essay on national movement

Kenneth R. Janken
Professor, Department of African and Afro-American Studies and
Director of Experiential Education, Office of Undergraduate Curricula
University of North Carolina
National Humanities Center Fellow
©National Humanities Center

When most Americans think of the Civil Rights Movement, they have in mind a span of time beginning with the 1954 Supreme Court’s decision in , which outlawed segregated education, or the Montgomery Bus Boycott and culminated in the late 1960s or early 1970s. The movement encompassed both ad hoc local groups and established organizations like the

The drama of the mid-twentieth century emerged on a foundation of earlier struggles. Two are particularly notable: the NAACP’s campaign against lynching, and the NAACP’s legal campaign against segregated education, which culminated in the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown decision.

The NAACP’s anti-lynching campaign of the 1930s combined widespread publicity about the causes and costs of lynching, a successful drive to defeat Supreme Court nominee John J. Parker for his white supremacist and anti-union views and then defeat senators who voted for confirmation, and a skillful effort to lobby Congress and the Roosevelt administration to pass a federal anti-lynching law. Southern senators filibustered, but they could not prevent the formation of a national consensus against lynching; by 1938 the number of lynchings declined steeply. Other organizations, such as the left-wing National Negro Congress, fought lynching, too, but the NAACP emerged from the campaign as the most influential civil rights organization in national politics and maintained that position through the mid-1950s.

Houston was unabashed: lawyers were either social engineers or they were parasites. He desired equal access to education, but he also was concerned with the type of society blacks were trying to integrate. He was among those who surveyed American society and saw racial inequality and the ruling powers that promoted racism to divide black workers from white workers. Because he believed that racial violence in Depression-era America was so pervasive as to make mass direct action untenable, he emphasized the redress of grievances through the courts.

The designers of the Brown strategy developed a potent combination of gradualism in legal matters and advocacy of far-reaching change in other political arenas. Through the 1930s and much of the 1940s, the NAACP initiated suits that dismantled aspects of the edifice of segregated education, each building on the precedent of the previous one. Not until the late 1940s did the NAACP believe it politically feasible to challenge directly the constitutionality of “separate but equal” education itself. Concurrently, civil rights organizations backed efforts to radically alter the balance of power between employers and workers in the United States. They paid special attention to forming an alliance with organized labor, whose history of racial exclusion angered blacks. In the 1930s, the National Negro Congress brought blacks into the newly formed United Steel Workers, and the union paid attention to the particular demands of African Americans. The NAACP assisted the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, the largest black labor organization of its day. In the 1940s, the United Auto Workers, with NAACP encouragement, made overtures to black workers. The NAACP’s successful fight against the Democratic white primary in the South was more than a bid for inclusion; it was a stiff challenge to what was in fact a regional one-party dictatorship. Recognizing the interdependence of domestic and foreign affairs, the NAACP’s program in the 1920s and 1930s promoted solidarity with Haitians who were trying to end the American military occupation and with colonized blacks elsewhere in the Caribbean and in Africa. African Americans’ support for WWII and the battle against the Master Race ideology abroad was matched by equal determination to eradicate it in America, too. In the post-war years blacks supported the decolonization of Africa and Asia.

The Cold War and McCarthyism put a hold on such expansive conceptions of civil/human rights. Critics of our domestic and foreign policies who exceeded narrowly defined boundaries were labeled un-American and thus sequestered from Americans’ consciousness. In a supreme irony, the Supreme Court rendered the Brown decision and then the government suppressed the very critique of American society that animated many of Brown ’s architects.

White southern resistance to Brown was formidable and the slow pace of change stimulated impatience especially among younger African Americans as the 1960s began. They concluded that they could not wait for change—they had to make it. And the Montgomery Bus Boycott , which lasted the entire year of 1956, had demonstrated that mass direct action could indeed work. The four college students from Greensboro who sat at the Woolworth lunch counter set off a decade of activity and organizing that would kill Jim Crow.

Elimination of segregation in public accommodations and the removal of “Whites Only” and “Colored Only” signs was no mean feat. Yet from the very first sit-in, Ella Baker , the grassroots leader whose activism dated from the 1930s and who was advisor to the students who founded the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), pointed out that the struggle was “concerned with something much bigger than a hamburger or even a giant-sized Coke.” Far more was at stake for these activists than changing the hearts of whites. When the sit-ins swept Atlanta in 1960, protesters’ demands included jobs, health care, reform of the police and criminal justice system, education, and the vote. (See: “An Appeal for Human Rights.” ) Demonstrations in Birmingham in 1963 under the leadership of Fred Shuttlesworth’s Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights, which was affiliated with the SCLC, demanded not only an end to segregation in downtown stores but also jobs for African Americans in those businesses and municipal government. The 1963 March on Washington, most often remembered as the event at which Dr. King proclaimed his dream, was a demonstration for “Jobs and Justice.”

Movement activists from SNCC and CORE asked sharp questions about the exclusive nature of American democracy and advocated solutions to the disfranchisement and violation of the human rights of African Americans, including Dr. King’s nonviolent populism, Robert Williams’ “armed self-reliance,” and Malcolm X’s incisive critiques of worldwide white supremacy, among others. (See: Dr. King, “Where Do We Go from Here?” ; Robert F. Williams, “Negroes with Guns” ; and Malcolm X, “Not just an American problem, but a world problem.” ) What they proposed was breathtakingly radical, especially in light of today’s political discourse and the simplistic ways it prefers to remember the freedom struggle. King called for a guaranteed annual income, redistribution of the national wealth to meet human needs, and an end to a war to colonize the Vietnamese. Malcolm X proposed to internationalize the black American freedom struggle and to link it with liberation movements in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Thus the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s was not concerned exclusively with interracial cooperation or segregation and discrimination as a character issue. Rather, as in earlier decades, the prize was a redefinition of American society and a redistribution of social and economic power.

Guiding Student Discussion

Students discussing the Civil Rights Movement will often direct their attention to individuals’ motives. For example, they will question whether President Kennedy sincerely believed in racial equality when he supported civil rights or only did so out of political expediency. Or they may ask how whites could be so cruel as to attack peaceful and dignified demonstrators. They may also express awe at Martin Luther King’s forbearance and calls for integration while showing discomfort with Black Power’s separatism and proclamations of self-defense. But a focus on the character and moral fiber of leading individuals overlooks the movement’s attempts to change the ways in which political, social, and economic power are exercised. Leading productive discussions that consider broader issues will likely have to involve debunking some conventional wisdom about the Civil Rights Movement. Guiding students to discuss the extent to which nonviolence and racial integration were considered within the movement to be hallowed goals can lead them to greater insights.

Nonviolence and passive resistance were prominent tactics of protesters and organizations. (See: SNCC Statement of Purpose and Jo Ann Gibson Robinson’s memoir, The Montgomery Bus Boycott and the Women Who Started It. ) But they were not the only ones, and the number of protesters who were ideologically committed to them was relatively small. Although the name of one of the important civil rights organizations was the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, its members soon concluded that advocating nonviolence as a principle was irrelevant to most African Americans they were trying to reach. Movement participants in Mississippi, for example, did not decide beforehand to engage in violence, but self-defense was simply considered common sense. If some SNCC members in Mississippi were convinced pacifists in the face of escalating violence, they nevertheless enjoyed the protection of local people who shared their goals but were not yet ready to beat their swords into ploughshares.

Armed self-defense had been an essential component of the black freedom struggle, and it was not confined to the fringe. Returning soldiers fought back against white mobs during the Red Summer of 1919. In 1946, World War Two veterans likewise protected black communities in places like Columbia, Tennessee, the site of a bloody race riot. Their self-defense undoubtedly brought national attention to the oppressive conditions of African Americans; the NAACP’s nationwide campaign prompted President Truman to appoint a civil rights commission that produced To Secure These Rights , a landmark report that called for the elimination of segregation. Army veteran Robert F. Williams, who was a proponent of what he called “armed self-reliance,” headed a thriving branch of the NAACP in Monroe, North Carolina, in the early 1950s. The poet Claude McKay’s “If We Must Die” dramatically captures the spirit of self-defense and violence.

Often, deciding whether violence is “good” or “bad,” necessary or ill-conceived depends on one’s perspective and which point of view runs through history books. Students should be encouraged to consider why activists may have considered violence a necessary part of their work and what role it played in their overall programs. Are violence and nonviolence necessarily antithetical, or can they be complementary? For example the Black Panther Party may be best remembered by images of members clad in leather and carrying rifles, but they also challenged widespread police brutality, advocated reform of the criminal justice system, and established community survival programs, including medical clinics, schools, and their signature breakfast program. One question that can lead to an extended discussion is to ask students what the difference is between people who rioted in the 1960s and advocated violence and the participants in the Boston Tea Party at the outset of the American Revolution. Both groups wanted out from oppression, both saw that violence could be efficacious, and both were excoriated by the rulers of their day. Teachers and students can then explore reasons why those Boston hooligans are celebrated in American history and whether the same standards should be applied to those who used arms in the 1960s.

An important goal of the Civil Rights Movement was the elimination of segregation. But if students, who are now a generation or more removed from Jim Crow, are asked to define segregation, they are likely to point out examples of individual racial separation such as blacks and whites eating at different cafeteria tables and the existence of black and white houses of worship. Like most of our political leaders and public opinion, they place King’s injunction to judge people by the content of their character and not the color of their skin exclusively in the context of personal relationships and interactions. Yet segregation was a social, political, and economic system that placed African Americans in an inferior position, disfranchised them, and was enforced by custom, law, and official and vigilante violence.

The discussion of segregation should be expanded beyond expressions of personal preferences. One way to do this is to distinguish between black and white students hanging out in different parts of a school and a law mandating racially separate schools, or between black and white students eating separately and a laws or customs excluding African Americans from restaurants and other public facilities. Put another way, the civil rights movement was not fought merely to ensure that students of different backgrounds could become acquainted with each other. The goal of an integrated and multicultural America is not achieved simply by proximity. Schools, the economy, and other social institutions needed to be reformed to meet the needs for all. This was the larger and widely understood meaning of the goal of ending Jim Crow, and it is argued forcefully by James Farmer in “Integration or Desegregation.”

A guided discussion should point out that many of the approaches to ending segregation did not embrace integration or assimilation, and students should become aware of the appeal of separatism. W. E. B. Du Bois believed in what is today called multiculturalism. But by the mid-1930s he concluded that the Great Depression, virulent racism, and the unreliability of white progressive reformers who had previously expressed sympathy for civil rights rendered an integrated America a distant dream. In an important article, “Does the Negro Need Separate Schools?” Du Bois argued for the strengthening of black pride and the fortification of separate black schools and other important institutions. Black communities across the country were in severe distress; it was counterproductive, he argued, to sacrifice black schoolchildren at the altar of integration and to get them into previously all-white schools, where they would be shunned and worse. It was far better to invest in strengthening black-controlled education to meet black communities’ needs. If, in the future, integration became a possibility, African Americans would be positioned to enter that new arrangement on equal terms. Du Bois’ argument found echoes in the 1960s writing of Stokely Carmichael ( “Toward Black Liberation” ) and Malcolm X ( “The Ballot or the Bullet” ).

Scholars Debate

Any brief discussion of historical literature on the Civil Rights Movement is bound to be incomplete. The books offered—a biography, a study of the black freedom struggle in Memphis, a brief study of the Brown decision, and a debate over the unfolding of the movement—were selected for their accessibility variety, and usefulness to teaching, as well as the soundness of their scholarship.

Walter White: Mr. NAACP , by Kenneth Robert Janken, is a biography of one of the most well known civil rights figure of the first half of the twentieth century. White made a name for himself as the NAACP’s risk-taking investigator of lynchings, riots, and other racial violence in the years after World War I. He was a formidable persuader and was influential in the halls of power, counting Eleanor Roosevelt, senators, representatives, cabinet secretaries, Supreme Court justices, union leaders, Hollywood moguls, and diplomats among his circle of friends. His style of work depended upon rallying enlightened elites, and he favored a placing effort into developing a civil rights bureaucracy over local and mass-oriented organizations. Walter White was an expert in the practice of “brokerage politics”: During decades when the majority of African Americans were legally disfranchised, White led the organization that gave them an effective voice, representing them and interpreting their demands and desires (as he understood them) to those in power. Two examples of this were highlighted in the first part of this essay: the anti-lynching crusade, and the lobbying of President Truman, which resulted in To Secure These Rights . A third example is his essential role in producing Marian Anderson’s iconic 1939 Easter Sunday concert at the Lincoln Memorial, which drew the avid support of President Roosevelt and members of his administration, the Congress, and the Supreme Court. His style of leadership was, before the emergence of direct mass action in the years after White’s death in 1955, the dominant one in the Civil Rights Movement.

There are many excellent books that study the development of the Civil Rights Movement in one locality or state. An excellent addition to the collection of local studies is Battling the Plantation Mentality , by Laurie B. Green, which focuses on Memphis and the surrounding rural areas of Tennessee, Arkansas, and Mississippi between the late 1930s and 1968, when Martin Luther King was assassinated there. Like the best of the local studies, this book presents an expanded definition of civil rights that encompasses not only desegregation of public facilities and the attainment of legal rights but also economic and political equality. Central to this were efforts by African Americans to define themselves and shake off the cultural impositions and mores of Jim Crow. During WWII, unionized black men went on strike in the defense industry to upgrade their job classifications. Part of their grievances revolved around wages and working conditions, but black workers took issue, too, with employers’ and the government’s reasoning that only low status jobs were open to blacks because they were less intelligent and capable. In 1955, six black female employees at a white-owned restaurant objected to the owner’s new method of attracting customers as degrading and redolent of the plantation: placing one of them outside dressed as a mammy doll to ring a dinner bell. When the workers tried to walk off the job, the owner had them arrested, which gave rise to local protest. In 1960, black Memphis activists helped support black sharecroppers in surrounding counties who were evicted from their homes when they initiated voter registration drives. The 1968 sanitation workers strike mushroomed into a mass community protest both because of wage issues and the strikers’ determination to break the perception of their being dependent, epitomized in their slogan “I Am a Man.” This book also shows that not everyone was able to cast off the plantation mentality, as black workers and energetic students at LeMoyne College confronted established black leaders whose positions and status depended on white elites’ sufferance.

