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

THE FIGHT RESUMED 277 stated at the Round Table Conference in London on Novem- ber 13th, 1931, if the depressed classes were torn away from the main body of Hindus by the grant of a separate electorate, he would resist it with his life and in pursuance of that resolve, he would fast unto death. On April 13th, Sir Samuel Hoare had replied in a non-committal way, saying that the Government would give the matter their fullest consideration before coming to a decision. The 'Communal Award'¹ of the Prime Minister, Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, was thereafter announced on August 17th. It provided for a certain number of seats for the depressed classes in the Provincial Legislatures which would be filled up on the basis of a separate electorate. In addition to this, members of the depressed classes would be entitled to stand for election from the general con- stituencies earmarked for Hindus and would be registered in a common electoral rôle along with other Hindus. The award further provided that if His Majesty's Government were satisfied that the communities concerned were mutually agreed upon a practicable alternative scheme, either in respect of one or more of the Governor's provinces or in respect of the whole of British India, before the new Government of India Bill was passed into law, they would be prepared to recom- mend to Parliament that the alternative should be substituted for the provisions now outlined. On August 18th the Mahatma addressed a letter to the Premier informing him that in accordance with what he had written to Sir Samuel Hoare on March 11th, he had resolved to commence fast unto death at noon on September 20th. 'The fast will cease if during its progress, the British Government, of its own motion or under pressure of public opinion, revise their decision and withdraw their scheme of communal electorates for the depressed classes whose representatives should be elected by general electorate under common franchise, no matter how wide it is.' The Mahatma further asked that the entire correspondence be given immediate and full publicity. ¹ As the members nominated by the British Government to the Second Round Table Conference in 1931 could not come to an agreement on the question of representation, electorate, etc., for the legislatures under the New Constitution, the British Prime Minister announced the Government's decision. This decision is known as the Communal Award.

278 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE The Premier replied on September 8th, regretting the decision of the Mahatma but affirming that the provisions of the award could not be altered except on the condition stated therein. The Mahatma received this communication the next day and immediately replied saying that he felt compelled reluctantly to adhere to the decision he had already conveyed. Words cannot describe the anxiety and alarm that passed from one end of the country to the other when the news about the impending fast was published on September 13th. Frantic appeals were made to the Mahatma to desist but the appeals proved ineffective. Government offered to release him under certain conditions but he declined conditional release. It was therefore decided to leave him undisturbed in Poona Prison, but to remove all restrictions regarding interviews and correspondence. On an appeal from Pandit M. M. Malaviya, a conference of Hindu leaders met at Bombay on September 19th, in order to deliberate how the Mahatma's life could be saved. After a preliminary discussion there, the leaders adjourned to Poona in order to be in constant touch with the Mahatma. After prolonged discussions, an agree- ment was arrived at between the Hindu leaders on September 24th, which virtually did away with separate electorate for the depressed classes. This agreement, hereafter known as the Poona Agreement,¹ was ratified by the Hindu leaders' con- ference and by the Hindu Mahasabha on September 25th, and was cabled to the Government of India and to the Prime Minister. On September 26th, His Majesty's Government announced that they were prepared to recommend to Parlia- ment to endorse the Poona Agreement. The whole country breathed a sigh of relief. Prayers went up to heaven that the Mahatma's life had been saved. The Poona Agreement provided for a certain number of reserved seats for members of the depressed classes in the Legislatures on the basis of a common electorate for all classes of Hindus. There was, however, one qualification. The members of the depressed classes registered in the general electoral roll in a constituency would form an electoral college which would elect a panel of four candidates belonging ¹ Also called the Poona Pact.

THE FIGHT RESUMED 279 to the depressed classes for each of such reserved seats by the method of the single vote. The provision for a primary election, to be in operation for ten years, was insisted on by Dr. Ambedkar (who had been nominated by the Government to the Round Table Conference) though before the Simon Commission and at the first Round Table Conference, he had demanded reservation of seats for the depressed classes on the basis of a common electorate for all Hindus. Mr. M. C. Rajah, a prominent leader of the depressed classes had, on the contrary, consistently stood for reservation of seats for his community on the basis of a common electorate. Earlier in the year he had entered into a pact with Dr. Moonje, President of the Hindu Mahasabha, on this basis. This pact—known popularly as the Rajah-Moonje Pact—was however opposed by Dr. Ambedkar and his followers and on that ground it was not accepted by the British Government. As long as the Mahatma was on fast, rational thinking was completely suspended and the one thought of his country- men was how to save his life. Once he was out of danger, people began to examine the Poona Agreement in the cold light of reason. Then it was realised that while the Communal Award had provided 71 seats in the Provincial Legislatures for the depressed classes, the Poona Agreement had provided 148. These additional seats would be given them at the expense of the rest of the Hindu community. In provinces like Bengal, where Hindus had already been unjustly treated in the award, the Poona Agreement was regarded as a further injustice by the rest of the Hindu community—particularly in view of the fact that the depressed classes problem hardly existed there. Moreover, it was realised that the Poona Agreement had not done away with separate electorate altogether. People began to ask seriously if after all it was worth while for Mahatma Gandhi to have staked his life for such an issue, especially when the Communal Award was from start to finish an objectionable document. But whatever may be the permanent value of the Poona Agreement, there is no doubt that the fast of Mahatma Gandhi had a permanent and far-reaching effect in rous- ing the conscience of the Hindu community. It was a

