War Abroad, Politics at Home: World War I and Indian Nationalism's New Energy

WWI and Nationalist Response: Home Rule Leagues, Lucknow Pact & Montagu's Declaration (1914–1917)

The First World War (1914–1919) pitted Britain, France, Russia, USA, Italy and Japan against Germany, Austria-Hungary and Turkey. This period saw the maturing of Indian nationalism. The war exposed the myth of white superiority and demonstrated the vulnerabilities of imperial power. The nationalist response was three-fold:

1. Moderates: Supported the empire in the war as a matter of duty.
2. Extremists (including Tilak, released June 1914): Supported the war efforts in the mistaken belief that Britain would repay India's loyalty with gratitude in the form of self-government.
3. Revolutionaries: Decided to utilise the opportunity to wage war on British rule — through the Ghadr Party (North America), the Berlin Committee (Europe), and scattered mutinies (e.g., Singapore).

For revolutionaries, the War seemed a heaven-sent opportunity — the number of white soldiers in India fell at one point to only 15,000, and financial and military help from Germany and Turkey (Britain's enemies) seemed possible.

---

The Home Rule Movement was the Indian response to the First World War — less romantically charged but more effective than the Ghadr adventure abroad. Prominent leaders — Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Annie Besant, G.S. Khaparde, Sir S. Subramania Iyer, Joseph Baptista, and Mohammad Ali Jinnah — agreed that a national alliance was needed to demand self-government or home rule for all of India within the British Commonwealth, working throughout the year (unlike the annual Congress). This alliance was to be modelled on the Irish Home Rule League.

In the end, two separate Home Rule Leagues were launched — one by Tilak and one by Besant — to avoid friction, with their areas of work clearly delineated.

Factors Leading to the Movement

1. A section of nationalists felt popular pressure was required to wring concessions from the government.
2. Moderates were disillusioned with the Morley-Minto Reforms (1909) — which had proved to be shadow rather than substance.
3. Wartime miseries — high taxation and rising prices — made people ready to protest.
4. The war, being fought among imperialist powers backed by naked propaganda against each other, exposed the myth of white superiority.
5. Tilak was ready to assume leadership after his release in June 1914, and had made conciliatory gestures — reassuring the government of his loyalty, reassuring Moderates that he wanted reform of administration (not overthrow), admitted that acts of violence had retarded political progress, and urged all Indians to assist Britain in its hour of crisis.
6. Annie Besant, the Irish theosophist based in India since 1896, had decided to enlarge her activities to include building a home rule movement.

The Two Leagues

Both Tilak and Besant realised that Moderate-dominated Congress sanction and full Extremist cooperation were essential. Having failed to achieve rapprochement at the 1914 Congress session, they decided to revive political activity on their own.

By early 1915, Besant launched a campaign through her newspapers New India and Commonweal and through public meetings. At the 1915 Congress annual session, Extremists were admitted back to Congress — but Besant failed to get Congress to formally approve Home Rule Leagues. She laid a condition: if Congress did not implement its commitments, she would be free to set up her own league — which she finally had to do.

Tilak set up his Indian Home Rule League in April 1916. Besant set up her All-India Home Rule League in September 1916.

They avoided friction by confining work to specific areas and cooperating where possible.

Tilak's League (April 1916)

• First Home Rule meeting held at Belgaum
• Headquarters: Poona
• Area: Maharashtra (excluding Bombay city), Karnataka, Central Provinces, and Berar
• Six branches
• Demands: Swarajya, formation of linguistic states, education in the vernacular

Besant's League (September 1916)

• Headquarters: Madras (now Chennai)
• Area: Rest of India (including Bombay city)
• 200 branches; loosely organised compared to Tilak's
• Organising secretary: George Arundale
• Key workers: B.W. Wadia and C.P. Ramaswamy Aiyar

Programme and Methods

The Leagues carried their message to the common man through: public meetings, libraries and reading rooms on national politics, conferences, student political classes, propaganda through newspapers/pamphlets/posters/illustrated postcards/plays/religious songs, fund collection, social work, and participation in local government activities.