Brown v. Board of Education: A Brief History with Documents , edited by Waldo E. Martin, Jr., contains an insightful 40-page essay that places both the NAACP’s legal strategy and 1954 Brown decision in multiple contexts, including alternate approaches to incorporating African American citizens into the American nation, and the impact of World War II and the Cold War on the road to Brown . The accompanying documents affirm the longstanding black freedom struggle, including demands for integrated schools in Boston in 1849, continuing with protests against the separate but equal ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson of 1896, and important items from the NAACP’s cases leading up to Brown . The documents are prefaced by detailed head notes and provocative discussion questions.

Debating the Civil Rights Movement , by Steven F. Lawson and Charles Payne, is likewise focused on instruction and discussion. This essay has largely focused on the development of the Civil Rights Movement from the standpoint of African American resistance to segregation and the formation organizations to fight for racial, economic, social, and political equality. One area it does not explore is how the federal government helped to shape the movement. Steven Lawson traces the federal response to African Americans’ demands for civil rights and concludes that it was legislation, judicial decisions, and executive actions between 1945 and 1968 that was most responsible for the nation’s advance toward racial equality. Charles Payne vigorously disagrees, focusing instead on the protracted grassroots organizing as the motive force for whatever incomplete change occurred during those years. Each essay runs about forty pages, followed by smart selections of documents that support their cases.

Kenneth R. Janken is Professor of African and Afro-American Studies and Director of Experiential Education, Office of Undergraduate Curricula at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He is the author of White: The Biography of Walter White, Mr. NAACP and Rayford W. Logan and the Dilemma of the African American Intellectual . He was a Fellow at the National Humanities Center in 2000-01.

Illustration credits

To cite this essay: Janken, Kenneth R. “The Civil Rights Movement: 1919-1960s.” Freedom’s Story, TeacherServe©. National Humanities Center. DATE YOU ACCESSED ESSAY. <https://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/freedom/1917beyond/essays/crm.htm>

NHC Home   |   TeacherServe   |   Divining America   |   Nature Transformed   |   Freedom’s Story About Us   |   Site Guide   |   Contact   |   Search

TeacherServe® Home Page National Humanities Center 7 Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12256 Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709 Phone: (919) 549-0661 Fax: (919) 990-8535 Copyright © National Humanities Center. All rights reserved. Revised: April 2010 nationalhumanitiescenter.org

Site Content

The national movement.

Irfan Habib

Tulika Books

Pub Date: September 2013

ISBN: 9788189487799

Format: Paperback

List Price: $11.00 £8.99

Shipping Options

Purchasing options are not available in this country.

About the Author

• Asian Studies
• Asian Studies: South Asian History
• History: South Asian History

Essay: The Civil Rights Movement

The Civil Rights Movement sought to win the American promise of liberty and equality during the twentieth century. From the early struggles of the 1940s to the crowning successes of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts that changed the legal status of African-Americans in the United States, the Civil Rights Movement firmly grounded its appeals for liberty and equality in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Rather than rejecting an America that discriminated against a particular race, the movement fought for America to fulfill its own universal promise that “all men are created equal.” It worked for American principles within American institutions rather than against them.

African-Americans endured racial prejudice that compelled them to fight racism in World War II while fighting in segregated units. It was particularly hard to accept because the war was fought against the racist Nazis who were attempting to eradicate the Jews grounded in racially-based totalitarianism. For black soldiers, the stark contradiction with American wartime ideals was as repulsive as their daily condition of fighting separately. Many black units—most famously the Tuskegee Airmen—fought just as courageously as their white counterparts. Fighting for the “Double V” for victory over totalitarianism and racism, returning black veterans were not keen on returning to the Jim Crow South with legal (de jure) segregation nor to a North with informal (de facto) segregation.

On the national level, African-Americans sought to overturn segregation with legal challenges up to the Supreme Court, pressuring presidents to enforce equality, and lobbying Congress for changes in the law of the land.

In the postwar years, civil rights leaders prepared a dual strategy of attacking all discrimination throughout American society. On the national level, African-Americans sought to overturn segregation with legal challenges up to the Supreme Court, pressuring presidents to enforce equality, and lobbying Congress for changes in the law of the land. On the local level, marches were held to demonstrate the fundamental immorality and violence of segregation and to change local laws.

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), which was established by W.E.B. DuBois and other black and white, male and female reformers in 1909 to struggle for civil rights, helped lead the legal battle in the courts. The NAACP legal team, led by Thurgood Marshall, who would later become the first black justice on the Supreme Court, scored the first major success of the Civil Rights Movement with  Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas (1954) decision that indirectly overturned Plessy v. Ferguson  (1896), which had set the precedent for legalizing segregation. New Chief Justice Earl Warren persuaded his fellow justices to issue a unanimous 9-0 decision for the moral force to overcome expected white southern resistance. The outcome was a landmark for black equality that initiated the Civil Rights Movement.

The good outcome led many to overlook the questionable legal reasoning employed in the decision. The Supreme Court shockingly admitted white and black schools were equal despite evidence to the contrary. Moreover, the Court stated that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment had “inconclusive” origins related to segregated schools and doubted whether it could be applied to this case. Instead, the Court turned to social science as the basis for its decision. It referred to experiments in which black children played with dolls of different races. Members of the Court misread the evidence because the results of the studies actually showed that the segregated black children chose to play with black dolls. The Court mistakenly reported that the black children played more with the white dolls and had a “feeling of inferiority.”

The Court settled for declaring the edict that segregated schools were “inherently unequal” based on dubious social science and missed an opportunity for a constitutionally-grounded precedent banning all racial discrimination.

In Plessy v. Ferguson , Justice John Marshall Harlan wrote this powerful dissent: “Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of our civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law.” (John Marshall Harlan, Plessy v. Ferguson Dissenting Opinion, 1896).

By ignoring Harlan’s understanding of the equality principle in the Constitution and settling for the use of social science, Chief Justice Warren diminished the constitutional force of the decision, which, if read narrowly, did not exactly overturn  Plessy .

Even with the unanimous decision that Chief Justice Warren sought, the case encountered opposition, and it took more than a decade of direct action by African-Americans and others to win equality. In 1955, the Montgomery Bus Boycott initiated a decade of local demonstrations against segregation in the South. In December 1955, Rosa Parks courageously refused to give up her bus seat to a white man because she was tired of being treated like a second-class citizen. African-Americans applied economic pressure for more than one year to force concessions for desegregation at the local level, and a charismatic young Baptist minister, Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., provided vision and leadership for the emerging movement at Montgomery.

As a result of the  Brown  decision, many white politicians and ordinary citizens engaged in what they called “massive resistance” to oppose desegregation. In 1957, Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus refused to use the state National Guard to protect black children at Little Rock High School. President Dwight Eisenhower sent in troops from the 101st Airborne Division to compel local desegregation and protect the nine black students while federalizing the Arkansas National Guard to block Faubus. The Little Rock Nine attended school under the watchful eye of federal troops. The principles of equality and constitutional federalism came into conflict during this incident because the national government used the military to impose integration at the local level.

In 1957, Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus refused to use the state National Guard to protect black children at Little Rock High School. President Dwight Eisenhower sent in troops from the 101st Airborne Division to compel local desegregation and protect the nine black students while federalizing the Arkansas National Guard to block Faubus.

In the early 1960s, African-Americans continued to press for equality at the local and national levels. In 1960, black college students in Greensboro, North Carolina started a wave of “sit-ins” in which they took seats reserved for whites at segregated lunch counters. The sit-ins led to applying the economic pressure of a boycott that successfully desegregated the local lunch counters.

In 1963, Martin Luther King, Jr. used his moral vision and rhetoric to achieve the greatest successes of the movement for black equality and the end of segregation. King helped to organize marches in Birmingham, Alabama, where police dogs and fire hoses were turned on the Birmingham marchers and caused shock and outrage across the nation when the violence was televised. King and hundreds of others were arrested for demonstrating without a permit.

From his jail cell, King wrote his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” defending the civil rights demonstrations by quoting the great Christian authority St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.” Employing the principles of America’s Founders, King explained that a just law is a “man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God.” King posited that just laws uplift the human person while unjust laws “distort the soul” (Martin Luther King, Jr. “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” April 16, 1963).

He argued that just laws are rooted in human equality, while unjust laws give a false sense of superiority and inferiority. Moreover, segregation laws had been inflicted upon a minority who had no say in making the laws and thereby passed without consent, violating American principles of republican self-government.

King closed the letter by asserting that the Civil Rights Movement was “standing up for what is best in the American dream and for the most sacred values in our Judeo-Christian heritage, thereby bringing our nation back to those great wells of democracy which were dug deep by the founding fathers in their formulation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence” (Martin Luther King, Jr. “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” April 16, 1963).

On June 11, 1963, President Kennedy responded and addressed the nation on television. “We are confronted primarily with a moral issue. It is as old as the scriptures and is as clear as the American Constitution,” he told the nation. For Kennedy, the question was “whether all Americans are to be afforded equal rights and equal opportunities” (John F. Kennedy, “Civil Rights Address,” June 11, 1963).

Kennedy was mindful of the historical significance of the year when he appealed to Lincoln’s Proclamation freeing the slaves: “One hundred years of delay have passed since President Lincoln freed the slaves, yet their heirs, their grandsons, are not fully free…And this Nation, for all its hopes and all its boasts, will not be fully free until all its citizens are free” (John F. Kennedy, “Civil Rights Address,” June 11, 1963).

On August 28, 1963, the greatest event of the Civil Rights Movement occurred with the March on Washington. More than 250,000 blacks and whites, young and old, clergy and laity, descended upon the capital in support of the proposed civil rights bill. From the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, King evoked great documents of freedom when he said “Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation” (Martin Luther King, Jr. “I Have A Dream,” August 28, 1963). The Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves one hundred years before on January 1, 1863. Simultaneously, he also subtly referred to the other great document of 1863, Lincoln’s “Gettysburg Address,” which was inscribed in the wall of the memorial, and begins, “Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal” (Abraham Lincoln, “Gettysburg Address,” November 19, 1863).

King offered high praise for the “architects of our republic” who wrote the “magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.” King began his evocative peroration “I Have a Dream” by declaring that his dream is “deeply rooted in the American dream.” “One day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed. ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal’” (Martin Luther King, Jr. “I Have A Dream,” August 28, 1963).

African-Americans won the fruits of their decades of struggle for civil rights when Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Civil Rights Act legally ended segregation in all public facilities. The act had to overcome a Southern filibuster in the Senate and the fears of conservatives in both parties that it was an unconstitutional intrusion of the federal government upon the rights of the states and into local affairs and private businesses.

Although the Fifteenth Amendment had been ratified a hundred years before, African Americans still voted at low rates, especially in the Deep South. A number of devices—literacy tests, poll taxes, and grandfather clauses that prevented descendants of slaves from voting—severely curtailed black suffrage. Violence and intimidation were the main vehicles of preventing African-Americans from voting in the mid-1960s.

In March 1965, Martin Luther King and other leaders organized marches in Selma, Alabama, for voting rights. After enduring beatings by club-wielding mounted police officers on “Bloody Sunday,” the marchers eventually set out again several days later and reached Montgomery under the watchful eye of federal troops. Congress soon passed the Voting Rights of 1965, banning abridgment of the right to vote on account of race.

Yet in the wake of the great legislative triumphs for social and voting equality the summer of 1965 (and successive summers) witnessed the explosion of racial violence and rioting by black citizens in American cities. Despite gaining rights of equal opportunity African-Americans still lived under obvious economic disparities with whites. The passage of federal laws securing equal opportunity led to rising expectations of immediate equality, which did not happen. Young “Black Power” advocates also began advocating self-reliance as a race, a celebration of African heritage, and a rejection of white society. Forming groups like the Black Panthers, a minority of young African-Americans spoke in passionate terms advocating violence, leading to confrontations with police. Many white Americans were shocked and confused at the urban riots occurring just after legal equality for African-Americans had been achieved.

In the 1970s and 1980s, plans of “affirmative action” were introduced in college admissions and in hiring for public and private jobs that soon became controversial. Intended to remedy the historic wrongs of slavery and segregation, affirmative action policies established preference or quotas for the number of African-Americans (and soon women and other minorities) who would be admitted or hired. Its proponents sought to achieve an equality of outcome in society rather than merely equal opportunity in American society. Some whites complained that this was “reverse discrimination” against whites that tolerated lower standards for the benefited groups. The most notable Supreme Court case addressing the issue was the  Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) decision, in which racial preferences, but not racial quotas, were upheld.

The Supreme Court essentially agreed with the supporters of affirmative action who argued that “discrimination against members of the white ‘majority’ cannot be suspect if its purpose can be characterized as ‘benign’” (Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr., Regents of the University of California v. Bakke , Opinion, 1978)

Related Content

The Civil Rights Movement

The Civil Rights Movement sought to win the American promise of liberty and equality during the twentieth-century. From the early struggles of the 1940s to the crowning successes of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts that changed the legal status of African-Americans in the United States, the Civil Rights Movement firmly grounded its appeals for liberty and equality in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Rather than rejecting an America that discriminated against a particular race, the movement fought for America to fulfill its own universal promise that “all men are created equal.” The Civil Rights Movement worked for American principles within American institutions rather than against them.

