Tuesday, November 30, 2021
04:06 AM (GMT +5)

Go Back   CSS Forums > CSS Optional subjects > Group IV > History of Pakistan & India

Reply Share Thread: Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook     Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter     Submit Thread to Google+ Google+    
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #1  
Old Sunday, November 26, 2006
riversoul76's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Defense Garden Karachi
Posts: 79
Thanks: 52
Thanked 21 Times in 14 Posts
riversoul76 is on a distinguished road
Post The early Congress movement.......

The early Congress movement

The first Congress session, convened in Bombay city on Dec. 28, 1885, was attended by 73 representatives, as well as 10 more unofficial delegates; every province of British India was represented.Fifty-four of the delegates were Hindu, only two were Muslim, and the remainder were mostly Parsi and Jaina. Practically all the Hindu delegates were Brahmans. All of them spoke English. More than half were lawyers, and the remainder consisted of journalists, businessmen, landowners, and professors. Such was the first gathering of the new India, an emerging elite of middle-class intellectuals devoted to peaceful political action and protest on behalf of their nation in the making. On its last day, the Congress passed resolutions, embodying the political and economic demands of its members, that served thereafter as public petitions to government for the redress of grievances. Among these initial resolutions were calls for the addition of elected nonofficial representatives to the Supreme and provincial legislative councils and for real equality of opportunity for Indians to enter the ICS by the immediate introduction of simultaneous examinations in India and Britain.Economic demands by the Congress started with a call for the reduction of “Home charges,” which included the entire India Officebudget and the pensions of officials living in Britain in retirement. Dadabhai Naoroji (1825–1917), the “grand old man” of the Congress who served three times as its president, was the leading exponent of the popular economic “drain” argument, which offeredtheoretical economic support to nationalist politics by insisting thatIndia's poverty was the product of British exploitation and the annual plunder of gold, silver, and raw materials. Other resolutions called for the reduction of military expenditure, condemned the Third Anglo-Burmese War, demanded retrenchment of administrative expenses, and urged reimposition of import duties on British manufactures. Hume, who is credited with organizing the Indian National Congress, attended the first session of the Congress as the only British delegate. Sir William Wedderburn (1838–1918), Gokhale's closest British adviser and himself later elected twice to serve as president of the Congress, and William Wordsworth, principal of Elphinstone College, both appeared as observers. Most Britons in India, however, either ignored the Congress and its resolutions as the action and demands of a “microscopic minority” of India's diverse millions or considered them the rantings of disloyal extremists. Despite this combination of official disdain and hostility, the Congress quickly won substantial Indian support and within two years had grown to number more than 600 delegates. In 1888, when Viceroy Dufferin, on the eve of his departure from India, dismissed the Congress as “microscopic,” it mustered 1,248 delegates at its annual meeting. Still, British officials continued to dismiss the significance of the Congress, and more than a decade later Viceroy Curzon claimed, perhaps wishfully, that it was “tottering to its fall.” Curzon, however, inadvertently helped to infuse the Congress with unprecedented popularity and militant vitality by his own arrogance and by failing to appreciate the importance of human sympathy in his relentless drive toward greater efficiency.

