History Notes - Goverment of India Act 1858

20. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT 1858       The act was passed after the Indian Rebellion of 1857, which showed that the East India Company was not able to rule India properly. The rebellion was a violent uprising by Indian soldiers and civilians against the British rule. It was caused by many factors, such as political, economic, social, religious, and military grievances. The rebellion spread across northern and central India and lasted for more than a year. It was finally suppressed by the British army with the help of some Indian princes and loyal troops. The act ended the rule of the East India Company and transferred its powers and territories to the British Crown. This meant that India became a direct colony of Britain and was ruled in the name of the Queen. The East India Company was a private trading company that had been given a monopoly over trade with India by the British government. It had gradually expanded its control over Indian lands and revenues since the 18th century. It had also interfered in Indian politics and wars, annexed many Indian states, and imposed its laws and taxes on Indians. The act abolished the company and compensated its shareholders with £1.5 million. The act created a new position called the Secretary of State for India, who was a British politician and a member of the cabinet. He was in charge of all the affairs of India and had a council of 15 members to advise him. The council included seven former directors of the East India Company and eight nominees of the Crown. The Secretary of State was responsible to the British parliament and could be questioned by MPs about Indian matters. He also had the power to send secret orders to India without consulting his council. The act also created a new position called the Governor-General and Viceroy, who was the representative of the Queen in India. He had an executive council to help him with his duties. The first person to hold this position was Lord Canning, who had been the Governor-General of India since 1856. The Viceroy had the authority to appoint and dismiss governors, judges, commissioners, and other officials in India. He also had the power to make laws, declare war, make treaties, and maintain peace and order in India. The act also established an Indian Civil Service, which was a group of officials who worked for the British government in India. They were selected by exams and were mostly British. They held key positions in administration, judiciary, police, revenue, education, and public works. They were trained in Indian languages, laws, customs, and history. They were expected to be loyal, efficient, impartial, and honest. They were also paid high salaries and enjoyed many privileges. The act also changed some policies regarding Indian states and religions. It promised to respect the rights and dignity of Indian princes and not to interfere in their internal affairs. It also allowed them to adopt heirs if they did not have natural successors. It also declared that the British government would not favour or discriminate any religion or caste in India. It also assured that Indians would be treated equally with British subjects. The Government of India Act 1858 was a significant step in the history of British rule in India. It marked the end of an era of company rule and the beginning of an era of crown rule. It also introduced some reforms and safeguards for Indians, but it did not change much in terms of their political rights or economic conditions. It also did not address many of their grievances or aspirations. 21 queens proclama on act 1858            The Queen’s Proclamation of 1858 was a written document that announced the transfer of power from the East India Company to the British crown after the Revolt of 1857. The proclamation was prepared by Queen Victoria, the ruler of Great Britain, and read by Lord Canning, the first Viceroy of India, on November 1, 1858. The proclamation promised to respect the rights and dignity of the Indian princes, chiefs, and people, and to not interfere in their religious beliefs or practices. The proclamation also assured the Indian people that they would be treated equally and fairly under the law, and that they would enjoy the same privileges and opportunities as the British subjects. The proclamation abolished the policy of annexing Indian states by the doctrine of lapse, which was introduced by Lord Dalhousie, the previous Governor-General of India. The proclamation allowed the Indian princes to adopt heirs for their thrones, as long as they swore loyalty to the British crown and followed its rules and regulations. The proclamation declared Queen Victoria as the Empress of India in 1876, at the suggestion of Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, to show the majesty and authority of the British crown over India. The proclamation was announced at a grand ceremony called the Delhi Durbar in 1877, where Queen Victoria’s title was proclaimed in front of the Indian princes and nobles. The proclamation was seen as a gesture of goodwill and reconciliation by some Indians, who welcomed the end of the East India Company’s rule and hoped for a better relationship with the British government. The proclamation was also seen as a symbol of British imperialism and domination by some Indians, who resented the interference and control of the British crown over their affairs and culture. The proclamation did not bring any significant changes in the administration or policies of India, which remained in the hands of the British Viceroy and his officials.  The proclamation did not address or resolve many of the grievances and problems that caused the Revolt of 1857, such as taxation, land revenue, military service, social reforms, and education. 22 LORD LYTTON – VERNACULAR PRESS ACT , ROYAL ACT , 1876- 78 FEMINE             Lord Lytton was the Viceroy of India from 1876 to 1880. He passed the Vernacular Press Act in 1878, which gave him the power to censor any Indian newspaper that he considered seditious. He abolished the tax on foreign cotton, which hurt the Indian textile industry and benefited the British manufacturers. He declared Queen Victoria as Empress of India in 1876, which was a sign of British imperialism and domination over India. He organized a lavish durbar in Delhi in 1877, where he proclaimed Queen Victoria as Empress of India in front of Indian princes and nobles. He faced a severe famine in southern and western India from 1876 to 1878, which killed millions of people due to drought and crop failure. He did not take any effective measures to relieve the famine, such as reducing taxes, providing food aid, or stopping the export of grain. He ignored the advice of his officials and experts, who warned him about the gravity of the situation and urged him to act. He believed that the famine was a result of overpopulation and divine will, and that it was not his responsibility to intervene. He was criticized by many Indian nationalists, such as Surendranath Banerjee, who led a public agitation against his policies in Calcutta. He was also criticized by some British politicians and journalists, such as William Digby, who exposed his negligence and indifference in his book The Famine Campaign in Southern India. He resigned as Viceroy in 1880, after facing opposition from the new Liberal government in Britain. He was succeeded by Lord Ripon, who repealed the Vernacular Press Act and introduced some reforms for India. 23 LORD RIPON – IIBERT BILL    Lord Ripon was the Viceroy of India from 1880 to 1884. He was a liberal politician who wanted to improve the condition of the Indians. He introduced the Ilbert Bill in 1883, which was written by Sir Courtenay Ilbert, the legal adviser to the government of India. The bill proposed to give Indian judges the power to try British and European subjects in criminal cases, as long as they were senior enough in the civil service.          The bill was a progressive move that aimed to end the racial discrimination and injustice in the judicial system. It was supported by many Indian nationalists and reformers. The bill faced strong opposition from the British and European community in India, who were outraged by the idea of being tried by Indians, whom they considered inferior and untrustworthy. The bill also sparked a fierce protest from the British women in India, who feared that Indian judges would not protect their rights and dignity. They claimed that Indian women were ignorant and oppressed by their men, and therefore unfit to judge them. The bill created a lot of controversy and tension in India, and also in Britain. Lord Ripon was accused of being a traitor and a coward by his critics. He received many threats and insults from the angry Europeans. Lord Ripon tried to defend his bill and convince his opponents of its merits. He argued that the bill would promote trust and goodwill between the British and the Indians, and enhance the prestige and authority of the British crown. However, Lord Ripon had to face pressure from his own government in Britain, which was worried about losing the support and loyalty of the Europeans in India. He was also influenced by his personal secretary, Sir Alfred Lyall, who was against the bill. Lord Ripon eventually agreed to modify his bill and make a compromise. He added a clause that allowed British and European subjects to request a jury of half Europeans and half Indians, if they were tried by an Indian judge. The modified bill was passed in 1884, but it failed to satisfy anyone. The British and Europeans still felt humiliated and betrayed by Lord Ripon. The Indians felt cheated and disappointed by Lord Ripon. The bill did not bring any significant change in the judicial system or the status of the Indians. The Ilbert Bill controversy had a lasting impact on the history of India. It exposed the deep-rooted racial prejudices and conflicts between the British and the Indians. It also increased the awareness and resentment of the Indians towards their colonial rulers. It inspired many Indians to join the nationalist movement and demand more rights and reforms from the British government 24 INDIAN COUNCIL ACT 1861   The Indian Council Act 1861 was passed by the British Parliament to involve Indians in the law-making process and to introduce the portfolio system in India’s executive council. The Act added a fifth member to the Viceroy’s executive council for home, military, law, revenue and finance. A sixth member for public works was added later in 1874.           