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

156 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE Captain Smith had a genial temperament, Major Findlay had a rough exterior and a rather saturnine temperament. We soon fell out with Major Findlay over trifling matters and this led to hunger-strike. Through Mr. Brown's med- iation, the misunderstanding was however cleared up. There- after, when we came to know one another more intimately, I discovered that he was an exceedingly nice and straight- forward man. Another official who acted as Superintendent for a time, was Major Sheppard, with whom there was constant friction, but since he did not stay long, matters did not reach a crisis. Ours was not the first batch of state prisoners to be deported to Burma. About a year before we arrived, another batch had been sent across there. When the first batch came they were not confined in the same prison, but were transferred in twos to different prisons in Burma. They had a very hard time and as they were separated, they could not put up a joint fight for improving their conditions. During this period two of the state prisoners, Mr. Jibon Lal Chatterji and Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Dutt, sent a representation to the then Secretary of State for India, Lord Olivier, severely criticising the conduct of the Political Branch of the Bengal Police, called in India, the Intelligence Branch. The main thesis was that agent-provocateurs were employed by the police for entrap- ping innocent but over-enthusiastic young men and that the bogey of a revolutionary conspiracy was deliberately raised by the Intelligence Branch because they could thereby draw extra allowances, like 'danger allowance,' and could also have at their disposal, large sums of money for employing informers. Certain facts and figures were given by way of substantiating this charge. This letter somehow found its way to the Indian Press and after its publication, it was quoted by the Swarajist leader, Pandit Motilal Nehru, in a speech in the Assembly, attacking the policy of imprisoning people without trial. The publication of the letter so annoyed the Government that severe restrictions were imposed on the state prisoners in Burma. After some time the temper of the Government cooled down and the state prisoners were allowed then to come together in one prison. An exception was however

IN BURMESE PRISONS 157 made in the case of Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Dutt, whom the Government wanted to punish for the publication of the letter. In prison we were able to meet from time to time Burman political prisoners from whom we learned a lot about the intricacies of Burma politics. Among those whom we met there were some priests (called in Burma 'hpongyis'). These priests, or hpongyis, whom I met in the prisons of Burma, are some of the finest specimens of humanity I have ever met. Burma is a land where there is no caste and no class. It is probably the most classless country outside Russia. Buddhism there is a living religion and the priests who live that religion are held in high esteem. For centuries, they have been imparting free elementary education to men and women, with the result that in the matter of literacy, Burma to-day is far ahead of India. Since the British annexation, the hpongyis alone have kept up the flame of dying nationalism, since they were never reconciled to British domination or to British culture. Under their leadership for many a year, guerilla warfare was carried on. Owing to their consistent opposition to the foreign Government, they are intensely hated by all Britishers, official and non-official. Strangely enough, though they are anti-British, they are nevertheless pro-Indian and they are strongly opposed to separation from India. Apart from the cultural affinity they have with India, they feel that when they are separated from India, it will be more difficult for them to fight Great Britain for their political freedom. Among the mass of the Burmese people the influence of the priests is very strong. The English-educated Burmans are politically a divided community. The majority are politically opposed to the priests and are anti-Indian and pro-British.¹ A minority among them is however allied politically with the priests. The English-educated Burmans generally think that separation from India will improve their lot, though the fact remains that it is the Britishers who have the best of every- thing in the country and not the Indians. The 'anglicised' ¹ The New Constitution, outlined by the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the basis of separation from India, is likely to prove disappointing to English-educated Burmans and may bring about a change in their general attitude.