280 · THE INDIAN STRUGGLE unique spectacle to see how the heart of the entire nation throbbed for one man. All sections of the Hindus were stirred to activity as they had never been before. The most important result of the 'epic fast' was to give a powerful impetus to the movement for the eradication of untouch- ability. During the fast such a colossal amount of sympathy had been generated not only for the Mahatma personally but for the cause of the depressed classes as well, that it would have been a great pity if that sympathy had not been harnessed into permanent channels of activity through the organisation of the All-India Anti-Untouchability League. While the Mahatma's fast had a remarkable effect on his countrymen, in the international sphere it did not prove to be an unmixed blessing. It served to advertise to a dis- proportionate degree the issue of the depressed classes. Hitherto the world had known only one issue relating to India, the political issue—India's grievance against England. Now the leader of the Nationalist movement himself announced to the world that there was another issue—the internal issue —of such vital importance to India that he was prepared to stake his life for it. And British propagandists were not slow to take advantage of the opportunity. In September 1932, the whole of Europe was told that the Mahatma was fasting because he was against granting certain rights to the un- touchables.¹ Ever since then the European public have been constantly fed with stories that India is a land full of internal dissensions where not only Hindus and Moslems, but Hindus themselves are perpetually fighting with one another and only the strong hand of Britain is able to maintain peace and order. The fast had another unfortunate effect which proved to be more serious. It served to side-track the political move- ment at a time when all possible attention should have been devoted to it. If with the termination of the fast the Mahatma had handed over the anti-untouchability work to friends outside, the effect of the fast would not have been so harmful. But when the leader himself began to conduct the anti- ¹ In many countries in Europe the writer has heard this remark made by people generally interested in Indian affairs. At first he did not realise the significance of this remark—but later on he found out that in September 1932, this story had been told all over Europe.

THE FIGHT RESUMED 281 untouchability campaign from behind the prison-walls, what could his followers do? The Mahatma had all along held that a Satyagraha prisoner should regard himself as 'civilly dead' and should not bother about the work outside prison. But on this occasion he did not stick to his usual principle. To make matters worse, when questions were put to him, at this time, as to whether political work should be done or social work, he gave replies that were rather confusing or he did not reply at all, which led people to think that he preferred social work to political. This lead of the Mahatma was naturally followed more by his blind followers and by those who were tired of repeated suffering and imprisonment and wanted a convenient excuse for giving up the political fight. Another theory has been put forward to explain the Mahatma's conduct. It is advanced that he realised the ultimate failure of the movement and therefore wanted to create out of it—another movement which would be of benefit to his countrymen. This theory cannot be accepted since in November 1931, in London, the Mahatma had spoken of his determination to resist with his life, special electorate for the depressed classes. One feels inclined to think that this side-tracking of the civil-disobedience movement was the result of that subjectivism which seizes him at times and makes him utterly blind to and oblivious of objective realities. Ever since the Round Table Conference, he had begun to ponder so deeply over the depressed classes problem that the other problems receded to the background for the time being. Whatever the real explanation may be, there is no doubt that the fast served to side-track the civil-disobedience move- ment and cause a diversion of men, money and public enthusiasm to the anti-untouchability (or 'Harijan')¹ campaign at a time when the position of the Congress, vis-à-vis the Government, was none too strong. The effect was the same as it would be if in the middle of a battle, a general gave the order to his troops to start excavating a canal in order to supply water to the thirsty people of the countryside. In response to the appeal made by the Mahatma on ¹ The word 'Harijan' (literally, 'a man of God') was coined by the Mahatma to denote a member of the depressed classes or untouchables.

