The Nagpur Vote: A Delegate from a Mill Town, December 1920
A history club at a college in Tiruchirappalli is re-staging the Nagpur session of December 1920, at which the Congress ratified non-cooperation. Each student is assigned a delegate. You are given 'P. Sundaram', a 34-year-old clerk from a weaving town with three cotton mills employing about 1,200 workers, a Muslim trading community of roughly 200 families, and a district where the Justice Party swept the first council elections in November 1920. Club rules: an eight-minute speech; no argument may cite any event after December 1920; every claim about local conditions must be traceable to the fact sheet; and the delegate must state plainly whether he supports boycotting the councils. Two other delegates will attack him - one from the Moderate wing, one from the Justice Party - on the grounds that the boycott hands the district to a party that already has the machinery, and that mill workers cannot afford a strike. Sundaram must cast his vote and defend it.
1. Build the case Sundaram would actually make for supporting the boycott, using at least three items from his local profile, and state the single condition under which he would withhold support.
Read the worked answer
What the fact sheet will bear
- The mills. 1,200 workers cannot be called out on strike. A lockout would cost wages the movement has no fund to replace, and the delegate would lose the town on day one. So he should not promise a labour strike; he should promise picketing of foreign cloth, a relief subscription, and arbitration of wage disputes by local panchayats - and say openly that this is less than a general strike.
- The merchants. Two hundred Muslim trading families make Khilafat a bridge rather than an ornament. The 1920 Congress position ties Khilafat to the Punjab wrongs, so Sundaram can argue that both are about pledges broken by a government - a language that reaches traders who will not respond to religious appeal alone.
- The Justice Party sweep. This is the strongest argument against him and he must name it. Boycotting councils the Congress never won costs the Congress little, but it leaves the field to a party with existing caste-association networks. His answer must be that a boycott aims to make the councils irrelevant, not to win them - a claim he must argue, not assert.
The condition for withholding support: he withholds it if the local committee cannot guarantee relief to workers who lose work, or if Khilafat and swadeshi are preached as separate causes that could split the town along communal lines.
The reasoning matters more than the verdict: the vote is defensible only because he prices the cost, not because non-cooperation was self-evidently right in December 1920.
2. The Justice Party delegate says: 'Your boycott asks the poor to pay for a quarrel between elites.' Write Sundaram's reply in no more than 120 words, using at most one statistic from the profile.
Read the worked answer
A good reply concedes part of the charge, because the charge is partly true.
Model reply: 'You are right that a mill hand loses a day's wage and a lawyer loses a day's fees, and they are not the same loss. That is why I have not asked the mills to strike. I have asked for picketing, a relief fund, and arbitration of wage disputes - things the worker gains from, not things he pays for. You say the councils will serve the poor. Then let your councillors show me one wage board in this district before you ask me to trust the machinery. Until then, my quarrel is not with the poor; it is with a government that has just shot people in the Punjab.'
The statistic is used once, on the mills, because stacking numbers weakens an oral reply. The move is to separate boycott of councils from strike, and to convert the exchange from sacrifice to organisation - which is the only ground on which a 1920 Congressman could answer a Justice Party critic without conceding that the movement was elite-driven.
3. Which part of Sundaram's December 1920 speech would become anachronistic if repeated unchanged at a meeting in 1922, and why does that matter for how we judge the 1920 decision?
Read the worked answer
What breaks by 1922
Any sentence that leans on hindsight is anachronistic: that the movement would be called off after Chauri Chaura; that Khilafat would collapse after 1924; that councils would be contested again in the 1920s; that the 1935 Act or the 1937 ministries were coming. Sundaram in December 1920 could not know these things, so a speech that cites them is not a 1920 speech at all.
Why the distinction matters
There are two different questions and they are often confused:
- Was the decision reasonable with the information available in December 1920? Here the delegate's brief is fair game - the Punjab wrongs, the Khilafat pledge, the failure of responsive cooperation after 1919, the cost to the Justice Party's rivals.
- Was the decision wise in the long run? Here hindsight is legitimate, but it must be labelled as hindsight, and it does not by itself show that the men of 1920 blundered.
A history answer that says 'non-cooperation failed, so Nagpur was a mistake' commits the error of judging a choice by an outcome its makers could not see. A stronger answer says what the delegate reasonably expected, what he got wrong and why, and which of his assumptions - chiefly that Hindu-Muslim unity and worker relief could be sustained together - turned out to be the fragile ones.