The Act also expanded the Viceroy’s legislative council by adding 6 to 12 additional members nominated by the Viceroy for two years. At least half of them were non-officials, either British or Indian. The Act allowed the Viceroy to nominate three Indians to his legislative council for the first time in 1862. They were the Raja of Benares, the Maharaja of Patiala and Sir Dinkar Rao. The Act restored the legislative powers of Bombay and Madras presidencies that were taken away by the Charter Act of 1833. It also created new legislative councils for Bengal, North-West Frontier Province and Punjab. The Act gave the Viceroy the power to overrule his council on any bill related to public revenue or debt, military, religion or foreign affairs. He also had the power to issue ordinances without the council’s consent during emergencies. The Act also gave the Secretary of State for India in Britain the power to dissolve any act passed by the Viceroy’s council. The Act recognized the portfolio system introduced by Lord Canning, who was the Viceroy at that time. Each member of the executive council was assigned a specific department to manage. The Act made a beginning of representative institutions in India by associating Indians with law-making. However, their role was only advisory and they had no voting rights or follow-up questions on the budget. The Act was an important landmark in the constitutional and political history of India as it paved the way for more reforms and greater participation of Indians in governance. The Act was criticized for its limited role and scope of the legislative council. It did not provide for any statutory provision for the inclusion of Indians or any election process for filling up non-official seats. The Act was amended by the Indian Councils Act 1892, which increased the number of non-official members in both central and provincial councils and made a provision for indirect election of some of them. 25 ESTABLISHMENT / AGENESIS OF NATIONAL CONGRESS    The need for an all-India organization of educated Indians had been felt since 1880, but the Ilbert Bill controversy deepened this desire. The Ilbert Bill was a proposed law that would have allowed Indian judges to try British offenders in India, but it faced strong opposition from the British community and was eventually modified1. A retired civil servant named A.O. Hume, who was staying in Shimla postretirement, invited many Indian leaders to discuss the Indian cause, and he laid the foundation of the ‘Indian National Union’ in 1884 12. After the suggestion of Dadabhai Naoroji, a prominent Indian nationalist and member of the British Parliament, the name of the organization was changed          to ‘Indian National Congress’ in 188512. The word ‘Congress’ was taken from the American Constitution1. The first session of the INC was held in Bombay (now Mumbai) on December 28, 1885, with 72 delegates from different regions of India12. Womesh Chandra Bonnerjee, a lawyer and publicist, was elected as the first president of the INC12. The main objectives of the INC were to promote friendly relations among the nationalist political workers, to develop and formulate popular demands, and to present them before the British government12. The INC also aimed to create a common platform for Indians of different religions, castes, regions, and languages, and to foster a sense of national unity and identity among them12. The INC initially adopted a moderate and constitutional approach to achieve its goals, and sought cooperation and reforms from the British government12. Some of the prominent moderate leaders were Gopal Krishna Gokhale, Pherozeshah Mehta, Surendranath Banerjea, and Madan Mohan Malaviya1. The INC also participated in elections under the British rule, and formed the Swaraj Party in 1923 to contest for provincial councils2. It won a significant number of seats in the 1937 elections under the Government of India Act of 19352. However, as the British government failed to address the grievances and aspirations of the Indians, and as incidents such as the Jallianwala Bagh massacre (1919) and the Rowlatt Acts (1919) outraged the Indian public, a radical and revolutionary wing emerged within the INC that advocated more aggressive and militant methods to resist British rule12. Some of the prominent extremist leaders were Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Bipin Chandra Pal, Lala Lajpat Rai, and Aurobindo Ghose12. They popularized slogans such as ‘Swaraj is my birthright and I shall have it’ and ‘Vande Mataram’ (Hail Motherland)12. The INC also came under the influence of Mahatma Gandhi, who joined it in 1915 after his return from South Africa2. Gandhi introduced the concepts of non-violence (ahimsa), civil disobedience (satyagraha), and mass mobilization (sarvodaya) to challenge British authority2. Gandhi led several nationwide campaigns against British policies, such as the Non-Cooperation Movement (1920-22), the Salt March (1930), and the Quit India Movement (1942)2. He also worked for social reforms such as abolishing untouchability, promoting communal harmony, empowering women, and uplifting the poor 26 MODERATES (1885 – 1905)       The moderates were also known as the early nationalists or the liberals. They were mostly educated professionals, lawyers, journalists, and businessmen who had a western outlook and a moderate temperament 12. Some of the prominent moderate leaders were Dadabhai Naoroji, Womesh Chandra Bonnerjee, Gopal Krishna Gokhale, Surendranath Banerjea, Pherozeshah Mehta, Dinshaw Wacha, Madan Mohan Malaviya, and others 12. The moderates had four main objectives: to create a strong public opinion in India and Britain in favour of Indian demands, to educate and mobilize the masses on political issues, to persuade the British government to introduce reforms in India, and to develop a common platform for Indians of different regions, religions, castes, and languages12. The moderates used various methods to achieve their objectives, such as petitions, memoranda, resolutions, speeches, articles, pamphlets, books, newspapers, and delegations12. They also participated in legislative councils and municipal corporations to voice their grievances and suggestions 1. The moderates made several contributions to the Indian national movement, such as exposing the economic exploitation of India by the British through the drain theory1, demanding constitutional reforms and greater representation for Indians in administration1, campaigning for general administrative reforms such as civil service examinations in India, separation of judiciary from executive, reduction of military expenditure, etc.1, defending civil rights such as freedom of speech, press, and association1, and fostering a sense of national unity and identity among Indians12. However, the moderates also faced several limitations and criticisms. They failed to arouse the masses and remained confined to the urban elite 12. They had an excessive faith in British justice and generosity, which was not reciprocated by the British government 12. They adopted a mild and respectful tone towards the British authorities, which made them appear weak and submissive12. They did not have a clear-cut vision of swaraj or self-government for India12. They also ignored the social and economic problems of the masses such as poverty, illiteracy, casteism, communalism, etc. 27 SURAT SPLIT   The moderates were the leaders who dominated the INC from 1885 to 1905. They believed in peaceful and constitutional methods to achieve reforms from the British government. They were also influenced by the ideas of western liberalism, democracy, and nationalism12. The extremists were the leaders who emerged in the late 19th and early 20th century. They advocated more aggressive and militant methods to resist British rule. They were also inspired by the concepts of swaraj (self-rule),           swadeshi (indigenous production), boycott (of foreign goods and institutions), and national education12. Some of the prominent moderate leaders were Dadabhai Naoroji, Womesh Chandra Bonnerjee, Gopal Krishna Gokhale, Surendranath Banerjea, Pherozeshah Mehta, Dinshaw Wacha, Madan Mohan Malaviya, and others 12. Some of the prominent extremist leaders were Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Bipin Chandra Pal, Lala Lajpat Rai, Aurobindo Ghose, and others 12. The ideological differences between the moderates and the extremists became evident in the INC sessions of 1905 and 1906, where they clashed over the issues of partition of Bengal, swadeshi movement, boycott of foreign goods and institutions, and national education12. The moderates wanted to cooperate with the British government and accept its offer of constitutional reforms under the Morley-Minto reforms of 1909. The extremists