Indian National Movement and Fight for Human Rights1857

Indian National Movement and Human Rights

Indian National Movement (1857–1947) was not only a political fight against colonial rule but also a battle for basic human rights and dignity. Under British rule, Indians faced systemic discrimination, economic exploitation, and suppression of fundamental freedoms. The national movement that arose sought to secure rights like liberty, equality, and justice for the Indian people. In a simple sense, it was a mass campaign to reclaim human rights – the right to govern themselves, to practice their culture, and to live with dignity. This article traces the Indian National Movement from the Revolt of 1857 to independence in 1947, highlighting how each phase was intertwined with the quest for human rights.

The Revolt of 1857: The First War of Independence and Human Rights

British colonial rule in the mid-19th century was marked by policies and actions that gravely violated the rights of Indians. The East India Company’s administration imposed harsh land taxes, seized property from local rulers, and showed blatant disrespect for Indian religions and customs. Soldiers (sepoys) in the Company’s army were particularly angered by discrimination and rumors that their religious beliefs were being ignored (such as the use of greased cartridges said to contain cow and pig fat).

These mounting grievances exploded in the Revolt of 1857 – often called India’s First War of Independence. What began as a sepoy mutiny quickly spread as farmers, artisans, displaced royals, and common people rose up against British oppression. The rebels were motivated by a desire to end injustices and restore their rights, whether it was the right to their land or respect for their faith.

The 1857 uprising was met with brutal retaliation by the British. Both sides committed atrocities, but British reprisals were especially ferocious – entire villages were massacred in revenge. For instance, the British executed rebels through horrific methods like “blowing from guns,” where captured Indians were tied to the mouths of cannons and blown apart. Such acts symbolized the extreme violations of human rights under colonial rule.

Although the revolt failed, it sent a loud message. It exposed the extent of Indian discontent and proved that Indians would fight against tyranny. The British Crown, shaken by the scale of the rebellion, took direct control of India in 1858 and cautiously promised to respect Indian rights (for example, assuring no further interference in religious matters). The Revolt of 1857 thus marked the beginning of India’s long journey toward freedom and human rights – a journey that would gather momentum in the coming decades.

Early Nationalism, Human Rights and Social Reforms (1858–1905)

After 1857, India entered a new phase under the British Raj. While open rebellion subsided, the quest for rights continued through early nationalist and social reform movements. This era saw the rise of enlightened Indians who demanded justice and equal treatment through petitions, debates, and social work. On one hand, Western-educated Indian intellectuals started political organizations; on the other, social reformers fought against the internal ills of Indian society that also denied basic human rights to many Indians.

A landmark development was the formation of the Indian National Congress (INC) in 1885. The INC became a platform for educated Indians to voice grievances and seek reforms from the British government. These early Congress leaders – known as moderates – believed in peaceful, constitutional methods. They did not yet demand full independence, but they did insist on greater rights for Indians. For example, the Congress in this period appealed for the freedom of speech and press, Indian representation in government, and an end to unjust laws.

They argued for “no taxation without representation,” asserting that Indians should have a say in how they are governed. Economic justice was also a key issue – leaders like Dadabhai Naoroji exposed how British policies were draining India’s wealth and causing poverty and famines. In essence, early nationalists were laying the groundwork for human rights by pushing for civil liberties, political inclusion, and economic fairness.

Simultaneously, social reformers in the 19th century championed the human rights of marginalized groups within Indian society. Visionaries like Raja Ram Mohan Roy and Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar fought against social practices that oppressed women and lower castes. Raja Ram Mohan Roy, often called the father of modern Indian reform, campaigned for women’s rights – advocating widow remarriage and women’s right to property.

Thanks to his efforts, the cruel practice of sati (the burning of widows) was formally abolished in 1829, and later reforms followed. Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar continued this crusade by pushing the British to enact the Widow Remarriage Act of 1856, so that widows could live a dignified life and remarry if they chose. Vidyasagar also opened schools for girls and fought against child marriage and caste discrimination.

These social reform movements were fundamentally about human rights – the right to life, education, and equality for all Indians, including women and oppressed castes. They created a social awakening that complemented the political nationalism of the INC. By 1905, Indians had begun to articulate a vision of an India where both foreign oppression and social injustices would be eliminated.

