Dr Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law

University

History II
TOPIC: ROLE OF SWARAJISTS IN INDIAN FREEDOM
STRUGGLE

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

DR. VANDANA SINGH TANURAG GHOSH
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR 180101147
HISTORY B.A.LL.B(Hons.)
TABLE OF CONTENTS

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
 INTRODUCTION TO CONCEPT
 POLITICAL SCENARIO
 ORIGIN OF SWARAJ PARTY
 TYPES OF SWARAJ
 PURPOSE
 SUMMARY
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I wish to express my sincere gratitude to my History Professor Dr Vandana Singh who

provided me with the knowledge and information which made this project possible.
Through this project, I gained insight on how to approach researching and
understanding law and putting my interpretations said law on paper. I would also like
to thank the library staff, my batchmates and my seniors who guided me through the
making of the project and motivated and encouraged me throughout this project without
which I could not have attempted this project.

Tanurag Ghosh
INTRODUCTION TO CONCEPT

SWARAJ AS ‘SELF RULE’

Swaraj has historically been used synonymously with the concept of ‘self rule’
but while the latter is more of a theoretical idea the former is a way of governance
closely linked with politics. The term was first used by Maharishi Dayanand and
later popularized by Mahatma Gandhi during the freedom struggle.
The call for swaraj represents a genuine attempt to regain control of the 'self' - our
self-respect, self-responsibility, and capacities for self-realization - from
institutions of dehumanization.

DEFINITION

“We measure the universe by our own miserable foot-rule. When we are slaves,
we think that the whole universe is enslaved. Because we are in an abject
condition, we think that the whole of India is in that condition. As a matter of
fact, it is not so, yet it is as well to impute our slavery to the whole of India. But if
we bear in mind the above fact, we can see that if we become free, India is free.
And in this thought you have a definition of Swaraj. It is Swaraj when we learn to
rule ourselves.”

CONNOTATIONS
Gandhi wanted all those who believed in swaraj:
(1) to reject and wholly uproot the British raj (rule) from within themselves and their
communities; and,
(2) to regenerate new reference points, systems, and structures that enable individual
and collective self-development. This regeneration was to grow from the strengths,
perspectives, wisdom and experiences of people living in village India, rather than
from cities in Britain, America, and even in India for that matter. Understanding the
real 'Self', and its relation to communities and society, is critical to the project of
attaining swaraj.
POLITICAL SCENARIO

The young Indian nationalists began gradually to turn to socialism and to advocate
radical solutions for the political, economic and social ills from which the country was
suffering. They also put forward and popularized the programme of complete
independence. Socialist and Communist groups came into existence in the 1920s.

The example of the Russian Revolution had aroused interest among many young
nationalists. Many of them were dissatisfied with Gandhian political ideas and
programmes and turned to socialist ideology for guidance. M.N. Roy became the first
Indian to be elected to the leadership of the Communist International.

Another reflection of the new mood was the growing activity of the revolutionary
movement which too was beginning to take a socialist turn. The failure of the First
Non-Cooperation Movement had led to the revival of the revolutionary movement.
After an All India Conference, the Hindustan Republican Association was founded in
October 1924 to organise an armed revolution.
The national revolutionary movement soon abated though stray activities were carried
on for several years more. Chandra Shekhar Azad was killed in a shooting encounter
with the police in a public park, later renamed Azad Park, at Allahabad in February
1931.
Surya Sen was arrested in February 1933 and hanged soon after. Hundreds of other
revolutionaries were arrested and sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment, some
being sent to the Cellular Jail in the Andaman’s.
Thus a new political situation was beginning to arise by the end of the twenties.
Writing of these years, Lord Irwin, the Viceroy, recalled later that “some new force
was working of which even those, whose knowledge of India went back for 20 or 30
years, had not yet learnt the full significance.”
The government was determined to suppress this new trend. As we have seen, the
revolutionaries were suppressed with ferocity. The growing trade union movement
and the communist movement were dealt with in the same manner.
In March 1929, thirty-one prominent trade union and communist leaders (including
three Englishmen) were arrested and, after a trial (Meerut Conspiracy Case) lasting
four years, sentenced to long periods of imprisonment.

These changes paved the way for the coming up of the Swaraj Party.

