No. I feel that the decision that Gandhi made to end the non-cooperation movement and start
afresh with the civil disobedience movement after six years was a good idea. Gandhi knew that
the British were afraid of the non-violent methods as all they could do to suppress the movement
was to arrest the participants by the Rowlatt Act. Arresting the people did not change anything.
Even in jail arrested nationalists were thinking of ways to get us out of the grip of the British.
However, since the Chauri Chaura incident was a success for the violent mob, it would incite
violence in other places where the people were being ill-treated. If that happened across the
country, the British government would have greater motive to use violence and thus quell the
rebellion by using it. If such a thing happened, the British would restore their power in India
and kill the movement anyways. Gandhi’s efforts would have gone in vain, with the British
foundation stable once again.
Gandhi, in fact, saw that there was violence being committed earlier, which supports his theory.
Similar tragic events like Chauri Chaura had already taken place at other places like Bombay
and Madras. The most terrible acts of violence were committed by the Moplahs of Malabar who
brutally murdered several Hindus and revolted with arms against the British at the time of the
visit of Prince of Wales at Bombay in 1921. (Malabar Rebellion). Gandhi knew that such armed
uprisings would continue. He did not want a repeat of the 1857 rebellion across India.
The Indians were not ready for a non-violent movement, as illustrated. Gandhi needed to prepare
the Indians and encourage them in a more effective manner. He knew he had not done that
well with the non-cooperation movement. Even the greatest of leaders makes mistakes. From
this mistake, he learnt that he needed to show the might of Satyagraha on a larger scale to gain
the support of even the most violent of people, rather than experimenting with the specific
issues of Kheda, Champaran and Ahmedabad. This is what he did during the civil disobedience
movement- the Salt Satyagraha.
When there was a lull in political activities for this period of time, there was one important event
which showed that non-violence did lead to failure of more discriminatory constitutional reforms
by the British. This was the Simon Commission. This must have been an affirmation in Gandhi’s
mind that people had indeed changed for the better and were well-adapted to be non-violent. He
would have been confident to start a new mass movement.
Annie Besant widely influenced Gandhi in a good way. She told him that there was one aspect
of the non-cooperation movement which could continue after independence- a mild form of
anarchy which would stall the development of the country. Gandhi, thus, made it very clear that
Satyagraha should have a justifiable cause for the common good. He could express this only
when he started a new movement. Gandhi’s thoughts and actions are justified in my opinion and
this decision in history should remain unchanged.
By- Dakshin Padmanabhan
Class X Madhuvanthi
29/9/12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question that is dealt with in this article is ‘Was Gandhi justified in calling of the Non – Cooperation
Movement’. I have argued that he was justified after carefully analyzing the circumstances under which
the movement was called off.
The Rowlatt Act or popularly known as the ‘black act’ was the main cause for the start of the Non –
Cooperation Movement. The Jallianwallah Bagh Massacre in which hundreds of innocent Indians were
killed also played an important role in the initiation of the Non – Cooperation Movement. Apart from
these two the Khilafat Movement in which Indian Muslims opposed the ill treatment f the Caliph or
head of the Muslims worldwide by the British contributed to the starting of the movement as well.
The Non – Cooperation Movement was headed by Gandhi. The movement gradually gained momentum
and popularity but unfortunately came to an abrupt end because of one event – the Chauri Chaura
incident. On 5, February, 1922, the residents of a village called Chauri Chaura gathered in front of
the village police station in order to protest against the arrest of their leader. The villagers were
campaigning against the sale of liquor when their leader was arrested by the police. Now, the police got
frustrated with the villagers and opened fire on them. The angry villagers in return torched the police
station and the policemen inside it. It is believed twenty two policemen died during the incident. Gandhi
was extremely frustrated by the movement and called it off despite heavy opposition from many leaders
like Motilal Nehru, C.R. Das and Jawaharlal Nehru. Gandhiji was sentenced to 6 years in prison because
of the Chauri Chaura incident.
If we look upon the incident superficially many may not be of the opinion that Gandhi was justified in
calling off the movement. This is because the villagers attacked only after the police opened fire. Hence
they weren’t the ones asking for violence. Further as many of the Congress leaders at that time stated,
independence could have been achieved before 1947 if Gandhi hadn’t called back the movement. So all
indications seem to say that Gandhi was wrong in his decision.
