Question map
Consider the following statements in respect of the Non-Cooperation Movement : I. The Congress declared the attainment of 'Swaraj' by all legitimate and peaceful means to be its objective. II. It was to be implemented in stages with civil disobedience and non-payment of taxes for the next stage only if 'Swaraj' did not come within a year and the Government resorted to repression. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Explanation
**Statement I is correct.** At the Nagpur session in December 1920, an important change was made in the Congress creed: instead of having the attainment of self-government through constitutional means as its goal, the Congress decided to have the attainment of swaraj through peaceful and legitimate means.[1] This matches the statement perfectly.
**Statement II is incorrect.** Gandhiji proposed that the movement should unfold in stages. It should begin with the surrender of titles that the government awarded, and a boycott of civil services, army, police, courts and legislative councils, schools, and foreign goods. Then, in case the government used repression, a full civil disobedience campaign would be launched.[2] The progression to civil disobedience was conditioned **only on government repression**, not on whether Swaraj was achieved within a year. While Gandhi did express optimism about achieving Swaraj within a year, this was not a formal condition for moving to the next stage of the movement.
Therefore, only Statement I is correct, making option A the right answer.
Sources- [1] Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 16: Non-Cooperation Movement and Khilafat Aandolan > p. 332
- [2] India and the Contemporary World – II. History-Class X . NCERT(Revised ed 2025) > Chapter 2: Nationalism in India > 1.3 Why Non-cooperation? > p. 33
PROVENANCE & STUDY PATTERN
Full viewThis is a textbook 'Standard Source' question derived directly from the narrative in NCERT Class X and Spectrum. It tests the specific 'Rules of Engagement' adopted at the Nagpur Session (1920), moving beyond simple dates to the conditional logic of the movement's strategy.
This question can be broken into the following sub-statements. Tap a statement sentence to jump into its detailed analysis.
- Statement 1: Did the Indian National Congress declare during the Non-Cooperation Movement that the attainment of "Swaraj" by all legitimate and peaceful means was its objective?
- Statement 2: Was the Non-Cooperation Movement planned to be implemented in stages?
- Statement 3: Was the next stage of the Non-Cooperation Movement intended to include civil disobedience and non-payment of taxes?
- Statement 4: Was progression to the next stage of the Non-Cooperation Movement conditioned on Swaraj not being achieved within a year?
- Statement 5: Was progression to the next stage of the Non-Cooperation Movement conditioned on the Government resorting to repression?
- Explicitly records the Nagpur (Dec 1920) decision changing Congress goal to 'attainment of swaraj through peaceful and legitimate means'.
- Contrasts previous objective (self-government via constitutional means) with the new peaceful/legitimate extraconstitutional aim.
- Summarises Nagpur session outcome: Congress goal changed to attainment of swaraj through peaceful and legitimate means.
- Links the change directly with the Khilafat–Non-Cooperation context and methods of boycott/non-cooperation.
- States Congress supported Gandhi's non-cooperation plan 'till ... Swaraj established', showing Congress endorsement of Swaraj as an objective.
- Connects the non-cooperation programme with the aim of establishing Swaraj.
- Explicitly states Gandhi proposed the movement should 'unfold in stages'.
- Specifies initial steps (surrender of titles; boycott of services, courts, schools, foreign goods) and a later escalation to full civil disobedience if repression occurred.
- Describes launch decisions and lists early programme items (boycott of schools, courts, government offices, foreign goods, return of titles).
- Explicitly notes later stages would include a no-tax campaign and mass civil disobedience.
- Records formal launch by Khilafat Committee and Congress approval of a programme that outlines successive actions (boycott of institutions and alternate panchayats).
- Implies an ordered programme of actions to be pursued until wrongs were removed and swaraj achieved.
- Explicitly states the second phase could include mass civil disobedience.
- Specifically lists non-payment of taxes as part of that second phase.
- Names concrete forms (resignation from government service) alongside tax refusal, tying tactics to phase plan.
- Directly says the struggle at a later stage was to include a no-tax campaign.
- Pairs the no-tax campaign with mass civil disobedience as intended later-stage measures.
