# data[].attributes.body
The Indian National Congress was formed in December, 1885 by A. O. Hume, a retired British
official.

# data[].attributes.body
PARTITION OF BENGAL

In order to weaken the National Movement, the British attacked the Hindu-Muslim unity. Lord

Curzon issued an order in July, 1905 to partition Bengal. Though the official reason given by Britishers

was that it was difficult to govern and collect revenue from such a big province, but people know

that the Britishers wanted to divide the Indians and rule, therefore, there were protests against the

partition. The day was observed as the Day of Mourning. The Swadeshi (of one's own country,

Boycott and National Education were adopted as tools for achieving Swaraj by the radicals. Indians

boycotted foreign goods and used only Indian goods. Swaraj is my birth right and I shall have it

the slogan of Tilak gave impetus to the attainment of Swaraj meaning self-rule. Students played an

important role in these movements by boycotting classes and picketing shops selling foreign goods.

Many women also joined processions and picketing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Swadeshi Movement | Partition of Bengal 1905 | Lord Curzon | Boycott Movement | East and West Bengal

# data[].attributes.body
FORMATION OF MUSLIM LEAGUE
The Britishers were practising the policy of divide and rule to weaken the nationalist movement.
They encouraged the Muslims to form a separate organisation of their own. Muslim League was
formed in 1906 by Aga Khan, the religious head of a Muslim sect and Nawab Salimulla of Dhaka.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The All-India Muslim League (popularised as the Muslim League) was a political party established in 1906 in British India. Its strong advocacy, from 1930 onwards, for the establishment of a separate Muslim-majority nation-state, Pakistan, successfully led to the partition of India in 1947 by the British Empire.

The party arose out of a literary movement begun at The Aligarh Muslim University and was formed in Dhaka (now in Bangladesh) many years after the death of Syed Ahmad Khan who was a central figure for the formation of the university. It remained an elitist organization until 1937 when the leadership began mobilising the Muslim masses and the league then became a popular organization.

In the 1930s, the idea of a separate nation-state and influential philosopher Sir Muhammad Iqbal's vision of uniting the four provinces in North-West British India further supported the rationale of the two-nation theory aligning with the same ideas proposed by Syed Ahmad Khan who in 1888 at Meerut said, "After this long preface I wish to explain what method my nation - nay, rather the whole people of this country - ought to pursue in political matters. I will treat in regular sequence of the political questions of India, in order that you may have full opportunity of giving your attention to them. The first of all is this - In whose hands shall the administration and the Empire of India rest? Now, suppose that all English, and the whole English army, were to leave India, taking with them all their cannon and their splendid weapons and everything, then who would be rulers of India? Is it possible that under these circumstances two nations - the Mahomedans and the Hindus - could sit on the same throne and remain equal in power? Most certainly not. It is necessary that one of them should conquer the other and thrust it down. To hope that both could remain equal is to desire the impossible and the inconceivable." With global events leading up to World War II and the Congress party's effective protest against the United Kingdom unilaterally involving India in the war without consulting the Indian people, the Muslim League went on to support the British war efforts. The Muslim League played a decisive role in the 1940s, becoming a driving force behind the division of India along religious lines and the creation of Pakistan as a Muslim state in 1947.

After the partition and subsequent establishment of Pakistan, All-India Muslim League was formally disbanded in India and the leftover Muslim League diminished to a minor party, that too only in Kerala, India. In Bangladesh, the Muslim League was revived in 1976 but it was reduced in size, rendering it insignificant in the political arena. In India, a separate independent entity called the Indian Union Muslim League was formed, which continues to have a presence in the Indian parliament to this day. In Pakistan, the Pakistan Muslim League eventually split into several political parties, which became the successors of the All-India Muslim League.

With the sincere efforts by the pioneers of the Congress to attract Muslims to their sessions the majority of the Islamic leadership, with exception of few scholars like Sir Syed Ahmed Khan and Syed Ameer Ali, who focused more on Islamic education and scientific developments, rejected the notion that India's has two distinct communities to be represented separately Congress sessions.

In 1886, Sir Syed founded the Muhammadan Educational Conference, but a self-imposed ban prevented it from discussing politics. Its original goal was to advocate for British education, especially science and literature, among India's Muslims. The conference, in addition to generating funds for Sir Syed's Aligarh Muslim University, motivated the Muslim upper class to propose an expansion of educational uplift elsewhere, known as the Aligarh Movement. In turn, this new awareness of Muslim needs helped stimulate a political consciousness among Muslim elites, For a few of them, many years after the death of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan the All-India Muslim League was formed in Dhaka, Bangladesh.

The formation of a Muslim political party on the national level was seen as essential by 1901. The first stage of its formation was the meeting held at Lucknow in September 1906, with the participation of representatives from all over India. The decision for the re-consideration to form the all-Indian Muslim political party was taken and further proceedings were adjourned until the next meeting of the All India Muhammadan Educational Conference. The Simla Deputation reconsidered the issue in October 1906 and decided to frame the objectives of the party on the occasion of the annual meeting of the Educational Conference, which was scheduled to be held in Dhaka. Meanwhile, Nawab Salimullah Khan published a detailed scheme through which he suggested the party to be named All-India Muslim Confederacy.

Pursuant to the decisions taken earlier at the Lucknow meeting and later in Simla, the annual meeting of the All-India Muhammadan Educational Conference was held in Dhaka from 27 December until 30 December 1906. Three thousand delegates attended, headed by both Nawab Waqar-ul-Mulk Kamboh and Nawab Mohsin-ul-Mulk (the Secretary of the Muhammaden Educational Conference), in which they explained its objectives and stressed the unity of Muslims under the banner of an association. It was formally proposed by Nawab Salimullah Khan and supported by Hakim Ajmal Khan, Maulana Muhammad Ali Jauhar, Zafar Ali Khan, Syed Nabiullah, a barrister from Lucknow, and Syed Zahur Ahmad, an eminent lawyer, as well as several others.

The Muslim League's insistence on separate electorates and reserved seats in the Imperial Council were granted in the Indian Councils Act after the League held protests in India and lobbied London.

The draft proposals for the reforms communicated on 1 October 1908 provided Muslims with reserved seats in all councils, with nominations only being maintained in Punjab. The communication displayed how much the Government had accommodated Muslim demands and showed an increase in Muslim representation in the Imperial and provincial legislatures. But the Muslim League's demands were only fully met in UP and Madras. However, the Government did accept the idea of separate electorates. The idea had not been accepted by the Secretary of State, who proposed mixed electoral colleges, causing the Muslim League to agitate and the Muslim press to protest what they perceived to be a betrayal of the Viceroy's assurance to the Simla deputation.

On 23 February Morley told the House of Lords that Muslims demanded separate representation and accepted them. This was the League's first victory. But the Indian Councils Bill did not fully satisfy the demands of the Muslim League. It was based on the October 1908 communique in which Muslims were only given a few reserved seats. The Muslim League's London branch opposed the bill and in a debate obtained the support of several parliamentarians. In 1909 the members of the Muslim League organised a Muslim protest. The Reforms Committee of Minto's council believed that Muslims had a point and advised Minto to discuss with some Muslim leaders. The Government offered a few more seats to Muslims in compromise but would not agree to fully satisfy the League's demand.

Minto believed that the Muslims had been given enough while Morley was still not certain because of the pressure Muslims could apply on the government. The Muslim League's central committee once again demanded separate electorates and more representation on 12 September 1909. While Minto was opposed, Morley feared that the Bill would not pass parliament without the League's support and he once again discussed Muslim representation with the League leadership. This was successful. The Aga Khan compromised so that Muslims would have two more reserved seats in the Imperial Council. The Muslim League hesitantly accepted the compromise.

Sultan Muhammad Shah (Aga Khan III) was appointed the first honorary president of the Muslim League, though he did not attend the Dhaka inaugural session. There were also six vice-presidents, a secretary, and two joint secretaries initially appointed for a three-year term, proportionately from different provinces. The League's constitution was framed in 1907, espoused in the "Green Book," written by Maulana Mohammad Ali.

Aga Khan III shared Ahmad Khan's belief that Muslims should first build up their social capital through advanced education before engaging in politics, but would later boldly tell the British Raj that Muslims must be considered a separate nation within India. Even after he resigned as president of the AIML in 1912, he still exerted a major influence on its policies and agendas. In 1913, Mohammed Ali Jinnah joined the Muslim league.

Intellectual support and a cadre of young activists emerged from Aligarh Muslim University. Historian Mushirul Hasan writes that in the early 20th century, this Muslim institution, designed to prepare students for service to the British Raj, exploded into political activity. Until 1939, the faculty and students supported an all-India nationalist movement. After 1939, however, sentiment shifted dramatically toward a Muslim separatist movement, as students and faculty mobilised behind Jinnah and the Muslim League.

Politically, there was a degree of unity between Muslim and Hindu leaders after World War I, as typified by the Khilafat Movement. Relationships cooled sharply after that campaign ended in 1922. Communalism grew rapidly, forcing the two groups apart. Major riots broke out in numerous cities, including 91 between 1923 and 1927 in Uttar Pradesh alone. At the leadership level, the proportion of Muslims among delegates to the Congress party fell sharply, from 11% in 1921 to under 4% in 1923.

Muhammad Ali Jinnah became disillusioned with politics after the failure of his attempt to form a Hindu-Muslim alliance, and he spent most of the 1920s in Britain. The leadership of the League was taken over by Sir Muhammad Iqbal, who in 1930 first put forward the demand for a separate Muslim state in India. The " Two-Nation Theory", the belief that Hindus and Muslims were two different nations who could not live in one country, gained popularity among Muslims. The two-state solution was rejected by the Congress leaders, who favoured a united India based on composite national identity. Congress at all times rejected "communalism" - that is, basing politics on religious identity. Iqbal's policy of uniting the North-West Frontier Province, Baluchistan, Punjab, and Sindh into a new Muslim majority state became part of the League's political platform.

The League rejected the Committee report (the Nehru Report), arguing that it gave too little representation (only one quarter) to Muslims, established Devanagari as the official writing system of the colony, and demanded that India turn into a de facto unitary state, with residuary powers resting at the centre - the League had demanded at least one-third representation in the legislature and sizeable autonomy for the Muslim provinces. Jinnah reported a "parting of the ways" after his requests for minor amendments to the proposal were denied outright, and relations between the Congress and the League began to sour.

On 29 December 1930, Sir Muhammad Iqbal delivered his monumental presidential address to the All-India Muslim League annual session. He said:

I would like to see the Punjab, North-West Frontier Province [modern-day Khyber Pakhtunkhwa], Sind and Baluchistan amalgamated into a single State. Self-government within the British Empire or without the British Empire, the formation of a consolidated North-West Indian Muslim State appears to me to be the final destiny of the Muslims, at least of North-West India.

Sir Muhammad Iqbal did not use the word "Pakistan" in his address. Some scholars argued that "Iqbal never pleaded for any kind of partition of the country. Rather he was an ardent proponent of a 'true' federal setup for India..., and wanted a consolidated Muslim majority within the Indian Federation".

Another Indian historian, Tara Chand, also held that Iqbal was not thinking in terms of partition of India, but in terms of a federation of autonomous states within India. Dr. Safdar Mehmood also asserted in a series of articles that in the Allahabad address, Iqbal proposed a Muslim majority province within an Indian federation and not an independent state outside an Indian Federation.

On 28 January 1933, Choudhary Rahmat Ali, founder of the Pakistan National Movement, voiced his ideas in the pamphlet entitled "Now or Never; Are We to Live or Perish Forever?" In a subsequent book, Rehmat Ali discussed the etymology in further detail. 'Pakistan' is both a Persian and an Urdu word and literally means the land of the pure. It is composed of letters taken from the names of all our South Asia homelands; that is, Punjab, Afghania, Kashmir, Sindh and Balochistan. It means the land of the Pure".

The British and the Indian Press vehemently criticised these two different schemes and created confusion about the authorship of the word "Pakistan" to such an extent that even Jawaharlal Nehru had to write:

Iqbal was one of the early advocates of Pakistan and yet he appears to have realised its inherent danger and absurdity. Edward Thompson has written that in the course of a conversation, Iqbal told him that he had advocated Pakistan because of his position as President of Muslim League session, but he felt sure that it would be injurious to India as a whole and to Muslims especially.

Until 1937, the Muslim League had remained an organisation of elite Indian Muslims. The Muslim League leadership then began mass mobilisation and it then became a popular party with the Muslim masses in the 1940s, especially after the Lahore Resolution. Under Jinnah's leadership, its membership grew to over two million and became more religious and even separatist in its outlook.

The Muslim League's earliest base was the United Provinces, where they successfully mobilised the religious community in the late 1930s. Jinnah worked closely with local politicians, however, there was a lack of uniform political voice by the League during the 1938-1939 Madhe Sahaba riots in Lucknow. From 1937 onwards, the Muslim League and Jinnah attracted large crowds throughout India in its processions and strikes.

At a League conference in Lahore in 1940, Jinnah said:

Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, literature... It is quite clear that Hindus and Mussalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, different heroes and different episodes ... To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built up for the government of such a state.

In Lahore, the Muslim League formally recommitted itself to creating an independent Muslim state which would include Sindh, Punjab, Baluchistan, the North West Frontier Province, and Bengal, and which would be "wholly autonomous and sovereign". The Lahore Resolution, moved by the sitting Chief Minister of Bengal A. K. Fazlul Huq, was adopted on 23 March 1940, and its principles formed the foundation for Pakistan's first constitution. In the Indian provincial elections of 1946, the Muslim League won 425 out of 476 seats reserved for Muslims (and about 89.2% of Muslim votes) on a policy of creating the independent state of Pakistan, and with an implied threat of secession if this was not granted. Congress, led by Gandhi and Nehru, remained adamantly opposed to dividing India.

In opposition to the Lahore Resolution, the All India Azad Muslim Conference gathered in Delhi in April 1940 to voice its support for a united India. Its members included several Islamic organisations in India, as well as 1400 nationalist Muslim delegates; the "attendance at the Nationalist meeting was about five times than the attendance at the League meeting." The All-India Muslim League worked to try to silence those Muslims who stood against the partition of India, often using "intimidation and coercion". For example, Deobandi scholar Maulana Syed Husain Ahmad Madani traveled across British India, spreading the idea he wrote about in his book, Composite Nationalism and Islam, which stood for Hindu-Muslim unity and opposed the concept of a partition of India; while he was doing this, members of the pro-separatist Muslim League attacked Madani and disturbed his rallies. The murder of the All India Azad Muslim Conference leader Allah Bakhsh Soomro also made it easier for the All-India Muslim League to demand the creation of Pakistan.

In the British Indian province of Sind, the historian Ayesha Jalal describes the actions that the pro-separatist Muslim League used in order to spread communal division and undermine the elected government of Allah Bakhsh Soomro, which stood for a united India:

Even before the 'Pakistan' demand was articulated, the dispute over the Sukkur Manzilgah had been fabricated by provincial Leaguers to unsettle Allah Bakhsh Soomro's ministry which was dependent on support from the Congress and Independent Party. Intended as a way station for Mughal troops on the move, the Manzilgah included a small mosque which had been subsequently abandoned. On a small island in the near distance was the temple of Saad Bela, sacred space for the large number of Hindus settled on the banks of the Indus at Sukkur. The symbolic convergence of the identity and sovereignty over a forgotten mosque provided ammunition for those seeking office at the provincial level. Making an issue out of a non-issue, the Sind Muslim League in early June 1939 formally reclaimed the mosque. Once its deadline of 1 October 1939 for the restoration of the mosque to Muslims had passed, the League started an agitation.

In the few years before the partition, the Muslim League "monetarily subsidized" mobs that engaged in communal violence against Hindus and Sikhs in the areas of Multan, Rawalpindi, Campbellpur, Jhelum and Sargodha, as well as in the Hazara District. The Muslim League paid assassins money for every Hindu and Sikh they murdered. As such, leaders of the Muslim League, including Muhammad Ali Jinnah, issued no condemnation of the violence against Hindus and Sikhs in the Punjab.

After the partition of the British Indian Empire, the Muslim League played a major role in giving birth to modern conservatism in Pakistan and the introduction of the democratic process in the country.

The Pakistani incarnation was originally led by the founder of Pakistan, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, and later by Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan, but suffered from ill-fate following the military intervention in 1958. One of its factions remained supportive of President Ayub Khan until 1962, when all factions decided to reform into the Pakistan Muslim League led by Nurul Amin, and to support Fatima Jinnah in the presidential elections in 1965. Furthermore, it was the only party to have received votes from both East and West Pakistan during the elections held in 1970. During the successive periods of Pakistan, the Pakistan Muslim League went on to be one of the ruling parties holding alternating power within the nation.

