Home Rule Movement (1916–1918)

About

1. The Home Rule Movement (1916–1918) was a constitutional movement that sought Home Rule (self-government) for India during the First World War.
2. It revived the nationalist movement after a period of political inactivity.
3. Inspired by the Irish Home Rule League, it aimed to establish a year-round national political organisation, unlike the Indian National Congress, which largely functioned through its annual sessions.
4. Its objective was to secure self-government for the whole of India within the framework of the British Commonwealth.

Historical Background

The Home Rule Movement emerged due to a combination of political developments and wartime conditions.

1. The India Council Act 1909 failed to satisfy Indian aspirations for greater self-government.
2. The Surat Split (1907) divided the Congress into Moderate and Extremist groups, weakening the national movement.
3. The imprisonment of Bal Gangadhar Tilak (1908–1914) led to a temporary decline in nationalist activities.
4. After returning from Mandalay, Tilak recognised the need to revive the national movement and reunite the Extremists with the Congress.
5. The First World War imposed heavy economic burdens through high taxation and rising prices, increasing public dissatisfaction.
6. Annie Besant believed that Britain’s involvement in the war created an opportunity to intensify India’s demand for self-government.

Reasons for the Home Rule Movement

The movement was launched to revive organised political activity and strengthen the constitutional demand for self-government.

1. Nationalist leaders believed that sustained public pressure was essential to secure political concessions from the British Government.
2. Tilak worked to secure the readmission of the Extremists into the Congress to strengthen national unity.
3. At the 1915 Congress Session, the Extremists were readmitted, largely through the efforts of Annie Besant.
4. Congress agreed to undertake political education and strengthen local committees, but it did not approve the proposal to establish Home Rule Leagues.
5. Annie Besant announced that if these commitments were not implemented by September 1916, she would establish her own Home Rule League.
6. When Congress failed to act, the Home Rule Movement was formally launched in 1916.

Formation of the Home Rule Leagues

1. Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Annie Besant recognised that the cooperation of both Moderates and Extremists was essential for the success of the movement.
2. As a common organisational arrangement could not be achieved, they decided to establish separate Home Rule Leagues.
3. Separate organisations also prevented differences among their respective supporters from affecting the movement.
4. Although they functioned independently, both leagues coordinated their activities by working in separate regions while pursuing the common objective of Home Rule for India.
5. Together, the two leagues transformed the demand for self-government into a nationwide political campaign.

Home Rule Leagues: A Comparison

Major Programmes

The Home Rule Movement sought to popularise the demand for Home Rule (self-government) through continuous political education and nationwide mobilisation.

1. Spread awareness about Home Rule through sustained political education and public campaigns.
2. Organised public meetings, conferences, lectures, and awareness programmes to mobilise public opinion.
3. Established libraries and used newspapers and other media to disseminate nationalist ideas.
4. Conducted fundraising, social service activities, and encouraged participation in local self-government institutions.
5. Extended the movement to politically less active regions such as Gujarat and Sindh, giving the campaign a wider national reach.
6. The Russian Revolution (1917) provided additional encouragement to the movement.
7. The movement attracted several prominent leaders, including Motilal Nehru, Jawaharlal Nehru, Bhulabhai Desai, Chittaranjan Das, K.M. Munshi, and Muhammad Ali Jinnah.
8. Many Moderate Congress leaders and members of Gokhale’s Servants of India Society also joined the movement.
9. However, Anglo-Indians, many Muslims, and non-Brahmin groups in South India largely remained outside the movement, as they perceived Home Rule as Hindu majority rule.

Government Response

The British Government responded to the Home Rule Movement with a policy of repression.

1. Students in Madras were prohibited from attending political meetings.
2. A legal case was initiated against Bal Gangadhar Tilak, but the High Court later set it aside.
3. Tilak was prohibited from entering Punjab and Delhi.
4. In June 1917, Annie Besant, B.P. Wadia, and George Arundale were arrested, leading to nationwide protests.
5. Sir S. Subramania Aiyar renounced his knighthood in protest against the government’s actions.
6. Tilak advocated passive resistance in response to increasing repression.
7. According to the source, Montagu, the Secretary of State for India, commented on the government’s situation using a metaphor involving Shiva and Mrs. Besant. The movement’s most significant achievement was the Montagu Declaration (1917).
8. The declaration recognised the policy of increasing Indian participation in governance and the gradual development of self-governing institutions, ultimately leading towards responsible government in India.
9. It also marked a significant shift by reducing the perception that the demand for Home Rule was a seditious activity.
11. The government’s repressive measures strengthened public support for the movement instead of suppressing it.
12. Annie Besant was released in September 1917.

Reasons for Decline

The Home Rule Movement gradually declined because of political, organisational, and leadership-related factors.

1. Weak organisational structure limited the movement’s long-term effectiveness.
2. Communal disturbances (1917–18) weakened political unity.
3. Many Moderate leaders were satisfied by the Montagu Declaration (1917) and gradually withdrew from the agitation.
4. Differences emerged over the use of passive resistance, creating divisions within the movement.
5. The announcement of the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms (1918) further divided nationalist opinion.
6. Bal Gangadhar Tilak left for England in September 1918 in connection with the libel case against Valentine Chirol, creating a leadership vacuum.
7. Annie Besant could not provide clear leadership after the announcement of the reforms.
8. The emergence of Mahatma Gandhi’s mass-based nationalist movement gradually overshadowed the Home Rule Movement, leading to its decline.

Legacy

In 1920, after Mahatma Gandhi became the President of the All India Home Rule League, the organisation was renamed as the Swarajya Sabha, reflecting its transition into the Gandhian phase of India’s national movement.

Conclusion

Although the Home Rule Movement did not achieve its immediate objective, it revitalised the national movement, broadened political participation, and paved the way for the Gandhian phase of India’s freedom struggle.