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

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.

CHAPTER XII MAHATMA GANDHI IN EUROPE (1931) DRESSED in loin-cloth and sandals and with but a shawl to protect him from the inclement weather, the Mahatma landed in Marseilles on September 11th, 1931. A select group of British and Indian friends and admirers met him there and accompanied him to London. On arriving there, he was taken straight to a reception at the Friends' House. In reply to the address of welcome, referring to the British Govern- ment, he humorously remarked: 'You cannot honestly balance the Budget without first balancing the relations between India and England.' The writer was one of those who at one time felt mis- givings as to whether the Mahatma would be well-advised to visit Europe in his characteristic loin-cloth: On his former visits to Europe, he was, of course, clothed differently. But on this occasion he did the right thing in adhering to his favourite dress. Questioned by a reporter about his dress, the Mahatma once jocosely remarked: 'You people wear plus-fours, mine are minus-fours.' Then changing to a more serious vein, he said: 'If I came here to live and work like an English citizen, then I should conform to the customs of the country and should wear the dress of an Englishman. But I am here on a great and special mission, and my loin- cloth, if you choose so to describe it, is the dress of my principals, the people of India.' His countrymen to-day feel proud that he stuck to the dress of his principals and even attended the Buckingham Palace party in the same dress. During his stay in London, between September 12th and December 1st, the Mahatma spoke twelve times at the Round Table Conference¹—twice before the plenary session of the ¹ The second Round Table Conference consisted of 107 members, Of these, 65 were from British India, 22 from the Indian States and 20 from the three British Parties. The Minorities Committee of the Conference was composed of 6 Britishers, 13 Moslems, 10 Hindus, 2 from the depressed 247

248 · THE INDIAN STRUGGLE Conference on November 30th and December 1st, eight times before the Federal Structure Committee and twice before the Minorities Committee. In his maiden speech before the Federal Structure Committee on September 15th, 1931, he explained the position of the Indian National Congress and the mandate given by the Karachi Congress and went on to say: 'Time was when I prided myself on being and being called a British subject. I have ceased for many years to call myself a British subject; I would far rather be called a rebel than a subject. But I have now aspired—and I still aspire—to be a citizen, not in the Empire but in a Common- wealth, in a partnership if possible, if God wills it, an indis- soluble partnership but not a partnership superimposed upon one nation by another.' (It is clear from this speech that in spite of the Lahore resolution on independence, the Mahatma was striving for a settlement with Britain on the basis of Dominion Status.) In the Press interview which the Mahatma had granted on board S.S. Rajputana, it was evident that he was full of optimism. But before the second meeting of the Federal Structure Committee which took place on September 17th, disillusionment began to creep in. He began to realise of what stuff the members of the Round Table Conference were made. Therefore at the outset of his speech on Sep- tember 17th, he said: 'I have endeavoured to study, as I had not done before, the list of the delegates; and the first feeling of oppression that has been coming upon me is that we are not the chosen ones of the nation which we should be representing, but we are the chosen ones of the Government. Furthermore, knowing well the different parties and groups in India from experience, as I study the list of delegates I see some very noticeable gaps,¹ and so I am oppressed with a sense of unreality in connection with our composition.' The Mahatma began to see through the game of the British classes, 2 from Labour, 2 Sikhs, 1 Parsi, 2 Indian Christians, 2 Britishers domiciled in India, 1 Anglo-Indian and 3 women—total 44. The Moslems who are a quarter of the Indian population had the largest representation and there was only one Nationalist Moslem among them. ¹ This reference was to the Nationalist Moslems, among others, whose absence the Mahatma now began to feel. The discovery of the Mahatma one cannot help feeling, was rather belated.