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center
• Introduction & Top Questions

Abolitionism to Jim Crow

• Du Bois to Brown
• Montgomery bus boycott to the Voting Rights Act
• From Black power to the assassination of Martin Luther King
• Into the 21st century
• Black Lives Matter and Shelby County v. Holder

When did the American civil rights movement start?

• What did Martin Luther King, Jr., do?
• What is Martin Luther King, Jr., known for?
• Who did Martin Luther King, Jr., influence and in what ways?
• What was Martin Luther King’s family life like?

American civil rights movement

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• NeoK12 - Educational Videos and Games for School Kids - Civil Rights Movement
• History Learning Site - The Civil Rights Movement in America 1945 to 1968
• Library of Congress - The Civil Rights Movement
• National Humanities Center - Freedom's Story - The Civil Rights Movement: 1919-1960s
• John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum - Civil Rights Movement
• civil rights movement - Children's Encyclopedia (Ages 8-11)
• civil rights movement - Student Encyclopedia (Ages 11 and up)
• Table Of Contents

The American civil rights movement started in the mid-1950s. A major catalyst in the push for civil rights was in December 1955, when NAACP activist Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a public bus to a white man.

Who were some key figures of the American civil rights movement?

Martin Luther King, Jr. , was an important leader of the civil rights movement. Rosa Parks , who refused to give up her seat on a public bus to a white customer, was also important. John Lewis , a civil rights leader and politician, helped plan the March on Washington .

What did the American civil rights movement accomplish?

The American civil rights movement broke the entrenched system of racial segregation in the South and achieved crucial equal-rights legislation.

What were some major events during the American civil rights movement?

The Montgomery bus boycott , sparked by activist Rosa Parks , was an important catalyst for the civil rights movement. Other important protests and demonstrations included the Greensboro sit-in and the Freedom Rides .

What are some examples of civil rights?

Examples of civil rights include the right to vote, the right to a fair trial, the right to government services, the right to a public education, and the right to use public facilities.

Essay on National Movement

Students are often asked to write an essay on National Movement in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on National Movement

Introduction.

The National Movement refers to the struggle for freedom and independence from colonial rule. It was a mass movement that united people from all walks of life.

Role of Leaders

Leaders like Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, and Subhash Chandra Bose played a crucial role. They mobilized masses and led various campaigns for independence.

The National Movement resulted in India gaining independence in 1947. It also instilled a sense of unity and nationalism among Indians.

250 Words Essay on National Movement

Introduction to the national movement, the genesis of national movement.

The genesis of national movements can be traced back to the 18th and 19th centuries, when nations across Europe and Asia began to rise against colonial powers. This period was marked by a growing consciousness of national identity, fueled by the Enlightenment’s ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity.

The Role of Intellectuals and Masses

Intellectuals played a significant role in the national movement. They inspired the masses with their writings, speeches, and actions, fostering a sense of national pride and unity. Simultaneously, the masses, driven by the desire for freedom and justice, participated actively in protests, strikes, and revolutions, making the national movement a truly inclusive struggle.

Impact of the National Movement

The national movement had profound impacts, leading to the dismantling of colonial empires and the emergence of independent nations. It fostered democratic values, human rights, and the rule of law, shaping the political landscape of the modern world. Moreover, it stimulated cultural and social transformation, promoting national languages, arts, and traditions.

In conclusion, the national movement was a transformative period that redefined the course of history. It was not just a fight for political freedom, but also a struggle for cultural identity, social justice, and human dignity. It serves as a testament to the indomitable spirit of humanity, inspiring future generations to uphold the values of freedom and justice.

500 Words Essay on National Movement

The National Movement, also known as the Indian Independence Movement, was a series of historical events that marked India’s struggle for freedom from British rule. It was a vibrant, multifaceted movement that involved various political organizations, philosophies, and leaders, united by their common goal of ending British colonial control.

The Birth of the National Movement

The rise of extremist ideology.

The early 20th century witnessed a shift from moderate to extremist ideology in the National Movement. Leaders like Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Lala Lajpat Rai, and Bipin Chandra Pal advocated for Swaraj (self-rule) and used methods like boycotts, strikes, and public processions to mobilize the masses. The 1905 partition of Bengal by Lord Curzon was a significant event that ignited widespread protests and marked the beginning of the Swadeshi Movement.

Impact of World War I and II

World War I and II were pivotal in shaping the National Movement. The British government’s decision to involve India in the wars without consulting Indian leaders led to widespread resentment. The post-WWI period saw the emergence of Mahatma Gandhi as a significant leader who introduced the concept of Satyagraha (non-violent resistance). His leadership during the Non-Cooperation Movement (1920-22) and the Civil Disobedience Movement (1930-34) galvanized the masses and intensified the struggle for independence.

The Final Phase

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Top of page

Collection Civil Rights History Project

Youth in the civil rights movement.

At its height in the 1960s, the Civil Rights Movement drew children, teenagers, and young adults into a maelstrom of meetings, marches, violence, and in some cases, imprisonment. Why did so many young people decide to become activists for social justice? Joyce Ladner answers this question in her interview with the Civil Rights History Project, pointing to the strong support of her elders in shaping her future path: “The Movement was the most exciting thing that one could engage in.  I often say that, in fact, I coined the term, the ‘Emmett Till generation.’  I said that there was no more exciting time to have been born at the time and the place and to the parents that movement, young movement, people were born to… I remember so clearly Uncle Archie who was in World War I, went to France, and he always told us, ‘Your generation is going to change things.’” 

Several activists interviewed for the Civil Rights History Project were in elementary school when they joined the movement. Freeman Hrabowski was 12 years old when he was inspired to march in the Birmingham Children’s Crusade of 1963. While sitting in the back of church one Sunday, his ears perked up when he heard a man speak about a march for integrated schools. A math geek, Hrabowski was excited about the possibility of competing academically with white children. While spending many days in prison after he was arrested at the march, photographs of police and dogs attacking the children drew nationwide attention. Hrabowski remembers that at the prison, Dr. King told him and the other children, “What you do this day will have an impact on children yet unborn.” He continues, “I’ll never forget that. I didn’t even understand it, but I knew it was powerful, powerful, very powerful.” Hrabowski went on to become president of the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, where he has made extraordinary strides to support African American students who pursue math and science degrees.

As a child, Marilyn Luper Hildreth attended many meetings of the NAACP Youth Council in Oklahoma City because her mother, the veteran activist Clara Luper, was the leader of this group. She remembers, “We were having an NAACP Youth Council meeting, and I was eight years old at that time. That’s how I can remember that I was not ten years old. And I – we were talking about our experiences and our negotiation – and I suggested, made a motion that we would go down to Katz Drug Store and just sit, just sit and sit until they served us.” This protest led to the desegregation of the drug store’s lunch counter in Oklahoma City.  Mrs. Hildreth relates more stores about what it was like to grow up in a family that was constantly involved in the movement.

While some young people came into the movement by way of their parents’ activism and their explicit encouragement, others had to make an abrupt and hard break in order to do so, with some even severing familial ties. Joan Trumpauer Mulholland was a young white girl from Arlington, Virginia, when she came to realize the hypocrisy of her segregated church in which she learned songs such as “Jesus loves the little children, red and yellow, black and white.” When she left Duke University to join the movement, her mother, who had been raised in Georgia, “thought I had been sort of sucked up into a cult… it went against everything she had grown up and believed in.  I can say that a little more generously now than I could have then.” Phil Hutchings’ father was a lifetime member of the NAACP, but couldn’t support his son when he moved toward radicalism and Black Power in the late 1960s. Hutchings reflects on the way their different approaches to the struggle divided the two men, a common generational divide for many families who lived through those times:  “He just couldn’t go beyond a certain point.  And we had gone beyond that… and the fact that his son was doing it… the first person in the family who had a chance to complete a college education. I dropped out of school for eleven years… He thought I was wasting my life.  He said, ‘Are you … happy working for Mr. Castro?’”

Many college student activists sacrificed or postponed their formal education, but they were also picking up practical skills that would shape their later careers. Michael Thelwell remembers his time as a student activist with the Nonviolent Action Group, an organization never officially recognized by Howard University and a precursor to the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC): “I don’t think any of us got to Howard with any extensive training in radical political activism. By that I mean, how do you write a press conference [release]? How you get the attention of the press? How do you conduct a nonviolent protest? How do you deal with the police? How do you negotiate or maneuver around the administration? We didn’t come with that experience.” Thelwell’s first job after he graduated from college was to work for SNCC in Washington, D.C., as a lobbyist.

Similar reflections about young people in the freedom struggle are available in other collections in the Library.  One such compelling narrative can be found in the webcast of the 2009 Library of Congress lecture by journalist and movement activist, Tracy Sugarman, entitled, “We Had Sneakers, They Had Guns: The Kids Who Fought for Civil Rights in Mississippi.”    As is readily apparent from that lecture and the previous examples, drawn from the Civil Rights History Project collection, the movement completely transformed the lives of young activists.  Many of them went on to great success as lawyers, professors, politicians, and leaders of their own communities and other social justice movements. They joined the struggle to not only shape their own futures, but to also open the possibilities of a more just world for the generations that came behind them.

• Society and Politics
• Art and Culture
• Biographies
• Publications

History Grade 11 - Topic 4 Essay Questions

Essay Question:

To what extent were Black South Africans were deprived of their political, economic, and social rights in the early 1900s and how did this reality pave the way for the rise of African Nationalism? Present an argument in support of your answer using relevant historical evidence. [1]

Background and historical overview:

There was no South Africa (as we know it today) before 1910.  Britain had defeated Boer Republics in the South African War which date from (1899–1903). There were four separate colonies: Cape, Natal, Orange River, Transvaal colonies and each were ruled by Britain. They needed support of white settlers in colonies to retain power. [2] In 1908, about 33 white delegates met behind closed doors to negotiate independence for Union of South Africa. The views and opinions of 85% of country’s future citizens (black people) not even considered in these discussions. British wanted investments protected, labour supplies assured, and agreed on the fundamental question to give political/economic power to white settlers. [3] This essay pushes back in time to analyse how this violent context in South African history served as an ideological backdrop for the rise of African nationalism in the country and elsewhere in the world.

The Union Constitution of 1910 placed political power in hands of white citizens. However, a small number of educated black, coloured citizens allowed to elect few representatives to Union parliament. [4] More generally, it was only whites who were granted the right to vote.  They imagined a ‘settler nation’ where was no room for blacks with rights. In this regard, white citizens called selves ‘Europeans’. Furthermore, all symbols of new nation, European language (mainly English and Dutch), religion, school history. In this view, African languages, histories, culture were portrayed as inferior. [5]

Therefore, racism was an integral feature in colonial societies, and this essentially meant that Africans were seen as members of inferior ‘tribes’ and thus should practise traditions in ‘native’ reserves. Whilst, on the other hand, in the settler (white) nation, black people were recognized only as workers in farms, mines, factories owned by whites. Thus, black people were denied of their political rights, cultural recognition, economic opportunities, because of these entrenched processes and politics of exclusion. In 1910 large numbers of black South African men were forced to become migrant workers on mines, factories, expanding commercial farms. In 1913, the infamous Natives Land Act, worsened the situation for black people as land allocated to black people by the Act was largely infertile and unsuitable for agriculture. [6]

Rise of African Nationalism:

In the 19th century, the Western-educated African, coloured, Indian middle class who grew up mainly in the Cape and Natal, mostly professional men (doctors, lawyers, teachers, newspaper editors) and were proud of their African, Muslim, Indian heritage embraced idea of progressive ‘colour-blind’ western civilisation that could benefit all people. This was a more worldly outlook or form of nationalism which recognized all non-white groupings across the colonial world as victims of colonial racism and violence. [7] However, another form of nationalism recognized the differences within the colonized groups and argued for a stricter and more specific definition of what it means to be African in a colonial world. These were some differences within the umbrella body of African nationalism and were firmly anchored during the course of the 20th century.

African Peoples’ Organization:

One of the African organisations that led to the rise of African nationalism was the African People’s Organisation (APO). At first the APO did not concern itself with rights of black South Africans. They committed themselves to the vision that all oppressed racial groups must work together to achieve anything. Therefore, a delegation was sent to London in 1909 to fight for rights for coloured (‘coloured’. In this context, ‘everyone who was a British subject in South Africa and who was not a European’). [8]

Natal Indian Congress:

Natal Indian Congress Natal Indian Congress (NIC) was an important influence in the development of non-racial African nationalism in South Africa. Arguably, it was one of the first organisations in South Africa to use word ‘congress’. It was formed in 1894 to mobilise the Indian opposition to racial discrimination in Colony. [9] The founder of this movement was MK Gandhi who later spearheaded a massive peaceful resistance (Satyagraha) to colonial rule. This protest forced Britain to grant independence to India, 1947. The NIC organised many protests and more generally campaigned for Indian rights. In 1908, hundreds of Indians gathered outside Johannesburg Mosque in protest against law that forced Indians to carry passes, passive resistance campaigns of Gandhi and NIC succeeded in Indians not having to carry passes. But, however, they failed to win full citizenship rights as the NIC did not join united national movement for rights of all citizens until 1930s, 1940s

South African Native National Congress (now known as African National Congress):

In response to Union in 1910, young African leaders (Pixley ka Isaka Seme, Richard Msimang, George Montsioa, Alfred Mangena) worked with established leaders of South African Native Convention to promote formation of a national organization. The larger aim was to form a national organisation that would unify various African groups. [10] On 8 January 1912, first African nationalist movement formed at a meeting in Bloemfontein. South African National Natives Congress (SANNC) were mainly attended by traditional chiefs, teachers, writers, intellectuals, businessmen. Most delegates had received missionary education. They strongly believed in 19th century values of ‘improvement’ and ‘progress’ of Africans into a global European ‘civilisation’ and culture. In 1924, the SANNC changed name to African National Congress (ANC), in order to assert an African identity within the movement. [11]

Industrial and Commercial Workers Union (ICU):

The Industrial and Commercial Workers Union African protest movements that helped foster growing African nationalism in early 1920s . Industrial and Commercial Workers Union (ICU) was formed in 1919 was led by Clements Kadalie, Malawian worker. This figure had led successful strike of dockworkers in Cape Town. Mostly active among farmers and migrant workers. But, only temporarily away from their farms and was very difficult to organise. The central question to pose is to examine the ways in which the World War II influence the rise of African nationalism? Essentially, there were various ways that WW II influenced the rise of African nationalism. [12] Firstly, through the Atlantic Charter, AB Xuma’s, African claims in relation to this Charter. In addition, the influence of politicized soldiers returning from War had a significant impact.

