Civil Disobedience Movement (1930–34)

Let’s step into the atmosphere of late 1920s India. The country had already experienced the energy of Non-Cooperation Movement (1920–22) and the pain of its abrupt suspension after the Chauri Chaura incident. Nearly a decade later, the Congress leadership was again ready to challenge British authority — this time with greater clarity, unity, and moral conviction. This new phase of struggle was called the Civil Disobedience Movement, launched in 1930, and it represented a decisive step toward Purna Swaraj — complete independence.

The Congress Decision at Lahore (1929): Declaration of Intent

At the Lahore Session of the Indian National Congress (December 1929), presided over by Jawaharlal Nehru, a historic resolution was passed declaring Purna Swaraj (Complete Independence) as the ultimate goal of the national movement. The session also decided that if the British did not concede India’s demand for Dominion Status (a status similar to Canada or Australia within the British Empire), the Congress would be compelled to initiate a Civil Disobedience Movement.

However, no detailed plan was announced at that moment. The session empowered the Congress Working Committee (CWC) — the highest executive body of Congress — to chalk out the program and launch it when the time was deemed appropriate.

So, by early 1930, India was standing at the threshold of a new mass movement — the air was filled with anticipation, but the form it would take was yet to be revealed.

Gandhi’s Eleven Demands: The Last Attempt for Reconciliation

Before directly starting the movement, Mahatma Gandhi, ever the apostle of peace and negotiation, decided to give the British one last opportunity to avoid confrontation.

On 25 January 1930, the Viceroy Lord Irwin addressed the Legislative Assembly and made it clear that Britain had no intention of granting Dominion Status. This statement closed the door on political compromise and strengthened the Congress’s resolve.

Then, on 31 January 1930, Gandhi sent a detailed letter to Viceroy Irwin, placing before him eleven specific demands. Gandhi clearly stated that if these demands were not accepted by 11 March 1930, the Congress would have no choice but to begin Civil Disobedience — meaning, peaceful defiance of unjust laws.

Let us look at these Eleven Demands — they reveal the broad and inclusive vision of Gandhi’s politics:

Reduce the rupee–sterling exchange ratio to 1 shilling 4 pence (1s 4d) — this would stabilize India’s currency and protect Indian interests.
Reduce land revenue by 50% and place it under legislative control — to ease the burden on peasants.
Abolish the salt tax and the government monopoly over salt — addressing the daily hardship of the poor.
Cut salaries of the highest-grade officials and reduce military expenditure by half — to check colonial extravagance.
Release all political prisoners — as a gesture of goodwill.
Protect Indian textiles by imposing custom duties on foreign cloth — supporting indigenous industries.
Reserve coastal shipping for Indians — promoting national economic interests.
Prohibit intoxicants — promoting social reform and moral regeneration.
Reform the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) — which was notorious for spying on and harassing nationalists.
Accept the Postal Reservation Bill — which sought to ensure fair Indian participation in postal services.
Allow Indians to possess arms for self-defense — symbolizing trust in Indian citizens.

The Spirit Behind the Demands

Now, what’s remarkable is not just the list, but the intent behind these demands. Gandhi did not merely raise political issues; he combined economic, social, and administrative grievances into one integrated program. It was a reflection of his idea of Swaraj — not just political independence, but a just and self-reliant India.

Yet, not everyone in Congress saw it that way. Jawaharlal Nehru, for instance, felt these demands were a step backward from the bold goal of Purna Swaraj declared at Lahore. To him, it looked like Gandhi was bargaining for reforms rather than asserting full independence.

But Gandhi’s strategy was deeply psychological. He wanted to expose the moral stubbornness of British rule by placing before them simple, just, and practical demands. If even these were rejected, the British government would lose any moral legitimacy.

Gandhi’s Letter to Lord Irwin (2 March 1930): A Moral Challenge

On 2 March 1930, Gandhi wrote another letter to Lord Irwin, explaining the moral basis of his forthcoming action.