282 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE September 26th, temples and public wells throughout India began to be thrown open to the untouchables. In fact so rapid was the march of progress, that it looked as if the demon of untouchability would be laid low in no time. However, a resistance was met with at Guruvayur in South India where the Zamorin, the trustee of the temple, refused to throw it open to the untouchables on the plea of tradition and legal difficulties. Thereupon, Mr. Kelappan, a well-known and highly-esteemed Congress worker, commenced a fast as a protest against the exclusion of untouchables from the temple. When his condition became critical, the Mahatma was pre- vailed upon to intervene and save his life. At the request of the Mahatma, who undertook to continue the fight, Kelap- pan gave up the fast. About this time it was found that in many places the authorities or trustees of several temples were raising legal obstacles in the,way of throwing open the temples to untouchables. It was therefore considered desirable to introduce legislation in the Madras Legislative Council and in the Indian Legislative Assembly to remove such legal difficulties once for all. The Bill drafted for the Madras Council was refused sanction by the Viceroy. Permission for introduction of the Bill drafted for the Indian Legislative Assembly was granted by the Viceroy on January 23rd, 1933, but it was made clear that the Government would not commit itself in any way with regard to the Bill and would afford full opportunity for public opinion to express itself on the question. A special request was made to the Government of India for affording facilities for the speedy passage of the Temple Entry Bill, but the Viceroy declined to offer any such facilities and thanks to the dilatory tactics of the Government, the Bill is still hanging fire. To strengthen the demand for temple entry for untouchables, a plebiscite of temple-goers was taken at Guruvayur on December 25th, 1932. Though Guruvayur is regarded to be a socially backward place, out of 20,163 votes recorded, 77 per cent. were in favour of temple entry, 13 per cent. were against, while 10 per cent. were neutral. Another beneficial result followed from the appeal of the Mahatma made on September 26th to settle Hindu-Moslem differences. A Unity Conference was convened at Allahabad

THE FIGHT RESUMED 283 in which Pandit Malaviya and Moulana Shaukat Ali took a leading part. The Conference met on November 1st, under the presidentship of Mr. Vijayaraghav Achariar, ex-President of the Congress and a large number of representative Hindus and Moslems attended. The atmosphere was one of perfect cordiality. A great deal of progress was made in the nego- tiations for a Hindu-Moslem settlement. But ultimately two obstacles arose. On one side, the leaders of the communalist section of the Moslems condemned the unity efforts. On the other side, the Bengal problem proved insoluble, since the Europeans would not surrender any seat allowed them under the Communal Award and the Moslems would not be content with less than 51 per cent. of the total number of seats. Though the Conference did not come to a successful conclusion, it had a moral value and it helped to clear the atmosphere considerably. We may now review the actions of the Government during the year 1932. While taking the severest measures against the Congress, the Viceroy constantly urged that the Government would simultaneously push on the work of constitution- making. About the middle of January, the Consultative Committee was appointed for keeping the Government in close touch with all the leaders of the other parties, barring the Congress, through the Viceroy and especially for con- sidering the recommendations of the Franchise, Federal Finance and Indian States Inquiry Committees as a pre- liminary to their consideration by His Majesty's Government. Owing to the delay in issuing the Communal Award, the Consultative Committee was twice postponed on the insistence of the Moslem members. On June 27th, an announcement was made by the Government to the effect that they had decided to provide for Provincial Autonomy and Federation in a single Bill and that they would abandon the Third Session of the Round Table Conference. The Indian Liberal leaders immediately lodged a strong protest against the abandonment of the Round Table Conference and following this, Messrs. Sastri, Jayakar, Joshi and Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru resigned from the Consultative Committee. This made the Government climb down a bit, and on July 7th,

284 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE Sir Samuel Hoare, in a speech before the Central Asian Society, explained that the change of procedure did not imply a change of policy. He further stated that when the Joint Parliamentary Committee met to consider the Govern- ment proposals, Indians would be enabled to appear not only as witnesses but also to participate in the discussions of the Committee. The explanation of the Secretary of State for India was not considered adequate by the Liberal leaders who persisted in their opposition. On September 5th, a fresh announcement was made by the Viceroy before the Indian Legislative Assembly to the effect that since the Consultative Committee would not be able to make the contribution anticipated from it, it had been decided to hold further discussions in London. A small body of representatives from British India and from the Indian States would therefore meet in London about the middle of November. The work would be in accordance with a fixed agenda and there would be no public session. The Liberal leaders now felt satisfied that their trip to London was restored. The Third Round Table Conference commenced work on November 17th; and ended on December 24th, the final session being open to the public. The Labour Party did not participate in this Con- ference on the ground that the Government had gone back on the policy of conciliation. They also wanted that the Indian members should keep aloof, but that desire was not complied with. Sir Samuel Hoare summed up the results of the Conference at the close of the session. The following are some of the decisions made by the Government to which he referred:

