The adoption of the Purna Swaraj (complete independence) resolution by the Indian National Congress (INC) was a significant move in the saga of India's independence movement. At its forty-fourth session (December 26, 1929 – January 1, 1930), held in Lahore under the president ship of Jawaharlal Nehru, INC officially approved this resolution for the first time. On December 27, Gandhiji moved the resolution for complete independence at the Subject Committee meeting. On December 29, Jawaharlal Nehru, in his presidential address, declared liberation from colonial subjugation as the goal of the Congress. The resolution was adopted at the open session on December 31, 1929.  

As resolved in Lahore, Congress observed Purna Swaraj Day all over the country on January 26, 1930, in a spirited manner. Lakhs of Indians observed a symbolic Independence Day by hoisting the Congress flag across the country despite government repression, and pledged to fight for freedom. 

Vision for Decolonisation

It is interesting to note that even before the Congress was born, it was none other than Dadabhai Naoroji who was the first Indian to formulate the ‘drain theory’ interpreting the political-economic characteristics of the colonial rule that led to transferring of wealth from India to Britain.

Dadabhai Naoroji, one of the founding members of the Congress, was known as a moderate and never raised the voice in support of complete independence. But it is his explanation that established the rationale for why the end of British colonial rule was necessary.

India's anti-colonial struggle entered a new phase after World War I (1914-1918). The October Socialist Revolution in Russia in 1917, under the leadership of Lenin, initiated a radical shift in the balance of power in world politics. In 1919, the Communist International was founded in Moscow. In 1920, the Communist Party of India was formed in Tashkent (now in Uzbekistan) by some expatriate Indian revolutionaries. Like in other major colonies, in India too, the anti-colonial struggle began to transform into a mass political movement in the new circumstances. National liberation movements gained strength in the colonies across the continents, especially in Africa and Asia.  

Ahmedabad 1921

In December 1921, at the 36th session of the INC in Ahmedabad, Gujarat, a manifesto of the Communist Party of India was circulated in the names of M.N. Roy and Abani Mukherjee. It was the first address, in any form, from the CPI to the largest platform of Indian freedom movement. At the session, Maulana Hasrat Mohani and Swami Kumaranand, as delegates, raised the demand for 'complete independence' on behalf of the Communists. But it could not be adopted. Senior Congress leaders, including Gandhiji himself, did not favour this move then. 

CPI continued to raise the demand for complete independence at the subsequent Congress sessions throughout the 1920s. For the Communists, any compromise on the fundamental understanding that a transformation of the situation was impossible without resolving the conflict with the colonial regime in favour of the Indian people, was out of the question.

In the backdrop of the post-World War I change in national and international politics, a strong demand for complete independence began to emerge on the Congress platform in the late 1920s. The increasing participation of workers, peasants, students, youth and women added a new dimension to the political landscape. The global economic depression of the late 1920s posed new challenges to the imperialist-colonial powers. The mood of the people was reflected in the anti-Simon Commission movement during 1928. 

The Congress passed a pro-Dominion Status resolution in its annual session for the last time in its 43rd session (December 28, 1928, to January 1, 1929) in Kolkata under the presidentship of Pandit Motilal Nehru. The younger Congress leaders vociferously advocated for complete independence, though unsuccessfully. The situation, however, changed in Lahore.

Even before the Lahore session, a widespread crackdown on Communists took place across the country on March 20, 1929, in the so-called Meerut Conspiracy Case. The case drew attention of the anti-imperialist movements across continents. Gandhiji visited Meerut jail and met the prisoners. Motilal Nehru and Jawaharlal Nehru too stood by the Meerut prisoners. Needless to say, the communist and trade union leaders accused in the Meerut conspiracy case strongly demanded the end of British colonial rule in their joint statements. 

On December 16, 1930, the CPI ‘Draft Platform of Action’ was published in Inprecor, the organ of the Communist International. The communists demanded a more militant role from the Indian National Congress.

The Congress, however, launched the Civil Disobedience Movement after observing Purna Swaraj Day, with the Salt Satyagraha in April 1930 under Gandhiji's leadership being particularly significant. The Congress also called for a boycott of the legislative assemblies.