The first partition of Bengal

The first partition of Bengal in 1905 brought that province to the brink of open rebellion. With some 85 million people, Bengal was, admittedly, much too large for a single province and merited reorganization and intelligent division. The line drawn by Lord Curzon's government, however, cut through the heart of the Bengali-speaking “nation,” leaving western Bengal's bhadralok (“respectable people”), the intellectual Hindu leadership of Calcutta, tied to the much less politically active Bihārī- and Oṛiyā-speaking Hindus to their north and south. A new Muslim-majority province of Eastern Bengal and Assam was created with its capital at Dacca (now Dhākā). The leadership of the Congress viewed that partition as an attempt to “divide and rule” and as proof of the government's vindictive antipathy toward the outspoken bhadralok intellectuals, especially since Curzon and his subordinates had ignored countless pleas and petitions signed by tens of thousands of Calcutta's leading citizens. Mother-goddess-worshiping Bengali Hindus believed that partition was nothing less than the vivisection of their “mother province,” and mass protest rallies before and after Bengal's division on Oct. 16, 1905, attracted millions of people theretofore untouched by politics of any variety.The new tide of national sentiment born in Bengal rose to inundate India in every direction, and “Bande Mātaram” (“Hail to Thee Mother”) became the Congress' national anthem, its words taken from Anandamaṭh, a popular Bengali novel by Bankim Chandra Chatterjee, and its music composed by Bengal's greatest poet, Rabindranath Tagore (1861–1941). As a reaction against the partition, Bengali Hindus launched an effective boycott of British-made goods and dramatized their resolve to live without foreign cloth by igniting huge bonfires of Lancashire goods. Such bonfires, re-creating ancient Vedic sacrificial altars, aroused Hindus in Poona, Madras, and Bombay to light similar political pyres of protest. Instead of wearing foreign-made cloth, Indians vowed to use only domestic (swadeshī ) cottons and other clothing made in India. Simple hand-spun and hand-woven saris became high fashion, first in Calcutta and elsewhere in Bengal and then all acrossIndia, and displaced the finest Lancashire garments, which were now viewed as hateful imports. The swadeshī movement soon stimulated indigenous enterprise in many fields, from Indian cotton mills to match factories, glassblowing shops, and iron and steel foundries.Increased demands for national education also swiftly followed partition. Bengali students and professors extended their boycott of British goods to English schools and college classrooms, and politically active Indians began to emulate the so-called “Indian Jesuits”—Vishnu Krishna Chiplunkar (1850–82), Gopal Ganesh Agarkar (1856–95), Tilak, and Gokhale—who were pioneers in the founding of indigenous educational institutions in the Deccan in the 1880s. The movement for national education spread throughout Bengal, as well as to Vārānasi, where Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya (1861–1946) founded his private Banaras Hindu University in 1910.One of the last major demands to be added to the platform of the Congress in the wake of Bengal's first partition was swarāj (“self-rule”), soon to become the most popular mantra (“holy utterance”) of Indian nationalism. Swarāj was first articulated, in the presidential address of Dadabhai Naoroji, as the Congress' goal at its Calcutta session in 1906.


Nationalism in the Muslim community

While the Congress was calling for swarāj in Calcutta, the Muslim League held its first meeting in Dacca. Though the Muslim quarter of India's population lagged behind the Hindu majority in uniting to articulate nationalist political demands, Islām had, since the founding of the Delhi sultanate in 1206, provided Indian Muslims with sufficient doctrinal mortar to unite them as a separate religious community. The era of effective Mughal rule (c. 1556–1707), moreover, gave India's Muslims a sense of martial and administrative superiority to, as well as separation from, the Hindu majority.In 1857 the last of the Mughal emperors had served as a rallying symbol for many mutineers, and in the wake of the mutiny most Britons placed the burden of blame for its inception upon the Muslim community. Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan (1817–98), India's greatest 19th-century Muslim leader, succeeded, in his “Causes of the Indian Revolt” (1873), in convincing many British officials that Hindus were primarily to blame for the mutiny. Sayyid had entered the company's service in 1838 and was the leader of Muslim India's emulative mainstream of political reform. He visited Oxford in 1874 and returned to found the Anglo-Muhammadan Oriental College (now Alīgarh Muslim University) at Alīgarh in 1875. It was India's first centre of Islāmic and Western higher education, with instruction given in English and modeled after Oxford. Alīgarh became the intellectual cradle of the Muslim League and Pakistan.Sayyid Mahdi Ali, popularly known by his title Mohsin al-Mulk (1837–1907), had succeeded Sayyid Ahmad as leader and convened a deputation of some 36 Muslim leaders, headed by the Aga Khan III, that in 1906 called upon Lord Minto (viceroy from 1905 to 1910) to articulate the special national interests of India's Muslim community. Minto promised that any reforms enacted by his government would safeguard the separate interests of the Muslim community. Separate Muslim electorates, formally inaugurated by the Indian Councils Act of 1909, were thus vouchsafed by viceregal fiat in 1906. Encouraged by the concession, the Aga Khan's deputation issued an expanded call during the first meeting of the Muslim League (convened in December 1906 at Dacca) “to protect and advance the political rights and interests of Mussalmans of India.” Other resolutions moved at its first meeting expressed Muslim “loyalty to the British government,” support for the Bengal partition, and condemnation of the boycott movement.