After the partition of India in 1947, the All-India Muslim League was disbanded. It was succeeded by Indian Union Muslim League in the new India.

Indian Union Muslim League contests Indian General Elections under the Indian Constitution. The party has always had a constant, if small presence, in the Indian Parliament. The party has had two members in every Lower House from the third to the 16th House, with the exception of the Second, in which it had no members, and the fourth, in which it had three members. The party had a single member in the 14th Lower House. The party currently has four members in Parliament. The party is currently a part of the United Progressive Alliance in national level.

Indian Union Muslim League is recognized by the Election Commission of India as a State Party in Kerala.The party is a major member of the opposition United Democratic Front, the Indian National Congress-lead pre-poll state-level alliance in Kerala. Whenever the United Democratic Front rules in Kerala, the party leaders are chosen as important Cabinet Ministers.

The Muslim League formed its government in East Bengal immediately after the partition of Bengal, with Nurul Amin becoming the first Chief Minister.

Problems in East Pakistan for the Muslim League began to rise following the issue of the Constitution of Pakistan. Furthermore, the Bengali Language Movement proved to be the last event that led the Muslim League to lose its mandate in East Bengal. The Muslim League's national conservatism program also faced several setbacks and resistance from the Communist Party of Pakistan. In an interview given to print media, Nurul Amin stated that the communists had played an integral and major role in staging the massive protests, mass demonstrations, and strikes for the Bengali Language Movement.

All over the country, the political parties had favoured the general elections in Pakistan with the exception of the Muslim League. In 1954, legislative elections were to be held for the Parliament. Unlike in West Punjab, not all of the Hindu population migrated to India, instead a large number stayed in the state. The influence of the Communist Party deepened, and its goal of attaining power was finally realised during the elections. The United Front, the Communist Party, and the Awami League returned to power, inflicting a severe defeat to the Muslim League. Out of 309, the Muslim League only won 10 seats, whereas the Communist Party got 4 seats of the ten contested. The communists working with other parties had secured 22 additional seats, totalling 26. The right-wing Jamaat-e-Islami had completely failed in the elections.

In 1955, the United Front named Abu Hussain Sarkar as the Chief Minister of the State and he ruled the state in two non-consecutive terms until 1958, when martial law was imposed. The Muslim League remained as a minor party in East Pakistan but participated with full rigour during the Pakistan general elections in 1970. It won 10 seats from East Pakistan and 7 seats from other parts of Pakistan. After the independence of Bangladesh, the Muslim League was revived in 1976 but its size was reduced, rendering it insignificant in the political arena.

During the 1940s, the Muslim League had a United Kingdom chapter active in the British politics. After the establishment of Pakistan, the Pakistani community's leaders took over the UK branch, choosing Zubeida Habib Rahimtoola as president of the party to continue to serve its purpose in the United Kingdom. At present, the Muslim League's UK branch is led by the PML-N, with Zubair Gull as its president.

Historically, Pakistan Muslim League can also refer to any of the following political parties in Pakistan:

1. ^ Keay, John (2000). . Atlantic Monthly Press. p. 468. ISBN 978-0-8021-3797-5. Heavily supported by mainly landed and commercial Muslim interests ... they duly consummated this distrust [of Congress] by forming the All India Muslim League.

2. ^ "Remembering Sir Syed Ahmad Khan on his 201st birth anniversary: "I did not understand the value of time"". The Express Tribune. 17 October 2018.

3. ^ Rashid Kahn, Abdul (January-June 2007). "All India Muhammadan Educational Conference and the Foundation of the All India Muslim League". Journal of the Pakistan Historical Society. 55 (1/2): 65-83.

4. Pakistan movement. Commencement and evolution, p. 167, 168, by Dr. Sikandar Hayat Khan and Shandana Zahid, published by Urdu Science Board, Lahore. ISBN 969-477-122-6

5. ^ Valliani, Amin (January-June 2007). "Aga Khan's Role in the Founding and Consolidation of the All India Muslim League". Journal of the Pakistan Historical Society. 55 (1/2): 85-95.

6. ^ Hasan, Mushirul (March 1985). "Nationalist and Separatist Trends in Aligarh, 1915-47". The Indian Economic and Social History Review. 22 (1): 1-33. doi:10.1177/001946468502200101. S2CID 144414983.

7. ^ Markovits, Claude, ed. (2004) [First published 1994 as Histoire de l'Inde Moderne]. A History of Modern India, 1480-1950. London: Anthem Press. pp. 371-372. ISBN 978-1-84331-004-4. Remarkable unity shown between Hindus and Muslims [during the Khilafat movement] ... the tension between the religious communities worsened ... the reforms of 1919 had encouraged Muslim separatism by maintaining constituencies reserved for Muslims: having to get only the votes of their coreligionists, Hindu and Muslim politicians tended to emphasise what divided rather than what united the two communities.

8. ^ Sarkar, Sumit (1989) [First published 1983]. Modern India: 1885-1947. Macmillan. p. 233. ISBN 978-0-333-43805-3. Three waves of riots in Calcutta ... disturbances the same year in Dacca, Patna, Rawalpindi and Delhi; and no less than 91 communal outbreaks in U.P., the worst-affected province, between 1923 and 1927.

9. ^ Brown, Judith M. (1985). Modern India: The Origins of an Asian Democracy. Oxford University Press. p. 228. ISBN 978-0-19-913124-2. By 1923 only 3.6 per cent of Congress delegates were Muslims, compared with 10.9 per cent in 1921.

10. ^ Tariq, Abdur-Rahman, ed. (1973). Speeches and Statements of Iqbal. Lahore: Sh. Ghulam All & Sons. pp. 11-12. OCLC 652259138.

11. ^ Chand, Tara (1972). History of the Freedom Movement in India. Volume Three. New Delhi: Publications Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. pp. 252-253. OCLC 80100683. It is, however, doubtful whether he [Iqbal] contemplated the partition of India and the establishment of a sovereign Muslim state ... at Allahabad, in December 1930 ... It was certainly not a scheme for the partition of India into two independent sovereign states ... his plan of amalgamating Panjab, North-West Frontier Province, Sind and Baluchistan in one autonomous region ... There is no reference here to the two-nation theory and to the incompatibility of Hindu and Muslim cultures.

12. lang, 23, 24 & 25 March 2003;^ [full citation needed ] Also see, Mahmood, Safdar (2004). Iqbal, Jinnah aur Pakistan (in Urdu). Lahore: Khazina Ilm-wa-Adab. pp. 52-69.

13. Full text of the pamphlet "Now or Never", published by Choudhary Rahmat Ali, ^ http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00islamlinks/txt_rahmatali_1933.html

14. ^ Ali, Choudhary Rahmat (1947). Pakistan: the fatherland of the Pak nation. Cambridge: The Pakistan National Liberation Movement. OCLC 12241695.

15. ^ S. M. Ikram (1995). Indian Muslims and partition of India. Atlantic Publishers & Dist. p. 177. ISBN 978-81-7156-374-6. These sentiments were presented on behalf of our thirty million Muslim brethren who live in Pakistan, by which we mean the five northern units of India, viz. Punjab, North-West Frontier Province, Kashmir, Sind and Baluchistan (Pakistan-land of the pure-was later adopted as the name of the new Muslim state, and spelled as Pakistan).

16. ^ Khan, Yasmin (2017) [First published in 2007]. The Great Partition: The Making of India and Pakistan (New ed.). Yale University Press. p. 18. ISBN 978-0-300-23364-3. Although it was founded in 1909 the League had only caught on among South Asian Muslims during the Second World War. The party had expanded astonishingly rapidly and was claiming over two million members by the early 1940s, an unimaginable result for what had been previously thought of as just one of the numerous pressure groups and small but insignificant parties.

17. ^ Talbot, Ian (1982). "The growth of the Muslim League in the Punjab, 1937-1946". Journal of Commonwealth & Comparative Politics. 20 (1): 5-24. doi:10.1080/14662048208447395. Despite their different viewpoints all these theories have tended either to concentrate on the All-India struggle between the Muslim League and the Congress in the pre-partition period, or to turn their interest to the Muslim cultural heartland of the UP where the League gained its earliest foothold and where the demand for Pakistan was strongest.

18. ^ Dhulipala, Venkat (2010). "Rallying the Qaum: The Muslim League in the United Provinces, 1937-1939". Modern Asian Studies. 44 (3): 603-640. doi:10.1017/s0026749x09004016. JSTOR 40664926. S2CID 144798260.

19. ^ Talbot, Ian (1993). "The role of the crowd in the Muslim League struggle for Pakistan". The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History. 21 (2): 307-333. doi:10.1080/03086539308582893. Huge crowds attended Muslim League meetings and flocked to glimpse Jinnah as he journeyed about India from 1937 onwards. They also joined in processions, strikes, and riots.

20. ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20200706062601/https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/south-asia/2017-10-19/gandhis-role-partition-india

21. ^ Haq, Mushir U. (1970). Muslim politics in modern India, 1857-1947. Meenakshi Prakashan. p. 114. OCLC 136880. This was also reflected in one of the resolutions of the Azad Muslim Conference, an organization which attempted to be representative of all the various nationalist Muslim parties and groups in India.

22. Ahmed, Ishtiaq (27 May 2016). "The dissenters". The Friday Times. However, the book is a tribute to the role of one Muslim leader who steadfastly opposed the Partition of India: the Sindhi leader Allah Bakhsh Soomro. Allah Bakhsh belonged to a landed family. He founded the Sindh People's Party in 1934, which later came to be known as 'Ittehad' or 'Unity Party'. ... Allah Bakhsh was totally opposed to the Muslim League's demand for the creation of Pakistan through a division of India on a religious basis. Consequently, he established the Azad Muslim Conference. In its Delhi session held during April 27-30, 1940 some 1400 delegates took part. They belonged mainly to the lower castes and working class. The famous scholar of Indian Islam, Wilfred Cantwell Smith, feels that the delegates represented a 'majority of India's Muslims'. Among those who attended the conference were representatives of many Islamic theologians and women also took part in the deliberations ... Shamsul Islam argues that the All-India Muslim League at times used intimidation and coercion to silence any opposition among Muslims to its demand for Partition. He calls such tactics of the Muslim League as a 'Reign of Terror'. He gives examples from all over India including the NWFP where the Khudai Khidmatgars remain opposed to the Partition of India.

23. ^ Ali, Afsar (17 July 2017). "Partition of India and Patriotism of Indian Muslims". The Milli Gazette.

24. Kumar, Pramod (1992). Towards Understanding Communalism. Centre for Research in Rural and Industrial Development. p. 22. ISBN 9788185835174. His consciousness was not transformed into communal consciousness, so much so that the Muslim League 'goondas' attacked him several times. For instance, in 1945, Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani was touring India to plead for composite nationalism and for opposing the idea of partition. Near Moradabad railway station Muslim League 'goondas' threw Keechar (marshy water) on him.

25. ^ Engineer, Asgharali (1987). Ethnic conflict in south Asia. Ajanta Publications. p. 28. At one time, in 1945, Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani was touring throughout India to plead for composite nationalism and for opposing the idea of partition: once he was coming out of the railway station near Moradabad, and Muslim League goondas threw keechar (marshy water) on him.

26. Abid, Abdul Majeed (29 December 2014). "The forgotten massacre". The Nation. On the same dates, Muslim League-led mobs fell with determination and full preparations on the helpless Hindus and Sikhs scattered in the villages of Multan, Rawalpindi, Campbellpur, Jhelum and Sargodha. The murderous mobs were well supplied with arms, such as daggers, swords, spears and fire-arms. (A former civil servant mentioned in his autobiography that weapon supplies had been sent from NWFP and money was supplied by Delhi-based politicians.) They had bands of stabbers and their auxiliaries, who covered the assailant, ambushed the victim and if necessary disposed of his body. These bands were subsidized monetarily by the Muslim League, and cash payments were made to individual assassins based on the numbers of Hindus and Sikhs killed. There were also regular patrolling parties in jeeps which went about sniping and picking off any stray Hindu or Sikh. ... Thousands of non-combatants including women and children were killed or injured by mobs, supported by the All India Muslim League.

27. ^ Chitkara, M. G. (1996). Mohajir's Pakistan. APH Publishing. ISBN 9788170247463. When the idea of Pakistan was not accepted in the Northern States of India, the Muslim League sent out its goons to drive the Hindus out of Lahore, Multan and Rawalpindi and appropriate their property.

28. ^ Bali, Amar Nath (1949). Now it can be told. Akashvani Prakashan Publishers. p. 19. The pamphlet 'Rape of Rawalpindi' gives gruesome details of what was done to the minorities in the Rawalpindi Division. No such details have been published for other towns but the pattern of barbarities committed by the Muslim League goondas was the same everywhere.

29. ^ Ranjan, Amit (2018). Partition of India: Postcolonial Legacies. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9780429750526. In the evening of 6 March Muslim mobs numbering in the thousands headed towards Sikh villages in Rawalpindi, Attock and Jhelum districts. ... According to British sources, some two thousand people were killed in the carnage in three rural district: almost all non-Muslims. The Sikhs claimed seven thousand dead. Government reports showed that Muslim ex-service persons had taken part in the planned attacks. The Muslim League leaders, Jinnah and others did not issue any condemenation of these atrocities.

30. ^ M S, Amogh (20 May 2011). "A history project on the impact of the AIMD on the future courses of India and Pakistan". Online Daily.

31. ^ Masood, Alauddin (25 January 2008). "PML Perpetually Multiplying Leagues". The Weekly.

32. "Muslim League in UK". PMLN Muslim League in UK. Archived from the original on 4 June 2014.

Cohen, Stephen Philip (2004). . Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. ISBN 978-0-8157-1503-0.

Graham, George Farquhar Irving (1974). The Life and Work of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan. Karachi: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-636069-0.

Malik, Iftikar H. (2008). The History of Pakistan. The Greenwood Histories of the Modern Nations. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press. ISBN 978-0-313-34137-3.

Moore, R. J. (1983). "Jinnah and the Pakistan Demand". Modern Asian Studies. 17 (4): 529-561. doi:10.1017/s0026749x00011069. JSTOR 312235.

al Mujahid, Shairf (January-June 2007). "Reconstructing the Saga of the All India Muslim League (1906-47)". Journal of the Pakistan Historical Society. 55 (1/2): 15-26.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The All-India Muslim League (popularised as the Muslim League) was a political party established in 1906 in British India. Its strong advocacy, from 1930 onwards, for the establishment of a separate Muslim-majority nation-state, Pakistan, successfully led to the partition of India in 1947 by the British Empire.

# data[].attributes.body
MORLEY-MINTO REFORMS (1909)
Ihe British Government announced Morley-Minto Reforms to pacify the Moderates. But the
ms did not pay any heed to the demand of Indians for Swaraj. Muslims were granted separate
electorate (representation). This reform was a further threat to the Hindu-
Muslim unity in the National Movement. The Moderates opposed it and the
struggle for Swaraj became more intense.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Indian Councils Act 1909 was an act of the British Parliament that introduced a few reforms in the legislative councils and increased the involvement of Indians (limited) in the governance of British India. It was more commonly called the Morley-Minto Reforms after the Secretary of State for India John Morley and the Viceroy of India, the 4 th Earl of Minto.

This is an important topic in the NCERT notes for the UPSC Civil Services Exam. These notes will also be useful for other competitive exams like banking PO, SSC, state civil services exams and so on. This article talks about the background of Morley-Minto Reforms along with the provisions these reforms brought along.

Candidates can download Morley-Minto Reforms notes PDF from the link provided below.
Morley-Minto Reforms 1909 (UPSC Notes):- Download PDF Here
Background of Morley-Minto Reforms

Despite Queen Victoria's proclamation that Indian's would be treated equally, very few Indians got such an opportunity as the British authorities were hesitant to accept them as equal partners.

Lord Curzon had carried out the partition of Bengal in 1905. This lead to a massive uprising in Bengal as a result. Following this, the British authorities understood the need for some reforms in the governance of Indians.

The Indian National Congress (INC) was also agitating for more reforms and self-governance of Indians. The earlier Congress leaders were moderates, but now extremist leaders were on the rise who believed in more aggressive methods.

INC demanded home rule for the first time in 1906.

Gopal Krishna Gokhale met Morley in England to emphasise the need for reforms.

Shimla Deputation: A group of elite Muslims led by Aga Khan met Lord Minto in 1906 and placed their demand for a separate electorate for the Muslims.

John Morley was a member of the Liberal government, and he wanted to make positive changes in India's governance.

To know more about the Governor Generals of Bengal and India , visit the linked article.

Major provisions of the Morley-Minto reforms

The legislative councils at the Centre and the provinces increased in size.

