Gandhi’s Campaign Methods Essay

It’s clear that Gandhi’s campaigns of non-cooperation and attending political meetings with high ranked British officials during the early 1930s, were hugely significant as they mounted pressure on the Raj, leaving the British with no other alternative than to make concessions towards the nationalists. However, Purna Swaraj wasn’t achieved by Gandhi’s campaigns in the 1930s, due to the limitations of his methods as he was unable to cooperate and negotiate with the British. Conversely, demands for nationalism increased across India and the British began to lose any moral authority they had over the Indians. Gandhi’s methods of non-violent, civil disobedience were hugely effective in turning many Indians against British rule, increasing demands for Purna Swaraj and attacking the revenue that the British relied on to survive within India. Source 1 is a declaration written by Gandhi, a speech in which was broadcasted on Independence Day. The symbolism of broadcasting this speech across the whole of India on the 26th January 1930, shows Gandhi’s purpose of targeting the masses to enthuse them on a day of huge importance, to rise up against the ‘inhuman rule’ they’re being controlled under. ‘Inhuman rule’ emphasises how the British were keeping the Indians in subordination within no care or consideration for the wellbeing of its subjects. This is witnessed with the tax that the British put on salt. Salt is a necessity for every Indians health and survival due to living in such hot climates, so consequently, the British revenue increased as they knew every Indian had to purchase it in order to survive. However, Gandhi wanted to ‘stop the payment of taxes without violence’ and thus, publicised the boycott of salt tax with his salt march on 12th March 1930. Initially, the British disregarded it and treat it as a joke, until it caught the attention of the worlds press as a result of Gandhi connecting with the supportive masses, and drawing in tens of thousands at prayer meetings and gatherings before the actual march. This contradicts the view of Lawrence James in source 3, who believes the Indians had ‘never come close to toppling the Raj’, as source 1 makes it explicit that the increasing animosity and non-payment of taxes, generated by Gandhi, concerned the British a great deal. Gandhi directly attacked the Raj as he declared it a ‘crime’ to submit to its rule in hope he could connect with the Indians and encourage them to follow his lead. He successfully did this as a result of the Salt March. Although only 78 of his supporters followed him on the entire march, many other Indians got involved. On route of the march, many Indian officials resigned from their posts. Elsewhere, another march was organised in South India were protests in Bombay, the North West Frontier Province and 2000 non-violent demonstrators at a salt production plant in Dharasana were attacked to the ground by police. This again is evidence of the ‘inhuman rule’ Gandhi speaks about in hi s declaration, and consequently shows why the British lost a lot of moral authority over the Indians. Source 2 explicitly shows that Gandhi’s non-violent campaign methods were effective at challenging the Raj and allowing them no other option that to begin making political concessions towards the activists. It adds a lot of weight to source 1 as it shows the effectiveness of Gandhi’s campaigns in relation to the British response. Lord Irwin, the Viceroy of India at the time, recognised that ‘political dialogue’ was the only way forward from the current position in 1931, due to the increasing hostility in India that was becoming a huge threat to the Empire. Consequently the Gandhi-Irwin pact was signed on the 5th March 1931 which was an agreement between both Gandhi and Irwin. The most significant aspect of this wasn’t the agreements themselves, which saw many political prisoners released, Indian officials reassigned and future political changes to be in the interest of India, but more so the fact that Gandhi was seen as an equal to a leading British official. This in itself unleashed hope that the British would start showing respect and help the Indians advance politically. It’s clear from source 2 that Irwin showed some respect for Indians as he states that the ultimate purpose for India is not to be under ‘perpetual subordination’ in the British Empire. This too conflicts with source 3 as it suggests the British have come to the realisation that they cannot hold on and control India forever, due to the increase in non-cooperation amongst the masses as a result of Gandhi’s campaigns and in the aftermath of the second round table conference. This conference was held in Britain on 7th September 1931, which aimed to start negotiations towards Indians progression to self rule. However, it achieved nothing due to Gandhi demanding nothing less than Purna Swaraj and thus blocked any further negotiations and progress for India. In addition to this, his arrogant approach in being the only representative to speak for eve ry Indian angered many groups within the population, in particular the untouchables. Source 2 therefore shows that Gandhi’s campaigning methods were limited, and only effective to a certain extent. As this modern source was written by Tim Leadbitter, a writer for academic studies, we can trust that his view is objective. However, he does express his own opinion when stating that Irwin ‘rightly’ recognised the dangers of mass movements. This is unusual in textbooks which are used for academic purposes and could cause the reader to believe his opinion is actually fact. Nevertheless, put in context its clear that the mass movements were a threat to the Raj and so followed awaited Government of India Act of 1935. The provisions of the act were too little too late and although it provided Indians with provincial control, it achieved no advancement in central or higher administration, and the electorate was still less than 10% of the overall population. Congress did benefit hugely from the 1937 election and in effect became the leading party in India wh ich in turn caused resentment and anger from the Muslim League. By this time, Gandhi lost his campaigning momentum after his arrest in 1931 however that is not to say the small but significant successes of the 1935 Government of India Act wasn’t a result of Gandhi’s campaigning efforts. Source 3 contradicts the evidence in sources 1 and 2 and completely disregards any lack of progress being made by Gandhi and the Indian nationalists in the 1930s, with the non-violent campagns. It takes facts at face value as James takes a broad sweep over the British Empire. As a result, his account ignores the underlying pressures and Gandhi’s non-violent methods that challenged the British rule in India. James undermines Gandhi’s efforts by stating they ‘never came close’ to toppling the Raj, therefore believing that the civil disobedience and non-cooperation as a result of Gandhi’s campaigns, were too weak to put even the slightest dent in the British hold on India. However source 2 explicitly opposes this as the British Viceroy Lord Irwin recognises the need to show that the British are willing to help India progress politically, to prevent further unrest and mass movements witnessed after the Salt March. The resulting 1935 Government of India Act and 1937 elections weren’t direct results of Gandhi’s campaigning, however the small changes witnessed in Indians advancing in politics and having more say at provincial level, wouldn’t have happened at all if it wasn’t for the pressure Gandhi put on the Raj. Without his non-cooperation campaigns, the British wouldn’t have felt the need to make any concessions at all towards Indians, but the fact remains that by 1939 Gandhi’s agenda of 1930 demanding Purna Swaraj hadn’t been achieved. However, James is not completely oblivious to the pressure the Raj is under, as he states they can ‘hold on’ in an unconvincing tone. It’s therefore apparent that if the Raj had to make the effort to hold on to their control, Gandhi’s campaigning efforts and mass movements are obviously causing them some concerns and mounting pressure, and so much have been effective to a certain extent . Lawrence James does actually give evidence to suggest that some Indians were actually content with British rule as he mentions the ‘backing of an army’ of ‘loyal’ sepoys, which the British utilised for general administration and control. However this alone doesn’t hold any weight when confronted with conflicting evidence from sources 1 and 2. It’s therefore undisputable that Gandhi’s non-violent campaign methods as mentioned in source 1 were hugely effective in amplifying the nationalism within India and thus rallying the masses in order to put strenuous pressure on the Raj as witnessed in source 2. It is apparent however that Gandhi became less influential after his arrest in 1931. His campaigns lost momentum and Congress became machine that followed up the progress Gandhi had made prior to the 1935 Government of India Act. Source 2 therefore bares the most weight as it makes it explicit that Gandhi’s campaigning left the British with no other option than to proceed to make concessions towards the Indians, who where now actively pushing for future self governing. The British were then obliged to relinquish some power, and accept that there would be no going back to having complete perpetual control over the Indians.