Mahatma Gandhi and the National Movement | ICSE Class 10 History & Civics Notes

This note covers Gandhi’s early struggles, satyagraha, the causes, programme and suspension of Non-Cooperation, Civil Disobedience and the Salt March, the Gandhi-Irwin Pact, the Second Round Table Conference, participation by different groups, Quit India, and the impact of the national movement.

What was the background to Gandhi’s leadership of the national movement?

War and popular hardship

Colonial rule means rule by a foreign power over a dependent territory. In India, opposition to British colonial rule brought different groups together, although their experiences of oppression and their ideas of freedom were not always the same.

The First World War of 1914 to 1918 increased defence expenditure. Higher taxes and war loans helped finance it. Prices doubled between 1913 and 1918, causing severe hardship. Forced recruitment, meaning compulsory enlistment in the army, caused anger in villages.

Crops failed in many parts of India in 1918-19 and 1920-21. Food shortages and an influenza epidemic deepened suffering. People hoped that conditions would improve after the war, but these hopes remained unfulfilled.

Satyagraha and early campaigns

Mahatma Gandhi returned from South Africa in January 1915. There he had developed satyagraha while resisting racial discrimination. His methods linked resistance to injustice with discipline and concern for ordinary people.

Definition: Satyagraha is resistance based on truth and non-violence. A satyagrahi, or practitioner of satyagraha, seeks to persuade the opponent through an appeal to conscience, without revenge or physical force.

At Banaras in February 1916, Gandhi criticised the gap between wealthy Indians and the labouring poor. He wanted nationalism, the sense of belonging to a nation and seeking its freedom, to include peasants and workers.

These were local struggles. The Rowlatt agitation of 1919 gave Gandhi an opportunity to organise resistance on a much wider scale. His national leadership grew through both popular identification with him and careful organisation.

Why did the Non-Cooperation Movement emerge?

The Rowlatt Act and Jallianwala Bagh

The Rowlatt Act of 1919 allowed detention of political prisoners without trial for two years. Indian members opposed it in the Imperial Legislative Council, the colonial law-making body, but it was passed. Gandhi called for a nationwide campaign against this restriction of liberty.

A hartal, a protest involving the stoppage of work and closure of shops, was planned for 6 April 1919. Rallies, strikes and shop closures followed. The authorities arrested local leaders and restricted Gandhi’s movements.

On 10 April, police fired on a peaceful procession in Amritsar. Attacks on government-related buildings followed. Martial law, meaning military control replacing ordinary civil administration, was imposed, and General Dyer took command.

On 13 April 1919, a crowd gathered at Jallianwala Bagh in Amritsar. Some were protesting; others had come for the Baisakhi fair. Many villagers were unaware of martial law. Dyer blocked the exits and ordered firing, killing hundreds.

News of the massacre provoked further protests. The authorities responded with humiliating punishments and repression, meaning the forcible suppression of opposition. Gandhi called off the Rowlatt movement when violence spread.

The Khilafat connection

The Khilafat Movement sought to defend the authority of the Ottoman Sultan, or Khalifa, regarded as the spiritual head of the Islamic world. After Turkey’s defeat in the war, rumours of a harsh peace treaty caused anxiety about his position.

A Khilafat Committee formed in Bombay in March 1919. Muhammad Ali and Shaukat Ali discussed united action with Gandhi. He saw an opportunity to bring Hindus and Muslims together in a broader movement against British rule.

At the Calcutta session of the Indian National Congress, a nationalist political organisation, in September 1920, Gandhi persuaded leaders to support non-cooperation, or withdrawal of support for British rule, for Khilafat and swaraj, meaning self-rule. Thus, the Khilafat issue, the Rowlatt Act and the Jallianwala Bagh tragedy helped turn discontent into a common campaign.

How did the Non-Cooperation programme challenge British rule?

Withdrawing support

Non-cooperation meant withdrawing voluntary support from British institutions. In Hind Swaraj, published in 1909, Gandhi argued that British rule depended on Indian cooperation. He believed that its withdrawal could bring swaraj within a year. This was his expectation, not the movement’s actual result.

A boycott is a refusal to buy goods, use institutions or take part in activities, usually as a protest. Gandhi proposed that non-cooperation develop in stages, beginning with the surrender of government titles and the boycott of British institutions and foreign goods.