Central Legislative Council - from 16 to 60 members

Legislative Councils of Bengal, Madras, Bombay and United Provinces - 50 members each

Legislative Councils of Punjab, Burma and Assam - 30 members each

The legislative councils at the Centre and the provinces were to have four categories of members as follows:

Ex officio members: Governor-General and members of the executive council.

Nominated official members: Government officials who were nominated by the Governor-General.

Nominated non-official members: nominated by the Governor-General but were not government officials.

Elected members: elected by different categories of Indians.

The elected members were elected indirectly. The local bodies elected an electoral college who would elect members of the provincial legislative councils. These members would, in turn, elect the members of the Central legislative council.

The elected members were from the local bodies, the chambers of commerce, landlords, universities, traders' communities and Muslims.

In the provincial councils, non-official members were in the majority. However, since some of the non-official members were nominated, in total, a non-elected majority was there.

Indians were given membership to the Imperial Legislative Council for the first time.

It introduced separate electorates for the Muslims. Some constituencies were earmarked for Muslims and only Muslims could vote their representatives.

The members could discuss the budget and move resolutions. They could also discuss matters of public interest.

They could also ask supplementary questions.

No discussions on foreign policy or on relations with the princely states were permitted.

Lord Minto appointed (on much persuasion by Morley) Satyendra P Sinha as the first Indian member of the Viceroy's Executive Council.

Two Indians were nominated to the Council of the Secretary of State for Indian affairs.

To know more about the legislation passed in British India , click on the linked article.

Assessment of the Morley-Minto reforms
Morley-Minto Reforms 1909 (UPSC Notes):- Download PDF Here UPSC Preparation

The Act introduced communal representation in Indian politics. This was intended to stem the growing tide of nationalism in the country by dividing the people into communal lines. The culmination of this step was seen in the partition of the country along religious lines. The effects of differential treatment of different religious groups can be seen to this day.

The Act did nothing to grant colonial self-government, which was Congress's demand.

The Act did increase Indian participation in the legislative councils, especially at the provincial levels.

Also Read:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Morley-Minto Reforms - Indian Councils Act 1909 [NCERT Notes: Modern History Of India For UPSC]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Indian Councils Act 1909 is commonly referred to as the Morley-Minto Reforms. The Indian Councils Act 1909 was an act of the British Parliament that introduced a few reforms in the legislative councils and increased the involvement of Indians limitedly in the governance of British India.

# data[].attributes.body
HOME RULE LEAGUE
In 1916, an Irish lady, Mrs. Annie Besant established the Home Rule
League in Madras and Bal Gangadhar Tilak established it in Maharashtra.
The purpose of the League was to attain self-government. The British
government tried to crush the movement but the agitation continued

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Home Rule League (1873-1882), sometimes called the Home Rule Party, was an Irish political party which campaigned for home rule for Ireland within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, until it was replaced by the Irish Parliamentary Party. The Home Rule Confederation of Great Britain was a sister organisation in Great Britain.

The Home Rule League grew out of the Home Government Association, a pressure group formed in 1870 and led by Isaac Butt, a Dublin based barrister who had once been a leading Irish Tory before becoming a convert to Irish nationalism. On 18-21 November 1873, the loose association re-constituted itself as a full political party, the Home Rule League, and in the 1874 general election, many of whom were from an Irish aristocratic or gentry Church of Ireland background, some newly dedicated former Irish Liberal Party members, such as Sir John Gray MP, and other more radical members who gathered around Cavan MP Joseph Biggar and Meath MP Charles Stewart Parnell. This radical wing of the party launched parliamentary filibusters to obstruct the passage of Parliamentary business, to the embarrassment of Butt and frustration of successive British governments.

On 28 August 1877 Parnell was elected leader of the Home Rule Confederation of Great Britain in place of Butt. In January 1878, Butt retained control of the Home Rule League in Ireland, which had a more middle-class and less Fenian membership and structure. The division affected the disciple of the parliamentary party at Westminster.

Following Butt's death in 1879, William Shaw served as chairman (leader) for one parliamentary session. In 1880, Parnell was elected chairman of the party, and in the 1880 general election, the party increased its number of seats. In 1882, as part of a wholesale move from being an informal alliance to a cohesive unified, political movement Parnell renamed it the Irish Parliamentary Party to pursue Irish Home Rule. The party under Parnell, himself a Protestant, became more radical, middle class, and Catholic. It largely, though not completely, squeezed out other political rivals, notably the Irish Liberal Party and the Irish Conservative Party.

Chairmen (leaders) of the Party, 1873-1882

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Home Rule League (1873-1882), sometimes called the Home Rule Party, was an Irish political party which campaigned for home rule for Ireland within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, until it was replaced by the Irish Parliamentary Party. The Home Rule Confederation of Great Britain was a sister organisation in Great Britain.

# data[].attributes.body
In 1916, the Moderates and Radicals reunited to strengthen the National Movement after nine years and signed a joint pact at Lucknow with the Muslim League. They jointly demanded self-rule for India

# data[].attributes.headline
ARRIVAL OF MAHATMA GANDHI ON THE INDIAN POLITICAL SCENE

# data[].attributes.subject
ARRIVAL OF MAHATMA GANDHI ON THE INDIAN POLITICAL SCENE

# data[].attributes.body
[15:00, 21/10/2020] Drishti Wadhwa🔥: After the First World War (1914–18), Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi took over the leadership of
the Congress. He introduced the technique of non-violent agitation, which was called Satyagraha-
demand for truth. It was a non-violent struggle against the British oppression. He propagated
tolerance, brotherhood, non-violence (ahimsa) and simple living.
Gandhiji realised that social reforms
were necessary for a truly national struggle.
He established Sabarmati Ashram in Gujarat
where people of all castes and religions were
welcomed. His first movement was in support
of peasants. It began in Champaran in Bihar
in 1917. He forced the British government to
increase the price of indigo for the benefit
of peasants. By 1919, Gandhiji had become the most popular leader of India. He launched many
powerful mass movements.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
With the entry of Mahatma Gandhi into Indian politics, the nature of the liberation movement was changed. He mobilized the Indian masses for the benefit of the national cause and converted the National Congress into an organisation of the masses. While staying at South Africa concerning a judicial case of Dada Abdullah Co., he was shocked seeing the humiliating conditions of the Indians and resisted the racial policy of the white government. He developed there, a new technique of "Satyagraha" based on truth and non-violence in fighting against an all powerful government. With this technique he also was able to get the obnoxious racial laws repealed.

Coming back to India in 1915, he perused the same path of truth and non-violence. His entry into public life began with the 'Satyagraha' in Champaron district of Bihar in 1917. He could mobilize the peasants of this district against the exploitation of European indigo planters. In 1918, Gandhiji led a "no tax campaign" at Khera in Gujarat where the peasants were not able to pay the revenue due to famine.

This movement was followed by a mobilization of workers in Ahmedabad against the mill owners. During the First World War, he whole heartedly supported the British Government and was awarded the "Kaiser-i-Hind" title for war service. Like the moderates, he wanted to work out the Montague-Chelmsford Report. But the situation changed swiftly during the succeeding months.

Rowlatt Act-1919:

After the First World War, government tried to satisfy the Indians by passing the Act of 1919 which was based on Montague-Chelmsford report. But at that time, it appointed a committee under the chairmanship of Justice Rowlatt to suggest measures for curbing the revolutionary activities. On the basis of his suggestions, an act known as the Rowlatt Act was enacted. This act empowered the government to formulate special laws both punitive and preventive in character.

The government was empowered to search any place and to arrest any suspected person without warrant. The liberties and freedom of the people were suspended. Gandhiji protested against it and gave a call to start movement on 6th April 1919 against the Act in a peaceful manner.

The aim of the movement was the withdrawal of the Rowlatt Act. People were asked to observe 'Hartal', fasting, prayer and for organizing meetings and processions all over the country. The government tried to suppress the movement with a spirit of vengeance as a result of which violence broke out at several places. The police fought pitched battles with the people at Delhi and also with mill- workers at Ahmedabad where a number of people died and many more were injured.

The Jallianwala Bagh Tragedy:

During the movement against the Rowlatt Act, Punjab was the most sensitive area. The Lieutenant Governor of Punjab Sir Michael O' Dyer had been most repressive towards the revolutionary activities and even called in the army for the same purpose. He ordered for the arrest and deportation of Dr. Satyapal and Kitchlew, the two prominent leaders of Punjab. It infuriated the people and they organised protest movement. The atmosphere was more aggravated due to the police firing on the peaceful precisionists and a retaliatory attack of the people on Europeans.

The government banned public meetings and processions. But the government took no proper measures to inform the public regarding these prohibitory orders. On 13th April at 4.30 P.M., a call was given for holding a meeting at the Jallianwala Bagh. No attempt was made by the administration to stop the meeting. But when the meeting was started, O' Dyer reached there with one hundred and fifty soldiers.

The meeting place was surrounded by high walls and building and had only one narrow passage that allowed only two men at a time. General Dyer did not warn the people to disperse, but ordered the troops to fire till the ammunition exhausted. Being unable to escape, hundreds of people were massacred and thousands of other were wounded. Martial law was imposed on whole Punjab and the government let loose a reign of terror.

The government expressed no sign of regret but went ahead with more repression. Indians protested against the horror. Rabindranath Tagore surrendered his knighthood and Shankar Ram Nayar resigned from the membership of the Viceroy's Council. An Inquiry Committee under Hunter was appointed. But the Indian National Congress appointed its own committee to enquire about the matter which held General Dyer accountable for the massacre. Mahatma Gandhi was shocked and suspended the 'Satyagraha' declaring it as a "Himalayan Blunder".

It was because he had asked those people to pursue non-violence who could not afford to be non-violent. The Satyagraha movement failed in attaining its object as the government did not withdraw the Rowlatt Act. However, it was the first experiment of non-violence of Gandhiji in Indian politics.

The Khilafat Movement-1920:

During the First World War, Turkey was against the Allies. The Sultan of Turkey was the "Khalifa" or the religious head of the Muslims all over the world. The British Government while seeking the help of Indian Muslims during the war period assured that the interest of Turkey would be protected. But the British peace terms aimed to dismember Turkey' and also to abolish the title of "Khalifa" enjoyed by the Sultan. The Indian Muslims formed a "Khilafat Committee" under the leadership of Ali Brothers (Maulana Mahammad Ali and Maulana Shaukat Ali) with a view of defending the Khalifa and his rights.

The Khilafat Committee adopted the 'no-co-operation resolution' against the British Government and this programme was approved in the All-Party Conference of June 1920. The movement was launched on 31 st August 1920 and that day was celebrated as the Khilafat Day. Mahatma Gandhi, Bal Gangadhar Tilak etc. viewed this agitation as a golden opportunity for bringing the Hindus and the Muslims together to a common platform. They urged the Hindus to support the movement. A new era of Hindu-Muslim co-operation began with the Khilafat movement which very soon gathered momentum.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Entry of Mahatma Gandhi into Indian Politics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
ADVERTISEMENTS: With the entry of Mahatma Gandhi into Indian politics, the nature of the liberation movement was changed. He mobilized the Indian masses for the benefit of the national cause and converted the National Congress into an organisation of the masses. While staying at South Africa concerning a judicial case of Dada Abdullah Co., he [...]

# data[].attributes.headline
MONTAGUE CHELMSFORD REFORM OR GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT OF 1919

# data[].attributes.subject
MONTAGUE CHELMSFORD REFORM OR GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT OF 1919

# data[].attributes.body
The British paid no heed to the agitations for self-rule going on all over the country. They
introduced another set of reforms to appease people. But the reforms were insignificant. The
number of elected members was increased in Legislature Assembly and Council of States but there
was no change in the location of power. The system of Dual Government-Dyarchy was introduced.
All important subjects, like finance and police were under the control of the Governor and the Indian
ministers were given the charge of education and health. But the real power still remained with the
British officials. Indians were very disappointed by the reforms.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms or more briefly known as Mont-Ford Reforms were reforms introduced by the colonial government in British India to introduce self-governing institutions gradually in India. The reforms take their name from Edwin Montagu, the Secretary of State for India during the latter parts of the First World War and Lord Chelmsford, Viceroy of India between 1916 and 1921. The reforms were outlined in the Montagu-Chelmsford Report prepared in 1918 and formed the basis of the Government of India Act 1919. These are related to constitutional reforms. Indian nationalists considered that the reforms did not go far enough while British conservatives were critical of them. The important features of this act were as follows:

1. The Imperial Legislative Council was now to consist of two houses- the Central Legislative Assembly and the Council of State.

2. The provinces were to follow the Dual Government System or Dyarchy.

Edwin Montagu became Secretary of State for India in June 1917 after Austen Chamberlain resigned following the capture of Kut by the Turks in 1916 and the capture of an Indian army staged there. He put before the British Cabinet a proposed statement regarding his intention to work towards the gradual development of free institutions in India with a view to ultimate self-government. Lord Curzon thought that this gave Montagu too much emphasis on working towards self-government and suggested that he work towards increasing association of Indians in every branch of the administration and the gradual development of self-governing institutions with a view to the progressive realization of responsible government in India as an integral part of the British Empire. The Cabinet approved the statement with Curzon's amendment incorporated in place of Montagu's original statement.

In late 1917, Montagu went to India to meet Lord Chelmsford, the Viceroy of India, and leaders of Indian community, to discuss the introduction of limited self-government to India, and the protection rights of minority communities. He drew up a report, with Bhupendra Nath Bose, Lord Donoghmore, William Duke and Charles Roberts.

The Report went before Cabinet on 24 May and 7 June 1918 and was embodied in the Government of India Act of 1919. These reforms represented the maximum concessions the British were prepared to make at that time. The franchise was extended, and increased authority was given to central and provincial legislative councils, but the viceroy remained responsible only to London.

The changes at the provincial level were very significant, as the provincial legislative councils contained a considerable majority of elected members. In a system called " dyarchy," the nation-building departments of government were placed under ministers who were individually responsible to the legislature. The departments that made up the "steel frame" of British rule were retained by executive councilors who were nominated by the Governor. They were often, but not always, British and who were responsible to the governor. The Act of 1919 introduced Diarchy in the provinces. Accordingly, the Rights of the Central and Provincial Governments were divided in clear-cut terms. The central list included rights over defence, foreign affairs, telegraphs, railways, postal, foreign trade etc. The provincial list dealt with the affairs like health, sanitation, education, public work, irrigation, jail, police, justice etc. The powers which were not included in the state list vested in the hands of the Centre. In case of any conflict between the 'reserved' and 'unreserved' powers of the State (the former included finance, police, revenue, publication of books, etc. and the latter included health, sanitation, local-self government etc.), the Governor had its final say. In 1921, the "Diarchy" was installed in Bengal, Madras, Bombay, the United Provinces, the Central Provinces, the Punjab, Bihar and Orissa, and Assam; in 1932 it was extended to the North-West Frontier Province.

In 1921 another change recommended by the report was carried out when elected local councils were set up in rural areas, and during the 1920s urban municipal corporations were made more democratic and "Indianized.

The main provisions were the following:

1. The secretary of state would control affairs relating to Government of India.

2. The Imperial Legislative Council would comprise two chambers- the Council of State and the Central Legislative Assembly.

3. The Imperial Legislative Council was empowered to enact laws on any matter for whole of India.

4. The Governor General was given powers to summon, prorogue, dissolve the Chambers, and to promulgate Ordinances.

5. The number of Indians in Viceroy's Executive Council would be three out of eight members.

6. Establishment of bicameral Provincial Legislative councils.

7. Dyarchy in the Provinces-

1. Reserved subjects like Finance, Law and Order, Army, Police etc.

2. Transferred subjects like Public Health, Education, Agriculture, Local Self-government etc.

8. There would henceforth be direct election and an extension of Communal franchise.

9. A council of princes was also set up with 108 members to allow princes to debate matters of importance. But it had no power and some princes didn't even bother to attend what was little more than a 'talking shop'

Many Indians had fought with the British in the First World War and they expected much greater concessions. The Indian National Congress and the Muslim League had recently come together demanding self-rule. The 1919 reforms did not satisfy political demands in India. The British repressed opposition, and restrictions on the press and on movement were re-enacted through the Rowlatt Acts introduced in 1919. These measures were rammed through the Legislative Council with the unanimous opposition of the Indian members. Several members of the council including Jinnah resigned in protest. These measures were widely seen throughout India as a betrayal of the strong support given by the population for the British war effort.

Gandhi launched a nationwide protest against the Rowlatt Acts with the strongest level of protest in the Punjab. The situation worsened in Amritsar in April 1919, when General Dyer ordered his troops to open fire on demonstrators hemmed into a tight square, resulting in the deaths of 379 civilians. Montagu ordered an inquiry into the events at Amritsar by Lord Hunter. The Hunter Inquiry recommended that General Dyer, who commanded the troops, be dismissed, leading to Dyer's sacking. Many British citizens supported Dyer, whom they considered had received unfair treatment from the Hunter Inquiry. The conservative Morning Post newspaper collected a subscription of £26,000 for General Dyer and Sir Edward Carson moved a censure motion on Montagu which was nearly successful. Montagu was saved largely due to a strong speech in his defence by Winston Churchill.

