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

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

228 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE March 4th, the negotiations came to an end and when the Mahatma put before the Working Committee the terms of the Pact, he made it quite clear that he would not proceed one step further without their unanimous support. At this juncture the responsibility of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru was very great. Besides being the President of the Congress, he was the only member of the Working Committee who could be expected to understand and advocate the Left-Wing point of view and his refusal would have been sufficient to prevent the final acceptance of the Pact by the Mahatma and the Working Committee. Unfortunately he gave in and so the Pact was approved by the Working Committee and the next day, March 5th, the Mahatma and Lord Irwin put their signature to it. When the publication of the Pact created an uproar in the country, Pandit Jawaharlal came out with the statement that he did not approve of some of the terms of the Pact—but as an obedient soldier he had to submit to the leader. But the country had regarded him as something more than an obedient soldier. The Pact—called the Delhi Pact or the Gandhi-Irwin Pact —was published the next morning in all the papers. It was a lengthy document and from the Congress point of view the drafting was faulty, because it did not give the impression that the Congress had scored a victory. The perusal of the terms of the Pact had a damping effect on all ‘Congressite’ readers. The writer was in the Alipore Central Jail in Calcutta at the time. For days the papers had published substantially correct forecasts of the terms of the coming Pact. Even the blind followers of the Mahatma, when they read the forecasts, invariably remarked that it was unthinkable that their leader —meaning the Mahatma—would agree to those terms. Nevertheless, what was unthinkable came to be actual. The Mahatma was not blind to the realities of the situation, and in a Press statement issued simultaneously with the Pact, he stressed the point that the settlement did not imply a victory for either party and that he would strain every nerve to make final what was provisional, so that the Pact would prove to be a precursor of the goal, to attain which the Congress had been striving. The terms of the Pact were briefly as follows:

THE GANDHI-IRWIN PACT AND AFTER 229 Mahatma Gandhi on behalf of the Congress agreed:

1. To suspend the Civil-Disobedience Movement.
2. To participate in the deliberations of the forthcoming Round Table Conference for drafting a Constitution for India on the basis of (a) Federation; (b) Respon- sibility and (c) adjustments and safeguards that may be necessary in the interests of India.
3. To forego the demand for an investigation into the allegations of police atrocities in different parts of India. The Viceroy on behalf of the Government agreed:
4. To release simultaneously all political prisoners incarcerated in connection with the non-violent movement.
5. To restore confiscated property and land to the owners where it had not been already sold or auctioned by the Government.
6. To withdraw the emergency ordinances.
7. To permit people who live within a certain distance of the seashore to collect or manufacture salt free of duty.
8. To permit peaceful picketing of liquor, opium and foreign-cloth shops, the last item designed not as a discrimination against British goods but as an encouragement to the Swadeshi movement (i.e., indigenous industries). The politically trained section of the people could analyse the terms of the Pact and to them it was a great disappoint- ment. Youth organisations in the country, taken as a whole, were also dissatisfied. But to the mass of the people, it appeared as a great victory for the Congress. Only in Bengal was there no public enthusiasm and for reasons which will be presently explained. With the announcement of the armis- tice, the official machinery of the Congress began to work expeditiously and with great efficiency. The Working Com- mittee decided to hold the annual session of the Congress at Karachi and suspending the constitutional procedure for

230 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE the election of the President, it elected Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, than whom a stauncher follower of the Mahatma it was difficult to find, as the President. Every member of the Working Committee felt that his prestige was at stake and strained every nerve to get the largest number of supporters from his province to attend the Karachi Congress. Besides the members of the Working Committee, all the leaders of the Right Wing felt called upon to exert themselves in order to secure the ratification of the Pact at the Karachi Congress. All the monied interests also desired to see the armistice followed up by a permanent peace, so that they could settle down to business peacefully. Consequently, there was no dearth of funds for those who wanted to go to Karachi to support the Mahatma. On the other hand, the oppositionists were at a great disadvantage. Many of their adherents were still in prison and did not get the benefit of the amnesty which the Pact had promised. Defections among their leaders had weakened their position in the country and even those who were in a position to attend the Karachi Congress, were. handicapped by want of necessary funds. After the Lahore Congress, Mr. Srinivasa Iyengar had retired from public activity. Along with other Left-Wing leaders, he had been treated shabbily by the President of the Lahore Congress and by the Mahatma, who was instrumental in excluding him from the Working Committee, though he was the most outstanding leader from Madras and was an ex-President of the Congress. This insult he had taken to heart so much that he had vowed he would have nothing to do with the Congress so long as Mahatma Gandhi remained the leader. Besides Mr. Srinivasa Iyengar, there was another defection in the person of Dr. Mohammed Alam of Lahore who had played a prominent part at the Lahore Congress, but who became a supporter of the Mahatma after the Gandhi- Irwin Pact. Of all the provinces, Bengal was most hostile to the Pact but even there, there was a party led by the late Mr. Sengupta pledged to support the Mahatma. In these circumstances, what could the Left-Wingers do?" Before my release from prison on March 8th, I ascertained that the political prisoners as a rule, were hostile to the Pact,

