द इण्डियन स्ट्रगल / भारतीय स्वाधीनता संग्राम (नेताजी सुभाष चन्द्र बोस - ऐतिहासिक विश्लेषण)

CHAPTER IX SIGNS OF COMING UPHEAVAL (1929) THE net result of the Calcutta Congress, as we have seen, was to put the clock back. But a far-sighted politician like the Mahatma could read the signs of the times. The Left Wing opposition at the Calcutta Congress had indeed been formidable and if his leadership was to be retained, he would have to deal with the opposition in a diplomatic manner. The tactics employed by the Mahatma during the next twelve months were indeed superb. As we shall presently see, he took the wind out of the sails of the Extremists,¹ by himself advocating independence at the next Congress and divided the ranks of the opposition by winning over some of the Left Wing leaders. The Left Wing opposition had become a menace to all sections among the older leaders; to the Swara- jists as much as to the 'No-Changers,' and the Calcutta Con- gress had found the Swarajist Pandit Motilal Nehru standing side by side with the 'No-Changer' Mahatma Gandhi, in order to fight the common danger. This temporary alliance was further strengthened during the ensuing months and with the help of a section of the Left-Wing leaders, it became possible for the Mahatma to regain his hold on the Congress machinery and his prestige in the country, which had been badly shaken by the proceedings of the Calcutta Congress. No one can seriously maintain that a shrewd politician like the Mahatma really expected the Government to climb down and to concede Dominion Home Rule without a fight, merely as a result of a written ultimatum delivered by the Congress. Therefore, one would be entitled to hold that at the Calcutta Congress, the Mahatma was merely playing for time, because ¹ He began this propaganda soon after the Calcutta Congress by stating publicly that if by December 31st, 1929, the Government did not concede Dominion Status to India, he would become an 'Independencewallah' on January 1st, 1930. This time-limit of one year was reminiscent of his promise of Swaraj within one year in 1921. 183

184 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE he was personally unprepared to launch a fight in the imme- diate future. As a matter of fact, even at the Lahore Congress in December 1929, the Mahatma had no plans for launching an anti-Government campaign of any sort—though he moved the resolution on independence, which was un- animously adopted by the Congress. Not till February 1930, after much searching of heart, did he make up his mind to start a civil-disobedience movement in the country, beginning with the campaign for the manufacture of salt. But though the Congress did not give a bold and intelligent lead to the country during the whole of 1929, the unrest did not abate in any way. On the contrary, the forces making for revolution began to grow stronger and stronger, while owing to lack of co-ordination, much dissipation of energy resulted. Besides the main current of the Congress movement, three other lines of activity were clearly visible at this time. There was an undercurrent of revolutionary activity with a certain amount of following in northern India—an unrest in the labour world which extended to every part of the country and an awakening among the middle-class youths which was manifest everywhere. The visible expression of the revolutionary movement was afforded by two incidents which occurred at Lahore and at Delhi. At Lahore an Inspector of Police, Mr. Saunders, a Britisher, was assassinated. It was reported that the revolu- tionaries believed that Mr. Saunders was responsible for the attack on Lala Lajpat Rai at the time of the anti-Simon demonstration in Lahore in 1928, which ultimately resulted in his death and that his assassination was an act of reprisal. The other incident was the throwing of a bomb in the Assembly at Delhi during a sitting and two young men, Sardar Bhagat Singh and Mr. Batukeshwar Dutt, were arrested in connection therewith. After these overt acts, there was a round-up of a large number of young men from all over the country and an All-India conspiracy case was started at Lahore about the middle of 1929. For some reason or other, the Lahore conspiracy case excited not only public interest but public sympathy as well. The reasons probably were that prior to his arrest, Sardar Bhagat Singh was known to be the leader of the youth movement (called the Naujawan