wanted to intensify the agitation against the British government and demand complete independence12. The conflict between the two factions reached its climax at the Surat session of the INC in December 1907. The moderates wanted Rash Behari Ghosh to be elected as the president of the INC, while the extremists wanted Lala Lajpat Rai or Bal Gangadhar Tilak12. The session turned violent when the extremists protested against the election of Rash Behari Ghosh and threw eggs, shoes, and chairs at the moderates. The police had to intervene to stop the chaos. The session was suspended and the INC was split into two groups: the moderates led by Gopal Krishna Gokhale and the extremists led by Bal Gangadhar Tilak12. The Surat split had several consequences for the Indian national movement. It weakened the INC as a united platform for Indians of different regions, religions, castes, and languages. It also alienated many Muslims from the INC, who formed their own separate organization: the All India Muslim League in 190612. The Surat split also gave an opportunity for the British government to suppress the extremist leaders by arresting them, banning their newspapers, and deporting them to foreign lands. It also enabled the British government to implement its policy of divide and rule by creating communal divisions among Hindus and Muslims12. However, the Surat split also had some positive effects for the Indian national movement. It exposed the limitations of the moderate approach and made many Indians realize that they had to fight for their rights and freedom. It also paved the way for the emergence of Mahatma Gandhi as a new leader who could unite both moderates and extremists under his principles of nonviolence, civil disobedience, and mass mobilization12. The Surat split was finally resolved in 1916 at the Lucknow session of the INC, where both factions reunited under a common minimum program known as the Lucknow Pact. The Lucknow Pact also marked a temporary alliance between the INC and the Muslim League to demand self-government for India from the British government 28 INDIAN COUNCIL ACT 1892           The act was passed in response to the demands of the Indian National Congress (INC), which was formed in 1885. The INC wanted more representation and participation of Indians in the legislative councils, which were dominated by British officials12. The act increased the number of additional or non-official members in the central and provincial councils. These members were not elected directly by the people, but nominated by different bodies such as universities, district boards, municipalities, zamindars, and chambers of commerce123. The act also gave some powers to the members of the councils. They could ask questions on the budget or matters of public interest, but they had to give six days notice and they could not ask follow-up questions 12. They could also discuss and vote on resolutions, but they could not introduce bills or amend laws1. The act was a small step towards introducing the principle of representation in India, but it did not satisfy the aspirations of the Indians. The British government still had the final say on all matters, and the official members still outnumbered the non-official members in most councils 12. The act also did not allow direct elections or representation of all sections of society 29 LORD CURZON – INDIAN UNIVERSITY ACT 1904      The Indian University Act 1904 was introduced by Lord Curzon, the British Viceroy of India, to improve the condition of university education in India 123. The Act was based on the recommendations of the Raleigh Commission, which was formed in 1902 to investigate the state of universities in India 23. The Act introduced governmental control over universities and colleges. It gave the government the power to appoint a majority of university fellows, determine the territorial limits of universities, and regulate the affiliation of colleges123. The Act reduced the size of the Senates, the governing bodies of universities, to between 50 and 100 members. Each member would serve for six years. The number of elected fellows was set at 50 for the universities of Bombay, Calcutta, and Madras, and 15 for the rest of the universities23. The Act expanded the scope of university education and introduced new initiatives such as laboratories to improve the quality of research13.        The Act provided power to universities to conduct their own teaching and other activities. Teaching and supervision for examinations were the responsibility of the university itself13. The Act also accepted a grant of Rs. 5 lakh per year for five years for better education and research. This was the beginning of university grants in India, which later became a permanent feature of India’s educational structure 23. The Act was opposed by many Indian nationalists, who saw it as a way of curbing the growth of nationalism and reducing the autonomy of Indian universities12. The Act was also criticized for being elitist and exclusionary, as it favored English education over vernacular languages, and did not address the issue of mass education or female education2. The Act was seen as a part of Curzon’s larger policy of bureaucratization and centralization of administration in India, which also included measures such as the partition of Bengal, the official secrets act, and the sedition act2. The Act had some positive effects, such as improving the quality of research, encouraging interdisciplinary studies, and promoting cooperation among universities13. The Act was later modified by subsequent acts and commissions, such as the Government Resolution on Education Policy (1913), the Sadler University Commission (1917-19), and the Government of India Act (1935) 12. 30 PARTITION OF BENGAL 1905 , INDIAN COUNCIL ACT 1909 (MINTO MORELY REFORM)    The Partition of Bengal 1905 was a decision by the British Viceroy of India, Lord Curzon, to divide the province of Bengal into two parts: East Bengal and West Bengal. The reason given by the British was to improve the administration and development of the large and populous province1234. The Partition of Bengal was opposed by many Indians, especially the Hindus of West Bengal, who saw it as a way of weakening the Bengali nationalism and culture, and creating a religious divide between Hindus and Muslims124. They launched a protest movement called the Swadeshi Movement, which involved boycotting British goods, promoting Indian industries, and organizing mass rallies and demonstrations12. The Partition of Bengal also led to the rise of Muslim separatism, as some Muslim leaders supported the creation of a separate province for Muslims, and formed the Muslim League in 1906 to demand more rights and representation for Muslims in India125. They also met with Lord Minto, the Viceroy, and asked for separate electorates for Muslims, which means that only Muslims could vote for Muslim candidates5.     The Indian Council Act 1909 was an act passed by the British Parliament to introduce some reforms in the governance of India. It was named after John Morley, the Secretary of State for India, and Lord Minto, the Viceroy 65. The act aimed to increase the participation of Indians in the legislative councils and appease the moderate Indian nationalists65. The Indian Council Act 1909 increased the number of members in the central and provincial legislative councils, and allowed some of them to be elected by Indians from different groups such as landlords, businessmen, professionals, etc65. However, the elected members were still a minority, and most of the members were nominated by the British. The act also did not give any real power to the councils, as they could not make laws or control finances without the approval of the British65. The Indian Council Act 1909 also accepted the demand of the Muslim League for separate electorates for Muslims. This meant that Muslims had a separate voter list and could elect their own representatives to the councils65. This was seen as a way of dividing the Indian nationalists along communal lines and creating a rift between Hindus and Muslims65. The Indian Council Act 1909 was criticized by many Indians as being inadequate and disappointing. The extremists in the Congress rejected the act as a sham and continued their agitation for self-government. The moderates in the Congress accepted the act as a step towards greater reforms, but soon realized that it did not meet their expectations. The act also failed to satisfy the Muslims, who wanted more seats and safeguards for their community 65. 