Nehru’s Opposition to Struggle- Truce-Struggle Strategy

A large number of Congressmen led by Gandhi believed that a mass phase of movement (struggle phase) had to be

followed by a phase of reprieve (truce phase) before the next stage of mass struggle could be taken up. The truce period, it was argued, would enable the masses to recoup their strength to fight and also give the government a chance to respond to the demands of the nationalists. The masses could not go on sacrificing indefinitely. If the government did not respond positively, the movement could be resumed again with the participation of the masses. This was the struggle- truce-struggle or S-T-S strategy.

Criticising the S-T-S strategy, Nehru argued that the Indian national movement had reached a stage, after the Lahore Congress call for purna swaraj programme, in which there should be a continuous confrontation and conflict with imperialism till it was overthrown. He advocated maintenance of a “continuous direct action” policy by the Congress and without the interposition of a constitutionalist phase. Real power, he said, cannot be won by two annas and four annas. Against an S-T-S strategy, he suggested a Struggle-Victory (S-V) strategy.