However let us carefully examine the situation. Gandhi was arrested because of the Chauri Chaura
incident. If Gandhi hadn’t withdrawn the Movement then he would be indirectly saying he was
supporting violence and going to prison. This would go against the principles of non – violence and
peace he had campaigned for throughout his life. Gandhi didn’t want to give even the slightest
indication to the masses that he supported violence. Further Gandhi feared that one incident of violence
would lead to another incident and this chain would keep going until violence would dominate the
freedom struggle. Hence Gandhi wanted to cut the plant of violence before it grew into a big tree
with deep roots. Gandhiji also wanted to convey the message that an eye for an eye doesn’t give
back another eye. He wanted the people to realize that just because the villagers of Chauri Chaura
retaliated to the firing and attacked the British, nothing happened except for the fact that they fulfilled
their desire for revenge and in the process took the lives of twenty two policemen. Through the Chauri
Chaura incident Gandhiji learnt that the people of India weren’t mature enough to undertake a non-
violent protest. He realized that it would take more time till he could start a fully fledged non-violent
movement against the British. Furthermore the movement had begun to stagnate and the Chauri
Chaura incident gave the final blow with Gandhi realizing that people were not ready for a non – violent
movement. Even the British government was not willing to negotiate.
Hence, I rest my case that Gandhi was justified in withdrawing the Non- Cooperation Movement since
the reasons for withdrawing the movement greatly outweigh the reasons for not. Even though we
could have achieved independence earlier if the Non – Cooperation hadn’t been called off, would
independence as a result of violence be meaningful for a country like India where leaders talked
predominantly of peace? Definitely not. After having read all this I’m sure you too will realize that
the ‘Father of our Nation’ was warranted in what he did.
Satyamave Jayate!
Siddarth PC
X Madhuvanti
Chettinad Hari Shree Vidyalayam
Non-Cooperation
Movement
The Non-Cooperation
Movement was
a significant phase of the Indian
struggle for freedom from British
rule. This movement lasted
from September 1920 to February 1922. It was led by Mohandas
Gandhi and was supported by
the Indian
National Congress. It aimed to resist
British occupation in India through non-violent means. Protestors would refuse
to buy British goods, adopt the use of local handicrafts, picket liquor shops,
and try to uphold the Indian values of honour and integrity. The Gandhian ideals of Ahimsa or non-violence, and his ability to
rally hundreds of thousands of common citizens towards the cause of Indian
independence, were first seen on a large scale in this movement.
Among the significant
causes of this movement were colonial oppression, exemplified by the Rowlatt
Act and Jallianwala
Bagh massacre, economic hardships to
the common man due to a large chunk of Indian wealth being exported to Britain,
ruin of Indian artisans due to British factory-made goods replacing handmade
goods, and popular resentment with the British over Indian soldiers dying
in World
War I while fighting as part of
the British
Army, in battles that
otherwise had nothing to do with India.
The success of the revolt was a total shock to British
authorities and a massive encouragement to millions of Indians. Then on February
5, 1922, in the Chauri
Chaura, after violent clashes between
the local police and the protesters in which three protesters were killed by
police firing, the police station was set on fire by the mob, killing 22 of the
police occupants.
Gandhi felt that the revolt was veering off-course, and
was disappointed that the revolt had lost its non-violent nature. He did not
want the movement to degenerate into a contest of violence, with police and
angry mobs attacking each other back and forth, victimizing civilians in
between. Thus, Gandhi appealed to the Indian public for all resistance to
end.
Use of Satyagraha
Gandhi was fully confident that Satyagraha was the
solution to archive independence from the British’s this was because he emerged
successful in archiving the goal in various events by implementing Satyagraha.
Those events were Champaran in bihar 1916, Ahmadabad mill strike 1918 and Kheda
Satyagraha 1918.
Aftermath
The Non-Co-operation Movement was withdrawn because of
the Chauri-Chaura incident. Although Gandhi had stopped the national revolt
single-handedly, on March 1922, Gandhi was arrested and he was imprisoned for
six years for publishing seditious materials.