158 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE Burmans generally have no idea or intention of fighting for their freedom and they think that once the Indians are eliminated from Burma, everything will be all right for them. The hpongyis or priests on the contrary, are politically- minded and they follow the policy and tactics of the Indian National Congress. When I was in Burma, the uncrowned king of the Burmans was Rev. U. Ottama, a priest.¹ The impression that I had during my stay there was that the priests had the largest following in the country. They had boycotted the Burma Legislature since 1920 and they did not have their representatives there. That led the Govern- ment to think that the Burmans really wanted separation from India, as the English-educated Burmans generally were saying. The recent elections have shown, however, that the people are against separation. The significance of the last elections will be understood better when it is remembered that they were fought on the basis of the old electoral roll and that the request of the anti-separationist party for a revision of the electoral roll prior to the elections, was turned down. Among the separationists (the English-educated Burmans) as also among the anti-separationists, it is very difficult to have a united party, because personal considerations play an important rôle in Burma. The priests who are anti-separa- tionists are on the whole a compact party. Among the English-educated Burmans, when I was in Burma, there were several parties, the most important of them being the Twenty-One Party²—so called because twenty-one persons joined together and formed the party. The Nationalist Party in Burma is called the G.C.B.A.—that is, the General Council ¹ Rev. U. Ottama is now an exile living in Calcutta and is not allowed to return to Burma. His health is completely shattered as a result of repeated incarceration. When I was in Burma an interesting incident took place. Rev. U. Ottama was in prison and a rumour got afloat that he had been secretly transported to a prison in India. In the Burma Legislative Council, questions were put on this point. The Home Member, himself a Burman, felt annoyed at the questions and replied that U. Ottama was one of the ten thousand criminals in his jails and he could not be expected to know where he was confined at the time. At this in- sulting reference to U. Ottama, all the non-official members of the Legis- lative Council walked out as a protest. They resolved to dissolve their separate parties and start a united party—called the People's Party. ² The policy of the Twenty-One Party was to work the Constitution, while that of the G.C.B.A. was to boycott it.

IN BURMESE PRISONS 159 of Burmese Association and there are as many G.C.B.A.'s as there are parties. Many people wonder to-day, why Britain is so keen on separating Burma from India—but if one knew Burma, there would be no reason to wonder. Many Britishers think that even if India be a lost Dominion, it is still desirable to try and keep Burma. Burma is so thinly populated, is so rich in minerals and in certain parts has such a pleasing climate that it would be fit for colonisation by Britishers. Besides, Burma is the gateway of the Far East and has an important strategic position. Interesting as Burmese politics was to me, the country and the people were even more so. I spent a great deal of my time in studying the ancient history of Burma and in discovering the old cultural contacts between the two coun- tries. There is no doubt that many Kshatriya tribes migrated to Burma from India. They, as well as the people from Ceylon and South India, brought to Burma, Buddhism and the Pali Literature. The culture and philosophy of Burma have been largely influenced by India. The alphabets have been taken from Sanskrit and even the script is much like some of the Indian scripts. The pagodas (temples) of Burma which have a unique charm of their own, are not devoid of Indian influence. In Pagan and in other old centres of Burmese culture, one can still see structures which form the transition between the typical Hindu temple and the typical Burmese pagoda. I have already said that the artistic sense of the ordinary Burman is of a very high order. One had only to see the exquisite handiwork of the prisoners in Mandalay and other prisons to believe this. In Mandalay, on two or three jail holidays in the year, the Superintendent would give the prisoners permission to sing and dance. On these days they would organise a variety performance. They would play dramas and sing songs specially composed for the occasion, would dance their exquisite national dance and would even improvise a jail orchestra to supply the necessary music. All this was possible only among a people with a highly-developed artistic sense. In October 1925, our national religious festival—the Durga Pujah—falling due, we applied to the Superintendent for

160 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE permission and for funds to perform the ceremony. Since similar facilities were given to Christian prisoners in Indian prisons, the Superintendent gave us the necessary facilities, in anticipation of Government sanction. The Government, however, not only refrained from giving sanction but censured the Superintendent, Major Findlay, for acting on his own responsibility. Thereupon we informed the Government that they should reconsider their decision, otherwise we would be forced to go on hunger-strike. The reply being in the negative, we commenced hunger-strike in February 1926. All our correspondence with the outside world was at once stopped. Nevertheless, three days after the hunger-strike began, the Calcutta paper, Forward, published the news of our hunger-strike and also the ultimatum we had sent to Govern- ment. About the same time Forward published extracts from the report of the Indian Jail Committee of 1919-21. Before this Committee a high official of the Prison Depart- ment, Lieut-Col. Mulvany, had given evidence to say that he had been forced by his superior officer, the Inspector- General of Prisons of Bengal, to withdraw the health reports he had sent of some state-prisoners in his jail and to send in false reports instead. These disclosures raised a storm of indignation among the public. In the Indian Legislative Assembly which was then sitting in Delhi, Mr. T. C. Goswami a Swarajist member, moved the adjournment of the House over the hunger-strike in Mandalay Jail and referred to the evidence of Lieut.-Col. Mulvany to the effect that false reports about the state prisoners are manufactured by the Prison Department. The Home Member found himself in an uncomfortable position and promised to redress the grievances of the state prisoners on hunger-strike. No sooner was the debate over than a searching inquiry was instituted with a view to finding out how Forward got the necessary material for publication. However, the Government issued orders without delay that they would sanction the money that had been spent by us and that in future they would provide facilities and funds for our religious requirements. So after fifteen days' starvation, having won our point, we ended the strike.