31 FIRST WORLD WR 1914 – 1918     The First World War was a global war that started in Europe on July 28, 1914, and ended on November 11, 1918. It was also called the Great War or the World War The war was caused by the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, the heir to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, by a Serbian nationalist named Gavrilo Princip in Sarajevo, Bosnia, on June 28, 1914. This triggered a chain of events that involved rival alliances of European powers and their colonies The war was fought between two groups of countries: the Central Powers (mainly Germany, Austria-Hungary, Turkey, and Bulgaria) and the Allies (mainly France, Britain, Russia, Italy, Japan, and later the United States and Canada) The war was mainly fought on two fronts: the Western Front in France and Belgium, where the Allies faced the German army in a long and bloody stalemate of trench warfare; and the Eastern Front in Russia and Eastern Europe, where the Russian army fought against the German and Austro-         Hungarian armies until Russia withdrew from the war in 1917 due to a revolution The war also involved other regions of the world, such as the Middle East, where the British and French fought against the Ottoman Empire; Africa, where the Allies and the Central Powers competed for colonies; Asia, where Japan joined the Allies and seized German territories; and the Pacific, where Australia and New Zealand fought against Germany The war was marked by new technologies and weapons that increased the destruction and casualties of war. These included machine guns, tanks, airplanes, submarines, poison gas, flamethrowers, grenades, and artillery The war also had a huge impact on civilians, who suffered from military occupation, bombardment, hunger, disease, genocide, and a pandemic. Millions of people were displaced or killed by the war. Some ethnic groups, such as Armenians and Jews, faced persecution and massacres The war also changed the political and social landscape of the world. It led to the collapse of four empires: Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia, and Turkey. It also gave rise to new countries and movements, such as Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Poland, Finland, Ireland, Zionism, Communism, Fascism, and Arab nationalism The war also challenged the existing order and values of society. It eroded the faith in progress and reason that had dominated the 19th century. It also stimulated new forms of art and culture that expressed the disillusionment and trauma of war. Some examples are expressionism, surrealism, dadaism, modernism The war also affected the role of women in society. Many women took up jobs that were previously done by men who went to war. They also participated in relief work and nursing. Some women also demanded more rights and suffrage after the war The war ended with the defeat of the Central Powers after the United States entered the war in 1917 and provided fresh troops and resources to the Allies. The armistice was signed on November 11, 1918 The peace treaty that ended the war was called the Treaty of Versailles. It was signed on June 28, 1919 by Germany and the Allies. It imposed harsh terms on Germany, such as accepting full responsibility for the war (the “war guilt” clause), paying huge reparations to the Allies (about $33 billion), losing territory and colonies (about 13% of its land area), reducing its army to 100000 men (about 10% of its pre-war size), giving up its navy and air force (about 90% of its pre-war size), and joining a new international organization called the League of Nations (which aimed to prevent future wars). The treaty was resented by many Germans and contributed to the rise of Nazism and the Second World War 32 LUCKNOW PACT 1916            The Lucknow Pact 1916 was an agreement signed by the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League in 1916 at a joint conference of both parties in Lucknow1234. The pact was important because it enhanced the power of the Muslim League in Indian politics and established communalism as an unavoidable part of Indian politics2. It also marked the first time that the Congress and the League made a joint demand for political reform to the British3. The pact was mainly the result of the efforts of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, who was then a member of both parties and wanted to use the opportunity of the British soliciting reform suggestions from Indians to press for constitutional reforms through a joint Hindu-Muslim platform23. The pact contained some common demands from both parties, such as selfgovernment in India, abolition of the Indian Council, separation of the executive from the judiciary, salaries of the Secretary of State for India to be paid from British funds, and introduction of a system of weightage for minority representation24. The pact also accepted the demand of the Muslim League for separate electorates for Muslims, which meant that Muslims had a separate voter list and could elect their own representatives to the councils24. This was seen as a way of dividing the Indian nationalists along communal lines and creating a rift between Hindus and Muslims2 . The pact was criticized by many Indians as being inadequate and disappointing. The extremists in the Congress rejected the pact as a sham and continued their agitation for self-government. The moderates in the Congress accepted the pact as a step towards greater reforms, but soon realized that it did not meet their expectations. The pact also failed to satisfy the Muslims, who wanted more seats and safeguards for their community2 33 ROWLLAT ACT    The Rowlatt Act was a law passed by the British government in India in 1919. It gave the police the power to arrest and detain anyone they suspected of being involved in anti-British activities without a trial or a warrant 12. The Rowlatt Act was based on the recommendations of a committee led by Justice Rowlatt, who was appointed to investigate the links between political terrorism and revolutionary movements in India12. The Rowlatt Act was meant to replace the Defence of India Act, which was a temporary law that allowed the British to suppress any opposition during the      First World War12. The Rowlatt Act made these emergency measures permanent and extended them to peacetime12. The Rowlatt Act was opposed by many Indians, who saw it as a violation of their civil rights and an attempt to crush their nationalist aspirations12. They protested against the act by organizing strikes, boycotts, and demonstrations12. Mahatma Gandhi, who was a leader of the Indian independence movement, called for a nationwide campaign of nonviolent resistance or satyagraha against the Rowlatt Act12. He urged the people to disobey the law peacefully and morally12. The Rowlatt Act led to a series of violent clashes between the British and the Indians, such as the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre, where British troops fired on a peaceful gathering of unarmed Indians in Amritsar, killing hundreds of them12 . The Rowlatt Act also increased the popularity and influence of the Muslim League, which was a political party that represented the interests of the Muslims in India. The Muslim League supported the Rowlatt Act and asked for separate electorates for Muslims, which meant that only Muslims could vote for Muslim candidates2 . The Rowlatt Act was never implemented, as it was repealed by the British government in 1922 after facing strong opposition from the Indians12. However, it had a lasting impact on the Indian politics and society, as it intensified the conflict between the British and the Indians, and between the Hindus and the Muslims 34 REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENT     The revolutionary movement in India was a part of the Indian independence movement that involved the actions of violent underground groups who wanted to overthrow the British rule by force12345. The revolutionary movement in India started in the late 19th century and early 20th century, influenced by the ideas of nationalism, socialism, anarchism, and anti-imperialism from other countries1234. The revolutionary movement in India had two phases: the first phase was from 1907 to 1917, and the second phase was in the 1920s123. The first phase of the revolutionary movement in India was mainly concentrated in Bengal, Maharashtra, Punjab, Bihar, and Madras. Some of the famous groups and leaders of this phase were Anushilan Samiti, Jugantar, Abhinav Bharat, Ghadar Party, Aurobindo Ghosh, Barindra Ghosh, Bhupendranath Datta, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, Rash Behari Bose, Lala Har Dayal, and Bagha Jatin1234.         The first phase of the revolutionary movement in India involved assassinations of British officials and informers, robberies to raise funds for buying arms and explosives, bomb attacks on government buildings and public places, and attempts to incite mutinies among Indian soldiers1234. The first phase of the revolutionary movement in India also had some international connections, such as the Berlin Committee, the Ghadar Conspiracy, and the Indo-German Conspiracy, which tried to get support from Germany, Turkey, Japan, and other countries for the Indian cause12]3]^4]. The second phase of the revolutionary movement in India was mainly concentrated in Bengal and Punjab. Some of the famous groups and leaders of this phase were Hindustan Republican Association (later Hindustan Socialist Republican Association), Chittagong Armoury Raid Group, Kakori Conspiracy Group, Naujawan Bharat Sabha, Bhagat Singh, Chandrashekhar Azad, Ram Prasad Bismil, Ashfaqulla Khan, Surya Sen, Jatin Das, and Bhagwati Charan Vohra12]3]^4]. The second phase of the revolutionary movement in India involved more organized and coordinated actions than the first phase. It also adopted a more socialist and mass-based ideology than the earlier nationalist and elitist ideology. It also tried to link up with other movements such as the NonCooperation Movement and the Civil Disobedience Movement 12]3]^4]. The second phase of the revolutionary movement in India also involved some spectacular acts of bravery and sacrifice by the revolutionaries. Some examples are the Lahore Conspiracy Case (where Bhagat Singh and his comrades threw bombs in the Central Legislative Assembly), the Chittagong Armoury Raid (where Surya Sen and his comrades attacked a British armoury), the Kakori Train Robbery (where Ram Prasad Bismil and his comrades looted a train carrying government money), and the hunger strike in jail (where Jatin Das died after fasting for 63 days)12]3]^4]. The revolutionary movement in India had some positive effects on the Indian freedom struggle. It inspired many Indians to join the fight against British