The Amritsar massacre further inflamed Indian nationalist sentiment ending the initial response of reluctant co-operation. At the grass roots level, many young Indians wanted faster progress towards Indian independence and were disappointed by lack of advancement as Britons returned to their former positions in the administration. At the Indian National Congress annual session in September 1920, delegates supported Gandhi's proposal of swaraj or self-rule - preferably within the British Empire or out of it if necessary. The proposal was to be implemented through a policy of non-cooperation with British rule meaning that Congress did not field candidates in the first elections held under the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms in 1921.

The Montagu-Chelmsford report stated that there should be a review after 10 years. Sir John Simon headed the committee ( Simon Commission) responsible for the review, which recommended further constitutional change. Three round table conferences were held in London in 1930, 1931 and 1932 with representation of the major interests. Mahatma Gandhi attended the 1931 round table after negotiations with the British Government. But Jinnah's communal attitude was a hindrance to any decision being taken. The major disagreement between the Indian National Congress and the British was separate electorates for each community which Congress opposed but which were retained in Ramsay MacDonald's Communal Award. A new Government of India Act 1935 was passed continuing the move towards self-government first made in the Montagu-Chelmsford Report.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms or more briefly known as Mont-Ford Reforms were reforms introduced by the colonial government in British India to introduce self-governing institutions gradually in India. The reforms take their name from Edwin Montagu, the Secretary of State for India during the latter parts of the First World War and Lord Chelmsford, Viceroy of India between 1916 and 1921.

# data[].attributes.body
There was growing unrest among Indians and protests increased. The British government
passed the Rowlatt Act to consolidate their
control. It empowered the Government
to arrest anyone without a warrant and
imprison people without trial. This caused
massive demonstrations and hartals all
across the country.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Rowlatt Act of 1919 - Informative & researched article on Rowlatt Act of 1919 from Indianetzone, the largest free encyclopedia on India.

# data[].attributes.body
On April 13, 1919, the people of Punjab gathered on
the auspicious day of Baisakhi at Jallianwala Bagh near
Golden Temple in Amritsar. When they were protesting
peacefully against the arrest of two prominent congress
lcaders of Punjab-Dr. Satya Pal and Saiffudin Kitchlew,
General Dyer ordered the British armed forces to open
fire at the hundreds of innocent, unarmed men, women
and children.
The massacre stunned the whole country. The
government imposed martial law in Punjab. Under martial law, people were tortured, newspapers
were banned and mails were censored.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Jallianwala Bagh Massacre, incident on April 13, 1919, in which British troops fired on a large crowd of unarmed Indians in an open space known as the Jallianwala Bagh in Amritsar in the Punjab region (now in Punjab state) of India, killing several hundred people and wounding many hundreds more. It marked a turning point in India's modern history, in that it left a permanent scar on Indo-British relations and was the prelude to Mohandas (Mahatma) Gandhi's full commitment to the cause of Indian nationalism and independence from Britain.

During World War I (1914-18) the British government of India enacted a series of repressive emergency powers that were intended to combat subversive activities. By the war's end, expectations were high among the Indian populace that those measures would be eased and that India would be given more political autonomy. The Montagu-Chelmsford Report, presented to the British Parliament in 1918, did in fact recommend limited local self-government. Instead, however, the government of India passed what became known as the Rowlatt Acts in early 1919, which essentially extended the repressive wartime measures.

The acts were met by widespread anger and discontent among Indians, notably in the Punjab region. Gandhi in early April called for a one-day general strike throughout the country. In Amritsar the news that prominent Indian leaders had been arrested and banished from that city sparked violent protests on April 10, in which soldiers fired upon civilians, buildings were looted and burned, and angry mobs killed several foreign nationals and severely beat a Christian missionary. A force of several dozen troops commanded by Brig. Gen. Reginald Edward Harry Dyer was given the task of restoring order. Among the measures taken was a ban on public gatherings.

On the afternoon of April 13, a crowd of at least 10,000 men, women, and children gathered in the Jallianwala Bagh, which was nearly completely enclosed by walls and had only one exit. It is not clear how many people there were protesters who were defying the ban on public meetings and how many had come to the city from the surrounding region to celebrate Baisakhi, a spring festival. Dyer and his soldiers arrived and sealed off the exit. Without warning, the troops opened fire on the crowd, reportedly shooting hundreds of rounds until they ran out of ammunition. It is not certain how many died in the bloodbath, but, according to one official report, an estimated 379 people were killed, and about 1,200 more were wounded. After they ceased firing, the troops immediately withdrew from the place, leaving behind the dead and wounded.

The shooting was followed by the proclamation of martial law in the Punjab that included public floggings and other humiliations. Indian outrage grew as news of the shooting and subsequent British actions spread throughout the subcontinent. The Bengali poet and Nobel laureate Rabindranath Tagore renounced the knighthood that he had received in 1915. Gandhi was initially hesitant to act, but he soon began organizing his first large-scale and sustained nonviolent protest (satyagraha) campaign, the noncooperation movement (1920-22), which thrust him to prominence in the Indian nationalist struggle.

The government of India ordered an investigation of the incident (the Hunter Commission), which in 1920 censured Dyer for his actions and ordered him to resign from the military. Reaction in Britain to the massacre was mixed, however. Many condemned Dyer's actions-including Sir Winston Churchill, then secretary of war, in a speech to the House of Commons in 1920-but the House of Lords praised Dyer and gave him a sword inscribed with the motto "Saviour of the Punjab." In addition, a large fund was raised by Dyer's sympathizers and presented to him. The Jallianwala Bagh site in Amritsar is now a national monument.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Jallianwala Bagh Massacre | Causes, History, & Significance

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Jallianwala Bagh Massacre, incident on April 13, 1919, in which British troops fired on a large crowd of unarmed Indians in Amritsar, Punjab region, India, killing several hundred people and wounding many more. It marked a turning point in India's modern history.

# data[].attributes.body
The Non-cooperation movement was launched on 5th September, 1920 by Mahatma Gandhi with the aim of self-governance and obtaining full independence as the Indian National Congress withdrew its support for British reforms following the Rowlatt Act of 21 March 1919, and the Jallianwala Bagh massacre of 13 April 1919.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Non-cooperation movement was launched on 5th September, 1920 by Mahatma Gandhi with the aim of self-governance and obtaining full independence as the Indian National Congress (INC) withdrew its support for British reforms following the Rowlatt Act of 21 March 1919, and the Jallianwala Bagh massacre of 13 April 1919.

The Rowlatt Act of March 1919, which suspended the rights of defendants in sedition trials, was seen as a "political awakening" by Indians and as a "threat" by the British. Although it was never invoked and declared void just a few years later, the Act motivated Gandhi to conceive the idea of satyagraha (truth), which he saw as synonymous with independence. This idea was also authorised the following month by Jawaharlal Nehru, for who the massacre also endorsed "the conviction that nothing short of independence was acceptable".

Gandhi's planning of the non-cooperation movement included persuading all Indians to withdraw their labour from any activity that "sustained the British government and economy in India", including British industries and educational institutions. In addition to promoting "self-reliance" by spinning khadi, buying Indian-made goods only and doing away with English clothes, Gandhi 's non-cooperation movement called for the restoration of the Khilafat in Turkey and the end to untouchability. The resulting public held meetings and strikes (hartals) led to the first arrests of both Jawaharlal Nehru and his father, Motilal Nehru, on 6 December 1921.

It was one of the movements for Indian independence from British rule and ended, as Nehru described in his autobiography, "suddenly" in February 1922 after the Chauri Chaura incident. Subsequent independence movements were the Civil Disobedience Movement and the Quit India Movement.

Through non-violent means or Ahimsa, protesters would refuse to buy British goods, adopt the use of local handicrafts and picket liquor shops.The ideas of Ahimsa and non-violence, and Gandhi's ability to rally hundreds of thousands of common citizens towards the cause of Indian independence, were first seen on a large scale in this movement through the summer of 1920. Gandhi feared that the movement might lead to popular violence.[citation needed ]

The non-cooperation movement was a reaction towards the oppressive policies of the British Indian government such as the Rowlatt Act and the Jallianwala Bagh massacre in Amritsar . A large crowd had gathered at Jallianwala Bagh near the Golden Temple in Amritsar to protest against the arrest of Saifuddin Kitchlew and Dr. Satyapal.[citation needed ] The civilians were fired upon by soldiers under the command of Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer, resulting in killing and injuring thousands of protesters. The outcry generated by the massacre led to thousands of unrests and more deaths by the hands of the police. The massacre became the most infamous event of British rule in India.

Gandhi, who was a preacher of non-violence, was horrified. He lost all faith in the goodness of the British government and declared that it would be a "sin" to co-operate with the "satanic" government.

Gandhi derived his ideologies and inspiration from ongoing non-cooperation movements, particularly that by Satguru Ram Singh, who is credited as being the first Indian to use non-cooperation and boycott of British merchandise and services as a political weapon.

Indian Muslims who had participated in the Khilafat movement to restore the status of the Caliph gave their support to the non-cooperation movement. In response to the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre and other violence in Punjab, the movement sought to secure Swaraj, independence for India. Gandhi promised Swaraj in one year if his Non-Cooperation programme was fully implemented. The other reason to start the non-cooperation movement was that Gandhi lost faith in constitutional methods and turned from cooperator of British rule to non-cooperator.

Other causes include economic hardships to the common man, which the nationalists attributed to the flow of Indian wealth to Britain, the ruin of Indian artisans due to British factory-made goods replacing handmade goods, and resentment with the British government over Indian soldiers dying in World War I while fighting as part of the British Army.

The calls of early political leaders like Bal Gangadhar Tilak (Congress Extremists) were called major public meetings. They resulted in disorder or obstruction of government services. The British took them very seriously and imprisoned him in Mandalay in Burma and V.O.Chidambaram Pillai received 40 years of imprisonment. The non-cooperation movement aimed to challenge the colonial economic and power structure, and British authorities would be forced to take notice of the demands of the independence movement.

Gandhi's call was for a nationwide protest against the Rowlatt Act. All offices and factories would be closed. Indians would be encouraged to withdraw from Raj-sponsored schools, police services, the military, and the civil service, and lawyers were asked to leave the Raj's courts. Public transportation and English-manufactured goods, especially clothing, was boycotted. Indians returned honours and titles given by the government and resigned from various posts like teachers, lawyers, civil and military services.

Veterans such as Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Bipin Chandra Pal, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, and Annie Besant opposed the idea outright. The All India Muslim League also criticized the idea. But the younger generation of Indian nationalists was thrilled and backed Gandhi. The Congress Party adopted his plans, and he received extensive support from Muslim leaders like Maulana Azad, Mukhtar Ahmed Ansari, Hakim Ajmal Khan, Abbas Tyabji, Maulana Muhammad Ali Jauhar and Maulana Shaukat Ali.

The eminent Hindi writer, poet, playwright, journalist, and nationalist Rambriksh Benipuri, who spent more than eight years in prison fighting for India's independence, wrote:

When I recall Non-Cooperation era of 1921, the image of a storm confronts my eyes. From the time I became aware, I have witnessed numerous movements, however, I can assert that no other movement upturned the foundations of Indian society to the extent that the Non-Cooperation movement did. From the most humble huts to the high places, from villages to cities, everywhere there was a ferment, a loud echo.

The impact of the revolt was a total shock to British authorities and a massive encouragement to millions of Indian nationalists. Unity in the country was strengthened and many Indian schools and colleges were made. Indian goods were encouraged.

On 4 February 1922 a massacre took place at Chauri Chaura, a small town in the district of Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh. A police officer had attacked some volunteers picketing a liquor shop. A whole crowd of peasants that had gathered there went to the police chowki (pron.-chau key) (station). The mob set fire to the police chowki with some 22 police men inside it.

Mahatma Gandhi felt that the revolt was veering off-course, and was disappointed with the gradual loss of nonviolent nature of the movement. He did not want the movement to degenerate into a contest of violence, with police and angry mobs attacking each other back and forth, victimizing civilians in between. Gandhi appealed to the Indian public for all resistance to end, went on a fast lasting 3 weeks, and called off the non-cooperation movement. Gandhi was also a firm believer of STS (struggle truce struggle). He believed that after a duration of struggle, there should be a resting phase by which they could recover the power and rise again more strong and powerful. Though this point is not mentioned but every movement lead by Gandhi was withdrawn by him after a year or two.

The Non-cooperation movement was withdrawn because of the Chauri Chaura incident. Although he had stopped the national revolt single-handedly, on 10 March 1922, Mahatma Gandhi was arrested. On 18 March 1922, he was imprisoned for six years for publishing seditious materials. This led to suppression of the movement and was followed by the arrest of other leaders.

Although most Congress leader's remained firmly behind Gandhi, the determined leaders broke away. The Ali brothers would soon become fierce critics. Motilal Nehru and Chittaranjan Das formed the Swaraj Party, rejecting Gandhi's leadership. Many nationalists had felt that the non-cooperation movement should not have been stopped due to isolated incidents of violence, and most nationalists, while retaining confidence in Gandhi, were discouraged.

It is argued, though without any concrete proof, that Gandhi called off the movement in an attempt to salvage his own personal image, which would have been tarnished if he had been blamed for the Chauri Chaura incident; however, historians and contemporary leaders associated with the movement welcomed the Gandhi's judgment. Gandhi could not compromise his fundamental principle of nonviolence by reluctantly accepting and allowing the violent struggle that evidently was circling round the movement with extremist elements of Indian independence movement at its core. So, a similar type of movement was introduced in 1930, the civil disobedience movement. The main difference was the introduction of a policy of violating the law 'peacefully'.

Gandhi's commitment to non-violence was redeemed when, between 1930 and 1934, tens of millions again revolted in the Salt Satyagraha which made India's cause famous worldwide for its unerring adherence to non-violence. The Satyagraha ended in success. The demands of Indians were met and the Congress was recognized as a representative of the Indian people. The Government of India Act 1935 also gave India its first taste in democratic self-governance.

Jawaharlal Nehru An Autobiography. Oxford University Press (1936)

Tharoor, Shashi. Nehru: The Invention of India. Arcade Publishing (2003). New York. First edition. ISBN 9781559706971

Jawaharlal Nehru and Nayantara Sahgal. Before freedom, 1909-1947 : Nehru's letters to his sister. Roli Books (2004). ISBN 8174363475 OCLC 85772500

Wagner, Kim, Amritsar 1919: An Empire of Fear and the Making of a Massacre. Yale University Press (2019). ISBN 9780300200355

Anand, Anita, The Patient Assassin: a true tale of massacre, revenge, and India's quest for independence, Simon & Schuster (2019), ISBN 978-1-5011-9570-9

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Non-cooperation movement was launched on 5th September, 1920 by Mahatma Gandhi with the aim of self-governance and obtaining full independence as the Indian National Congress (INC) withdrew its support for British reforms following the Rowlatt Act of 21 March 1919, and the Jallianwala Bagh massacre of 13 April 1919.

# data[].attributes.body
: CHAURI CHAURA
In 1922, the police fired upon a group of demonstrators, at Chauri Chaura in Uttar Pradesh. The
agitated mob set police station on fire and burnt 22 policemen alive. Gandhiji was shocked. He called off
the Non-Cooperation movement as he felt that the movement had lost its non-violent character. Some
leaders supported his decision but leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru and Subhash Chandra Bose opposed
the withdrawal of the movement due to one violent incident. Motilal Nehru and Chittranjan Das formed
the 'Swaraj Party' to enter the Legislative Councils and then destroy the British administration from
inside. Inspite of single-handedly stopping the Non-Cooperation Movement, Gandhiji was arrested.
Though the Non-Cooperation movement was withdrawn prematurely, it was successfulin bringing
the entire country close and helped in giving a national character to the country's freedom struggle.
Gandhiji continued to propagate khadi, Hindu-Muslim unity and eradication of untouchability.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What is the Chauri-Chaura Incident?

On 5 February 1922, participants of the Non-cooperation movement clashed with police resulting in the deaths of about 22 policemen and 3 civilians at Chauri Chaura in the Gorakhpur district in the United Provinces (present-day Uttar Pradesh).

This article will update you with all the information related to the famous Chauri Chaura incident that took place on February 5, 1922.

The Chauri Chaura incident is a decisive moment in the history of the Indian freedom struggle. Therefore, it is an important part of the UPSC syllabus.

