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

208 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE Status mentioned in your announcement had been used in its accepted sense. For has it not been admitted by responsible British statesmen that Dominion Status is virtual indepen- dence?'' To this letter—or ultimatum—of Mahatma Gandhi, the Viceroy sent a brief reply regretting that Mr. Gandhi intended to contravene the law. So, true to his announced programme, the Mahatma commenced his three weeks' march to Dandi, the sea-coast village, where the disobedience of the Salt Law was to begin. At that time the Government were sceptical about the effect that the march would produce and they were not inclined to take him seriously. The Anglo-Indian papers began to write taunting articles and the Statesman of Calcutta in a leading article wrote to the effect that the Mahatma could go on boiling sea-water till Dominion Status was attained. This scepticism was also shared by a section of Congressmen. Nevertheless, the march to Dandi was an event of historical importance which will rank on the same level with Napoleon's march to Paris on his return from Elba or Mussolini's march to Rome when he wanted to seize political power. Fortunately for the Mahatma, he had a wonderfully good Press within India and outside. In India, for days and days every detail connected with the march found the widest publicity. The march on foot enabled him to rouse the entire countryside through which he passed and it also gave him time to work up the feelings of the country as a whole. If, on the other hand, he had taken the train to Dandi from Ahmedabad, arriving there the next day, he would neither have been able to rouse the people of Gujerat, nor would he have had enough time to work up the entire nation. While the Mahatma was marching from village to village, an intense propaganda was carried on in the neigh- bourhood asking the people to give up service under the Crown and to prepare for the non-payment of taxes, which would be started before long. At every step the Mahatma received an unexpectedly warm welcome and that made the Government realise that the coming campaign would be a' much more serious affair than they had thought at first. On April 6th, after a purificatory bath in the sea, the

STORMY 1930 209 Mahatma started civil disobedience by appropriating pieces of salt lying on the beach. Almost simultaneously, illegal salt manufacture was begun all over the country. Where natural conditions precluded any such campaign, disobedience of other laws was attempted. In Calcutta, for instance, the Mayor, the late Mr. J. M. Sengupta started disobedience of the Law of Sedition by openly reading seditious literature in a public meeting. Boycott of foreign cloth was begun on an extensive scale and along with that, another campaign grew up for the boycott of British goods of all sorts. There was also an intensive campaign for the boycott of liquor and of intoxicating drugs. To enforce the boycott, picketing by Congress volunteers was organised all over India. A few weeks after the march began, the Mahatma addressed a special appeal to the women of India (Young India, April 10th, 1930). Therein he said: 'The impatience of some sisters to join the good fight is to me a healthy sign. . . . In this non-violent warfare, their contribution should be much greater than men's. To call women the weaker sex is a libel. . . . If by strength is meant moral power, then woman is immeasurably man's superior.' Proceeding, the Mahatma appealed to them to take up the picketing of liquor shops and foreign-cloth shops. The prohibition of intoxicating drugs and drinks would reduce the Government revenue by 250 millions of rupees (Rs. 13½=£1 roughly)—while the boycott of foreign cloth would stop an annual drain of nearly 600 millions of rupees. He further appealed to women to devote their spare hours to spinning with a view to stimulating the production of Khadi. In conclusion he said: 'But there is no excitement and adventure in the liquor and foreign-cloth picketing, some sisters may retort. Well, if they will put their whole heart into this agitation, they will find more than enough excitement and adventure. Before they have done with the agitation, they might even find themselves in prison. It is not improbable that they may be insulted and even injured bodily. To suffer such insult and injury would be their pride. Such suffering if it comes to them, will hasten the end.' The appeal was transmitted all over the country and it had a magic effect. Even the women of the most orthodox and o