SIGNS OF COMING UPHEAVAL 185 Bharat Sabha) in the Punjab, and the fearless and defiant attitude adopted by him and his comrades, after their arrest and during their trial, made a deep impression on the public. Moreover, Sardar Bhagat Singh came from a well-known patriotic family—being a nephew of Sardar Ajit Singh, who had been deported to Burma in 1909 along with Lala Lajpat Rai. The Naujawan Bharat Sabha was first started as a thorough-going nationalist movement, in order to fight com- munalism and religious fanaticism in the Punjab. If the official allegations are to be believed, the Sabha developed into a revolutionary organisation and some members of the Sabha also went in for terrorist activities. Whatever the truth or otherwise of the allegations may be, there is no doubt that the Sabha developed a frankly Socialistic tendency. And incidentally it may be remarked that all youth organisations in the Punjab have a strong Socialist bent. In March 1931, when a session of the All-India Naujawan Bharat Sabha was held at Karachi, members of the Punjab Naujawan Bharat Sabha openly declared that they were against terrorism and that they believed in mass action on Socialist lines. Soon after their arrest, the Lahore Conspiracy Case prisoners, headed by Sardar Bhagat Singh, made a demand that they should be accorded better treatment than ordinary criminals on the ground that they were political prisoners and under trial, who should be deemed to be innocent until they were actually convicted. After trying the usual constitutional methods, when they found that no remedy was forthcoming, they resorted to hunger-strike. Among the prisoners was a young man from Calcutta Mr. Jatindra Nath Das, who was at first rather averse to hunger-strike because he regarded it as a dangerous game to play. The enthusiasm of the rest forced him to join the strike but before doing so, he warned them that come what may, he would not turn back until their demands were fully conceded. There was an intense agitation throughout the country over the hunger-strike and there was a public demand that the Government should remedy their just grievances and thereby save their lives. When the condition of the prisoners grew serious, the Government made half-hearted attempts at compromise. For instance,

186 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE they offered better treatment to the hunger-strikers on medical grounds. But their demand was not merely for better treatment for themselves, but for all prisoners similarly circumstanced and on the ground that they were political prisoners. To this demand the Government would not yield and so the strike went on. Besides an intensive Press agitation, meetings and demonstrations were held all over the country demanding humane treatment for political prisoners. In connection with a demonstration of this kind in Calcutta, a number of prominent Congressmen, including the writer, were arrested in September and sent up for trial for sedition. As the days rolled by, one by one the hunger-strikers dropped off but young Jatin was invincible. He never hesitated, never faltered for one small second—but marched straight on towards death and freedom. Every heart in the country melted but the heart of the bureaucracy did not. So Jatin died on September 13th. But he died the death of a martyr. After his death the whole country gave him an ovation which few men in the recent history of India have received. As his dead body was removed from Lahore to Calcutta for cremation, people assembled in their thousands and tens of thousands at every station to pay their homage. His martyrdom acted as a profound inspiration to the youth of India and everywhere youth and student organisations began to grow up. Among the many messages that were received on the occasion was one which touched the heart of every Indian. It was a message from the family of Terence McSwiney, the Lord Mayor of Cork, who had died a martyr under similar conditions in Ireland. The message ran thus: ‘Family of Terence McSwiney have heard with grief and pride of the death of Jatin Das. Freedom will come.’ Jatin Das was twenty-five at the time of his death. While a student he had joined the non-co-operation movement in 1921 and had spent several years in prison. After a break of many years he had resumed his studies again at a Calcutta College. At the time of the Calcutta Congress in 1928 and after, he had taken a leading part in organising and training volunteers and in the Bengal Volunteer Corps, of which the writer was the Chief Officer or G.O.C., he held the rank of

SIGNS OF COMING UPHEAVAL 187 Major. The Bengal Volunteer Corps came into existence at the time of the Calcutta Congress. For the Congress and the National Exhibition connected with it, a large body of volun- teers had been necessary and the writer had been entrusted by the Congress authorities with the organisation and training of the Corps. Though the Corps was a peaceful and unarmed body, military discipline and training in military drill was imparted to the volunteers and they were also given a semi- military uniform. After the Congress was over, the Volunteer Corps was maintained and branches were opened all over the province. In this arduous work, Jatin had played an important rôle. The officers and rank and file of the Volunteer Corps therefore took a leading part in the funeral demonstrations. In this connection the attitude of the Mahatma was inexplicable. Evidently the martyrdom of Jatin Das which had stirred the heart of the country did not make any impres- sion on him. The pages of Young India ordinarily filled with observations on all political events and also on topics like health, diet, etc., had nothing to say about the incident. A follower of the Mahatma who was also a close friend of the deceased, wrote to him inquiring as to why he had said nothing about the event. The Mahatma replied to the effect that he had purposely refrained from commenting, because if he had done so, he would have been forced to write something unfavourable. The news of the self-immolation of Jatin Das was received in Delhi when the Assembly was in session. For a moment it looked as if the heart of the Government throbbed. But the throbbing was a momentary phenomenon. What emotion was roused at the time was soon drowned in official diplomacy and duplicity. The Government promised to take up the question of the treatment of political prisoners but after a great deal of deliberation and delay, when the public excite- ment had somewhat abated, they finally produced their proposals. It was then found that the remedy suggested was worse than the disease. At the outset the Government refused to class anyone as a political prisoner—so that the principal demand of the Lahore hunger-strikers was turned down. The Government proposed instead that prisoners

