How Did Indian Congress End British Rule
How did the Indian National Congress win support and what part did it play in ending British rule?
The Indian Independence Act of 1947 marked a watershed upon the history of India and imperialism, predicating the protracted, but evident, retreat of empire. A body of influences are readily available in providing a depth of understanding of the event; it is, however, the permeating legacy of the Indian national congress that has been routinely identified as a political organisation synonymous with the departure of empire and colonialism. The remit of this essay focuses our attention upon the development and narrative of the Indian National Congress, and the use of its political structure in exercising and mobilising nationalist sentiments …show more content…
throughout the Asian subcontinent. Although instrumental and inherently central to the discussion of Indian independence, one must retain an open and wider view of the multitude of pressures, from within and without, that ultimately led to British withdrawal. It would be prudent therefore to accommodate the international economic and political circumstances that restricted the manoeuvrability of the British following the Second World War, and its noticeable influence upon the retreat of imperialism, upon the wider discussion of the end of British rule. Although providing the structure of national identity, the degree to which the congress had a direct impact upon the redirection of imperial policy is subject to speculation. The narrative of the Congress developing into an organisation, during the interwar period, that directed a mass nationalist movement is nevertheless fundamental to the discussion of the end of imperialism in India. Despite the inherent structural weaknesses of British control over the subcontinent, the role of the Congress in mobilising the masses as a political instrument was significant in the transformation of prevalent anti-imperialist sentiments into a powerful nationalistic force. The narrative of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi is therefore intimately linked to this process. Through his novel liberalising strategies of Satyagraha and non-cooperation he moulded a fractured body of existing hostilities to imperial rule into a cohesive unifying beacon of liberty, dramatically transforming the dialogue between nationalism and imperialism.
The Indian National Congress emerged upon the political landscape in 1885 as the natural culmination of the politicisation and education of an Indian middle class, its nucleus formed from a growing body of English educated professionals and artisans. Although a landmark in the formation of political and national identity on an all-India scale, the resonance of this political organisation in Indian society and its ability to mobilise existing anti-imperialist sentiments is marked by distinct periods in its narrative. Indeed even before the foundation of the Congress, there was an existing body of politically active organisations, such as the Indian Association, pursuing an all-India programme, promoting greater autonomy1. The early composition of the Congress leaders and participants tended to be Anglicized in their personal life and highly successful in their profession, consequently their ambitions of political change reflected these influences2. Prominent among these national issues were the progressive Indianization of the civil services and the army; the dissemination of mass literacy; and the growth of swadeshi industry3. The foundation of its support therefore was echoed by its initial objectives of social reforms, restricted to the urban middle and lower classes in the cities and towns. Such resistance to subjugation was not limited to the realm of expanding political
ideals, throughout the latter half of the 19th century there was a recognisably growing consciousness of the social and economic exploitation experienced throughout the lower classes. Even after the violent suppression of the 1857 uprising, the rural classes of Indian society continually and sporadically revolted again and again against the British and their native collaborators as they became increasingly sensitive to the inequitable and economically repressive laws of the British. Similarly, the perennial social tensions moulded within the factories of the emerging industrial heartlands of India a communally binding sense of injustice. However despite the presence of these social and political forces within wider society, the initial activities of the Congress prior to the First World War were characterised with indecisiveness, a distinct incompetence to recognising or mobilise these existing factors. As Kumar aptly notes, the inherent societal nature of the Congress during their genesis and infancy exposed a fundamental failing in its closed dialogue and estrangement with popular rural and urban struggles, “a domain of activity quite distinct hitherto from the political activity of the congress, which had reached out primary to the middle classes, commercial and professional”4. Nonetheless, at this junction, the Indian National Congress possessed neither the vision nor the political finesse to mould such spontaneous and explosive popular movements into a cohesive nationalist force. An unsympathetic outlet of educational elitism, rather than an ambitious political entity, that disenfranchised the ignored ‘lower orders’5. Indeed, its moral and ethical code was manifestly at odds with the often violent and sporadic outbursts of popular dissent; favouring methods of constitutional agitation, but prohibiting any activities that would promote the violation of the laws of the land6. Although there had been instances of when nationalist agitations had penetrated into the rural peasant class, these had often been brief and often fleeting in transforming the elitist identity of the Congress and its withdrawal from rural society7. Engaging the dialogue laterally throughout the classes of Indian society was left to, as Kumar fittingly praises, “a political actor of truly epic stature”8, Mohandas Karamchan Gandhi.
