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

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.

THE GANDHI-IRWIN PACT AND AFTER 237 (b) Prisoners convicted of revolutionary offences. (c) Prisoners under trial for alleged revolutionary offences. (d) The under-trial prisoners in the Meerut Con- spiracy Case. (e) Prisoners incarcerated in connection with labour strikes and other labour disputes. (f) The Garhwali soldiers who had been court- martialled and given heavy sentences for refusing to fire on unarmed citizens. (g) Prisoners sentenced in connection with the civil- disobedience movement, the charges against whom referred to violence of some sort. 8. The demand originally made by Mahatma Gandhi for an inquiry into police atrocities during the period of the civil-disobedience movement was excluded from the Pact. The above criticism met with general approval at the Youth Congress and a resolution was adopted condemning the Delhi Pact. The Delhi Pact, as we shall see later on, proved to be not a blessing but a curse. The time was not opportune for an understanding of the sort attempted. The struggle should have been continued for some time longer. The Pact, as drafted, contained nothing of value. Ever since the nego- tiations started in 1929, the Congress leaders had always insisted on an assurance from the Government, regarding the grant of Dominion Status. Because that assurance was not forthcoming, the fight had to be launched in 1930. For the same reason, the peace-negotiations prior to the First Round Table Conference in 1930, had proved abortive. How the fight could be suspended without such an assurance, passes one's comprehension. The only reason one can suggest is that there was no one in the Working Committee to point out the correct thing to the Mahatma and with the lamented death of Pandit Motilal Nehru, the last intellectual stalwart of the Congress had disappeared. Though he lacked the emotional appeal necessary in a front-rank leader, the Pandit was never- theless a leader among men. He towered head and shoulders

238 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE above his contemporaries and in 1931, he was the one man in the Congress Working Committee who could have in- fluenced the Mahatma for good. It was therefore a mis- fortune that at the time of the Delhi negotiations he was on his deathbed and it was nothing short of a national calamity that he passed away early in March 1931. Inopportune as the Pact was, lack of diplomacy was also responsible for some of its shortcomings. For instance, on the demand for an inquiry into the police atrocities, the Mahatma had been informed that if he stuck to it till the breaking- point, the Government would yield. Nevertheless, he voluntarily gave up the demand on an appeal from the Viceroy. With better bargaining, even in March 1931, one could have extracted more from the Government, because they were really anxious for a settlement. But men with fixed ideas are not well-qualified for political bargaining. So far as the Mahatma is concerned, he alternates between obstinacy and leniency and moreover, he is too susceptible to personal appeals—and with such habits of mind, it is difficult to get the better of one's opponent in political bar- gaining. The Delhi truce was a great help to the Government. It gave them time to inquire more deeply into the tactics of the Congress and thereafter to perfect their machinery for dealing with that body in future. In the case of the Congress, the Pact had a soporific effect. The enthusiasm of the people began to evaporate and it is out of public enthusiasm that one gets men and money for a non-violent mass movement. While the Government could resume their activity at any time because they had no dearth of men or money, the Congress would have to wait till public enthusiasm could be worked up once again. During the period of the Delhi truce while the Round Table Conference was sitting in London, the Government were perfecting their plans for striking at the Congress. For instance, by October 1931, the emergency ordinances for the next year had been already prepared. Dr. M. A. Ansari, the Nationalist Moslem leader of Delhi, had unquestionable proofs of this and he duly passed them on to the Congress President, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. It was easy for the Government to prophesy future

