Swarajists – Modern History Notes

The Swarajists were a significant political faction in British India during the early 20th century, playing a crucial role in the Indian independence movement. Emerging in the aftermath of the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms of 1919, which introduced a limited form of self-government in India, the Swarajists sought to work within the framework of the new constitutional setup to advance the cause of self-rule. Led by prominent leaders like C.R. Das and Motilal Nehru, the Swarajists advocated for a more active and assertive approach in the legislative councils, with the ultimate goal of achieving complete independence for India. This group represented a nuanced perspective within the broader spectrum of the nationalist movement, navigating the complexities of constitutional politics while remaining steadfast in their commitment to Swaraj, or self-rule. The Swarajists’ engagement with the political structures of the time reflects the dynamic and evolving nature of the struggle for independence in colonial India.

Table of Contents

The Indian National Congress experienced a division within its ranks, resulting in two distinct ideological groups:

The Swarajists and the No Changers. This division was primarily centred around their stance on participating in or boycotting councils. The Swarajists aimed to put an end to the council boycott, whereas the No Changers insisted on continuing the boycott. Notable figures associated with the Swarajist faction included CR Das, Vithalbhai Patel, Motilal Nehru, and Hakim Ahmed Khan. On the other hand, prominent members of the No Changers included C Rajagopalachari, Vallabhbhai Patel, MA Ansari, and Rajendra Prasad.

The primary objectives of this article are to provide you with an understanding of the emergence of the Swarajists as a significant trend in nationalist politics. This period witnessed the establishment of the Swaraj Party, led by Motilal Nehru and Chittaranjan Das. By studying this unit, you will:

Gain familiarity with the origins of the Swaraj Party and the ideology it advocated.
Understand the party’s program and the factors that led to its eventual disintegration.
Evaluate the Swaraj Party’s contributions to Indian politics.
Receive a summary of the events that unfolded after the withdrawal of the Noncooperation movement.

Introduction

The period from 1922 to 1929 holds significant importance for several reasons. It marked the conclusion of the Non-Cooperation Movement and the commencement of another notable movement. During this time, India’s struggle for liberation witnessed the emergence of fresh trends and forms of political action. The period introduced the concept of council participation and constructive works as dual objectives for the nation. It also brought forth new leaders who possessed distinct perspectives. Additionally, this period presented India with new challenges, tensions, dilemmas, and constraints in its quest for independence. In this unit, you will be introduced to all these aspects of the period spanning 1922 to 1929.

Background

During Mahatma Gandhi’s leadership, the Indian National Congress became a significant nationalist platform encompassing diverse opinions united in their anti-imperialist sentiments. Gandhi’s first Civil Disobedience movement (1920-22) garnered support from various social classes. The formal adoption of Swaraj (self-rule) as the Congress’s goal transformed the Non-Cooperation movement into a mass movement. Gandhi’s compelling slogan, “Swaraj in one year,” motivated the masses to take action. However, the suspension of the Non-Cooperation movement in February 1922 led to widespread disappointment and a visible split in the Congress leadership.
The British government exploited the situation and employed repressive measures. They utilized Bengal Regulation III of 1816 and introduced an ordinance allowing for summary arrest and trial before special commissioners. British Prime Minister Lloyd George praised the efficiency of the Indian Civil Service (ICS) in his “steel frame” speech, aligning with a shift in policy that undermined the principles of self-government and bolstered autocratic British rule.
Disillusionment set in, causing many to question the effectiveness of Gandhi’s nonviolent methods. Was it possible to train millions of people in the philosophy of nonviolence? And even if feasible, how long would it take? Gandhi’s imprisonment left the country without a definite political program. The artificial unity between Hindus and Muslims began to crumble, and tensions between the two communities escalated, diverting national energies. The Congress’s constructive work, a socio-economic program aimed at improving conditions, failed to attract the support of the upper-middle-class intellectuals who had reservations about Gandhi’s emotional and metaphysical approach to politics. They sought to rescue Congress and its politics from the demoralization that followed the withdrawal of the Non-Cooperation movement.

SWARAJ PARTY: FORMATION

During this period, C.R. Das and Motilal Nehru emerged as leaders who provided a new direction. The Civil Disobedience Enquiry Committee’s report stated that the country was not yet ready for mass civil disobedience, and the constructive program had limited support. In response, Das and Nehru proposed a different approach: instead of boycotting the legislatures, they suggested participating in them to undermine the reforms from within. This idea of Council-Entry gained traction among some Congress members but faced strong opposition from orthodox Gandhians such as Rajagopalachari, Rajendra, and Vallabhbhai Patel.
The Congress split into two factions. The No-Changers, or orthodox Gandhians, opposed the Council-Entry program and advocated following Gandhi’s constructive program. On the other hand, the Pro-Changers or Swarajists believed in combining the constructive program with a political program of council entry. The conflict came to a head in December 1922 at the Gaya Session of the Congress, where Rajagopalachari led the opposition against Council Entry, leading C.R. Das to resign from the presidency of the Congress. After being outvoted, C.R. Das announced the formation of the Swaraj Party on December 31, 1922, with himself as the President and Motilal Nehru as the Secretary.

However, the victory of the No-Changers at the Gaya Congress was short-lived. The Hindu-Muslim riots of 1923 created a tense political atmosphere, and it became evident that a nationwide civil disobedience movement could not be resumed. At the special Congress session held in Delhi in September 1923, under the presidency of Maulana Azad, congressmen were allowed to contest the upcoming elections. The annual session at Cocanada supported the idea of Council-Entry, stating that Non-Cooperation could also be practised within the councils. The Congress called upon all its members to redouble their efforts in implementing Gandhi’s constructive program, thereby averting a further split in the party.

Swarajists and No Changers

The Swarajists, led by C.R. Das, Motilal Nehru, and Ajmal Khan, advocated for an end to the boycott of legislative councils. They believed that nationalists should enter these councils to expose their inherent flaws and use them as a platform for political struggle. Their approach was to “end or mend” the councils, meaning that if the government did not respond to their demands, it would obstruct the functioning of the councils. However, their main goal was to use the councils as a forum for political activism and not as a means to gradually transform colonial rule.
On the other hand, the No Changers opposed the idea of council entry. They focused on constructive work while maintaining the boycott and noncooperation. They also advocated for the quiet resumption of the suspended civil disobedience program. Prominent figures of the No Changer faction included Vallabhbhai Patel, Rajendra Prasad, C. Rajagopalachari, and M.A. Ansari. Their approach emphasized the constructive program and a more cautious approach towards political activism.

In summary, the Swarajists favoured inclusion in the legislative councils as a means of political struggle, while the No Changers opposed council entry and focused on constructive work and a more restrained approach to activism.

The Emergence of Congress-Khilafat Swarajists

After Mahatma Gandhi’s arrest in March 1922, the nationalist movement faced disintegration, disorganization, and demoralization. During this period, known as the movement’s passive phase or transition period, a debate arose among Congress members regarding the course of action to be taken.
One group, led by C.R. Das, Motilal Nehru, and Ajmal Khan, advocated for ending the boycott of legislative councils. They believed that nationalists should enter these councils to expose their fundamental flaws and utilize them as a platform for political struggle, aiming to rally popular support. Their approach was characterized by the slogan ‘end or mend’ the councils, meaning that if the government failed to respond to nationalist demands, they would obstruct the functioning of the councils.
Those supporting the idea of entering legislative councils became known as the ‘Swarajists.’ On the other hand, the ‘No-changers,’ led by C. Rajagopalachari, Vallabhbhai Patel, Rajendra Prasad, and M.A. Ansari, opposed the notion of council entry. The No-changers advocated for a focus on constructive work, the continuation of the boycott and non-cooperation, and quiet preparation for the resumption of the suspended civil disobedience program.

However, the Swarajists’ proposal of ‘ending or mending’ the councils was defeated at the Gaya session of the Congress in December 1922. Disagreements between the two factions on the issue of council entry led to the resignation of C.R. Das as the president of Congress and Motilal Nehru as the secretary. They subsequently announced the formation of the Congress-Khilafat Swarajya Party, also known as the Swarajist Party, with C.R. Das as the president and Motilal Nehru as one of the secretaries.

Gandhi and Swarajists

After the elections, the Swarajists achieved success in some provinces and their influence within the Congress grew stronger. However, Gandhi’s release from jail in February 1924 reignited the conflict between him and the Swarajists, leading to a potential split within Congress. In June, Gandhi declared his support for the original “boycott” program and suggested that those who disagreed should form a separate organization.
During the All India Congress Committee (A.I.C.C.) meeting in Ahmedabad in June 1924, Gandhi put forth resolutions aimed at eliminating the Swarajists from the Congress. One of the resolutions required every office-holder of the Congress to spin two thousand yards of yarn every month, with authorized action to be taken against those who failed to comply. Additionally, those who did not support the boycott of the councils were urged to resign from the AICC, and voters were warned against those who violated the Congress policy.
The Swarajists strongly opposed these resolutions, as their success in the elections was largely due to the prestige and resources of the Congress. They offered staunch resistance, and Gandhi eventually compromised by removing the penalty of loss of office originally attached to the resolution. This compromise dealt a serious blow to Gandhi’s power and prestige, and he publicly admitted to being “defeated and humbled.”
Subsequently, Gandhi lent his support to the Swarajists and designated them as the authorized representatives of Congress to engage with the government. At the Belgaum Congress, presided over by Gandhi, an agreement was reached that included the suspension of non-cooperation except for the refusal to use or wear cloth made outside of India. It was also emphasized that different sections of the Congress could undertake different kinds of work. The constructive program, which focused on activities such as spinning, Hindu-Muslim unity, prohibition, and the eradication of untouchability, was prescribed as the primary means for achieving Swaraj by Congress members.