In April 1929, Bhagat Singh and his comrades threw bombs in the Central Legislative Assembly in Delhi. They were arrested and eventually hanged in March 1931. In April 1930, an attack was launched on the government armoury in Chittagong under the leadership of Surya Sen, fondly called Master-da.

Against this backdrop, the 45th session of INC was held in Karachi from March 26-31, 1931, presided over by Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. A significant aspect of the Karachi session was the adoption of resolutions on fundamental rights and economic and social programmes. This important resolution stated: “This session of the Congress considers it desirable to make it clear in simple terms what ‘Swaraj’ as conceived by the Congress will mean for them. In order to end the exploitation of the masses, political freedom must include real economic freedom of the starving millions.”

The ninth point of the fourteen fundamental rights adopted in Karachi session stated that in an independent country, “the State shall observe neutrality in regard to all religions.”

Incidentally, the Congress was declared illegal in January 1932. The Communist Party, which was already effectively banned, was officially declared illegal in July 1934, which remained in effect until July 1942.

From the 1920s onwards, communal activism was on the rise against the backdrop of the gradual transformation of the political landscape. This involved both minority and majority communal forces. In the early 1930s, in the context of the Round Table Conferences, the Muslim League, under the leadership of Jinnah, fueled the politics of communal division. Jinnah's Muslim League gradually became entangled in the vortex of the two-nation theory. However, it was not only the Islamist communalism, but also Hindu majoritarian communal forces that emerged on the basis of the two-nation theory.

Hindutva Forces Invade

From the 1920s, Hindutva outfits began to systematically and strategically occupy the political space. The ‘Akhil Bharatiya Hindu Mahasabha’ (founded in 1915) increased its inter-provincial activities from the mid-1920s. In 1925, the 'Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh' (RSS) was founded under the leadership of Keshav Baliram Hedgewar (1889-1940). The RSS presented itself as a 'cultural' organization. Although Vinayak Damodar Savarkar (1883-1966) transformed the Hindu Mahasabha into a political party after his release from Andaman in 1924, over time, the RSS became the main platform for 'Hindutva' proponents after independence. Immediately after independence, according to the Sangh Parivar's plan, the Bharatiya Jan Sangh (1951) and then the Bharatiya Janata Party (1980) were formed.

This year, the RSS has begun celebrating its centenary with great fanfare. The presence of the Modi government at the center since 2014 and the aggressive expansion of corporate-backed Hindutva politics have increased the influence of the Sangh Parivar. With the formation of the BJP government at the Centre for the third time in a row, and in several states in phases, the Sangh Parivar is actively working to consolidate a strong presence in the State structure. State involvement in the RSS centenary celebrations has reached unprecedented levels. The Nagpur headquarters is now remarkably vocal on the issue of planting a 'Hindu Rashtra'. 

The saffron brigade is now recklessly rebranding its image as one of the key participants in the country's freedom struggle. They have designed the centenary celebrations of RSS in this way, with a far-reaching future plan in mind.

Therefore, Nehru is being vilified directly over the issue of ‘Vande Mataram’, and indirectly, Gandhiji as well. Mahatma’s name was removed from MGNREGA scheme with typical arrogance. A few years ago, BJP big bosses claimed that Savarkar wrote his 'mercy petitions' from Andaman at Gandhiji's suggestion.

RSS and 'Purna Swaraj'

Now a new propaganda has been floated—that the Sangh Parivar was also in favour of the Lahore Congress 'Purna Swaraj' resolution and they supposedly took part as well in celebrating 'Purna Swaraj Day' on January 26, 1930. Hedgewar was the head of the RSS then.

However, Dr. Gopal Parshad, in his article 'National Movement and the RSS' (IOSR-JAGG; November-December 2018, pp. 70-80), writes that on January 26, 1930, the RSS bosses had called upon their workers and supporters to hoist the ‘saffron flag’, not the Congress flag. Does the ‘saffron flag’ have any connection to our inclusive anti-colonial mass struggle?

The ‘All India Prachar Pramukh of the RSS’, in an article in the RSS mouthpiece ‘Organiser’ (October 2, 2025), writes, “Until 1947, the main objective enshrined in the oath of RSS was to make the Hindu nation independent”.

