Pro-changers and No-changers
Background: The Post-Non-Cooperation Confusion
In February 1922, Gandhiji suddenly suspended the Non-Cooperation Movement after the Chauri Chaura incident. This came as a shock to millions of Indians who had been drawn into the struggle. For the Congress leadership, this created a peculiar crisis:
- The momentum of mass agitation was lost.
- Gandhiji himself was jailed.
- Leaders were unsure about the next step.
It is very important to understand here: no mass movement can go on indefinitely. At some stage, a pause is necessary—both to assess strategy and to prevent fatigue among people. The Congress leaders, therefore, accepted that there should be a break from direct mass struggle. But the question was: What should Congress do during this non-active phase?
New Trends in Nationalism (1922–1929)
This pause did not mean inactivity. Instead, the period enriched the freedom struggle by:
- Diversifying leadership: Figures like Jawaharlal Nehru and Subhas Chandra Bose started rising in importance.
- Experimenting with new methods: Some leaders wanted to try legislative politics, while others emphasized constructive work like village upliftment, spinning, and social reform.
- Confronting new challenges: This phase also saw communal tensions, revolutionary activities, and dilemmas over the right balance between agitation and negotiation.
So, this was not a stagnant phase—it was a period of introspection, experimentation, and preparation for the next big struggle.
The Debate: Pro-changers vs. No-changers
This debate is central to understanding this phase.
- Pro-changers (Swarajists):
Led by C.R. Das, Motilal Nehru, and Ajmal Khan, they argued that:- Congress should stop boycotting the Legislative Councils.
- By entering councils, they could disrupt proceedings, expose colonial policies, and use the councils as a platform to keep nationalism alive.
- No-changers:
Leaders like C. Rajagopalachari, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, Dr. Ansari, and Rajendra Prasad stood by Gandhiji’s line. They insisted on:- Continuing constructive programmes—spinning, temperance (anti-liquor movement), Hindu-Muslim unity, and removal of untouchability.
- Boycotting councils, because they feared that entering them would ultimately lead to cooperation with the British on small reforms and weaken the revolutionary spirit.
Even from jail, Gandhiji supported the No-changers, emphasizing the moral and constructive dimension of nationalism.
Gaya Session of Congress (1922)
The debate came to a head at the Gaya Session in December 1922, presided over by C.R. Das.
- Das moved a resolution for council entry.
- The majority opposed it, sticking to boycott.
- The resolution was defeated, leading Das and Motilal Nehru to resign from their Congress posts.
Soon after, on 31 December 1922, at Tecori Palace, they formed a new political party—Congress-Khilafat Swaraj Party. Das became the president, and Motilal Nehru one of the secretaries. In 1923, it was renamed the Swaraj Party.
Maintaining Unity: Collaborative Strategies
Now, here comes a very important twist. Unlike the split of Surat (1907), this time the Congress avoided division. On Gandhiji’s advice:
- Swarajists (pro-changers) and No-changers agreed to remain within the Congress fold, despite working on different lines.
- The Swarajists accepted the Congress programme, except in one respect—they would contest council elections.
- Both groups recognized each other as genuine patriots with a shared anti-imperialist goal.
Thus, there was unity in diversity of strategy. This arrangement allowed Congress to broaden its base and experiment with multiple approaches without weakening itself.
A special session in Delhi (September 1923) under Maulana Azad officially allowed Swarajists to contest elections.
Swarajists and the politics of council-entry (1923–26)
Basic idea: The Swarajists argued that the Congress’s constructive programme (spinning, khadi, social reform) should be coupled with a political programme of council-entry: contest elections to the legislative councils, use those platforms to obstruct, expose British policies, and keep political issues alive inside the colonial institutions.
Electoral history (quick):
- Under the 1919 Act, elections were held in 1920, 1923, 1926.
- Congress boycotted 1920 (because of Non-Cooperation), leaving space for liberals.
- 1923: The Swaraj Party (Das–Nehru group) contested and did unexpectedly well — 42 of 101 elected seats in the Central Legislative Assembly — helped by Congress prestige and popular sympathy.
- 1926: The Swarajists lost ground; representation at the Centre fell from 42 → 35 seats.
Achievements inside the councils
- Repeatedly outvoted the government in the Central Assembly and several provincial councils (with help from other Indian members).
- Used strong speeches to highlight issues — self-government, civil liberties, industrial policy.
- March 1925: With skillful coalition-building, they got Vithalbhai J. Patel elected President (Speaker) of the Central Assembly.
- They exposed the hollowness of the 1919 reforms and even helped defeat the Public Safety Bill (1928) which would have widened government powers against “undesirables”.
Reform proposals
- Swarajists placed a non-official resolution in the Assembly calling for a review of the Government of India Act (1919) and advocating dominion status and provincial autonomy. The government rejected it.