1. The Moslem community would have a representation of 33⅓ per cent. in the Federal legislature so far as British India was concerned.
2. It was not possible to give any definite date as to when the Federation would be in operation.
3. Sindh and Orissa would be separate provinces.
4. The Defence Budget would be non-votable.
5. For employing Indian troops outside India for purposes other than Indian, the decision of the Federal Ministry and the Federal Legislature would

THE FIGHT RESUMED 285 be taken, but the Crown would have full authority when Indian troops were to be employed outside India in the defence of India. Finally, in response to an appeal for co-operation made by Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, Sir Samuel Hoare said that he wanted to see no empty chairs at the Round Table Con- ference of the Joint Select Committee. During the year the revolutionary movement was strong in the province of Bengal. Special powers were given to the Bengal Government by the Viceroy, in. addition to the Viceregal ordinances. The Viceregal Ordinances, four in number, designed mainly for coping with the civil-dis- obedience movement, were issued on January 4th, 1932. On June 30th, before these Ordinances were due to lapse, a fresh but comprehensive Ordinance, called the Special Powers Ordinance 1932, was promulgated by the Government of India. In addition to this, the Bengal Emergency Powers Ordinance had been issued in November 1931, for arming the Bengal Government with powers similar to those enjoyed by martial law authorities, for the suppression of the terrorist movement. This Ordinance was renewed on May 29th, 1932. Further powers were given to the Bengal Government on July 20th, by the Government of India through the Bengal Emergency Powers (Second Amendment) Ordinance 1932. On September 1st, the Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, was passed by the Bengal Legislative Council which gave increased powers to the Executive, the most important provision being that attempt at murder was made punishable with death sentence. Another Act was passed on September 6th, called the Bengal Suppression of Terrorist Outrages Act, 1932, which empowered the executive to seize buildings, to order citizens on pain of punishment to assist them in the suppression of terrorism, to impose collective fines on villagers, etc. The Legislation passed in the Bengal Legislative Council armed the Government with permanent powers—so that in future, emergency ordinances would not be necessary. During the year, terrorist outrages took place from time to time, the most important of them being the

286 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE murder of Mr. Douglas, the District Magistrate of Midnapore and Mr. Ellison, Additional Superintendent of Police, Comilla. On the side of the Government the severest measures were taken. Troops were quartered in many districts where trouble had taken place or was apprehended and heavy collective fines were imposed in Chittagong, Midnapore and twenty-four Parganas Districts. Moreover, the abandoned prison for revolutionary prisoners in the Andaman Islands in the Bay of Bengal was reopened in spite of public protest and political prisoners were transported there. During the year, two important Labour Conferences were held. The first session of the Indian Trades Union Federation (former Right Wing of the Trade Union Congress) was held at Madras on July 15th, with Mr. V. V. Giri in the chair. Among the resolutions passed was one relating to the position of labour in the future Indian Constitution. The All-India Trade Union Congress met on September 12th at Madras, with Mr. J. N. Mitra as President. The Trade Union Con- gress condemned the Communal Award and the Ottawa Pact as harmful to the best interests of the workers. It also passed a resolution saying that in view of the sporadic strikes at Matunga (near Bombay), Kharagpur (seventy miles from Calcutta), Lillooah (near Calcutta), Lucknow (in the United Provinces) and other places, it was clear that the workers in all the railways were resolved to declare a general strike and that the responsibility for postponing it indefinitely, lay upon leaders like Mr. Jamnadas Mehta,`Mr. V. V. Giri and Mr. S. C. Joshi (Right-Wing leaders), who were guiding the policy of the Railwaymen's Federation. Attempts were made during the year to bring about unity between the Trades Union Federation and the Trade Union Congress, but they proved abortive. Though a ballot of the railway workers in May resulted in a vote for a general strike, the strike was not launched. There were sporadic strikes, however, in many centres and in October there was a strike at the Perambur rail- way workshop, near Madras, which dragged on for some months. The communal situation in India was, on the whole, fairly satisfactory—the only exception being Bombay, where. Hindu-Moslem riots broke out in May. In some of the Indian