THE GANDHI-IRWIN PACT AND AFTER 231 and I naturally shared their feelings. But after coming out, I realised that the Pact was a settled fact and there was no possibility of preventing its ratification at the Karachi Con- gress. The only question that we had to decide was whether we should put up an insignificant opposition at Karachi, or whether we should refrain from dividing the House while disapproving of the Pact. Before coming to a decision, I considered it advisable to meet the Mahatma personally. I therefore undertook a journey to Bombay which also enabled me to gauge public feeling in the provinces through which I passed. At Bombay I had long conversations with the Mahatma. After criticising the Pact, the point that I urged was that we would be prepared to support him as long as he stood for independence—but the moment he gave up that stand, we would consider it our duty to fight him. At the end, the Mahatma gave me the following assurances:¹

1. He would ask the Karachi Congress for a mandate to bind the hands of the Congress Deputation to the Round Table Conference.
2. That mandate would contain nothing that was not consistent with the status of independence for which the Lahore Congress had declared.
3. He would use all his influence and strain every nerve to secure amnesty for those who had been left out in the Pact. From Bombay the Mahatma left for Delhi and I travelled in the same train with him. This gave me a further oppor- tunity not only of supplementing our talks at Bombay but also of observing how the public were reacting to the Pact. From the ovation he received everywhere, it was quite apparent that his popularity had reached the high-water mark. It had surpassed even the record of 1921. At Delhi, no sooner did we arrive than we received a bombshell in the shape of news to the effect that the Government had decided to execute Sardar Bhagat Singh and two of his comrades in the Lahore ¹ I also learnt from the Mahatma that he had voluntarily withdrawn the demand for an inquiry into the police atrocities,

232 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE . Conspiracy Case. Pressure was brought to bear upon the Mahatma to try to save the lives of these young men and it must be admitted that he did try his very best. On this occasion, I ventured the suggestion that he should, if necessary, break with the Viceroy on the question, because the execution was against the spirit, if not the letter, of the Delhi Pact. I was reminded of a similar incident during the armistice between the Sinn Fein Party and the British Government, when the strong attitude adopted by the former, had secured the release of an Irish political prisoner sentenced to the gallows. But the Mahatma who did not want to identify himself with the revolutionary prisoners, would not go so far and it naturally made a great difference when the Viceroy realised that the Mahatma would not break on that question. However, at that time, Lord Irwin told the Mahatma that he had received a largely-signed petition asking for the com- mutation of the death-sentence passed on the three Lahore prisoners. He would postpone their execution for the time being and give serious consideration to the matter, but beyond that he did not want to be pressed at the moment. The conclusion which the Mahatma and everybody else drew from this attitude of the Viceroy, was that the execution would . be finally cancelled and there was a jubilation all over the country and especially in Bengal, where some revolutionary prisoners were also going to be executed. About ten days after this incident the Congress was to meet at Karachi. The general expectation being that the execution would be cancelled, it was a most painful and unexpected surprise when on March 24th, while we were on our way to Karachi from Calcutta, the news was received that Sardar Bhagat Singh and his comrades had been hanged the night before. Gruesome reports were also afloat in the Punjab about the manner in which their dead bodies had been disposed of. It is impossible to understand at this distant date the poignant grief which stirred the country from one end to the other. Somehow or other, Bhagat Singh had become the symbol of the new awakening among the youths. People did not stop to inquire if he was really guilty of the murder charge brought against him. It was enough

THE GANDHI-IRWIN PACT AND AFTER 233 for them to know, that he was the father of the Naujawan Bharat Sabha (the Youth Movement) in the Punjab—that one of his comrades, Jatin Das, had died the death of a martyr and that he and his comrades had maintained a fearless attitude while they were in the dock. Every one felt that the Congress was meeting under the shadow of a bereavement. The President-elect, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, gave orders that the usual festivities on the first day of the Congress would be suspended. Nevertheless, when the Mahatma alighted near Karachi, there was a hostile demonstration, and several young men received him with black flowers and black garlands. The feeling among a considerable section of the youths was that the Mahatma had betrayed the cause of Bhagat Singh and his comrades. The All-India Congress Committee was to meet on March 26th and the plenary session of the Congress on the 29th. The execution having taken place on March 23rd, caused a great deal of nervousness among the supporters of the Pact and they apprehended an open split in the Congress. But the official party machinery had worked with great thorough- ness and from all the provinces supporters of the Pact had been elected as delegates in large numbers. The Left Wing, to which I belonged, had resolved previously to come to Karachi, survey the situation there, consider carefully what the Mahatma had communicated to me in Bombay as to his future attitude and then make their final decision. At Karachi it was quite clear that they would not have much support from the elected delegates who alone could vote at the Congress —though among the general public and particularly the youths—they had larger support. There was another factor which had to be considered. If we were consistent and honest, it would not do to merely oppose the Pact and then go back home. We would have to give notice to the Government and start the movement again. What support would we get if we did so? There was no doubt that the response in men and money would be disappointing. There was therefore no possibility that if we continued the fight, we would achieve better results than the Mahatma had done. In the circum- stances, what would we gain by dividing the House? If we

