The Election of 1937 and the Formation of Congress Ministries

The Election of 1937 marked a pivotal moment in the modern history of several British Indian provinces, as it set the stage for the formation of Congress Ministries. Taking place against the backdrop of a rapidly changing political landscape, this election played a crucial role in shaping the trajectory of India’s struggle for independence. The Indian National Congress emerged as a prominent political force during this period, garnering widespread support and securing significant victories in the electoral arena. As a result, Congress leaders assumed control of several provincial governments, laying the groundwork for the establishment of Congress Ministries. This transformative phase not only reflected the evolving dynamics of Indian politics but also signaled a shift in the power dynamics between the colonial rulers and the nationalist movements that would eventually culminate in the broader quest for self-rule. Examining the Election of 1937 and the subsequent formation of Congress Ministries provides valuable insights into the complex interplay of political forces that characterized the lead-up to India’s independence.

The disintegration of the Civil Disobedience Movement circa 1934 resulted in significant disagreement within Congress, much like what had occurred following the withdrawal of the Non-Cooperation Movement. During this period, Gandhi temporarily withdrew from active politics, while socialist and other leftist factions emerged within Congress and established the Congress Socialist Party in May 1934.
Nehru, however, never officially joined this group, which encompassed a range of ideologies from vague and muddled radical nationalism to a more defined advocacy of Marxian Scientific Socialism. The division within Congress primarily revolved around two issues: Council Entry and Office Acceptance.
The rift reached a critical point but was somehow averted at the Lucknow Congress in 1936. Both factions of Congress, holding mutual respect and trust in their dedication to the anti-imperialist struggle and recognizing the detrimental effects a split would have on the movement, refrained from dividing the party.
During the Lucknow Congress in 1936, a majority of delegates, led by Rajendra Prasad and Vallabh Bhai Patel with Gandhi’s approval, concluded that participating in elections and subsequently accepting office under the 1935 Act would invigorate Congress’s waning morale, especially when direct action seemed unfeasible.
In August 1936, during an AICC meeting in Bombay, it was decided to contest the elections but postpone the decision on office acceptance until after the elections.
Although the federal aspect of the Government of India Act, of 1935 was never implemented, provincial autonomy was established in 1937. Despite the new constitutional reforms falling short of India’s national aspirations, the Congress decided to participate in the provincial assembly elections under the new 1935 Act.
Congress’s choice to engage in the 1937 elections and subsequently accept office brought them closer to the capitalists. Even skeptics like Mody, given the continuously deteriorating economic conditions, began to align more closely with the nationalists.
However, despite business finance once again becoming a critical factor behind Congress’s remarkable victory in the 1937 elections, the party was far from being under capitalist domination.

Table of Contents

Election

The provincial elections in British India took place during the winter of 1936-37 by the Government of India Act 1935.
These elections were held in eleven provinces, namely Madras, Central Provinces, Bihar, Orissa, United Provinces, Bombay Presidency, Assam, NWFP, Bengal, Punjab, and Sindh.
The 1937 election marked the first time a large number of Indians were eligible to participate. Approximately 30.1 million individuals, including 4.25 million women, had gained the right to vote, which accounted for 14% of the total population. Of these eligible voters, 15.5 million, including 917,000 women, actually exercised their right to vote.
In its election manifesto, the Congress party reiterated its complete rejection of the 1935 Act. The manifesto pledged several initiatives, including the restoration of civil liberties, the release of political prisoners, the elimination of discrimination based on gender and untouchability, the transformation of the agrarian system, a significant reduction in rent and revenue, the alleviation of rural debts, the provision of affordable credit, and the recognition of the right to form trade unions and strike.
The Congress party’s election campaign received a tremendous response and once again sparked the political consciousness and enthusiasm of the people.

Election Result:

The results of the elections were in favor of the Indian National Congress. Out of the 1,161 seats it contested, the Congress won 716 seats, securing a majority in most provinces. However, there were a few exceptions. In Bengal, Assam, the NWPF, Punjab, and Sindh, the Congress emerged as the largest single party but did not have a majority.
The Congress party’s prestige as the alternative to the colonial state was further elevated by these results. Out of the 864 seats assigned to “general” constituencies, the Congress contested 739 and won 617. In the 125 non-general constituencies, of which 59 were reserved for Muslims, the Congress won 25 seats, with 15 of them coming from the entirely-Muslim North-West Frontier Province. However, the Congress only secured 73 out of the 151 reserved seats for the depressed class across India.
The Congress party achieved victory in the 1937 elections by targeting the newly enfranchised voters, which included sections of the industrial working class, sections of the peasantry, and even some Dalits (formerly known as untouchables).
The All-India Muslim League, the second-ranking party, won 106 seats, which accounted for 6.7% of the total seats. The election results were a setback for the League, as it performed poorly even in provinces predominantly inhabited by Muslims.
Following the elections, Muhammad Ali Jinnah of the League proposed forming coalitions with the Congress. However, the League insisted that Congress should not nominate any Muslims to the ministries, claiming to be the exclusive representative of Indian Muslims. This condition was not acceptable to Congress, and it rejected the League’s offer.
The Unionist Party, based in Punjab, was the only other party to secure more than 5 percent of all the assembly seats, winning 101 seats.