- The debate clarified the difference between responsible government (executive answerable to legislature) and full dominion self-government (legislature with full powers) — Hailey’s remarks in 1924 made this distinction explicit.
Outside the councils
- Swarajists did participate in the constructive programme, but less enthusiastically than the no-changers — council work and election expenses pulled energy and resources away from sustained grassroots constructive work.
- Their parliamentary presence filled the political vacuum when mass activity was weak.
Responsivists, drift to cooperation, and communal splits
Responsivists vs. non-cooperators. Entry into councils created an internal strain. Some Swarajists — notably C.R. Das later — began to lean toward responsive cooperation: they would cooperate with the government if real power (responsibility) were transferred to Indians. At Faridpur (May 1925) Das suggested cooperation in such circumstances. This tilt split Swarajists into:
- Responsivists (open to cooperation if concessions come), and
- Non-cooperators (stick to obstruction and boycott).
Communalization and new parties.
- Increasing Hindu–Muslim tensions (mid-1920s) weakened the Swaraj Party’s unity. Reactionary and communal elements used the situation to organize: Madan Mohan Malaviya and Lala Lajpat Rai formed Congress Independents, appealing to Hindu interests and accusing leaders like Motilal Nehru of betraying Hindu concerns.
- C.R. Das’s death (June 1925) was a major blow.
1926 election and aftermath. The Swarajists’ strength declined in 1926. Communal polarization, desertions, and the lure of office reduced their mass connect and political coherence.
Decline and merger back into Congress (1927–29)
Why did the Swaraj Party decline?
- Communal tensions narrowed its national appeal and pushed some elements toward the Hindu Mahasabha or Congress Independents.
- Lure of power / cooperation: Some members who entered councils began to accept privileges and shifted toward collaboration with administration. Their obstructionist zeal waned.
- Class character: The Swaraj Party mainly drew upper-middle-class urban leaders who were less rooted in mass mobilization; hence limited traction with peasants and workers.
Turning point: The announcement of the Simon Commission (1927) and Lord Birkenhead’s challenge to Indians to prepare a constitution changed the political horizon. The All Parties Conference (May 1928) appointed Motilal Nehru to head a committee that produced the Nehru Report (1928). The Calcutta Congress (1928) resolved that if the British did not accept the Nehru Report by 31 December 1929, Congress would seek complete independence. In this changed climate, Swaraj Party’s council-entry lost relevance — mass nationwide mobilization, not parliamentary obstruction, was again the need of the hour → Swaraj Party merged back into Congress by 1928–29.
Shortcoming summary of Swarajists:
- Couldn’t alter the authoritarian structures of colonial rule from within; often had to walk out of assemblies (March 1926, January 1930).
- Failed to build a durable mass base among peasants/middle classes; mainly an urban, upper-middle class phenomenon.
No-Changers: the constructive backbone
Who and what. The no-changers stuck to Gandhian policy: boycott of councils, intense constructive work (charkha, khadi, social reform, Hindu-Muslim unity, removal of untouchability). They formed the social and organizational backbone for later mass movements.
Institutional work and local bodies.
- They avoided provincial/central councils but took part in municipal and local-body elections — a practical arena to implement constructive work and acquire administrative experience.
- Examples (1924):
- Jawaharlal Nehru — Mayor of Allahabad;
- Vallabhbhai Patel — Mayor of Ahmedabad;
- C.R. Das — Mayor of Calcutta (appointed Subhas Chandra Bose as chief executive officer of Calcutta Corporation);
- Rajendra Prasad — Patna.
These roles helped the Congress test governance methods at the grassroots and train young leaders.
Constructive institutions. Ashrams, khadi centers, national schools and colleges were set up to create cadres with non-colonial outlooks and social reform commitments.
Quick comparative snapshot (for revision)
Aspect | Swarajists (Pro-changers) | No-Changers |
---|---|---|
Strategy | Council-entry + obstruction | Boycott councils + constructive work |
Strengths | Parliamentary visibility; exposed British in assemblies | Strong grassroots constructive base; cadre building |
Weaknesses | Communal splits; class base; drift to cooperation | Less parliamentary leverage; slower political visibility |
Role in 1923–29 | Filled political void; won 42/101 seats (1923) | Ran local bodies; ran ashrams, schools, khadi centres |
Fate by 1929 | Decline → merged into Congress | Continued to provide organisational backbone |
Exam tip (how to use this in a mains answer)
- Start with context (withdrawal of Non-Cooperation, need for a pause).
- Explain two diverging strategies (council-entry vs constructive boycott) with one or two examples (1923 election numbers; Nehru Report 1928).
- Evaluate: what each achieved and why each had limits. Conclude with significance for the later mass movements (how these experiments prepared the ground).