210 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE aristocratic families were moved.¹ Everywhere women came out in their thousands to carry out the Congress mandate. Not only the Government but the people of the country as well, were taken by surprise at the manifestation. Temperance workers like Miss Mary Campbell,² who had worked for forty years in India, were amazed at the phenomenon. Well might foreign observers like Mr. H. N. Brailsford and Mr. George Slocombe say that if the civil-disobedience campaign had accomplished nothing else but the emancipation of the women of India, it would have fully justified itself. The energy and enthusiasm of the women stirred the men to greater effort and sacrifice. Within three weeks of the commencement of the campaign, the Government resolved to strike. On April 27th, the first emergency ordinance was promulgated called the Press Ordinance, which brought the papers under the full control of the officials. Most of the Nationalist papers ceased publication for a long period as a protest. Other ordinances followed, aiming at the suppression of the different activities of the Congress. Congress organisa- tions were declared unlawful all over the country and an ordinance was issued, enabling the Government to confiscate the property belonging to them. The result of these ordinances was that the Congress could no longer function openly and many of its activities, like raising funds, recruiting volunteers, etc., had to be conducted in an underground manner. Nevertheless, the activities of the Congress instead of being paralysed by the ordinances, were further stimulated. As meetings and processions were banned everywhere, they con- tinued to be held in defiance of the official ban. Newspapers, bulletins, leaflets were printed and distributed by Congress agencies in spite of official prohibition. In some places as in Bombay, Congress propaganda was conducted by means of the radio and the police were not able to find out from where the messages were being transmitted. ¹ E.g., Women belonging to the family of such an orthodox and highly respected Brahmin as Pandit Madan Mohon Malaviya went to prison without fear or hesitation. ² Manchester Guardian of June 22nd, 1931, contains her description of the awakening among the women in Delhi where alone 1,600 women were imprisoned.

STORMY 1930 211 Faced by a non-violent rebellion, the Government first proceeded to make arrests. But that was of no avail. Accord- ing to official figures,¹ more than sixty thousand civil resisters were cast in prison. Special prisons had to be improvised at short notice but these were filled up in no time. Besides the activities described above, which were more or less common to the whole of India, there were special activities in certain provinces. For instance, in the Central Provinces and a part of the Bombay Presidency, disobedience of forest laws was started and people began to cut down timber at will. In Gujerat, the United Provinces and certain districts of Bengal, particularly Midnapore District, non-payment of taxes and of land revenue was launched. In the North-West Frontier Province, thanks to the efforts of Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, better known as the Frontier Gandhi, an intensive anti-Government movement was on foot, including the non-payment of taxes. In spite of the warlike traditions of the people there, the movement was entirely non-violent. The Frontier Gandhi had organised a corps of volunteers dressed in red uniform who were called 'Khodai-Khidmad- gar' or 'Servants of God.' The red-shirt volunteers were an eye-sore to the Government, because their campaign was affecting the loyalty of the people who had formerly contri- buted some of the finest regiments to the Indian Army. Moreover, because of the strategic position of the Frontier Province, a political movement in that part of the country was exceedingly unwelcome to the Government. As soon as the Government realised the serious proportions which the campaign had assumed, they became entirely ruthless and brutal in their attempts at suppression. It is not possible to describe the atrocities committed by the forces of the Crown—including both the police and the military—in this connection. It is difficult to say which province suffered most, for each province had its tale of woe. In Bengal, the ¹ The official figures are an underestimate. The writer knows from personal experience that many people were sentenced on charges like stealing, exercising intimidation, rioting, etc., though they were. full- fledged Satyagrahis. As the Satyagrahis did not take any part in the Court proceedings, these charges were never challenged. The official figures are based on the returns for purely political offences.

212 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE Midnapore District suffered most and the sufferings of the people gave birth to a terrorist movement for organising reprisals against officials. Parts of the United Provinces where the no-rent campaign was very strong, also suffered badly. In Gujerat, when the sufferings of the peasantry be- came unbearable, they left their homes and migrated to the neighbouring state of Baroda. Indiscriminate and brutal use of force, attack on women and wanton destruction of property —constituted some of the features of the 'illegal' measures adopted by agents of the Crown towards a people who had, on the whole, remained strictly non-violent. The usual method of attacking Satyagrahis and unarmed citizens, including women, was with the help of powerful sticks, which being iron-shod or covered with leather, could split human skulls with ease.¹ Attacks were made on helpless Satyagrahi prisoners as well.² Where these were not sufficient for striking terror, shooting was occasionally resorted to. In most provinces such shooting incidents occurred occasionally, but the most diabolical incident took place at Peshawar (the capital of the North-West Frontier Province) on April 23rd, where the number of people shot and killed on one day, went up to several hundred. The facts are roughly these. There was a peaceful demonstration following the arrest of some local leaders. The authorities lost their heads and sent some armoured cars to disperse the crowd that was by that time moving homewards. The armoured cars, full of soldiers, rushed full tilt into the crowd without warning from behind, killing three people on the spot and wounding a large number. ¹ In most provinces the Congress agencies had to set up hospitals and to organise Ambulance Services for taking care of the injured Satyagrahis. The finest and most well-equipped hospitals were in Bombay City where the number of injured Satyagrahis was the largest of all the Indian cities. ² Such an attack was made in the Alipore Central Jail in Calcutta in April 1930. Among those who were attacked were the late Mr. Sengupta, then Mayor of Calcutta, Mr. Kiron Sankar Roy, Secretary Bengal Congress Committee, Prof. N. C. Bannerji, Mr. S. R. Bakshi, Editor of Liberty, the writer and a large number of fellow-prisoners. The writer, who was in the front rank, was, during the course of the attack thrown down and rendered unconscious for more than one hour. The public demanded an inquiry which the Government refused. At the end, Government appointed a Medical Board consisting of Dr. B. C. Roy and Lt.-Col. Denham- White who examined the injured prisoners and issued a report on their physical condition.

STORMY 1930 213 Thereupòn the crowd is reported to have set fire to the cars. Soldiers were at once rushed to the spot and ordered to open fire. But the crowd did not run away; hundreds of them stood their ground and faced the bullets. When the facts became known, the public demanded an inquiry which the Government refused. Then the Working Committee of the Congress appointed a Committee with Mr. Vithalbhai J. Patel (who by then had resigned the Presidentship of the Assembly) as Chairman to inquire into and report on the facts. This Committee was not allowed to proceed to the Frontier Province. It had therefore to assemble in Punjab at a place nearest to the Frontier Province and collect evidence there. As soon as the report of the Committee was published, it'was banned by the Government. Nevertheless, through the efforts of Congress organisations, wide publicity was given to it. The only redeeming feature of the Peshawar episode was the refusal of a company of Garhwali¹ soldiers to open fire on the unarmed crowd. After their refusal they were at once disarmed, placed before a court-martial and sentenced to long terms of imprisonment. In most of the provinces where atrocities were perpetrated, local committees were appointed by the public to inquire into and report on those incidents. To publish those reports would require a big volume and would be outside the scope of this book. It would not, however, be out of place to quote some lines from the second letter² addressed by the Mahatma to the Viceroy early in May on the eve of his arrest, which was published in Young India on May 8th, 1930. ‘I had hoped that the Government would fight the civil resisters in a civilised manner. I could have had nothing to say if in dealing with the civil resisters the Government had satisfied itself with applying the ordinary process of law. Instead, whilst the known leaders have been dealt with more or less according to the legal formality, the rank ¹ The Garhwalis are recruited from the mountainous portion of the United Provinces bordering on the Himalayas. Together with the Gurkhas of Nepal, the Sikhs of the Punjab and the Pathans of the Frontier Pro- vinces—they form the pick of the Indian Army. ² It is not quite sure if this letter actually reached the hands of the Viceroy.

214 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE and file have been often savagely and in some cases, even indecently assaulted. Had these been isolated cases, they might have been overlooked. But accounts have come to me from Bengal, Bihar, Utkal, the United Provinces, Delhi and Bombay, confirming the experiences of Gujerat, of which I have ample evidence at my disposal. In Karachi, Peshawar and Madras the firing would appear to have been unprovoked and unnecessary. Bones have been broken, private parts have been squeezed, for the purpose of making volunteers give up salt which is valueless to the Government but precious to the volunteers. At Mathura an Assistant Magistrate is said to have snatched the National flag from a ten-year-old boy. The crowd that demanded restoration of the flag, thus illegally seized, is reported to have been mercilessly beaten back. That the flag was subsequently restored, betrayed a guilty conscience. In Bengal, there seem to have been only a few prosecutions and assaults about salt, but unthinkable cruelties are said to have been practised in the act of snatching flags from volunteers. Paddy fields are reported to have been burnt, eatables forcibly taken. A vegetable market in Gujerat has been raided because the dealers would not sell vegetables to officials. These acts have taken place in front of crowds who have submitted without retaliation in pursuance of the Congress mandate. . . . Yet this is only the fifth week of the struggle!’ An English disciple of Mahatma Gandhi, Miss Madeleine Slade, paid a visit to Bulsar in Gujerat on June 6th to see with her own eyes how the Satyagrahi volunteers engaged in the non-violent raid on the Dharasana Salt Depot were being treated by the police. She published her report in Young India in the issue of June 12th, 1930. Therein she stated that she had found evidence of the following injuries per- petrated on the Satyagrahi volunteers:

1. Lathi¹ blows on head, chest, stomach and joints.
2. Thrusts with lathis in private parts, abdominal regions.
3. Stripping of men naked before beating.
4. Tearing off loin cloths and thrusting of sticks into anus. ¹ A lathi is an iron-shod heavy stick.

STORMY 1930 215 5. Pressing and squeezing of the testicles till a man becomes unconscious. 6. Dragging of wounded men by legs and arms, often. beating them the while. 7. Throwing of wounded men into thorn hedges or into salt water. 8. Riding of horses over men as they lie or sit on the ground. 9. Thrusting of pins and thorns into men’s bodies, sometimes even when they are unconscious. 10. Beating of men after they have become unconscious, and other vile things too many to relate, besides foul language and blasphemy, calculated to hurt as much as possible the most sacred feelings of the Satyagrahis. To turn now to other events. April 1930, was a month bristling with sensational incidents. Every day seemed to bring forth some new development and no part of the country was free from it. The Indian Legislative Assembly did not have a quiet time either, though the Congress members were out of it. Pandit Madan Mohon Malaviya who was leading the Independent Party there, assumed the leadership of the opposition. Early in April, he walked out of the Assembly together with his followers, as a protest against the manner in which the Government had forced on the Assembly the principle of Imperial Preference in connection with the Cotton Tariff Bill. Two days later he resigned from the Assembly together with some other members of his Party. This was followed by the resignation of the President of the Assembly, Mr. V. J. Patel. He addressed two letters to the Viceroy in which he stated that after the resignation of the Congress Party and of Pandit Malaviya’s Independent Party, the Assembly had lost its representative character and in the circumstances, he felt that his place was with his people. He also protested against what seemed to him a change of front on the part of the Government on the constitutional question. Another incident of a totally different character took place in April in the easternmost part of the country. That was the Armoury Raid in Chittagong in East Bengal. A number of young men belonging to a local revolutionary party led by

216 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE Mr. Surjya Kumar Sen, raided the Chittagong Armoury. They shot dead the guards on duty, took possession of the premises, removed what weapons they could and destroyed the rest. Thereafter they retired to the hills and continued guerilla warfare for some days. Ultimately they were over- powered, the majority of them being killed and the rest being forced to fly for their safety. Members of this party who were at large, continued terroristic activities for a long time.¹ About this time the Afridi tribes on the North-West Frontier grew restless and began to give trouble to the British Govern- ment. Early in May, the Mahatma wrote his second letter to the Viceroy (part of which has been quoted above), in which he said: ‘Dear Friend, ‘God willing it is my intention to set out for Dharasana and reach there with my companions on . . . and demand possession of the Salt Works. . . . It is possible for you to prevent this “raid,” as it has been playfully and mis- chievously called, in three ways:

1. By removing the Salt Tax.
2. By arresting me and my party unless the country can, as I hope it will, replace everyone taken away.
3. By sheer goondaism (i.e., terrorism) unless every head broken is replaced, as I hope it will be. . . .’ (Young India, May 8th, 1930.) But before the Mahatma could carry out his intention he was seized by the custodians of law on May 5th, 1930 and cast in prison without trial under an old regulation, called Bombay Regulation XXV of 1827. The arrest of Mahatma Gandhi caused public excitement all over India, but there was no outbreak of violence except in one town, viz., Sholapur in Bombay Presidency. In that ¹ The first batch of young men arrested after the raid were sent up for trial in what is known as the Chittagong Armoury Raid Case and after a long trial, the majority of them were sentenced to transportation for life and sent over to the Andaman Islands in the Bay of Bengal. The leader of the group, Surjya Kumar Sen, evaded arrest for a long time but was subsequently arrested and hanged after trial. Chittagong has since 1930 been under a form of martial law.

STORMY 1930 217 town with a large industrial population, the people rose in revolt and overpowered the local police. They took possession of the town, hoisted the national flag and declared their independence. They held the town for some time but troops were rushed in from Bombay and the authority of the British Raj was once again restored. Martial law was then established and this was followed by a reign of terror. During the martial law regime, various restrictions and humiliations were inflicted on the people. For instance, people were not allowed to wear Gandhi caps¹ in public, the national flag was pulled down wherever it was seen, etc. Those who were suspected of taking a leading part in the disturbances were sent up for trial. Some of them were hanged and others sentenced to long terms of imprisonment.

• While these stirring events were taking place and the people were thinking in terms of independence, the 1927 programme of the Government was being translated into action. The Reports of the Provincial Committees and of the Indian Central Committee, appointed to assist the Simon Commission, had been published before the end of 1929. An auxiliary committee of the Simon Commission presided over by Sir Philip Hartog that had been appointed to report on the growth of education in India, had also issued its report in October, 1929. Only the report of the Simon Commission had been held up, possibly because of the Labour Party coming into power in June, 1929. However, on June 7th, 1930, the report of the Commission was issued. The report met with vehement opposition from all quarters, so reactionary were its recommendations. Even the Indian Liberals demanded that the Simon Report should not form the basis of discussion at the Round Table Conference. And since the Indian Legislative Assembly rejected the Simon Report in toto, even in the absence of the Nationalist members —the Government had no option but to agree to the demand. At a time when the breach between the Government and the Congress appeared to be beyond repair, an enterprising British journalist arrived on the scene to try his wits. By ¹ White caps made of Khadi are called Gandhi caps. They are gen- erally worn by members of the Congress Party.

218 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE clever manœuvring, Mr. George Slocombe, representative of the Daily Herald, managed to get permission to interview Mahatma Gandhi in Yeravada Prison in Poona on May 19th and 20th, 1930, with a view to ascertaining from him the conditions on which he would be prepared to call off the civil-disobedience movement. The Mahatma said that the movement could not be stopped without a definite guarantee of the 'substance of independence.' He mentioned four points as a prerequisite to suspension of civil disobedience and participation in the Round Table Conference:

1. The terms of reference to the Round Table Con- ference to include the framing of a Constitution giving India the substance of independence.
2. Satisfaction to be granted to the demand for the repeal of the Salt Tax, the prohibition of liquor and opium and ban on foreign cloth.
3. An amnesty for political prisoners to coincide with the end of the civil-disobedience campaign.
4. The remaining points raised in the Mahatma's letter to the Viceroy to be left for future discussion. On June 20th, Mr. Slocombe interviewed Pandit Motilal Nehru, the Acting President of the Congress, on the eve of his arrest. The Pandit substantially confirmed what the Mahatma had told Mr. Slocombe. On June 25th, Mr. Slocombe drafted a statement outlining the basis for negotia- tions between the Government and the Congress and this state- ment was approved by the Pandit. The statement ran thus: 'If in certain circumstances the British Government and the Government of India, although unable to anticipate the recommendations that may in perfect freedom be made by the Round Table Conference or the attitude which the British Government may reserve for such recommendations, would nevertheless be willing to give a private assurance that they would support the demand for full responsible government for India, subject to such mutual adjustments, and terms of transfer as are required by the special needs and conditions of India and by her long association with Great Britain and as may be decided by the Round Table Conference, Pandit Motilal Nehru would undertake to

STORMY 1930 219 take personally such an assurance—or the indication received from a responsible third party, that such an assurance would be forthcoming—to Mr. Gandhi and to Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. If such an assurance were offered and accepted, it would render possible a general measure of conciliation which would entail simultaneous calling off of the civil-disobedience movement, the cessation of the Government's present repressive policy and a generous measure of amnesty for political prisoners, and would be followed by the participation of the Congress in the Round Table Conference on terms to be mutually agreed upon.' This statement was sent by Mr. Slocombe to Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru and Mr. M. R. Jayakar, with a view to interest- ing them in the cause of peace. Both of them took up the matter enthusiastically and waited upon Lord Irwin for the purpose in the early part of July. They obtained permission to interview Mahatma Gandhi and Pandit Motilal and Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru in prison. On July 23rd and 24th they met the Mahatma in Yeravada Prison and with his memorandum, they met the two Pandits in Naini Prison near Allahabad on July 28th. The Pandits said among other things that no final word could be given without personal consultation with Mahatma Gandhi. With the Nehrus' memorandum, Mr. Jayakar again saw the Mahatma on July 31st. Orders were then given for the Pandits to be taken from Naini Prison to Yeravada Prison. On August 13th, 14th and 15th, consul- tations took place in Yeravada Prison at which were present the two peacemakers, Mahatma Gandhi, Pandit Motilal and Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, Mrs. Sarojini Naidu and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. A joint statement was issued by the Congress leaders on August 15th, stating that no solution would be acceptable to them or to the Congress which did not guarantee the following points:

1. India's right to secede at will.
2. Grant of a national government responsible to the people including control of defence and finance.
3. India's right to submit to an impartial scrutiny the so-called public debt of India.

