Which one among the following correctly describes Gandhiji’s attitude towards the Swarajist leaders?

1. Post-NCM Crisis: The 1922 Chauri Chaura Aftermath (basic)

The year 1922 marked a dramatic turning point in the Indian freedom struggle. On February 5, 1922, a violent clash occurred at Chauri Chaura (in present-day Uttar Pradesh), where a mob set fire to a police station, killing 22 policemen. For Mahatma Gandhi, this was a signal that the country was not yet ready for a non-violent mass struggle. He believed satyagrahis needed rigorous training in the principles of non-violence before they could lead a successful movement NCERT Class X History, Nationalism in India, p.38. Consequently, he abruptly suspended the Non-Cooperation Movement (NCM) via the Bardoli Resolution, a move that sent shockwaves through the political landscape of India.

This sudden withdrawal created a deep ideological crisis within the Indian National Congress. While Gandhi was soon arrested and sentenced to six years in prison, the leadership left outside was divided on the path forward. One group, known as the "Pro-Changers" (led by C.R. Das and Motilal Nehru), argued that the period of political vacuum should be used to enter the Provincial Legislative Councils established by the Government of India Act of 1919. They aimed to "wreck the reforms from within" by exposing the undemocratic nature of these councils. Opposing them were the "No-Changers" (like C. Rajagopalachari and Vallabhbhai Patel), who advocated for continuing the boycott of councils and focusing exclusively on constructive work in villages Rajiv Ahir, Spectrum, Emergence of Swarajists..., p.348.

The aftermath also deeply impacted the revolutionary nationalists. Many had suspended their violent activities to give Gandhi’s non-violent method a chance. The sudden halt of the NCM left them disillusioned and frustrated, leading many to return to the path of armed struggle as they began to question the efficacy of non-violence Rajiv Ahir, Spectrum, Emergence of Swarajists..., p.348. Despite these internal rifts, when Gandhi was released in 1924, he showed remarkable statesmanship. Recognizing the Swarajists' commitment to the cause, he avoided a split in the Congress and presided over the 1924 Belgaum session, which formally integrated the Swarajists as the council-entry wing of the party to maintain national unity Rajiv Ahir, Spectrum, Gandhi's Attitude, p.343.

Feature	Pro-Changers (Swarajists)	No-Changers
Key Leaders	C.R. Das, Motilal Nehru	C. Rajagopalachari, Vallabhbhai Patel
Strategy	Council Entry; "End or Mend" from within	Boycott Councils; Constructive work
Goal	Expose the 1919 reforms as a sham	Prepare the masses for the next struggle

Sources: India and the Contemporary World – II. History-Class X . NCERT(Revised ed 2025), Nationalism in India, p.38; Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM., Emergence of Swarajists, Socialist Ideas, Revolutionary Activities and Other New Forces, p.348; Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM., Gandhi's Attitude, p.343

2. Pro-Changers vs. No-Changers: The Gaya Session 1922 (intermediate)

After the sudden withdrawal of the Non-Cooperation Movement in 1922 and the subsequent arrest of Mahatma Gandhi, the Indian national movement faced a period of 'political vacuum' and demoralization. Within the Congress, a debate erupted over the next course of action. One group, known as the Pro-Changers (led by C.R. Das, Motilal Nehru, and Ajmal Khan), advocated for an end to the boycott of legislative councils. They argued that nationalists should enter the councils to 'wreck the reforms from within' by exposing the colonial government's hypocrisy and obstructing its functioning. Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 17, p.342. Opposing them were the No-Changers (led by C. Rajagopalachari, Vallabhbhai Patel, and Rajendra Prasad). They remained loyal to the original Gandhian strategy of boycotting all government institutions. They believed that council entry would lead to a dilution of revolutionary zeal and advocated instead for a focus on the 'Constructive Programme'—promoting khadi, Hindu-Muslim unity, and the removal of untouchability to prepare the masses for the next phase of struggle. History (Tamilnadu State Board), Advent of Gandhi and Mass Mobilisation, p.59.