The movement reached the hitherto 'politically backward' regions of Gujarat and Sindh — a wider appeal than earlier mobilisations. The Russian Revolution of 1917 proved an added advantage for the Home Rule campaign.

Prominent later joiners: Motilal Nehru, Jawaharlal Nehru, Bhulabhai Desai, Chittaranjan Das, K.M. Munshi, B. Chakravarti, Saifuddin Kitchlew, Madan Mohan Malaviya, Mohammad Ali Jinnah (led Bombay division), Tej Bahadur Sapru, Lala Lajpat Rai; many disillusioned Moderate Congressmen and some members of Gokhale's Servants of India Society.

Who stayed away: Anglo-Indians, most Muslims, and non-Brahmins from the South — fearing Home Rule would mean rule of the Hindu majority, especially high-caste Hindus.

Government Attitude and Repression

• Students in Madras were prohibited from attending political meetings.
• A case was instituted against Tilak (rescinded by the high court); he was barred from entering Punjab and Delhi.
• June 1917: Annie Besant and associates B.P. Wadia and George Arundale were arrested — inviting nationwide protest.
• Sir S. Subramaniya Aiyar dramatically renounced his knighthood in protest.
• Tilak advocated passive resistance.
• Montagu (Secretary of State) commented: "Shiva cut his wife into fifty-two pieces only to discover that he had fifty-two wives. This is what happens to the Government of India when it interns Mrs Besant."
• Annie Besant was released in September 1917.

Why the Agitation Faded Out by 1919

1. Lack of effective organisation.
2. Communal riots during 1917–18 disrupted momentum.
3. Moderates pacified by Montagu's August 1917 statement (holding self-government as long-term goal) and Besant's release.
4. Extremists' talk of passive resistance kept Moderates away from activity from September 1918.
5. Montagu-Chelmsford reforms (announced July 1918) further divided nationalist ranks; Besant herself vacillated over response to the reforms.
6. Tilak had to go abroad (September 1918) in connection with a libel case against Valentine Chirol (whose book Indian Unrest blamed Tilak for agitational politics). With Besant unable to give positive lead and Tilak away, the movement became leaderless.
7. Gandhi's approach was slowly but surely catching the popular imagination — the mass movement that was gathering momentum pushed the Home Rule movement onto the sidelines.

Post-script: In 1920, Gandhi accepted the presidentship of the All India Home Rule League and changed its name to Swarajya Sabha. Within a year, the league merged into the Indian National Congress.

Positive Gains of the Home Rule Movement

1. Shifted emphasis permanently from the educated elite to the masses.
2. Created an organisational link between town and country — crucial for the Gandhian mass phase.
3. Created a generation of ardent nationalists.
4. Prepared the masses for Gandhian-style politics.
5. The August 1917 Montagu declaration and the Montford reforms were influenced by the Home Rule agitation.
6. Tilak and Besant's efforts towards Moderate-Extremist reunion at Lucknow (1916) revived the Congress as an effective instrument of Indian nationalism.
7. Lent a new dimension and sense of urgency to the national movement.

Historical significance: The Home Rule Movement marked the transition between the deliberative and relatively inactive Congress of the Moderate era and the Gandhian phase of mass involvement.

---

Readmission of Extremists

The Lucknow session (presided over by Moderate Ambika Charan Majumdar) finally readmitted the Extremists led by Tilak to the Congress fold.

Factors facilitating reunion:

1. Old controversies had become meaningless.
2. Both sides realised the split had led to political inactivity.
3. Annie Besant and Tilak had made vigorous efforts. Tilak declared support for reform of administration (not overthrow) and denounced acts of violence.
4. Deaths of two key Moderate opponents of Extremists — Gokhale and Pherozshah Mehta — facilitated reunion.

Majumdar's words: "After nearly ten years of painful separation and wanderings through the wilderness of misunderstanding...both wings of Indian Nationalist Party have come to realise the fact that united they stand, but divided they fall."

The Lucknow Pact: Congress and Muslim League

At Lucknow, the Muslim League (now dominated by younger militant nationalists turning anti-imperialist) and the Congress came together and presented joint constitutional demands to the government.