Swaraj Party

Objectives and Aims

The Swaraj Party, formed in 1923, had specific objectives and aims that were outlined in its published programme and manifesto. These objectives included:

Speedy Attainment of Full Dominion Status: The immediate goal of the Swaraj Party was to achieve full Dominion Status for India. This meant obtaining the right to self-governance and the ability to frame a constitution suitable for the country’s conditions and the will of its people.
Provincial Autonomy and Control over Bureaucracy: The party aimed to secure full provincial autonomy, which would involve gaining control over the bureaucracy. They believed that control over the administrative machinery was necessary to pave the way for the people to frame their own constitution.
Recognition of People’s Power over Bureaucracy: The Swaraj Party sought to establish the principle that the bureaucracy derived its power from the people. They aimed to emphasize the people’s right to control the existing machinery and system of government.
Pressing Demands for Control and Obstruction: The party’s members, upon entering legislatures, intended to demand that the government concede the right of the Indian people to control the government machinery. If these demands were not met, they were prepared to resort to a policy of “uniform, continuous, and consistent obstruction” as a form of protest.
The exact nature of Swaraj (self-rule) was not explicitly defined in the party’s constitution. However, the overall objective was the attainment of Swaraj for the people of India through legitimate and peaceful means.
It’s important to note that the Swaraj Party’s constitution underwent revisions and changes over time, leading to its final determination of the relationship with the Indian National Congress at the Belgaum Congress in December 1924.

Programme

The Swaraj Party, although formed by Congress leaders who disagreed with Gandhi’s approach to non-cooperation, operated as an integral part of Congress and thus had a similar programme. The party aimed to carry out non-violent non-cooperation within the legislative councils with the objective of undermining the 1919 constitution. The following programme was adopted by the party:

Refusal of Supplies and Budget Opposition: The party resolved to refuse supplies and reject the budget in order to exert pressure and gain recognition of their rights within the councils.
Opposition to Bureaucratic Consolidation: The party intended to oppose any legislative proposals that sought to consolidate the powers of the bureaucracy, which they believed hindered the healthy growth of national life.
Introduction and Support of Measures: The party would introduce and support resolutions, measures, and bills that were necessary for the development of a strong and vibrant national life.
By employing these tactics and strategies within the legislative councils, the Swaraj Party aimed to challenge the existing system and work towards achieving its vision of Swaraj (self-rule) for India.

Inside the Councils, the Swaraj Party adopted the following programme:

Refuse Supplies and Budget: The party decided to refuse supplies and throw out the budget to force recognition of their rights. This tactic aimed to disrupt the functioning of the councils and put pressure on the government to address their demands.
Reject Proposals for Bureaucratic Consolidation: The Swaraj Party resolved to throw out all proposals for legislative enactments that aimed to consolidate the powers of the bureaucracy. This was a means to challenge and oppose the government’s efforts to centralize authority and limit democratic participation.
Introduce Resolutions and Support Measures: The party pledged to move resolutions and introduce supportive measures and bills necessary for the healthy growth of national life. This included initiatives that aligned with the constructive programme of the Congress, focusing on economic, social, and political reforms.
Economic Policy: The Swaraj Party aimed to follow a definite economic policy that would prevent the drain of public wealth from India. They sought to check activities leading to exploitation and promote national economic, industrial, and commercial interests.
Rights of Labor and Land Reforms: The party aimed to protect the rights of labour in agriculture and industry. They also emphasized the need to adjust the relations between landlords and tenants, as well as capitalists and workers. This indicated their commitment to addressing social and economic inequalities and ensuring justice for various sections of society.
By pursuing these objectives within the council chambers, the Swaraj Party aimed to challenge the existing constitutional framework and push for greater autonomy and self-governance in India. They intended to use non-violent non-cooperation as a means to disrupt and dismantle the structure established by the Government of India Act 1919.

