We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 November 2008
Gandhi's passive resistance campaigns in South Africa and his satyagraha agitation against the Rowlatt Bills in 1919 were conceived in wholly different circumstances; and the non-cooperation programme of 1920 was designed to meet conditions which were different again. To regard the non-cooperation movement simply as the logical consequence of the 1919 satyagraha and as the political application of Gandhi's ideology is to fail to appreciate just how experimental and uncertain Gandhi's politics were during this period.
1 In March 1919, of 600 signatories to the satyagraha pledge, 369 were members of the Bombay city Home Rule League and 120 were from Kaira district of Gujarat. Together these accounted for 81.5 per cent of the total. The rest of India was represented by only 111 signatures. Home Poll D April 1919, 48, National Archives of India, New Delhi [NAI].Google Scholar
2 Leader, 13 March 1919.Google Scholar
3 Das could not even carry his own supporters. They threatened to revolt and the was forced to amend his resolution. Home Poll B June 1919, 494–97, NAI.Google Scholar
4 Home Poll D July 1919, 46–47, NAI.Google Scholar
5 Leader, 8 April 1919.Google Scholar
6 See Owen, H., ‘Towards Nation-wide Organisation and Agitation: The Home Rule Leagues, 1915–18’, in Low, D. A. (ed.) Soundings in Modern South Asian History (London, 1968), pp. 172–3.Google Scholar
7 Home Poll D August 1918, 28, NAI.Google Scholar
8 Home Poll D March 1919, 16–17; April 1919, 48, NAI.Google Scholar
9 Leader, 13 April 1919.Google Scholar
10 The committee included Gandhi, Horniman, Dr Sathaye, Shankerlal Banker, Umer Sobhani, Mrs Naidu, Jamnadas Dwarkadas, Manu Subhedar, a Parsi merchant, Hansraj Thackersey and Mrs A. Gokhale. Ibid., 5 March 1919.
11 Bombay Chronicle, 7 July 1926.Google Scholar
12 Home Poll D August 1919, 50, NAI.Google Scholar
13 Home Poll D August 1919, 50, NAI.Google Scholar
14 CID Report, 23 June 1919. Home Poll D June 1919, 701–704, NAI.Google Scholar
15 Leader, 30 May 1919.Google Scholar
16 Ibid., 6 May 1919.
17 Ibid., 8 May 1919.
18 Owen, , ‘The Home Rule Leagues’, in Low, (ed.), Soundings, p. 184.Google Scholar
19 Leader, 25 June 1919.Google Scholar
20 Home Poll D November 1919, 15, NAI.Google Scholar
21 Under the terms agreed at Lucknow, Bengali Muslims, with 52.6 per cent of the population of the province, were allowed 40 per cent of the seats on the Bengal Council, while Bombay Muslims, with 20.4 per cent of the population (Sind included) were to get 33·3 per cent of the seats and UP Muslims, accounting for 14 per cent of the provinces' population, were to have 30 per cent of UP Council places.Google Scholar
22 Nawab Syed Ali Chaudhury, zamindar and President, Central National Muhammedan Association, Bengal, to S. P. O'Donnell, Reforms Commissioner, 28 January 1920. Home Reforms Office Franchise B January 1920, 244–45, NAI.Google Scholar
23 For a personal, colourful, account of the effect of Turkey's entry into the war see Chaudhury Khaliquzzaman, Pathway to Pakistan (Lahore, 1961), pp. 20–35.Google Scholar
24 Home Poll D August 1919, 51, NAI.Google Scholar
25 CID Weekly Report, 18 January 1919. Home Poll D January 1919, 160–3, NAI.Google Scholar
26 Ibid.
27 This was not the first time that Gandhi had associated with Muslims. Soon after his return from South Africa he had made contact with Muslim leaders in north India. In 1918 he had won the warm approval of Abdul Bari by writing to the Viceroy in support of Muslim claims about the Khalifa. He maintained contact with the Ali brothers, even during their internment. Home Poll D July 1918, 9; CID Report, 16 June 1919. Home Poll D June 1919, 701–04, NAI.Google Scholar