rule. It also challenged the British authority and exposed their brutality. It also contributed to the growth of nationalism and socialism among Indians 12]3]^4]. However, the revolutionary movement in India also had some limitations and drawbacks. It could not mobilize or involve the masses in its activities. It also faced severe repression from the British government, which arrested, tortured, or executed many revolutionaries. It also lacked a clear strategy or vision for achieving its goals. It also failed to address some of the social and economic issues facing India12]3]^4]. The revolutionary movement in India gradually declined by the mid-1930s. Many revolutionaries either gave up their violent methods or joined other political parties or movements. Some revolutionaries also turned to Marxism or Communism as a more effective way of fighting for Indian independence 35 KHILAFAT MOVEMENT     The Khilafat Movement was a political campaign launched by some Indian Muslims in 1919 to protest against the British policy towards Turkey after World War I. They wanted to protect the status of the Ottoman caliph, who was seen as the leader of the worldwide Muslim community12. The Khilafat Movement was supported by Mahatma Gandhi and the Indian National Congress, who saw it as a way of uniting Hindus and Muslims in the struggle for Indian independence. They also launched a non-cooperation movement against the British at the same time12 . The Khilafat Movement faced many challenges and setbacks, such as the migration of thousands of Muslims to Afghanistan, the violent uprising in Malabar, the arrest of Gandhi, and the abolition of the caliphate by Turkey itself. The movement gradually lost its momentum and relevance by 192412 . The Khilafat Movement had some positive effects, such as inspiring many Muslims to join the freedom struggle, creating a sense of solidarity among Muslims, and fostering Hindu-Muslim unity. It also had some negative effects, such as increasing communalism, alienating some Muslim leaders, and failing to address the social and economic problems of India 36 NON – COOPERATIVE MOVEMENT       The Non-Cooperation Movement was a political campaign launched by Mahatma Gandhi in 1920 to protest against the British rule in India and demand self-government, or swaraj12. The movement was inspired by Gandhi’s principle of non-violent resistance, or satyagraha, which means holding on to the truth. Gandhi believed that by withdrawing their cooperation from the British government, Indians could force them to listen to their demands12. The movement involved various forms of non-cooperation, such as boycotting British goods, institutions, courts, and services; resigning from titles and honors; refusing to pay taxes; and participating in strikes and demonstrations12. The movement also supported the Khilafat Movement, which was a campaign by some Indian Muslims to protect the status of the Ottoman caliph, who was seen as the leader of the global Muslim community. The caliphate was threatened by the British and other European powers after World War I 12. The movement gained widespread support from different sections of Indian society, such as peasants, workers, students, women, and religious groups. It also united Hindus and Muslims in a common cause against the British 12. The movement challenged the British authority and exposed their brutality. It also raised the political consciousness and confidence of Indians. It marked a    significant shift from the moderate and constitutional methods of the earlier nationalists to the more radical and mass-based methods of Gandhi and his followers12. However, the movement also faced some problems and limitations. It could not sustain its momentum for a long time. It also faced repression from the British government, which arrested many leaders and activists. It also led to some incidents of violence and communal clashes, which went against Gandhi’s philosophy of non-violence12. The movement was abruptly called off by Gandhi in February 1922 after a violent incident in Chauri Chaura, where a mob of protesters killed 22 policemen by setting fire to their station. Gandhi felt that the people were not ready for his method of non-violence and that he had made a mistake by launching the movement prematurely12. The movement had a lasting impact on the Indian freedom struggle. It paved the way for more civil disobedience campaigns by Gandhi and his followers in the later years. It also influenced other leaders and movements across the world who adopted Gandhi’s ideas of non-violence and resistance 37 AUGUST DECLARATION 1917       The August Declaration of 1917 was a statement made by Edwin Samuel Montagu, the Secretary of State for India, in the British House of Commons on August 20, 1917 The statement announced the policy of the British government to increase the participation of Indians in every branch of administration and gradually develop self-governing institutions in India with a view to the progressive realization of responsible government in India as an integral part of the British Empire The statement was based on a report by Montagu and Lord Chelmsford, the Viceroy of India, who had visited India in 1917 to consult with various Indian leaders and groups about the constitutional reforms for India The statement was significant because it was the first time that the British government officially recognized the right of Indians to self-government and promised to introduce reforms that would lead to that goal. The statement was welcomed by some Indian nationalists, especially the moderates, who saw it as a step towards greater autonomy and democracy for India. They also hoped that it would lead to more cooperation between Hindus and Muslims, who had united under the Lucknow Pact of 1916. However, the statement was also criticized by some Indian nationalists, especially the extremists, who saw it as vague and inadequate. They demanded complete independence or dominion status for India. They also feared that it would create more divisions among Indians along communal and regional lines 38 GOVEREMENT OF INDIA ACT 1919             The Government of India Act 1919 was an act of the British Parliament that aimed to increase the participation of Indians in the administration of their country. The act was based on the recommendations of a report by Edwin Montagu, the Secretary of State for India, and Lord Chelmsford, the Viceroy of India1234. The act introduced a system of dyarchy or dual government in the provinces, where some subjects were transferred to Indian ministers elected by provincial councils, while others remained under the control of the governor and his executive councillors. The transferred subjects included education, health, local government, etc., while the reserved subjects included law and order, finance, land revenue, etc1234. The act also enlarged and reformed the central legislature, which became a bicameral or two-house legislature for all India. The lower house was the Legislative Assembly, which had 145 members, of which 104 were elected and 41 were nominated. The upper house was the Council of State, which had 60 members, of which 34 were elected and 26 were nominated1234. The act also continued the system of communal and class electorates, which meant that different groups of Indians had separate voter lists and could elect their own representatives to the councils. Some women were also given the right to vote for the first time1234. The act was important because it was the first time that the British government officially recognized the right of Indians to self-government and promised to introduce reforms that would lead to that goal12]3]^4]. However, the act was also criticized by many Indians as being vague and inadequate. They demanded complete independence or dominion status for India. They also feared that the act would create more divisions among Indians along communal and regional lines 39 SWARAJIST PARTY 1922  The Swaraj Party was formed on 1 January 1923 by Indian politicians and members of the Indian National Congress who had opposed Mahatma Gandhi’s suspension of all civil resistance on 12 February 1922 in response to the Chauri Chaura tragedy, where policemen were killed by a mob of protestors1.       The party was also known as the Congress-Khilafat Swarajya Party, as it was supported by the Khilafat movement that sought to restore the caliphate in Turkey after World War I2. The party was led by Chittaranjan Das (President) and Motilal Nehru (Secretary), who were prominent lawyers and nationalist leaders. Other members included N C Kelkar, Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy and Subhas Chandra Bose231. The party’s main aim was to enter the legislatures and obstruct the British government from within by antigovernment agitation. It also demanded dominion status, right to frame a constitution, full provincial autonomy, and control over the bureaucracy for India23. The party contested the elections to the Central Legislative Assembly in 1923 and won more than 40 seats. It also won a majority in the Bengal Legislative Council and formed a coalition government with the Krishak Praja Party in 193721. The party also engaged in constructive programmes of the Congress, such as organising industrial and agricultural labour, controlling local and municipal bodies, and establishing a federation of Asian countries to promote trade and commerce2. The party disbanded in 1927 after the death of C R Das and the emergence of new political forces, such as the Simon Commission, the Nehru Report, and the Civil Disobedience Movement 40 SIMON COMMISION 1927    The Simon Commission was a group of seven members of the British Parliament under the chairmanship of Sir John Simon, who was a distinguished Liberal lawyer1. The commission was appointed by the British Conservative government under Stanley Baldwin in November 1927 12. The commission’s purpose was to report on the working of the Indian constitution established by the Government of India Act of 1919, which had introduced the system of diarchy to govern the provinces of British India12. The Act had also stated that a commission would be sent to India after ten years to examine the effects and operations of the constitutional reforms and to suggest further reforms1. The commission was strongly opposed by the Indian National Congress and most other Indian political parties, as well as prominent Indian leaders such as Nehru, Gandhi, and Jinnah, because it did not include any Indian members12. They regarded it as an insult and a denial of their right to selfgovernment. They resolved to boycott the commission and challenged the British government to draft a constitution that would be acceptable to the Indian people2.      