He wrote that British rule in India was a “curse” that had impoverished millions. Yet, he expressed no anger — instead, he said his aim was to “convert the British heart through nonviolence”, to make them realize the injustice they were inflicting.

In this same letter, Gandhi announced his decision to break the Salt Law if his demands were ignored. He saw the Salt Tax as the perfect symbol of British oppression — a law that burdened even the poorest of Indians for something as basic as salt.

When the Viceroy chose not to respond, Gandhi decided to act.

Congress Working Committee Meeting at Sabarmati (February 1930)

Before setting out, Gandhi needed formal authorization from the Congress.
So, in February 1930, the CWC met at Sabarmati Ashram and entrusted Gandhi with full responsibility to design and lead the movement. The entire Congress organization — its provincial committees, workers, and volunteers — was placed under his command.

Now, the stage was set. Gandhi had moral legitimacy, organizational backing, and a symbolic target — the Salt Law.

The Beginning: The Salt March (March 1930)

When all negotiations failed and the deadline passed, Gandhi, on the morning of 12 March 1930, walked out of Sabarmati Ashram with 78 chosen volunteers, beginning the famous Dandi March — a 24-day, 240-mile journey to the Arabian Sea.

This act — simple yet profoundly symbolic — would soon ignite one of the largest mass movements in Indian history, uniting Indians across regions, classes, and faiths against colonial injustice.

In essence, the Civil Disobedience Movement began not with a violent explosion, but with a moral awakening. Gandhi turned salt, an everyday necessity, into a symbol of resistance — transforming the struggle for independence into a national act of conscience.

The Dandi March

When Gandhi decided to launch the Civil Disobedience Movement, he did not begin with a fiery declaration or a call for violent revolt. He began with salt. Something so small, so ordinary — yet so universal — that it bound the prince and the peasant together. Let’s now understand how this simple act of breaking the Salt Law became the spark that set the entire nation aflame with patriotic resolve.

The Salt Law and Its Injustice

To understand Gandhi’s choice, we must first understand the Salt Law of 1882. Under this colonial law, the British government monopolized salt — meaning that Indians were not allowed to produce or sell salt independently. Every handful of salt they consumed had to be bought from government depots, at prices that included heavy taxes.

Salt, a basic necessity for human survival, had thus become a symbol of British exploitation. Even the poorest of the poor, who could not afford food on some days, had to pay tax on salt. Gandhi saw in this an act of deep moral injustice — the colonial state, he argued, had no right to tax what nature freely provided.

Why Gandhi Chose Salt as the Symbol

Now, why salt? Why not land revenue or education? Gandhi’s choice was both strategic and ethical.

Universality: Salt was consumed by everyone, rich or poor, Hindu or Muslim, man or woman. It cut across all social divisions.
Simplicity: The issue was simple enough for even the illiterate villager to understand — “Why should I not use the salt from the sea near my home?”
Moral clarity: The Salt Tax represented the cruel face of colonialism, which denied even the most basic natural right. Gandhi highlighted that sometimes, the tax on salt was fourteen times its actual cost — a glaring symbol of exploitation.
Local connection: He pointed out that in many coastal regions, when people tried to use locally available salt, the government destroyed that salt to protect its monopoly. This act, Gandhi said, was an unforgivable sin — “How can a government destroy what nature has produced?”

Thus, when Gandhi decided to defy this law, he was not just breaking a rule — he was asserting the moral right of Indians to live freely and justly.

The Dandi March (12 March – 6 April 1930)

And so, the stage was set.
On 12 March 1930, Gandhi began his historic Salt March from Sabarmati Ashram (Ahmedabad) with 78 carefully chosen followers — representing all parts of India and all sections of society.

Their destination: the coastal village of Dandi in Navsari district, near Surat, about 240 miles (390 km) away.
Their method: walking — slowly, steadily, and peacefully.

Each day, as Gandhi walked through villages, thousands of men, women, and children joined the procession. Villagers lined the roads to greet him, showering flowers, singing bhajans, and pledging their support. The march became a living symbol of national awakening — India was moving, step by step, toward her freedom.

