Debates and Dilemmas After Civil Disobedience

After the high-pitched Civil Disobedience Movement (1930–34), India entered a moment of pause — a kind of silence before the next storm. But this silence was not inactivity; it was a period of rethinking and regrouping for the nationalists.

🌿 Background: After the Civil Disobedience Movement

When the Civil Disobedience Movement ended in April 1934, the political climate in India changed dramatically.

• The British government had replied to the movement’s defiance with harsh repression — imprisoning thousands of leaders and activists.
• As a result, when Gandhi withdrew the movement, it left behind a vacuum — there was no clear national-level strategy or united opposition to British rule.
• Many leaders, including Jawaharlal Nehru, were disappointed and even critical of Gandhi’s decision to withdraw.
• This sense of disillusionment led several leaders to feel that a new method, new principle, and new leadership were needed.

In fact, as early as 1933, Subhas Chandra Bose and Vithalbhai Patel openly declared that “the Mahatma as a political leader has failed.” They demanded a radical reorganisation of the Congress, to make it more dynamic and revolutionary.

So, India was standing at a crossroads:
👉 Should the Congress continue with Gandhi’s methods?
👉 Or should it try something entirely new — perhaps more aggressive or political?

⚖️ The Two Phases of Debate (1934–1937)

The debate among nationalists in this period took place in two stages:

1️⃣ First Stage (1934–35):

After the Civil Disobedience Movement ended, leaders were confused about how to continue the struggle during a non-mass phase — a time when large-scale agitations were not possible.

2️⃣ Second Stage (1936–37):

This debate resurfaced around whether the Congress should accept office in provinces if it won the 1937 elections under the Government of India Act of 1935.
(We’ll explore this second phase later; for now, let’s focus on the first.)

🧭 First Phase of the Debate (1934–35): What Next for the National Movement?

After the Civil Disobedience Movement, three major viewpoints emerged among the Congress leaders on how to proceed:

The Constructive Programme (Gandhi’s View)

Mahatma Gandhi argued that before launching any new mass struggle, the Congress should focus on “constructive work.”
This included:

• Promotion of khadi and village industries,
• Removal of untouchability,
• Spread of basic education, and
• Organising village-level self-reliance.

Gandhi believed that such work was not a retreat but a preparation for the next mass phase.
According to him, people’s moral and emotional capacity for sacrifice had limits; they needed a period of recovery and strengthening.

This idea later came to be known as the “Struggle–Truce–Struggle (S–T–S)” strategy.

⚔️ Gandhi’s “Struggle–Truce–Struggle” Strategy

Gandhi’s logic was simple yet profound:

• Struggle: Launch an intense movement against British rule — civil disobedience, boycotts, etc.
• Truce: Pause to recover, reorganise, and strengthen the people’s capacities.
• Struggle Again: Begin the next phase of confrontation.

He believed that a continuous, non-stop struggle was impossible because people’s capacity for suffering and sacrifice was not infinite. Hence, periods of truce were necessary to prepare for the next round.

The Council-Entry Group (New Swarajists)

Another section of leaders felt that the Congress should re-enter the legislatures to keep the political movement alive.
They argued that even though legislative councils were limited and under British control, they could still be used as platforms to voice nationalist demands.

Key leaders of this group included:

• M. A. Ansari,
• Bhulabhai Desai,
• S. Satyamurthy,
• B. C. Roy, and
• Asaf Ali.

They were often called the “new Swarajists” — inspired by the earlier Swarajist approach of C. R. Das and Motilal Nehru from the 1920s.

They advocated participation in the 1934 Central Legislative Assembly elections to use constitutional means for expressing nationalist views.

The Left Trend (Nehru’s View)

The third perspective came from the Left wing, led by Jawaharlal Nehru and supported by the growing socialist and Marxist influences of the early 1930s.

This group rejected both Gandhi’s “constructive work” and the “council-entry” approach.
Instead, they called for a continuous mass movement aimed at direct confrontation with imperialism.

🚩 Nehru’s “Struggle–Victory (S–V)” Strategy

Nehru proposed an alternative to Gandhi’s S–T–S formula — the “Struggle–Victory (S–V)” strategy.

He believed that India had reached a stage where it must remain in permanent conflict with British imperialism until complete independence (Purna Swaraj) was achieved.
There should be no “truce,” only continuous struggle until victory.

This ideological difference marks one of the early divides between Gandhi’s realism and Nehru’s radical idealism.

🤝 Gandhi’s Compromise on Council Entry

Now, there was a serious risk that these differences might lead to a split within the Congress — between Gandhians, Swarajists, and Leftists.

To prevent this, Gandhiji compromised.

He maintained that:

• True freedom could never come from parliamentary politics,
• Yet, if some Congressmen wished to enter councils, they could do so,
• Provided they remained loyal to the spirit of nationalism and avoided self-interest or overindulgence in constitutional politics.

Thus, at the AICC meeting at Patna in May 1934, it was decided to:

• Form a Parliamentary Board to contest the 1934 elections under Congress banner.

Gandhi emphasised that while elections could be used tactically, Swaraj could only come through the awakened consciousness of the masses, not through legislatures.

🕊️ Gandhi’s Resignation (October 1934)

Having resolved the internal differences, Gandhiji decided to withdraw from active Congress politics.

On 30 October 1934, he resigned from the Indian National Congress.
He wanted to dedicate himself entirely to:

• Village industries,
• Harijan (Dalit) welfare, and
• Basic education.

This marks a turning point — from political agitation to social reconstruction.

🗳️ The 1934 Central Legislative Assembly Elections

In November 1934, elections were held for the Central Legislative Assembly.

• The Indian National Congress contested under its newly formed Parliamentary Board.
• It emerged as the largest party, winning 45 out of 75 elected seats.
• Though limited in power, this victory symbolised the Congress’s continued political relevance even during a non-mass phase.