Feature	Pro-Changers (Swarajists)	No-Changers
Key Leaders	C.R. Das, Motilal Nehru	C. Rajagopalachari, Vallabhbhai Patel
Strategy	Council Entry; Obstructionism	Constructive Work; Boycott of Councils
Goal	Wreck the 1919 Reforms from within	Prepare the masses for Civil Disobedience

The conflict reached a climax at the Gaya Session of the Congress in December 1922. Presided over by C.R. Das, the session saw a heated debate where the No-Changers managed to defeat the Pro-Changers' resolution for council entry. Consequently, C.R. Das and Motilal Nehru resigned from their posts within the Congress and formed the Congress-Khilafat Swarajya Party (popularly known as the Swaraj Party) on January 1, 1923. Unlike the Surat Split of 1907, this was not a complete break; the Swarajists continued to function as a group within the Congress, and Gandhi later helped reconcile the two wings to maintain national unity at the 1924 Belgaum session. Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 17, p.343.

Sources: A Brief History of Modern India (Spectrum), Emergence of Swarajists, Socialist Ideas, Revolutionary Activities and Other New Forces, p.342-343; History (Tamilnadu State Board 2024 ed.), Advent of Gandhi and Mass Mobilisation, p.59

3. Formation and Strategy of the Swarajya Party (intermediate)

After the sudden withdrawal of the Non-Cooperation Movement in 1922, the Indian National Congress faced a crisis of direction. While Mahatma Gandhi was imprisoned, a debate emerged over how to continue the struggle. One group, known as the 'No-changers' (including leaders like C. Rajagopalachari and Vallabhbhai Patel), advocated for continuing Gandhi’s constructive programme—focusing on khadi, Hindu-Muslim unity, and the removal of untouchability to prepare for future mass movements History (Tamilnadu State Board), Advent of Gandhi and Mass Mobilisation, p.49. However, another group led by C.R. Das and Motilal Nehru, known as the 'Pro-changers', believed that the movement should enter the legislative councils to wreck the colonial administration from within.

The Swarajya Party (formally the Congress-Khilafat Swarajya Party) was formed in January 1923 after the Gaya session of the Congress, where the Pro-changers' proposal for council entry was initially defeated. Their strategy was bold: they would contest elections not to cooperate with the British, but to provide "uniform, continuous, and consistent obstruction" Spectrum, Emergence of Swarajists, Socialist Ideas, Revolutionary Activities and Other New Forces, p.342. By creating deadlocks on every government measure, they aimed to make governance through the councils impossible, thereby exposing the inadequacy of the Government of India Act, 1919.

Feature	Pro-changers (Swarajists)	No-changers
Key Leaders	C.R. Das, Motilal Nehru, Ajmal Khan	C. Rajagopalachari, Vallabhbhai Patel, Rajendra Prasad
Core Strategy	Council entry to obstruct the government "from within."	Boycott of councils; focus on Constructive Work in villages.
Goal	Expose the sham of reforms and maintain political morale.	Prepare the masses for the next wave of Civil Disobedience.

Initially, Gandhi was opposed to council entry, but after his release from prison in 1924, he sought to prevent a split in the Congress similar to the 1907 Surat debacle. Recognizing the Swarajists as dedicated patriots, Gandhi reached a compromise at the Belgaum Session (1924), which he presided over. The Swarajists were allowed to work as the "council-entry wing" of the Congress Spectrum, Gandhi's Attitude, p.343. While they successfully won 42 out of 101 seats in the Central Legislative Assembly and blocked several anti-people legislations, their effectiveness eventually declined as they struggled to coordinate with mass movements outside the legislatures and faced the temptation of official perks Spectrum, Emergence of Swarajists, Socialist Ideas, Revolutionary Activities and Other New Forces, p.344.

Sources: History, class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Advent of Gandhi and Mass Mobilisation, p.49; Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM., Emergence of Swarajists, Socialist Ideas, Revolutionary Activities and Other New Forces, p.342; Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM., Gandhi's Attitude, p.343; Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM., Emergence of Swarajists, Socialist Ideas, Revolutionary Activities and Other New Forces, p.344

4. The Gandhian Constructive Programme (basic)

To understand the Gandhian Constructive Programme, we must first understand Gandhi’s philosophy of Swaraj (Self-Rule). For Gandhi, independence was not merely the departure of the British; it was the total moral and social regeneration of Indian society. He believed that if India did not reform its internal weaknesses—like untouchability, communal friction, and economic dependence—political freedom would be hollow. Thus, the Constructive Programme was the "silent" social revolution that ran parallel to the "loud" political protests.

The program served a vital strategic purpose during the "lull" periods of the national movement. After major agitations like the Non-Cooperation Movement, there was often a period of fatigue or government repression. Gandhi used these intervals to keep the nationalist spirit alive. For instance, in 1929, while the country waited for the next big move, Gandhi traveled incessantly to organize constructive work in villages, preparing the youth for the "fiery ordeal" ahead Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 18, p.367. Even when the Congress was banned by the British, such as in the aftermath of the Quit India movement, activists could continue working under the "garb" of constructive activities to maintain their link with the masses History, class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), p.88.

The core pillars of this programme were both economic and social. At the heart was Khadi and Village Industries. This was not just about spinning yarn; it was a tool for economic self-reliance. By promoting village-level production, Gandhi aimed to build a reserve of raw materials, provide financial assistance to rural artisans, and encourage cooperative efforts among manufacturers Vivek Singh, Indian Economy, Chapter 14, p.237. Socially, he focused on Hindu-Muslim unity, the removal of untouchability, and women's upliftment. By working on these issues, the Congress transformed from a middle-class urban party into a truly mass-based organization that reached the heart of rural India.

Sources: A Brief History of Modern India (Spectrum), Civil Disobedience Movement and Round Table Conferences, p.367; History, class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Last Phase of Indian National Movement, p.88; Indian Economy (Vivek Singh), Indian Economy after 2014, p.237

5. The Challenge of Communalism and Internal Strife (intermediate)

After the suspension of the Non-Cooperation Movement in 1922, the national movement faced two internal demons: ideological fragmentation within the Congress and the virulent rise of communalism. Communalism in India wasn't merely a religious phenomenon; it was a modern political ideology. It emerged as religious consciousness was transformed into communal consciousness, primarily among the rising middle classes who sought to protect their economic and professional interests by claiming they represented an entire religious community Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. , Post-War National Scenario, p.479. The colonial administration actively encouraged this, using communalism as a 'safe' channel to expand their social base and weaken the unified nationalist front. At the same time, the Congress itself was split on how to proceed. This led to the emergence of two camps after the Gaya Session of 1922:

Feature	Swarajists (Pro-Changers)	No-Changers
Leaders	C.R. Das, Motilal Nehru	C. Rajagopalachari, Vallabhbhai Patel, Rajendra Prasad
Strategy	End or 'mend' the Legislative Councils from within; use them as a platform for obstruction.	Boycott councils; focus on Constructive Work (Khadi, untouchability removal) and prepare for the next mass struggle.

While Mahatma Gandhi initially leaned toward the No-Changers, he realized that a split (like the disastrous 1907 Surat Split) would only benefit the British. Consequently, at the 1924 Belgaum Session, he presided over a reconciliation, acknowledging the Swarajists as an integral part of the Congress Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. , Emergence of Swarajists, Socialist Ideas, Revolutionary Activities and Other New Forces, p.342. However, the mid-1920s saw the Swarajist position weaken due to the death of C.R. Das in 1925 and a further internal split between Responsivists (who wanted to cooperate with the government for communal safeguards, like Lala Lajpat Rai and Madan Mohan Malaviya) and Non-Responsivists Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. , Emergence of Swarajists, Socialist Ideas, Revolutionary Activities and Other New Forces, p.343.

This era was marked by what historians call Liberal Communalism—where leaders sought safeguards and reservations while still believing in a united nation—which would unfortunately pave the way for the more extreme, violent communalism of later decades Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. , Post-War National Scenario, p.487.