188 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE would in future be put into either of three classes—A, B and C or Divisions I, II, and III respectively. C class prisoners would be treated exactly like ordinary criminals; B class prisoners would be treated slightly better than C class in the matter of food, letters, interviews and other facilities —while A class prisoners would be treated somewhat better than B class. The distinction at the time of classification would be made according to the social status of the prisoner. When these rules were applied in practice, it was found that at least 95 per cent. of the political prisoners were classed as C; about 3 or 4 per cent. were classed as B and less than 1 per cent. as A. The effect of the new rules therefore was to give somewhat better treatment to a microscopic minority in order to break the solidarity of the political prisoners. The principle of 'divide and rule' was thus extended to the domain of prison administration. The only welcome feature in the new rule was that it abolished in theory the classification of certain prisoners as 'European,' who used to get better food, clothing and accommodation than Indians of the highest rank. In practice, however, the writer has personally seen that in many provinces, e.g., Bengal, Central Provinces and Madras, the facilities previously enjoyed by 'European' prisoners are still being continued. And in the Madras Penitentiary, where the writer was confined for two months in 1932, he even found the placard 'European Ward' in front of the ward occupied by 'European' prisoners and on his objecting to it, the placard was removed. In this connection it should be admitted that when the new rules were drafted, the Assembly members, including the Swarajists, did not put up the opposition expected of them. And some members like Mr. Jinnah, who had no experience of prison life, even thought that the new rules would prove to be a blessing. As has been already remarked, the years 1928 and 1929 witnessed an unprecedented awakening among the youths.¹ ¹ This was followed immediately by a similar awakening among women. In Bengal the Deshbandhu had started in 1921 the 'Nari Karma Mandir' for training women for national service. After his death this institution ceased to exist. In 1928 when the writer resumed his public activities, a political organisation for women was started under the name of the 'Mahila Rashtriya Sangha' in Calcutta, which was followed by many other organisations all over the country.

SIGNS OF COMING UPHEAVAL 189 The halting attitude of the Congress at Calcutta and the stale tactics of the Swarajists in the Legislatures roused the youths to a sense of their duty. The success of the first session of the Youth Congress at Calcutta served as an inspiration and a further impetus came from the undying example set by Jatindra Nath Das through his martyrdom. Throughout 1929, youth and student organisations grew up all over Bengal, as branches of the Provincial Youth Association and Provincial Students' Association. Besides the political con- ferences held in different districts of Bengal from time to time, separate conferences for youths and for students began to be held from now onwards. In other provinces too, the same phenomena were visible. In Poona, the Maharashtra Youth Conference was held and Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru presided over it. In Ahmedabad, the Bombay Presidency Youth Conference met in October 1929, and was presided over by Mrs. Kamaladevi Chattopadhyaya, sister-in-law of Mrs. Sarojini Naidu, who within a short time had become a popular figure among the youths. In September, the first session of the Punjab Students' Conference was held in Lahore and was presided over by the writer. Following this, the Central Provinces Youth Conference was held in November at Nagpur and the Berar Students' Conference at Amraoti in December, both being presided over by the writer. In the Madras Presidency, too, similar conferences were held. At the end of the year, at Lahore, during the Congress week, an All-India Congress of Students was held and was presided over by Pandit Madan Mohon Malaviya, the Vice-Chancellor of the Benares Hindu University. The awakening among the youths was contemporaneous with a widespread unrest in the labour world and there were strikes all over the country. But the strike which unnerved the Government most was the textile strike which com- menced in 1928 in Bombay, because it was conducted by a compact party of well-educated men and women following communistic ideas.. The employers and the Government made common cause in their efforts to break the strike and a large number of rowdy blacklegs were imported from outside for the purpose. When the strike showed signs of weakening,