1. Return titles awarded by the government, rejecting the honours through which it secured public support.
2. Boycott civil services, the army, police, law courts and legislative councils.
3. Withdraw from government-controlled schools and colleges and boycott foreign goods.
4. If repression followed, move towards civil disobedience, meaning deliberate defiance of unjust laws.

Many Congress leaders feared violence and opposed boycotting the council elections scheduled for November 1920. After debate, the Nagpur session adopted the programme in December 1920. The Non-Cooperation-Khilafat Movement began in January 1921.

Participation and economic effects

Thousands of students left government-controlled institutions; teachers resigned and lawyers gave up practice. Council elections were boycotted in most provinces, with Madras an exception because the Justice Party favoured entering the councils.

People burnt foreign cloth and picketed liquor shops, meaning they protested by blocking entrances. In many places, traders refused to handle foreign goods. As demand shifted towards Indian cloth, production by Indian textile mills and handlooms increased.

The value of foreign cloth imports fell from Rs 102 crore in 1921 to Rs 57 crore in 1922. Here, Rs means rupees and one crore means ten million. These figures show the economic effect of the boycott without implying that all foreign trade ended.

Why was Non-Cooperation suspended, and what was its impact?

Chauri Chaura and Gandhi’s decision

In February 1922, a peaceful demonstration at Chauri Chaura in Gorakhpur developed into a violent clash with police. A group of peasants attacked and burnt a police station, killing several constables. Gandhi withdrew the Non-Cooperation Movement.

For Gandhi, non-violence was essential to the method of struggle. He believed that the movement was becoming violent in many places and that satyagrahis needed proper training before another mass campaign. Anger against injustice did not justify killing opponents.

The suspension therefore arose from a conflict between popular action and Gandhi’s insistence on discipline. It was not a declaration that British rule had become acceptable or that the demand for freedom had been achieved.

Achievements and limitations

The movement brought peasants, workers, artisans, students and professionals into a wider national struggle. By 1922, nationalism had expanded beyond its earlier base among educated professionals and intellectuals. Gandhi became a leader with a broad popular following.

Economic boycotts encouraged Indian cloth production. Yet khadi, or homespun cloth, was often more expensive than mass-produced mill cloth. Poor people could not afford to buy it. Indian alternatives to government schools and courts were slow to develop, and some participants returned to British institutions.

After withdrawal, Congress leaders differed over the next step. C. R. Das and Motilal Nehru formed the Swaraj Party within Congress to advocate council participation. Jawaharlal Nehru and Subhas Chandra Bose favoured more radical mass agitation and complete independence.

Gandhi was arrested in March 1922 and released in February 1924. He then concentrated on khadi and ending untouchability, the discriminatory practice of treating certain castes as socially polluting. His work also stressed Hindu-Muslim harmony and self-reliance.

Note: The Rowlatt campaign was called off in 1919 when violence spread. Non-Cooperation was withdrawn in February 1922 after Chauri Chaura. These were separate decisions in separate campaigns.

Why did the demand for Civil Disobedience grow?

Simon Commission and constitutional disappointment

The Simon Commission, headed by Sir John Simon, was appointed to examine India’s constitutional system and suggest changes. All its members were British. The absence of Indians from a body discussing India’s political future provoked opposition.

When it arrived in 1928, demonstrators demanded its withdrawal. Congress and the Muslim League, a political organisation representing Muslim interests, took part in the protests. Lala Lajpat Rai was assaulted by police during a peaceful demonstration and died from his injuries.

In October 1929, Viceroy Lord Irwin, the British Crown’s representative in India, made a vague offer of dominion status, meaning self-government within the British Empire, at an unspecified future date. He also proposed talks about a future constitution.

This did not satisfy Congress leaders demanding full independence. The uncertainty of the offer strengthened those who wanted a clearer break with colonial rule rather than a limited constitutional arrangement under British authority.

Poorna Swaraj and economic distress

At the Lahore Congress in December 1929, under Jawaharlal Nehru’s presidency, the demand for Poorna Swaraj, or complete independence, was formally adopted. It is also spelt Purna Swaraj.

Congress designated 26 January 1930 as Independence Day, when people were to pledge themselves to complete independence. The celebrations attracted very little attention. Gandhi needed to connect the demand for freedom with an issue affecting daily life.

Economic distress added urgency. Agricultural prices had begun falling from 1926 and collapsed after 1930. The economic depression, a severe downturn in production, trade and incomes, made it harder for peasants to sell crops and pay land revenue, the tax demanded on agricultural land.

