PEASANTS' PERCEPTION OF GANDHI 17 Swaraj cannot be attained. If they cooperate with the Government, then all your virtues will not help in winning Swaraj.993 Gandhi was fully aware that the "zamindars would prove the chief stumbling block to...the Non-Cooperation progamme" and they "could be brought to senses if the tenants could be induced not to pay rent".4 But the crucial issues of concern to the peasantry such as high rents, evictions, cesses, high prices, social humiliation and exploitation at the hands of the Raj and the zamindars were not taken account of in the Non-Cooperation programme. Not only were the peasant issuses sidetracked, but Gandhi wrote in Young India that it was "dangerous to make political use of peasants and workers";5 and a year later, after the Chauri Chaura incident, he suspended the entire movement. This was a time when there was widespread awakening among the peasants and an immense pressure from below to include the 'no-rent' demand in the programme of the movement.6 This abrupt withdrawal of the movement is understandable from the very fact that despite his acknowledgement of the peasants' role in winning swaraj, Gandhi had offered nothing for the peasantry in his programme of political action. While launching the movement he had clearly stated that he wished to "begin with the educated classes".7 Thus, the Congress resolution on Non-Cooperation read: "And inasmuch as a beginning should be made by the classes who have hitherto moulded and represented opinion and inasmuch as Government consolidates its power through titles and honours bestowed on the people, through schools, controlled by it, its law courts and its legislative councils, and inasmuch as it is desirable in the prosecution of the movement to take the minimum risk and to call for the least sacrifice compatible with the attainment of the desired object...."8 Who were these classes which "moulded and represented opinion"? Precisely the dominant sections and the oppressive social forces which did not mould opinion but forced their opinion through coercive acts under imperial instigation and support and then claimed to represent public opinion. The British depended on these forces to strengthen and consolidate the hold of imperialism and now the Congress leadership was looking to them to challenge the British. Obviously in both situations the dominant groups were the gainers and Bipan Chandra is right in averring that the national integration was promoted at the "unilateral cost" of the peasantry.9 It is precisely from this juncture onwards that the Congress leadership attempted to establish its dominance over the peasants' initiative in the national struggle. The 'constructive programme' was "a success politically and a failure on social and economic fronts";10 it was successfully used by the Congress leadership for "tension management".11 The Non-Cooperation programme offered nothing concrete to achieve or struggle for, except mentioning the attainment of swaraj, and the