- Records Congress instructions to local bodies to start civil disobedience when ready.
- Cites ongoing no-tax movements (Midnapore, Guntur), showing tax refusal as an active tactic linked to the movement.
States Gandhi declared that if the non-cooperation programme was implemented completely, swaraj would be ushered in within a year — establishing a one‑year expectation tied to full implementation.
A student could compare this declared one‑year expectation with the movement's documented staged plan to see whether failure to achieve swaraj was explicitly made the trigger for moving stages.
Describes a staged plan: initial boycotts followed by a fuller civil disobedience campaign 'in case the government used repression' — giving a clear conditional rule for escalation.
One can test whether the actual trigger was government repression (per this rule) rather than non‑achievement of swaraj within a fixed time by checking records of when escalation occurred.
Lists 'second stage to include civil disobedience by non‑payment of taxes' and labels stages explicitly, implying planned sequence rather than automatic timing based on achievement of goals.
A student could use this to infer that movement rules specified methods per stage and then look for documentary evidence on what condition (e.g., repression or failure to get swaraj) was stated to trigger the second stage.
Notes the chronology of stages and that Chauri Chaura (an act of violence) led Gandhi to suspend the movement — showing stages and progression were responsive to events, not solely to an elapsed time‑limit.
Use this example to argue that pragmatic responses to events (violence, repression) could control stage progression and compare with any rule about waiting one year for swaraj.
- Explicitly describes Gandhi's staged plan for the movement and states that a full civil disobedience campaign would be launched if the government used repression.
- Directly frames escalation to the next stage as conditional on government action (use of repression).
- Refers to the relationship between the movement and government repression, noting the movement reminded the government that repression would defeat its purpose.
- Supports the idea that government response (repression) was a central factor shaping the movement's course.
- Documents that the government in fact resorted to repression and imprisoned leaders during the period of the movement, providing historical context for why a conditional escalation plan was relevant.
- Corroborates that repression was a real and consequential government response against which escalation could be triggered.
- [THE VERDICT]: Sitter. Directly solvable from Spectrum (Ch 16) and NCERT Class X (Nationalism in India).
- [THE CONCEPTUAL TRIGGER]: The structural and ideological shift of the Congress at the 1920 Nagpur Session (Constitutional methods → Peaceful/Legitimate means).
- [THE HORIZONTAL EXPANSION]: Memorize the Nagpur organizational reforms: 1) Formation of Congress Working Committee (15 members), 2) Provincial Committees on linguistic basis, 3) Entry fee reduced to 4 annas, 4) Jinnah, Annie Besant, and B.C. Pal left the Congress.
- [THE STRATEGIC METACOGNITION]: Don't just memorize *when* a movement started; memorize the *terms and conditions* of the resolution. UPSC loves asking about the specific 'clauses' (objectives, methods, triggers for escalation) agreed upon in Congress sessions.
Nagpur session formally altered the Congress objective to attaining Swaraj by peaceful and legitimate means.
This is a high-yield chronological pivot: questions often test resolutions and session outcomes. It links Non-Cooperation Movement strategy to later developments (Swarajist politics, civil disobedience) and helps answer timeline and cause-effect questions on Congress policy shifts.
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 16: Non-Cooperation Movement and Khilafat Aandolan > p. 332
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 16: Non-Cooperation Movement and Khilafat Aandolan > Khilafat-Non-Cooperation Movement * Three demands— > p. 339
Congress replaced pursuit of self-government via constitutional channels with pursuit of Swaraj through peaceful, legitimate, extra‑constitutional mass action.
Understanding this methodological distinction clarifies Gandhi-era tactics and intra-party debates; it's useful for essay questions and analyses comparing moderate and Gandhian strategies, and for MCQs asking about means vs ends.
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 16: Non-Cooperation Movement and Khilafat Aandolan > p. 332
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 16: Non-Cooperation Movement and Khilafat Aandolan > Khilafat-Non-Cooperation Movement * Three demands— > p. 339
The Congress backed Gandhi's non-cooperation programme with the explicit aim of securing Swaraj until Khilafat and Punjab grievances were addressed.
Recognising Congress support for non-cooperation ties organizational decisions to mass mobilisation tactics; this aids answers on movements' objectives, coalition politics (Khilafat), and the transition to later demands like Poorna Swaraj.
- Modern India ,Bipin Chandra, History class XII (NCERT 1982 ed.)[Old NCERT] > Chapter 15: Struggle for Swaraj > THE KHILAFAT AND NON-COOPERATION MOVEMENT (1919-22) > p. 271
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 16: Non-Cooperation Movement and Khilafat Aandolan > p. 333
The movement was deliberately designed to unfold in stages starting with symbolic and institutional boycotts and escalating to mass civil disobedience if the government used repression.
High-yield for questions on movement tactics and leadership strategy; links to comparative study of Gandhian methods versus later movements. Mastery helps answer 'how' and 'why' questions about escalation, suspension, and outcomes.
- India and the Contemporary World – II. History-Class X . NCERT(Revised ed 2025) > Chapter 2: Nationalism in India > 1.3 Why Non-cooperation? > p. 33
- History , class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.) > Chapter 4: Advent of Gandhi and Mass Mobilisation > c) Launch of Non-Cooperation Movement > p. 47
Boycott of schools, law courts, government offices, foreign goods, and return of titles, combined with establishment of national schools and panchayats, formed the movement's programme.
Essential for list-based and analytical questions on the Non-Cooperation Movement; connects to themes of swadeshi, civil society alternatives, and methods of mass mobilisation. Helps in comparing Non-Cooperation with Civil Disobedience and later struggles.
- India and the Contemporary World – II. History-Class X . NCERT(Revised ed 2025) > Chapter 2: Nationalism in India > 1.3 Why Non-cooperation? > p. 33
- History , class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.) > Chapter 4: Advent of Gandhi and Mass Mobilisation > c) Launch of Non-Cooperation Movement > p. 47
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 16: Non-Cooperation Movement and Khilafat Aandolan > p. 332
The Khilafat Committee launched the campaign and its adoption by Congress gave the Non-Cooperation Movement a broader base and communal support.
Useful for questions on causes, communal dynamics, and coalition politics in the 1920s; explains why the movement achieved rapid nationwide uptake and why its composition mattered for strategy and outcomes.
- History , class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.) > Chapter 4: Advent of Gandhi and Mass Mobilisation > c) Launch of Non-Cooperation Movement > p. 47
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 16: Non-Cooperation Movement and Khilafat Aandolan > Non-Cooperation Movement and Khilafat Aandolan > p. 328
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 16: Non-Cooperation Movement and Khilafat Aandolan > p. 332
Gandhian campaigns were designed to unfold in stages: initial non-cooperation followed by full civil disobedience if met with repression.
High-yield for UPSC: explains why tactics changed over time and clarifies chronology of major campaigns. Connects to study of movement planning, leadership decisions, and comparison across 1920s–1930s campaigns; useful for analytical and essay questions on strategy evolution.
- India and the Contemporary World – II. History-Class X . NCERT(Revised ed 2025) > Chapter 2: Nationalism in India > 1.3 Why Non-cooperation? > p. 33
- History , class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.) > Chapter 4: Advent of Gandhi and Mass Mobilisation > c) Launch of Non-Cooperation Movement > p. 47
The 'Sibling Fact' to the Swaraj resolution is the organizational overhaul at the same Nagpur Session (1920). While the goal changed to Swaraj, the structure changed to a 'Linguistic Basis' for Provincial Committees—a fact that laid the groundwork for the post-independence linguistic reorganization of states.
Use the 'Logical Redundancy' check on Statement II. It says the next stage happens 'only if Swaraj did not come'. Logically, if Swaraj *had* come, the movement would end, and no next stage would be needed. Therefore, the condition 'if Swaraj did not come' is inherently true for any escalation plan. Combined with the famous 'Swaraj in a year' slogan, the statement holds together logically.
Link the withdrawal of NCM (Chauri Chaura) to GS IV (Ethics): The 'Means vs. Ends' debate. Gandhi suspended a mass movement because the 'means' (non-violence) were compromised, even if the 'end' (political pressure) was being achieved. This is a classic case study for ethical integrity in leadership.