Why the League's Attitude Changed

1. Britain's refusal to help Turkey (ruled by the Khalifa, religio-political leader of all Muslims) in its wars in the Balkans (1912–13) and with Italy (1911) had angered Muslims.
2. Annulment of partition of Bengal (1911) had annoyed Muslims who had supported the partition.
3. The British government's refusal to set up a university at Aligarh with powers to affiliate colleges all over India had alienated some Muslims.
4. The Calcutta session of the Muslim League (1912) had committed the League to "working with other groups for a system of self-government suited to India" (provided it did not conflict with Muslim interests) — bringing it closer to Congress objectives.
5. Younger Muslims were infuriated by WWI government repression: Maulana Azad's Al Hilal and Mohammad Ali's Comrade faced suppression; Ali brothers, Maulana Azad, Hasrat Mohani were interned. This generated anti-imperialist sentiments among the 'Young Party'.

Nature of the Lucknow Pact

Congress conceded: Accepted the Muslim League's position on separate electorates (to continue till any one community demanded joint electorates); Muslims granted a fixed proportion of seats in central and provincial legislatures.

Joint demands made:

• Government must declare it will confer self-government on Indians at an early date.
• Representative assemblies at central and provincial levels to be expanded with elected majority and more powers.
• Term of legislative council: five years.
• Salary of Secretary of State for India to be paid by the British treasury (not from Indian funds).
• Half the members of the Viceroy's and provincial governors' executive councils to be Indians.

Critical Comments on the Pact

• Though half the executive was to be elected by the legislature, the executive as a whole was NOT to be responsible to the legislature — a likely constitutional deadlock on budget matters.
• The Lucknow Pact demands were essentially a significantly expanded version of the Morley-Minto reforms.
• The acceptance of separate electorates by Congress was a landmark in the evolution of the two-nation theory by the Muslim League — it confirmed Congress and League as separate political entities.
• Efforts to bring together the masses from the two communities were not considered — only leaders came together.
• However, the controversial decision represented a serious desire by the Congress to allay minority fears of majority domination, and generated enormous enthusiasm.

---

The Secretary of State for India, Edwin Samuel Montagu, made a statement on August 20, 1917 in the British House of Commons — known as the August Declaration of 1917:

"The government policy is of an increasing participation of Indians in every branch of administration and gradual development of self-governing institutions with a view to the progressive realisation of responsible government in India as an integral part of the British Empire."

Significance

• From now, the nationalist demand for self-government or home rule could not be termed seditious — self-government became a stated government policy (unlike Morley's 1909 statement that reforms were NOT intended to give self-government).
• The term 'responsible government' implied rulers were to be answerable to elected representatives — not just to the imperial government in London.
• This led to the evolution of the concept of 'dyarchy' — to make the executive responsible in some measure to elected assemblies while retaining ultimate control.

Indian Objections

1. No specific time frame was given.
2. The government alone would decide the nature and timing of advance towards responsible government — Indians resented being told what was good for them by the British.

---

• Home Rule Movement ↔ Irish Home Rule League (direct inspiration)
• Lucknow Pact (1916) ↔ Morley-Minto Reforms (1909) ↔ Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms (1919) — constitutional reform lineage
• Lucknow Pact's acceptance of separate electorates ↔ Two-Nation Theory ↔ Partition of India (1947)
• Montagu's August 1917 statement ↔ Montagu-Chelmsford Report (1918) ↔ Government of India Act 1919 (dyarchy)
• Home Rule Movement ↔ Gandhian mass phase (Home Rule prepared the organisational ground)
• Russian Revolution (1917) ↔ Inspiration for Home Rule agitation ↔ later radical / socialist currents in INC

---

• GS Paper I — Modern History: Home Rule Leagues, Lucknow Pact, and Montagu Declaration are directly and frequently examined.
• Constitutional History: The Montagu Declaration is the first British acknowledgement that responsible government is the goal for India — the starting point of the dyarchy framework (Government of India Act 1919) that UPSC traces through subsequent acts.
• Communalism and Partition: The Lucknow Pact's acceptance of separate electorates by the Congress is one of the most analytically significant constitutional moments — Congress's well-intentioned tactical decision contributed structurally to communal politics.
• Federalism and Linguistic States: Tilak's Home Rule League demanded the formation of linguistic states — a demand that anticipated the States Reorganisation Act of 1956 by four decades.
• Civil Liberties: Besant's arrest and Subramania Aiyar's renunciation of his knighthood are early instances of civil disobedience and renunciation of colonial honours — anticipating Gandhi's Non-Cooperation programme.

