Chapter 19 Years of stagnation---swarajists Swaraj party and its motive of formation Difference between pro changers(swarajist) and no changers

angers Common views of the pro changers and the no changers Differentiating views of the pro changers and no changers Factors which stopped the pro changers and no changer from splitting because of their different views (on council entry) Reasons for withdrawing support to pro changers (swarajist) by Gandhi at a later stage

SWARAJ PARTY: A party led by CR das and motilal Nehru which favour entry to legislative councils Motives of formation: It declared to present the national demand for self-governance in the legislative councils by entering the legislative council through election In case of rejection of its demand for self-governance, it would adopt a policy of uniform, continuous, and consistent obstruction within the council with a view to make governance through council impossible DIFFERING VIEWS OF PRO-CHANGERS AND NO-CHANGERS: 1. The pro-changers(swarajists) are in support of legislative council entry to voice their demands in the council whereas the no-changers are against the council entry and wished the continuation of the full programme of boycott and non cooperation, effective construction of resumption of civil disobedience movement 2. The no-changers opposed council entry on the grounds that parliamentary work would lead to the neglect of constructive and other work among the masses, the loss of revolutionary zeal and political corruption the legislators entering the council with the aim of wrecking them and voicing their demands would give up the politics of destruction and get sucked into the imperial constitutional framework, and start cooperating with the govt. on petty reforms and piecemeal legislation constructive work among the masses without entering council would prepare them for the next round of civil disobedience 3. The pro-changers(swarajist) favoured council entry on the grounds that: Entering legislative council would fill the temporary political void and would keep up the morale of the Indians Electioneering and speeches in the council would provide fresh avenues for political agitation and propaganda Avoiding council entry would weaken the hold of the congress on the masses as noncongressmen would capture positions of vantage and use them to weaken the congress

Entering the council would allow the congressmen to prevent undesirable elements from doing mischief or the government from getting some form of legitimacy for their laws

COMMON VIEWS OF THE PRO-CHANGERS AND THE NO-CHANGERS DESPITE THEIR DIFFERENCES: 1. Both agreed that civil disobedience movement was not possible immediately and no mass movement could be carried indefinitely or for a prolonged period as a temporary period of retreat from active phase of the movement was required. FACTORS WHICH STOPPED THE PRO-CHANGERS AND THE NO-CHANGERS FROM SPLITTING: They felt the strong need for unity among all the congressmen Both the groups believed that parliamentary work by pro-changers through council entry only could not compel the govt. to accept national demands without the work of mass movement outside the legislatures by no changers

REASONS FOR WITHDRAWING SUPPORT OF COUNCIL ENTRY BY GANDHI AFTERWARDS: The swarajists lacked any policy of coordinating their work of political obstruction in the legislatures with the mass political work outside. When the limit of political obstruction had reached, they could no longer escalate their politics of confrontation and therefore they had to relied on mass movement outside the council which was not possible without coordinating with the outside mass movement The swarajists could no longer carry on their work with coalition partners in the council Some swarajists could not resist the pulls of parliamentary privileges and positions of status The swarajists lost the support of the muslims in Bengal when majority of them failed to support the cause of the tenants against the zamindars