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

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

258 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE .ness and universal love, he accepted as his hostess an English lady. As contrasted with the Mahatma, the Irish Sinn Fein delegation to London in 1921 had lived a different life. They used to live entirely among themselves and avoid all social engagements with Britishers, though attempts were made to drag the delegation into them. This aloofness and indifference had impressed British politicians much more than the Mahatma’s friendliness did. But being a world-teacher, the Mahatma had his own code of ethics. There is no doubt that in 1930, when the Mahatma was in prison, he had exerted a much greater influence on the Round Table Conference. At the Conference, the Indian Liberal politicians had fully exploited his influence. But when he appeared in person and all alone, he lost much of the glamour and the halo that had attached to his name. He was at a physical disadvantage, being a single frail individual in a group of 107. If he had accepted the offer made by the Government, of fifteen or sixteen seats for the Congress Delegation, his position would have been stronger. His colleagues would have been of great help to him in meeting, and crossing swords with, a solid phalanx of reactionaries. Moreover, the Mahatma did not seem to be cut out for the rôle of a bargainer. He therefore met the fate which over- took President Wilson at the time of the Versailles Treaty. The Professor-President of America was no match for the Welsh wizard, Mr. Lloyd George—nor was the saint- politician from India any match for the wily Mr. Ramsay Macdonald. On the British side, the Mahatma was handled very tactfully. He had on the whole a very friendly welcome in England which he recognised publicly before he left the country. Special facilities were afforded him while moving about in London. On the plea of guarding his person, two stalwarts from Scotland Yard were detailed to be near him —so that the authorities had not the slightest difficulty in knowing everything about his daily routine and engagements. I have not been able to understand why the Mahatma accepted this escort from Scotland Yard. If an escort was really necessary, his numerous admirers and followers in London could have easily served the purpose.

MAHATMA GANDHI IN EUROPE 259 It has been already remarked that the last hope of a settle- ment faded away when the Conservatives were returned to power. Their estimate of the Indian situation as also of the India leader, was quite different from that of the Labourites. His goodness, his frankness, his fairness, his humble ways, his profound consideration for his opponents—not only did not impress John Bull, but was construed as weakness. His habit of putting all his cards on the table was all right for India and the Indians, but damaged his prestige among British politicians. His proneness to confess his ignorance on intricate questions of finance or law would have been all right in the company of truth-seeking philosophers, but lowered him in the estimation of the British public who were accustomed to see their leaders looking more wise than they really were. His repeated offer of wholehearted co- operation at the Round Table Conference had a most tragic effect and made them think—‘Gandhi is on his last legs.’ What impression could such a statement make on a veteran politician in England? ‘I shall be here as long as I am required, because I do not want to revive civil disobedience. I want to turn the truce that was arrived at at Delhi into a permanent settlement. But for heaven’s sake give me, a frail man sixty-two years gone, a little bit of a chance. Find a little corner¹ for him and the organisation that he represents.’² If on the contrary, the Mahatma had spoken in the language of Dictator Stalin, or Il Duce Mussolini or Fuehrer Hitler —John Bull would have understood and would have bowed his head in respect. As it was, the Conservative politicians began to think: ‘Is this frail man in loin-cloth so formidable that the powerful British Government should yield to him? India was being ruled by a man who was fit to be a bishop and so we had so much trouble. If only we had a strong man at Delhi and at the India Office—everything would be all right.’ This is how the Indian situation was summed up after the General Election of October 1931. And all his propaganda among Church dignitaries, professors and cranks ¹ It is to be regretted that they cornered him successfully. ² The Mahatma’s speech at the plenary session of the Round Table Conference on November 30th, 1931.