IN BURMESE PRISONS 161 In the latter half of 1926 an interesting development took place. The Legislatures were dissolved and fresh elections were due in November. My fellow-prisoner, Mr. S. C. Mitra, was offered a constituency for the Indian Legislative Assembly by the Bengal Congress Party, and I was offered a Calcutta constituency for the Bengal Legislative Council. Both of us accepted the offer and decided to stand. While Mr. Mitra was returned unopposed, I had a formidable opponent in Mr. J. N. Basu, the leader of the Liberal Party in Bengal. At the last election Mr. Basu had retained his seat by defeating the Swarajist candidate and the Congress Party thought that it was necessary to put me up against him in order to dislodge him. He was exceedingly popular in his constituency and was a fine type of gentleman and he had nothing against him except his Liberal Politics. This was the key-election of the year in Bengal and so the Party had to put forward its best efforts in order to win. The election was reminiscent of the early Sinn Fein elections in which political prisoners were candidates and the slogan was —'Put him in to get him out.' Modern electioneering methods were used by the Party, including the use of rockets for distributing leaflets and posters showing the candidate behind prison bars. The voters felt that my success would be a public vote of confidence in me and force the Government either to release me or send me up for trial. So I got a thumping majority. But the Government of India was less responsive to public opinion than the Government in Ireland and my incarceration continued. Meanwhile, as a result of the unfavourable climatic con- ditions and of the hunger-strike earlier in the year, my health had begun to give way. Matters grew serious when during the winter of 1926 I had an attack of broncho-pneumonia. After the attack, I could not shake off the temperature and simultaneously I began to lose weight. I was therefore transferred to Rangoon for examination by a medical board. The medical board composed of Lieut.-Col. Kelsall and my brother, Dr. Sunil C. Bose, made a recommendation to the effect that I should not be detained in prison. While I was awaiting the orders of Government in Rangoon Jail, I had L

162 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE a quarrel with the Superintendent, Major Flowerdew (now the Inspector-General of Prisons, Bengal), whereupon I was transferred to Insein Jail. My transfer to Insein proved to be a godsend. On arrival I found as Superintendent, Major Findlay, who had been the Superintendent of Mandalay Jail for some time. He was painfully surprised to see the condition of my health. After keeping me under observation for three weeks, he wrote a very strong note to Government about my health. On receiving this note the Government were forced to act. But they were still opposed to the idea of releasing me. In the meantime they had made an offer in the Bengal Legislative Council saying that if I wanted to go to Switzer- land at my own expense, they would release me and put me on board a ship at Rangoon sailing for Europe. This offer I had rejected, partly because I could not accept the conditions attached to the offer and partly because I did not like the idea of going to Europe direct from Burma for an indefinite period. After the rejection of this offer, the next order that I received from Government, was for my transfer to Almora Jail in the United Provinces. Once again arrangements for my transfer were made with the utmost secrecy and early one morning in May 1927, I was removed from Insein Jail to a boat sailing from Rangoon. On the fourth day I reached Diamond Harbour at the mouth of the river Hooghly. Before our boat reached Calcutta, she was stopped and I was met by Mr. Lowman (who was then the head of the Intelligence Branch of the Police) who wanted me to alight. Thinking that he wanted to smuggle me out of Calcutta, I refused. But I was assured that His Excellency the Governor had placed his launch at our disposal and that I had to appear before a Medical Board who were waiting for me there and I then agreed. The board composed of Sir Nilratan Sirkar, Dr. B. C. Roy, Lieut.-Col. Sands and Major Hingston, the Governor's physician, examined me and sent their report by wire to the Governor at Darjeeling. I spent the day in the Governor's launch and next morning Mr. Lowman, with a telegram in his hand, came to inform me that the Governor had ordered my release. Saying this, he handed over the official order of release. It was May 16th, 1927, but the

