The years between 1892 and 1905 saw the gradual rise of Extremism and terrorism in Indian politics. This was due to many factors:
Dissatisfaction with the Indian Councils Act
Indian Councils Act of 1892 failed to satisfy the aspirations of the Indians. It did not give anything substantial to the Indians and even the moderates were not pleased with it. Many people felt that the policy of appeals and prayers had yielded nothing and the Government regarded this policy as a sign of weakness.
Bad Economic Condition
The economic condition of the people was becoming bad. There was a constant drain on the economic resources of the country due to foreign rule. Dadabhai Naoroji, R. C. Dutt and others proved by their writings that the policy of the Government was impoverishing the people. It cared only for the interests of the British manufactures. Many educated Indians were unemployed and it was felt that only the freedom of the country would solve the economic difficulties of the people. The economic factors was helping the growth of extremism.
Famine and Plague
Famine caused great discontent amongst the people. Between 1876 and 1900 eighteen famines broke out in the country. The famine of 1897 affected about twenty million people. While the people were starving, the Government celebrated the Jubilee of Queen Victoria. The Indian felt that this money should have been spent to give relief to the starving people. The Jubilee celebrations at such a time were considered an act of callousness of the part of the Government.
The outbreak of plague added further to the discontent of the people. The Government adopted some measures to check this ‘fatal’ disease, but these were adopted without regard to the sentiments of the people. Mr. Rand, the Plague Commissioner of Poona, and his men freely entered even places of worship and apartments of women. Infectious houses were demolished without making alternative arrangements for the staying of their occupants. The result was that Mr. Rand with one of his juniors was shot dead while returning from Bombay after the Jubilee celebrations. R.C. Dutt has pointed out, “In spite of a civilized administration, Indian is still desolated by calamities such as are unknown in Europe.”
Ill-Treatment of the Indians abroad
The Indians were not well-treated in other countries. The treatment meted out to them in South Africa was very bad. Restrictions were imposed on their free movement without any reason. They could not walk on footpaths or travel in first class railway compartments. They could not travel without passes or go out after 9.00 in night. The Indians felt that the cause of such humiliation abroad was their slavery and India must become free to end this. In England too they were despised as slave. In short the Indians outside the country were denied even ordinary human rights.
Reactionary Regime of lord Curzon
The reactionary regime of Curzon also embittered the Indians. They were not given good jobs. He declared that Englishmen alone by birth and training were fit to rule India, and not the Indians. God had selected Englishmen to rule over India and to give them freedom was going against the will of God. He passed many reactionary Acts. The Calcutta Corporation Act of 1899 reduced the number of elected members of Calcutta Corporation from 75 to 50. This reduction of 25 members were only in case of elected members. Thus the elected members lost majority in the Calcutta Corporation and non-elected members came to have majority. The Indian University Act of 1904 increased Government control over the Universities. In other words, it officialised the universities. These were left with practically no autonomy. The Official Secrets Acts of 1889 and 1898 related to the disclosure of only military secrets. The Official Secrets Act of 1904 covered also the official secrets relating to information about civil affairs. All these reactionary measures irritated the Indians.
Partition of Bengal
The partition of Bengal by Lord Curzon in 1904 was resented the most of Indians. The idea of Lord Curzon probably was to create a Muslim majority province, though he declared that Bengal was too big a province and the partition of Bengal had been done to increased administrative efficiency. The Indians felt that it had been done to weaken the solidarity of Bengal because it was a politically advanced province. There was vigorous agitation for its repeal. It greatly strengthened revolutionary movement, particularly in Bengal.
Influence of the West
Extremism also drew its inspiration from the revolutionary doctrines of the west. The struggles for Independence waged by America, France, Italy and Germany had revealed to the Indian that freedom could be achieved not be constitutional agitations but by revolutionary methods. The Indian leaders also remarked that, “History does not record any instance when an empire might have been conceded by the rulers to the ruled. You will have to fight for your right.” The Indians thus lost faith in legislation and constitutional means and they resorted to violence.
Methods of Extremists and Moderates
Extremism had become a strong force by 1905 and it continued to be so for about a decade. The methods of extremists were boycott of foreign goods, use of Swadeshi goods and national education. Boycott was directed not only against goods but also against Government services, honours and titles.