260 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE was of no use to India. The secret of political bargaining is to look more strong than you really are. Indian politicians, if they want to match themselves successfully against their British opponents, will have to learn many things which they do not know and unlearn many things which they have learnt. Going through the speeches of the Mahatma at the Round Table Conference, one is pained at every step. That from the very beginning he had to speak at length on the status of the Congress as contrasted with other parties and had to repeat his remarks over and over again—only shows that a conspiracy had been hatched in advance to ignore the Congress com- pletely. At the Conference the Mahatma remarked that in the reports submitted by the different committees, the views of the so-called majority were given prominence—while his dissentient note was condemned to insignificance, as if it reflected the opinion of just one individual. Some weeks after his arrival in London, the Mahatma did realise the hopeless- ness of the situation. If he had any political diplomacy, he should have sought a convenient opportunity of getting out of the Conference as soon as possible and then should have made an extensive tour in America and on the Continent to expose the unreality of the Conference and to popularise the Indian cause. By sticking to the Conference till the end, he unnecessarily lent prestige to a body that should have been exposed before the bar of world-opinion. The Mahatma after leaving England spent a few days in Paris. There he had a group of friends and admirers, who were however more interested in his non-violence as a message to the world, than in his struggle for India's freedom. His brief stay in Paris was well utilised, but unfortunately no attempt was made to get into touch with politicians—or with the people who really count in the modern political world. Nor was any attempt made by him to raise the Indian issue as an international political issue. From Paris he went to Geneva. There also he had a group of friends many of whom were interested more in his philosophy than in his politics. Though he visited Geneva, no serious attempt was made to bring him into touch with the people who count in the organisation of the League of Nations. He paid a visit to

MAHATMA GANDHI IN EUROPE 261 the International Labour Office and that was about all. However, the most useful part of his time in Switzerland was spent in the company of that great man and thinker—that great friend of India and India’s culture, M. Romain Rolland. India to-day has not a warmer friend outside her shores than this great soul, and therefore the Mahatma rendered a great public service to India by spending some of his time in the company of the French savant. From Switzer- land the Mahatma travelled to Italy. He was given a warm reception by the Government and the people of Italy, and was received in audience by the head of the Government, Signor Mussolini. That meeting was certainly an historic one. The Dictator of Italy conveyed his best wishes for the success of the Mahatma’s efforts. It was the only occasion on the Continent that the Mahatma came into contact with a man who really counts in the politics of modern Europe. The Mahatma’s attitude towards the Fascist authorities, including his attendance at a demonstration of the Fascist boys (the Balilla) was severely criticised in anti-Fascist circles. But there is no doubt that from the point of view of India, the Mahatma rendered great public service by his visit to Italy. The only regret is that he did not stay there longer and did not cultivate more personal contacts. Reviewing the Mahatma’s visit to Europe as a whole, one must say that it is to be regretted that he spent so much of his time in England and so little on the Continent. Even on the Continent he did not devote sufficient time or attention to politicians, industrial magnates and other people who really count in present-day politics. There were many countries on the Continent eagerly expecting a visit from him and where he would have received a most cordial reception. If he had desired, he could without difficulty, have come in touch with the most important individuals and organisations in Europe—to the great benefit of India. But may be, that did not interest him so much. Outside India he had another rôle to play besides that of a politician and it is not always easy to play two rôles in one person.

CHAPTER XIII THE FIGHT RESUMED (1932) TRUE to his habit of travelling by the lowest class available, the Mahatma arrived in Bombay as a deck-passenger by S.S. Pilsna on December 28th, 1931. Elaborate arrangements had been made by the Bombay Congress Committee to accord him a right royal reception. Thanks to the propaganda of the Congress, the failure of the Mahatma to achieve something tangible for his country at the London Conference had not produced any depressing effect. And judging from the warmth, cordiality and affection displayed at the reception, one would think that the Mahatma had returned with Swaraj in the hollow of his hand. The same evening he spoke at a mass meeting of 200,000 people at Azad Maidan. Only with the help of loudspeakers could his voice be audible to that vast gathering. The festivity over, the Mahatma settled down to business. Reports from different parts of the country were duly placed before him. It was soon evident that the situation was materially different from what it was when he had sailed from Bombay towards the end of August. It looked as if the Government had been waiting till Mahatma Gandhi sailed from Bombay in order to start a policy of ruthless repression. The two authors of the Delhi Pact being away from India, the Government could treat that document as a scrap of paper. It is necessary to recapitulate briefly the events of 1931 which led to a crisis at the end of the year rendering imperative a resumption of the civil-disobedience campaign. After the Karachi Congress, youth and labour circles continued to condemn the Delhi Pact. The Provincial Youth Conference (Naujawan Bharat Sabha) of the United Provinces held at Muttra in May and presided over by the writer, passed a resolution of disapproval. In July a session of the All-India Trade Union Congress was held in Calcutta under the 262

