Gandhi Irwin Pact
Gandhi – Irwin Pact is also known as Delhi Pact which was a political agreement between Mahtma Gandhi and Lord Irwin (Viceroy of India at that time) signed on 5th March 1931.
Table of Contents
Background
By the year 1930, the atrocities of the British government were at their peak. Mahatma Gandhi and the Congress Party had no option but to protest peacefully against the atrocities of the British government. This protest begins at the ground level on March 12, 1930, with the start of the Dandi March (Salt March) by Mahatma Gandhi and his supporters.
On 12th March 1930, Mahatma Gandhi and his supporters reached Dandi after doing a long march from Sabasmati Ashram to Dandi and broke the salt law by picking up a handful of salt and taking an oath of breaking the salt law. Thus Mahatma Gandhi and his supporters broke the Salt Law on 6th April 1930. This news spread like fire in the whole country. People started making salt from sea water and stopped paying salt tax to the British government.
It was the begining of the Civil Disobedience Movement. This movement played an important role in weakening the British government and strengthening the Indian Independence movement.
Now the British Government wanted to suppress this movement by hook or by crook. At that time the Prime Minister of Britain was Ramsay MacDonald. On the reccommendation of the Simon Commission, the British government organized the first Round Table Conference between 12th, November 1930 to 19th, January 1931. The representatives of the Congress party demanded for Poorna Swaraj in the first round table conference which was rejected by the British government.
When the British Government rejected the demand of the Poorna Swaraj the leaders of the Congress party boycotted the First Round Table Conference.
This incident created all the circumtaces favourable for the political agreement between Mahatma Gandhi and the Viceroy Lord Irwin which is known as Gandhi Irwin Pact.
After the failure of the First Round Table Conference, the then prime minister of Britain- Ramasy MacDonald told the then viceroy of India Lord Irwin that we are going to organize the Round Table Conference again, so you should talk to Mahatma Gandhi and ensure that he will definitely attend the Second Round Table Conference.
Gandhi- Irwin Pact Or Delhi Pact
On the several request of Lord Irwin Mahatma Gandhi agreed to discuss regarding this pact. Finally on 5th March 1931 Mahatma Gandhi accepted to sign this political agreement with the following conditions.
1. Suspension of Civil Disobedience Movement
Mahatma Gandhi agreed to suspend the Civil Disobedience Movement, which was started with Dandi March (Salt March or Salt Satyagrah).
2. Participation in Round Table Conference
The Indian National Congress agreed to participate in the Second Round Table Conference in London.
3. Release of Political Prisoners
The British government agreed to release all political prisoners who had been arrested for participating in the Civil Disobedience Movement (except those guilty of violence).
4. Right to Peaceful Protest
Indians were allowed to peacefully picket liquor and foreign cloth shops.
5. Confiscated Property
The government agreed to return confiscated properties of those who had not been convicted of violent crimes.
6. Removal of Salt Tax Restrictions
The British agreed to permit Indians to make salt for personal use, effectively ending the monopoly that led to the Salt March.
7. Withdrawal of Ordinances
Repressive ordinances imposed to curb the movement were to be withdrawn.
Could Gandhi Ji have saved Bhagat Singh by boycotting the Second Round Table Conference?
It’s a very thoughtful question — and a major topic of debate among historians. Let’s break it down clearly 👇
Context
In 1931, Mahatma Gandhi agreed to attend the Second Round Table Conference in London as part of the Gandhi–Irwin Pact with Lord Irwin (the Viceroy of India). One of the most emotional and controversial issues at that time was the fate of Bhagat Singh, Rajguru, and Sukhdev, who had been sentenced to death for the killing of British police officer J.P. Saunders and other revolutionary activities.
Now the question is-
Could Gandhi Ji have saved Bhagat Singh by boycotting the Second Round Table Conference?
This question has been one of the most debated and frequently discussed topics in the history of India’s freedom struggle.
For decades, historians, politicians, and thinkers have argued over whether Mahatma Gandhi, with his moral authority and political influence, could have prevented the execution of the martyrs Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev, and Rajguru.
Some believe that Gandhi had enough moral leverage over the British government to have their mercy petition accepted or at least to delay the execution.
On the other hand, some scholars argue that Gandhi faced many political constraints, and the British government was in no mood to pardon revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh under any circumstances.
The center of this controversy lies in the year 1931 — the period of the Gandhi-Irwin Pact, when the death sentence of Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev, and Rajguru in the Lahore Conspiracy Case had already been announced.
Criticism and Public Sentiment
The people of India saw Bhagat Singh as a hero of the freedom struggle. His popularity during 1930–31 was so immense that it even rivaled that of Mahatma Gandhi.
When news spread that the Gandhi-Irwin Pact did not include any explicit mention of clemency for Bhagat Singh, public dissatisfaction toward Gandhi began to grow.
Many accused Gandhi of deliberately not making enough effort to save Bhagat Singh’s life.
This criticism was based on the belief that Gandhi was in direct communication with the British Viceroy, Lord Irwin, and that if he had truly wished, he could have stopped the execution.