28 Fortnightly Report [FR] Bombay and UP, September 11 1919. Home Poll D November 1919, 15, NAI.Google Scholar
29 FR Bombay, 1 November 1919. Home Poll D January 1920, 5, NAI.Google Scholar
30 FR Delhi, 11 November 1919. Ibid.
31 FR Bombay, 11 November 1919. Ibid.
32 FR Bombay, 11 Feburay 1920. Home Poll D July 1920, 88, NAI.Google Scholar
33 The membership of the Committee was also predominantly Sunni. Of 70 members of the Subjects' Committee at the February conference only 1 was a Shia, 3 Borahs and 2 Khojas, while the remainder were Sunnis, save for 2 Hindus. FR Bombay, 11 February 1920. Home Poll D July 1920, 89, NAI.Google Scholar
34 Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi [CWG], XVII (Ahmadabad, 1965), pp. 73–6.Google Scholar
35 FR Bombay 1 March 1920. Home Poll D July 1920, 90, NAI.Google Scholar
36 Home Poll D April 1920, 4, NAI.Google Scholar
37 Ibid.
38 Gandhi, M. M. Malaviya, Tilak, Khaparde, Lajpat Rai, V. J. Patel, C. P. Ramaswami Iyer, Lala Harkishenlal and the Hon'ble Mr Chanda. Ibid.
39 The members were: Gandhi, Lala Lajpat Rai, Hakim Ajmal Khan, Shaukat Ali and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad. Ibid.
40 Home Poll File 40 of 1925, NAI.Google Scholar
41 Leader, 6 January 1917.Google Scholar
42 Ibid., 16 June 1920.
43 Ibid., 24 April 1919.
44 Ibid., 8 January 1920.
45 Motilal to Jawaharlal, 29 February 1920. Nehru Papers, Nehru Memorial Museum, New Delhi [NMM].Google Scholar
46 Motilal to Jawaharlal, 27 February 1920. Nehru Papers, NMM.Google Scholar
47 Ibid.
48 Tilak to V. J. Patel, 26 June 1920. File 94 of 1920, All-India Congress Committee [AICC] Papers, NMM.Google Scholar
49 CWG XVII, pp. 347–8. Gandhi had not, previously, been a member of the League.Google Scholar
50 See, for example, B. V. Joshi to C. P. Ramaswami Iyer, 28 November 1917, urging the formation of provinces along linguistic lines. ‘We have seriously realised that we have fallen behind in the race for political progress by reason of unequal competition with more advanced peoples. We are of opinion that the creation of a Kannada Provincial Congress circle will ensure our progress…’, File 1 of 1917, AICC Papers, NMM.Google Scholar
51 CWG, XVII, pp. 396–8, 403–05.Google Scholar
52 The motion moved by Bepin Chandra Pal at the Conference, which marked the entry of C.R. Das into the forefront of Bengali politics, called for ‘complete provincial autonomy and responsible Government in Bengal.’ Leader, 7 December 1917.Google Scholar
53 CID Weekly Report, January 1919. Home Poll D January 1919, 160–63, NAI.Google Scholar
54 Maharashtra was the most advanced of all. On his return from England Tilak launched the National Democratic Company with a capital of Rs 10 lakhs. FR Bombay, 1 January 1920. Home Poll D January 1920, 78, NAI.Google Scholar
55 Motilal to Jawaharlal, 16 June 1920. Nehru Papers, NMM.Google Scholar
56 Leader, 26 June 1920.Google Scholar
57 Bombay Chronicle, 7 June 1920.Google Scholar
58 CWG, XVII, pp. 73–6.Google Scholar
59 Leader, 10 June 1920.Google Scholar
60 CWG, XVII, pp. 389–90.Google Scholar
61 CID Report. Home Poll B July 1920, 109, NAI.Google Scholar
62 ‘The Mohammedan Decision’, Young India, 9 June 1920 quoted in CWG, XVII, pp. 484–85; Home Poll B July 1920, 109, NAI.Google Scholar
63 Letter from Jamnadas Dwarkadas, Bombay Chronicle, 7 June 1920.Google Scholar
64 Bombay Chronicle, 7 June 1920; Leader, 8 June 1920.Google Scholar
65 Interview with Tilak, Bombay Chronicle, 8 June 1920.Google Scholar
66 A CID Report estimated provincial attendance as: Bombay Presidency and Sind 20, Madras 6, Punjab 6, UP 50, Delhi 5, Bihar 10, Calcutta 5 and the CP 5. Home Poll B July 1920, 109, NAI.Google Scholar
67 The committee members were Gandhi, Shaukat Ali, A. S. Khatri (Bombay), Hakim A. Y. Ispahani (Bombay), Md. Ali Dharavi (Bombay), A. K. Azad (Bihar), Hasrat Mohani (UP), and Dr Kitchlew (Amritsar).Ibid. The president of the Central Khilafat Committee, Chhotani, refused to be nominated to the Non-co-operation Committee.