IN BURMESE PRISONS 163 order was signed on May 11th. It looked like intriguing. I asked Mr. Lowman why they had made a show of a medical examination on May 15th, when the release order had actually been signed on the 11th. He would not reply at first, but on being pressed he said that on May 11th, other orders had also been signed and kept in readiness, including my transfer to Almora and it had been decided that the final decision would come from Darjeeling after the Governor received the report of the Medical Board. Later on, I was to discover that when the Medical Board were considering what report they would make, the police-officers tried their best to make them submit a report in favour of my transfer to Almora, or of my departure to Switzerland, with a view to preventing my release, but fortunately for me, the board refused to do so. Thus, it was clear that till the last moment the Police Department tried to prevent my release. They would undoubtedly have succeeded, if anyone else had been the Governor. Fortunately for me, the new Governor, Sir Stanley Jackson, had come with an open mind and he was a strong man. With the unerring instinct of a trained politician he had sensed the grievance of the people. He had realised within a few days of his arrival that what the people demanded was some protection from the tyrannical Police Department. Under Lord Lytton's regime, the Police Department had ruled and the Commissioner of Police of Calcutta had been the virtual Governor of Bengal. All that was now changed. Within a few weeks of his taking over the reins of office, Sir Stanley Jackson gave everyone to understand that henceforth he was to rule Bengal and not the Commissioner of Police. When any conflict arose between the public and the police he endeavoured to do justice even at the risk of offending the latter. For nearly four years he was able to avoid trouble through his firmness and tact. Only when the whole of India was plunged again into the throes of another gigantic upheaval, did Bengal become once again the political storm- centre of India.

CHAPTER VIII THE BAROMETER RISES (1927-28) By the middle of 1927 the darkest hour had ended and the horizon began to light up. Disgusted with the narrow sectarianism, selfishness and fanaticism, which had seized the country after the death of the Deshbandhu, the soul of the people began to stir itself again. In the new awakening the contribution of the youth was the largest. The leadership of the Congress was, on the whole, found wanting. Mahatma Gandhi was suffering from an acute mental depression and was living in retirement from active politics. Pandit Motilal Nehru had left for Europe, partly owing to professional reasons and partly because of the serious illness of his daughter- in-law. In the circumstances, the responsibility of leadership was vested in Mr. Srinivasa Iyengar and he endeavoured to rise to the occasion. He spent much of his time in 1927 in touring the country for restoring inter-communal amity and friendship. His crowning achievement during the year was a successful session of the Unity Conference in Calcutta in November, convened and presided over by him, which was to pave the way for the coming upheaval in which all com- munities and parties were to join once again. In Bengal, where the worst demonstration of communal passion had taken place during 1926, there were signs of the dawn of a new era. In August, as a result of a vote of no confidence in the Bengal Legislative Council, the Ministers were once again thrown out. About this time a strike broke out in the biggest railway workshop of the Bengal Nagpur Railway at Kharagpur, seventy miles from Calcutta. The workers' organisation was so strong that the Company had to climb down and meet the demand of the workers. In November, the Unity Conference in Calcutta helped to clear the atmosphere and restore the friendly feelings hitherto existing between the Hindu and Moslem communities. Later in the month, when the annual 164

THE BAROMETER RISES 165 meeting of the Bengal Congress Committee¹ was held, there were signs of enthusiasm among the Congress workers of Bengal. The most potent impetus to the new awakening came, however, from the side of the Government. It was an auspicious moment for the Indian Nationalists when in November 1927 the Viceroy, Lord Irwin, made an announcement, regarding the appointment of the Indian Statutory Commission. The appointment was made under Section 84a of the Government of India Act, 1919, which provided for decennial reviews of the political situation in India, somewhat reminiscent of the periodical surveys made by the British Parliament into the affairs of the East India Company at the time of the renewal of the Company's` Charter. Since the Statutory Commission was due in 1929, it was rather surprising to find a Tory Government accelerat- ing the date of the Commission. The Indian National Congress had been pressing since 1920 for a Round Table Conference for revising the Constitution, with a view to the early introduction of Dominion Home Rule, but this demand had been consistently turned down by the British Govern- ment. The Conservative Party had never taken kindly to the Reforms of 1919, for which the Liberal, Mr. Montagu, had been largely responsible, though Indian opinion con- sidered them inadequate and unsatisfactory. They, therefore, wanted to dispose of the Indian question themselves while they were in power, so that the Labour Party, if they hap- pened to succeed them, would not be able to make any further concession to the Indian demand for Home Rule. Since the next General Election in England was due in 1929, the Conservative Cabinet found it necessary to appoint the Statutory Commission in 1927. The Commission was composed of Sir John Simon (Chair- man), Viscount Burnham, Lord Strathcona, Hon. Edward Cadogan, Mr. Stephen Walsh, Major Attlee and Col. Lane Fox. (Mr. Walsh resigned and was succeeded by Mr. Vernon Hartshorn.) There were seven members, of whom two were Labourites, one (viz., the Chairman) was a Liberal, and the ¹ At this meeting of the Bengal Congress Committee the writer was elected President and Mr. Kiron Sankar Roy, Secretary.

