MODERN HISTORY

Warren Hastings (L-4)

Important Works of Warren Hastings:
1. Centralization of British Power
o Hastings worked to consolidate the British East India
Company's control in Bengal after the Battle of Buxar
(1764).
o He restructured the revenue and judicial systems to ensure
Company supremacy over Indian administrators.
2. Regulating Act of 1773
o He was the first Governor-General under the Regulating Act,
which aimed to bring the Company’s administration under
British parliamentary control.
o Though imposed from London, Hastings had to function under
the newly formed Supreme Council, often facing power
struggles within it.
3. Revenue Reforms
o Hastings introduced annual settlements and placed revenue
collection under Company control instead of local zamindars.
o He also created the Board of Revenue and aimed to regulate
tax collection more systematically.
4. Judicial Reforms
o He separated revenue and civil justice. Indian laws (Hindu and
Islamic) were codified for use in Indian cases.
o Established civil and criminal courts in each district,
although the system favored British interests.
5. Use of Indian Traditions and Institutions
o Unlike later colonial rulers, Hastings tried to use Indian
customs, laws, and elites to strengthen British authority.
o He employed Indian pandits and qazis to interpret Hindu
and Islamic laws.
6. Foreign Policy and Military Campaigns
o He pursued an aggressive expansionist policy, including
involvement in:
 The First Anglo-Maratha War (1775–82)
 The Second Anglo-Mysore War (1780–84) against
Tipu Sultan
 o His actions extended British influence but also drained
Company resources.
7. Cultural Contributions
o Hastings supported Orientalist studies; he backed scholars
like William Jones and the establishment of the Asiatic
Society of Bengal (1784).
o He believed in understanding Indian languages, texts, and
culture to rule more effectively.
8. Impeachment Trial
o After returning to England, he faced an impeachment trial
led by Edmund Burke (1788–1795), accused of misrule and
corruption (e.g., in the Rohilla War and treatment of Raja Chait
Singh of Benares).
o Though acquitted, the trial reflected the controversial legacy
of his rule.

Governor General of India (l-5):

S.N Governor-
Tenure Key Contributions
o. General

Regulating Act 1773, revenue/judicial

1773–
1 Warren Hastings reforms, 1st Maratha War, Impeachment
1785
trial

1786– Permanent Settlement (1793), civil

2 Lord Cornwallis
1793 services reform, 3rd Mysore War

1793–
3 Sir John Shore Policy of non-intervention
1798

1798– Subsidiary Alliance, 4th Mysore War,

4 Lord Wellesley
1805 expansionist policy

Sir George 1805– Interim Governor-General, conservative

5
Barlow 1807 policies

1807– Charter Act 1813, diplomatic

6 Lord Minto I
1813 engagements

Lord Hastings 1813– 3rd Anglo-Maratha War, Ryotwari system

7
(Moira) 1823 introduced

1823–
8 Lord Amherst 1st Anglo-Burmese War
1828

9 Lord William 1828– Abolition of Sati, Thuggee suppression,

S.N Governor-
Tenure Key Contributions
o. General

English education (Macaulay’s Minute

Bentinck 1835
1835)

Sir Charles 1835–

10 Press freedom advocate
Metcalfe 1836

1836–
11 Lord Auckland 1st Afghan War
1842

Lord 1842–
12 End of Afghan War, conquest of Sindh
Ellenborough 1844

1844–
13 Lord Hardinge I 1st Anglo-Sikh War
1848

1848– Doctrine of Lapse, railways, telegraph,

14 Lord Dalhousie
1856 postal and education reforms

Lord Canning 1856– Revolt of 1857, last Governor-General

15
(also Viceroy) 1858 before Crown rule

Viceroys of India (l-13)

S.No Viceroy of
Tenure Key Contributions
. India

1858– Queen’s Proclamation 1858, post-1857

1 Lord Canning
1862 reforms

1862–
2 Lord Elgin I Short tenure
1863

Sir John 1864– Non-intervention in Afghanistan, famine

3
Lawrence 1869 relief

1869– Census, statistical surveys, assassinated

4 Lord Mayo
1872 in Andamans

Lord 1872–
5 Bengal famine, administrative reforms
Northbrook 1876

1876– Vernacular Press Act 1878, 2nd Afghan

6 Lord Lytton
1880 War, Delhi Durbar

1880– Ilbert Bill controversy, local self-

7 Lord Ripon
1884 government reforms
S.No Viceroy of
Tenure Key Contributions
. India

1884– Formation of Indian National Congress

8 Lord Dufferin
1888 (1885)

Lord 1888–
9 Indian Councils Act 1892
Lansdowne 1894

1894–
10 Lord Elgin II Famines and unrest
1899

Partition of Bengal (1905), police &

1899–
11 Lord Curzon educational reforms, Archaeological
1905
Survey

1905– Morley-Minto Reforms 1909 (separate

12 Lord Minto II
1910 electorates)

Lord Hardinge 1910– Capital shifted to Delhi, King George V

13
II 1916 visit, bomb attack on him

Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms 1919,

Lord 1916–
14 Jallianwala Bagh, Non-Cooperation
Chelmsford 1921
Movement

1921– Political unrest, repressive measures

15 Lord Reading
1926 against nationalists

1926– Simon Commission, Salt March, Gandhi-

16 Lord Irwin
1931 Irwin Pact, Civil Disobedience

1931– Poona Pact, suppression of CDM,

17 Lord Willingdon
1936 Communal Award

1936– Government of India Act 1935, WWII,

18 Lord Linlithgow
1943 Quit India Movement

1943– Simla Conference, Cabinet Mission,

19 Lord Wavell
1947 interim govt

Lord Partition Plan (June 3), last Viceroy,

20 1947
Mountbatten India’s Independence (15 August 1947)

Rani Chinnamma (1824)

Rani Chennamma of Kittur was one of the earliest Indian rulers to

launch an armed rebellion against British rule, long before the Revolt of
1857. Born in 1778 in present-day Karnataka, she became the queen of
the princely state of Kittur. After the death of her husband and her only
son, Chennamma adopted a boy to succeed the throne. However, the
British East India Company, invoking the Doctrine of Lapse, refused to
recognize the adopted heir and attempted to annex Kittur. In response, in
1824, Rani Chennamma raised a strong resistance against the British
forces. She led her army with courage and initially defeated the British
troops and captured their collector, St. John Thackeray. But soon,
reinforcements were sent by the British, and after fierce battles, Rani
Chennamma was captured and imprisoned in Bailhongal Fort, where she
died in 1829. Although her revolt was ultimately unsuccessful, Bipan
Chandra acknowledges her as a precursor to later nationalist
struggles, symbolizing early indigenous resistance to British
expansionism and injustice. Her legacy lived on to inspire future
generations of freedom fighters, especially women, in India’s long battle
for independence.

Rukhmabai Raut

Rukhmabai Raut emerged as a significant figure in 19th-century India’s

social reform movement, particularly in the struggle for women’s rights
and emancipation. Born in 1864, she was married off as a child, a
common custom in orthodox Hindu society. However, when her husband
later demanded conjugal rights, Rukhmabai boldly refused to live with
him, asserting her right to consent in marriage. This led to a highly
publicized legal battle between 1884 and 1888, during which her case for
rejecting the marriage drew national attention. The colonial courts first
ruled in her favor, but due to pressure from conservative Hindu opinion, a
second ruling ordered her to cohabit with her husband. Rather than
submit, Rukhmabai chose to leave India and pursue medical education in
England, becoming one of the first Indian women to qualify as a medical
doctor. Upon returning, she worked as a government medical officer,
defying both colonial expectations and traditional gender norms. Her legal
resistance and professional success inspired debates around women’s
rights, consent, and education. Reformers across India saw her as a
courageous symbol of modern womanhood. Bipan Chandra highlights her
role as pivotal in shaping the discourse that led to the Age of Consent
Act (1891) and advancing the broader cause of social reform and
gender justice in colonial India.

Jawaharlal Nehru Social, Economic and Political thoughts?

Jawaharlal Nehru, shaped by both Western liberal thought and Indian

nationalism, emerged in the early 20th century as a leader who combined
scientific rationalism, democratic socialism, and anti-colonialism
into a powerful nationalist ideology. From the 1920s, Nehru began
articulating his belief in social and economic equality, influenced by
both Marxist ideas and the Soviet model of planned development, though
without endorsing authoritarian communism. His social thought was
rooted in secularism, scientific temper, and the idea of a progressive
society free from casteism, superstition, and religious orthodoxy. He
envisioned an India where education and science would liberate
individuals from backwardness and inequality.
Economically, Nehru was among the earliest Congress leaders to demand
planned economic development as a path to national regeneration. He
emphasized state-led industrialization, land reforms, and the
upliftment of the poor. His association with the National Planning
Committee (1938) and later the Nehruvian model after independence
was built on public sector dominance, state control over the
commanding heights of the economy, and balanced regional growth.
Bipan Chandra highlights Nehru’s firm belief that economic freedom
was essential to real political independence, and hence poverty,
hunger, and inequality had to be tackled with urgency.
Politically, Nehru was a passionate democrat. Though influenced by
socialism, he consistently argued for democratic institutions, civil
liberties, and parliamentary politics. His loyalty to the Congress
Party’s mass base and commitment to non-violent struggle under Gandhi
shaped his politics. Yet, he differed with Gandhi in key areas—particularly
in emphasizing modern industry, scientific education, and
internationalism. During the 1930s and 1940s, Nehru also played a
major role in aligning Indian nationalism with anti-fascist and anti-
imperialist international movements, projecting India as a future
leader of the global South.
According to Bipan Chandra, Nehru’s thought represented the synthesis
of nationalism and modernity, deeply rooted in humanism,
secularism, and the pursuit of socio-economic justice. His long-term
legacy lay not just in political leadership, but in providing India a
framework of transformation—a shift from colonial stagnation to a
modern, democratic, and secular republic.

