{"id":389,"date":"2020-07-04T10:55:52","date_gmt":"2020-07-04T10:55:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.competitionreview.in\/blogs\/?p=389"},"modified":"2020-07-04T10:55:52","modified_gmt":"2020-07-04T10:55:52","slug":"the-swarajists","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.competitionreview.in\/blogs\/2020\/07\/04\/the-swarajists\/","title":{"rendered":"The Swarajists"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The elections to\nthe Central Legislature and the Provincial Legislative Councils under the\nGovernment of India Act, 1919, were held in the winter of 1920. The Indian\nNational Congress had resolved to boycott them. A number of liberal leaders\nwere elected, prominent among whom were Srinivasa Shastri and Sivaswami Aiyer.\nThey were great patriots and able legislators. They championed the cause of the\npeople in the first Parliament of the country with great ability. They differed\nfrom the nationalists only about the methods of achieving their goal by\nconstitutional means instead of through a mass struggle by the people. They\nattacked the Government in Parliament with great fury. Resolutions were moved\none after another, to punish the officers responsible for brutal acts at\nAmritsar, for payment of compensation to the victims and for establishment of a\ntariff commission to protect the infant native industries. These attacks were\nlaunched with greater vigour in the subsequent sessions also. Resolutions were\nmoved for full Indianisation of services and immediate grant of Swaraj.<\/em>\nThese great parliamentarians achieved a wonderful feat in their career when\nthey were able to defeat the Government on the demands for grants, make cut\nmotions, reject the proposals for enhancement in the excise duty and abrogate\nthe Press Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This encouraged the\nCongress leaders like C.R. Das and Motilal Nehru to reconsider the decision of\nboycotting the legislative bodies after Gandhiji suspended the Non-Cooperation\nMovement in the wake of violence at Chauri Chaura. The idea was first mooted by\nC. R. Das and discussed by him with his colleagues in the Alipur Central Jail.\nHe wanted to dispel the atmosphere of frustration and arouse a new enthusiasm\namong the people by changing the tactics of the struggle by the nationalists.\nHe thought that the decision of boycotting the deliberative bodies by the\nCongress should be revoked and the Congress should enter the legislatures with\nthe intention of offering obstruction from within. He, therefore, started a\ncampaign in favour of his programme for the Council entry after his release\nfrom jail. The matter came up for consideration at the annual session of the\nCongress at Gaya in December 1922.C. R. Das, who presided over the session,\nmade a fervent plea for the Council entry. There was stiff opposition to the\nproposal from the staunch Gandhians like Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel,\nDr. Rajendra Prasad, C. Rajagopalachari and Dr. Ansari. They were known as\nthe \u201cnon-changers\u201d. They opposed the Council entry because they thought that it\nwould create rivalries among leaders and thus weaken the nationalist fervour.\nThe supporters of Das were known as the \u201cpro-changers\u201d. As unanimity could not\nbe achieved, the matter was put to vote. The non-changers carried the day. In\nsheer disgust, Das resigned from the Congress. He formed a new party called the\nCongress Khilafat Swaraj Party on January 1, 1923, with the help of Motilal\nNehru, Vitthalbhai Patel, Madan Mohan Malaviya and M. R. Jayakar. C. R. Das\nbecame the President and Motilal Nehru one of the secretaries. It came to be\nknown later as the Swarajist Party. It had no ideological differences with the\nIndian National Congress and wanted to remain as its constituent. The Congress,\ntherefore, accorded the necessary permission to the Swarajists to carry on\ntheir programme at its special session held at Delhi in September 1923, which\nwas ratified by the regular session at Kakinada in December 1923.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Swarajists held\ntheir first political conference at Allahabad in March 1923, where the\nconstitution of the new party and its plans of action were prepared. Within a\nfew months of its inception, the party had to jump in the election fray for the\nCentral and the Provincial Legislatures due to be held in November 1923. It\nissued its manifesto on October 14, 1923, declaring its full faith in\nprinciples of \u201cnon-violent non-cooperation\u201d, a gospel of Gandhiji. It further\nstated that its legislators would press for the right of the Indian people to\nframe their own constitution. If this was not acceded to, they would resort to\na policy of uniform, continuous and consistent obstruction with a view to make\ngovernment functioning impossible through the Assembly and Councils. The\nmanifesto also elucidated that the party would seek cooperation of the members\nof other nationalist parties for the fulfilment of their programme and when the\nlatter sought the cooperation and help of the party for the purpose of\ndefeating the Government on both the official and non-official bills and\nresolutions, it would extend its full support.