Reforms of the British Liberals

In Great Britain the Liberal Party's electoral victory of 1906 marked the dawn of a new era of reforms for British India. Hampered though he was by the viceroy, Lord Minto, the new secretary of state for India, John Morley, was able to introduce several importantinnovations into the legislative and administrative machinery of the British Indian government. First of all, he acted to implement QueenVictoria's promise of racial equality of opportunity, which since 1858 had served only to assure Indian nationalists of British hypocrisy. He appointed two Indian members to his council at Whitehall: one a Muslim, Sayyid Husain Bilgrami, who had taken an active role in the founding of the Muslim League; the other a Hindu, Krishna G. Gupta, the senior Indian in the ICS. Morley also persuaded a reluctant Lord Minto to appoint to the viceroy's Executive Council the first Indian member, Satyendra P. Sinha (1864–1928), in 1909. Sinha (later Lord Sinha) had been admitted to the bar at Lincoln's Inn in 1886 and was advocate general of Bengal before his appointment as the viceroy's law member, a position he felt obliged to resign in 1910. He was elected president of the Congress in 1915 and became parliamentary undersecretaryof state for India in 1919 and governor of Bihār and Orissa in 1920.Morley's major reform scheme, the Indian Councils Act of 1909 (popularly called the Minto-Morley Reforms), directly introduced theelective principle to Indian legislative council membership. Though the initial electorate was a minuscule minority of Indians enfranchised by property ownership and education, in 1910 some 135 elected Indian representatives took their seats as members of legislative councils throughout British India. The act of 1909 also increased the maximum additional membership of the Supreme Council from 16 (to which it had been raised by the Councils Act of 1892) to 60. In the provincial councils of Bombay, Bengal, and Madras, which had been created in 1861, the permissible total membership had been raised to 20 by the act of 1892, and this wasincreased in 1909 to 50, a majority of whom were to be nonofficials; the number of council members in other provinces was similarly increased.In abolishing the official majorities of provincial legislatures, Morley was following the advice of Gokhale and other liberal Congress leaders, such as Romesh Chunder Dutt (1848–1909), and overriding the bitter opposition of not only the ICS but also his own viceroy and council. Viceroy Morley believed, as did many other British Liberal politicians, that the only justification for British rule over India was to bequeath to the government of India Britain's greatest political institution, parliamentary government. Minto and his officials in Calcutta and Shimla did succeed in watering down the reforms by writing stringent regulations for their implementation and insisting upon the retention of executive veto power over all legislation. Elected members of the new councils were empowered, nevertheless, to engage in spontaneous supplementary questioning, as well as in formal debate with the executive concerning the annual budget. Members were also permitted to introduce legislative proposals of their own. Gokhale took immediate advantage of these vital new parliamentary procedures by introducing a measure for free and compulsory elementary education throughout British India. Although defeated, it was brought back again and again by Gokhale, who used the platform of the government's highest council of state as a sounding board for nationalist demands. Before the act of 1909, as Gokhale told fellow members of the Congress in Madras that year, Indian nationalists had been engaged in agitation “from outside,” but “from now,” he said, they would be “engaged in what might be called responsible associationwith the administration.”




