GANDHI IRWIN PACT(1931)

1. 5 March 1931
2. The Gandhi–Irwin Pact was a political agreement signed by Mahatma Gandhi and the then Viceroy of India, Lord Irwin on 5 March 1931before the second Round Table Conference in London.

The Viceroy, Lord Irwin, was at this time directing the sternest repression which Indian nationalism had known, but he did not really relish the role. The British civil service and the commercial community were in favour of even harsher measures. But Premier Ramsay MacDonald and Secretary of State Benn were eager for peace, if they could secure it without weakening the position of the Labour Government; they wanted to make a success of t6he Round Table Conference and they knew that this body without the presence of Gandhi and the Congress could not carry much weight. In January 1931, at the closing session of the Round Table Conference, Ramsay MacDonald went so far as to express the hope that the Congress would be represented at the next session. The Viceroy took the hint and promptly ordered the unconditional release of Gandhi and all members of the Congress Working Committee. To this gesture Gandhi responded by agreeing to meet the Viceroy.
"The Two Mahatmas" –as Sarojini Naidu described Gandhi and Irwin—had eight meetings which lasted for a total of 24 hours. Gandhi was impressed by Irwin’s sincerity. The terms of the "Gandhi-Irwin Pact" fell manifestly short of those which Gandhi had prescribed as the minimum for a truce. Some of his colleagues considered the Gandhi-Irwin Pact a clever manoeuvre, and Suspected that Irwin had led the Mahatma upon the garden path of the Viceroy’s House. 

Lord Irwin; and cartoonist’s view of the Gandhi-Irwin parleys, February-March 1931

On the other hand, it is fair to record that British officials in India, and Tory politicians in England, were outraged by the idea of a pact with a party whose avowed purpose was the destruction of the British Raj. Winston Churchill publicly expressed his disgust "at the nauseating and humiliating spectacle of this one-time Inner Temple lawyer, now seditious fakir, striding half-naked up the steps of the Viceroy’s palace, there to negotiate and parley on equal terms with the representative of the King Emperor".
Gandhi’s motives in concluding a pact with the Viceroy can be best understood in terms of his technique. The Satyagraha movements were commonly described as "struggles", "rebellions" and "wars without violence". Owing, however, to the common connotation of these words, they seemed to lay a disproportionate emphasis on the negative aspect of the movements, namely, opposition and conflict. The object of Satyagraha was, however, not to achieve the physical elimination or moral breakdown of an adversary, but, through suffering at his hands, to initiate those psychological processes which could make it possible for minds and hearts to meet. In such a struggle a compromise with an opponent was neither heresy nor treason, but a natural and necessary step. And if it turned out that the compromise was premature and the adversary was unrepentant, there was nothing to prevent the Satyagrahi from returning to non-violent battle.

Main Causes for the Decline of the Mughal Empire in India

There are mainly two reasons by which mugal empire decline in india

1.Battles fought by aurangzeb

2.Admistrative weakness

On the whole the decline of the Mughal Empire can be attributed to many factors. The process of its decay had begun from the time of Aurangzeb whose misguided policies weakened the stability of the Mughal polity.

He was ambitious and wanted to increase the geographical limits of his empire even though it cost him heavily in terms of men and money. His hard headed attitude towards the Marathas, Rajputs and the Jats and the refusal to grant them regional autonomy broke the former loyalty that existed between them and the Mughal Empire.

Further he made the mistake of imposing the central­ized system of governance in far-flung areas which were beyond his control. Aurangzeb mainly failed to make good alliances to safeguard his empire and went on making more and more enemies.

As a fanatic his religious policy alienated the Hindus and the Muslims. This certainly had an adverse effect on the stability of the empire. The wars of succession that plagued Delhi from 1707 to 1719 too weakened the empire. The trail of weak successors further damaged the integrity of the empire. None of them had the ability to overcome the centrifugal forces and to unite the empire.

Most of them were puppets in the hands of powerful nobles who ran the administration on their behalf. One more factor for the disintegration of the Mughal Empire was the infighting between the nobles and their internal divisions.

The Mughal court consisted of four groups of nobles, the Turanis, the Iranis, the Afghans and the Indian born Muslims. The accession of weak rulers at the center made them strong contenders for power. They fought amongst themselves for more jagirs and high offices which were limited in number. They weakened the military by amassing income from the jagirs for themselves and cutting down the number of troops.

The external invasions by Nadir Shah and Ahmed Shah Abdali broke the remaining strength of the Mughal Empire. It took a heavy toll of the imperial treasury and property and laid open the inefficien­cies of the military and political administration.

It left India vulnerable to disintegrating forces from within and outside. The precarious condition of Mughal rule is evident from the fact that it was the Marathas not the Mughals who fought the third battle of Panipat in 1761 with Abdali.