The transformation of the Indian National Congress into a nationalist force commanding a scale of mass politics, unprecedented in Indian history, is commended to the activities of a nationalist championed as the father of a nation. Indeed his political strategies of civil non-cooperation and satyagraha generated significant and widespread support throughout Indian society, penetrating the previously ignored rural classes. Through actively applying his moralist lens upon political action, Gandhi bridged the political discontent of the middle classes and the economic social hostilities of peasantry and formed a powerful nationalist force embedded within Indian society. The Rowlatt satiyagraha of 1919 was unprecedented in scale, mobilising classes and communities in the cities and towns that had previously refrained from political agitation.9 Although it developed violently in the wake of British repression and reprisals, leading to its cessation, the events of April 1919 demonstrated a growing consciousness of national identity and unity, laterally throughout Indian society10. The evidence of underlying nationalist sentiments and the popularity of Gandhi’s policies would be continually replicated during the interwar period; the Salt March of the 1930’s illustrating its potential in generating mass support throughout society. Indeed, his championing of the rural classes in highlighting the social and economic injustice of imperialism transcended the boundaries of class or creed. Through this sincerity towards the masses he politicised and attached a nationalist message upon a previously overlooked economic anxiety, providing not just leadership but direction. The politics of civil disobedience were a novel strategy of political struggle, which drew upon traditional and religious moral resources, which forged a developing consciousness of national identity through oppression11. On the eve of the Second World War, it is evidently clear that the winds of nationalist passions had permeated deep within Indian society. Although not necessarily controlled by the Congress, they had sufficiently embedded a sizable sentiment of nationalist identity within India.
Nevertheless, although by the 1930’s the Indian National Congress, through the activities of Ghandi, had mobilised and affirmed the support of a significant spectrum of Indian society, the extent to which it directly influenced the retreat of empire is subject to speculation. Indeed, the mobilisation of these mass movements by Gandhi, through the platform of the Congress, generated and demonstrated the depth of support throughout Indian society, as exemplified with the Salt March and the Rowlatt Satyagraha. The success of these non-cooperation movements in producing tangible concessions however are often at odds with the recollection of its importance in Indian memory. The Government of India act in 1935 resonates with this chord, although prolonged over an eight year period with the appointment of the Simon Commission it resulted in a constitution which satisfied little of the ambition of the Indian people, representing a further instrument of bondage. If any statistic is informative of the lack of progress it is the meagre franchise of the Indian population, a mere ten per cent of the Indian population under the Act12. Nevertheless, the role of the congress, and Gandhi, in the process of decolonisation in India is often intimately linked in Indian memory and literature. Both Das and Kumar illicit in their writings a deep relationship between Indian independence and the freedom and nationalist movements that emerged during the period, praising the factors within but omitting those without, “the congress finally won victory against the world’s mightiest power”13. The political and economic circumstances of the British emerging from the wreckage of the Second World, is inherently central to the discussion. As Majumdar pertinently notes, there is little evidence for the claim that the civil disobedience movements of Gandhi, that engineered much widespread support, actually had any direct impact upon India’s independence in 194714. After the war, Britain had not only granted independence to India but had systematically retreated from several other territories including Jordan and Palestine, signalling the rapid decolonisation of Asia15. Although inherently central to the manifestation and organisation of mass popular dissent, whether civil or violent, the extent to which social disorder preludes political change is often deeply influenced by the underlying circumstances of the period.
