The First Stage Debate: Indian Nationalist Strategies After the Civil Disobedience Movement (1934-35)

A significant deliberation on strategy unfolded among nationalists after the conclusion of the Civil Disobedience Movement. This debate comprised two stages regarding the future course of the nationalist movement. The initial stage centered on determining the direction of the national movement in the immediate future, particularly during the phase of non-mass struggle spanning 1934-35. The second stage, occurring in 1937, revolved around the issue of office acceptance within the context of provincial elections conducted under the autonomy provisions outlined in the Government of India Act, of 1935.

The First Stage Debate

Three perspectives emerged regarding the immediate course of action for nationalists after the conclusion of the Civil Disobedience Movement. The first two perspectives reflected traditional responses, while the third marked the ascent of a robust leftist trend within the Congress. These perspectives were outlined as follows:

• Constructive Work on Gandhian Lines: The first perspective advocated engaging in constructive work aligned with Gandhian principles. 
  • Gandhiji asserted that engaging in constructive work would not only strengthen the people’s power but also pave the path for mobilizing millions in the subsequent phase of mass struggle.
• Constitutional Struggle and Participation in Elections: The second perspective, endorsed by figures like M.A. Ansari, Asaf Ali, Bhulabhai Desai, S. Satyamurthy, and B.C. Roy proposed a constitutional struggle and participation in the Central Legislature elections scheduled for 1934. Their arguments included:
  • Utilizing elections and council work during a period of political apathy to sustain political interest and morale.
  • Emphasizing that participation in elections did not imply faith in constitutional politics.
  • Building another political front to strengthen Congress and prepare the masses for subsequent phases.
  • Asserting that a strong presence in councils would confer prestige and confidence to Congress, serving as an equivalent to the movement.
• Leftist Trend Critical of Constructive Work and Council Entry: The third perspective, aligned with a strong leftist trend within the Congress led by Nehru, criticized both constructive work and council entry. 
  • This faction argued that such approaches would divert attention from the main issue of the struggle against colonialism and sideline political mass action. 
  • Instead, they favored the resumption and continuation of a non-constitutionalist mass struggle, considering the situation still revolutionary due to the ongoing economic crisis and the readiness of the masses to engage in the fight.

Nehru Vision

Embracing the foundational analytical framework of Marxism, Nehru articulated the Left paradigm through speeches, letters, articles, and his Presidential addresses to the Lucknow and Faizpur sessions of the Congress in 1936. 

• Establishment of Socialism: He posited that the primary objective for the Indian people, and humanity at large, should be the eradication of capitalism and the establishment of socialism. 
  • While we have explored the pragmatic dimension of Nehru’s challenge, it is crucial to comprehend two additional facets. 
• Spiritual Defeat: According to Nehru, the abandonment of the Civil Disobedience Movement, council entry, and the shift to constructive programs signified a ‘spiritual defeat,‘ a compromise of ideals, a regression from revolutionary to reformist ideals, and a return to the pre-1919 moderate phase. 
  • Furthermore, it appeared that the Congress was forsaking social radicalism and displaying a “tender solicitude for every vested interest.”

Nehru expressed that numerous Congress leaders exhibited a preference for causing emotional distress rather than impacting financial interests. 

• He emphasized the elevated value and cherished nature of pockets over hearts, brains, bodies, and the principles of human justice and dignity. This sentiment indicated a profound disconnect from Gandhi. 
• Nehru’s Message From Prison: In his jail diary entry in April 1934, Nehru conveyed a sense of complete alienation, stating, “Our objectives diverge, our ideals vary, our spiritual perspectives differ, and our approaches are likely to take distinct paths.”

In lieu of these perceived setbacks, Nehru proposed a reassessment of vested interests in favor of the masses. 

• He advocated addressing the economic and class demands of peasants, workers, landlords, and capitalists. 
• Nehru envisioned mobilizing the masses through their class organizations, such as kisan sabhas and trade unions. 
• According to his perspective, these class organizations should be allowed to align with Congress, influencing its policies and activities. 
• Nehru’s Opposition To Imperialism: Nehru contended that a genuine anti-imperialist struggle necessitated the incorporation of the class struggle of the masses, emphasizing the interconnectedness of socioeconomic issues with the broader fight against imperialism.