Question of office acceptance:

The issue of office acceptance after the 1937 elections sparked a division within Congress, with some members opposing the idea. Jawaharlal Nehru, Subhas Bose, the Congress Socialists, and the Communists were among those vehemently against accepting office and working within the framework of the 1935 Act.
Nehru presented a strong and passionate argument against office acceptance, particularly in his Presidential Address at the Lucknow Congress in early 1936. He argued that accepting office would contradict Congress’s rejection of the 1935 Act and essentially condemn themselves. Accepting office would mean assuming responsibility without having real power since the fundamental structure of the state would remain unchanged.
Nehru believed that by accepting office, Congress would have limited ability to bring about significant change for the people. Instead, they would be cooperating to some extent with the repressive apparatus of imperialism, becoming partners in the oppression and exploitation of their own people.
Furthermore, Nehru argued that office acceptance would strip the movement of its revolutionary character, which had been nurtured since 1919. He emphasized that the decision was not just about accepting office but also about choosing between seeking revolutionary changes in India or settling for minor reforms within the framework of British imperialism. Accepting office would amount to a surrender to imperialism in practice.
Nehru warned that by getting involved in parliamentary activities within the colonial framework, Congress would lose sight of the core issues of freedom, economic and social justice, and poverty eradication. They would be co-opted and lose their radical stance, finding themselves trapped in a situation difficult to escape from.
As an alternative strategy, Nehru and the leftists proposed adopting the older Swarajist approach. This involved entering the assemblies to create deadlocks and render the Act unworkable. They also advocated for a long-term strategy that focused on strengthening the alliance with workers and peasants, integrating their class organizations with Congress, giving Congress a socialist direction, and preparing for the resurgence of a mass movement.

Pro-office acceptance:

Those in favor of office acceptance argued that they were equally committed to opposing the 1935 Act. They emphasized that they were not constitutionalists and recognized that real work and true freedom lay outside the legislative framework. They viewed participation in the legislatures as a short-term tactic rather than a means to achieve ultimate freedom, acknowledging that a mass struggle outside the legal system was necessary for that purpose.
However, they believed that the prevailing political situation necessitated going through a constitutional phase, as the option of a mass movement was not currently available. They advocated for combining mass politics with legislative and ministerial work to bring about changes in an unfavorable political environment. They saw this as a choice between two alternative strategies, S-T-S (Swaraj Through Self-restraint) and S-V (Swaraj Through Violence).
The proponents of office acceptance acknowledged the risks involved and the potential for Congress members in office to deviate from their principles. However, they argued that the solution was to fight against these wrong tendencies rather than abandoning offices altogether. They also highlighted the importance of not leaving the administrative field open to pro-government forces. Even if Congress rejected office, other groups and parties would readily form ministries and exploit them to weaken nationalism and promote reactionary and communal policies.
Furthermore, despite their limited powers, the provincial ministries could be utilized for constructive work, particularly in areas such as village and Harijan upliftment, khadi (handspun cloth), prohibition, education, and reducing the burden of debt, taxes, and rent on peasants.
The fundamental question raised by those in favor of office acceptance was whether accepting office invariably led to co-option by the colonial state or if ministries could be used to counteract the colonial strategy. They believed that ministries should be seen as centers and fortresses from which British imperialism could be challenged, rather than as mere offices. They expressed the view that the Councils could be led by Congress and utilized for revolutionary purposes.
Although Mahatma Gandhi did not extensively express his views on office acceptance, it is believed that in the discussions of the Working Committee, he initially opposed it and suggested quiet preparation in the villages for the resumption of civil disobedience. However, by the beginning of 1936, he recognized that this approach was still not feasible. Consequently, he was willing to give the formation of Congress ministries a try, especially as the prevailing sentiment within the party favored this course of action.
Despite the objections raised by Nehru and other Congress Socialist Party (SP) leaders, the All India Congress Committee (AICC) sanctioned office acceptance by overriding their concerns. However, Gandhi, known for his ability to find a compromise, endorsed the decision while still maintaining his faith in non-violence and constructive programs outside the legislature.
Nehru’s opposition to office acceptance centered around the argument that by assuming control of provincial governments, Congress would be complicit in sustaining the imperialist structure. He believed that this would betray the masses, whose spirits the Congress had previously uplifted. In the years to come, Nehru’s concerns would prove to be prophetic.
Gandhi’s endorsement of office acceptance with his compromise position reflected his faith in non-violence and the constructive programs pursued outside the legislature. He believed that Congress could continue its work for the welfare of the people through non-violent means, even while participating in government offices. However, Nehru’s concerns about the consequences of this decision would later be validated.

