Strategic Withdrawal in the Khilafat-Non-Cooperation Movement

As pressure mounted from the Congress rank and file, Gandhi faced increasing calls to initiate the civil disobedience program. The Ahmedabad session in 1921, presided over by C.R. Das in jail (with Hakim Ajmal Khan as the acting president), designated Gandhi as the sole authority on the issue. On February 1, 1922, from Bardoli (Gujarat), Gandhi threatened civil disobedience unless political prisoners were released, and press controls were lifted. However, the movement was abruptly halted shortly after its initiation.

The Khilafat Question 

Decline of the Khilafat Movement: The central focus of the agitation, the Khilafat question, also lost momentum. 

• In November 1922, the Turkish people, led by Mustafa Kamal Pasha, rose to power and stripped the sultan of political authority, transforming Turkey into a secular state. 

• Turkey’s Modernization and Reforms: Consequently, the Khilafat question became irrelevant. Turkey adopted a European-style legal system, granted extensive rights to women, nationalized education, and developed modern agriculture and industries. In 1924, the caliphate was abolished.

Gandhi Ji’s Reasoning

• Gandhi’s Concerns over Violence: Gandhi observed that people had not fully grasped the principles of non-violence, expressing concern that incidents like Chauri-Chaura could transform the movement into a more general and violent fervor. 
  • Recognizing the potential for the colonial regime to exploit such violence, Gandhi believed it could provide a pretext for the state to use armed force against the protestors.

• Challenges and Decline in Movement Momentum: Additionally, signs of fatigue within the movement became evident, a natural outcome as sustaining a high level of agitation for an extended period proved challenging. 
  • The government displayed no inclination for negotiations, contributing to the movement’s waning energy.

Debate over Withdrawal

Gandhi’s decision to halt the movement in response to the violence at Chauri Chaura sparked a controversy that still resonates in academic discussions and historical literature. Figures like Motilal Nehru, C.R. Das, Jawaharlal Nehru, Subhas Bose, and others expressed their profound confusion upon learning of the news. 

• They couldn’t fathom why the entire country had to bear the consequences of the erratic actions in a distant village. 
• Many believed that the Mahatma had faltered as a leader, and some thought his days of glory were numbered.
• Criticism of Gandhi’s Leadership: Subsequent commentators, following the tradition initiated by R. Palme Dutt in India Today, continued to criticize Gandhiji’s decision, interpreting it as evidence of his concern for the propertied classes in Indian society. Their argument suggests that Gandhiji didn’t suspend the movement solely due to his commitment to nonviolence but rather because the incident in Chauri Chaura symbolized and indicated the growing militancy, radicalization, and readiness of the Indian masses to challenge the existing property relations.

Gandhi and Critics

Critics of Gandhiji’s decision to withdraw from the Non-Cooperation Movement after the Chauri Chaura incident may not be entirely fair. 

• Gandhiji’s Non-Violence Strategy: Gandhiji had warned against any non-violent movement in other parts of the country while conducting civil disobedience in Bardoli. He sought to avoid violence and government repression, which could exploit such incidents to suppress the entire movement. 
• Mitigating Repression and Demoralization: The withdrawal protected the movement from likely repression and demoralization, considering the potential consequences of a sustained government crackdown.
• Critique of Radical Forces Argument: Critics suggesting that the withdrawal was driven by fear of radical forces find weak grounds for their argument. 
  • The Chauri Chaura crowd did not exhibit a radical intent but was provoked by police behaviour. 
  • Peasant unrest in Avadh and Malabar had already diminished, and movements like Eka sought specific reforms rather than radical transformation. 
  • The Guntur no-tax movement was peaceful and declining before February 1922. There is uncertainty about the actual threat from radical tendencies.
• Bardoli Resolution and Hidden Motives: The clauses in the Bardoli resolution regarding taxes, rents, and zamindars do not indicate hidden motives. 
  • The Congress consistently upheld the rights of zamindars and never sanctioned non-payment of rent during the movement. 
• Signs of Movement Fatigue: Gandhiji’s decision might also have considered signs of movement fatigue by the second half of 1921, with students returning to schools, declining attendance at meetings, and weariness among the commercial classes. 
  • While some areas, like Bardoli and Guntur, remained ready for the struggle, mass enthusiasm nationwide appeared to be receding.
• Strategic Withdrawal: Critics often overlook the inherent tendency of mass movements to ebb after reaching a certain height. Gandhiji’s decision to withdraw was a strategic move, providing breathing space for consolidation, recuperation, and gathering strength for future struggles. 
  • Withdrawal is not a betrayal but an integral part of a strategy based on the masses. 
  • The timing of the withdrawal is subject to debate, but Gandhiji likely had valid reasons to believe it was the right moment. 
  • The movement had already persisted for over a year, negotiations with the government seemed unlikely, and Chauri Chaura presented an opportunity for an honourable retreat.