Partition of Bengal and the Swadeshi Movement (1905–1917)

In 1905, the British colonial government, under Viceroy Lord Curzon, announced the partition of Bengal – ostensibly for administrative convenience, but in reality seen as a “divide and rule” tactic. Bengal was India’s largest province and a hotbed of nationalist activity.

Partition split it along communal lines into a Hindu-majority west and Muslim-majority east. Indians across the region perceived this as a deliberate attempt to break their unity and weaken the nationalist movement. What followed was a powerful upsurge of popular resistance that further cemented the link between the independence movement and human rights.

The immediate response to the partition was the Swadeshi Movement, launched in 1905. Swadeshi means “of one’s own country,” and the movement urged Indians to boycott British goods and embrace indigenous products. This economic boycott was a form of civil disobedience and self-assertion.

Indian leaders and the public organized bonfires of foreign cloth and stopped buying British textiles as a protest. Instead, they promoted hand-spun khadi cloth and local industries, believing that economic freedom was essential for political freedom. The act of choosing one’s own goods was symbolic of claiming one’s rights – the right to economic self-determination and to reject exploitation. The Swadeshi Movement spread beyond Bengal, inspiring people in other parts of India to defy colonial policies in non-violent ways.

British authorities reacted to the Swadeshi and boycott campaigns with repression. Peaceful protestors were often met with lathi (baton) charges, arrests, and censorship. The colonial government banned public rallies and cracked down on nationalist newspapers that criticized the partition. Despite this, the movement persisted, and it had some success: the partition of Bengal was eventually reversed in 1911 due to the unrelenting opposition.

This phase also saw the emergence of more radical young leaders and an increase in patriotic sentiment. Nationalists like Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Lala Lajpat Rai, and Bipin Chandra Pal (the Lal-Bal-Pal trio) advocated fiercer agitation for swaraj (self-rule). Although methods differed, the common thread was a fight against injustice. The Swadeshi Movement demonstrated the potential of mass civil resistance as a means to claim rights – it was a lesson that Indians would build upon in the coming Gandhian era.

Gandhian Era: Non-Cooperation and Civil Disobedience (1919–1935)

The end of World War I in 1918 raised Indian hopes for greater freedom, but the British instead tightened their grip, sparking a new wave of resistance under Mahatma Gandhi’s leadership. The Gandhian era of the Indian national movement introduced large-scale non-violent struggle – satyagraha – as a powerful tool to oppose colonial injustices. During this period, several events highlighted both severe human rights violations by the British and the Indian resolve to secure fundamental rights through peaceful means.

One of the darkest episodes was the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre of 1919. In April 1919, thousands of unarmed Indians, including women and children, gathered in a walled garden (bagh) in Amritsar to protest against repressive laws. Without warning, British General Dyer ordered his troops to fire on the trapped crowd. Hundreds were killed and many more wounded in the indiscriminate shooting, as people had no way to escape the enclosed courtyard.

This cold-blooded atrocity was a gross violation of the most basic human right – the right to life. It sent shockwaves across India and the world, permanently scarring Indo-British relations. After Jallianwala Bagh, Indians lost any remaining illusion about the benevolence of British rule. Moderate leaders who had hoped for gradual reforms realized that freedom was the only answer. Gandhi, who had until then been a loyal supporter of the British in World War I, was galvanized into full-fledged action for India’s independence.

Bullet holes marked in the brick wall of Jallianwala Bagh, Amritsar – a silent testimony to the massacre of unarmed civilians on April 13, 1919. The brutal firing on peaceful protesters was a turning point that ignited nationwide outrage.

Gandhi led the Non-Cooperation Movement (1920–1922) as a direct consequence of such injustices. This movement was unique – it was entirely non-violent yet very assertive. Millions of Indians withdrew their cooperation from the colonial government. They resigned from government jobs and titles, boycotted British courts and schools, and picketed foreign cloth and liquor shops. Instead, they set up national schools and promoted khadi (hand-spun cloth).