Quotes of Vivekanand on Socialism, Nationalism, and Secularism

or Moralism?

Socialism

1. “So long as the millions live in hunger and ignorance, I hold every man
a traitor who having been educated at their expense pays not the least
heed to them.”
Vivekananda saw education and wealth as moral responsibilities. This
quote aligns with socialist ideals, emphasizing redistribution, duty to
the poor, and condemning elite apathy. Bipan Chandra’s vision of social
reform echoes this principle: freedom is hollow without economic justice
and upliftment of the masses.
2. “They alone live who live for others, the rest are more dead than
alive.”
This reflects ethical socialism and the idea that selflessness is the
highest human virtue. Vivekananda inspired generations to serve
society over self. Bipan Chandra discusses how such ideals influenced
Gandhian constructive work, and later Nehruvian socialism, rooted
in service and moral responsibility.
3. “There is no chance for the welfare of the world unless the condition of
women is improved.”
Vivekananda connected social progress with gender equality. Like
Bipan Chandra's reformist accounts, this shows how social
emancipation was vital to national revival. Elevating women, for
Vivekananda, was a core socialist and moral duty essential for a just
and progressive society.

Nationalism

4. “Arise, awake and stop not till the goal is reached.”

One of the most famous patriotic calls, this quote urged Indians to rise
against colonialism and ignorance. Bipan Chandra connects such
awakening with the cultural and spiritual mobilization that formed the
emotional bedrock of Indian nationalism, especially in the 19th
century renaissance.
5. “Every nation has a message to deliver, a mission to fulfill, a destiny to
reach.”
Here, Vivekananda defines spiritual nationalism, believing that India’s
role was not imperial but ethical and philosophical. Bipan Chandra
viewed such moral nationalism as foundational to the moderate phase
of the freedom struggle, aiming for self-rule rooted in Indian
civilizational values.
6. “We must have faith in ourselves before we can have faith in others.”
This stresses national self-confidence—breaking the mental slavery
imposed by colonialism. Bipan Chandra highlights how such thinking
encouraged self-respect movements, Swadeshi, and later Gandhi’s
emphasis on self-reliance (Swaraj). Faith in the Indian spirit was key to
reviving political courage.

Secularism

7. “We believe not only in universal toleration, but we accept all religions
as true.”
A powerful expression of Indian secularism, this quote transcends mere
tolerance—it promotes harmony through acceptance. Bipan Chandra
saw this idea reflected in India's inclusive nationalism, where religious
unity was necessary for political freedom and communal harmony a
condition for social stability.
8. “The Christian is not to become a Hindu or a Buddhist, nor a Hindu or a
Buddhist to become a Christian. But each must assimilate the spirit of the
others and yet preserve his individuality.”
Vivekananda supported pluralism without conversion. He defended
diversity and coexistence, laying a foundation for secular
democracy. Bipan Chandra stressed that such spiritual inclusiveness
countered British "divide and rule" and helped unify Indians against
communal divisions.

Moralism

9. “You cannot believe in God until you believe in yourself.”

Here, spirituality begins with inner strength, not external rituals. This
reflects Vivekananda’s rational moralism, where dignity, ethics, and
self-confidence are central to human development. Bipan Chandra
identified such thinking with reform movements seeking personal and
social upliftment without superstition.
10. “Religion is not in doctrines, in dogmas, nor in intellectual
argumentation. It is being and becoming.”
Vivekananda redefined religion as moral action and transformation,
not blind faith. His emphasis on ethics over ritual aligns with Bipan
Chandra’s portrayal of reformist nationalism, which sought to purify
Indian society from within while resisting colonial misrepresentations of
Indian spirituality.

Behramji Merwanji Malabari

Behramji Merwanji Malabari was a prominent 19th-century Parsi social

reformer, writer, and editor who played a crucial role in India’s early
reform movements. Born in 1853, Malabari emerged as a powerful voice
for women’s emancipation, particularly advocating against child
marriage and the oppression of widows. During the 1880s, he began
using his pen to raise awareness on these issues through his influential
English weekly journal, The Indian Spectator. His efforts gained national
attention when, in 1884, he published Notes on Infant Marriage and
Enforced Widowhood, a reformist tract that stirred public opinion and
reached even British parliamentarians. Bipan Chandra notes that
Malabari’s strategy of combining journalistic activism with moral
argument helped spread reformist ideas beyond religious boundaries,
especially within educated Indian elites. He also advocated for legal
reform, and his writings contributed to the climate that led to the Age of
Consent Act (1891), which raised the minimum age of marriage for girls.
As a Parsi, Malabari’s commitment to Hindu social reform reflected the
secular and humanitarian spirit of 19th-century Indian liberalism.
Bipan Chandra highlights him as a reformer who, like others of his time,
sought to modernize Indian society from within while respecting its
cultural foundations.

Vishnu Shashtri Pandit

Vishnu Shastri Pandit was a significant 19th-century Indian social

reformer who actively contributed to the cause of widow remarriage
and women’s rights, particularly in Maharashtra. Born in the early 19th
century, he was deeply influenced by the progressive ideas of earlier
reformers like Raja Ram Mohan Roy and was a contemporary of Ishwar
Chandra Vidyasagar. His major contribution came in the form of
sustained advocacy for the legalization and social acceptance of
widow remarriage, especially among the conservative Hindu society of
western India. He used journalistic writings, public speeches, and
organisational efforts to challenge regressive norms and generate
public support for reform. According to Bipan Chandra, Vishnu Shastri
Pandit played a vital role in helping pass the Hindu Widow Remarriage
Act of 1856, which was a landmark in the history of modern Indian
reform movements. His work reflects the broader liberal nationalist
project of the 19th century, where social reform was seen as essential to
national regeneration. Bipan Chandra highlights such reformers as
foundational to the Indian renaissance, bridging traditional values and
modern progressive ideals through rational argument and moral
appeal.

M.G. Ranade

Mahadev Govind Ranade (1842–1901) was one of the most influential

liberal reformers of 19th-century India, combining roles as a judge,
historian, economist, and social reformer. Educated in law and deeply
influenced by Western liberal thought, Ranade firmly believed that social
and economic reforms were essential preconditions for political
progress. In the 1870s, he became a founding member of the Prarthana
Samaj in Bombay, which worked for religious reform, women's
education, widow remarriage, and the abolition of caste
discrimination. Ranade strongly supported the Hindu Widow
Remarriage Act and opposed practices like child marriage and female
seclusion. As a moderate nationalist, he believed in gradual reform
through legislation, education, and public debate, and discouraged
confrontational politics. In the 1890s, he helped establish institutions like
the Indian National Social Conference, a platform that ran parallel to
the Indian National Congress and focused on social legislation and
reform. Bipan Chandra notes that Ranade laid the intellectual
foundation of Indian liberalism, influencing later leaders like Gokhale
and Gandhi, who also saw moral regeneration as vital to national
awakening. Ranade’s economic writings, too, advocated for indigenous
industries, cooperative enterprise, and balanced growth,
anticipating later nationalist economic thinking. In Bipan Chandra’s view,
Ranade exemplified the 19th-century reformers who worked to
modernize Indian society peacefully, while challenging the social evils
embedded within it.

Gopal Krishna Gokhale

Gopal Krishna Gokhale (1866–1915) was a prominent moderate

nationalist leader, key figure in the Indian National Congress, and a
strong advocate of constitutional methods and social reform.
Gokhale was deeply influenced by M.G. Ranade and the liberal
reformist tradition, believing that political freedom must go hand in
hand with education, social reform, and gradual political
development. He joined the Congress in the 1880s and rose to
leadership during the Moderate Phase of the party. In 1905, he became
the President of the Indian National Congress, during a time of
growing internal division between Moderates and Extremists. Gokhale
opposed the Extremist demand for swaraj through mass agitation and
instead advocated for negotiation and legislative reforms. He played
a key role in the formation of the Servants of India Society in 1905,
which worked to promote education, sanitation, and political
training. Bipan Chandra notes that although Gokhale disagreed with the
Extremists, he remained committed to national unity. He also had
considerable influence on Mahatma Gandhi, who regarded him as a
political mentor. Gokhale’s politics represented a blend of moderate
constitutionalism and deep social commitment, making him a
foundational figure in the evolution of early Indian nationalism.

1st Agricultural Policy and Last Agricultural Policy and Condition of

Peasantry

Under British colonial rule, no modern agricultural policy aimed at

increasing productivity or ensuring food security was ever implemented.
Instead, the British introduced various land revenue systems which
shaped India's agrarian economy, often worsening the condition of the
peasantry. The first major agrarian intervention was the Permanent
Settlement of 1793, introduced by Lord Cornwallis in Bengal. This
policy made zamindars (landlords) the permanent owners of land and
fixed the land revenue they had to pay to the British. While this system
ensured a steady income for the British, it dispossessed peasants, who
became tenants-at-will with no security of tenure. It created a class of
absentee landlords and did nothing to improve agriculture. Peasants
were often forced into usury, chronic debt, and subsistence farming,
with little to no institutional support. Famines and starvation became
common.
Later, other land revenue systems like the Ryotwari (in Madras and
Bombay Presidencies) and the Mahalwari (in parts of North India) were
introduced. Although these gave direct contact between the state and
cultivators, they were equally exploitative, with high revenue
demands, no support for irrigation or seeds, and no investment in
agricultural infrastructure.
The last major agrarian initiative before independence came under the
Congress ministries formed in 1937, after the Government of India
Act, 1935. Though limited in power, Congress attempted tenancy
reforms, reduction of rent, protection of tenants from eviction,
and cooperative credit societies. These were first steps towards
agrarian improvement, but remained incomplete and short-lived, as
the ministries resigned in 1939 in protest against India’s forced
involvement in WWII. Nonetheless, this period represented a shift in
attitude, with Indian leaders focusing on peasant welfare for the first
time.
Throughout the colonial period, the condition of the Indian peasantry
remained dire. As Bipan Chandra notes, peasants suffered from heavy
taxation, frequent famines, indebtedness to moneylenders, unfair
land practices, and lack of any institutional protection. Agricultural
productivity stagnated, and peasants had little say in governance. The
economic drain of wealth from India to Britain, coupled with the lack of
state investment in agriculture, ensured that the rural economy remained
trapped in a cycle of poverty and exploitation until independence.
Perio
Policy/Event Key Features Impact on Peasants
d

Fixed land revenue; Peasants lost rights,

Permanent zamindars made became tenants,
1793
Settlement landowners; introduced by suffered under high
Lord Cornwallis rents

Direct peasant-state
Ryotwari- Continued exploitation,
1820s– relation (Ryotwari);
Mahalwari arbitrary revenue
30s community revenue
Systems demands
(Mahalwari)

Congress Rent control, tenancy rights, Provided some relief;

1937–
Agrarian debt relief under Congress- efforts were limited
1939
Reforms led provincial govts and cut short in 1939
Military Revolt at Local and Regional Level

Year Region Details

First major sepoy mutiny. Caused by cultural

1806 Vellore interference—new dress codes, removal of beards
and caste marks.

Barrackpor 47th Native Infantry refused to go to Burma by sea

1824
e (violated caste taboos); regiment disbanded.

Punjab Sikh troops revolted against transfer to British

1844–45
Hills service post Anglo-Sikh war.

Full-scale military-civilian revolt. Spread through

1857 North India
Meerut, Delhi, Kanpur, Jhansi, etc.

Tribal Revolt at Local and Regional Level

Period Tribe/Region Details

1795– Paharia Uprising Early resistance against British entry into

1800s (Bihar) forest lands.

1820– Kol Revolt Against land encroachments by

1831 (Chotanagpur) moneylenders and outsiders (dikus).

1831– Bhumij Rebellion Led by Ganga Narain Singh; reaction to

1832 (Manbhum) land revenue policies.

Led by Sidhu and Kanhu; anti-zamindar

Santhal Revolt
1855–56 and anti-moneylender; brutally
(Rajmahal Hills)
suppressed.

Khond Revolt Protested human sacrifice ban and

1879
(Orissa) revenue system.

Bastar Rebellion Revolt against forest laws and colonial

1910
(Chhattisgarh) interference.

Peasant Revolt

Period Region Details

1810s– Bengal Indigo European planters forced peasants to

1820s Revolt grow indigo under harsh terms.
Period Region Details

Ramosi Revolt Led by Vasudev Balwant Phadke (later),

1831–32
(Maharashtra) against revenue policies.

Punjab Peasant Due to land annexation and new agrarian

1840s–50s
Unrest laws.

Farmers rose against moneylenders;

Deccan Riots
1875 created Deccan Agriculturists Relief Act
(Maharashtra)
(1879).

Pabna Movement Tenants resisted zamindars' enhanced

1883–84
(Bengal) rent demands.

Kheda & Bardoli Under Gandhi and Vallabhbhai Patel; civil

1918–21
(Gujarat) resistance to unjust taxes.

Eka and Avadh Against taluqdars and landlords; mixed

1920s–30s
Movements (UP) with Non-Cooperation Movement.

R.C Majumdar stated that Niether first, Nor National and Nor War
of Independence

R.C. Majumdar famously argued that the Revolt of 1857 was “neither
the first, nor national, nor a war of independence.” His statement finds
partial support in historical evidence, though Bipan Chandra critiques
this perspective with nuance.
Majumdar believed it was not the first revolt against British rule. Indeed,
Bipan Chandra records earlier uprisings—such as Sannyasi-Fakir
Rebellions, Poligar uprisings, Tribal movements, and Vellore
Mutiny (1806)—which predate 1857. Thus, 1857 was not the first
expression of resistance.
Majumdar further claimed it was not national, since it was confined to
limited regions—mainly Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, parts of Central India
—covering only about 25% of British territory and 10% of the Indian
population. The South, Bengal, and Punjab largely remained
unaffected or loyal to the British. According to Bipan Chandra, while it
lacked a pan-Indian character, it still had a popular and broad social
base in the affected areas.
As for it being “not a war of independence,” Majumdar argued that the
revolt was essentially a feudal backlash—a clash between the old
exploiting classes (like zamindars) and the East India Company,
which was still a private British corporation, not the Crown. The goal
was often restoration of the Mughal order, not national liberation.
Moreover, the British Crown only assumed control after the suppression
of the revolt (in 1858). Hence, it could not technically be called a war
against the British state.
Yet, Bipan Chandra maintains that despite its limitations, 1857 was the
first major anti-colonial mass uprising. It laid a psychological
foundation for future nationalist struggles, representing the emerging
Indian consciousness against foreign domination.

‘Diffrentiality of Factors’ and ‘Commonality of Interest’

The concept of “Differentiality of Factors” refers to the diverse

motivations that led different sections of Indian society to participate in
anti-colonial movements. According to Bipan Chandra, various social
groups—such as peasants, tribals, sepoys, artisans, intellectuals, and
dispossessed rulers—had their own specific and often localized grievances
against British rule. For instance, peasants revolted due to oppressive land
revenue systems, forced indigo cultivation, and exploitation by zamindars
and moneylenders. Tribals rose in rebellion to defend their autonomy and
forest rights, which were undermined by new forest laws and intrusion of
outsiders. Sepoys were agitated by service-related grievances, religious
interference, and loss of caste privileges. Similarly, deposed rulers like
Nana Saheb, Bahadur Shah Zafar, and Rani Lakshmibai aimed to restore
their political authority. These instances reflect that the various classes
and communities joined the struggle not due to a unified ideology but
because of different and context-specific factors that affected their
lives under colonialism.
Despite the diversity in their immediate concerns, all these social groups
shared a "Commonality of Interest"—their opposition to colonial
exploitation and foreign rule. Bipan Chandra explains that this shared
interest provided the basis for unity during major resistance movements.
The Revolt of 1857, for instance, brought together sepoys, peasants, and
rulers who, though motivated by different factors, united against a
common enemy—the East India Company. Similarly, the Non-Cooperation
Movement and Civil Disobedience Movement saw participation from
students, workers, middle-class professionals, and rural peasants, all
responding to their unique hardships but joining under the broader
national goal of Swaraj. The Quit India Movement of 1942 further
exemplified this phenomenon, with mass participation cutting across
class, region, caste, and religion. Thus, while the reasons for revolt
were varied, the goal of ending colonial rule was a common thread,
creating a foundation for the development of Indian nationalism.

Revolt of 1857 Regions/Leaders

 Supported
Region Leaders Comments by Historians
By

Bipan Chandra: Symbolic

Sepoys from
leadership; real control by
Bahadur Meerut,
Delhi sepoys. R.C. Majumdar: Revolt
Shah Zafar Mughal
lacked coordination here; Delhi
nobility
only a sentiment, not strategy.

S.N. Sen: Militarily significant,

Kanpur Local sepoys,
Nana Saheb, but lacked unity. Karl Marx:
(Cawnpor court
Tantia Tope Highlighted British atrocities in
e) retainers
Kanpur as imperial vengeance.

Bipan Chandra: Awadh turned

Begum Talukdars,
revolt into a civil rebellion. Karl
Hazrat sepoys, rural
Lucknow Marx: Saw Lucknow as a center
Mahal, Birjis Muslims and
of mass resistance against British
Qadr Hindus
annexation of Awadh.

Bipan Chandra: Icon of bravery

Sepoys, and resistance; revolt deeply
Rani
Jhansi civilians, local local but symbolically national.
Lakshmibai
nobles S.N. Sen: Viewed Lakshmibai as
a strategic warrior figure.

Rohilla
Khan Bipan Chandra: Attempted civil
Muslims,
Bareilly Bahadur governance; revolt based on fear
artisans,
Khan of British rule.
peasants

Bihar Local Bipan Chandra: Represented

Kunwar
(Jagdishp zamindars, older feudal opposition; one of
Singh
ur) peasants the oldest leaders in the revolt.