Outside the council, the Swaraj Party’s programme included the following objectives:

Inter-Communal Unity: The party aimed to promote inter-communal unity and understanding among Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Brahmins, and non-Brahmins. This was an effort to bridge communal divides and foster a sense of national unity.
Removal of Untouchability: The Swaraj Party advocated for the eradication of untouchability and the upliftment of the depressed classes. They sought to challenge social discrimination and work towards equality and social justice.
Village Organization: The party emphasized the organization and empowerment of villages, recognizing their importance in the overall development and self-governance of India.
Organization of Labor: The party aimed to organize labour in both industrial and agricultural sectors, including workers and peasants, to protect their interests and ensure their active participation in the struggle for Swaraj.
Economic Control and Development: The Swaraj Party advocated for the acquisition of economic control of the country, including the development of commerce and industry. They aimed to promote self-reliance and economic progress.
Control over Local and Municipal Affairs: The party sought to establish the control of nationalists over local and municipal affairs, enabling them to shape policies and initiatives at the grassroots level.
Constructive Programme: The Swaraj Party committed to carrying out the constructive programme of the Congress, including initiatives related to Swadeshi (supporting indigenous goods), Khadi (promoting handspun and handwoven cloth), temperance, national education, and arbitration boards.
Boycott of Selected British Goods: The party advocated for the boycott of selected British goods manufactured outside India, using it as a political weapon in the pursuit of Swaraj.
Federation of Asiatic Countries: The Swaraj Party proposed the formation of a federation of Asiatic countries to promote solidarity and mutual support in trade and commerce. This reflected their vision of India’s role in the broader context of Asian unity.
Foreign Propaganda: The party aimed to organize agencies for propaganda outside India to spread awareness about the national movement and seek sympathy and support from foreign countries in the struggle for Swaraj.

It is important to note that while the programme encompassed a wide range of objectives, it faced challenges in terms of feasibility and implementation, particularly regarding the ambitious goals of creating a federation of Asiatic countries and organizing foreign propaganda efforts. Additionally, the Swaraj Party’s approach emphasized class collaboration rather than class cleavage, seeking to maintain social harmony while pursuing justice and reforms.

Methods of Swarajists

The Swaraj Party employed a combination of obstructive and constructive methods to further its goals. Their approach aimed at wrecking the reforms from within and challenging the legitimacy of the council system. Here are the methods used by the Swarajists:

Obstruction of Government-Sponsored Laws: The Swarajists obstructed and opposed all laws and proposals put forth by the government. They aimed to create a deadlock in the legislatures and undermine the authority and credibility of the councils.
Rejection of Budgets: The party rejected the votable parts of the budgets presented by the government. This was a way to express their non-cooperation and refusal to support the financial measures of the colonial administration.
Rejection of Bureaucratic Proposals: The Swarajists also rejected proposals originating from the bureaucracy. They sought to challenge the power and influence of the bureaucratic apparatus and promote their own vision of a national government.
Promotion of Resolutions: The party moved resolutions within the councils that were aimed at promoting a healthy national life and displacing the bureaucracy. These resolutions were intended to showcase their alternative policies and advocate for the interests of the Indian people.
Non-Participation in Official Committees: Swarajist members were instructed not to serve as members on committees through official nomination. This was a way to maintain their independence and resist being co-opted by the government’s mechanisms.
Opposition to Government Measures: The Swarajists opposed the government in every measure, regardless of its nature. They aimed to make the functioning of the councils difficult and challenge the effectiveness of the government’s actions.
Resignation and Re-election: If the government did not accept their demands, Swarajist members would resign, turning it into a political issue. After re-election, they would continue their efforts to oppose government measures and, if necessary, advise voters to stop paying taxes and resort to civil disobedience.
Civil Disobedience as a Last Resort: Civil disobedience was seen as a last resort against bureaucratic resistance. If all other means failed, the Swarajists were prepared to mobilize the masses and engage in acts of civil disobedience to exert pressure on the government.
The Swaraj Party’s methods aimed to disrupt and challenge the existing system while promoting their own vision of self-governance and national development.

SWARAJISTS AT THE POLLS

The Swarajists participated in three elections held under the provisions of the Government of India Act of 1919, which took place in 1920, 1923, and 1926. In the 1920 elections, Congress boycotted the polls due to the Non-Cooperation movement, allowing the liberals and other parties to dominate. By the time the 1923 elections took place, the Non-Cooperation movement had lost momentum, and the split within Congress over council entry had become prominent. The Swaraj Party, led by the Das-Nehru group, contested the elections on the platform of council entry.
The main opposition to the Swarajists in the elections came from the liberals. Independent candidates, who held local influence but lacked a clear political status, were also in the race. The liberals faced disadvantages due to their previous association with the councils, where they were overruled by the government even on trivial matters. On the other hand, the Swarajists were seen as Gandhi’s followers and had the advantage of being associated with the non-cooperation movement and their imprisonment, which gave them a martyr-like image. The Swarajists presented themselves as committed to the attainment of Swaraj and gained popularity through their open opposition to the existing system of government.
While the Swarajists achieved significant success in the 1923 elections, particularly in the Central Provinces, their performance was not overwhelmingly impressive. They emerged as the largest party in the Central Assembly, Bombay, and Bengal Councils, but their numbers in the U.P. Council were not insignificant either. The Swarajists found success against the liberals but faced challenges from independent candidates who relied on their local influence. The victory of the Swarajists in the elections strengthened their position within Congress, establishing them as the parliamentary wing of the party. The majority of elected Swarajist candidates were lawyers and businessmen.