Nevertheless, this is not an effort to reverse the monumental achievements of the Congress, rather to highlight the debate prevalent within modern scholarship on the retreat of imperialism. In actuality, devoid of the partnered factor, it is difficult to conceive a situation in which Independence would have been achieved. While the progress of the Congress in forcing legislative and constitutional change was often frustrated, limited or indeed regressive; the accumulation of social hostilities into a nationalist force, within an economically exhausted British empire, predicated an environment in which imperial dominion over the Asian sub-continent was no longer a tenable policy. The formation of the Indian National Army by Subhas Chandra Bose only cemented a growing anxiety in the growing disloyalty of the county, a dwindling body of native collaborators who were fundamental to maintaining authority16. Coupled with the widespread discontent in the military and the mutiny in the Royal Indian Navy in 1946, it is evidently clear the by-product of Congress’ activity fermented rising nationalist sentiments. The town had been lost, and the county side had revolted beyond control, although not directly controlled by the Congress, the winds of nationalism it had released became a powerful expression, forcing the amendment of imperial policy. The social hostilities and the growing inability to maintain authority, both financially and through native collaborators, confirmed a growing reality of the untenable position of imperialism
The political objectives and the success experienced by the Indian National Congress are inherently central in the discussion of the narrative of Indian independence during the first half of the 20th century. Nevertheless it is often a perennial trap in the investigation of liberalising movements to romantically fall for the institutions and political groups that wrestled for freedom. Their deeply entrenched emotive resonances within society and culture produced a permeating legacy upon the genesis and notion of an Indian nation, let alone independence, significantly influencing Indian social memory and its representation in literature. Indeed the archetypal ethical battle between good and evil was a moralistic lens championed by Gandhi in legitimising action, and therefore through a social filter independence is won by the strength of the good, those who sacrificed in the belief of a nation. Such emotive rhetoric, although powerful, is inherently misguided. Although the Indian National Congress played a pivotal role in the manifestation of political expression for freedom, through mass political action, they however embody one half of the retreat of imperialism. Indeed, as noted, the international climate both politically and economically limited the manoeuvrability of the British in recanting the systematic political demand for independence. Through the engagement of a significant depth of Indian society, Gandhi and the Congress predicated a legacy of civil nationalist militancy on an unprecedented scale that inseminated the conditions of national identity, moulded by subjugation . Although such movements had been violently and successful repressed by the British in the past, the economic and political conditions of a Britain emerging from the ashes of the Second World War, combined with extensive social hostilities, fractured any resolve in the preservation of imperialism in India. By 1947 it marked not only Indian independence but a watershed of international prominence, signalling the end of empire. Macmillan’s belated speech in the 1960’s aptly encapsulates the nature of the end of British rule; the “winds of change” were no longer in the sails of empire but behind the movements of self-determination and liberty.
Cited Works
Borra, Ranjan, Subhas Chandra Bose, The Indian National Army, and The War of India’s Liberation, The Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1982 (Vol. 3, No. 4), pages 407-435
Brown, Judith, Modern India: the origins of an Asian democracy. 2nd ed. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1994. pg183
Low, D. A, Congress and the Raj: facets of the Indian struggle, 1917-47. Columbia, Mo.: South Asia Books, 1977.
Majumdar, R. C, Three phases of India 's struggle for freedom,. Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1961
Pande B. N, and Ravinder Kumar. A Centenary History of the Indian National Congress 1919-1935. New Dehli: New Delhi : All India Congress Committee I : Vikas Pub. House , 1985.