The Chauri Chaura incident and the reaction of Mahatama Gandhi give a deep insight into the workings of Gandhi's mind and his ideology. So, aspirants of UPSC exam must be well versed with this incident as it can be asked in the UPSC 2020 prelims or mains.

Chauri Chaura Incident - Series of Events

The Indian National Congress under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi had launched the non-cooperation movement on 1st August 1920.

This was supposed to be a peaceful and non-violent movement wherein people would relinquish their government jobs and titles, stop going to government schools and colleges, not serve in the army and also refuse to pay taxes as an extreme measure.

The aim of the party was Swaraj or self-government.

The people readily participated in the movement and it saw partial success at least in the participation level.

However, an incident at Chauri Chaura changed the course of the movement. On 2 February 1922, people were protesting against high meat prices at the marketplace. They were beaten by the police and many of their leaders were arrested and detained at the Chauri Chaura police station.

The volunteers planned another protest against the police.

On 5 February, about 2500 people marched towards the Chauri Chaura market in order to picket a shop selling liquor.

One of their leaders was arrested. A group of people then marched towards the police station demanding the release of the arrested leader.

The police fired shots in the air hoping to disperse and the crowd. However, the crowd became agitated and started pelting stones at the police.

Things were getting out of hand and the sub-inspector at the station came forward and fired at the crowd killing three people. This incensed the people who then charged at the policemen who were heavily outnumbered. The police station was set ablaze by the people and all the policemen and officials inside were charred to death.

The British government in response, imposed martial law in the area and arrested hundreds of people.

Gandhi went on a fast for five days after the incident for his 'role' in the event. He withdrew the movement on 12 February officially since he felt that the people were not ready to take up a non-violent movement. He also felt that adequate training was not provided to the people to show restraint in the face of violent attacks.

Many Congress leaders like Motilal Nehru (Born on May 6, 1861) and Chittaranjan Das were against the calling off of the movement as they felt that success was being gained in the country.

The government responded promptly bringing to trial about 228 people in connection with the case. 6 of them died in police custody. After the 8 month-long trial, 172 people were sentenced to death.

The verdict was met with severe resistance across the country. In 1923, the Allahabad High Court which reviewed the sentences confirmed 19 death sentences, 110 life imprisonments, and the remaining were sentenced to long jail terms.

In 1923, the British government constructed a memorial to the dead policemen.

In 1973, a Shaheed Smarak was constructed in memory of the 19 executed persons.

Quick Facts about Chauri-Chaura Incident for UPSC

What preceded the Chauri-Chaura Incident?

A manifesto announcing Gandhi's doctrine of non-violent Non-Cooperation movement preceded the Chauri-Chaura incident

Where is Chauri-Chaura?

It lies in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh (UP)

Was there any political or social consequence of the Chauri-Chaura incident?

172 people out of 225 accused were sentenced to death, however, 19 were hanged to death and remaining were transported

Who is Bhagwan Ahir in relation to the Chauri Chaura incident?

He was the army pensioner, living in Gorakhpur (UP), who was beaten up by the British police, leading to sentimental uproar and then the Chauri-Chaura incident

What was the major event related to the Chauri-Chaura incident?

The withdrawal of the Non-Cooperation movement in February 1922

What is the Marxist interpretation of the Chauri-Chaura incident?

A mass wave of revolutionary unrest in India in 1919 (evident from the labour unrest and strike wave of 1919-20 and peasant protests in UP and Bihar) ..... worked as a kind of popular groundswell virtually forcing the leadership to a radical posture...Gandhi and the Congress bigwigs sensed that a revolutionary mass movement was in the offing. They decided to take over the leadership to keep the movement a 'controlled' affair and 'within safe channels'. The movement was called off just when the masses seemed to be taking the initiative

Chauri Chaura event is a historical event related to India's independence struggle. See previous 'This Day in History' here.
Chauri-Chaura - UPSC Notes:-Download PDF Here
Also, see:

UPSC Preparation:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Chauri Chaura Incident Took Place on Feb 5th, 1922 [This Day in History]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Chauri Chaura is a place in Gorakhpur district in Uttar Pradesh. The place is famous for the historical incident that took place on February 5, 1922 - The Chauri Chaura incident which resulted in the death of around 22 people. Download chauri chaura incident notes PDF for UPSC 2020.

# data[].attributes.body
SIMON COMMISSION (1927)
The Simon Commission was sent to India to review the Government of India Act of 1919 and
suggest further reforms to appease the Indians. Congress decided to oppose the Commission as it
did not have even a single Indian representative.
Wherever the Simon Commission went, it was boycotted by the Congress as well as the Muslim
League with black flags. Lala Lajpat Rai was seriously injured while protesting in a police Lathi charge
in Lahore. He later succumbed to his injuries.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Indian Statutory Commission also referred to as the Simon Commission, was a group of seven Members of Parliament under the chairmanship of Sir John Simon (later, 1st Viscount Simon). The commission arrived in British India in 1928 to study constitutional reform in Britain's largest and the most important possession.

One of its members was Clement Attlee, of the Labour Party, who became committed to Indian independence by 1934 and achieved that goal as Prime Minister in 1947 in the granting of independence to India and the creation of Pakistan.

At the time of introducing the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms in 1919, the British Government declared that a commission would be sent to India after ten years to examine the effects and operations of the constitutional reforms and to suggest more reforms for India.

In November 1927, the British government appointed the Simon Commission to report on India's constitutional progress for introducing constitutional reforms, as promised.

The Commission was strongly opposed by many Indians. It was opposed by Nehru, Gandhi, Jinnah (Pakistan), the Muslim League and Indian National Congress because it contained seven members of the British Parliament but no Indians. Indians saw it as a violation to their right of self determination and insult to their self respect. However it was supported by B R Ambedkar, Periyar E. V. Ramasamy.

Prominent Indian nationalist Lala Lajpat Rai led a protest in Lahore. He suffered a police beating during the protest, and died of his injuries on 17 November 1928. On the other hand Dr Ambedkar and Periyar E V Ramaswamy welcomed the Simon commission.[citation needed ]

The Government of India Act 1919 had introduced the system of diarchy to govern the provinces of British India. Indian opinion clamoured for revision of this form of government, and the Government of India Act 1919 itself stated that a commission would be appointed after ten years to investigate the progress of the governance scheme and suggest new steps for reform. In the late 1920s, the ruling Conservative government feared imminent electoral defeat at the hands of the Labour Party, and also feared the effects of the consequent transference of control of India to such an "inexperienced" body. Hence, it appointed seven MPs to constitute the promised commission to examine the state of Indian constitutional affairs.

Some people in India were outraged and insulted that the Simon Commission, which was to determine the future of India, did not include a single Indian member. The Indian National Congress, at its December 1927 meeting in Madras (now Chennai), resolved to boycott the Commission and challenged Lord Birkenhead, the Secretary of State for India, to draft a constitution that would be acceptable to the Indian populace. A faction of the Muslim League, led by Mohammed Ali Jinnah, also decided to boycott the Commission.

However, opinion was divided, with support for co-operation coming from some members of the Muslim League and also both Hindu Mahasabha and members of the Central Sikh League. An All-India Committee for Cooperation with the Simon Commission was established by the Council of India and by selection of the Viceroy, Lord Irwin. The members of the committee were: C. Sankaran Nair (Chairman), Arthur Froom, Nawab Ali Khan, Shivdev Singh Uberoi, Zulfiqar Ali Khan, Hari Singh Gour, Abdullah Al-Mamun Suhrawardy, Kikabhai Premchand and Prof. M. C. Rajah.

In Burma (Myanmar), which was included in the terms of reference of the Simon Commission, there was strong suspicion either that Burma's unpopular union with India would continue, or that the constitution recommended for Burma by the Commission would be less generous than that chosen for India; these suspicions resulted in tension and violence in Burma leading to the rebellion of Saya San.

The crux of the commission is very clear to review 1919 reforms implementation status. The commission found education was denied to untouchables and untouchables were ill treated in the name of caste.

The Simon Commission left England in January 1928. Almost immediately with its arrival in Pondicherry on 4 February 1928, its members were confronted by throngs of protesters, although there were also some supporters among the crowds who saw it as the next step on the road to self-governance. A strike began and many people turned out to greet the Commission with black flags. Similar protests occurred in every major Indian city that the seven British MPs visited.[citation needed ]

One protest against the Simon Commission became infamous. On 30 October 1928, the Commission arrived in Lahore where it was met by protesters waving black flags. The protest was led by the Indian nationalist Lala Lajpat Rai, who had moved a resolution against the Commission in the Legislative Assembly of Punjab in February 1928. In order to make way for the Commission, the local police force began beating protestors. Lala Lajpat Rai was critically injured and died a fortnight later.

The Commission published its 2-volume report in May 1930. It proposed the abolition of dyarchy and the establishment of representative government in the provinces. It also recommended that separate communal electorates be retained, but only until tensions between Hindus and Muslims had died down. In September 1928, ahead of the Commission's release, Motilal Nehru presented his Nehru Report to counter its charges that Indians could not find a constitutional consensus among themselves. This report advocated that India be given dominion status of complete internal self-government.

Noting that educated Indians opposed the Commission and also that communal tensions had increased instead of decreased, the British government opted for another method of dealing with the constitutional issues of India. Before the publication of the report, the British government stated that Indian opinion would henceforth be taken into account, and that the natural outcome of the constitutional process would be dominion status for India.

The outcome of the Simon Commission was the Government of India Act 1935, which called for "responsible" government at the provincial level in India but not at the national level-that is a government responsible to the Indian community rather than London. It is the basis of many parts of the Indian Constitution. In 1937 the first elections were held in the Provinces, resulting in Congress Governments being returned in almost all Provinces.

Clement Attlee was deeply moved by his experience on the Commission, and endorsed the final report. However by 1933 he argued that British rule was alien to India and was unable to make the social and economic reforms necessary for India's progress. He became the British leader most sympathetic to Indian independence (as a dominion), preparing him for his role in deciding on Indian independence as British Prime Minister in 1947.

9.Dr. Babasaheb AmbedkarWritings and Speeches Vol. 2 (Dr. Ambedkar in the Bombay Legislature; With the Simon Commission; at the Round Table Conferences) Education Department, Government of Maharashtra (India) 1982

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Indian Statutory Commission also referred to as the Simon Commission, was a group of seven Members of Parliament under the chairmanship of Sir John Simon (later, 1st Viscount Simon). The commission arrived in British India in 1928 to study constitutional reform in Britain's largest and the most important possession.

# data[].attributes.body
In December 1929, the Congress session was held on the bank of River Ravi in Lahore, with
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru as the President. The historic resolution of Purna Swaraj or Complete
Independence was passed. At this session, it was decided to celebrate January 26, 1930 as the
First Independence Day of India.
As per the resolution after the Lahore session in 1929, January 26 was celebrated as Independence
Day every year. The Constitution of India was completed on November 26, 1949 but it was decided
to adopt and enforce it on January 26, 1950 in the memory of Jaunary 26, 1930. According to the
Constitution of India, since then, we celebrate January 26 as the Republic Day every year.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The annual session of the Congress was held at Lahore 1929 where Jawaharlal Nehru was elected the president. The Lahore session of the Congress passed a series of landmark resolutions.

The Nehru Committee report had lapsed, as dominion status was not acceptable.

As per the Poorna Swaraj resolution passed at the Lahore Congress the word Swaraj in the Congress Constitution would mean complete independence.

All future elections were to be boycotted.

Round Table Conference decided to be held in London would be boycotted.

Civil Disobedience was to be launched. The Congress Working Committee allowed Gandhi to determine the time, place and issue on which movement was to be launched. Gandhi decided to launch the movement by violating the salt laws at the coast of Dandi, Gujarat.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
lahore session of the congress (1929 december)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Lahore Session of the Congress (1929 December)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The annual session of the Congress was held at Lahore 1929 where Jawaharlal Nehru was elected the president. The Lahore session of the Congress passed a series of landmark resolutions. The Nehru Committee report had lapsed, as dominion status was not acceptable.

# data[].attributes.body
In December 1929, the Congress session was held on the bank of River Ravi in Lahore, with
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru as the President. The historic resolution of Purna Swaraj or Complete
Independence was passed. At this session, it was decided to celebrate January 26, 1930 as the
First Independence Day of India.
As per the resolution after the Lahore session in 1929, January 26 was celebrated as Independence
Day every year. The Constitution of India was completed on November 26, 1949 but it was decided
to adopt and enforce it on January 26, 1950 in the memory of Jaunary 26, 1930. According to the
Constitution of India, since then, we celebrate January 26 as the Republic Day every year.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Simon commission 1927- Outcome and Report || Nehru Report 1928 and Lahore session 1929- Know details

# data[].attributes.body
CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE MOVEMENT (1930-34)
Salt is the basic requirement for every person. The
British government had a monopoly on salt production and
passed a law, banning manufacturing of salt by Indians so
that the British could sell salt at high rates and the salt made
in Liverpool in England would not face any competition.
So on March 12, 1930, Mahatma Gandhi began his
epic Dandi March from Sabarmati Ashram to Dandi. Ihat is
how the march came to be known as Dandi March. He was
accompanied by 78 supporters. They made salt from sea
water and broke the law.
Salt Satyagraha was an open challenge to the British
and the Civil Disobedience spread all over the country. It
became the second mass movement as schools, colleges and
courts were boycotted, foreign goods were burnt; peasants
refused to pay taxes and shops selling foreign goods were
picketed. The movement was led by Abdul Gaffar Khan in
North-West Frontier Province. He was popularly known as
Frontier Gandhi.
The British Government tried to repress the movement
and resorted to violence. Thousands of protestors were
arrested along with Gandhiji and Jawaharlal Nehru. A strong
feeling of patriotism spread to all parts of the country. A
feeling of belonging to one nation united the people living in
different parts of India.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
History Discussion - Discuss Anything About History

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"The civil disobedience movement of 1930-31, then marked a critically important stage in the progress of the anti-imperialist struggle"-Bipan Chandra.

Gandhi addressed an ultimatum to Viceroy Lord Irwin on 31 January, asking him to remove the evils of the British rule and also informed of his decision to undertake Dandi Satyagraha wherein the laws of the government would be violated.
The list of demands consisted the following:
(1) Prohibit intoxicants,

(2) Change the ratio between the rupee and the sterling,

(3) Reduce the rate of land revenue,

(4) Abolition of salt tax,

(5) Reduce the military expenditure,

(6) Reduce expenditure on civil administration,

(7) Impose custom duty on foreign cloth,

(8) Accept the Postal Reservation Bill,

(9) Abolish the CID department,

(10) Release all political prisoners, and

(11) Issue licenses of arms to citizens for self-protection.

Gandhi made it clear that if the 11 points are ignored, the only way out was civil disobedience. Breaking the salt laws of the government non-violently was the basic activity of civil disobedience. Along with this activity, activities like no tax campaign, no revenue and no rent (land tax) campaign became very popular in different parts of India.

After deciding to start the Dandi Salt Satyagraha, Gandhi addressed a letter to Lord Irwin on 2 March, 1930 intimating, "on the 11th day of this month, I shall proceed with such co-workers of the Ashram as I can take, to disregard the provisions of the salt laws. It is, I know, open to you to frustrate my design by arresting me, I hope that there will be tens of thousands ready, in a disciplined manner, to take up the work after me, and in the act of disobeying the Salt Act to lay themselves upon to the penalties of a law that should never have disfigured the statute book".

Bipan Chandra et al. correctly point out "the deceptively innocuous move was to prove devastatingly effective", as later day events successfully proved. Gandhi started his march, staff in hand with a band of dedicated peaceful Satyagrahis and reached Dandi on 6 April, 1930 and inaugurated the civil disobedience movement, a movement that was to remain unsurpassed in the history of the Indian national movement for the country-wide mass participation it unleashed. Nearly 90,000 people belonging to all social groups spread over the whole of India participated wholeheartedly in this movement.

Significantly, for Indian women, the movement was the most liberating experience to date and the can be said to have marked their entry into public space. The British government resorted to cruel repression in spite of the total non-violent conduct of the movement by issuing more than a dozen ordinances.

The Indian National Congress was declared an illegal body and Gandhi was arrested on 5 May, 1930. The arrest of Gandhi infuriated the masses and they voluntarily expressed their solidarity with the movement.

The uncommon heroism exhibited by thousands of Satyagrahis throughout the breadth of India was really very commendable and exemplary as that of Thota Narasayya Naidu who held the flag in hand in spite of severe beating by the police of Machilipamam.

The national flag, the symbol of the new spirit, now became a common sight even in remote villages. While the civil disobedience was going on, the British government convened the Round Table Conferences. Gandhi did not attend the first one held in 1930.