Moderate and militant nationalism

In 1907 the Congress held its annual meeting in Sūrat, but the assembly, plagued by conflict, never came to order long enough to hear the presidential address of its moderate president-elect, Rash Behari Ghose (1845–1921). The division of the Congress reflected broad tactical and presidential-candidate differences between the liberal evolutionary and militant revolutionary wings of the national organization. Young militants of Tilak's New Party wanted to extendthe boycott movement to the entire British government, while moderate leaders like Gokhale cautioned against such “extreme” action, fearing it might lead to violence. Those moderates were attacked by the militants as “traitors” to the “motherland,” and theCongress split into two parties, which would not reunite for nine years. Tilak demanded swarāj as his ‘'birthright,” and his newspaperencouraged the young militants, whose introduction of the cult of the bomb and the gun to Mahārāshtra and Bengal led to Tilak's deportation for “sedition” to Mandalay prison from 1908 to 1914. Bengali terrorism reached its peak from 1908 through 1910, as didthe severity of official repression and the number of “preventive detention” arrests. Although Minto continued to assure Morley that opposition to the partition of Bengal was “dying down,” and although Morley tried to convince his Liberal friends that it was a “settled fact,” the opposite, in fact, was true. Harsher repression seemed only to breed more violent agitation. Before the end of 1910, Minto finally returned home, and Morley appointed the liberal Lord Hardinge to succeed him as viceroy (governed 1910–16). Soon after reaching Calcutta, Hardinge recommended the reunification of Bengal, a position accepted by Morley, who also agreed to the new viceroy's proposal that a separate province of Bihār and Orissa should be carved out of Bengal. King George V journeyed to India for his Coronation Darbar in Delhi, and there, on Dec. 12, 1911, were announced the revocation of the partition of Bengal, the creation of a new province,and the plan to shift the capital of British India from Calcutta to Delhi's distant plain. By shifting their capital to the site of great Mughal glory, the British hoped to placate Bengal's Muslim minority,now aggrieved at the loss of provincial power in eastern Bengal. Reunification of Bengal, indeed, served somewhat to mollify Bengali Hindus, but the downgrading of Calcutta from imperial to mere provincial capital status was simultaneously a blow to bhadralok egos and to Calcutta real estate values. Political unrest continued, now attracting Muslim as well as Hindu terrorists, and Lord Hardinge himself was nearly assassinated by a bomb thrown into his howdah as he entered Delhi atop the viceregal elephant in 1912. The would-be assassin escaped in the crowd. Later that year Edwin Montagu, Morley's political protégé, who served as parliamentary undersecretary of state for India from 1910 to 1914, announced that the goal of British policy toward India would be to meet the just demands of Indians for a greater share in government. Britain seemed to be awakening to the urgency of India's political demands just as more compelling problems of European war preempted Whitehall's attention.

World War I and its aftermath

In August 1914, Lord Hardinge announced his government's entry into World War I. India's contributions to the war became extensive and significant, and the war's contributions to change within BritishIndia proved to be even greater. In many ways—politically, economically, and socially—the impact of the conflict was as pervasive as that of the mutiny of 1857–59.

India's contributions to the war effort

The initial response to Lord Hardinge's announcement was, for the most part, enthusiastically supportive throughout India. Indian princes volunteered their men, money, and personal service, while leaders of the Congress—from Tilak, who had just been released from Mandalay and had wired the king-emperor vowing his patrioticsupport, to Gandhi, who toured Indian villages urging peasants to join the British army—were allied in backing the war effort. Only India's Muslims, whose


