Gandhi–Irwin Pact
The Gandhi-Irwin Pact was signed on the 5th of March 1931, and Winston Churchill was furious. He called it a nauseating and humiliating spectacle to watch "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." A half-dressed Indian nationalist walking into the seat of British imperial power as an equal - and the empire let him in. What combination of pressures forced that door open? What did Gandhi win, and what did he fail to save?
Lord Irwin announced in October 1929 a vague offer of dominion status for India at some unspecified future date. The phrase was carefully drained of any commitment. Irwin himself headed the repression of Indian nationalism at the time, though he found the role deeply distasteful. The British-run Indian Civil Service and the commercial community in India pressed him for even harsher measures than he was prepared to apply.
Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald and William Benn, His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for India, wanted a settlement, but only one that would not weaken the Labour government at home. The Second Round Table Conference was coming, and they knew it would carry little weight without the Indian National Congress at the table. At the closing session of the first conference in January 1931, MacDonald publicly hoped Congress would attend the next round. Irwin read the signal promptly and ordered the unconditional release of Gandhi and all members of the Congress Working Committee, who had been imprisoned for participating in the Civil Disobedience Movement. Gandhi agreed to meet him.
This was only the second high-level meeting between Gandhi and a sitting Viceroy in 13 years. Both men negotiated against a backdrop set by the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms, which formed the constitutional foundation of the Government of India Act, 1919.
Gandhi and Irwin held eight separate meetings before reaching any agreement. Those sessions added up to 24 hours of negotiation. Gandhi came away impressed by what he saw as Irwin's personal sincerity. That impression did not produce satisfaction with the outcome. Gandhi acknowledged the agreed terms fell manifestly short of the minimum conditions he had set for any truce. The gap between what Gandhi found admirable in Irwin as a man and what the pact actually delivered was itself a measure of how constrained both negotiators were by forces larger than the two of them.
Congress arrived with six core demands. It wanted the colonial government to withdraw all ordinances restricting Congress activity, end prosecutions under the Rowlatt Act for political offenses not involving violence, and release all prisoners arrested during the Salt March. It also demanded the complete removal of the salt tax, which would allow Indians to produce, trade, and sell salt legally for their own private use. Congress would stop the Salt March and participate in the Second Round Table Conference in exchange. Gandhi added two further personal demands: an inquiry into police excesses during the crackdown, and commutation of the death sentences handed to Bhagat Singh, Rajguru, and Sukhdev.
The British government agreed to withdraw all ordinances and end prosecutions. It agreed to release political prisoners except those convicted of violent acts, permit peaceful picketing of liquor shops and shops selling foreign cloth, restore confiscated properties belonging to satyagrahis, allow free collection and manufacture of salt by people near the sea-coast, and lift the ban on Congress as an organization. Over 90,000 political prisoners walked free under these provisions.
Two demands were rejected outright. The British refused any inquiry into police excesses. They also refused to commute the death sentences of Bhagat Singh, Rajguru, and Sukhdev. All three were executed. Gandhi's failure to save them became one of the most contested aspects of the negotiations in the public memory of the pact.
The Second Round Table Conference opened in London in September 1931 and ran through December of that year. Historians regard it as marking the end of the Civil Disobedience Movement in India. Gandhi attended as Congress's representative, fulfilling the participation clause of the pact. Bhagat Singh had already been executed before Gandhi reached London. The dominion status Irwin had floated in 1929 remained exactly what it had been at the start: a phrase attached to no date, no mechanism, and no enforceable commitment. The pact had freed tens of thousands of people and secured salt-making rights on the coast, but the structural question of who governed India was left for another day.
Up Next
Continue Browsing
Common questions
When did the Gandhi, Irwin Pact get signed?
Mahatma Gandhi and Lord Irwin signed the political agreement on the 5th of March 1931. This event altered the course of Indian history by establishing a truce between the two leaders.
What were the main demands of the Indian National Congress for the pact?
The Indian National Congress demanded the discontinuation of the Salt March, withdrawal of all ordinances curbing their activities, and release of prisoners arrested during the movement. They also required removal of the salt tax to allow legal private production and sale of salt.
How many political prisoners were released under the Gandhi, Irwin Pact?
Over 90,000 political prisoners were released under these terms according to Banglapedia records. The government committed to releasing all political prisoners except those guilty of violence.
Why did Winston Churchill criticize the Gandhi, Irwin Pact?
Winston Churchill publicly declared his disgust at what he called a nauseating spectacle involving Gandhi. He viewed the negotiation on equal terms with the representative of the King Emperor as humiliating and described Gandhi as a seditious fakir.
What happened to Bhagat Singh after the Gandhi, Irwin Pact was signed?
Gandhi specifically requested that the death penalty for Bhagat Singh be converted to lesser punishment but this demand was not met by the colonial government. The failure to address this point left deep resentment among supporters and became a focal point for future criticism.