The most important leader of the Extremists was B.G. Tilak. The extremists differed from the moderates in the following respects:
- The Moderates wanted to improve the existing constitution; the Extremists wanted to reconstruct it.
- The Moderates wanted to work with the existing bureaucracy; the Extremists were out to obstruct it.
- The Moderates wanted to co-operate with the Government, wherever possible; the Extremists stood for opposing it at every step.
- The Moderates tried to win over the British; the Extremists wanted to turn them out by all means.
There occurred a split between the Moderates and Extremists in 1907 at the Surat session. The Extremists, however, failed to capture the Congress.
Government Measures against Extremists
The Government took a serious view of the rise of Extremism in the country and did its best to suppress it. The Extremists were arrested and imprisoned. Sections 124-A and 153-A were added to the Indian Penal Code to deal with the situation. The Government was authorised to ban political organisations suspected of subversive tendencies and to conduct summary trials of political offenders. The right to hold public meetings was curtailed. The Press Laws of 1903 and 1910 completely muzzled the Press.
Founding of Muslim League
Another development took place in the meantime. The All-India Muslim League was founded in 1906 by Agha Khan. It was an association of loyalist Muslims and was meant to act as counterpoise to the Indian National Congress. It was to look to the interests of Indian Muslims. A deputation of the Muslims under the leadership Agha Khan waited on the Governor-General, Lord Minto, and requested him for separate communal representation for the Muslims in the forthcoming reforms. Lord Minto agreed to concede their viewpoint. The Government of India Act of 1909, popularly known as Minto-Morely Reforms, gave separate electorates to the Muslims.
Congress and the Government
The Extremists felt dissatisfied with the Minto-Morely Reforms of 1909 but the Moderates wanted to give a trial of these. There was co-operation between the Congress and the Government between 1909 and 1916 due to several factors. Firstly, the Moderates were incharge of the Congress. Secondly, Lord Harding followed a sympathetic policy towards the Congress. Thirdly, the Partition of Bengal was canceled in 1911. Fourthly, the most important leader of the Extremists, B.G. Tilak, was in prison from 1908 to 1914. The Congress helped the Government a lot during the First World War.
Home Rule Movement
The Indians began to feel by 1916 that the British Government was not going to make a declaration of granting home rule to the Indians. Hence Mrs. Annie Besant and B.G. Tilak started Home Rule Movement in 1916.
It was not a revolutionary movement. She wanted to awaken the people of India to demand their rights. She said, “I am an Indian Tom Tom waking up all the sleepers so that they may wake and work for their Motherland.” She declared that Home Rule was the birth right of the British. The movement reached its climax in 1917. The Government took strong action. Mrs. Annie Besant was interned. Tilak threatened to start passive resistance. Then came the August Declaration of the Secretary of State for India in 1917 promising self-Government by gradual stages. Then the Home Rule movement gradually came to an end.
Militancy phase
While the Indian National Movement was progressing by stages, some persons turned terrorists to achieve independence. Terrorism may be called the militant phase of Indian Nationalism. The terrorists believed that it would not be possible to end foreign rule without the use of force. They were exasperated by the reactionary and repressive policy of the Government.
They believed in violent action to demoralise the British administration in India and its Indian collaborators. They smuggled arms and manufactured them for using these against the British. Funds were collected even by dacoities. The earliest storm centre of terrorist movement was Maharashtra. Shyamji Krishan Verma, V.D.Savarkar and Ganesh Savarkar were its important leaders. The revolutionary movement became strong in Bengal after its partition in 1905. Its leaders were B.K. Ghose and B.N. Dutt. Pondicherry was another centre. There were revolutionaries in Punjab also and some of them were associated with the attempt on the life of Lord Hardinge in 1912.
The revolutionary movement greatly weakened after 1916 due to several factors. Firstly, the movement was confined to a small circle of youngmen; it did not have the backing of the general public. Secondly, the terrorist movement had not central organisation to direct its activities. Thirdly, the emergence of Mahatma Gandhi as a leader of the National Movement greatly weekend revolutionary movement. The Gandhian method of non co-operation, civil disobedience and non-violence appealed more to the people than the methods of the terrorists.