The combination of constitutional disappointment and economic grievances created the setting for a new campaign. Gandhi selected salt to connect political freedom with a necessity used by rich and poor alike.

How did the Dandi March develop into Civil Disobedience?

Salt as a common grievance

The government imposed a salt tax and maintained a monopoly, or exclusive control, over salt production. Salt was an essential food item consumed by rich and poor. Challenging its taxation made colonial exploitation understandable through an everyday need.

On 31 January 1930, Gandhi sent Irwin eleven demands. The demand to abolish the salt tax was the most stirring. Gandhi warned that failure to meet the demands by 11 March would lead to civil disobedience. Irwin was unwilling to negotiate.

On 12 March 1930, Gandhi set out from his Sabarmati ashram, a community where he lived with followers, towards Dandi on the Gujarat coast. He began with 78 trusted volunteers. The journey covered over 240 miles in 24 days, about 10 miles daily.

Thousands came to hear him along the route. On 6 April 1930, he broke the salt law at Dandi. This action marked the beginning of the Civil Disobedience Movement, turning a widely shared grievance into open defiance of colonial law.

Photograph: Satyagrahis picking up natural salt at the end of the Dandi March, 6 April 1930. Several people bend down on uneven ground while others stand behind them.

See Fig. 11.7 in your NCERT textbook

The wider programme

The programme went beyond withdrawing cooperation: people deliberately broke colonial laws. Arrests and repression followed. Gandhi’s arrest in May 1930 provoked attacks on symbols of British authority in Sholapur, showing that events did not always remain within his non-violent approach.

What followed the Gandhi-Irwin Pact and the Second Round Table Conference?

Agreement and its limits

Repression and arrests accompanied Civil Disobedience. Gandhi entered into the Gandhi-Irwin Pact on 5 March 1931. A pact is an agreement between parties. It created an opening for negotiations after mass protest and government action against protesters.

Gandhi agreed to call off Civil Disobedience and attend the Round Table Conference in London. These conferences were meetings called by the British government to discuss India’s constitutional future. Congress had boycotted the first conference in 1930.

The government agreed to release political prisoners not convicted of violence and permitted salt manufacture by people along the coast. These concessions did not amount to a grant of independence. Radical nationalists criticised the pact because it offered talks without a commitment to freedom.

Why negotiations failed

Gandhi represented Congress at the Second Round Table Conference in London in the latter part of 1931. His claim that Congress represented all India faced challenges from the Muslim League, the princes and B. R. Ambedkar.

The League claimed to represent Muslim interests. The princes denied that Congress represented their territories. Ambedkar argued that Congress did not adequately represent the lowest castes. These disagreements complicated the search for an agreed political settlement.

The conference was inconclusive. On returning, Gandhi found renewed repression: Jawaharlal Nehru and Abdul Ghaffar Khan were imprisoned, Congress had been declared illegal, and meetings, demonstrations and boycotts faced restrictions.

Renewal and decline

With great apprehension, Gandhi renewed Civil Disobedience in 1932. The failure of negotiations and renewed repression explain this decision. The campaign continued for over a year, but by 1934 it had lost momentum.

Participation did not remain unchanged. Many rich peasants, disappointed that the suspension in 1931 had brought no reduction in revenue rates, refused to join again. Negotiation, repression and different expectations within the movement all affected its course.

How did different social groups participate in the movements?

Peasants and forest communities

In Awadh, Baba Ramchandra led peasants against high rents, insecure tenancy and begar, meaning forced unpaid labour. They demanded lower revenue and an end to begar. Congress tried to connect these local grievances with Non-Cooperation, although some actions departed from its programme.

During Civil Disobedience, rich peasants such as Gujarat’s Patidars and Uttar Pradesh’s Jats opposed high revenue demands. Poorer tenants wanted unpaid rent cancelled. Congress was unwilling to support no-rent campaigns in most places because it feared alienating richer peasants and landlords.

Forest communities resisted restrictions on collecting wood and grazing cattle. Their struggle linked national freedom with access to resources necessary for daily life. Participation in a common campaign therefore did not mean that everyone understood swaraj in precisely the same way.

Businesspeople and workers

Business groups initially gave financial support and refused to buy or sell imported goods. Most businessmen understood swaraj as an end to colonial restrictions on trade and industry. After the Round Table Conference failed, they were no longer uniformly enthusiastic.