Muslim
Maulvi NCERT: Religious leadership
clerics, local
Faizabad Ahmadullah combined with anti-British
Hindus, rural
Shah sentiment; united masses.
poor

Local people
Local Bipan Chandra: Disorganized
Allahabad and
leaders, and fragmented revolt; lacked
, Banaras disbanded
rebel sepoys leadership and vision.
soldiers

Central Tatya Tope Maratha Bipan Chandra: Effective

India (also aided sepoys, local guerrilla leader; continued
Jhansi later) rulers fighting long after fall of main
 Supported
Region Leaders Comments by Historians
By

centers.

Changes of 1858 was only structural and not functional

After the Revolt of 1857, the British enacted the Government of India
Act, 1858, transferring power from the East India Company to the
British Crown. This was a major structural shift—but in practice, core
policies, attitudes, and colonial objectives remained unchanged.
Structural Changes (Cosmetic Reforms):
1. Transfer of Power to the Crown:
The British Crown replaced the East India Company as ruler. A
Secretary of State for India was appointed in London, advised by
a Council.
2. Viceroy in Place of Governor-General:
Lord Canning became the first Viceroy of India, symbolizing rule in
the name of the Queen.
3. Queen’s Proclamation (1858):
Promised equality before law, respect for Indian customs, and non-
interference in religion.
4. Indian Civil Services Centralized:
New administrative elite appointed under British control, with
competitive exams held in London.
Lack of Functional Changes (Reality Unchanged):
1. Colonial Exploitation Continued:
Economic drain, land revenue exploitation, and commercial
policies favoring British interests were maintained.
2. Racist Attitudes and Exclusion:
Despite proclamations, Indians were excluded from higher
administrative posts; racial hierarchy persisted.
3. Divide and Rule Intensified:
The British actively began communalizing Indian society,
favoring loyalist groups and sowing divisions.
4. Repression of Dissent:
The British created a more organized repressive state: policing,
surveillance, and censorship were enhanced.
 5. Military Reorganization:
Increased ratio of British soldiers; sepoys from southern and loyal
regions prioritized. Trust in Indian forces reduced.
They aimed to stabilize British rule, not to change its exploitative
foundations. Thus, structural rearrangements occurred, but
functional colonialism remained intact.

British Became President of Congress

Session Place of
Name Contribution & Work
- Year Session

First British President of INC.

George
1888 Allahabad Emphasized economic grievances and
Yule
moderate politics.

William Advocated Indian legislative reforms;

Bombay
Wedderbur 1889 promoted the Indian cause in British
(Mumbai)
n Parliament.

Irish nationalist; supported Indian self-

Alfred Madras
1894 rule and spoke for civil liberties in
Webb (Chennai)
India.

Criticized British imperialism;

Henry Bombay
1904 supported Indian aspirations in British
Cotton (Mumbai)
Parliament.

Theosophist and freedom activist; led

Annie Calcutta the Home Rule Movement; linked
1917
Besant (Kolkata) Congress with wider national
movement.

President of Congress

Category Name Year(s) Remarks

W.C. Presided over the first INC

First President 1885
Bonnerjee session in Bombay

Advocated Hindu-Muslim
First Muslim Badruddin
1887 unity; first Indian Muslim to
President Tyabji
preside Congress

First British First non-Indian and British to

George Yule 1888
President preside over INC

First Woman Annie Besant 1917 Leader of Home Rule

President (British) (Calcutta) Movement; revived Congress
(Overall) after moderate-extremist
Category Name Year(s) Remarks

split

Prominent freedom fighter;

First Indian Sarojini 1925
symbol of Indian woman
Woman President Naidu (Kanpur)
leadership

1940
President While Abul Kalam Delivered presidential
(Ramgarh
in Jail Azad address from jail
)

Maulana
Youngest 1923 Became INC President at age
Abul Kalam
President (Delhi) 35
Azad

1929, Held presidency multiple

Longest Tenure Jawaharlal
1936, times during critical national
as President Nehru
1937 phases

1886, Presided three sessions;

Maximum Times Dadabhai
1893, strong economic critic of
as President Naoroji
1906 British policies

President During Presided during final stages

Jawaharlal
Partition 1946 of independence and
Nehru
Resolution partition negotiations

President in Adopted resolution on

Karachi Session Vallabhbhai 1931 Fundamental Rights and
(Rights Patel (Karachi) National Economic
Resolution) Programme

Tripuri Crisis

The Tripuri Crisis of 1939 marked a major turning point in the internal
dynamics of the Indian National Congress. Held in March 1939 at Tripuri in
present-day Madhya Pradesh, this session witnessed the dramatic re-
election of Subhas Chandra Bose as President of the Congress,
defeating the Gandhian candidate Pattabhi Sitaramayya. Gandhi,
although not present at the session, remarked that "Pattabhi's defeat is
my defeat," signalling his personal stake in the outcome. Bose's victory,
however, did not translate into effective leadership. The majority of the
Congress Working Committee (CWC), which was dominated by
Gandhian’s such as Nehru, Patel, and Rajendra Prasad, refused to
cooperate with Bose. Eventually, 12 of the 15 members of the CWC
resigned, arguing that Bose could not lead the party without the
confidence of the committee.
This internal conflict was not merely about leadership but reflected a
deeper ideological rift between the left-leaning nationalist-
socialists, represented by Bose, and the mainstream Gandhian
faction, which prioritized non-violent constitutional methods. Unable to
function effectively amidst this opposition, Bose resigned in April 1939
and was replaced by Rajendra Prasad, a loyal Gandhian. Bose later went
on to establish the Forward Bloc to rally socialist and anti-imperialist
elements within the national movement.

Important Session of Congress

Congress
Event / Work Done Year Place Remarks
Session

Calcutta
First Resolution on Swaraj declared as
Session (Pres.
Swaraj (Dominion 1906 Calcutta Congress goal for
Dadabhai
Status) the first time
Naoroji)

Presided by Nehru;
Demand of Poorna
26 Jan 1930
Swaraj (Complete Lahore Session 1929 Lahore
declared as
Independence)
Independence Day

Presided by Sardar
Fundamental
Karachi Patel; reflected
Rights & Economic 1931 Karachi
Session socialist vision of
Policy Resolution
Indian nationalism

Advocated for
Resolution on Benares national system of
1905 Benares
National Education Session education; tied with
Swadeshi Movement

Gandhi as Gandhi accepted

President of Belgaum Belgau presidency for the
1924
Congress (only Session m only time to bridge
time) party factions

During Nagpur
Constitution of session era (under
Bombay
Congress Working 1920 Bombay Gandhi);
Session
Committee (CWC) organizational
restructuring

Special Session of Congress

S.No Year Place Remarks

1st 1896 Calcutta National song ‘Vande Mataram’ first sung

Special session on Non-Cooperation

2nd 1920 Calcutta
Movement decision (pre-Nagpur)

Conflict between Gandhi and Subhas Bose

3rd 1939 Tripuri
(who had just been re-elected)

Discussed interim government formation

4th 1946 Meerut
and power transfer post-WWII

Session of the Congress

Significance / Key
# Year Place President
Actions

1 1885 Bombay W.C. Bonnerjee Formation of the Congress

Planning national political

2 1886 Calcutta Dadabhai Naoroji
strategy

First Muslim President;

3 1887 Madras Badruddin Tyabji
appeal to unity

4 1888 Allahabad George Yule First British President

Legislative reforms
5 1889 Bombay William Wedderburn
advocated

Continued liberal moderate

6 1890 Calcutta Ferozeshah Mehta
approach

Expansion of legislative
7 1891 Nagpur P. Ananda Charlu
council demands

Consolidation of moderate
8 1892 Allahabad W.C. Bonnerjee
platform

9 1893 Lahore Dadabhai Naoroji Focused on drain theory

10 1894 Madras Alfred Webb Civil liberties and reform

Surendranath
11 1895 Pune Strengthening mass base
Banerjee

‘Vande Mataram’ sung first

12 1896 Calcutta Rahimatullah Sayani
time

13 1897 Amraoti C. Sankaran Nair Reaction to famines;

 Significance / Key
# Year Place President
Actions

further moderate demands

Spread awareness beyond

14 1898 Madras Ananda Mohan Bose
Bengal

Demand to stop economic

15 1899 Lucknow Romesh Chandra Dutt
drain

Continued moderate
16 1900 Lahore N.G. Chandavarkar
politics

Gandhi’s first appearance

17 1901 Calcutta Dinshaw E. Wacha
on INC platform

Surendranath Strengthening
18 1902 Ahmedabad
Banerjee organizational structure

19 1903 Madras Lal Mohan Ghosh Moderates dominate

Protest against Bengal

20 1904 Bombay Henry Cotton
partition proposals

Gopal Krishna Anger over Partition; rise of

21 1905 Benares
Gokhale Swadeshi movement

‘Swaraj’ resolution passed

22 1906 Calcutta Dadabhai Naoroji
for first time

Session suspended amid

23 1907 Surat Rash Behari Ghosh
moderate–extremist split

Extremists rejoined
24 1908 Madras Rash Behari Ghosh
Congress

Madan Mohan Response to Morley-Minto

25 1909 Lahore
Malaviya Reforms

Criticism of separate
26 1910 Allahabad William Wedderburn
electorate scheme

‘Jana Gana Mana’ sung first

27 1911 Calcutta B.N. Dhar
time

Bankipore
28 1912 R.N. Mudholkar Slow political reforms
(Patna)

