Page 141 - DHIS204_DHIS205_INDIAN_FREEDOM_STRUGGLE_HINDI

Indian Freedom Struggle (1707–1947 A.D.)

Notes repression. The examples could be multiplied, but the point is that the spirit of unrest and defiance
of authority engendered by the Non-Cooperation Movement contributed to the rise of many local
movements in different parts of the country, movements which did not often adhere strictly either
to the programme of the Non-Cooperation Movement or even to the policy of non-violence.
In this situation, it was hardly surprising that the Government came to the conclusion that its
earlier policy had not met with success and that the time to strike had arrived. In September 1920,
at the beginning of the movement, the Government had thought it best to leave it alone as repression
would only make martyrs of the nationalists and fan the spirit of revolt. In May 1921, it had tried,
through the Gandhi-Reading talks, to persuade Gandhiji to ask the Ali brothers to withdraw from
their speeches those passages that contained suggestions of violence; this was an attempt to drive
a wedge between the Khilafat leaders and Gandhiji, but it failed. By December, the Government
felt that things were really going too far and announced a change of policy by declaring the
Volunteer Corps illegal and arresting all those who claimed to be its members.
C.R. Das was among the first to be arrested, followed by his wife Basantidebi, whose arrest so
incensed the youth of Bengal that thousands came forward to court arrest. In the next two months,
over 30,000 people were arrested from all over the country, and soon only Gandhiji out of the top
leadership remained out of jail. In mid-December, there was an abortive attempt at negotiations,
initiated by Malaviya, but the conditions offered were such that it meant sacrificing the Khilafat
leaders, a course that Gandhiji would not accept. In any case, the Home Government had already
decided against a settlement and ordered the Viceroy, Lord Reading, to withdraw from the
negotiations. Repression continued, public meetings and assemblies were banned, newspapers
gagged, and midnight raids on Congress and Khilafat offices became common.
Chauri Chaura Incident
Gandhiji had been under considerable pressure from the Congress rank and file as well as the
leadership to start the phase of mass civil disobedience. The Ahmedabad session of the Congress
in December 1921 had appointed him the sole authority on the issue. The Government showed no
signs of relenting and had ignored both the appeal of the All-Parties Conference held in mid-
January 1922 as well as Gandhiji’s letter to the Viceroy announcing that, unless the Government
lifted the ban on civil liberties and released political prisoners, he would be forced to go ahead
with mass civil disobedience. The Viceroy was unmoved and, left with no choice, Gandhiji
announced that mass civil disobedience would begin in Bardoli taluqa of Surat district, and that
all other parts of the country should cooperate by maintaining total discipline and quiet so that the
entire attention of the movement could be concentrated on Bardoli. But Bardoli was destined to
wait for another six years before it could launch a no-tax movement. Its fate was decided by the
action of members of a Congress and Khilafat procession in Chauri Chaura in Gorakhpur district
of U.P. on 5 February 1922. Irritated by the behaviour of some policemen, a section of the crowd
attacked them. The police opened fire. At this, the entire procession attacked the police and when
the latter hid inside the police station, set fire to the building. Policemen who tried to escape were
hacked to pieces and thrown into the fire. In all twenty-two policemen were done to death. On
hearing of the incident, Gandhiji decided to withdraw the movement. He also persuaded the
Congress Working Committee to ratify his decision and thus, on 12 February 1922, the Non-
Cooperation Movement came to an end. Gandhiji’s decision to withdraw the movement in response
to the violence at Chauri Chaura raised a controversy whose heat can still be felt in staid academic
seminars and sober volumes of history. Motilal Nehru, C.R. Das, Jawaharlal Nehru, Subhas Bose,
and many others have recorded their utter bewilderment on hearing the news. They could not
understand why the whole country had to pay the price for the crazy behaviour of some people in
a remote village. Many in the country thought that the Mahatma had failed miserably as a leader
and that his days of glory were over.
Many later commentators, following the tradition established by R. Palme Dutt in India Today,
have continued to condemn the decision taken by Gandhiji, and seen in it proof of the Mahatma’s
concern for the propertied classes of Indian society. Their argument is that Gandhiji did not
withdraw the movement simply because of his belief in the necessity of non-violence. He withdrew

136 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY