Other than Annie Besant, who among the following also launched a Home Rule Movement in India?

1. Nationalist Response to World War I (basic)

To understand the nationalist response to World War I, we must first look at the global atmosphere of the early 20th century. Before the war even began, the myth of European invincibility had been shattered by events like Japan’s victory over Russia in 1905 and the nationalist uprisings in Turkey and China History, class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Impact of World War I on Indian Freedom Movement, p.31. When the war broke out in 1914, India was pulled into a conflict that was not its own. The British recruited nearly a million Indian soldiers and extracted massive financial contributions—roughly £367 million—to fund the war effort History, class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Impact of World War I on Indian Freedom Movement, p.31.

During the initial years of the war, Indian political life was in a state of vacuum. The Indian National Congress was divided between the Moderates and the Extremists, while the Muslim League was largely focused on its own interests. However, the nationalist response was not uniform; it can be categorized into three distinct schools of thought:

Group	Response to the War	Logic/Motivation
Moderates	Supported the British	Believed it was a matter of duty and loyalty to the Empire.
Extremists	Supported the British	Hoped that India’s loyalty would be rewarded with Self-Government after the war.
Revolutionaries	Opposed the British	Saw the war as "England’s difficulty and India’s opportunity" to strike for independence.

As the war dragged on, the initial enthusiasm faded into disillusionment. The high cost of living, heavy taxation, and the realization that the British were not planning to grant any real concessions led to a surge in nationalist activity. This shift paved the way for the Home Rule Movement in 1916, led by Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Annie Besant. They realized that if India wanted self-rule, it had to be demanded through organized agitation rather than just passive loyalty History, class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Impact of World World I on Indian Freedom Movement, p.39.

Sources: History, class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Impact of World War I on Indian Freedom Movement, p.31; History, class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Impact of World War I on Indian Freedom Movement, p.32; History, class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Impact of World War I on Indian Freedom Movement, p.39

2. Evolution of Extremist Politics (1907–1915) (basic)

To understand the evolution of extremist politics, we must first look at the growing friction within the Indian National Congress. By the early 1900s, a younger group of leaders—famously known as the Lal-Bal-Pal triumvirate (Lala Lajpat Rai, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, and Bipin Chandra Pal)—began to feel that the 'Moderate' methods of petitions and prayers were yielding no results History, class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Rise of Extremism and Swadeshi Movement, p.21. They advocated for Swaraj (Self-Rule) through mass mobilization, boycotts, and self-reliance. This ideological rift reached a breaking point during the 1907 Surat Session, where the Congress formally split into two camps: the Moderates and the Extremists (or Militant Nationalists) Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Era of Militant Nationalism (1905-1909), p.272. Following the split, the Extremist movement faced a period of severe repression and stagnation. The British government took advantage of the divided Congress to crush the militant wing. Bal Gangadhar Tilak, the most prominent leader of this school, was sentenced to six years of imprisonment in Mandalay (Burma) in 1908. Meanwhile, Aurobindo Ghose, another key intellectual pillar of extremism, retired from active politics to pursue spiritualism in Pondicherry Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Home Rule League Movement, p.295. Without their primary leaders, the extremist faction became disorganized, while the Moderate-led Congress lost its connection with the youth and the masses, leading to a decade of relative political inactivity. The tide began to turn around 1914–1915 due to two major shifts. First, Tilak was released from prison in 1914, returning to a political landscape that was ready for a more assertive leadership. Second, the passing of prominent Moderate leaders like Gopal Krishna Gokhale and Pherozeshah Mehta in 1915 removed the old guard that had strictly kept the Extremists out of the Congress Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Home Rule League Movement, p.295. This paved the way for the reunification of the Congress and the launch of the next great phase of the struggle: the Home Rule Movement.

Sources: History, class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Rise of Extremism and Swadeshi Movement, p.21; Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.), Era of Militant Nationalism (1905-1909), p.272; Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.), Home Rule League Movement, p.295

3. The Concept of Home Rule: The Irish Inspiration (intermediate)

To understand the Home Rule Movement, we must first look toward Ireland. The term 'Home Rule' essentially refers to self-government within the framework of the British Empire. It wasn't an original Indian concept; it was a successful political strategy borrowed from the Irish Home Rule Leagues, which sought to manage their own domestic affairs through an Irish Parliament while remaining loyal to the British Crown Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 14, p. 296. For Indian nationalists, this offered a sophisticated middle path: it was more demanding than the 'prayers and petitions' of the early Moderates, yet more structured and constitutional than the revolutionary violence of the early 1900s.