THE FIGHT RESUMED 263 Presidency of the writer, where a similar resolution was passed. The Right-Wing trade unions had seceded in the meantime, but all the other unions joined the Congress. Trouble arose from the very beginning over the question of credentials. After the Nagpur session of the Trade Union Congress held in 1929, a split had occurred among those trade unionists who were generally regarded as Communists. Mr. M. N. Roy, the erstwhile representative of India, on the Communist International, was expelled from that body. Following this incident, a split occurred among the prisoners in the Meerut Conspiracy Case and also among their followers in Bombay. One group was reported to follow the lead of the official Communist Party and the other of Mr. M. N. Roy. The Girni-Kamgar Union (Textile Workers' Union) of Bombay, formerly controlled jointly by members of both the groups, was the scene of a split and the Credentials Com- mittee of the Trade Union Congress reported that the Roy group was in possession of the union and was therefore entitled to be represented on the Trade Union Congress. This was resented by the other group, who thereupon resorted to constitutional obstruction culminating in a motion of no-confidence in the President. This motion being defeated, the anti-Roy group withdrew from the Congress after creating a lot of disturbance and set up a Red Trade Union Congress.¹ After the defection, the Congress continued its deliberations. It resolved not to affiliate with any international body but to continue unaided the struggle for the rights of the Indian workers. Mr. Ruikar, President of the Nagpur Textile Workers' Union, was elected President for the coming year, and Mr. S. Mukundalal of Calcutta was elected the Secretary. In spite of the internal dissensions in the Trade Union Movement, barring the Right-Wingers, all other trade- unionists were opposed to the Delhi Pact. The Pact contained no clause benefiting the workers in any way and neither the under-trial Meerut prisoners nor those convicted in connection with industrial strikes, were granted amnesty. Two Right-Wing leaders, Mr. V. V. Giri and Mr. Shiva Rao ¹ From the beginning the Red Trade Union Congress has not shown much sign of activity except occasionally in Bombay and in Calcutta.

264 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE were, however, nominated by the Government as members of the second Round Table Conference. While trade union circles merely kept up vocal opposition to the Delhi Pact, the revolutionaries in Bengal exasperated by the repressive policy of the Government, created a serious crisis in the province. The Armoury Raid in Chittagong in April 1930, was an aggressive act, but it was on the whole an isolated one. The subsequent acts of terrorism in other parts of Bengal, were acts of retaliation or reprisal rather than acts of aggression. In Dacca, the principal city of East Bengal, in August 1930, Mr. Lowman, the head of the Intelligence Branch of the Police was assassinated and the District Superintendent of Police was seriously wounded. But prior to that, there had been Hindu-Moslem riots in Dacca and Mymensingh Districts, in connection with which the conduct of the police had been open to serious question. Moreover, the Dacca police had been harsh and brutal in dealing with Satyagrahi volunteers engaged in peaceful picketing of foreign- cloth and liquor shops and in other non-violent activity. Towards the end of 1930, the Inspector-General of Prisons, Bengal, Lieut-Col. Simpson, was assassinated in his office in the Government Secretariat buildings in Calcutta. But prior to that, there had been indescribable ill-treatment of political prisoners in many prisons in Bengal and all appeals made to the Government for redress had been of no avail. The murder of Mr. Peddie, Magistrate of Midnapore, in 1931, and subsequently of two of his successors, was the result of the untold atrocities committed by the forces of the Crown in Midnapore District in the attempt to suppress the non-violent no-tax campaign. The public of Calcutta had appointed an impartial committee consisting mostly of Moderate men to inquire into and report on some of the atrocities committed in that district. The report was duly published and the facts brought to the notice of the Govern- ment. But no redress followed. It was then that in a fit of exasperation, people took to terrorism by way of reprisal. These acts of terrorism served to stiffen the attitude of the Government and a stronger dose of repression was adminis- tered. A golden opportunity of putting an end to the regrett-

