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

INTRODUCTION 37 § IV. ORGANISATIONS, PARTIES AND PERSONALITIES To understand properly a narrative about the Indian struggle for freedom, it is necessary to have some idea of the different organisations, parties and personalities in India. The most important party or organisation in India is the Indian National Congress, founded in 1885. It has its branches all over India. There is a central committee for the whole country called the All-India Congress Committee, which consists of about 350 members. This committee elects an executive committee for the year, called the Working Committee. Each province has a Provincial Congress Com- mittee and under this committee there are district, sub- divisional (or tahsil or taluka), union and village Congress Committees. The different Congress Committees are all formed on the elective principle. The aim of the Congress is the ‘attainment of complete independence by all peaceful and legitimate means.’ The leader¹ of the Congress is Mahatma Gandhi—who is the virtual dictator. The Working Com- mittee since 1929 has been elected according to his dictation and no one can find a place on that committee who is not thoroughly submissive to him and his policy. Within the Congress there is a strong Left Wing who hold radical views on social and economic questions, i.e., questions relating to caste, to landlord versus peasant and to capital versus labour. This group also advocate a more vigorous and activist policy for the achievement of political freedom. On all such problems, Mahatma Gandhi holds a more com- promising position. A few years ago the prominent members of the Left Wing were Mr. Srinivasa Iyengar, ex-Advocate- General of Madras and ex-President of the Congress, Pandit Jarvaharlal Nehru of Allahabad, formerly an advocate by profession and son of the late Pandit Motilal Nehru, Dr. Mohammed Alam, an outstanding Moslem leader of Lahore and an advocate, and Mr. K. F. Nariman of Bombay, a Parsi ¹ The President of the Congress is not the real leader. Whoever presides at a plenary session of the Congress continues as Congress President till the next session. The Congress President is elected as a result of nomination by the different Provincial Congress Committees

38 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE gentleman and an advocate by profession, Dr. S. Kitchlew, a Moslem nationalist leader of Lahore, also an advocate and the present writer. But since 1930, Mr. Srinivasa Iyengar has retired from the Congress and with the exception of Dr. Kitchlew and the writer,¹ the others have been won over by the Mahatma. Nevertheless, even without many prominent leaders the Left Wing is fairly strong. The position of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru in this connection is an interesting one. His ideas and views are of a radical nature and he calls himself a full-blooded socialist—but in practice he is a loyal follower of the Mahatma. It would probably be correct to say that while his brain is with the Left Wingers, his heart is with Mahatma Gandhi. Among the other leaders, Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan (popularly called the Frontier Gandhi), a Moslem leader of the Frontier Province, is at present exceedingly popular, but it is too early to describe his exact political complexion. Mr. P. D. Tandon, and other Congress leaders of the United Provinces, are followers of Pandit J. L. Nehru, though they are inclined towards the Left Wing. The Central Provinces leaders, Seth Govindh Das and Pandit Dwarka Prasad Misra, are also inclined towards the Left Wing. Among those who played a prominent part in the National Movement prior to 1920, Lokamanya Tilak of Poona, Mr. B. C. Pal of Calcutta, Sir S. N. Banerjea of Calcutta, Mr. G. K. Gokhale of Poona and Sir Pherozhah Mehta of Bombay, are dead. The first two belonged to the Left Wing, while the rest belonged to the Right Wing. Of those who played an important part since 1920, the following leaders are now dead: Lala Lajpat Rai of Lahore, Deshbandhu C. R. Das of Calcutta, Pandit Motilal Nehru of Allahabad, Mr. J. M. Sengupta of Calcutta and Mr. Vithalbhai Patel of Bombay. Among the prominent leaders who retired from the Congress, but who are still alive, are Sri Aurobindo Ghosh of Calcutta who has been living a religious life in French Pondicherry since 1909, and Mr. Srinivasa Iyengar of Madras who retired from active politics in 1930. ¹ Swami Govindanand of Karachi has also consistently taken up a Left-wing position.