Over these years, Nehru consistently highlighted the shortcomings of the prevailing nationalist ideology. He emphasized the imperative to instil a new, socialist or Marxist ideology that would empower people to scientifically examine their social condition. Published in 1935, several chapters of his Autobiography constituted an ideological polemic against Gandhi, albeit delivered in a friendly tone.

Nehru’s Opposition to Struggle-Truce-Struggle Strategy

A significant faction within the Congress, led by Gandhi, endorsed the notion that a phase of mass movement (struggle phase) should be succeeded by a period of respite (truce phase) before embarking on the next mass struggle. 

• The truce interval was perceived as an opportunity for the masses to recover their strength and for the government to potentially address nationalist demands. 
• Struggle-truce-struggle (S-T-S) strategy: Advocates of this approach argued that sustained sacrifices from the masses couldn’t be perpetual. If the government failed to respond positively, the movement could be reignited with renewed mass participation. This strategy was known as the struggle-truce-struggle (S-T-S) strategy.

Nehru, critiquing the S-T-S strategy, contended that the Indian national movement had entered a stage, post the Lahore Congress’s call for the Purna Swaraj program, demanding continuous confrontation and conflict with imperialism until its overthrow. 

• Continuous Direct Action: He proposed the adoption of a “continuous direct action” policy by Congress without the insertion of a constitutionalist phase. 
• Struggle-Victory (S-V) Strategy: According to Nehru, real power couldn’t be secured through meager concessions (Real power could not be won gradually ‘bit by bit’ or by ‘two annas and four annas.’ 
  • The citadel — State power — had to be seized). Instead of endorsing an S-T-S strategy, he put forth a Struggle-Victory (S-V) strategy.

Finally, Yes to Council Entry

Anticipating a potential split in the Congress along Surat lines, nationalists were anxious, while British officials harbored hope. However, Gandhi adopted a conciliatory approach toward proponents of council entry by agreeing to their fundamental demand for permission to enter legislatures. 

• Entry to Council: He clarified that while parliamentary politics might not lead to freedom, those Congress members unable to engage in satyagraha or constructive work should not remain idle and could channel their patriotic energies through council work, provided they avoided constitutionalism or self-interest. 
• Assuring the leftists, Gandhi emphasized that the withdrawal of the Civil Disobedience Movement did not signify submission to opportunists or compromise with imperialism.

In May 1934, the All India Congress Committee (AICC) convened in Patna to establish a Parliamentary Board for contesting elections under the Congress’s auspices. 

Guided by Gandhiji, the AICC meeting in Patna, in May 1934, resolved to establish a parliamentary board for elections under the Congress banner. Addressing Left-wing critics, Gandhiji emphasized the importance of avoiding the allurements of council work, stating, “Swaraj will never come that way.” 

• Gandhiji Explained to Nehru and Leftists: He clarified to Nehru and the leftists that the end of civil disobedience, responded to political realities, not drift or compromise.  
  • Only civil disobedience had been discontinued, and the war continued. 
• Gandhiji’s Support to Nehru: The new policy aimed at consolidating people’s power for peaceful action. 
  • Gandhiji, despite pressure, strongly supported Nehru’s presidency at the Lucknow Congress, 1936, affirming his knack for understanding the needs of the time.

Recognizing his discord with prevailing trends in the Congress, Gandhi understood that a considerable segment of the intelligentsia favored parliamentary politics, which fundamentally misaligned with his views. Another faction, estranged due to Gandhi’s emphasis on the “spinning wheel”, and the socialists led by Nehru, who believed in expelling the British before pursuing socialism, posed challenges. 

In October 1934, Gandhi resigned from the Congress to serve it more effectively in thought, word, and deed. Nehru and the socialists advocated gradual radicalization of the Congress in the anti-imperialist struggle, considering it the primary mass organization against imperialism. In the November 1934 elections to the Central Legislative Assembly, the Congress secured 45 out of 75 seats reserved for Indians.

Conclusion

While the Government effectively suppressed the mass movement in 1932-33, it recognized that suppression was a temporary solution. To prevent the resurgence of a potent movement, a more lasting strategy was required. This involved the internal division of the Congress and the integration of significant segments into the colonial constitutional and administrative framework. Colonial policymakers determined that after a phase of overt suppression, another phase of constitutional reforms should follow to achieve a more enduring weakening of the nationalist movement.

DOWNLOAD PDF