Nawab Syed Moderate recovery after

29 1913 Karachi
Mohammed Bahadur Surat split
 Significance / Key
# Year Place President
Actions

30 1914 Madras Bhupendra Nath Basu Early World War I context

Extremists formally
31 1915 Bombay S.P. Sinha
admitted back

Lucknow Pact with Muslim

32 1916 Lucknow A.C. Mazumdar
League

First woman President;

33 1917 Calcutta Annie Besant Home Rule Movement
gains momentum

Bombay/ Hasan Imam / Debated Montague-

34 1918
Delhi Malaviya Chelmsford Reforms

Condemned Jallianwala
35 1919 Amritsar Motilal Nehru
Bagh massacre

C. CWC constituted; non-

36 1920 Nagpur
Vijayaraghavachariar cooperation launched

Hakim Ajmal Khan Reorganization under

37 1921 Ahmedabad
(Acting) Gandhi’s virtual leadership

38 1922 Gaya Chittaranjan Das Formation of Swaraj Party

Maulana Mohammad Demand for inclusive

39 1923 Delhi
Ali Swaraj

Gandhi’s only time as

40 1924 Belgaum Mahatma Gandhi
Congress President

First Indian woman

41 1925 Kanpur Sarojini Naidu
President

Opposition to Simon
42 1926 Guwahati S. Srinivasa Iyengar
Commission

Resolution against Troop

43 1927 Madras M.A. Ansari deployment abroad; early
call for Purna Swaraj

Formation of All India Youth

44 1928 Calcutta Motilal Nehru
Congress

Purna Swaraj resolution

45 1929 Lahore Jawaharlal Nehru adopted; 26 Jan set as
Independence Day
 Significance / Key
# Year Place President
Actions

Resolution on Fundamental
Rights & National
46 1931 Karachi Vallabhbhai Patel
Economic Programme;
Gandhi–Irwin Pact

Nellie Sengupta (& Women leadership

47 1933 Calcutta
Malaviya elected) highlighted

Pre-Civil Disobedience
48 1934 Bombay Rajendra Prasad
consolidation

Emphasis on socialist
49 1936 Lucknow Jawaharlal Nehru
planning

First rural session; peasant

50 1937 Faizpur Jawaharlal Nehru
wing recognition

National Planning
51 1938 Haripura Subhas Chandra Bose Committee constituted
under Nehru

Bose re-elected; Tripuri

52 1939 Tripuri Subhas Chandra Bose
Crisis ensued

Decision to launch civil

53 1940 Ramgarh Abul Kalam Azad
disobedience at right time

Interim govt formation; last

54 1946 Meerut J.B. Kripalani session before
independence

Founder and Foundation Year of Newspaper

Newspaper Founder(s) Year Significance / Notes

First newspaper in India; also

Bengal called Hickey’s Gazette.
James Augustus Hickey 1780
Gazette Known for satire against
East India Company.

Initially pro-moderate;
G. Subramania Iyer, M.
The Hindu 1878 became a powerful voice of
Veeraraghavachariar
nationalism in South India.

The Tribune Sardar Dyal Singh 1881 English daily from Lahore;
Newspaper Founder(s) Year Significance / Notes

focused on reformist and

Majithia
nationalist ideas.

British-owned paper;
The
Robert Knight 1875 generally pro-British views
Statesman
during colonial period.

Started as Bengali weekly;

Amrit Bazar Sisir Kumar Ghosh & became English daily to
1868
Patrika Motilal Ghosh evade Vernacular Press Act
(1878).

Founded as The
British-owned; later became
Times of Bombay Times
1838 conservative in colonial
India (Raobahadur Narayan
outlook.
Dinanath Velkar)

Supported Indian national

Hindustan Founded by Sunder movement; Gandhi and
1924
Times Singh Lyallpuri Malaviya backed its initial
funding.

Gandhi’s main organ to

Originally by Lala
propagate his ideas of
Young India Lajpat Rai; taken over 1919
satyagraha, swaraj, and
by Gandhi
social reform.

Dyarchy (Reserved & Transferred)

The system of Dyarchy was introduced by the Government of India Act

of 1919, also known as the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms. It was applied
at the provincial level and aimed to gradually introduce responsible
government in India. Dyarchy divided the provincial subjects into two
categories: Reserved and Transferred.
The Reserved subjects were those which remained under the direct
control of the Governor and his executive council, who were not
responsible to the provincial legislature. These subjects included crucial
areas like law and order, police, justice, finance, land revenue,
irrigation, and civil services. These were considered too important and
sensitive to be handed over to Indian ministers and remained under
British control.
On the other hand, Transferred subjects were those administered by
Indian ministers, who were responsible to the provincial legislative
councils. These subjects included education, health, agriculture,
public works (except major irrigation), local self-government, and
cooperative societies. The ministers handling these subjects were
Indians drawn from the elected members of the provincial legislature and
were answerable to it.
However, the system of Dyarchy was inherently flawed. There was no real
division of power since the reserved subjects were the most important for
administration. Moreover, the Governor had overriding powers in both
wings and could veto or override the decisions of ministers. The Indian
ministers had no control over finances, police, or even their own
departments in certain cases. This led to growing discontent among the
Indian nationalists.
According to Bipan Chandra, Dyarchy was a "mockery of responsible
government", and its failure became evident by the late 1920s. It was
ultimately abolished by the Government of India Act, 1935, which
replaced Dyarchy at the provincial level with full provincial autonomy and
introduced it at the central level (though not implemented there).

Phoenix Settlement

During his early years in South Africa, Mahatma Gandhi developed his
philosophy of non-violence, simple living, and community cooperation. In
1904, with the help of his German friend Henry Polak and financial
assistance from Hermann Kallenbach, Gandhi established the Phoenix
Settlement near Durban. This was his first experiment in communal
living, rooted in ideas of self-reliance, equality, and moral discipline. The
settlement became a training ground for satyagrahis (non-violent
resisters) and a base for publishing the journal Indian Opinion.

Tolstoy Farm

Later, in 1910, Gandhi, along with Kallenbach, set up another commune

called Tolstoy Farm near Johannesburg. It was named after the Russian
writer and philosopher Leo Tolstoy, whose ideas on non-possession,
moral force, and passive resistance deeply influenced Gandhi. Tolstoy
Farm was more structured than Phoenix and housed over 70-80
satyagrahis, including children and families. It was here that Gandhi
began to shape his ideas of Sarvodaya (welfare of all) and voluntary
poverty.
The spiritual connection between Gandhi and Leo Tolstoy was
profound. Gandhi regarded Tolstoy's work The Kingdom of God is
Within You as transformative. They exchanged letters, especially on
non-violence, religious tolerance, and moral reform. Gandhi considered
Tolstoy as one of his primary moral guides.
Gensmer

In addition, the German missionary Gensmer (referred to in Bipan

Chandra's book as one of the religious and moral influences on Gandhi)
exposed Gandhi to the theological basis of service and sacrifice,
reinforcing his vision of truth-based activism. These settlements and
influences laid the spiritual and organizational foundation of
Gandhi’s later movements in India, such as Champaran and the Non-
Cooperation Movement.

Gandhi is legacy of Gokhale and extension of Tilak

Mahatma Gandhi is often seen as synthesizing the political traditions of

two towering national leaders who preceded him—Gopal Krishna
Gokhale and Bal Gangadhar Tilak. He inherited Gokhale’s moderate
constitutionalism, deep commitment to social reform, and faith in
gradual political change through moral persuasion. Gokhale, who
mentored Gandhi during his early years in Indian politics, believed in the
power of reasoned dialogue with the British, emphasized education,
and urged Gandhi to understand India's socio-economic conditions
before plunging into political agitation. Gandhi respected him immensely,
calling him his "political guru." Like Gokhale, Gandhi valued truth, non-
violence, and the importance of ethical public life.
Simultaneously, Gandhi also carried forward the legacy of Bal
Gangadhar Tilak in terms of mass mobilization, assertive
nationalism, and the emphasis on Swadeshi and self-reliance. Tilak’s
powerful slogans like “Swaraj is my birthright” and his call for national
education, boycott of foreign goods, and revival of indigenous
institutions directly inspired Gandhi’s strategies during the Non-
Cooperation and Civil Disobedience Movements. Tilak’s ability to
connect with the masses and use religious idioms in political
mobilization was also adopted and expanded upon by Gandhi, especially
in his use of symbols like khadi, salt, and the spinning wheel.
Thus, Gandhi was a fusion of Gokhale’s ethical reformism and
Tilak’s assertive nationalism. While Gokhale provided the moral
compass, Tilak gave the energy of mass agitation, and Gandhi
combined both to launch a broad-based national movement rooted in
non-violence and civil disobedience, transcending class, caste, and
religion.

