National Movement (1934–1939)
When the Civil Disobedience Movement finally came to an end in 1934, the Indian national movement entered a period of quiet—but it was not the quiet of surrender; it was the quiet of reflection. Like the calm that follows a great storm, the years between 1934 and 1939 were filled with deep introspection, ideological debate, and political reorganisation. India was catching its breath, but also preparing for the next great leap.
This was a transitional phase—a bridge between two major movements: the Civil Disobedience and the Quit India Movement. It was during these years that the Indian National Congress, under Gandhi’s moral influence and Nehru’s intellectual fire, debated the most fundamental questions of political strategy:
- Should freedom be achieved through mass struggle or constitutional participation?
- Should India wait patiently and build from below, or push forward with immediate confrontation?
- And when elections under British rule were held in 1937, should Congress accept office or stay outside as an opposition to colonial authority?
These questions divided opinions, shaped leadership, and ultimately prepared India for the final phase of its freedom struggle.
🌿 The Aftermath of Civil Disobedience: A Time for Reassessment
The Civil Disobedience Movement (1930–34) had shaken the British Empire to its core. For the first time, India had openly refused to obey the colonial state. Villages, towns, women, peasants, and students had all participated. But when Gandhi suspended the movement in 1934, it left many in the nationalist camp disheartened and confused.
Thousands of leaders were in prison; the Congress organisation was battered; and ordinary people, who had risked everything, now felt uncertain about the next step. Gandhi’s decision to withdraw appeared, to some, like an anti-climax. Jawaharlal Nehru and Subhas Chandra Bose, representing the impatient younger generation, were especially critical. They admired Gandhi but were dissatisfied with his cyclical pattern of “movement and withdrawal.”
In this atmosphere of confusion, one question dominated the nationalist mind:
“What should be the next strategy for achieving independence?”
⚖️ The First Phase of Debate (1934–1935): Searching for a Way Forward
As Congress leaders regrouped, three distinct approaches emerged on how to continue the freedom struggle.
1. Gandhi’s View – Constructive Work Before Struggle
Gandhiji believed that before another mass movement could be launched, India needed moral and organisational preparation. He urged Congressmen to engage in “constructive work” — spinning khadi, promoting village industries, uplifting Harijans (Dalits), spreading basic education, and building self-reliant local communities.
This, to Gandhi, was not a retreat but a strategic pause—a period to strengthen the moral fibre of the nation. He called this the “Struggle–Truce–Struggle (S–T–S)” strategy:
- Struggle through civil disobedience,
- Truce for consolidation,
- And again Struggle when the nation was ready.
He believed people’s capacity for sacrifice was not infinite; therefore, periods of rest were necessary to sustain long-term resistance.
2. The Council-Entry Group – Politics Through Legislature
Another group within the Congress, often called the “new Swarajists”, argued that complete withdrawal from politics would isolate the movement from the people’s day-to-day realities. Leaders like M. A. Ansari, Bhulabhai Desai, S. Satyamurthy, B. C. Roy, and Asaf Ali favoured entering the legislative councils to oppose colonial policies from within.
They suggested that participating in the 1934 elections to the Central Legislative Assembly could help the Congress keep its political relevance alive, even during non-revolutionary periods.
3. The Left Trend – Nehru’s Radicalism
The younger socialists, led by Jawaharlal Nehru, and supported by emerging Marxist and labour movements, opposed both the above approaches. To them, constructive work seemed too slow, and council-entry looked too compromising. Nehru proposed an alternative called the “Struggle–Victory (S–V)” strategy—permanent confrontation with imperialism until total independence was won.
He believed that freedom would come not by negotiation but by unbroken resistance. This was the early sign of the ideological rift between Gandhi’s moral gradualism and Nehru’s revolutionary impatience—a conflict that would shape the future of the national movement.
🕊️ Gandhi’s Compromise and Withdrawal (1934)
To prevent division within the Congress, Gandhi allowed those who wanted to enter the councils to do so under a Congress Parliamentary Board, provided they remained loyal to the nationalist spirit and avoided careerism.
This compromise maintained party unity. Soon after, Gandhi withdrew from active Congress politics on 30 October 1934, dedicating himself to village industries, Harijan welfare, and basic education.
In the 1934 elections, the Congress contested and won 45 out of 75 seats, emerging as the largest party in the Central Legislative Assembly—a modest but symbolically important success.