166 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE rest were Conservatives. Thus the co-operation of all the political parties in Britain was secured for the work of the Commission. The Commission was charged with inquiring into 'the working of the system of government, the growth of education and the development of representative institutions in British India and matters connected therewith and to what extent it is desirable to establish the principle of responsible government or to extend, modify or restrict the degree of responsible government then existing therein, including the question whether the establishment of second chambers of the local legislatures is or is not desirable.' It was stated on behalf of the Government that Indians had perforce to be excluded from the Commission because it was an ex- clusively Parliamentary Commission and the necessity of having a Parliamentary Commission was explained by the Viceroy in the following words: 'It would be generally agreed that what is required is a Commission which would be unbiased and competent to present an accurate picture of facts to Parliament; but it must also be a body on whose recommendations Parliament should be found willing to take whatever action a study of these facts may indicate to be appropriate.' Simultaneously with the announcement of the Commission, the Viceroy and the Governor of Provinces invited a number of public men in order to explain to them the motive and intention of the Government. The Com- mission was appointed by Royal Warrant of November 26th, 1927, and Lord Birkenhead, the Secretary of State for India, while speaking in the House of Lords the same month on the appointment of the Commission, challenged Indian politicians to produce an agreed constitution for India. The announcement regarding the Statutory Commission evoked a chorus of condemnation from Congress leaders of all parts of India as also from the public at large. The public had become so much accustomed to the idea of self-deter- mination for India, that they no longer regarded the British Parliament as the arbiter of India's destiny. It was therefore but natural that the Congress should, without hesitation or delay, decide to boycott the Commission (popularly known as Simon Commission). That was, of course, no surprise for

THE BAROMETER RISES 167 the Government. But what did surprise them was the decision of the Indian Liberals to boycott the Commission. It was not the violation of the principle of self-determination which offended them but the exclusion of Indians from the All-White Commission. In the face of this non-co-operation on the part of the British Government, how could the Liberals maintain their pet theory of Indo-British collaboration? The attitude of the Liberals was explained by a resolution passed at a public meeting held at Allahabad in December, which was presided over by Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru and which considered 'the exclusion of Indians a deliberate insult to the people of India, as not only does it definitely assign to them a position of inferiority, but what is worse, it denies them the right to participate in the determination of the Constitution of their own country.' The tenth session of the Liberal Federation held at Bombay the same year and presided over by the same gentleman, decided to reject the Simon' Com- mission. Following the Unity Conference in November, the All-India Moslem League met in Calcutta in December. The League passed a resolution recommending Hindu-Moslem unity on the lines laid down by the Unity Conference. It also urged the boycott of the Simon Commission and accepted the principle of joint electorates with reservation of seats for Moslems. This decision was a triumph for the Nationalist Moslems and it was possible only because such prominent Moslems as Mr. M. A. Jinnah and the Ali brothers partici- pated in the conference and advocated the Nationalist point of view. The same month the All-India Trade Union Congress met at Cawnpore and it witnessed for the first time a compact body of Communists who stood for an independent Socialist Republic and for a definite break with the British Trades Union Congress and the International Federation of Trade Unions in Amsterdam. Towards the end of December, the annual session of the Indian National Congress was held at Madras and was presided over by Dr. M. A. Ansari, the Nationalist Moslem leader of Delhi. The Madras Congress is memorable for two reasons. A resolution was of course passed boycotting the Simon Commission 'at every stage

168 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE and every form.' But along with that another resolution was passed directing the Executive to convene an All-India All Parties Conference with a view to drawing up a constitution for India acceptable to all parties. A somewhat contradictory resolution was also passed declaring the goal of the Indian people to be 'complete independence.' The proceedings of the Madras Congress clearly indicated that the appointment of the Simon Commission had been made at an auspicious moment and it had a wonderful effect in whipping up the enthusiasm of the people. From one end to the other, the country exhibited a solidarity which it had seldom shown before in recent times. It was this feeling of solidarity, as also the resolve to give an effective reply to Lord Birkenhead's challenge in the House of Lords, which was responsible for the decision to convene an All-Parties Conference. Apart from the effect produced by the appoint- ment of an All-White Commission, there was another factor which at this time put an indelible stamp on the Congress. That was the awakening among the youths. The youthful element in the Congress had been demanding a more extremist ideology for some time past and under their influence, resolutions had been passed from time to time by Provincial Conferences recommending to the Indian National Congress that the goal of the Indian people should be defined as complete national independence. The resolution of the Madras Congress regarding independence¹ was therefore but the logical fulfilment of a process going on within the Congress for a long time. Along with this resolution the Madras Congress took a significant step in appointing to the Working Committee, representatives of the Left Wing. And as General Secretaries for the coming year were appointed Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru (i.e., Nehru Junior), Mr. Shuaib Qureshi and the writer. Thus the Madras Congress may be regarded as standing for a definite orientation towards the Left. ¹ This resolution was passed unanimously at the Madras Congress but after the Congress was over, Mahatma Gandhi declared that it had been 'hastily conceived and thoughtlessly passed.' Lala Lajpat Rai declared that it was passed because 'many people believed that Dominion Status, also meant complete national independence.' At the Lahore Congress in December, 1929, a similar resolution was moved by the Mahatma and unanimously adopted.

