India’s freedom struggle was not merely a political movement seeking independence from British rule. It was a comprehensive campaign for human rights that wove fundamental freedoms into its very fabric. From the early demands for civil liberties to the practical implementation of these rights when Congress governments came to power, the national movement demonstrated a deep commitment to human dignity and justice. This journey reveals how India’s independence leaders didn’t wait for freedom to arrive-they actively fought for and practiced human rights even under colonial rule.
Table of Contents
Weaving rights into the freedom agenda
The Indian National Congress showed remarkable foresight in addressing human rights concerns from its inception. One of its earliest commitments was protecting minority interests. The Congress adopted a principle that no proposal affecting a minority could pass if opposed by its majority, demonstrating sensitivity to diverse communities even before independence.
This commitment reached its peak at the 1931 Karachi Session, where Congress adopted a landmark resolution on fundamental rights. Held from March 26 to 31, 1931, under the presidency of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, this session marked the first time Congress clearly defined what self-rule would mean for ordinary Indians. The resolution guaranteed every citizen fundamental freedoms including free expression, free press, free association, and the right to assemble peacefully. It also ensured freedom of conscience and the right to practice one’s religion, alongside equality before the law regardless of caste, creed, or sex.
The Karachi Resolution went beyond political rights to address economic and social justice. It called for universal adult suffrage, free and compulsory primary education, protection of workers’ rights, and limitations on working hours. The resolution even proposed abolishing capital punishment and establishing state neutrality toward all religions. This comprehensive vision would later influence the Directive Principles of State Policy in India’s Constitution.
Demanding political modernity from the British
A common misconception suggests that democratic reforms were gifts from the British. In reality, Indian leaders forcefully demanded political modernity long before Britain itself had fully embraced these principles. Leaders like Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi advocated for adult franchise when Britain still restricted voting rights based on property and gender.
The 1928 Nehru Report stands as a watershed moment in this demand for constitutional rights. Prepared by a committee chaired by Motilal Nehru, with Tej Bahadur Sapru and other prominent leaders including Jawaharlal Nehru as secretary, this report outlined a comprehensive constitutional framework with nineteen fundamental rights, a parliamentary system, and an independent judiciary. Submitted on August 28, 1928, it was the first major attempt by Indians to draft their own constitution.
The report proposed dominion status for India with a bicameral legislature, federal structure with residual powers vesting in the center, and equal rights for men and women as citizens. Its fundamental rights section drew inspiration from the American Bill of Rights and later influenced the Fundamental Rights provision in independent India’s Constitution. The Nehru Report included provisions for free elementary education, freedom of expression and assembly, equality before the law, and protection of minority rights-demonstrating that India’s demand for human rights predated independence by decades.
From demands to mass struggle: the Rowlatt Act protest
The national movement’s commitment to human rights moved from making demands to organized mass resistance when the British enacted repressive legislation. The 1919 Rowlatt Act, officially called the Anarchical and Revolutionary Crimes Act, represented a severe violation of basic civil liberties. Passed on March 18, 1919, despite unanimous opposition from all Indian members of the Imperial Legislative Council, this law authorized detention of suspects for up to two years without trial, allowed trials without juries, and denied the accused the right to know their accusers or the evidence against them.
The act’s provisions were seen as a direct assault on fundamental freedoms. It empowered police to arrest anyone without a warrant based on mere suspicion, conduct secret trials, and impose strict press censorship. Indian leaders across the political spectrum condemned what they called the “Black Act.” Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Madan Mohan Malaviya, and Mazharul Haque resigned from the Imperial Legislative Council in protest.
Mahatma Gandhi responded by organizing India’s first nationwide satyagraha movement. He called for a countrywide hartal on April 6, 1919, which saw unprecedented participation across religious and regional lines. Indians voluntarily closed shops and offices, observed fasting, and held peaceful demonstrations demanding the act’s repeal. This all-India opposition demonstrated unity among diverse leaders-from moderates like Srinivasa Shastri to Muslim leaders like Mohammad Ali Jinnah-all condemning this violation of basic rights.
The protests, however, were met with brutal suppression, culminating in the Jallianwala Bagh massacre on April 13, 1919, where British troops fired on unarmed civilians, killing hundreds. This tragedy galvanized the independence movement and exposed the colonial government’s disregard for human life and dignity. Though Gandhi called off the satyagraha after some protests turned violent, the Rowlatt Satyagraha established him as a national leader and demonstrated the power of nonviolent mass resistance in defending human rights.
Practicing human rights: Congress provincial governments of 1937
When the opportunity came to implement their principles, Congress leaders demonstrated their commitment to civil liberties wasn’t merely rhetorical. Following elections under the Government of India Act 1935, Congress formed governments in seven provinces-United Provinces, Bihar, Central Provinces, Bombay, Madras, Orissa, and later in NWFP and Assam. These governments, which functioned for 28 months from 1937 to 1939, turned human rights promises into practice.
Among their first actions, Congress ministries repealed emergency powers granted through Public Safety Acts, lifted bans on political organizations like Hindustan Seva Dal, removed press restrictions, and curtailed police surveillance of political activists. They restored confiscated arms and returned securities that had been forfeited from newspapers.
Most significantly, these governments prioritized releasing political prisoners. Thousands who had been imprisoned for participating in the independence movement were freed. In United Provinces and Bihar, this included revolutionaries who had been sent to the Cellular Jail in Andaman Islands and brought back after hunger strikes. When governors initially refused consent for their release, the UP and Bihar ministries resigned in February 1938, forcing negotiations that resulted in freeing all prisoners by March.
The contrast with non-Congress provinces was stark. In Bengal and Punjab, where Congress did not form governments, civil liberties remained curtailed and political prisoners stayed behind bars despite hunger strikes and popular demands for their release. The Congress provincial governments also restored pensions of officials associated with the Civil Disobedience Movement, demonstrating practical commitment to justice and reconciliation.
These governments implemented their election manifesto promises on agrarian reform, workers’ rights, education, and social welfare. They passed tenancy legislation to protect peasants, promoted workers’ interests through minimum wage laws, encouraged khadi and village industries, and worked to remove untouchability. While constitutional and financial constraints limited radical reforms like complete abolition of the zamindari system, these administrations showed that self-governance could deliver meaningful progress on human rights and social justice.
What do you think? How did the Indian freedom movement’s early emphasis on fundamental rights shape the Constitution we have today? In what ways can we honor this legacy by strengthening human rights protections in contemporary India?
References
- https://www.insightsonindia.com/modern-indian-history/national-movement-1919-1939/karachi-session1931/
- https://www.constitutionofindia.net/historical-constitution/karachi-resolution-1931/
- https://pwonlyias.com/upsc-notes/karachi-congress-session-1931/
- https://www.nextias.com/blog/nehru-report/
- https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/ncert-notes-nehru-report/
- https://www.insightsonindia.com/modern-indian-history/national-movement-1919-1939/nehru-report-1928/
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rowlatt_Act
- https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/rowlatt-act-and-jallianwala-bagh-massacre/
- https://uppcsmagazine.com/the-rowlatt-act-and-mahatma-gandhis-response/
- https://vajiramandravi.com/upsc-exam/rowlatt-act/
- https://vajiramandravi.com/upsc-exam/1937-election/
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1937_Indian_provincial_elections
- https://selfstudyhistory.com/2015/01/30/the-election-of-1937-and-the-formation-of-ministries/
- https://pwonlyias.com/upsc-notes/congress-rule-1937-1939-governance-reforms/
Leave a Reply