Non-Cooperation was essentially the masses asserting their rights by saying: “We will not be part of our own oppression.” It was a peaceful fight for the rights to self-respect and self-governance. Although the Non-Cooperation Movement was called off in 1922 after an incident of violence (the Chauri Chaura incident), it had already demonstrated the strength of collective peaceful resistance. It shook the foundations of British authority and infused Indians with a new sense of empowerment.

British repression continued in various forms. In 1919, the Rowlatt Act had been enacted, allowing the colonial state to imprison anyone without trial – a blatant denial of civil liberties. In response, Gandhi organized nationwide hartals (strikes) against this “Black Act,” further uniting Indians in the demand for justice.

During the 1920s, the British often used sedition laws to jail Indian leaders and censor the press, trying to stifle the voice of freedom. Nevertheless, the momentum of the national movement only grew. By 1930, the Congress, now with leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru and Subhas Chandra Bose joining Gandhi, was ready to up the ante with the Civil Disobedience Movement.

The Civil Disobedience Movement began with the iconic Salt March of 1930. Gandhi and a band of followers marched over 240 miles to the coastal village of Dandi to peacefully break the British salt monopoly. The simple act of making salt from the sea was illegal under colonial law (which forced Indians to buy taxed salt). By picking up salt from the shores, Gandhi dramatized the Indian people’s refusal to accept unjust laws.

This act had deep human rights significance: salt was a basic necessity, and the oppressive salt tax symbolized how even elemental rights were taken away by the Raj. The Salt Satyagraha sparked waves of civil disobedience across India – people defied laws by making salt, boycotting British goods, refusing to pay taxes, and courting arrest in the thousands. The British answered with mass arrests (over 60,000 people were jailed, including Gandhi and other top leaders) and often brutal force, but the movement persisted.

Notably, women stepped forward in large numbers during Civil Disobedience, staging protests and serving jail terms, asserting their own human rights in society by participating as equals in the freedom struggle.

During this Gandhian era, the idea of human rights in an independent India also began to take concrete shape. The Indian National Congress, while fighting the British, was also envisioning the foundations of a free and fair nation. In 1931, at its Karachi session, the INC adopted a remarkable resolution on fundamental rights and economic freedoms. It guaranteed basic civil rights like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, universal adult franchise, and equality before law, irrespective of caste or gender.

This showed how deeply the national movement was intertwined with human rights values – the freedom fighters were determined that independent India would correct not only the wrongs of colonialism but also ensure justice and rights for all its citizens. By 1935, the British government, under pressure, passed the Government of India Act which gave limited provincial autonomy, but it fell far short of the Indian demand for full democratic rights. The stage was set for the final phase of the struggle.

Quit India Movement and Towards Independence (1935–1947)

The final phase of Indian national movement in the 1940s was intense and decisive. The backdrop was World War II, during which the British again curbed many freedoms in India and dragged India into the war without Indian consent. Frustrated by repeated broken promises of self-rule, the Indian National Congress launched the Quit India Movement in August 1942, demanding an abrupt end to British rule.

“Quit India” was a call for the British to leave India immediately, and Gandhi’s mantra to the people was “Do or Die” – to fight non-violently for freedom but with absolute resolve. This movement sparked spontaneous protests across the country. People took to the streets, pulled down colonial symbols, and in some places even formed temporary parallel governments when the British administration collapsed under the pressure.

The British response to Quit India was the harshest yet. Almost the entire Congress leadership, including Gandhi, Nehru, and Maulana Azad, were arrested overnight. With leaders in jail, the movement was leaderless but not voiceless – ordinary Indians carried on a guerrilla style resistance.

Protesters faced bullets and lathi-charges; thousands were imprisoned and many died. Women, in particular, played a heroic role. With men in prison, women like Aruna Asaf Ali stepped up to lead agitations. Aruna Asaf Ali famously hoisted the tricolour flag in Bombay in 1942 defying police gunfire.

Countless unnamed women acted as couriers, organized protests, and even endured atrocities. British reprisals included raids on homes and abuses against women; there were instances of female protestors being beaten and mistreated. Despite the repression, the Quit India Movement demonstrated the unwavering Indian desire for freedom and revealed the moral bankruptcy of colonial rule. By this time, it was clear that the British hold on India was untenable.