Evaluation of the Khilafat Non-Cooperation Movement

Mixed Success in Getting Urban Muslims’ Support: The Khilafat Non-Cooperation Movement succeeded in involving urban Muslims in the national movement, although it simultaneously introduced a degree of communalization into national politics. 

• Confined Muslim Political Consciousness: While Muslim sentiments reflected a broader anti-imperialist sentiment, national leaders struggled to elevate Muslim political consciousness from religious to a more secular political awareness.
• Nationalist and Revolutionary Sentiments in the Masses: The Non-Cooperation Movement effectively disseminated nationalist sentiments across the entire country, politicizing diverse segments of the population—artisans, peasants, students, urban poor, women, traders, and more. This widespread politicization and activation of millions of individuals lent a revolutionary character to the national movement. 
• • Economic Critique and Mass Struggle: The colonial rule, built on the myths of its supposed benefit to Indians and invincibility, faced challenges.
    • The economic critique by Moderate nationalists had already debunked the first myth, and satyagraha, through mass struggle, confronted the second myth. 
    • Consequently, the masses shed their pervasive fear of colonial rule and its formidable repressive apparatus.

Duration of the 1920s: Era of  Various Ideological Strands 

The Indian national movement during the 1920s witnessed the emergence of various ideological strands, significantly broadening its social base. This period marked the diversification of the nationalist struggle, as different groups and leaders contributed their ideas and strategies to the movement for independence. 

The key ideological strands and their impact on the national movement in the 1920s include: 

• Gandhian ideology: Mahatma Gandhi emerged as a prominent leader during this time, advocating for non-violent civil disobedience, known as Satyagraha, and passive resistance as a means to challenge British rule. 
  • His campaigns, such as the Non-Cooperation Movement (1920-1922) and the Khilafat Movement (1919-1924), garnered support from various sections of society, including peasants, workers, and the middle class. 
  • His emphasis on swaraj (self-rule) and the use of indigenous products (swadeshi) resonated with the masses and attracted diverse groups to the national movement.
• Revolutionary nationalism: Leaders like Bhagat Singh, Chandrashekhar Azad, and their organizations, such as the Hindustan Socialist Republican Association (HSRA), advocated for armed struggle to achieve independence. 
  • Although this approach had limited mass support, it inspired the youth and generated a spirit of sacrifice and patriotism. 
• Socialism and communism: The formation of the Communist Party of India (CPI) in 1925 and the rise of socialist leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru and Subhas Chandra Bose helped address socio-economic issues and attracted workers, peasants, and intellectuals to the nationalist cause. 
• Identity-based movements: The Self-Respect Movement led by E.V. Ramasamy “Periyar” in Tamil Nadu, focused on eradicating caste-based discrimination and promoting self-respect among the lower castes.  
  • Similarly, the demand for separate electorates for Muslims led by the All-India Muslim League contributed to the communalization of Indian politics. 
• Regional nationalism: Various linguistic and cultural groups demanded greater representation and autonomy within the Indian polity. This development diversified the national movement and encouraged regional leaders to participate in the struggle for independence. 

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Khilafat-Non-Cooperation Movement of 1920-22 marked a significant chapter in India’s struggle for independence. The convergence of Hindu-Muslim unity, spurred by the Khilafat cause, and the Congress-led non-cooperation against British rule demonstrated a unique moment of solidarity. This movement not only widened the participation in the nationalist cause but also showcased the mobilization of diverse sections of society, including students, peasants, and women. The abrupt suspension of the movement after the Chauri Chaura incident sparked debates about Gandhiji’s leadership and the trajectory of non-violent resistance. The complex interplay of communal and nationalist sentiments during this movement underscores the intricate challenges faced by leaders in navigating religious and political realms. The dynamics of the Khilafat-Non-Cooperation Movement are crucial for comprehending the multifaceted nature of India’s struggle for independence and the strategic shifts within the nationalist movement.

DOWNLOAD PDF