Non-Co-operation Movement
The next important step in the development of the National Movement was the starting of Non-Co-operation Movement by the Congress under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi. It was a revolutionary step because the Congress for the first time decided to follow a policy of direct action.
Several factors were responsible for this change. Firstly, Mahatma Gandhi had lost faith in good sense of the English due to Jallianwala Bagh tragedy, Martial Law in the Punjab and the Report of the Hunter Committee. He felt that the old methods must be given up. Secondly, the Liberals had withdrawn from the Congress over the question of the acceptance of the Reforms of 1919 and the Extremists were in control of the Congress. This enabled the Congress to adopt a revolutionary programme. Thirdly, the Indian Muslims resented the harsh terms imposed by the Treaty of Seves in Turkey. They were further irritated by the fact that the British Government was doing nothing for the preservation of the office of the Khilafat. They started Khilafat Movement to agitate for the preservation of the religious office of the Khalifa. Mahatma Gandhi thought that Hindu-Muslim unity could be achieved by taking up the cause of Khilafat.
A special session of the Congress was held at Calcutta in September 1920 under the Presidentship of Lala Lajpat Rai. The Non-operation Resolution moved by Mahatma Gandhi was carried by a majority. It clearly started the programme of non-co-operation. Titles were to be surrendered. Non-cooperators were to resign from honorary offices and nominated posts. They were not to attend Government functions and were to withdraw their children gradually from schools and colleges. Law courts were to be boycotted and private arbitration courts were to be set up. They were neither to contest the election nor to vote. Swadeshi cloth was to be used. They were to follow non-violence strictly.
The Non-co-operation Movement became widespread. Many Hindus and Muslims joined it. Foreign goods were burnt. Many student left schools and colleges, and national institution like Kashi Vidyapith and Jamia Millia were started. About 20,000 Charkhas were manufactured. Many surrendered their titles. Hartals were observed in Bombay and Calcutta when Prince of Wales visited these place in 1921.
The Government retaliated by following the policy of repression. Non-co-operator were mercilessly beaten and their meetings were dispersed with force. All Congress leaders except Mahatma Gandhi were imprisoned. He was not arrested because the Government feared trouble from his arrest. About 25,000 persons were sent behind the bars. Mahatma Gandhi now decided to start mass Civil Disobedience Movement and gave seven days notice to the Governor-General. It could be postponed only it all non-violent non-co-operators were released and the Government announced the absolute non-interference with all non-violent activities.
Before the notice period of seven days expired, the Chauri Chaura tragedy occurred. The mob of about 3,300 person killed 21 policemen and one inspector, some of whom were burnt alive in a police station. It was too much for the non-violent Mahatma Gandhi to tolerate and he gave orders for the suspension of Non-cooperation Movement. Mahatma Gandhi was bitterly criticised for this. The Government finding his popularity waning, prosecuted and sentenced him to imprisonment for six years. He was, however, released in 1924 on health grounds.
Mahatma Gandhi was bitterly criticised by Pt. Moti Lal Nehru, Lala Lajpat Rai, Subhash Chandra Bose and C.R. Das for suspending Non-co-operation movement. It was, however, justified later on by Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru on grounds of practical politics. Chauri Chaura incident was not solitary one. There was no discipline among Congress except Mahatma Gandhi were imprisoned, and it was difficult to him to control the movement single handed.
The Non-cooperation Movement failed in its objects, Firstly, it failed to secure the redress of Punjab wrongs. Secondly, the objects of saving the office of Khilafat was not achieved. The Turks themselves exiled the Khalifa and abolished the Khilafat in 1922. Thirdly, the sudden suspension of the movement adversely affected Hindu-Muslim relations.
Simon Commission
The British Government appointed Simon Commission in 1927 to report about the constitutional progress in India since the inauguration of Reforms of 1919. All its members were Englishmen and it was boycotted by all the parties in India. Hartals were observed and it was welcomed with black flags. Its members were asked by the people everywhere to go back. Still it completed its work and submitted its report in 1930 which was made the basis for the Government of Indian Act of 1935.