Formation of Ministries:

In 1937, Congress Ministries were established in 8 out of the 11 provinces of India. To provide guidance, and coordination, and prevent the British hopes of provincializing the Congress from materializing, a central control board called the Parliamentary Sub-Committee was formed. Its members included Sardar Patel, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, and Rajendra Prasad.
With the formation of these ministries, the Congress now operated as both a provincial government and the opposition to the Central Government, which held effective state power. The Congress aimed to balance its roles and responsibilities in these dual capacities.
As Gandhi expressed in his writing in Harijan on August 7, 1937, the acceptance of office was not meant to hold power tightly but rather lightly. He likened these offices to crowns of thorns rather than symbols of fame. The purpose of accepting office was to examine whether they could expedite progress toward the desired goal.

Madras Presidency:

In the Madras Presidency, the Government of India Act of 1935 established a bicameral legislature consisting of a Legislative Assembly, a Legislative Council, and a Governor. The Justice Party had held power in Madras for 17 years since 1920, with only a brief interruption in 1926-28.
However, the Justice Party, led by the Raja of Bobbili, had been losing popularity and support since the early 1930s. Factional politics, autocratic rule, and unpopular economic policies during the Great Depression contributed to its decline. The Justice Party was seen as collaborating with the British government and was widely criticized for its refusal to decrease land revenue taxation in non-Zamindari areas.
The Congress party capitalized on the dissatisfaction with the Justice Party’s rule. The Civil Disobedience movement, protests against land tax reductions, and the organization of unions helped the Congress mobilize popular opposition to the Bobbili Raja government. The Congress gained the support of peasants through revenue agitations and weavers through the Gandhian hand-spinning program. Indigenous industrialists and commercial interests were also drawn to Congress due to the preferential treatment given to European traders.
In the elections, the Congress won an overwhelming majority, securing 74% of all seats, while the Justice Party won only 21 seats. Despite being the majority party, Congress was initially hesitant to form a government due to concerns about the special powers vested in the Governor by the Government of India Act of 1935.
However, Congress leaders like S. Satyamurti campaigned to convince the Congress High Command to accept power within the limitations set by the Act. They also appealed to the British government to provide assurances that the Governor’s special powers would not be misused.
In June, Viceroy Linlithgow issued a statement expressing the British government’s desire to work with Congress in implementing the 1935 Act. Subsequently, on July 1, the Congress Working Committee agreed to form governments in the provinces they had won, and on July 14, Rajaji (C. Rajagopalachari) was sworn in as the Chief Minister.
The 1937 elections marked the beginning of the Indian National Congress’ participation in the governance of India. The Madras Presidency also marked the rise of Rajaji’s influence within the Congress Legislature Party.

Sindh:

The elections in Sindh were the first held in the province after its creation in 1936. The Sind Legislative Assembly consisted of 60 members, and the Sind United Party emerged as the leading party with 22 seats. In the general constituencies, the Sind Hindu Mahasabha won eleven seats, while the Congress Party secured eight seats. Despite 72% of the population being Muslim, Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s attempt to establish a League Parliamentary Board in Sindh in 1936 was unsuccessful, and the Muslim League failed to secure any of the 34 reserved seats for Muslims.

United Provinces:

In the United Provinces (now Uttar Pradesh), the legislature comprised a Legislative Council with 52 elected and 6 or 8 nominated members, as well as a Legislative Assembly with 228 elected members representing exclusive Muslim, general, and special constituencies. The Congress party won a clear majority in the United Provinces, securing 133 seats, while the Muslim League only won 27 out of the 64 seats reserved for Muslims.

Assam:

In Assam, the Congress party emerged as the single largest party, winning 33 out of 108 seats. However, it was not in a position to form a ministry. The Governor invited Sir Muhammad Sadulla, the ex-judicial Member of Assam and leader of the Assam Valley Muslim Party, to form the ministry, and the Congress became part of the ruling coalition.

Bombay:

The Government of India Act 1935 established a bicameral legislature in the Bombay province. Ambedkar’s Independent Labour Party achieved a spectacular victory in Bombay, winning eleven out of the fifteen reserved seats. The Congress party fell just short of obtaining a majority but was able to form a working majority by garnering support from small pro-Congress groups. B.G. Kher became the first Chief Minister of Bombay. The Ambedkarites also performed well in the Central Provinces and Berar.

Bengal:

In Bengal, the Congress emerged as the largest party, securing 52 seats. However, the Krishak Praja Party (KPP) led by A. K. Fazlul Huq, with 36 seats, was able to form a coalition government. Initially, Huq and his KPP posed a significant challenge to the Muslim League in the 1937 elections. However, soon after the elections, they formed a coalition government with the Muslim League. Huq’s popularity began to wane as he aligned more closely with zamindars (landlords) and wealthy peasant interests, disregarding the election promises made to the tenant and poor peasant constituencies of the KPP. In 1937, Huq joined the Muslim League and was given the honour of introducing the Lahore Resolution in 1940.

Punjab:

In Punjab, the Unionist Party led by Sikander Hayat Khan won 67 out of 175 seats. The Congress secured 18 seats, and the Akali Dal won 10 seats. After the 1937 elections, the Unionists formed a coalition ministry in Punjab, with Sir Sikander Hyat Khan serving as the premier. However, Sikander eventually reached an agreement with Jinnah through the Jinnah-Sikander Pact of 1937. Despite tensions within the alliance, this provided some legitimacy to the Unionists among the Punjabi Muslim population, while Jinnah found a platform to further establish the Muslim League as the center of South Asian Muslim politics.