---

1. Two separate leagues, not one: Tilak's Indian Home Rule League (April 1916, Poona HQ, 6 branches, Maharashtra/Karnataka/CP/Berar) vs Besant's All-India Home Rule League (September 1916, Madras HQ, 200 branches, rest of India). UPSC frequently tests which league covered which area and when.
2. Tilak's league started BEFORE Besant's: April 1916 (Tilak) vs September 1916 (Besant). Dates often reversed in questions.
3. Bombay city was in Besant's area — NOT Tilak's (despite Tilak being from Bombay/Maharashtra). His league explicitly excluded Bombay city.
4. Besant's organising secretary was George Arundale — not B.W. Wadia (who was a key worker, not secretary). Jinnah led the Bombay division of Besant's league.
5. Tilak's first Home Rule meeting was at Belgaum — not Poona (Poona was the headquarters).
6. Annie Besant arrested June 1917; released September 1917 — along with B.P. Wadia and George Arundale.
7. Sir S. Subramaniya Aiyar renounced his knighthood (not his presidency of Congress or any other post) as a protest against Besant's arrest.
8. Lucknow session (1916) was presided over by Ambika Charan Majumdar (a Moderate) — not Tilak or Besant.
9. Gokhale and Pherozshah Mehta's deaths facilitated the Moderate-Extremist reunion — not any policy change or compromise alone.
10. Lucknow Pact: Congress accepted separate electorates, NOT joint electorates. The pact stipulated separate electorates would continue till any one community DEMANDED joint electorates.
11. Salary of Secretary of State for India to be paid by British treasury — this was a key joint demand. Often confused with demands about executive council composition.
12. Montagu's Declaration was on August 20, 1917 — in the British . It used the term 'responsible government' for the first time — a significant departure from Morley's 1909 position.

---

• WWI nationalist response: Moderates (supported war duty) / Extremists (hoped for reward) / Revolutionaries (exploited opportunity).
• White soldiers fell to only 15,000 in India during WWI.
• Two Home Rule Leagues: Tilak (April 1916, Poona, 6 branches, Maharashtra/Karnataka/CP/Berar) + Besant (September 1916, Madras, 200 branches, rest of India including Bombay city).
• Besant's organising secretary: George Arundale; key workers: B.W. Wadia, C.P. Ramaswamy Aiyar.
• Jinnah led Bombay division of Besant's league.
• Besant arrested June 1917; released September 1917.
• Subramania Aiyar renounced his knighthood in protest.
• Home Rule faded by 1919: poor organisation + communal riots + Montagu's declaration + Tilak abroad (Valentine Chirol libel case) + Gandhi's new approach.
• Gandhi renamed league 'Swarajya Sabha' (1920); merged into INC within a year.
• Lucknow 1916: Presided by Ambika Charan Majumdar; Extremists readmitted; Lucknow Pact (Congress-League joint demands).
• Death of Gokhale and Pherozshah Mehta facilitated reunion.
• Lucknow Pact: Congress accepted separate electorates; Muslims got fixed seat proportions; joint demands included 5-year council term, British treasury pays Secretary of State's salary, half executive councils to be Indian.
• League attitude change: Turkey wars (1911, 1912–13) + Bengal partition annulment (1911) + Aligarh university refusal + Calcutta League session 1912 + WWI repression of Muslim leaders.
• Montagu Declaration: August 20, 1917; British House of Commons; 'responsible government' as stated goal; led to dyarchy concept; Indian objections: no timeline, British to decide pace.