190 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE the Government struck hard. A round-up of trade union leaders holding advanced ideas was made simultaneously all over India in March, 1929, and thirty-one of them were brought to Meerut, near Delhi, for trial in connection with an All-India Communist Conspiracy Case. They were brought to Meerut of all places for trial, probably because Meerut being a small town, there would be no public demon- stration there and also because trial by jury does not obtain there. There were three Englishmen among them and probably because of this, the case roused great interest and sympathy among British Labour circles of all shades of opinion. The trial dragged on for nearly four years and during this period, bail was refused to the accused, though repeatedly asked for. The prosecution case was that the accused had conspired to deprive the King of the sovereignty of India and with the help of the Communist International had endeavoured to set up a government on the Soviet model. On January 16th, 1933, judgment was delivered. Three of the accused were acquitted and the rest (excluding one who had died during the course of the trial) were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment—from three years' imprisonment to transportation for life. The Meerut arrests were made when the Conservative Party was in power but in June, as a result of the General Election, the Labour Party came into office with Captain Wedgwood-Benn as the Secretary of State for India. It was expected that the Labour Party would do something for the Meerut prisoners but actually nothing was done. Neverthe- less, another move was taken by the Labour Cabinet in order to placate Indian Labour circles. As the Labour counterpart of the Simon Commission, a Royal Commission on Labour was appointed, with Mr. Whitley as the Chairman. The Com- mission was to report on labour conditions in India and the possible lines of amelioration. Having gathered experience from the boycott of the Simon Commission, the Labour Government offered two seats to Indian trade-union leaders —to Mr. N. M. Joshi (Bombay) and Mr. Chamanlal (Lahore). Both of them who belonged to the Right Wing of the Labour Movement accepted the offer and that decision at once

SIGNS OF COMING UPHEAVAL 191 created a split among Indian trade-unionists. When the Congress met at Nagpur in November with Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru as the President, it was found that the majority were for the boycott of the Labour Commission (called the Whitley Commission). Several factors accounted for this. Boycott was then in the air. Moreover, the Labour Cabinet having failed to do anything for the Meerut prisoners, it was felt that a Commission appointed by them would be of no benefit to India. Thirdly, the sweeping arrests made in March last all over India had created sympathy in trade union circles for the Left Wingers. When the boycott resolution was carried, there were shouts of 'Down with Chamanlal,' 'Down with Joshi,' etc., and placards were also displayed to that effect. These demonstrations against Mr. Joshi who had done so much for the Indian Labour Movement and may be justly regarded as one of the fathers of that movement—greatly offended the Right Wingers who walked out of the Congress. Thereafter, they set up an organisation of their own under the name of the 'All-India Trade Union Federation.' The reason generally given for the secession was that the Trade Union Congress had affiliated itself to the League against Imperialism and the Pan-Pacific Trade Union Secretariat—both of which were Communist organisations. But the real reason was the boycott of the Whitley Commis- sion, which if given effect to, would have entailed the resigna- tion of Messrs. Joshi and Chamanlal from that body. As for the affiliation to the League against Imperialism, it should be noted that it was done at the Jharia session of the Trade Union Congress in 1928—but at that time the Right-Wing Trade-Unionists were able to swallow the resolution because they were still strong enough to keep the Secretariat in their hands. As a matter of fact, the Right-Wingers were defeated over the question of the Whitley Commission, not because the Communists were in a majority but because the Centre Party who were not Communists, sided with them on that question. Consequently, if the Right-Wingers had not seceded from the Trade Union Congress at Nagpur, they would still have played an important rôle: But they would have to suffer one disadvantage—which probably they were

192 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE not prepared to do—namely, to forgo the annual trip to Geneva on the occasion of the International Labour Con- ference. The Trade Union Congress passed a resolution boycotting the International Labour Conference at Geneva because the Conference had been of little help to the Indian workers and the Indian representatives to that Conference were appointed by the Government of India and not by the All-India Trade Union Congress. This resolution, like the one boycotting the Whitley Commission, was unacceptable to the Right-Wingers and proved to be the proverbial last straw. It would have been in the fitness of things if a political campaign had been launched in 1929. It would have then synchronised with a movement in other spheres as well. But that was not to be. So there was only marking time in political circles. In Bengal, the Congress Party was able to turn out the Ministers repeatedly. Disgusted with the Party's tactics, the Governor dissolved the Legislative Council in May and ordered a fresh election at once. The result was that the Congress Party came back with added strength and the Nationalist Moslems regained some of the seats they had lost at the last election. Just before the election, judgment was delivered in a suit brought against the Nationalist paper, Forward, by the East Indian Railway¹ for defamation for publishing reports damaging to the Company about a railway accident near Calcutta. The court gave exemplary damages to the tune of Rs. 150,000 (Rs. 13½=£1 approximately), and it was expected that this would force the paper to close down. However, the next day Forward ceased to appear, but in its place another daily paper called Liberty was born. The Congress Party did not therefore have to suffer any inconvenience for want of an organ. In June, the Labour Party came into power and Lord Irwin, the Viceroy, was invited to London for consultation, where he remained for some months. While he was there, a sudden change came over the Mahatma. At a meeting of the Congress Working Committee in July, a resolution was passed calling ¹ The East Indian Railway is a state-owned Railway and the most important Railway in India.

