Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T05:34:27.619Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Politics of Order: “Anti-Non-Cooperation” in the United Provinces, 1921

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2011

Peter D. Reeves
Get access

Extract

The non-cooperation movement of 1920–1922 was a significant landmark in the development of nation-wide political activities by the Indian National Congress. At the same time, because it took place within very different regional contexts, the nature of the movement and the response which it provoked derived a good deal from regional ingredients. In the United Provinces (the present day Uttar Pradesh), an agricultural region with a largely rural population, it was the agrarian system which molded the character of the non-cooperation and “anti-non-cooperation” movements. Non-cooperation there coincided with unrest among the peasantry and, for a time at least, it assumed the appearance of a revolutionary upsurge. The British Government of the province, therefore, had to meet this revolutionary movement as well as the Congress-led political movement. The Government turned to the landed aristocracy, whose influence in the countryside it had depended upon in the past, to provide the basis for an anti-revolutionary front. Initially, then, the non-cooperation movement served to refurbish the province's traditional landlord-based political system. It went further, however; and at one stage it appeared likely that the moderate-nationalist politicians, usually critical of the government, would be prepared to ally themselves with both the government and the landlords because of their concern over the dangers of revolution within the province. “Anti-non-cooperation,” it seemed, might create a new use for traditional methods of political control, as well as the source of important new lines of political development in the province. It is the creation of this situation, and its working out within the framework of the Government's efforts to counter both revolution and disorder, which is traced here.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Asian Studies , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , February 1966 , pp. 261 - 274
Copyright
Copyright © The Association for Asian Studies, Inc. 1966

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 India in 1917–18 (Calcutta, 1919), pp. 85–90Google Scholar; India in 1919 (Calcutta, 1920), pp. 63–69Google Scholar; India in 1920 (Calcutta, 1921), pp. 77–78.Google Scholar

2 Census of India 1921, XVI, part I (Allahabad, 1923), 12–13.Google Scholar

3 This includes combatant and non-combatant troops. P. P. 1920, XIV [Cmd. 943], 88. Cf. Lucas, Sir Charles, The empire at war, V (London, 1926), 177, 193.Google Scholar

4 See Nehru, J., An autobiography (London, 1936), p. 53 for a description of “Baba Ramchandra.”Google Scholar

5 Nehru, pp. 51–52, 59–60. Report on the administration of the United Provinces, 1920–21 (Allahabad, 1922), p. xxiiGoogle Scholar. (Cited hereafter as U.P. 1920—21)

6 Independent (Allahabad), Oct. 27, 1920, pp. 5–6. Leader (Allahabad), Nov. 4, 1920, p. 8.

7 Leader, Oct. 28, 1920, p. 7.

8 Loc. cit.

9 Leader, Dec. 26, 1920, p. 6.

10 Leader, Dec. 25, 1920, p. 4.

11 U.P. 1920–21, p. xxii. See reports of Commissioners of Lucknow and Faizabad Divisions and Government resolution on disturbances in Leader, Feb. 5 and 6, 1921.

12 “Rae Bareli firing,” Independent, Jan. 13, 1921, p. 4.

13 “The kisan movement,” Independent, Feb. 3, 1921, p. 4.

14 Independent, Feb. 10, 1921, p. 1.

15 Gandhi, M. K., Young India 1919–1922 (2nd. ed., Madras, 1924), p. 742.Google Scholar

16 U. P. 1920–21, p.xxi. “Kisans and non-cooperation,” Leader, June 18, 1921, p. 3. “Perversion of peasants,” Leader, June 24, 1921, p. 3.

17 United Provinces' Legislative Council, Proceedings (hereafter, U.P.L.C.), II, 380.

18 U. P. L. C., I, 137.

19 Cited by Sir William Vincent, Home Member, in Legislative Assembly, Debates. Official Report (Delhi, 1921), I, part 2, 1524.

20 Govt. of India, Home (Political), July 1921, Deposit 3.

21 Summary of resolution in India in 1921–22 (Calcutta, 1922), pp. 42–43. The only response seems to have been a Zamindar Sabha in Partabgarh and a Reform League in Aligarh: Independent, Nov. 25, 1920, p. 2 and Leader, Dec. 2, 1920, p. 4.