The causes for the disintegration of the Mughal Empire can be understood in two different terms. One, that the Mughal system of governance depended greatly on the effectiveness of the emperor’s personality. It was certainly one of the main imperial pillars especially capable enough to keep the decentralizing forces at bay.

The other one is strongly attributed to the so called crisis of the jagirdari system, caused by a shortage of jagirs and the over abundance of the jagirdars. It made the system exploitative and gave way to peasant’s revolts misbalancing imperial stability.

Martin Luther King Jr. Biography

Civil Rights Activist, Minister (1929–1968)

Martin Luther King Jr. was a Baptist minister and social activist, who led the Civil Rights Movement in the United States from the mid-1950s until his death by assassination in 1968.

NAME

Martin Luther King Jr.

OCCUPATION

Civil Rights Activist, Minister

BIRTH DATE

January 15, 1929

DEATH DATE

April 4, 1968

EDUCATION

Boston University, Morehouse College,Crozer Theological Seminary

  PLACE OF BIRTH

          Atlanta, Georgia

          PLACE OF DEATH

       Memphis, Tennessee

Synopsis

Martin Luther King Jr. was born on January 15, 1929, in Atlanta, Georgia. King received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964. King was assassinated in April 1968, and continues to be remembered as one of the most lauded African-American leaders in history, often referenced by his 1963 speech, "I Have a Dream."

Education and Spiritual Growth

In 1948, Martin Luther King Jr. earned a sociology degree from Morehouse College and attended the liberal Crozer Theological Seminary in Chester, Pennsylvania . He became involved with a white woman and went through a difficult time before he could break off the affair.

I Have a Dream

King’s remarks were the keynote address of the rally and capped off a day of speeches and musical presentations. The large crowd was charged with emotion and enthusiasm as King took the podium. The three major television networks were to provide live television coverage of the speech, so King had carefully prepared a formal text. In an interview a few months after giving the speech, he recalled he was so moved by the emotion of the crowd spread out before him on that August afternoon in the nation’s capital that he abandoned the prepared text and began to preach from the heart, using the phrase, “I have a dream.” He had previously used this phrase in speeches given at mass meetings in Birmingham, Alabama, in April and in Detroit in June, 1963. In one of the speech’s most memorable passages, King said, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” He drew inspiration from the prophet Isaiah in the Old Testament, mixing his “I have a dream” phrase with phrases from the Bible. After speaking a few sentences from his prepared conclusion, he picked up on a new theme, reciting the first stanza of “My Country, Tis of Thee” and ending with the line “from every mountainside, let freedom ring.” King spoke forcefully to make himself heard over the growing roar of the crowd. His conclusion powerfully summarized his dream for the United States and his hope for the future. He looked forward to a day “when all God’s children—black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Catholics and Protestants—will be able to join hands and to sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, Free at last, free at last; thank God almighty, we are free at last.’”

Assassination and Legacy

By 1968, the years of demonstrations and confrontations were beginning to wear on Martin Luther King Jr. He had grown tired of marches, going to jail, and living under the constant threat of death. He was becoming discouraged at the slow progress civil rights in America and the increasing criticism from other African-American leaders. Plans were in the works for another march on Washington to revive his movement and bring attention to a widening range of issues. In the spring of 1968, a labor strike by Memphis sanitation workers drew King to one last crusade. On April 3, in what proved to be an eerily prophetic speech, he told supporters, "I've seen the promised land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight that we, as a people, will get to the promised land." The next day, while standing on a balcony outside his room at the Lorraine Motel, Martin Luther King Jr. was struck by a sniper's bullet. The shooter, a malcontent drifter and former convict named James Earl Ray, was eventually apprehended after a two-month, international manhunt. The killing sparked riots and demonstrations in more than 100 cities across the country. In 1969, Ray pleaded guilty to assassinating King and was sentenced to 99 years in prison. He died in prison on April 23, 1998.

Martin Luther King Jr.'s life had a seismic impact on race relations in the United States. Years after his death, he is the most widely known African-American leader of his era. His life and work have been honored with a national holiday, schools and public buildings named after him, and a memorial on Independence Mall in Washington, D.C. But his life remains controversial as well. In the 1970s, FBI files, released under the Freedom of Information Act, revealed that he was under government surveillance, and suggested his involvement in adulterous relationships and communist influences. Over the years, extensive archival studies have led to a more balanced and comprehensive assessment of his life, portraying him as a complex figure: flawed, fallible and limited in his control over the mass movements with which he was associated, yet a visionary leader who was deeply committed to achieving social justice through nonviolent means.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgthPUxRr3E