THE GANDHI-IRWIN PACT AND AFTER 239 developments because they knew that nothing substantial would be offered to the Congress. But the Congress guided by the honest and straightforward policy of the Mahatma, made no preparations for the coming fight. In fact, before he left for London, the Mahatma assured Lord Irwin that he would try his level best for a settlement there and when he left London, he assured the Premier, Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, that he would endeavour till the last to avoid a resumption of hostilities and if that was impossible, he would at least strive to avoid bitterness as far as possible.¹ Further, the day before Mahatma Gandhi landed in Bombay, he sent by radio an exceedingly conciliatory message which was immediately published in all the papers. But that had no effect on the new Viceroy, Lord Willingdon, who had already perfected his arrangements and was spoiling for a fight in order to avenge himself for the slight humiliation which the Government had to face in agreeing to an armistice with the Congress. In spite of the inadequate provisions of the Pact, if it had provided for an inquiry into the alleged atrocities, it would have had a very healthy check on such misdeeds in future. During the preceding twelve months there had been excesses committed by the police and the military in Peshawar, Gujerat, the United Provinces and the Midnapore District in Bengal, in connection with which the public had demanded redress. We have already referred to the shooting in Pesha- war. In Gujerat, the United Provinces and Midnapore, excesses had been committed by the forces of the Crown in trying to suppress the no-tax campaign and in the United Provinces there had been allegations of assault on women of a revolting description. In addition to these, a recent incident which was still fresh in the public mind was the assault by the police on a peaceful procession in Calcutta on Independence Day (January 26th, 1931). This procession which was being led by the writer who was then the Mayor of Calcutta, was suddenly attacked without warning by British mounted police armed with lathis (powerful sticks covered with leather) ¹ True to his assurance, on the eve of his arrest under Regulation 25 of 1827 on January 4th, 1932, the Mahatma issued an appeal in which he said, 'Discard every trace of violence from your heart; give abso- lute protection to every English man, woman and child.'

240 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE and mercilessly belaboured. The writer and a number of other processionists, including Mr. Chattopadhyaya, the Education Officer, and Mr. Ghoshal, the Deputy Licence Officer of the Calcutta Municipality, were seriously injured in the assault, though the procession remained peaceful and non-violent till the end. The next day the writer was sentenced to six months' imprisonment for rioting,¹ by the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta. That the Mayor of the first city in India could be treated by the police in this fashion was something which even the Indian public could not stand. The police, on the other hand, felt that they could do just as they liked because they would never be called upon to appear before the bar of public opinion. The restricted scope of the amnesty promised under the Pact, caused considerable disappointment among certain sections of the people and alienated the Mahatma still more from the revolutionaries and from trade-union circles, including the friends and followers of the Meerut prisoners. If the Mahatma could have secured amnesty for all these classes of prisoners, he would have stood out not only as the representative of the Nationalists but also of the trade- unionists and the revolutionaries, and he could have exerted his influence on them for good. The Government, too, if they had taken courage in both hands and opened wide the gates of the prison-house, would have made a magnanimous gesture which would have gone straight into the hearts of the people. And they would have lost nothing thereby—because if anyone happened to abuse his liberty, he could again be put back in prison through the help of the Regulation and the Ordinances. Since the Mahatma confined himself to the cause of the Satyagrahis, the revolutionaries in prison addressed a letter to Lord Irwin stating that a settlement with Mahatma ¹ On this occasion the writer had to spend 24 hours in the Lalbazar Central Police Station without food and drink and without change. There was only a small quantity of Tincture of Iodine available at the station for application to his injuries. This was soon exhausted and when he asked for more, he did not get any. The next day he had to appear in Court with his clothes covered with blood and his arm in a sling. He made a statement before the Magistrate regarding his treatment in the Police Station which was duly recorded. After his removal to prison he was X-rayed and it was then found that two of the fingers in his right hand had been fractured.

THE GANDHI-IRWIN PACT AND AFTER 241 Gandhi would not necessarily be binding on them and that if 'His Excellency desired a real settlement of the Indian question, the Government should come to a separate understanding with the Revolutionary Party. This letter reached the Viceroy’s hands through a prominent Indian politician.¹ This representation was not altogether useless, because a few months later, the Governor of Bengal, Sir Stanley Jackson, made an effort to come to an understanding with the revolu- tionaries. At his instance the late Mr. J. M. Sengupta went to Buxa Detention Camp in North Bengal and interviewed some of the leaders. The result was not unsatisfactory. The inter- viewed prisoners said that they were prepared to discuss terms, but they insisted that the negotiations should be carried on direct with the Government and not through any police- officer. They also gave a preliminary outline of the terms which the late Mr. Sengupta duly conveyed to the Governor. Thereafter, a reference was made by the Government to the prisoners through the Superintendent of the Camp, who was a police-officer. But they refused to move further in the matter, if the negotiations were not carried on direct with them. As the Government were not agreeable to that, the negotiations fell through. In spite of all that has been written above, to the un- sophisticated masses, the Delhi Pact appeared to be a victory for the Mahatma. Only with the lapse of time were they to be gradually disillusioned. Many intelligent people seriously believed that besides the written, there were other unwritten terms which would be disclosed later on and many of those who were against the Pact maintained that the Mahatma should be given a free hand till the end of the Second Round Table Conference. The Karachi Congress undoubtedly represented the pinnacle of the Mahatma’s popularity and prestige. I travelled with him for some days and was able to observe the unprecedented crowds that greeted him every- where. I wonder if such a spontaneous ovation was ever given to a leader anywhere else. He stood out before the people not merely as a Mahatma but as the hero of a political ¹ I came to know these facts after my release from prison in March 1931. Q