22 Cited in Report of the civil disobedience enquiry committee 1922 (Madras, n.d.), p. 13. In a speech in Feb. 1922 C. Y. Chintamani, the Minister for Education, claimed that the government had been convinced that no non-official body capable of combating non-cooperation had existed: Leader, Feb. 26, 1922, p. 6 and Pioneer (Allahabad), Feb. 26, 1922, pp. 11–12.

23 Indian Annual Register (Calcutta, 1922), I, 22Google Scholar. Cf. government review of aman sabhas, Pioneer, Aug. 18, 1921, p. 11 and Leader, Aug. 18, 1921, p. 10.

24 The names varied from district to district—Reform League, Constitutional Development League, Anti-Revolutionary League, Shanti Sabha (Peace League), Aman-o-Aman Sabha (Peace and Security League). Aman Sabha, which the Leader defined in a note of Apl. 24, 1921 as “league of public security,” became the generic name, however.

25 U.P.L.C, III, 839.

26 This discussion of the activities of the aman sabhas is based on a consideration of a large number of reports of meetings published in the provincial press during 1921. References are given only where a specific meeting is cited.

27 Leader, Apl. 23, 1921, p. 5.

28 Leader, May, 29, 1921, p. 8.

29 Government review of aman sabhas, Pioneer, Aug. 18, 1921, p. 11 and Leader, Aug. 18, 1921, p. 10.

30 Leader, July 24, 1921, p. 3.

31 For example, Basti had six lecturers, Pioneer, July 11, 1921, p. 7 and Ballia decided in Oct. to appoint two village superintendents to infuse more life into its activities, Pioneer, Oct. 29, 1921. See also the Bijnor advertisement for a lecturer, “a perfect cooperator with attractive quality and delivery in English and Vernacular both,” Leader, Nov. 13, 1921.

32 M. Idris Ahmad, “It is now the Aman Sabhas' turn to speak,” Leader, Feb. 3, 1922, p. 8.

33 Pioneer, July 31, 1921, p. 10.

34 Leader, July 30, 1921, p. 9.

35 See, e.g., Leader, July 1, 1921, p. 4 and July 30, 1921, p. 9.

36 Gorakhpur aman sabha claimed to have distributed 127,294 leaflets and pamphlets to Nov. 30: Pioneer, Dec. 17, 1921, p. 11. Ballia put its figure at 139,643 by Jan. 1922: Pioneer, Jan. 14, 1922, p. 9. On the production of this material see the note by Unao sabha that it had issued 17 pamphlets issued by the Publicity Dept. and 15 original pamphlets, of which 12 were written by the secretary, a deputy collector: Leader, Jan. 17, 1922, p. 10.

37 One of 6 leaflets collected at a meeting in Fatehpur and published by Independent, May 20, 1921, p. 7.

38 Rai Sita Ram Sahib, MLC, Leader, May 5, 1921, p. 7. Sita Ram was one of the outstanding moderate politicians in the Council and later its President.

39 Pioneer, Aug. 18, 1921, p. 11. Leader, Aug. 18, 1921, p. 10.

40 Associated Press report from Lucknow, Independent, Sept. 5, 1921, p. 4.

41 Oudh Policy, the policy of sympathy (Allahabad, 1906). Butler was deputy commissioner of Lucknow at the time.

42 Speech to taluqdars, Feb. 15, 1915, British Indian Association of Oudh (B.I.A.) records, Lucknow.

43 “The growth of radicalism in India and its dangers,” Calcutta Review, No. 167 (1887), p. 3.

44 President, B.I.A.—Lt. Gov., U.P., [June/July 1907], B.I.A. records.

45 U.P.L.C., III, 815.

46 “What the Liberals stand for,” Leader, Jan. 6, 1921, p. 3. Cf. Chintamani, speech at Allahabad, Leader, Dec. 15, 1920, p. 8 and resolution of Cawnpore Liberal League adopting the “old Congress creed,” Leader, Feb. 23, 1921, p. 4.

