The withdrawal of the Non-Cooperation Movement in February 1922 resulted in Gandhiji’s arrest in March, leading to a six-year imprisonment on charges of spreading disaffection against the government. This event caused disintegration, disorganization, and demoralization within the nationalist ranks. The movement faced the risk of lapsing into passivity, prompting many to question the wisdom of the entire Gandhian strategy. In response to this impasse, a new approach to political activity emerged, aiming to sustain the spirit of resistance against colonial rule.
Genesis of Congress-Khilafat Swarajya Party
Gandhi’s arrest in March 1922 sparked a debate among Congress members about the course of action during the transitional phase. C.R. Das, Motilal Nehru, and Ajmal Khan advocated ending the boycott of legislative councils. They proposed:
- Nationalists should terminate the boycott of legislative councils, and actively participate in them;
- Reveal their nature as ‘sham parliaments’ and a ‘mask’ imposed by the bureaucracy, and deliberately disrupt ‘every work of the council.’
According to their argument, this approach wouldn’t signify abandoning non-cooperation but rather advancing it more effectively by extending resistance to the councils directly. It was seen as opening a new front in the ongoing battle. This group, known as the ‘Swarajists,’ aimed to ‘end or mend’ the councils by obstructing their functioning if the government didn’t meet nationalist demands.
Conversely, the ‘No-changers,’ led by C. Rajagopalachari, Vallabhbhai Patel, Rajendra Prasad, and M.A. Ansari opposed council entry.
- Promotion of Constructive Work: They advocated focusing on constructive work, continuing the boycott and non-cooperation, and quietly preparing for the resumption of the suspended civil disobedience program.
- Swarajists’ Defeat on Council Entry: The disagreement over council entry led to the defeat of the Swarajists’ proposal (defeated by 1748 to 890 votes) at the Gaya session of the Congress in December 1922.
- Subsequently, C.R. Das and Motilal Nehru resigned from their Congress positions.
- They formed the Congress-Khilafat Swarajya Party, or simply the Swarajist Party on 1 January 1923, with C.R. Das as president and Motilal Nehru as one of the secretaries.
- Supporters of the council entry program were commonly referred to as ‘pro-changers’.
- Those who continued to endorse the boycott of the councils were termed ‘no-changers.‘
Leadership: Swarajists (Pro-Changers) & No-Changers
Transition from Moderates to Leaders of Boycott: C.R. Das (born in 1870) and Motilal Nehru (born in 1861), both highly successful lawyers, were initially Moderates but embraced the politics of boycott and non-cooperation in 1920.
- Personal Sacrifices: They sacrificed their legal practice, became full-time activists, and donated their impressive homes in Calcutta and Allahabad to the nation. Despite their deep admiration for Gandhiji, they were also his political equals.
- Shared Secular Commitment: Brilliant and effective parliamentarians, Das and Motilal, with distinct religious beliefs—one deeply religious, the other virtually agnostic—shared a core commitment to secularism.
Their differences complemented each other, creating a legendary political partnership.
- C.R. Das, an imaginative and emotional orator, possessed the ability to influence and conciliate.
- In contrast, Motilal was firm, analytically cool, and excelled in organisation and discipline.
- Their mutual trust was so profound that either could use the other’s name for statements without prior consultation.
The no-changers, led effectively by Gandhiji despite his incarceration, advocated persisting with the comprehensive program of boycott and non-cooperation. They emphasised the efficient implementation of the constructive program and emphasised discreet preparations for the eventual resumption of the paused civil disobedience.
Differences and Common Grounds between Swarajists and No-Changers
Indeed, the national movement confronted a fundamental challenge inherent in any mass movement: How to conduct political activities during the non-active phases of the movement? The disagreement between the two sides lay in their responses to this crucial question.
Swarajists’ Arguments
The Swarajists had compelling reasons for endorsing entry into the councils:
- Continuation of The Movement: Council entry would not undermine the non-cooperation program; instead, it represented a continuation of the movement through alternative means, effectively opening a new front.
- Inspire and Maintain the Morale of the Masses: During a political vacuum, engaging in council work would inspire and maintain the morale of the masses.
- Nationalists entering the councils would act as a deterrent against the government filling them with undesirable elements to legitimise its measures.
- A platform for Political Struggle: The councils could be utilized as a platform for political struggle, with no intention of using them for the gradual transformation of colonial rule.
No-Changers’ Arguments
The No-Changers contended that engaging in parliamentary work would result in the neglect of constructive efforts, a decline in revolutionary zeal, and the potential for political corruption. They emphasised that constructive work was essential in preparing for the subsequent phase of civil disobedience.
Agree to Disagree
There was, indeed, significant common ground between the two sides:
- Strategic Pause in Civil Disobedience: Both acknowledged that immediate civil disobedience was not feasible and the realization that no mass movement could be sustained indefinitely necessitated a temporary withdrawal from the active phase of the movement.
- Rejuvenation and Strengthening of Anti-Imperialist Forces: Both recognized the importance of taking a break to rejuvenate the anti-imperialist forces, combat demoralization, enhance politicization, broaden political involvement and mobilization, fortify organization, and maintain the recruitment, training, and morale of the cadre.
- Efforts to Preserve Unity: Despite their differences, both factions sought to avoid a split akin to the one in 1907 and maintained communication with Gandhi, who was incarcerated at the time. Recognizing the importance of presenting a united front to compel the government to enact reforms through a mass movement, both sides acknowledged the necessity of Gandhi’s leadership in a unified nationalist front.
- With these considerations, a compromise was reached at a meeting in Delhi in September 1923.
Under the agreement, the Swarajists were permitted to participate in elections as a distinct group within the Congress. They aligned with the Congress program, differing only in their decision to engage in legislative councils. Elections for the newly formed Central Legislative Assembly and provincial assemblies were scheduled for November 1923.
Gandhi’s Stance
Initially opposed to the Swarajist proposal of council entry, Gandhi’s stance evolved after his release from prison on health grounds in February 1924. Several factors influenced his shift towards reconciliation with the Swarajists:
- Recognizing that public opposition to the council entry program might be counter-productive.
- Swarajist Electoral Success: In the November 1923 elections, the Swarajists secured 42 out of 141 elected seats and a clear majority in the provincial assembly of Central Provinces. Collaborating with Liberals and independents, they achieved a majority in legislatures.
- Gandhi’s Confidence in Swarajist Resistance: Witnessing the courageous and uncompromising manner in which the Swarajists operated convinced Gandhi that they wouldn’t merely become extensions of the colonial administration.
- A government crackdown on revolutionary terrorists and the Swarajists in late 1924 angered Gandhi, leading him to express solidarity by yielding to their wishes.
- Integration of Swarajists within the Congress: In 1924, an agreement was reached and endorsed at the Belgaum session of the Congress in December, where Gandhi presided over the Congress session—the only time he did so. The agreement stipulated that the Swarajists would function in the councils as an integral part of the Congress.
| Must Read | |
| Current Affairs | Editorial Analysis |
| Upsc Notes | Upsc Blogs |
| NCERT Notes | Free Main Answer Writing |
Conclusion
The emergence of the Swarajists and No-Changers marked a pivotal moment in India’s freedom struggle, highlighting the tension between active resistance and constructive work. While the Swarajists sought to challenge colonial rule from within legislative councils, the No-Changers emphasized non-cooperation and grassroots efforts. Ultimately, both factions recognized the necessity of unity and Gandhi’s leadership, resulting in a compromise that allowed for a broader, more resilient nationalist movement.
