Towards Civil Disobedience

Towards Civil Disobedience — How Did the Salt March Transform Indian Nationalism?

After withdrawing the Non-Cooperation Movement in February 1922, Gandhi felt that the movement had turned violent in too many places and that satyagrahis required proper training before any future mass struggle. This withdrawal created a period of internal debate within the Congress that would shape Indian politics for the rest of the decade.

Divisions within the Congress

Some leaders, weary of mass agitation, wanted to participate in elections to the provincial councils established under the Government of India Act of 1919. They argued it was important to challenge British policies from within the councils, advocate for reforms, and expose the undemocratic nature of these institutions. C.R. Das and Motilal Nehru^? formed the Swaraj Party within the Congress to champion this return to council politics.

Younger leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru and Subhas Chandra Bose^?, however, pushed for more radical mass action and demanded full independence rather than gradual reform within the colonial framework.

The Economic Crisis of the Late 1920s

Two major developments reshaped Indian politics towards the end of the decade. First, the worldwide economic depression struck hard. Agricultural prices began declining from 1926 and collapsed entirely after 1930. As demand for agricultural produce shrank and exports fell, peasants struggled to sell their harvests or pay their revenue obligations. By 1930, rural India was in deep turmoil.

The Simon Commission

The second factor was the arrival of the Simon Commission^? in 1928. Established by the new Tory government in Britain, the commission was tasked with reviewing the constitutional system in India and recommending reforms. However, it included not a single Indian member -- all its members were British. This exclusion united Indian political opinion: the Congress, the Muslim League, and other parties all joined in protests, greeting the commission with the slogan "Go back Simon."

In response, Viceroy Lord Irwin announced in October 1929 a vague offer of "dominion status" at some unspecified future date, along with a Round Table Conference to discuss a future constitution. This failed to satisfy the Congress. The radicals, led by Jawaharlal Nehru and Subhas Chandra Bose, grew more assertive, while the moderates who had proposed working within the British dominion framework lost influence.

However, the Independence Day celebrations of January 1930 attracted limited public attention. Gandhi needed to find a way to connect the abstract idea of freedom to concrete, everyday issues that ordinary people could relate to.

3.1 The Salt March and the Civil Disobedience Movement

Gandhi identified salt as the perfect symbol to unite the nation. On 31 January 1930, he wrote to Viceroy Irwin outlining eleven demands. These were deliberately wide-ranging to ensure that all sections of Indian society -- from industrialists to peasants -- could identify with them. The most powerful demand was the abolition of the salt tax^?. Salt was consumed universally by rich and poor alike, making it one of the most essential items of daily life. The government's monopoly over salt production and the tax levied on it, Gandhi declared, represented the most oppressive aspect of British rule.

Timeline: The Salt March to Civil Disobedience

The Civil Disobedience Movement differed fundamentally from Non-Cooperation. People were now asked not merely to refuse cooperation with the British, but to actively break colonial laws. Thousands across the country manufactured salt illegally and demonstrated at government salt factories. Foreign cloth was boycotted, liquor shops were picketed, peasants refused to pay revenue and chaukidari taxes^?, village officials resigned, and forest communities violated forest laws by entering Reserved Forests to collect wood and graze cattle.

The colonial government responded with mass arrests of Congress leaders, which in turn provoked violent reactions. When Gandhi was arrested, industrial workers in Sholapur attacked police posts, municipal buildings, courts, and railway stations -- all symbols of British authority. Approximately 100,000 people were arrested during the movement. Yet, when violence spread, Gandhi again decided to negotiate, resulting in the Gandhi-Irwin Pact of 5 March 1931.

