DMPQ- “Different regions of India had different interpretation of non-cooperation movement.” Explain.

by

indentured labourer. The movement here was against talukdars and landlords  who demanded from peasants exorbitantly high rents and a variety of other cesses.  Peasants had to do begar and work at landlords’ farms without any payment. As tenants  they had no security of tenure, being regularly evicted so that they could acquire no  right over the leased land. The peasant movement demanded reduction of revenue, abolition of begar, and social boycott of oppressive landlords. The peasant movement, however, developed in forms that the Congress leadership was unhappy with. As the movement spread in 1921, the houses of talukdars and merchants were attacked,  bazaars were looted, and grain hoards were taken over. In many places local leaders told peasants that Gandhiji had declared that no taxes were to be paid and land was to  be redistributed among the poor. The name of the Mahatma was being invoked to  sanction all action and aspirations. In many places ‘nai – dhobi bandhs’ were organized  by panchayats to deprive landlords of the services of even barbers and washermen.

Tribal peasants  interpreted the message of Mahatma Gandhi and the idea of swaraj in yet another way.  In the ‘Gudem Hills’of Andhra Pradesh, for instance, a militant guerrilla movement spread in the early 1920s – not a form of struggle that the Congress could approve.  Here, as in other forest regions, the colonial government had closed large forest areas,  preventing people from entering the forests to graze their cattle, or to collect fuelwood  and fruits. This enraged the hill people.

Workers too had their own understanding of  Mahatma Gandhi and the notion of swaraj. For plantation workers in Assam, freedom  meant the right to move freely in and out of the confined space in which they were  enclosed, and it meant retaining a link with the village from which they had come.