ORIGIN OF SWARAJ PARTY

Swaraj Party, Indian political party established in late 1922–early 1923 by members
of the Indian National Congress (Congress Party), notably Motilal Nehru, one of the
most prominent lawyers in northern India (and the father of political leader Jawaharlal
Nehru), and Chitta Ranjan Das, a nationalist politician from Bengal. The party’s name
is taken from the term swaraj, meaning “self-rule,” which was broadly applied to the
movement to gain independence from British rule.

The sudden withdrawal of the Non Cooperation Movement left congress with no other
such programmes. There was an impatient section of the leaders in Congress whose
expectations were wrapped up in the coming up elections in India in 1923, so that
they enter into the legislatures and bring “change”. The legislatures and bring
“change”. These elections had to be conducted as per the provisions of the
Government of India Act 1919.

These leaders were Moti Lal Nehru, N C Kelkar and CR Das. They linked up with
some Khilafat leaders such as Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy and some other leaders
such as Subhash Chandra Bose and Vithalbai Patel were known as Pro changers.

But most of the leaders of the congress had now left the business of agitation for a
while and started uplifting the poor people by teaching them how to use Charkha,
denouncing untouchability, making non violence and Gandhian methods popular.
These were called no changers.

The Gaya session of Congress was organized in 1922, which was led by CR Das who
was leading the Pro Changers. The no changers leader was C. Rajagopalachari. The
outcome of this session was that once again these leaders got divided.

CR Das resigned from the presidentship of the congress and along with Moti Lal
Nehru launched their own political party which was the Swaraj Party.

They got absolute majority in some provinces, whereas in others their role was quite
crucial. In February 1928 the Swarajists got a resolution passed in the Central
Assembly by which they demanded that in India full responsible government should
be immediately set up.

One can very well imagine the strains and stresses under which a system will be,
when a very powerful and effective section of legislative body, having public support
is determined to wreck that very system from within. Really it was a difficult and
gigantic task for those who wanted to maintain that. As a result of their efforts
Muddiman (Reform’s Enquiry Committee) was set up in 1924.

The Committee had official majority, but its report was not unanimous. When the
report was placed before Central Assembly for its consideration the Swarajists
embarrassed the government by getting a resolution passed with thumping majority
that constitutional scheme as provided in the committee report was unworkable.

As the time, however, passed it was found that the policy of obstruction and wrecking
the Assembly from within was not paying dividends in the words of S.C. Bose, “From
the middle of 1925 onwards, there was gradual watering down of the original
Swarajists policy of unlimited opposition.”

By the end of 1926 the wreckers had lost much of their fire. The number of those even
among the party bosses who advocated policy of uniform and continuous and
consistent obstruction against the government was very less.

The change in attitude of Swarajist party gave lease of life to the system though not
much and it appeared that for some time the system might be given some trial. At the
same time some Indians also got an opportunity to expose the infirmities of British
government and their autocratic attitude while governing and dealing with the people
of India.

Both sides wanted to avoid a 1907 type split and realised the significance of putting
up a united front to get a mass movement to force the Government to introduce
reforms. Both sides also accepted the necessity of Gandhi’s leadership of a united
nationalist front. Keeping these factors in mind, a compromise was reached at a
meeting in Delhi in September 1923.
The Swarajists were allowed to contest elections as a group within the Congress.
The Swarajists accepted the Congress programme with only one difference—that they
would join legislative councils.

TYPES OF SWARAJ

HIND SWARAJ OR THE GANDHIAN IDEA OF SWARAJ

The concept of Hind swaraj was discussed by Gandhi in his book of the same name.
Gandhi's Hind Swaraj is primarily known for its trenchant critique of modern
civilization.
In Hind Swaraj he also dwells on the condition of India as it has developed under the
British rule and tutelage. He makes a basic formulation that under the impact of the
British rule India is turning into an 'irreligious' country. He hastens to add that he is
not thinking of any particular religion, but rather of that Religion which underlies all
religions. We are turning away from God, he adds. He likens modem civilization to a
'mouse' 'gnawing' our people while apparently soothing them. Then he turns his moral
gaze to some of major developments like railways and the emergence of new elite like
lawyers and doctors.