Pande, B. N, and M.N Das. A Centenary History of the Indian National Congress 1935-1947. New Dehli: New Delhi : All India Congress Committee I : Vikas Pub. House , 1985
Sarkar, Sumit,. Modern India, 1885-1947. New York: St. Martin 's Press, 1989
White, Nicholas J., Decolonisation: The British Experience Since 1945, Harlow Longman 1999,
The Indian Independence Act of 1947 marked a watershed upon the history of India and imperialism, predicating the protracted, but evident, retreat of empire. A body of influences are readily available in providing a depth of understanding of the event; it is, however, the permeating legacy of the Indian national congress that has been routinely identified as a political organisation synonymous with the departure of empire and colonialism. The remit of this essay focuses our attention upon the development and narrative of the Indian National Congress, and the use of its political structure in exercising and mobilising nationalist sentiments …show more content…
throughout the Asian subcontinent. Although instrumental and inherently central to the discussion of Indian independence, one must retain an open and wider view of the multitude of pressures, from within and without, that ultimately led to British withdrawal. It would be prudent therefore to accommodate the international economic and political circumstances that restricted the manoeuvrability of the British following the Second World War, and its noticeable influence upon the retreat of imperialism, upon the wider discussion of the end of British rule. Although providing the structure of national identity, the degree to which the congress had a direct impact upon the redirection of imperial policy is subject to speculation. The narrative of the Congress developing into an organisation, during the interwar period, that directed a mass nationalist movement is nevertheless fundamental to the discussion of the end of imperialism in India. Despite the inherent structural weaknesses of British control over the subcontinent, the role of the Congress in mobilising the masses as a political instrument was significant in the transformation of prevalent anti-imperialist sentiments into a powerful nationalistic force. The narrative of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi is therefore intimately linked to this process. Through his novel liberalising strategies of Satyagraha and non-cooperation he moulded a fractured body of existing hostilities to imperial rule into a cohesive unifying beacon of liberty, dramatically transforming the dialogue between nationalism and imperialism.
The Indian National Congress emerged upon the political landscape in 1885 as the natural culmination of the politicisation and education of an Indian middle class, its nucleus formed from a growing body of English educated professionals and artisans. Although a landmark in the formation of political and national identity on an all-India scale, the resonance of this political organisation in Indian society and its ability to mobilise existing anti-imperialist sentiments is marked by distinct periods in its narrative. Indeed even before the foundation of the Congress, there was an existing body of politically active organisations, such as the Indian Association, pursuing an all-India programme, promoting greater autonomy1. The early composition of the Congress leaders and participants tended to be Anglicized in their personal life and highly successful in their profession, consequently their ambitions of political change reflected these influences2. Prominent among these national issues were the progressive Indianization of the civil services and the army; the dissemination of mass literacy; and the growth of swadeshi industry3. The foundation of its support therefore was echoed by its initial objectives of social reforms, restricted to the urban middle and lower classes in the cities and towns. Such resistance to subjugation was not limited to the realm of expanding political
ideals, throughout the latter half of the 19th century there was a recognisably growing consciousness of the social and economic exploitation experienced throughout the lower classes. Even after the violent suppression of the 1857 uprising, the rural classes of Indian society continually and sporadically revolted again and again against the British and their native collaborators as they became increasingly sensitive to the inequitable and economically repressive laws of the British. Similarly, the perennial social tensions moulded within the factories of the emerging industrial heartlands of India a communally binding sense of injustice. However despite the presence of these social and political forces within wider society, the initial activities of the Congress prior to the First World War were characterised with indecisiveness, a distinct incompetence to recognising or mobilise these existing factors. As Kumar aptly notes, the inherent societal nature of the Congress during their genesis and infancy exposed a fundamental failing in its closed dialogue and estrangement with popular rural and urban struggles, “a domain of activity quite distinct hitherto from the political activity of the congress, which had reached out primary to the middle classes, commercial and professional”4. Nonetheless, at this junction, the Indian National Congress possessed neither the vision nor the political finesse to mould such spontaneous and explosive popular movements into a cohesive nationalist force. An unsympathetic outlet of educational elitism, rather than an ambitious political entity, that disenfranchised the ignored ‘lower orders’5. Indeed, its moral and ethical code was manifestly at odds with the often violent and sporadic outbursts of popular dissent; favouring methods of constitutional agitation, but prohibiting any activities that would promote the violation of the laws of the land6. Although there had been instances of when nationalist agitations had penetrated into the rural peasant class, these had often been brief and often fleeting in transforming the elitist identity of the Congress and its withdrawal from rural society7. Engaging the dialogue laterally throughout the classes of Indian society was left to, as Kumar fittingly praises, “a political actor of truly epic stature”8, Mohandas Karamchan Gandhi.