THE BAROMETER RISES 169 Another factor which lent significance to the proceedings of the Madras Congress was the return of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru from Europe and his participation in the Congress deliberations. Pandit J. L. Nehru had had a most interesting career. After completing his studies at Cambridge he had been called to the Bar. But when in 1920 the non-co-operation movement was launched, he threw up his professional work and joined the Mahatma. According to popular gossip, he was largely responsible for persuading his father, Pandit Motilal Nehru, to do the same. He did not agree with the Swarajists on the question of working inside the Legislatures and since they came into power, he had voluntarily occupied a back seat in the councils of the Congress. Latterly he had been to Europe with his sick wife and during his stay there he studied some of the latest developments in Europe and especially in Soviet Russia. Since his return to India he gave expression to a new ideology and declared himself to be a Socialist, which was extremely welcome to the Left Wing in the Congress and to the youth organisations in the country. The new phase in his public career was first given expression to at the Madras Congress. The solid wall of opposition put up against the Simon Commission came as an eye-opener to the Government. Something had to be done to soften the opposition. There- fore, soon after his arrival in India, in February 1928, Sir John Simon wrote to the Viceroy suggesting that the sittings of the Commission should be in the nature of a 'Joint Free Conference' consisting of the seven British members and a body of representatives chosen by the Indian Legislatures. In response to an inquiry from Sir Sankaran Nair, Sir John Simon further stated that the reports, submitted by the Committees appointed by the Legislatures would be attached to the main report to be submitted to Parliament by the Commission. In spite of the above modification proposed by Sir John Simon, leaders of all parties soon after declared in a manifesto issued from Delhi that their opposition to the Simon Commission still held good. In the Indian Legislative Assembly, Lala Lajpat Rai moved a resolution repudiating the Simon Commission and this was duly carried. No com-

170 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE mittee could accordingly be appointed by the Assembly to co-operate with the Simon Commission. Of the Provincial Legislatures, the Central Provinces Legislative Council alone was able to resist the appointment of a committee. In spite of the opposition of the Congress and Liberal Parties, all the other Provincial Legislatures, however, appointed com- mittees to co-operate with the Commission. The arrival of the Simon Seven in India in February 1928, was greeted with an All-India 'hartal' or boycott-demonstra- tion, organised under the direction of the Congress Working Committee. Enthusiasm all over the country and particularly in Bengal was very great. The public expected a positive lead from the Congress leaders, which could bring the boycott home to those against whom it was directed. But no such directions came from the Congress headquarters. Only in Bengal, the Provincial Congress Committee on its own responsibility launched an intensive campaign for the boycott of British goods, the day the Commission landed in Bombay. There is absolutely no doubt that if the Congress Working Committee had taken courage in both hands, they could have anticipated the movement of 1930 by two years and the appointment of the Simon Commission could have been made the starting point of such a movement. When the writer visited the Mahatma in May 1928, at his Ashrama at Sabarmati, he reported to him the public enthusiasm which he had met with in many provinces and begged him to come out of his retirement and give a lead to the country. At that time the reply of the Mahatma was that he did not see any light, though before his very eyes the peasantry of Bardoli were demonstrating through a no-tax campaign that they were ready for a struggle. During the whole of 1928 and 1929, there was so much unrest in the labour world that if a political campaign had been started at that time, it would have been well-timed. Moreover, in 1928 and 1929, there was more enthusiasm and excitement in provinces like Punjab and Bengal than in 1930. In 1930, when the movement was launched by the Mahatma, the labour unrest had subsided to a large extent and the situation in some provinces was much quieter than before. After starting the movement in 1930, the