MAHATMA GANDHI IN EUROPE 249 politicians—hence in order to turn the tables on them he called upon them to make concrete proposals. (In reply to that move, the Government sought to turn the tables on him by summoning the Minorities Committee which would form the battle-ground for the Indian 'delegates.) In the same meeting, replying to an attack levelled against the Congress, the Mahatma said: 'Though the Government of the day has accused us of insolently setting up a parallel Government, I would like to subscribe to that charge in my own fashion. Though we have not set up any parallel Government,¹ we certainly aspire some day or other to displace the existing Government and in due course, in the course of evolution, also to take charge of that Government.' Mahatma Gandhi's first speech before the Minorities Committee was delivered on October 8th, 1931. The appre- hension that he had hinted at on September 17th, had been realised by then and all attempts to arrive at a settlement of the communal question had ended in failure. No wonder, when the members were the chosen ones of Government! This result had been clearly indicated in the manifesto issued by the writer and others in opposition to the leaders' Delhi manifesto in November 1929. On October 8th, 1931, the Mahatma said: 'It is with deep sorrow and deeper humiliation that I have to announce utter failure on my part to secure an agreed solution of the communal question through informal conversation among and with the representatives of different groups. . . . But to say that the conversations have to our utter shame failed is not to say the whole truth. Causes of failure were inherent in the composition of the Indian delegation. We are almost all not elected representatives of the parties or groups we are presumed to represent—we are here by nomination of the Government. Nor are those whose presence was absolutely necessary for an agreed solution to be found here. Further you will allow me to say that this was hardly the time to summon the Minorities Committee. It lacks the sense of reality in that we do not know what it is that we ¹ The writer moved a resolution at the Lahore Congress in 1929 to the effect that the Congress should aim at setting up a parallel Government. This resolution was defeated, all the followers of the Mahatma voting against it.

250 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE are going to get. . . . I therefore venture to suggest that the Minorities Committee be adjourned sine die and that the fundamentals of the Constitution be hammered into shape as. quickly as possible. . . . Should all efforts at agreement fail even when the Round Table Conference reaches the end of its labours, I would suggest the addition of a clause to the expected Constitution appointing a judicial tribunal that would examine all claims and give its final decision on all the points that may be left unsettled.' Going through this speech, one cannot help thinking what a change it would have made if the Mahatma had come tc London with a full contingent of Nationalist representatives of Moslems and other minority communities to counteract the mischievous moves of 'the chosen ones of the Government.' It is also to be regretted that despite the warning he had received at Delhi, soon after the Karachi Congress, the Mahatma did not realise that the main function of the Minorities Committee would be to create confusion among the Indian members and shelve the main political issues. It was certainly another blunder for the Mahatma to suggest a judicial tribunal which would of course be appointed by the British Government and would in all probability have produced the same document as the Prime Minister's Communal Award. If the British Govern- ment had taken the Mahatma at his word and appointed a judicial tribunal, what would have been the Mahatma's posi- tion to-day? Before the next meeting of the Minorities Committee was held on November 13th, 1931, an interesting development had taken place. The so-called representatives of the minority communities had concluded a Pact among themselves as a solution of the communal question. This Pact—called the Minorities Pact—vouchsafed to them a very large share of the loaves and fishes of the Constitution. The Pact was made with the full approval of the Government and the British members of the Conference coming from India had taken a leading part in it. The Sikhs, did not, however, join this Pact. Before entering into this Pact, Dr. Ambedkar, the nominated representative of the Depressed Classes, wanted to come to an agreement with the Mahatma whereby a certain