Sources: Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM., Post-War National Scenario, p.479; Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM., Emergence of Swarajists, Socialist Ideas, Revolutionary Activities and Other New Forces, p.341-343; Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM., Post-War National Scenario, p.487

6. The Path to Re-unification: Simon Commission and Nehru Report (exam-level)

By the mid-1920s, the Indian national movement was at a crossroads. Following the suspension of the Non-Cooperation Movement, the Swarajists (who favored working within councils) and the No-Changers (who focused on grassroots work) had initially diverged. However, Mahatma Gandhi played a vital role in maintaining unity, eventually presiding over the 1924 Belgaum session to formally integrate the Swarajists as the council-entry wing of the Congress Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 17, p.343. This spirit of reconciliation set the stage for a new wave of national agitation triggered by a provocative British move: the appointment of the Simon Commission.

Under the Government of India Act 1919, a commission was to be appointed ten years later to review the progress of governance. However, the Conservative government in Britain, fearing a future defeat by the Labour Party, accelerated this timeline. On November 8, 1927, they appointed the Indian Statutory Commission, led by Sir John Simon. The "all-white" composition of this seven-member body—excluding any Indian representative—was viewed as a profound national insult History Class XII (TN State Board), Advent of Gandhi and Mass Mobilisation, p.50. In response, the 1927 Madras Session of the Congress resolved to boycott the commission at every stage. This boycott saw rare cross-party unity, bringing together the Hindu Mahasabha and the Muslim League (Jinnah faction) Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 18, p.358.

The Secretary of State, Lord Birkenhead, added fuel to the fire by challenging Indians to produce a constitutional scheme that could find consensus among all political factions Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 18, p.358. Indian leaders accepted the gauntlet, leading to the All Parties Conference in early 1928. This committee, chaired by Motilal Nehru and including figures like Tej Bahadur Sapru and Subhash Chandra Bose, drafted the Nehru Report. This was the first major indigenous attempt to draft a constitutional framework for India. While it successfully achieved consensus on most points, it also revealed an emerging generational divide: the majority of the committee favored "Dominion Status", while younger leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru and Subhash Bose demanded nothing less than "Complete Independence" (Purna Swaraj) Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 18, p.361.

Sources: A Brief History of Modern India (Spectrum), Emergence of Swarajists, Socialist Ideas, Revolutionary Activities and Other New Forces, p.342-343; A Brief History of Modern India (Spectrum), Simon Commission and the Nehru Report, p.357-361; History, class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Advent of Gandhi and Mass Mobilisation, p.50

7. Gandhi's Strategic Accommodation: The Belgaum Session 1924 (exam-level)

After the suspension of the Non-Cooperation Movement in 1922, the Indian National Congress faced a deep internal rift between the 'No-Changers' (who focused on grassroots constructive work) and the 'Pro-Changers' or Swarajists (who advocated for entering legislative councils to 'wreck the reforms from within'). When Mahatma Gandhi was released from prison in early 1924, he initially opposed council entry. However, he soon realized that a divided Congress would only strengthen the British hand. He held deep respect for leaders like C.R. Das and Motilal Nehru, viewing them not as rivals, but as courageous patriots whose commitment to the national cause was beyond doubt Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 17, p.342.

Gandhi's strategic shift toward accommodation was accelerated by a government crackdown on Swarajists in late 1924. Recognizing that the British were trying to isolate the council-entry wing, Gandhi decided to stand in solidarity with them. He believed that public opposition to their program would be counter-productive and lead to a repeat of the disastrous 1907 Surat Split. This reconciliation culminated in the 1924 Belgaum Session—notable as the only Congress session presided over by Mahatma Gandhi himself. At Belgaum, he formally integrated the Swarajists as an integral part of the Congress, authorized to represent the party in the legislative councils Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 17, p.343.

Feature	No-Changers	Swarajists (Pro-Changers)
Key Figures	Rajendra Prasad, C. Rajagopalachari	C.R. Das, Motilal Nehru
Strategy	Boycott of councils, constructive work in villages.	Council entry to obstruct colonial administration.
Outcome	Reconciled by Gandhi at Belgaum (1924) to maintain national unity.