THE FIGHT RESUMED 287 States, however, there was trouble. The year before, there was trouble in Kashmir, where the peasants (who are pre- dominantly Moslems) rose in revolt against the Hindu Maharajah. Though the grievances were mainly economic, a communal colouring was given to the movement by Moslem sympathisers in British India and also by the peasants them- selves, who in some cases attacked their Hindu fellow-subjects. However, with the help of troops from British India, the revolt was suppressed but as a price for the assistance rendered him, the Maharajah had to submit to the terms of the British Government in the matter of appointing British officers. To appease his subjects, the Maharajah undertook to make concessions in land revenue, to extend primary education, to give a share of state-appointments to all communities and to introduce a measure of constitutional reforms, including a Legislative Assembly. The first elections to the Kashmir Legislative Assembly took place in September 1934. In May 1932, trouble broke out in Alwar State, similar to that in Kashmir, the only difference being that the trouble was more communal and less economic than in Kashmir. To put down the rebellious Moslem subjects, troops from British India had to be called in. The assistance was welcomed by the Maharaja, but when the British Government sought to impose their conditions,¹ the Maharajah refused to submit. The dispute between the Maharajah, and the British Govern- ment went on for some time, but ultimately the former was ordered to leave his state. That order holds good to-day. One of the surprises of the year was the result of the elections held in Burma in November 1932 to decide whether Burma was in favour of separation from India. The year before, Burma had been in the throes of a peasant rebellion, a serious disturbance, the like of which India had not seen since 1857. The rebellion continued for more than a year. In 1932, the situation gradually became quiet and orders were issued for a General Election. On the ground that the electoral rolls had been prepared in 1931, when many of the ¹ One of the conditions was that the Maharajah should submit to a Control Commission, The trouble of May 1932 subsided by September. But agrarian unrest of a violent type broke out in January 1933. In May 1933 the Maharajah was ordered to leave his state.

288. THE INDIAN STRUGGLE districts were in a state of revolt and the Anti-Separationist Party had no interest in an election, the Anti-Separationist leaders asked for fresh electoral rolls. The Government turned down the request and the elections were held on the basis of the old rolls. Nevertheless, the Anti-Separationists came out with a clear majority. When the newly-elected Council met in December, after a lengthy debate, the follow- ing resolution was carried without a division:
289. This Council opposes the separation of Burma from India on the basis of the Constitution for a separated Burma as outlined in the statement of the Prime Minister at the Burma Round Table Conference on January 12th, 1932.
290. This Council emphatically opposes the unconditional and permanent federation of Burma with India.
291. This Council will continue to oppose the separation of Burma from India until Burma is granted a Con- stitution on certain terms (as defined in the amend- ment). In the alternative, the Council proposes that Burma shall enter the Indian Federation on certain terms and conditions including the right of secession.
292. The Council urges that a conference be called at an early date for the purpose of determining the future Constitution of Burma as a separate unit on the basis defined or as a unit in the Indian Federation accord- ing to the terms defined with right to secede. (Clauses three and four were the amendments incor- porated in the resolution.) The Government, however, interpreted this resolution as a vote not given for unqualified federation with India, and they maintained that conditional federation, i.e., federation with the right to secede, was not possible. The present policy of the Government is to separate Burma from India and in accordance with that policy, Burma was not invited to send members to the third session of the Round Table Conference in November-December, 1932. Towards the end of November a very important matter came up for consideration before the Indian Legislative

THE FIGHT RESUMED 289 Assembly—the Ottawa Agreement. This Agreement had been entered into by the nominees of the Government of India who had attended the Imperial Economic Conference at Ottawa, in Canada, in August 1932. The purpose of the Agreement was to force on India a scheme of Empire pre- ference whereby India was to give to Great Britain pre- ferences covering no less than twenty-six per cent. of her imports. There was considerable agitation in the country against the ratification of the Ottawa Agreement. In the absence of the Nationalist members in the Assembly, it was however impossible to throw out the Agreement. The Agreement was referred to a Select Committee and the majority report moved by Sir H. S. Gour was adopted by the Assembly. The Agreement was ratified for a period of three years at the end of which the matter would come up again before the Assembly for consideration. It was further provided that the Government should prepare an annual report reviewing the effect on India’s export and import trade of the preferences and that the report should be examined by a Committee of fifteen members appointed by the Assembly. The new Ottawa duties came into operation on January 16th, 1933. In this connection it should be noted that since England went off the Gold Standard on September 21st, 1931, the total value of gold exported from Bombay up to December 31st, 1932, amounted to Rs. 105, 27, 60, 190 (Rs. 13½ = £1 approximately) or about 1,053 million rupees. Repeated appeals were made to the Government by Chambers of Commerce, business men and public leaders to stop this flow of gold from the country, but to no avail. The Maharashtra Chamber of Commerce, Bombay, for instance, wrote to the Government of India towards the end of October, that fol- lowing the example of the Bank of England, the Government of India should buy up gold. According to the Chamber, since India had a gold bullion reserve of only Rs. 112.3 millions against a note circulation of Rs. 1,752.6 millions, the Govern- ment would be well advised to buy up more gold.¹ ¹ The flow of gold from India has been going on unchecked ever since. According to a Press statement issued from Bombay on October 6th, 1934, the total value of gold exported from Bombay since England went off the Gold Standard amounts to Rs. 197,89,40,886—or about 1979 million rupees. T

290 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE There was another important matter which came up before the Assembly in September—the Criminal Law Amendment Bill 1932. The purpose of this Bill was to place on the Statute Book the Ordinances which had been promulgated in January by the Viceroy and had been renewed in June as Special Powers Ordinance, 1932. As the Ordinance was to lapse in December, it had either to be renewed again or permanently placed on the Statute Book. In connection with this Bill, as in connection with the Ottawa Agreement, the absence of the Nationalist members, who had resigned in 1930, was keenly felt. The Bill was passed into Law in November. In August a delegation of the India League of London, consisting of Miss Wilkinson, ex-M.P., Miss Monica Whately, Mr. Leonard Matters and Mr. Krishna Menon (Secretary), arrived in India to study the political situation in the country. During their stay in India they did not make public speeches, nor did they give interviews to the Press. Only once on the occasion of the fast of Mahatma Gandhi—were they moved to breaking their silence and they declared: ‘The removal of Mahatma Gandhi means the disappearance of the greatest force working for moderation, peace and friendship towards Britain.’ Reviewing the year 1932 as a whole, one may say that it opened in the midst of excitement and enthusiasm. But as had happened before with Mahatma Gandhi’s movement, it ended in an anti-climax. The ‘epic fast’ of the Mahatma was the turning-point and from that moment onwards, the Government definitely got the better of the Congress. As the year came to a close, the thought that was uppermost in the minds of most Congressmen was how to push on the anti-untouchability campaign and resolutions were being passed from many a platform at the instance of the Congress leaders, asking the Viceroy to accord sanction to the Temple Entry Bills in the Madras Legislative Council and the Indian Legislative Assembly. Civil disobedience indeed!

CHAPTER XIV DEFEAT AND SURRENDER (1933-34) WITH the dawn of the new year, Congressmen who were more politically-minded, began to realise that the civil-disobedience movement was in danger of fizzling out. The Independence Day celebrations on January 26th, 1933, were therefore organised with much enthusiasm with a view to rousing the people again. The response everywhere was encouraging. In Calcutta alone, the police had to make 300 arrests besides using force to break up the demonstrations. In Badanganj in Arambagh Sub-division of Hooghly District in Bengal, the police resorted to shooting for dispersing the Congress procession. 'Following the Independence Day celebrations, Mrs. Gandhi was arrested at Borsad in Gujerat and sentenced to six months' imprisonment on February 7th, for leading a procession of women. As soon as the White Paper embodying the Government proposals regarding the Indian Con- stitutional Reforms was announced on March 17th, the annual session of the India National Congress was convened at Calcutta with Pandit Madan Mohon Malaviya as the President- elect. The Congress session was at once banned like the Delhi session of 1932—nevertheless, delegates and leaders assembled in Calcutta from all parts of the country on April 11th, for the occasion. The important leaders who could be easily spotted out were all arrested—including Pandit Mala- viya, Mrs. Motilal Nehru, Mr. M. S. Aney (Central Pro- vinces), Dr. Alam (Punjab), Dr. Syed Mahmud (Bihar), all of them being members of the Congress Working Committee with the exception of Mrs. Nehru. Thereafter, Mrs. J. M. Sengupta proceeded to the appointed place at the head of 2,500 Congressmen for holding the meeting and under her presidentship the meeting was held. Resolutions were passed reaffirming (1) the goal of independence; (2) the efficacy of the method of civil disobedience for attaining that goal, and 291