After 24 days of walking, Gandhi and his followers reached Dandi on 5 April 1930. On the morning of 6 April, Gandhi performed a simple yet revolutionary act — he picked up a lump of salt from the seashore. This act, though symbolic, shook the foundations of the British Empire.

Leaders like Sarojini Naidu, Dr. Sumant, Abbas Tyabji, and Mithuben Petit joined him at Dandi. Across the country, similar marches and salt-making activities began.

With this, the Civil Disobedience Movement officially commenced.

The Spread of the Movement Across India

What began at Dandi soon swept across the entire country. Let’s look at how different regions joined this moral uprising:

(a) Malabar (Kerala)

K. Kelappan, the hero of the Vaikom Satyagraha, led a procession of 33 satyagrahis from Kozhikode to Payyannur.
P. Krishna Pillai, who participated in this march, displayed remarkable courage when police tried to seize the national flag.
- In the confrontation, Krishna Pillai and Sharma struggled to reclaim the flag — Pillai got the flag back, Sharma the flagstick — symbolizing the unyielding spirit of the movement.

(b) Tamil Nadu: The Vedaranyam March

In April 1930, C. Rajagopalachari (Rajaji) — a close associate of Gandhi — organized the Vedaranyam Salt March.

It began at Trichinopoly (Tiruchirappalli) and ended at Vedaranyam on the Tanjore coast.
Rajaji and his volunteers broke the salt law there, bringing the spirit of Dandi to the southern shores of India.

(c) Andhra

In Andhra, people established “sibirams” — military-style camps that served as the headquarters of Salt Satyagraha.
From these camps, groups of satyagrahis marched to the coastal areas to make salt and challenge the government monopoly.

(d) Orissa

Gopabandhu Choudhury was chosen as the leader of the Civil Disobedience Movement in Orissa.
On 6 April 1930, he and Acharya Harihar Das led 21 volunteers from Swaraj Ashram, Cuttack to Inchudi.
Gopabandhu was arrested on 9 April, but Acharya Harihar continued the march.
On 13 April, he and his followers picked up salt — formally breaking the Salt Law in Orissa.

(e) Assam

The British authorities tried to suppress the students’ involvement here by issuing the Cunningham Circular (named after J. R. Cunningham, the Director of Public Information).

It forced students to sign a pledge of loyalty to the British Raj and abstain from any nationalist activities.
This move backfired — students launched mass protests, and picketing was seen in schools across Assam.

(f) North-Eastern India

From the hills of Manipur and Nagaland arose a remarkable figure — Rani Gaidinliu.

At just 13 years of age, she responded to Gandhi’s call and raised the banner of rebellion against foreign rule.
She was captured in 1932 and sentenced to life imprisonment, but her spirit remained unbroken.
She was released only in 1947, by the Government of Free India.

(g) North-West Frontier Province (NWFP)

Here, the movement took a unique and heroic form under Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, known as Badshah Khan or the Frontier Gandhi.

He organized the Khudai Khidmatgar (Servants of God), a non-violent volunteer army also called the Red Shirts.
These Pathan volunteers took an oath of non-violence and worked for social reform and independence.

When Ghaffar Khan was arrested on 23 April 1930, massive protests broke out in Peshawar.

The British ordered troops to fire on the peaceful demonstrators.
But something historic happened — two platoons of Garhwali soldiers, led by Chandra Singh Garhwali, refused to open fire.
- This act of defiance within the British Indian Army showed that the spirit of nationalism had entered even the ranks of soldiers, the very instrument of colonial power.

(h) Dharasana (Gujarat)

After Gandhi’s arrest on 5 May 1930, Abbas Tyabji was entrusted with continuing the Salt Satyagraha.
On 7 May, he launched the Dharasana Satyagraha, targeting the Dharasana Salt Works.
Sarojini Naidu, Imam Sahib, and Manilal Gandhi (Gandhi’s son) led the volunteers on 21 May 1930.
They faced brutal beatings by the police, but not one of them retaliated — a living example of true non-violence in action.

