End and Evaluation of Civil Disobedience Movement

End of Civil Disobedience Movement (CDM)

• The Civil Disobedience Movement (CDM) came to an end in 1933, with Gandhi acknowledging its failure and resigning from the Indian National Congress. He shifted his focus to the upliftment of Harijans (the term he used to refer to Dalits or untouchables).
• Gandhi established the All India Anti-Untouchability League in September 1932 and started publishing the weekly newspaper Harijan in January 1933, even before his release from prison. He embarked on Harijan tours between November 1933 and August 1934, actively engaging in efforts to uplift the marginalized and fight against untouchability.
• After his final release from jail in April 1933, Gandhi personally decided to abstain from the Civil Disobedience Movement. The movement was temporarily suspended in June 1933 and was finally withdrawn in April 1934.
• While the policy of negotiations by Lord Irwin had failed to bring about significant changes, the policy of ruthless suppression by Lord Willingdon had also not deterred the Indian people or diminished their faith in Congress. Although the movement did not achieve immediate independence and was temporarily crushed, it had a profound impact on the Indian people. Their determination to fight against British rule was further strengthened, and their faith in the legitimacy of British rule was completely shattered. The movement laid the groundwork for future struggles for independence and brought about significant transformations in Indian society.

The evaluation of the Civil Disobedience Movement involves several aspects and viewpoints:

• Suspension of the movement: Gandhi's decision to suspend the civil disobedience movement was seen by some as a necessary step due to the limitations of mass movements and the exhaustion among participants. It was not considered a retreat but a strategic move to preserve the movement's momentum.
• Disappointment among the youth: The youth, who had participated enthusiastically in the movement, were disappointed by its suspension. They had expected more dramatic and immediate results, leading to a sense of disillusionment.
• Peasants' dissatisfaction: Peasants, particularly in Gujarat, were dissatisfied because their land restoration was not immediate. The process of restoring their lands occurred only during the Congress ministry's rule in the province.
• Recognition and heroism: Despite the suspension, many people celebrated the government's recognition of the movement's significance and the pact signed with Gandhi. The release of political prisoners was met with joy and they were hailed as heroes.
• Strategic debates: There were debates within the nationalist movement regarding future strategies. One perspective advocated for constructive work, constitutional debates, and participation in elections. Another perspective, represented by left-leaning leaders like Nehru, criticized these approaches and emphasized the need for the resumption of non-constitutional mass struggles, considering the ongoing economic crisis and the readiness of the masses to fight.
• These strategic debates reflected different visions and approaches within the Congress regarding the best course of action to achieve independence and address the challenges posed by British colonial rule.

Overall, the evaluation of the Civil Disobedience Movement acknowledges both its achievements in terms of mass participation and government recognition, as well as the need for strategic discussions to determine the movement's future direction.