292 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE (3) the boycott of foreign cloth and of British goods of all kinds. The most important resolution was one emphatically condemning the White Paper proposals. Before the meeting ended, large contingents of police arrived on the scene, arrested Mrs. Sengupta and 250 others, including 40 ladies and dispersed the meeting by force. The following extract from the speech of the President-elect, the venerable Pandit Malaviya, reflects the feeling of the country at the time: 'It is estimated that nearly 120,000 persons including several thousand women and quite a number of children have been arrested and imprisoned during the last fifteen months. It is an open secret that when the Government started repression, the official expectation was that they would crush the Congress in six weeks' time. Fifteen months have not enabled the Government to achieve that object. Twice fifteen months will not enable it to do so.' This was not the review made by a young hot-head but by one of the oldest and most moderate leaders of the Congress. Consequently, the response made by the country to the Congress appeal in 1932 and 1933, in spite of lack of prepara- tion, in spite of the sudden arrest of the organisers and financiers of the Party early in January 1932, and in spite of the diversion caused by the Mahatma's fast in September 1932 and the anti-untouchability campaign thereafter—can by no means be regarded as unsatisfactory. Nevertheless, the country was startled one fine morning in May to hear that the Mahatma had suspended the civil-disobedience campaign. While in prison the Mahatma had decided to go on a three weeks' fast¹ as a penance, because his followers outside had not made sufficient progress with the anti-untouchability campaign. The object of the fast was to bring about a change of heart—not in the bureaucracy but in his countrymen— who were responsible for the sad plight of the untouchables. The Government had no objection to a fast of that kind and ¹ After the famous September fast, the Mahatma had fasted once again in December, but that fast had been a short one. The present fast was described by him as a 'heart-prayer for purification of myself and my associates for greater vigilance and watchfulness in connection with the Harijan cause.'

DEFEAT AND SURRENDER 293 as a matter of fact, thanks to British news-agencies, the fast was given wide publicity in the European Press,¹ because it helped to advertise the internal differences of the Indian people. However, the Government considered it prudent to set him free. The day after his release he made the announce- ment referred to above.² At first the civil-disobedience cam- paign was suspended for six weeks, but the suspension was subsequently extended for six weeks more, i.e., till the end of July. The sudden suspension of the campaign without rhyme or reason, would under ordinary circumstances have produced a widespread revolt in the Congress organi- sation, but since he was in the middle of a fast which could end fatally, all judgment was suspended for the time being. While suspending the civil-disobedience campaign, the Mahatma made an appeal to the Government of India to withdraw the Ordinances and release the civil-disobedience prisoners. But, unfortunately, a settled Government pre- serves a continuity of policy and cannot alter its policy over- night as an individual can. The Government’s reply was therefore a refusal. While responsible Congressmen in India were unwilling or afraid to speak out against the Mahatma after his surrender of May 1933, a manifesto was issued by the late Mr. Vithalbhai J. Patel³ and the writer from Vienna, condemning the Mahatma’s decision. The manifesto stated that the decision virtually undid the work and the sacrifice of the last thirteen years. It signified a failure of the civil- ¹ The writer was in Vienna when the news regarding the fast appeared in the Continental Press. After 14 months' incarceration when his health was in an alarming condition, Lt.-Col. Buckley, I.M.S. of Lucknow who had been treating him, recommended his transfer to Europe for treatment. Thereupon the Government of India permitted him to leave for Europe on his own financial responsibility. He was released at Bombay when he sailed and arrived in Vienna in March, 1933. ² It is a matter for conjecture if the Government knew that the Mahatma would suspend the civil-disobedience campaign if he were set free. On May 8th, 1933, when the Mahatma started his fast the Government issued a communiqué stating that in view of the nature of the object of the fast and the attitude of mind which it disclosed, the Government had decided that the Mahatma should be set at liberty. After his release, the sus- pension of civil disobedience was ordered by the Acting President of the Congress, Mr. Aney, on the 'recommendation' of the Mahatma. ³ The late Mr. V. J. Patel had returned from the United States after three months' strenuous propaganda on behalf of India which ultimately cost him his life. He, as well as the writer, were undergoing treatment in Vienna at the time.

294 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE disobedience campaign, as also of Mahatma Gandhi's leader- ship. It was therefore time to turn to a more radical policy and leadership. Owing to the preoccupation of the public over Mahatma Gandhi's health, the manifesto did not, how- ever, produce the effect which it would otherwise have. Even friends thought that it was an outrageous act to criticise the Mahatma when his life was in jeopardy because of the fast. In July, a Conference of important Congressmen, then out of prison, was held at Poona. It could be regarded as an unofficial meeting of the All-India Congress Committee. Two groups were represented at the Conference—one in favour of calling off the movement altogether and the other in favour of resuming it with full vigour. The former group had probably a majority and most of the members of this group were in favour of reviving the Swarajist policy of carrying the fight inside the Legislatures which had been abandoned at the Lahore Congress in December 1929. Never- theless, at the end, the Conference decided to give in to the, Mahatma. At his instance it was decided that the Mahatma should make a further attempt to see the Viceroy and come to an understanding with him. If this failed, the Congress should resume 'individual' civil disobedience, but that 'mass' civil disobedience should be given up altogether. The purpose of this was that the Congress should not organise any cam- paign on a mass scale but should leave it to individuals to break any laws that they felt called upon to on their personal responsibility. Soon after the Poona Conference the Mahatma approached the Viceroy for an interview—but all that he got was a humiliating rebuff. He and some of his closest fol- lowers, thereupon, proceeded to start civil disobedience individually and by August 1933, they found themselves in prison once again. This time even the Mahatma's incarcera- tion did not create a great stir. 'Individual' civil disobedience was offered all over India by the loyal adherents of the Mahatma and a few hundred persons were thereby thrust back into prison. But it was a foregone conclusion that where mass civil disobedience had failed, individual civil disobedience would not produce any appreciable effect. On reaching prison, the Mahatma found

