Question

What were the limitations of Civil Disobedience Movement? Mention any two.

Hint:

When asked for "any two" limitations, pick one social-base limit (Dalits/Muslims/workers) and one strategic limit (withdrawal under repression, partial revenue plank). State cause $\Rightarrow$ effect clearly.

Answer 1

Overview:
The Civil Disobedience Movement (1930–34) drew unprecedented participation but it also had limits in its social base, programme and political unity. Any two of the detailed points below would suffice; fuller explanations are provided for depth.
Key limitations (explain any two):
1. Dalit (Depressed Classes) participation remained limited:
Many leaders of the Depressed Classes, notably B.\,R. Ambedkar, prioritised political safeguards and social equality (separate electorates, temple entry, access to water/education). They were sceptical of Congress leadership which, in their view, foregrounded anti-colonial issues over caste oppression. This divergence reduced the movement's social reach among Dalits.
2. Hindu–Muslim unity proved fragile:
After the end of the Khilafat issue and amid rising communal politics, sections of Muslim leadership remained wary of the Congress. Fears of majority domination and local communal tensions restricted Muslim participation in several regions, constraining the movement's national spread.
3. Uneven peasant support:
Rich peasants (jotedars/landholders) initially supported the no-tax/no-revenue stance, but when Congress hesitated to sustain a complete revenue boycott and the government made only partial concessions, many withdrew support. Poor peasants—burdened by debts and fear of eviction—did not receive a radical debt-cancellation plank from Congress, limiting their sustained involvement.
4. Limited role of industrial workers and business classes:
Workers joined in places, but Congress kept wage strikes secondary to avoid alienating business backers. Merchants and industrialists—initially supportive—grew cautious when prolonged boycotts and revenue disputes threatened trade; some withdrew active backing.
5. Women's participation without equal power:
Women took part in picketing and prabhat pheris and faced repression, yet decision-making positions remained largely male dominated; social conservatism and organisational structures curtailed their leadership impact.
6. State repression and stop–start momentum:
Mass arrests, censorship and seizures disrupted networks. The truce (Gandhi–Irwin Pact, 1931), Round Table Conferences, and subsequent re-launches blunted momentum; the final withdrawal in 1934 underscored the limits of the programme under heavy repression.
Answer in two crisp points (sample):
(i) Restricted social base—especially limited support from Dalits and uneven participation from Muslims and workers.
(ii) Strategic constraints and withdrawals under repression; rich peasants and business groups pulled back when economic demands weren't met.