Industrial workers did not participate in Civil Disobedience in large numbers, except in the Nagpur region. Some connected boycotts with struggles against poor wages and working conditions. Congress hesitated to include workers’ demands because it feared dividing the forces opposing British rule.

Women and unequal opportunities

Women joined marches, made salt and picketed foreign-cloth and liquor shops. Many were imprisoned. Their increased public participation did not necessarily bring a radical change in ideas about women’s position. Congress remained reluctant for a long time to give women organisational authority.

Limits of unity

Dalit means oppressed and became a term used by communities subjected to caste exclusion. Many dalit leaders sought political safeguards, including separate electorates, in which members of a community elected their own representatives. Dalit participation in Civil Disobedience was limited, particularly in the Maharashtra and Nagpur region.

Some Muslim political organisations were lukewarm towards Civil Disobedience. Distrust between communities and anxiety about minority rights weakened unity. These differences show why a broad national movement could include both cooperation and conflict.

Why was the Quit India Resolution adopted in 1942?

War, failed negotiations and the Japanese threat

The Second World War began in September 1939. Gandhi and Nehru offered Congress support for the war effort if Britain promised Indian independence afterwards. Britain refused, and Congress ministries resigned in October 1939.

The Cripps Mission was an attempt by the British minister Sir Stafford Cripps to negotiate a political compromise in 1942. The talks failed. Congress insisted that an Indian should take charge of defence before it would help Britain defend India.

The failure deepened dissatisfaction with British policy. Wartime conditions added to popular discontent, and Gandhi moved towards a demand for complete British withdrawal. The issue was now immediate freedom rather than another uncertain promise of future change.

The Japanese threat added urgency. Japan’s military advance in South-East Asia and into Burma brought the danger of invasion close to India. Gandhi believed that British withdrawal would remove a reason for Japan to attack India and enable Indians to organise their own defence.

This was an argument about how India should face the danger, not support for replacing British rule with Japanese rule. The demand for independence was tied to the claim that Indians should control decisions about their country’s future.

Resolution and call to action

On 14 July 1942, the Congress Working Committee, its leading executive body, adopted the Quit India resolution at Wardha. It demanded immediate transfer of power to Indians and British withdrawal.

On 8 August 1942, the All India Congress Committee, a wider national Congress body, endorsed the resolution in Bombay. It called for a non-violent mass struggle on the widest possible scale. Gandhi delivered his famous “Do or Die” speech on this occasion.

The call expressed determination to secure freedom through sacrifice. It accompanied the resolution’s commitment to non-violent mass action, which must be distinguished from every action later taken during the uprising.

How did Quit India unfold, and what was its significance?

Resistance after the arrests

Gandhi was jailed at the beginning of the Quit India campaign in August 1942. The imprisonment of national leaders did not end popular resistance. Younger activists organised strikes, and people held hartals, demonstrations and processions accompanied by national songs and slogans.

Underground resistance, meaning political activity conducted secretly to escape repression, became important. Congress activists such as Jayaprakash Narayan, associated with socialism, an approach seeking greater social and economic equality, helped sustain it. Other prominent participants included Aruna Asaf Ali and Ram Manohar Lohia.

Sabotage, meaning deliberate damage intended to disrupt the authorities’ operations, also occurred. The movement’s course therefore included actions beyond the non-violent struggle authorised in the resolution. Its history requires separating the stated method from events on the ground.

Local initiative and mass participation

In districts including Satara and Medinipur, people proclaimed independent governments. A parallel government is an alternative local authority operating in challenge to the established government. In Satara, younger leaders established one in 1943.

The Satara authority organised people’s courts and constructive work, and continued until the elections of 1946 despite repression and, later, Congress disapproval. Such initiatives show how local activists continued resistance while national leaders remained imprisoned.

Photograph: Women’s procession in Bombay during the Quit India Movement. The procession follows a broad, curved route through a crowded street, with dense groups lining the route.

See Fig. 11.12 in your NCERT textbook

Quit India was a mass movement involving students, workers, peasants and many women. Young people were especially active, leaving colleges in large numbers and facing imprisonment. Ordinary people helped bring state machinery to a standstill in large parts of the country.

The British used severe force, yet suppression took more than a year. The movement demonstrated the depth of the demand for British withdrawal and the capacity for resistance beyond the leadership. It did not secure immediate independence in 1942.

How do the three movements compare in methods and impact?