The commission arrived in India in 1928 and faced massive protests and demonstrations wherever it went. The slogan “Simon go back” became popular among the Indian masses. One of the most violent incidents occurred in Lahore, where Lala Lajpat Rai, a prominent nationalist leader, led a protest against the commission. He was brutally beaten by the police and died of his injuries later12. The commission published a two-volume report in 1930, mainly written by Simon himself. The report proposed provincial autonomy in India but rejected parliamentary responsibility at the centre. It also accepted the idea of federalism and sought to retain direct contact between the British crown and the Indian states12. The report was regarded as a classic state document, but it was also outdated by the time it was published. In October 1929, the British government had declared that dominion status was to be the goal of Indian constitutional development. This declaration was influenced by the growing pressure from the Indian nationalists and the Labour Party in Britain2. The report was also rejected by most Indian political parties, who demanded complete independence from British rule. The report did not address the issues of communal representation, minority rights, or safeguards for depressed classes. It also failed to win over any significant section of Indian opinion12. The report did have some positive impacts, however. It paved the way for further constitutional reforms in India, such as the Round Table Conferences (1930-1932) and the Government of India Act of 1935. It also stimulated political awareness and mobilization among various sections of Indian society, such as women, workers, peasants, and students 41 NEHRU REPORT 1928      The Nehru Report of 1928 was a memorandum to appeal for a new dominion status and a federal set-up of government for the constitution of India. It also proposed for the Joint Electorates with reservation of seats for minorities in the legislatures12. The report was prepared by a committee chaired by Motilal Nehru, with Jawaharlal Nehru acting as the secretary. There were nine other members in the committee, including Subhas Chandra Bose, Tej Bahadur Sapru, and Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy13. The report was a response to the challenge posed by the British government, which had appointed the Simon Commission in 1927 to review the working of the Government of India Act of 1919 and propose constitutional reforms for India.          The commission did not have a single Indian member, which irked leaders of the nationalist movement12. The report recommended responsible government at the centre and in provinces, with a bicameral legislature consisting of a senate and a house of representatives. The governor-general and the governors were to act on the advice of the executive councils, which were to be collectively responsible to the parliament and the provincial councils respectively12. The report also recommended nineteen fundamental rights, including equal rights for women, right to form unions, and universal adult suffrage It also provided full protection to cultural and religious interests of Muslims and complete dissociation of state from religion12. The report was rejected by the Muslim League, which demanded separate electorates and weightage for Muslims, as well as by some Hindu groups, which opposed any concessions to minorities. The report also failed to win over any significant section of Indian opinion or the British government12. The report did have some positive impacts, however. It paved the way for further constitutional reforms in India, such as the Round Table It also stimulated political awareness and mobilization among various sections of Indian society 42 DEMAND FOR COMPLETE INDEPENDENCE 1929     The demand for complete independence, or Purna Swaraj, was made by the Indian National Congress at its Lahore session in December 1929 123. The Congress rejected the offer of dominion status by the British government and resolved to fight for full sovereignty12. The Congress also adopted a new tricolour flag of India, with a spinning wheel in the centre, as a symbol of its struggle for freedom. The flag was hoisted by Jawaharlal Nehru on the banks of the Ravi river in Lahore on 31 December 192923. The Congress also declared 26 January 1930 as the first Independence Day of India and asked the people to take a pledge of Purna Swaraj. The pledge was taken by millions of Indians across the country, who also participated in various protests and demonstrations against the British rule123. The demand for complete independence was influenced by several factors, such as the failure of the Simon Commission, which did not have any Indian representation, the growing discontent among the masses due to the economic exploitation and political repression by the British, and the emergence of new leaders like Mahatma Gandhi, who advocated non-violent civil disobedience as a means of achieving freedom123.  The demand for complete independence also marked a shift in the political ideology and strategy of the Congress, which had earlier sought constitutional reforms and self-government within the British Empire. It also challenged the British claim of legitimacy and moral authority over India and asserted the right of the Indian people to determine their own destiny 43 CIVIL DISOBEDENICE MOVEMENT 1930         The Civil Disobedience Movement was a mass movement launched by the Indian National Congress under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi on 12 March 1930123. It was a response to the political, administrative, and socioeconomic conditions prevailing in India under British rule4. The movement began with Gandhi’s Dandi March, when he set out on foot from the Sabarmati Ashram in Ahmedabad with 78 other Ashram members for Dandi, a village on the Gujarat sea-coast. The march spanned 387 kilometres and lasted for 24 days123. On 6 April 1930, Gandhi formally launched the Civil Disobedience Movement by picking a handful of salt after completing the Dandi March, thus violating the government’s salt law. The salt law prohibited Indians from making or selling salt, and imposed a heavy tax on it. Gandhi chose salt as a symbol of the basic necessity of life and the oppression of the British123. The movement spread across the country, as millions of Indians joined Gandhi in breaking the salt law and other laws imposed by the British. They also boycotted foreign goods, refused to pay taxes, resigned from government jobs, withdrew from schools and colleges, and participated in various protests and demonstrations against the British rule123. The movement also involved women, workers, peasants, students, and other sections of society, who showed remarkable courage and resilience in facing the brutal repression by the British authorities. The British police arrested thousands of people, including Gandhi and other leaders, and resorted to lathi charges, firing, and imprisonment to crush the movement 123. One of the most violent incidents occurred at the Dharasana Salt Works, where hundreds of nonviolent protesters were brutally beaten by the police while trying to raid the salt depot. The incident received worldwide attention and condemnation through extensive newspaper and newsreel coverage123. The movement also had international repercussions, as it exposed the moral bankruptcy of the British rule and generated sympathy and support for the Indian cause among various countries and leaders. It also influenced other movements for civil rights and freedom across the world, such as the American Civil Rights Movement led by Martin Luther King Jr. 123. The movement lasted for almost a year, ending with Gandhi’s release from jail and negotiations with Viceroy Lord Irwin at the Second Round Table  Conference in 1931. Gandhi and Irwin signed the Gandhi-Irwin Pact, which suspended the civil disobedience campaign in return for some concessions from the British government123. Although the movement did not achieve complete independence or major constitutional reforms for India, it had significant impacts on the Indian freedom struggle. It challenged the legitimacy and authority of the British rule and asserted the right of Indians to self-determination. It also mobilized and awakened millions of Indians to participate in the liberation struggle 44 FIRST ROUND TABLE CONFERENCE         The First Round Table Conference was a series of peace conferences organized by the British Government and Indian political personalities to discuss constitutional reforms in India123. The conference resulted from