However, the 1926 elections brought disappointment to the Swarajists. Their representation in legislative bodies declined, except in Madras, where they achieved notable success. They suffered heavy losses in other regions, including U.P., C.P., and Punjab, where they were routed. In the C.P. Legislative Council, they secured only one seat, and in the U.P., their numbers decreased from 31 to 19. In the Central Legislative Assembly, their numbers decreased from 42 to 35. The Swarajists had lost significant ground prior to the 1926 elections.

The untimely demise of C.R. Das in 1925 created a void, and internal divisions, mutual bickering, and distrust further eroded the party’s credibility. The denial of party tickets to some Swarajists led them to run as independents, creating an impression of self-interest and opportunism. The policy of obstruction could not keep all Swarajists united, and a faction turned towards a more accommodating approach, further weakening the Swaraj Party. The Hindu-Muslim tensions, the presence of reactionary elements within the party, and the activities of the Hindu Mahasabha also contributed to the erosion of Swarajist support. Muslim members who were previously associated with Congress fought elections based on their religious identity rather than as Swarajists, highlighting the growing alienation of Muslims from Congress.

WORK IN THE LEGISLATURES

In the legislative assemblies, the Swarajists, led by Motilal Nehru, formed a strong contingent. As they were not in the majority, they sought support from other groups to effectively implement their policy of obstruction. In February 1924, a coalition of seventy members, known as the Nationalist Party, was formed to demand immediate constitutional progress. While not all members of the coalition shared the radicalism of the Swarajists, they dominated the proceedings of the legislature in 1924.
The Nationalist Party rejected the first four demands of the Budget and prevented the introduction of the Finance Bill. They moved resolutions and amendments to push for constitutional reforms. Motilal Nehru moved an amendment in favour of a Round Table Conference to recommend a scheme for a fully responsible government, which was carried in the Assembly.
As a result of their efforts, the Government of India appointed a committee, including eminent Indians, to inquire into the defects of the Act of 1919 and suggest remedies. The Swarajists, in accordance with their principles, turned down the request to serve on the committee. They also refused invitations to the Viceroy’s events as a protest against the non-settlement of the Indian problem.
In the years 1924-25, the Swarajists achieved several victories in the Legislative Assembly. They succeeded in throwing out the Budget, passed resolutions, and introduced bills for the repeal of certain laws. They also opposed the recommendations of the Lee Commission and condemned the existing constitution of the services.
While the Swarajists employed obstructionist tactics and often blocked the passage of government bills, their methods couldn’t paralyze the government. The Independents did not always align with the Swarajists, and the Nationalist Party showed signs of crumbling as a responsive cooperator.
The Swarajists’ success in Bengal and the Central Provinces was notable. In Bengal, they formed the largest party and created a deadlock by opposing the government. In the Central Provinces, they secured an absolute majority and refused to accept ministerial positions. Their activities created a stir in the country and enlivened the political atmosphere. The Indian Statutory Commission recognized their organized and disciplined party, even though their tactics were of a negative nature.

Overall, the Swarajists’ work in the legislatures involved obstructing the government, moving resolutions and amendments, and pushing for constitutional reforms. While they achieved some victories, their position was weakened over time, especially after the death of C.R. Das. Their activities had an impact on the political landscape and garnered public enthusiasm, but they faced challenges and limitations within the constitutional framework.

CONSTRUCTIVE WORK

In addition to their objective of obstructing reforms from within, the Swarajists also had a constructive program aimed at socioeconomic reforms and ameliorative activities. This program was emphasized by Mahatma Gandhi and consisted of various items, including Hindu-Muslim unity, removal of untouchability, prohibition, Swadeshi (supporting indigenous industries), and boycott.
The Swarajists recognized the importance of the constructive program, as they knew that they might eventually have to leave the councils and engage in civil disobedience alongside those who did not participate in the councils. Their political power was derived from their association with Gandhi and the Congress. The constructive program provided a common platform for both the No-changers and the Swarajists within Congress. However, due to their focus on council entry and parliamentary politics, the Swarajists were limited in their ability to implement the program as effectively as the No-changers.
The top leadership of the Swarajists considered Hindu-Muslim unity and the political education of the masses as crucial for achieving Swaraj. The Congress resolved to establish a permanent publicity bureau to educate the masses about communal harmony and sound national life. Motilal Nehru, Maulana Azad, and Sarojini Naidu were authorized to take necessary steps in this direction. Motilal played a significant role in advocating for the political education of the people and training them to fight for their rights through constructive program.
The rise of the Swarajists coincided with a period of heightened Hindu-Muslim tension and communal riots. However, like other political groups, the Swarajists were unable to effectively address the challenges posed by communalism, apart from making speeches in support of Hindu-Muslim unity.
Swadeshi, which encompassed the use of indigenous industries, particularly the spinning wheel (Charkha) and coarse cloth (Khadi), held great significance in Gandhi’s constructive program. Gandhi envisioned Swadeshi as a comprehensive mentality that aimed to meet all essential needs through the labour and intellect of the villagers. The Swarajists also supported the program of Swadeshi, Charkha, and Khadi. However, their commitment to Khadi and Charkha was not as strong or deep as that of Gandhi or his orthodox followers. Gandhi expressed his disappointment that Khadi among the Swarajists was declining and had become more of a ceremonial dress, as they did not hesitate to use foreign cloth (Videshi) in their personal lives.

