Civil Disobedience Movement in India: Mass Participation, Round Table Conferences, and the Gandhi-Irwin Pact

The Civil Disobedience Movement marked a pivotal chapter in India’s struggle for independence, drawing diverse participation from various societal groups and provoking a complex response from the British government. This introduction explores the movement’s mobilization efforts, the extent of mass involvement, and the critical negotiations that shaped its course, including the Round Table Conferences and the Gandhi-Irwin Pact.

Forms of Mobilization

Various forms of mobilization, such as Prabhat Pheries (morning processions), Vanar Senas (monkey brigades), Manjari Senas (flower brigades), Secret Patrikas (pamphlets), and magic lantern shows, were employed to engage and rally the masses.

Extent of Mass Participation

Diverse sections of the population actively engaged in the Civil Disobedience Movement.

• Women: Salt Satyagraha served as a catalyst, marking the beginning of various forms of defiance during the Civil Disobedience Movement.
  • Boycott and Women’s Leadership: Before his arrest, Gandhiji urged a vigorous boycott of foreign cloth and liquor shops, emphasizing women’s pivotal role in this movement.
  • Resilient Participation of Women: Despite societal constraints, Indian women displayed strength and tenacity by actively participating in the movement, standing outside liquor shops, opium dens, and stores selling foreign cloth.
  • Women Breaking Purdah: Women who had previously adhered to purdah, including young mothers, widows, and unmarried girls, became a common sight, persuading customers and shopkeepers to change their consumption habits.
  • Defying Stereotypes: Gandhiji’s assertion that calling women the weaker sex is a libel resonated as Indian women showcased their strength and purpose in the 1930 movement.
  • Women’s Liberation: For Indian women, this movement marked a significant and liberating entry into the public sphere.
• Students: Students and youth played a prominent role, particularly in boycotting foreign clothes and liquor.
• Muslims: Although Muslim participation did not reach the levels seen in 1920-22 due to appeals from Muslim leaders and government encouragement of communal dissension, some areas, such as the NWFP, witnessed substantial involvement. In regions like Senhatta, Tripura, Gaibandha, Bagura, and Noakhali, middle-class Muslims actively participated. 
  • Dacca saw engagement from Muslim leaders, shopkeepers, lower-class individuals, and upper-class women. 
  • The Muslim weaving communities were also effectively mobilized.
• Merchants and Petty Traders: Enthusiastic participation was observed among merchants and petty traders, with traders’ associations and commercial bodies actively implementing boycotts, refusing the use of foreign yarn, and pledging not to manufacture competing coarse cloth, especially in Tamil Nadu and Punjab. 
• Tribals: Tribals actively participated in the movement, particularly in Central Provinces, Maharashtra, and Karnataka.
• Workers: Workers were involved in Bombay, Calcutta, Madras, and Sholapur, among other places.
• Peasants: Peasants played an active role in the United Provinces, Bihar, and Gujarat.

Government Response—Efforts for Truce

Government’s Dilemma and Erosion of Authority: Throughout 1930, the government grappled with an ambivalent attitude, facing the classic ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’ dilemma. 

• The Congress cried ‘repression’ if force was applied, and ‘victory’ if little action was taken, leading to an erosion of government power. 
• Onset of Repressive Measures: Gandhi’s arrest, after much vacillation, marked a turning point. Once repression began, ordinances restricting civil liberties were employed, including the gagging of the press. Provincial governments were given the authority to ban civil disobedience organizations, although the Congress Working Committee was not declared illegal until June. 
• Imprisonment of Satyagrahis: Lathi charges and firing on unarmed crowds resulted in casualties, and numerous satyagrahis, including Gandhi and other Congress leaders, were imprisoned.
• Impact of Government Repression: Government repression, coupled with the publication of the Simon Commission Report that lacked any mention of dominion status and was regressive in other aspects, further dismayed even moderate political opinion. In July 1930, Viceroy Lord Irwin proposed a round table conference, reiterating the goal of dominion status. 
• Irwin’s Proposal for a Round Table Conference: He also accepted the suggestion for Tej Bahadur Sapru and M.R. Jayakar to explore the potential for peace between the Congress and the government.

In August 1930, Motilal and Jawaharlal Nehru were taken to Yeravada Jail to meet Gandhi and discuss a possible settlement. During the discussions, the Nehru and Gandhi emphasized the demands for 

• The right of secession from Britain, 
• A complete national government with control over defense and finance, and 
• An independent tribunal to settle Britain’s financial claims. 

However, talks broke down at this point.

First Round Table Conference

The Round Table Conferences were initiated by the Viceroy of India, Lord Irwin, and the British Prime Minister, Ramsay MacDonald, who recognized the inadequacy of the Simon Commission report’s recommendations.

The inaugural Round Table Conference took place in London from November 1930 to January 1931, formally commencing on November 12, 1930, with King George V presiding and Ramsay MacDonald as chair.

