Sambhav-2023

Answer 1

Approach

• Introduce the various pan-India and smaller movements initiated for the freedom struggle.
• Discuss how the pan-India movement was not very successful like the smaller movements or regional protests.
• Conclude suitably.

Introduction

• Unlike smaller movements or regional protests, like swadeshi, Champaran, Ahamedabad and Kheda, the initial pan-India movements (NCM, Home Rule movement, Rowlatt Satyagrah) against British policies in the early 20th century were not successful in achieving immediate objectives.
• However, these movements did bring about some changes and raised awareness about the issues faced by the people of India. In contrast, smaller movements and protests that were focused on specific issues and were more localized in their scope often had more success in bringing about change and achieving their goals.

Body

The Little success of the pan-India movement:

• Non-Cooperation Movement and Khilafat Andolan: It was started to redress of grievances of Punjab and Khilafat wrongs and to achieve swaraj.
  • The movement was brought to end due to a violent Chauri-Chaura accident. Apart from socio-organisational and political education to people of India, movement failed to achieve any political gain from the britishers.
• Satyagraha against the Rowlatt Act: Gandhiji called the Rowlatt Act the “Black Act” and called for a mass protest at all-India level and organized Satyagraha Sabha, on April 6, 1919, and roped in younger members of Home Rule Leagues and the Pan Islamists.
  • Gandhi was overwhelmed by the atmosphere of total violence at Jallianwala and withdrew the movement on April 18, 1919. This movement also had not achieve for which it had aspired.
• The Home Rule Leagues movement: The movement was not a mass movement. It was restricted to educated people and college students.
  • Annie Besant kept oscillating between being satisfied with the government talk of reforms and pushing the home rule movement forward. She was not able to provide firm leadership to her followers. Although ultimately, she did call the reforms ‘unworthy of Indian acceptance’.
  • In September 1918, Tilak went to England to pursue a libel case against Sir Ignatius Valentine Chirol, British journalist and author of the book ‘Indian Unrest’.
  • The movement then faded out soon.

The success of the small-scale movement:

• The Swadeshi and Boycott Movement: It brought the changes like:
  • Boycott of Foreign Goods (it reduce revenue of imported goods)
  • Public Meetings and Processions
  • Corps of Volunteers or ‘Samitis’
  • Imaginative use of Traditional Popular Festivals and Melas
  • Emphasis Given to Self-Reliance
  • Programme of Swadeshi or National Education
• Champaran Satyagraha (1917) — First Civil Disobedience: Gandhi ji was able to convince the authorities to abolish tinkathia system and peasants to be compensated for the illegal dues extracted from them.
• Ahmedabad Mill Strike (1918) — First Hunger Strike: There was dispute between cotton mill owners of Ahmedabad and the workers over the issue of discontinuation of the plague bonus.
  • Finally, mill owners agreed to submit the issue to a tribunal and workers got a 35 per cent wage hike.
• Kheda Satyagraha (1918) — First Non-Cooperation: Farmers of Kheda district of Gujarat, had demanded remission of tax due to the failure of crops.
  • Ultimately, the government sought to bring about an agreement with the farmers and agreed to suspend the tax for the year in question, and for the next; reduce the increase in rate; and return all the confiscated property.

Conclusion

• The movement may have faced internal divisions and disagreements over tactics and goals, which hindered its effectiveness. Despite these challenges, the pan-India movement laid the groundwork for future struggles and ultimately contributed to the eventual independence of India.
• Prima facia it seems that the pan-India movement had little success, but they had also contributed a great effort to the national freedom struggle by mobilizing masses, creating a sense of identity and nationalism, bringing socio-political and economic awareness.

Answer 2

Approach

• Define the ‘carrot and stick’ policy used by British in Colonial India.
• Discuss the impact of British’s polity of ‘carrot and stick’ on Indian freedom struggle.
• Conclude suitably.

Introduction

• During the Indian freedom struggle, the British government used a policy of "carrot and stick" in an attempt to suppress the movement and maintain control over India. This policy involved offering incentives or rewards (the "carrots") to those who cooperated with British rule, while also using threats, punishment, and force (the "sticks") against those who resisted or opposed British rule.

Body

Revolt of 1857 and aftermath:

The revolt of 1857 marks a turning point in the history of India. It led to far-reaching changes in the system of administration and the policies of the British government.

• Carrot: British Parliament passed an act for the Better Government of India and declared Queen Victoria as the sovereign of British India and Company rule was abolished.
  • Many of the promises made in that proclamation appeared to be of a positive nature to the Indians like the era of annexations and expansion had ended and the British promised to respect the dignity and rights of the native princes, the people of India were promised freedom of religion without interference from British officials and equal and impartial protection under law to all Indians, besides equal opportunities in government services irrespective of race or creed.
• Sticks: The reduced the number of Indian soldiers in British army, use of the concept of divide and rule was adopted, separate units being created on the basis of caste/community/region.
  • All Indian artillery units, except a few mountain batteries, were made defunct. All higher posts in the army and the artillery departments were reserved for the Europeans. Till the first decade of the 20th century, no Indian was thought fit to deserve the king’s commission.
  • The policy of divide and rule started in earnest after the Revolt of 1857. The British used one class/community against another unscrupulously, a period of systematic economic loot by the British began.

Formation of INC: The British Indian Government was hostile to the Congress from the beginning despite the latter’s moderate methods and emphasis on loyalty to the British Crown.

• Stick: The officials encouraged reactionary elements like Sir Syed Ahmed Khan and Raja Shiv Prasad Singh of Benaras to organise the United Indian Patriotic Association to counter Congress propaganda.
• The government also tried to divide the nationalists on the basis of religion, and, through a policy of ‘carrot and stick’, pitted the Moderates against the Extremists. But the government failed to check the rising tide of nationalism.

The Surat Split: It was a dividend of the policy of ‘carrot and stick’ used by govt against moderates and extremist fraction of the Indian National Congress.

• Carrot: Morley-Minto Reforms of 1909 or the Indian Councils Act of 1909 was a carrot for the moderate leaders of the Indian National Congress to indicates that the Moderates were to be placated through some concessions, and hints were to be dropped that more reforms would be forthcoming if the distance from the Extremists was maintained.
  • This was aimed at isolating the Extremists by taking the Moderates on its side, the government could suppress the Extremists with its full might by using various sticks like
• Stick: Several repressive laws were passed like: Newspaper (Incitement to Offences) Act, 1908 against Extremist nationalist activity, Tilak as the leader of militant nationalists was tried on charges of sedition and transported to Mandalay (Burma) for six years.
  • Indian Press Act, 1910 revived the worst features of the vernacular Press Act (VPA) and controlled press activities.
• Unfortunately, neither the Moderates nor the Extremists understood the purpose behind the strategy. The Surat split suggested that the policy of carrot and stick had brought rich dividends to the British India government.

1919: By Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms and Government of India Act, 1919 by which British government, not prepared to part with or even share its power with the Indians, and again resorted to the policy of ‘carrot and stick’.

• The carrot was represented by the insubstantial Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms, while measures such as the Rowlatt Act represented the stick.
  • Although the GoI Act of 1919 brought several changes but with very limited Franchise, without responsibility of viceroy and his executive council made this act is just like a carrot with no taste.
• On the other hand, the statutes like Rowlatt Act, officially called the Anarchical and Revolutionary Crimes Act, which allowed political activists to be tried without juries or even imprisoned without trial, works as a stick for the nationalist leaders.

Conclusion

Overall, the "carrot and stick" policy was used as a way for the British government to try to maintain control over India and suppress the freedom struggle, rather than addressing the legitimate grievances of the Indian people and working towards a peaceful resolution to the conflict.