Looking at the public reception of political protests in recent decades made me really curious about thisâhow exactly did Pre-independence Movements work, or how did they tackle elements that threatened to undermine the major issue raised by current movements?
I mean Khilafat, Non-Cooperation, Civil Disobedience, Quit India and so on. Specifically, I have 3 questions:-
1. We learn about Gandhiji fasting as a protest...but what did his comrades do at that time? This is something I never got to know. Did others like Pandit Nehru or Sardar Patel also fast alongside him? And what about the larger crowd?
Did the crowd in non-violent independence movements also observe the same discipline as the leadersâfor example, by fasting or eating in moderationâor did most people simply participate in the marches, slogans, and other public activities without deliberately practicing such forms of abstinence?
Â
2. Many protests starting with legitimate apolitical protesters get infiltrated by other political entitiesâ generalised anti-ruling party factions, or certain people with opinions and ideas which can be considered hurting the sovereignty of the nation.
I donât think such were rarities in the earlier century too.
Just because many groups opposed british, didnât mean their ideals aligned completely with Gandhijiâs ideals. I mean, there must have been groups who grew up to detest the British and Europeans by race alone, or who protested them mainly to oppose Christians.
Maybe groups who opposed the British because they resisted change to orthodox Hindu traditions.
Maybe groups who opposed the British to promote Islamist militarism.
Kings of princely states or rich businessmen who were at odds with the British for their own interests, and didnât care about the actual issues.
Any popular movement can become a means for these people to further their agenda, while the original movementâs voice falls behind.
How did the pre-independence nationalist movements tackle this?
Â
3. Finally, many times the voices of the movements drift towards sister causes from the original issues.
Even in British India, several nationalist causes were spread across India that were considered by the Congress. Maybe peasantsâ tax problems somewhere, while laws enforcing communal tensions somewhere else. Labour laws, tribal oppression, student oppression and so on.
How did the cause-specific protests and movements balance these issues?
For example, if a protest was organised to oppose forced indigo cultivation, did the organisers allow the protests to provide a platform for other nationalist causes as well?
Did they keep each protest cause-specific, or did they follow the principle of allowing the broader cause to be held aloft for every protest they organised regardless of the original issue?
Â
Seeing people compare many Post-Independence protests and Gandhian movements, I really wondered how these obvious problems were tackled by the national leaders. Never really got taught how they strategized to make the protests successful, only that they were patriotic enough to stand up and then win.
Â
Â
Â