The Atlantic Charter and AB Xuma’s African claims Churchill and Roosevelt issued the Atlantic Charter in 1941, describing the world they would like to see after WWII. To the ANC and African nationalists generally, the Atlantic Charter amounted to promise for freedom in Africa once war was over. Britain recruited thousands of African soldiers to fight in its armies (nearly two million Africans recruited as soldiers, porters, scouts for Allies during war). This persuaded Africans to sign up and Britain called it ‘a war for freedom’. [13] The soldiers returning home expected Britain to honour their sacrifice, however, the recognition they expected did not arrive and thus became bitter, discontented, and only had fought to protect interests of colonial powers only to return to exploitation and indignities of colonial rule.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, this essay has attempted to examine the historical circumstances in which black people were denied of their political, economic, and social rights in the early 1990s. There are various that must be acknowledged in order to have a granular understanding of the larger and longer history of African nationalism, and this examination may exceed the scope of this essay. However, the central argument made here is that the rise of African nationalism in all its different ethos and manifestations was premised on humanizing black people in various parts of the colonial world. To stress this point, African nationalism emerged as a vehicle of resistance and humanization. Finally, African nationalism cannot be read outside the international context (as shown throughout the paper), as we have to take into account various factor which effectively influenced the spurge of this ideological outlook in society.

This content was originally produced for the SAHO classroom by Ayabulela Ntwakumba & Thandile Xesi.

[1] National Senior Certificate.: “Grade 11 November 2019 History Paper 2 Exam,” National Senior Certificate, November 2019. Eastern Cape Province Education.

[2] Williams, Donovan. "African nationalism in South Africa: origins and problems." The Journal of African History 11, no. 3 (1970): 371-383.

[3] Feit, Edward. "Generational Conflict and African Nationalism in South Africa: The African National Congress, 1949-1959." The International Journal of African Historical Studies 5, no. 2 (1972): 181-202.

[4] Chipkin, Ivor. "The decline of African nationalism and the state of South Africa." Journal of Southern African Studies 42, no. 2 (2016): 215-227.

[5] Prinsloo, Mastin. "‘Behind the back of a declarative history’: Acts of erasure in Leon de Kock's Civilizing Barbarians: Missionary narrative and African response in nineteenth century South Africa." The English Academy Review 15, no. 1 (1998): 32-41.

[6] Gilmour, Rachael. "Missionaries, colonialism and language in nineteenth‐century South Africa." History Compass 5, no. 6 (2007): 1761-1777.

[7] Lester, Alan. Imperial networks: Creating identities in nineteenth-century South Africa and Britain. Routledge, 2005.

[8] Van der Ross, Richard E. "The founding of the African Peoples Organization in Cape Town in 1903 and the role of Dr. Abdurahman." (1975).

[9] Vahed, Goolam, and Ashwin Desai. "A case of ‘strategic ethnicity’? The Natal Indian Congress in the 1970s." African Historical Review 46, no. 1 (2014): 22-47.

[10] Suttner, Raymond. "The African National Congress centenary: a long and difficult journey." International Affairs 88, no. 4 (2012): 719-738.

[11] Houston, G. "Pixley ka Isaka Seme: African unity against racism." (2020).

[12] Xuma, A. B. "African National Congress invitation to emergency conference of all Africans."

[13] Kumalo, Simangaliso. "AB Xuma and the politics of racial accommodation versus equal citizenship and its implication for nation-building and power-sharing in South Africa."

• Bennett-Smyth, T., 2003, September. Transcontinental Connections: Alfred B Xuma and the African National Congress on the World Stage. In workshop on South Africa in the 1940s, Southern African Research Centre, Kingston, Canada.
• Chipkin, I., 2016. The decline of African nationalism and the state of South Africa. Journal of Southern African Studies, 42(2), pp.215-227.
• Feit, E., 1972. Generational Conflict and African Nationalism in South Africa: The African National Congress, 1949-1959. The International Journal of African Historical Studies, 5(2), pp.181-202.
• Kumalo, S., AB Xuma and the politics of racial accommodation versus equal citizenship and its implication for nation-building and power-sharing in South Africa.
• Moeti, M.T., 1982. ETHIOPIANISM: SEPARATIST ROOTS OF AFRICAN NATIONALISM IN SOUTH AFRICA.
• Rotberg, R., "African nationalism: concept or confusion?." The Journal of Modern African Studies 4, no. 1. pp. 33-46.
• Swan, M., 1984. The 1913 Natal Indian Strike. Journal of Southern African Studies, 10(2), pp.239-258.
• Vahed, G. and Desai, A., 2014. A case of ‘strategic ethnicity’? The Natal Indian Congress in the 1970s. African Historical Review, 46(1), pp.22-47.
• Van der Ross, R.E., 1975. “The founding of the African Peoples Organization in Cape Town in 1903 and the role of Dr. Abdurahman”.
• van Niekerk, R., 2014. SOCIAL DEMOCRACY AND THE ANC: BACK TO THE FUTURE?. A Lula Moment for South Africa: Lessons from Brazil, pp.47-61.
• Williams, D., 1970. “African nationalism in South Africa: origins and problems”. The Journal of African History, 11(3), pp.371-383.

Return to topic: Nationalism - South Africa, the Middle East, and Africa

Return to SAHO Home

Return to History Classroom

Collections in the Archives

Know something about this topic.

Towards a people's history

Nationalism Essay for Students and Children

400 words essay on nationalism.

First of all, Nationalism is the concept of loyalty towards a nation. In Nationalism, this sentiment of loyalty must be present in every citizen. This ideology certainly has been present in humanity since time immemorial. Above all, it’s a concept that unites the people of a nation. It is also characterized by love for one’s nation. Nationalism is probably the most important factor in international politics.

Why Nationalism Is Important?

Nationalism happens because of common factors. The people of a nation share these common factors. These common factors are common language, history , culture, traditions, mentality, and territory. Thus a sense of belonging would certainly come in people. It would inevitably happen, whether you like it or not. Therefore, a feeling of unity and love would happen among national citizens. In this way, Nationalism gives strength to the people of the nation.

Nationalism has an inverse relationship with crime. It seems like crime rates are significantly lower in countries with strong Nationalism. This happens because Nationalism puts feelings of love towards fellow countrymen. Therefore, many people avoid committing a crime against their own countrymen. Similarly, corruption is also low in such countries. Individuals in whose heart is Nationalism, avoid corruption . This is because they feel guilty to harm their country.

Nationalism certainly increases the resolve of a nation to defend itself. There probably is a huge support for strengthening the military among nationalistic people. A strong military is certainly the best way of defending against foreign enemies. Countries with low Nationalism, probably don’t invest heavily in the military. This is because people with low Nationalism don’t favor strong militaries . Hence, these countries which don’t take Nationalism seriously are vulnerable.

Nationalism encourages environmental protection as well. People with high national pride would feel ashamed to pollute their nation. Therefore, such people would intentionally work for environment protection even without rules. In contrast, an individual with low Nationalism would throw garbage carelessly.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Contemporary Nationalism

Nationalism took an ugly turn in the 20th century with the emergence of Fascism and Nazism. However, that was a negative side of Nationalism. Since then, many nations gave up the idea of aggressive Nationalism. This certainly did not mean that Nationalism in contemporary times got weak. People saw strong Nationalism in the United States and former USSR. There was a merger of Nationalism with economic ideologies like Capitalism and Socialism.

In the 21st century, there has been no shortage of Nationalism. The popular election of Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin is proof. Both these leaders strongly propagate Nationalism. Similarly, the election victory of other nationalistic leaders is more evidence.

Nationalism is a strong force in the world that is here to say. Nationalism has a negative side. However, this negative side certainly cannot undermine the significance of Nationalism. Without Nationalism, there would have been no advancement of Human Civilization.

500 Words Essay on Nationalism

Nationalism is an ideology which shows an individual’s love & devotion towards his nation.  It is actually people’s feelings for their nation as superior to all other nations. The concept of nationalism in India developed at the time of the Independence movement. This was the phase when people from all the areas/caste/religion etc collectively fought against British Raj for independence. Hence nationalism can be called as collective devotion of all the nationals towards their country.

Introduction of Nationalism in India:

The first world war (1919) had far-reaching consequences on the entire world. After the first world war, some major movements broke out in India like Satyagrah & Non-co-operation movement. This has sown the seeds of nationalism in Indians.  This era developed new social groups along with new modes of struggle. The major events like Jalianwala Bagh massacre & Khilafat movement had a strong impact on the people of India.

Thus, their collective struggle against colonialism brought them together and they have collectively developed a strong feeling of responsibility, accountability, love, and devotion for their country. This collective feeling of the Indian people was the start of the development of Nationalism.  Foundation of Indian National Congress in 1885 was the first organized expression of nationalism in India.

Basis of Rising of Nationalism in India

There could be several basis of rising of nationalism in India:

• The Britishers came to India as traders but slowly became rulers and started neglecting the interests of the Indians. This led to the feeling of oneness amongst Indians and hence slowly led to nationalism.
• India developed as a unified country in the 19 th & 20 th century due to well-structured governance system of Britishers. This has led to interlinking of the economic life of people, and hence nationalism.
• The spread of western education, especially the English language amongst educated Indians have helped the knowledgeable population of different linguistic origin to interact on a common platform and hence share their nationalist opinions.
• The researches by Indian and European scholars led to the rediscovery of the Indian past. The Indian scholars like Swami Vivekanand & European scholars like Max Mueller had done historical researched & had glorified India’s past in such a manner that Indian peoples developed a strong sense of nationalism & patriotism.
• The emergence of the press in the 19 th century has helped in the mobilization of people’s opinion thereby giving them a common platform to interact for independence motion and also to promote nationalism.
• Various reforms and social movements had helped Indian society to remove the social evils which were withholding the societal development and hence led to rejoining of society.
• The development of well-led railway network in India was a major boost in the transportation sector. Hence making it easy for the Indian population to connect with each other.
• The international events like the French revolution, Unification of Italy & Germany, etc.have  awakened the feelings of national consciousness amongst Indian people.

Though a lot of factors had led to rising of nationalism in India, the major role was played by First world war, Rowlatt act and Jaliawala bagh massacre. These major incidences have had a deep-down impact on the mind of Indians. These motivated them to fight against Britishers with a  strong feeling of Nationalism.  This feeling of nationalism was the main driving force for the independence struggle in India.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar

UPSC Coaching, Study Materials, and Mock Exams

Enroll in ClearIAS UPSC Coaching Join Now Log In

Call us: +91-9605741000

India’s Struggle for Independence: Indian Freedom Movement

Last updated on July 23, 2024 by ClearIAS Team

In the  6-part framework to study modern Indian History , we have so far covered:

• India in 1750 .
• British Expansion .
• The changes introduced by the British .
• Popular Uprisings and Revolts against the British
• Socio-religious movements in India .

In this article (6th part), we discuss the emergence of Indian nationalism and India’s struggle for independence.

Table of Contents

Indian Nationalism

Note: Subscribe to the ClearIAS YouTube Channel to learn more.

India has been unified under many empires in its history like the Mauryan Empire and Mughal empire. A sense of oneness has been there for ages – even though most of the centralised administration in India didn’t last long.

With the end of Mughal rule, India broke into hundreds of princely states.  The British – which were instrumental in the fall of the Mughal Empire – held control over the princely states and created the British Indian Empire .

UPSC CSE 2025: Study Plan ⇓

(1) ⇒ UPSC 2025: Prelims cum Mains

(2) ⇒ UPSC 2025: Prelims Test Series

(3) ⇒ UPSC 2025: CSAT

Note: To know more about ClearIAS Courses (Online/Offline) and the most effective study plan, you can call ClearIAS Mentors at +91-9605741000, +91-9656621000, or +91-9656731000.

However, most Indians were extremely dissatisfied with the exploitative foreign rule.

The educated Indians realised that the British always gave priority to their colonial interests and treated India only as a market.

They advocated for the political independence of India.

Foundation of Indian National Congress (INC) in 1885

The late nineteenth century witnessed the emergence of many political organisations in British India.

Indian National Congress (also known as Congress Party) founded in 1885 was the most prominent one.

Initially, its aim was to create a platform for civic and political dialogue between Indians and the British Raj and thus obtain a greater share of government for educated Indians.