Overall, while the Swarajists acknowledged and supported the constructive program, their focus on council entry and parliamentary politics limited their ability to fully implement and embody its principles.

KHADI

The Swarajists, including C.R. Das, held different views on Khadi (hand-spun cloth) compared to Mahatma Gandhi. While Gandhi saw Khadi as instrumental in improving the economic life of the Indian people and believed in its commercial utility and worldwide marketable importance, the Swarajists did not share the same perspective. They did not consider Khadi, Charkha (spinning wheel), and indigenous industries alone as sufficient to achieve Indian independence.
C.R. Das questioned the notion that Khadi alone could lead to Swaraj (self-rule). He did not see a direct connection between wearing Khadi and achieving political independence. However, the Swarajists did not discourage people from wearing Khadi and took every opportunity to promote its use. The Swaraj Party, to which the Swarajists belonged, instructed its members to attend meetings of the Central Assembly and Provincial Councils dressed in pure Khadi.
While the Swarajists did not generally oppose the enthusiasm of orthodox Gandhians and No-changers regarding Khadi and hand-spinning, they strongly opposed proposals to make Khadi or Charkha-spinning a requirement for Congress membership. Gandhi’s resolution that made spinning obligatory for members of all elected organizations within Congress faced strong disapproval from the Swarajists. As a result of their resistance, Gandhi made provisions in the Hand Spinning Resolution to remove the penalty clause.
C.R. Das clarified the Swarajists’ attitude toward the Spinning Resolution, stating that they had no objection to spinning and had repeatedly declared their faith in the constructive program. However, they strongly objected to anything being forced upon them, viewing it as an unconstitutional attempt to exclude them from the Congress executive.
In conclusion, the Swarajists were willing to contribute to the progress of Khadi, but they did not blindly worship it or engage in excessive measures solely based on its use. They acknowledged its significance but questioned its direct correlation to achieving political independence.

Untouchability

Untouchability was considered a shameful aspect of Indian society, and both Mahatma Gandhi and the Swarajists were committed to eradicating this social evil. The non-cooperation resolution advocated for the revival of hand-spinning and hand-weaving, recognizing the benefits it would bring to the millions of weavers who were considered outcasts in Indian society. Gandhi emphasized that non-cooperation aimed at a change of heart, not just among the British but also within Indians themselves. At the Nagpur session of the Congress, he called upon the people to make special efforts to eliminate untouchability from Hinduism.
The Congress consistently prioritized the upliftment of the depressed classes and addressed the issue of untouchability. The Swarajists shared Gandhi’s views on this matter and fully supported the resolution on untouchability passed at the Belgaum Congress in 1924. They strongly believed that this curse needed to be swiftly eradicated from Indian society.
Instances of untouchability being challenged and fought against were seen throughout India during this period. In Vykom, South India, for example, reformers resorted to Satyagraha (nonviolent resistance) to secure the right for untouchables to use a public road leading to a Hindu temple. Gandhi and the Swarajists fully supported this initiative and passed a resolution expressing their sympathy for the Satyagraha movement at Vykom. The Belgaum Congress urged the Travancore Government to recognize the justness of the Satyagrahis’ claim and provide prompt relief. Under pressure from the Satyagrahis, the government of Travancore eventually removed barricades and pickets, although public opinion remained divided on the matter of untouchables accessing the temple thoroughfare.
In the Tarakeshwar incident, the Swarajists took a keen interest in opposing the autocracy of a temple’s head priest (Mahant). Religious reformers Swami Viswanand and Swami Sachidanand organized a group of volunteers who declared the temple as public property and resorted to direct action against the tyrannical practices of the Mahant. C.R. Das criticized the government’s role and called for the arrest of the Mahant. The pressure was exerted on the Mahant, eventually leading to the temple being handed over to a committee appointed by Das. The Tarakeshwar incident generated significant excitement, resulting in multiple arrests and instances where the police had to resort to firing. Ultimately, the Swarajists achieved a compromise with the Mahant on their own terms. This incident demonstrated the Swarajists’ commitment to ending discrimination in matters of religious worship and advocating for the opening of temple doors to the depressed classes.