doctrinal allegiance to the Ottoman caliph had to be weighed against their temporal devotion to British rule, seemed ambivalent from the war's inception.Support from the Congress was primarily offered on the assumption that Britain would repay such loyal assistance with substantial political concessions—if not immediate independence or at least dominion status following the war, then surely its promisesoon after the Allies achieved victory. The government of India's immediate military support was of vital importance in bolstering the western front, and an expeditionary force, including two fully manned infantry divisions and one cavalry division, left India in late August and early September 1914. They were shipped directly to France and moved up to the battered Belgian line just in time for the First Battle of Ypres. The Indian Corps sustained extraordinarily heavy losses during the winter campaigns of 1914–15 on the western front. The myth of Indian racial inferiority, especially with respect to courage in battle, was thus dissolved in sepoy blood on Flanders fields. In 1917 Indians were at last admitted to the final bastion of British Indian racial discrimination—the ranks of royal commissioned officers.In the early months of the war, Indian troops were rushed to East Africa and Egypt, as well as to the western front, and by the end of 1914 more than 300,000 officers and men of the British Indian Army had been shipped to overseas garrisons and battlefronts. The Indian Army's most ambitious, though ill-managed, campaign was fought in Mesopotamia. In October 1914, before Turkey joined forces with the Central Powers, the government of India launched an army to the mouth of the Shaṭṭ Al-ʿArab to further Viceroy Curzon's policy of control over the Persian Gulf region. Basra was taken easily in December 1914, and by October 1915 the British Indian army had moved as far north as Al-Kūt, barely 100 miles (160 kilometres) from Baghdad. The prize of Baghdad seemed within reach of British arms, but less than two weeks after General Sir Charles Townshend's doomed army of 12,000 Indians started north in November 1915, they were stopped at Ctesiphon, then forced to fall back to Al-Kūt, which was surrounded by Turks in December and fell in April 1916. This disaster became a national scandal for Britain and led to the immediate resignation of India's secretary of state, Austin Chamberlain. Edwin Montagu, Chamberlain's successor at Whitehall's India Office, informed the British House of Commons on Aug. 20, 1917, that the policy of the British government toward India was thereafter to be one of “increasing association of Indians in every branch of the administration . . . with a view to the progressive realization of responsible government in India as an integral part of the Empire.” Soon after this stirring promise of political reward for India's wartime support, Montagu embarked upon a personal tour of India.During his tour, Montagu conferred with his new viceroy, Lord Chelmsford (governed 1916–21), and their lengthy deliberations bore fruit in the Montagu-Chelmsford Report of 1918, the theoretical basis for the Government of India Act of 1919.


Anti-British activity

Anti-British terrorist activity started soon after the war began, sparked by the return to India of hundreds of embittered Sikhs who had sought to emigrate from their Punjab homes to Canada but who were denied permission to disembark in that country because of their colour. As British subjects the Sikhs had assumed they would gain entry to underpopulated Canada, but after wretched months in cramped and unsanitary conditions, with inadequate food supplies aboard an old freighter (the Komagata Maru), they returned to India as confirmed revolutionaries. Leaders of the Ghadr (“Mutiny”) Party, which had been started by Punjabi Sikhs in 1913, journeyed abroad in search of arms and money to support their revolution, and Har Dayal, the party's foremost leader, went to Berlin to solicit aid from the Central Powers. Muslim disaffection also grew and acquired revolutionary dimensions as the Mesopotamian campaign dragged on. Many Indian Muslims appealed to Afghanistan for aid and urged the amir to start a holy war against the British and in defense of the Caliphate. After the war the Khilāfat movement, an offspring of growing pan-Islāmic consciousness in India, was started by two fiery orator-journalists, the brothers Shaukat and Muhammad ʿAlī. Itlured thousands of Muslim peasants to abandon their village homes and trudge over frozen high passes in a disastrous hijrah (“flight”) from India to Afghanistan. In Bengal, terrorist bombings continued to harass officials, despite numerous “preventive detention” arrests made by Indian Criminal Intelligence Division police under the tough martial-law edicts promulgated at the war's inception.The deaths of Gokhale and of the Bombay political leader Sir Pherozeshah Mehta in 1915 removed the most powerful moderate leadership from the Congress and cleared the way for Tilak's return to power in that organization after its reunification in 1916 at Lucknow. That historic session in December 1916 brought even greater unity to India's nationalist forces, as the Congress and the Muslim League agreed to a pact outlining their joint program of immediate national demands. The Lucknow Pact called first of all for the creation of expanded provincial legislative councils, four-fifths of whose members should be elected directly by the people on as broad a franchise as possible. The League's readiness to unite with the Congress was attributed to the pact's stipulation that Muslims should receive a far higher proportion of separate electorate seats in all legislative councils than they had enjoyed under the act of 1909. Thanks to such generous concessions of political power by the Congress, Muslim leaders, including Mohammad Ali Jinnah (1876–1949), agreed to set aside doctrinal differences and work with the Indian National Congress toward the attainment of national freedom from British rule. This Congress-League rapprochement was, however, short-lived, and by 1917 communal tensions and disagreements once again dominated India's faction-ridden political scene. Tilak and Annie Besant each campaigned for different home-rule leagues, while Muslims worried more about pan-Islāmic problems than all-India questions of unity.