Other Provinces:

In the Central Provinces, Bihar, and Orissa, the Congress won clear majorities. In the predominantly Muslim North-West Frontier Province, the Congress secured 19 out of 50 seats and, with the support of minor parties, managed to form a ministry.

Rule of Congress Ministries (1937-39)

Impact of the formation of Congress Ministries:

The formation of Congress Ministries in 1937 had a significant impact on the political and social landscape of India. It brought about a change in the psychological atmosphere of the country, generating high expectations among various classes of society.
The rule of Congress ministries led to an increase in civil liberties and the enactment of numerous legislations related to land reform, industry reform, and social reform in many provinces. This led to a surge in the prestige of the Congress as an alternative power that would advocate for the interests of the masses, particularly the peasants. The Congress had the opportunity to demonstrate its ability to not only lead mass struggles but also utilize state power for the benefit of the people.
However, the Congress Ministries faced limitations in terms of their power and financial resources. They were unable to fundamentally alter the imperialist nature of the administration or bring about radical changes. Despite these constraints, they made efforts to introduce reforms, implement ameliorative measures, and improve the conditions of the people within the limited scope of their authority. Their objective was to provide a glimpse of the future Swaraj (self-governance) and work towards fulfilling the promises made in the Congress election manifesto.
The Congress Ministers set an example of modest living by drastically reducing their own salaries from Rs. 2000 to Rs. 500 per month. They made themselves accessible to the common people and worked towards passing a significant amount of ameliorative legislation within a short period. They aimed to improve the lives of the people and deliver on their electoral commitments.

Work of Congress as Provincial Government:

In the political area:

As provincial governments, the Congress Ministries took several significant actions in various areas:
Defence and Extension of Civil Liberties:
Emergency powers granted to provincial governments through Public Safety Acts were repealed.
Bans on illegal political organizations, such as the Hindustan Seva Dal and Youth Leagues, and restrictions on political books and journals were lifted.
While the ban on the Communist Party remained due to orders from the Central Government, the Communists were able to function more freely in Congress-ruled provinces.
Press restrictions were removed, including the refunding of securities taken from newspapers and presses, the withdrawal of pending prosecutions, and an end to the blacklisting of newspapers for government advertising.
Confiscated arms were returned, and forfeited arms licenses were restored.

Curbing of Police Powers:

The Congress recognized that the police were feared and disliked by the people. Gandhi emphasized the need to render the police and military practically idle as a measure of the Congress’ success.
In the Congress provinces, police powers were curbed. This included the discontinuation of reporting public speeches and the shadowing of political workers by CID (Central Investigation Department) agents.
The Congress Ministries aimed to create an environment of greater civil liberties and reduce the influence and power of oppressive authorities like the police. By curbing police powers and lifting bans and restrictions, they worked towards fostering an atmosphere of freedom and openness in their respective provinces.

Release political prisoners and detenus:

