Old NCERT Summary (Bipan Chandra) Nationalist Movement- 2 - History for UPSC CSE

The Indian National Congress 1905-1914

• Impact of the Bengal Partition (1905): The agitation against the Partition of Bengal profoundly affected the Indian National Congress. All sections of the Congress united in opposing the Partition. At the 1905 session the Congress, under the presidency of Gopal Krishna Gokhale, condemned the Partition and supported the Swadeshi and Boycott movement launched in Bengal.
• Divergence between Moderates and Militants: Public debate deepened the differences between the moderate and militant nationalists. The militants wished to extend the Swadeshi and Boycott movement beyond Bengal and to broaden the boycott to all forms of cooperation with the colonial government. The moderates favoured limiting boycott to foreign goods and confining large-scale action to Bengal. The contest for the Congress presidency in 1906 reflected these tensions; ultimately Dadabhai Naoroji was chosen as a compromise candidate. In his presidential address he declared the goal of the national movement to be self-government (Swaraj) comparable to that enjoyed by the United Kingdom or the colonies.
• Split at Surat (1907): The differences between the moderate and militant wings widened, culminating in the split at the Surat session of the Congress in December 1907. The moderates, who controlled the Congress machinery, effectively excluded the militants. The split weakened both sides: moderates lost touch with younger activists and militants were left isolated and vulnerable to repression.
• British Response - Divide and Rule: The British administration used the split to its advantage. While suppressing militant nationalists, it offered limited constitutional concessions to placate moderate opinion. These measures formed part of a policy designed to divide nationalists and blunt growing unity.
• Annulment of the Partition and Administrative Changes (1911): In 1911 the Government annulled the Partition of Bengal and reunited Eastern and Western Bengal. Simultaneously a new province combining Bihar and Orissa was created, and the seat of the central government was shifted from Calcutta to Delhi.

The Morley-minto Reforms (Indian Councils Act, 1909) and Their Effects

• Major provisions: The reforms increased the number of members in the Imperial Legislative Council and in provincial councils and introduced a measure of electoral representation. However, most members were not directly elected: some were chosen indirectly through provincial councils, municipal committees and district boards, and several seats were specially reserved.
• Reserved and nominated representation: Of the 68 members of the Imperial Legislative Council, 36 were officials and 5 nominated non-officials. Of the 27 elected members, a number of seats were reserved to represent landlords and European commercial interests: for example, 6 seats for big landlords and 2 for British capitalists.
• No real transfer of power: The reformed councils remained advisory; they had no real executive authority. The measures did not democratise administration or remove the foreign character of British rule. As John Morley admitted, if the reforms led necessarily toward full parliamentary government in India he would have nothing to do with them; and his successor Lord Crewe made clear there was no intention of granting dominion-style self-government to India.
• Separate electorates for Muslims: The reforms introduced the system of separate electorates for Muslims, grouping Muslims into distinct constituencies from which only Muslim representatives could be elected. The official justification was minority protection, but in practice this measure deepened communal division, encouraged separatist tendencies and hindered the development of a unified national movement.
• Consequences for national unity: Separate electorates institutionalised religious division in politics, prevented a common focus on shared economic and political problems, and perpetuated the isolation of middle-class Muslims instead of integrating them into mainstream nationalism. Moderates, though critical of the limited nature of the reforms, chose to cooperate with the government in implementing them and thereby gradually lost popular support.

The Nationalist Movement and The First World War (1914-1918)

• Outbreak of War and initial nationalist response: The First World War began in June 1914, pitting Britain, France, Russia and Japan (later joined by Italy and the USA) against Germany, Austria-Hungary and Turkey. Many Indian leaders, including Bal Gangadhar Tilak who was released from prison in June 1914, decided to support the British war effort in the hope that loyalty would be rewarded with meaningful political concessions after the War.
• Changing political climate: Other Indian leaders realised that popular pressure would be necessary to secure concessions. The War undermined the myth of Western racial superiority for many Asians and increased economic distress in India through heavy taxation and rising prices, which in turn fuelled readiness for militant protest.

The Home Rule Leagues (1915-1916)

• Origins and leadership: As the national movement required mass mobilisation beyond the inactive Congress of the period, two Home Rule Leagues were established (1915-16): one led by Lokamanya Tilak and the other by Annie Besant (with S. Subramania Iyer as an important collaborator). Both demanded Home Rule or self-government for India after the War.
• Agitation and slogans: The Leagues carried out wide-ranging propaganda across the country; Tilak popularised the slogan, "Home Rule is my birthright and I will have it". Many moderates dissatisfied with Congress inactivity joined the Home Rule agitation.
• Government reaction: The government reacted against this agitation; Annie Besant was arrested in June 1917 and released in September 1917 after strong popular protest.