SIGNS OF COMING UPHEAVAL 193 upon Congressmen to resign their seats in the Legislatures. No notice was given to the Congress Parties in the different Legislatures, nor was their opinion invited and the most surprising thing was the acquiescence of Pandit Motilal Nehru, who had been leading the Congress Party in the Assembly. The Pandit had in the month of May encouraged the Bengal Congress Party to fight the elections and had especially enjoined on them to recapture some of the Moslem seats. When a meeting of the All-India Congress Committee¹ was held at Allahabad the same month, a strenuous opposition was put forward by the late Mr. J. M. Sengupta and the writer, both of whom were members of the Congress Working Committee. As a result of this opposition and also of the dissatisfaction expressed by the Congress Parties in the different Legislatures, the resolution regarding resignation from the Legislatures was rescinded and the whole matter was adjourned till the Lahore Congress in December. Up till now it is a puzzle to many as to what happened between May and July to make Pandit Motilal Nehru change his front. Was he suddenly disappointed at the work put in by the Congress Parties in the Legislatures? Was he faced with a revolt or a faction in his own Party in the Assembly and therefore wanted to dissolve it? Or did he want to put up a united front against the Left-Wingers who were growing more powerful, and for that reason wanted to placate the Mahatma by agreeing to his pet theory of Council-boycott? In any case, there is no doubt that without the support of Pandit Motilal Nehru, the Mahatma would never have forced his views on the Congress. And one has to remark with great regret that Pandit Motilal Nehru who was the only man who could influence the Mahatma either way at that time, did a positive disservice to his country by actively supporting the Mahatma in his policy of reviving the boycott of the Legislatures. The harmful effect of this boycott became more and more evident in the years to come. To say the least, it was tactically a great blunder to boycott the Legis- ¹ The All-India Congress Committee is a body of about 350 members representing the different provinces of India. Every year it elects an Executive of 15 members, called the Working Committee. N

194 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE latures when the new Constitution was under consideration, especially when it had been demonstrated the year before, that because of the presence of Congressmen in the Assembly, that body had been able to repudiate the Simon Commission. The writer was among the few men who fought against the proposed boycott till the very last—but with the support of Pandit Motilal Nehru and subsequently of the late Mr. J. M. Sengupta, the Mahatma could easily carry the Congress with him and even Bengal could not put up an undivided opposi- tion, as had been possible at the Allahabad meeting of the All-India Congress Committee in July, before the breach between the late Mr. Sengupta and the writer took place. In August, a special meeting of the All-India Congress Committee was called to decide who should preside over the ensuing Congress. In accordance with the Congress Con- stitution, the vast majority of the Provincial Congress Com- mittee had nominated Mahatma Gandhi, but he declined to accept the nomination. The general feeling in Congress circles was that the honour should go to Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. But the Mahatma decided to back the candidature of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. For the Mahatma the choice was a prudent one, but for the Congress Left Wing it proved to be unfortunate, because that event marked the beginning of a political rapprochement between the Mahatma and Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and a consequent alienation between the latter and the Congress Left Wing. Since 1920, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru had been a close adherent of the policy advocated by the Mahatma and his personal relations with the latter had been always friendly. Nevertheless, since his return from Europe in December 1927, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru began to call himself a Socialist and give expression to views hostile towards Mahatma Gandhi and the older leaders and to ally himself in his public activities with the Left-Wing opposition within the Congress. But for his strenuous advocacy, it would not have been possible for the Independence League to attain the importance that it did. Therefore, for the Mahatma it was essential that he should win over Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru if he wanted to beat down the Left-Wing opposition and regain his former undisputed

