Gandhi's civil disobedience campaigns of the 1920s and 1930s were crucial factors in gaining independence. Gandhi, a “central figure in the relationship between the Congress and the Raj”, was able to awaken Indians to political movements. However, he was “mainly interested in social issues.” He was thought to be “diverting Indian attention from the main political task of expelling the British” with “food fads, campaigns on public hygiene and untouchability.” This suggests that other nationalists such as Nehru and Jinnah were significant in achieving independence, with similar influence. Without the Raj stirring up such animosity among Indians, it is unlikely that independence would have been pursued with such fervor. Governing through “repression, concession, procession,” violent repression of civil unrest and disorder, along with several constitutional “advances,” provoked nationalist campaigns against colonial rule. Furthermore, the declaration of both world wars accelerated India towards independence. While ordinary Indians were angered by the war tax, Gandhi launched the Quit India campaign. This made India “ungovernable,” leaving Britain unable to financially support its empire. After the war there were also anti-imperialist views, which also encouraged Britain to leave India. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The events that occurred in India during the 1840s could be considered a catalyst, triggering the growth of nationalism and leading to independence. Britain's victory at the Battle of Plassey in 1757 over the Nawab of Bengal was "the beginning of an era of foreign rule and disturbance of ancient manners and customs". For over a hundred years the EIC secured power through military rule, ruling India under the crown, while simultaneously attempting to westernize and modernize India by arousing nationalistic sentiments. Lord Bentinck, (Governor General from 1828 to 1835) “regarded the subcontinent as a great heritage to be improved” which only an “omnipotent Government could achieve”. He led policies influenced by the politics of utilitarianism, banning the practice of Suttee in Bengal and reforming the judicial system. Bentinck “looked forward to draining the swamps of Bengal”; it was resented by Indians who believed that British rule intended to replace traditional customs and religions with Christianity. His policies met with resistance and can be considered a significant factor in the development of Indian nationalism. The Lapse Doctrine, implemented by Lord Dalhousie in the late 1840s, "intensified resentments which had been building up for many years". His policy of annexation led to the occupation of any princely state whose ruler died without a natural heir and the claim of any subsequent revenue. This alienated the local princes and their followers, arousing resentment towards the British colonialists. Native rulers were deprived of the right to adopt an heir, approved by Hindu law. Dalhousie's policies were a factor leading to the Indian Mutiny of 1857, known as the "First War of Independence", as it was the final annexation of Avadah that according to Newsringer "provoked the Great Rebellion". Brendon believes this mutiny was a “reaction against all sorts of grievances, some long-standing, some immediate.” The lack of respect shown by British Westernization and modernization programs wasaggravated by contempt for Indian culture; pig and cow fat was used to grease Sepoy rifle cartridges. Brendon argues that the Sepoys “were never able to transform the revolt into a war of independence”, due to poor nationalism and the “lack of a unified command”. Hibbert agrees: “It only affected a small part of the country.” Similarly, Bandyopadhyay said it was “limited to Upper India alone” hence “not national”. Many regions saw benefits from the British Raj in ensuring their loyalty, making it illogical to refer to the uprising as a “war”. However, historian Savarkar argues that it was a “nationalist revolt” to overthrow British influence. Although the mutiny had little effect on the country as a whole, the hostility in northern India would eventually become “the nationalism out of which modern India would arise” and “was the beginning of this long struggle for independence national". Raj established the Indian National Congress, conceived as a "talking shop" for selected Indian elites to discuss grievances and prevent further epidemics. Nationalism was encouraged instead: by 1900 the INC was a political movement. Characterized by a predominantly Hindu body, the Muslim minority felt neglected and sought the formation of a Muslim political party. It was presented to the Simla Deputation in 1906, and subsequently founded in December 1906. Despite little immediate impact, “the British realized that its foundation marked the beginning of a new era in their relations with the Indian people, a era in which their right to govern would be increasingly contested.” Only with Gandhi's help after 1915 did the INC “create fear and awe in the bureaucracy”; he appealed to the peasants who “constituted the starting point of a new type of revolution”. Gandhi's civil disobedience campaigns “alerted the world to India's struggle” and motivated many Indians to gain independence. His non-cooperation campaign of the 1920s was the first of mass resistance in India, although it did not immediately progress towards independence as “this radical and idealistic notion did not recommend itself”. However, through his campaigns Gandhi managed to awaken the political consciousness of the masses and gain support from regions not yet influenced by the INC. Its noncooperation program began in January 1921; boycott British goods, services and elections, urge politicians to leave office and withhold taxes at source. Successes include poll averages reaching 5-8%, exam