a review of the Government of India Act of 1919, undertaken in 1927 by the Simon Commission, whose report was published in 1930123. The conference was officially inaugurated by King George V on November 12, 1930 in Royal Gallery House of Lords at London and chaired by the Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald123. The conference had 73 representatives, from all Indian states and all parties except the Indian National Congress, which was waging a civil disobedience campaign against the government123. The conference discussed various issues such as federalism, provincial autonomy, minority representation, communal electorates, franchise, and safeguards for the depressed classes123. The conference failed to reach any agreement or consensus on the major issues, as there were sharp differences among the various groups and interests. The Congress and some prominent business leaders boycotted the conference, as the British government refused to consider their demand for complete independence or Purna Swaraj123. The conference also faced criticism from the British public and press, who questioned the legitimacy and necessity of the conference. Some British politicians also opposed any concessions to the Indians and favoured a more repressive policy12. The conference ended on January 19, 1931 without any significant outcome or resolution. It was followed by two more conferences in 1931 and 1932, which also failed to achieve any substantial results123. 45 GHANDI-IRWIN PACT       The Gandhi-Irwin Pact was a political agreement signed by Mahatma Gandhi and Lord Irwin, the then Viceroy of India, on 5 March 1931 before the Second Round Table Conference in London123. The pact was a result of the negotiations between Gandhi and Irwin, which began after Gandhi was released from jail in January 1931. The Congress had authorized Gandhi to initiate discussions with the Viceroy to end the Civil Disobedience Movement, which had started with the Salt March in 1930 123. The main terms of the pact were as follows123: o The Congress agreed to suspend the Civil Disobedience Movement and participate in the Second Round Table Conference. o The government agreed to withdraw all ordinances and end prosecutions against the participants of the movement, except those involved in violence. o The government agreed to release all political prisoners, except those guilty of violence. o The government agreed to permit peaceful picketing of liquor and foreign cloth shops. o The government agreed to restore confiscated properties of the satyagrahis. o The government agreed to permit free collection or manufacture of salt by persons near the sea-coast. o The government agreed to lift the ban over the Congress. The pact was criticized by some sections of the Indian society, such as the Muslim League, the Hindu Mahasabha, and some revolutionaries, who felt that Gandhi had compromised on the demand for complete independence or Purna Swaraj. They also opposed the concessions given to the minorities and the depressed classes12. The pact was also opposed by some British politicians and officials, who considered it a humiliation and a surrender to Gandhi’s pressure. Winston Churchill famously denounced Gandhi as a “seditious fakir” who had parleyed on equal terms with the representative of the King Emperor 23. The pact did not last long, as it was soon violated by both sides. The Second Round Table Conference failed to reach any consensus on the constitutional reforms for India. Gandhi returned to India and resumed the Civil Disobedience Movement in January 1932. The government responded by arresting Gandhi and other leaders and imposing more repressive measures 46 SECOND ROUND TABLE CONFERENCE  The Second Round Table Conference was a series of peace conferences organized by the British Government and Indian political personalities to discuss constitutional reforms in India123.        The conference resulted from a review of the Government of India Act of 1919, undertaken in 1927 by the Simon Commission, whose report was published in 1930123. The conference was officially inaugurated by King George V on 12 November 1930 in Royal Gallery House of Lords at London and chaired by the Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald123. The conference had 73 representatives, from all Indian states and all parties except the Indian National Congress, which was waging a civil disobedience campaign against the government123. The conference discussed various issues such as federalism, provincial autonomy, minority representation, communal electorates, franchise, and safeguards for the depressed classes123. The conference failed to reach any agreement or consensus on the major issues, as there were sharp differences among the various groups and interests. The Congress and some prominent business leaders boycotted the conference, as the British government refused to consider their demand for complete independence or Purna Swaraj12. The conference also faced criticism from the British public and press, who questioned the legitimacy and necessity of the conference. Some British politicians also opposed any concessions to the Indians and favoured a more repressive policy12. The conference ended on 19 January 1931 without any significant outcome or resolution. It was followed by two more conferences in 1931 and 1932, which also failed to achieve any substantial results 47 THIRD ROUND TABLE CONFERENCE     The Third Round Table Conference was the last of the three conferences organized by the British Government and Indian political personalities to discuss constitutional reforms in India123. The conference was held in London from 17 November 1932 to 24 December 1932. It was chaired by the Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald and inaugurated by King George V123. The conference was attended by only 46 delegates, representing the Indian states, the minorities, and some small parties. The Indian National Congress, the Muslim League, and most of the nationalist leaders boycotted the conference, as they were either in jail or dissatisfied with the British policies 123. The conference discussed various issues such as federalism, provincial autonomy, minority representation, communal electorates, franchise, and safeguards for the depressed classes. However, it failed to reach any consensus or agreement on these issues, as there were sharp differences and conflicts among the various groups and interests123.   The conference also faced criticism from the British public and press, who questioned the legitimacy and necessity of the conference. Some British politicians also opposed any concessions to the Indians and favoured a more repressive policy12. The conference ended without any significant outcome or resolution. It was followed by a Joint Select Committee, which drafted a new bill for India based on the recommendations of the conferences. The bill was passed as the Government of India Act of 1935, which introduced a federal system of government in India with limited autonomy for the provinces 48 POONA PACT 1932(1939 – 1945)       The Poona Pact was an agreement between Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar on behalf of Dalits, depressed classes, and upper caste Hindu leaders on the reservation of electoral seats for the depressed classes in the legislature of British India in 193212. The pact was signed on 24 September 1932 at Yerwada Central Jail in Poona (now Pune), India. It was signed by Dr. Ambedkar on behalf of the depressed classes and by Madan Mohan Malviya on behalf of Hindus and Gandhi12. The pact was a result of the negotiations between Gandhi and Ambedkar, which began after Gandhi was released from jail in January 1931. The Congress had authorized Gandhi to initiate discussions with the Viceroy to end the Civil Disobedience Movement, which had started with the Salt March in 193012. The pact was a response to the Communal Award of August 4, 1932, a proposal by the British government which would allot seats in the various legislatures of India to the different communities in an effort to resolve the various tensions between communal interests3. The Communal Award had granted separate electorates to depressed classes, which meant that only members of those classes could vote for their representatives12. Gandhi was against the idea of separate electorates for depressed classes, as he believed that it would divide and weaken the Hindu society and undermine the national movement. He also considered the depressed classes as an integral part of Hinduism and wanted to uplift them through social reforms. He went on a fast unto death in jail to protest against the Communal Award and appealed to Ambedkar to reconsider his demand 12. Ambedkar, on the other hand, argued that separate electorates were necessary to protect the interests and rights of the depressed classes, who had been oppressed and discriminated by the upper castes for centuries. He also doubted the sincerity and effectiveness of the upper caste reformers and wanted to have his own leaders for his community. He initially refused to  compromise on his demand, but later agreed to sign the pact due to public pressure and persuasion by some of his supporters12. The main terms of the pact were as follows12: o The Congress agreed to suspend the Civil Disobedience Movement and participate in the Second Round Table Conference. o The government agreed to withdraw all ordinances and end prosecutions against the participants of the movement, except those involved in violence. o The government agreed to release all political prisoners, except those guilty of violence. o The government agreed to permit peaceful picketing of liquor