Latest History NCERT Notes, Solutions and Extra Q & A (Class 8th to 12th)
8th				9th				10th				11th				12th

Class 8th Chapters
1. Introduction: How, When And Where	2. From Trade To Territory The Company Establishes Power	3. Ruling The Countryside
4. Tribals, Dikus And The Vision Of A Golden Age	5. When People Revolt 1857 And After	6. Civilising The “Native”, Educating The Nation
7. Women, Caste And Reform	8. The Making Of The National Movement: 1870s-–1947

Chapter 8 The Making Of The National Movement: 1870s–1947

This chapter reviews the period from the 1870s leading up to India's independence in 1947, focusing on the development of the national movement. It builds upon previous chapters that covered various aspects of British rule in India, including:

The British conquest and annexation of territories and kingdoms.
The introduction of new laws and administrative systems.
The impact of these changes on the lives of peasants and tribal populations.
Transformations in education during the 19th century.
Debates and reform efforts concerning the status of women.
Challenges to the caste system and social and religious reform movements.
The widespread revolt of 1857 and its consequences.
The decline of traditional crafts and the emergence of modern industries.

Based on the hardships and disruptions caused by these developments, it is evident that various sections of Indian society were deeply dissatisfied with British rule. Different groups and classes experienced this dissatisfaction based on how the Company's policies specifically affected their rights, livelihoods, customs, and traditional ways of life.

Police using tear gas against demonstrators during the Quit India movement.

Fig. 1 shows police deploying tear gas to disperse demonstrators during the Quit India movement. This image represents the confrontational nature of the later stages of the national movement, where mass protests met with state repression.

The Emergence Of Nationalism

The varied impacts of British rule prompted a fundamental question among the Indian people: **What constitutes India, and for whom is it intended?**

Gradually, the answer that emerged was that **India belonged to all its people**, without discrimination based on class, colour, caste, creed, language, or gender. Consequently, the country's resources and systems were meant for the benefit of everyone. This realisation fostered the critical awareness that the British were in control of India's resources and the lives of its inhabitants, and that **India could not truly belong to Indians until this foreign control was ended**.

This growing sense of **national consciousness** began to be articulated clearly by **political associations** formed after 1850, particularly those established in the 1870s and 1880s. These associations were predominantly led by English-educated Indian professionals, such as lawyers.

Key early political associations included:

The **Poona Sarvajanik Sabha**
The **Indian Association**
The **Madras Mahajan Sabha**
The **Bombay Presidency Association**
And most importantly, the **Indian National Congress**

The name "Poona Sarvajanik Sabha" is indicative of the broader aspiration of these bodies. "Sarvajanik" literally means "of or for all the people" (**sarva** = all, **janik** = of the people). Although many of these associations operated regionally, they articulated their goals as representing the interests of **all the people of India**, transcending regional, communal, or class boundaries. They championed the modern idea of the people being **sovereign**, capable of making decisions for themselves – a fundamental characteristic of modern nationalism.

Discontent with British rule escalated in the 1870s and 1880s due to specific policies:

The **Arms Act of 1878** prevented Indians from owning arms, a discriminatory measure.
The **Vernacular Press Act of 1878** aimed to suppress dissent in Indian-language newspapers by allowing the government to confiscate assets if publications were deemed "objectionable".
The controversy surrounding the **Ilbert Bill in 1883** sparked outrage. The bill proposed allowing Indian judges to preside over cases involving British or European subjects, seeking equality between Indian and British judges. However, strong opposition from white residents forced the government to withdraw the bill, highlighting the deep-seated **racial bias** of the British in India and further infuriating Indians.

A Nation In The Making

The desire for an all-India organisation of educated Indians had been present since the 1880s, and the Ilbert Bill controversy underscored its necessity. The **Indian National Congress** was founded in December 1885 when 72 delegates from across the country convened in Bombay.

The initial leadership of the Congress primarily came from Bombay and Calcutta and included prominent figures such as **Dadabhai Naoroji, Pherozeshah Mehta, Badruddin Tyabji, W.C. Bonnerji, Surendranath Banerji, Romesh Chandra Dutt, and S. Subramania Iyer**. Dadabhai Naoroji, a businessman and influential public figure based in London (and briefly a member of the British Parliament), provided guidance to younger nationalists. A retired British official, **A.O. Hume**, also facilitated the coming together of Indians from various regions.