The transformation of the Indian National Congress into a nationalist force commanding a scale of mass politics, unprecedented in Indian history, is commended to the activities of a nationalist championed as the father of a nation. Indeed his political strategies of civil non-cooperation and satyagraha generated significant and widespread support throughout Indian society, penetrating the previously ignored rural classes. Through actively applying his moralist lens upon political action, Gandhi bridged the political discontent of the middle classes and the economic social hostilities of peasantry and formed a powerful nationalist force embedded within Indian society. The Rowlatt satiyagraha of 1919 was unprecedented in scale, mobilising classes and communities in the cities and towns that had previously refrained from political agitation.9 Although it developed violently in the wake of British repression and reprisals, leading to its cessation, the events of April 1919 demonstrated a growing consciousness of national identity and unity, laterally throughout Indian society10. The evidence of underlying nationalist sentiments and the popularity of Gandhi’s policies would be continually replicated during the interwar period; the Salt March of the 1930’s illustrating its potential in generating mass support throughout society. Indeed, his championing of the rural classes in highlighting the social and economic injustice of imperialism transcended the boundaries of class or creed. Through this sincerity towards the masses he politicised and attached a nationalist message upon a previously overlooked economic anxiety, providing not just leadership but direction. The politics of civil disobedience were a novel strategy of political struggle, which drew upon traditional and religious moral resources, which forged a developing consciousness of national identity through oppression11. On the eve of the Second World War, it is evidently clear that the winds of nationalist passions had permeated deep within Indian society. Although not necessarily controlled by the Congress, they had sufficiently embedded a sizable sentiment of nationalist identity within India.
Nevertheless, although by the 1930’s the Indian National Congress, through the activities of Ghandi, had mobilised and affirmed the support of a significant spectrum of Indian society, the extent to which it directly influenced the retreat of empire is subject to speculation. Indeed, the mobilisation of these mass movements by Gandhi, through the platform of the Congress, generated and demonstrated the depth of support throughout Indian society, as exemplified with the Salt March and the Rowlatt Satyagraha. The success of these non-cooperation movements in producing tangible concessions however are often at odds with the recollection of its importance in Indian memory. The Government of India act in 1935 resonates with this chord, although prolonged over an eight year period with the appointment of the Simon Commission it resulted in a constitution which satisfied little of the ambition of the Indian people, representing a further instrument of bondage. If any statistic is informative of the lack of progress it is the meagre franchise of the Indian population, a mere ten per cent of the Indian population under the Act12. Nevertheless, the role of the congress, and Gandhi, in the process of decolonisation in India is often intimately linked in Indian memory and literature. Both Das and Kumar illicit in their writings a deep relationship between Indian independence and the freedom and nationalist movements that emerged during the period, praising the factors within but omitting those without, “the congress finally won victory against the world’s mightiest power”13. The political and economic circumstances of the British emerging from the wreckage of the Second World, is inherently central to the discussion. As Majumdar pertinently notes, there is little evidence for the claim that the civil disobedience movements of Gandhi, that engineered much widespread support, actually had any direct impact upon India’s independence in 194714. After the war, Britain had not only granted independence to India but had systematically retreated from several other territories including Jordan and Palestine, signalling the rapid decolonisation of Asia15. Although inherently central to the manifestation and organisation of mass popular dissent, whether civil or violent, the extent to which social disorder preludes political change is often deeply influenced by the underlying circumstances of the period.