Later, under the leaders like Mahatma Gandhi , Jawarhal Nehru , Subhas Chandra Bose , and Sardar Vallabhai Patel , the Congress party played a central role in organising mass movements against the British.

Partition of Bengal (1905)

Indian nationalism was gaining in strength and Bengal was the nerve centre of Indian nationalism in the early 1900s.

Lord Curzon, the Viceroy (1899-1905), attempted to ‘dethrone Calcutta’ from its position as the centre from which the Congress Party manipulated throughout Bengal, and indeed, the whole of India.

The decision to partition Bengal into two was in the air from December 1903.

Congress party – from 1903 to mid-1905 – tried moderate techniques of petitions, memoranda, speeches, public meetings and press campaigns. The objective was to turn to public opinion in India and England against the partition.

However, Viceroy Curzon 1905 formally announced the British Government’s decision for the partition of Bengal on 19 July 1905. The partition took effect on 16 October 1905.

The partition was meant to foster another kind of division – on the basis of religion. The aim was to place Muslim communalists as a counter to the Congress. Curzon promised to make Dacca the new capital.

This resulted in a lot of discontent among the Indians. Many considered this as a policy of ‘Divide and Rule’ by the British.

This triggered a self-sufficiency movement popularly known as the Swadeshi movement.

Also read: Dr. Rajendra Prasad: Architect of the Indian Republic

The Swadeshi Movement (1905-1908)

From conservative moderation to political extremism, from terrorism to incipient socialism, from petitioning and public speeches to passive resistance and boycott, all had their origins in the movement.

Swadeshi is a conjunction of two Sanskrit words: swa (“self”) and desh (“country”).

The movement popularised the use and consumption of indigenous products. Indians started ditching British goods for Indian products.

Women, students, and a large section of the urban and rural population of Bengal and other parts of India became actively involved in politics for the first time with Swadeshi Movement.

The message of Swadeshi and the boycott of foreign goods soon spread to the rest of the country.

The militant nationalists led by Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Bipin Chandra Pal, Lajpat Rai and Aurobindo Ghosh were in favour of extending the movement to the rest of India and carrying it beyond the programme of just Swadeshi and boycott to a full-fledged political mass struggle. For them, the aim was Swaraj.

In 1906, the Indian National Congress at its Calcutta Session presided over by Dadabhai Naoroji, declared that the goal of the Indian National Congress was ‘self-government or Swaraj like that of the United Kingdom or the Colonies.

There were differences in the ideologies of the congressmen who were popularly known by the names Moderates and the Extremists. They had differences of opinion regarding the pace of the movement and the techniques of struggle to be adopted. This came to a head in the 1907 Surat session of the Congress where the party split (the two factions re-joined later).

This period also saw a breakthrough in Indian art, literature, music, science and industry.

It was, perhaps, in the cultural sphere that the impact of the Swadeshi Movement was most marked. The songs composed at that time by Rabindranath Tagore, Rajani Kanta Sen etc became the moving spirit for nationalists of all hues.

In art, this was the period when Abanindranath Tagore broke the domination of Victorian naturalism over Indian art and sought inspiration from the rich indigenous traditions of Mughal, Rajput and Ajanta paintings.

In science, Jagdish Chandra Bose, Prafulla Chandra Ray, and others pioneered original research that was praised the world over.

The Swadeshi period also saw the creative use of traditional popular festivals and melas as a means of reaching out to the masses. The Ganapati and Shivaji festivals, popularized by Tilak, became a medium for Swadeshi propaganda not only in Western India but also in Bengal.

Another important aspect of the Swadeshi Movement was the great emphasis given to self-reliance or ‘Atmasakti’in various fields meant the re-asserting of national dignity, honour and confidence.

Self-reliance also meant an effort to set up Swadeshi or indigenous enterprises. The period saw a mushrooming of Swadeshi textile mills, soap and match factories etc.

One of the major features of the programme of self-reliance was Swadeshi or National Education. In 1906, the National Council of Education was established. The vernacular medium was given stress from the primary to university level.

Corps of volunteers (or samitis as they were called) were another major form of mass mobilization widely used by the Swadeshi Movement. The Swadesh Bandhab Samiti set up by Ashwini Kumar Dutt was the most well-known volunteer organization of them all.

Reasons for the failure of the Swadeshi Movement

• The main drawback of the Swadeshi Movement was that it was not able to garner the support of the mass. The British use of communalism to turn the Muslims against the Swadeshi Movement was to a large extent responsible for this.
• During the Swadeshi phase, the peasantry was not organized around peasant demands. The movement was able to mobilize the peasantry only in a limited way.
• By mid-1908 repression took the form of controls and bans on public meetings, processions and the press.
• The internal squabbles, and especially, the split in the Congress (1907), the apex all-India organization, weakened the movement.
• The Swadeshi Movement lacked an effective organization and party structure.
• Lastly, the movement declined because of the very logic of mass movements itself — they cannot be sustained endlessly.

However, the movement made a major contribution in taking the idea of nationalism, in a truly creative fashion, to many sections of the people. The peasant participation in the Swadeshi Movement even though less, marked the very beginnings of modern mass politics in India.

Also read: Ghadar Party

The Split in the Congress (1907)

The main public leaders of the two wings, Tilak (of the Extremists) and Gokhale (of the Moderates) were aware of the dangers of disunity in the nationalist ranks.

A split was avoided in 1906 by choosing Dadabhai Naoroji as president of INC in the Calcutta session. Also, four compromise resolutions on the Swadeshi, Boycott, National Education, and Self-Government demands were passed. However, the hope of a united Congress was short-lived.

The Extremists wanted to extend the Swadeshi and the Boycott Movement from Bengal to the rest of the country but the Moderators opposed it.

The Extremists were fumed by the rumours that the Moderates wanted to scuttle the four Calcutta resolutions. This created friction among them which led to the split at the Congress session was held on 26 December 1907 at Surat, on the banks of the river Tapti.

The Indian National Congress split in December 1907. By 1907, the Moderate nationalists had exhausted their historical role. They failed to meet the demands of the new stage of the national movement and even failed to attract the younger generation.

Almost at the same time, revolutionary terrorism made its appearance in Bengal.

Britain’s policy towards  INC

• The British had been suspicious of the National Congress from its inception but they were not overtly hostile either.
• In 1888 Viceroy Dufferin ridiculed INC as representing only the elite — ‘a microscopic minority’.
• Lord Curzon said: “The Congress is tottering to its fall, and one of my greatest ambitions while in India is to assist it to a peaceful demise.”
• The intimidating policies of the British towards INC changed once the Swadeshi and Boycott Movement began. The strengthening of the militant nationalist trend alarmed the British.
• A new policy, known as the policy of the carrot and the stick was invoked. It was three-pronged. It was described as a policy of r epression-conciliation-suppression .
• The Extremists were repressed, though mildly in the first stage. The purpose is to frighten the Moderates. The British also tried to pacify Moderates through some concessions and promises if they disassociated themselves from the Extremists. However, the British always wanted to suppress Extremists.

Minto-Morley constitutional reforms (1909)

The Government of India which was headed by Lord Minto as Viceroy and John Morley as the Secretary of State offered fresh reforms in the Legislative Councils. They began discussions with Moderates within Indian National Congress regarding this. However, when the decision was taken, not just Moderates but the country as a whole were disappointed.

Major Provisions:

• The Indian Councils Act of 1909 increased the number of elected members (but most of them were still indirectly elected) in the Imperial Legislative Council and the provincial legislative councils.
• An Indian was to be appointed a member of the Governor-General’s Executive Council.
• The Act permitted members to introduce resolutions; it also increased their power to ask questions.
• Voting on separate budget items was allowed.

The real purpose of the Morley-Minto Reforms was to divide the nationalist ranks and encourage the growth of Muslim communalism. For the latter, they introduced the system of separate electorates under which Muslims could only vote for Muslim candidates in constituencies specially reserved for them.

The Ghadar Movement (1914)

The outbreak of the First World War in 1914 gave impetus to the nationalist feelings of Indians. The Home Rule League by Lokmanya Tilak and Annie Besant were formed during First World War.

At the same time, a revolutionary movement gained popularity – The Ghadar Movement. (Note: The word Ghadar means ‘revolt’)

The Ghadar Movement was an international political movement founded by expatriate Indians to overthrow British rule in India.

The early membership was composed mostly of Punjabi Indians who lived and worked on the West Coast of the United States and Canada. The movement later spread to India and Indian diasporic communities around the world.

The main leader initially was Bhagwan Singh, a Sikh priest who had worked in Hong Kong and the Malay States.

Later Har Dayal took leadership and played a crucial role in the Ghadar movement. He issued a Yugantar Circular praising the attack on the Viceroy. He urged Indians in the USA not to fight against the US but use their freedom in the US to fight the British.

The Ghadar militants toured extensively, visiting mills and farms where most of the Punjabi immigrant labour worked. The Yugantar Ashram became the home and headquarters and refuge of these political workers.

Komagatamaru Incident

• The Komagata Maru incident involved the Japanese steamship Komagata Maru, on which a group of people from British India attempted to immigrate to Canada in April 1914. Most of the ship passengers were denied entry and forced to return to Calcutta (present-day Kolkata). There, the Indian Imperial Police attempted to arrest the group leaders. A riot ensued, and they were fired upon by the police, resulting in the deaths of 22 people.
• British Government passed orders that no passenger be allowed to disembark anywhere on the way — not even at the places from where they had joined the ship — but only at Calcutta.
• It triggered off a wave of resentment and anger among the Indian community and became the occasion for anti-British mobilization.
• A number of Ghadar leaders, like Barkatullah and Tarak Nath Das, used the inflammatory passions surrounding the  Komagata Maru incident as a rallying point and successfully brought many disaffected Indians in North America into the party’s fold.

Ghadar’s weakness

• Ghadar leaders completely underestimated the extent of preparation needed at every level — organizational, ideological, strategic, tactical, and financial — that was necessary before an armed revolt could be organized.
• An almost non-existent organizational structure; the Ghadar Movement was sustained more by the enthusiasm of the militants than by their effective organization.
• The movement failed to generate an effective and sustained leadership that was capable of integrating the various aspects of the movement. Har Dayal’s ideas did not form a structured vision but remained a shifting amalgam of various theories that attracted him from time to time.
• Lacking a mass base, despite the remarkable heroism of the individual revolutionaries who operated in small secret groups, the movement could not withstand suppression by the strong colonial state.
• The Ghadar Movement came to an abrupt end with the arrest of Har Dayal.

The Home Rule Movement (1916-1918)

The Home Rule Movement under the leadership of Annie Besant and Bal Gangadhar Tilak was an important political movement that set the stage for India’s struggle for independence.

Annie Besant, who was a proponent of Free Thought, Radicalism, Fabianism and Theosophy, had come to India in 1893 to work for the Theosophical Society.

In 1914, she decided to enlarge the sphere of her activities. She started a movement for Home Rule on the lines of the Irish Home Rule League.

She realized that she needs the cooperation of both Moderates and Extremists. In the annual session of the Congress 1915, it was decided that the Extremists be allowed to rejoin the Congress along with the Moderates.

Tilak set up the Home Rule League in the Bombay Province.

The two leagues worked in different areas.

Tilak promoted the Home Rule campaign which linked the question of Swaraj with the demand for the formation of linguistic states and education in the vernacular medium.

Members of Gokhale’s Servants of India Society, though not permitted to become members of the League, encouraged the demand for Home Rule by undertaking lecture tours and publishing pamphlets.

During the Lucknow session of the Congress in December 1916, the famous Congress-League Pact was declared. Both Tilak and Annie Besant had played a role in bringing about this agreement between the Congress and the League, much against the wishes of many important leaders, including Madan Mohan Malaviya. This pact is popularly known as the Lucknow Pact where separate electorates for Muslims were accepted.

The turning point in the home rule movement came with the decision of the Government of Madras in 1917 to place Mrs Besant and her associates, B.P. Wadia and George Arundale, under arrest.

Montague Declaration was introduced by the British government as a sign of a conciliatory effort. Henceforth, Home Rule or self-government movement was not treated as a seditious activity. However, this did not mean that the British were ready to grant self-government.

In 1920 All India Home Rule League changed its name to Swarajya Sabha.

The main achievement of the Home Rule Movement was that it created a generation of ardent nationalists who formed the backbone of the national movement. In the later years, under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi , the Indian freedom struggle entered its truly mass phase.

Champaran movement in Bihar (1917)

Mahatma Gandhi, after his struggle against apartheid in South Africa (racial discrimination against blacks) for almost twenty years, returned to India in 1915.  On Gokhale’s advice, he spent a year travelling around British India to understand the problems of Indians.

He initially maintained a distance from political affairs, including the Home Rule Movement that was gathering momentum at this time.

Mahatma Gandhi began his experiments with Satyagraha against the oppressive European indigo planters at Champaran in Bihar in 1917.

Champaran issue had actually begun in the early 19th century when European planters made agreements with Indian farmers that forced them to cultivate indigo on the 3/20th of their holdings (known as the Tinkathia system).

Resistance kept surfacing within planters and cultivators, because of the exploitation measures adopted by the British behind the indigo cultivation.

In 1908 Raj Kumar Shukla, a local man persuaded Gandhiji to come to Champaran to investigate the problem. Gandhi reached Champaran but faced resistance from the Commissioner who ordered him to immediately leave the district. Gandhiji refused. He preferred to take the punishment for his defiance of the law. This step was unusual because even Home Rule leaders used to obey the Government.

The British Indian government didn’t want to create a controversy and ordered the local Government to retreat. They allowed Gandhiji to proceed with his enquiry and even nominated him as one of the enquiry members of the Government.