In its initial two decades, the Congress is often described as "**moderate**" in its approach and demands. Its primary objectives were to secure a **greater role for Indians in the government and administration**. Key demands included:

Making the Legislative Councils more representative and granting them increased powers.
Establishing Legislative Councils in provinces where they did not exist.
Appointing Indians to higher positions within the government.
Holding Civil Service examinations in India concurrently with London to facilitate Indian entry into higher administration.

The demand for the **Indianisation of the administration** was partly a response to the prevailing **racism** that reserved most significant government jobs for white British officials, based on the discriminatory assumption that Indians were incapable of holding positions of responsibility. Furthermore, Indianisation was seen as a way to reduce the **"drain of wealth"** to England, as British officers sent a large portion of their high salaries back home.

Other demands raised by the early Congress included:

Separation of the **judiciary from the executive** (to ensure judicial independence).
Repeal of the discriminatory **Arms Act**.
Guarantee of **freedom of speech and expression**.

The early Congress also addressed economic concerns. They argued that British rule had caused **poverty and famines**, blaming high land revenue demands for the impoverishment of peasants and zamindars, and the export of grains for food shortages. They demanded **reduction of revenue, cuts in military spending, and increased investment in irrigation**. They passed resolutions on issues like the salt tax, the treatment of Indian labourers abroad, and the hardships faced by forest dwellers due to restrictive forest administration. This demonstrates that even though the Congress was primarily composed of educated elite, it addressed the concerns of broader sections of society, not just their own class interests.

Source 1 shows snippets highlighting the early Congress's aspiration to represent all Indians. The Indian Mirror newspaper in 1886 viewed the Congress as a precursor to an Indian Parliament. Badruddin Tyabji, in his 1887 presidential address, explicitly stated that the Congress represented all communities of India, not just one class or group. These statements reflect the founding principle of the Congress as an inclusive, pan-Indian body.

The **Moderate leaders** aimed to create public awareness about the unjust nature of British rule. They used methods such as publishing newspapers, writing articles exposing the economic harm of British policies, criticising British rule in speeches, and sending delegates to different parts of the country to mobilise public opinion. They believed that the British, being adherents of ideals like freedom and justice, would eventually respond positively to the just demands of Indians. Thus, their strategy focused on articulating these demands clearly and making the government aware of Indian sentiments.

Fig. 2 is a portrait of Dadabhai Naoroji, often called the "Grand Old Man of India." He was a key early nationalist leader and critic of British economic policies. His book, *Poverty and Un-British Rule in India*, elaborated on the theory of the drain of wealth, arguing that British rule was economically impoverishing India.

Source 2 presents a letter from Dinshaw Wacha to Dadabhai Naoroji in 1887, expressing concern about some leaders being too preoccupied with personal wealth ("pursuit of gold"). Wacha questions how national progress can be achieved if prominent figures are focused solely on enriching themselves. This comment highlights an internal critique within the early nationalist ranks regarding the balance between personal ambition and commitment to the national cause, and hints at potential limitations of a movement dominated by the wealthy elite.

“Freedom Is Our Birthright”

By the 1890s, a section of nationalists began questioning the effectiveness of the Moderate approach, often termed their "politics of prayers" or petitions. Leaders like **Bepin Chandra Pal** in Bengal, **Bal Gangadhar Tilak** in Maharashtra, and **Lala Lajpat Rai** in Punjab emerged, advocating for more **radical objectives and methods**. They were critical of relying on the British government's good intentions.

These **Radical** leaders emphasised:

**Self-reliance**: The need for Indians to depend on their own strength and capabilities, rather than expecting favours from the government.
**Constructive work**: Engaging in activities that build Indian institutions and strengthen society from within.
**Mass mobilisation**: Involving a wider section of the population in the struggle.
**Boycott**: Rejecting British institutions and goods.

Their ultimate goal was **swaraj**, which they interpreted as self-rule or complete independence. Bal Gangadhar Tilak popularised the powerful slogan, "**Freedom is my birthright and I shall have it!**"

In 1905, Viceroy Curzon ordered the **Partition of Bengal**. Bengal was the largest province at the time, including Bihar and parts of Orissa. The British officially justified the partition on grounds of administrative convenience, claiming the province was too large to manage. However, critics saw the real motive as political: to weaken the influence of Bengali politicians and create a division among the Bengali-speaking population by separating East Bengal (with a Muslim majority) and merging it with Assam, while retaining West Bengal (with a Hindu majority) as a separate entity.

The Partition of Bengal sparked widespread anger across India, uniting both Moderates and Radicals within the Congress in opposition. Extensive public meetings and demonstrations were organised. This period saw the development of new methods of mass protest. The movement that emerged was known as the **Swadeshi movement** (meaning "of one's own country"), which was particularly strong in Bengal. In regions like deltaic Andhra, it was referred to as the **Vandemataram Movement**.

Fig. 3 shows Bal Gangadhar Tilak, a leading figure of the Radical faction within the Congress. His newspaper, *Kesari* (published in Marathi), became a potent voice of criticism against British rule and a platform for advocating Swaraj. Tilak's emphasis on self-reliance and direct action marked a departure from the Moderate approach.

Thousands of people joining demonstrations during the Swadeshi movement.

Fig. 4 depicts a large crowd participating in a demonstration during the Swadeshi movement. The movement's emphasis on mass mobilisation is evident in such images, showcasing the broader public involvement in political protests against British policies like the Partition of Bengal.

The Swadeshi movement's objectives were to oppose British rule actively and promote self-sufficiency. It encouraged **self-help initiatives, Swadeshi enterprises** (businesses using Indian capital and goods), **national education** (outside government control), and the use of **Indian languages**. The Radicals within the movement advocated for mass mobilisation and a complete **boycott of British institutions and imported goods** to achieve swaraj. Some individuals even suggested the necessity of "**revolutionary violence**" to overthrow British rule, indicating a more militant strand of resistance.

Other important developments occurred in the early 20th century. In 1906, a group of Muslim landlords and nawabs formed the **All India Muslim League** in Dacca. The League supported the Partition of Bengal and put forward a demand for **separate electorates for Muslims**, which the British government conceded in the **Indian Councils Act of 1909**. This provision reserved seats in councils for Muslims, who would be elected exclusively by Muslim voters, a policy that encouraged politicians to appeal to religious identity and contributed to communal divisions.

Internal divisions also affected the Congress, leading to a **split in 1907**. The Moderates disagreed with the use of boycott, considering it a form of coercion. After the split, the Congress was dominated by the Moderates, while Tilak's followers operated outside the organisation. The two factions eventually **reunited in December 1915**. The following year, in 1916, the Congress and the Muslim League signed the significant **Lucknow Pact**, agreeing to work together towards the goal of representative government in India.

Fig. 5 is a portrait of Lala Lajpat Rai, a prominent nationalist leader from Punjab. He was a key member of the Radical group within the Congress and was critical of the Moderate approach of relying on petitions and appeals to the British. He was also actively involved with the Arya Samaj.

The Growth Of Mass Nationalism

After 1919, the nature of the struggle against British rule fundamentally changed, transforming into a widespread **mass movement**. This involved the participation of large numbers of peasants, tribal people, students, and women, and occasionally included factory workers and business groups who began to support the Congress more actively in the 1920s.

Several factors contributed to this shift towards mass nationalism, notably the impact of the **First World War (1914-1918)**.

The war significantly altered the economic and political landscape in India:

It caused a substantial **increase in the Government of India's defence expenditure**.
To finance this, the government imposed **higher taxes** on individual incomes and business profits.
Increased military spending and demand for war supplies led to a sharp **rise in prices**, creating severe hardships for ordinary people.
Conversely, Indian **business groups benefited greatly**, making significant profits from war-related production and contracts.

As discussed in Chapter 6, the war stimulated demand for Indian industrial goods (like jute bags, cloth, and rails) while simultaneously disrupting imports from other countries. This created favourable conditions for **Indian industries to expand**, and Indian business groups began demanding greater opportunities for growth.

The British also expanded their army recruitment efforts during the war, pressuring villages to provide soldiers for the war effort in Europe. Many Indian soldiers were sent to fight abroad. Upon their return after the war, many had gained exposure to the wider world and developed an understanding of how imperial powers exploited peoples in Asia and Africa. This experience often instilled in them a desire to oppose colonial rule in their own country.

Furthermore, the **Russian Revolution in 1917** had a significant impact globally. News of peasants' and workers' struggles and the ideas of socialism circulated widely, inspiring many Indian nationalists and influencing their perspective on social and economic justice within the national struggle.

The Advent Of Mahatma Gandhi

It was within this context of widespread discontent, economic change, and new global influences that **Mahatma Gandhi** emerged as a prominent **mass leader**.

Gandhi, then 46 years old, returned to India in **1915** after decades in **South Africa**. In South Africa, he had already gained international recognition as a respected leader for successfully leading non-violent campaigns (**satyagraha**) against racist laws and restrictions imposed on Indians there. His South African experience connected him with diverse Indian communities (Hindus, Muslims, Parsis, Christians, from different regions and socio-economic backgrounds) and exposed him to the power of collective non-violent action.