As Congress Ministries took office, they prioritized the release of political prisoners and detenus who had been imprisoned for their involvement in political activities. Many revolutionaries, including those involved in the Kakori and other conspiracy cases, were released. However, in Uttar Pradesh (UP) and Bihar, there were challenges as some revolutionaries convicted of violent crimes remained in jail.
In UP and Bihar, prisoners who had been sent to the Cellular Jail in the Andaman Islands were transferred back to their respective provinces after a prolonged hunger strike in July 1937. Their release required the consent of the Governors, which was initially refused. As a result, the ministries of UP and Bihar resigned on this issue on February 15. However, through negotiations, all prisoners in both provinces were eventually released by the end of March.
There was a notable contrast between Congress-ruled provinces and non-Congress provinces like Bengal and Punjab. In Bengal, civil liberties continued to be restricted, and revolutionary prisoners and detenus who had been held without trial were not released, despite hunger strikes by the prisoners and popular movements demanding their freedom. In Bombay, the government took steps to restore lands that had been confiscated by the government during the no-tax campaign of the Civil Disobedience Movement in 1930. The pensions of officials dismissed during the movement were also restored.
However, there were some criticisms of the Congress ministries’ handling of these issues. In Madras, under the leadership of C. Rajagopalachari, there were instances of prosecution of socialist and Congress Social leaders for making inflammatory and seditious speeches, raising concerns about the attitude of the right-wing faction within the Congress.
Overall, while the Congress Ministries made efforts to release political prisoners and detenus and restore civil liberties, there were challenges and variations in the implementation of these measures across different provinces.
While the Congress Ministries made efforts to promote civil liberties and release political prisoners, there were instances of blemishes and concerns regarding the right-wing Congress ministers’ actions.
In Madras, under the leadership of C. Rajagopalachari, there were cases where socialist leaders Yusuf Meherally and S.S. Batliwala were prosecuted for making inflammatory and seditious speeches, respectively. Although Yusuf Meherally was soon released, these incidents raised suspicion about the future attitude of Congress’s right wing.
There were also instances in Bombay where K.M. Munshi, the Home Minister, utilized the Central Investigation Department (CID) to monitor the activities of Communists and left-wing Congress members. This action earned Munshi a rebuke from Jawaharlal Nehru. Similarly, the Madras Government employed the police to surveil radical Congress members.
However, it’s important to note that these blemishes should be viewed in the context of the overall expansion of civil liberties that occurred, even in Bombay and Madras. Additionally, the majority of Congress members, particularly the left-wing faction, remained vigilant and exerted pressure on the right-wing Congress ministers to protect civil liberties and avoid any infringement upon them.
The Congress Ministries, operating within various constraints, aimed to provide economic relief to peasants and workers, particularly through agrarian reforms. However, they faced limitations in implementing a complete overhaul of the agrarian structure, such as eliminating the zamindari system, due to constitutional restrictions, lack of financial resources, and the need for class adjustment within the movement.
The constitutional structure of the Government of India Act of 1935 limited the powers of the provincial Ministries to enact extensive agrarian reforms. Additionally, the Ministries faced financial constraints as a significant portion of India’s revenues was controlled by the central government. The existing administrative structure, protected by the powers of the Viceroy and Governors, could not be touched either. The strategy of class adjustment, which aimed to unite various classes within the Indian struggle against colonialism, required Congress to neutralize or win over landlord classes to isolate the common enemy.
The time constraint was also a significant factor. The Congress leadership knew that their Ministries would not last long and would eventually confront imperialism rather than cooperate with it. As war clouds gathered in Europe from 1938 onwards, the Congress Ministries had limited time to achieve their goals. Additionally, the presence of reactionary second chambers in the form of Legislative councils in most Congress-run states required delicate negotiations and compromises to pass legislation.
Agrarian legislation varied from province to province, depending on factors such as local agrarian relations, the mass base of the Congress, the class composition and outlook of the provincial Congress organization, and the level of peasant mobilization. The legislation focused on issues such as tenancy rights, security of tenure, rents, and rural indebtedness. However, tackling the complexities of the agrarian structure and addressing issues like debt and money lending required time and careful consideration.
Overall, the Congress Ministries made significant efforts within their limitations to promote the interests of the peasantry and implement agrarian reforms in various provinces.

Regulation of the moneylenders’ business:

The Congress Governments, except in Uttar Pradesh (U.P.) and Assam, implemented debtors’ relief acts to regulate the moneylenders’ business. These acts aimed to provide relief to debtors by cancelling or significantly reducing the accumulated interest. However, the opposition to these acts came not only from moneylenders but also from lawyers who relied on debt litigation for a substantial portion of their income.
In addition to debtors’ relief, the Congress Governments also initiated modest rural reconstruction programs. For example, in Bombay, around 40,000 tied serfs were liberated, and grazing fees in forests were abolished or reduced in Bombay and Madras.
While the tenancy bills introduced by the Congress Governments faced strong opposition from landlords, the debtors’ relief bills encountered resistance from both moneylenders and lawyers who had a vested interest in debt-related litigation. Despite these challenges, the Congress Governments persisted in their efforts to bring about reforms and provide relief to debtors.

Works related to workers:

The Congress Ministries adopted a generally pro-labor stance and aimed to advance workers’ interests while promoting industrial peace. They sought to reduce strikes, establish conciliation machinery, advocate compulsory arbitration, and act as intermediaries between labor and capital. The ministries worked towards improving working conditions and securing wage increases for workers.
The pro-labor approach of the Congress Ministries alarmed the Indian capitalist class, who felt the need to organize themselves to influence the provincial governments to proceed cautiously on labor-related matters.
In Bombay, the Ministry appointed a Textile Enquiry Committee that recommended wage increases, despite protests from mill owners. The recommendations were implemented. In November 1938, the government passed the Industrial Disputes Act, which emphasized conciliation, arbitration, and negotiations to prevent strikes and lockouts. The Act aimed at promoting class collaboration rather than conflict.
The Act faced opposition from Left Congressmen, including Communists and Congress Socialists, who criticized its restrictions on the freedom to strike and its complicated procedures for registering trade unions, which they believed would favor unions promoted by employers.
In Madras, the government promoted the internal settlement of labor disputes through conciliation and arbitration proceedings. In Uttar Pradesh (U.P.), Kanpur experienced significant labor unrest, and the government set up a Labor Enquiry Committee headed by Rajendra Prasad. The committee’s recommendations included wage increases, the formation of an arbitration board, maternity benefits for women workers, and recognition of the Left-dominated Mazdur Sabha by employers.
Similar labor inquiry committees were established in Bihar, also headed by Rajendra Prasad, which recommended strengthening trade union rights, improving labor conditions, and implementing compulsory conciliation and arbitration before declaring a strike.
The Congress Governments also worked to remove obstacles hindering indigenous industrial expansion and actively supported modern industrial ventures such as automobile manufacturing.
Overall, the Congress Ministries aimed to protect workers’ interests, improve labor conditions, and establish mechanisms for resolving labor disputes through negotiation and arbitration.