Alongside the Congress-led movement, other important developments were taking place. Freedom fighters from all segments of society were pushing the cause of human rights and equality. Dalits (then called “Depressed Classes”) and other marginalized groups demanded a fair stake in independent India. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar emerged as a prominent leader fighting for the rights of Dalits, who had been oppressed under the caste system.

In 1932, the British announced the Communal Award, which would have separated Dalits electorally. Gandhi opposed this division and undertook a fast-unto-death, leading to a historic compromise with Ambedkar known as the Poona Pact. The Poona Pact granted new political rights and representation to Dalits without segregating them from the Hindu electorate.

This episode highlighted that the freedom movement was not just about ending British oppression, but also about ending centuries of social injustice within India. Ambedkar and others ensured that social justice and prohibition of “untouchability” would be integral to India’s future constitution.

The 1940s also saw the rise of the Indian National Army (INA) under Subhas Chandra Bose, composed of Indian soldiers who sought to militarily overthrow British rule. While the INA’s military campaign (fighting alongside Axis powers) did not succeed, the effort further ignited patriotic fervor.

The INA trials of 1945, where the British put captured INA officers on trial for treason, became a national issue – even British Indian soldiers in the army and navy rallied in sympathy, seeing the INA men as fellow freedom fighters. This solidarity across military and civilian lines was another blow to the colonial regime’s authority.

By 1946–47, the writing was on the wall. Britain, exhausted by World War II and facing global pressure, prepared to quit India. The freedom movement had not only weakened the imperial hold but had also articulated a clear vision of a sovereign India founded on human rights.

Leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru spoke of liberty, equality, and the ending of poverty as goals of independence. When India finally achieved independence on August 15, 1947, this triumph was marred by the tragic Partition of the country into India and Pakistan, which saw horrific communal violence and human suffering.

Yet, despite the trauma of Partition, independent India’s leaders remained committed to building a nation on principles of human rights for all. The very next year, 1948, India’s new government under Nehru played an active role in the United Nations in shaping the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, drawing from its own long struggle. And by 1950, India’s Constitution enshrined a full range of fundamental rights, reflecting the ideals forged during the freedom movement.

Conclusion

The Indian National Movement between 1857 and 1947 fundamentally shaped India’s understanding and framework of human rights. Every chapter of the freedom struggle carried a lesson that found echo in independent India’s laws and values. The revolt of 1857 taught the value of unity and resistance to oppression. The early reform movements ingrained the importance of social equality and justice. The Swadeshi and subsequent agitations demonstrated the strength of non-violent civil resistance and economic self-determination as tools to secure one’s rights.

Under Gandhi’s leadership, non-violence became not just a strategy for political freedom but a creed for the dignity of human life – an approach that influenced civil rights movements around the world. By the time of independence, the consensus was clear that free India would be a democratic nation, with guaranteed fundamental rights – freedom of speech, freedom of religion, equality, and the rule of law – for which generations of Indians had struggled and sacrificed.

The legacy of the national movement is most visible in the Constitution of India, which came into effect in 1950. The Constitution’s Preamble promised Justice (social, economic, and political), Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity to all citizens – ideals that were directly born out of the freedom struggle. Laws abolishing untouchability, granting universal adult franchise, and protecting minority rights were a direct fulfillment of the vision of leaders from Gandhi and Nehru to Ambedkar and Tagore. In essence, the fight against colonial rule was simultaneously a fight to create a nation where human rights are fundamental and inalienable.

The lessons from 1857–1947 remain deeply relevant today. The importance of unity in diversity, non-violent protest, and the continual expansion of rights to all sections of society are part of India’s living heritage.

Modern India’s commitment to democracy and human rights is rooted in the experience of oppression and the hard-won victory over it. As we reflect on this period, we remember that the freedoms we enjoy today – to speak, to believe, to live with dignity – were earned by the courage and persistence of those in the national movement. Their story inspires us to safeguard these rights and to stand up against injustice in all forms, staying true to the spirit of India’s Independence Movement and its human rights ethos.