Upon his arrival in India, Mahatma Gandhi spent his first year travelling extensively across the country to understand the people, their grievances, and the overall political and social situation. His initial engagements in India were in local movements, including:

**Champaran (1917)**: A movement against the exploitative indigo plantation system.
**Kheda (1918)**: A peasant movement against excessive revenue demands.
**Ahmedabad (1918)**: Leading a successful strike of mill workers demanding better wages.

These early interventions brought him into close contact with future leaders like **Rajendra Prasad** and **Vallabhbhai Patel** and allowed him to apply his principles of Satyagraha in the Indian context, gradually establishing himself as a leader on the national stage.

Founders of the Natal Congress, Durban, South Africa, 1895, including Mahatma Gandhi.

Fig. 6 shows the founders of the Natal Congress in Durban, South Africa, in 1895, with Mahatma Gandhi in the back row, centre. This image captures a pivotal moment in Gandhi's early activism against racial discrimination in South Africa, where he developed the philosophy and techniques of Satyagraha, which he would later apply on a massive scale in India.

The Rowlatt Satyagraha

In 1919, in response to the newly enacted **Rowlatt Act**, Gandhiji called for a nationwide **satyagraha**. This Act, passed by the British government, drastically curtailed fundamental civil liberties such as the freedom of expression and significantly expanded the powers of the police. Mahatma Gandhi, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, and other leaders condemned the Act as "devilish" and tyrannical, asserting that the government had no right to suppress people's basic freedoms.

Gandhiji urged Indians to observe **6 April 1919** as a day of non-violent protest against the Act, calling for it to be a day of "humiliation and prayer" and a general strike (**hartal**). To organise the movement, **Satyagraha Sabhas** were formed.

The Rowlatt Satyagraha became the **first major all-India movement** against the British government, although its impact was more pronounced in urban areas. April 1919 saw numerous demonstrations and hartals across the country. The government responded with severe and brutal repression.

A horrific instance of this repression was the **Jallianwala Bagh massacre** on **13 April 1919** (Baisakhi day) in Amritsar. **General Dyer** ordered his troops to open fire on a large, peaceful gathering assembled in an enclosed ground. Hundreds of innocent people were killed and thousands injured. In protest against this atrocity, the renowned poet **Rabindranath Tagore** renounced his British knighthood, expressing the nation's pain and anger.

The walled compound in which General Dyer opened fire on a gathering of people at Jallianwala Bagh.

Fig. 7 shows the walled enclosure of Jallianwala Bagh in Amritsar. The bullet marks on the walls (pointed out by the people in the image) serve as grim reminders of the massacre that took place here on April 13, 1919, when British troops under General Dyer fired upon an unarmed crowd, a pivotal event that intensified anti-British sentiment.

During the Rowlatt Satyagraha, participants actively sought to promote **Hindu-Muslim unity** in their struggle against the British. This aligned with Mahatma Gandhi's consistent belief that India was a land belonging to people of all religions – Hindus, Muslims, and others – and his keen desire for inter-community support in any just cause.

Khilafat Agitation And The Non-Cooperation Movement

The **Khilafat issue** provided another crucial opportunity for uniting Hindus and Muslims in the national movement. In 1920, the British imposed a harsh treaty on the **Turkish Sultan (Khalifa)** following the end of the First World War. This treaty dismantled the Ottoman Empire and removed the Khalifa from power, which deeply angered Muslims worldwide, as the Khalifa was seen as the spiritual head of Islam.

Indian Muslims felt strongly that the Khalifa should retain control over Muslim holy sites within the former Ottoman territories. Leaders of the Khilafat agitation, **Mohammad Ali and Shaukat Ali**, sought to launch a full-scale **Non-Cooperation Movement** against the British to pressure them on this issue. Mahatma Gandhi supported this call and urged the Congress to join the campaign. He linked the Khilafat issue ("Khilafat wrong") with the injustices in Punjab (the Jallianwala massacre, known as "Punjab wrongs") and called for demanding **swaraj** (self-rule).

The **Non-Cooperation Movement** gained considerable momentum throughout 1921–22. Key aspects of the movement included:

Thousands of students boycotted government-controlled schools and colleges.
Many prominent lawyers, such as Motilal Nehru, C.R. Das, C. Rajagopalachari, and Asaf Ali, gave up their legal practices.
British titles and honours were surrendered.
Legislatures were boycotted.
People organised public bonfires to burn foreign cloth, symbolising rejection of foreign goods.

Consequently, the import of foreign cloth witnessed a drastic decline between 1920 and 1922. These visible actions were just part of the movement; vast areas of the country were energised and seemed on the verge of a significant revolt against British rule.

