Nehru’s Betrayal of the Rowlatt Act and Salt March Causes
This is a story about two incredible moments in India’s fight for freedom and how they were let down by one of its biggest leaders. Imagine ordinary people risking everything to stand up against unfair laws, only to see their victories twisted by those in power.
That’s what we’re exploring here, focusing on the Jallianwala Bagh massacre of 1919, tied to the Rowlatt Act, and Gandhi’s Salt March of 1930. These were massive, heartfelt protests by everyday Indians against British oppression. But when India gained independence in 1947, Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister, made choices that many believe betrayed the very causes these protests fought for. This paper uncovers how Nehru’s policies echoed the oppressive laws people died to oppose. We’ll look at specific examples, like Article 22 of the Constitution and Excise Law, to show how the sacrifices of common folks were sidelined. Ready? Let’s start with the background.
Rowlatt Act and Jallianwala Bagh Massacre?
Picture India in 1919, under British rule. The British were nervous about growing Indian demands for freedom, especially after World War I. They passed the Rowlatt Act, officially called the Anarchical and Revolutionary Crimes Act, in March 1919. This law let them arrest anyone without a trial and hold them for up to two years. No evidence needed, no lawyer allowed, just pure control. Indians saw this as a slap in the face, crushing their hopes for justice. People across the country were furious, organizing meetings to protest this “Black Act.”
One such gathering happened on April 13, 1919, in Jallianwala Bagh, a public garden in Amritsar, Punjab. It was Baisakhi, a major Punjabi festival, and thousands came together, some for celebration, others to speak out against the Rowlatt Act. Local leaders like Dr. Satyapal and Dr. Saifuddin Kitchlew had called for a peaceful meeting. Families, kids, and elders filled the garden, unaware of the horror coming.
British General Reginald Dyer arrived with troops, blocked the exits, and ordered his men to fire. For ten minutes, bullets rained down on the trapped crowd. Official reports say 379 died, but Indian estimates put it at over 1,500, with thousands injured. The massacre shocked the nation, turning Jallianwala Bagh into a symbol of British cruelty and sparking Gandhi’s Non-Cooperation Movement.
This protest was the real deal, driven by ordinary people, not funded by big shots. Unlike later protests we’ll discuss, there were no payments or fancy provisions handed out. The anger was raw, the cause clear, stop the Rowlatt Act’s injustice. The outrage forced the British to scrap the law in 1922, a big win for the people. But hold that thought, because decades later, Nehru’s actions would cast a shadow over this victory.
Gandhi’s Salt March, A Symbol of Defiance
Fast forward to 1930. The British still controlled India, and one of their sneakiest ways to squeeze money was the salt tax. Under the Indian Salt Act of 1882, they monopolized salt production and slapped a tax on it. Salt’s a basic need, especially for poor Indians, so this tax hit hard. Gandhi, already a leader in the freedom struggle, decided to fight back in a way everyone could join. On March 12, 1930, he started the Salt March, walking 240 miles from Sabarmati to Dandi, a coastal village. He was 61, frail but fierce, and thousands joined him along the way.
By April 6, when Gandhi reached Dandi and made salt from seawater, defying the law, the movement had exploded. People across India broke the salt laws, making and selling salt illegally. The British arrested Gandhi and tens of thousands of others, but the protests kept growing. This wasn’t a funded show, no one was handing out meals or cash like in some modern protests. It was pure, people-powered defiance. The Salt March led to the Gandhi-Irwin Pact in 1931, where the British agreed to release prisoners and allow limited salt production. It was a step toward independence, showing what ordinary folks could do when united against unfair taxes.
Nehru’s Role and the Promise of Independence
Now, let’s meet Jawaharlal Nehru, a key figure in the Indian National Congress, the main party fighting for freedom. Nehru was Gandhi’s protégé, charismatic and educated, seen as the future of independent India. He supported both Jallianwala’s protests and the Salt March, rallying against British oppression. When India gained independence in 1947, Nehru became Prime Minister, tasked with building a free nation. People expected him to honor the sacrifices of those who died at Jallianwala or marched with Gandhi. After all, millions had fought for a country free from unjust laws and taxes. But here’s where things get messy. Nehru’s policies after 1947, as we’ll see, seemed to forget those sacrifices, bringing back the very kinds of control and burdens people had protested.
The Betrayal of Jallianwala Bagh, Article 22
Let’s start with Jallianwala Bagh. The Rowlatt Act was all about locking people up without a fair chance to defend themselves. The massacre, where hundreds died, was a direct result of people standing up against this law. Fast forward to 1950, when India’s new Constitution came into effect under Nehru’s leadership. You’d think a free India would steer clear of anything like the Rowlatt Act, right? Wrong. Enter Article 22, a part of the Constitution that allowed preventive detention, meaning the government could detain someone without trial if they thought the person might harm “state security” or “public order.”