Gandhi Started the program of Non-payment of land revenue in

Non-Zamindari Areas

In the course of the Civil Disobedience Movement (1930–1934),

Mahatma Gandhi strategically promoted the non-payment of land
revenue in non-zamindari areas, particularly where the government
acted as the direct landowner (called Ryotwari areas), such as in parts
of Gujarat, Andhra, and Tamil Nadu.
Unlike zamindari areas — where the landlord class was an intermediary
between the cultivator and the colonial state — in non-zamindari or
Ryotwari regions, the cultivator directly paid land revenue to the
government. Here, the economic burden of colonial taxation was more
direct and visible. Gandhi viewed the land revenue system as a tool of
exploitation and colonial control, and thus made it a legitimate target
for civil disobedience.
In his instructions to Congressmen and satyagrahis, Gandhi encouraged:
 Refusal to pay land revenue as a form of economic resistance.
 This was to be carried out peacefully and only by those willing to
suffer confiscation of land and property.
 This program was implemented selectively and not across India,
but where conditions allowed for disciplined non-violent
resistance.
One of the most effective instances of this was the Bardoli Satyagraha
(1928), though technically before the Civil Disobedience Movement,
which set the precedent for non-payment movements later. This
strategy hit at the heart of the British fiscal system and galvanized
peasant participation in the nationalist movement — especially in non-
zamindari regions where cultivators had no intermediaries to shield them.
Thus, Gandhi’s emphasis on non-payment of land revenue in non-
zamindari areas was both a practical tactic and a symbolic rejection
of colonial economic control.

Ahmedabad Session 1921

The Ahmedabad Session of the Indian National Congress, held in

1921, was a crucial meeting during the peak of the Non-Cooperation
Movement. Presided over by Hakim Ajmal Khan, this session reaffirmed
Congress’s full commitment to the programme of non-cooperation,
initiated the previous year under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi.
The session reflected the growing mass base of the movement and
adopted a more radical stance, deciding to boycott the Prince of
Wales’s visit to India and intensify the movement at the national level.
A key resolution passed at Ahmedabad emphasized:
 The complete boycott of foreign cloth, courts, and educational
institutions.
 Strengthening the use of khadi and charkha (spinning wheel).
  Expanding constructive programmes including Hindu-Muslim
unity, removal of untouchability, and promotion of national
education.
The session also authorized Congress committees at all levels to prepare
for mass civil disobedience, though only when Gandhi deemed the
country prepared. This cautious and controlled approach reflected
Gandhi's concern about violence and maintaining discipline within the
movement.
Importantly, the Ahmedabad Session marked the consolidation of the
Gandhian method within the Congress — a combination of mass
politics, moral discipline, and constructive work. It also confirmed
the dominance of Gandhi’s leadership in the national movement,
supported by leaders like Motilal Nehru, C.R. Das, and Vallabhbhai
Patel.
Thus, the 1921 Ahmedabad Session served as a milestone in the
Gandhian phase of the freedom struggle, reaffirming civil disobedience
as a central tool against colonial rule.

Vitthal Bhai Patel

Vitthalbhai Patel, elder brother of Sardar Patel, he was becoming the

first Indian President of the Central Legislative Assembly in 1925,
where he asserted Indian rights within British institutions. He transformed
the Assembly into a platform for national resistance and upheld
parliamentary dignity. He also supported Subhas Chandra Bose financially
for revolutionary work before his death.

Sedition is my Religion

Mahatma Gandhi famously declared, “Sedition has become the creed

of the Congress. Sedition has become my religion.” during his trial
in 1922 for writings in Young India. This was his bold response to the
colonial Sedition Act (Section 124A), under which he was charged.
Gandhi used the trial as a platform to assert moral and national
legitimacy over colonial legal authority.
He argued that if opposing an unjust, foreign government amounted to
sedition, then he willingly accepted the charge. This statement
underscored Gandhi’s commitment to truth (Satya) and non-violent
resistance (Ahimsa), affirming that challenging colonial rule was not a
crime but a duty.

Fundamental Right (Karachi Session)

The Karachi Session of the Indian National Congress, held in March

1931 under the leadership of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, was a defining
moment in the history of the Indian national movement. Convened shortly
after the Gandhi-Irwin Pact and the execution of Bhagat Singh, the session
was vital not only for ratifying the Pact but also for presenting a clear
ideological vision of what free India would look like. In response to
colonial criticism and to present a constructive image of the Congress, the
session adopted two crucial resolutions—one on Fundamental Rights
and the other on a National Economic Programme.
Fundamental Rights Resolution (1931) :
 Freedom of speech, press, assembly, association, conscience
and belief
 Equality before law irrespective of caste, creed, or gender
 Universal adult franchise
 Right to bear arms (subject to regulation)
 Equal rights and obligations in public employment
 Neutrality of the state in religious matters
 Protection of the culture, language, and script of minorities
 Abolition of untouchability and caste discrimination
The National Economic Programme, also passed in the same session,
proposed a socialist-oriented economic framework. It advocated for
state ownership or control of key industries, mines, and
transport, ensuring that economic power would not concentrate in
private hands. It emphasized the rights of workers to receive living
wages, work under regulated hours, and form unions. It demanded
protection for peasants and tenants against exploitation by landlords,
and a reduction in land revenue and rent. It also called for free and
compulsory primary education, laying the foundation of an inclusive
welfare state.
This session was historic for giving a concrete social and economic
direction to the freedom movement. It demonstrated that the Congress
was not merely fighting political colonialism, but also envisioning a
democratic, egalitarian, and secular India. Many ideas from these
resolutions were later reflected in the Indian Constitution, particularly in
the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy.

Why India accepted the Dominion status instead of complete

Independence

India accepted Dominion Status instead of immediate complete

independence in 1947 as a pragmatic and transitional measure to
ensure a peaceful transfer of power during a time of immense turmoil.
The Indian Independence Act of 1947, passed by the British
Parliament, granted India and Pakistan Dominion status, making them
independent nations within the British Commonwealth, with the British
monarch as a nominal head. This arrangement allowed India to retain
legal continuity, avoid administrative collapse, and ensure a smooth
takeover of institutions like the bureaucracy, army, and judiciary.
The decision was influenced by the urgency created by Partition,
widespread communal violence, the refugee crisis, and the collapse of law
and order in several regions. Leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar
Patel, and Mahatma Gandhi viewed Dominion Status not as a betrayal,
but as a temporary compromise. It enabled India to function as an
independent state while giving the Constituent Assembly time to draft
a permanent Constitution without plunging the nation into deeper
instability.
Moreover, this status provided international recognition and diplomatic
leverage while keeping essential government machinery intact. By
January 26, 1950, India adopted its own Constitution and became a
Republic, thus fully severing ties with British sovereignty.

Commission and Committees led to the death of S.C Bose

Name of
Commission/Commit Year Head Conclusion
tee

Shah Nawaz Bose died in a plane crash in

Shah Nawaz
1956 Khan (INA Taipei on 18 August
Committee
officer) 1945.

Justice G.D.
Supported the plane crash
Khosla Commission 1970 Khosla (Retd.
theory.
HC Judge)

Justice M.K. Rejected the plane crash

Mukherjee 1999– Mukherjee theory, but could not
Commission 2005 (Retd. SC conclusively state what
Judge) happened to Bose.

Bina Das

Bina Das attempted to assassinate the Governor of Bengal in 1932 during

her convocation ceremony. A member of the Chhatri Sangha, she
represented the rising political activism of educated women. Her act
symbolized the youth's desperation and commitment to armed resistance
under colonial oppression.

Kalpana Dutta
A member of the Indian Republican Army, Kalpana Dutta participated in
the Chittagong Armoury Raid (1930) led by Surya Sen. Arrested in
1933, she was sentenced to transportation for life but later released. She
exemplified women’s active role in revolutionary terrorism in Bengal.

Shanti Ghosh

Shanti Ghosh, along with Suniti Chowdhury, assassinated a British

magistrate in Comilla (1931). Both were teenage members of a secret
revolutionary organization. Their actions reflected how young women were
inspired by nationalist ideas and prepared to take violent action for India’s
freedom.

Jatin Das

Jatin Das was arrested in the Lahore Conspiracy Case alongside Bhagat
Singh. He died in jail after a 63-day hunger strike (1929) protesting
inhumane treatment of political prisoners. His martyrdom triggered
national outrage and symbolized the spirit of supreme sacrifice among
young revolutionaries.

Sunita Chaudhary

Suniti Mukherjee Chowdhury, alongside Shanti Ghosh, executed the

Comilla assassination of Magistrate Stevens. She was deeply influenced
by revolutionary ideology and marked the trend of women's participation
in direct political violence against British rule.

Preetilata

Pritilata Waddedar led a daring raid on the Pahartali European Club

in Chittagong (1932), which carried the sign "Dogs and Indians not
allowed." A member of Surya Sen’s revolutionary group, she died by
swallowing cyanide to avoid arrest, becoming a symbol of women’s
martyrdom in the armed struggle.

Loknath Baul

Loknath Bal was a commander in the Chittagong Armoury Raid (1930)

under Surya Sen. He led one of the attack groups that successfully raided
the armoury. He was captured and sentenced to life imprisonment,
reflecting the repressive response of the British to revolutionary action.