Meanwhile, Gandhiji started investigating the grievances of peasants along with Brij Kishore, Rajendra Prasad and other members of the Bihar intelligentsia. J.B. Kripalani toured the villages and recorded the statements of peasants.

Gandhiji had little difficulty in convincing the Commission that the Tinkathia system needed to be abolished and that the peasants should be compensated for the illegal enhancement of their dues. The Commission founder planters guilty of exploitation.

The commission of enquiry decided to make refunds to the peasants. Gandhi asked for 50%. But the representative of planters offered to refund to the extent of 25%. In order to break the deadlock, Gandhiji agreed to a 25 per cent refund to the farmers. For Gandhi, it was not the money but the principles that were of utmost importance. In his belief, the submission of British landlords was more significant than the percentage of refunds.

Ahmedabad Satyagraha in Gujarat (1918)

In Ahmedabad, a dispute was brewing between workers and mill owners over the question of a ‘plague bonus’.

The employers wanted to withdraw the bonus once the epidemic had passed but the workers insisted it stay.

The British Collector asked Gandhiji to work out a compromise. Gandhiji persuaded the mill owners and the workers to agree to arbitration.

The workers demanded a 50% wage hike while the mill owners offered only a twenty per cent wage hike. They threatened to dismiss all workers who did not accept it.

Gandhiji advised the workers to go on strike. He himself started fasting for workers.

Gandhiji was peculiar in that workers should get at least a thirty-five per cent increase in wages.

Finally, the strike was withdrawn after mill owners agreed to a thirty-five per cent increase the workers had demanded.

Anasuya Behn was one of the main lieutenants of Gandhiji in this struggle.

Kheda Satyagraha in Gujarat (1918)

The Kheda district of Gujarat was on the verge of famine owing to the failure of the crops.

The yield had been so low that the cultivators were unable to pay the revenue. But the government insisted that the cultivators should pay the tax.

Gandhi saw the justice of the cause of the cultivators. Enquiries by members of the Servants of India Society and Vithalbhai Patel too confirmed the genuineness of the peasants’ case.

Gandhiji advised the withholding of tax payments, and asked the peasants to ‘fight unto death against such a spirit of vindictiveness and tyranny’.

The peasants of Kheda, already deprived because of plague, high prices and drought, were showing signs of weakness when Gandhiji came to know that the Government had issued secret instructions directing that revenue should be recovered only from those peasants who could pay.

The Government said that if well-to-do cultivators paid up the poorer section would be granted suspension. This was agreed to and the campaign ended.

The Kheda Satyagraha marked the beginning of an awakening among the peasants of Gujarat, the beginning of their true political education. In addition, it gave the educated public workers the chance to establish contact with the actual life of the peasants.

Rowlatt Satyagraha (1919)

During the First World War of 1914-18, the British instituted censorship of the press and permitted detention without trial.

The Anarchical and Revolutionary Crimes Act of 1919, popularly known as the Rowlatt Act, was passed by the Imperial Legislative Council in Delhi on 18 March 1919, indefinitely extending the emergency measures of preventive indefinite detention, incarceration without trial and judicial review enacted in the Defence of India Act 1915 during the First World War.

It was enacted in light of a perceived threat from revolutionary nationalists to organisations of re-engaging in similar conspiracies as during the war which the Government felt the lapse of the Defence of India Act would enable.

This act was passed on the recommendations of the Sedition Committee chaired by Sir Sidney Rowlatt.

Gandhiji launched Satyagraha against the inhuman Rowlatt Act.

The protests were particularly intense in the Punjab Gandhiji was detained while proceeding there.

Jallianwala Bagh massacre (1919)

The passage of the Rowlatt Act in 1919 resulted in large-scale political unrest throughout India.

A large peaceful crowd had gathered at the Jallianwala Bagh in Amritsar, Punjab to protest against the arrest of pro-Indian independence leaders Dr. Saifuddin Kitchlew and Dr. Satya Pal.

In response to the public gathering, the British Brigadier-General R. E. H. Dyer surrounded the Bagh with his soldiers.

General Dyer ordered his troops to open fire on the nationalist meeting killing hundreds. The brutality at Jallianwala Bagh stunned the entire nation.

This event caused many moderate Indians to abandon their previous loyalty to the British and become nationalists distrustful of British rule.

Non-cooperation Movement (1920)

Gandhiji called for a campaign of “non-cooperation” with British rule. Indians who wished colonialism to end were asked to stop attending schools, colleges, and law courts. They were asked to not pay taxes. In sum, they were asked to adhere to a “renunciation of all voluntary association with the British Government”.

Gandhiji said that if non-cooperation was effectively carried out India would win swaraj within a year.

When Congress met for its annual session at Nagpur, C.R. Das moved the main resolution on non-cooperation. Many groups of revolutionary terrorists, especially in Bengal, also pledged support to the movement.

The goal of the Congress, by this time, changed from the attainment of self-government by constitutional means to the attainment of Swaraj by peaceful means.

Khilafat Movement (1919-24)

The Khilafat movement was a political protest campaign launched by Muslims of British India to restore the caliph of the Ottoman Caliphate, who was considered the leader of the Muslims.

To further broaden the Indian freedom struggle, Gandhiji joined hands with the Khilafat Movement.

The movement collapsed by late 1922 when Turkey gained a more favourable diplomatic position and moved towards Nationalism. By 1924, Turkey abolished the role of the caliph.

However, the tremendous participation of Muslims in the Non-Cooperation Movement and the maintenance of communal unity, despite the Malabar developments, was in itself no mean achievement.

Chauri Chaura incident (1922)

On 4 February 1922, at Chauri Chaura (a place in modern Uttar Pradesh), the British police opened fire at a large group of people who were participating in the Non-cooperation movement.

In retaliation, the demonstrators attacked and set fire to a police station, killing all of its occupants. The incident led to the death of three civilians and 22 policemen.

Mahatma Gandhi, who was strictly against violence, halted the non-cooperation movement on the national level on 12 February 1922, as a direct result of the Chauri Chaura incident.

In spite of Gandhi’s decision, 19 arrested demonstrators were sentenced to death and 14 to imprisonment for life by the British colonial authorities.

Motilal Nehru, C.R. Das, Jawaharlal Nehru, Subhas Bose, and many others recorded their disagreement on Gandhiji’s views.

Bardoli Satyagraha in Gujarat (1928)

In January 1926, the officer charged with the duty of reassessment of the land revenue demand of the taluq had recommended a 30% increase over the existing assessment.

The Congress leaders were quick to protest against the increase and set up the Bardoli Inquiry Committee to go into the issue.

In July 1927, the Government reduced the enhancement to 21.97 per cent. But the concessions were too meagre and came too late to satisfy anybody.

The constitutionalist leaders now began to advise the peasants to resist by paying only the current amount and withholding the enhanced amount.

Gradually as the limitations of constitutional leadership became more apparent, Vallabhbhai Patel was invited to lead the campaign.

The government ignored Vallabhai’s request which resulted in the start of Bardoli Satyagraha.

The no-tax movement was launched in Bardoli taluq of Surat district in Gujarat in 1928.

The main mobilization was done through extensive propaganda via meetings, speeches, pamphlets, and door-to-door persuasion. Special emphasis was placed on the mobilization of women and many women activists were recruited for the purpose.

Members of the Bombay Legislative Council like K.M. Munshi and Lalji Naranji, the representatives of the Indian Merchants Chamber, resigned their seats.

The government was forced to conduct an inquiry. The inquiry was done by a judicial officer, Broomfield, and a revenue officer, Maxwell. They came to the conclusion that the increase had been unjustified. The government later reduced the enhancement to 6.03 per cent.

The boycott of the Simon Commission (1927)

On 8 November 1927, an all-white, Simon Commission was appointed to recommend whether India was ready for further constitutional reforms.

Indian National Congress boycott Simon Commission because no Indian was present in the commission. There were protests in many places.

In Lahore, Lala Lajpat Rai, the hero of the extremist days and the most revered leader of Punjab was hit. He succumbed to the injuries in November 1928.

Bhagat Singh and his comrades sought to avenge the death of Lala Lajpat Rai. They killed the white police official, Saunders, in December 1928.

Jawaharlal Nehru and Subhas Bose emerged as the leaders during the Simon Commission boycott movement.

Nehru Report (1928) and the attempt to draft the Indian Constitution

Britain did not acknowledge the right of Indians to frame their own constitution.

British policy, until almost the end of the Raj, was that the timing and nature of Indian constitutional development were to be decided exclusively by the British Parliament, but it was assumed that Indians would be consulted as appropriate.

In December 1927, at its Madras session, the Indian National Congress took two major decisions in response to the setting up the Simon Commission: first, it decided to not cooperate with the Commission; second, it set up an All Parties Conference to draft a Constitution for India.

The committee of the All Parties Conference to draft the Constitution was chaired by Motilal Nehru  with his son  Jawaharlal Nehru acting as a secretary. There were nine other members in this committee.

The report submitted by the committee in 1928 was called the Nehru Report – which was actually a memorandum to appeal for dominion status and a federal set-up of government for the constitution of India.

The Nehru Report also rejected the principle of separate communal electorates on which previous constitutional reforms had been based. Seats would be reserved for Muslims at the Centre and in provinces in which they were in a minority, but not in those where they had a numerical majority.

The Nehru Report also recommended universal adult suffrage, equal rights for women, freedom to form unions, and dissociation of the state from religion in any form.

However, Jinnah withdrew his support to the report and proposed his ‘Fourteen Points’ which were basically a reiteration of his objections to the Nehru Report.

Young and radical nationalists led by Jawaharlal Nehru had objections to the Nehru Report of Motilal Nehru. Their slogan was ‘Complete Independence.’

Purna Swaraj or Complete Independence Campaign (1929)

In the Lahore session in 1929, Jawaharlal Nehru was made the President of INC. He declared ‘Purna Swaraj’ or Complete Independence as the only honourable goal Indians could strive for.

On the banks of the river Ravi, at midnight on 31 December 1929, the tricolour flag of Indian independence was hosted.

The first task that the Congress set itself in the new year was that of organizing all over the country public meetings at which the Independence Pledge would be read out and collectively affirmed on 26 January.

Civil Disobedience Movement and Dandi March (1930)

The Lahore Session of Congress (1929) authorized the Working Committee to launch a programme of civil disobedience including non-payment of taxes.

Gandhi’s ultimatum to Lord Irwin, stating the minimum demands in the form of 11 points, had been ignored, and there was now only one way out: civil disobedience. Gandhi selected salt as his main tool of disobedience.

In every Indian household, salt was indispensable; yet people were forbidden from making salt even for domestic use, compelling them to buy it from shops at a high price. The state monopoly over salt was deeply unpopular. By making salt his target, Gandhiji hoped to mobilise a wider discontent against British rule.

Gandhi, along with a band of seventy-eight members of the Sabarmati Ashram started to march from Ahmedabad to the coast at Dandi. There he broke the salt laws by collecting salt from the beach.

On 6 April 1930, by picking up a handful of salt, Gandhi inaugurated the Civil Disobedience Movement – a movement that was to remain unsurpassed in the history of the Indian national movement for the country-wide mass participation it unleashed.

Like other parts of India, the civil disobedience movement was also launched in North-West Frontier Province (Khyber–Pakhtoonkhwa). The local Congress sought help from the Khudai Khidmatgars, the most popular socio-political organization in the province.

Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan’s Khudai Khidmatgars, popularly known as the Red Shirts,  played an extremely active role in the Civil Disobedience Movement.

The city came under the control of the masses for at least a week and the soldiers of the Garhwali regiment refused to fire at the unarmed crowds of Peshwar demonstrations.

Nehru’s arrest on 14th April was followed by public protests in Madras, Calcutta and Karachi.

The Salt March was notable for at least three reasons:

• It was this event that first brought Mahatma Gandhi to world attention.
• It was the first nationalist activity in which women participated in large numbers. Kamaladevi Chattopadhyay had persuaded Gandhi for this issue.
• It was the Salt March that forced upon the British the realisation that their Raj would not last forever, and that they would have to devolve some power to the Indians.

Gandhi-Irwin Pact (1931) and the Round Table Conferences (1930-32)

British convened a series of “Round Table Conferences” in London to discuss constitutional reforms in India.

The first meeting was held in November 1930. However, without the pre-eminent political leader in India, it was an exercise in futility.

Gandhi was released from jail in January 1931. In the following month, he had several long meetings with the Viceroy. These culminated in what was called the “Gandhi-Irwin Pact’.

The terms of the agreement included the immediate release of all political prisoners not convicted for violence, the remission of all fines not yet collected, the return of confiscated lands not yet sold to third parties, and lenient treatment for those government employees who had resigned. The Government also conceded the right to make salt for consumption to villages along the coast. They also gave the right to peaceful and non-aggressive picketing.

The Congress’s demand for a public inquiry into police excesses was not accepted, but Gandhiji’s insistent request for an inquiry was recorded in the agreement.

Congress, on its part, agreed to discontinue the Civil Disobedience Movement (CDM).

A second Round Table Conference was held in London in the latter part of 1931. Here, Gandhiji represented the Congress. Gandhi opposed the demand for separate electorates for “lower castes”. For him, separate electorates to the “Untouchables” will ensure their bondage in perpetuity. He thought this would prevent their integration into mainstream society and permanently segregate them from other caste Hindus.

But Ambedkar was in favour of separate electorates for depressed classes. He believed it is the only path for a community so handicapped to succeed in the struggle for life against the organised tyranny of higher castes.

During the second Round Table Conference in London, Winston Churchill, leader of the right wing, strongly objected to the British Government negotiating on terms of equality with the ‘seditious fakir’. He demanded a strong government in India.