242 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE fight. The question that stirred me at the time was as to how he would utilise the unique position he had been able to attain. Would he be able to move from one victory to another, or would the anti-climax begin? The first shock came when the news was announced that the Working Committee on April 2nd, had selected Mahatma Gandhi as the sole represen- tative of the Congress at the Round Table Conference and that he had accepted that decision. What really was behind that decision I have never been able to understand. Was it due to the vanity of the Mahatma who wanted to appear before the world as the sole representative of the dumb millions of India? Or was it merely one more error of judgment on the part of the Working Committee? Or was there some other motive behind the decision? It is impossible to accept the first explanation. Whatever the real explanation may be, the decision itself was a thoroughly wrong one. Alone in an assembly of about one hundred men, with all kinds of non-descripts, flunkeys and self-appointed leaders arrayed against him like a solid phalanx, he would be at a great disadvantage. Moreover, he would have nobody at his side to back him up in the fight that he would have with the reactionary Moslem leaders. But there was no help for it. The blind followers of the Mahatma could not be expected to criticise him and those who were not his orthodox followers had no influence on him regardless of their character, wisdom, or experience. While the first move of the Mahatma after the Karachi Congress was not a wise one, the second move was a positive blunder. In private and in public, he began to say that his going to the Round Table Conference depended on his ability to solve the Hindu-Moslem question beforehand. Along with this statement he also began to say that if the Moslems made a united demand on the question of representation, electorate, etc., in the new Constitution, he would accept the demand. The effect of these statements was a most tragic one. After the Delhi Pact, the reactionary Moslems had been somewhat overawed by the strength and power of the Congress and they were in a mood to come to terms with that body on a reasonable basis. The first statement of the Mahatma immediately

THE GANDHI-IRWIN PACT AND AFTER 243 changed that mood and made them feel that they held the key position, since if they refused to come to an understanding with him, they could prevent his attending the Round Table Conference. The second statement of the Mahatma made the reactionary Moslems feel that if only they would remain firm and secure the support of the Nationalist Moslems, the Mahatma could be forced to accept all their extreme demands. After the above statements had been made, the Mahatma had a conference with some reactionary Moslem leaders in Delhi in April. I was in Delhi at the time and I went to see him the same evening, after the conference. He seemed to be in a depressed mood, because they had presented him with the fourteen demands made by Mr. Jinnah (known in India as Jinnah's fourteen points) and he felt that an agreement would not be possible on that basis. Thereupon I remarked that the Congress should only care for an agreement between Nationalist Hindus and Nationalist Moslems and that the agreed solution should be placed before the Round Table Conference as the Nationalist demand and that the Congress need not bother what other anti-Nationalist elements thought or said. The Mahatma then asked me if I had any objection to separate electorates since it could be argued that in the absence of the third party the different communities would live and work in concord. To this I replied that separate electorates were against the fundamental principle of Nationalism and that I felt so strongly on the subject that even 'Swaraj on the basis of separate electorates was, in my opinion, not worth having. While we were engaged in this discussion, Dr. Ansari and some of the Nationalist Moslem leaders including Mr. Sherwani, arrived on the scene and joined in the discussion. They said that if for any reason the Mahatma gave up the demand for a common electorate for both Hindus and Moslems and accepted the demand of the reactionaries for a separate electorate for each community, they would oppose the reactionary Moslems and also the Mahatma, because they were convinced that separate electorates were bad not only for the country as a whole, but also for the different com- munities. The strong attitude of the Nationalist Moslems on this occasion was largely responsible for preventing the