boycotts and lawyers' strikes. Furthermore, the value of foreign fabrics and imports fell from Rs. 1,020 million at Rs. 570 million in 1921-22. Gandhi recognized that religious unity was necessary to achieve independence: this meant gaining the support of India's Muslim community, "therefore he saw in the Khilafat cause a great opportunity to unite the two communities in a single mass movement" and consequently the Muslim League “pledged to help Gandhi with its full support of the non-cooperation movement”. Bakshi says, “Gandhi's style of launching a political movement was indeed a new phenomenon in the freedom struggle.” Here Bakshi implies that Gandhi was one of the most significant leaders in the struggle for independence, as he united Muslims and Hindus. Rejecting this view, Brown argues: “in the long term his actions have done little to improve his position or stem the tide of radical discrimination.” This implies that his civil disobedience campaigns of the 1920s had little effect on Britain's position regardingto independence, as “the movement failed to achieve swaraj within a year”. However, Gandhi succeeded in reawakening nationalism in areas not yet influenced by the INC as “India's tribal populations, while maintaining their territorial anchorage, were also developing a consciousness that linked them to a broader colonial struggle.” He represented the opposition to the peasants, believing himself to be a “protecting power,” which in turn “broke their barrier of fear and unleashed their energy in unprecedented mass activism.” This demonstrated the vital role Gandhi played in reigniting the political power of the public, teaching courage and enabling opposition to British rule. This evolved over the next 20 years and eventually led to independence. Gandhi intensified his campaigns of the 1920s with the subsequent Salt March of 1930, gaining momentum as he led 100,000 Indians in opposition to the recent British war.law: tax salt. The “sale or production of salt by any person… was an offense punishable by law.” Salt was a necessity throughout India and was considered “priceless” for agricultural workers. Furthermore, salt “was easily accessible” and the Indians “could easily gather it for free.” The salt tax became a symbol of British hatred, affecting all of India. Despite Gandhi's efforts to abolish the tax, the Raj refused. However, it was the resulting civil disobedience that “seriously tested British authority in India” as nationalism spread. The march began at the Sabartmati Ashram near Ahmedabad and ended at Dandi, on the coast 240 miles away, and lasted 23 days gathering followers along the way. Brown argues that the civil disobedience of the mid-1930s posed a threat to British colonial rule in India. In contrast, Lawrence claims that Gandhi and his Salt March “never came close to overthrowing the Raj.” This is supported by Nojeim, arguing that “nonviolent resistance during this period was not an unmitigated success.” Gandhi's campaign had an impact on the Raj, but was not a step towards independence: Brown argues that by 1933 civil disobedience "had virtually disintegrated as a political movement", implying that a lack of unity was the reason for the failure. Indian independence cannot be attributed solely to Gandhi's will. civil disobedience campaigns as there are many other factors that contributed to independence, the most important factor being the actions of the British Raj itself. During the First World War, more than a million Indians volunteered for military service, trusting that Britain would reward this support with constitutional progress. A campaign for Home Rule followed in 1916, followed by the Montague Declaration in 1917 which promised future self-government. However in 1919 the Rowlatt Act “showed the true face of the Raj”. Authorize imprisonment without trial and provide imperial authorities with the power to deal with revolutionary activities and censorship. This demonstrated to Indians that the Raj was not willing to cooperate and was criticized by Gandhi as "evidence of a determined policy of repression". As a result, the Rowlatt Satyagraha movements protested the Raj in various ways, eventually leading to riots after Governor General O'Dwyer authorized the arrest of two opposition leaders in Amritsar. The Raj instructed General Dyer to suppress the movements and restore order in Amritsar, where he did so by "making a show of force" and without warning ordering his troops to fire on a crowd of 15,000 Indians gathered for a festival. as a political speaker addressed the crowd,killing over 1,000 people. Dyer later employed a series of policies intended to humiliate and punish those responsible such as curfews, blackouts, expropriation, torture, arbitrary arrests, and trials in which defendants were convicted of forgery. confession. Brendon argues that Dyer's actions "represented the 'brutal and immoral' nature of imperialism" and "significantly loosened Britain's grip on the subcontinent as a whole". For the Indians now "saw him as the Id of the Raj". Brendon believes that it was the actions of the British that epitomized British rule in India as an immoral regime and ultimately caused “a wave of anger over Amritsar” giving Indians “some excuse to believe that the British Raj was over,” ultimately evoking the belief that the Raj was coming to an end. James' interpretation is similar to Brendon's as he believes that "Amritsar has 'shaken the foundations' of the Empire". James similarly believes that it was the actions of the British that called into question the fundamental principle of the Raj and its moral right in India and as Newsringer states that “as far as increasing numbers of Indians were concerned, the Amritsar massacre had deprived Englishmen of every moral right to govern." Furthermore, Judd argues that