Nevertheless, this is not an effort to reverse the monumental achievements of the Congress, rather to highlight the debate prevalent within modern scholarship on the retreat of imperialism. In actuality, devoid of the partnered factor, it is difficult to conceive a situation in which Independence would have been achieved. While the progress of the Congress in forcing legislative and constitutional change was often frustrated, limited or indeed regressive; the accumulation of social hostilities into a nationalist force, within an economically exhausted British empire, predicated an environment in which imperial dominion over the Asian sub-continent was no longer a tenable policy. The formation of the Indian National Army by Subhas Chandra Bose only cemented a growing anxiety in the growing disloyalty of the county, a dwindling body of native collaborators who were fundamental to maintaining authority16. Coupled with the widespread discontent in the military and the mutiny in the Royal Indian Navy in 1946, it is evidently clear the by-product of Congress’ activity fermented rising nationalist sentiments. The town had been lost, and the county side had revolted beyond control, although not directly controlled by the Congress, the winds of nationalism it had released became a powerful expression, forcing the amendment of imperial policy. The social hostilities and the growing inability to maintain authority, both financially and through native collaborators, confirmed a growing reality of the untenable position of imperialism
The political objectives and the success experienced by the Indian National Congress are inherently central in the discussion of the narrative of Indian independence during the first half of the 20th century. Nevertheless it is often a perennial trap in the investigation of liberalising movements to romantically fall for the institutions and political groups that wrestled for freedom. Their deeply entrenched emotive resonances within society and culture produced a permeating legacy upon the genesis and notion of an Indian nation, let alone independence, significantly influencing Indian social memory and its representation in literature. Indeed the archetypal ethical battle between good and evil was a moralistic lens championed by Gandhi in legitimising action, and therefore through a social filter independence is won by the strength of the good, those who sacrificed in the belief of a nation. Such emotive rhetoric, although powerful, is inherently misguided. Although the Indian National Congress played a pivotal role in the manifestation of political expression for freedom, through mass political action, they however embody one half of the retreat of imperialism. Indeed, as noted, the international climate both politically and economically limited the manoeuvrability of the British in recanting the systematic political demand for independence. Through the engagement of a significant depth of Indian society, Gandhi and the Congress predicated a legacy of civil nationalist militancy on an unprecedented scale that inseminated the conditions of national identity, moulded by subjugation . Although such movements had been violently and successful repressed by the British in the past, the economic and political conditions of a Britain emerging from the ashes of the Second World War, combined with extensive social hostilities, fractured any resolve in the preservation of imperialism in India. By 1947 it marked not only Indian independence but a watershed of international prominence, signalling the end of empire. Macmillan’s belated speech in the 1960’s aptly encapsulates the nature of the end of British rule; the “winds of change” were no longer in the sails of empire but behind the movements of self-determination and liberty.
Cited Works
Borra, Ranjan, Subhas Chandra Bose, The Indian National Army, and The War of India’s Liberation, The Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1982 (Vol. 3, No. 4), pages 407-435
Brown, Judith, Modern India: the origins of an Asian democracy. 2nd ed. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1994. pg183
Low, D. A, Congress and the Raj: facets of the Indian struggle, 1917-47. Columbia, Mo.: South Asia Books, 1977.
Majumdar, R. C, Three phases of India 's struggle for freedom,. Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1961
Pande B. N, and Ravinder Kumar. A Centenary History of the Indian National Congress 1919-1935. New Dehli: New Delhi : All India Congress Committee I : Vikas Pub. House , 1985.
Pande, B. N, and M.N Das. A Centenary History of the Indian National Congress 1935-1947. New Dehli: New Delhi : All India Congress Committee I : Vikas Pub. House , 1985
Sarkar, Sumit,. Modern India, 1885-1947. New York: St. Martin 's Press, 1989
White, Nicholas J., Decolonisation: The British Experience Since 1945, Harlow Longman 1999,