3.2 How Participants Saw the Movement

Rich Peasants

In the countryside, prosperous farming communities -- the Patidars of Gujarat and the Jats of Uttar Pradesh^? -- threw themselves enthusiastically into the movement. As commercial crop producers, they were devastated by the trade depression and falling prices. With their cash incomes evaporating, they could not meet the government's revenue demands -- and the government's refusal to reduce these demands fuelled deep resentment. They organised their communities and sometimes compelled reluctant members to participate in boycott programmes. However, when the movement was called off in 1931 without any revision of revenue rates, many felt betrayed and refused to rejoin when it was relaunched in 1932.

Poor Peasants

The poorer peasantry had different concerns. Many were small tenants who could not pay rent to landlords as the Depression deepened. They wanted unpaid rents to be remitted entirely. These tenants gravitated towards more radical movements led by Socialists and Communists. The Congress, anxious not to alienate wealthy peasants and landlords, was generally unwilling to support "no rent" campaigns, which left its relationship with the rural poor uncertain.

Business Classes

Indian industrialists, who had grown powerful during the First World War, supported the Civil Disobedience Movement initially. They formed the Indian Industrial and Commercial Congress (1920) and FICCI^? (1927) to advance business interests. Led by figures like Purshottamdas Thakurdas and G.D. Birla, they opposed colonial restrictions on trade and provided financial support to the movement. However, after the failure of the Round Table Conference, enthusiasm waned as businesses feared prolonged disruption and the growing influence of socialist ideas within the Congress.

Industrial Workers

The industrial working class largely stayed aloof from the Civil Disobedience Movement, except in the Nagpur region. While some workers selectively adopted Gandhian ideas -- boycotting foreign goods as part of their own struggles against low wages -- the Congress was reluctant to incorporate workers' demands into its programme, fearing this would alienate industrialist supporters. Railway workers struck in 1930, dockworkers in 1932, and thousands of tin mine workers in Chotanagpur wore Gandhi caps and joined rallies.

Women's Participation

One of the most significant features of the Civil Disobedience Movement was the unprecedented participation of women. During the salt march, thousands of women left their homes to hear Gandhi. They participated in protest marches, manufactured salt, picketed foreign cloth and liquor shops, and many went to jail. In urban areas, participants were largely from high-caste families; in rural areas, they came from wealthy peasant households. Yet this expanded public role did not translate into genuine political empowerment -- Gandhi viewed women's primary duty as being at home, and the Congress was reluctant to allow women positions of real authority within the organisation.

3.3 The Limits of Civil Disobedience

The Dalit Question

Not all social groups were moved by the concept of swaraj. The dalits^? -- who from around the 1930s began referring to themselves as "dalit" or "oppressed" -- had long been neglected by the Congress. Gandhi declared that swaraj would not come for a hundred years without the elimination of untouchability. He called the "untouchables" harijan (children of God), organised satyagrahas for their temple entry and access to public facilities, and personally performed sanitation work to dignify the labour of sweepers.

However, many dalit leaders, especially Dr B.R. Ambedkar^?, sought a fundamentally different political solution. Ambedkar organised the dalits into the Depressed Classes Association in 1930 and demanded reserved seats in educational institutions and a separate electorate for dalits in legislative councils. He clashed with Gandhi at the Second Round Table Conference over this demand.

Muslim Response

Several Muslim political organisations were lukewarm towards the Civil Disobedience Movement. After the Non-Cooperation-Khilafat Movement declined, many Muslims felt alienated from the Congress, which from the mid-1920s had become more visibly associated with Hindu nationalist groups like the Hindu Mahasabha. Communal tensions worsened as religious processions by both communities turned militant, triggering Hindu-Muslim riots in various cities.

Muhammad Ali Jinnah^? of the Muslim League had been willing to forgo separate electorates in exchange for guaranteed representation in the Central Assembly and proportional representation in Muslim-majority provinces. But negotiations collapsed at the All Parties Conference of 1928 when the Hindu Mahasabha opposed any compromise. By the time the Civil Disobedience Movement began, an atmosphere of suspicion and distrust between communities made it difficult for many Muslims to respond to the call for united struggle.