All these developments, he asserts, have only led to the impoverishment of the India.
According to him railways have helped the British to tighten their grip over India.
Besides, they have been also responsible for 'famines', epidemics and other problems
for the country. He counters the argument that railways have contributed to the
growth of Indian nationalism by saying that India had been a nation much before the
British arrived.
In chapter XI of Hind Swaraj he argues that lawyers have contributed more to the
degradation of India. Besides, they have accentuated the Hindu-Muslim dissensions,
helped the British to consolidate their position and have sucked the blood of the poor
of India. In the next chapter he describes how doctors have failed the Indian society.
In his opinion, doctors have been primarily responsible for making the people 'self-
indulgent' and taking less care of their bodies.

He concludes his critique of modern civilization by comparing it to an Upas tree, a

poisonous plant which destroys all life around it.

In another chapter of the Hind Swaraj he examines the English educational system
introduced in India and describes it as 'false education'. For him the basic aim of
education should be to bring our senses under our control and to help imbibe ethical
behaviour in our life. He attacks the newly emerged elite, a by-product of the
Macaulay system of education, as they have enslaved India.

Swaraj and the method to attain it was the main concern of the Hind Swaraj. In
chapter IV of Hind Swaraj he puts forward a basic formulation that mere transfer of
power from British hands to Indian hands would not lead to true swaraj. He adds that
would be nothing more than having 'English rule without Englishmen'. In that case, he
argues, India may be called 'Hindustan' but actually it would remain 'Englistan'.
Hence it would not be swaraj of his conception. And in chapter XIV (How Can India
Become Free?) he tries to define true swaraj by saying that if we (individuals) became
free, India would be free.

It is in the same vain that he opines that 'it is swaraj when we learn to rule ourselves!
Such a swaraj, he further adds, would have to be experienced by each one of us.
Gandhi also uses the term swaraj for home-rule or self-government for the Indian
people. But he makes it clear that there is a symbiotic relationship between swaraj as
'self- rule' of individual Indians and swaraj as the home-rule or self- government for
the Indian people.

In other words, home-rule that Indian people would achieve would be true only to the
extent they are successful in being 'self ruling' individuals. In the chapter XV. Gandhi
puts forward the thesis that the real challenge is to free millions of our people and not
simply to change the government. How could it be achieved? Not by the use of arms
and violence. This is for two reasons, he adds. One, any resort to violent rebellion
would require thousands of Indians being armed which in itself is too much of a tall
order. Two, more importantly, if India resorts to arms, the 'holy land' of India would
became 'unholy'.

In the process, India would become a land worse than Europe. He vehemently rejects
the use of brute force for attaining swaraj for India. He introduces new arguments for
such rejection.
One, there is a close relationship between the means and the end. Thus he rejects the
basic formulations of Indian revolutionaries that India could be freed only by violent
means both on moral and ethical grounds. Besides, he also rejects the Moderates' view
that Indians could be freed by mere supplication and petitioning.

Unless backed by effective sanctions that would be an exercise in futility. Hence India
would require passive resistance, based on 'love-force' or 'soul-force' to move forward
on the road to Swaraj. In chapter XVII he elaborately dwells on the concept of passive
resistance, albeit Satyagraha.

He explains the concept of passive resistance as a method of securing rights by going

through 'personal sufferings'. Here by implications he justifies the use of soul force on
the basis of the concept of 'relative truth'. He further argues that passive resistance is
not a 'weapon of the weak'. Rather it is a weapon of the strong.

He concludes the entire discussion by saying that real home rule is possible only
through passive resistance. But he also hastens to add that a true passive resistor will
have to observe 'perfect chastity' adopt 'voluntary poverty' 'follow truth' and 'cultivate
fearlessness'.

POORNA SWARAJ
The Purna Swaraj declaration, or Declaration of the Independence of India, was
promulgated by the Indian National Congress on 19 December 1929, resolving the
Congress and Indian nationalists to fight for Purna Swaraj, or complete self-rule
independent of the British Empire.

The flag of India was hoisted by Jawaharlal Nehru on 31 December 1929 on the
banks of river Ravi, in Lahore, modern-day Pakistan. The Congress asked the people
of India to observe 26th of January as Independence Day. The flag of India was
hoisted publicly across India by Congress volunteers, nationalists and the public.