People’s Initiatives

While the Non-Cooperation Movement was led by national figures like Gandhiji, it was manifested in diverse ways by people across the country. In many instances, people adopted **non-violent methods** as advocated by Gandhi. However, different groups and classes often interpreted Gandhiji's call based on their **local grievances** and priorities, sometimes resorting to actions that were not strictly in line with his principles of non-violence.

Examples of local interpretations and initiatives:

In **Kheda, Gujarat**, Patidar peasants organised non-violent resistance against the British demand for high land revenue.
In **coastal Andhra and interior Tamil Nadu**, people picketed (protested outside) liquor shops.
In the **Guntur district of Andhra Pradesh**, tribal people and poor peasants staged "**forest satyagrahas**," including acts like sending their cattle into restricted forest areas without paying grazing fees. They protested the colonial state's regulations that limited their access to forest resources. They believed Gandhi would help reduce their taxes and abolish these forest rules, sometimes proclaiming "swaraj" and believing "Gandhi Raj" was imminent.
In **Sind** (now in Pakistan), Muslim traders and peasants were highly supportive of the Khilafat cause, and the **Khilafat-Non-Cooperation alliance** in Bengal significantly strengthened communal unity within the national movement.
In **Punjab**, the **Akali movement** among Sikhs sought to remove corrupt religious officials (mahants) from their gurdwaras, who were often supported by the British. This movement became closely associated with the Non-Cooperation Movement.
In **Assam**, tea garden labourers, shouting "Gandhi Maharaj ki Jai" (Victory to Great Leader Gandhi), demanded substantial wage increases. They left British-owned plantations, believing they were acting according to Gandhiji's wishes. Interestingly, some Assamese Vaishnava songs of the period replaced references to the deity Krishna with "Gandhi Raja" (King Gandhi), indicating the popular reverence for Gandhi.

Source 3 provides Mahatma Gandhi's explanation of *ahimsa* (non-violence). He defines it as doing good consistently without expecting anything in return and calls it the "eternal law of suffering" that can remedy wrong and injustice. Ahimsa, according to him, requires being prepared to suffer cheerfully at the hands of others, wishing ill to no one, even those who have wronged you. This philosophical understanding of non-violence was the basis of his struggle, requiring immense self-control and moral strength from practitioners.

The People’s Mahatma

The examples of local initiatives show how ordinary people perceived Mahatma Gandhi. Many saw him as a kind of **messiah** figure, someone capable of alleviating their suffering and poverty. While Gandhi aimed for class unity rather than conflict, peasants often believed he would support their struggles against zamindars, and agricultural labourers hoped he would help them acquire land.

Sometimes, people attributed their own successes to Gandhiji's influence. For instance, peasants in Pratapgarh (United Provinces) managed to stop illegal evictions of tenants after a strong local movement, but they felt that it was Gandhiji who had secured this victory for them. This highlights the deep faith and almost mythic status Gandhi held among the masses.

Conversely, using Gandhi's name or perceived authority, tribal groups and peasants sometimes engaged in actions, including violent ones, that did not align with Gandhian ideals of non-violence. This demonstrates how his message was interpreted and adapted to local contexts and grievances.

A popular representation of Mahatma Gandhi driving Krishna's chariot, guiding nationalist leaders.

Fig. 8 is a popular image depicting Mahatma Gandhi in a divine light, shown driving the chariot of Krishna and guiding other nationalist leaders. This portrayal illustrates the immense popular reverence for Gandhi, often placing him within the pantheon of Indian deities and symbolising his perceived role as a guide leading the nation in its struggle against British rule.

Source 4 is an excerpt from a CID report in January 1921 regarding the peasant movement in Allahabad district. It notes the astonishing reach of Mr. Gandhi's name in even remote villages, where people accept what he says as truth and his orders as binding, despite not fully knowing who he is. They perceive him variously as a Mahatma, sadhu, Pundit, Brahmin, or even a deity. The report attributes the power of his name to the belief that he was responsible for stopping illegal evictions (bedakhli) in Pratapgarh. The report also suggests that people generally saw Gandhi as being against zamindars, not necessarily the government, and were in favour of both "Gandhiji and the Sarkar" (government). This shows a complex, often localised, understanding of Gandhi's role, particularly his perceived alignment with peasant interests against landlords.

The Happenings Of 1922 –1929

Mahatma Gandhi was fundamentally opposed to violent movements. The **Non-Cooperation Movement** was abruptly called off in **February 1922** after a violent incident in **Chauri Chaura**. In this village, a crowd of peasants, provoked by police firing on their demonstration, set fire to a police station, resulting in the death of twenty-two policemen.