The movement was brought to the forefront by two distinct figures: Annie Besant and Bal Gangadhar Tilak. Dr. Annie Besant, an Irish Theosophist who had been active in Irish Home Rule and Fabian socialist circles in Britain, saw a vacuum in Indian politics during World War I. She believed that India deserved a similar model of self-governance History, Class XII (Tamil Nadu State Board), Impact of World War I, p. 32. Simultaneously, Tilak, after his release from prison in 1914, realized that for the national movement to survive, it needed a clear, popular goal. He adopted the Irish model to reassure the British that he wasn't seeking a violent overthrow, but rather a reform of the administration Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 14, p. 296.

By 1916, this inspiration culminated in the launch of two separate Home Rule Leagues. While their leadership was different, their twin objectives remained aligned: achieving Home Rule (Dominion Status) for India and instilling a sense of national pride among the masses History, Class XII (Tamil Nadu State Board), Impact of World War I, p. 33. This era marked a shift toward aggressive political propaganda, where the demand for self-rule was no longer a request but a primary right of the Indian people.

Sources: A Brief History of Modern India (Spectrum), Chapter 14: First World War and Nationalist Response, p.295-296; History, class XII (Tamil Nadu State Board), Impact of World War I on Indian Freedom Movement, p.32-33

4. Alternative Responses: The Ghadar Movement (intermediate)

While the mainstream nationalist movement was debating constitutional methods, a more radical and internationalist response was brewing among the Indian diaspora. The Ghadar Movement, established in 1913, was a revolutionary organization headquartered in San Francisco (at the Yugantar Ashram). Its primary objective was to liberate India from British rule through an armed rebellion. While the rank and file consisted largely of Punjabi Sikh peasants and ex-soldiers who had migrated to the United States and Canada, the leadership was remarkably secular, featuring educated Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs alike, such as Lala Hardayal, Sohan Singh Bhakna, and Taraknath Das Modern India, Nationalist Movement 1905—1918, p.258.

The movement was not just restricted to North America; it had a truly global footprint with active branches in Mexico, Japan, China, Singapore, and East Africa. The revolutionaries published a weekly newspaper called The Ghadar, which carried the masthead: "Angrezi Raj ka Dushman" (Enemy of the British Rule). They believed that Britain's difficulty during World War I was India’s opportunity. They planned to infiltrate the British Indian Army and incite a massive mutiny, mirroring the Revolt of 1857 History (TN State Board), Impact of World War I on Indian Freedom Movement, p.34.

Two major events acted as catalysts for the Ghadarites to take action in 1914. First was the outbreak of World War I, and second was the tragic Komagata Maru Incident. The Komagata Maru was a ship carrying 370 potential immigrants (mostly Sikhs and Punjabi Muslims) from Singapore to Vancouver. They were denied entry by Canadian authorities and forced to return. Upon reaching Budge Budge near Calcutta in September 1914, a violent clash with the police resulted in the deaths of 22 passengers. This incident inflamed Indian sentiment globally, prompting Ghadar leaders to urge their members to return to India and start an uprising A Brief History of Modern India, First Phase of Revolutionary Activities (1907-1917), p.289.

Ultimately, the planned rebellion for February 21, 1915, failed because of internal treachery—the British authorities were alerted by informants and arrested the leaders before the revolt could begin. Despite its military failure, the Ghadar movement remains a landmark for its strictly secular ideology and its success in mobilizing the Indian diaspora for the cause of complete independence long before it became the mainstream goal of the Indian National Congress.

Sources: Modern India (Old NCERT), Nationalist Movement 1905—1918, p.258; History (Tamilnadu State Board 2024), Impact of World War I on Indian Freedom Movement, p.34; A Brief History of Modern India (Spectrum), First Phase of Revolutionary Activities (1907-1917), p.289

5. The Lucknow Pact (1916): Re-unification and Alliance (exam-level)

The 1916 Lucknow Session of the Indian National Congress stands as a landmark in the Indian freedom struggle because it achieved a dual reconciliation that fundamentally changed the trajectory of the movement. For nearly a decade, the national movement had been hamstrung by internal divisions. At Lucknow, these fractures were healed through two distinct but related developments: the Moderate-Extremist re-union and the Congress-League Pact.

The first achievement was the internal healing of the Congress. Since the Surat Split of 1907, the Extremists (led by Tilak) had been excluded from the party. By 1916, the deaths of Moderate stalwarts like Pherozeshah Mehta and Gokhale, combined with the efforts of Annie Besant and Tilak, smoothed the path for a merger. Presiding over this session, Ambika Charan Mazumdar remarked that after years of painful separation, brothers had finally met brothers History class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Impact of World War I on Indian Freedom Movement, p.35. This reunion restored the Congress’s status as a unified national front Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, First World War and Nationalist Response, p.300.