Before 1930, Indian political parties had openly embraced the goal of political
independence from the United Kingdom. The All India Home Rule League had been
advocating Home Rule for India: dominion status within the British Empire, as
granted to Australia, Canada, the Irish Free State, Newfoundland, New Zealand, and
South Africa. The All India Muslim League favoured dominion status as well, and
opposed calls for outright Indian independence. The Indian Liberal Party, by far the
most pro-British party, explicitly opposed India's independence and even dominion
status if it weakened India's links with the British Empire. The Indian National
Congress, the largest Indian political party of the time, was at the head of the national
debate. Congress leader and famous poet Hasrat Mohani was the first activist to
demand complete independence (Poorna Swaraj) from the British in 1921 from an
All-India Congress Forum. Veteran Congress leaders such as Bal Gangadhar Tilak,
Aurobindo and Bipin Chandra Pal had also advocated explicit Indian independence
from the Empire.
Following the 1919 Amritsar Massacre, there was considerable public outrage against
British rule. Europeans, (civilians and officials) were targets and victims of violence
across India. In 1920, Gandhi and the Congress committed themselves to Swaraj,
described as political and spiritual independence. At the time, Gandhi described this
as the basic demand of all Indians; he specifically said that the question of whether
India would remain within the Empire or leave it completely would be answered by
the behaviour and response of the British. Between 1920 and 1922, Mahatma Gandhi
led the Non-Cooperation movement: nationwide civil disobedience to oppose the
Rowlatt Acts and the exclusion of Indians from the government, and the denial of
political and civil freedoms.

In 1929, Lord Irwin, the then Viceroy of India, made a vague announcement –
referred to as the Irwin Declaration - that India would be granted dominion status in
the future. Indian leaders welcomed the announcement; they had been making the
demand for dominion status for a long time. They now wanted all further negotiations
with the British to focus on the formalization of dominion status for India.

The Irwin Declaration triggered a backlash in England: politicians and the general
public were not in favour of India obtaining dominion status. Under pressure, Lord
Irwin, at a meeting with Jinnah, Nehru, Gandhi and Sapru, told the Indian leaders that
he could not promise dominion status anytime soon. The Indian National Congress
now changed its stance: it gave up demands for dominion status and instead, at its
Lahore Session in 1929, passed the ‘Purna Swaraj’ resolution that called for complete
independence. The resolution marked the beginning of a large-scale political
movement against colonial rule.

The resolution was a short 750-word document; it does not have a legal/constitutional
structure – instead, it reads more like a manifesto. The document called for severing
ties with the British and claimed ‘Purna Swaraj’ or completes independence. It
indicted British rule and succinctly articulated the resulting economic, political and
cultural injustice inflicted on Indians. The document spoke on behalf of Indians and
made its intention of launching the civil disobedience movement clear.

Most scholars, like Mithi Mukherjee in India under the Shadows of Empire, see the
Purna Swaraj resolution as a critical component of the changing strategy of the
independence movement in engaging with the British: the demand for freedom was
now made in the language justice rather than charity.

The Purna Swaraj resolution was seen as a critical symbolic event by leaders of the
freedom movement and Indians in general. During the constitution-making process
during 1946 -1950, members of the Assembly decided to choose 26 January 1950 as
the date for the Constitution of India to come into effect; this was done to honour the
date of the public declaration of Purna Swaraj.
The Declaration reads as follows:
“We believe that it is the inalienable right of the Indian people, as of any other
people, to have freedom and to enjoy the fruits of their toil and have the
necessities of life, so that they may have full opportunities of growth. We
believe also that if any government deprives a people of these rights and
oppresses them the people have a further right to alter it or to abolish it. The
“British government in India has not only deprived the Indian people of their
freedom but has based itself on the exploitation of the masses, and has ruined
India economically, politically, culturally, and spiritually. We believe,
therefore, that India must sever the British connection and attain Purna
Swaraj or complete independence.

India has been ruined economically. The revenue derived from our people is
out of all proportion to our income. Our average income is seven pice (less
than twopence) per day, and of the heavy taxes we pay, twenty per cent are
raised from the land revenue derived from the peasantry and three per cent
from the salt tax, which falls most heavily on the poor.

