Congress’s Global Outlook and the Growth of Communalism in the 1930s
Excellent — now we enter a deeply revealing and intellectually rich phase of India’s national movement:
the late 1930s, when two parallel processes unfolded —
on one hand, the Congress evolved a broad internationalist worldview, aligning itself with global anti-imperialist and democratic forces;
and on the other hand, communalism began to grow dangerously, fragmenting the unity of the freedom struggle.
Let’s understand both of these dimensions clearly, systematically, and in a way that connects ideas with historical context.
🌍 Increasing Interest of the Congress in World Affairs
From the very beginning, the Indian National Congress had a moral and global outlook.
It saw India’s freedom not as an isolated event but as part of the worldwide struggle against imperialism.
🕊️ Early Opposition to Imperialist Wars
Since its inception in 1885, the Congress opposed the use of Indian soldiers and resources for British imperial wars — whether in Africa, China, or West Asia.
Congress leaders recognised that India’s army was being used to enslave other peoples, while Indians themselves remained enslaved at home.
Thus, from the start, the Congress connected India’s subjugation to the larger global system of imperialism.
🌐 Nehru and the League Against Imperialism (1927)
This global perspective deepened with Jawaharlal Nehru’s international involvement.
In February 1927, Nehru attended the Congress of Oppressed Nationalities at Brussels —
a gathering of revolutionaries and exiles from Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
It was here that the League Against Imperialism was founded, and Nehru was elected to its Executive Council.
This event was historic for two reasons:
- It placed India’s national movement firmly within the global anti-imperialist struggle.
- It gave Nehru his first exposure to international socialist and anti-colonial networks, shaping his worldview profoundly.
⚔️ Madras Congress (1927): No Support for Imperial Wars
At the Madras Session of the Congress (1927), a clear warning was issued to the British government:
“The people of India will not support Britain in any war undertaken to further imperialist aims.”
This was the first formal assertion that India’s loyalty was to justice, not to the Empire.
🌎 The 1930s: Anti-Imperialist and Anti-Fascist Stand
During the 1930s, as the world plunged into economic depression and fascism rose in Europe and Asia, the Congress adopted a firm anti-imperialist and anti-fascist policy.
It:
- Supported freedom movements in Asia and Africa,
- Condemned fascism in Italy, Germany, and Japan, calling it the most brutal form of imperialism and racism, and
- Expressed solidarity with the people of Ethiopia, Spain, Czechoslovakia, and China who were fighting aggression.
This was a remarkable stance — when many colonial elites elsewhere were silent, the Indian National Congress stood morally with the oppressed of the world.
🇨🇳 Support to China Against Japan (1937–38)
When Japan invaded China in 1937, the Congress responded immediately.
- It called upon Indians to boycott Japanese goods as a gesture of solidarity with the Chinese people.
- In 1938, Congress even sent a medical mission to China, led by Dr. M. Atal, to assist the Chinese army — a bold humanitarian act from a still-colonised nation.
This reflected how India’s national movement had transcended its borders — it had become a moral force in world politics.
🌏 Nehru’s Vision of Global Solidarity
At the Lucknow Session of 1936, in his presidential address, Jawaharlal Nehru summed up the Congress’s new worldview beautifully:
“We stand for cooperation with the progressive forces of the world — those who fight for freedom and the breaking of social and political bonds.”
Thus, Indian nationalism had evolved from a political demand for self-rule into a global ideology of anti-imperialism, humanism, and peace.
⚡ Parallel Development: The Growth of Communalism
But while the Congress was rising to a higher international moral plane, the internal unity of India was under strain.
From the mid-1930s onwards, communal politics — both Muslim and Hindu — began to grow stronger.
Let’s understand why this happened and what impact it had.
🔹 Causes of Communal Revival After 1935
After the Government of India Act of 1935, communalism received a fresh boost.
Several interrelated factors were responsible:
- Separate Electorates:
The continuation and expansion of separate electorates (first introduced in 1909) meant that Hindus and Muslims voted separately — embedding religious identity into political representation.
This encouraged politicians to appeal to communal loyalties rather than national unity. - Restricted Franchise:
Since only a small, property-owning elite could vote, politics became dominated by local landlords, moneylenders, and elites — many of whom preferred communal politics over social reform. - Economic Shifts:
As the Congress adopted radical agrarian programmes and peasant movements grew, the landlord classes (both Hindu and Muslim) turned against it.
They instead supported communal parties that promised to protect their privileges. - Propaganda and Fear:
Both Hindu and Muslim communal organisations intensified their propaganda, exaggerating the supposed “threat” from the other community.
☪️ Role of the Muslim League
The Muslim League, which claimed to represent all Muslims, had actually performed poorly in the 1937 elections.
This exposed its weak base — especially in provinces where Muslims were the majority, such as Punjab, Bengal, and the NWFP, where the League barely had influence.
This electoral setback made Jinnah and the League more aggressive in redefining their politics.
The League’s New Strategy:
- Rebuild its social base by appealing to Muslim fears and religious identity.
- Portray the Congress Ministries (1937–39) as “Hindu-dominated governments” hostile to Muslim interests.
- Spread the idea that Muslims were a separate nation, not just a minority.
The Lahore Resolution (1940)
In March 1940, at the Lahore Session, the Muslim League adopted its historic resolution demanding:
“The creation of independent states” in Muslim-majority areas of India —
what would later be called Pakistan.
This was the formal political birth of the Two-Nation Theory — the idea that Hindus and Muslims could never coexist in one nation.
🔱 Role of Hindu Communalists
The Hindu Mahasabha and other Hindu communal organisations responded to Muslim communalism not with nationalism, but with counter-communalism.
They:
- Declared that India was primarily a Hindu nation,
- Opposed any policy that offered safeguards to minorities, and
- Viewed the Congress’s inclusive nationalism as “appeasement.”
Ironically, this Hindu communal narrative mirrored the Muslim League’s logic — both accepted that Hindus and Muslims were separate political entities.
💡 The Psychological Consequence
Communalism feeds on mutual fear.
When a section of the majority begins to act or speak in a communal tone, the minority feels threatened, and its own communal leaders gain legitimacy.
This dynamic was exactly what happened in the 1930s.
Notice the irony:
- The Muslim League was strongest not in Muslim-majority areas (like Punjab or Bengal, where Muslims felt secure),
- But in minority provinces, where Muslims felt anxious — such as U.P. and Bombay.
Thus, communalism was rooted in insecurity, not numbers.
⚔️ Communal Groups: A Barrier to National Freedom
By the late 1930s, both Hindu and Muslim communal groups had become serious obstacles to the freedom struggle.
They:
- Refused to join national movements against the British.
- Saw each other — and the Congress — as enemies, not the colonial rulers.
- Represented primarily elite and upper-class interests, not the ordinary people.
- Distracted India from its central goal of independence and social justice.
In this sense, communalism became the most dangerous legacy of British rule — dividing the very people who had fought together for freedom under the banner of Congress.
🌏 The Historical Significance
This phase shows how the Indian national movement was evolving on two planes:
- Outwardly, it was connecting India to the world’s progressive, anti-imperialist struggles;
- Inwardly, it was battling communal divisions that threatened the moral and social foundations of freedom.
It was a time when India stood tall in global ideals — yet fragile in internal unity.