Non-Cooperation Movement

The Non-Cooperation Movement (1920–1922) marked a watershed moment in the Indian national movement, transitioning it from an elite constitutional struggle to a formidable mass movement. Launched under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi, the movement was a manifestation of the philosophy of Satyagraha (truth-force) and passive resistance against British colonial rule.

Underlying Causes and Catalysts

• The Rowlatt Act (1919): Officially known as the Anarchical and Revolutionary Crimes Act, it authorized the government to imprison any person suspected of terrorism without trial for up to two years, severely curtailing civil liberties.
• Jallianwala Bagh Massacre (April 13, 1919): The brutal firing on a peaceful gathering in Amritsar by Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer resulted in hundreds of deaths, causing deep alienation and resentment across India.
• The Hunter Committee Report: The official British inquiry into the Punjab wrongs was widely perceived by Indians as a whitewash designed to shield General Dyer, further damaging faith in British justice.
• Economic Post-War Distress: World War I had left the Indian economy strained with high inflation, heavy taxation, and food shortages, creating a fertile ground for mass discontent.
• The Khilafat Grievance: Indian Muslims were deeply perturbed by the harsh treatment meted out to the Ottoman Empire via the Treaty of Sèvres, which threatened the status of the Sultan as the Caliph.

Institutional Adoption and Phase-wise Implementation

The organizational structure of the Indian National Congress (INC) was reshaped to accommodate and execute this nation-wide agitation.

Key Congress Sessions and Resolutions

• Calcutta Special Session (September 1920): Chaired by Lala Lajpat Rai, the Congress approved the Non-Cooperation program until the Khilafat and Punjab wrongs were redressed, and Swaraj (self-rule) was established.
• Nagpur Session (December 1920): Chaired by C. Vijayaraghavachariar, this session formally ratified the Non-Cooperation resolution. Critically, the Congress altered its constitutional goal from attaining self-government through constitutional means to attaining Swaraj through all peaceful and legitimate means. It also created Provincial Congress Committees on a linguistic basis to expand its grassroots reach.

Programmatic Action of the Agitation

Boycott and Constructive Programs

Regional Manifestations and Mass Participation

The movement assumed distinct local characteristics as various social classes interpreted Swaraj through the lens of their immediate grievances.

Prominent Regional Agitations

• Awadh Kisan Movement (United Provinces): Led by Baba Ramchandra, the peasantry integrated non-cooperation with their fight against exorbitant rents (nazrana) and illegal evictions by talukdars.
• Akali Movement (Punjab): A non-violent struggle by Sikh reformers to liberate their historic Gurdwaras from the control of corrupt, British-backed Mahants (priests).
• Moplah Rebellion (Malabar, Kerala): Muslim tenants (Moplahs) rose against oppressive Hindu landlords (Jenmis) and British officials, though it later took an unfortunate communal turn.
• Guntur Ryots Agitation (Andhra Pradesh): Forest Satyagrahas were launched against restrictive forest laws alongside a refusal to pay land revenue.

The Sudden Withdrawal: Chauri Chaura and the Bardoli Resolution

The rapid momentum of the movement came to an abrupt halt due to an outbreak of violence that clashed directly with Gandhi’s absolute commitment to non-violence.

The Chauri Chaura Incident (February 5, 1922)

In the Gorakhpur district of the United Provinces, an angry crowd of volunteers was fired upon by the police. In retaliation, the mob set fire to the local police station, burning 22 policemen alive.

The Bardoli Resolution

Deeply disturbed by the violent turn of the movement, Gandhi asserted that the country was not yet textually and spiritually prepared for a non-violent mass struggle. On February 12, 1922, the Congress Working Committee met at Bardoli (Gujarat) and formally passed a resolution suspending the Non-Cooperation Movement. Shortly after, in March 1922, Gandhi was arrested and sentenced to six years in prison.

Post-Suspension Realignment: The Emergence of the Swarajists

The abrupt cessation of the mass movement triggered widespread disillusionment within the top echelons of the Congress, leading to a profound strategic debate regarding the next phase of anti-colonial resistance.

The Factional Divide: Pro-Changers vs. No-Changers

At the Gaya Session of the Congress in December 1922, presided over by Chittaranjan (C.R.) Das, the party split into two distinct strategic camps over the question of council entry.

Ideological Positions of the Factions

• The Pro-Changers: Led by C.R. Das, Motilal Nehru, and Hakim Ajmal Khan, they argued that during a phase of political depression, nationalists should contest elections to the newly formed Legislative Councils. Their objective was to enter the assemblies and obstruct the colonial administration from within—a strategy termed “uniform, continuous, and consistent obstruction.”
• The No-Changers: Led by C. Rajagopalachari, Vallabhbhai Patel, Rajendra Prasad, and M.A. Ansari, they advocated adhering strictly to the original boycotts, avoiding the legislative chambers, and dedicating all energies to civil constructive work at the village level.

Formation and Legislative Impact of the Swaraj Party

Defeated on the council entry resolution at Gaya, C.R. Das resigned from the Congress presidency and, along with Motilal Nehru, announced the formation of the Congress-Khilafat Swarajya Party (popularly known as the Swaraj Party) in January 1923. To prevent a permanent damaging split like the 1907 Surat Split, a compromise was reached at a special Congress session in Delhi (September 1923). The Swarajists were permitted to contest the upcoming November 1923 elections as a group within the Congress framework.

Major Legislative Interventions of the Swarajists

• Electoral Performance: The Swaraj Party captured 42 out of 101 elected seats in the Central Legislative Assembly and won a clear majority in the Central Provinces.
• Constitutional Obstruction: Working in tandem with independent legislators like Muhammad Ali Jinnah, they repeatedly threw out government budgetary demands and forced the Governor-General to use his special powers of certification.
• Exposing the 1919 Reforms: Their consistent opposition successfully exposed the severe limitations of the system of Dyarchy introduced by the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms.
• The Muddiman Committee: Due to persistent Swarajist pressure, the British government appointed the Alexander Muddiman Committee in 1924 to inquire into the working of the constitution.
• The Public Safety Bill (1928): In a historic constitutional victory, the Swarajists defeated the repressive Public Safety Bill, which aimed to empower the government to deport foreign communist and socialist organizers.

Decline of the Swarajists

The Swarajist strategy began losing efficacy after the sudden demise of C.R. Das in June 1925. The party subsequently dissolved into internal factions, primarily split between the mainstream obstructionists and the Responsivists (such as Lala Lajpat Rai, Madan Mohan Malaviya, and N.C. Kelkar), who preferred to accept government offices to safeguard Hindu socio-political interests amid rising communal tensions across British India.