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

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.

176 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE At the time of the All-Parties Conference in Lucknow in August, a new development took place. While the settlement of the communal question made by the Nehru Committee was welcome to the younger Nationalists, the recommendation regarding a dominion form of government, coming as it did after the Madras Congress resolution on independence, was quite unacceptable to them. Their intention, therefore, was to oppose the adoption of the Report at the All-Parties Conference at Lucknow. Such a step would have given great satisfaction and delight to the enemies of the Congress, would have weakened the forces working for national unity and would have increased the prestige of the Simon Commission instead of destroying it. A private meeting of members of the Congress Left Wing was therefore held at Lucknow to decide our course of action and Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and I suggested that instead of dividing the House and thereby wrecking the All-Parties Conference, we should content our- selves by voicing our protest at the Conference and then proceed to organise an Independence League in order to carry on an active propaganda in the country in favour of independence. This suggestion was accepted by the meet- ing of Left-Wingers and following it, Pandit J. L. Nehru and I made our position clear at the All-Parties Conference on the question of independence, but refrained from dividing the House. After the Conference, we started organising branches of the Independence League all over the country and in November, at a meeting held at Delhi, the Indepen- dence League was formally inaugurated. The ‘Independence Movement’ started at Lucknow was contemporaneous with another movement—viz., the Students’ Movement. When the boycott of the Simon Commission was launched in February, students all over Bengal and parti- cularly in Calcutta, took an active part in it. Disciplinary action was taken against many of them by the College authori- ties and the students then began to feel the want of an organi- sation of their own for fighting for their interests. Out of this experience the Students’ Movement in Bengal was born.¹ ¹ Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and the writer were among the few public men who encouraged the students at the time to organise themselves.

THE BAROMETER RISES 177 The first All-Bengal Conference of students was held in August in Calcutta and was presided over by Pandit Jawa- harlal Nehru. After the Conference, students' organisations were started all over Bengal and somewhat later, similar organisations were started in other provinces as well. The unrest in the student world was accompanied by unrest in the labour world as well. The year before, there had been a strike at Kharagpore not far from Calcutta, among the railway workers. In 1928 a strike broke out in the Tata Iron and Steel Works¹ at Jamshedpur, about 170 miles south-west of Calcutta, in which 18,000 workers were involved. The strike dragged on for some months. Ultimately a settlement was arrived at between the workers and the management, which was extremely favourable to the former. Even more important than the Tata Strike was the Textile Strike in Bombay in which at least 60,000 workers were involved. This strike was in the first stages a phenomenal success and caused serious embarrassment not only to the mill-owners but to the Government as well. Following this, there was a strike in the workshop of the East India Railway at Lillooah near Calcutta in which 10,000 workers were involved, in the Tinplate Company at Jamshedpur in which 4,000 workers were involved, in the Oil and Petrol Works at Budge-Budge about twenty miles from Calcutta, in which 6,000 workers were involved, and last but not least, in the Jute Mills in and near Calcutta, in which about 200,000 workers were involved. The Bombay textile strike deserves special mention because it was under the leadership of a compact disciplined party who were alleged to hold com- munistic ideas and some of whom at least declared themselves later at the Meerut Conspiracy Case Trial to be avowed Communists. Most of the above strikes were conducted by the more militant section in the Trade Union Congress and they were therefore gaining in importance from day to day. ¹ Owing to pressure from the workers the writer took up the leadership of the strike when it was about to collapse. The strike was then revived and strengthened and it led to an honourable settlement. Unfortunately differences broke out among the workers after the settlement and this had disastrous consequences. The Tata strike served for the writer as an initiation into the workers' movement, with which he has been intim- ately connected ever since. M

178 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE Towards the end of the year, when the Trade Union Congress met at Jharia in the mining area, it was found that the Left Wing had considerably increased their numbers and among them, the Communists were a compact and well-disciplined group. A new move was taken at this Congress in as much as the Trade Union Congress was affiliated to the League against Imperialism.¹ December was as usual a month of congresses and con- ferences. The most important among them were the All- India Youth Congress (which was going to hold its first session), the All-Parties Convention and the Indian National Congress. The Youth Congress was presided over by Mr. K. F. Nariman, the Parsi leader from Bombay, who had grown extremely popular with the Congress Left Wing. A lawyer by profession, he was at first a Swarajist member of the Bombay Legislative Council where he distinguished himself as an able fighter. He, however, came into prominence through his attempt to expose publicly the colossal waste of money which had resulted from the Back Bay Reclamation Scheme of the Bombay Government. He had to face a defamation suit in a court of law because of the allegations he made, but he came out of it with flying colours. Mr. Nariman, since he came into prominence, continued to uphold and give expression to extremist views until he was made a member of the Congress Working Committee at the instance of the Mahatma. The Youth Congress was important in as much as it indicated the emergence of a new factor in the public life of the country and gave expression to a mentality somewhat different from that which prevailed within the precincts of the National Congress.² The All-Parties Convention held in Calcutta during the ¹ The League against Imperialism was at first declared to be a non- Communist body and the Indian National Congress as well as the All- India Trade Union Congress were affiliated to it. Later on when the League became virtually a Communist body, the National Congress and the Trade Union Congress ceased to affiliate themselves any longer. ² In his speech as the Chairman of the Reception Committee the writer advocated activism, as opposed to the passivism which was being preached from Sabarmati Ashrama of the Mahatma and Pondicherry Ashrama of Sri Aurobindo Ghosh. He also pleaded for modernisation of the material side of life. The speech caused resentment among the followers of the Mahatma and of Sri Aurobindo Ghosh.