220 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE This statement was duly communicated to the Viceroy and on August 28th, 1930, Lord Irwin sent a reply to the two peacemakers saying that he felt that it was impossible to hold any discussion on the basis of the joint statement of August 15th. Thus the peace negotiations failed. The peace- makers made a further attempt by interviewing the leaders in Naini and Yeravada Prisons, but the leaders opined that there was an unbridgeable gulf between the Government and the Congress. Soon after the final break in the negotiations, Pandit Motilal Nehru was suddenly released from prison on September 8th, because he had fallen seriously ill. He remained alive for five months only, but during this period, in spite of extreme ill-health, he spent the greater part of his time and energy in trying to stiffen the movement throughout the country. During his stay in Calcutta, he also devoted much of his time to a settlement of the Bengal dispute. Immediately after the Lahore Congress, he had visited Calcutta in order to inquire into the election complaints preferred against the Executive of the Bengal Congress Committee (of which the writer was the President), by the party of the late Mr. J. M. Sengupta. He had given his verdict in favour of the former, but after his departure, differences broke out again, with the result that at the elections to the Calcutta Municipality, the two Congress groups put forward two separate sets of can- didates. When the civil-disobedience movement was started, two separate committees came into existence for conducting the civil-disobedience campaign in Bengal. A few months later when the election of the Mayor of Calcutta was to take place, one party put up the outgoing Mayor, the late Mr. Sengupta, while the other party put up the writer—and the latter won. These dissensions lowered the prestige of the Congress to a large extent. However, through Pandit Motilal Nehru's influence, the two civil-disobedience committees were amalgamated and other differences were patched up—so, that when he left Bengal in December, the prestige and strength of the Congress were restored to some extent. While the above events were taking place, the bureaucracy were pursuing their own plan. In June, the report of the

STORMY 1930 221, Simon Commission was published and on September 20th, the Government sent their despatch to London, as a pre- liminary to the discussions of the Round Table Conference. Some of the principal points in the recommendations of the Commission were as follows:

1. The new Constitution should, as far as possible, contain within itself provision for its own development.
2. The ultimate Constitution of India must be federal.
3. Burma should be excluded from the new Constitution.
4. There should be full autonomy in the provinces including the department of Law and Order—but the Governor should, on the administrative side, be given overriding powers in certain matters like internal security, safeguarding the interests of all communities, etc.
5. The presence of British troops and British officers in Indian regiments will be essential for many years. The Commander-in-Chief should not be a member of the Viceroy’s Executive Council and he should not sit in the Legislature.
6. The Provincial Legislative Councils should be enlarged.
7. The Lower House of the Central Legislature should be called the Federal Assembly. It should be enlarged and be elected by the Provincial Councils. The Upper House—the Council of State, should remain much as it is at present.
8. A Provincial Fund should be constituted for ensuring adequate resources to the provinces without infringing their autonomy.
9. The Governor-General should select and appoint the members of his Cabinet. He should be the actual and active head of the Government and in some matters his powers should be enlarged. (The Commission did not recommend the introduction of responsibility at the centre.)
10. The High Courts should be under the administrative control of the Government of India.
11. The functions and membership of the Council of the Secretary of State for India should be reduced.

222 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE Some of the main points in the Government of India’s Despatch were as follows:

1. The following subjects should be under the control of the British Parliament : defence, foreign relations, internal security, financial obligations, financial stability, protection of minorities and of the rights of services recruited by the Secretary of State, the pre- vention of unfair economic and commercial dis- crimination.
2. The proposal of the Statutory Commission for the abolition of diarchy and the introduction of responsible government (including the department of law and order) in the provinces was approved.
3. The Governor should be given the discretion to appoint officials as Ministers.
4. In Madras, Bombay, Punjab, Central Provinces and Assam, the Legislature should have a single chamber. In Bengal, the United Provinces and Bihar and Orissa there should be two chambers.
5. The separation of Burma was approved in principle.
6. The members of the Governor-General’s Executive Council should be appointed by the Governor-General himself. The Governor-General’s Cabinet while being of a ‘unitary’ character and not responsible to the Legislature, should consist of some elected members of the Legislature who could command some support from that body. On November 12th, 1930, the first session of the Round Table Conference was held in London under the Chairman- ship of Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, the Prime Minister. It consisted of eighty-nine, members, sixteen from the British parties, sixteen from the Indian States and fifty-seven from British India. The Congress Party was of course unrepre- sented. After the preliminary sittings of the Conference, several committees were appointed to consider the problems in detail. There was the Federal Structure Committee with Lord Sankey as Chairman, the Franchise and Services Com- mittee with Sir William Jowitt as Chairman, the Burma Committee with Earl Russell as Chairman, the Defence