The self-deception of the Hindutva ideologues is insurmountable! What is the need for an anti-colonial freedom struggle to 'liberate' the 'Hindu nation'? The idea of an independent India as a democratic, secular republic emerged within the shared space of the anti-colonial orientation of various political streams and tendencies during the freedom struggle. The anti-colonial freedom struggle was itself a force of inclusive nationalism.

The RSS had no need to participate in the anti-colonial freedom struggle to ‘liberate’ the ‘Hindu nation,’ because colonialism was not an adversary of the ‘Hindu nation.’ The Sangh Parivar did not originate from and is not rooted in any stream of anti-colonial and anti-imperialist politics—rather it was born under the patronage of the colonial regime. 

From its inception, the ‘Hindutva’ programme did not advocate for the formation of any egalitarian post-colonial society. Hindutva had no such commitment, even on paper, due to the contradictory positions of the freedom struggle and the Hindutva. Remember that 'Hindu' and 'Hindutva' are not the same, and it’s wrong to conflate the two.

Since 'religious' conflict is the main conflict in Hindutva’s view, Muslim rulers are their primary adversaries. BJP leaders have therefore gleefully declared the demolition of the Babri Masjid as the 'second achievement of independence in Indian history'. 

The saffron brigade spins a tale of a so-called thousand-year history of 'foreign' rule. In reality, they want to portray the Muslim period as 'foreign' rule. The Sangh Parivar's claim of a 500-year struggle over the Ayodhya temple also ultimately blames the Mughal era.

In this way, the saffron brigade conceals the fundamental characteristics of the exploitative nature of colonial rule. They want to hide the fundamental differences between the pre-colonial and the British colonial period. The Hindutva ideologues thus want also to suppress the truth that they betrayed the nation by not participating in the struggle against colonial rule. 

In his 'Bunch of Thoughts' (2018), MS Golwalkar who succeeded Hedgewar as the head of RSS, comments sarcastically, “Anti-Britishism was equated with patriotism and nationalism. This reactionary view has had disastrous effects upon the entire course of the freedom struggle…” (p. 138). Truly, a typical Hindutva formulation! 

While Pakistan emerged as a ‘religion’-based theocratic state, the establishment of India as a democratic, secular republic disappointed the communal forces, especially the Hindutva faction. The brutal assassination of Gandhiji by a Hindu fanatic, Nathuram Godse was a consequence of that frustration. In independent India, the Hindutva brigade remains steadfast in implementing their own agenda of seizing state power. 

Hindutva-Corporate Nexus

The theoretical basis of Hindutva is religion- and caste-based divisive politics. MS Golwalkar writes in his book ‘We, or Our Nationhood Defined’, that in Hindustan, “religion is an all-absorbing entity”. This means that an identity devoid of religion is inconceivable! Hindutva wants a political Hindu, just as Islamic fundamentalism wants political Islam. Communal forces look to capture political power under the garb of religious practice to hoodwink the masses.

According to Hindutva proponents, the Hindu nation-state is supposedly not a theocratic state! They claim that declaring the ‘national identity’ of the state does not mean that the state becomes a theocratic state, and that a Hindu state and a secular state can coexist! In his booklet ‘Integral Humanism’, Deendayal Upadhyay explained, “The concepts of Dharma-nirapekshata (attitude of indifference towards Dharma) and state are self-contradictory. State can only be a Dharma Rajya (rule of Dharma) and nothing else. Any other definition will go against the very raison d'être of the state.’’ According to him, Dharma holds a position above the legislature and the judiciary.

The saffron brigade and its favourite godi media are hell bent on propagating all these fallacious arguments, especially utilising the centenary celebration of the RSS. 

The RSS/BJP has emerged as the most dependable political outfit of the ruling classes in the neoliberal era. The Hindutva-Corporate nexus is now the backbone of the present dispensation. To serve these dual interests, the Sangh Parivar prefers the neofascist state rather than a secular democracy.

The ‘Hindutva’ forces are trying to face the challenges of modern times with all its pre-modern political-ideological birthmarks. The more electoral success it achieves, the more it clings to its backward and reactionary political agenda.