A changing form of struggle

The three campaigns shared opposition to colonial rule and Gandhi’s commitment to non-violent mass action. Their immediate aims and methods differed. Comparing them helps explain the development from withdrawing support, to breaking laws, to demanding immediate British departure.

Shared achievements and continuing limits

Gandhi’s leadership connected everyday hardships with the national demand for freedom. Clothing, salt, taxation and local grievances became ways through which people could participate. Congress organisation and Gandhi’s associates helped carry political activity into new regions and social groups.

The Salt March attracted extensive European and American press attention. It widened women’s involvement and compelled the British to recognise that their rule could not continue unchanged. Negotiations followed, although complete independence was not conceded through the Gandhi-Irwin Pact.

National unity remained difficult to sustain. Different groups attached different hopes to swaraj, and Congress tried to prevent one group’s demands from alienating another. Periods of mass unity were followed by disagreement and declining participation. The movements’ importance lies in their political and social effects as well as their immediate outcomes.

What timeline connects Gandhi’s campaigns and their turning points?

This timeline follows the transition from local struggles to nationwide movements. The sequence distinguishes causes, campaigns, negotiations and suspensions. A movement could begin with a common programme yet change as people joined for different reasons and the government responded with repression.

The sequence shows that suspension was not the end of nationalism. After 1922, debates and constructive activity continued; after the 1931 agreement, failed talks and repression led to renewal. In 1942, arrests were followed by resistance organised beyond the national leadership.

How do historical sources reveal Gandhi’s aims and popular responses?

Public statements and private correspondence

Historical sources are records and other evidence used to reconstruct the past. Gandhi’s writings and speeches reveal his public arguments, while correspondence can expose disagreements and anxieties behind public unity. Neither kind of evidence should be read without considering its purpose and audience.

In Hind Swaraj of 1909, Gandhi explained the dependence of British rule on Indian cooperation. His speech at Dandi on 5 April 1930 discussed the planned breaking of the salt law and the possibility of arrests.

Letters exchanged by Gandhi, Nehru and Rajendra Prasad in 1936 reveal disagreement within Congress and Gandhi’s mediation. Nehru later reproduced correspondence in A Bunch of Old Letters, published in 1958. The language of private letters was often shaped by awareness that they might one day be published.

Official records, newspapers and memory

Police reports help trace meetings, speeches and participation. Yet official reports often expressed what higher officials saw or wanted to believe. During the Salt March, some reports minimised enthusiasm even while others recorded well-attended meetings and growing activity.

Newspapers tracked Gandhi’s movements and popular responses. Their political opinions shaped selection and interpretation. The American magazine Time initially doubted the Salt March but changed its assessment as the campaign attracted a large following.

Autobiographies, accounts people write about their own lives, are retrospective and very often depend on memory. They can preserve valuable details while omitting events or presenting the writer in a particular way. Rumours about Gandhi likewise reveal people’s beliefs rather than proving miraculous powers.

Comparing these sources helps distinguish a leader’s intention, a participant’s experience and an official’s interpretation. Agreement strengthens an account, while differences invite closer examination of who produced the evidence, when, and for what purpose.

Glossary

• Satyagraha — Resistance grounded in truth and non-violence, seeking to persuade an opponent through an appeal to conscience.
• Swaraj — Self-rule, understood by different participants through their own political hopes and everyday grievances.
• Poorna Swaraj — Complete independence, formally adopted as the Congress goal at its Lahore session in December 1929.
• Non-cooperation — Withdrawal of voluntary support from colonial institutions to weaken the foundations of British rule.
• Civil disobedience — Deliberate defiance of unjust laws, used in Gandhi’s programme as a method of non-violent resistance.
• Boycott — Refusal to buy particular goods, use institutions or participate in activities, usually as a protest.
• Hartal — A protest involving the suspension of ordinary work and the closing of shops.
• Picketing — A form of protest in which demonstrators block the entrance to a shop, factory or office.
• Khadi — Homespun cloth promoted by Gandhi as part of self-reliance and resistance to dependence on imported cloth.
• Begar — Forced labour that villagers had to perform without receiving payment for their work.
• Khilafat Movement — A movement led by Indian Muslim leaders to defend the position and authority of the Ottoman Khalifa.
• Parallel government — An alternative local authority established in opposition to the existing government during a resistance movement.