STORMY 1930 223. Committee with Mr. J. H. Thomas as Chairman, the Minorities Committee with Mr. Ramsay Macdonald as Chairman etc. The fact that the representatives of the Indian States were invited to the Conference made it evident at the very outset that the British Government were anxious to bring the Indian States within the future Indian Constitution. The first step in that connection had been taken by Sir John Simon when he wrote to the British Prime Minister for an enlargement of the terms of reference with a view to including the question of the relations between British India and the Indian States. The Simon Commission also reported that the ultimate Constitution of India must be a federal one. The only question that remained undecided was as to when it would be possible to bring about a federation of British India and the Indian States. In the circumstances it was no surprise when on November 17th, at a sitting of the Round Table Conference, His Highness, the Maharaja of Bikaneer, wel- comed such a federation. The whole idea had been talked over and discussed, months before the Round Table Con- ference met. The proposal of federation was one of the cleverest moves adopted by the British Government at this stage, and it is a pity that elderly politicians like Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru and Mr. M. R. Jayakar did not see through the game at once, though Mr. Srinivasa Sastri and Mr. M. A. Jinnah did feel suspicious towards the idea at the beginning. The Government of India in their despatch of September 20th, had merely mentioned the safeguards—that is, the subjects that should be retained under the control of His Majesty's Government and the British Parliament. But what about the subjects that were to be within the purview of the Indian Legislature? British interests demanded that there should be a Conservative element in that body that could be trusted to checkmate the radical forces in British India. And what could be better than to bring the Indian Princes in, so that they might act as a dead weight in the Central Legislature? This rapprochement between the British Government and the Indian Princes had begun as early as 1922, as we have already seen in Chapter III, following the visit of H.R.H. the Prince of Wales to India. Faced with

224 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE a Nationalist upheaval in British India, the British Govern- ment turned to the Indian Princes for sympathy and assistance. The Princes, on their side, were also faced with a democratic movement within their territories which had the support of the people of British India and they wanted the help of the British Government to hold in check the popular revolt. It was in pursuance of this demand that the Indian States Bill was introduced by the Government in the Indian Legislative Assembly in September 1922, and when thrown out by the Legislature, was certified as law by the Viceroy. The culmination of this friendship was the idea of federation —an unholy alliance between the British Government and the Indian Princes, in order to thwart the mass awakening in India. The net result of the first session of the Round Table Conference was the offer to India of two bitter pills—Safe- guards and Federation. To make these pills eatable, they were sugar-coated with 'Responsibility.' Liberal politicians felt quite happy when the Prime Minister announced in his closing speech on January 19th, 1931, that they would be given responsible Government at the centre, if they agreed to Safeguards and Federation and they never stopped to inquire what would remain of real 'Responsibility' after Safeguards and Federation had been conceded. To make matters worse, the anti-Nationalist Moslems who were present at the Round Table Conference declared that they would agree to responsible Government with Federation and Safeguards, only if the communal question was decided to their satisfaction. On January 19th, 1931, the Round Table Conference was adjourned sine die. The Liberal politicians seemed to be in high spirits, so satisfied they were at their own achievements in London. For the layman, the only thing they brought from across the seas was the assurance given by the Prime Minister that 'steps would be taken to enlist the co-operation of those sections of public opinion which had held aloof from the Conference.'

CHAPTER XI THE GANDHI-IRWIN PACT AND AFTER (1931) TOWARDS the end of 1930 and the beginning of 1931, the atmosphere was once again favourable for an understanding between the Government and the Congress. In the first place, the Labour Party was in power and Capt. Wedgwood- Benn was at the India Office. Secondly, Mahatma Gandhi by his very absence had exerted a great influence on the Round Table Conference. Talking and discussing with non-descripts and self-appointed leaders while the only representative party in India was engaged in a bitter struggle with their Government, the British politicians had felt the unreality of the first Round Table Conference. Hence the determination of the Labour politicians to come to a com- promise with the Congress, if only the latter would not ask for too much. Thirdly, Lord Irwin was the Viceroy and Governor-General of India and he was far-sighted enough to realise that if an understanding was to be arrived at between the Government and the Congress, it was desirable to do so while the Mahatma was the leader of the latter body, for according to sane Britishers, ‘Gandhi was the best policeman the Britisher had in India.’¹ The third factor was undoubtedly the most important. If there had been an intransigent Viceroy at the helm of affairs in India, no understanding with the Congress would have been possible, however sympathetic might have been the attitude of Whitehall at the time. But why was Lord Irwin so agreeable to an understanding with the Congress? No doubt his vision was broader than that of the average British politician and he had an innate sense of fairness and justice, so characteristically lacking in the latter. The late Moulana Mohammed Ali had once described him as ‘that tall thin Christian.’ A true Christian ¹ This was the opinion expressed by Miss Ellen Wilkinson, Ex-M.P., after her visit to India in 1932 as a member of the India League Deputation. 225 P