MAHATMA GANDHI IN EUROPE 251 number of seats would be reserved in the Legislatures for the Depressed Classes on the basis of a Common Electorate for all sections of the Hindus. At that time, the Mahatma would not think of any such compromise. When Dr. Ambedkar joined the Minorities Pact, he was assured not only of a number of seats for the Depressed Classes, but also of a separate electorate for them. There is no doubt that if a settlement had then been made with Dr. Ambedkar, the terms would have been much better than the terms of the Poona Pact concluded in September 1932, after the historic fast of the Mahatma. At the meeting of the Minorities Committee held on November 13th, 1931, the Chairman, Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, referring to the Minorities Pact, claimed that it was acceptable to well over 115 million people in India. He also replied to the Mahatma's attack at the previous meeting and urged on the contrary, that inability to solve the communal question was hampering the progress of Constitution-building. In his speech the Mahatma emphatically challenged both these assertions and with reference to the first, he claimed that the Congress represented 85 or 95 per cent. of the population not merely of British India but of the whole of India. In the same speech the Mahatma made one significant assertion: 'I would like to repeat what I have said before—that while it will always accept any solution that may be acceptable to the Hindus, Mussalmans and Sikhs, the Congress will be no party to special reservation or special electorates for any other minorities.'¹ The Mahatma once again urged the appointment by the Government of a judicial tribunal to give a final decision on the communal question. Before the Federal Structure Committee on October 23rd, 1931, Mahatma Gandhi put forward with due emphasis the Congress view regarding a Supreme Court for India. He urged that this Federal Court should be a court of the widest jurisdiction possible and not one to decide only those cases that arise from the administration of Federal laws. He ¹ In the light of this statement the Mahatma's endorsement of the Poona Pact in September, 1932, is inexplicable, since the Poona Pact provided for reservation of seats for the Depressed Classes.

252 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE opposed the idea of having two Supreme Courts, one to deal merely with Federal Law and the other to deal with all the other matters not covered by the Federal Administration or the Federal Government. On November 17th, 1931, the Mahatma spoke on the Congress demand for complete control over the army and over external affairs. He said, that the present army, whether Indian or British, was an army of occupation. 'I would say emphatically that the whole of this army should be disbanded if it does not pass under my control before I could possibly shoulder the burden of running the Government of India under the terrible handicaps under which we are labouring as a legacy of alien rule. . . . If the British people think that we shall require a century before that can be done, then for that century the Congress will wander in the wilderness and the Congress must go through that terrible fiery ordeal . . . and if it becomes necessary and if it is God's will—a shower of bullets.' On November 19th, 1931, before the Federal Structure Committee, the Mahatma opposed the resolution on com- mercial safeguards for Britishers passed by the first Round Table Conference as being detrimental to the interests of the Indian people. He agreed that there should be no racial discrimination against foreigners as such. He also agreed that 'no existing interest legitimately acquired and not being in conflict with the best interests of the nation in general, shall be interfered with except in accordance with the law applicable to such interests.' But he made it clear that the National Government of the future might find it necessary to dispossess the 'haves' in the interests of the 'have-nots,' i.e., the famished millions of India. Existing interests should be subjected to judicial scrutiny when necessary—but no racial question would be involved therein. He further opposed the existing rights¹ of the European community in India in regard to criminal trials. In his next speech at the Round Table Conference on November 25th, he maintained that the obligations to be taken over by the future National Government of India should be subject to audit and impartial. ¹ For instance the right to have a European judge or a European jury in the trial.

MAHATMA GANDHI IN EUROPE 253 examination.¹ He condemned the fixing of the currency ratio at 1s. 6d. instead of at 1s. 4d., as the Indian people had demanded. Continuing, he said: 'I would want complete control of Indian finance if India was really to have respon- sibility at the centre. In my opinion, unless we have control over our own purse, absolutely unrestricted, we shall not be able to shoulder the responsibility nor will it be a respon- sibility worth the name.' In another speech the same day, he maintained that after mature consideration he had come to the conclusion that provincial autonomy and central responsibility must go together. 'A strong centre governed and administered by an alien authority and a strong autonomy (for the provinces) are a contradiction in terms.' Speaking of central responsibility, he said: 'I want that responsibility at the centre that will give me, as you all know, control of the army and finance. I know that I am not going to get that here and now and I know there is not a British man ready for that. Therefore, I know I must go back and yet invite the nation to a course of suffering.' Mahatma Gandhi's first speech at the plenary session of the Round Table Conference on November 30th, is a priceless document, though it affords painful reading, being a record of disillusionment complete. He started by saying: 'All the other parties at this meeting represent sectional interests. The Congress alone claims to represent the whole of India and all interests. . . . And yet here I see that the Congress is treated as one of the parties . . . . I wish I could convince all the British public men, the British Ministers that the Congress is capable of delivering the goods. . . . But no, although you have invited the Congress you distrust the Congress. Although you have invited the Congress, you reject its claim to represent the whole of India.' Referring to the communal question, he told the unpleasant truth 'that so long as the wedge in the shape of foreign rule divides community from community and class from class, there will be no real living solution, there will be no living friendship between these communities.' On the question of the national demand he said: 'Call it