• First Equal Engagement: This historic conference marked the first instance of British and Indian representatives engaging on equal terms. 
  • The Congress and influential business leaders declined participation, yet diverse Indian groups were well-represented.
• The delegation from Indian princely states included prominent figures such as the Maharaja of Alwar, Maharaja of Baroda, Nawab of Bhopal, Maharaja of Bikaner, Rana of Dholpur, Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir, Maharaja of Nawanagar, Maharaja of Patiala (Chancellor of the Chamber of Princes), Maharaja of Rewa, Chief Sahib of Sangli, Sir Prabhashankar Pattani (Bhavnagar), Manubhai Mehta (Baroda), Sardar Sahibzada Sultan Ahmed Khan (Gwalior), Akbar Hydari (Hyderabad), Mirza Ismail (Mysore), and Col. Kailas Narain Haksar (Jammu and Kashmir).
• The Muslim League sent a delegation led by Aga Khan III, including Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar, Muhammad Shafi, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Muhammad Zafarullah Khan, A.K. Fazlul Huq, Hafiz Ghulam Hussain Hidayat Ullah, Dr. Shafa’at Ahmad Khan, Raja Sher Muhammad Khan of Domeli, and A.H. Ghuznavi. The Hindu Mahasabha, with sympathizers B.S. Moonje, M.R. Jayakar, and Diwan Bahadur Raja Narendra Nath, were also represented.
• Other notable representatives included Sardar Ujjal Singh and Sardar Sampuran Singh for the Sikhs, Phiroze Sethna, Cowasji Jehangir, and Homi Mody for the Parsis, and Begum Jahanara Shahnawaz and Radhabai Subbarayan representing women. 
  • The Liberals had representation from J.N. Basu, Tej Bahadur Sapru, C.Y. Chintamani, V.S. Srinivasa Sastri, and Chimanlal Harilal Setalvad.
• Further representation came from B.R. Ambedkar and Rettamalai Srinivasan for the Depressed Classes, Arcot Ramasamy Mudaliar, Bhaskarrao Vithojirao Jadhav, and Sir A.P. Patro for the Justice Party, and N.M. Joshi and B. Shiva Rao for Labour. K.T. Paul represented Indian Christians, while Henry Gidney represented the Anglo-Indians, and Europeans were represented by Sir Hubert Carr, Sir Oscar de Glanville (Burma), T.F. Gavin Jones, and C.E. Wood (Madras). Additionally, there were representatives from landlords (from Bihar, the United Provinces, and Orissa), universities, Burma, Sindh, and other provinces.
• Representing the Government of India were Narendra Nath Law, Bhupendra Nath Mitra, C.P. Ramaswami Iyer, and M. Ramachandra Rao.

Outcome

• Limited Impact of Conference: Despite the efforts put into the conference, the outcomes were rather limited. While there was a broad consensus that India should evolve into a federation with safeguards for defense and finance, and the transfer of certain departments, the actual implementation of these recommendations was minimal. Consequently, civil disobedience persisted in India.
• British Government’s Acknowledgment: Recognizing the importance of the Indian National Congress’s participation, the British government acknowledged the necessity of involving them in discussions about the future of constitutional government in India.

Gandhi-Irwin Pact (Delhi Pact)

On January 25, 1931, Gandhi, along with all other members of the Congress Working Committee (CWC), was unconditionally released. The CWC empowered Gandhi to initiate discussions with the viceroy, leading to the signing of a pact between the viceroy, representing the British Indian Government, and Gandhi, representing the Indian people, in Delhi on February 14, 1931. Known as the Delhi Pact or Gandhi-Irwin Pact, it established an equal footing between the Congress and the government.

Under the pact, Irwin, on behalf of the government, agreed to:

• Immediately release all political prisoners not convicted of violence.
• Remit all fines not yet collected.
• Return all lands not yet sold to third parties.
• Provide lenient treatment to government servants who had resigned.
• Grant the right to make salt in coastal villages for personal consumption (not for sale).
• Allow peaceful and non-aggressive picketing.
• Withdrawal of  emergency ordinances promulgated in connection with the Civil Disobedience Movement

However, the viceroy rejected two of Gandhi’s demands, which were as follows:

• Public inquiry into police excesses.
• Commutation of Bhagat Singh and his comrades’ death sentence to life imprisonment.

On behalf of the Congress, Gandhi agreed to:

• Suspend the civil disobedience movement.
• Participate in the Second Round Table Conference, addressing the constitutional question focusing on federation, Indian responsibility, and reservations and safeguards necessary in India’s interests, covering areas such as defense, external affairs, the position of minorities, financial credit of India, and discharge of other obligations.

Conclusion

The Civil Disobedience Movement was a defining moment in India’s quest for independence, characterized by widespread participation across diverse societal groups and a complex interplay with the British government. Despite the intense repression and initial failed negotiations, the movement underscored India’s growing resolve for self-governance. The Gandhi-Irwin Pact, while a strategic compromise, set the stage for continued dialogue, marking a crucial step toward India’s eventual independence.

DOWNLOAD PDF