After the end of the Non-Cooperation Movement, different strategies emerged among Gandhi's followers. Some advocated for continuing **constructive work** in rural areas, focusing on social upliftment and community building. Other leaders, such as **Chitta Ranjan Das** and **Motilal Nehru**, proposed that the Congress should participate in elections to the legislative councils and enter these bodies to influence government policies from within. Through dedicated social work in villages in the mid-1920s, the Gandhians successfully expanded their support base, which proved valuable for subsequent movements like the Civil Disobedience movement.

Fig. 9 is a portrait of Chitta Ranjan Das, a prominent lawyer from East Bengal and a key figure in the freedom movement, particularly active during the Non-Cooperation Movement. He later advocated for entry into legislative councils after the movement was withdrawn.

The mid-1920s also saw the formation of two significant political organisations with very different visions for India: the **Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)**, a Hindu organisation, and the **Communist Party of India**. These parties represented diverse ideologies shaping the political landscape.

This period also saw the activities of **revolutionary nationalists** who sought to overthrow British rule and challenge exploitative classes through revolution. Figures like **Bhagat Singh, Chandra Shekhar Azad, and Sukhdev** were prominent in this movement. They founded the **Hindustan Socialist Republican Association (HSRA)** in 1928 in Delhi.

Notable actions by revolutionary nationalists:

On 17 December 1928, Bhagat Singh, Azad, and Rajguru assassinated Saunders, a police officer involved in the lathi-charge that caused the death of Lala Lajpat Rai.
On 8 April 1929, Bhagat Singh and B.K. Dutt threw a bomb in the Central Legislative Assembly in Delhi. Their stated aim, explained in a leaflet, was not to kill but "**to make the deaf hear**" and draw attention to the government's exploitative policies.

Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev, and Rajguru were executed by the British on March 23, 1931. Bhagat Singh was only 23 at the time.

Demonstrators opposing the Simon Commission with 'Simon Go Back' banners.

Fig. 10 shows demonstrators protesting against the Simon Commission. Appointed by the British government in 1927 to propose India's future political framework, the Commission had no Indian members. This exclusion angered all Indian political groups, leading to a widespread boycott and slogans like "Simon Go Back" upon its arrival in 1928, unifying nationalists against perceived British insult and disregard for Indian aspirations.

Fig. 11 is a portrait of Bhagat Singh, a prominent revolutionary nationalist. His famous quote, "It takes a loud voice to make the deaf hear. Inquilab Zindabad!" (Long Live Revolution!) encapsulated the revolutionary stance and their goal of shaking the colonial government out of its indifference to Indian demands. His actions and sacrifice made him a national icon.

The decade concluded with the Congress adopting a crucial resolution at its Lahore session in 1929, under the presidency of **Jawaharlal Nehru**. This resolution declared **Purna Swaraj (complete independence)** as the Congress's goal. Following this, "**Independence Day**" was symbolically observed across the country on **26 January 1930**.

The March To Dandi

Recognising that Purna Swaraj would require active struggle, Mahatma Gandhi launched a significant movement in 1930 to **break the salt law**. The salt law gave the state a **monopoly** over the manufacture and sale of salt, and also imposed a tax on it. Gandhi and other nationalists argued that taxing salt, an essential item consumed by everyone regardless of wealth, was fundamentally unjust ("sinful").

The **Salt March (Dandi March)** was strategically chosen because it resonated with all sections of society, rich and poor alike, by linking the broader goal of freedom to a simple, universally shared grievance. This had the potential to unite people across class lines.

Gandhiji and his followers began a march covering over 240 miles from his ashram in Sabarmati to the coastal town of **Dandi**. Upon reaching Dandi on **6 April 1930**, they symbolically broke the government's salt law by collecting natural salt from the seashore and boiling seawater to produce salt.

Mahatma Gandhi breaking the salt law by picking up a lump of natural salt at Dandi, 6 April 1930.

Fig. 12 shows Mahatma Gandhi picking up a lump of natural salt at Dandi on April 6, 1930, symbolising the breaking of the British salt law. This act marked the beginning of the nationwide Civil Disobedience Movement and highlighted the power of non-violent civil disobedience against unjust laws.

The Civil Disobedience Movement, initiated by the Salt March, saw large-scale participation from **peasants, tribal people, and women**. A business federation even published a pamphlet on the salt issue, indicating some business support. The government responded with brutal force against the peaceful protestors (satyagrahis), arresting thousands and sending them to jail.