Revolutionary Movement and The Ghadar Party

• Expansion of revolutionary activity: Alongside constitutional and mass agitation, revolutionary and terrorist groups expanded from Bengal and Maharashtra into northern India. Indian revolutionaries abroad planned violent uprisings to overthrow British rule.
• The Ghadar Party (founded 1913): Indian revolutionaries in the United States and Canada formed the Ghadar Party in 1913. Its membership included many Punjabi Sikh peasants and ex-soldiers who had emigrated and faced discrimination. Prominent leaders included Lala Har Dayal, Mohammed Barkatullah, Bhagwan Singh, Ram Chandra and Sohan Singh Bhakna. The weekly paper Ghadar carried the masthead phrase "Angrezi Ka Dushman" (An Enemy of British Rule) and appealed for volunteers and funds to wage revolutionary war in India.
• Plans and suppression (1915): The Ghadarites planned to send arms and men to India at the outbreak of the War. Many volunteered and large sums were raised. A date-21 February 1915-was fixed for a coordinated uprising in the Punjab. The authorities discovered the plot and acted quickly: rebellious regiments were disbanded and leaders arrested. Trials followed in which many were severely punished: forty-two were hanged, 114 were transported for life and 93 received long imprisonments. Several of the released revolutionaries later contributed to the Kirti and communist movements in Punjab. Prominent Ghadar figures included Baba Gurmukh Singh, Kartar Singh Sarabha, Sohan Singh Bhakna, Rahmat Ali Shah, Bhai Parmanand and Mohammad Barkatullah.
• Other mutinies and acts of revolt: Inspired cadres in the Indian Army attempted revolts abroad. For example, 700 men of the 5th Light Infantry at Singapore revolted under Jamadar Chisti Khan and Subedar Dundey Khan, but the revolt was crushed; 37 were publicly executed and 41 transported for life. Revolutionary leaders such as Jatin Mukherjee (Bagha Jatin) died fighting during attempts within India.
• Exiles and propaganda abroad: Leaders active outside India included Rash Behari Bose, Raja Mahendra Pratap, Lala Hardayal, Abdul Rahim, Maulana Obaidullah Sindhi, Champakaranam Pillai, Sardar Singh Rana and Madame Cama. Abroad they sought support from socialists and anti-imperialists for revolutionary activity.

Lucknow Session of The Congress (1916) and The Lucknow Pact

• Need for unity: Nationalists recognised that disunity weakened the struggle. The rising tide of nationalism and the effects of the War and Home Rule agitation produced two important outcomes at the Lucknow session of the Congress in 1916.
• Reunion of moderates and militants: The first outcome was reunification of the two wings of the Congress. Tilak worked to reconcile differences and publicly renounced violence as a method, stating that the objective was reform of administration rather than overturn of government. The Lucknow Congress was the first united Congress since 1907 and called for further constitutional reforms as steps toward self-government.
• Congress-Muslim League rapprochement (Lucknow Pact): The second outcome was a closer understanding between the Congress and the All-India Muslim League. The younger, more politically militant section of educated Muslims had moved closer to Congress policies. At Lucknow the two organisations agreed a joint scheme of political reforms and passed the same resolutions, including acceptance of separate electorates as a basis for representation. Prominent figures in bringing the two organisations together included Tilak and Mohammed Ali Jinnah, both of whom stressed Hindu-Muslim unity as essential to achieve self-government.
• Limitations of the Lucknow Pact: The Pact was important for fostering elite unity, but it accepted the principle of separate electorates and did not meaningfully involve the Hindu and Muslim masses or secularise political outlooks. As such, while it strengthened elite cooperation, it left avenues open for later communal resurgence.
• Immediate political effect: The unity at Lucknow generated wide enthusiasm across India and compelled the British government to respond. After relying largely on repression, the government began to promise progressive political development. On 20 August 1917 it announced a policy of the gradual development of self-governing institutions and, in July 1918, the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms were announced (these reforms later formed the basis for subsequent constitutional change).

Concluding Remarks

• The period 1905-1916 transformed Indian nationalism: while the Partition agitation and Swadeshi movement rekindled mass protest, differences between moderates and militants led to a temporary split that the British used politically. The Morley-Minto Reforms provided limited constitutional concessions but institutionalised communal representation through separate electorates.
• The First World War and its economic impact pushed politics toward mass mobilisation. The Home Rule Leagues and renewed revolutionary activity widened participation. The Lucknow session of 1916 marked a significant, if imperfect, unity among Congress factions and between Congress and the Muslim League-setting the stage for a new phase of the national movement that would culminate in mass struggles in the years to come.