INTRODUCTION 39 Since May 1934, many of the Left-Wingers have combined to form an All-India Congress Socialist Party. This party has so far. found the largest support in the United Provinces and Bombay—but support is also forthcoming from all over the country. It is too early to say, how this party will grow in future, because many of those who may play an important rôle are either in prison or out of India at the moment. At present a reshuffling of parties is going on and a realignment in politics will shortly take place. Within the Indian National Congress there is an important and influential Moslem group and this group has its repre- sentatives in the Congress Cabinet—that is, the Working Committee. In this group are Moulana¹ Abul Kalam Azad of Calcutta, Dr. M. A. Ansari of Delhi, and Dr. Mohammed Alam of Lahore.² Among the Hindu leaders of the Congress there are some who are more inclined towards the Hindu Mahasabha—for instance Pandit Madan Mohon Malaviya of Benares and Mr. M. S. Aney of Berar. Before 1918, the Congress had two groups—the Extre- . mists (or Nationalists) and the Moderates (or Liberals). In 1907, the Extremists were driven out of the Congress, but in 1916 at the Lucknow Congress, a rapprochement was effected. In 1918, the Moderates being outnumbered by the Extremists, seceded from the Congress and started the All- India Liberal Federation. The present leaders of the Liberal Party are Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru of Allahabad, Sir Chimanlal Setalvad and Sir Pheroze Sethna of Bombay, the Right Hon. V. Srinivasa Sastri and Sir Sivaswami Iyer of Madras, Mr. Chintamani of Allahabad, and Mr. J. N. Basu of Calcutta. Among the present-day Congress leaders who are loyal supporters of the Mahatma, are Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel of Gujerat, Dr. M. A. Ansari of Delhi, Mr. Rajendra Prasad of Patna, Dr. Mohammed Alam and Sardar Sardul Singh of Lahore, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru of Allahabad, Mr. Raja- ¹ Moulana implies a learned Moslem divine, just as Pandit implies a learned Brahmin. But the word Pandit is used loosely in some parts of India, as Kashmir, in reference to all Brahmins, regardless of their learning. ² Mr. Sherwani of Allahabad, Mr. Asaf Ali of Delhi and Mr. Khali- quzzaman of Lucknow also belong to this group. The first two have been elected to the Assembly in the elections of November, 1934.

40 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE : gopalachari of Madras, Mrs. Sarojini Naidu, the celebrated poetess, Moulana Abul Kalam Azad of Calcutta, Mr. Abhyan- kar of Nagpur, Mr. Jairamdas Daulatram of Karachi and Dr. B. C. Roy of Calcutta. Among them Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru's popularity is, by general consent, the highest. Besides the above political parties comprising members of all communities, there are communal organisations whose avowed object is to secure the loaves and fishes for members of their own community. Among the Moslems, the All-India Moslem League is the most important organisation, having been started as early as 1906. During 1920 and 1924, the Moslem League was eclipsed by the All-India Khilafat Committee. But after the abolition of the Khalifate in 1924, the Khilafat movement in India collapsed, and the Moslem League regained its former importance. Besides the Moslem League, there are other organisations of recent growth, like the All-India Moslem Conference. The prominent com- munal Moslem leaders are the Aga Khan, Mr. M. A. Jinnah (who was a Congress leader up to 1920), Sir Mohammed Ikbal of Lahore. Sir Mohammed Yakub of the United Provinces and Mr. Shafi Daudi of Patna. Moulana Shaukat Ali, once a prominent Congress and Khilafat leader, has, on several occasions, identified himself with the com- munal Mohammedans. Sir Abdur Rahim occupies a position between the communal leaders on the one side and the Nationalist Moslem leaders on the other. As a counterblast to the All-India Moslem League, the Hindu Mahasabha has come into existence for the avowed object of protecting the rights of the Hindus. It has influential support in some parts of India. Among the prominent leaders are Mr. Ramananda Chatterji of Calcutta (Editor of the Modern Review). Dr. B. S. Moonje of Nagpur, Bhai Par- manand of Lahore, Mr. N. C. Kelkar of Poona. Pandit Madan Mohon Malaviya, though intimately connected with the Congress also plays an important part in the Hindu Mahasabha. Besides the Moslem League and the Hindu Mahasabha there are other communal parties. For instance, the Anglo-Indians, the Indian Christians, the Sikhs (of the Punjab) and the depressed classes among the Hindus have

INTRODUCTION 41 their own parties to safeguard their own interests, that is, to secure as much of the loaves and fishes as possible. Of these parties there is one which has played a comparatively im- portant rôle—namely the Justice Party of Madras. The Justice Party of Madras has till recently been composed of non-Brahmins and its policy is pro-government, as com- pared with the Indian National Congress. Among the depressed classes, everywhere in India there is a strong nationalist bloc, working hand in hand with the Congress. The Sikhs of the Punjab are on the whole strongly nationalist. While the political parties we first dealt with, have a political programme and carry on some sort of agitation against, or opposition towards the Government, the com- munal parties are more concerned with dividing amongst themselves such of the crumbs that are thrown at them from the official tables. In accordance with the time-worn policy of divide et impera, the Government greatly encourage these parties—just to spite the Indian Nationalist Congress and try to weaken its influence. This was clearly exhibited in 1930 and later, when the Indian representatives to the Round Table Conference were not selected by a vote of the Indian people—but were nominated by the British Govern- ment and in making these nominations, the communal parties, who have no concern with the fight for political freedom, were given exaggerated importance. As a matter of fact, whenever the occasion demands, leaders are created overnight by the British Government and thanks to the British Press, their names are made known to the whole world. When the Government of India Act, 1919, was under consideration, the late Dr. T. M. Nair of Madras, was made a leader in London, in opposition to the Congress leaders at the time. In 1930 and after, Dr. Ambedkar has had leader- ship thrust upon him by a benign British Government, because his services were necessary to embarrass the nationalist leaders. Next in importance to the Indian National Congress are the labour and peasant parties. Labour organisation has, however, made more headway than the peasants' organisa- tion. The All-India Trade Union Congress was first started