Village industries, such as hand-spinning, have been destroyed, leaving the

peasantry idle for at least four months in the year, and dulling their intellect
for want of handicrafts, and nothing has been substituted, as in other
countries, for the crafts thus destroyed.

Customs and currency have been so manipulated as to heap further burdens

on the peasantry. The British manufactured goods constitute the bulk of our
imports. Customs duties betray clear partiality for British manufactures, and
revenue from them is used not to lessen the burden on the masses but for
sustaining a highly extravagant administration. Still more arbitrary has been
the manipulation of the exchange ratio, which has resulted in millions being
drained away from the country.

Politically, India’s status has never been so reduced as under the British
regime. No reforms have given real political power to the people. The tallest
of us have to bend before foreign authority. The rights of free expression of
opinion and free association have been denied to us, and many of our
countrymen are compelled to live in exile abroad and cannot return to their
homes. All administrative talent is killed, and the masses have to be satisfied
with petty village offices and clerkships.

Culturally, the system of education has torn us from our moorings, and our
training has made us hug the very chains that bind us.
 Spiritually, compulsory disarmament has made us unmanly, and the presence
of an alien army of occupation, employed with deadly effect to crush in us the
spirit of resistance, has made us think that we cannot look after ourselves or
put up a defense against foreign aggression, or even defend our homes and
families from the attacks of thieves, robbers and miscreants.

We hold it to be a crime against man and God to submit any longer to a rule
that has caused this fourfold disaster to our country. We recognize, however,
that the most effective way of gaining our freedom is not through violence. We
will therefore prepare ourselves by withdrawing, so far as we can, all
voluntary association from the British Government, and will prepare for civil
disobedience, including nonpayment of taxes. We are convinced that if we can
but withdraw our voluntary help and stop payment of taxes without doing
violence, even under provocation, the end of this inhuman rule is assured. We
therefore hereby solemnly resolve to carry out the Congress instructions
issued from time to time for the purpose of establishing Purna Swaraj.”

PURPOSE

The Swarajist Manifesto for Elections Released in October 1923, the manifesto took a
strong anti-imperialist line. It said—

1. The guiding motive of the British in governing India is to secure selfish interests of
their own country
2. The so-called reforms are only a blind to further the said interests under the
pretence of granting a responsible government
3.The real objective being to continue exploitation of the unlimited resources of the
country by keeping Indians permanently in a subservient position to Britain
4.The Swarajists would present the nationalist demand of self-government in councils
5. If this demand was rejected, they would adopt a policy of uniform, continuous and
consistent obstruction within the councils to make governance through councils
impossible; councils would thus be wrecked from within by creating deadlocks on
every measure

Other aims included:

1. Providing a viable counter to Western Political thought and imperial oppression.
2. Coining an enveloping term which captures the essence of the Indian Freedom
Struggle.
3. Achieving self governance and a stateless society
4. Estabilishing the importance of the ‘self’ with the community as a whole.
Gandhiji and both the pro-changers and the no-changers realised the importance of
putting up a united front in order to get reforms from the government.
So, it was decided that the Swarajists would contest elections as a separate ‘group’
within the Congress Party.
The Swaraj Party won 42 out of 104 seats to the Central Legislature in 1923. The
party’s programme was to obstruct the government. They wanted to create deadlocks
on every measure. They boycotted all official functions and receptions held by the
government. They voiced their grievances and aspirations in the Legislative
Assembly.

SUMMARY

As much as we recognise the importance of organisations like Indian National

Congress in the freedom struggle, parties like the Swaraj party and their significance
and contribution to the struggle are not given due credit. We come to understand how
the term Swaraj was coined, what was associated with it, how different people had
their individual takes on it. We come to understand the political scenario which led to
the formation of the party and also the factors which led to this.

We then come to understand the contributions made by the party for the betterment of
the country, the mode of action employed by the party and the ideas of people who
joined it and thought this was the best way to achieve independence.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books-

1) India’s struggle for independence – Bipan Chandra

2) History of Modern India – Bipan Chandra
3) Modern Indian History – V.D. Mahajan
4) Hind Swaraj – M.K. Gandhi

Online Sources
www.mkgandhi.org
www.politicalsciencenotes.com
www.swaraj.org
www.clpr.org.in
www.gktoday.in
www.britannica.com
www.jagranjosh.in