Although most Congress leaders remained firmly behind
Gandhiji, the disillusioned broke away. The Ali brothers would soon become
fierce critics. Motilal
Nehru and Chittaranjan
Das formed the Swaraj
Party, rejecting Gandhiji's leadership.
Many nationalists had felt that the Non-Cooperation Movement should not have
been stopped due to isolated incidents of violence, and most nationalists, while
retaining confidence in Gandhiji, were discouraged.
Was Gandhi justified in ending the
Non-Cooperation Movement?
Gandhi was justified in ending the Non-Cooperation
Movement. He knew that a violent act like chauri chaura could quickly spark many
other events of violence. It would be easy for the government to suppress a
violent movement. Gandhi was right in this statement as previously the radical’s
such as Tilak got arrested when the carried out violent movement’s. Thus Gandhi
knew that if such events were to continue, then the government could force the
Indian national congress to remain dormant. That could further delay the time,
for India to get its independence.
Thus Gandhi realised that people were not ready for a
non-violent movement yet. Further the movement started to get bigger and the
situation was getting harder for Gandhi to control. Gandhi also felt that he
needs to prepare the Indians for such large scale movement and encourage them in
a more effective manner. He realised he had not done that well with the
non-cooperation movement and he learnt from his mistakes and implemented them we
he carried out the civil disobedience movement later.
To conclude Gandhi decision to end the
non-cooperation movement and start once again with the civil disobedience
movement after six years was a good plan. Gandhi knew that Satyagraha was the
best weapon for the Indian’s the fight against the British. The British could do
nothing but contain the movement by arresting the participants by the Rowlatt
Act. Arresting the people did not change anything either. Even in prison,
detained nationalists were planning of ways to get us out of the hold of the
British.
Done by- Anandharajan (x)
Date-29.09.12
Was Gandhi Justified
in withdrawing the Non-cooperation Movement?
In the beginning
there were many reasons for the formation of the Non-cooperation Movement. The
Rowlatt Act, the failure of the initial Satyagraha due to the mass break out of
violence before and one of the most devastating event, the Jallianwala Bagh
massacre where the British shot down innocent Indian people. Also there was the
Khilafat movement where the Muslims opposed the Britishers from taking over
Turkey from the Caliph.
The Non-cooperation
movement was going good for about two years and it had spread to places like
Gujarat and Bihar. People boycotted foreign goods and were even ready to burn
the goods.
After two years the
Chauri Chaura incident occurred where the angry residents of the village and
torched a police station. After this Gandhi called off the Non-cooperation
movement.
I think he did the
right thing because after promising non-violence to the British, the Indians
still attacked which would give the British a reason to attack later and Gandhi
figured that there would be many more acts of violence to come if this remained
unchecked, so he accepted the consequences from the British and went jail and
every Indian realized his/her mistake they had made by letting their leader down
and when the movement commenced again later there was more cooperation and it
succeeded at a later point of time(1947)
- Akshay Shivakumar
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Should Gandhi have stopped the Non Cooperation
Movement?
A) I actually agree with Gandhi on stopping the non cooperation movement due to
the Chauri Chaura Incident. Chauri Chaura showed that Indians were not ready for
a non violent movement. Gandhi wanted the movement to be strictly non violent
but since a violent infuriate the British. This would give an excuse for the
British to arrest the Congress leaders. A violent act could also give rise to
further violent acts which would give reason for the British to swiftly crush
the movement. The movement was also withdrawn since it was getting stagnated and
it was difficult to sustain a large – scale movement for a long period of time,
especially with a British government which was unwilling to negotiate. This
stagnation would frustrate people into using violence. Violent movements can
result in death of innocent people caught in between fights of angry mobs
against police forces. Gandhi would definitely not want this. All this shows
that continuing the movement after the Chauri Chaura Incident would result in
terrible consequences. Though the decision demoralized the masses, it was for
the greater good.
Name: Adarsh
Srihari
Class: 10
-------------------------------------------------
As soon as Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (Mahatma Gandhi) came from South
Africa, he played a very active role in getting freedom for our country. Gandhi
called off the movement following the Chauri Chaura incident, which saw the
death of twenty-two policemen at the hands of an angry mob. Gandhi a man who
said non-violence and peace would solve everything and also believed in it, it
was hard for him to digest the face that something he started would cost so many
lives. India’s constitution also says that India supports peace and
non-violence. Therefore what Gandhi did was right and calling of the
non-cooperation movement was right.