and foreign cloth shops. o The government agreed to restore confiscated properties of the satyagrahis. o The government agreed to permit free collection or manufacture of salt by persons near the sea-coast. o The government agreed to lift the ban over the Congress. o There shall be electoral seats reserved for the Depressed Classes out of general electorate. Seats in the provincial Legislatures were as follows: Madras 30, Bombay with Sindh 25, Punjab 8, Bihar and Orissa 18, Central Provinces 20, Assam 7, Bengal 30, United Provinces 20. Total 148. These figures were based on the total strength of the Provincial Councils announced in Ramsay MacDonald’s decision. o Election to these seats shall be by joint electorates subject, however, to a primary election system where all members of the Depressed Classes registered in a constituency will form an electoral college which will elect a panel of four candidates belonging to the Depressed Classes for each reserved seat by a single vote. Four candidates getting the highest number of votes will be elected for election by the general electorate. o The representation of the Depressed Classes in the Central Legislature shall likewise be on the principle of joint electorates and reserved seats by a primary election system as mentioned above. In addition, 18% of the seats allotted to British India in the Central Legislature shall be reserved for Depressed Classes. o The system of primary election shall come to an end after ten years unless terminated sooner by mutual agreement. 49 QUIT INDIA MOVEMENT  The Quit India Movement, also known as the Bharat Chhodo Andolan, was a movement launched by the Indian National Congress under the leadership        of Mahatma Gandhi on 9 August 1942, during World War II, demanding an end to British rule in India12. The movement was a response to the political, administrative, and socioeconomic conditions prevailing in India under British rule, as well as the failure of the Cripps Mission of 1942, which had offered limited self-government to India but had been rejected by the Congress and other parties 123. The movement gave the slogans ‘Quit India’ or ‘Bharat Chodo’. Gandhi gave the slogan to the people – ‘Do or die’. In line with the Congress ideology, it was supposed to be a peaceful non-violent movement aimed at urging the British to grant India independence12. The Quit India Resolution was passed by the Congress Working Committee on 8 August 1942 in Bombay. Gandhi was named the movement’s leader. The resolution stated the provisions of the movement as: o An immediate end to British rule over India. o Declaration of the commitment of free India to defend itself against all kinds of imperialism and fascism. o Formation of a provisional government of India after British withdrawal. o Sanctioning a civil disobedience movement against British rule 12. Gandhi’s instructions to various sections of the public were: o Government servants: do not resign your job but proclaim loyalty to the INC. o Soldiers: be with the army but refrain from firing on compatriots. o Peasants: pay the agreed-upon rent if the landlords/Zamindars are anti-government; if they are pro-government, do not pay the rent. o Students: can leave studies if they are confident enough. o Princes: support the people and accept the sovereignty of them. o People of the princely states: support the ruler only if he is antigovernment; declare themselves as part of the Indian nation12. The movement spread across the country, as millions of Indians joined Gandhi in breaking various laws imposed by the British. They also boycotted foreign goods, refused to pay taxes, resigned from government jobs, withdrew from schools and colleges, and participated in various protests and demonstrations against British rule12. The movement also involved women, workers, peasants, students, and other sections of society, who showed remarkable courage and resilience in facing the brutal repression by the British authorities. The British police arrested tens of thousands of leaders, including Gandhi and other leaders, and resorted to lathi charges, firing, and imprisonment to crush the movement 12. One of the most violent incidents occurred at Chowringhee Square in Calcutta (now Kolkata), where hundreds of protesters were killed by machinegun fire from a low-flying aircraft on 11 August 1942. Another incident occurred at Gorakhpur, where two young men named Ramgarhia and Bajrangi were hanged publicly for their involvement in the movement.   The movement also had international repercussions, as it exposed the moral bankruptcy of British rule and generated sympathy and support for Indian cause among various countries and leaders. It also influenced other movements for civil rights and freedom across the world, such as the American Civil Rights Movement led by Martin Luther King Jr. 12. The movement lasted for almost two years, ending with Gandhi’s release from jail in May 1944. Although it did not achieve complete independence or major constitutional reforms for India, it had significant impacts on Indian freedom struggle. It challenged the legitimacy and authority of British rule and asserted the right of Indians to self-determination. It also mobilized and awakened millions of Indians to participate in liberation struggle 50 INDEPENDENCE ACT 1947          The Indian Independence Act of 1947 was an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that partitioned British India into two new independent dominions of India and Pakistan, with effect from 15 August 1947123. The act was a result of the negotiations between the representatives of the Indian National Congress, the Muslim League, and the Sikh community, who had agreed to the 3 June Plan or Mountbatten Plan, which proposed the division of India along religious lines123. The act also abolished the office of the Secretary of State for India and his council, and transferred all powers and responsibilities to the respective Governor-Generals and Constituent Assemblies of the two new dominions123. The act also ended the British suzerainty over the princely states, which were given the option to join either India or Pakistan or remain independent. It also dropped the title of Emperor of India from the royal titles of the King of England123. The act also discontinued the appointment and reservation of posts in civil services by the Secretary of State for India. The members of the civil services appointed before 15 August 1947 were allowed to continue their service with full benefits and privileges123. The act also provided for a Boundary Commission, headed by Sir Cyril Radcliffe, to demarcate the borders between India and Pakistan. The commission submitted its report on 17 August 1947, which resulted in widespread violence and displacement of millions of people 51 NEHRU’S FIVE YEAR PLAN AND NON-ALIGNMENT         Nehru’s five year plan was a series of economic and social development plans implemented by the Indian government from 1951 to 1964, under the leadership of Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India12. The main objectives of the five year plans were to achieve rapid industrialization, self-reliance, social justice, and balanced regional growth in India. The plans also aimed to improve the living standards of the people, especially the poor and marginalized sections of society12. The first five year plan (1951-56) focused on agriculture, irrigation, power, transport, and social services. It achieved a growth rate of 3.6% per annum and increased food production. The second five year plan (1956-61) emphasized on heavy industries, such as steel, coal, cement, and machinery. It adopted the Nehru-Mahalanobis model of growth, which allocated more resources to the capital-intensive sectors. It achieved a growth rate of 4.1% per annum12. The third five year plan (1961-66) aimed to achieve self-sufficiency in food grains and expand the industrial base. It also introduced the concept of Panchayati Raj, or local self-government, to promote rural development and decentralization. However, the plan was disrupted by two wars with China and Pakistan, severe droughts, and devaluation of the rupee. It achieved a growth rate of 2.4% per annum12. Nehru’s non-alignment was a foreign policy strategy adopted by India during the Cold War era, when the world was divided into two blocs led by the United States and the Soviet Union. India refused to join either bloc and maintained friendly relations with both. India also sought to promote peace and cooperation among the newly independent countries of Asia and Africa345. The main principles of non-alignment were respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity of all nations, peaceful coexistence and settlement of disputes through dialogue, opposition to colonialism and imperialism, support for national liberation movements, disarmament and nuclear nonproliferation, and cooperation for economic and social development 345. Nehru’s non-alignment was influenced by his idealism, anti-colonialism, and internationalism. He believed that India had a moral responsibility to uphold the values of democracy, secularism, and human rights in the world. He also wanted to protect India’s interests and autonomy from external pressures and interference345. Nehru’s non-alignment faced many challenges and criticisms from both within and outside India. Some accused him of being naive and unrealistic in dealing with the power politics of the Cold War. Some argued that he was biased towards the Soviet Union or China at times. Some felt that he neglected India’s security and defence needs. Some also questioned his role in resolving regional conflicts such as Kashmir, Tibet, and Suez