In the social area:

Here is a paraphrased summary of the key points from the notes:
In the social sphere, prohibition was introduced in some areas across different states. Measures were taken to advance the rights of untouchables/Harijans, including allowing them access to temples, public offices, water sources, roads, transport, hospitals, educational institutions, restaurants, and hotels. Customs imposing civil disabilities on Harijans were prohibited in courts/government. Scholarships for Harijan students were increased and efforts were made to increase their numbers in police/government services.
The Congress Ministries focused heavily on expanding education, especially for girls and Harijans, including emphasizing primary, technical, and higher education as well as public health and sanitation. Mass adult literacy campaigns were organized.
Economic development measures included support and subsidies for khadi (handspun cloth), spinning, village industries, and prison reform schemes.
The Congress Government also participated in national planning efforts through the National Planning Committee established in 1938 under Subhas Chandra Bose’s leadership as Congress President.

Some problems before Congress Government:

Here is a summary of the key points from your notes without reducing the overall word count:
It was a basic aspect of the Congress strategy that in non-mass struggle phases of the national movement, mass political activity and popular mobilization were to continue within legality. It was part of the office-acceptance strategy that offices would be used to promote mass political activity. Activity outside the legislature was to remain and legislative activity was to be coordinated together.
For example, in Uttar Pradesh this coordination was quite successful through initiatives like setting up Congress police stations and panchayats dispensing justice under the leadership of local Congress committees, setting up Congress grievance committees in districts to hear local grievances, and conducting mass literacy campaigns to explain the workings of the ministries to people.
However, not all Congress governments were able to coordinate administration with popular mobilization, especially where the provincial Congress and government were dominated by the right wing.
A dilemma arose over whether a party running a government could simultaneously be the organizer of popular movements and enforcer of law and order.
While many Congressmen agitated within the perspective of accepting the Congress ministries as their own and saw their role as strengthening them and the Congress through popular agitations while refraining from creating situations requiring government punitive action, many others wanted to expose the breaches of faith and promises by the ministries and show the upper-class nature of Congress.
Moreover, Congressmen like C. Rajagopalachari and K.M. Munshi did not hesitate to use their state apparatuses in a politically repressive manner.
The formation of Congress ministries and the vast extension of civil liberties unleashed popular energies everywhere. Kisan sabhas sprang up across the country and there was immense growth in trade union activity and membership. Student and youth movements revived and expanded. A powerful fillip was given to state people’s movements. Left parties were able to expand manifold.
The formation of Congress ministries and the vast extension of civil liberties unleashed popular energies everywhere. Kisan sabhas sprang up across the country and there was immense growth in trade union activity and membership. Student and youth movements revived and expanded. A powerful fillip was given to state people’s movements. Left parties were able to expand manifold.
Even though it was under a central government ban, the Communist Party was able to bring out its weekly organ, The National Front, from Bombay. The Congress Socialist Party brought out The Congress Socialist and several other journals in Indian languages.
Of particular interest is the example of Kirti Lehar which the Kirti Communists of Punjab brought out from Meerut in Uttar Pradesh, as they could not do so in Unionist-ruled Punjab.
Inevitably, many of the popular movements clashed with the Congress governments. Peasant agitations usually took the form of massive demonstrations and spectacular peasant marches.
In Bihar, the Kisan movement often came in frontal confrontation with the ministry, especially when the Kisan Sabha asked peasants not to pay rent or forcibly occupy landlords’ lands. There were also cases of physical attacks on landlords, big and small, and looting of crops.
In Bombay, the AITUC, Communists, and followers of Dr B.R. Ambedkar organized a strike on 7 November 1938 in seventeen out of seventy-seven textile mills against the Industrial Disputes Act. There was some ‘disorder’ with large-scale stone-throwing at two mills where some policemen were injured. The police opened fire, killing two and injuring over seventy.
The Madras government also adopted a strong policy towards strikes, which sometimes turned violent. Kanpur workers struck repeatedly, sometimes violently attacking the police.
Congress ministries did not know how to deal with situations where their own mass base was disaffected. They tried mediatory roles successfully in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar and to some extent in Madras, but not in Bombay. In general, they could not satisfy the left-wing critics.
They often treated all militant protests, especially trade union struggles, as law and order problems. They invoked Section 144 of the Criminal Code against agitating workers and arrested peasant and trade union leaders.
The left heavily criticized the Congress governments’ handling of popular protests, accusing them of trying to suppress peasant and worker organizations.
Gandhi also thought the ministry formation policy was leading to crisis, but his perspective was very different from the Communists. He opposed militant agitations as their violent nature, overt or covert, threatened his nonviolence strategy.
Initially, he advised Congress ministries to rule without police/military. Later he argued violent speech/writing does not protect civil liberty. But he still objected to the frequent use of colonial laws and order machinery against popular agitations.
He wanted reliance on politically educating the masses against violence rather than law/order crackdowns. While criticizing leftist incitement of class violence, he sought to curb right-wing confrontation with the left.
He defended the Socialists’ and Communists’ right to preach and practice their politics if they followed Congress’s methods.
Gandhi saw Congress would lose worker/peasant support by repeatedly using law/order against their agitations, hurting future extra-legal anti-colonial movements. He thus saw the inherent dilemma, a major reason he began questioning continuing office acceptance.
In December 1938 he wrote that if Congress ministries “find that they cannot run the State without the use of the police and the military, it is the clearest possible sign, in terms of non-violence, that the Congress should give up office and again wander in the wilderness in search of the Holy Grail.”