- Aksheya Akhilan
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Non-Cooperation
Movement was a
significant phase of the Indian struggle for freedom from British rule. This
movement lasted from September 1920 to February 1922. It was led
by Mahatma Gandhi and was
supported by the Indian National Congress. It aimed to resist British
occupation in India through non-violent means. Protesters would refuse to buy
British goods, adopt the use of local handicrafts, picket liquor shops, and try
to uphold the Indian values of honor and integrity.
The Gandhian ideals
of Ahimsa or non-violence, and his
ability to rally hundreds of thousands of common citizens towards the cause of
Indian independence, were first seen on a large scale in this movement. It was
one of the three major mass movements launched by Mahatma Gandhi for attaining
freedom from the British rule, the other two being the Civil Disobedience
Movement and the Quit India Movement.
Some main causes for
the Non-Cooperation Movement were economic
hardships to the common man due to a large chunk of Indian wealth being exported
to Britain, ruin of Indian artisans due to British factory-made goods replacing
handmade goods, and popular resentment with the British over Indian soldiers
dying in World War I while
fighting as part of the British Army, in battles
that otherwise had nothing to do with India. The immediate factor responsible
for the movement was the Rowlatt Act and Jallianwala
Bagh massacre.
Jallianwala Bagh massacre happened in Amritsar, Punjab when a public
gathering of people in the park was fired upon by the British army. General Dyer
had banned all public meetings in Punjab but the people had gathered there
defying his orders. General Dyer used this as a pretext and ordered the shooting
at the innocent people.
The Rowlatt Act was an act which indefinitely extended emergency measures
during World War I. This act came during a time when the Indian
people expected some constitutional concession from the British. This act came
to be known as the 'black act'.
Gandhiji, among
other Indian leaders, was extremely critical of the Act and argued that not
everyone should get punishment in response to isolated political crimes. The Act
annoyed many Indian leaders and the public, which caused the government to
implement repressive measures. Gandhi and others found that constitutional
opposition to the measure was fruitless, so on April 6, a "hartal" was
organized where Indians would suspend all business and fast as a sign of their
hatred for the legislation. This event is known as the Rowlatt
satyagraha. People
picketed shops selling foreign goods and liquor
shops. The Movement witnessed unprecedented public support
and mass participation. This movement made the Congress a mass party. The tide
of nationalism was running high all over India but the Chauri Chaura incident
brought the movement to an abrupt halt. The people of the Chauri Chaura village
were holding a peaceful protest against the arrest of their leader but the
police had opened fire on them. The angry mob gathered around the police station
and burnt it down killing all the twenty-two policemen in it. This violent
incident made Gandhiji think that India was not ready for a non-violent mass
movement and he withdrew it.
Although
most Congress leaders remained firmly behind Gandhiji, the disillusioned broke
away. The Ali brothers would soon become fierce critics. Motilal
Nehru and Chittaranjan
Das formed
the Swaraj Party, rejecting
Gandhiji's leadership. Many nationalists had felt that the Non-Cooperation
Movement should not have been stopped due to isolated incidents of violence, and
most nationalists, while retaining confidence in Gandhiji, were
discouraged.
I
feel that the movement should not have been withdrawn because of some sporadic
events of violence. The movement was successful because of it uniqueness. The
British had never dealt with such a kind of nonviolent movement so they were
confused om how to deal with it and relented to the demands made by Gandhiji.
The movement was successful enough to break the back of British rule, and
possibly even result in the independence of India for which most Indians strove
for until 1947.
- Kabilan KB
The Non Cooperation Movement was the first large scale movement started
by M.K.Gandhi. It was a test for him to see whether the Indians were ready for
a nation-wide movement. This was the first movement were the entire country
came together under the control of one man. This was also the first signs of a
weakening of the power of the British Empire. This movement was also where
Gandhi popularised his techniques of Satyagraha and Non-violence.
The movement came to a sudden end when a violent incident in the village
of Chauri-Chaura took place. The people were shot at by the police for staging
a protest. 3 villagers died. In a fit of temper, the villagers mobbed the
police station and set it on fire. Around 22 police men died. Gandhi, on
hearing about this incident, decided to call off the Movement as it was in his
opinion that a simple sporadic violent event, like the Chauri-Chaura incident
could affect the people’s minds and this could lead to violent protests all
around India.