¹ In this connection he referred to the Report of the Public Debt Enquiry Committee appointed by the Karachi Congress in 1931.

254 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE by any name you like, a rose will smell as sweet by any other name, but it must be the rose of liberty that I want and not the artificial product.' Then in order to soften his demand for independence he appealed in these words: 'I want to - become a partner with the English people; but I want to enjoy precisely the same liberty that your people enjoy and I want to seek this partnership not merely for India and not merely for mutual benefit.' Then finding that all appeals were useless, he flared up and said: 'Will you not see the writing that these terrorists are writing with their blood?' And then he said: 'I shall hope against hope, I shall strain every nerve to achieve an honourable settlement for my country. ... It can be a matter of no joy and comfort to me to lead them again to a fight of that character, but if a further ordeal of fire has to be our lot, I shall approach that with the greatest joy and with the greatest consolation that I was doing what I felt to be right, that the country was doing what it felt to be right.' At the last sitting of the plenary session of the Round Table Conference on December 1st, 1931, the Prime Minister, Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, made the following declaration: 'At the beginning of the year (1931) I made a declaration of the policy of the then Government and I am authorised by the present one to give you and India specific assurance that it remains its policy. I shall repeat the salient sentences of that declaration. 'The view of His Majesty's Government is that respon- sibility for the Government of India should be placed upon the Legislatures, Central and Provincial, with such pro- visions as may be necessary to guarantee during the period of transition the observance of certain obligations and to meet other special circumstances and also with such guarantees as are required by the minorities to protect their political rights. In such statutory safeguards as may be made for meeting the needs of the transitional period, it will be the primary concern of His Majesty's Government to see the reserved powers so framed and exercised as not to prejudice the advance of India through the new Con- stitution to full responsibility for her own Government. 'Regarding the Central Government it made it plain that, subject to defined conditions, His Majesty's late

MAHATMA GANDHI IN EUROPE 255 Government was prepared to recognize the principle of responsibility of the executive to the Legislature if both were constituted on an All-India Federal basis. 'The principle of responsibility was to be subject to the qualification that in the existing circumstances, defence and external affairs must be reserved to the Governor-General and that regarding finance, such conditions must apply as would insure the fulfilment of the obligations incurred under the authority of the Secretary of State (for India) and the maintenance unimpaired of the financial stability and credit of India. 'Finally, it was our view that the Governor-General must be granted the necessary powers to enable him to 'fulfil his responsibility for securing the observance of the constitutional rights of the minorities and for ultimately maintaining the tranquillity of the State.' Moving a vote of thanks to the Premier the Mahatma said that in all probability he had come to the parting of the ways but he hoped that if a fight was unavoidable, it would be conducted without malice on either side. Three days later the Mahatma said good-bye to the Premier and left London. Before leaving London in an interview to the Press he stated that an immediate nation-wide resumption of civil dis- obedience was out of the question—but he did foresee the possibility of local civil disobedience being launched as a protest against specific acts of injustice and tyranny, as for example the ordinances promulgated in Bengal, the United Provinces and the Frontier Province. During his stay of nearly three months in England, the Mahatma had an exceedingly busy time. A glance at his daily routine would show that he was overstraining himself —sometimes not allowing himself to have more than two hours' sleep for days together. He met all sorts of people there—M.P.s, politicians, journalists, missionaries, society ladies, social workers, litterateurs, artists, students, and what not. During week-ends he would undertake tours to Cam- bridge or Oxford or Lancashire, in order to awaken interest in and sympathy for India. But it seems that there was lack of co-ordination and unity of purpose in all his activities.