These combined struggles and mass movements eventually pressured the British. The **Government of India Act of 1935** introduced **provincial autonomy**, granting provinces more authority. Elections to the provincial legislatures were held in 1937, and the Congress formed governments in 7 out of the 11 provinces, demonstrating their significant political strength at the provincial level.

Source 5 presents an account by Baji Mohammad, a Congress leader in Orissa, detailing the severe repression faced by protestors during the Quit India movement in 1942 in Nabarangpur. It describes police firing on a crowd, resulting in many deaths and injuries, widespread arrests, and executions, including that of the tribal leader Veer Lakhan Nayak. Mohammad notes Nayak's only sorrow was not living to see India's freedom. This source illustrates the brutal extent of British suppression during the later phase of the national movement and the personal sacrifices made by leaders and participants like Nayak and Mohammad, who continued to mobilise people despite the risks.

In September 1939, after two years of Congress ministries in power, the **Second World War** broke out. Critical of Hitler and fascism, Congress leaders were initially willing to support the British war effort but demanded that India be granted independence after the war in return. The British refused this demand, leading the Congress ministries to resign in protest in 1939.

Quit India And Later

Amidst the Second World War, Mahatma Gandhi decided to launch a new, decisive phase of struggle. In August 1942, he initiated the **Quit India Movement**, demanding that the British leave India immediately. To the Indian people, he gave the electrifying call to "**do or die**" in their effort to fight the British, while insisting that the struggle must remain **non-violent**.

Gandhi and other prominent leaders were arrested immediately after the call, but the movement spread rapidly across the country. It particularly attracted **peasants and youth**, many of whom left their studies to participate. Demonstrators targeted and attacked symbols of state authority and communication networks throughout India. In several areas, people took matters into their own hands and **set up their own governments**.

The British responded with extreme **repression**. By the end of 1943, over 90,000 people had been arrested, and around 1,000 were killed in police firing. In some areas, airplanes were even used to machine-gun crowds. Despite the severity of the repression, the Quit India Movement demonstrated the depth of nationalist sentiment and significantly weakened the British Raj.

Demonstrators clashing with the police during the Quit India movement, August 1942.

Fig. 14 shows a scene of clashes between demonstrators and police during the Quit India movement in August 1942. This visually represents the widespread popular unrest and confrontation that characterised this phase of the national movement, despite the arrest of top leaders.

**Subhas Chandra Bose** represented a more radical strand of nationalism. Though he respected Gandhi as the "Father of the Nation," he did not adhere to Gandhi's principle of non-violence (**ahimsa**). In January 1941, he secretly left India and travelled to Singapore via Germany, where he organised the **Azad Hind Fauj (Indian National Army - INA)**, primarily composed of Indian soldiers who had been prisoners of war.

The INA's objective was to liberate India from British rule through armed struggle. In 1944, the INA attempted to enter India through Imphal and Kohima but the campaign failed. After the war, INA members were imprisoned and faced trials by the British. These trials sparked widespread protests across India, involving people from all sections of society, demonstrating solidarity with the INA soldiers.

Fig. 15 is a portrait of Subhas Chandra Bose. A prominent nationalist leader with socialist inclinations, he sought an alternative path to independence through armed struggle and formed the Indian National Army (INA). His charismatic leadership and efforts during World War II remain a significant part of the freedom struggle's history.

Jawaharlal Nehru listening to Mahatma Gandhi before the Bombay session of the Congress, July 1946.

Fig. 16 shows Jawaharlal Nehru with Mahatma Gandhi in July 1946. Nehru was a key disciple of Gandhi, a socialist, and an internationalist. He played a leading role in the national movement and was instrumental in shaping the policies of free India's economy and governance. This image captures their close working relationship during a critical period leading to independence.

Towards Independence And Partition

As the prospect of independence grew closer, political developments intensified, particularly concerning the demand for a separate Muslim state. In **1940**, the **Muslim League** passed a resolution demanding "**Independent States**" for Muslims in the north-western and eastern regions of India. At this stage, the resolution did not explicitly mention partition or the creation of "Pakistan".

The League's demand for an autonomous arrangement for Muslims evolved from viewing Muslims as a separate "**nation**" from Hindus, a concept that gained traction from the late 1930s. This notion was influenced by:

Existing tensions between some Hindu and Muslim groups in the 1920s and 1930s.
Crucially, the results of the **provincial elections of 1937**. The League fared poorly in these elections and felt that Muslims were a minority who would always be subordinate in a democratic system. They feared that Muslims might even lack adequate representation.
The Congress's refusal in 1937 to form coalition governments with the Muslim League in provinces like the United Provinces further alienated and annoyed the League.

