was designed to

get all government departments and the people of India to

connect with each other digitally or electronically, so that

governance could be improved. The government also intended

to enhance and improve connectivity of all villages and rural

areas through internet networks.

There is no doubt that e-infrastructure, e-participation,

and government e-services were put in place and made to

work to improve transparency. The Unified Payments Interface

(UPI), a payment system allowing mobile-enabled money

transfers between bank accounts, and the Bharat Interface for

Money (BHIM) for a less-cash economy were developed and

put to good use, and certainly proved helpful to the citizens.

Socio-Economic Policies and Programmes
of Importance

The NDA government under Narendra Modi took some

noteworthy steps in the economic field. While some of the

policies leveraged past ideas, such as Aadhaar or the Goods
and Services Tax (GST), other ideas, like demonetisation and
the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, were new.
Disbanding Planning Commission and Setting up
NITI Aayog
Almost one of the first acts of the NDA government was
to scrap the Planning Commission and set up in its place

816

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

the NITI (National Institution for Transforming India) Aayog.
The Independent Evaluation Office submitted an assessment
report to Prime Minister Modi on May 29, 2014,
recommending that the Planning Commission be replaced
with a ‘control commission’. The union cabinet scrapped the
Planning Commission in August 2014. On January 1, 2015,
after a cabinet resolution was passed to replace the Planning
Commission with the NITI Aayog, the formation of the NITI
Aayog was announced by the Government of India. This body,
too, like the Planning Commission was established by
executive order. The NITI Aayog was conceived as a policy
think tank of the Government of India. Its aim was to enhance
cooperative federalism by fostering the involvement and
participation of state governments of India in the economic
policy-making process using a bottom-up approach. It, unlike
the Planning Commission, would not allocate funds to the
states for different programmes. NITI Aayog comprises, in
the main, the Prime Minister of India as the chairperson and
a governing council comprising the chief ministers of all the
states and lieutenant governors of union territories.
JAM Trinity: Jan Dhan-Aadhaar-Mobile
The NDA government was instrumental in bringing about an
important reform which was given a catchy abbreviated form,
JAM, for Jan Dhan Yojana, Aadhaar, and mobile number. The
reform was to directly transfer subsidy to the beneficiary.

The Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana was announced

by the prime minister in his Independence Day speech, and
it was launched on August 24, 2014. It was one of the largest
schemes in the world for financial inclusion, directed towards
helping those persons so far without a bank account to open
a bank account (without minimum balance requirement), get
a debit card, and access to social security schemes like
insurance and pension. There is no doubt that the scheme
served to bring about a huge increase in bank accounts being
opened, and over the years bring in a considerable amount
of money into the formal banking system. The first steps of

After Nehru. . .

✫

817

moving unbanked Indians towards organised finance were thus
taken. Criticism that privacy and security are affected need

to be addressed, but the advantages of the poor getting access

to modern finance cannot be denied.

A tool for identity mapping that was launched by the

UPA in January 2009, Aadhaar was strengthened and

institutionalised by the new government. The Unique

Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) was established as
a central government agency with the objective of collecting

the biometric and demographic data of residents, storing

them in a centralised database, and issuing a 12-digit unique

identity number called Aadhaar to each resident. Aadhaar was
put to use by the NDA government in improving the delivery

of services to the citizens. The NDA government managed

to get Parliament to enact the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery

of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act
in March 2016. The Centre began identifying the recipients

of the LPG subsidy by insisting that consumers link their

gas connections and bank accounts to their Aadhaar.

Though the Supreme Court restricted the use of Aadhaar

to welfare schemes in which the people receive benefits from

the government, the system brought down wastage and

corruption in the transfer of benefits.

Several subsidy schemes that had been designed to

ensure a minimum standard of living to the poor took

different routes to reach the beneficiary. The Centre and the

states supplied rice, wheat, pulses, cooking oil, sugar, and

kerosene at heavily subsidised prices through the PDS.
Power, fertilisers, and oil were sold below market prices to

certain sections of the population. The MGNREGA operated

through the panchayats which paid minimum wages to the

workers. As these subsidies made their way to the target
beneficiary, there were leakages on the way, with corruption

and inefficiencies reducing the final amounts. The JAM

trinity was intended to reduce the leakages and ensure that

the real beneficiaries got their due by doing away with the
intermediaries: Aadhaar would help in foolproof identification

818

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

of the correct citizens, while Jan Dhan bank accounts and

mobile phones would facilitate direct transfers of funds into

the targeted person’s accounts. To get the money into

people’s hands, greater use of mobile payments technology

was to be used. Transfer of money could be quick as well

as secure and convenient through use of mobiles. Over time,

if leakages are stopped and savings for the government

increased, the burden on the taxpayer would go down.

Moreover, with lower subsidies and fiscal deficit, India’s

international credit standing would improve.
Health Policy

A new National Health Policy was launched in January

2015. Government spending was not increased; instead, the

role of private healthcare organisations was emphasised. In

this, the Modi government showed a different path from that

of the UPA government, which had supported programmes

to assist public health goals. Several national health

programmes, including those aimed at controlling tobacco

use and supporting health care for the elderly, were merged

with the National Health Mission. In 2018, the Ayushman

Bharat programme, a government health insurance scheme,

was launched.

On October 2, 2014 was launched the Swachh Bharat

Mission (Clean India Mission), Prime Minister Modi’s

flagship sanitation campaign, the belief being that sanitation

was basic to ensuring good health. It was a nationwide

campaign in India aimed at cleaning up the streets, roads, and

infrastructure of India’s cities, towns, and rural areas, and

doing away with manual scavenging. The main aim was to

make the country free of open defecation to which purpose

government encouraged the building of toilets. In 2018, the

World Health Organisation said thousands of deaths from

diarrhoea were averted in rural India after the launch of the
sanitation mission.
Steps Directed Towards Economic Reform
The Modi government’s economic policies focused on
liberalising the economy. The foreign direct investment

After Nehru. . .

✫

819

policies were liberalised to allow more foreign investment
in several industries, including in defence and the railways.

Well aware that the job situation was not good and that

India’s demographic dividend could rapidly turn from an asset
to a liability, the Modi government initiated the Make in
India scheme in September 2014. It was a flagship programme
to boost the domestic manufacturing industry and attract
foreign investment in the Indian economy. Along with it,
many other programmes were also put in place, such as Start
Up India, Stand Up India, Skill India, and so on. The
success of these programmes was not up to expectations, but
they did make some progress.

Parliament amended the Arbitration and Conciliation

Act 1996 to expedite the arbitration of commercial disputes.
The amended law tackled issues of conflicts of interest and
brought disclosures by arbitrators into the ambit of the law.
Time limit was set on the arbitration procedure.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was a new law

enacted in 2016 to consolidate the existing laws related to
insolvency in India and to simplify the process of insolvency
resolution so as to enable easy exit in cases of insolvency
of individuals and companies. This law replaced several
overlapping provisions contained in various laws, such as the
Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985,
the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions
Act, 1993, the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial
Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (also
known as the Sarfaesi Act), and the Companies Act, 2013,
among others. With the new law in place, banks and other
creditors could hope to recover their loans from the bankrupt
companies in a time-bound and efficient way, entrepreneurship
could be promoted, availability of credit could be maximised,
and a balance of the interests of all the stakeholders
maintained.

Unaccounted money has been a bane of Indian economy.

The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act

820

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

of 2016 tightened the law in the use of unaccounted, tax-
evaded money for what is known as ‘benami’ transactions
through the purchase of property. Under the amended law,
authorities were empowered to provisionally attach and
eventually confiscate benami properties. Jail terms of between
one and seven years and a fine are prescribed for offenders.

The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act

of 2016 was another policy initiative of the NDA government.
As per the law, a regulator—the Real Estate Regulatory
Authority (RERA)—was to be established in every state to
oversee the sector and “protect the interest of consumers
in the real estate sector” through an adjudicating mechanism
and appellate tribunal. It was made mandatory for every real
estate project to be registered with its state’s RERA.
Unfortunately, this law required to be enforced by state
governments.

The Fugitive Economic Offenders Act (FEOA), which

came into force in April 2018, was required to tackle the
large fraud cases reported by banks. Under the law, if an
economic offender flees the country to avoid due process,
he/she can be declared a ‘fugitive economic offender’ and
their properties can be confiscated and auctioned to recover
at least part of the debt.

The government adopted the Hydrocarbon Exploration

and Licensing Policy (HELP) in 2016, with the major
guiding principles of enhancing domestic oil and gas
production; bringing substantial investment; generating sizeable
employment; enhancing transparency; and reducing
administrative discretion. The policy envisaged providing a
uniform licence for exploration and production of all forms
of hydrocarbon, such as oil, gas, coal bed methane, etc.,
instead of the earlier system of issuing separate licences for
each kind of hydrocarbon; an open acreage policy, i.e., giving
the option to a hydrocarbon company to select the exploration
blocks throughout the year without waiting for the formal
bid round from the government; easy-to-administer revenue

After Nehru. . .

✫

821

sharing model; and the freedom to market and price the crude
oil and natural gas produced (subject to a ceiling price). This
policy was in keeping with government’s stated intention of
‘Minimum Government Maximum Governance’.

On November 8, 2016, a controversial and the most

criticised step of the Modi government was taken when the
prime minister in a sudden address to the nation announced
that the Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 currency notes would cease
to be legal tender with effect from that midnight. The step
of demonetisation was taken suddenly so as to catch on the
backfoot the corrupt who held on to unaccounted money, and
to curb the fake notes and terror financing from across the
border. The impact of the project was mixed at best. Sudden
withdrawal of notes led to problems on the ground besides
the hardship borne by ordinary people as they sought to
exchange the old notes for new. Real estate was adversely
affected, growth slowed due to reduced demand, supply
chains were disrupted, and uncertainty increased, at least in
the short term. There was a decline in cash-sensitive stock
market sectoral indices like realty, fast-moving consumer
goods and automobiles, small and medium enterprises, and
the informal, cash-driven economy suffered greatly. The
agricultural sector was also adversely affected because
transactions in this sector are heavily dependent on cash.

Critics pointed out that, in essence, demonetisation had

not met the government’s goal of wiping out black money
from the Indian economy. But the move succeeded in that
it brought most of the cash into the formal system. At least
some of it could have been unaccounted, which could now
be tracked. Among the positive impacts of demonetisation,
one can point to the increase in AUM (assets under
management) of mutual fund industry. The government
managed to widen its tax base, leading to an increase in the
tax revenue. People began to increase bank balances instead
of hoarding cash (even if legitimate) in different corners of
the house. People also began to turn to the digital payment

822

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

systems. At another level, demonetisation proved that Indians
can adapt to changes, and it made people financially aware
about the different spending options. Even the local traders
selling from their carts quickly and smoothly switched over
to e-commerce payment systems.

The Modi government tried to bring in black money

through several schemes, none of which were amnesty
schemes. One was the Income Declaration Scheme (IDS)
in 2016. The other option was the Pradhan Mantri Garib
Kalyan Yojana (PMGKY) launched in December 2016 after
demonetisation, which provided an opportunity to declare
unaccounted wealth and black money in a confidential manner
and avoid prosecution after paying a fine of 50 per cent on
the undisclosed income. Reportedly, a total 64,275 people
disclosed Rs 65,250 crore under the IDS, while assets worth
Rs 5,000 crore were declared under the PMGKY. In 2015,
the government had enacted the Black Money (Undisclosed
Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act
under which the government provided a one-time window for
compliance.

It is doubtful if demonetisation had an adverse effect

on the BJP politically. In elections to state assemblies held
in 2017, the BJP and its allies won the required majorities
to form the government in six out of seven state legislative
assemblies, and among these was the most populous state
of Uttar Pradesh.

The biggest reform push of the Modi government came

in the form of the Goods and Services Tax (GST). It
overhauled the Centre-state financial relations in a major way.
The move towards GST began long ago, but was expressed
by the then union finance minister under the UPA in his
budget speech for 2006–07. At the time, the proposal was
opposed by many political parties, including the BJP. The
government then could not push it through. The NDA
government achieved something noteworthy in getting the
states to cooperate in the effort to introduce GST, considered

After Nehru. . .

✫

823

to be the biggest tax reform since independence. It was in
2016 that the Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment)
Act could be enacted after duly being ratified by the required
number of states, after which the GST could be launched.
It changed the system of how the Centre and states taxed
goods and services and shared the revenue. After the GST
was in place, imposition of taxes on goods and services was
not to be through legislation but was placed in the domain
of the GST Council that consisted of the central and state
finance ministers. GST replaced a number of central and state
taxes and eased the flow of goods across state borders. It,
however, left five petroleum products and alcohol for human
consumption out of its ambit. There were glitches in
implementation, and frequent changes as directed by the GST
Council. It was criticised for the inept implementation as well
as for the huge compliance burden for small enterprises in
its initial launch. But such a major step was bound to have
certain problems.

Efforts were also made to tackle the non-productive

assets of public sector banks.
Farmers
Problems in the agriculture sector increased over the years.
So many years after independence, Indian agriculture still
depended on monsoons and proved to be a gamble. The
Narendra Modi government had declared its intention of
doubling farmers’ income in real terms by 2022, moving
away from the historical focus on increasing production.
New crop insurance scheme and higher funding for irrigation
to counter weather risks were announced by the NDA
government.

Several schemes were rolled out for the agriculture

sector. The government tried introducing some new ideas at
the beginning of the term, such as neem-coated urea, soil
health cards, and crop insurance, but the crisis in agrarian
sector was not resolved. A number of marketing reforms
were initiated to create ‘one nation, one market’ in agriculture.

824

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

An attempt was made to get farmers to sell online. But as
the subject of agriculture is a state subject, reforms needed
to be endorsed by the states. The APMC Act could not be
reformed.

The government agreed to the demand for a higher

minimum support price. In 2019, it announced the central
sector scheme, ‘Pradhan Mantri KIsan SAmman Nidhi (PM-
KISAN)’. The aim was to supplement the financial needs of
the farmers in procuring various inputs to ensure proper crop
health and appropriate yields, commensurate with the
anticipated farm income. This followed the announcement in
the interim budget of February 2019 that farmers with less
than five acres each, who account for over 85 per cent of
India’s farm holdings, would get Rs 6,000 each annually.

Over the years, India became self-sufficient in food

grains, but a large number of farmers remained impoverished.
The sector suffers from some basic problems, which no
government has been able to tackle. The young gradually left
farming as an occupation, preferring to migrate to the towns
and cities. Suicides by farmers, mainly because of indebtedness
and crop loss due to vagaries of weather, did not abate.
Infrastructure
The Modi government did well in the infrastructure sector:
the speeding up of highway construction, the new Bharatmala
and Sagarmala projects, the building or revival of regional
airports and regional air connectivity, the Udaan scheme, and
much work on modernising and expanding railways are all
achievements to its credit. The Ujala LED bulb scheme may
have been started by the previous regime, but the Modi
government expanded the scheme and halved the price of each
bulb.
Welfare Schemes
The NDA government delivered on a large number of
important public goods schemes, some of which were built
on the initiatives of the previous government, and others of

After Nehru. . .

✫

825

its own design. The major positive aspect of the programmes
conducted by the NDA government lay in its implementation
which was more efficient.

As part of the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana initiative,

the number of rural houses built increased considerably, with
several beneficiaries getting their due. There was also a large
push on rural electrification to ensure all villages had an
electricity connection by 2018 under the Deen Dayal
Upadhyaya Gram Jyoti Yojana. Under the Ujjwala Yojana,
the government aimed to provide LPG connections to below
poverty line households in the country to replace polluting
cooking fuels used in rural India with the clean and more
efficient liquefied petroleum gas.

The Beti Bachao Beti Padhao scheme was launched

in 2015 with the aim of reducing the female infanticide rate
by encouraging education and welfare of the girl child. Also
launched in 2015 was the Sukanya Samriddhi Yojana, the
primary objective of the scheme being the promotion and
implementation of the welfare programmes for the girl child.

The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment

Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS) had been criticised by
Modi when the UPA was implementing it. But after coming
to power, the Modi government did not discontinue the
scheme, but improved it in various ways, especially by
focusing on productive work to be undertaken, geo-tagging
the assets created under the scheme in an attempt to bring
transparency at the click of a button and check leakages.

Several pension schemes which had been initiated by

earlier governments were continued with modifications, and
some new ones were begun.

Security

Tackling Maoists
The Maoist threat seems to have been suppressed in many
regions where they were operating earlier. Chhattisgarh,
however, faced Maoist attacks every now and then. But the

826

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

situation improved in recent years. While Maoist-led violence
remained a major concern in Bastar division, significant
progress has been made in restricting Maoists to the state’s
southern districts. Improved road connectivity and better
equipped and trained security forces helped to improve the
situation.

In 2015, the government had launched a National Policy

and Action Plan for the security and development of areas
affected by Naxalite/Maoist insurgency, and for improving
the training and equipment of the security forces. In the wake
of the demonetisation drive, there was a halt in insurgent
activity, as funds had, indeed been squeezed out.

In May 2019, however, an IED blast was carried out

by Maoists in Gadchiroli, Maharashtra. The Maoists targeted
an anti-insurgency operations team. Gadchiroli and Gondia
have areas contiguous with the Dandakaranya region of
Chhattisgarh.
Kashmir Situation and the Pakistani Involvement
The situation in Kashmir cannot be discussed without
considering the actions of Pakistan. The volatile security
scenario in the Indian state is a manifestation of Pakistan’s
proxy war with India, combined with the unsettled political
issues of the state.

In November–December 2014, elections were held to

elect the Jammu and Kashmir state assembly. The regional
People’s Democratic Party (PDP) emerged as the single
largest party but could not form a government on its own.
It was only in February 2015 that the BJP and the PDP
decided to join together to form a government. In March,
the coalition government was sworn in, and for the first time,
the BJP was part of a government in the state. Mufti
Mohammed Sayeed of the PDP became the chief minister.
But in January 2016, Mufti Mohammed Sayeed died, and this
created problems for the coalition as the mufti’s daughter
and successor as head of the PDP, Mehbooba Mufti, was not
keen to take the post of chief ministership in association

After Nehru. . .

✫

827

with the BJP. As the alliance seemed to be in a crisis,
Governor’s rule was promulgated. With the problems
somewhat ironed out, Mehbooba Mufti took her oath as chief
minister of the state in April 2016, the first woman to hold
the position in the state.

Street protests started in Kashmir in July 2016 following

the killing of Burhan Wani, a commander of the Hizbul
Mujahideen, by security forces. Curfew was imposed, but the
protesters defied curfew and indulged in stone pelting against
security forces and police. Indian security forces, trying to
control the protesters, used pellet guns, which, although
considered ‘non-lethal’, caused permanent eye damage in
many cases. This only worsened the situation. In August
2017, Abu Dujana, the Pakistani commander of banned terror
group Lashkar-e-Taiba, and his aide Arif Nabi Dar, were killed
after a gun battle with government troops in Kashmir’s
Pulwama district. There were violent protests over this too.

Differences in the coalition government came to the

fore. Ultimately, the uneasy coalition came to an end in June
2018 when the BJP pulled out of the government. The
immediate cause for the break between the two parties lay
in their differences over the continuation of the Ramzan
ceasefire. The militants continued with their terror tactics
even during the ceasefire: the several terror incidents included
the murders of journalist Shujat Bukhari and of army jawan,
Aurangzeb. The union home minister was firm that terrorism
had to be dealt with, ceasefire or no ceasefire. The alliance,
in any case, had no ideological affinity and even lacked
functional coordination. Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti
tendered her resignation. The state was later placed under
Governor’s rule again.

In the meanwhile, terrorist attacks on Indian forces took

place every now and then. The Pathankot Air Force Station
was attacked in January 2016, purportedly by terrorists
belonging to Jaish-e-Mohammed. On June 25, 2016, a
Central Reserve Police Force convoy was ambushed en route

828

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

from Pantha Chowk to the town of Pampore, in Pulwama
district, for which the terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba
subsequently claimed responsibility. Early morning on
September 18, 2016, four heavily armed persons entered the
administrative block of the army camp in the Uri sector,
some 100 km from Srinagar, and killed a number of soldiers.
It was the most serious attack on an army camp in 26 years.
After a gun battle, all four terrorists were killed. Jaish-e-
Mohammed was suspected of being involved in the attack.
India conducted surgical strikes in retaliation on September
29, 2016, against terrorist launch pads across the Line of
Control in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. The Indian Army said
that a number of militants were neutralised in the operation.
However, this did not act as much of a deterrent as, on the
night of October 3, 2016, terrorists fired at and lobbed
grenades on a Rashtriya Rifle battalion in Baramulla. The
attackers were reported to have been Pakistani nationals
belonging to Jaish-e-Mohammad. The border continued to be
tense for some time, with several attacks being perpetrated
by the Pakistanis and the Indian side forced to return fire.

On February 14, 2019, a convoy of the Central Reserve

Police Force (CRPF) was the target of a bomb blast when
it was attacked by a vehicle-borne suicide bomber in the
Pulwama district on the Jammu Srinagar Highway. The attack,
said to be the deadliest against Indian forces in Kashmir in
decades, killed 40 CRPF personnel besides the attacker. The
Jaish-e-Mohammad claimed responsibility for the attack.

In the early hours of February 26, Mirage fighter jets

of the Indian Air Force (IAF) took off from various air bases
in India and crossed the Line of Control in Jammu and
Kashmir, and targeted the Jaish-e-Mohammed terror camp in
Balakot in the Khyber Pakhtunwa province with missiles.
India termed the airstrike an ‘intelligence-led, non-military,
pre-emptive’ operation. According to IAF briefings to the
government, 80 per cent of the bombs had been successful
in hitting the targets and had inflicted the requisite damage

After Nehru. . .

✫

829

to the enemy locations. Pakistan’s military, however, said that
the damage was just to an uninhabited wooded hilltop area
near Balakot. International media too said that the attacks did
not hit the said target, as satellite pictures showed structures
standing intact. There was some confusion on the issue as
media was not allowed near the said spot by the Pakistani
authorities till April. In its report, the IAF observed that the
Spice bomb that was used in the attack penetrates a target,
killing people inside rather than inflicting damage to the
outside of a building. So, the IAF did not have much evidence
by way of pictures to prove that the Balakot strikes actually
took place, the report said. A fragmentation bomb would have
flattened the structures that would have been easier to present
as evidence, it said.

The Balakot airstrike pushed India and Pakistan to the

brink of an armed conflict. Pakistan Air Force attempted
retaliatory strikes on February 27, 2019. The IAF scrambled
its fighter jets in response, leading to a dogfight between
the Indian and Pakistani jets in the skies over Jammu and
Kashmir. An IAF MiG-21 Bison fighter jet shot down a
Pakistani F-16 during the dogfight. But the MiG too was shot
down and its pilot, Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman,
was captured by Pakistani forces. He was released two days
later, thus lowering the tension between India and Pakistan.

In the wake of the skirmish, both Pakistan and India

blocked airspace for each other. The closure of Pakistani
airspace led to considerable losses for carriers—Indian and
international—flying to the west of India as the flights were
forced to take a longer route. Pakistan also lost the money
that it would otherwise have earned from route navigation
and airport charges levied on flights using its airspace or
landing for maintenance or refuelling. It was in July 2019
that the airspace was opened.

Foreign Relations

India’s foreign policy did not shift drastically on the NDA
government’s coming to power in 2014. However, a subtle

830

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

shift did develop over the years. As India’s foreign secretary,
Vijay Gokhale, observed, “India has moved on from its non-

aligned past. India is today an aligned state—but based on

issues.”

Sushma Swaraj, one of the senior-most leaders of BJP,

was placed in charge of the external affairs ministry in 2014,

becoming the first woman in India to hold independent charge

of the ministry. However, the prime minister was always
closely overviewing the sector. Not only Sushma Swaraj but

also Prime Minister Modi visited several foreign states and

attended international summits.

An important plank of Modi’s foreign policy was to

improve relations with neighbouring countries. The

government’s ‘neighbourhood diplomacy’ was successful in

improving relations with Bangladesh, Nepal, and Sri Lanka.

In 2015, the Indian parliament ratified a land exchange deal
with Bangladesh in the matter of some enclaves, which had

been initiated by the UPA government but left pending. But

relations with Pakistan saw a plunge, as discussed in the

previous section. With China, there were glitches, but the
talks between the two countries were maintained and the

situation kept under control.

A major stand-off between India and China came in

2017 over Doklam. Doklam is an area of some 100 square
kilometres, comprising a plateau and a valley, located at the

junction between India, Bhutan, and China. The Chumbi Valley

of Tibet, Bhutan’s Ha Valley and Sikkim surround it. In 2017,

the Chinese tried to construct a road in the area, and Indian
troops, called in by their Bhutanese counterparts, objected

to it, resulting in the stand-off. Doklam is strategic for India

as it is close to the Siliguri Corridor, which connects

mainland India with its north-eastern region. Bilateral ties
were also affected over the US$ 60 billion China-Pakistan

Economic Corridor (CPEC), which is part of the Belt and
Road Initiative (BRI), a project pushed by President Xi
Jinping of China to consolidate China’s influence in the
world.

After Nehru. . .

✫

831

With the United States, relations had already been

improved by the earlier governments. Modi used his decisive
mandate to further the partnership with the US. He was able
to get the US president, Barack Obama, to visit India and
gave an impetus to bilateral relations to get that country to
invest its capital and technology in India’s development
effort. Modi succeeded in getting the US to sign the bilateral
Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement in 2016 for
facilitating logistical support, supplies, and services between
the militaries of the two countries. Then, in 2018, the
Communications Compatibility and Security Agreement
(COMCASA) was signed to facilitate access to advanced
defence systems.

With the advent of Donald Trump to the post of US

president, the protectionist turn in US trade policies, to an
extent, tempered Indo-US relations. Even so, the US remained
supportive of India, and the bilateral relationship survived.

India agreed to be part of the quadrilateral involving

the United States, Japan, and Australia.

Though the early steps towards a partnership with Tokyo

began under the Manmohan Singh government, the relationship
progressed greatly under Modi. Japan and India have become
indispensable partners in the ‘free and open Indo-Pacific’, and
this is important to the United States as well. Japanese
security is, no doubt, founded in its alliance with the US,
but in counterbalancing China, Japan sees in India a vital
complementary partner.

The proactive nature of the NDA government’s foreign

policy is to be seen in turning the ‘Look East Policy’ into
‘Act East Policy’, which envisages the need to expand the
Indian influence in East and Southeast Asia.

In West Asia, India managed to maintain a balance

between Palestine and Israel without preference. India
succeeded in getting invited to the Organisation of Islamic
Cooperation (OIC) for the first time since its inception. India

832

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

reached out boldly to both Saudi Arabia and the United Arab
Emirates, with the idea of gaining politically and economically.
In the long term, India, fighting the threat from cross-border
terrorism, was bound to gain from the Gulf monarchies’
growing opposition to Islamist terrorism.

India joined the Australia Group, which aims to prevent

proliferation of biological and chemical weapons, and will
ensure a more secure world. With this, India had become
a member of three of the four nuclear export control
regimes. Earlier, India joined the Missile Technology Control
Regime (MTCR) in 2016 and the Wassenaar Arrangement
(WA) in 2017. India’s membership bid for the Nuclear
Suppliers Group (NSG) was pending as China opposed India’s
bid.

India took a leading role in the establishment of the

International Solar Alliance along with France to tackle the
challenge that faces the planet—global warming and climate
change.

Opponents of Modi may snigger at the bear hugs and

the selfies with world leaders, but beneath all that lay an
astute approach to foreign relations. The Modi government
“redefined strategic autonomy as an objective that is attainable
through strengthened partnerships rather than the avoidance
of partnerships”. The global scenario today is complex, and
a country’s approach has to be flexible. So, India’s engagement
with the so-called Quad enhances its strategic autonomy with
regard to China, and when it confers with Russia and China
for a trilateral, it enhances its strategic autonomy in relations
to the Trump administration which seeks to challenge the
basic tenets of the global economic order.

Social Situation

Communal riots were practically nil in the Modi regime, but
there is a clear perception that the activities of a number
of Rightist Hindu nationalist organisations increased and
occupied centre stage after Modi became prime minister, and

After Nehru. . .

✫

833

it seemed with the tacit support of the government. A
programme for Hindu religious reconversion (Ghar Wapasi),
a campaign against the alleged Islamic practice of what was
termed ‘love jihad’, and sporadic praise for Nathuram Godse,
who assassinated Mahatma Gandhi, were some activities that
adversely affected the social fabric. The anti-Romeo squads
in Uttar Pradesh were raised ostensibly to protect women
from harassment, but indulged in moral policing. Campaigns
against so-called love jihad, though short-lived, were an
infringement on the freedom of choice.

Individual Muslims were increasingly targeted for violent

attacks for alleged cow slaughter in the main, but also for
other reasons. Non-Muslims—especially Dalits and tribals—
were also attacked on flimsy charges. A disturbing aspect of
these attacks was that sympathetic observers videoed the
lynching and uploaded it on social media. Some rightist fringe
elements certainly assumed that they had the tacit support
of the government in this violence. But in-depth historical
research is needed before one can categorically assert that
lynching increased under the Modi dispensation. If society
was polarised between Hindus and Muslims by the BJP, only
Muslims should have been lynched and only for cow slaughter.
But one cannot then explain the rise of lynching of individuals
on charges such as ‘child-theft’ and witchcraft.

The stupendous increase in the internet use coincided

with the rise of BJP to power. The ubiquitous use of the
smartphone and cheap internet connections became a common
phenomenon only after 2010. In some cases, it appeared as
if the entire episode of lynching was being played out for
an audience. As, indeed, it was, because a video would be
uploaded for everyone’s edification. Before the era of
handheld mobiles, it would take hours, if not days, for
messages to spread about ‘wrongdoings’ of any person.
However, post-mobile revolution, in just a few minutes the
message gets spread. Hence, mobilisation is quicker.

834

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

WhatsApp was made use of in the most deplorable way to
spread such messages. The proliferation of ‘fake news’ also
became common.

Hyper-nationalism seemed very visible. On the social

media, trolling and rise of vigilante groups with little regard
for human life were evident. Vigilante groups mushroomed
with political agendas to attack minorities.

The Supreme Court intervened and directed the

government to take firm action on lynching and give guidelines
to the authorities on steps to take to prevent it, and what
to do when such incidents took place. It called for
accountability from the officials.

Amidst all this, the prime minister remained silent for

too long. Maybe things would have been different if he had
reined in the fringe elements and reassured those facing
violence at the first sign of trouble. Some political
commentators have suggested, however, that the violence by
some radical Hindu nationalists was aimed at undermining
Modi’s authority.

In spite of stricter laws, greater awareness and even

campaigns, violence against women was unabated. Cases of
child rape shocked the nation. The government responded by
introducing the death penalty for rape of minors below 12
years, and provided for all rape cases under the stringent
POCSO Act to be fast-tracked. However, law can only do
so much in cases of rape and violence against women and
children; attitudes of people and society in general need to
change. Furthermore, law enforcement agencies need to be
sensitised.

Several socially important legislations were passed

under the NDA government, such as that on juvenile justice,
child and adolescent labour, and mental health which
decriminalised attempt to commit suicide.

Another landmark was the decision by the Supreme

Court constitutional bench marking the first step in the

After Nehru. . .

✫

835

struggle by the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer
(LGBTQ+) community to gain social legitimacy.
Homosexuality, as embodied in Article 377, much of which
was a relic of Victorian British times, was decriminalised
by the court. It was in 2001 that the issue of constitutional
legality of Article 377 was first raised by the Naz Foundation
in the Delhi High Court, which held the penal provision to
be illegal in 2009, but that judgement was overturned by the
Supreme Court in 2013. In 2018, the apex court overturned
its own earlier stance. An August 2017 judgement of the
Supreme Court upheld the right to privacy, and this laid the
legal ground for a fresh interpretation of Article 377 in the
matter of decriminalising homosexuality. However, other
issues such as same-sex marriage, inheritance of property,
and civil rights were not considered. Surprisingly, most
political groups welcomed the decision, which marked a
change from earlier times.

The judgement of Supreme Court in the Sabarimala

Temple case got a mixed response. The decision allowed
women of all ages to go on the pilgrimage. While this
certainly supported the constitutional principle of equality,
it went against age-old traditions. Opposition to the judgement
was vocal and led to widespread protests in Kerala.

The Supreme Court also decided that the practice of

triple talaq among Muslims was not to be allowed. While
women generally welcomed this, conservative elements
opposed it. The government’s effort to legislate on it to make
the practice unlawful did not succeed, and it took the
ordinance route.

All this shows the Indian society in transition.
On another level, the Modi government disappointed.

In the matter of job creation, there was little progress. A
large proportion of India’s labour force continued to be
unskilled and poor. Unemployment rate was reported to have
reached a very high level. The government did not succeed

836

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

in rejuvenating the manufacturing sector in industry to create
jobs in spite of the Make in India initiative. But here too,
like in agriculture, the reasons were many and complex. The
low levels of skills among India’s workers, available jobs
being low paid, poor infrastructure, and India’s antiquated
labour laws were some factors.

General Election and Return of
the NDA

April–May 2019 saw the Indian electorate casting votes to

elect the 17th Lok Sabha. The elections were held in seven

phases, and the votes began to be counted on May 23.

The National Democratic Alliance (NDA) got an overwhelming

majority, winning 353 seats; the BJP on its own garnered

303 seats, a majority on its own. This was better than their

performance in the 2014 elections, a feat none could have

predicted. The BJP, for the first time, made striking inroads

in West Bengal. Also, it did well in states which had just

recently ousted the BJP in favour of the Congress in

assembly elections. This reflected in the main the voters’

perspicacity: they were clear about who would be better at

the state level and who they wanted at the national level.

The Congress did better than in 2014 by winning 52

seats, while its other UPA allies won 33, but the picture was

clear: the NDA had returned to power at the Centre.

A landmark was achieved in 2019: not only did the

largest number of female candidates stand for election, the

number of women who actually won was also the highest ever.

This was the first time a non-Congress government that

had completed a full term returned to power for a second

consecutive term with a majority in the Lok Sabha. Modi was

the first BJP leader to have been elected for the second time

after completion of a five-year tenure, a feat achieved before

him only by two Congress leaders, Jawaharlal Nehru and

Indira Gandhi. Manmohan Singh also was prime minister for
two terms, but his party had not won a majority on its own.

After Nehru. . .

✫

837

Narendra Modi was administered the oath of office as

prime minister by President Ram Nath Kovind on May 30,

2019 in the forecourt of Rashtrapati Bhavan. Guests from

abroad included leaders of the BIMSTEC, the Kyrgyz Republic,

and Mauritius.

Even though the BJP had the required numbers to form

the government on its own, it decided to accommodate its

allies in the council of ministers. One surprise was the

induction of S. Jaishankar, former foreign secretary, as

foreign minister, but then he was well known for his

diplomatic skills and had played a crucial role in foreign

policy even under the Manmohan Singh government. Amit

Shah, BJP president and Narendra Modi’s close associate,

who must be credited with leading the BJP to impressive

victories in election after election, was also included in the

cabinet as home minister.

Narendra Modi, in his speech to the new MPs, asked

the members to work in the government without discriminating

against anyone and win the trust of minorities. He said that

the minorities had been cheated by the other parties for

generations. Pointing out that the minorities had been made

to live in an ‘imaginary fear’ for long, he said that this should

be changed; he affirmed the need to win the ‘vishwas’ (trust)

of Muslims. Sabka Vishwas would be added on to Sabka

Satth, Sabka Vikas. Apparently, Modi had become far more

self-confident of steering his party and his government in

the direction he wanted without the constraints of the

ideological rigidities of the Sangh Parivar in this respect. In

this context, it may be recalled that, as Gujarat’s chief

minister for three terms, he had subdued the Vishwa Hindu

Parishad and other such organisations in the state. He had

already made a crucial statement—that everyone should be

taken along, even those who had not voted for the ruling

alliance and had been its vociferous critics.

Factors behind the NDA Victory

The NDA victory for a second consecutive term was no doubt
won mainly through the hard work of the cadre of the BJP

838

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

directed by the strategy devised by Amit Shah. The BJP was
also able to take its allies along with it, despite disagreements
expressed by some of them before the polls.
The BJP had an undisputed leader in Narendra Modi, its prime
ministerial face. The opposite alliance, if it could be called
that, had no alternative to project as Rahul Gandhi of the
Congress was not a unanimous choice. Nor could the
opposing parties agree on a credible alternative. Nor did all
the opposing parties agree to join an alliance.

The campaign was not just aggressive but often

degenerated into the abusive. But perhaps the Congress’
favourite slogan of ‘Chowkidar chor hai’ indicating that the
prime minister was a thief, did not go down well with the
public which thought it showed disrespect to the country’s
prime minister and not just the individual, Modi. To an extent,
this backfired on the Congress, especially as the perception
of the prime minister in the public mind was one of a hard
working non-corrupt man. The Rafale deal somehow did not
seem such a great disaster or something that had led to Modi
making money out of it.

The welfare schemes that the Modi government

implemented fairly efficiently certainly helped the NDA win
a second term. True, the promises fell short, but even the
people who had so far not got a gas connection or a toilet
built had hope that if some people had benefited, in time
others too would get there.

A large section of the population were convinced that

the other parties wooed the minorities just for votes, and
in the process ‘appeased’ them. The Hindutva plank certainly
played a role in the support enjoyed by the BJP. But it is
also to be noted that the BJP was able to cut across caste
divisions to get the majority it did.

The firm way in which the government seemed to have

handled Pakistan—the surgical strikes and later the air force
strike in Balakot in February 2019—turned the tide in favour
of the NDA in a big way. There is no doubt that national

After Nehru. . .

✫

839

security was a big issue pushing into the background important
issues, such as slowing economic growth, joblessness, and
farmers’ distress. It did not help the opposition in that it
chose to question the government on its achievement; it
seemed as if it was questioning the army’s capability.

The huge victory of the NDA, however, should not blind

us to the fact that the opposition in Parliament has been
reduced commensurately. A democracy can be healthy only
if there is a strong opposition to question and keep in check
the executive.

join us http://telegram.me/bpsc65thmand66thp (BPSC CCE 65th,66th and 67th)

840

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

840

1. Personalities Associated with

Specific Movements

Swadeshi Movement

Lokmanya Tilak spread the message of swadeshi to Poona

and Bombay and organised Ganapati and Shivaji festivals to arouse
patriotic feelings. He stressed that the aim of swadeshi, boycott, and
national education was the attainment of swaraj. He opened
cooperative stores and headed the Swadeshi Wastu Pracharini
Sabha.

Lala Lajpat Rai took the movement to Punjab and parts

of northern India. He was assisted in his venture by Ajit Singh. His
articles, which were published in Kayastha Samachar, endorsed
technical education and industrial self-sufficiency.

Syed Haider Raza popularised the Swadeshi Movement in

Delhi.

Chidambaram Pillai, who joined politics following the partition

of Bengal, spread the Swadeshi Movement to Madras and organised
the strike of the Tuticorin Coral Mill to protest against the working
conditions in the mills. He founded the Swadeshi Steam Navigation
Company in Tuticorin on the east coast of the Madras Province
to break the trade monopolly of the British India Steam Navigation
Company. He bought the SS Lavo and SS Galia from France and
started regular services between Tuticorin and Colombo (Sri Lanka)
though the British tried their best to suppress his efforts. His ships
flew flags emblazoned with ‘Vande Mataram’. In 1908, he was
sentenced to two life terms for sedition for his political activities.
He was not seen as a political prisoner but was reportedly put to
hard labour and even tortured. Though his sentence was reduced
by the Madras High Court and he was released in 1912, he faced
hardship as his lawyer’s licence had been revoked and he could
not practise. He opened a shop for a livelihood. An erudite scholar,

APPENDICES

Appendices

✫

841

he wrote his autobiography in Tamil verse. He also wrote a
commentary on the Thirukural and compiled the ancient works of
Tamil grammar, Tholkappiam.

Bipin Chandra Pal of the Extremist clan played a major role

in popularising the movement, especially in the urban areas. He was
the editor of New India.

Liaquat Hussain of Patna suggested boycott and organised

the East Indian Railway strike in 1906. He also wrote fiery articles
in Urdu to rouse nationalist sentiments in Muslims. He was supported
by other Muslim swadeshi agitators like Ghaznavi, Rasul, Din
Mohammed, Dedar Bux, Moniruzzaman, Ismail Hussain, Siraji,
Abdul Hussain, and Abdul Gaffar.

Shyamsundar Chakrabarti, a swadeshi political leader,

helped in organising strikes. He was one of the ‘Pabna Group’ of
Bengali revolutionaries. He was a nationalist journalist who was the
sub-editor of the revolutionary journal Sandhya, later joining the
Bengali nationalist newspaper Bande Mataram as an assistant to
its editor Aurobindo Ghosh, afterwards becoming its editor. He was
deported to Burma in 1908 for his political activities. Much later,
he became a supporter of the non-violent methods of the Indian
National Congress.

Ramendra Sunder Trivedi called for observance of arandhan

(keeping the hearth unlit) as a mark of mourning and protest on
the day the partition was put into effect.

Rabindranath Tagore composed several songs to inspire

freedom struggle and revived Bengali folk music to rouse national
pride. He also set up some swadeshi stores and called for the
observance of raksha bandhan (tying of threads on each other’s
wrists as a sign of brotherhood).

Aurobindo Ghosh was in favour of extending the movement

to the rest of India. He was appointed as the principal of Bengal
National College founded in 1906 to encourage patriotic thinking
and an education system related to Indian conditions and culture.
He was also the editor of Bande Mataram and through his editorials
encouraged strikes, national education, etc., in the spirit of the
Swadeshi Movement. He was assisted by Jatindranath Bannerji
and Barindrakumar Ghosh (who managed the Anushilan Samiti).

842

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Sakharam Ganesh Deuskar hailed from Maharashtra but

was domiciled in Bengal. He was a close associate of Aurobindo
Ghosh and a good writer in Bengali. He is probably best known
for his book, Desher Katha, that described the British exploitation
of India. In this book, Deuskar considered the state of the country
and the good and evil of British rule, the mental degradation of the
people of this country who had been hypnotised and their minds
conquered by the British (or the West), the ruin of the peasants
and the artisans of Bengal, and the decline of indigenous industries.
Deuskar was influenced by the writings of Naoroji and Dutt on the
economic conditions of India under British rule, and wrote in the
vernacular to spread the idea among the masses. The book proved
immensely popular and served as an inspiration to the Swadeshi
Movement. The government banned the book in 1910 and confiscated
all the available copies but, by then, it had been read by innumerable
people. Deuskar is reputed to have introduced the Shivaji festival
in Bengal. The earliest modern political use of the word ‘swaraj’
is considered to have been by Deuskar in his pamphlet on Shivaji
(1902).

Sarala Devi Ghoshal (Chaudarani), daughter of Janakinath

Ghoshal, one of the founding members of the Indian National
Congress, was Rabindranath Tagore’s niece. A bright student, she
pursued higher education at Bethune College under Calcutta University
to become the first woman to achieve the highest marks in that
university and receive the ‘Padmaboti Swarnapodok’, the gold
medal. She worked for a while as assistant superintendent at the
Maharani Girls School in Mysore before returning to Calcutta where
she edited the Bengali magazine, Bharati Patrika. She wrote a book,
Ahitagnika, to generate awareness concerning the freedom struggle
among school children and also launched an underground revolutionary
group as she believed aggression and violence to be the only way
to get freedom from the British. She is considered to have contributed
to the music of Bande Mataram, the national song, and written
several other songs used by revolutionaries. She was among the first
to promote the use of swadeshi products and opened a shop called
Lakhir Bhandar in the Bowbazar neighbourhood of Calcutta that sold
only swadeshi products. Sarla Devi founded the Bharat Stree

Appendices

✫

843

Mahamandal, the All India Women’s Organisation, a pioneering
venture; it was a semi-revolutionary group in Allahabad, Lahore,
Amritsar, Delhi, Karachi, Hyderabad, Kanpur, and Calcutta. Married
to Rambhaja Dutta Chowdhury, a noted freedom fighter from Punjab,
she moved to Lahore with her husband. She continued with her
revolutionary work in Punjab besides opening several associations
and organisations for women, one of which was a home for widows.
She was associated with the newspaper Hindusthan as editor and
publisher. Towards the end of her life, she was involved in writing
her biography, Jiboner Jhora Pata (the ‘Scattered Leaves of My
Life’).

Surendranath Banerjea, who held moderate nationalist

opinion, launched powerful press campaigns through newspapers like
The Bengalee and addressed mass meetings. He was assisted by
Krishnakumar Mitra and Narendra Kumar Sen.

Ashwini Kumar Dutt, a schoolteacher, set up Swadesh

Bandhab Samiti to propagate the Swadeshi Movement and led the
Muslim peasants of Barisal in their protests.

Promotha Mitter, Barindrakumar Ghosh, Jatindranath

Bannerji founded the Anushilan Samiti in Calcutta.

G.K. Gokhale, president of the Benaras session of the Indian

National Congress, 1905, supported the Swadeshi Movement.

Abdul Halim Guznavi, a zamindar and a lawyer, set up

swadeshi industries and helped Aurobindo Ghosh to extend
revolutionary activities outside Bengal. He was assisted by Abul
Kalam Azad.

Dadabhai Naoroji at the 1906 Congress session declared

that the goal of the Congress was to attain swaraj.

Acharya P.C. Roy, in order to promote swadeshi, set up

the Bengal Chemicals Factory.

Mukunda Das, Rajanikanta Sen, Dwijendralal Roy,

Girindramohini Dasi, Sayed Abu Mohammed composed patriotic
songs on swadeshi themes. Girishchandra Ghosh, Kshirode
Prasad Vidyavinode, and Amritlal Bose were playwrights who
contributed to the swadeshi spirit through their creative efforts.

Ashwini Coomar Banerjee, a swadeshi activist, led the jute

mill workers to form an Indian Millhands’ Union at Budge-Budge
in August 1906.

844

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Satish Chandra Mukherji through his Dawn Society promoted

an education system under indigenous control.

Motilal Ghosh of the Amrit Bazar Patrika group contributed

several fiery articles in the paper to arouse patriotic sentiments and
was in favour of Extremism.

Brahmabandhab Upadhyay through his Sandhya and

Yugantar (brought out by a group associated with Barindrakumar
Ghosh) popularised swaraj and the Swadeshi Movement.

Jogendrachandra set up an association in March 1904 to

raise funds to facilitate students to go abroad for technical and
industrial training.

Manindra Nandi, a zamindar from Kasim Bazar, patronised

several indigenous industries.

Kalisankar Sukul brought out several pamphlets on Swadeshi

Movement and argued that a new kind of business class should be
built to promote national interests.

Sunder Lal, a student from UP, was drawn towards terrorism.
Kunwarji Mehta and Kalyanji Mehta began organisational

work through the Patidar Yuvak Mandal.

Lala Harkishan Lal promoted Swadeshi Movement in

Punjab through the Brahmo-leaning group which began the Tribune
newspaper. He also founded the Punjab National Bank.

Muhammed Shafi and Fazal-i-Husain were leaders of a

Muslim group in Punjab involved in constructive swadeshi, rather
than boycott.

V. Krishnaswami Iyer headed the ‘Mylapore’ group in the

Madras Presidency.

G. Subramaniya Iyer, T. Prakasam, and M. Krishna Rao

were other leaders in the south but were opposed to V.K. Iyer.
Prakasam and Krishna Rao started Kistnapatrika in Masulipatnam
in 1904.

Subramaniya Bharati, a member of Tamilian revolutionary

group and an eminent poet, played a significant role in arousing
nationalism in the Tamil areas.

Prabhat Kusum Roy Chaudhuri, Athanasuis Apurbakumar

Ghosh were lawyers who helped in organising labour; Premtosh
Bose was another pioneer labour leader.

Appendices

✫

845

Hemachandra Kanungo was one of the first revolutionary

leaders, and after his return from Paris (he had gone there to get
military training), a combined bomb factory and religious school was
set up in Calcutta.

Khudiram Bose and Prafulla Chaki, two revolutionaries,

murdered Kennedy on April 30, 1908.

Pulin Das organised the Deccan Anushilan, with the Barrah

dacoity as its first major venture.

Madan Mohan Malaviya and Motilal Nehru were in

favour of cooperation with provincial governments and non-political
Swadeshi Movement.

Sachindranath Sanyal emerged as a revolutionary leader in

Benaras through contacts with Mokhodacharan Samadhyay (the
editor of Sandhya after the death of Brahmabandhab).

The Savarkar brothers founded the Mitra Mela in 1899 and

were directly involved in extremism in Maharashtra.

Dinshaw Wacha persuaded mill-owners in Maharashtra to

sell dhotis at moderate prices.

Non-Cooperation Movement

M.K. Gandhi issued a manifesto in March 1920, announcing

his doctrine of non-violent Non-Cooperation Movement. He was the
main force behind the movement and urged the people to adopt
swadeshi principles and habits including hand spinning, weaving and
work for removal of untouchability. He addressed lakhs of people
during his nation-wide tour in 1921. He suspended the movement
after an outburst of violence at Chauri Chaura in UP in February
1922.

C.R. Das moved the main resolution on non-cooperation in

the annual session of the Congress in Nagpur in 1920 and played
a major role in promoting the movement. A successful lawyer, he
boycotted the law courts and gave up a lucrative practice. His three
subordinates and supporters, Birendranath Samsal in Midnapore,
J.M. Sengupta in Chittagong and Subhash Bose in Calcutta played
a major role in uniting the Hindus and Muslims.

Jawaharlal Nehru carried on the non-cooperation propaganda

and encouraged the formation of kisan sabhas to take up the cause
of the peasants exploited by government policies. He was against
Gandhi’s decision to withdraw the movement.

846

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

J.M. Sengupta, a Bengali nationalist leader, supported the

labourers on tea plantations in Assam in their protests and strike.

Basanti Debi, wife of C.R. Das, was one of the first women

volunteers to court arrest in 1921.

Birendranath Sasmal organised the anti-union board agitation

in the Contai and Tamluk sub-divisions of Midnapore. In November–
December 1921, Samsal initiated a no-tax movement among the
Mahishya substantial tenantry of Midnapore.

Jitendralal Banerjee organised the peasants in 1921–22 to

resist settlement operations in Bogra, Pabna, and Birbhum.

Subhas Chandra Bose supported the movement and resigned

from the civil service. He was appointed the principal of the National
College in Calcutta.

Ali brothers (Shaukat Ali and Muhammed Ali) who were

the foremost Khilafat leaders vehemently supported Gandhi in his
nationwide tour to spread the movement. At the All India Khilafat
Conference, Muhammed Ali declared that ‘it was religiously unlawful
for the Muslims to continue in the British Army’. The Ali brothers
were arrested later.

Motilal Nehru renounced his legal practice in response to

the non-cooperation call by Gandhi. He was arrested in 1921. Other
notable lawyers who gave up their practice included M.R. Jayakar,
Saifuddin Kitchlew, Vallabhbhai Patel, C. Rajagopalachari, T.
Prakasam, and Asaf Ali. Their sacrifice inspired many others, who
boycotted government jobs and entered the mainstream of freedom
struggle.

Lala Lajpat Rai was initially not in favour of the policy of

non-cooperation (he was against the boycott of schools), but later
he supported the movement. In fact, he protested against its
withdrawal in 1922.

Rajendra Prasad actively supported the Gandhian movement

in Bihar.

Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel spread the movement in Gujarat

and regarded non-cooperation as a feasible alternative to revolutionary
terrorism to fight against a colonial government.

Motilal Tejawat organised the Bhils, and the Bhil movement

strengthened the non-cooperation activities.

Alluri Sitaram Raju led the tribals in Andhra and combined

their demands with those of the Non-Cooperation Movement.

Appendices

✫

847

Hasrat Mohani, a Khilafat leader, condemned the arrest of

the Ali brothers and demanded complete independence.

Purushottamdas Thakurdas, Jamnadas Dwarkadas,

Cowasji Jehangir, Phroze Sethna, and Setalvad, all of whom
belonged to the industrialist section, launched an Anti-Non-Cooperation
Association in 1920.

Kunjahammed Haji, Kalathingal Mammad, Ali Musaliar,

Sithi Koya Thangal, and Imbichi Koya Thangal acted as
presidents of the Khilafat Republics set up at a number of places.

K. Madhavan Nair, U. Gopala Menon, Yakub Hasan,

and P. Moideen Koya were the Khilafat leaders and supporters
of the Non-Cooperation Movement. They were arrested in February
1921.

Muhammad Osman, another Khilafat agitator, organised

volunteer groups and trade unions in Calcutta.

Swami Vishwanand (supported by Ramjas Agarwala, a

Marwari mine owner) and Swami Darsananand organised the coal
miners of the Raniganj-Jharia belt for the Non-Cooperation Movement.

Kishan Singh and Mota Singh called for no-revenue

movements and headed the ‘Babbar Akali’ group, which emerged
as a dissident of Shiromani Gurudwara Prabhandhak Committee, in
1921 in Jullundur and Hoshiarpur.

Jairamdas Daulatram was a close associate of Gandhi and

promoted the Non-Cooperation Movement.

Swami Govindananda, a supporter of Gandhi, was jailed for

five years on charges of sedition in May 1921. He later became
a critic of the Congress.

S.A. Dange, R.S. Nimbkar, V.D. Sathaye, R.V. Nadkarni,

S.V. Deshpande, and K.N. Joglekar were members of a radical
student group and promoted the movement although they were not
in line with Gandhi’s views. They were influenced by R.B. Lotwalla,
a millionaire with a socialist leaning. Dange, in April 1921, wrote
Gandhi versus Lenin and was in favour of swaraj which would
nationalise factories and distribute zamindari land among farmers.

Thiru Vika supported the labour uprising and strike at the

Buckingham and Carnatic textile mills from July to October 1921.

Singaravelu Chettiar was a lawyer and labour organiser in

Madras and played a significant role in merging the labour and

848

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

freedom movements. He was the first communist in South India and
was in favour of using non-violent non-cooperation against ‘capitalistic
autocracy’.

Konda Venkatappaya, A. Kaleswara Rao, T. Prakasam,

and Pattabhi Sitaramaya led the Non-Cooperation Movement in
the Andhra delta region.

Duggirala Gopalakrishnayya inspired the inhabitants of the

small town of Chirala-Parala in Guntur district to resist the government’s
plan to make the town a municipality and the hike in local taxes.

Nabin Chandra Bardoloi, freedom fighter and political leader

from Assam, favoured non-cooperation but was against strikes in
plantations, as he himself was a planter. After the Jallianwala Bagh
tragedy, he gave up his law practice and joined the freedom
movement. He was popularly known as Karamveer.

‘Assam Kesari’ Ambikagiri Roy Chaudhuri’s poetry had

a profound impact on the Assamese and helped in arousing nationalist
spirit in them.

Muzaffar Ahmad formed the pioneer communist group in

Calcutta. He was influenced by M.N. Roy and Nalini Gupta.

Someshwar Prasad Choudhury, a student in Calcutta,

organised the peasants protesting against indigo cultivation on the
Rajshaski-Nadia and Pabna-Murshidabad border.

Purushottamdas Tandon, Ganesh Shankar Vidyarthi,

Govind Ballabh Pant, and Lal Bahadur Shastri began their
political careers in 1920–21, with the onset of the Non-Cooperation
Movement.

Premchand, a well-known novelist, resigned his post in a

Gorakhpur government school in February 1921 and started
contributing to the journal Aaj. His novels Premasharam, Rangbhumi
etc., reflect Gandhian principles and values and endorse non-
cooperation as an effective weapon to gain freedom.

Baba Ramchandra organised peasants’ revolt in south and

south-east Awadh and helped merge the peasants’ revolt with the
Non-Cooperation Movement. He was arrested in February 1921.

A. Shah Naim Ata announced himself ‘King of Salon’ and

initiated no-taxes movement.

M.N. Roy, a communist leader, was the editor of the

communist journal Vanguard. He condemned the sessions court’s

Appendices

✫

849

sentence to death to 172 of the 225 accused in the Chauri Chaura
incident (later, 19 were hanged and the rest transported) as against
22 policemen killed.

Bhagwan Ahir, an army pensioner in Gorakhpur village, was

beaten up by the British police. The incident flared up nationalist
sentiments in the village, which then led to the killing of 22 policemen
in Chauri-Chaura, by the peasants.

Civil Disobedience Movement

M.K. Gandhi formally launched the Civil Disobedience

Movement on April 6, 1930 by picking a handful of salt after the
completion of the historic ‘Dandi March’ from Sabarmati Ashram
to Dandi, thus breaking the salt law imposed by the government.
He was the major force behind the movement and inspired grassroots
participation in the freedom struggle.

C. Rajagopalachari led a salt march from Trichinopoly to

Vedaranniyam on the Tanjore coast in Tamil Nadu, in support of
the Civil Disobedience Movement. He was arrested on April 30,
1930.

K. Kelappan, a Nair Congress leader, launched the Vaikom

Satyagraha and marched from Calicut to Payanneer in defiance of
salt laws.

Jawaharlal Nehru was actively involved in the movement and

was arrested on April 17, 1930 for defiance of the salt law. He
formulated a radical agrarian programme and suggested formation
of the Constituent Assembly as the prime political slogan.

P. Krishna Pillai defended the national flag and resisted lathi-

charge on the Calicut beach on November 11, 1930. He later
founded the Kerala Communist Movement.

Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan formed a clan of non-violent

revolutionaries, the Khudai Khidmatgars (known as Red Shirts), who
played an active role in the movement.

Sarojini Naidu, the first Indian woman to become the

president of the Congress, was involved in a march towards the
Dharsana Salt Works, a government salt depot. Other leaders who
participated in this total non-violent affair were Imam Saheb,
Gandhi’s comrade of the South African struggle, and Manilal,
Gandhi’s son.

850

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Surya Sen’s Chittagong Revolt Group carried out a raid on

two armouries and declared the establishment of a provisional
government. He issued a manifesto in the name of Indian Republican
Army and called on the Indians to revolt against the British rule.

Abbas Tayabji, a leader of the nationalist Muslims in Bombay,

took the place of Gandhi in the movement after the latter’s arrest.
However, he too was arrested by the government.

Ambalal Sarabhai and Kasturbhai Lakhai gave their

cooperation to Motilal Nehru in removing the barriers between the
Congress and the Bombay mill-owners and industrialists.

Industrialists such as G.D. Birla (who donated between one

lakh rupees and five lakh rupees), Jamnalal Bajaj (who served as
the AICC treasurer for several years and represented Gandhian
leadership in Bombay), Homi Modi, Walchand Hirachand, Lalji
Naranji, Purushottamdas Thakurdas, Lala Sri Ram, etc.,
supported the movement in its first phase. Homi Modi, in his
presidential speech to Bombay Mill-owners’ Association in March
1931 said that though the Swadeshi Movement had helped the Indian
industry, frequent strikes had dislocated trade and industry. Naranji
and Thakurdas, who had remained indifferent to the nationalist
struggle in 1921, demanded Indian control over finance, currency,
fiscal policy, and railways. However, from September 1930, there
was a sharp decline in support from the industrialists and traders,
with the prominent businessmen having differences of opinion with
the Congress.

Chandraprabha Saikiani instigated the aboriginal Kachari

villagers in Assam to break forest laws.

Subhas Bose and J.M. Sengupta led the faction group in

Bengal Congress and set up rival organisations to conduct civil
disobedience. Bose criticised Gandhi, when the latter suspended the
movement in May 1933. He was supported by Vithalbhai Patel.

Bonga Majhi and Somra Majhi led the movement in

Hazaribagh along the sanskritising lines with the Congress.

Kalka Prasad, a local leader in Rai Bareilly, promoted the

no-rent campaign.

Santi and Suniti Chaudhari assassinated the district magistrate

of Tippera, Stevens. Their action marked the entry of women in
the revolutionary movement.

Appendices

✫

851

Seth Achal Singh, a nationalist landlord, financed the Gram

Seva Sangh in Agra and remained indifferent to riots in the area,
while strictly following the policy of non-violence.

Sheikh Abdullah, a Muslim graduate, started an agitation and

attacked the Srinagar jail on July 31, 1931 where 21 persons were
killed in police firing. He also developed close contacts with a group
of anti-autocratic Jammu Hindus led by P.N. Bazaz.

Muhammed Yasin Khan, a Muslim leader in Punjab,

organised the Meos (semi-tribal peasant community with leanings
towards Islam) to protest against Maharaja Jaisingh Sawai’s hike
in revenue, begar, and reservation of forests for the purpose of
hunting.

K.M. Ashraf, who became India’s first Marxist historian, was

associated with the movement.

Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya, who was an upholder of

Gandhian policies since 1920s, began to drift away with the launch
of Harijan campaign by Gandhi. He started a breakaway Congress
Nationalist Party.

Satyamurthi, Bhulabhai Desai, M.A. Ansari, and B.C.

Roy demanded a return to electoral politics by way of a revived
Swaraj Party.

Jayaprakash Narayan, Achhut Patwardhan, Yusuf

Mehrali, Ashok Mehta, and Minoo Masani wanted the Congress
to have affinity with left-wing.

Sampurnanand formulated ‘A Tentative Socialist Programme’

for India, and a Congress Socialist Party was started in 1934, which
was supported by Narendra Dev.

K.F. Nariman and Yusuf Meher Ali led the Congress youth

wing and later emerged as socialist leaders.

Swami Govindanand led the movement in Karachi and Sindh.
N.V. Gadgil with his socialist leanings lent support to a temple

entry movement in 1929 and established friendly ties with the non-
brahmin Satyashodhak Samaj (represented by Keshavrao Jedhe of
Poona).

B.R. Ambedkar, who was the leader of the untouchable

Mahars, attended the Round Table Conference in 1930. However,
the Congress failed to win over the political agitation of the Mahars.

852

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Gopabandhu Chaudhuri popularised the movement in Orissa

and led the salt satyagraha in the coastal areas of Balasore, Cuttack,
and Puri districts.

Tarunaram Phookan and N.C. Bardoloi, two prominent

Congress leaders, were against the movement in Assam. They refused
to take up forest satyagraha officially.

Jadunandan Sharma activated the Kisan Sabha Movement

in Gaya district of Bihar.

Duggirala Balaramakrishnaya of the Krishna district initiated

a no-revenue campaign in 1931 in coastal Andhra. He also wrote
a Telugu ballad Gandhi Gita which aroused patriotic sentiments.

N.V. Rama Naidu and N.C. Ranga organised a forest

satyagraha in Venkatagiri estate in Nellore in 1931.

A.K. Gopalan, a schoolteacher, was a popular activist at

Guruvayoor in Kerala and later became Kerala’s most popular
communist peasant leader.

Mannu Gond and Chaitu Koiku offered forest satyagraha

in Betul in Central Provinces.

Maulana Bhasani, organised a large praja sammelan at

Sirajgunj and demanded abolition of zamindari and reduction in debts.

B.T. Ranadeve and S.V. Deshpande in Bombay and Abdul

Halim, Somnath Lahiri, and Ranen Sen in Calcutta were the
young communist militants who organised several labour strikes. V.B.
Karnik, Maniben Kara, Rajani Mukherji, and Niharendu Dutta
were other leaders who started trade union activities.

M.N. Roy and his followers popularised socialist ideas in the

villages and a no-tax campaign was started in Awadh.

Quit India Movement

M.K. Gandhi planned an all-out campaign to compel British

withdrawal from India, after the failure of the Cripps Mission to reach
a compromise. At the historic August meeting at Gowalia Tank in
Bombay, Gandhi proclaimed his mantra—‘do or die’. He was
arrested on August 9, 1942. He undertook a 21-day fast in February
1943 to protest against the government actions against Indians
involved in the movement.

Jayaprakash Narayan was a member of the Congress

Socialist group and played a prominent role in the movement.

Appendices

✫

853

Ram Manohar Lohia, Aruna Asaf Ali, Sucheta Kripalani,

Chhotubhai Purani, Biju Patnaik, R.P. Goenka, and Achyut
Patwardhan were leaders associated with the underground movement
and revolutionary activities in support of Quit India Movement.

Chittu Pande, who called himself a Gandhian, formed a

parallel government and captured all the 10 police stations in Ballia,
in east UP in August 1942.

Usha Mehta actively supported the movement and was an

important member of a small group which ran the Congress Radio.

Jawaharlal Nehru initially supported the arch Moderates,

who were opposed to Gandhi’s plan, but later, he moved the Quit
India Resolution on August 8, 1942.

Sumati Morarjee helped Achyut Patwardhan in his

underground activities. She later became India’s leading woman
industrialist.

Rashbehari Bose, a revolutionary activist, was elected the

president of the Indian Independence League (formed in March
1942) in June 1942. He was living in Japan since 1915 as a fugitive.
He mobilised Indian soldiers taken as prisoners of war by the
Japanese forces (after the British was defeated in South East Asia)
for an armed rebellion against the British colonial rule.

Captain Mohan Singh, an Indian soldier fighting on behalf

of the British, was taken as prisoner of war by the Japanese. He
was persuaded by a Japanese army officer to work with the Japanese
for India’s freedom. He was appointed the commander of the Indian
National Army.

Subhas Chandra Bose joined the Indian National Army in

1943. One of his most famous declarations was “Tum mujhe khoon
do, mai tumhe azadi doonga” (You give me blood, I will give
you freedom.) The INA played a significant role in the independence
struggle under the leadership of Subhas Bose.

C. Rajagopalachari and Bhulabhai Desai were the arch-

Moderates, who were in favour of recognising the rights of Muslim
majority provinces to secede through plebiscites after independence
had been gained. They resigned from the AICC in July 1942.

K.G. Mashruwalla brought out two militant issues of Harijan

(after the arrest of Mahadev Desai) to arouse the sentiments of
people.

854

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

K.T. Bhashyam, a Congress leader in Bangalore, played an

active role in the trade union field and organised strikes by about
30,000 workers.

Satish Samanta, a local Congress leader and the first

sarbadhinayak of the Tamluk Jatiya Sarkar, helped in establishing
a rebel ‘national government’ in Tamluk sub-division of Midnapore.

Matangini Hazra, a 73-year-old peasant widow in Tamluk,

was killed in violence on September 29, 1942, when the Sutahata
police station was captured. Matangini kept the national flag aloft
even after being shot.

Lakshman Naik, an illiterate villager, led a large tribal

population from Koraput to protest against the Jeypore zamindari
and attack police stations. Lakshman Naik was hanged on November
16, 1942 for allegedly murdering a forest guard.

Nana Patil headed a rebellion in Satara.

join us http://telegram.me/bpsc65thmains66thprelims (BPSC CCE 65th,66th & 67th )

Appendices

✫

855

2. Governors-General and Viceroys

of India: Significant Events in
their Rule

overnors-General

1. Warren Hastings 1773–85

(i) Regulating Act of 1773.

(ii) Act of 1781, under which the powers of jurisdiction

between the governor-general-in-council and the Supreme
Court at Calcutta, were clearly divided.

(iii) Pitt’s India Act of 1784.

(iv) The Rohilla War of 1774.

(v) The First Maratha War in 1775–82 and the Treaty of Salbai

in 1782.

(vi) Second Mysore War in 1780–84.

(vii) Strained relationships with Chait Singh, the Maharaja of

Benaras, which led to Hastings’ subsequent impeachment
in England.

(viii) Foundation of the Asiatic Society of Bengal (1784).

2. Lord Cornwallis 1786–93

(i) Third Mysore War (1790–92) and Treaty of Seringa-patam

(1792).

(ii) Cornwallis Code (1793) incorporating several judicial reforms,

and separation of revenue administration and civil jurisdiction.

(iii) Permanent Settlement of Bengal, 1793.

(iv) Europeanisation of administrative machinery and introduction

of civil services.

3. Sir John Shore 1793–98

(i) Charter Act of 1793.

(ii) Battle of Kharda between the Nizam and the Marathas

(1795).

4. Lord Wellesley 1798–1805

(i) Introduction of the Subsidiary Alliance System (1798); first

alliance with Nizam of Hyderabad.

856

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

(ii) Fourth Mysore War (1799).

(iii) Second Maratha War (1803-05).

(iv) Took over the administration of Tanjore (1799), Surat

(1800), and Carnatic (1801).

(v) Treaty of Bassein (1802).

5. Sir George Barlow 1805–07

Vellore Mutiny (1806).

6. Lord Minto I 1807–13

Treaty of Amritsar with Ranjit Singh (1809).

7. Lord Hastings 1813–23

(i) Anglo-Nepal War (1814–16) and the Treaty of Sagauli,

1816.

(ii) Third Maratha War (1817–19) and dissolution of Maratha

Confederacy; creation of Bombay Presidency (1818).

(iii) Strife with Pindaris (1817–18).

(iv) Treaty with Sindhia (1817).

(v) Establishment of Ryotwari System by Thomas Munro,

governor of Madras (1820).

8. Lord Amherst 1823–28

(i) First Burmese War (1824–26).

(ii) Capture of Bharatpur (1826).

9. Lord William Bentinck 1828–35

(i) Abolition of sati and other cruel rites (1829).

(ii) Suppression of thugi (1830).

(iii) Charter Act of 1833.

(iv) Resolution of 1835, and educational reforms and introduction

of English as the official language.

(v) Annexation of Mysore (1831), Coorg (1834), and Central

Cachar (1834).

(vi) Treaty of ‘perpetual friendship’ with Ranjeet Singh.

(vii) Abolition of the provincial courts of appeal and circuit set

up by Cornwallis, appointment of commissioners of revenue
and circuit.

10. Lord Metcalfe 1835–36

New press law removing restrictions on the press in India.

Appendices

✫

857

11. Lord Auckland 1836–42

(i) First Afghan War (1838–42).

(ii) Death of Ranjit Singh (1839).

12. Lord Ellenborough 1842–44

(i) Annexation of Sindh (1843).

(ii) War with Gwalior (1843).

13. Lord Hardinge I 1844–48

(i) First Anglo-Sikh War (1845–46) and the Treaty of Lahore

(1846).

(ii) Social reforms including abolition of female infanticide and

human sacrifice.

14. Lord Dalhousie 1848-1856

(i) Second Anglo-Sikh War (1848–49) and annexation of

Punjab (1849).

(ii) Annexation of Lower Burma or Pegu (1852).

(iii) Introduction of the Doctrine of Lapse and annexation of

Satara (1848), Jaitpur and Sambhalpur (1849), Udaipur
(1852), Jhansi (1853), Nagpur (1854), and Awadh (1856).

(iv) “Wood’s (Charles Wood, President of the Board of

Control) Educational Despatch” of 1854 and opening of
Anglo-vernacular schools and government colleges.

(v) Railway Minute of 1853; and laying down of first railway

line connecting Bombay and Thane in 1853.

(vi) Telegraph (4,000 miles of telegraph lines to connect Calcutta

with Bombay, Madras, and Peshawar) and postal (Post
Office Act, 1854) reforms.

(vii) Ganges Canal declared open (1854); establishment of

separate public works department in every province.

(viii) Widow Remarriage Act (1856).

15. Lord Canning 1856–57

(i) Establishment of three universities at Calcutta, Madras and

Bombay in 1857.

(ii) Revolt of 1857.

858

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Viceroys

1. Lord Canning 1858–62

(i) Transfer of control from East India Company to the Crown,

the Government of India Act, 1858.

(ii) ‘White Mutiny’ by European troops in 1859.

(iii) Indian Councils Act of 1861.

2. Lord Elgin I 1862–63

Wahabi Movement.

3. Lord John Lawrence 1864–69

(i) Bhutan War (1865).

(ii) Setting up of the High Courts at Calcutta, Bombay, and

Madras (1865).

4. Lord Mayo 1869–72

(i) Opening of the Rajkot College in Kathiawar and the Mayo

College at Ajmer for political training of Indian princes.

(ii) Establishment of Statistical Survey of India.

(iii) Establishment of Department of Agriculture and Commerce.

(iv) Introduction of state railways.

5. Lord Northbrook 1872–76

(i) Visit of Prince of Wales in 1875.

(ii) Trial of Gaekwar of Baroda.

(iii) Kuka Movement in Punjab.

6. Lord Lytton 1876–80

(i) Famine of 1876–78 affecting Madras, Bombay, Mysore,

Hyderabad, parts of central India and Punjab; appointment
of Famine Commission under the presidency of Richard
Strachey (1878).

(ii) Royal Titles Act (1876), Queen Victoria assuming the title

of ‘Kaiser-i-Hind’ or Queen Empress of India.

(iii) The Vernacular Press Act (1878).

(iv) The Arms Act (1878).

(v) The Second Afghan War (1878–80).

7. Lord Ripon 1880–84

(i) Repeal of the Vernacular Press Act (1882).

(ii) The first Factory Act (1881) to improve labour conditions.

Appendices

✫

859

(iii) Continuation of financial decentralisation.

(iv) Government resolution on local self-government (1882).

(v) Appointment of Education Commission under chairmanship

of Sir William Hunter (1882).

(vi) The Ilbert Bill controversy (1883–84).

(vii) Rendition of Mysore.

8. Lord Dufferin 1884–88

(i) The Third Burmese War (1885–86).

(ii) Establishment of the Indian National Congress.

9. Lord Lansdowne 1888–94

(i) Factory Act (1891).

(ii) Categorisation of civil services into imperial, provisional and

subordinate.

(iii) Indian Councils Act (1892).

(iv) Setting up of Durand Commission (1893) to define the

Durand Line between India and Afghanistan (now between
Pakistan and Afghanistan; a small portion of the line touches
India in Pakistan occupied Kashmir).

10. Lord Elgin II 1894–99

Two British officials assassinated by Chapekar brothers
(1897).

11. Lord Curzon 1899–1905

(i) Appointment of Police Commission (1902) under Sir

Andrew Frazer to review police administration.

(ii) Appointment of Universities Commission (1902) and passing

of Indian Universities Act (1904).

(iii) Establishment of Department of Commerce and

Industry.

(iv) Calcutta Corporation Act (1899).

(v) Ancient Monuments Preservation Act (1904).

(vi) Partition of Bengal (1905).

(vii) Curzon-Kitchener controversy.

(viii) Younghusband’s Mission to Tibet (1904).

12. Lord Minto II 1905–10

(i) Popularisation of anti-partition and Swadeshi Movements.

860

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

(ii) Split in Congress in the annual session of 1907 in Surat.

(iii) Establishment of Muslim League by Aga Khan (1906).

13. Lord Hardinge II 1910–16

(i) Creation of Bengal Presidency (like Bombay and Madras)

in 1911.

(ii) Transfer of capital from Calcutta to Delhi (1911).

(iii) Establishment of the Hindu Mahasabha (1915) by Madan

Mohan Malaviya.

(iv) Coronation durbar of King George V held in Delhi (1911).

14. Lord Chelmsford 1916–21

(i) Formation of Home Rule Leagues by Annie Besant and

Tilak (1916).

(ii) Lucknow session of the Congress (1916).

(iii) Lucknow pact between the Congress and Muslim League

(1916).

(iv) Foundation of Sabarmati Ashram (1916) after Gandhi’s

return; launch of Champaran Satyagraha (1916), Kheda
Satyagraha (1918), and Satyagraha at Ahmedabad (1918).

(v) Montagu’s August Declaration (1917).

(vi) Government of India Act (1919).

(vii) The Rowlatt Act (1919).

(viii) Jallianwalla Bagh Massacre (1919).

(ix) Launch of Non-Cooperation and Khilafat Movements.

(x) Foundation of Women’s University at Poona (1916) and

appointment of Saddler’s Commission (1917) for reforms
in educational policy.

(xi) Death of Tilak (August 1, 1920).

(xii) Appointment of S.P. Sinha as governor of Bihar (the first

Indian to become a governor).

15. Lord Reading 1921–26

(i) Chauri Chaura incident (February 5, 1922) and the

subsequent withdrawal of Non-Cooperation Movement.

(ii) Moplah rebellion in Kerala (1921).

(iii) Repeal of the Press Act of 1910 and the Rowlatt Act of

1919.

Appendices

✫

861

(iv) Criminal Law Amendment Act and abolition of cotton

excise.

(v) Communal riots in Multan, Amritsar, Delhi, Aligarh, Arvi,

and Calcutta.

(vi) Kakori train robbery (1925).

(vii) Murder of Swami Shraddhanand (1926).

(viii) Establishment of Swaraj Party by C.R. Das and Motilal

Nehru (1922).

(ix) Decision to hold simultaneous examinations for the ICS both

in Delhi and London, with effect from 1923.

16. Lord Irwin 1926–31

(i) Visit of Simon Commission to India (1928) and the boycott

of the commission by the Indians.

(ii) An All-Parties Conference held at Lucknow (1928) for

suggestions for the (future) Constitution of India, the report
of which was called the Nehru Report or the Nehru
Constitution.

(iii) Appointment of the Harcourt Butler Indian States Commission

(1927).

(iv) Murder of Saunders, the assistant superintendent of police

of Lahore; bomb blast in the Assembly Hall of Delhi (1929);
the Lahore Conspiracy Case and death of Jatin Das after
prolonged hunger strike (1929), and bomb accident in train
in Delhi (1929).

(v) Lahore session of the Congress (1929); Purna Swaraj

Resolution.

(vi) Dandi March (March 12, 1930) by Gandhi to launch the

Civil Disobedience Movement.

(vii) ‘Deepavali Declaration’ by Lord Irwin (1929).

(viii) Boycott of the First Round Table Conference (1930),

Gandhi-Irwin Pact (1931), and suspension of the Civil
Disobedience Movement.

17. Lord Willingdon 1931–36

(i) Second Round Table Conference (1931) and failure of the

conference, resumption of Civil Disobedience Movement.

862

✫

A Brief History of Modern India

(ii) Announcement of Communal Award (1932) under which

separate communal electorates were set up.

(iii) ‘Fast unto death’ by Gandhi in Yeravada prison, broken

after the Poona Pact (1932).

(iv) Third Round Table Conference (1932).

(v) Launch of Individual Civil Disobedience (1933).

(vi) The Government of India Act of 1935.

(vii) Establishment of All India Kisan Sabha (1936) and Congress

Socialist Party by Acharya Narendra Dev and Jayaprakash
Narayan (1934).

(viii) Burma separated from India (1935).

18. Lord Linlithgow 1936–44

(i) First general elections (1936–37); Congress attained absolute

majority.

(ii) Resignation of the Congress ministries after the outbreak

of the Second World War (1939).

(iii) Subhas Chandra Bose elected as the president of Congress

at the fifty-first session of the Congress (1938).

(iv) Resignation of Bose in 1939 and formation of the Forward

Bloc (1939).

(v) Lahore Resolution (March 1940) by the Muslim League,

demand for separate state for Muslims.

(vi) ‘August Offer’ (1940) by the viceroy; its criticism by the

Congress and endorsement by the Muslim League.

(vii) Winston Churchill elected prime minister of England (1940).

(viii) Escape of Subhas Chandra Bose from India (1941) and

organisation of the Indian National Army.

(ix) Cripps Mission’s Cripps Plan to offer dominion status to

India and setting up of a Constituent Assembly; its rejection
by the Congress.

(x) Passing of the ‘Quit India Resolution’ by the Congress

(1942); outbreak of ‘August Revolution’; or Revolt of 1942
after the arrest of national leaders.

(xi) ‘Divide and Quit’ slogan at the Karachi session (1944) of

the Muslim League.

Appendices

✫

863

19. Lord Wavell 1944–1947

(i) C. Rajagopalachari’s CR Formula (1944), failure of Gandhi-

Jinnah talks (1944).

(ii) Wavell Plan and the Shimla Conference (1942).

(iii) End of Second World War (1945).

(iv) Proposals of the Cabinet Mission (1946) and its acceptance

by the Congress.

(v) Observance of ‘Direct Action Day’ (August 16, 1946), also

known as the 1946 Calcutta Killings, by the Muslim League.

(vi) Elections to the Constituent Assembly, formation of Interim

Government by the Congress (September 1946).

(vii) Announcement of end of British rule in India by Clement

Attlee (prime minister of England) on February 20, 1947.

20. Lord Mountbatten 1947–1948

(i) June Third Plan (June 3, 1947) announced.

(ii) Introduction of Indian Independence Bill in the House of

Commons.

(iii) Appointment of two boundary commissions under Sir Cyril

Radcliff for the partition of Bengal and Punjab.

864

✫✫✫✫✫

A Brief History of Modern India

1. 1885 (Dec. 28) Bombay

W.C. Bonnerjee

2. 1886 (Dec. 28) Calcutta

Dadabhai Naoroji

3. 1887 (Dec. 27–28) Madras

Syed Badruddin Tyabji

4. 1888 (Dec. 28–29) Allahabad

George Yule

5. 1889 (Dec. 27–28) Bombay

William Wedderburn

6. 1890 (Dec. 28–29) Calcutta

Pherozeshah Mehta

7. 1891 (Dec. 26–27) Nagpur

P. Ananda Charlu

8. 1892 (Dec. 28–29) Allahabad

W.C. Bonnerjee

9. 1893 (Dec. 27–28) Lahore

Dadabhai Naoroji

10. 1894 (Dec. 27–28) Madras

Alfred Webb

11. 1895 (Dec. 28–29) Poona

Surendranath Banerjee

12. 1896 (Dec. 27–28) Calcutta

Rahimtulla Sayani

13. 1897 (Dec. 22–29) Amravati

C. Sankaran Nair

first session, attended by 72 dele-

gates; objectives of the Congress
outlined.
attended by 436 delegates; witnessed
the merger of National Congress and

National Conference.
attended by 607 delegates; appeal
made to the Muslims to join hands

with other national leaders.
attended by 1,248 delegates.

3. Indian National Congress Annual Sessions

Year/Place

President

Details

Appendices

✫✫✫✫✫

865

14. 1898 (Dec. 27–28) Madras

A.M. Bose

15. 1899 (Dec. 27–28) Lucknow

Romesh Chunder Dutt

16. 1900 (Dec. 27–29) Lahore

N.G. Chandavarkar

17. 1901 (Dec. 27–28) Calcutta

Dinshaw E. Wacha

18. 1902 (Dec. 23–26) Ahmedabad Surendranath Banerjee
19. 1903 (Dec. 28–30) Madras

Lalmohan Ghosh

20. 1904 (Dec. 26–28) Bombay

Henry Cotton

21. 1905 (Dec. 27–30) Benaras

Gopal Krishna Gokhale

22. 1906 (Dec. 26–29) Calcutta

Dadabhai Naoroji

23. 1907 (Dec. 26–27) Surat

Rash Behari Ghosh

24. 1908 (Dec. 29–30) Madras

Rash Behari Ghosh

25. 1909 (Dec. 27–29) Lahore

Madan Mohan Malaviya

26. 1910 (Dec. 28–29) Allahabad

William Wedderburn

27. 1911 (Dec. 26–28) Calcutta

Bishan Narayan Dar

28. 1912 (Dec. 27–28) Bankipur

R.N. Mudholkar

29. 1913 (Dec. 26–28) Karachi

Syed Mohammed

demand for permanent fixation of land
revenue.

expressed resentment against the
partition of Bengal.
the word ‘swaraj’ mentioned for the
first time.
split in the Congress into the
Moderates and the Extremists.
constitution of the Congress drawn.
expressed disapproval over formation
of separate electorates on the basis
of religion (of the Indian Councils
Act, 1909).

866

✫✫✫✫✫

A Brief History of Modern India

30. 1914 (Dec. 28–30) Madras

Bhupendra Nath Bose

(or Basu)

31. 1915 (Dec. 27–30) Bombay

S.P. Sinha

32. 1916 (Dec. 26–30) Lucknow

A.C. Majumdar

33. 1917 (Dec. 28–29) Calcutta

Annie Besant

34. 1918 (Dec. 26–31) Delhi

Madan Mohan Malaviya

35. 1919 (Dec. 27–28) Amritsar

Motilal Nehru

36. 1920 (Dec. 26–31) Nagpur

C. Vijayaraghavachariar

37. 1921 (Dec. 27–28) Ahmedabad

C.R. Das (in prison)

Hakim Ajmal Khan

(acting president)

38. 1922 (Dec. 26–31) Gaya

C.R. Das

39. 1923 (Dec. 28–31) Kakinada

Maulana Mohammad Ali

40. 1924 (Dec. 26–27) Belgaum

M.K. Gandhi

41. 1925 (Dec. 26–28) Kanpur

Sarojini Naidu

42. 1926 (Dec. 26–28) Gauhati

S. Srinivasa Iyengar

43. 1927 (Dec. 26–27) Madras

M.A. Ansari

44. 1928 (Dec. 28–31) Calcutta

Motilal Nehru

reunion of Congress factions; the

Lucknow Pact signed.

strongly condemned the Jallianwalla

massacre; and boosted the Khilafat

Movement.

a new Constitution for the Congress

framed.

the Swarajya Party formed.

the Independence Resolution adopted;

resolved to boycott the Simon

Commission.

the first All India Youth Congress

came into being.

passed the Purna Swaraj Resolution;

authorised the Working Committee to

Year/Place

President

Details

Appendices

✫✫✫✫✫

867

45. 1929 (Dec. 29–31) Lahore

Jawaharlal Nehru

46. 1931 (March 29) Karachi

Vallabhbhai Patel

47. 1932 (April 24) Delhi

Amrit Ranchhorddas Seth

48. 1933 (April 1) Calcutta

Nellie Sengupta

49. 1934 (Oct. 26–28) Bombay

Rajendra Prasad

50. 1936 (April 12–14) Lucknow

Jawaharlal Nehru

51. 1936 (Dec. 27–28) Faizpur

Jawaharlal Nehru

52. 1938 (Feb. 19–21) Haripura

Subhas Chandra Bose

53. 1939 (March 10) Tripuri

Subhas Chandra Bose

54. 1940 (March 17–19) Ramgarh

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad

55. 1946 (Nov. 23) Meerut

Acharya J.B. Kripalani

56. 1948 (Dec. 18–19) Jaipur

Pattabhi Sitaramayya

launch civil disobedience programme.

endorsement of Gandhi-Irwin pact,
resolution on Fundamental Rights and

National Economic Programme

passed.

the President urged the Congress to

adopt socialism as its goal.

the session held in a village for the
first time.

National Planning Committee set up

under the chairmanship of Jawaharlal
Nehru.

Rajendra Prasad took over as

president after Subhas Chandra
resigned.

868

✫✫✫✫✫

A Brief History of Modern India

57. 1950 (September 21–22)

Purushottam Das Tandon

Three candidates for the post of

Nasik

president—Purushottam Das Tandon

(supported by Sardar Patel), J.B.

Kripalani (supported by Nehru), and

Shankar Rao Deo. Purushottam Das

Tandon resigned in September 1951

after which J.L. Nehru became

president.

58. 1951 (September), Delhi

Jawaharlal Nehru

59. 1953, Hyderabad

Jawaharlal Nehru

60. 1854, Kalyani

Jawaharlal Nehru

61. 1955 (January 21–23)

U.V. Dhebar

Avadi (Madras)

62. 1956, Amritsar

U.N. Dhebar

63. 1958, Gauhati

U.N. Dhebar

64. 1959, Nagpur

Indira Gandhi

65. 1960, Bangalore

Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy

66. 1961, Bhavnagar

Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy

67. 1962, Bhubaneshwar

Damodaran Sanjivayya (First Dalit president)

68. 1963, Patna

Damodaran Sanjivayya

69. 1964, Bhubaneshwar

K. Kamaraj

70. 1965, Durgapur

K. Kamaraj

Year/Place

President

Details

(The sessions for the years 1930, 1935, and 1941–1945 could not be held.)

Appendices

✫✫✫✫✫

869

Swaminarayan Sampradyaga;

Gujarat (early 19th century)

Brahmo Samaj (earlier Atmiya

Sabha); Founded in Calcutta (late
18th-early–19th century)

Swami Sahajanand (original name

Gyanashyama)—1781–1830

Raja Rammohan Roy (1772–

1833)—the founder; Debendra-
nath Tagore—later formed Adi
Brahmo Samaj; Keshub Chandra
Sen—later associated with Brahmo

Samaj of India (secessionists from
this group formed Sadharan Brahmo
Samaj)

Belief in a theistic god, protest

against epicurean practices of

Vaishnavism; prescribed a moral

code.
Propagated monotheism, opposed

incarnation, meditation, sacrifices,

existence of priests, idolatry,

superstition, sati; sought for reforms

in Hindu society.

Journals brought out by Rammohan

Roy: Sambad Kaumudi (1821),

Mirat-ul-Akbar; by Debendranath

Tagore: Tattva Bodhini Patrika;

Keshub Chandra Sen brought out

Indian Mirror; Sadharan Brahmo

Samaj brought out Tattva

Kaumudi, The Indian Messenger,

The Sanjibari, the Navyabharat,

and Prabasi.

4. Socio-Religious Reform Movements

(Late 18th to mid-20th century)

Name of the Movement/

People Associated with it

Nature and Objectives,

Organisation and Place

and Media Efforts

870

✫✫✫✫✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Name of the Movement/

People Associated with it

Nature and Objectives,

Organisation and Place

and Media Efforts

Young Bengal Movement

(1826–31)

Dharma Sabha; Calcutta

(1830)

Wahabi Movement (beginning in
Rohilkhand—spread in Kabul,
NWFP, Bengal, the Central
Provinces; Sittana in NWFP—

headquarters from 1850 onwards
(19th century—founded in 1820;
suppression by the British by 1870)

Henry Louis Vivian Derozio

(founder), Rasik Krishna Mullick,
Tarachand Chucker-vati, Krishna
Mohan Banerjee

Radhakanta Deb (1794–1876)

(founder)

Syed Ahmed of Rai Bareilly
(founder); Vilayat Ali, Shah
Muhammad Hussain, Farhat Hussain
(all from Patna); Inayat Ali

Opposed the vices in society; believed

in truth, freedom, and reason; brought
out the Jnanavesan (journal) and
established the Society for the Acqui-
sition of General Knowledge (Derozio

edited Hesperus, The Calcutta
Library Gazette, and he was
associated with India Gazette).
Emerged to counter Brahmo Samaj,

aimed at protection of orthodoxy,
condemned radical and liberal
reforms, helped in the spread of
western education.

Popularised the teachings of Waliullah;
opposed the British and fought against
the Sikhs; stressed role of individual
conscience in religion.

Appendices

✫✫✫✫✫

871

Namdhari or Kuka Movement

(among Sikhs); NWF Province and

Bhaini (Ludhiana district, Punjab)

(1841–71)

Taayuuni Movement; founded in

Dacca (1839)

Students Literary and Scientific

Society (1848)

Paramhans Mandali (1849)

Rahanumai Mazdayasanan Sabha

(religious reform association for

Parsis—1851)

Radhaswami Movement; founded in

Agra (1861)

The Deoband School of Islamic

Theology (at Deoband Saharanpur,
UP—1866)

Bhai Balak Singh and Baba Ram

Singh (founders)

Karamat Ali Jaunpuri

—

S.S. Bengali, Naoroji Furdonji,

Dadabhai Naoroji and others

Tulsi Ram or Shiv Dayal Saheb

(Swamiji Maharaj—founder)

Muhammad Qasim Nanaytavi
(1832–80) and Rashid Ahmad

Gangohi (founders), Maulana Abul
Kalam Azad, Mahmud-ul-Hasan,
Shibli Numani

For political and social reforms among

the Sikhs.

Religious teachings of Shah Waliullah

formed the basis; opposed Faraizi

movement.

Debated popular science and social

questions.

Emphasised unity of godhead; against

caste rules.

To improve the social condition of the

Parsis and restore the purity of

Zoroastrianism. Their journal was Rast

Goftar (Truth Teller).

Preached belief in one supreme being,

the guru’s supreme position, simple

social life for believers (the satsang);

stress on achieving spiritual fulfilment

without giving up material life.
Revivalist movement whose religious

teachings encompassed a liberal
interpretation of Islam; for moral
religious upliftment; did not take to
Western influences in education;

872

✫✫✫✫✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Name of the Movement/

People Associated with it

Nature and Objectives,

Organisation and Place

and Media Efforts

Prarthana Samaj; founded in Bombay
(1867)

Indian Reform Association; Calcutta
(1870)

Arya Samaj; founded in Bombay
(1875)

Atmaram Pandurang (founder),
Govind Ranade (chief mentor), R.G.
Bhandarkar

Keshub Chandra Sen

Dayanand Saraswati (originally Mula
Shankar—founder)

opposed Syed Ahmed Khan’s views
to some extent; welcomed the
formation of the Indian National

Congress.
Worship and reform of society through
emphasis on monotheism, upliftment
of women, abolition of caste

discrimination and religious
orthodoxy.
To create public opinion against child
marriages; for upliftment of social

status of women; to legalise Brahmo
type of marriage.
Asserted Hindu faith over other
religions; within a revivalist framework,

denounced rites, Brahmins’

supremacy, idolatry, superstitions;

Dayanand Anglo-Vedic (DAV)

schools were established.

Appendices

✫✫✫✫✫

873

Aligarh Movement (the Aligarh

School grew into the Muhammadan

Anglo-Oriental College in 1877 and

later the Aligarh Muslim University

(1875—year of founding the Aligarh

School)

The Theosophical Society— founded

in New York but headquarters

shifted to Adyar, near Madras

(1875)

Deccan Education Society; Pune

(1884)

Seva Sadan; Bombay
(1885)

Indian National Social Conference;
Bombay (1887)
Deva Samaj; Lahore (1887)

Syed Ahmed Khan (1817–98—

founder of the Aligarh School

Madam H.P. Blavatsky (1831–91),

a Russian, and Col. H.S. Olcott

(1832–1907), an American

(founders); Annie Besant (one of its

presidents)

M.G. Ranade, V.G. Chibdonkar,

G.G. Agarkar (founders)

Behramji M. Malabari

M.G. Ranade, Raghunath Rao

Shiva Narain Agnihotri

Religious reform through emphasis

on principle of enquiry in religion,

favoured scientific and rational

outlook, recognised Western

education, aimed at social reform; Sir

Syed Ahmed founded a scientific

society (1864), Tahzib-al-akhlaq

(1870)— Urdu journal.

Drew inspiration from Upanishads,

philosophy of the Vedanta, etc., to

aim at religious revival and social

reform.

For contributing to education and

culture in western India; established

Ferguson College, Pune (in 1885).
Against child marriages, forced

widowhood; to help socially exploited
women
Social reform

Religious ideas closer to those of
Brahmo Samaj; favoured a social
code of conduct that was against

874

✫✫✫✫✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Name of the Movement/

People Associated with it

Nature and Objectives,

Organisation and Place

and Media Efforts

Ahmadiya Movement; Qadiani in
Punjab (1889)

Madras Hindu Association; Madras
(1892)

Ramakrishna Mission founded in

Bengal (centres at Belur and

Mayavati became focal points—

1897)

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1839–1908)—
founder

Viresialingam Pantulu

Vivekananda (originally Narendranath

Dutta), 1863–1902 (its founder);

Ramakrishna Paramhansa (1834–86)—

Vivekananda’s guru

bribe-taking, gambling, alcohol

consumption, and having non-
vegetarian food.
Defended Islam from attacks by
Christian missionaries, Hindu

revivalists; belief in a universal
religion; Ghulam Ahmad
proclaimed himself as a Messiah
and as an incarnation of Lord

Krishna.
Social purity movement; against
devadasi system and oppression
of widows.

Sought to revive Hinduism based

on ancient India’s religious texts

and concepts (of Vedanta, etc.);

against caste restrictions,

oppression, superstition in

Hinduism, aimed to uplift women

and overhaul the education

system.

Appendices

✫✫✫✫✫

875

Bharat Dharma Mahan-mandala;

Benaras (1902)

The Servants of India Society;

Bombay (1905)

Poona Seva Sadan (1909)

Nishkam Karma Math (Monastery

of Disinterested Work); Pune (1910)

Bharat Stri Mandal; Calcutta (1910)

Social Service League (1911)

Seva Samiti; Allahabad (1914)

The Indian Women’s Association;
Madras (1917)

Madan Mohan Malaviya, Deen Dayal

Sharma, Gopal Krishna Gokhale

(founders)

Gopal Krishna Gokhale

G.K. Devadhar and Ramabai Ranade

Dhondo Keshav Karve

Saralabala Devi Chaudhurani

Narayan Malhar Joshi

Hridyanath Kunzru

Annie Besant

Orthodox Hindus’ (Sanatan-

dharinis’) organisation that

opposed the Arya Samaj’s

teachings.

Famine relief and improving

tribals’ condition in particular.

Economic uplift; employment for

women.

Educational progress of women;

improving widows’ condition.

Founded a women’s university in

Pune—now in Bombay.
Women’s education and

emancipation.
Improving the condition of the
common masses; opened
schools, libraries.

Improving the status of the
suffering classes through social
service, education.
Upliftment of Indian women;

annual conferences (All India
Women’s Conferences) were
held.

876

✫✫✫✫✫

A Brief History of Modern India

1. Bahadur Shah Zafar; January

27, 1858 to March 9, 1858
in Red Fort (Delhi)

2. Surendranath Banerjea;

May 4–5, 1883 in Calcutta
High Court

3. Bal Gangadhar Tilak; 1897,

1908, 1916

4. Aurobindo Ghosh and 37

others in Alipore Bombay Case
Trial; 1908–09

5. V.D.

Savarkar; 1910 and

January 1911

treason, conspiracy, rebellion, and
murder in 1857 revolt

contempt of court, on his remarks
in The Bengalee

provocative articles in Kesari

attempt to murder district judge
of Muzaffarpur

delivering infuriating speeches

against British and procuring and
distributing arms

convicted and exiled to Rangoon.

sent to civil jail for two years.

18 months’ imprisonment (1897);
6 years’ exile to Mandalay and
fine of Rs 1,000 for seditious

writings (1908); no jail sentence
was imposed (1916).
spent a year in jail as an undertrial
prisoner.

two consecutive life transportations
(50 years); the International Court
of Arbitration at the Hague also

held him guilty; spent 10 years in
Andaman jail (1911–21).

5. Famous Trials of the Nationalist Period

Trial

Charges

Verdict

Appendices

✫✫✫✫✫

877

6. Gandhi and Shankarlal Banker

(publisher of Young India);
1922

7. 31 communists in the Meerut

Conspiracy Case; March 1929

8. Bhagat Singh; June 1929

July 1929

9. M.N. Roy; 1931-32

10. Shah Nawaz Khan, Prem

Kumar Sehgal and Gurbaksh
Singh Dhillon in the INA trials;

1945 at Red Fort, Delhi

four inflammatory articles against
the British in Young India

conspiracy against the British

throwing a bomb in Central
Assembly

killing police head constable,
Saunders
conspiracy and sedition

waging war by murdering or
abetment of murder

sentenced to jail for 6 years; but
set free in 1924.

received sentences varying from 3
years to life sentence.
received transportation for life.

sentenced to death.

sentenced to 12 years’
imprisonment (later reduced to 6

years).
sentences of transportation for life
were remitted; but those of
cashiering and forfeiture of arrears

of pay and allowances were
confirmed.

878

✫✫✫✫✫

A Brief History of Modern India

1. Satyashodhak Movement, Satyashodhak

Samaj, founded by Jyotiba Phule (1873;

Maharashtra)

2. Aravippuram Movement, led by Shri Narayana

Guru (1888; Kerala)

3. Justice Party Movement led by Dr T.M. Nair, P.

Tyagaraja Chetti, and C.N. Mudalair on behalf of

intermediate castes (1916; Madras)

4. Nair Movement led by C.V. Raman Pillai, K. Rama

Krishna Pillai, and M. Padmanabha Pillai (1891;
Kerala)

5. Self-Respect Movement led by E. V. Ramaswami

Naicker or Periyar (1925; Tamil Nadu)

Against brahminic domination and for the
emancipation of low castes, untouchables, and

widows.
For the rights of the depressed classes (especially
the Ezhavas or Iravas of Kerala); the Sri
Narayana Dharma Paripalana Yogum was set up

in 1902–03.
Against domination of brahmins in government
service, education and political field; the South

Indian Liberation Federation (SILF) was formed
in 1916; the efforts yielded in the passing of 1930
Government Order providing reservations to
groups.

Against domination of brahmins; the Malayali
Memorial was formed by Raman Pillai in 1891
and Nair Service Society by Padmanabha Pillai
was set up in 1914.

Against caste bias by brahmins; Kudi Arasu
journal was started by Periyar in 1910.

6. Caste Movements

Movement/Year/Region

Causes and Consequences

Appendices

✫✫✫✫✫

879

6. Nadar Movement by the untouchable Shanans who

imitated the kshatriya customs to emerge as the
Nadars (Tamil Nadu)

7. The Depressed Classes (Mahars) Movement led

by B.R. Ambedkar (1924; Maharashtra)

8. Congress’ Harijan Movement (1917 onwards)

9. Kaivartas’ Movement by Kaivartas who later

became the Mahishyas (1897 onwards; Midnapore,
Bengal)

Against social bias and to promote educational
and social welfare among the Nadars; the Nadar
Mahajan Sangam was formed in 1910.

For the upliftment of the untouchables; founded
the Depressed Classes Institution in 1924, a
Marathi fortnightly Bahiskrit Bharat in 1927, the

Samaj Samta Sangh in 1927, the Scheduled
Caste Federation in 1942 to propagate their
views.
For elevating the social status of the lower and

backward classes; All-India Anti-Untouchability
League was established in 1932; the weekly
Harijan was founded by Gandhi in 1933.

Founded the Jati Nirdharani Sabha (1897) and
the Mahishya Samiti (1901).

880

✫✫✫✫✫

A Brief History of Modern India

1. Titu Mir’s Movement, under leadership of Mir

Nathar Ali or Titu Mir (1782–1831; West
Bengal)

2. Pagal Panthis Movement of the Hajong and Garo

tribes under the leadership of Karam Shah and Tipu
Shah (1825–35; Mymensingh district, earlier in
Bengal)

3. Moplah Uprisings (1836–54; Malabar)

4. Indigo Revolt by Bengal indigo cultivators led by

Degambar and Bishnu Biswas (1859–60; Nadia
district)

5. Deccan Peasants’ Uprising by the Maratha peasants

(1875; Kardeh village and Poona in Maharashtra)

6. Phadke’s Ramosi Uprising by Ramosi peasants led

by Wasudeo Balwant Phadke (1877–87;
Maharashtra)

Against Hindu landlords who imposed beard-tax
on the Farazis.

Against hike in rents; the movement was violently
suppressed.

Against rise in revenue demand and reduction of
field size.
Against terms imposed by European indigo

planters; Indigo Commission was set up in 1860
to view the situation.
Against corrupt practices of Gujarati and Marwari
moneylenders; Agriculturists’ Relief Act of 1879

was passed.
Against the British failure to take up anti-famine
measures.

7. Peasant Movements

Movement / Year / Region

Causes and Consequences

Appendices

✫✫✫✫✫

881

7. Pabna Agrarian Uprising led by Shah Chandra Roy,

Shambhu Pal, Khoodi Mollah and supported by
B.C. Chatterjee and R.C. Dutt (1873; Pabna

district, East Bengal, now in Bangladesh)

8. Punjab Peasants’ Revolt (during the last decade of

the 19th century, Punjab)

9. Champaran Satyagraha by peasants of Champaran

(1917; Bihar)

10. Kheda Satyagraha by peasants of Kheda, led by

Gandhi (1918; Gujarat)

11. Bardoli Satyagraha by the Kunbi-Patidar land-

owning peasants and untouchables, supported by
Mehta brothers, Vallabhbhai Patel (1928; Surat,
Gujarat)

Against policies of zamindars to prevent occupants
from acquiring occupancy rights; the Bengal
Tenancy Act of 1885 was passsed.

Against prospects of losing their land; the Punjab
Land Alienation Act, 1900 was passed, which

imposed regulations on sale and mortgage of land
and revenue demands.

Against the tinkathia system imposed by the

European indigo planters; the Champaran Agrarian
Act abolished the tinkathia system.

Against ignored appeals for remission of land

revenue in case of crop failures; the demands
were finally fulfilled.

Against oppression by upper castes and hike in

revenue by 22 per cent by the Bombay
Government; the revenue was brought down to
6.03 per cent.

882

✫✫✫✫✫

A Brief History of Modern India

12. Eka Movement by members of Pasi and Ahir

castes (1921–22; Hardoi, Barabanki, and Sitapur

districts)

13. Bakasht Movement (1936; Bihar)

14. Tebhaga Movement by poor peasants and tenants

and bargardars or share-croppers (Bengal)

15. Telangana insurrection (1946–51; Hyderabad)

Against hike in rents.

Against the zamindars’ policies regarding
occupancy rights.

Against zamindars and moneylenders; Bargardari
Bill was passed.

Against practices of moneylenders and officials
of the Nizam of Hyderabad.

Movement / Year / Region

Causes and Consequences

Appendices

✫✫✫✫✫

883

Bengal Gazette (also

1780, Calcutta

Calcutta General Advertiser),
weekly
India Gazette

1787, Calcutta

Madras Courier

1784, Madras

(First paper from Madras)
Bombay Herald

1789, Bombay

(First paper from Bombay)
Indian Herald (in English)

1795, Madras

Digdarshana

1818, Calcutta

(First Bengali monthly)
Calcutta Journal

1818

Bengal Gazette

1818, Calcutta

(First Bengali newspaper)

Started by James Augustus Hicky
(Irishman)

Henry Louis Vivian Derozio
associated with it.

—

Started by R. Williams (English-man)
and published by Humphreys

—

Started by J.S. Buckingham
Harishchandra Ray

8. Newspapers and Journals

Name of the

Year and Place

Name of the Founder/

Paper/Journal

from which Published

Editor

884

✫✫✫✫✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Raja Rammohan Roy

An English firm

Rammohan Roy, Dwarkanath
Tagore, and others

—

Henry Vivian Derozio

Foundation laid by Robert Knight,
started by Thomas Bennett.

Dadabhai Naoroji

Girish Chandra Ghosh (later, Harish
Chandra Mukherjee became owner-
cum-editor)

Sambad Kaumudi

1821

(Weekly in Bengali)
Mirat-ul-Akbar

1822, Calcutta

(First journal in Persian)

Jam-i-Jahan Numah

1822, Calcutta

(First paper in Urdu)
Banga-Duta (a weekly

1822, Calcutta

in four languages—English,

Bengali, Persian, Hindi)
Bombay Samachar

1822, Bombay

(First paper in Gujarati)
East Indian (daily)

19th century

Bombay Times (from 1861

1838, Bombay

onwards, The Times of India)

Rast Goftar

1851

(A Gujarati fortnightly)
Hindu Patriot

1853, Calcutta

Name of the

Year and Place

Name of the Founder/

Paper/Journal

from which Published

Editor

Appendices

✫✫✫✫✫

885

Somaprakasha

1858, Calcutta

(First Bengali political paper)
Indian Mirror (fortnightly—

Early 1862, Calcutta

first Indian daily paper in
English)
Bengalee (this, and Amrita

1862, Calcutta

Bazar Patrika—the first
vernacular papers)
National Paper

1865, Calcutta

Madras Mail

1868, Madras

(First evening paper in India)
Amrita Bazar Patrika

1868, Jessore District

(Bengali in the beginning,
later English, a daily)
Bangadarshana (in Bengali)

1873, Calcutta

Indian Statesman

1875, Calcutta

(later, The Statesman)
The Hindu (in English)—

1878, Madras

started as weekly

Tribune (daily)

1881, Lahore

Dwarkanath Vidyabhushan

Devendranath Tagore

Girishchandra Ghosh (taken over by
S.N. Banerjea in 1879)

Devendranath Tagore

—

Sisir Kumar Ghosh and Motilal Ghosh

Bankimchandra Chatterji
Started by Robert Knight

G.S. Aiyar, Viraraghavachari, and
Subba Rao Pandit (among the
founders)
Dyal Singh Majithia

886

✫✫✫✫✫

A Brief History of Modern India

Kesari (Marathi daily) and

1881, Bombay

Maharatta (English weekly)

Swadeshamitram

Madras

(a Tamil paper)
Paridasak (a weekly)

1886

Yugantar

1906, Bengal

Sandhya

1906, Bengal

Kal

1906, Maharashtra

Indian Sociologist

London

Bande Mataram

Paris

Talvar

Berlin

Free Hindustan

Vancouver

Ghadr

San Francisco

Reshwa

Before 1908

Tilak, Chiplunkar, Agarkar (before
Tilak, Agarkar, and Prof Kelkar
were the editors respectively)

G.S. Aiyar

Bipin Chandra Pal (publisher)
Barindra Kumar Ghosh and
Bhupendranath Datta
Brahmabandhab Upadhyay

—

Shyamji Krishna Varma
Madam Bhikaji Cama
Virendranath Chattopadhyaya
Tarak Nath Das
Ghadr Party
Ajit Singh

Name of the

Year and Place

Name of the Founder/

Paper/Journal

from which Published

Editor

Appendices

✫✫✫✫✫

887

Bombay Chronicle (a daily)

1913, Bombay

The Hindustan Times

1920, Delhi

The Milap (Urdu daily)

1923, Lahore

Leader (in English)

—

Kirti

1926, Punjab

Bahishkrit Bharat

1927

(Marathi fortnightly)
Kudi Arasu (Tamil)

1910

Kranti

1927, Maharashtra

Langal and Ganabani

1927, Bengal

Bandi Jivan

Bengal

National Herald (daily)

1938

Started by Pherozeshah Mehta,
Editor—B.G. Horniman (Englishman)
Founded by K.M. Panikkar as part
of the Akali Dal Movement
Founded by M.K. Chand
Madan Mohan Malaviya
Santosh Singh
B.R. Ambedkar

E.V. Ramaswamy Naicker (Periyar)
S.S. Mirajkar, K.N. Joglekar, S.V.
Ghate
Gopu Chakravarti and Dharani
Goswami
Sachindranath Sanyal
Started by Jawaharlal Nehru

Spectrum Books

Private Limited

UPSC CIVIL SERVICES PRELIMS 2020

1. Handbook of General Studies for Civil Services

1655

Preliminary Paper-I—2019

2. Handbook of General Studies for Civil Services

895

Preliminary Paper-II —2020

STATE CIVIL SERVICES PRELIMS 2020

3. Indian History (Optionals)

730

4. Political Science (Optionals)

710

5. Public Administration (Optionals)

525

6. Sociology (Optionals)

495

CIVIL SERVICES MAINS 2020

7. A Brief History of Modern India

445

8. Facets of Indian Culture-2019

370

9. Gandhi, Nehru, Tagore & Other Eminent

285

Personalities of Modern India

10. Indian Polity (2018)

490

11. International Organisations, Conferences and

485

Treaties

12. Geography of India-2019

485

13. Developments in Science and Technology-2019

570

14. Statistical Analysis, Graphs and Diagrams

355

15. Comprehensive History of Modern India (Optionals)

535

16. Historical Atlas of India (Optionals)

305

17. Geography (Optionals)

835

18. Public Administration Theories and Principles

555

19. Indian Polity Topical Issues (2018)

125

20. Indian Economy-2019

425

SPECTRUM’S ENGLISH LANGUAGE SERIES

21. A Book of Essays 2020

425

22. A Book of Short Essays

23. English Grammar—A User’s Manual

195

24. Comprehension and Precis

SPECTRUM’S BOOKS FOR BANKING AND OTHER
COMPETITIVE EXAMS

25. Objective English-2020

515

26. Quantitative Aptitude-2020

595

27. Teaching and Research Aptitude Question Bank-II 2019

445

SPECTRUM’S LITSCAN

28. Critical Evaluation of T.S. Eliot’s Poems

245

29. Critical Evaluation of W.B. Yeats’ Poems

225

30. Huckleberry Finn - Mark Twain

225

31. Philip Larkin : Critical Evaluation of Selected Poems

155

OTHERS

32. The Media Effect

165

33. Philosophers from Socrates to Sartre

160

34. Scientists from Pythagoras to Hubble

160