The postwar years

By Armistice Day, Nov. 11, 1918, more than 1,000,000 Indian troops had been shipped overseas to fight or serve as noncombatants behind the Allied lines on every major front from France to Gallipoli in European Turkey. More than 100,000 Indian battle casualties, over 36,000 of which proved fatal, were sustained during the war. India's material and financial contributions to the war effort included the shipment of some £80 million worth of military stores and equipment to various fronts and nearly 5 million tons of wheat (valued at over £40 million) to Great Britain; also supplied by India were raw jute, cotton goods, rough-tanned hides, tungsten (wolfram), manganese, mica, saltpetre, timbers, silk, rubber, and various oils. The government of India paid for all its troops overseas, and before the war ended the viceroy presented a gift of £100 million (actually an imperial tax) to the British government. Tata's Iron and Steel Company received Indian government support once the war started and by 1916 was producing 100,000 tons of steel a year. An industrial commission was appointed in 1916 to survey the subcontinent's industrial resources and potential, and in 1917 a munitions board was created to expedite the production of war matériel. Wartime inflation was immediately followed by one of India's worst depressions, which came in the wake of the devastating influenza epidemic in 1918, an epidemic that took a far heavier toll of Indian life and resources than all the casualties sustained throughout the war.Politically the postwar years proved equally depressing to India's great expectations. British officials, who in the first flush of patriotism had abandoned their ICS posts to rush to the front, returned to oust the Indian subordinates acting in their stead and carried on their prewar jobs as though nothing had changed in British India. Indian soldiers also returned from battlefronts to find that back at home they were no longer treated as invaluable allies but reverted immediately to the status of “natives.” Most of the soldiers recruited during the war had come from the Punjab, which, with only 7 percent of India's population, had supplied more than 50 percent of the combatant troops shipped abroad. It is thus hardly surprising that the flashpoint of postwar violence that shook India in the spring of 1919 was Punjab province.The issue that served to rally millions of Indians, arousing them to a new level of disaffection from British rule, was the government of India's hasty passage of the Rowlatt Acts early in 1919. These “black acts,” as they came to be called, were peacetime extensions of the wartime emergency measures passed in 1915 and had been rammed through the Supreme Legislative Council over the unanimous opposition of its Indian members, several of whom, including Jinnah, resigned in protest. Jinnah wrote to Viceroy Lord Chelmsford that the enactment of such autocratic legislation, following the victorious conclusion of a war in which India had so loyally supported Britain, was an unwarranted uprooting of the “fundamental principles of justice” and a gross violation of the “constitutional rights of the people.”
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (1869–1948), the Gujarati barrister who had returned from South Africa shortly after the war started and was recognized throughout India as one of the most promising leaders of the Congress, called upon all Indians to take sacred vows to disobey the Rowlatt Acts and launched a nationwide movement for the repeal of those repressive measures. Gandhi's appeal received the strongest popular response in the Punjab, where the nationalist leaders Kichloo and Satyapal addressed mass protest rallies from the provincial capital of Lahore to Amritsar, sacred capital of the Sikhs. Gandhi himself had taken atrain to the Punjab early in April 1919 to address one of those rallies,but he was arrested at the border station and taken back to Bombay by orders of Punjab's lieutenant governor, Sir Michael O'Dwyer. On April 10, Kichloo and Satyapal were arrested in Amritsar and deported from the district by Deputy Commissioner Miles Irving. When their followers tried to march to Irving's bungalow in the camp to demand the release of their leaders, they were fired upon by British troops. With several of their number killedand wounded, the enraged mob rioted through Amritsar's old city, burning British banks, murdering several Britons, and attacking twoBritish women. General R.E.H. Dyer was sent with Gurkha and Balochi troops from Jullundur to restore order.

Jalliānwāla Bāgh massacre

Soon after Dyer's arrival, on the afternoon of April 13, 1919, some 10,000 or more unarmed men, women, and children gathered in Amritsar's Jalliānwāla Bāgh (bāgh, “garden”; but before 1919 it hadbecome a public square) to attend a protest meeting, despite a banon public assemblies. It was a Sunday, and many neighbouring village peasants also came to Amritsar to celebrate the Hindu Baisakhi Spring Festival. Dyer positioned his men at the sole, narrowpassageway of the Bāgh, which was otherwise entirely enclosed by the backs of abutted brick buildings. Giving no word of warning, he ordered 50 soldiers to fire into the gathering, and for 10 to 15 minutes 1,650 rounds of ammunition were unloaded into the screaming, terrified crowd, some of whom were trampled by those desperately trying to escape. According to official estimates, nearly 400 civilians were killed, and another 1,200 were left wounded with no medical attention. Dyer, who argued his action was necessary toproduce a “moral and widespread effect,” admitted that the firing would have continued had more ammunition been available.The governor of the Punjab province supported the massacre at Amritsar and, on April 15, placed the entire province under martial law. Viceroy Chelmsford, however, characterized the action as “an error of judgment,” and when Secretary of State Montagu learned of the slaughter, he appointed a commission of inquiry, headed by Lord Hunter. Although Dyer was subsequently relieved of his command, he returned a hero to many in Britain, especially conservatives, who presented him with a jeweled sword inscribed “Saviour of the Punjab.”The Jalliānwāla Bāgh massacre turned millions of moderate Indians from patient and loyal supporters of the British raj into nationalists who would never again place trust in British “fair play.” It thus marks the turning point for a majority of the Congress' supporters from moderate cooperation with the raj and its promised reforms torevolutionary noncooperation. Liberal Anglophile leaders, such as Jinnah, were soon to be displaced by the followers of Gandhi, who would launch, a year after that dreadful massacre, his first nationwide satyāgraha (“devotion to truth”) campaign as India's revolutionary response.

Last edited by Aarwaa; Thursday, December 20, 2007 at 12:48 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Constitution of the United States Muhammad Adnan General Knowledge, Quizzes, IQ Tests 3 Saturday, February 01, 2020 02:25 AM
Solved Everyday Science Papers Dilrauf General Science & Ability 7 Sunday, December 01, 2019 07:28 PM
US Constitution Aarwaa Constitutional Law 3 Friday, May 11, 2007 01:28 AM
Women’s Movement in South Asia Muhammad Haseeb Khalid News & Articles 0 Monday, December 11, 2006 04:32 PM
American Literature Ahmad Bilal English Literature 0 Friday, April 14, 2006 06:58 PM


CSS Forum on Facebook Follow CSS Forum on Twitter

Disclaimer: All messages made available as part of this discussion group (including any bulletin boards and chat rooms) and any opinions, advice, statements or other information contained in any messages posted or transmitted by any third party are the responsibility of the author of that message and not of CSSForum.com.pk (unless CSSForum.com.pk is specifically identified as the author of the message). The fact that a particular message is posted on or transmitted using this web site does not mean that CSSForum has endorsed that message in any way or verified the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message. We encourage visitors to the forum to report any objectionable message in site feedback. This forum is not monitored 24/7.

Sponsors: ArgusVision   vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.