THE BAROMETER RISES 171 Mahatma observed in his paper, Young India, that he could have launched the campaign two years earlier. The respon- sibility for not utilising the situation in 1928 devolves not only on the Mahatma but also on the Swarajist leaders who had the Congress machinery in their hands at the time, but who had unfortunately lost their dynamic impulse. If a leader like Deshbandhu Das had been available then, the events following the boycott of the Prince of Wales' visit to India in 1921 would have been repeated in 1928. Undeterred by the opposition which faced them, the Simon Seven travelled from place to place. Wherever they went, they met black flags, hostile demonstrations and shouts of 'Simon go back.' The Government tried to organise counter- demonstrations with the help of a section of the Moslems and a section of the depressed classes but such attempts did not meet with success. Though the boycott campaign was kept strictly within the limits of non-violence, elaborate police arrangements were made wherever the Commission went and in some places unnecessarily harsh repression was resorted to. In the clashes that took place between the unarmed public and the armed police in different parts of the country, generally there were no serious consequences except in one place—Lahore. There the black flag procession which was being led by Lala Lajpat Rai was charged by the police with sticks and batons. Lala Lajpat Rai, who was in the front rank of the procession, was seriously injured in the attack and was laid up in bed for some time. He recovered to some extent at first but there was some permanent injury to his heart which caused a relapse leading to his death. Great sorrow and indignation followed the death of Lalaji and since the Simon Commission was indirectly responsible for his death, the Commission became more unpopular with the people who used to idolise the great Punjab leader. The activities of the leaders were not confined to a negative boycott of the Simon Commission. The great task ahead of them was to give a fitting reply to the challenge of Lord Birkenhead by producing an agreed Constitution. To that end, the All-Parties Conference met at Delhi in February and March, 1928. The most thorny problem which the

172 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE Conference had to tackle was the question of Hindu-Moslem- Sikh representation in the Legislatures under the new Constitution. When the Conference re-assembled in May at Bombay, the outlook appeared gloomy, because no progress whatsoever had been made. Thanks to the prudence of Mahatma Gandhi, the Conference instead of publicly record- ing its failure, appointed a small committee with Pandit Motilal Nehru as Chairman, to determine the principles of the new Constitution for India and draft a report thereon. The Committee met frequently at Allahabad and ultimately issued its report¹ in August which was unanimous, subject to certain reservations made in the preamble, and was signed by Pandit Motilal Nehru, Sir Ali Imam, Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, Mr. M. S. Aney, Sardar Mangal Singh, Mr. Shuaib Qureshi, Mr. G. R. Pradhan and the writer. The Report of the Committee, popularly known as the Nehru Committee, was cordially welcomed by all Nationalists in the country as it rendered the work of the Simon Commission superfluous. Mahatma Gandhi sent his warmest congratulations to Pandit Motilal Nehru who had worked so much over the report and for whom it was a great achievement. The report was placed before the plenary session of the All-Parties Con- ference in Lucknow in August and was unanimously adopted. It was again placed before the All-Parties Convention in December 1928, in Calcutta and objections were raised at that meeting by the representatives of the Moslem League, Sikh League and Hindu Mahasabha. The opposition of the Moslem League was the most serious and served to rouse the opposition of the other two bodies. It was stated in the preamble to the Nehru Report that the Committee could not be unanimous on the question of the fundamental basis of the Constitution, since a minority² would not accept Dominion Status and pressed for complete national independence as the basis of the Constitution. The majority of the members of the Nehru Committee, how- ever, adopted Dominion Status as the basis of the Constitution ¹ Report of the Committee appointed by the All-Parties Conference to determine the principles of the Constitution for India. Published by the Indian National Congress, Allahabad, 1928. ² The present writer was among them.

THE BAROMETER RISES 173 'without restricting the liberty of action of those political parties whose goal was complete independence.' The Con- stitution outlined in the Report was only for British India. With regard to the Indian States, the Report stated that the Central Government should exercise the same rights in rela- tion to, and discharge the same obligation towards, the Indian States, arising out of the treaties or otherwise, as the present Government of India had exercised and discharged. A future federal linking up of the Indian States with the rest of India was, however, looked forward to, whenever the States were ready for the surrender of rights which federation necessitated. The Report recommended autonomy for the provinces and suggested the creation of Sindh and Karnataka as separate provinces. The Executive, both in the provinces and at the centre, was to be responsible to the Legislature. The Central Legislature was to be composed of a Senate and House of Representatives—the Senate to be elected by the Provincial Legislatures. Every adult of either sex was to be entitled to vote and there would be joint electorates for Hindu, Moslem and other communities. For a minority community, there would be reservation of seats for a period of ten years only. In Bengal and Punjab there would be no reservation of seats at all. There would be a Supreme Court for India and a radical restriction of appeals to the Privy Council. The Civil Services would be under the control of the Central Government. The Report further enumerated nineteen fundamental rights which were to be embodied in the Statute. The residuary powers were to be vested in the Central Government. The greatest achievement of the Nehru Committee was the settlement of the question of Hindu-Moslem-Sikh represen- tation in the Legislatures under the proposed Constitution. Such an achievement would not have been possible so soon after the recent inter-communal disturbances, but for the new situation created by the appointment of the Simon Commission. The Report provided for a common electorate for all communities. Minority communities would be entitled to a reservation of seats in the Legislature in-proportion to their population and they would, in addition, have the right to contest the elections for the other seats. The reservation