Additionally, the Swarajists organized inter-caste dinners to break down caste prejudices and actively advocated for the rights of the depressed classes in the Central Legislative Assembly and provincial councils. While these anti-untouchability activities helped raise social consciousness, persistent efforts were still required to uproot age-old prejudices.

DEMORALISATION AND DECLINE

The years 1925-1927 witnessed demoralization and eventual decline among the Swarajists. Inside the legislative bodies, their policy of constant obstruction began to lose its effectiveness. While their tactics had initially exposed the flaws in the 1919 constitution, they proved ineffective in bringing about any meaningful change or reform.
A significant portion of the Swarajists started realizing that their strategy of obstructing all government measures was hindering the implementation of socially beneficial policies. The concept of “responsive cooperation” gained traction within their ranks. Even C.R. Das, a prominent leader of the Swarajists, began leaning towards a more cooperative approach. In a speech at the Bengal Provincial Conference in Fattdpur in May 1925, Das appealed to the farmers to seek a reasonable settlement and expressed the possibility of cooperating with the government if they transferred some real responsibility to the people. He called for a general amnesty for political prisoners and urged a practical demonstration of a change of heart. He also assured the government that the Swarajists would discourage revolutionary propaganda.
This shift towards a more cooperative stance marked a departure from the earlier strategy of constant obstruction and reflected a growing willingness among some Swarajists to work with the government on certain issues. However, despite these efforts, the overall demoralization and decline of the Swarajists continued during this period.

Drift

The Faridpur declaration and Lord Birkenhead’s speech in July 1925 played a significant role in accelerating the shift towards constitutional opposition and cooperation with the government. The Swarajists, impressed by Birkenhead’s acknowledgment of their organized political party, were more inclined towards cooperation rather than pure obstructionist politics. Many Swarajist leaders, who had previously rejected government committees, now accepted positions and actively participated in various committees and legislative bodies.
In the Central Provinces, the government managed to convert two prominent Swarajist leaders, S.B. Tambe and Raghavendra Rao, to its side. This not only led to a split within the party in the province but also caused divisions within the party as a whole. The Swarajists in Bombay advocated for responsive cooperation, questioning the difference between Tambe’s acceptance of a position and that of V.J. Patel, who held a leadership role within the party. This division within the party and disagreements over the party’s program led to open rebellion against the central leadership.
The years 1926-1927 witnessed further demoralization of the Swaraj Party. The Hindu-Muslim cleavage and the emergence of new parties like the Congress Independents, led by Malaviya and Lajpat Rai, weakened the Swaraj Party. The Swarajists in Bombay openly declared their support for responsive cooperation. Dissensions, defections, and a lack of fundamental differences among the liberals, Independents, and Responsivists deepened the crisis within the Swaraj Party.
Attempts were made by Motilal Nehru to reconcile the different factions within the party, including convening meetings and proposing compromises. However, these efforts were not successful in keeping the Swaraj Party united. Dyarchy, which had been dismantled in Bengal and the Central Provinces, was restored in 1927. The Swaraj Party’s focus on parliamentary politics had ultimately led to its own decline rather than bringing about meaningful change to the 1919 constitution.

Merger

In the face of the announcement of the Simon Commission and Lord Birkenhead’s challenge, new political opportunities emerged in India towards the end of 1927. The Simon Commission was met with widespread boycott, while Motilal Nehru took up Birkenhead’s challenge and prepared the Nehru Report, which proposed a constitution acceptable to all sections of Indian society. This led to a growing closeness between the Swarajists and the No-changers, who had previously been divided.
At the Calcutta Congress of 1928, it was resolved that if the British government did not accept the Nehru Report by December 31, 1929, the Congress would declare complete independence as its goal. With this shift in the political landscape, the Council Entry program, which had been the focus of the Swarajists, became less relevant and took a back seat. As the country prepared for a second round of direct mass action to achieve complete independence, the Swaraj Party merged with the Congress. This merger marked a significant development as the country united under the Congress banner in pursuit of independence.

Disintegration of Swaraj Party

The disintegration and decline of the Swaraj Party can be attributed to the lack of a broad ideological foundation. While the party initially achieved success in 1924, its unity was short-lived. The condition of immediate constitutional progress for cooperation proved to be too limited to maintain the unity of individuals with diverse perspectives and independent views within the Nationalist Party.
The non-Swarajist members of the Nationalist Party felt that their interests were being sacrificed for the benefit of the Swaraj Party. This led to divisions, defections, and ultimately the breakdown of the Nationalist Party. Jinnah, for example, seceded from the coalition and formed his own party called the Independent Party.
Before the 1926 elections, the Nationalist Party was divided into three distinct groups: the Swarajist or Congress Party, the Responsive Cooperators which included the Hindu Mahasabha and Independent Congressmen, and the Independent Party led by Jinnah. Despite these divisions, there were no significant differences in their political ideologies or voting patterns.