(i) Sholapur (Maharashtra)

After Gandhi’s arrest, the industrial city of Sholapur erupted in protest.
Textile workers went on strike, liquor shops and police stations were attacked, and for a few days, the city virtually ran its own government — a symbol of complete rejection of British authority.

Violent Confrontations and British Repression

While Gandhi and his followers remained committed to non-violence, the colonial government’s brutal repression often led to violent outbreaks among the people.

In Peshawar, after Ghaffar Khan’s arrest, the city was under the control of protestors for almost a week.
In Sholapur, Gandhi’s arrest led to widespread attacks on symbols of British authority — police stations, courts, and railway stations.

Though Gandhi disapproved of violence, these incidents revealed something profound — the patience of the Indian people had run out. The moral foundations of British rule were crumbling.

Conclusion: Salt Turned into a Weapon of Conscience

The Dandi March began as a peaceful journey to the sea but soon turned into a national moral uprising. It unified India like never before — peasants, students, women, and workers all participated with a sense of shared purpose.

Salt, which the British thought was trivial, became the symbol of national dignity and self-respect. And Gandhi, with his walking stick and moral courage, once again proved that true revolutions begin not with violence, but with conscience.

The Expanding Wave of Civil Disobedience: Defiance, Repression, and Awakening (1930)

By mid-1930, the Civil Disobedience Movement had moved far beyond salt. What had begun as a peaceful moral protest was now a nationwide act of defiance against British authority in every sphere of life — economic, social, and political. Gandhi’s Dandi March had not just broken a law; it had broken the psychological barrier of fear that had chained Indians for centuries.

Defiance of Law: A Nation in Motion

After the Salt Satyagraha, the spirit of resistance swept across India. The movement was no longer confined to Gandhi’s leadership; it had become people’s own struggle.

Hartals (strikes) were held in cities and towns.
Demonstrations filled the streets.
Foreign cloth and goods were boycotted and publicly burnt.

But the true depth of the movement lay in how ordinary people took initiative in their own regions. Alongside the officially declared program of the Congress, multiple streams of protest emerged spontaneously:

Peasants violated forest laws, claiming their right to collect firewood and forest produce.
Factory workers went on strike to protest exploitative working conditions.
Lawyers boycotted British courts.
Students left government schools and colleges to join the movement.

This was no longer just a Congress-led campaign; it had become a mass awakening of Indian society.

The Second Phase After Gandhi’s Arrest (May 1930)

When Gandhi was arrested on 5 May 1930, the movement entered a new and more intense phase. The Congress Working Committee (CWC) decided to broaden the struggle by directly challenging the economic foundations of British rule:

Non-payment of land revenue in Ryotwari areas (like Madras and Bombay Presidencies).
No-chaukidar-tax campaign in Zamindari areas (like Bengal and Bihar).
Violation of forest laws in the Central Provinces.

Across the country, people enthusiastically joined these campaigns:

In Maharashtra, Karnataka, and the Central Provinces, villagers defied forest laws.
In Eastern India, peasants refused to pay the chaukidari tax (village watchman tax).
In many districts, peasants stopped paying rent and land revenue, which led to land confiscations and mass arrests.

The slogan was simple yet revolutionary — “No revenue and no rent to the unjust ruler.”

The No-Revenue and No-Rent Campaign in U.P.

In the United Provinces (U.P.), the movement took a distinctive form.

The call for “no revenue” was addressed to the zamindars, asking them not to pay land revenue to the colonial government.
The call for “no rent” was addressed to the tenants, asking them not to pay rent to the zamindars.

However, since the zamindars largely remained loyal to the British, this movement eventually became a no-rent campaign — where peasants directly refused to pay rent to landlords.

This campaign reflected a deeper truth: the fight for independence was also a fight for social and economic justice within Indian society.