Gandhi’s supporters, however, dismiss this criticism as unfounded. According to them, Gandhi did attempt to have the death sentence commuted, but the British government was unwilling to compromise on its so-called “legal principles.”
Even Irwin later wrote that if Bhagat Singh had been pardoned, it would have raised questions about the British Empire’s “image of justice.”
The Gandhi-Irwin Talks and Their Limitations
The purpose of the Gandhi-Irwin Pact, signed in 1931, was to bring an end to the Civil Disobedience Movement and move toward a political reconciliation in India.
During these negotiations, Gandhi raised several key issues — including the release of political prisoners, the return of confiscated properties, and permission for peaceful political activities.
In the case of Bhagat Singh and his comrades, Gandhi formally appealed for clemency.
On March 18, 1931, he wrote a letter to the Viceroy, stating that pardoning these young men would help restore peace in the country.
However, the British government refused, arguing that the matter was a “judicial decision” and could not be part of any political settlement.
Irwin also stated that granting such a pardon would undermine discipline among British officials and the police force.
The Final Days
Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev, and Rajguru were executed on the evening of March 23, 1931, at Lahore Central Jail.
The execution had originally been scheduled for March 24, but the British authorities, fearing a public uprising, secretly carried it out a day earlier.
Their bodies were cremated that same night on the banks of the Sutlej River, and the ashes were secretly dispersed to prevent any mass movement or public outcry.
When the news spread, a wave of grief and anger swept across the entire nation.
Gandhi said —“Brave young men like Bhagat Singh have sacrificed their lives for the country. Although I am opposed to the path of violence, I bow to their martyrdom.”
Even so, a prevailing belief remained among the people that if Gandhi had taken a firmer stand and made the suspension of the execution a non-negotiable condition in the pact, the outcome might have been different.
Political Analysis
The ideologies of Gandhi and Bhagat Singh were fundamentally different.
Gandhi firmly believed in nonviolence (ahimsa) and satyagraha, while Bhagat Singh held that true freedom could only be achieved through revolutionary struggle and sacrifice.
This ideological divergence created an indirect but significant clash between the two.
For Gandhi, freedom was a moral and social process; for Bhagat Singh, it was a political and economic revolution.
Gandhi’s path was rooted in reform and dialogue within the framework of the British Empire, whereas Bhagat Singh sought the complete overthrow of British rule.
In 1931, when Gandhi entered into the pact with Lord Irwin, his foremost political goal was to restore the Indian National Congress to legitimate political activity and to recover from the setbacks caused by the Civil Disobedience Movement.
Under such circumstances, taking a hard stance in favor of a violent revolutionary was politically difficult for him.
Gandhi’s Moral Dilemma
For Gandhi, the case of Bhagat Singh was a profound moral crisis.
On one hand, he deeply admired Bhagat Singh’s patriotism and courage; on the other, he could not morally endorse violence in any form.
He publicly stated:
“I admire the patriotism of these young men, but the path of violence can never lead to lasting freedom.”
Gandhi knew that if he openly supported Bhagat Singh, the British government would interpret it as an endorsement of violence, thereby undermining the moral foundation of his nonviolent movement.
Therefore, he chose a middle path — he appealed for clemency but refrained from directly challenging the British government’s decision.
Historians view this as an act of political pragmatism, but in the eyes of the public, it appeared as a moral weakness.
Revolutionaries vs Non-Cooperation
During the 1930s, the Indian freedom struggle was divided into two major streams —
on one side was Gandhi’s nonviolent Non-Cooperation Movement, and on the other, the revolutionary movement that believed in armed resistance.
Young patriots like Bhagat Singh, Chandra Shekhar Azad, and Batukeshwar Dutt believed that the British would never yield to nonviolence.
They sought to awaken revolutionary consciousness among the people.
Gandhi, on the other hand, feared that if the path of violence spread, the British government would respond with harsher repression, pushing freedom even further away.
This ideological divide made India’s freedom struggle more complex.
Both sides were working for the nation’s liberation, but their paths and means were different.
In Gandhi’s view, sacrifice meant endurance; in Bhagat Singh’s view, justice required struggle.
Conclusion
“Could Gandhi have saved Bhagat Singh?” — there is no single, definitive answer to this question.
Historians remain divided in their opinions.
Some argue that Gandhi possessed enough influence to delay or prevent the execution if he had truly pressed the issue.
Others believe that the British government had already decided not to spare revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh under any circumstances, fearing it would weaken the image of imperial authority.
Gandhi did attempt to stop the execution, but a combination of his political constraints, moral principles, and the British government’s obstinacy led to his failure.
This failure was not merely personal; it reflected the broader political limitations of that era.
Yet, Bhagat Singh’s sacrifice was not in vain.
His execution shook the entire nation and inspired a generation of young Indians to believe that there is no greater duty than giving one’s life for the motherland.
Gandhi and Bhagat Singh — both remained steadfast in their respective paths:
one wielded nonviolence as his weapon, the other embraced sacrifice.
But their ultimate goal was the same — the freedom of India.
Pingback: Could Gandhi Ji Have Saved Bhagat Singh by Boycotting the Second Round Table Conference? - Brilliant's Blog