234 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE were defeated as we were sure to be, our opposition would be futile. If we succeeded in throwing out the Pact—which was unlikely in the circumstances—but failed to carry on a more vigorous campaign, the country would not gain by our opposition. Moreover, the execution of Sardar Bhagat Singh and his comrades had to be considered. The Government had sufficient cognisance of the situation in the country to realise that the execution on the eve of the Congress was likely to create a split in the Congress and would considerably strengthen the position of the anti-Pact Party. If the Government were so anxious to create a split, there was something to be said in favour of avoiding it. In times of crises, a party has sometimes to stand by its leaders even when it is known that they are committing a blunder. This was the first occasion for an agreement between the Nationalist leaders and the Government. If the rank and file of the Party repudiated the leaders after they had entered into an agreement, that would be damaging to the prestige not only of the leaders, but also of the Party itself. The Government would in future be able to say that it is of no use to have any negotiations with the leaders because they are likely to be repudiated by their followers. After duly weighing all these considerations, we decided that a statement should be made to the effect that the Left Wing of the Congress did not approve of the Gandhi-Irwin Pact, but that in view of the circumstances prevailing at the time, they would refrain from dividing the House. This statement was made by me before the Subjects Committee of the Congress and was received with great jubilation by the supporters of the Pact, while it caused disappointment to our more enthusiastic supporters. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel presided over the Congress. In his opening speech he gave the go-by to the Lahore resolution on Independence and advocated Dominion Status for India. Much of his speech was devoted to agrarian grievances and to social and economic reforms, necessary for the uplift of the country. Among the resolutions adopted at the Congress was one appreciating the courage and self-sacrifice of Sardar Bhagat Singh and his comrades, while condemning all acts of

THE GANDHI-IRWIN PACT AND AFTER 235 violence. This resolution was on the same lines as the 'Gopinath Saha resolution' adopted by the Bengal Provincial Conference in 1924, of which the Mahatma had strongly dis- approved. The circumstances at Karachi were such that this resolution had to be swallowed by people who, under ordinary circumstances, would not have come within miles of it. So far as the Mahatma was concerned, he had to make his con- science somewhat elastic. But that was not enough. To perfect the stage-management, Sardar Kishen Singh, the father of the late Sardar Bhagat Singh, was brought to the rostrum and made to speak in support of the Congress leaders. The tactics of the official party were superb. The other resolutions passed at the Congress referred to:

1. The ratification of the Gandhi-Irwin Pact.
2. The mandate given to the Congress delegation to the Round Table Conference; and
3. The fundamental rights of the Indian people for which the Congress would strive. The mandate given to the Congress delegation was in keeping with the assurance given by the Mahatma to the writer in Bombay. The 'fundamental rights resolution' was meant to placate the Socialist elements in the Congress. As for the personnel of the Congress delegation, the Working Com- mittee was empowered to make the selection. Towards the end of the session, the Working Committee for the next year was chosen and, as at the Lahore Congress, only such men were selected as would be inclined to follow the Mahatma blindly. During the Congress session, the Mahatma used to hold a public prayer in the morning and unprecedented crowds attended it. No propaganda could be more effective in drawing public support. Simultaneously with the Congress, a session of the All- India Naujawan Bharat Sabha (All-India Youth Congress) was held in Karachi over which the writer was called upon to preside. At that time there was a distinct tendency among the youths in Punjab and Sindh to break away from the Indian National Congress and run a separate organisation.

236 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE I pleaded strongly against this viewpoint and urged the capture of the official Congress machinery in place of boycott. With regard to the Gandhi-Irwin Pact I made the following criticism:

1. The Pact had gone into many petty and unnecessary details but had avoided the main issue of Swaraj.
2. The Conference was really no Round Table Con- ference because there was no finality about the decisions of the Conference and the whole matter would be considered de novo by the British Parlia- ment. In a real Round Table Conference, as the South Africans and the Irish had, the decisions are always final and binding on both parties. The name Round Table Conference had been used only to hood- wink foolish Indian politicians.
3. The Indian delegates to the Round Table Conference would be selected not by the Indian people but by the British Government.
4. The Conference would not be confined to the repre- sentatives of the two belligerent parties. Non-descripts of all kinds who had nothing to do with the fight for Swaraj, would be there to throw obstacles in the path of the real Nationalists.
5. The proposal of a Federation between nationalist British India and the autocratic Indian Princes was an absurd one. The Princes or their nominees would act as a dead weight against the national forces.
6. ‘Safeguards’ take away what ‘responsibility’ gives. It was a gross error on the part of the Mahatma to talk of ‘safeguards’ in the interests of India. The only safeguard that the Indians want is liberty. The actual ‘safeguards’ are demanded by Britishers and are against the interests of Indians. It is wrong to induce the Indian people to accept such safeguards by saying that they are in the interests of India.
7. The amnesty provided under the Pact was inadequate because the following classes of political prisoners were excluded: (a) The state prisoners and ‘detenus’ imprisoned without trial, of whom there were about one thousand in Bengal alone.