THE BAROMETER RISES 179 Congress week had unfortunate consequences. All those who did not have a hand in drafting the Nehru Report now made a dead set against it. Mr. M. A. Jinnah, who a year earlier had advocated a progressive nationalist point of view at the Moslem League Conference in Calcutta, now came forward with his famous 'fourteen points' in order to amend the communal settlement embodied in the Nehru Report. He demanded, among other things, one-third of the elected seats in both Houses of the Indian Legislature for Moslems, reservation of seats for Moslems in Bengal and Punjab on a population basis, vesting of residuary powers in the provinces, etc. This attitude served to make Mr. Jinnah popular with his reactionary co-religionists but undermined the value and importance of the Nehru Report. Following the Moslems, the Sikhs also made extreme demands, while the represen- tatives of the Hindu Mahasabha refused to make any further concessions beyond what had been already embodied in the Nehru Report and they even criticised adversely the conces- sions made by the Nehru Committee to the Moslem demands. It was difficult to get the support of the Moslem League for the Nehru Report, because of the parties within that body, based largely on personal considerations. For instance, the group led by the late Sir Mohammed Shafi took up a non possumus attitude on the communal question and on the political question, advocated co-operation with the Simon Commission. The Nationalist bloc stood for whole-hearted acceptance of the Nehru Report and for complete boycott of the Simon Commission. The group led by Mr. Jinnah had a reactionary attitude on the communal question but advocated the boycott of the Simon Commission. A meeting of the Moslem League was summoned at Delhi in March 1929, to consider the question and there was a clash between the warring sections, so that the meeting ended in pande- monium. In December 1927, when the Madras Congress decided in favour of convening an All-Parties Conference, it appeared as if the decision was a right one. This feeling was confirmed when the Nehru Committee was able to produce a unanimous report and the All-Parties Conference at Lucknow in August

180 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE 1928, adopted it. But subsequent experience has shown that it was a mistake for the Congress to take this step, as it was a mistake for the Congress to participate in a Round Table Conference in which other people were present who had no right to be there. The responsibility for producing a con- stitution belongs solely and exclusively to the party that fights for freedom. A report drafted by an All-Parties Committee can have value only if it is ratified by all parties in the country. But such ratification is never possible in a country which has been under foreign rule for some time. In such a country, there are bound to be parties which are under the thumb of the Government and these parties can always hold up the ratification of a document like the Nehru Report. Moreover, what is the value of such ratification when the other parties are not going to fight for freedom? The party that fights, should not, therefore, look up to any other party to produce the constitution for which it alone is fighting. The most important conference of the year was the annual session of the Indian National Congress held in Calcutta and presided over by Pandit Motilal Nehru. The attendance at the Calcutta session was the largest since the inception of the Congress and all arrangements were made on a colossal scale. Within the Congress there were two groups—the older group who would be content if they had a Dominion form of Government and who were therefore in favour of accepting the Nehru Report in toto and the Left Wing who adhered to the resolution of independence passed at the Madras Congress and wanted to accept the Nehru Report only on the basis of complete national independence. At a meeting of the All- India Congress Committee held at Delhi in November, a compromise had been arrived at between the two groups, at the instance of Pandit Motilal Nehru. ‘At the Calcutta session of the Congress, however, the Mahatma refused to accept the Delhi formula on the ground that it was self-contradictory and the breach between the two groups was thus opened once again. Attempts for a compromise were made by the Mahatma and Pandit Motilal Nehru but the maximum concession which they could make, fell short of the minimum demand of the Left Wingers. Though the Left Wing leaders were

THE BAROMETER RISES 181 inclined to avoid an open split, the rank and file of the Left Wing would not think of a compromise. Thus the main resolution of the Congress moved by Mahatma Gandhi was opposed by the entire Left Wing, who supported the amend- ment moved by the writer. The Mahatma's resolution stated that 'subject to the exigencies of the political situation, the 'Congress will adopt the Nehru constitution in its entirety, if it is accepted by the British Parliament on or before December 31st, 1929; but in the event of its non-acceptance by that date, or its earlier rejection, the Congress will organise non- violent non-co-operation by advising the country to refuse taxation 'and in such other manner as may be decided upon.' An amendment to the effect that the Congress would be content with nothing short of independence, which implied severance of the British connection, was moved by the writer and was supported, among others, by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. The amendment was lost by 973 votes to 1350—but the vote could hardly be called a free one, as the followers of the Mahatma made it a question of confidence and gave out that if the Mahatma was defeated, he would retire from the Congress. Many people therefore voted for his resolution not out of conviction, but because they did not want to be a party to forcing the Mahatma out of the Congress. Never- theless, the voting showed that the Left Wing was strong and influential. The Calcutta Congress, coming after the Madras Congress, was in the nature of an anti-climax. The President-elect on the day of his arrival was given an ovation which would excite the envy of kings and dictators, but when he left, there was disappointment writ large on every face. There was tremendous enthusiasm all over the country at the time and every one had expected the Congress to act boldly. But while the country was ready, the leaders were not. The Mahatma, unfortunately for his countrymen, did not see light. Hence the temporising resolution of the Calcutta Congress which only served to kill precious time. Only madness or folly could have led one to hope that the mighty British Government would concede even Dominion Home Rule without a struggle. During the sittings of the Congress

182 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE a procession of 10,000 workers visited the Congress pandal to demonstrate their solidarity with the struggle for national freedom and to appeal to the Congress to take up the cause of the starving workers. But all these signs of upheaval made no impression on the leaders. The decision that should have been made soon after the appointment of the Simon Com- mission—and certainly not later than the Calcutta Congress —was not made till the Lahore Congress in December 1929. But by then the situation was to deteriorate.

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