Indian National Movement- 5 | History for UPSC 2024 (Pre & Mains) PDF Download

 Page 1


Indian National Movement –
The 1920’s
Page 2


Indian National Movement –
The 1920’s
Withdrawal of 
Non-Cooperation 
Movement
Why withdraw the Non-Cooperation Movement 
after Chauri Chaura?
• Gandhi felt that people had not learnt or fully understood the 
method of non-violence. 
• 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 showing signs of fatigue. 
• The central theme of the agitation—the Khilafat question—
dissipated soon. In November 1922, the people of Turkey rose 
under Mustafa Kamal Pasha and deprived the sultan of political 
power. 
Gandhi was arrested by the Government in March 1922
Page 3


Indian National Movement –
The 1920’s
Withdrawal of 
Non-Cooperation 
Movement
Why withdraw the Non-Cooperation Movement 
after Chauri Chaura?
• Gandhi felt that people had not learnt or fully understood the 
method of non-violence. 
• 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 showing signs of fatigue. 
• The central theme of the agitation—the Khilafat question—
dissipated soon. In November 1922, the people of Turkey rose 
under Mustafa Kamal Pasha and deprived the sultan of political 
power. 
Gandhi was arrested by the Government in March 1922
What next?
Gaya session of the Congress –
December 1922 – Defeat of the 
Swarajists’ proposal of ‘ending or 
mending’ the councils
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
‘Swarajists’ – 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. 
‘No-changers’ – Another section, including C. Rajagopalachari, Vallabhbhai 
Patel, Rajendra Prasad and M.A. Ansari, 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. 
Swarajists v. No-Changers
Page 4


Indian National Movement –
The 1920’s
Withdrawal of 
Non-Cooperation 
Movement
Why withdraw the Non-Cooperation Movement 
after Chauri Chaura?
• Gandhi felt that people had not learnt or fully understood the 
method of non-violence. 
• 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 showing signs of fatigue. 
• The central theme of the agitation—the Khilafat question—
dissipated soon. In November 1922, the people of Turkey rose 
under Mustafa Kamal Pasha and deprived the sultan of political 
power. 
Gandhi was arrested by the Government in March 1922
What next?
Gaya session of the Congress –
December 1922 – Defeat of the 
Swarajists’ proposal of ‘ending or 
mending’ the councils
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
‘Swarajists’ – 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. 
‘No-changers’ – Another section, including C. Rajagopalachari, Vallabhbhai 
Patel, Rajendra Prasad and M.A. Ansari, 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. 
Swarajists v. No-Changers
Swarajists’ Arguments 
• Entering the councils would not negate the noncooperation 
programme; in fact, it’ll be like 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
No-Changers’ Arguments 
• They 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
Swarajists v. No-Changers
Page 5


Indian National Movement –
The 1920’s
Withdrawal of 
Non-Cooperation 
Movement
Why withdraw the Non-Cooperation Movement 
after Chauri Chaura?
• Gandhi felt that people had not learnt or fully understood the 
method of non-violence. 
• 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 showing signs of fatigue. 
• The central theme of the agitation—the Khilafat question—
dissipated soon. In November 1922, the people of Turkey rose 
under Mustafa Kamal Pasha and deprived the sultan of political 
power. 
Gandhi was arrested by the Government in March 1922
What next?
Gaya session of the Congress –
December 1922 – Defeat of the 
Swarajists’ proposal of ‘ending or 
mending’ the councils
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
‘Swarajists’ – 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. 
‘No-changers’ – Another section, including C. Rajagopalachari, Vallabhbhai 
Patel, Rajendra Prasad and M.A. Ansari, 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. 
Swarajists v. No-Changers
Swarajists’ Arguments 
• Entering the councils would not negate the noncooperation 
programme; in fact, it’ll be like 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
No-Changers’ Arguments 
• They 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
Swarajists v. No-Changers
Gandhiji Intervenes
Both sides 
• Wanted to avoid a 1907-type 
split 
• Realised the significance of 
putting up a united front to get 
a mass movement to force the 
government to introduce 
reform
• Accepted the necessity of 
Gandhiji’s leadership of a united 
nationalist front
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