THE FIGHT RESUMED 265 able state of affairs arose in March 1931, when the Delhi Pact was concluded. But instead of turning over a new leaf, the authorities decided to copy the Black and Tan methods that had been employed in Ireland. Between June and October 1931, three regrettable incidents took place suc- cessively—at Chittagong, at Hijli Detention Camp, seventy miles from Calcutta and at Dacca. At Chittagong an Indian police-officer was murdered. 'The next morning, hooligans were let loose on the town and while the police remained inactive, looting went on in broad daylight. The idea was to teach the people of Chittagong a 'moral' lesson. An inquiry committee appointed by the Calcutta public came to the conclusion after investigation, that the conduct of some local officials was open to serious question and the late Mr. J. M. Sengupta openly made the allegation in a public meeting in Calcutta. On the report of the Divisional Com- missioner, official action against some officers was taken after a very long time. At the Hijli Camp there was some understanding between the state-prisoners and the armed guards. Following this, one night the armed warders made a surprise attack on the state-prisoners' barracks and after firing indiscriminately at the barracks, attacked the state- prisoners with the butt-end of their rifles. During the firing, two of the state-prisoners, Santosh Mitra and Tarakeswar Sen, were killed and twenty seriously injured. An official committee appointed by the Government consisting of a judge of the High Court, came to the conclusion after an open inquiry, that the firing was altogether unjustified. At Dacca, there was an unsuccessful attempt to murder the District Magistrate. The same night, four parties of police- men went out to different parts of the city, raided the houses of respectable citizens, destroyed furniture and other articles, assaulted people and carried away whatever valuables they could—besides making a large number of indiscriminate arrests. The Calcutta public sent a Committee of Inquiry,¹ which after due inquiry, corroborated all the above facts. ¹ The writer was a member of this Committee but when he arrived near Dacca, he was removed from the District by sheer physical force by police-officers. The moment he was free he started for Dacca again when he was put in prison. He was subsequently released and could then continue the inquiry.

· 266 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE In November a new ordinance was promulgated by the Government which introduced a veiled form of martial law in the District of Chittagong. Under this ordinance, hardship and penalty were imposed on the people as one would expect under martial law. The curfew order was introduced, people were ordered to carry identification cards, young men were prohibited to use bicycles, political suspects were ordered to remain indoors for weeks at a stretch, collective fines were imposed on villages which were suspected to be frequented by revolutionaries. Moreover, soldiers were made to march through the villages as a display and people were ordered on pain of penalty, to come out and receive them. Many of these orders were issued subsequently in Midnapore and Dacca Districts. While this double dose of repression was being administered, no steps were taken to punish the officials responsible for the happenings at Chittagong, Hijli and Dacca, nor was any compensation or relief given to the sufferers. To add to the unrest, during the period of truce, some revolutionary prisoners were condemned to death and hanged. The vicious circle of official repression—revolutionary terrorism¹—official counter-terrorism—thus went on. A further complication arose when the Calcutta Municipal Corporation passed a resolution² expressing grief at the execution of one of the revolutionary prisoners, Dinesh Chandra Gupta. In the midst of this turmoil, the position of the Congress in Bengal was unenviable. Theoretically, there was peace between the Government and the people, but in reality the relations were strained and there were 'hostilities' on both sides. To consider the situation, a special session of the Bengal Provincial Conference was held at Berhampore in December. The Conference resolved that the Government had virtually violated the Delhi Pact and the Congress should therefore formally give notice to the Government and revive the civil-disobedience campaign, emphasis being laid on the boycott of British goods. It was hoped that the revival of the civil-disobedience movement would divert the energy of ¹ In December 1931, two schoolgirls named Shanti and Suniti, shot dead the Magistrate of Comilla. ² This resolution was resented by the Government as well as by all Britishers.

