Gandhi’s Assessment: Congress, British Institutions, and Satyagraha

Mahatma Gandhi’s political evolution was shaped by his complex relationships with Indian political movements and British institutions. His views on the Indian National Congress, British constitutionalism, and the methods of resistance underwent significant transformation over his lifetime. Understanding these shifts reveals how Gandhi developed Satyagraha as a uniquely Indian technique of resistance while grappling with his faith in imperial justice-a faith that would ultimately be shattered by colonial violence.

Gandhi’s critique and praise for the Indian National Congress 🔗

In his seminal 1909 work Hind Swaraj, Gandhi offered a nuanced assessment of the Indian National Congress. He acknowledged the Congress’s foundational role in awakening national consciousness and advancing the idea of self-government among Indians. Gandhi traced the origin of nationalist sentiment to Congress officials, particularly praising Dadabhai Naoroji-the Grand Old Man of India-whom he credited with seriously advancing the concept of home-rule even while working within the British system.

Gandhi’s respect for the Congress founders was deep and personal. He wrote that Indians should respect figures like Naoroji even when they disagreed with their methods. Gandhi was especially protective of Naoroji’s legacy against critics who questioned the elder statesman’s continued faith in British institutions. Gandhi argued that dismissing Naoroji’s contributions would be like removing a step from a staircase-it would bring down the whole structure. He went so far as to declare Naoroji the author of Indian nationalism, acknowledging that contemporary activists had learned everything they knew from him.

Respect for Gokhale and the moderate approach 🔗

Gandhi also expressed deep admiration for Gopal Krishna Gokhale, a leader of the moderate faction within Congress who advocated reforms through working with existing government institutions. According to Gandhi, Gokhale was a respectable authority whose dedication and wisdom deserved respect even when one disagreed with his specific positions. This reverence for his political mentors revealed Gandhi’s belief that activists needed to tolerate disagreement and work together despite differences to achieve meaningful change.

Rejection of extremist methods 🔗

However, Gandhi was sharply critical of the extremist and revolutionary factions within the independence movement. He specifically addressed the views of groups like the Young India Party, whose members were associated with acts of political violence. The assassination of British officials by Indian revolutionaries deeply troubled Gandhi. He dismissed such extremist approaches as irresponsible, believing they undermined the moral foundation of the independence struggle. For Gandhi, the means were as important as the ends-freedom achieved through violence would not create the just society India needed.

Faith in British constitutionalism and justice 🔗

In his early political career, Gandhi harboured profound faith in British political institutions and their sense of justice. He believed that the British constitutional system, with its principles of equality before the law and parliamentary democracy, represented ideals worth emulating. This faith was rooted in his understanding of British history and his experiences in South Africa and England.

Gandhi made an important distinction between the failings of local British bureaucrats in India and the ideals of the British constitution itself. He believed that colonial administrators who perpetrated injustices were deviating from true British values rather than representing them. When he returned to India from South Africa in 1919, Gandhi hoped to demonstrate India’s readiness for Dominion status within an Empire he believed to be inherently just.

The influence of British democratic traditions 🔗

Gandhi’s respect for British institutions extended to his appreciation of parliamentary practices and constitutional methods. Even figures like Naoroji, whom Gandhi deeply admired, had maintained what one scholar called a stubborn faith in British justice throughout their careers. Naoroji had even served as a Member of the British Parliament, championing Indian causes through constitutional means. This approach influenced Gandhi’s early belief that change could come through moral persuasion and appeals to British conscience.

Satyagraha: a technique shaped by British history 🔗

Gandhi’s concept of Satyagraha-meaning truth-force or holding firmly to truth-emerged partly from his understanding of British character and history. He believed the British respected earnestness and sacrifice, and would ultimately yield to persistent, non-violent moral pressure that appealed to their conscience.

The British suffragette movement had a notable influence on Gandhi’s developing philosophy of resistance. In 1906, while visiting London, Gandhi praised the dignified non-violent methods of the English suffragettes, citing their struggle as a moral example to convince his Indian countrymen to adopt non-violent resistance. During the early years from 1906 to 1912, Gandhi repeatedly suggested to men in his movement that they emulate the brave determination of British suffragettes.

Distinguishing Satyagraha from passive resistance 🔗

While inspired by the suffragettes, Gandhi carefully distinguished his concept of Satyagraha from Western notions of passive resistance. He explained that passive resistance, as practiced in the West, had admitted violence-as seen when some suffragettes later adopted militant tactics including property destruction. Gandhi insisted that Satyagraha differed in three fundamental ways: it was a weapon of the strong rather than the weak, it admitted no violence under any circumstance, and it insisted upon absolute truth.