It is at this point that historians believe Gandhi made a mistake. Some
people believed that such a small event could not affect the nation and Gandhi
made a mistake.
My belief is that Gandhi took the right decision by calling off the Non
Cooperation Movement as his ideology was right. He knew that the Indians were
not ready for a non violent movement. The fact that he had managed to show the
people a glimpse of the power behind the destruction of the British might in
two years after entering Indian soil is, by itself a big thing. Although he
faced opposition from many prominent Indian leaders, he still called off the
event. If he had not called off the event, it could have led to a rise in
violence and ultimately, anarchy.
-
Varun Hariharan
Question-
Was Gandhiji justified in withdrawing the ‘
noncooperation movement’ after the Chauri Chaura incident?
I think gandhiji
was entirely justified in withdrawing the non cooperation movement ….
Gandhiji believed
that non violence is the law of human race.
He believed in fighting for justice without the use of weapons and
becoming brutal.
Gandhiji along
with the congress decided to launch the non cooperation movement where they
decided to launch a mass civil disobedience movement including non payment of
taxes .
But soon gandhiji
had to withdraw the movement as it was turning violent in many places. There
were strikes, clashes, demonstrations and protests.
In Chauri Chaura near Gorakhpur in Uttar Pradesh
22 policemen were killed in violent clashes with the local people. People
burned British goods, shut down foreign shops and lawyers, teachers, government
jobbers resigned.
Seeing the
violence spread Gandhiji called off the movement, as he realized that the
Indians hadn’t completely understood the concept of nonviolence, and they
weren’t ready for it.
-
Shraddha
Padmanabhan
NON COOPERATION MOVEMENT
(1920-22)
Mohandas
Karamchand Gandhi started the non-cooperation movement in 1920.there were a row
of events that led to the movement. The main factors were:
Jallianwala bagh massacre
13 April, 1919
|
Gandhiji started the Non-Cooperation
movement against the British. Gandhiji wanted the people to not cooperate with
the British government by all means without the use of violence. The programme of
Non-cooperation movement included:
Ø Surrender of titles and honours
Ø Boycott of government affiliated
schools and colleges
Ø Boycott of law courts and foreign
clothes
Ø Resignation from government
services
Ø Mass civil disobedience which
would include the non-payment of taxes
This movement carried on for 2 years
which united the Hindus and Muslims.
Gandhiji declared that the full
implementation would surely make the Indians attain swaraj in a year. Almost
the whole of India was united in the movement, which made it different from the
other movements The movement gained massive support and spread throughout the
country.
An incident that happened at a small
village called Chauri Chaura led Gandhi to call off the entire movement. The
police open fired at the villagers who were protesting against the arrest of
their leader. This angered the mob and they torched the police station killing
22 policemen. After this act of violence, Gandhi immediately called off the
movement.
Sudden withdrawal of the movement left
other leaders of the Congress bewildered.
Motilal Nehru and C R Das opposed the withdrawal.
Subash Bose called it a national calamity. Then Non-Cooperation movement ended
on 1922 and Gandhi was sent to jail for 6 years.
I think it was right of Gandhi to call
off the movement after the Chauri Chaura incident.
The Non-Cooperation movement was
famously known as a non-violent movement.
The British feared their rule when this
movement was on. Due to the very violent act of the Chauri Chaura, Gandhiji
thought that the Indians were not ready for this non-violent movement yet.
Gandhiji feared more violent attacks after this incident, due to this he
withdrew the movement abruptly. He knew after this incident the government
would easily suppress a violent movement. I think Gandhiji was testing the
patience of the Indians. He was also knew after the incident the people were
not mentally ready for independence.
-
Siddharth
Kadel
Should
Gandhi have called back the Non Cooperation Movement?
Gandhi
should have called back the Non Cooperation Movement. He was right in calling
back the Non Cooperation Movement. There are many reasons why I think he should
have called back the non cooperation movement.
They
are:
·
First of all, the Chauri Chaura incident is a fierce one.
This incident was very violent. This event had lead to the death of 22 policemen.
If he had not called back the Non Cooperation Movement the people’s anger
against the British would have increased and the killing of British would have
increased and it would have been against the policy of non violence of Gandhi.
·
If Gandhi had not called back the Non Cooperation Movement it
would have aroused the sentiments of the British leading to mass killing of
Indians by the British. This would have lead to the death of a huge population
of Indians and India would have got freedom or maybe not and we would have been
under the rule of British.
·
A violent act like the
Chauri Chaura incident could have lead to the many other violent events which
would be easily suppressed by the British.
·
Gandhi thought that the people were not ready for a
nonviolent movement like Non Cooperation Movement.
-
By
C.Ganeshram
Class X
Roll no: 08
Was Mahatma Gandhi right in calling off the non-cooperation
movement?
The non
co-operation movement was one of the most significant event that unfolded in
the history of India’s struggle towards freedom or ‘swaraj.’ This bought
India’s most respected leader, Mahatma Gandhi to the center of the scene, where
he practiced the policy of non-violence and passive resistance to lead India to
complete self government. He believed that the proper implementation of all the
non-cooperation activities to result in Swaraj in a year or so.
The main features of the massive moment was
+ Giving up all Government services
+ Giving up all titles and honours.
+ Boycotting the government affiliated schools and colleges.
+ Boycotting foreign goods.
+ Boycotting law courts.
+ Non-payment of taxes.
+ Establishing national schools and colleges.
+ Encouraging hand spinning and weaving. {khadi}
+ Promoting Hindi-muslim unity.
+ Abolishing the practice of untouchability.
+ And most importantly, following non violence.
This movement yielded major results and it spread across the country and
changed the course of the path of the freedom fight.
+ 90,000 students left school and joined national educational institutes.
+ 800 educational institutes were established.
+ Lawyers like Jawaharlal Nehru and Motilal Nehru gave up their practice to
join the movement.
+ The imports fell by half due to boycott of foreign goods.
+ Shops selling foreign goods were picketed.
+ Strikes and protests also played an important role. {Eg: Strike during the
arrival of The Prince of Wales.}
The Chauri Chaura incident that happened in February, 1922 defied the main
point of the movement: non-violence. The mob gathered burnt down the station
due to extreme anger as the police had arrested their leader during the
protest. The torching of the station lead to the death of twenty two police
officers. Gandhi, in the next meeting of the congress withdrew the moment fearing
the increasing use of violence.
Even though
the Chauri Chara incident was extremely violent and flouted the basic motive of
the movement, it was not reason enough for the withdrawal of the movement as
whole as it was one of the most remarkable events in the struggle. The movement
had a nationwide impact and saw many people giving up their practice and post
to join protests and picketing. It marked the establishment of a lot of
national educational institutes and promotion of hand-made clothes and
textiles. Huge masses were involved in boycotting and protests. The sudden
withdrawal also baffled many leaders like Motilal Nehru and Subash Chandra
Bose. {Who called it a natural calamity.}
The movement’s progress was apparent and the people were constantly getting
used to the idea of non-violence. Although the Chauri Chaura incident was
triggering, the movement shouldn’t have been called off as the people were
slowly getting used to the non-violence policy and were sacrificing posts and
practices to join the national cause.
+If the movement had sustained, more people would have been involved and the
non-violence policy would have slowly settled in until people start seeing the
struggle from Gandhiji’s point of view and would be completely devoted to his
ideals.
+The movement demonstrated that people were ready to participate in the
national movement and the desire of freedom had been cultivated in the common
people. All the sections of the society had participated and the muslims also
joine din great numbers. This indicated the national spirit.
+People stopped fearing the Government and were ready to step extreme step
towards their goals. They no longer feared Government repression.
+The movement undermined the Britishers’ authority and power as people lost
faith in the government and were fearless. The British were threatened by the
mass involvement.
+The removal of untouchability and use of Khadi were one of the major changes.
+SatyaGraha and Non-Violence took the forefront.
All this
indicated that the movement need not have been called off by Gandhi, as the
national spirit was at its peak.
- Oviya
Was gandhiji
justified in withdrawing the non-cooperation movement?
Yes I feel Gandhiji was justified in
withdrawing the non cooperation movement. After the chauri chaura incident Gandhiji
was worried about the increasing use of violence in the country by the people
so he decided to withdraw the non-cooperation movement. He realised that the
people of India were not ready for a non-violent movement which could help the
people of India attain swaraj. He felt that after the chauri chaura incident
many more violent movements could rise which would make it easy for the British
to suppress the violence and could increase their power in the country. He also
felt that it would be tough to sustain a large scale movement like the
non-cooperation movement for a longer time and the government was not willing
to negotiate. He also felt that in his absence the movement would be stagnated
and hence the non-cooperation movement ended.
-
Sneha
Chakrapani
-
Gandhi started the non-cooperation movement in the
year 1920. Many events that
happened during that time led Gandhi to start the
movement. Some of them were:
passing of the Rowlatt act, British government not
fulfilling the needs of Indians during
war, dishonourable treatment of Turkey by the British
and the event that shook the
nation was the Jallianwalla Bagh massacre.
Then Gandhi started the Non-Cooperation movement
against the British. Gandhi wanted
the people to not cooperate with the British
government by all means, but he insisted
people not
to use violence. Gandhi wanted
the people to:
● surrender titles and honours
● boycott British schools and colleges
● resign from government services
● not pay taxes.
The movement gained massive support and spread
throughout the country. This
movement carried on for 2 years which united the
Hindus and Muslims. The people
were aware that they will attain swaraj very soon.
But an incident that happened at a small village
called Chauri Chaura led Gandhi to call
off the entire movement. The police open fired at the
villagers who were protesting
against the arrest of their leader. This angered the
mob and they torched the police
station killing 22 policemen. After this act of
violence, Gandhi immediately called off
the movement.
Sudden withdrawal of the movement left other leaders
of the Congress bewildered.
Motilal Nehru and C R Das opposed the withdrawal.
Subash Bose called it a national
calamity. Then Non-Cooperation movement ended on 1922
and Gandhi was sent to jail
for 6 years.
I think it was right of Gandhi to call off the
movement after the Chauri Chaura incident.
Firstly Gandhi had already said that the movement was
going to be non-violent, but
after this act of violence Gandhi thought that people
were not yet ready for a nonviolent
movement. Also he hadn't called off the movement
abruptly, then many other
acts of violence might have sparked from various
places, which he didn't want to
happen. When Gandhi was arrested, the people blamed
themselves for the arrest and
were more cooperative with Gandhi and followed
non-violence more strictly. So the
calling off of the movement also made the people think
and coordinate with Gandhi in
his next movement. If Gandhi continued with the
movement, many people can debate
saying that India would have got independence long
before 1947, but the people weren't
as mentally prepared for self rule as they were in
1947. So for the aforesaid reasons I
think Gandhi was right in calling off the
Non-Cooperation movement.
-
SriKrishna
History II Term Internals
Q : Is Mahatma Gandhi justified in
withdrawing the Non-Cooperation Movement after the Chauri Chaura incident?
A : I think Mahatma Gandhi is justified in
withdrawing the Non-Cooperation movement. The movement was very instrumental in
mobilising the masses in India. The Chauri Chaura incident was against the
doctrine of Satyagraha followed by Mahatma Gandhi. If violence was to be
followed the British could have retaliated against them in a harsh and
suppressive manner which would have caused loss of many lives and property.
If they were to continue violent activities
then the British would have better reasons to torture the Indians and they
would prove their superiority like in Revolt of 1857. Gandhiji also was
far-sighted as he was able to see that there was another chance and this
movement was just the starting. Gandhiji was also convinced that the movement
would mean nothing if violence was adopted as a method of struggle. Many people
would have lost respect for the movement if he had continued it and
independence would have gone out of reach.
- P.Aravind
Roll No. 8
Was Gandhi right in stopping the Non Cooperation Movement?
The
Non Cooperation Movement led by MK Gandhi was stopped in February 1922, due to
the violent revolts in the Chauri Chaura village of Uttar Pradesh. It was
stopped as Gandhi thought that the masses were not yet ready for a non- violent
movement for freedom.
Yes,
Gandhi was right in stopping the Non Cooperation Movement. By stopping this
nationwide movement, he was able to convey his displeasure against the violent
acts of the Chauri Chaura incident, and prevent further revolts which could
critically endanger the freedom struggle.