DEFEAT AND SURRENDER 295 that the facilities afforded him since September 1932, during his last incarceration, for conducting the anti-untouchability campaign from behind the prison walls—would not be given *him this time.*¹ He thereupon gave notice to the Government that if he did not get those facilities, he would feel called upon to resort to fasting. It is difficult for a layman to reconcile this attitude of the Mahatma with his lifelong principle that a Satyagrahi prisoner should voluntarily submit to jail dis- cipline. However, the Government once again found them- selves in an uncomfortable position. By that time they had realised that individual civil disobedience was going to fizzle out and consequently there would be no risk in setting the Mahatma at liberty. So once more the Mahatma found himself a free man. On coming out from prison, the Mahatma announced that since he had been sentenced to one year's imprisonment in August 1933, and since he had been released by the Government before the expiry of his term, he would consider himself as a prisoner till August 1934, and would not offer civil disobedience during that period. Before offering civil disobedience, the Mahatma had issued a statement in July to the effect that there was too much secrecy in the affairs of the Congress and in the management of the civil-disobedience campaign and this secrecy was largely responsible for the failure that had overtaken the Congress. In the Mahatma's opinion, the Congress organisa- tions had become corrupt bodies. Soon after this, at the instance of the Mahatma, the Acting-President of the Congress, Mr. M. S. Aney, issued orders, dissolving all Congress organisations in the country. Confusion worse confounded! What were the people to do? Normal human reason could not follow the logic of the Mahatma and those who could be expected to speak out 'the plain truth, were not available. At this juncture, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru was released from prison after serving his term of two years' imprisonment. All eyes were turned on him. He was the one man who could influence the Mahatma—who could drag the Congress out of ¹ The reason given by the Government was that on the former occasion he had been incarcerated without trial, whereas on this occasion he was convicted after trial.

296 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE the mess into which it had fallen. Pandit Nehru had long talks with the Mahatma and following that, an interchange of letters. The correspondence was duly published, but on perusal it was found to be more doctrinaire than practical. What the public wanted to know urgently was not whether and wherein Pandit J. L. Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi agreed or disagreed fundamentally—but how the Congress could be restored to life and vigour. During his four months of comparative freedom, Pandit Nehru wrote and spoke freely and gave expression to his socialistic—or communistic —ideas, but the Congress did not show any signs of resus- citation. In an exceedingly interesting and able article under the caption 'Whither India?'—he pleaded for social and economic equality—for the ending of all special class-privi- leges and vested interests—but that did not help the Congress one jot or tittle. With a popularity only second to that of the Mahatma, with unbounded prestige among his countrymen, with a clear brain possessing the finest ideas, with an up-to- date knowledge of modern world movements—that he should be found wanting in the essential quality of leadership, namely the capacity to make decisions and face unpopularity if need be,¹ was a great disappointment. But there was no help for it. What had been expected of him had to be accom- plished by lesser men. After Pandit Nehru, Mr. K. F. Nariman the Bombay leader, was released and without delay he began to give public expression to his views² on the decisions of the Poona Conference in July 1933. Referring to the Mahatma's decision to start civil disobedience in August 1933, because the Viceroy did not grant him an unconditional interview, he said, ' "Inter- view or Death" is the national slogan for the present. : . . The renewed fight in August last is not for Swaraj, nor even for political constitutional advance, but for the assertion of a supposed "national right" of an unconditional interview. If ¹ This defect in Pandit J. L. Nehru was manifest on other occasions as well, when the Congress was passing through a crisis—e.g., in the crisis of 1923-24 and subsequently in the crisis of 1928-29. ² For a full statement of his views one should refer to his book, Whither Congress? Bombay Book Depot, Girgaon, Bombay, November 1933. Mr. Nariman has been a member of the Congress Working Committee since January 1930.