The Congress's inability to effectively mobilise the Muslim masses in the 1930s created an opportunity for the Muslim League to expand its social base. The League intensified its efforts to gain support in the early 1940s, especially when many Congress leaders were imprisoned during the Quit India movement.

At the conclusion of the Second World War in 1945, the British government initiated negotiations with the Congress and the Muslim League regarding India's independence. These talks, however, failed, primarily because the **Muslim League insisted it was the sole representative and spokesperson for all Muslims in India**. The Congress could not accept this claim, as a significant number of Muslims continued to support the Congress.

Provincial elections were held again in 1946. The Congress performed well in the "**General**" constituencies (those not reserved for any specific community), but the Muslim League achieved spectacular success in the seats reserved for Muslims. This electoral success strengthened the League's resolve and they persisted with their demand for "**Pakistan**".

In March 1946, the British Cabinet dispatched a **three-member Cabinet Mission** to Delhi to evaluate the demand for Pakistan and propose a suitable political framework for an independent India. The Mission suggested a **united India** structured as a **loose confederation**, with some autonomy for Muslim-majority areas. However, the Mission was unable to secure agreement from both the Congress and the Muslim League on the specific details of this plan.

With the failure of the Cabinet Mission's proposal, the idea of Partition became increasingly difficult to avoid and appeared more or less inevitable.

Maulana Azad with other members at the Congress Working Committee, Sevagram, 1942.

Fig. 17 shows Maulana Azad with Congress working committee members in 1942. Born in Mecca and a scholar of Islam, Azad was a strong advocate of Hindu-Muslim unity and opposed the two-nation theory. He played a significant role in the Gandhian movements and negotiations for independence, representing the section of Muslims who remained loyal to the Congress and a united India.

Chakravarti Rajagopalachari speaking to Gandhiji before the Gandhi-Jinnah talks, 1944.

Fig. 18 shows Chakravarti Rajagopalachari ("Rajaji") speaking with Mahatma Gandhi before talks with Jinnah in 1944. A veteran nationalist and leader from South India, Rajaji held important positions including member of the Interim Government and the first Indian Governor-General of free India, representing a senior statesman involved in the complex negotiations of the final years of British rule.

Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel playing an important role in the negotiations for independence during 1945–47.

Fig. 19 is a portrait of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, a prominent leader of the freedom movement who played a crucial role in negotiations for independence and the integration of princely states after 1947. Coming from a modest peasant background, his leadership demonstrated the movement's broad base.

Mohammad Ali Jinnah with Mahatma Gandhi, Bombay, September 1944.

Fig. 20 shows Mohammad Ali Jinnah with Mahatma Gandhi in 1944. Once an advocate of Hindu-Muslim unity and a key figure in the Lucknow Pact, Jinnah later re-organised the Muslim League and became the primary spokesperson for the demand for Pakistan. This image captures a moment of negotiation between the two key figures representing the divergent political paths leading to Partition.

Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan with colleagues at a peace march through Bihar, March 1947.

Fig. 21 shows Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan ("Badshah Khan"), the leader of the Khudai Khidmatgars (a non-violent Pathan movement) from the North West Frontier Province, during a peace march in Bihar in 1947. A staunch opponent of Partition, he was critical of the Congress's agreement to the division, representing a significant voice that favoured a united India.

Following the failure of the Cabinet Mission, the Muslim League intensified its efforts for Pakistan by calling for **"Direct Action Day" on 16 August 1946**. This call led to widespread **riots**, particularly in Calcutta, resulting in the death of thousands and initiating a cycle of violence. By March 1947, violence had spread to many parts of northern India.

The impending Partition resulted in horrific violence. Hundreds of thousands of people were killed, and countless women faced brutal atrocities. Millions were forced to become **refugees**, uprooted from their ancestral homes and displaced to what became new countries. Partition fundamentally changed India, its cities, and led to the birth of a new nation, **Pakistan**.

Thus, the achievement of India's independence from British rule in 1947 was accompanied by the immense pain, violence, and displacement caused by the Partition.

Refugees from riot-torn Punjab gathering in New Delhi in search of shelter and food.

Fig. 22 depicts refugees from Punjab, affected by the Partition riots, seeking shelter and food in New Delhi. This image is a poignant reminder of the human cost of Partition, showing the mass displacement and suffering endured by millions who were forced to leave their homes and became refugees in the newly formed states of India and Pakistan.