Common errors and misconceptions

• Misconception: Satyagraha meant accepting injustice passively. Correct: It meant active resistance through truth, persuasion and non-violence.
• Misconception: Jallianwala Bagh caused the suspension of Non-Cooperation. Correct: Non-Cooperation was withdrawn after Chauri Chaura in February 1922; Jallianwala Bagh occurred in 1919.
• Misconception: The Simon Commission included Indian representatives. Correct: All its members were British, which was a central reason for opposition.
• Misconception: Civil Disobedience involved only avoiding British institutions. Correct: It also involved deliberately breaking colonial laws, beginning with the salt law.
• Misconception: The Gandhi-Irwin Pact granted independence. Correct: It suspended Civil Disobedience and opened negotiations without securing a commitment to independence.
• Misconception: Every social group supported each campaign equally. Correct: Participation varied because groups had different grievances, interests and expectations.
• Misconception: Every action during Quit India followed the resolution’s non-violent method. Correct: The resolution called for non-violence, but sabotage and other violent actions also occurred.
• Misconception: British rule ended immediately after the Quit India call. Correct: The movement faced prolonged suppression and did not achieve immediate independence in 1942.

Exam-style questions with model answers

Q1. A protester seeks to convince an unjust opponent through truth and conscience, refusing physical force or revenge. Identify two features that make this satyagraha. [2 marks]

1. The protester relies on truth and an appeal to the opponent’s conscience to challenge injustice.
2. The protester rejects violence and revenge, seeking persuasion rather than physical compulsion.

Q2. The Rowlatt Act allowed detention without trial for two years. At Jallianwala Bagh, Dyer blocked exits and ordered firing on a crowd, killing hundreds. Muslim Khilafat leaders sought to protect the Ottoman Khalifa’s authority, and Gandhi wanted to unite their concerns with resistance to British rule. Using these facts, explain three causes of Non-Cooperation. [3 marks]

1. The Rowlatt Act caused anger by threatening political liberty. Its power to detain people without trial made continued cooperation with colonial rule harder to justify.
2. The firing at Jallianwala Bagh intensified opposition because the authorities used deadly force against a trapped crowd, killing hundreds.
3. The Khilafat issue provided a shared campaign through which Gandhi could unite Muslim concerns with a wider movement against British rule.

Q3. In February 1922, protesters at Chauri Chaura burnt a police station, killing several constables. Gandhi required non-violent resistance, believed the movement was becoming violent in many places, and thought volunteers needed training. Explain his decision to withdraw Non-Cooperation in three points. [3 marks]

1. The attack at Chauri Chaura directly contradicted the non-violent method Gandhi required, because protesters burnt a police station and killed constables.
2. Gandhi saw the incident alongside violence in many places, so he regarded the problem as wider than a single local disturbance.
3. He believed volunteers needed training before further mass struggle, and withdrawal allowed him to insist that resistance must remain disciplined and non-violent.

Q4. Salt was essential to rich and poor, and its production was controlled by a taxed government monopoly. Gandhi’s breaking of the salt law at Dandi on 6 April 1930 launched Civil Disobedience. The Salt March attracted European and American press coverage, brought women into nationalist action in large numbers, and made the British realise that they would have to devolve some power to Indians. Explain its significance in five points. [5 marks]

1. Salt provided a unifying issue because rich and poor alike depended on it, linking opposition to British rule with an everyday necessity.
2. Breaking the salt law launched Civil Disobedience, extending resistance beyond withdrawing cooperation to deliberately defying colonial laws.
3. Extensive European and American press coverage brought Gandhi and the struggle to world attention.
4. Women participated in nationalist action in large numbers, widening the movement’s social base.
5. The campaign forced the British to recognise that their rule could not last forever and that they would have to devolve some power to Indians, leading to constitutional talks.

Q5. Under the Gandhi-Irwin Pact of 5 March 1931, Gandhi suspended Civil Disobedience and agreed to represent Congress at talks about India’s constitutional future; the government agreed to release political prisoners not convicted of violence and allow coastal salt manufacture. Explain these four terms. [4 marks]

1. Gandhi agreed to suspend Civil Disobedience, interrupting the campaign of deliberate defiance of colonial laws while negotiations became possible.
2. He agreed to attend constitutional talks, giving Congress an opportunity to discuss India’s political future with the British government.
3. The government agreed to release political prisoners who had not been convicted of violence, making a concession concerning the imprisoned protesters.
4. Coastal salt manufacture was permitted, providing a concession connected to the salt issue around which the campaign had begun.

