Why Nationalist Resurgence After the First World War

At a Glance

• What it is The surge of nationalist activity in India after the First World War
• Home causes Post-war economic hardship; expectations of political reward
• World causes Disillusionment with imperialism; the Russian Revolution of 1917
• Outcome A broad-based popular struggle under Gandhi
• Exam link UPSC Prelims, Modern History: Emergence of Gandhi

Where Does It Fit?

This is the first topic of the category on the emergence of Gandhi. The previous topic covered Montagu’s statement of August 1917. This topic explains why the end of the war opened a new phase. The next topic follows Gandhi in South Africa, where he evolved satyagraha. Previous topic: Montagu’s Statement of August 1917.

What Changed After the War?

Towards the end of the First World War, various forces were at work in India and on the international scene. After the war, there was a resurgence of nationalist activity in India and in many other colonies in Asia and Africa. The Indian struggle against imperialism took a decisive turn towards a broad-based popular struggle with the emergence of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.

How Did Post-War Hardship Affect Different Sections?

India contributed in men and money towards the British war effort. Thousands of Indian men died on various fronts. Food supplies, ammunition and the army’s keep came from money raised by taxing Indians. When the war ended, all sections of the population were experiencing hardship.

As an analytical point, the hardships were felt across classes and not by one group alone, which meant that a movement which could speak to many groups at once had a large audience waiting for it. This is the setting in which Gandhi’s later campaigns, such as those in Champaran Satyagraha, 1917 and Ahmedabad Mill Strike and Kheda Satyagraha, 1918, found support among peasants, workers and the urban educated.

What Did Indians Expect for Cooperating in the War?

The contribution of Indians to the British war effort was huge, though it has gone unacknowledged. Gandhi and most nationalists extended cooperation to the war effort, and a huge number of Indian troops sacrificed their lives on the war fronts. So after the war there were high expectations of political gains from the British government, and this contributed to a charged atmosphere in the country.

Those expectations had been raised partly by Montagu’s declaration, described in Montagu’s Statement of August 1917, which made self-government a policy without fixing a time frame.

How Did Imperialism Lose Credibility Worldwide?

To rally the colonies to their side during the war, the Allied powers had promised them an era of democracy and self-determination after it. During the war both sides launched vicious propaganda to malign each other and expose each other’s uncivilised colonial record. But soon it became clear from the Paris Peace Conference and other peace treaties that the imperialist powers had no intention of loosening their hold over the colonies. In fact they divided the colonies of the vanquished powers among themselves.

All this served to erode the myth of the cultural and military superiority of the whites. As a result, the post-war period saw a resurgence of militant nationalist activity throughout Asia and Africa, in Turkey, Egypt, Ireland, Iran, Afghanistan, Burma, Malaya, the Philippines, Indonesia, Indo-China, China and Korea.

What Was the Impact of the Russian Revolution?

On 7 November 1917 the Bolshevik Party of workers overthrew the Czarist regime and founded the first socialist state, the Soviet Union, under Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, known as Lenin. The Soviet Union unilaterally renounced the Czarist imperialist rights in China and the rest of Asia, gave rights of self-determination to former Czarist colonies in Asia, and gave equal status to the Asian nationalities within its borders.

The October Revolution brought home the message that immense power lay with the people, and that the masses were capable of challenging the mightiest of tyrants provided they were organised, united and determined.

What Was the Carrot and Stick Policy?

The British government, not prepared to part with or even share its power with Indians, once again resorted to the policy of carrot and stick. The carrot was the insubstantial Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms, and measures such as the Rowlatt Act represented the stick. The reforms followed Montagu’s statement and were announced in July 1918, and the Government of India Act of 1919 was based on them. They are described in Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms and the Government of India Act, 1919.

The Rowlatt Act, which armed the government with extraordinary powers against dissent, is covered in Rowlatt Act and the Satyagraha Against It. Taken together, hopes of reward were met with limited reform and fresh repression, which is why the Indians felt betrayed.

Why Is This Topic Important?

• Cause-and-effect link The topic links home conditions with world events, a favourite Mains approach
• Global context It places Indian nationalism within a wave of colonial resistance
• Gateway to Gandhi It explains why a mass leader could succeed at this moment

What Came Next?

The next topic follows Gandhi to South Africa, where his struggles led him to evolve satyagraha. Next topic: Gandhi in South Africa and the Technique of Satyagraha.

Key People and Terms

• Paris Peace Conference The post-war conference whose treaties showed that the imperial powers meant to keep their colonies
• Russian Revolution The Bolshevik revolution of 7 November 1917 under Lenin
• Lenin Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, leader of the Bolsheviks and founder of the Soviet Union
• Self-determination The right of peoples to decide their own political status
• Carrot and stick Reforms offered alongside repression
• Montford Reforms The Montagu-Chelmsford reforms announced in July 1918

Exam Corner

Mains Angle

Questions ask about the causes of the post-war upsurge. These points add depth.

• Home causes Hardship across classes and unmet political hopes
• World causes Imperial promises broken; Lenin’s example
• British policy Limited reform with repression