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Swarajists\nachieved great success in the elections. They virtually routed the Liberals,\ndefeating their veteran leader, Surendranath Banerjee. They obtained majority\nof seats in the Provincial Legislature of the Central Provinces, the status of\nthe largest party in Bengal and the second largest group in Assam and United\nProvinces. In the Central Legislature, the Swarajists were able to capture 42\nseats out of a total of 101 elected seats.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the Central\nAssembly, the Swarajists formed a coalition with the group of independents led\nby Mohammed Ali Jinnah. The combination came to be known as the Nationalist\nParty. It had the strength of 72 members and was thus capable of defeating the\nGovernment, largely dependent for its support on the nominated non-officials\nand the official members numbering thirty-nine only. The joint programme of the\ncoalition stated that if the Government did not make a satisfactory response to\nthe resolution demanding reforms within a reasonable time, it would then be\nbound to adopt a policy of obstruction and follow such tactics as refusing\nsupplies at the time of presentation of the demands for grants. It worked well\nas the amendment, moved by Motilal Nehru, to the resolution of Rangachariar\nasking the Governor-General to take steps to have the Government of India Act,\n1919 reviewed with a view to establishing full responsible government in India\nand summoning a Round Table Conference for achieving that purpose was carried\nin the Central Assembly by 76 to 48 votes on February 19, 1924. Later,\nwhen the Assembly took up the voting of supplies on March 10, 1924, after the\npresentation of the budget by the Finance Member on February 29, 1924, the\ndemand after demand was either cut down or totally refused. These included the\ndemands under customs, income-tax, salt and opium. The discomfiture of the\nGovernment reached its climax when the Finance Bill was thrown out on March 17,\n1924. The Assembly also rejected the report of the Lee Commission in September\n1924 at the instance of Motilal Nehru, because its recommendations were\ngenerous to the Europeans and niggardly to the Indians.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Swarajists\nmembers of the Provincial Councils also did quite a commendable job in the\nprovinces. In Central Provinces, they had an absolute majority, but declined to\njoin the ministry on the request of the Governor because they did not want to\ndeviate from the principle of wrecking the Council from within. They were able\nto obtain rejection of the bills introduced in the Legislative Councils by the\nMinisters. In Bengal, the party was able to obtain approval of the legislature\nby 72 votes to 41 recommending the immediate release of the political\nprisoners. It was on this occasion that Das thundered in the Provincial\nCouncil, \u201cWe are told that the Government will never be coerced. If by coercion\nis meant the application of physical force, I agree. But if this statement\nmeans that the Government is not to yield to the wishes of the people, I differ\nentirely. If it is stated that the Government is not to be coerced, may I now\nmake this declaration on behalf of the people of this country that the people\nwill not be coerced either.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The dawn of the\nyear 1925 brought new laurels to the Swarajists. They were able to get the\nCriminal Law Amendment Ordinance of 1924 struck down on February 5, 1925 by a\nresolution of the Assembly carried by 58 votes against 45. In March 1925, they\nsucceeded in electing Vitthalbhai Patel as the President of the Assembly. In\nSeptember 1925, they were able to carry the amendment moved by Motilal Nehru by\n45 votes to 14 when the Assembly took up consideration of the report of\nMuddiman Committee. It urged the Government that Parliament should recognise\nthe right of India to responsible government and immediately summon a Round\nTable Conference of Indian parties to frame a constitution and embody it in an\nAct. That was perhaps their last outstanding achievement. In fact, sharp\ndifferences had already cropped up within the ranks of the nationalist party\ndue to the different temperamental attitudes of its leaders, Motilal Nehru and\nMohammed Ali Jinnah. The former was a domineering personality who did not\ntolerate the difference of opinion lightly. In sharp contrast, Jinnah was aloof\nand aristocratic, always ready to offend as well as get provoked. Thus when the\nbudget for the year 1925-26 was presented in the Assembly, the Swarajists\nwanted to follow the line of approach adopted by them
