The debates on the future strategy after the Civil Disobedience Movement revolved around two key stages:

1. Immediate Future (1934-35):
• During this phase, the nationalist leaders deliberated on the course of action for the national movement in the absence of mass struggle.
• The withdrawal of the Civil Disobedience Movement necessitated a reassessment of tactics and approaches to continue the struggle against British rule.
• Various leaders and factions within the nationalist movement discussed options such as constructive work, social reform initiatives, and continued political agitation through legal means.
2. Office Acceptance (1937):
• In 1937, provincial elections were held under the autonomy provisions of the Government of India Act, 1935.
• The debate during this stage centered around whether nationalist parties should participate in these elections and accept office within the provincial governments established under the Act.
• Proponents of office acceptance argued that participating in the elections and forming governments would provide an opportunity to work within the existing system and push for further reforms.
• Opponents raised concerns about the limitations of the Act and the potential compromise of nationalist principles by engaging with colonial institutions.

These debates reflected the complexities and divergent opinions within the nationalist movement regarding the most effective strategies for achieving independence from British colonial rule. Ultimately, the decisions made during these debates shaped the trajectory of the Indian independence movement in the years leading up to independence in 1947.

Nehru's vision for India was deeply rooted in socialist ideals and a commitment to addressing the economic and social injustices prevalent in society. He believed that the ultimate goal for India, as well as for the world, was the abolition of capitalism and the establishment of socialism. Nehru viewed the withdrawal of the Civil Disobedience Movement and the decision to participate in councils as setbacks, describing them as "spiritual defeat," "surrender of ideals," and a shift from revolutionary to reformist mentality.

To counteract these perceived setbacks, Nehru advocated for a renewed focus on addressing the economic and class-based inequalities within Indian society. He proposed that the Congress should prioritize the demands of peasants and workers, as well as challenge the interests of landlords and capitalists. Nehru envisioned organizing the masses into class-based organizations such as kisan sabhas (peasant unions) and trade unions, which would advocate for the rights and interests of their respective classes.

Moreover, Nehru argued that these class organizations should have the opportunity to affiliate with the Congress, thereby influencing its policies and activities. He believed that integrating the class struggle of the masses into the broader anti-imperialist struggle was essential for achieving genuine progress and social transformation in India.

In summary, Nehru's vision emphasized the importance of addressing economic inequalities, empowering the masses through class-based organizations, and advancing socialist principles as central tenets of India's struggle for independence and social justice.

The second stage of debate within the nationalist movement, leading up to the provincial assembly elections of early 1937, centered on the strategy to be adopted following the announcement of elections under the Government of India Act, 1935. Here's a breakdown of the key points and ideological divisions during this debate:

1. Opposition to the 1935 Act: There was unanimous agreement within the Congress that the Government of India Act, 1935, was to be opposed entirely. However, there was ambiguity regarding the strategy to be employed during a period when a mass movement was not feasible.
2. Election Strategy: The Congress agreed that it should participate in the elections to provincial assemblies with a comprehensive political and economic program. This participation was seen as a means to deepen anti-imperialist sentiment among the masses.
3. Post-Election Strategy: The main point of contention arose regarding the course of action to be taken after the elections. Specifically, there was uncertainty about whether the Congress should agree to form a government if it secured a majority in a province.
4. Ideological Divide: The debate over post-election strategy quickly became polarized along ideological lines, with two distinct camps emerging: the left and the right. These ideological divisions reflected broader differences in outlook and approach within the nationalist movement.
5. Left vs. Right: The left-leaning faction advocated for a more radical approach, which included rejecting any cooperation with the colonial government, even if it meant abstaining from forming a government following electoral success. This faction emphasized the need for continued resistance and mass mobilization against British rule.
6. Right-leaning Faction: In contrast, the right-leaning faction was more pragmatic, suggesting that the Congress should be open to forming a government if it won a majority in a province. This group prioritized practical governance and saw participation in provincial governments as a means to achieve incremental progress towards eventual independence.

Overall, the debate over the post-election strategy reflected deeper ideological divisions within the nationalist movement regarding the most effective path towards achieving independence from British colonial rule. These differences would continue to shape the course of the movement in the lead-up to India's eventual independence in 1947.

The debate over office acceptance within the nationalist movement revealed divided opinions among prominent leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru, Subhash Bose, and Congress socialists and communists:

1. Opposition to Office Acceptance: Nehru, Bose, and the Congress socialists and communists were staunchly opposed to office acceptance under the Government of India Act, 1935. They argued that such acceptance would undermine the nationalist rejection of the Act and dilute the revolutionary character of the movement. They believed that participating in constitutional work would divert attention from crucial issues such as freedom, economic and social justice, and poverty alleviation.
2. Alternative Strategy: Instead of accepting office, the leftists proposed a strategy of entry into the councils with the aim of creating deadlocks, rendering the Act unworkable. This approach mirrored the older Swarajist strategy and aimed to disrupt the functioning of the legislative bodies. Additionally, they advocated for a long-term strategy focused on integrating workers and peasants into the Congress and imparting a socialist direction to the movement.
3. Proponents of Office Acceptance: On the other hand, proponents of office acceptance argued that while they were equally committed to opposing the 1935 Act, participating in legislatures was a short-term tactic necessitated by the absence of a viable mass movement. They maintained that mass struggle alone could achieve independence but emphasized the importance of not leaving the administrative field open to pro-government reactionary forces.
4. Balancing Act: While acknowledging the risks of being co-opted by establishment forces, advocates of office acceptance believed that the answer lay in combating these tendencies rather than abandoning office altogether. They argued that provincial ministries, despite their limited powers, could still be utilized for constructive work and advancing nationalist goals.

Overall, the debate over office acceptance underscored the complex strategic considerations facing the nationalist movement as it navigated the challenges of colonial governance and sought to advance towards eventual independence.

Gandhi's position on office acceptance evolved over time:

1. Initial Opposition: Initially, Gandhi opposed the idea of office acceptance, expressing his reservations during Congress Working Committee (CWC) meetings. He shared concerns about the potential compromises and dilution of the movement's principles that could result from participating in the colonial administrative structures.
2. Shift in Stance: However, by the beginning of 1936, Gandhi's stance began to change, and he became more open to the idea of giving a trial to the formation of Congress ministries. This shift likely reflected a pragmatic acknowledgment of the changing political landscape and the need to explore different avenues for advancing the nationalist agenda.
3. Congress Resolutions: The Congress, under Gandhi's influence, decided to fight elections but postponed the decision on office acceptance until after the elections. Resolutions passed at sessions in Lucknow in early 1936 and Faizpur in late 1937 emphasized the commitment to combat the colonial constitution both inside and outside the legislatures.
4. Election Participation: In February 1937, elections to the provincial assemblies were held in eleven provinces. Despite reservations about the colonial system, the Congress participated in these elections, reflecting a willingness to engage with the electoral process as a means of advancing nationalist objectives.

Overall, Gandhi's position on office acceptance demonstrated a pragmatic approach, balancing the imperative of opposing colonial governance with a recognition of the need to explore all available avenues for advancing the cause of Indian independence.