The Government’s Dilemma and Repression

The British government in 1930 was caught in a moral and political dilemma.

If they allowed the movement to continue, it would expose their weakness.
If they suppressed it, they would appear brutal and unjust — especially before the world, which was now watching India’s non-violent struggle.

This confusion delayed their reaction. Even Gandhi’s arrest came after much hesitation. But once repression began, it was ruthless.

Civil liberties were suspended.
Provincial governments were given power to ban all Congress and nationalist organizations.
New ordinances were passed to curb public gatherings and freedom of speech.

The empire had once again chosen force over dialogue.

Early Efforts Toward Peace (Mid-1930)

Even as repression increased, attempts were made to explore peace between Congress and the government.

(a) July 1930 – The First Effort

Viceroy Lord Irwin proposed holding a Round Table Conference to discuss India’s constitutional future.
He also reiterated Britain’s long-term goal of Dominion Status for India.
At the suggestion of several moderate legislators, Tej Bahadur Sapru and M. R. Jayakar were authorized to negotiate with Congress leaders.

However, their persuasion failed — Congress leaders refused to attend the Conference without clear political concessions.

(b) August 1930 – Meeting at Yeravada Jail

Jawaharlal Nehru and Motilal Nehru met Gandhi, who was then imprisoned at Yeravada Jail, to discuss possible settlement terms.
The Congress reiterated three uncompromising demands:
1. Right of secession from the British Empire.
2. A fully national government with control over defence and finance.
3. An independent tribunal to settle Britain’s financial claims on India.

The British government rejected these demands outright, and once again, the hope of reconciliation collapsed.
Congress decided not to participate in the first Round Table Conference held in London later that year.

Participation of Different Sections of Indian Society

One of the most remarkable aspects of the Civil Disobedience Movement was how it touched every layer of society, though the degree of participation varied.

(a) Women: The Moral Power of the Movement

Initially, Gandhi was hesitant about involving women, fearing they might face colonial brutality.
But Kamaladevi Chattopadhyay, a young and dynamic leader, convinced him otherwise — arguing that freedom must belong equally to men and women.

What followed was unprecedented in Indian history:

Thousands of women left their homes and joined satyagrahas, picketed shops selling liquor and foreign cloth, and marched shoulder to shoulder with men.
Prominent figures included Kasturba Gandhi, Kamaladevi Chattopadhyay, Sarojini Naidu, Hansa Mehta, Amina Tyabji, Rukmini Lakshmipathy, and Mithuben Petit.
When Gandhi and Abbas Tyabji were arrested, Sarojini Naidu led the Dharasana raid with remarkable courage.
In Bombay, Avantikabai Gokhale and Kamaladevi organized salt satyagrahas at Chowpatty.

Even Rabindranath Tagore commented on this transformation — though in his novel Char Adhyay, he questioned the “unfeminine” nature of militant politics, it still showed how deeply society was being transformed.

(b) Muslims: A Mixed Response

Compared to the Non-Cooperation Movement, Muslim participation was lower, mainly due to the decline of the Khilafat sentiment and growing communal divisions.
Yet, it would be wrong to call their participation insignificant:

In the North-West Frontier Province, Pathans under Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan took a leading role.
In Bengal, many middle-class Muslims participated.
The Muslim weaving communities of Bihar, Delhi, and Lucknow also joined the struggle.

Thus, though limited, Muslim involvement was visible in socially and economically active groups.

(c) Urban Intelligentsia: Declining Enthusiasm

Among the educated classes — lawyers, teachers, and students — enthusiasm was less intense than during Non-Cooperation.

Only a few lawyers gave up their practice.
Few students joined national schools.

Why? Because by this time, many educated youth were attracted to revolutionary nationalism — groups like HSRA (Hindustan Socialist Republican Association) inspired them more than peaceful satyagraha.

(d) Peasants, Industrialists, and Tribals

Peasants participated massively in no-rent and no-revenue campaigns.
Business groups and industrialists, initially supportive, provided funds and resources — especially because British imports were falling during the Great Depression.
Tribal groups in Maharashtra, Karnataka, and the Central Provinces defied forest laws, asserting their economic rights.