68 Stage one was to be put in operation for one month; stage two for a further month; the third and fourth stages were to be taken up simultaneously for one month, when all four would be kept in force. Ibid.
69 Hindu leaders who were at the meeting included Sapru, Chintamani, Motilal Nehru, Malaviya, Jawaharlal and Shamlal Nehru (UP), B. C. Pal (Bengal), Satyamurthi and A. Rangaswamy Iyengar (Madras), Jamnadas Dwarkadas (Bombay city), Jairamdas Doulatram (Sind), Lala Goverdhan Das, and Lala Lajpat Rai (Punjab), and Mrs Besant, representing the three major factions in the Congress, the Liberals, the Nationalists and the Theosophists. Ibid.
70 See, Punjab PCC Memorandum on the Reforms Scheme, 16 April 1920. Home Reforms Office Franchise B May 1920, 129–34, NAI.Google Scholar
71 Translation in Bombay Chronicle, 28 June 1920. The agricultural classes included the Hindu, predominantly, Jat, peasantry of the Ambala Division. Commenting on the Punjab PCC Memo on the Reforms, Chhotu Ram, President of the Rohtak DCC, wrote: ‘The whole of this (precious) document breathes a spirit of ungenerous hostility towards rural representation and indulges, to a nauseating extent, in special pleading on behalf of the commercial and urban classes.’ Chhotu Ram, High Court vakil, Rohtak, to Secretary, Home Department, Government of India. Home Reforms Office Franchise B May 1920, 129–34, NAI.Google Scholar
72 CWG, XVII, p. 521–2.Google Scholar
73 CWG, XVII, pp. 416–18.Google Scholar
74 Bombay Chronicle, 30 June 1920.Google Scholar
75 CWG, XVIII, pp. 13–14.Google Scholar
76 Navajivan, 18 July 1920, in CWG, XVIII, pp. 55–56.Google Scholar
77 Bombay Chronicle, 14 August 1920.Google Scholar
78 CWG, XVIII, pp. 104–05.Google Scholar
79 Resolution of the UP PCC, 22 August 1920. File 13 of 1920, AICC Papers, NMM.Google Scholar
80 The resolution was carried by a very narrow majority. Leader, 25 August 1920.Google Scholar
81 Resolutions of the Bengal PCC, 15 August 1920. File 13 of 1920, AICC Papers, NMM Secretary, CP PCC, to General Secretary, AICC, 28 August 1920. Ibid.
82 Secretary, Bihar PCC, to General Secretary, AICC, 9 August 1920. Ibid.
83 Secretary, Madras PCC, to General Secretary, AICC, 26 August 1920 [italics in original]. Ibid.
84 Bombay Chronicle, 14 August 1920.Google Scholar
85 For example, the influential Calcutta Daily, Amrita Bazar Patrika, told its readers that the atrocities in Punjab were a local grievance to be remedied by a local boycott of the councils in Punjab alone. See Punjab letter in Bombay Chronicle, 6 August 1920.Google Scholar
86 Home Poll D July 1920, 106, NAI.Google Scholar
87 Bombay Chronicle, 10 August 1920.Google Scholar
88 Leader, 16 July 1920 and 20 July 1920.Google Scholar
89 Joint Honorary Secretary, Bombay PCC, to General Secretary, AICC, 16 August 1920, File 13 of 1920, AICC. The Andhra PCC resolution is not in the file but see Jayakar, M. R., The Story of My Life, I (Bombay, 1958), p. 397.Google Scholar
90 The Madras ‘Khilafat Special’, for example, carried some 200 delegates to Calcutta, most of them Muslims from Bangalore, Trichinopoly and North Arcot. FR Madras, 1 September 1920. Home Poll D September 1920, 70, NAI.Google Scholar
