18 SOCIAL SCIENTIST Congress leadership itself was not clear about the meaning of swaraj. Gandhi, who gave the catchy slogan of "swaraj in a year", on his own failed to spell out his exact understanding and meaning of the concept of swaraj. On different occasions swaraj was defined differently by him: "Swaraj means a state such that we can maintain our separate existence without the presence of Englishmen. If it is to be partnership, it must be a partnership at will";12 ^Swaraj is Ramrajya99;13 "My swaraj is the parliamentary Goverment of India in the modern sense of the term for the time being";14 at times swaraj meant redressal of Punjab and Khilafat wrongs15 and by 1922 it meant the practice of national virtues of charkha (spinning wheel), khaddar (bandspun and handwoven cloth), non-violence and equal treatment of untouchables.16 Yet, there was a promise for the masses—the promise of "sawraj in a year"—a swaraj which would end their grievances. In fact, swaraj "was very much in the air and in people's thoughts, and frequent reference was made to it in innumerable gatherings and conferences".17 On a number of occasions nationalist leaders like Motilal Nehru, Jawaharlal Nehru, Abul Kalam Azad, Gauri Shankar Misra and ultimately Gandhi himself had impressed upon the peasants of Oudb that they should work for the attainment of swaraj through which they could gain deliverance or that swaraj was the only remedy for the redressal of their grievances.18 The peasants' interest in swaraj was imparting a nationalist dimension to their own programme for redressal of grievances. Their understanding of swaraj made it synonymous with self-rule and they believed in the Congress leaders' assertion that swaraj, and a fast approaching swaraj at that, would ameliorate their pathetic condition and that they would enter the "golden age of Ramrajya". To them swaraj meant their own rule, the end of the British raj and with it of all the oppressive social forces. The Congress was yet to find a base in the Oudh countryside but the response it had from the rural areas was more encouraging and radical than the response from urban centres during the 'non-co-operation5 phase of the national movement. The credibility of the British and taluqdari regime was seriously challenged in the Oudh villages.19 Unlike in the case of the urban leaders, the attacks of the peasantry were not confined to the fringes and outer manifestations of Imperialism; besides the colonial administation, the targets of such attacks included the pillars of the raj—the taluqdars. Quite distinct from the Non-Cooperation Movement, a strong peasant movement had emerged in Oudh under the Kisan Sabha banner. Although "anterior to and indepedent" of non-cooperation, the Kisan Sabha movement soon adopted the non-cooperation programme along with its economic struggle. In due course it became difficult to distinguish between a Non-Cooperation, Kisan Sabha or a Khilafat meeting20 as the triple programme was discussed and propagated