174 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE would, however, be only for a period of ten years. For Bengal and Punjab, the Committee decided to have no reservation at all. The Hindus, who are in a minority in these two provinces, did not demand any reservation, as being against the principle of nationalism—and the Com- mittee considered it unfair and unreasonable that there should be a reservation of seats for the majority community —namely, the Moslems. As for the Sikhs, they were prepared to forego reservation of seats for their community if the other two communities did so—and if they did not, then the Sikhs demanded representation in excess of their numbers. Besides the question of principle which appealed to the Nehru Committee, practical considerations also showed that the best solution of the Bengal and Punjab problem would be not to have any reservation there. In Bengal, under the existing Constitution, the Moslems have 40 per cent. of the elected seats and the Hindus 60 per cent.—while the Moslem population is about 54 per cent. and the Hindu population about 46 per cent. In Punjab under the existing Constitution, the Moslems have 50 per cent. of the elected seats, the Hindus 31 per cent. and the Sikhs 19 per cent., while in population the Moslems are 55 per cent., the Hindus 34 per cent. and the Sikhs 11 per cent. The Hindu-Moslem-Sikh representation now in vogue is based on the 'Congress League Scheme' which was adopted as a compromise between the Indian National Congress and the All-India Moslem League at Lucknow in 1916. In proportion to their popula- tion, the Moslem representation in Bengal and Punjab was reduced under the 'Congress League Scheme,' because in the other provinces the Moslems got representation far in excess of their numbers and the adjustment of Hindu-Moslem interests was made on an All-India basis. Moslem representa- tion as provided under the Congress League Scheme was no longer acceptable to the Moslems of Bengal and Punjab. At the same time the Nehru Committee found it well-nigh impossible to fix another proportion which would be accept- able to the parties concerned. Therefore, from the practical point of view also, the Committee found it advisable to decide on non-reservation of seats in Bengal and Punjab.

THE BAROMETER RISES 175 While the Nehru Committee was engaged in threshing out the principles of the new Constitution, interesting events were taking place elsewhere. In May 1928, I was called upon to preside over the Maharashtra Provincial Conference at Poona. The enthusiasm I met with there was striking. In my speech I advocated some new lines of activity for Congress- men which I had decided on during my prolonged incar- ceration in Burma. For instance, I urged that the Congress should directly take up the task of organising labour and that youths and students should start organisations of their own for looking after their own interests and also for serving their country. I also urged separate political organisations for women, in addition to their participation in the Congress organisations. From Poona I went to Bombay and found that the youths there had already founded the Bombay Presidency Youth League and were preparing to take the initiative in national service at a time when the Congress Committee was not giving the lead expected of it. The month of June found a no-tax campaign in full swing in the Bardoli sub-division in Gujerat where in 1922 the Mahatma had sounded the order of retreat. A 20 per cent. increase in land revenue assessment had been ordered by the Govern- ment and the peasants under the leadership of Mr. Vallabhbhai Patel (the younger of the Patel brothers) refused to pay and resorted to Satyagraha. The usual police repression followed, including the confiscation of property and land. A heroic non-violent battle was waged by the peasantry of Bardoli for several months and ultimately the Government had to yield. The whole of Bombay Presidency—and particularly Bombay city—rallied to the support of the Bardoli peasants and women took an active part in the movement. The Bardoli campaign was the precursor of the larger fight that Bombay was to wage in 1930. Out of this campaign Mr. Vallabhbhai Patel emerged with a great reputation. Prior to this he was of course known as one of the sincerest and staunchest lieutenants of the Mahatma but the Bardoli victory brought him into the front rank of India's leaders. In appreciation of his heroic service, the Mahatma gave him the title of 'Sardar' (meaning Leader) by which he is now generally called.