Government’s Ruthless Response

Despite its claim of “civilized governance,” the British government reacted with ruthless repression:

Over 90,000 satyagrahis were arrested, including Gandhi and most Congress leaders.
The Congress was banned, and its offices were sealed.
The nationalist press was gagged with strict censorship.
In South India, police brutality was severe — people were beaten merely for wearing khadi or a Gandhi cap.
Lathi charges and firing on unarmed crowds became common.

Yet, the people stood firm. The more they were beaten, the more they rose — silently, but powerfully.

Gandhi on the World Stage

The Dandi March turned Gandhi into a global symbol of moral courage.

International newspapers in Britain and the United States followed the movement daily.
Western journalists admired his discipline, simplicity, and spiritual force.
In 1931, Time Magazine named Mahatma Gandhi as “Man of the Year”, recognizing his impact on world politics.

For the first time, the Indian struggle for freedom was not seen as a local rebellion, but as a universal human quest for justice.

Significance of the Salt March and Civil Disobedience Movement

The Salt March was far more than a protest against a single law — it was a turning point in modern Indian history.

It brought Gandhi to global attention and made non-violent resistance a worldwide ideal.
It marked the first large-scale participation of women in the freedom struggle.
It convinced the British that their rule in India was no longer permanent — they now had to negotiate with Indian leaders as equals.
The import of British cloth collapsed dramatically, aided by picketing and the Great Depression, striking a severe blow to British industry.

In Summary

The Civil Disobedience Movement (1930–34) was not just a campaign of protest — it was a moral revolution.
It broke the fear of authority, united millions across class and region, and brought the world’s attention to India’s demand for justice.

By turning salt into a symbol of freedom, Gandhi transformed the very idea of resistance — proving that true power lies not in arms, but in conscience.

Suspension, Truce and Revival: Civil Disobedience, 1931–1934

Why the movement paused (March–December 1931) — context and logic

By the end of 1930 the Salt Satyagraha had become a full-blown national movement. The British government felt both embarrassed and threatened; at the same time, international attention made harsh repression costly in terms of reputation. In this atmosphere the British arranged talks and sought a way to bring Congress into constitutional negotiations in London — the Round Table Conference. But a Round Table without the Indian National Congress (INC) was politically meaningless. That is why the British tried to negotiate a face-saving truce with Congress so it would attend the Conference.

Gandhi–Irwin Pact (Delhi Pact), 5 March 1931 — terms and tensions

After prolonged bargaining and private discussions, Gandhi and the Viceroy, Lord Irwin, reached an agreement on 5 March 1931, widely known as the Gandhi–Irwin Pact. Important clauses:

Concessions by the Government

Release of political prisoners who had remained non-violent.
Remission of certain penalties not yet collected.
Return of confiscated lands that had not been sold.
Recognition of the right to make salt for personal consumption in coastal villages.
Right to peaceful picketing of liquor and foreign-cloth shops.

Obligations/Actions by the Congress

Suspension of the Civil Disobedience Movement.
Agreement to participate in the Second Round Table Conference in London.

Points not conceded

No public inquiry into police excesses.
No commutation of death sentences (notably those connected to Bhagat Singh and comrades).

Why it was controversial

Many younger and left-wing Congress leaders felt Gandhi had made too many compromises; they wanted more explicit acceptance of Purna Swaraj or at least pressure for commutation of political death sentences. Gandhi, however, justified the suspension on moral and tactical grounds: satyagraha requires giving the opponent an opportunity to show change of heart, and mass movements cannot be perpetual; they must be used judiciously.

Karachi Session (March 1931) — organisational endorsement

In a special Congress session at Karachi (March 1931), the Gandhi–Irwin Pact was formally endorsed, and Gandhi was authorized to represent the Congress at the Second Round Table Conference. This gave the Pact organisational legitimacy, even if political debate within Congress continued.