the Amritsar killings and policies of humiliation towards Indians “provoked shocked reactions within the Empire and beyond.” implying that the response abroad may have prompted Britain to leave India when the opinion towards imperialism changed. Newsringer supports this by stating that "the Amritsar massacre caused an outcry in Britain", further exemplifying Judd's views as a "protest" against these actions. Thus the actions of the British Raj significantly hampered its position, demonstrating the Raj as an oppressive, unrest-inducing regime and altering opinions at home about the British right to rule India, influencing the campaigns of the 20 years to follow and to would eventually lead to independence. India has been affected by the growth of nationalism; As news of the Amritsar massacre spread, the emergence of the INC and the All Muslim League increased the political consciousness of the Indian people. The British Raj introduced new reforms in an attempt to assuage grievances and quell nationalism. This was achieved by inducting more Indians into the government as India was “practically nursed to freedom through a series of progressive constitutional phases”. In December 1919, the Government of India Act was passed. It detailed new divisions of constitutional responsibilities and introduced changes to the structure of councils and the electorate, allowing more Indians to power the provincial government and greater representation in the central government. Despite the promise of future self-government for India, according to Bandyopadhyay, “the 1919 Act had not impressed any section of Indian opinion,” Indians struggling for Home Rule were dissatisfied, and the INC was equally skeptical as he had been granted only “a share of power without endangering British control of the central government”. Extensive power was limited to Indians who controlled only ministries deemed “safe,” such as public health and education, while crucial sectors such as revenue and justice were dominated by Britain. Bandyopadhyay believes that this legislation was not implemented to lead India towards independence, but to keep it in the Empire. After poor results in both roundtables, further civil disobedience campaigns went ahead escalating unrest across India. As a result, the British government now had to appearthat it was making progress towards dominion status. The Government of India Act, 1935 envisaged a federation of India, also introducing dyarchy at the centre. However, this was “subject to various guarantees”, while “departments such as foreign affairs, defense and internal security remained completely under the control of the viceroy”. Judd similarly refers to the lack of control as he argues that "the viceroy, who was British, could veto legislation... and, if necessary, rule as an autocrat with the support of the armed forces, a situation which remained so until independence in 1947,” he argues, “these constitutional advances were…at least partly illusory” and served “to mask Britain's determination to remain attached to India for as long as possible.” creating a façade of power shifting, when in reality “the British authorities in India were giving with one hand and taking away with the other,” making it clear that British legislation was preventing Indian independence Pearce supports this, stating that the Raj “ had planned to transfer a measure of power, but only to reconcile the Indians to further British rule,” so, “in reality, India was still a long way from true self-government.” .” British legislation, according to Bridge, "act[ed] primarily to protect Britain's interests rather than cede control in vital areas". The declaration of war was beneficial in the struggle for independence. After war was declared in 1914, thousands of Indians volunteered to support Britain in the war against Germany; alongside, generous donations from numerous princes in support of the allies. However, India soon realized the “deep and far-reaching implications” of the war. They now experienced a “financial burden, imposed by India's contribution in men and money to the Allied cause”. Indian revenues had contributed a total of 146 million to the war effort, and as military spending increased, revenue demands increased by 40 percent from 1916 to 1919. Indians feeling the repercussions of the war through increased taxation brought also to a decline in the standard of living of ordinary civilians. This has compounded discontented views of colonial rule, compounded by “severe shortages of basic necessities such as kerosene” and “soaring inflation” that “has strained the budgets of average consumers” while grain prices have soared. increased by 93%, and Indian grain prices increased by 93%. products realized by 60%. Many Indians felt “the disorienting effect of foreign military service on hundreds of thousands of Indian soldiers,” with Indian troops suffering heavy casualties. Furthermore, “the political expectations raised by the Allied war objectives” led the INC to believe that the Indians should be given power; Allies like America were anti-imperialist and often expressed the importance of a nation's right to self-government. This generated nationalism among Indians who applied these beliefs to their ongoing struggle for independence, increasing pressure on Britain: “as the war crisis deepened, the nationalist movement itself underwent a remarkable transformation.” Judd believes that “after the First World War… it was no longer possible to sustain British control on the basis of the previous self-confident and paternalistic imperialism.” Both Judd and Copland believe that views on imperialism changed as a result of the war; the freedom they had fought for contradicted Britain's position in India. This, along with increasing pressure from allies, pushed India towards independence.