Gandhi’s reading of Tolstoy had already given him a theoretical foundation for non-violence, but the practical example furnished by the women’s campaign for the vote in England enabled him to refine and elaborate his approach. The suffragettes’ willingness to court arrest, endure imprisonment, and make personal sacrifices demonstrated that moral courage could challenge powerful institutions.

Satyagraha as moral pressure 🔗

Satyagraha-based movements employed a range of non-violent methods designed to bring about change through moral pressure rather than force. These tactics included civil disobedience-openly breaking unjust laws to expose their immorality while accepting punishment-and non-cooperation through boycotts, strikes, and withdrawal of support from oppressive systems. Gandhi believed that such methods would eventually compel the British to recognize the justice of India’s cause.

The shattering of faith: Jallianwala Bagh 🔗

Gandhi’s innate respect for British justice received a devastating blow from the Jallianwala Bagh massacre on April 13, 1919. On that fateful day during the Baisakhi festival, Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer led troops to a public square in Amritsar where thousands had gathered. After blocking the only exit with his soldiers, Dyer ordered them to fire on the unarmed crowd, continuing even as people tried to flee. The troops kept firing until their ammunition was nearly exhausted.

The massacre occurred in the context of protests against the repressive Rowlatt Act, which permitted detention without trial. Gandhi had called for a nationwide Satyagraha against this legislation, which he labelled the Black Act. The brutal response at Jallianwala Bagh fundamentally altered his understanding of colonial rule.

The colonial government’s response 🔗

What further shattered Gandhi’s faith was the British response to the massacre. The Hunter Commission, formed to investigate the shootings, condemned Dyer’s actions in its 1920 report. However, no disciplinary action was taken against the general. This whitewashing of the Punjab Government’s egregious behaviour put an enormous strain on Gandhi’s once-fervent faith in British justice.

Writing to Viceroy Chelmsford in 1920, Gandhi expressed his fury at the shameful ignorance of the Punjab events and callous disregard of Indian feelings betrayed by the House of Lords. He declared that these events had estranged him completely from the present government and disabled him from tendering the loyal cooperation he had hitherto offered. In protest, Gandhi returned the Kaiser-i-Hind title that the British government had awarded him.

A turning point in Indian nationalism 🔗

The Jallianwala Bagh massacre marked a turning point in India’s struggle for independence. It left a permanent scar on Indo-British relations and served as the prelude to Gandhi’s full commitment to the cause of Indian nationalism. While Gandhi retained belief in the practical feasibility of parliamentary institutions as a system, his faith in the morality of colonial administrators was irrevocably broken.

The massacre galvanized Gandhi to launch the Non-Cooperation Movement in 1920, representing a fundamental shift in his approach. No longer would he seek reforms through appeals to British conscience alone. Instead, he mobilized mass civil disobedience, calling on Indians to boycott British goods, resign from government posts, and withdraw from colonial institutions. The movement united Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs in unprecedented numbers.

Legacy of Gandhi’s evolving political thought 🔗

Gandhi’s journey from faith in British institutions to leading mass resistance illustrates how historical events can transform political philosophy. His early respect for Congress moderates like Naoroji and Gokhale, his study of British constitutional history and the suffragette movement, and his traumatic experience of colonial violence at Jallianwala Bagh all contributed to shaping the unique approach of Satyagraha that would eventually help win India’s independence.

The evolution of Gandhi’s thought demonstrates that political ideologies are not static but respond to lived experiences. His ability to learn from both British democratic traditions and their betrayal enabled him to forge a method of resistance that combined moral force with mass mobilization-an approach that would later inspire movements from the American Civil Rights struggle to anti-apartheid resistance in South Africa.

What do you think? How might Gandhi’s political philosophy have developed differently had the British responded to Jallianwala Bagh with genuine accountability and reform? Can methods of non-violent resistance remain effective when oppressive systems refuse to acknowledge their moral legitimacy?

References

1. https://www.litcharts.com/lit/hind-swaraj/chapter-1-the-congress-and-its-officials
2. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Dadabhai-Naoroji
3. https://origins.osu.edu/milestones/april-2019-amritsar-massacre-gandhi-dyer-rowlatt-acts-punjab
4. https://www.britannica.com/topic/satyagraha-philosophy
5. https://www.thesuffragettes.org/map/london-boroughs/hammersmith-fulham/mahatma-gandhi/
6. https://www.britannica.com/event/Jallianwala-Bagh-Massacre
7. https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/jallianwala-bagh-massacre-7
8. https://indianculture.gov.in/stories/jallianwala-bagh-massacre