The Swadeshi Movement & the Partition of Bengal: Morley-Minto Reforms (1909) Notes | Study History for UPSC CSE - UPSC

THE SWADESHI MOVEMENT AND THE PARTITION OF BENGAL
The rise of a new self-reliant and defiant nationalism from 1905 onwards was a consequence of several factors:

• The callousness and repression of the Anglo-lndian bureaucracy,
• Frustration and disillusionment among the nationalists at the British attitude in initiating political reforms,
• The rising aspirations of the edu­cated class,
• The growth of discontent in in­dustrial sectors, and
• A great political idealism, gener­ated by the teachings of Vivekanand, Dayananda, Bankim Chandra, Tilak, Pal, Aurobindo and other leaders and writers.
  

• With the start of the Swadeshi movement, the Indian National move­ment took a major leap forward.
• Women, students and a large section of the urban and rural popula­tion of Bengal and other parts of India became actively involved in politics for the first time.
• The day partition took effect on 16 October 1905 and was declared a day of mourning throughout Bengal. In Calcutta a hartal was declared.
• People took out processions and bathed in the Ganges in the morning and then paraded the streets singing Bande Mataram.
• People tied rakhis on each other’s hands as a symbol of unity of the two halves of Bengal. Later in the day Ananda Mohan Bose and S.N. Banerjee addressed two huge mass meetings .
• The message of Swadeshi and the boycott of foreign goods soon spread to the rest of the country.
• The INC took up the Swadeshi call and the Banaras Session, 1905, presided by Gokhale, supported the Swadeshi and boycott movement for Bengal .
• The militant nationalists led by Tilak, Pal and Lajpat Rai were, how­ever, in favour of extending the move­ment to the rest of India and carrying it beyond the programme of just Swadeshi and boycott to a full-fledged political mass struggle.
• The aim was now Swaraj and the abrogation of partition had become the ‘pettiest and narrowest of all politi­cal objects.

The Political demands of the Mod­erate leaders included:

• Increase in the employment of Indians to civil services.
• Separation of judicial and ex­ecutive functions.
• Extension of trial by jury.
• Expansion of membership of leg­islative bodies.
• Repeal of the Sedition Act of 1898.
• Expansion of education, espe­cially technical education.
• Grant of commissions in the army and military training to the people.
• Simultaneous examination for the ICS in England and India.
• The political techniques of the Mod­erate leaders can be thus summarized as:
• Articulation of political con­sciousness in the literate classes.
• Petitioning to the authorities and holding meetings.
• Demanding administrative re­forms and the termination of anti-popu­lar legislation like the one effectuating the partition of Bengal.
• Using the electoral machinery to get into the Legislative Council
• Sending deputation to England to prevent the Indian point of view before the members of Parliament and the bar of the British public opinion.

The Political demands of the Mod­erate leaders included:

• Equitable apportionment of mili­tary expenditure between India and Brit­ain. Reduction of military expenditure.
• Reduction of Home charges.
• Adoption of measures for relief of agricultural indebtedness.
• Encouragement of technical edu­cation and promotion of Indian indus­tries by subsidies and protection.
• Abolition of Salt Tax.
• Reduction of land revenue and income tax.
• Setting up of agricultural banks and extension of irrigational facilities.
• Loan for agriculturists.
• Measures to remove poverty.
• Revision of Abkari and Excise policy to encourage temperance.
• With the death of Gokhale on February 19, 1915, of Pherozeshah on November 5, 1915, and the Dadabhai, the grand old man of Indian poli­tics, on June 30, 1917, Moderatism ceased to be an effective political force.
• Since extremism was an attitude of mind, no definite date can be fixed for its beginning.
• The Extremist trend began in 1890s and its creed crystallized by 1905.
• After the famine of 1896 Tilak asked the distressed people not to pay taxes.
• British Govt. considered his teachings and editorials responsible for creating an atmosphere which led to the murders of Rand and Ayerst in June 1897.
• Bipin Chandra Pal (1858-1932) and Aurobindo were another important Extremist leaders.
• The Extremists formulated the four­fold techniques (the Chatusutri as Tilak called them) of the New Party:
• Swadeshi
• Boycott of foreign goods
• National education
• Arbitration in place of seeking justice in courts established by the for­eign rulers.
• The methods and tactics used by the Extremists can be summed up as:
• Use of self-reliant methods.
• Need for making sacrifices for the country.
• Condemned political mendi­cancy.
• Intense hatred for foreign rule, which was held responsible for all evils of Indian society.
• Faith in mass political action.
• Boycott of British goods.
• Use of Swadeshi goods.
• National Education.
• Passive resistance.
• Stages of the Moderates-Extremists tussle can be traced as below:
• Banaras Congress Session in Dec. 1905: Extremists wanted a strong resolution on Boycott and Swadeshi. Moderates emphasised the use of constitutional methods only.
• Compromise: Mild resolution on Boycott and Swadeshi.
• Calcutta Congress Session in Dec. 1906: Extremists wanted Tilak or Lajpat Rai as President, Moderates proposed name of Dadabhai Nauroji, who was elected.

Compromise:
 (i) Swaraj declared goal of Congress.
 (ii) Resolution on Boycott, Swadeshi and National Edu­cation passed.

• Surat Congress Session in Dec. 1907: Extremists wanted 
  (i) The session at Nagpur 
  (ii) Lajpat Rai as Con­gress President, and 
  (iii) Reiteration of resolutions on Boycott, Swadeshi and National Education. 
• Moderates wanted:-
  (i) The session at Surat, 
  (ii) Rash Behari Ghosh as President, and 
  (iii) To drop the resolutions on Boycott, Swadeshi and National Education.
  

Outcome of the Surat split was:

• With Government encour­agement Moderates adopted an uncom­promising attitude.
• Pandemonium at Surat and ses­sion adjourned.
• Moderates captured the Con­gress in April, 1908 and adopted a loyalist constitution for the Congress.
• Extremists eclipsed from national forums.
• Even Moderates suffered disillu­sionment and lost popularity with the masses.

Morley-Minto Reforms, 1909

• Reasons due to which this Act was passed can be summed up as:
• Indian dissatisfaction with Act of 1892.
• Extremists in the Congress ad­vocated the policy of pressure to win political rights. The Indian council Act, 1892 did not satisfy even the Moder­ates.
• Curzon’s reactionary policies and partition of Bengal awoke the latent national consciousness of Indians.
• Economic distress and famines alienated the people from British rule.
• Minto’s plan was to placate po­litical unrest by a dose of political re­forms.
   

• Government’s plan was to use political reforms as a device to drive a wedge between Hindus and Muslims through communal electorates.
• Important provisions can be summed up as:
• Legislative Councils both at the Centre and in the provinces were ex­panded.
• Total strength of Central Legislative Council was raised to 68 (Gover­nor General + 7 Executive Councillors + 60 additional members). Term of ‘ad­ditional’ members was to be 3 years.
• Regulations provided qualifica­tions both for candidates for election and for voters. Women, minors, per­sons below age of 25 years could not vote.
• Powers of Central Legislative Councils was enlarged. Members could discuss annual financial statement, pro­pose resolutions, but Budgets as a whole was not subject to vote of Leg­islative Council. Members could ask questions and supplementary questions on matters of public interest.
• Non-officials were to be in ma­jority in Provincial Legislatures.
• For the first time, system of class and communal electorates was introduced in Legislative Councils.
• Number of members of Provin­cial Executive Councils of Bengal, Ma­dras and Bombay was raised to 4 each.