Emergence Swarajist and No-changers Debate
- Withdrawal of NCM and the arrest of Gandhiji resulted in a phase of disintegration, disorientation and demoralisation in nationalist politics. This passive phase created debate among leaders about the next course of action to follow. Those who advocated ending the boycott of legislative councils came to be known as Pro-changers or Swarajists and those who supported the boycott of councils were known as No-changers.
- Swarajists (Pro-changers) included- C.R. Das, Motilal Nehru, Ajmal Khan
- Swarajists (No-changers) included- C. Rajagopalachari, Vallabhbhai Patel, Rajendra Prasad and M.A. Ansari
- Opposing views regarding council entry led to the defeat of ‘ending or mending’ the council resolution of Swarajists at Gaya session of Congress in 1922 (President- C.R. Das).
- At Gaya session, the Congress-khilafat Swaraj Party came into being with C.R. Das as president and Motilal Nehru as one of the secretaries.
Arguments put forward by Pro-Changers and No-changers
| Pro-changers | No-changers |
|---|---|
| They advocated for council entry to expose the weakness of these assemblies. | They argued that the passive phase should be utilised for constructive work. |
| During the passive phase, council entry would keep the enthusiasm and morale of the masses high. | They opposed council entry which was against the Gandhian principle of Non-cooperation. |
| End or mend these councils by adopting an obstructionist approach if the demands of nationalists are not responded to. This would make non-cooperation more effective. | Continuation of a full program of boycotts would prepare the masses for the next phase, civil disobedience. |
| Nationalists in the council would deter the government from stuffing councils with undesirable elements.Use assemblies as a new arena of political struggle. | Parliamentary work would negate constructive work and would lead to revolutionary zeal and political corruption. |
Common grounds between Pro-changers and No-changers
- United front under the leadership of Gandhi was significant in opposing colonial rule.
- Therefore, to avoid the 1907- type split a compromise was reached in Delhi in 1923.
- It was decided that Swarajists would contest elections as a group within the congress and Swarajist accepted the program of congress with one exception of entering the legislative councils.
Analysis of Swarajists work in Councils
| Working and achievements | Limitations and decline |
|---|---|
| With a coalition, they formed a majority and voted out the government in matters like- budgetary grants. | A coalition of leaders of diverse & varied political outlooks created a divide along communal line. |
| Three major demands were strongly raised- Constitutional demand for self-rule, civil liberties and release of political prisoners and revival of indigenous industries. | By 1924, communal interests entered and a rift was created among- Responsivists and Non-responsivists.Responsivists included- Lala Lajpat Rai, Madan Mohan Malviya and N.C. Kelkar. |
| In 1925, Vithalbhai Patel was elected as speaker of the Central Legislative assembly. | They cooperated with the government & focused on Hindu interests.Non-responsivists included leaders like Motilal Nehru. |
| Excellent contribution was made in the field of education, sanitation and khadi promotion. | In 1926, they moved towards mass civil disobedience and withdrew from the legislature.In the 1926 elections, other sections did not do well and the party fell into disarray. |
| Defeat of Public Safety bill and exposure of the 1919 Act was their noteworthy achievements. | Swaraj Party came to be seen as anti-Muslims as they failed to support tenants (mainly Muslims) cause against Zamindars (mainly upper caste Hindus). |
| Their work in the council filled the political vacuum during the passive phase. | Swarajists’ obstructionist policy lacked a strategy to connect the masses about their working in the council. Finally, in 1930, Swarajists gave up on Council Entry after the Lahore Congress resolution of Purna Swaraj. |
Contribution of No-Changers- Analysis
| Constructive work | Limitations |
| They carried on laborious and non-demonstrative work at the grassroots level. Ex: National education & Hindu-Muslim unity promotion; coming up of ashrams promoting khadi & spinning, a boycott of foreign cloth etc.This resulted in bringing relief to poor Adivasis, and lower castes & their mobilisation for a united struggle. Urban upper castes cadres were made familiar with the condition of villages, thus making them reach those untouched by politics. Continuous & effective work during the passive phase gave new hope to the rural masses. National schools and colleges gave the younger generation exposure to non-colonial ideological frameworks. Constructive workers were to act as the steel frame of national movement during its active phase. Ex.: Gandhi ashrams’ inmates during CDM. | National education benefited mostly the urban-upper castes and classes. Job prospects from colonial schools and colleges kept the enthusiasm for National education limited.Foreign clothes were cheaper than khadi and thus its promotion became difficult. While the social aspect of untouchability was emphasised, the economic grievances of lower castes and poor peasants were not touched. |