The second, and perhaps more controversial achievement, was the Lucknow Pact between the Congress and the All-India Muslim League. Several factors drove the League toward the Congress: the British war against the Ottoman Empire (the Caliph) and the rise of a younger, more nationalist generation within the League. Under the influence of leaders like M.A. Jinnah and Tilak, the two parties presented a joint set of political demands to the British. In a significant concession, the Congress accepted the principle of separate electorates for Muslims—a move that provided immediate unity but would have long-term implications for the subcontinent's communal politics Modern India (Bipin Chandra), Nationalist Movement 1905—1918, p.259.

Sources: A Brief History of Modern India, First World War and Nationalist Response, p.300; History class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Impact of World War I on Indian Freedom Movement, p.35; Modern India (Bipin Chandra), Nationalist Movement 1905—1918, p.259

6. Dual Leagues: Tilak vs. Besant (exam-level)

In 1916, India saw a shift from the "politics of petitions" to a more organized demand for self-government. Inspired by the Irish Home Rule League, two separate leagues were established to fill the political vacuum left by the death of Moderate leaders like Gokhale and the exile/retirement of early Extremists. While Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Annie Besant shared the same goal—achieving Home Rule (self-government within the British Empire)—they maintained separate organizations to avoid friction between their respective followers, despite being personally cooperative Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM., First World War and Nationalist Response, p.295.

The movement was unique because it did not seek complete independence (Purna Swaraj) but rather Dominion Status, similar to Canada or Australia. Tilak launched his league first in April 1916 at the Belgaum conference, followed by Besant in September 1916. They meticulously divided India into spheres of influence to ensure their work did not overlap or conflict. Notably, even though Tilak's league was based in Maharashtra, the city of Bombay was specifically placed under Besant's jurisdiction History , class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Impact of World War I on Indian Freedom Movement, p.33.

Feature	Tilak’s Indian Home Rule League	Besant’s All-India Home Rule League
Founded	April 1916 (Belgaum)	September 1916 (Madras)
Area of Operation	Maharashtra (excl. Bombay), Karnataka, Central Provinces, and Berar.	Rest of India, including Bombay city.
Organization	Tightly organized into 6 branches.	Loosely organized; 200+ branches.
Key Aides	Local Marathi/Kannada workers.	George Arundale, B.W. Wadia, C.P. Ramaswamy Aiyar.

The movement eventually lost momentum by 1918. Besant was pacified by the promise of the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms, while Tilak left for England to pursue a libel suit against Valentine Chirol, who had labeled him the "Father of Indian Unrest" History , class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Impact of World War I on Indian Freedom Movement, p.34. However, its legacy lived on; the league was later renamed the Commonwealth of India League and eventually transformed into the India League by V.K. Krishna Menon in 1929 to lobby for Indian interests in Britain.

Sources: Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM., First World War and Nationalist Response, p.295; History , class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Impact of World War I on Indian Freedom Movement, p.33; Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM., First World War and Nationalist Response, p.297; History , class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Impact of World War I on Indian Freedom Movement, p.34

7. Solving the Original PYQ (exam-level)

Now that you have explored the Nationalist Response during the First World War, this question tests your ability to synthesize the dual-leadership structure of the Home Rule Movement. You have learned that the movement was not a single monolithic entity but two distinct leagues working toward the common goal of self-government within the British Empire. This question requires you to connect the concept of 1916 as a year of political transition with the specific individuals who filled the vacuum left by the Moderates.

To arrive at the correct answer, follow the chronological sequence you studied regarding the 1916 leagues. While Annie Besant is widely celebrated for her All-India Home Rule League launched in September, Bal Gangadhar Tilak was actually the first to act, establishing the Indian Home Rule League earlier in April 1916 at Belgaum. As detailed in A Brief History of Modern India by Rajiv Ahir (Spectrum), Tilak’s movement was strategically confined to Maharashtra (excluding Bombay), Karnataka, the Central Provinces, and Berar. Therefore, the correct answer is (B) Bal Gangadhar Tilak, the primary pioneer who launched a parallel and coordinated movement alongside Besant.

UPSC frequently uses chronological traps and thematic associations to mislead students. For example, Gopal Krishna Gokhale is a common distractor; however, he passed away in 1915, before the movement began. Aurobindo Ghosh had already retired from active politics to Pondicherry by 1910, shifting his focus to spiritualism. Finally, while Motilal Nehru did eventually join the movement, he was a participant and leader within Besant's league rather than the person who launched a separate movement. Distinguishing between the founders and the subsequent members is a critical skill for tackling these types of PYQs.