🏛️ The Government of India Act (1935): A New Political Landscape
The British, learning from the mass movements of the 1930s, passed the Government of India Act, 1935, which introduced provincial autonomy and proposed an All-India Federation (though the latter never materialised).
This Act gave Indians limited self-government at the provincial level, but real power remained in British hands through the governors and the Viceroy. Yet, it unintentionally opened up new political space—elections, ministries, and legislative debates—that Congress could not ignore.
🗳️ The Second Phase of Debate (1936–1937): To Accept or Not to Accept Office?
When the British announced elections to the provincial legislatures under the 1935 Act, the Congress faced another dilemma.
Should it contest the elections it had opposed?
And if it won, should it form ministries under a law it rejected as undemocratic?
This question divided the Congress along ideological lines:
- The Left, led by Nehru, Subhas Bose, and the Congress Socialists, argued that accepting office would amount to collaboration with the colonial system. They wanted to contest elections only to expose and obstruct the British government.
- The Right, led by Rajendra Prasad, Patel, and others, believed that office could be used tactically—to implement welfare measures and strengthen the movement from within.
Initially, Gandhi leaned towards the Left’s caution but later agreed that forming ministries might help translate nationalist ideals into governance.
📊 The 1937 Elections: A Test of Popular Faith
The 1937 elections turned out to be a political milestone. The Congress contested 1,161 seats and won 716, securing absolute majorities in five provinces (UP, Bihar, Madras, Central Provinces, and Orissa), and forming ministries in seven provinces overall.
For the first time, Indians were governing Indians, though under colonial limits. The Congress’s success demonstrated the depth of popular support for nationalism.
This period (1937–39) saw Congress ministries implement reforms in education, civil liberties, and agrarian conditions—showing that self-rule was not a dream but an achievable reality.
🏕️ Ideological Vibrancy: Congress Sessions and Evolving Vision
Throughout this period, key Congress sessions reflected the intellectual and moral evolution of the movement.
- Lucknow Session (1936): Under Nehru’s presidency, the Congress formally embraced socialism as the path to end poverty and inequality. The All-India Kisan Sabha was founded to address agrarian distress.
- Faizpur Session (1936): The first Congress session held in a rural area, symbolising the movement’s shift toward the peasantry. It adopted an agrarian programme demanding rent reduction, minimum wages, and land reforms.
- Haripura Session (1938): Presided over by Subhas Chandra Bose, it declared complete independence for all of India, including princely states, and endorsed Nai Talim (Basic Education) based on Gandhian principles.
These sessions mark how the Congress was transforming from a political party into a social movement—concerned not just with British rule but with the kind of India that would emerge after independence.
⚡ The Crisis at Tripuri (1939): Ideological Clashes and Leadership Rift
The Congress unity faced its toughest test at the Tripuri Session (1939). The presidential election became a showdown between Subhas Chandra Bose (representing the radical Left) and Pattabhi Sitaramayya (backed by Gandhi).
Bose won the election but soon faced mass resignations from the Congress Working Committee, dominated by Gandhi’s supporters. When Govind Ballabh Pant’s resolution directed Bose to form a Working Committee in line with Gandhi’s views, Bose found himself isolated and finally resigned in April 1939.
This crisis revealed the limits of ideological diversity within the Congress and the growing tension between moral idealism and revolutionary pragmatism.
🌅 Historical Significance: A Period of Preparation
The years from 1934 to 1939 may not have seen dramatic mass movements like the Non-Cooperation or Quit India struggles, yet they were crucially formative.
- Intellectual Maturity: The Congress evolved from being merely a protest organisation into a comprehensive political movement with economic, social, and constitutional visions for free India.
- Organisational Strength: Through elections and ministries, it built administrative experience and discipline—essential for post-independence governance.
- Ideological Diversity: The internal debates between Gandhi, Nehru, and Bose enriched the movement, giving it both moral depth and strategic flexibility.
- People’s Confidence: The 1937 elections convinced the world—and Indians themselves—that Congress truly represented the will of the nation.
Thus, this was a period of churning, learning, and consolidation—when India’s political leadership sharpened its understanding of freedom, power, and responsibility.
🕊️ In Essence
Between the end of the Civil Disobedience Movement and the outbreak of World War II, Indian nationalism was not dormant—it was maturing.
It was a time when leaders differed not on whether to achieve freedom, but on how best to achieve it.
This period, rich in debate and experimentation, laid the intellectual foundation for the decisive final struggle that was yet to come—the Quit India Movement of 1942, where India would rise once more, united and unyielding.