The Round Table Conference and breakdown — the limits of truce

Gandhi sailed to England in September 1931 to attend the Second Round Table Conference. He argued eloquently for Indian rights, but the conference could not bridge key differences, especially over separate electorates and safeguards for minorities. Moreover, the British did not accept immediate Dominion Status or the full political autonomy that Congress sought. The talks therefore produced no fundamental breakthrough.

Change of Viceroy and the revival of repression (1931)

In April 1931 Lord Willingdon became Viceroy. He distrusted the truce and believed it had been a mistake. Under his administration the government took a harder line: ordinances were drafted to suppress nationalist activity, and the spirit of the Gandhi–Irwin Pact was increasingly violated. Prominent leaders — Jawaharlal Nehru and Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan among them — were arrested in December 1931. This erosion of trust made resumption of mass struggle almost inevitable.

Revival of Civil Disobedience (January 1932) — events and repression

Gandhi returned to Bombay on 28 December 1931. The CWC decided the Congress should resume Civil Disobedience and the movement was revived on 4 January 1932.
The government responded ruthlessly: leaders (including Gandhi and Sardar Patel) were arrested; Congress was declared illegal; special ordinances suspended ordinary legal safeguards; press censorship and bans on nationalist literature were reimposed.
Over 100,000 (one lakh) satyagrahis were arrested; lands and property were confiscated in large numbers; detention, lathi-charges and police atrocities were widespread.
Despite heavy repression the movement continued in many areas for roughly a year and a half. Ultimately, mounting arrests, economic pressure, and organisational depletion forced the movement’s gradual collapse. Gandhi suspended it in May 1933 and finally withdrew it in April 1934.

Assessment: achievements, limits, and legacy

Practical grounds for suspension (why suspension was not simply ‘retreat’):

Violence and militancy among some peasant and tribal sections had grown in late 1930, compromising non-violent discipline.
Urban economic support weakened — many traders and businessmen began to resume selling foreign goods as the depression bit and local funds shrank.
Government seizures of property demoralised wealthier peasant supporters.
Most senior Congress leaders were jailed, making sustained leadership difficult.

Important positive outcomes

The prestige of Congress rose: Gandhi negotiated as an equal with the Viceroy, which symbolically enhanced Congress’ stature.
The movement deepened political consciousness across classes — peasants, tribals, workers and women became more politically engaged.
Even if it did not secure immediate independence, Civil Disobedience widened the social base of nationalism and made future mass politics possible.
Releases of political prisoners were often greeted with public adulation — the movement produced a new generation of political heroes.

Comparative snapshot: Non-Cooperation (1920–22) vs Civil Disobedience (1930–34)

Dimension	Non-Cooperation Movement (1920–22)	Civil Disobedience Movement (1930–34)
Primary tactic	Refusal of cooperation with British institutions	Deliberate breaking of colonial laws (e.g., salt law)
Muslim participation	Relatively higher (Khilafat link)	Lower compared to NCM (but significant in NWFP and pockets of Bengal)
Women’s participation	Limited	Large and active — prominent in picketing and satyagraha
Peasant involvement	Notable (U.P., Bihar)	Even greater — no-rent/no-revenue campaigns, forest law violations
Imprisonments	Large	Over 90,000 — more than three times NCM arrests

Final perspective — strategic patience and political schooling

What emerges clearly is that Gandhi’s politics combined moral principle with tactical judgement. The suspension under the Gandhi–Irwin Pact was not a mere surrender; it was a calibrated pause based on ethical premises (give the opponent a chance) and pragmatic realities (people’s capacity for sacrifice is finite). When the British reneged or repression intensified under Lord Willingdon, Congress returned to mass action.

Above all, the Civil Disobedience Movement (even in its interruptions) politicised large sections of Indian society, showcased the effectiveness of disciplined non-violent protest, and transformed the Congress from a political council of elites into a mass national organisation. The movement therefore remained a decisive milestone on the long road to Purna Swaraj.