Q6. The Second Round Table Conference was inconclusive. On Gandhi’s return, Nehru and Ghaffar Khan were in jail, Congress had been declared illegal, and meetings, demonstrations and boycotts were restricted. Explain three reasons for renewing Civil Disobedience in 1932. [3 marks]

1. The inconclusive conference failed to produce a political settlement, so negotiations had not resolved the conflict over India’s future.
2. The imprisonment of Nehru and Ghaffar Khan showed that the government had renewed coercive action against important nationalist leaders.
3. Declaring Congress illegal and restricting meetings, demonstrations and boycotts obstructed organised political activity, strengthening the case for a renewed campaign of resistance.

Q7. After the Cripps talks failed in 1942, Congress demanded immediate transfer of power. The Working Committee adopted Quit India at Wardha on 14 July; the All India Congress Committee endorsed it in Bombay on 8 August. The resolution called for non-violent mass action, and Gandhi gave his “Do or Die” speech. Explain five features of this decision. [5 marks]

1. The failure of the Cripps talks provided the immediate political background, because negotiations had not secured an agreement acceptable to Congress.
2. The demand was for immediate transfer of power, making British withdrawal an urgent objective rather than an indefinite future possibility.
3. The Working Committee adopted the resolution at Wardha on 14 July 1942, formally expressing the Congress leadership’s decision to pursue this demand.
4. The All India Congress Committee endorsed the resolution in Bombay on 8 August, supporting the call for a mass campaign.
5. The stated method was non-violent mass action, while Gandhi’s “Do or Die” speech expressed determination and willingness to sacrifice for freedom.

Q8. During Quit India, national leaders were imprisoned, younger activists organised underground resistance, students, workers and peasants joined protests, and independent governments appeared in Satara and Medinipur. British suppression took more than a year. Assess the movement’s significance in four points. [4 marks]

1. Resistance continued after national leaders were imprisoned, demonstrating that popular action could survive the removal of central leadership.
2. Underground activity by younger activists showed their initiative in sustaining opposition despite the government’s restrictions and arrests.
3. The participation of students, workers and peasants demonstrated a broad social base, while independent governments challenged British authority locally.
4. The fact that suppression took more than a year shows the movement’s persistence, although it does not mean that independence was won immediately.

Key takeaways

• Satyagraha linked resistance to injustice with truth, non-violence and an appeal to the opponent’s conscience.
• The Rowlatt Act, Jallianwala Bagh tragedy and Khilafat issue helped create the conditions for Non-Cooperation.
• Non-Cooperation withdrew support from colonial institutions; Chauri Chaura led Gandhi to suspend it in February 1922.
• The Simon Commission protests and Lahore demand for complete independence prepared the ground for Civil Disobedience.
• The Dandi March connected everyday dependence on salt with a wider challenge to colonial laws and authority.
• The Gandhi-Irwin Pact opened negotiations, but failed talks and renewed repression led to Civil Disobedience’s renewal.
• Quit India demanded immediate British withdrawal and generated mass resistance despite the imprisonment of national leaders.
• Different groups joined with different expectations, making national unity powerful but often difficult to sustain.

Test yourself

How did Gandhi’s early local campaigns prepare him for wider leadership?

Champaran, Ahmedabad and Kheda connected him with peasant and worker grievances and demonstrated methods of organised resistance.

Why did the absence of Indian members matter in the Simon Commission?

An entirely British body was examining India’s constitutional future without Indian representation, provoking widespread opposition.

What changed when resistance moved from Non-Cooperation to Civil Disobedience?

People went beyond withdrawing support from British institutions and deliberately broke colonial laws, including the salt law.

Why was khadi not an easy substitute for everyone?

Khadi was often more expensive than mass-produced mill cloth, making it difficult for poor people to afford.

Why did many rich peasants hesitate to rejoin Civil Disobedience in 1932?

They were disappointed that the movement’s suspension in 1931 had not brought a reduction in revenue rates.

How did the Cripps Mission’s failure connect with Quit India?

Failed negotiations deepened dissatisfaction and preceded Gandhi’s decision to launch a campaign demanding complete British withdrawal.

What does the Satara parallel government show about Quit India?

Local activists could create alternative authority and continue resistance even while national leaders were imprisoned.

Why should historians compare police reports with other evidence?

Official reports often reflected officials’ assumptions and anxieties, so other evidence helps assess their descriptions of participation.