226 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE he undoubtedly was. Nevertheless, Lord Irwin would never have been able to carry with him either the 'steel frame' in India or Mr. Baldwin and the Conservative leaders in England, but for the serious developments in India. Bombay, the gateway of India, was the storm centre of the movement. The no-tax campaign was very strong in Gujerat, the United Provinces and parts of Bengal. Throughout India the boycott of British goods was effective and civil disobedience in some form or other was going on in every province. In Bengal, terrorist activities had become a serious menace. Last but not least, in the North-West Frontier Province, the situation was alarming—and the situation in that province was affecting seriously the attitude of the frontier tribes, who ordinarily are quite indifferent to political developments in India. Several of these tribes had told the British authorities that they would make peace with them if only the latter would release the naked fakir (meaning Mahatma Gandhi) and Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan (the leader of the Frontier Province) and concede Swaraj to India. Though the abdication of King Amanulla in Afghanistan had eased the situation there, by ushering in a Government more friendly to Great Britain, the Government had not forgotten how the Afghan king had taken advantage of their preoccupations in 1919 by declaring war on them and had succeeded in extracting a favourable treaty. The Government were therefore feeling uneasy over the attitude adopted by the frontier tribes towards the developments in India. On the day that the Prime Minister, Mr. Ramsay Mac- donald, delivered his closing speech at the Round Table Conference, the Viceroy made a public appeal for the co- operation of the Congress in his address before the Indian Legislative Assembly. Within a week of this appeal, Mahatma Gandhi and the other members of the Working Committee were unconditionally released in order to give them an opportunity to consider the Premier's statement at the Round Table Conference. The Premier, after referring to the offer of responsibility with Federation and Safeguards had ended with the following words: 'Finally I hope and I trust and I pray that by our labours together, India will come to possess

THE GANDHI-IRWIN PACT AND AFTER 227 the only thing which she now lacks to give her the status of a Dominion amongst the British Commonwealth of Nations —what she now lacks for that—the responsibilities and the cares, the burdens and the difficulties, but the pride and the honour of responsible government.' The Indian Liberal leaders who were on their way to India, sent a cablegram requesting Mahatma Gandhi not to come to a final decision about the Government's offer without giving them a hearing and they were evidently afraid that the Working Committee would summarily reject the Premier's offer. Their apprehen- sion was not unfounded. The members of the Working Committee, soon after their release, met at Allahabad, where Pandit Motilal Nehru was lying seriously ill. The first reactions to the offer were anything but favourable. On Feb- ruary 6th, the Liberal leaders, Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru and the Right Hon. V. S. Sastri and Mr. M. R. Jayakar arrived and proceeded straight to Allahabad. Pandit Motilal Nehru, in spite of his failing health, had taken up a strong attitude, but the Liberal leaders persuaded the Mahatma not to reject finally the offer without having a talk with the Viceroy who had made a generous gesture. Allahabad, at that time, was full of peacemakers and sensation-mongers, some of whom had no other business but to carry tales from one side to the other. On February 14th, the Mahatma applied for an interview with Lord Irwin and then proceeded to Delhi to meet him. Most of the members of the Working Committee accompanied him but Pandit Motilal Nehru could not, as he was too ill. This was a great misfortune. At Delhi, the Mahatma was surrounded by wealthy aris- tocrats and by politicians who were dying for a settlement and on the side of the Working Committee there was no one with sufficient personality who could force his views on the Mahatma. Even Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, who could have done so, failed on this occasion and as for the other members of the Working Committee, most, if not all, of them were more anxious for a settlement than the Mahatma himself. The negotiations between the Viceroy and the Mahatma dragged on from day to day and the Mahatma kept the Working Committee informed of all the developments. On