Satyagraha and Non Violence were not only philosophical concepts adhered to and propounded by Gandhi but they were also political tools of resistance against the British colonial state. What I mean by this is apart from the spiritual implications of Gandhian philosophy there were instrumental political considerations in how Gandhi guided protests in the Indian National Movement. The organization of resistance through non violent protest served the dual political advantage of one keeping the protesting mass ordered and the other keeping the colonial state from retaliating asymmetrically. As long as the methods of protest remained in moderation the likelihood of the movement splintering into conflicting violent factions was reduced. Since state violence is usually reactionary to, and ‘justified’ by acts of resistance that divulged into a violent act, The idea behind satyagraha was to desist from giving British India a justification for retaliation from the state. The political implication of the ‘moral’ victory that Gandhi believed in from practicing political non violence was this. I began with this introduction because This dual purpose of the political philosophy is essential in understanding the acts of violence that broke out within the movements you mentioned in your question.

It has to be mentioned before hand that Most protests of the Indian National Congress led by Gandhi remained well within non violent satyagraha. Because the idea was essential to maintaining cohesion in the movement congress workers and the masses of protesters remained ordered in the public processions and meetings. This was not entirely new to movements led by Gandhi. Several prior political movements all the way back to the 19th century had been capable of mass mobilization without incidence of violence. There was thus a social/political template of how to organize protests that aided the Gandhian movements. So when Gandhi began the Non cooperation movement in 1922, there was already a precedent on how to mobilize peacefully. It has to be noted that the Jallianwala Bagh massacre which was one of the things the Non Cooperation movement protested was a mass killing by the state at a peaceful gathering. Another issue that was opposed by the movement was the Rowlatt Act which was created precisely to target anti colonial protests. Given this context and history it was apparent that an outbreak of violence in the movement would be counter productive. This is why the non cooperation movement was called off abruptly by Gandhi on February 12 1922 because of the incident at Chauri Chaura.

On 4 February 1922 following the arrest of several leaders of the movement in Chauri Chaura Village in Gorakhpur district a large crowd gathered to at the local market in mass protest. The protest was initially aimed at picketing a liquor shop but due to further arrests it moved towards the local police station. The ensuing tensions (and orders by superintendent of police to fire) resulted in the crowd loosing control and burning down the station with policemen still inside it. 22 policemen died in the flame. The British instituted martial law in the region after this and a strong government clamp down was set into effect. Gandhi responded to this by going on a fast and then subsequently calling off the movement. Even though this stopped further escalation Gandhi was still arrested in March for sedition. This would have significant ramifications on the Indian National Movement.[1] Non Cooperation was not restricted to Gandhi or The Indian National Congress, it had mass participation from several disparate parties and social groups. In January 1922 the movement had gained so much momentum that the British were even considering granting some form of self rule to India. This is why Gandhi’s stoppage of the movement came under significant criticism even within the congress. The question raised was as to why an active and virulently progressing movement had to be called off on account of one act of violence in a remote part of British India. Some members split from the congress to form the Swaraj Party. The dual reason for the Gandhi calling off the movement could be that there existed a chance of the violent outbreaks escalating. This would have likely led to the movement changing course, or more particularly the movement beset by riots would have fallen away from the control Gandhi and the congress had over it. As I mentioned before this was critical reason for Gandhi’s rejection of violent acts. The other issues, again, would have been the escalating asymmetrical response from Britian if the issue further increased in magnitude.

This stands in stark contrast to how Gandhi handled the Civil Disobedience Movement. Launched on 12th march 1930 with Gandhi’s salt march the movement had significant mass support and had coordinated acts of civil disobedience across British India. There were sporadic cases of violent rioting in Chittagong, Peshawar and Sholapur.[2] Gandhi did not consider these reasons to call of the movement as was the case in 1922. In his publication young India the the movement had to push on irrespective of the cases of violence at the fringes of the movement. The non violence at the center would suffice. By 1930 the stakes were very different and even the Gandhian movement had become more radical in its approach to colonialism. The political fallout of 1922 was also a significant contributing faction in why Gandhi did not respond in the same manner. 1922 was also Gandhi’s first all India movement and he had far less in control over the protesting mass and in Congress than he did in 1930. This meant he could maintain better cohesion during Civil Disobedence even though there were acts of violence. Another factor could be that Chauri Chaura was in the heart of the gangetic plain and the publicity the movement received was far greater than the riots that broke out during 1930. These riots were also both politically and geographically on the periphery of the movement.

[1]Event, Metaphor, Memory - Shahid Amin (recommended read for the relationship between Gandhi, National Movement and Chauri Chaura)
[2]Modern India 1885-1947 - Sumit Sarkar