THE FIGHT RESUMED 267 the youths and thereby help to stop the terrorist campaign in the province. But the trouble was not only in Bengal. During the absence of the Mahatma from India, a crisis had arisen in the Frontier Province, and also in the United Provinces. The official complaint was that the Red Shirt Volunteers¹ of the Frontier leader, Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, were engaged in sub- versive activities, though as a matter of fact they were per- fectly non-violent. No notice was sent to the Congress head-quarters about this' complaint. Suddenly an Ordinance was issued declaring the Red Shirt Volunteers an illegal body. Simultaneously Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, the Frontier Gandhi and his brother, along with some other leaders, were put under arrest and taken to distant prisons. Several hundred Red Shirts were immediately cast into prison, and within a few months their number rose to several thousand. Thereafter, troops were sent into the remotest villages in order to terrorise the people and break up the Red Shirt organisation. In the United Provinces there had been an acute economic 'crisis for some time past. In November 1930, Mr. H. N. Brailsford, the well-known Socialist writer, who was an altogether independent observer, told the writer in Calcutta that the conditions in the United Provinces were verging on an agrarian revolution. About this time the no-rent campaign was started by the Congress in the province. After the Delhi truce, when the no-tax campaign was suspended, the peasants being in the same condition as in 1930, could not pay their rent. In May, the Mahatma tried to mediate in the matter and advised the peasants to pay 50 per cent. of their dues —but that also they could not. Thereupon the Government remitted a portion of the land revenue and maintained that that was enough. The peasants thought otherwise and on their behalf, the Provincial Congress Committee tried to carry on negotiations with the Government. In November matters reached a crisis. The Government demanded that the peasants ¹ These volunteers were so called from the colour of their uniform. They were Congress Volunteers and had nothing to do with the Communist Party.

268 · THE INDIAN STRUGGLE should pay up their dues pending negotiations. The peasants demanded, on the contrary, that pending negotiation, the collection should be suspended. At this stage the Provincial Congress Committee approached Sardar V. Patel, the Con- gress President, and Mahatma Gandhi, who was then in Europe, for advice. The Mahatma left it to the Committee to do as they thought best. The Peasants' League (Kishan League) of the United Provinces then took the matter in hand and informed the Congress Committee that if they did not start the no-rent campaign—it would be launched by the Kishan League. Faced with the possibility of losing its hold on the masses, the Provincial Congress Committee decided to commence the no-rent campaign. Immediately this was done, an ordinance was issued for suppressing that campaign. A large number of arrests was made under the ordinance and about the middle of December, when Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and Mr. Sherwani were leaving Allahabad for Bombay, to make preparations for the reception of the Mahatma, they were arrested in the train. As has been stated at the beginning of this chapter, on December 28th, 1931, Bombay city was en fête for the reception of India's beloved leader. Never was a king or a victorious general given a warmer welcome. A hostile demonstration was attempted by the followers of Dr. Ambedkar as also by the local Communist Party—but the smallness of it only served to throw into bolder relief the tremendous hold which the Mahatma had over the masses. The next day the Congress Working Committee met and authorised Mahatma Gandhi to apply for an interview¹ with the Viceroy and accordingly he sent the following telegram: 'I was unprepared on landing yesterday to find the Frontier and the U.P. Ordinances, shootings in the Frontier and arrests of valued comrades in both and on the top, the Bengal Ordinance awaiting me. I do not know whether I am to regard these as an indication that friendly relations ¹ The writer, who was one of those invited to attend this meeting of the Working Committee, expressed the opinion that in the circumstances it would be humiliating for the Mahatma to apply for an interview. But all the others present thought differently.