\nin the previous year, i.e., \u201cno supplies till the grievances are removed.\u201d The\nmoderates and the nationalists did not see eye to eye with them upon this for\nthe reason that they did not want that the Government should be paralysed by a\nwhole refusal of demands. To them, it was not possible by this method to force\nthe transfer of power immediately or in the near future.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On June 16, 1925,\nC. R. Das breathed his last, to the great misfortune of the country. His death\nwas a severe blow to the Swarajist Party. The acceptance of an appointment in\nthe Governor\u2019s Executive Council by S. B. Tambe as a Member in Central Provinces\non October 8, 1925, gave another jolt to the party. A fierce controversy arose.\nMotilal Nehru demanded an explanation from Tambe and convened a meeting of  the party to consider the matter at Nagpur.\nBefore the meeting could take place, M. R. Jayakar came out openly in defence\nof Tambe\u2019s action considering it analogous to Vitthalbhai Patel\u2019s becoming\nPresident of the Central Assembly. This brought a split in the party with\nJayakar and Kelkar resigning from the Executive Committee and forming a new\nparty known as the Responsive Cooperationists. They aimed at giving a fillip to\nthe Council entry by \u201coccupying every place of power, initiative and\nresponsibility and giving no quarter to the bureaucracy.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The general budget\nfor the year 1926-27 came up for consideration before the Central Assembly in\nMarch 1927. Before the discussion started on the Demands for Grants, Motilal\nNehru made a statement recalling how the hand of cooperation and friendship\nextended to the Government by the Swarajists had been rudely spurned. He gave a\nsolemn warning to the British Government in the following words :<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThere is no more\nuse for us here. We go out into the country to seek the suffrage of the\nelectorate once more. We do not give up the fight. We have no misgivings either\nabout our fate or our deserts, and we go forth into the country to put it to\nthe touch to win or lose it all. We feel that we have no further use for these\nsham institutions, and the least we can do to vindicate the honour and\nself-respect of the nation is to get out of them and go back to the country for\nwork. In the country we will try to devise those sanctions which alone can\ncompel any government to grant the demands of the people.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Immediately after\nthe statement, the Swarajists walked out of the Assembly in a body, over which\nPresident Vitthalbhai Patel took an exceptional step to adjourn the House. In\nthe next election, held in November-December 1927, the Swarajists were again\nable to capture 40 seats out of 104 elected members, but they were balanced by their\nrivals, the Responsivists. When the Congress adopted the Purna<\/em> Swaraj<\/em>\nresolution at Lahore in December 1929 and later asked the members of the\nlegislatures to resign their seats to participate in the Civil Disobedience\nMovement, the chapter of non-cooperation to the Government from within the\ndeliberative bodies came to an abrupt end. The Swarajists were perhaps not able\nto achieve much towards the nations\u2019s march to freedom, but were certainly\nsuccessful in bringing home to the authorities that all the future plans of the\nconstitutional advance must accept the Dominion Status as the major premise of\nthe problem.          o<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The elections to the Central Legislature and the Provincial Legislative Councils under the Government of India Act, 1919, were held in the winter of 1920. The Indian National Congress had resolved to boycott them. A number of liberal leaders were elected, prominent among whom were Srinivasa Shastri and Sivaswami Aiyer. They were great patriots and […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[3],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.competitionreview.in\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/389"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.competitionreview.in\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.competitionreview.in\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.competitionreview.in\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.competitionreview.in\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=389"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.competitionreview.in\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/389\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":390,"href":"https:\/\/www.competitionreview.in\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/389\/revisions\/390"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.competitionreview.in\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=389"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.competitionreview.in\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=389"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.competitionreview.in\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=389"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}