Ganesh Ghosh

Ganesh Ghosh was another key participant in the Chittagong Armoury

Raid. He later escaped but was arrested and transported to the
Andamans. His involvement signifies the participation of educated youth
in well-planned revolutionary missions during the early 1930s in Bengal.
Jatin Mukherjee

Bagha Jatin or Jatin Mukherjee was an early revolutionary leader

associated with Jugantar. He organized secret societies, coordinated
arms smuggling, and planned a revolt during World War I with German
help. He died in a gun battle with British police in 1915, becoming a
legend in Bengal’s militant nationalism.

Badal

Badal or Sudhir Gupta participated in the Writers’ Building attack

(1930) in Calcutta, alongside Benoy and Dinesh. He fought bravely
against British officers and consumed poison to avoid arrest. His
martyrdom, along with others, inspired future generations of youth
revolutionaries in Bengal.

Benoy Basu

Benoy Basu was a young revolutionary who led the Writers’ Building
attack in 1930 with Badal and Dinesh. Disguised in European attire, they
entered the building and killed high-ranking British officers. Benoy
succumbed to injuries after the assault, becoming a martyr.

Dinesh Gupta

Dinesh Gupta was the youngest among the three in the Writers'
Building incident. He was captured and hanged in 1931. His
involvement, courage, and execution rallied nationalists and highlighted
the fierce resistance offered by Bengal revolutionaries.

Chandra Shekhar Azaad

A leading revolutionary associated with the Hindustan Socialist

Republican Association (HSRA), Chandra Shekhar Azad masterminded
many actions including the Kakori train robbery. He vowed never to be
captured alive and died in a shootout with police in 1931, maintaining his
pledge till death.

Madanlal Dhingra

Madan Lal Dhingra assassinated Curzon Wyllie in London (1909), making

a dramatic statement for Indian independence abroad. Influenced by
Savarkar and nationalist literature, his trial and execution ignited debates
and inspired future Indian revolutionaries to fight colonial rule even
outside India.

Udham Singh
Udham Singh avenged the Jallianwala Bagh massacre by assassinating
General O’Dwyer in London in 1940. Though the act occurred after the
timeline of the book's primary focus, he is mentioned as part of a larger
trend of individual acts of vengeance in nationalist memory.

Magna Carta 1215

The Magna Carta, signed in 1215 by King John of England at

Runnymede, is widely regarded as one of the foundational documents in
the development of constitutional governance. It emerged as a result of
growing discontent among the English barons who were frustrated with
the king’s arbitrary rule, heavy taxation, and military failures. The charter
aimed to limit the powers of the monarch and protect certain feudal rights
of the barons. Though initially designed to address the grievances of the
nobility, the Magna Carta introduced the revolutionary idea that the king
was not above the law. It provided for protection from illegal
imprisonment, access to swift justice, and the requirement that the king
must consult his barons before imposing taxes—an early step toward
parliamentary democracy. While many of its clauses were specific to
feudal England, over time it became a powerful symbol of liberty, justice,
and the rule of law. The Magna Carta significantly influenced later
constitutional documents, including the English Bill of Rights (1689),
the American Declaration of Independence (1776), and even the
Indian Constitution, which upholds the principle of legal equality and
limits arbitrary power. Thus, the Magna Carta is celebrated not just as a
medieval charter but as a cornerstone in the evolution of modern
democratic ideals.

New Education Policy 2020

India’s New Education Policy 2020 (NEP 2020) aims to transform the
Indian education system into a more holistic, flexible, and multidisciplinary
model. It replaces the old 10+2 structure with a 5+3+3+4 system,
starting from age 3. The policy emphasizes mother tongue/regional
language instruction till Grade 5 and introduces vocational training
and coding from Class 6 onwards. NEP also promotes critical thinking,
flexible subject choices, and experiential learning.
In higher education, NEP introduces multidisciplinary institutions,
multiple exit options in degree programs, an Academic Bank of
Credits, and the phasing out of the M.Phil. degree. A new regulatory
body, HECI, will oversee higher education, and teacher training reforms
include making four-year B.Ed. degrees mandatory.
The policy encourages technology integration through digital platforms
and stresses equity and inclusion. While it has been praised for its
progressive vision, critics worry about challenges like implementation,
commercialization, and regional disparities.
Which revolt expressed loyality to the British Crown

The Khonds uprising in Orissa and some segments of the Santhal

Rebellion (1855-56) showed elements of loyalty to the British
Crown, but the most notable example is the revolt of the loyalist
feudal chiefs during the 1857 Revolt, particularly the Scindias of
Gwalior, the Nizam of Hyderabad, and the rulers of Patiala,
Kashmir, and Nepal.
However, in terms of a revolt that explicitly expressed loyalty to the
British Crown, the Santhal Rebellion initially framed its opposition not
against the Crown itself, but against the exploitative zamindars,
moneylenders, and British administrative officers, whom they saw
as corrupt. Their goal was not to overthrow British rule, but to seek
redress.
But it's important to note that most tribal revolts like those of the
Khonds, Santhals, and Bhils did not challenge the Crown directly;
rather, they protested local oppression and sought justice under
British sovereignty, thus implicitly expressing loyalty to the Crown or
at least not rejecting it outright.
So, the early tribal revolts can be interpreted as protests within the
framework of loyalty to the British, rather than outright rebellion
against British rule.

Jyotibai Phule

Jyotiba Phule was a 19th-century social reformer who fought against caste
discrimination and promoted women’s education. Along with his wife
Savitribai Phule, he opened the first girls’ school for lower castes. He
founded the Satyashodhak Samaj in 1873 to challenge Brahminical
dominance and uplift the oppressed. His book Gulamgiri exposed caste-
based exploitation and called for equality.

1940s was the peak of the Communal Consciousness proved

disaster for India but blessing for British

The 1940s were the peak of communal consciousness in India,

proving a disaster for Indian unity but a blessing for British colonial
strategy. As anti-colonial sentiments intensified, the British deftly
exploited the growing rift between Hindus and Muslims, effectively
derailing the momentum of united nationalist struggle and
delaying their exit from India on their own terms.
Disaster for India:
 The Lahore Resolution (1940), demanding a separate Muslim
state, formalized the communal divide.
  Cripps Mission (1942) failed due to mutual distrust between
Congress and the Muslim League, rooted in communal anxieties.
 Direct Action Day (1946) unleashed horrific communal riots,
especially in Calcutta and Noakhali, exposing the deep-seated
fractures in Indian society.
 The Partition of 1947, a direct outcome of escalating
communalism, led to the massacre of over a million people and
displacement of more than 10 million, leaving scars that still
persist.
Blessing for the British:
 The divide-and-rule policy reached its peak, enabling the British
to maintain control even as nationalist pressure mounted.
 Communal divisions allowed Britain to undermine the legitimacy
of a unified independence movement, presenting itself as a
necessary mediator between warring communities.
 It also relieved Britain of moral responsibility—they exited not
due to defeat by a united Indian force but amid communal chaos,
presenting their departure as part of an orderly, negotiated
settlement (Mountbatten Plan).
 British prestige remained relatively intact internationally, as they
avoided outright revolution and portrayed Partition as a peaceful
decolonization, though it was anything but.
Thus, the 1940s were a dark chapter for India’s unity, but ironically
gave the British an opportunity to exit without facing full
accountability, having sown the seeds of division that outlasted
their empire.

There are various streams of National Movement in 3 rd decade of

the 20th century which shape the New Dimension to National
Movement

Yes, the third decade of the 20th century (1920s–30s) witnessed

multiple streams within the Indian National Movement, each
contributing uniquely and reshaping the struggle for independence. These
parallel currents reflected growing dissatisfaction with colonial rule and
the desire for deeper ideological, social, and economic transformation.

1. Gandhian Stream (Mainstream Nationalism):

 The Non-Cooperation Movement (1920–22) under Mahatma
Gandhi drew masses into the struggle, mobilizing peasants,
students, and workers.
  Focus on non-violence (ahimsa), satyagraha, and constructive
work.
 Emphasis on khadi, boycott of foreign goods, and promotion of
national education.
 Though temporarily halted after Chauri Chaura (1922), this stream
defined the tone of mass politics.
2. Revolutionary Stream:
 Inspired by militant nationalism and socialism.
 Led by Bhagat Singh, Chandra Shekhar Azad, Hindustan
Socialist Republican Association (HSRA).
 Shifted from individual acts of violence to mass awakening and
ideological clarity, focusing on social revolution and anti-
imperialism.
 Popular actions: Kakori Conspiracy (1925), Assembly Bombing
(1929), Lahore Conspiracy Case.
3. Socialist and Leftist Stream:
 Rise of workers’ and peasants’ movements with influence from
global socialist ideas.
 Formation of Congress Socialist Party (1934) by leaders like
Jayaprakash Narayan, Acharya Narendra Dev.
 Spread of trade unions, Kisan Sabhas, and Marxist ideas
influenced the broader nationalist discourse.
 Critique of Gandhian moderation and emphasis on class
struggle.
4. Communal Stream:
 Growing Hindu-Muslim divide, particularly after the Khilafat
Movement collapse.
 Formation and strengthening of Muslim League and Hindu
Mahasabha.
 Communal tensions, visible in civil disturbances, began shaping
political demands around religious identity, sowing seeds for
partition.
5. Dalit and Depressed Class Movements:
 Led by B.R. Ambedkar, this stream fought against caste
oppression and demanded social justice.
  Movements like Temple Entry, demand for separate
electorates and Poona Pact (1932) highlighted the tensions
within nationalism regarding social equality.
These diverse currents—Gandhian, revolutionary, socialist,
communal, and Dalit movements—in the 1920s and 1930s added new
dimensions to the freedom struggle. While sometimes in tension with
each other, they broadened the socio-political base of the national
movement, transforming it into a multi-class, multi-ideological force
and laying the groundwork for mass mobilization in the 1930s and 1940s.