Sounds familiar? It’s like the Rowlatt Act in a new outfit. Article 22 let the government hold people for up to three months, extendable with an advisory board’s approval. Here’s the kicker, when it was first written, the safeguards, like telling detainees why they were arrested or giving them a chance to argue their case, were pretty weak. A Delhi-based perspective points out that these protections weren’t strong until the Supreme Court got involved. In a 1950 case called A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, the Court looked at Article 22 and the Preventive Detention Act of 1950, which put the article into action. Gopalan, a Communist leader, was detained without clear reasons, and his lawyers argued this violated his rights.
The Supreme Court didn’t strike down Article 22 but said the safeguards needed to be stronger to avoid abuse. For example, the government had to give clearer reasons for detention and ensure advisory boards weren’t just rubber stamps. Only after this pressure did Nehru’s government tweak the rules, adding better protections through amendments. But let’s be real, the fact that Article 22 existed at all was a slap in the face to those who died at Jallianwala Bagh. They fought against arbitrary arrests, yet Nehru’s Congress put a similar power into India’s Constitution. This feels like a betrayal, taking the sacrifices of ordinary people and twisting them to give the new government control.
Historical records, like Sarvepalli Gopal’s book British Policy in India, confirm the Rowlatt Act’s repeal was a people’s victory. But Gopal doesn’t dig into how Article 22 echoed that law, which the Delhi perspective highlights. Nehru defended preventive detention, saying it was needed for national stability after Partition’s chaos. Maybe he had a point, but it’s hard to ignore how this betrayed the spirit of Jallianwala’s fight for freedom from unjust laws.
The Betrayal of the Salt March, Excise and Cess
Now, let’s talk about the Salt March. Gandhi and thousands of ordinary Indians marched to end the British salt tax, a symbol of economic oppression. They wanted a system where people, especially the poor, weren’t crushed by taxes on essentials. When India became free, you’d expect Nehru to honor this by keeping taxes fair. Instead, his government brought in new taxes that felt like the old British ones in disguise.
Under the Central Excises and Salt Act of 1944, which continued after independence, Nehru’s government imposed cesses, extra charges on goods like sugar and textiles. These weren’t called “taxes” outright, but they worked the same way, hitting ordinary people’s wallets. In 1964, a Supreme Court case, Collector of Central Excise v. Champdany Jute Mills, threw a wrench in this. The Court said one of these cesses was illegal because it didn’t have clear legal backing. Nehru’s government didn’t back down. They passed an amendment to the 1911 Excise Act, making the cess legal retroactively, meaning they could keep collecting it as if it was always okay.
This move stunned those who remembered the Salt March. Gandhi’s whole point was to free people from unfair taxes, yet here was Nehru’s government finding ways to keep taxing, even after the Supreme Court called them out. The Delhi perspective nails it, this was a betrayal of the Salt March’s cause. Ordinary people had marched, faced arrests, and some lost their lives, all to end economic burdens. But Nehru’s policies brought back similar burdens, prioritizing government revenue over the people’s fight.
Comparing the Betrayals
Let’s step back and look at these betrayals side by side. Jallianwala Bagh was about fighting arbitrary detention, a cause cemented by the blood of hundreds. Article 22 brought back that power, with weak safeguards at first, only fixed when the Supreme Court pushed back. The Salt March was about ending unfair taxes, but Nehru’s excise and cess policies, especially the retroactive legalization, echoed British tactics. In both cases, the common people, farmers, workers, families, bore the cost of protesting, while Nehru’s government, once in power, seemed to forget their sacrifices.
This pattern fits into a bigger idea called Koot Yuddha, a term from Indian strategy meaning deceptive warfare. It suggests elites, like Nehru’s Congress, use protests to gain power but then twist the outcomes to keep control. The Delhi perspective emphasizes this, pointing out how leaders take the energy of ordinary people and redirect it. Unlike modern protests we’ll touch on, like Shaheen Bagh, where political parties allegedly funded things, Jallianwala and the Salt March were pure people’s movements, no cash handouts or fancy provisions.
How These Protests Differ from Modern Ones
To understand Nehru’s betrayals better, let’s compare Jallianwala and the Salt March to some modern protests, as the Delhi perspective does. In 2012, after a horrific gang rape in Delhi, known as the Nirbhaya case, people flooded the streets, demanding justice. These protests were spontaneous, like Jallianwala, with no political party paying for meals or tents. The government, scared of the outrage, airlifted the victim to Singapore and cremated her at 3:00 AM, a rare move in Indian culture. The protests won new laws in 2013, but rape cases kept rising, showing no deep change.