47 Chintamani claimed he had to persuade his friends to join, Leader, Feb. 26, 1922, p. 6. The other minister was Pandit Jagat Narain, a leading Lucknow lawyer and politician.

48 “The situation,” Leader, Mar. 4, 1921, p. 3.

49 Leader, June 4, 1921, p. 3.

50 See H. N. Kunzru–T. B. Sapru, Mar. 4 and 8, 1921, Sapru Correspondence. First series (National Library of India, Calcutta), XII, 288, 291–2. Cf. speeches at Lucknow Liberal League, Leader, Feb. 27, 1921, p. 9 and “Policy old and new,” Leader, Apl. 30, 1921, p. 3.

51 Leader, Aug. 8, 1921, p. 5.

52 Leader, Aug. 8, 1921, p. 8. Cf. “The Liberals and the Oudh Tenancy Bill,” Leader, Oct. 15, 1921, p. 3.

53 “Ghulam sabhas,” Independent, May 10, 1921, p. 4.

54 Young India 1919–1922, p. 742. The change begins as early as the beginning of April in an effort obviously to draw the govt.'s fire away from the movements: see “Repression in Oudh,” Independent, Apl. 1, 1921, p. 4, which claims that the Congress had in fact refrained from confusing the agrarian and political movements because they were aware of the danger of “plunging” the kisan into “the political vortex.” The contrast with its leading articles in Jan. and Feb. is obvious.

55 For reports of landholders turning to Congress in the heyday of the aman sabhas see Independent, Apl. 28, 1921, p. 6; July 5, 1921, p. 5 and Aug. 26, 1921, p. 2.

56 A convenient digest of the provisions of agrarian legislation in the province will be found in W. C. Neale, Economic change in rural India. Land tenure and reform in Uttar Pradesh 1800–1955 (New Haven, 1962), pp. 291–294.

57 Letter, Aug. 11, 1921, copy in B.I.A. records.

58 Raja of Mahmudabad, Home Member U.P., minute on correspondence from Sec. of State and Govt. of India, Sept. 2, 1921, copy in B.I.A. records. Raja Rampal Singh, “Taluqdars and the amendment of the Oudh Rent law,” Feudatory and Zamindari India, I, No. 2 (Trichinopoly, Sept. 1921), 101–2. Rampal Singh was the president, and Mahmudabad the immediate past president of the B.I.A. Cf. Butler, U.P.L.C., IV, 5.

59 The Finance Member admitted that the government was afraid of “counter-agitation” by the landlords if the Bill went against them, U.P.L.C, IV, 99. Associated Press also reported that the non-cooperation leaders in Oudh were hopeful of getting taluqdar support if the Bill was modified, Civil and Military Gazette (Lahore), Sept. 13, 1921, p. 3.

60 Telegram, July 20, 1921, copy in B.I.A. records.

61 Independent, Aug. 25, 1921, p. 6.

62 Leader, Oct. 1, 1921, p. 7.

63 Pioneer, Nov. 14, 1921, p. 11. Independent, Nov. 5, 1921, p. 6.

64 U.P.L.C., II, 380.

65 Pioneer, Oct. 13, 1921, p. 6. Cf. Liberal League telegrams to Sec. of State and Govt. of India protesting against the “open partiality for the taluqdars” exhibited by the government. Indian Annual Register (1922), I, 49. Pioneer, Oct. 26, 1921, p. 8.

66 U.P.L.C., IV, 115–126, 154–181.

67 Leader, Nov. 6, 1921, p. 6 and Nov. 9, 1921, p. 7. Pioneer, Nov. 6, 1921, p. 11 and Nov. 14, 1921, p. 11.

68 “Sir Harcourt Butler and the new policy,” Leader, Dec. 21, 1921, p. 3. “The crisis,” Leader, Jan. 2, 1922, p. 3. Manifesto by Allahabad Liberals, Dec. 20, Indian Annual Register (1922), I, 65.

69 Describing the re-organized Liberal Leagues in 1923 the Leader hastened to point out that they were “not of the aman sabha variety”: Aug. 10, 1921, p. 3.

70 Indian Annual Register (1922), I, 66. Pioneer, Jan. 30, 1922, p. 9 and Jan. 19, 1922, p. 7.