Here is a summary of the key points on how different groups were frustrated with the Congress ministries:

Dalits: Dalits and their leaders were unimpressed by the few caste disability removal and temple-entry bills passed by Congress ministries. These constituted token legislative programs offering mere window dressing, not a substantial change.
Industrial Working Class: Formation of Congress ministries raised great enthusiasm and expectations among workers, as trade union leaders became labor ministers. Trade union membership increased by 50% in Congress provinces in 1937-38, causing a spike in industrial unrest that alarmed industrialists.
Congress ministries adopted labor welfare resolutions, irritating capitalists. Conservative economic policies like increased taxes on business also upset capitalists, who then closed ranks, alarming Congress leadership.
By 1938, Congress tried placating business interests, as seen in the passage of the anti-labor Bombay Trades Disputes Act in November 1938, aiming to prevent strikes/lockouts but tilted toward capitalists. This marked an anti-labor shift in Congress, condemned by all parties except Congress.
The anti-labor mood was visible in other provinces too, with declining industrial disputes from 1939. This policy shift brought Congress-business rapprochement.
In non-Congress Bengal, Congress supported the 1937 jute mill strike to discredit the ministry and target British mill owners. But in Congress provinces like Bombay, Madras, and UP, similar strongarm tactics were used to control the unrest.
Business attitudes varied – some UP and Madras businessmen had reservations about Congress, while Muslim businessmen largely remained alienated.
Overall, the limited achievements of Congress ministries frustrated Dalits, workers, and peasants, who had voted for Congress expecting substantive reforms. However the need to balance interests meant Congress adopted mostly token measures for marginalized groups.

Frustration with Congress ministries

On the peasant front, the rising militancy before the elections was harnessed by the Congress to win; but later it struggled to meet the expectations of its kisan voters who were hoping for radical changes in existing agrarian relations.
Right-wingers like Vallabhbhai Patel, Bhulabhai Desai, C. Rajagopalachari, and Rajendra Prasad preferred constitutional over radical politics, as did committed Gandhians who believed in constructive programs. However, with the election approaching, they could hardly ignore the organizational bases created by provincial kisan sabhas. Under leftist pressure in some provinces, they agreed to include the abolition of zamindari in election manifestos.
In the 1937 election, socialists and right-wing leaders acted together and reaped benefits in spectacular Congress victories that were unexpected in some provinces.
When after July 1937 the Congress ministries began taking office in the eight provinces, it was hailed by rural masses as an emancipatory experience marked by an alternative authority.
But while ministry formation raised great expectations and greater militancy among the peasantry, it also restored right-wingers to power who now tried to retrieve Congress from the socialists.
In Bihar, where the Kisan Sabha organized a powerful peasant movement around bakasht land where permanent tenancies were converted into short-term, the conservative Congress leadership realigned with landlords and entered formal “agreements” with them.
When proposed Congress tenancy laws were significantly diluted due to landlord pressure, peasants were unimpressed. In 1938-39 they staged a militant movement under the Kisan Sabha for bakasht land restoration.
In UP, Kisan Sabha activists were disillusioned as the Congress ministry significantly blunted a 1938 tenancy law originally expected to halve rents.
In Orissa, too, Kisan leaders were frustrated when the Congress ministry allowed pro-landlord amendments to proposed tenancy legislation. Even this diluted law was blocked by the governor until a huge Kisan Day rally on 1 September 1938.
Another dilemma for Congress leadership concerned princely India, whether to support prajamandal peasant movements there or not.
Overall, Congress ministries’ limited land reforms and pro-landlord policies failed to satisfy the soaring expectations of peasant voters, causing frustration and disillusionment.

Overall record of the Congress ministries

In balance, the legislative and administrative record of the Congress ministries was positive. Nehru, a stern critic in 1938-39, later wrote he was surprised by their achievements in just over two years despite innumerable difficulties.
Even though the Left was critical, many of its expectations were largely fulfilled. One great achievement was the firm handling of communal riots – Congress asked district officials to take strong action against outbreaks.
Congress leadership foiled the imperialist design of using reforms to weaken the movement. Instead, it showed how the constitutional structure could be used by a movement aiming to capture state power to further its own goals without getting co-opted.
Despite some weaknesses, Congress emerged stronger after office acceptance. The national movement was not diverted from fighting for self-government by day-to-day administration.
Offices were used successfully to enhance national consciousness, increase nationalist influence, and strengthen capacity for future mass struggle. The movement’s influence now extended to bureaucracy, especially lower levels.
The morale of the Indian Civil Service, a pillar of the British Empire, suffered a blow. Many came to believe that British departure was only a matter of time.
Later, the fear of Congress re-assuming power helped neutralize hostile elements like landlords during Quit India, ensuring many sat on the fence.
People could see the shape of things to come with independence. There was no growth of provincialism or reduced sense of Indian unity, as the 1935 Act granting provincial autonomy had hoped.
The ministries succeeded in evolving a common front before the Government of India. Despite factionalism, the Congress organization remained disciplined overall. When it came to it, there was no clinging to office.
Accepting office proved just one phase in the freedom struggle. When an all-India crisis occurred, the ministries promptly resigned on central Congress direction. Opportunists started leaving.
Congress also avoided a split between Left and Right that the British had tried promoting since 1934.
Above all, Congress influenced all sections of people, advancing the growth of its hegemony in Indian society. If mass struggles showed that British power was not invincible, Indians exercising power shattered the myth that Indians were unfit to rule.