The discussions with Gandhi failed as the British Government refused to concede the basic Indian demand for freedom. Gandhiji resumed Civil Disobedience after reaching back

The government launched its strike against the national movement by arresting Gandhi. British government promulgated ordinances that gave the authorities unlimited power – the ‘Civil Martial Law.’ Civil liberties no longer existed and the authorities could seize people and property at will.

In 1934 the inevitable decision to withdraw Civil Disobedience Movement was taken by Gandhi.

However, many political activists were not in favour of stopping the movement. They included Jawaharlal Nehru who was critical of Gandhiji’s decisions regarding the timing of the withdrawal of CDM.

The support that the movement had garnered from the poor and the illiterate, both in the town and in the country, was remarkable indeed.

Nevertheless, the participation of Muslims in the Civil Disobedience Movement was certainly nowhere near that of the Non-cooperation movement 1920-22.

For Indian women, the movement was the most liberating experience to date and can truly be said to have marked their entry into the public space.

The Communal Award (1932)

After the Third Round Table Conference, in November 1932, the then Prime Minister of Britain Ramsay McDonald gave an order which is known as the Communal Award.

It was part of Britain’s policy of ‘Divide and Rule.

The award granted separate electorates in British India for the Forward Caste, Lower Caste, Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, Indian Christians, Anglo-Indians, Europeans and Untouchables (Dalits) etc.

The Congress Party was unhappy at the extension of communal representation but became particularly outraged at the British offer of separate-electorate seats for “depressed classes”.

Gandhi viewed the McDonald Award as a nefarious British plot to wean more than 50 million Hindus away from their higher-caste brothers and sisters.

The idea of a separate electorate for Muslims had been accepted by Congress as far back as 1916 as a part of the compromise with the Muslim League. Hence, Congress took the position it was opposed to separate electorates but not in favour of changing the Award without the consent of the minorities.

Gandhi demanded that the representatives of the Depressed Classes should be elected if possible by the universal, common franchise. At the same time, he did not object to the demand for a larger number of reserved seats for the Depressed Classes. He went on a fast unto death on 20 September 1932 to enforce his demand.

In the end, political leaders succeeded in bringing an agreement, known as the Poona Pact.

In this pact, the idea of separate electorates for the Depressed Classes was abandoned but the seats reserved for them in the provincial legislatures and Central Legislature were increased.

After being released from prison Gandhiji shifted to Satyagraha Ashram at Wardha after abandoning Sabarmati Ashram at Ahmedabad for he had vowed in 1930 not to return to Sabarmati till Swaraj was won.

Government of India Act (1935)

The growing demand for constitutional reforms in India led the British Parliament to enact the Government of India Act 1935.

The Act promised some form of representative government.

The Act provided the establishment of an All-India Federation based on the union of British Indian provinces and the Princely States.

Defence and foreign affairs would remain outside the control of the federal legislature, while the Viceroy would retain special control over other subjects.

Governors, appointed by the British Government, retained special powers. They could veto legislative and administrative measures, especially those concerning minorities, the rights of civil servants, law and order, and British business interests.

The Governor also had the power to take over and indefinitely run the administration of a province.

The Act of 1935 was condemned and unanimously rejected by Congress. The Congress demanded the convening of a Constituent Assembly elected on the basis of adult franchise to frame a constitution for an independent India.

Resignation of Congress ministries (1939)

Congress won the elections to the provincial assemblies held in February 1937. Its election manifesto reaffirmed its total rejection of the 1935 Act.

One of the first acts of the Congress Government was to release thousands of political prisoners and to cancel deportation orders on political workers.

The difference between the Congress provinces and the non-Congress provinces of Bengal and Punjab was most apparent in this realm. In the latter, especially in Bengal, civil liberties continued to be curbed and they never released prisoners.

However, Congress could not attempt a complete overhaul of the agrarian structure by completely eliminating the Zamindari system .

Later the Second World War broke out. Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru promised Congress support to the war effort if the British, in return, promised to grant India independence once hostilities ended. The offer was refused. Gandhi withdrew support to the British in War.

The Congress ministries resigned in October and November 1939, in protest against Viceroy Lord Linlithgow’s action of declaring India to be belligerent in the Second World War without consulting the Indian people.

The resignations brought the Left and the Right in Congress closer because of a common policy on the question of participation in the war.

Crisis at Tripuri (1939)

Subhas Bose had been a unanimous choice as the President of Congress in 1938. In 1939, he decided to stand again — this time as the spokesperson of militant politics and radical groups.

However, with the blessings of Gandhiji, Sardar Patel, Rajendra Prasad, J.B. Kripalani other leaders put up Pattabhi Sitaramayya as a candidate for the post.

Bose accused Patel and other top leaders of Congress as ‘rightists’. He openly accused them of working for a compromise with the Government on the question of the federation. Bose had, therefore, appealed to Congressmen to vote for a leftist and ‘a genuine anti-federationist.’

Nevertheless, in reality, the difference between ‘right’ and ‘left’ was not very vivid within the Congress and most Congressmen were anti-federationist.

Subhas Bose won the election on 29 January on the popularity of his militant politics but only by a narrow margin – 1580 votes against 1377.

But the election of Bose brought the brewing crisis to a head at the Tripuri session of the Congress.

Gandhiji declared that Sitaramayya’s defeat was ‘more mine than his.

Bose argued in his presidential address at Tripuri for a programme of immediately giving the British Government a six-month ultimatum to grant the national demand for independence and of launch a mass civil disobedience movement if it failed to do so.

Subhas Bose believed that the Congress was strong enough to bunch an immediate struggle and that the masses were ready for such a struggle.

However, Gandhi’s perceptions were very different. Gandhi believed the time was not yet ripe for an ultimatum because neither Congress nor the masses were yet ready for struggle.

The internal strife reached its climax at the Tripuri session of the Congress, held from 8 to 12 March 1939.

Bose had completely misjudged his support and the meaning of his majority in the presidential election. Congressmen had voted for him not because they wanted to have him as the supreme leader of the national movement – but mainly because of his policies and militant politics. They were not willing to reject Gandhi’s leadership or his views.

Bose resigned from the presidency. This led to the election of Rajendra Prasad in his place.

Subsequently, Subhas Bose and his followers formed the Forward Bloc as a new party within Congress.

As Bose planned a protest against an AICC resolution, the Working Committee removed Bose from the presidentship of the Bengal Provincial Congress Committee and debarred him from holding any Congress office for three years.

Individual Satyagraha (1940)

Gandhiji decided to initiate a limited satyagraha on an individual basis by a few selected individuals in every locality. The demand of a satyagrahi was for the freedom of speech to preach against participation in the War.

The satyagrahi would beforehand inform the district magistrate of the time and place where he or she was going to make the anti-war speech. If the Government did not arrest a satyagrahi, he or she would not only repeat the performance but move into the villages and start a trek towards Delhi, thus participating in a movement that came to be known as the ‘Delhi Chalo’ (onwards to Delhi) movement.

Vinoba Bhave was to be the first satyagrahi on 17 October 1940 and Jawaharlal Nehru the second.

Individual Satyagraha served a dual purpose — (1) it gave expression to the Indian people’s strong political feelings, (2) it gave the British Government another opportunity to peacefully accept the Indian demands.

Cripps Mission (1942)

The Cripps Mission was a failed attempt in late March 1942 by the British government to secure full Indian cooperation and support for their efforts in World War II.

The mission was headed by a senior minister Sir Stafford Cripps, traditionally sympathetic to Indian self-rule.

However, he was also a member of the coalition War Cabinet led by Prime Minister Winston Churchill, who had long been the leader of the movement to block Indian independence.

Churchill was persuaded to send Sir Stafford Cripps, to India to try and forge a compromise with Gandhiji and the Congress.

The Declaration promised India Dominion Status and a constitution-making body after the War. He proposed that the Constitutional Assembly members would be elected by the provincial assemblies and nominated by the rulers in the case of the princely states.

At that time, the demand for a separate nation for Muslims – Pakistan – also got momentum.

The Pakistan demand was accommodated by the provision that any province which was not prepared to accept the new constitution would have the right to sign a separate agreement with Britain regarding its future status.

Talks broke down, when, Congress objected to the provision for Dominion Status rather than full independence.

Congress insisted that if it was to help the British defend India from the Axis powers, then the Viceroy had first to appoint an Indian as the Defence Member of his Executive Council.

After the failure of the Cripps Mission, Mahatma Gandhi decided to launch the “Quit India” campaign also known as the ‘August Revolution’.

Quit India Movement (1942)

The Quit India Movement was launched at the Bombay session of the All India Congress Committee by  Mahatma Gandhi  on 8 August 1942, during World War II, demanding an end to British rule in India.

In this struggle, the common people of the country demonstrated unparalleled heroism and militancy.

However, the repression that they faced was the most brutal that had ever been used against the national movement.

At the historic August meeting at Gowalia Tank in Bombay, Gandhiji was particular about complete freedom and no more piece-meal approach from the British.

He proclaimed: ‘Do or Die’ – which meant either free India or die in the attempt.

Gandhi asked government servants to openly declare their allegiance to congress and not to resign.

In the meantime, underground networks were consolidated in various parts of the country. The prominent members of underground activities were Achyut Patwardhan, Aruna Asaf Ali, Ram Manohar Lohia, and Sucheta Kripalani.

The pattern of activity of the underground movement was that of organizing the disruption of communications by blowing up bridges, cutting telegraph and telephone wires, and derailing trains.

Congress Radio operated clandestinely from different locations in Bombay city, whose broadcast could be heard as far as Madras. Usha Mehta was an important member of the small group that ran the Congress Radio.

A significant feature of the Quit India Movement was the emergence of what came to be known as parallel governments in some parts of the country. Satara (Maharashtra) emerged as the base of the longest-lasting and most effective parallel government.

A significant feature of peasant activity was its total concentration on attacking symbols of British authority and a total lack of any incidents of anti-zamindar violence.

In February 1943, Gandhiji declared the fast in Aga Khan Palace where he was held in detention, as this was his answer to the Government which had been constantly exhorting him to condemn the violence of the people in the Quit India Movement. Gandhiji not only refused to condemn the people’s resort to violence but unequivocally held the Government responsible for it.

The resignation of the three Indian members of the Viceroy’s Executive Council, M.S. Aney, N.R. Sarkar and H.P. Mody, who never wished Gandhi to suffer, made a severe blow to the British.

Finally, the Congress leaders were released to participate in the Simla Conference in June 1945. That marked the end of the phase of confrontation that had existed since August 1942.

Simla Conference (1945) and the Wavell Plan

The Simla Conference of 1945 was a meeting between the Viceroy of India (Lord Wavell) and the major political leaders of British India at the Viceregal Lodge in Simla.

Wavell proposed a separate representation of Muslims within a united India. Talks, however, stalled on the issue of the selection of Muslim representatives. The All-India Muslim League claimed to be the sole representative of Indian Muslims. The Indian National Congress opposed this claim as the Congress had more Muslims in its support than the Muslim League.

This scuttled the conference, and perhaps the last viable opportunity for a united, independent India.

On 14 June 1945 Lord Wavell announced a plan for a new Executive Council in which all members except the Viceroy and the Commander in Chief would be Indians. This executive council was to be a temporary measure until a new permanent constitution could be agreed upon and come into force.

RIN Mutiny (1946)

The Royal Indian Navy (RIN) revolt started in February 1946 at Mumbai when the naval ratings on HMIS Talwar protested against the poor quality of food and racial discrimination by British officers.

From the initial flashpoint in Mumbai, the revolt spread and found support throughout India, from Karachi to Kolkata, and ultimately came to involve over 20,000 sailors in 78 ships and shore establishments.

Karachi was a major centre, second only to Bombay. Sympathetic strikes took place in military establishments in Madras, Vishakhapatnam, Calcutta, Delhi, Cochin, Jamnagar, the Andamans, Bahrain and Aden.

A revolt in the armed forces, even if soon suppressed, had a great liberating effect on the minds of people.

The naval mutiny proved to be the last nail in the coffin of British colonial aspirations in India.

India was seen to be on the brink of a revolution. The mutiny witnessed the demoralization of British officials and the changing loyalties of Indian officials.

However, communal unity evident in the RIN revolt was limited despite the Congress, League and Communist flags being jointly hoisted on the ships’ masts. Muslim ratings went to the League to seek advice on future action for Pakistan.

The  Indian National Congress  and the  Muslim League  condemned the mutiny, while the  Communist Party of India  was the only party that supported the rebellion.

The mutiny was suppressed by British troops and Royal Navy warships.

The revolt was called off following a meeting between the President of the Naval Central Strike Committee (NCSC), M. S. Khan, and Sardar Vallabhai Patel who had been sent to Bombay to settle the crisis.

Mountbatten Plan (1947)

The legislature representatives of the Indian National Congress, the Muslim League, and the Sikh community came to an agreement with Lord Mountbatten on what has come to be known as the 3 June Plan or Mountbatten Plan. This plan was the last plan for independence.

The plan announced by the Viceroy Mountbatten on 3 June 1947 included these principles:

• The principle of the partition of British India was accepted by the British Government.
• Successor governments would be given dominion status.
• Autonomy and sovereignty to both countries.
• The successor governments could make their own constitution
• The Princely States were given the right to join either Pakistan or India, based on two major factors: Geographical contiguity and the people’s wishes.

The Mountbatten plan led to the enactment of the India Independence Act of 1947.

India Independence Act (1947)

The Indian Independence Act of 1947 passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom divided British India into two new independent dominions; the Dominion of India ( later to become the Republic of India ) and the Dominion of Pakistan ( later to become the Islamic Republic of Pakistan ).