CAUSES FOR DECLINE

The decline of the Swarajists can be attributed to several factors:

Rising communal tensions: The increasing communalization of politics during that time narrowed the ideological gap between the Swarajists and the Hindu Mahasabha. The Congress, which the Swarajists had captured, suffered from a weakened image of being free from communal bias. Muslim alienation and the emotional appeal of religion played a role in undermining the Swarajists’ secular nationalism.
Lure of office: The Swarajists, initially entering the councils with a spirit of resistance to the bureaucracy, were eventually enticed by the allure of office and cooperation with the government. This shift from obstruction to cooperation led to internal dissensions, rebellion, and desertions within the party.
Class character: The Swaraj Party primarily represented the upper-middle class elements of the Congress who were reluctant to engage in direct mass action. They joined the nationalist struggle to prevent it from adopting revolutionary mass action. After the failure of the Non-Cooperation movement, they embraced parliamentary politics and became content with the role of constitutional opposition. This class character limited their appeal and ability to connect with the broader masses.

Overall, the decline of the Swarajists was influenced by the rising communal tensions, the lure of office, and the class character of the party. These factors, along with internal divisions and compromises, contributed to their decline as a political force in the late 1920s.

Conclusion

The Swaraj Party, formed in 1923, was led by upper-middle-class intellectuals who were skeptical of Mahatma Gandhi’s direct mass action approach. They focused on Council Entry as a means of political engagement, which led to their success in the elections and their recognition as the parliamentary wing of the Congress.
While the Swarajists expressed their willingness to carry on the constructive work advocated by Gandhi and the No-Changers, their adherence to it was not as idealistic or complete. They prioritized their parliamentary activities and compromised with the authorities, which led to divisions within the party.
The Swarajists’ attempts to bring about change within the legislative bodies and challenge colonial policies exposed the hollowness of British democratic pretensions. However, their program lacked a sound ideological basis and faced contradictions, such as trying to unite conflicting interests between landlords and peasants, and capitalists and workers. The Hindu-Muslim problem further alienated communities from the Swaraj Party.
The lure of office and their preoccupation with party politics and council work contributed to their decline. The Swarajists’ lukewarm support for the constructive work and their growing disconnect from the masses widened the gulf between them.
Ultimately, the announcement of the Simon Commission and subsequent political developments led to the merger of the Swaraj Party into the Congress. The Congress returned to its policy of Non-Cooperation and Civil Disobedience, leaving behind the activities associated with the Swaraj Party. Although the Swaraj Party had a significant impact on the political scene during the period from 1922 to 1929, its decline was marked by various factors and internal divisions.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. What were the Swarajists and what was their main objective?

Answer: The Swarajists were a faction within the Indian National Congress (INC) during the 1920s. Led by leaders like C.R. Das and Motilal Nehru, they emerged as a response to the Non-Cooperation Movement led by Mahatma Gandhi. The main objective of the Swarajists was to enter the legislative councils established under the Government of India Act of 1919 and work within the constitutional framework to achieve self-governance or swaraj. They believed in utilizing the councils as a means to influence and reform the system from within.

2. How did the Swarajists differ from other factions within the Indian National Congress?

Answer: The Swarajists differed from other factions within the Indian National Congress, particularly the followers of Mahatma Gandhi, in their approach towards achieving self-rule. While Gandhi advocated for non-violent non-cooperation and mass agitation, the Swarajists chose to engage with the existing political structure. They contested elections and cooperated with the British authorities, aiming to use legislative councils as a platform to articulate Indian grievances and push for constitutional reforms.

3. What were the key contributions and limitations of the Swarajist movement?

Answer: The Swarajist movement made significant contributions to the Indian political landscape. By participating in legislative councils, they provided a platform for political discourse and representation. They worked towards securing greater autonomy and reforms within the existing framework. However, their approach faced limitations as the British government was often unresponsive to their demands, and their effectiveness was curtailed by the limitations of the constitutional setup. Eventually, internal divisions and disagreements on tactics led to the decline of the Swarajist movement by the mid-1920s.

In case you still have your doubts, contact us on 9811333901.

For UPSC Prelims Resources, Click here

For Daily Updates and Study Material:

Join our Telegram Channel – Edukemy for IAS

1. Learn through Videos – here
2. Be Exam Ready by Practicing Daily MCQs – here
3. Daily Newsletter – Get all your Current Affairs Covered – here
4. Mains Answer Writing Practice – here