The emergence of weaknesses in Congress during the period of Congress ministries

There was a great deal of factional strife and bickering within Congress, both on ideological and personal grounds. For example, factional squabbles within the ministry and legislative party in Central Provinces led Premier N.B. Khare to resign.
The practice of bogus membership emerged and began growing. There was a scramble for jobs and positions of personal advantage. Indiscipline among Congress members increased everywhere.
Opportunists, self-seekers and careerists, drawn by associating with a party in power, began entering Congress ranks at various levels. This was easy as Congress was an open party anyone could join.
Many Congress members started giving in to casteism in their search for power. Gandhi felt “We seem to be weakening from within.”
In Harijan, Gandhi wrote against the growing misuse of office and creeping corruption in Congress. He said he would rather give the Congress organization “a decent burial” than accept the rampant corruption.
He, therefore, advised giving up offices and starting preparations for another Satyagraha phase. Jawaharlal too had felt for some time the ministries’ positive role was getting exhausted.
On 28 April 1938, he wrote to Gandhi that Congress ministries were “adapting themselves far too much to the old order and trying to justify it. We are sinking to the level of ordinary politicians.”
In summary, the period of Congress rule witnessed serious weaknesses emerge like factionalism, bogus membership, scramble for jobs, indiscipline, opportunism and careerism of new entrants drawn to power, casteism, misuse of office, and corruption. This led figures like Gandhi and Nehru to advocate resigning power.

The key events around the Pirpur Committee and the resignation of Congress ministries

The Pirpur Committee were established in 1938 by the All India Muslim League to prepare a detailed report on alleged atrocities of the Congress ministries formed after the 1937 elections under the 1935 Government of India Act in different provinces. Its report charged Congress with interfering in Muslim religious rites, suppressing Urdu and propagating Hindi, denying legitimate Muslim representation, and suppressing Muslims economically.
On 3 September 1939, Viceroy Linlithgow declared India at war with Germany. Congress strongly objected to the declaration without consulting Indians. The Congress Working Committee said it would cooperate if there was an Indian national government formed and a commitment to independence after the war.
The Muslim League promised support to the British, with Jinnah calling on Muslims to assist the Raj through “honourable cooperation” at the “critical and difficult juncture,” while asking the Viceroy for increased Muslim protection. Linlithgow refused Congress’s demands.
On 22 October 1939, Congress ministries resigned in protest. Both Linlithgow and Jinnah were pleased with the resignations. On 2 December, Jinnah called for Indian Muslims to celebrate December 22 as a “Day of Deliverance” from Congress rule.
Gandhi welcomed the resignations for cleansing Congress of “rampant corruption.” He wrote to Rajagopalachari that though resigning was bitter, it was needed to “drive away all the parasites from the body.”
The resignations had a positive effect of bringing Congress Left and Right closer due to a common policy on war participation. Overall, the Pirpur Committee and resignations marked major events in worsening Hindu-Muslim relations and the growth of separatism.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1: What was the significance of the Election of 1937 in India?

A1: The Election of 1937 in India was a crucial event in the country’s modern history as it marked a significant shift in the political landscape. During this election, the Indian National Congress (INC) emerged as the dominant political force, securing a majority in several provinces. This victory allowed the INC to form governments in many regions, paving the way for the establishment of Congress Ministries.

Q2: What were the Congress Ministries formed after the Election of 1937?

A2: Following the Election of 1937, the Indian National Congress formed governments in several provinces, known as Congress Ministries. Some notable ones included the ministries led by leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru in the United Provinces, Sardar Patel in Bombay, and C. Rajagopalachari in Madras. These ministries played a crucial role in shaping and implementing socio-economic policies at the provincial level, contributing to the overall development of India.

Q3: What were the key policies and reforms initiated by the Congress Ministries after 1937?

A3: The Congress Ministries implemented a range of policies and reforms aimed at addressing socio-economic issues and promoting inclusive development. Some key initiatives included land reforms to address agrarian problems, expansion of education, promotion of industrialization, and efforts to uplift marginalized communities. These policies were reflective of the INC’s commitment to social justice and economic progress, laying the foundation for the transformative changes that would continue to shape India’s post-independence era.

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

The Election of 1937 and the Formation of Congress Ministries – Modern History Notes