This Act received Royal Assent on 18 July 1947.

India and Pakistan became independent on August 15th, 1947.

India continues to celebrate August 15th as her Independence day, while Pakistan chose to celebrate August 14th as her Independence day as per their cabinet decisions.

Learn more about India’s Struggle for Independence

Hope you liked the mega article on the Indian freedom struggle.

This article on India’s struggle for independence is the 6th part of the article series on Modern Indian History. Click the link to read the  6-part framework to study modern Indian History . This is an easy-to-learn approach to mastering the history of modern India as a story.

Apart from the 6-part approach, we have also published many other articles on  Indian History , which can be accessed from the  ClearIAS Study materials  section.

If you loved this article, please subscribe to ClearIAS and share this post with your friends.

Books referred to prepare this article on India’s Struggle for Independence

• NCERT Books Class 6-12
• History Of Modern India by Bipan Chandra
• India’s struggle for independence by Bipan Chandra
• Modern Indian History by Sonali Bansal and Snehil Tripathi

Top 10 Best-Selling ClearIAS Courses

Upsc prelims cum mains (pcm) gs course: unbeatable batch 2025 (online), rs.75000   rs.29000, upsc prelims marks booster + 2025 (online), rs.19999   rs.14999, upsc prelims test series (pts) 2025 (online), rs.9999   rs.4999, csat course 2025 (online), current affairs course 2025 (online), ncert foundation course (online), essay writing course for upsc cse (online), ethics course for upsc cse (online), upsc interview marks booster course (online), rs.9999   rs.4999.

About ClearIAS Team

ClearIAS is one of the most trusted learning platforms in India for UPSC preparation. Around 1 million aspirants learn from the ClearIAS every month.

Our courses and training methods are different from traditional coaching. We give special emphasis on smart work and personal mentorship. Many UPSC toppers thank ClearIAS for our role in their success.

Download the ClearIAS mobile apps now to supplement your self-study efforts with ClearIAS smart-study training.

Reader Interactions

February 6, 2022 at 9:52 am

Pls allowed to download in pdf form

February 7, 2022 at 11:38 am

@Zizoo – There is a ‘Print PDF’ button that you can use to download the article as a PDF.

July 29, 2023 at 1:02 pm

“India’s Struggle for Independence” on ClearIAS is a comprehensive and enlightening read. The blog beautifully captures the essence of India’s journey towards freedom, providing valuable historical context and key insights. It’s an essential resource for anyone seeking a deeper understanding of India’s rich and inspiring struggle for independence.

December 5, 2023 at 1:49 am

Please provide download option

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Don’t lose out without playing the right game!

Follow the ClearIAS Prelims cum Mains (PCM) Integrated Approach.

Join ClearIAS PCM Course Now

UPSC Online Preparation

• Union Public Service Commission (UPSC)
• Indian Administrative Service (IAS)
• Indian Police Service (IPS)
• IAS Exam Eligibility
• UPSC Free Study Materials
• UPSC Exam Guidance
• UPSC Prelims Test Series
• UPSC Syllabus
• UPSC Online
• UPSC Prelims
• UPSC Interview
• UPSC Toppers
• UPSC Previous Year Qns
• UPSC Age Calculator
• UPSC Calendar 2024
• About ClearIAS
• ClearIAS Programs
• ClearIAS Fee Structure
• IAS Coaching
• UPSC Coaching
• UPSC Online Coaching
• ClearIAS Blog
• Important Updates
• Announcements
• Book Review
• ClearIAS App
• Work with us
• Advertise with us
• Privacy Policy
• Terms and Conditions
• Talk to Your Mentor

Featured on

and many more...

ClearIAS Programs: Admissions Open

Thank You 🙌

UPSC CSE 2025: Study Plan

Subscribe ClearIAS YouTube Channel

Get free study materials. Don’t miss ClearIAS updates.

Subscribe Now

IAS/IPS/IFS Online Coaching: Target CSE 2025

Cover the entire syllabus of UPSC CSE Prelims and Mains systematically.

Satyagraha Movement: Essay & Important Notes

The duties of satyagrahis.

In practicing satyagraha, the satyagrahis have to fulfill the following duties:

• Observe non-violence in mind.
• Observe the root cause of a situation.
• Seek truth.
• Undergo a process of self-scrutiny.
• Adhere to non-violence.

Gandhiji’s Idea of Satyagraha

When Mahatma Gandhi started the Satyagraha Movement in India in 1915, he had little idea of how popular the movement will become and eventually help India gain independence. Gandhiji’s idea of satyagraha included the following:

• Satyagraha was a mass agitation that did not use any violence and was based on facts.
• Gandhiji believed that if the cause of the issue was true and the fight was against injustice, the fight would definitely be won.
• Satyagraha involved winning the battle by appealing to the oppressors and avoid non-violent means.

Satyagraha emphasized the power of truth and the need to fight for the truth.

Movements where Satyagraha was used

Satyagraha became one of the most important and detrimental tools in India’s fight against the British and the national movements based on this idea shook the Britishers. The most prominent movements where satyagraha was used as the main weapon were:

• 1917 Champaran Satyagraha
• 1918 Ahmedabad Satyagraha
• 1918 Kheda Satyagraha

During this movement, Gandhiji teamed up with Sardar Vallabhbai Patel to fight for the peasants who were in distress because of low crop production. According to the revenue code, the peasants were entitled to a full concession, but the government did not want to let go of the revenue. Gandhiji asked the peasants to fight against injustice and also asked the rich farmers to not pay revenue. When the British government asked the rich farmers to pay revenue, they did not agree and the government had to let go of the revenue to help the peasants.

• 1919 Rowlatt Satyagraha

The Rowlatt Satyagraha was launched to protest an act that the British government had introduced. This law allowed the government to arrest any protesting Indian without a warrant and detain the person for two years. Gandhiji called for a nationwide strike by fasting and praying. However, there were many violent outbreaks and the movement was called off.

• 1930 Salt Satyagraha

The idea of Gandhiji’s Satyagraha in many ways helped India win its independence. Satyagraha was adopted as a tool by many to fight for their cause. The Norwegians, for example, adopted an effective non-violent resistance against the Germans during the Second World War. Even today, the idea of Satyagraha can be seen adopted by many people in different parts of the world to fight against injustice.

Related Posts

The Idea of Satyagraha

French Revolution: Essay & Important Notes

4th Industrial Revolution: Essay & Important Notes

Industrial Revolution: Essay & Important Notes

Philippine Revolution: Essay & Important Notes

Slave Society in Ancient Greece

One response.

Bharat mein rashtriyavad

Add Comment Cancel Reply

• IAS Preparation
• NCERT Books for IAS
• NCERT Subhas Chandra Bose

Subhas Chandra Bose - NCERT Notes for UPSC Indian History

As an Indian Nationalist, Subhash Chandra Bose made significant attempts to defy colonialism. He is one of those great freedom fighters, whom the nation remembers always. For the  IAS Exam , knowing about remarkable freedom fighters and nationalist leaders is important.

This article will provide relevant facts about Subhash Chandra Bose. Candidates can also download the notes PDF from the link provided below.

Subhash Chandra Bose (UPSC Notes):- Download PDF Here

Who was Subhash Chandra Bose?

• Subhas Chandra Bose was one of the most eminent freedom fighters of India.
• Born in Cuttack, in the province of Bengal to an affluent family. He was educated in Calcutta acquiring a degree in philosophy. Subhas Chandra Bose was Selected for the Indian Civil Services (ICS) but refused to take up service since he did not want to serve the British government.
• Bose joined the Indian National Congress (Formed on December 28, 1885) in 1921. He also started a newspaper called ‘Swaraj’.
• He was the President of the All India Youth Congress and also the Secretary of the Bengal State Congress. In 1924, he became the CEO of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation. In 1930, he became the Mayor of Calcutta.
• Bose authored the book ‘The Indian Struggle’ which covers the Indian independence movement from 1920 to 1942. The book was banned by the British government.
• He coined the term ‘Jai Hind’. His charisma and powerful personality inspired many people into the freedom struggle and continues to inspire Indians. He was called Netaji.

For candidates taking history as an optional in the UPSC Mains exam, visit the UPSC History Optional Syllabus page to get a general idea about its exam pattern.

Subhash Chandra Bose’s Role in Indian Independence Struggle

• Bose was sent to prison in Mandalay for nationalist activities in 1925. He was released in 1927 and became the INC’s general secretary.
• He worked with Jawaharlal Nehru (Born on November 14 – 1889) and the two became the Congress Party’s young leaders gaining popularity among the people.
• He advocated complete Swaraj and was in favour of the use of force to gain it.
• He had differences with Gandhi and he wasn’t keen on non-violence as a tool for independence.
• Bose stood for and was elected the party’s president in 1939 but was forced to resign due to differences with Gandhi’s supporters.
• Bose’s ideology tilted towards socialism and leftist authoritarianism. He formed the All India Forward Bloc in 1939 as a faction within the Congress.
• At the start of the Second World War, Bose protested against the government for not consulting Indians before dragging them into the war. He was arrested when he organised protests in Calcutta for the removal of the monument memorialising the Black Hole of Calcutta.
• He was released after a few days but was kept under surveillance. He then made his escape from the country in 1941 to Germany via Afghanistan and the Soviet Union. He had previously travelled to Europe and met with Indian students and European political leaders.
• In Germany, he met with the Nazi leaders and hoped to stage an armed struggle against the British to gain independence. He hoped to befriend the Axis powers since they were against his ‘enemy’, the British.
• He founded the Indian Legion out of about 4500 Indian soldiers who were in the British army and had been taken prisoners by the Germans from North Africa.
• In 1943, he left Germany for Japan disillusioned with the lukewarm German support for Azad Hind.
• Bose’s arrival in Japan revived the Indian National Army (Azad Hind Fauj) which had been formed earlier with Japanese help.
• Azad Hind or the Provisional Government of Free India was established as a government-in-exile with Bose as the head. Its headquarters was in Singapore. The INA was its military.
• Bose motivated the troops with his fiery speeches. His famous quote is, “Give me blood, and I shall give you freedom!”
• The INA supported the Japanese army in its invasion of northeast India and also took control of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. However, they were forced to retreat by the British forces following the Battles of Kohima and Imphal in 1944.

Candidates can find UPSC Questions for History Mains paper by visiting the linked article.

Death of Subhash Chandra Bose

• Bose died of third-degree burns which he suffered in a plane crash in Taiwan on 18 August 1945.
• However, many in India refused to believe that he had died.
• Many enquiry committees were tasked with finding out what happened on that day.
• The Figgess Report (1946) and the Shah Nawaz Committee (1956) concluded that Bose died in the plane crash in Taiwan.
• The Khosla Commission (1970) also concurred with the previous reports.
• But the Mukherjee Commission (2005) said that Bose’s death could not be proved. This report was rejected by the government.

Multiple Choice Question

• Subash Chandra Bose authored the book ‘The Indian Struggle’ which covers the Indian independence movement from 1920 to 1942. The book was banned by the British government.
• Bal Gangadhar Tilak founded the Naujawan Bharat Sabha in 1926 to promote revolution against British rule by rallying workers and peasant youth. He was the organization’s secretary.
• Bal Gangadhar Tilak also started two important festivals (now the prime festival in Maharashtra and adjacent states). Shivaji Jayanti in 1895 and Ganesha festival in 1893.

Choose the correct answer from the below-given options

A) Only Statements 1, 2, and 3 are true

B) Only statements 2, 3, and 4 are true

C) All the above-given statements are true

D) Only statements 1, 2, and 4 are true

Relevant Links

For more UPSC- related preparation articles and history-related articles, visit the links that are given in the table below. Candidates can get a general idea of the UPSC exam pattern by visiting the UPSC syllabus page.

Related Links

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your Mobile number and Email id will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Request OTP on Voice Call

Post My Comment

IAS 2024 - Your dream can come true!

Download the ultimate guide to upsc cse preparation, register with byju's & download free pdfs, register with byju's & watch live videos.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

The Christian Case Against Trump

By Eliza Griswold

Ms. Griswold is the author of “ Circle of Hope: A Reckoning With Love, Power, and Justice in an American Church .”

In the aftermath of the attempted assassination of Donald Trump on July 13, a video with images of Jesus crowned with thorns, blood running down his face, followed by photos of the former president circulated on social media. Days later, at the Republican National Convention, the evangelist Franklin Graham endorsed Mr. Trump from the stage, saying that “God spared his life.”

But the idea of Mr. Trump as chosen by God has infuriated those evangelicals who believe that he stands in direct opposition to their faith. Their existence highlights an often-overlooked fact about the American religious landscape: Evangelicals are not a monolith.

The troubling ascendancy of white Christian nationalism has galvanized evangelicals for whom following Jesus demands speaking truth to power, as well as building the kingdom of heaven on earth in actionable ways. In 2024, this includes mobilizing voters against the former president.

Although this broader evangelical movement is often referred to as the evangelical left, it adheres to no party. “This isn’t about being a Democrat or a Republican,” Jim Wallis, an evangelical Christian pastor, author and justice activist, told me. Instead believers like him say they refuse worldly labels and division.

They also believe that they can sway enough of their fellow evangelicals, along with other people of faith, and low-income Americans, who historically have had much lower voting rates than other groups, to swing this presidential election against Mr. Trump.

“The so-called evangelicals who support Trump have a Jesus problem,” Bishop William Barber II told me. Jesus advocated tirelessly for the poor and warned that nations would be judged “by how we treat the hungry, the sick, the incarcerated and the immigrant,” Bishop Barber said.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .