The Role of South India in the Freedom Movement

The Home Rule Movement

In 1910 Sri Aurobindo retired from active politics and came to Pondicherry. Earlier, both Tilak and Lala Lajpat Rai were interned in jail. Bipin Chandra Pal had gone to England. Thus the Nationalist Congress was bereft of its leading personalities. There was a lull in the political activity. No doubt the Congress party led by the Moderates was still active but no real and intense political breakthrough seemed possible.

In 1914 the First World War broke out. The British were deeply involved in this war, fighting a life and death battle against the Germans. Just after the war began there was a renewal of intense political activity. This was due to the efforts of two leaders, Annie Besant and Bal Gangadhar Tilak.

In 1914, after six years detention in the Mandalay jail, Tilak was released. His solitary detention in Mandalay had left a deep imprint on Tilak's personality. Tilak who was always a practical politician emerged a more cautious man. As seen earlier, the Congress had split in 1907 at the Surat session. But Tilak was not happy about the split. As remarked by Sri Aurobindo: '[T]o no one was the catastrophe so great a blow as to Mr. Tilak. He did not like the do-nothingness of the Congress but he valued it both as a national fact and for its unrealized possibilities.' He had realized the futility of revolutionary violence in the then prevailing conditions in India; he was therefore prepared to accept self-government within the British Empire as the country's immediate political goal. Yet despite his changed political outlook the Moderates continued to distrust him. Realising his ineffectiveness outside the Congress mainstream, he set about building a strong political base. His programme consisted of four planks: National Education, Swadeshi, Boycott and Swaraj. Tilak was warmly acclaimed by the Bombay Provincial Conference in 1915 and electrified politics by his proposal of Home Rule. He set up a Home Rule League for the purpose of propagating the idea.

At the same time Annie Besant also proposed the Home Rule and created her own Home Rule League. Thus there were two Home Rule Leagues existing at the same time. These were set up in April and September 1916 respectively. Her slogan, 'England's difficulty is India's opportunity', became a catchphrase in the national armoury. The educated middle class all over the country was touched by her powerful oratory and bold demand of Dominion Status on the basis of equality and rallied to the League. Besant started the Home Rule League as an independent organisation. The first meeting of the League was held on 3 September 1916. Besant was made its president; G. S. Arundale, its organising secretary; C. P. Ramaswamy Iyer one of the General Secretaries; and B. P. Wadia, the Treasurer. The rules prescribed in its constitution for organising branches of the League were not stringent. Hence branches were quickly found at Adyar, Kumbakonam, Madanapalli, Madurai, Calicut, Ahmedabad, Allahabad, Benares, Bombay and Kanpur. Soon, there were as many as 200 branches, all enjoying virtual autonomy. Communications with the headquarters were carried on either through individuals who were active or through New India wherein a page was devoted to Home Rule news and advice. The League preached everywhere swadeshi, boycott of foreign goods, temperance, national education, labour welfare and responsible government.

The movement brought Besant immense popularity and fame and elevated her to the position of an important national leader in the country. Even her worst detractors marvelled at her steadfast devotion and struggle to achieve freedom for India. Besides writing strident articles in her papers, Besant also published books and pamphlets passionately advocating self-rule for India and denouncing the policy of the Imperial Government, inciting thereby the latter's wrath. The Manifesto of the Home Rule League stated its object to be a 'strong, steady and sustained agitation'. The British Government wanted to start a dialogue with the organisers of Home Rule and Besant. Pentland, who

Page 87

was the Governor of Madras, would have no such dialogue with Home Rulers. Dreading the result of surrendering to the cry of Home Rule for India he strongly deprecated any political discussion at a time when the whole strength of India ought to have been focused upon the War and upon helping the British Empire. It was simply impossible for him to tolerate the public excitement which the Home Rule Movement was fomenting against the British Government by its inflammatory language in discussing political questions in the midst of a global war. He knew that under the Press Act of 1910 his government could proceed against Besant for damaging the British image in India by her scurrilous writings. But the government could not control her activity on the platform from which she exercised an influence not confined to Madras alone. Pentland also knew only too well that although Besant was not without opponents, her followers in the political, religious and educational fields were prominent men and that even those who differed from her views, recognised her stupendous labours and her love for India. Her role, for instance, in the founding of the Hindu University at Benaras was such that a special provision was made in the Bill by the Governor-General-in-Council to secure for her a place in the controlling body of that institution. Keeping these in mind, the Madras Government sent a letter couched in a mild language hoping that a friendly remonstrance would secure the discontinuance of objectionable writings. The Government also wanted to avoid the excitement, ill-feeling and agitation which an action under the Press Act would cause. Besant replied courteously to this letter promising to try to avoid contentious topics.

The resolution of the Lucknow Congress of December 1916 gave a further impetus to Besant's movement. Though the word 'Home Rule' was not used, the Congress 'unanimously put its seal upon the Home Rule Movement'. It further recognised the Home Rule League as part of itself when it called upon the Home Rulers along with the Congress committees to carry on the 'educative and propaganda work of the Congress'. Besant, therefore, showed no sign of softening her vitriolic pen or tongue. Her astounding speech delivered the previous year at the Madras Provincial Conference held at Nellore was considered by all members of the Executive Council hostile and calculated to spread disaffection against the government. The Madras Government opined that the best way to check her 'reckless' activities both in the press and on the platform would be to forbid her under the Defence of India Rules to remain in British India. Since the Government of India alone had the power to do this Pentland urged the Viceroy that Besant should be deported till the end of the War. He wrote that if the Home Rule Movement were allowed to go on, 'we here in Madras, powerless to stop it may be forced into one repressive measure after another'.

At the same time it must be noted that there was a certain amount of rivalry between the two Home Rule Leagues, which made each plough its lonely furrow. But before long they joined together in a gesture of reciprocity. Many others joined including Jawaharlal Nehru. Tilak's area of operation was mainly in Maharashtra and Karnataka, while Besant's was generally over the South and in some pockets of Bihar, Bengal, Gujarat and Sind. The objective of the movement was to attain a system of self-government within the British Empire. The agitation made rapid strides during 1916-17 and while broadly active in many parts of the country, registered noticeable progress in the South. Both Tilak and Besant engaged in extensive tours and took up educational and social work with the intention to inform and agitate the masses and involve them in the freedom struggle. Their attempt was to capture the Congress. The Home Rulers argued that India's contribution to the World War should be rewarded with some political progress. At the same time the Russian Revolution and President Wilson's suggestion for the formation of the League of Nations gave added momentum to the demand for Home Rule. The British Government reacted in typical fashion - stern handling and

Page 87

suppression of the movement terming it as sedition. A case was instituted against Tilak; he was served a notice to pay a sum of Rs. 40,000. However, on appeal the decision was rescinded by the High Court. In May 1916, Annie Besant forfeited her security on her paper New India. Meanwhile all attempts to persuade her to abandon the Home Rule campaign and return to England failed. As a result, she and her assistants were interned without trial. She thus emerged as the country's foremost freedom fighter and was released in September 1917. Later in the year her contribution was recognised by conferring on her the presidentship of the Congress.

The British seeing that the Home Rule Movement was gaining tremendous popularity put forward a proposal to placate the Moderates within the Congress. They proposed to grant responsible government and put forward a concrete scheme for Reform in the August 1917 Declaration. In the light of this gesture, the Home Rule League decided to suspend the agitation and sent instead an all-India deputation to meet the Viceroy.

The release from jail of Annie Besant was a landmark in her career.

Instead of capitalising on the release, there was a startling metamorphosis in Besant; within a year of her release, she succeeded in completely isolating herself from the various groups in the Congress and thus forfeited all claims to leadership of the Nationalist Movement and the Congress. Two reasons may be adduced for this. One was that the United Front she had cobbled of the Moderates and the Extremists was basically unstable and, secondly, she opposed Passive Resistance, which then had become the chief plank of the Congress. Her inconstancy and the lack of a definite programme finally made the Congress reject her leadership. Tilak too had by this time virtually relinquished his authority; thus the Congress was almost leaderless and the Home Rule Movement had weakened beyond any hope of revival. This vacuum was filled up by Gandhi and with his advent started the next phase of the Freedom Movement.

The Home Rule Movement was not a great success. However, it contributed in some ways to the Nationalist Movement. Firstly, it was due to its agitation that the British promised to advance towards self-rule. Secondly, it was for the first time that there was an all-India movement with the exception of Punjab and Bengal. In Punjab, the Arya Samaj rejected the theosophical movement of Besant and in Bengal the leadership of C. R. Das was too powerful to make a dent. Probably what led to the failure of the movement was the ambivalence in its accepting passive resistance, which then was the only available plan of action. Its failure prepared the ground for the taking over of the Congress by Gandhi. 1

Page 88

HOME