Gandhi agreed to attend the Second Round Table Conference of 1931 and in this background only Gandhi-Irwin pact was concluded, which was variously described as a 'truce' and a 'provisional settlement'.
By this agreement it was agreed upon:
(a) To withdraw all ordinances and pending prosecutions,

(b) To release all political prisoners except those who were guilty of violence,

(c) To restore the confiscated property of the Satyagrahas,

(d) To permit peaceful picketing of liquor, opium and foreign cloth shops, and

(e) To permit the collection or manufacture of salt, free of duty, by persons residing within a specific distance of the sea shore,

(f) The Congress agreed not to press for investigation into police excess,

(g) To suspend the civil disobedience movement, and

(h) To stop boycott and to participate in the Second Round Table Conference. In 1931 certain events - coming to power of conservatives, replacement of the Viceroy, and execution of Bhagat Singh - created an atmosphere of dejection in Gandhi and other younger Indian leaders. The Congress decided to restart the movement in January 1932.

As usual, the British government took stem steps to suppress the movement and in the meanwhile the British Prime Minister announced communal award in 1932. The civil disobedience movement continued up to 1934 and it was suspended in that year.
Bipan Chandra et al. observe:
"The civil disobedience movement of 1930-31, then marked a critically important stage in the progress of the anti-imperialist struggle". But Anil Seal, the Cambridge historian observes "Civil disobedience, the salt march to Dandi (an astute move by Gandhi to play for time and to test opinion), his programme tailored to achieve the widest appeal (whether temperance, Khadi, enlisting women or social uplift, especially of Harijans) and the 60,000 or more who went to jails notwithstanding, failed to mobilize India's millions.

Except here and there in Gujarat and the Godavari deltas and as a part of Midnapore, civil disobedience was not a mass movement. They had merely scratched a surface of Indian society. They had not shaken the British Raj and by 1933 they had in reality been defeated". This statement of Anil Seal has been disproved by Bipan Chandra and Sumit Sarkar.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Essay on Civil Disobedience Movement in India (1930-34)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
ADVERTISEMENTS: "The civil disobedience movement of 1930-31, then marked a critically important stage in the progress of the anti-imperialist struggle"-Bipan Chandra. Gandhi addressed an ultimatum to Viceroy Lord Irwin on 31 January, asking him to remove the evils of the British rule and also informed of his decision to undertake Dandi Satyagraha wherein the laws [...]

# data[].attributes.headline
REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENTS FOR INDIA'S INDEPENDENCE

# data[].attributes.subject
REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENTS FOR INDIA'S INDEPENDENCE

# data[].attributes.body
The radical minded Indians were upset when Non-Cooperation movement was withdrawn.
They decided to loot the government cash from a train for buying weapons. Many of them were
arrested and tried in the Kakori Conspiracy Case. Hindustani Socialist Republican Association
was formed in Kanpur by Ramprasad Bismil,Jogesh Chatterjee, Chandrashekhar Azad, Yogendra
Shukla, etc. Kakori Train Robbery was a well-known act of bravery of this group.
• Jugantar party, started by Aurbindo Ghose, planned an armed revolt against the British
during the First World War.
In Lahore (1928), Bhagat Singh, Azad and Rajguru assassinated Police Commissioner, Sanders,
who was responsible for Lala Lajpat Rai's death.
A bomb was thrown in the Central Legislative Assembly by Bhagat Singh and Batukeshwar
Datt. Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev and Rajguru were hanged to death in 1931 in Lahore.
Some other revolutionary groups were India House (Madan Lal Dingra), Gadar Party (Lala
Har Dayal) and Berlin Party (Virendra Nath Chattopadhyaya).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Revolutionary movement for Indian Independence is a part of the comprising the actions of the underground revolutionary factions. Groups believing in armed revolution against the ruling British fall into this category, as opposed to the generally peaceful civil disobedience movement spearheaded by Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. The revolutionary groups were mainly concentrated in Bengal, Maharashtra, Bihar, the United Provinces and Punjab. More groups were scattered across India.

Uyyalawada Narasimha Reddy (died 22 February 1847) was the son of a former Indian Telugu Polygar who was at the heart of a rebellion in 1846, where 5000 peasants rose up against the British East India Company (EIC) in Kurnool district, Rayalaseema Region of Andhra Pradesh. They were protesting changes to the traditional agrarian system introduced by the British in the first half of the nineteenth century. Those changes, which included the introduction of the ryotwari system and other attempts to maximize revenue impacted lower-status cultivators by depleting their crops and leaving them impoverished.

Apart from a few stray incidents, the armed rebellion against the British rulers was not organised before the beginning of the 20th century. The revolutionary philosophies and movement made its presence felt during 1905 Partition of Bengal. Arguably, the initial steps to organise the revolutionaries were taken by Aurobindo Ghosh, his brother Barin Ghosh, Bhupendranath Datta, Lal Bal Pal and Subodh Chandra Mullick when they formed the Jugantar party in April 1906. Jugantar was created as an inner circle of the Anushilan Samiti, which was already present in Bengal mainly as a fitness club.

Established by Pramathanath Mitra it became one of the most organised revolutionary associations, especially in the Eastern Bengal where the Dhaka Anushilan Samiti had several branches and carried out major activities. Jugantar was initially formed by an inner circle of the Kolkata Anushilan Samiti, like the Palmach of Haganah. In the 1920s, the Kolkata faction supported Gandhi in the Non-Cooperation Movement and many of the leaders held high posts in Congress. The Anushilan Samati had over five hundred branches. Indians living in America and Canada had established the Gadar Party.

Khudiram Bose was one of the youngest Indian revolutionaries tried and executed by the British.

Barin Ghosh was the main leader. Along with 21 revolutionaries including Bagha Jatin, he started to collect arms and explosives and manufactured bombs. The headquarters of Jugantar was located at 93/a Bowbazar Street, Kolkata.

Some senior members of the group were sent abroad for political and military training. One of them, Hemchandra Kanungo obtained his training in Paris. After returning to Kolkata he set up a combined religious school and bomb factory at a garden house in Maniktala suburb of Calcutta. However, the attempted murder of district Judge Kingsford of Muzaffarpur by Khudiram Bose and Prafulla Chaki (30 April 1908) initiated a police investigation that led to the arrest of many of the revolutionaries.

Bagha Jatin was one of the top leaders in Jugantar. He was arrested, along with several other leaders, in connection with the Howrah-Sibpur Conspiracy case. They were tried for treason, the charge being that they had incited various regiments of the army against the ruler.

Jugantar, along with other revolutionary groups, and aided by Indians abroad, planned an armed revolt against the British rulers during the First World War. This plan largely depended on the clandestine landing of German arms and ammunitions in the Indian coast. This plan came to be known as the Indo-German Plot. However, the planned revolt did not materialise.

After the First World War Jugantar supported Gandhi in the Non-Cooperation Movement and many of their leaders were in the Congress. Still, the group continued its revolutionary activities, a notable event being the Chittagong armoury raid.

Benoy Basu, Badal Gupta and Dinesh Gupta, who are noted for launching an attack on the Secretariat Building - the Writers' Building in the Dalhousie square in Kolkata, were Jugantar members.

Hindustan Republican Association (HRA) was established in October 1924 in Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh by revolutionaries like Ramprasad Bismil, Jogesh Chatterjee, Chandrashekhar Azad, Yogendra Shukla and Sachindranath Sanyal. The aim of the party was to organise armed revolution to end the colonial rule and establish a Federal Republic of the United States of India. The Kakori train robbery was a notable act of mutiny by this group. The Kakori case led to the hanging of Ashfaqullah Khan, Ramprasad Bismil, Roshan Singh, Rajendra Lahiri. The Kakori case was a major setback for the group. However, the group was soon reorganised under the leadership of Chandrashekhar Azad and with members like Bhagat Singh, Bhagwati Charan Vohra and Sukhdev on 9 and 10 September 1928- and the group was now christened Hindustan Socialist Republican Association (HSRA).

In Lahore on 17 December 1928, Bhagat Singh, Azad and Rajguru assassinated Saunders, a police official involved in deadly lathi-charge on Lala Lajpat Rai. Bhagat Singh and Batukeshwar Dutt threw a bomb inside the Central Legislative Assembly. The Assembly Bomb Case trial followed. Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev Thapar and Shivaram Rajguru were hanged on 23 March 1931.

The Abhinav Bharat Society (Young India Society) was a secret society founded by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar and his brother Ganesh Damodar Savarkar in 1904. Initially founded at Nasik as "Mitra Mela" when Vinayak Savarkar was still a student of Fergusson College at Pune, the society grew to include several hundred revolutionaries and political activists with branches in various parts of India, extending to London after Savarkar went to study law. It carried out a few assassinations of British officials, after which the Savarkar brothers were convicted and imprisoned. The society was formally disbanded in 1952.

Savarkar's revolutionary propaganda led to the assassination of Lt. Col. William Curzon-Wyllie, the political aide-de-camp to the Secretary of State for India, by Madanlal Dhingra on the evening of 1 July 1909, at a meeting of Indian students in the Imperial Institute in London. Dhingra was arrested and later tried and executed. A. M. T. Jackson, the district magistrate of Nasik, was assassinated in India by Anant Laxman Kanhare in 1909 in the historic "Nasik Conspiracy Case".

The investigation into the Jackson assassination revealed the existence of the Abhinav Bharat Society and the role of the Savarkar brothers in leading it. Vinayak Savarkar was found to have dispatched twenty Browning pistols to India, one of which was used in the Jackson assassination. He was charged in the Jackson murder and sentenced to "transportation" for life. Savarkar was imprisoned in the Cellular Jail in the Andaman Islands in 1910.

Veer Bhai Kotwal alias Veer Bhai Kotwal during Quit India Movement formed group of underground mercenaries called "Kotwal Dasta", a parallel government in the Karjat taluka of Thane district. They were about 50 in numbers including farmers and voluntary school teachers. They decided to cut down the electric pylons supplying electricity to Mumbai city. From September 1942 through November 1942 they felled 11 pylons, paralyzing the industries and railways.

The uprising against the British was evidenced at Halagali (Mudhol taluk of Bagalkot district). The prince of Mudhol, Ghorpade, had accepted British overlordship. But the Bedas (hunters), a martial community, were seething with dissatisfaction under the new dispensation. The British proclaimed the Disarming Act of 1857 whereby men possessing firearms had to register them and secure a license before 10 November 1857. Babaji Nimbalkar, a soldier thrown out of job from Satara Court, had advised these people not to lose their hereditary right to own arms.

One of the leaders of the Bedas, Jadgia, was invited by the administrator at Mudhol and was persuaded to secure a license on 11 November, though Jadgia had not asked for it. The administrator's expectation that others would follow Jadgia was belied. So he sent his agents to Halagali on 15 and 20 November and again on 21. But the entreaties of the agents did not succeed, and the agents sent on 21 November were attacked by Jadgia and Baalya, another leader, and they were forced to return. Another agent sent on 25 November was not allowed to enter the village.

Meanwhile, the Bedas and other armed men from the neighbouring villages of Mantur, Boodni, and Alagundi assembled at Halagali. The administrator reported the matter to Major Malcolm, the Commander at the nearby army headquarters, who sent Col. Seton Karr to Halagali on 29 November.

The insurgents, numbering 500, did not allow the British to enter Halagali. There was a fight during the night. On 30 November, Major Malcolm came with 29th Regiment from Bagalkot. They set fire to the village and many insurgents died, including Babaji Nimbalkar. The British, who had a bigger army and better arms, arrested 290 insurgents; and of those 29 were tried and 11 were hanged at Mudhol on 11 December, and six others, including Jadagia and Baalya, were hanged at Halagali on 14 December 1857. No prince or jagirdar was involved in this uprising, but it was the common soldiers.

Violent revolutionary activities never took firm root in South India. The only violent act attributed to the revolutionaries was the assassination of the Collector of Tirunelveli (Tinnevelly). On 17 June 1911, the Collector of Tirunelveli, Robert Ashe, was killed by Vanchinathan, who subsequently committed suicide, which was the only instance of political assassination by a revolutionary in South India.

I dedicate my life as a small contribution to my motherland. I am alone responsible for this.

The mlechas of England having captured our country, tread over the Sanatana Dharma of the Hindus and destroy them. Every Indian is trying to drive out the English and get swarajyam and restore Sanatana Dharma. Our Raman, Sivaji, Krishnan, Guru Govindan, Arjuna ruled our land protecting all dharmas, but in this land, they are making arrangements to crown George V, a mlecha, and one who eats the flesh of cows.
Three thousand Madrasees have taken a vow to kill George V as soon as he lands in our country. In order to make others know our intention, I who am the least in the company, have done this deed this day. This is what everyone in Hindustan should consider it as his duty.
I will kill Ashe, whose arrival here is to celebrate the crowning of cow-eater King George V in this glorious land which was once ruled by great Samrats. This I do to make them understand the fate of those who cherish the thought of enslaving this sacred land. I, as the least of them, wish to warn George by killing Ashe.
Vande Mataram. Vande Mataram. Vande Mataram

The India House was an informal Indian nationalist organization that existed in London between 1905 and 1910. Initially begun by Shyamji Krishna Varma as a residence in Highgate, in North London, for Indian students to promote nationalist views and work, the house became a centre for intellectual political activities, and rapidly developed to be an organization that became a meeting ground for radical nationalists among Indian students in Britain at the time, and of the most prominent centers for revolutionary Indian nationalism outside India. The Indian Sociologist published by the house was a noted platform for anti-colonial work and was banned in India as "seditious literature".

The India House was the beginnings of a number of noted Indian revolutionaries and nationalists, most famously V.D. Savarkar, as well as others of the like of V.N. Chatterjee, Lala Har Dayal, V.V.S. Iyer, The house came to be the focus of Scotland Yard's work against Indian seditionists, as well as the focus of work for the nascent Indian Political Intelligence Office. India house ceased to be a potent organisation after its liquidation in the wake of the assassination of William Hutt Curzon Wyllie by a member of the India House by the name of Madan Lal Dhingra. This event marked the beginnings of London Police's crackdown on the activities of the house and a number of its activists and patrons, including Shyamji Krishna Varma and Bhikaji Cama moved to Europe from where they carried on works in support of Indian nationalism. Some Indian students, including Har Dayal, moved to the United States. The network that the House founded was key in the nationalist revolutionary conspiracy in India during World War I.

Gadar party was a predominantly Sikh organization that started operating abroad in 1913 "with the view to do-away with the British rule in India". The party collaborated with revolutionaries inside India and helped them get arms and ammunition. Lala Hardayal was a prominent leader of the party and promoter of the Gadar newspaper. The Komagata Maru incident in 1914 inspired several thousand Indians residing in the USA to sell their businesses and rush home to participate in the anti- British activities in India. The party had active members in India, Mexico, Japan, China, Singapore, Thailand, Philippines, Malaya, Indo-China and Eastern and Southern Africa. During World War I, it was among the chief participants of the Hindu German Conspiracy.

The "Berlin committee for Indian independence" was established in 1915 by Virendra Nath Chattopadhya, including Bhupendra Nath Dutt & Lala Hardayal under "Zimmerman plan" with the full backing of German foreign office.

Their goal was mainly to achieve the following four objectives:

1. Mobilize Indian revolutionaries abroad.

2. Incite rebellion among Indian troops stationed. abroad.

3. Send volunteers and arms to India.

4. Even to Organized an armed invasion of British India to gain India's independence.

Several leaders of the Jugantar party including Aurobindo Ghosh were arrested in connection with bomb-making activities in Kolkata. Several of the activists were deported to the Andaman Cellular Jail.

The trial room, Alipore Sessions Court, Calcutta, depiction from 1997.

Muraripukur garden house, in the Manicktolla suburbs of Calcutta. This served as the headquarters of Barindra Kumar Ghosh and his associates.

Most of the eminent Jugantar leaders including Bagha Jatin alias Jatindra Nath Mukherjee who were not arrested earlier, were arrested in 1910, in connection with the murder of Shamsul Alam. Thanks to Bagha Jatin's new policy of a decentralised federated action, most of the accused were released in 1911.

The Delhi Conspiracy case, also known as the Delhi-Lahore Conspiracy, hatched in 1912, planned to assassinate the then Viceroy of India, Lord Hardinge, on the occasion of transferring the capital of British India from Calcutta to New Delhi. Involving revolutionary underground in Bengal and headed by Rash Behari Bose along with Sachin Sanyal, the conspiracy culminated on the attempted assassination on 23 December 1912 when a home-made bomb was thrown into the Viceroys's Howdah when the ceremonial procession moved through the Chandni Chowk suburb of Delhi. The Viceroy escaped with his injuries, along with Lady Hardinge, although the Mahout was killed.

In the aftermath of the event, efforts were made to destroy the Bengali and Punjabi revolutionary underground, which came under intense pressure for sometime. Rash Behari successfully evaded capture for nearly three years, becoming actively involved in the Ghadar conspiracy before it was uncovered, and fleeing to Japan in 1916.

The investigations in the aftermath of the assassination attempt led to the Delhi Conspiracy trial. Although Basant Kumar Biswas was convicted of having thrown the bomb and executed, along with Amir Chand and Avadh Behari for their roles in the conspiracy, the true identity of the person who threw the bomb is not known to this day.

The Indo-German movement, also referred to as the Hindu-German Conspiracy or the Ghadar movement (or Ghadr conspiracy), was formulated during World War I between Indian Nationalists in India, the United States and Germany, the Irish Republicans, and the German Foreign office to initiate a Pan-Indian rebellion against The Raj with German support between 1914 and 1917, during World War I. The most famous amongst a number of plots planned to foment unrest and trigger a Pan-Indian mutiny in February 1915, in the British Indian Army from Punjab to Singapore, to overthrow The Raj in the Indian subcontinent. This conspiracy was ultimately thwarted at the last moment as British intelligence successfully infiltrated the Ghadarite movement and arrested key figures. The failed Singapore mutiny remains a famous part of this plot while mutinies in other smaller units and garrisons within India were also crushed.

World War I began with an unprecedented outpouring of loyalty and goodwill towards the United Kingdom from within the mainstream political leadership, contrary to initial British fears of an Indian revolt. India contributed massively to the British war effort by providing men and resources. About 1.3 million Indian soldiers and labourers served in Europe, Africa, and the Middle East, while both the Indian government and the princes sent large supplies of food, money, and ammunition. However, Bengal and Punjab remained hotbeds of anti-colonial activities. Terrorism in Bengal, increasingly closely linked with the unrest in Punjab, was significant enough to nearly paralyse the regional administration. With outlines of German links with the Indian revolutionary movement already in place as early as 1912, the main conspiracy was formulated between the Ghadar Party in the United States, the Berlin Committee in Germany, Indian revolutionary underground in India, Sinn Féin and the German Foreign Office through the consulate in San Francisco at the beginning of World War I. A number of failed attempts were made at mutiny, among them the February mutiny plan and the Singapore mutiny. This movement was suppressed by means of a massive international counter-intelligence operation and draconian political acts (including the Defence of India act 1915) that lasted nearly ten years. Other notable events that formed a part of the conspiracy include the Annie Larsen arms plot, the Mission to Kabul that also attempted to rally Afghanistan against British India. The Mutiny of the Connaught Rangers in India, as well as by some accounts, the Black Tom explosion in 1916 are also considered minor events linked to the conspiracy.

The Indo-Irish-German alliance and the conspiracy were the target of a worldwide intelligence effort by the British intelligence agencies which was ultimately successful in preventing further attempts and plans, and in the aftermath of the Annie Larsen affair, successfully directed the American intelligence agencies to arrest key figures at the time she entered World War I in 1917. The conspiracy led to the Lahore conspiracy case in India and the Hindu German Conspiracy Trial in the USA, of which the latter at the time was one of the longest and most expensive trials in that country. Largely subdued and suppressed by the end of the war, the movement posed a significant threat to British India during World War I and its aftermath, and was a major factor guiding The Raj's India policy.

During the war, the Pan-Islamist movement also attempted to overthrow the Raj, and came to form a close liaison with the Indo-German Conspiracy. Out of the Deobandi movement arose the Tehrek-e-Reshmi Rumal. The Deobandi leaders attempted to begin a pan-Islamic insurrection in British India during World War I by seeking support from Ottoman Turkey, Imperial Germany, Afghanistan. The plot was uncovered by Punjab CID with the capture of letters from Ubaidullah Sindhi, one of the Deobandi leaders then in Afghanistan, to Mahmud al Hasan another leader then in Persia. The letters were written in Silk cloth, hence the name of the Silk Letter Conspiracy.

Surya Sen led Indian revolutionaries to raid the armoury of police and auxiliary forces and to cut all communication lines in Chittagong on 18 April 1930. After successfully completing the raid, revolutionaries establish Provincial National Government of India, after this in deadly clash with Government troops in Jalalabad Hill, revolutionaries scattered themselves in small groups. and Some revolutionaries were soon killed or arrested in a gun-fight with the police. Scores of Government officials, policeman were also killed. Pritilata Waddedar led the attack on European club in Chittagong in 1932. Surya Sen was arrested in 1933 and was hanged on 8 January 1934.

Central Assembly Bomb Case (1929)

Bhagat Singh and Batukeshwar Dutt threw a bomb in the assembly house along with leaflets stating their revolutionary philosophy - 'to make the deaf hear'. Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev and Rajguru were hanged and several others faced the verdict of imprisonment. Batukeshwar Dutt outlived all his comrades and died in July 1965 in Delhi. All of them cremated in Ferozpur (Punjab, India).

Baikuntha Shukla, the great nationalist was hanged for murdering Phanindrananth Ghosh who had become a government approver which led to the hanging of Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev and Rajguru. He was a nephew of Yogendra Shukla. Baikunth Shukla was also initiated into the independence struggle at a young age taking an active part in the 'Salt Satyagraha' of 1930. He was associated with revolutionary organisations like the Hindustan Seva Dal and the Hindustan Socialist Republican Association. The execution of the great Indian revolutionaries Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev in 1931 as a result of their trial in the 'Lahore conspiracy case' was an event that shook the entire country. Phanindra Nath Ghosh, hitherto a key member of the Revolutionary Party had treacherously betrayed the cause by turning an approver, giving evidence, which led to the execution. Baikunth was commissioned to plan the execution of Ghosh as an act of ideological vendetta which he carried out successfully on 9 November 1932. He was arrested and tried for the killing. Baikunth was convicted and hanged in Gaya Central Jail on 14 May 1934. He was only 28 years old.

On 27 February 1931, Chandrasekar Azad died in a shootout when cornered by the police.

It is unclear of the eventual fate of the Association, but the common understanding is that it disbanded with the death of Chandrashekar Azad and the hanging of its popular activists: Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev and Rajguru.

A bomb was thrown on the Calcutta Police Commissioner, Charles Tegart on 25 August 1930.

Chandrasekhar Azad, Ramprasad Bismil, Jogesh Chatterjee, Ashfaqullah Khan, Banwari Lal and their accomplices participated in the robbery of treasury money that was being transported by train. The looting took place between Kakori station and Alamnagar, within 40 miles (64 km) of Lucknow on 9 August 1925. Police started an intense man-hunt and arrested a large number of rebels and tried them in the Kakori case. Ashfaqullah Khan, Ramprasad Bismil, Roshan Singh, Rajendra Lahiri were hanged, four others were sent to the Cellular Jail in Port Blair, Andaman for life and seventeen others were sentenced to long terms of imprisonment.

The scenario changed with the years. The British were thinking to quit India and religious politics came into play. The basic political background of revolutionary ideas seemed to evolve in a new direction. The organised revolutionary movements can be said to have nearly ceased by 1936, apart from some stray sparks, like the killing of Sir Michael O'Dwyer, generally held responsible for the Amritsar Massacre, on 13 March 1940, by Udham Singh in London.

During the Quit India movement of 1942, several other activities took place in different parts of India. However, those were discrete occurrences and hardly any large scale planned terrorism took place that could shake the British administration. Meanwhile, Subhas Chandra Bose was organising an Indian National Army outside India and leading the army towards India, while at the same time the Congress was negotiating with the British. Finally, India was independent on 15 August 1947, by violence against the British with much of bloodshed over many years of struggle and sadly, also rioting and violence among the countrymen (and near-future neighbours) during the partition, which was quite shocking to the past revolutionaries and also to Gandhi. The simmering rebellions in the British Indian Army over the trials of the Indian National Army officers on trumped up charges of treason in late 1945 and the naval revolt in the Royal Indian Navy (RIN) in February 1946 inspired by Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose's feats, convinced the British that the instrument of British power - the Indian military was no longer going to help them prop up the Raj.

Many revolutionaries participated in mainstream politics and joined political parties like the Congress and, especially, the communist parties and took part in the parliamentary democracy that was India. On the other hand, many past revolutionaries, being released from captivity, led the lives of common men.

Kesari Singh Barahath
21 November 1872

14 August 1941

Barahath Family of Shahpura, Rajasthan. His Son Pratap Singh Barhath was also a revolutionary freedom fighter. He participated in the revolutionary plot to throw a bomb at Lord Hardinge, Viceroy of India on 3 December 1912. Kesari Singh's brother Jorawar Singh Barhat was also in that group. He was arrested in Banaras Conspiracy Case and was sentenced in Feb 1916 to five years RI. He was subjected to brutal torture in Bareilly Central Jail to force him to divulge the names of his compatriots. He refused. He died in the jail on 7 May 1918 as an unsung hero. Only family which gave 3 sons to motherland one after one.

Bapu, Prabhu (2013), Hindu Mahasabha in Colonial North India, 1915-1930: Constructing Nation and History, Routledge, ISBN 978-0-415-67165-1

Brown, Giles (August 1948). "The Hindu Conspiracy, 1914-1917". The Pacific Historical Review. 17 (3): 299-310. doi:10.2307/3634258. JSTOR 3634258.

Heehs, Peter (2008). The Lives of Sri Aurobindo. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-14098-0.

Hoover, Karl (May 1985). "The Hindu Conspiracy in California, 1913-1918". German Studies Review. 8 (2): 245-261. doi:10.2307/1428642. JSTOR 1428642.

Jayapalan, N (2001), History Of India (from National Movement To Present Day), IV, New Delhi, India: Atlantic Publishers & Distributors, ISBN 81-7156-928-5

Jaffrelot, Christofer (1996), The Hindu Nationalist Movement and Indian Politics, C. Hurst & Co. Publishers, ISBN 1-85065-301-1

Plowman, Matthew (Autumn 2003). "Irish Republicans and the Indo-German Conspiracy of World War I". New Hibernia Review. 7 (3): 81-105. doi:10.1353/nhr.2003.0069. S2CID 144632198.

Teltumbde, Anand (2005), "Hindutva Agenda and Dalits", in Ram Puniyani (ed.), Religion, Power and Violence: Expression of Politics in Contemporary Times, SAGE, pp. 208-224, ISBN 0761933387

Amstutz, Andrew. "Review essay: Alternative histories of revolutionaries in modern South Asia: context, chronology, and archives." India Review 18.3 (2019): 324-342. online

Ghosh, Durba. Gentlemanly Terrorists: Political Violence and the Colonial State in India, 1919-1947 (Cambridge University Press, 2017.)

Maclean, Kama. A Revolutionary History of Interwar India: Violence, Image, Voice and Text (Oxford University Press, 2015.)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Revolutionary movement for Indian independence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Revolutionary movement for Indian Independence is a part of the comprising the actions of the underground revolutionary factions. Groups believing in armed revolution against the ruling British fall into this category, as opposed to the generally peaceful civil disobedience movement spearheaded by Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.

# data[].attributes.body
This Act introduced some more reforms to pacify Indians. The Head of the Central administration
was the Governor-General. He continued to have the supreme power. The member of states of
Federation had autonomy with respect to subjects delegated to them. The Centre continued to
control defence, external affairs and railways. A Federal Court was established for provinces and
Princely States.
Both Congress and Muslim League rejected the proposals, along with other parties and the
Princely States.
Second World War started in 1939. The British dragged India into the war to satisfy their own
imperialist ambitions. Anti-British movement started in full swing. In 1942, the British Government
sent the Cripps Mission under Sir Stafford Cripps to enlist total cooperation of Indian National
Congress during the Second World War, but the mission failed as demands for complete independence
and self-government after the war were rejected.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Government of India Act 1935 was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It originally received Royal assent in August 1935. It was the longest Act of (British) Parliament ever enacted until Greater London Authority Act 1999 surpassed it. Because of its length, the Act was retroactively split by the Government of India Act, 1935 into two separate Acts:

The Government of India Act, 1935 , having 321 sections and 10 schedules.

The Government of Burma Act, 1935 having 159 sections and 6 schedules.

The Act led to:

The most significant aspects of the Act were:

the grant of a large measure of autonomy to the provinces of British India (ending the system of diarchy introduced by the Government of India Act 1919)

provision for the establishment of a "Federation of India", to be made up of both British India and some or all of the "princely states"

the introduction of direct elections, thus increasing the franchise from seven million to thirty-five million people

a partial reorganization of the provinces:

membership of the provincial assemblies was altered so as to include any number of elected Indian representatives, who were now able to form majorities and be appointed to form governments

the establishment of a Federal Court

However, the degree of autonomy introduced at the provincial level was subject to important limitations: the provincial Governors retained important reserve powers, and the British authorities also retained a right to suspend responsible government.

The parts of the Act intended to establish the Federation of India never came into operation, due to opposition from rulers of the princely states. The remaining parts of the Act came into force in 1937, when the first elections under the act were also held. The Features of this act were as follows; 1-it provided for the establishment of all India federation consisting of provinces and princely states as units. the act divided the powers between center and units in terms of three lists-Federal list, Provincial list and the con current list.

Indians had increasingly been demanding a greater role in the government of their country since the late 19th century. The Indian contribution to the British war effort during the First World War meant that even the more conservative elements in the British political establishment felt the necessity of constitutional change, resulting in the Government of India Act 1919. That Act introduced a novel system of government known as provincial "diarchy", i.e., certain areas of government (such as education) were placed in the hands of ministers responsible to the provincial legislature, while others (such as public order and finance) were retained in the hands of officials responsible to the British-appointed provincial Governor. While the Act was a reflection of the demand for a greater role in government by Indians, it was also very much a reflection of British fears about what that role might mean in practice for India (and of course for British interests there).

The experiment with dyarchy proved unsatisfactory. A particular frustration for Indian politicians was that even for those areas over which they had gained nominal control, the "purse strings" were still in the hands of British officialdom.

The intention had been that a review of India's constitutional arrangements would be held ten years on from the 1919 Act. In the event, the review was conducted ahead of time by the Simon Commission, whose report proposed the scrapping of dyarchy, and the introduction of a much larger degree of responsible government in the provinces. This proposal was controversial in Britain, demonstrating the rapidly widening gulf between British and Indian opinions as to the desirability, extent, and the speed of progress towards, the promised system of self-government contained in the 1919 Act's preamble.

Although the Simon Commission had taken evidence in India, it had met with opposition there, and its conclusions weren't accepted by Congress (the largest political party). In an attempt to involve Indians more fully in working out a new constitutional framework, a series of Round Table Conferences were then held in the early 1930s, attended at times by representatives from India's main political parties, as well as from the princely states. Agreement was reached in principle that a federal system of government should be introduced, comprising the provinces of British India and those princely states that were willing to accede to it. However, division between Congress and Muslim representatives proved to be a major factor in preventing agreement on much of the important detail of how federation would work in practice.

The new Conservative-dominated National Government in London decided to go ahead with drafting its own proposals ( white paper, March 1933). A joint parliamentary select committee, chaired by Lord Linlithgow, reviewed the white paper proposals for a year and a half between April 1933 and November 1934, amidst much opposition from Winston Churchill and other backbench Conservatives. The House of Commons approved the Joint Select Committee report in December after an emollient speech by Conservative leader Stanley Baldwin, who stated that he respected the principled position of the bill's opponents, and that he did not wish feelings in his own party to become permanently embittered.

On the basis of the white paper, the Government of India Bill was framed. It was immensely long, containing 473 clauses and 16 schedules, and the reports of the debates took up 4,000 pages of Hansard. At the committee stage and later, to appease the diehards, the "safeguards" were strengthened, and indirect elections were reinstated for the Central Legislative Assembly (the central legislature's lower house). The opposition Labour Party opposed the Third Reading of the bill on the grounds that it contained no specific promise of dominion status for India. It received Royal Assent and passed into law on 2 August 1935.

As a result of this process, although the Government of India Act 1935 was intended to go some way towards meeting Indian demands, both the detail of the bill and the lack of Indian involvement in drafting its contents meant that the Act met with a lukewarm response at best in India, while still proving too radical for a significant element in Britain.

While it had become uncommon for British Acts of Parliament to contain a preamble, the absence of one from the Government of India Act 1935 contrasts sharply with the 1919 Act, which set out the broad philosophy of that Act's aims in relation to Indian political development. That Act's preamble quoted, and centred on, the statement of the Secretary of State for India, Edwin Montagu, to the House of Commons on 20 August 1917, which pledged "the gradual development of self-governing institutions, with a view to the progressive realization of responsible government in India as an integral Part of the British Empire".

Indian demands were by now centring on British India achieving constitutional parity with the existing Dominions ( Australia, Canada, the Irish Free State, New Zealand and the Union of South Africa) which would have meant complete autonomy within the British Commonwealth. A significant element in British political circles doubted that Indians were capable of running their country on this basis, and saw Dominion status as something that might, perhaps, be aimed for after a long period of gradual constitutional development, with sufficient "safeguards".

This tension between and within Indian and British views resulted in the clumsy compromise of the 1935 Act having no preamble of its own, but keeping in place the 1919 Act's preamble even while repealing the remainder of that Act. Unsurprisingly, this was seen in India as yet more mixed messages from the British, suggesting at best a lukewarm attitude and at worst suggesting a "minimum necessary" approach towards satisfying Indian desires.

No 'Bill of Rights'

In common with Commonwealth constitutional legislation of the time, the Act did not include a "bill of rights" within the new system that it aimed to establish. However, in the case of the proposed Federation of India, there was a further complication in incorporating such a set of rights, as the new entity would have included nominally sovereign (and generally autocratic) princely states.

A different approach was considered by some, though, as the draft outline constitution in the Nehru Report included such a bill of rights.

Excess "safeguards"

In 1947, with a relatively few amendments, the Act became the functioning interim constitutions of India and Pakistan.

The Act was not only extremely detailed, but also contained many "safeguards" designed to enable the British Government to intervene whenever it saw the need in order to maintain British responsibilities and interests. To achieve this, in the face of a gradually increasing Indianisation of the institutions of the Government of India, the Act concentrated the decision for the use and the actual administration of the safeguards in the hands of the British-appointed Viceroy and provincial governors who were subject to the control of the Secretary of State for India.

'In view of the enormous powers and responsibilities which the Governor-General must exercise his discretion or according to his individual judgment, it is obvious that he (the Viceroy) is expected to be a kind of Superman. He must have tact, courage, and ability and be endowed with an infinite capacity for hard work. "We have put into this Bill many safeguards", said Sir Robert Horne... "but all of those safeguards revolve about a single individual, and that is the Viceroy. He is the linchpin of the whole system.... If the Viceroy fails, nothing can save the system you have set up". This speech reflected the point of view of the die-hard Tories who were horrified by the prospect that someday there might be a Viceroy appointed by a Labour government.'

Nature of representative government?

A close reading of the Act reveals that the British Government equipped itself with the legal instruments to take back total control at any time they considered this to be desirable. However, doing so without good reason would totally sink their credibility with groups in India whose support the act was aimed at securing. Some contrasting views:

Lord Lothian, in a talk lasting forty-five minutes, came straight out with his view not on the Bill:

"I agree with the diehards that it has been a surrender. You who are not used to any constitution cannot realize what great power you are going to wield. If you look at the constitution it looks as if all the powers are vested in the Governor-General and the Governor. But is not every power here vested in the King? Everything is done in the name of the King but does the King ever interfere? Once the power passes into the hands of the legislature, the Governor or the Governor-General is never going to interfere. ...The Civil Service will be helpful. You too will realize this. Once a policy is laid down they will carry it out loyally and faithfully...

We could not help it. We had to fight the diehards here. You could not realize what great courage has been shown by Mr. Baldwin and Sir Samuel Hoare. We did not want to spare the diehards as we had to talk in a different language...

These various meetings - and in due course G.D. (Birla), before his return in September, met virtually everyone of importance in Anglo-Indian affairs - confirmed G.D.'s original opinion that the differences between the two countries were largely psychological, the same proposals open to diametrically opposed interpretations. He had not, probably, taken in before his visit how considerable, in the eyes of British conservatives, the concessions had been... If nothing else, successive conversations made clear to G.D. that the agents of the Bill had at least as heavy odds against them at home as they had in India.

Under the Act, British citizens resident in the UK and British companies registered in the UK must be treated on the same basis as Indian citizens and Indian registered companies unless UK law denies reciprocal treatment. The unfairness of this arrangement is clear when one considers the dominant position of British capital in much of the Indian modern sector and the complete dominance, maintained through unfair commercial practices, of UK shipping interests in India's international and coastal shipping traffic and the utter insignificance of Indian capital in Britain and the non-existence of Indian involvement in shipping to or within the UK. There are very detailed provisions requiring the Viceroy to intervene if, in his unappealable view, any India law or regulation is intended to, or will, in fact, discriminate against UK resident British subjects, British registered companies and, particularly, British shipping interests.

From the moment of the Montagu statement of 1917, it was vital that the reform process stay ahead of the curve if the British were to hold the strategic initiative. However, imperialist sentiment, and a lack of realism, in British political circles made this impossible. Thus the grudging conditional concessions of power in the Acts of 1919 and 1935 caused more resentment and signally failed to win the Raj the backing of influential groups in India which it desperately needed. In 1919 the Act of 1935, or even the Simon Commission plan would have been well received. There is evidence that Montagu would have backed something of this sort but his cabinet colleagues would not have considered it. By 1935, a constitution establishing a Dominion of India, comprising the British Indian provinces might have been acceptable in India though it would not have passed the British Parliament.

The provincial part of the Act, which went into effect automatically, basically followed the recommendations of the Simon Commission. Provincial dyarchy was abolished; that is, all provincial portfolios were to be placed in charge of ministers enjoying the support of the provincial legislatures. The British-appointed provincial governors, who were responsible to the British Government via the Viceroy and Secretary of State for India, were to accept the recommendations of the ministers unless, in their view, they negatively affected his areas of statutory "special responsibilities" such as the prevention of any grave menace to the peace or tranquility of a province and the safeguarding of the legitimate interests of minorities. In the event of a political breakdown, the governor, under the supervision of the Viceroy, could take over total control of the provincial government. This, in fact, allowed the governors a more untrammeled control than any British official had enjoyed in the history of the Raj. After the resignation of the Congress provincial ministries in 1939, the governors did directly rule the ex-Congress provinces throughout the war.

It was generally recognized that the provincial part of the Act conferred a great deal of power and patronage on provincial politicians as long as both British officials and Indian politicians played by the rules. However, the paternalistic threat of the intervention by the British governor rankled Indian nationalists.

Unlike the provincial portion of the Act, the Federal portion was to go into effect only when half the States by weight agreed to federate. This never happened and the establishment of the Federation was indefinitely postponed after the outbreak of the Second World War.

The Act provided for Dyarchy at the Centre. The British Government, in the person of the Secretary of State for India, through the Governor-General of India - Viceroy of India, would continue to control India's financial obligations, defence, foreign affairs and the British Indian Army and would make the key appointments to the Reserve Bank of India (exchange rates) and Railway Board and the Act stipulated that no finance bill could be placed in the Central Legislature without the consent of the Governor General. The funding for the British responsibilities and foreign obligations (e.g. loan repayments, pensions), at least 80 percent of the federal expenditures, would be non-votable and be taken off the top before any claims could be considered for (for example) social or economic development programs. The Viceroy, under the supervision of the Secretary of State for India, was provided with overriding and certifying powers that could, theoretically, have allowed him to rule autocratically.

The federal part of the Act was designed to meet the aims of the Conservative Party. Over the very long term, the Conservative leadership expected the Act to lead to a nominally dominion status India, conservative in outlook, dominated by an alliance of Hindu princes and right-wing Hindus which would be well disposed to place itself under the guidance and protection of the United Kingdom. In the medium term, the Act was expected to (in rough order of importance):

win the support of moderate nationalists since its formal aim was to lead eventually to a Dominion of India which, as defined under the Statute of Westminster 1931 virtually equaled independence;

retain British control of the Indian Army, Indian finances, and India's foreign relations for another generation;

win Muslim support by conceding most of Jinnah's Fourteen Points;

convince the Princes to join the Federation by giving the Princes conditions for entry never likely to be equaled. It was expected that enough would join to allow the establishment of the Federation. The terms offered to the Princes included:

Each Prince would select his state's representative in the Federal Legislature. There would be no pressure for Princes to democratize their administrations or allow elections for state representatives in the Federal Legislature.

The Princes would enjoy heavyweight. The Princely States represented about a quarter of the population of India and produced well under a quarter of its wealth. Under the Act:

The Upper House of the Federal Legislature, the Council of State, would consist of 260 members: 156 (60%) elected from British India and 104 (40%) nominated by the rulers of the princely states.

The Lower House, the Federal Assembly, would consist of 375 members: 250 (67%) elected by the Legislative Assemblies of the British Indian provinces; 125 (33%) nominated by the rulers of the princely states.

ensuring that the Congress could never rule alone or gain enough seats to bring down the government

This was done by over-representing the Princes, by giving every possible minority the right to separately vote for candidates belonging to their respective communities (see separate electorate), and by making the executive theoretically, but not practically, removable by the legislature.

Viability of the proposed Federation. It was hoped that the gerrymandered federation, encompassing units of such hugely different sizes, sophistication and varying in forms of government from the autocratic Princely States to democratic provinces, could provide the basis for a viable state. However, this was not a realistic possibility (see e.g. The Making of India's Paper Federation, 1927-35 in Moore 1988). In reality, the Federation, as planned in the Act, almost certainly was not viable and would have rapidly broken down with the British left to pick up the pieces without any viable alternative.

Princes Seeing and Acting in Their Own Long-Range Best Interests - That the Princes would see that their best hope for a future would lie in rapidly joining and become a united block without which no group could hope, mathematically, to wield power. However, the princes did not join, and thus exercising the veto provided by the Act prevented the Federation from coming into existence. Among the reasons for the Princes staying out were the following:

They did not have the foresight to realize that this was their only chance for a future.

Congress had begun and would continue, agitating for democratic reforms within the Princely States. Since the one common concern of the 600 or so Princes was their desire to continue to rule their states without interference, this was indeed a mortal threat. It was on the cards that this would lead eventually to more democratic state regimes and the election of states' representatives in the Federal Legislature. In all likelihood, these representatives would be largely Congressmen. Had the Federation been established, the election of states' representatives in the Federal Legislature would amount to a Congress coup from the inside. Thus, contrary to their official position that the British would look favorably on the democratization of the Princely States, their plan required that the States remain autocratic. This reflects a deep contradiction on British views of India and its future.

Under the Act,

They were not a cohesive group and probably realized that they would never act as one.

Each Prince seemed consumed by the desire to gain the best deal for himself, were his state to join the Federation: the most money, the most autonomy.

That enough was being offered at the Centre to win the support of moderate nationalist Hindu and Muslim support. In fact, so little was offered that all significant groups in British India rejected and denounced the proposed Federation. A major contributing factor was the continuing distrust of British intentions for which there was considerable basis in fact. In this vital area the Act failed Irwin's test:

'I don't believe that... it is impossible to present the problem in such a form as would make the shop window look respectable from an Indian point of view, which is really what they care about while keeping your hand pretty firmly on the things that matter.' (Irwin to Stonehaven, 12 November 1928)

That the wider electorate would turn against the Congress. In fact, the 1937 elections showed overwhelming support for Congress among the Hindu electorate.

That by giving Indian politicians a great deal of power at the provincial level, while denying them responsibility at the Centre, it was hoped that Congress, the only national party, would disintegrate into a series of provincial fiefdoms. In fact, the Congress High Command was able to control the provincial ministries and to force their resignation in 1939. The Act showed the strength and cohesion of Congress and probably strengthened it. This does not imply that Congress was not made up of and found its support in various sometimes competing interests and groups. Rather, it recognises the ability of Congress, unlike the British Raj, to maintain the cooperation and support of most of these groups even if, for example in the forced resignation of Congress provincial ministries in 1939 and the rejection of the Cripps Offer in 1942, this required a negative policy that was harmful, in the long run, to the prospects for an independent India that would be both united and democratic.

No significant group in India accepted the Federal portion of the Act. A typical response was:

However, the Liberals and even elements in the Congress were tepidly willing to give it a go:

"Linlithgow asked Sapru whether he thought there was a satisfactory alternative to the scheme of the 1935 Act. Sapru replied that they should stand fast on the Act and the federal plan embodied in it. It was not ideal but at this stage, it was the only thing.... A few days after Sapru's visit Birla came to see the Viceroy. He thought that Congress was moving towards acceptance of Federation. Gandhi was not over-worried, said Birla, by the reservation of defense and external affairs to the center, but was concentrating on the method of choosing the States' representatives. Birla wanted the Viceroy to help Gandhi by persuading a number of Princes to move towards the democratic election of representatives. ...Birla then said that the only chance for Federation lay in the agreement between Government and Congress and the best hope of this lay in discussion between the Viceroy and Gandhi".

Nehru called it "a machine with strong brakes but no engine". He also called it a "Charter of Slavery" Jinnah called it, "thoroughly rotten, fundamentally bad and totally unacceptable."

Winston Churchill conducted a campaign against Indian self-government from 1929 onwards. When the bill passed, he denounced it in the House of Commons as "a gigantic quilt of jumbled crochet work, a monstrous monument of shame built by pygmies". Leo Amery, who spoke next, opened his speech with the words "Here endeth the last chapter of the Book of Jeremiah" and commented that Churchill's speech had been "not only a speech without a ray of hope; it was a speech from beginning to end, like all his speeches on the subject, utterly and entirely negative and devoid of constructive thought."

Rab Butler, who as Under-Secretary for India helped pilot the Act through the House of Commons, later wrote that it helped to set India on the path of Parliamentary democracy. Butler blamed Jinnah for the subsequent secession of Pakistan, likening his strength of character to that of the Ulster Unionist leader Edward Carson, and wrote that "men like Jinnah are not born every day", although he also blamed Congress for not having done enough to court the Muslims. In 1954 Butler stayed in Delhi, where Nehru, who Butler believed had mellowed somewhat from his extreme views of the 1930s, told him that the Act, based on the English constitutional principles of Dicey and Anson, had been the foundation of the Indian Independence Bill.

The British government sent out Lord Linlithgow as the new viceroy with the remit of bringing the Act into effect. Linlithgow was intelligent, extremely hard working, honest, serious and determined to make a success out of the Act. However, he was also unimaginative, stolid, legalistic and found it very difficult to "get on terms" with people outside his immediate circle.

In 1937, after the holding of provincial elections, Provincial Autonomy commenced. From that point until the declaration of war in 1939, Linlithgow tirelessly tried to get enough of the Princes to accede to launch the Federation. In this, he received only the weakest backing from the Home Government and in the end the Princes rejected the Federation en masse. In September 1939, Linlithgow simply declared that India was at war with Germany. Though Linlithgow's behavior was constitutionally correct it was also offensive to much of Indian opinion that the Viceroy had not consulted the elected representatives of the Indian people before taking such a momentous decision. This led directly to the resignation of the Congress provincial ministries.

From 1939, Linlithgow concentrated on supporting the war effort.

1 ^ Keay, John. India: A History. Grove Press Books, distributed by Publishers Group West. United States: 2000 ISBN 0-8021-3797-0, pp. 490

2 ^ Keay, John. India: A History. Grove Press Books, distributed by Publishers Group West. United States: 2000 ISBN 0-8021-3797-0, pp. 490

Bridge, Carl. Holding India to the Empire: The British Conservative Party and the 1935 Constitution (Oriental University Press, 1986).

Butler, Rab (1971). The Art of the Possible. London: Hamish Hamilton. ISBN 978-0241020074.(his memoirs)

James, Robert Rhodes (1970). Churchill: A Study in Failure 1900-1939. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. ISBN 9780297820154.

Muldoon, Andrew. Empire, politics and the creation of the 1935 India Act: last act of the raj (Routledge, 2016).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Government of India Act 1935 was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It originally received Royal assent in August 1935. It was the longest Act of (British) Parliament ever enacted until Greater London Authority Act 1999 surpassed it.

# data[].attributes.body
Congress was banned, and the police and army were brought out to suppress the movement.
But after the failure of the Cripps Mission, it became obvious that British Government would not
grant freedom to India. Gandhiji feared that Japan may attack the British possessions in India. Hence,
he wanted the British to Icovc India. Gandhiji gave the final blew to the Britishers on August 8,
1942 by launching the Quit India Movement. It was a Civil Disobedience Movement in response to
Gandhiji's call for immediate independence. Within 24 hours, Gandhiji and all prominent Congress
leaders were arrested. Gandhiji's mantra of Do or Die inspired thousands of people. The Britishers
were infuriated. The police and army waged brutal terror on people

# data[].attributes.body
TOWARDS INDEPENDENCE
The Second World War came to an end in 1945. Prime Minister Attlee of Labour Party came
to power in Britain. He was sympathetic towards the demand of Indian people for freedom.
A Cabinet Mission was sent to India in March, 1946. It proposed the formation of an Interim
Government and a Constituent Assembly. Muslim League refused to participate in the interim
government. They demanded a separate state for Muslims (Pakistan). Lord Mountbatten, the
then Viceroy of India, presented a plan for the division of India into India and Pakistan. Gandhiji
and other Indian leaders did not approve of this plan, but had no choice but to accept the
partition due to widespread riots in different parts of the country.