256 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE Indian members of the Round Table Conference complained that it was difficult to get at the Mahatma when they wanted him. Indian Liberal members of the Round Table Con- ference complained that instead of playing a lone hand, he could have rallied all the anti-communal forces and become the leader of a united Nationalist Party.¹ Whatever the truth of these criticisms may be, there is no doubt that the Mahatma's visit to England was badly planned—if there was any plan at all—and his personal entourage did not consist of any advisers worth the name. His indecision, till the eleventh hour, about attending the London Conference was largely responsible for his lack of plan and for his late arrival in London which considerably handicapped him. As contrasted with him, the Government had made elaborate arrangements and all their plans had been carefully worked out in advance. It was only in London that he realised what it meant to have a conference with members chosen by the Government, with the Congress as one of the several parties present there and with himself as the only representative of the Congress. The wonder of it is that such a shrewd politician as the Mahatma made such a belated discovery in spite of the warnings given by lesser folk in India. But the causes of the Mahatma's failure in London go much deeper. If the Mahatma meant to co-operate with the Round Table Conference, he should have gone there in 1930. The terms which he got in March 1931—he could have easily got in August 1930. The assurance regarding Dominion Status which he had demanded in 1929 and 1930—he could not get even in 1931 and as for the other concessions in the Gandhi-Irwin Pact, Lord Irwin would in all probability have agreed to them at any time. In 1930, the Congress could easily have got half the number of seats at the Conference. By going there in 1931, alone and unfriended, the Mahatma had the tactical disadvantage of having to meet a conference which had come into existence without the participation of the Congress and of having to build on sectarian foundations laid by communalist members. With the Labour Cabinet in ¹ This was the view expressed by the Right Hon. V. S. Sastri in the Indian Review of January, 1932.

MAHATMA GANDHI IN EUROPE 257 power in England in 1930 and Lord Irwin in Delhi, the Congress could have given a different turn to the Conference. In 1931 the situation was altered completely The Labour Cabinet was replaced by a virtually Conservative Cabinet; Lord Irwin made room for Lord Willingdon, while Sir Samuel Hoare succeeded Capt. Wedgwood-Benn at the India Office. The last flickering hope died out when the General Election in October brought the Conservatives into power (under the name of the National Government) with a thump- ing majority. In spite of these unfavourable circumstances when the Mahatma did go to England, he should have concentrated entirely on the work of the Conference, with a view to counteracting all the mischievous moves of the Government. Probably under the influence of pro-Indian Britishers like Mr. C. F. Andrews, he unfortunately took it into his head that he should go about rousing sympathy for India among Britishers. That was not the purpose for which he had come to England nor was it possible for him to do so within the short time and with the limited energy at his disposal. Going over the list of persons whom the Mahatma met, one cannot help feeling that for the purpose for which he had come to England, most of the engagements were unnecessary, if not useless. If he had come on an ordinary propaganda tour, a programme such as he had, would have been quite helpful and in order. There was another deeper cause which accounted for the Mahatma's failure. During his stay in England he had to play two rôles in one person, the rôle of a political leader and that of a world-teacher. Sometimes he conducted himself not as a political leader who had come to negotiate with the enemy, but as a master who had come to preach a new faith —that of non-violence and world-peace. Because of his second rôle, he had to spend much of his time with people who were quite useless in promoting his political mission. In the absence of advisers from his own party, the place was filled by some of his British admirers. From the moment of his landing in Europe till the moment of his departure, he was surrounded by them. In order to demonstrate his fair- R