Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The Non-Cooperation Movement (1920-1922), launched by Mahatma Gandhi, aimed to secure self-governance for India through non-violent means. While initially generating immense enthusiasm and widespread participation, the movement was abruptly called off following the Chauri Chaura incident in February 1922. This sudden withdrawal led to a sense of frustration and disillusionment among many nationalists, particularly the younger generation. This perceived ‘failure’ and the ensuing gloom created a vacuum, fostering a climate conducive to the growth of revolutionary ideologies and activities that sought a more assertive and immediate path to independence. The question explores the validity of this connection, examining whether the NCM’s shortcomings directly contributed to the rise of revolutionary nationalism.
The ‘Virtual Failure’ of the Non-Cooperation Movement
The NCM, though not entirely unsuccessful, fell short of its primary objective – achieving Swaraj. Several factors contributed to this. The abrupt withdrawal after Chauri Chaura, despite the movement’s momentum, was seen as a betrayal by many. Internal divisions within the Congress, particularly regarding the pace and methods of struggle, also weakened the movement. Furthermore, the economic hardships caused by the boycott of foreign goods disproportionately affected the poor, leading to waning support. The limited reach of the movement to certain sections of society, like the Muslim peasantry, also hindered its overall success.
Disillusionment and the Shift in Nationalist Sentiment
The suspension of the NCM left a significant segment of the nationalist movement feeling disheartened and betrayed. The younger generation, eager for immediate action, grew increasingly critical of Gandhi’s emphasis on non-violence and his willingness to compromise. This disillusionment led to a questioning of the efficacy of Gandhian methods and a search for alternative strategies. A sense of frustration and anger began to simmer, particularly among educated youth who felt that the existing methods were too slow and ineffective.
The Rise of Revolutionary Nationalism
The period following the NCM witnessed a resurgence of revolutionary activities. Several factors contributed to this:
- Influence of Global Events: The Russian Revolution (1917) and the Irish struggle for independence inspired Indian revolutionaries with the idea of armed struggle against colonial rule.
- Emergence of New Revolutionary Groups: Groups like the Hindustan Republican Association (HRA), later renamed the Hindustan Socialist Republican Association (HSRA) in 1928, gained prominence. These groups advocated for complete independence through revolutionary means. Key figures included Bhagat Singh, Chandrashekhar Azad, and Sukhdev.
- Shift in Ideology: Revolutionary groups moved beyond the earlier focus on religious nationalism towards a more secular and socialist ideology, appealing to a wider base of support.
- Specific Acts of Revolution: The Kakori train robbery (1925), the assassination of J.P. Saunders (1928) in retaliation for the death of Lala Lajpat Rai, and the bombing of the Central Legislative Assembly (1929) by Bhagat Singh and Batukeshwar Dutt were significant acts of revolutionary defiance.
The Connection: A Causal Relationship?
While it’s an oversimplification to claim a direct, one-to-one causal relationship, the failure of the NCM undoubtedly created conditions favorable for revolutionary activities. The disillusionment with Gandhian methods provided a receptive audience for revolutionary ideologies. The vacuum created by the NCM’s suspension allowed revolutionary groups to fill the void and attract new recruits. The frustration and anger among the youth, coupled with the inspiration from global events, fueled the desire for more radical action.
Continuity of Gandhian Influence
It’s important to note that the rise of revolutionary activities did not signify the complete abandonment of Gandhian ideology. Gandhi continued to command significant support, and the Civil Disobedience Movement (1930) demonstrated the enduring appeal of his methods. However, the revolutionary movement represented a distinct strand within the broader nationalist struggle, offering an alternative path to independence.
| Movement/Approach | Key Characteristics | Impact/Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Non-Cooperation Movement | Non-violent resistance, boycott of foreign goods, civil disobedience | Mass mobilization, raised political consciousness, but ultimately suspended |
| Revolutionary Nationalism | Armed struggle, assassination, sabotage, socialist ideology | Created a sense of urgency, challenged colonial authority, inspired future generations, but limited overall impact |
Conclusion
In conclusion, the ‘virtual failure’ of the Non-Cooperation Movement and the subsequent disillusionment played a significant role in creating conditions conducive to the rise of revolutionary activities in India. While not solely responsible, the NCM’s shortcomings provided a fertile ground for alternative ideologies and methods of struggle to flourish. The emergence of groups like the HSRA and their acts of defiance demonstrated the growing frustration with the perceived limitations of Gandhian non-violence. However, it’s crucial to recognize that both revolutionary and Gandhian approaches coexisted and contributed to the broader Indian nationalist movement, ultimately paving the way for 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.