If
Gandhi had not stopped this movement, people would not have realized the extent
of the seriousness of non-violence and how it made the British powerless. It
was well known by the leaders of the movement that violent acts could very
easily be stopped by the British by pure manpower, of which they had in
abundance.
Gandhi had many reasons for halting the non
cooperation movement.
1.
He realized that people were
not yet ready for such a non violent movement.
2.
He believed that such an act of
violence could spark many other violent acts, which was completely against the
fundamentals of the movement.
3.
The movement, after the initial
mass support, was getting stagnated. Although it received a lot of support, it
was getting difficult to sustain such a large scale nationwide movement.
4.
The government was not at all
willing to negotiate with Gandhi, leading to a gigantic ditch in India’s pathway
to freedom.
Although Gandhi was steadfast in his
decision to stop this movement, there were many others, such as the Ali
Brothers and various other nationalists who did not support this decision of
halting the movement which was in its peak.
All in all, 70 years after the Non
Cooperation movement was stopped, I agree with the wise decision of Gandhiji’s and that if he had not
stopped the movement, there would have been much more bloodshed than what we
had already seen.
Thank You.
Sruti Srinivasan (20)
X Madhuvanthi 2012-2013
Was Gandhi right in
withdrawing the Non-cooperation movement after Chauri Chaura?
I feel that Gandhi was right
in suspending the movement after the Chauri Chaura incident.
First of all, Gandhi himself
stated that he made a mistake by encouraging people to defy the British Raj
without emphasizing on the non-violent nature of the non-cooperation movement.
The consequences of this can be clearly seen in the incident which caused
enormous casualties. Protesters were beaten back by the police in an ordinary
protest and three people died. In return, when the police chowki was set on
fire, 23 policemen died either immediately or succumbed to severe burn
injuries.
This caused martial law to be
imposed on the people of the area. The imposition of such a condition over many
regions in the country, if the violence had spread, would have crippled the
freedom movement.
Hence, Gandhi made the wise
but unpopular move to call off the movement. This stopped what could have been
the beginning of many violent attacks against the British, destroying the image
of India’s people as civilized citizens who agitated for their rights in a
non-violent and educated manner.
The move also endorsed the fact
that Gandhi himself condemned the violence and barbaric incident and that he
felt truly repentant for the deaths that had been caused. This move would have
earned him some sympathy and a certain degree of forgiveness. Otherwise, he
could have been arrested on grounds of sedition, like Bal Gangadhar Tilak in
the past, causing the movement to come to a standstill even if it was still
functional.
This drastic step further
sent an indirect and subtle message to the masses, encouraging them to use
non-violent means to protest for their rights instead of following their
extremist counterparts who did more harm than good to the movement.
The Non-Cooperation movement
was meant to show the international countries about India’s victimization at
the unmerciful hands of the British to gain sympathy and pressurize the British
into granting privileges like Swaraj. With growth in violent attacks, which
would have happened inevitably if the movement hadn’t been called off, sympathy
would have shifted to the British side. This was undesirable for the common
Indian masses that were at a disadvantage in the first place.
Other factors include the
fact that calling off the Non-Cooperation movement brought a lot of media
coverage for the National movement in general and made people aware of these
developments.
The decision caused the
informal establishment a set of ethics to be followed by the protesting masses,
to discourage violence, murderous attacks on their own countrymen and to
promote a dignified method to defying the British that would influence the
generations to come.
- Sahana Venugopal
I think Mahatma Gandhi
should not have withdrawn the non cooperation movement. It had lasted for about
2 years. The movement had not only united Hindus and Muslims but also abolished
untouchability. People became self sufficient with the use of the charka and
khadi. The Indians were such a great majority and people started to realise that
the British were not invincible. Gandhi did have good reasons to withdraw the
movement but he should have made some changes instead. He was worried after the
Chauri Chaura incident that the violence would continue to spread. This would
have been expected. The people would have panicked when the police opened a fire
on the crowd protesting for their imprisoned leader. The people in turn burnt
down the police station. Instead of withdrawing the movement he should have
tried to talk to the people and make them non violent by taking them step by
step. Withdrawing the movement had broken the unity amongst the people which was
a big loss.
- Yashasvini
10 maduvanthi
