Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The early 20th century in India was marked by growing nationalist sentiment alongside increasing anxieties within the British administration regarding revolutionary activities. The Rowlatt Act of 1919, officially the Anarchical and Revolutionary Crimes Act, was enacted to address these concerns, granting the government extraordinary powers to suppress dissent. However, it was met with widespread and vehement opposition across the Indian political spectrum. The statement, “This retention of Rowlatt legislation in the teeth of universal opposition is an affront to the nation. Its repeal is necessary to appease national honour,” encapsulates the core of this resistance, highlighting the perceived injustice and the symbolic importance of its removal.
Background of the Rowlatt Act
The Rowlatt Act was a legislative response to the perceived threat of Indian nationalism, particularly after the suppression of the 1915-1916 Ghadar Movement. It authorized the government to imprison individuals for up to two years without trial, based on suspicion of involvement in seditious activities. It also allowed for the establishment of special courts, bypassing regular judicial procedures. The Act was passed in March 1919 despite opposition from Indian members of the Imperial Legislative Council.
Reasons for Universal Opposition
The opposition to the Rowlatt Act was widespread and came from various sections of Indian society:
- Violation of Civil Liberties: The Act was seen as a blatant violation of fundamental rights, including freedom of speech, expression, and association. The provision for detention without trial was particularly egregious.
- Undermining the Rule of Law: The establishment of special courts and the bypassing of regular judicial processes were perceived as undermining the principles of the rule of law.
- Political Mobilization: The Act provided a rallying point for nationalist leaders like Mahatma Gandhi, who launched the Satyagraha movement in April 1919, calling for civil disobedience against the Act.
- Widespread Protests: The Act triggered widespread protests, strikes, and demonstrations across India, including the tragic Jallianwala Bagh massacre in Amritsar (April 13, 1919), which further inflamed public anger.
- Indian Members’ Opposition: Indian members in the Imperial Legislative Council, including Motilal Nehru and C.R. Das, vehemently opposed the Act, but were overruled by the British majority.
‘National Honour’ and the Demand for Repeal
The demand for the repeal of the Rowlatt Act was inextricably linked to the concept of ‘national honour’. The retention of the Act, despite universal opposition, was seen as a deliberate insult to the Indian people and a demonstration of British disregard for their sentiments. ‘National honour’ in this context represented:
- Self-Respect: The Act was perceived as a denial of the Indian people’s right to self-determination and dignity.
- Political Recognition: Repealing the Act would have been a symbolic acknowledgement of the legitimacy of Indian political aspirations.
- Moral Authority: The continued enforcement of the Act undermined the moral authority of the British government in India.
The retention of the Act was viewed as a sign of colonial oppression and a refusal to engage with Indian concerns. Its repeal was therefore not merely a legal demand but a matter of restoring national pride and self-respect. The Act’s eventual, albeit delayed, repeal in 1922 was a significant victory for the Indian nationalist movement, demonstrating the power of sustained resistance.
Comparative Analysis of Repressive Legislation
| Act | Year | Key Features | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rowlatt Act | 1919 | Detention without trial, special courts | Widespread protests, Satyagraha, Jallianwala Bagh massacre |
| Government of India Act 1935 | 1935 | Increased provincial autonomy, but with reserved powers for Governor-General | Limited self-governance, continued British control |
| Preventive Detention Act (PDA) | 1950 (Post-Independence) | Allowed detention without trial for reasons of national security | Controversial, used to suppress political opposition |
Conclusion
The Rowlatt Act and the subsequent outcry it generated were pivotal moments in the Indian freedom struggle. The retention of the Act was deeply offensive to Indian national sentiment, representing a blatant disregard for civil liberties and a denial of political rights. The demand for its repeal was not simply a legalistic plea, but a fundamental assertion of ‘national honour’ – the right to self-respect, dignity, and political recognition. While eventually repealed, the Act served as a catalyst for intensifying the nationalist movement and ultimately contributed to the eventual achievement of Indian independence.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.