In 2017, textile traders in Ahmedabad protested the new Goods and Services Tax (GST). They shut markets, demanding easier rules. Like the Salt March, this was organic, no political funding. They won some relief, like extended deadlines, but the GST stayed. These protests show people can force small wins, but the system doesn’t budge much.
Now, contrast these with protests like Shaheen Bagh in 2019–2020, against the Citizenship Amendment Act. The Delhi perspective points to a video where a man, Shahzad Malik, handed out cash to women. He claimed it was relief for riot victims, not protest payments, but the story smells fishy. How could people travel 30 kilometers in a locked-down area to collect money? The Delhi view calls this out, saying it’s a cover for political parties like Congress or AAP funding the protest. Unlike Jallianwala’s raw anger, Shaheen Bagh had tents, food, and political speeches, ending with no change to the law.
The 2020–2021 farmer protests against new farm laws are similar. They had Congress and AAP support, plus luxuries like foot massagers, as ABP Live reported. The laws were repealed, but bigger demands, like guaranteed crop prices, went nowhere. These protests feel staged compared to the Salt March’s grit.
Why Nehru’s Betrayals Matter
Nehru’s actions, Article 22 and the excise/cess, aren’t just policy choices, they’re a pattern. The people who died at Jallianwala or marched with Gandhi believed in a free India without oppressive laws or taxes. Nehru, as a Congress leader, rode the wave of these protests to power. But once in power, his government brought back tools of control, detention without trial, new taxes, that echoed British ways. The Delhi perspective compares this to modern betrayals, like Arvind Kejriwal forming a political party after the 2011 anti-corruption movement, abandoning its original goals.
Historical books, like Gopal’s British Policy in India, tell the story of Jallianwala and the Salt March but often soften Congress’s role after independence. They don’t highlight how Article 22 or excise policies betrayed the cause. Media today, like India Today, which the Delhi perspective calls a Congress mouthpiece, does similar things, praising protests but ignoring political funding. This makes it hard to see the full picture unless you dig deeper, like the Delhi view does.
What This Tells Us About Power
The Koot Yuddha idea comes alive here. Elites, whether British or Indian leaders like Nehru, let protests happen when it suits them, but they steer the results. Jallianwala’s martyrs forced the Rowlatt Act’s end, but Nehru’s Article 22 brought back its spirit. The Salt March won concessions, but Nehru’s taxes undid that victory. Ordinary people paid the price, death, arrests, hardship, while leaders used their efforts to gain power, then flipped the script.
This isn’t just history. The Delhi perspective points to modern protests, like Shaheen Bagh, where political parties allegedly paid people to sit in, or the farmer protests with their fancy setups. These feel like shows, not the raw, desperate fight of Jallianwala or the Salt March. Even when protests win something, like new laws or tax relief, the big system, government control, unfair policies, stays put.
Wrapping It Up
So, what’s the takeaway? The Jallianwala Bagh massacre and Gandhi’s Salt March were moments when ordinary Indians stood up against injustice, risking everything. They won battles, the Rowlatt Act’s repeal, steps toward independence. But Nehru’s government, after 1947, betrayed those wins. Article 22 let the state detain people without trial, much like the Rowlatt Act, with weak safeguards until the Supreme Court pushed back. The excise and cess policies, especially after the 1964 court ruling, brought back taxes that hit the poor, mocking the Salt March’s fight.
These betrayals show a pattern, elites using people’s struggles to gain power, then abandoning the cause. The Delhi perspective, with its sharp eye on things like Article 22 or modern protest funding, helps us see this clearly. It’s a reminder that the common person’s fight is real, but leaders often twist it to keep control. Next time you hear about a big protest, ask yourself, who’s really pulling the strings? That’s the lesson of Nehru’s betrayals, and it’s as true now as it was back then.
References
Gopal, Sarvepalli. British Policy in India, 1858–1905. Cambridge University Press.
The Hindu, Indian Express, Times of India (1919–1964). Historical archives.
Supreme Court of India. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950).
Supreme Court of India. Collector of Central Excise v. Champdany Jute Mills (1964).
ABP Live (2020). “Foot Massager And Washing Machine For Protesting Farmers.”
Newsd.in (2020). “Fact-Check: Here’s Truth Behind Viral Claim of Shaheen Bagh Women Getting Paid.”
Web sources on Indian independence and modern protests (1919–2020).