The Act of 1935 was Point of No Return

The Government of India Act of 1935 marked a turning point in India’s

constitutional development. According to Bipan Chandra, it was the
culmination of British efforts to preserve imperial control while
appearing to grant Indian self-governance. The Act introduced
provincial autonomy, replacing dyarchy and allowing Indians to
administer departments like education, agriculture, and health. The
Congress ministries formed in 1937 provided an opportunity to
demonstrate the capabilities of Indian leadership, giving mass
confidence in self-rule.
Though it withheld complete independence or dominion status, and
the federation provisions were never implemented due to princely
resistance, Bipan Chandra emphasizes that the 1935 Act confirmed
that British rule could no longer continue in its previous form. It
showed that Indians would henceforth be involved in the governance of
their own country, which was a clear acceptance of the future
inevitability of independence.
Bipan Chandra also critiques the communal provisions of the Act,
especially separate electorates, as a British strategy to divide the
national movement, laying the seeds for future communal tensions. Yet,
the political experience under this Act allowed national leaders to prepare
for full independence. Therefore, as Bipan Chandra asserts, while limited
in its scope and rooted in colonial motives, the Act of 1935
effectively marked the "point of no return" in the imperial structure,
making the continuation of British rule in its old form impossible.

Why Gandhi accepted Partition and Congress agreed for Dominion

Status

Gandhi’s acceptance of Partition was not born out of ideological approval

but as a pragmatic choice in a collapsing political situation. Bipan
Chandra explains that by 1946–47, the communal situation had drastically
worsened — especially after Direct Action Day (August 16, 1946) and
subsequent riots in Calcutta, Noakhali, Bihar, and Punjab. The British
administration had lost effective control, and India was teetering on
the edge of civil war. Gandhi, deeply pained by the communal killings,
realised that continuing the demand for a united India could lead to
greater bloodshed and long-term instability. Hence, although
personally opposed to Partition, he did not stand in its way when Congress
accepted it.
The Congress leadership agreed to Dominion Status in 1947 (under
the Mountbatten Plan) because they saw it as a temporary
compromise. Bipan Chandra notes that while complete independence
had always been the goal, Congress leaders like Nehru and Patel believed
accepting Dominion Status would ensure the transfer of power
without delay and prevent the country from descending into
further chaos. It also allowed for continuity in administration during the
transition. Importantly, Dominion Status was seen as a negotiating
platform — not a final settlement. Within less than a year, India adopted
a republican constitution, and the Dominion Status was formally
ended in 1950.
Thus, both decisions — accepting Partition and Dominion Status — were
made under the duress of national disintegration and communal
disaster, with the larger goal of preserving national unity and
independence, even if it meant painful compromises.

Tribal Revolt and Causes of Tribal Revolt

These revolts were geographically widespread, ranging from the hills of

Chotanagpur to the forests of the Western Ghats.
Major Causes of Tribal Revolts
1. Loss of Land and Forest Rights
British policies severely restricted tribal access to forests, which
were central to their economy. Laws like the Forest Acts
criminalized traditional practices like shifting cultivation, hunting,
and grazing. The tribals were often evicted from their lands and
forced to become tenants or labourers under moneylenders and
landlords.
2. Imposition of Colonial Administration
The British disrupted the traditional tribal governance system. Tribal
chiefs were reduced to mere tax-collectors, and customary laws
were replaced by colonial rules. The destruction of tribal
autonomy led to resentment and rebellion.
3. Exploitative Land Revenue System
The introduction of the zamindari system and land settlements
brought in non-tribal landlords, moneylenders, and traders who
exploited the tribals. This caused economic hardship, debt
bondage, and even land alienation.
 4. Oppression by Moneylenders and Contractors
Tribal populations fell into debt traps, as moneylenders charged
exorbitant interest. When unable to repay, tribals lost their land and
were often forced into bonded labour. Forest contractors exploited
their labour without fair wages.
5. Missionary Activities and Cultural Intrusion
Christian missionaries tried to change the tribal belief systems.
Though education and healthcare were introduced, this cultural
invasion created identity crises among the tribals, leading to
resistance in some areas.
6. Economic Exploitation by the British and Local Elites
The British extracted resources (timber, minerals) from tribal lands
without benefit to local people. The combination of British
economic interests and Indian collaborators (banias,
zamindars) furthered tribal alienation.
7. Alienation and Social Displacement
Many tribal communities were displaced due to infrastructure
projects like roads, railways, and mining. With no compensation or
rehabilitation, this economic displacement led to violent
backlashes.
Revolt Region Year Leaders Key Issues

Chuar Bengal 1766– Durjan Singh, Land revenue pressure,

Uprising (Midnapore) 1799 Jagannath displacement

Kol Chotanagpur 1831– Buddhu Land alienation, loss of

Rebellion Plateau 32 Bhagat autonomy

Exploitation by
Santhal Rajmahal Hills 1855– Sidhu and
moneylenders and
Rebellion (Bihar) 56 Kanhu Murmu
landlords

Bhil Western India 1818– Land loss, British

Bhil chiefs
Uprising (Khandesh) 1831 suppression

Forest laws, economic

Munda 1899–
Chotanagpur Birsa Munda exploitation,
Ulgulan 1900
millenarianism

Khasi-
1829– British intrusion in hill
Garo Meghalaya Tirut Singh
33 administration
Rebellion

Chittur Singh, Injustice by officials,

Ramosi 1822,
Maharashtra Vasudev military employment
Revolt 1879
Balwant loss
Tribal Movements in Frontier Regions

Tribe/
Region Period Leaders Nature of Revolt
Movement

Gomdhar
Assam Restoration of Ahom
1828– Konwar,
Ahom Revolt (Upper rule after
1830s Dhananjoy
Assam) annexation
Borgohain

Against British road

Khasi Hills 1829–
Khasi Revolt Tirot Singh construction and
(Meghalaya) 1833
interference

Manipur,
Kuki 1917– Tribal Chiefs (no Forced recruitment
Tripura,
Rebellion 1919 single leader) and land alienation
Assam

Religious reform,
Zeliangrong Nagaland, 1930s– Jadonang, Rani
anti-British
Revolt Manipur 1940s Gaidinliu
movement (Heraka)

A.Z. Phizo,
Naga Naga Hills, 1918 Ethnic assertion,
others (later
Movement Nagaland onwards political autonomy
phase)

Heraka Zeliangrong 1930s– Religious revivalism

Rani Gaidinliu
Movement Area 1947 and nationalism

Tribal Movements of Mainland

The Chuar Uprising took place in the Bengal region, particularly in the
Jungle Mahals (Midnapore, Bankura) during the late 18th and early 19th
centuries. The Chuars were tribal peasants and former zamindars who had
lost land due to the British Permanent Settlement and harsh revenue
demands. Led by figures like Durjan Singh, Jagannath Singh, and
Mangal Singh, they protested against exploitation, dispossession, and
the breakdown of their socio-economic structure.
The Santhal Rebellion of 1855–56 was one of the most significant tribal
uprisings. The Santhals of Rajmahal Hills rose under the leadership of
Sidhu, Kanhu, Chand, and Bhairav against the oppressive British
revenue policies, moneylenders, and zamindars. They declared an
independent rule before being brutally suppressed. The rebellion led to
the creation of a separate Santhal Pargana.
The Munda Revolt or Ulgulan (Great Tumult) of 1899–1900 was led by
Birsa Munda in the Chotanagpur region. It was driven by land alienation,
the erosion of Khuntkatti (customary land rights), and forced labour
(begar). Birsa combined traditional religion with anti-British nationalism
and created a strong base among the Mundas, leading to a militant
uprising, which was ultimately crushed.
The Kondh rebellion occurred in the Orissa region, where the Kondhs
resisted British interference in their customs, especially the suppression of
human sacrifice and imposition of taxes. The movement was led by
Chakra Bisoi, who merged religious revival with political defiance and
maintained an anti-British stand for over a decade in the mid-19th
century.
The Bhil revolts were scattered but persistent throughout the 19th
century, particularly in Khandesh and the western Deccan. The Bhils,
displaced from their forests and subjected to revenue extortion and
exploitation, often rebelled. The revolt of 1818–31, led by Bhil chiefs like
Sevalal, was among the most significant.
The Koya Rebellion (in Andhra and Odisha forest regions) was rooted in
the exploitation of tribal land, revenue settlements, and forest policies.
Leaders like Tammanna Dora and Rajayya Dora resisted British
oppression through guerrilla warfare in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
Lastly, the Rampa Rebellion (1922–24) in the Godavari Agency area
was led by Alluri Sitarama Raju, who mobilized the Koyas and other
tribes against forced labour, restrictions on shifting cultivation, and forest
laws. Using traditional weapons and guerrilla tactics, the movement
challenged British authority and inspired nationalist revolutionaries,
though it was eventually suppressed and Raju captured and executed.