91 Leader, 9 September 1920.Google Scholar
92 Bombay Chronicle, 6 September 1920.Google Scholar
93 Jayakar, , The Story of My Life, I, p. 393.Google Scholar
94 Bombay Chronicle, 9 September 1920.Google Scholar
95 Ibid.
96 From the Times of India correspondent, Leader, 11 September 1920.Google Scholar
97 Letter in Leader, 2 March 1923.Google Scholar
98 Bombay Chronicle, 8 September 1920. Bepin Chandra Pal's motion was lost by a similar margin of 133 for and 151 against.Google Scholar
99 File 8 of 1922. AICC Papers, NMM [my italics].Google Scholar
100 CID Notes, Annexure G, Madras Letter, 20 November 1920. Home Poll D December 1920, 48, NAI.Google Scholar
101 Madras letter, Leader, 6 August 1919.Google Scholar
102 Home Reforms Office General Franchise A May 1920, 31–43, NAI.Google Scholar
103 Bombay Chronicle, 9 September 1920.Google Scholar
104 Times of India, 11 September 1920. One delegate interpreted Lajpat's speech as a warning: “In fact, as the Lalaji remarked, what the Central Khilafat Committee had done today the Hindu Sabha might do tomorrow.” Leader, 17 September 1920.Google Scholar
105 Circular Letter to Home Rule branches, before 25 September 1920, CWG, XVIII, pp. 285–86.Google Scholar
106 CWG, XVIII, pp. 279–84; Patel's minority report, Ibid., pp. 489–92.
107 Leader, 4 and 7 October 1920; FR Bombay, 11 September 1920. Home Poll D December 1920, 84, NAI.Google Scholar
108 Amrita Bazar Patrika, 15 September 1920; Bombay Chronicle, 21 September 1920. 23 Nationalists withdrew in Bengal and 17 in Bombay.Google Scholar
109 See, for example, Broomfield, J. H., ‘The Non-cooperation Decision of 1920: A Crisis in Bengal Politics’, in Low, (ed.), Soundings, pp. 225–54.Google Scholar
110 Motilal to Jawaharlal, 19 September 1920. Nehru Papers, NMM.Google Scholar
111 Letter in Leader, 4 October 1920.Google Scholar
112 CID, Note by DCI, 11 October 1920. Home Poll D October 1920, 51, NAI.Google Scholar
113 B. R. Moonje to V. J. Patel, 5 December 1920. File 2 of 1920, AICC Papers, NMM.Google Scholar
114 Ibid. Das's letter was enclosed by Moonje in his letter to Patel.
115 Ibid.
116 Leader, 4 December 1920.Google Scholar
117 CWG, XIX (Ahmadabad, 1966), pp. 182–3.Google Scholar
118 Ibid., pp. 576–8.
119 Indian Annual Register, 1921, Part III, p. 184.Google Scholar
120 Bose, S. C., The Indian Struggle, 1920–1942 (Calcutta, 1964), p. 44.Google Scholar
121 CWG, XIX, p. 578.Google Scholar
122 Hindu, 24 May 1923 [my italics].Google Scholar
123 File 8 of 1922. AICC Papers, NMM.Google Scholar
124 Hindu, 14 June 1923.Google Scholar
125 Of 74 seats open to Hindus, of which 28 were reserved for non-Brahmins, non Brahmins secured 54 and Brahmins 20 seats. ‘Return Showing the Results of Elections in India, 1920’, Parliamentary Papers Cmd. 1261, 1921, p. lv.Google Scholar
126 The Report of the Madras PCC for 1920–21 stated clearly the difficulties of the decision. ‘The activities of the non Brahman party in this Presidency rendered the boycott of the Councils a very difficult sacrifice to make. It meant in other provinces the suffering involved in allowing an unrepresentative body of Moderates to take charge of immediate administration of several departments of Government and have the ear of bureaucracy generally. But in this province it meant the voluntary surrender of a considerable degree of power for mischief to a party which placed the interests of particular communities above the call of the country as a whole and openly opposed the most bitter sentiments against a minority which had hitherto played the most prominent part in public affairs.’ Hindu, 23 June 1921.Google Scholar
127 Kelkar, N. C., ‘The N.C.O. Resolution’, Mahratta, 19 September 1920.Google Scholar
128 Ibid.