Sources: A Brief History of Modern India (Spectrum), Emergence of Swarajists, Socialist Ideas, Revolutionary Activities and Other New Forces, p.342; A Brief History of Modern India (Spectrum), Emergence of Swarajists, Socialist Ideas, Revolutionary Activities and Other New Forces, p.343

8. Gandhi’s Philosophy of 'Mutual Trust' in Leadership (exam-level)

In the high-stakes arena of the Indian national movement, Mahatma Gandhi’s leadership was defined by a profound philosophy of mutual trust. Gandhi believed that for a mass movement to succeed, the leadership must remain a united front, even when internal strategies diverged. This was most visible in his relationship with the Swarajists (led by C.R. Das and Motilal Nehru). After the suspension of the Non-Cooperation Movement, the Congress was divided between 'No-Changers' who wanted to stick to constructive work, and 'Pro-Changers' who wanted to enter legislative councils to wreck the colonial system from within. While Gandhi was ideologically opposed to council entry, upon his release from prison in 1924, he chose reconciliation over rivalry. He recognized that the Swarajists were "courageous patriots" who would not be seduced by colonial offices Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 17, p.343.

Gandhi’s approach was rooted in the belief that public opposition to his colleagues' program would be counter-productive for the national cause Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 17, p.342. His leadership style was remarkably flexible; unlike many political figures who hold rigid ideological lines, Gandhi prioritized the bona fides (good faith) of his comrades. When the British government launched a crackdown on the Swarajists in late 1924, Gandhi did not distance himself. Instead, he expressed solidarity by "surrendering" to their wishes, ensuring the Congress remained a single, powerful entity rather than splitting as it had in 1907. This culminated in the 1924 Belgaum Session—the only Congress session Gandhi ever presided over—where he formally integrated the Swarajists as the council-entry wing of the party Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 17, p.343.

This philosophy of trust extended even to those with whom he had fundamental disagreements, such as Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. While they differed sharply on the nature of democracy and parliamentary systems, Gandhi’s lack of ideological rigidity allowed him to maintain a dialogue Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 18, p.396. By trusting the intentions of his peers, even when their methods differed, Gandhi prevented the movement from collapsing into internal bickering during periods of political apathy.

Sources: A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 17: Emergence of Swarajists, Socialist Ideas, Revolutionary Activities and Other New Forces, p.342; A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 17: Emergence of Swarajists, Socialist Ideas, Revolutionary Activities and Other New Forces, p.343; A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 18: Civil Disobedience Movement and Round Table Conferences, p.396

9. Solving the Original PYQ (exam-level)

Now that you have mastered the ideological divide between the Pro-changers and No-changers following the Non-Cooperation Movement, this question asks you to synthesize those building blocks into an understanding of Gandhi’s political temperament. While Gandhi was ideologically a "No-changer" who preferred constructive work over Council Entry, his primary objective was always national unity. He had witnessed the devastating impact of the 1907 Surat Split and was determined not to let the Congress break apart again. As highlighted in A Brief History of Modern India (Spectrum), Gandhi’s release from jail in 1924 became a turning point where he chose to embrace the Swarajists as his "right hand" rather than his rivals, leading directly to (B) He had full trust in their bona fides and considered them most valued and respected leaders.

To navigate this question like a seasoned aspirant, you must look for the nuance in Gandhi's leadership style. UPSC often sets traps by focusing on tactical disagreements to hide the underlying mutual respect. For instance, Option A is a classic distractor; while Gandhi eventually accepted their entry to keep the party together, he remained ideologically opposed to it, making it an incomplete description of his "attitude." Option C contradicts the core Gandhian principle of Ahimsa, which dictated maintaining warm personal relations even with enemies, let alone colleagues. Finally, Option D is factually incorrect—when the British government launched a crackdown on the Swarajists in late 1924, Gandhi did not stay neutral; he actually defended them and signed the Gandhi-Das Pact to show a unified front against colonial repression.

Sources: