Different Social Groups and their Attitudes towards Civil Disobedience Movement

The Civil Disobedience Movement was a significant event in Indian history that aimed to challenge British colonial rule and gain independence. Various social groups participated in this movement, each with their own attitudes towards its aim. Here are some of them:

1. The Indian National Congress:
The Indian National Congress was the main proponent of the Civil Disobedience Movement. Its leaders believed that non-violent resistance was the most effective means of achieving independence. They saw the movement as a way to unite and mobilize people across different regions, religions, and castes. Their attitude towards the movement's aim was one of urgency and determination.

2. The Muslim League:
The Muslim League was a political party that represented the interests of Muslims in India. Its leaders were initially hesitant to participate in the Civil Disobedience Movement, as they feared that it would lead to violence and communal conflict. However, some members of the Muslim League eventually joined the movement, although their participation was limited. Their attitude towards the movement's aim was cautious and ambivalent.

3. The Dalits:
The Dalits, who were formerly known as "untouchables," were a marginalized community that suffered from discrimination and oppression. They saw the Civil Disobedience Movement as an opportunity to assert their rights and demand equality. However, they also faced resistance from upper-caste Hindus who were reluctant to accept their demands. Their attitude towards the movement's aim was one of hope and determination.

4. The Peasants:
The peasants were a large and diverse group of people who lived in rural areas and worked as farmers or laborers. They were often exploited by landlords and moneylenders, who charged exorbitant rents and interest rates. The Civil Disobedience Movement gave them a platform to demand land reforms and better working conditions. Their attitude towards the movement's aim was one of anger and frustration.

Conclusion:
In summary, the different social groups that participated in the Civil Disobedience Movement had varying attitudes towards its aim. While some saw it as a means of achieving independence and equality, others were more cautious and ambivalent. Nonetheless, the movement brought together people from different backgrounds and regions, demonstrating the power of non-violent resistance and the importance of collective action.

All the groups that participated in the Civil Disobedience Movement did not have the same ideals, or same views of “Swaraj”.

(i) In the countryside : The active members were the rich peasant communities, the Patidars of Gujarat and the Jats of Uttar Pradesh.
Reason : They were producers of commercial crops which were hit by the trade depression and falling prices. As cash income disappeared they were unable to pay the government’s revenue demands. The government refused to reduce its demands. So they joined the Civil Disobedience Movement, hoping to get the revenue demands reduced. For them “Swaraj” meant fighting against high revenues.

(ii) The poor peasants joined the movement because they were unable to pay the rent for the land they cultivated for the landlords. They did not own the land, they were small tenants who cultivated lands taken on rent from the landlords. As the Depression continued, the small tenants could not pay the rent, so they joined the movement hoping that their unpaid rent would be remitted.

(iii) The rich merchants and industrialists joined the movement to protest against colonial policies that restricted business activities. They wanted protection against import of foreign goods and a rupee-sterling foreign exchange ratio to discourage imports.

(iv) The industrial workers joined the Civil Disobedience Movement dropping to get their demands passed — like laws against low wages and poor working conditions. All four classes were disappointed by the movement.

(a) The rich peasants lost interest because the movement was called off in 1931 without the revenue rates being revised and reduced. Many of them did not join the movement when it was resumed in 1932.
(b) The poor peasants were disappointed because the Congress was unwilling to support their “no rent” campaign.
(c) The industrialists were unhappy with the spread of militant activities and increasing influence of socialism in the Congress. They could not achieve their goal of colonial restrictions on business taken away, so they lost interest.
(d) The industrial working class did not get full Congress support as the Congress did not want to alienate the industrialists and divide the anti-colonial struggle. It could not include the workers’ demand in its programme.