244 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE Mahatma from agreeing to separate electorates and forced him to wriggle out of the uncomfortable situation in which he had placed himself.¹ Soon after this, the Mahatma issued a public statement saying that he could not accept the demands made by the communalist Moslem leaders, since the Nationalist Moslems were opposed to them. The atmosphere in Delhi was then (i.e., in April 1931) full of intrigue. Though Lord Irwin was inspired by a sincere desire for a settlement, there were many officials who were against it. These diehard elements were encouraged by the impending departure of Lord Irwin from India and the advent of Lord Willingdon, who had the reputation of being a strong man. While we were in Delhi, information reached us from a reliable source as to the tactics that the British Government would follow at the Round Table Conference. We were told that every effort would be made to drag Mahatma Gandhi at the very outset into minor issues with a view to getting the Indians to fight among themselves, so that they would not be able to combine against the British Government over the major issues. I duly conveyed to the Mahatma this information for what it was worth. He said in reply that his plan was to meet the authorities concerned soon after his arrival in London and try to obtain satisfaction from them on the major issues. If he felt satisfied, he would go into the minor issues—otherwise his work in England would end there and then. Unfortunately, when Mahatma Gandhi was in England, the minorities problem assumed the greatest importance and all the major problems were put aside. Events took place exactly as it had been prophesied in April at Delhi. On April 18th, Lord Irwin's tenure of office came to an end. Before leaving Delhi he made an exceedingly conciliatory speech at the Chelmsford Club. Though a prominent member of the Conservative Party, he had proved himself to be a well-wisher of India. After Lord Ripon, no Viceroy had adopted such a friendly attitude towards the Indian people as he had. That he could not do more for India was due ¹ In the light of these facts, the attitude of the Nationalist Moslems in 1934 to the Prime Minister's Communal Award is inexplicable.

THE GANDHI-IRWIN PACT AND AFTER 245 to the reactionary forces that were working against him both in India and in England. With the arrival of Lord Willingdon, the official attitude began to stiffen. Effect was not given to the Pact by officials in different provinces. In Gujerat the peasantry had great difficulty in getting back their confiscated lands and the Mahatma had to spend practically the whole of his time between the Karachi Con- gress and his departure for London in attending to their grievances. In the United Provinces, though the civil-dis- obedience movement was suspended, the peasants said that they were unable to pay the rent. Even the Mahatma's advice that they should pay 50 per cent. of their dues—they could not give effect to. The situation was, however, worst in Bengal. In spite of the Pact, imprisonment without trial continued from day to day on the plea that there was a revolutionary movement afoot. Out of nearly one thousand state prisoners incarcerated without trial, not a single soul was released. The Conspiracy Cases then going on in the province were continued as usual. From time to time terrorist activities took place by way of retaliation against official oppression. No change in the official attitude was visible at all in Bengal after the truce and in India as a whole, signs of goodwill on the official side were lacking. By July, the Congress head-quarters had unmistakable proofs that the provisions of the Pact were not being given effect to. A 'charge sheet' containing allegations of breaches of the Pact on the official side were handed over to the Home Secretary to the Government of India at Simla by the Mahatma personally. The air was thick with rumours that the Mahatma would decline to go to London. The authorities in London grew anxious as they wanted the Mahatma to come at any cost. Pressure was brought to bear on the Viceroy to see that everything possible was done to facilitate his going to London. In August, the Mahatma had long talks with the new Viceroy as a result of which the tension was con- siderably eased. The Mahatma wanted an arbitrator to inquire into complaints about the non-fulfilment of the Pact, but to this the Viceroy would not agree. He however promised inquiries into the specific allegations made by the Mahatma.

246 'THE INDIAN STRUGGLE An eleventh-hour agreement between the Congress leader and the Viceroy was somehow arrived at. The Mahatma took a special train to Bombay and was just in time for the outgoing boat, S.S. Rajputana. On September 11th, 1931, the Mahatma set foot on French soil. The next day he was in London.