: SIGNS OF COMING UPHEAVAL 195 supremacy over the Congress. The Left-Wingers did not like the idea that one of their most outstanding spokesmen should accept the Presidentship of the Lahore Congress, because it was clear that that Congress would be dominated by the Mahatma and the President would be a mere dummy. They were of opinion that a Left-Wing leader should accept the Presidentship only when he was in a position to have his programme adopted by the Congress. But the Mahatma took a clever step in supporting the candidature of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and his election as President opened a new chapter in his public career. Since then, Pandit J. L. Nehru has been a consistent and unfailing supporter of the Mahatma. ' In the meantime the Simon Commission had been busy with its own work and on October 16th, 1929, after some sort of pre-arrangement, Sir John Simon wrote to the Prime Minister, Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, asking for an extension of the terms of reference in order to enable him to examine the methods whereby the future relations between the Indian states and the British Indian provinces could be readjusted. He also suggested that after the publication of the Commis- sion's Report, a conference should be arranged between the representatives of His Majesty's Government and represen- tatives of British India and the States. To both these sug- gestions the Cabinet agreed. The same month Lord Irwin returned to India and soon after his arrival, he issued a statement on October 31st, 1929, saying that he had been 'authorised by His Majesty's Government to state clearly that in their judgment, it is implicit in the Declaration of 1917 that the natural issue of India's constitutional progress, as there contemplated, is the attainment of Dominion Status.' He further stated that a Round Table Conference would be held in London after the publication of the report of the Simon Commission as had been suggested by Sir John Simon himself. The situation created by this new attitude on the part of the British Cabinet and the Viceroy did not remain un- noticed or unutilised. In the absence of Deshbandhu Das, there was at least one other personality who could seize the opportunity at once and, fortunately for him, he then occupied

196 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE

a strategic position as an intermediary between the Viceroy and the people's representatives. That man was Mr. Vithal- bhai Patel who, though a veteran Congressman, had been elected to the Presidential chair of the Assembly in 1925. President Patel had had a remarkable public career. An advocate by profession, he had made politics his first love. Through thick and thin, he had been with the Congress for a long period and at times he had been the General Secretary of the All-India Congress Committee. In that capacity he had been a member of the Congress deputation which visited England before the Reforms of 1919. He was a close student of Constitutional Law and an expert in parliamentary pro- cedure and especially in obstructive tactics. People used to say of him: 'Give Vithalbhai the most perfect constitution in the world and he will tear it to pieces.' So great was his success as a President, that in 1927 he was re-elected un- opposed, following the procedure in the British House of Commons. Without causing undue annoyance to the Govern- ment, he was able to conduct the affairs of the Assembly in a manner which would do credit to any popular President. In 1929 when a bomb was thrown in the Assembly, the Government wanted to use the opportunity for taking over the entire control of the guards in the Assembly premises and it was a tough fight that the President had to wage in order to thwart the Government. He had also to fight hard in order to bring under his control the Secretariat of the Assembly, that was formerly under the Government of India. But in all these fights he conducted himself with such tact and adhered so scrupulously to Constitutional procedure, that he was able to win the respect of the Viceroy, Lord Irwin. Mr. Vithalbhai Patel persuaded the Viceroy that he should personally meet the Congress leaders, Mahatma Gandhi and Pandit Motilal Nehru, and attempt an understanding with them. To this the Viceroy agreed and the interview took place in December. But before that, he had to prepare the ground by arranging for a gesture to be made on behalf of the leaders as a reply. Thus there met at Delhi in November the conference of leaders of all parties. The Conference by an overwhelming majority decided to issue a manifesto.

