From War Promises to the Salt March: Origins of Indian Nationalism, 1919–1930 (History HL)

During the First World War (1914–1918), over one million Indian soldiers fought for Britain, and India supplied huge amounts of money and materials. In return, Indian leaders expected self-government. Britain had even promised, in the 1917 Montagu Declaration, gradual steps toward self-rule. When the war ended, Indians expected real progress. Instead, they got new controls.

Why this matters for Paper 3: This topic is about cause and effect: each British action (or broken promise) pushed more Indians toward organised nationalism. Always link an event to the reaction it caused.

The anger over the Rowlatt Act led directly to the single most important turning point of this period: the Amritsar Massacre.

The Amritsar Massacre, 13 April 1919

On 13 April 1919, thousands of unarmed Indians gathered at Jallianwala Bagh, an enclosed public garden in Amritsar, Punjab, for a peaceful meeting (it was also the Sikh festival of Baisakhi). Public gatherings had been banned under martial law, but many attendees had not heard the order. Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer marched in soldiers and, without warning, ordered them to open fire on the crowd. The only exits were blocked. Firing continued for about ten minutes until ammunition ran low.

The human and political cost: British figures recorded 379 dead; Indian estimates run over 1,000, with over 1,200 wounded. Dyer later said he wanted to teach the crowd a 'moral lesson' — a comment that shocked British opinion too. The massacre destroyed Indian trust in British promises of fair, gradual reform.

Amritsar transformed Indian politics. Moderate leaders who had trusted Britain to reform gradually now moved toward the Indian National Congress, and Gandhi — until then a supporter of British rule — turned decisively against the Raj. Many historians treat 1919 as the moment mass nationalism truly began.

Even before Amritsar, Britain had already published a reform plan. The Government of India Act (1919) — based on the earlier Montagu-Chelmsford proposals — introduced a system called diarchy. Indian ministers took charge of subjects like education and health; the British kept control of finance, police, and law and order.

The Act was meant to satisfy nationalist demands. Instead, after Amritsar, it looked like too little, too late.

The Simon Commission (1928)

The 1919 Act promised a review after ten years. In 1928, Britain sent the Simon Commission to recommend the next stage of reform. Its fatal flaw: it contained no Indian members at all. Every major Indian political group, including Congress and the Muslim League, saw this as a calculated insult — decisions about India's future being made entirely by British men.

Exam-ready phrase: Describe the Simon Commission as 'all-white' — this single fact (zero Indians on a commission about India's own government) is the reason it was boycotted everywhere it went, with black-flag protests and cries of 'Simon, go back!'

The Round Table Conferences (1930–1932)

Britain tried again with three Round Table Conferences in London, bringing together British politicians, Indian princes, and Indian political leaders to discuss constitutional reform. Congress boycotted the first conference (1930) because its leaders, including Gandhi, were in jail for civil disobedience (covered in the next section). Gandhi attended the second conference (1931) as Congress's sole representative, but it achieved little — Congress and the Muslim League could not agree on how minorities (especially Muslims) would be represented, and the princely states resisted a strong central government.

The pattern to remember: 1919 Act → too limited → Simon Commission → no Indians → Round Table Conferences → deadlock over minority representation. Each failed attempt convinced Congress that Britain would only ever offer reform slowly, on British terms.

By the 1920s, two organisations dominated Indian politics, alongside two towering leaders who would shape the next decades.

The Non-Cooperation Movement (1920–1922)

After Amritsar, Gandhi launched Congress's first mass campaign. Indians were urged to refuse to cooperate with British rule: boycotting British goods, schools, courts, and titles, and refusing to pay certain taxes. It was Congress's first genuinely nationwide movement, pulling in millions who had never taken part in politics before.

Why it stopped: Chauri Chaura (1922): In February 1922, a protest in the village of Chauri Chaura turned violent, and a mob killed 22 policemen. Gandhi, committed to non-violence, called off the entire movement immediately — even though it was gathering huge momentum. This shows how central non-violence was to Gandhi's whole strategy: he would rather sacrifice progress than abandon the principle.

Civil Disobedience and the Salt March (1930)

After years of stalled reform (the 1919 Act, the Simon Commission), Congress declared its goal was now purna swaraj — complete independence — at its December 1929 session. To make this demand real, Gandhi launched the Civil Disobedience Movement in 1930, choosing a target that was simple, unjust, and touched every Indian household: the British salt tax and monopoly.

Why the Salt March worked as propaganda: Salt affected every single Indian, rich or poor, Hindu or Muslim — so the protest united people across divides. International journalists covered it closely, making Britain's harsh response (mass arrests of peaceful protesters) look repressive on a world stage.