Political Changes After Civil Disobedience Movement in India

After the Civil Disobedience Movement, India’s political landscape changed significantly, strengthening nationalist sentiments and forcing the British to reconsider their policies. Though the movement ended in 1934, it sparked debates within the Indian National Congress on whether to focus on village-based constructive work, engage in constitutional struggles, or adopt a radical socialist approach.

This divide deepened after the 1935 Government of India Act, as leaders debated whether to accept office in provincial elections. While Gandhi emphasized grassroots empowerment, others like Nehru and Bose leaned towards socialist policies, shaping the future course of India’s freedom struggle.

Download notes of Civil Disobedience Movement in India

First Stage of the Debate: Constructive Work vs. Constitutional Struggle

After the withdrawal of the Civil Disobedience Movement, two contrasting viewpoints emerged:

1. Gandhi’s Advocacy for Constructive Work

   • Gandhi emphasized constructive work, particularly in villages, aiming to revive traditional crafts and strengthen the masses for future struggles.
   • He believed that mobilizing people through constructive activities would prepare them for the next phase of the freedom struggle.

2. The Argument for Constitutional Struggle

   • Leaders like M. A. Ansari, Asaf Ali, Bhulabhai Desai, and B. C. Pal advocated council entry to maintain political engagement and public morale.
   • C. Rajagopalachari, who initially opposed council participation, later recommended a Swarajist approach, arguing that legislative work would enhance Congress’ influence.
   • The new Swarajists saw participation in the legislature as a strategic move rather than a concession to colonial rule.

3. The Third Front: The Leftist Perspective

   • The growing leftist faction, including Jawaharlal Nehru, criticized both constructive work and council entry.
   • They argued that these approaches diverted attention from direct mass action against British rule.

4. Nehru’s Vision and Opposition to Gandhi’s Strategy

   • Nehru sought the abolition of capitalism and the establishment of socialism.
   • He viewed the withdrawal of the movement and subsequent constitutional participation as a “spiritual defeat.”
   • He opposed Gandhi’s “Struggle-Truce-Struggle” (S-T-S) strategy and instead promoted a “Struggle-Victory” (S-V) strategy for continuous resistance against colonial rule.

5. The Compromise

   • Gandhi managed to prevent a split within Congress by allowing council entry while ensuring that it remained aligned with nationalist goals.
   • In 1934, under his guidance, the All India Congress Committee (AICC) formed a parliamentary board to contest elections.
   • Gandhi also endorsed Nehru’s presidency of the Lucknow Congress, despite opposition from right-wing leaders like Rajagopalachari.

Second Stage of the Debate: Office Acceptance after Provincial Elections (1937)

The second stage of the debate was triggered by the elections held under the Government of India Act 1935. The key question was whether Congress should form governments in provinces where it had secured a majority.

1. Views of the Leftist Group

   • Led by Nehru, Bose, and the Congress Socialists, the leftist group opposed office acceptance.
   • They believed that accepting office would undermine the rejection of the 1935 Act and co-opt Congress into the colonial system.
   • Their alternative strategy was to create a legislative deadlock to render the Act ineffective.

2. Views of the Rightist Group

   • Leaders like Rajendra Prasad and J. B. Kriplani supported office acceptance as a tactical move.
   • They argued that working within the system would allow Congress to continue mass politics and prevent pro-government forces from gaining influence.
   • Provincial governments could be used to implement constructive programs, such as abolishing untouchability and reducing peasants’ burdens.

3. Congress’ Decision and the Formation of Ministries

   • Although Gandhi was initially opposed to office acceptance, he eventually supported it as the majority of the party favored it.
   • Congress participated in provincial elections, performed well, and formed ministries in several provinces.
   • Despite limitations, Congress ministries took significant steps, such as curbing police excesses, lifting press restrictions, and implementing social welfare programs.

The Crisis at Tripuri (1939) and the Internal Struggle within Congress

During the late 1930s, Congress experienced ideological divisions between leftists and conservatives.

1. Bose’s Election and the Tripuri Session

   • In 1939, Subhas Chandra Bose was re-elected as Congress president despite opposition from Gandhi’s faction.
   • Bose sought to launch an immediate mass movement and give an ultimatum to the British, while Gandhi preferred waiting for the right moment.
   • The ideological divide led to Bose’s resignation and the formation of the Forward Bloc.

2. Differences Between Bose and Gandhi

   • Ideology: Bose was a radical socialist, while Gandhi believed in peaceful, incremental change.
   • National Movement Approach: Bose preferred a militant strategy, whereas Gandhi adhered to non-violence.
   • Philosophical Differences: Bose followed a results-oriented approach, while Gandhi emphasized ethical means.
   • Governance Model: Bose initially leaned towards a centralized state, while Gandhi favored decentralized governance.

Download notes of Revolutionary Nationalism 2.0

The debates following the Civil Disobedience Movement shaped the future strategy of India’s struggle for independence. Gandhi’s constructive program helped sustain mass mobilization, while electoral participation allowed Congress to demonstrate administrative capability.

However, the ideological rift between leftists and conservatives remained a persistent challenge. These debates set the stage for future confrontations, ultimately influencing the direction of India’s independence movement and post-independence governance.