SIGNS OF COMING UPHEAVAL 197 appreciating the sincerity underlying the Viceroy's pro- nouncement and tendering co-operation to His Majesty's Government in their effort to evolve a Dominion Constitution 'for India. The signatories further hoped that the Round Table Conference proposed 'not to discuss when Dominion Status is to be established but to frame a scheme of Dominion Constitution for India.' They also urged that the Round Table Conference should be preceded by a general amnesty. The manifesto was signed by Mahatma Gandhi, Messrs. Nehru (father and son), Pandit M. M. Malaviya, Dr. Ansari, Dr. Moonje, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, the Right Hon. V. S. Sastri, Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, Mrs. Besant, Mrs. Naidu and others. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru did not at first agree with the other leaders and intended issuing a contrary manifesto together with the writer. But towards the end of the meeting, Mahatma Gandhi prevailed upon him to sign the leaders' manifesto on the ground that he was the President-elect of the Lahore Congress, and the manifesto would lose much of its value if his signature did not appear on it. Thereafter Dr. S. Kitchlew (Lahore), Mr. Abdul Bari (Patna) and the writer issued a separate manifesto opposing the acceptance of Dominion Status and also the idea of participating in the so-called Round Table Conference. The manifesto pointed out that in a real Round Table Conference only the belligerent parties should be represented and the Indian representatives should be selected not by the British Government as had been intended, but by the Indian people. It also warned the Indian people that the Viceroy's pronouncement was a trap laid by the British Government. It was reminiscent of a similar move made by the British Government some years ago in the case of Ireland when the Prime Minister, Mr. Lloyd George, suggested that an Irish Convention consist- ing of all parties should be held for framing a Constitution for Ireland—but the Sinn Fein Party were clever enough to. see through the game and boycott the convention. The leaders' manifesto drew public attention and a large measure of public support as well. The contrary manifesto, however, was welcomed only by Left-Wing Congressmen and by the youth in general.

198 'THE INDIAN STRUGGLE The same month—in November—the annual meeting of the Bengal Congress Committee was held for electing office- bearers, etc. At that meeting it was found that two groups had formed within the Committee, one following the leader- ship of the late Mr. Sengupta and the other of the writer. There was a keen contest and the latter party ultimately won by a narrow margin. This was the beginning of the Bengal dispute and the split in the Congress Committee led to a split among the youths and students as well. The breach had begun at the time of the Calcutta Congress when the late Mr. Sengupta supported the Mahatma and wanted the writer to do so. Since then a separate party had grown up in Bengal under the leadership of the late Mr. Sengupta which stood for unquestioning obedience to the Mahatma and his policy. The majority party in Bengal did not bind itself to the Mahatma in that way and in its outlook and programme, it was allied with the Left-Wing opposition to the Mahatma in the Congress. The Congress leaders, Mahatma Gandhi and Pandit Motilal Nehru were to meet the Viceroy in December. On the eve of that interview an unfortunate event took place. There was an attempt to wreck the Viceroy's train, but fortunately nothing serious happened and Lord Irwin had a providential escape. The longed-for interview took place but it proved abortive. The Congress leaders wanted an assurance from the British Government, or at least from the Viceroy, that Dominion Status would be granted to India, but that assurance was not forthcoming. They had therefore to leave the Viceroy disappointed and come to the Lahore Congress with empty hands.¹ The general atmosphere in the country was in favour of an extremist policy. Throughout the year there had been unrest. In Punjab, following the arrest of Sardar Bhagat Singh and his comrades, the Naujawan Bharat Sabha had done a lot of propaganda on their behalf. The self- immolation of Jatin Das had further electrified the atmosphere. ¹ It is generally believed that neither the British Government nor Lord Irwin could give any assurance to Mahatma Gandhi because of the opposition raised in England by Mr. Churchill, Lord Birkenhead, Lord Reading and others, soon after the Viceregal pronouncement of October 31st, 1929.

SIGNS OF COMING UPHEAVAL 199 On the other hand, the leaders who had cried halt at the Calcutta Congress had not been able to achieve anything. The Mahatma had further compromised himself by making statements to the effect that if there was no response from the Government by December 31st, 1929, he would be an 'independencewallah' on January 1st, 1930. His orthodox followers like himself, had all along been advocates of Dominion Home Rule and they did not like to depart from that attitude. But the Mahatma felt that in the atmosphere then prevailing in the country, a resolution on independence would be carried in spite of his opposition and it was therefore much better for him to move it. The Congress met under the Presidentship of Pandit J. L. Nehru at Lahore. As had been anticipated, the President was a figurehead and the entire proceedings were dominated by Mahatma Gandhi, who by advocating independence, was able to win over some of the Left-Wing elements as well. The Madras Congress in 1927, though it passed a resolution on independence, had not altered the goal as defined in the Congress Constitution, and this was done at Lahore. There was considerable excitement over a clause in the resolution moved by the Mahatma, which congratulated the Viceroy on his providential escape when his train was bombed. The feeling in the Congress was that that clause was uncalled for in a political resolution, but the Mahatma insisted on retaining it, probably because he wanted to placate Lord Irwin and prepare the ground for a rapprochement in future. Be that as it may, the Mahatma made it a question of confidence and by a narrow margin, he won. Next came the question of the plan of campaign for the coming year. Here the Mahatma was quite unprepared. A resolution was passed by the Congress calling upon Congressmen to resign their seats in the Legislatures and thereby the victory of the Swarajists in 1923 was avenged in 1929. As for the positive part of his plan, the Working Committee adopted a resolution, at the instance of the Mahatma, recommending that autonomous boards, like the All-India Spinners' Association, should be organised for carrying on propaganda for the removal of untouchability, for the promotion of temperance and sup-

200 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE pression of the drink and drug traffic, etc. The question was therefore raised by everyone as to what work would be left for Congressmen and for Congress organisations in the country. When the resolution regarding the constitution of autonomous boards came up before the Subjects Committee, there was considerable opposition, the feeling being that that work should be done by the Congress organisations and not by ad hoc bodies as proposed by the Mahatma. The resolution was thereupon defeated. On behalf of the Left Wing, a resolution was moved, by the writer, to the effect that the Congress should aim at setting up a parallel Government in the country and to that end, should take in hand the task of organising the workers, peasants and youths. This resolu- tion was also defeated, with the result that though the Con- gress accepted the goal of complete independence as its objective, no plan was laid down for reaching that goal—nor was any programme of work adopted for the coming year. A more ridiculous state of affairs could not be imagined, but, in public affairs, we are sometimes inclined to lose not only our sense of reality but our common sense as well. When the time came for electing the Working Committee for the coming year, the Mahatma came forward with a list of fifteen names, from which the names of Mr. Srinivasa Iyengar, the writer, and other Left-Wingers had been deliberately omitted. There was a strong feeling in the All-India Congress Com- mittee that at least the names of Mr. Iyengar and the writer should be retained. But the Mahatma would not listen. He said openly that he wanted a committee that would be completely of one mind and he wanted his list to be passed in its entirety. Once again it became a question of confidence in the Mahatma and as the House did not want to repudiate him, it had no option but to give in to his demand. Altogether the Lahore Congress was a great victory for the Mahatma. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, one of the most prominent spokesmen of the Left Wing, was won over by him and the others were excluded from the Working Com- mittee. The Mahatma could henceforward proceed with his own plans without fear of opposition within his Cabinet, and whenever any opposition was raised outside his Cabinet, he

SIGNS OF COMING UPHEAVAL 201 could always coerce the public by threatening to retire from the Congress or to fast unto death. From his personal point of view, it was the cleverest move. With a subservient Cabinet, it was possible for him to conclude the pact with Lord Irwin in March, 1931, to have himself appointed as the sole repre- sentative to the Round Table Conference, to conclude the Poona Agreement in September 1932—and do other acts which have done considerable disservice to the public cause. For the general public, unacquainted with the intricacies of politics or with the differences in the inner councils of the Congress, the Lahore Congress was a great inspiration. After the midnight of December 31st, the President of the Congress came out to hoist the flag of independence. In spite of the biting cold of a Lahore winter, there was a mammoth gathering and as the flag went up, a thrill went through the vast audience. When the Congress was dissolved, there was a light on the horizon and the members of the great Assembly departed with a new hope and with the torch of a new message.

CHAPTER X STORMY 1930 WITH the dawn of the new year there was hope and con- fidence in every heart. People anxiously looked to the Working Committee for instructions as to what they were required to do for the early attainment of independence. The Mahatma sensed the atmosphere correctly and he stated: ‘Civil disobedience alone can save the country from impend- ing lawlessness and secret crime, since there is a party of violence in the country which will not listen to speeches, resolutions or conferences, but believes only in direct action.’ He therefore resolved to place himself at the head of the national struggle in order to keep it within the limits of non- violence. Early in January the first order went out. January 26th should be observed all over India as the day of indepen- dence. On that day a manifesto, prepared by the Mahatma and adopted by the Working Committee of the Congress, was to be read from every platform and accepted by the people. The manifesto which is set forth below, was at once a declaration of independence and a pledge of loyalty to the Indian National Congress and to the sacred fight for India’s liberty. ‘We believe that it is the inalienable right of the Indian people as of any other people, to have freedom and to enjoy the fruits of their toil and have the necessities of life so that they may have full opportunities of growth. We believe also that if any Government deprives the people of these rights and oppresses them, the people have a further right to alter it or to abolish it. The British Government in India has not only deprived the Indian people of their freedom but has based itself on the exploitation of the masses, and has ruined India economically, politically, culturally and spiritually. We believe therefore that India 202