42 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE in 1920 and Mr. N. M. Joshi was one of the founders of that organisation. Since then the Trade Union Congress has had a stormy career. In 1929 at the Nagpur session, presided over by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, a split took place, the Right Wing represented by Mr. N. M. Joshi, Mr. V. V. Giri, Mr. Shiva Rao, Mr. R. R. Bakhale, and others, breaking away from the Congress and starting another body called the Trade Union Federation. The Trade Union Federation now works hand in hand with the British Trades Union Congress and is affiliated to the International Federation of Trade Unions of Amsterdam. The politics of this body is closely allied to the politics of the Liberal Party. In 1931, at the Calcutta session of the Trade Union Congress, presided over by the writer, a further split took place, as a result of which the extreme section broke away and started the Red Trade Union Congress. This section is alleged to work under the inspiration of the Communist International, but their organisation has not exhibited much activity ever since its birth. The present Trade Union Congress, to which the writer belongs, holds a middle position between the Trade Union Federation and the Red Trade Union Congress. In other words, it is definitely socialist but is opposed to the policy and tactics of the Third International. But neither is it affiliated to the Second International at Zurich or to the International Federation of Trade Unions at Amsterdam. Unlike the Trade Union Federation, the Trade Union Congress has no faith whatsoever in the British Trades Union Congress and in Indian politics, the Trade Union Congress has more in common with the Indian National Congress than with the Liberal Federation. The President of the Congress now is Pandit Harihar Nath Sastri of Cawnpore and the Secretary is Mr. Shib Nath Bannerji of Calcutta. It is interesting to speculate what part Mr. M. N. Roy, formerly of the Communist International, will play in future in the worker's movement in India and also in the political movement. Though he is still regarded as a com- munist by many, in view of his past activities, associations and writings—the Communists themselves call him a counter- revolutionary. He is now serving a term of six years' impris-

INTRODUCTION 43 onment in India for his former activities, but meanwhile his followers in the worker's organisations in Bombay are working in the Trade Union Congress and in opposition to the Red Trade Union Congress, which is alleged by many to be a Communist body. Since Mr. M. N. Roy severed his connection with the Communist International, a split has taken place among those workers' leaders who were formerly alleged to be Communists. The group headed by Mr. Dange of Bombay, have declared for Mr. M. N. Roy, while the other group denounce him as a counter-revolutionary. Since 1920, a peasants' awakening has taken place all over India and the Indian National Congress has been indirectly responsible for its birth. But up till now no All-India organi- sation has been formed. The peasants' movement is very strong in the United Provinces and has been organised there in the name of the Kishan (Peasant) League. The Left Wing Congressmen of the province are intimately connected with the peasants' movement and their general outlook is radical. In Gujerat, too, where Mahatma Gandhi's influence is greatest, there is a strong peasants' movement—but this movement is entirely under Congress influence and the right- hand man of the Mahatma, Sardar Patel, is the leader of the peasants. The peasants' movement in Gujerat has not so far been developed on a class-conscious basis, but a radical turn in the movement is bound to come before long. In Punjab the Kirti (Workers) Kishan (Peasant) Party is influential and some elements in the party seem to be under the influence of communistic ideas. The party would have made more rapid progress if it had a prominent personality at its head. In Bengal, the peasants' movement has made much progress and has been organised under the name of Krishak (Peasant) Samities (Societies)—but it has been handicapped by want of sufficient honest and able leaders. So far, the political movement in Bengal has drawn the best and ablest workers, but in view of the new alignment that is going to take place in Indian politics before long, it is not likely that there will be a dearth of workers in the peasants' movement in future. In Central India, too, the peasants' movement is fairly strong but in South India—in the Madras Presidency—it is rather

44 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE backward. Only in some parts of the northern portion of Madras Presidency, called Andhra, is the movement strong. There is an independent movement among the students and also among the youth in India. From time to time, all India Congresses of students and of youths are held—but there is no permanent All-India Committee to co-ordinate these activities. These two movements are generally conducted on a provincial basis. In Bengal, of all the provinces, the students' movement is the strongest. The last 'All-India Congress of Students was held at Lahore in December 1929. The youth movement is organised in different provinces under different names. In Bengal the name 'Yuba Samity' or 'Tarun Sangha' is popular. In Punjab and the United Provinces, the name 'Naujawan Bharat Sabha' is more in. vogue. The first Congress of Youths was held in Calcutta in December 1928, and was presided over by Mr. Nariman, the Congress leader of Bombay. The second and the last Congress was held in Karachi in March 1931, and was presided over by the writer. The students' and youth organi- sations work in close co-operation with the Indian National Congress, though they have a more radical outlook and programme. Last but not least, the women's movement is an important factor in the public life of India to-day. This movement has advanced by rapid strides during the last fourteen years. One of the miracles for which the Mahatma is responsible to a very large extent, is this awakening. This movement has been intimately connected with the Indian National Congress, nevertheless, independent women's committees have come into existence all over the country. The movement is, generally speaking, organised on a provincial basis and in many provinces—as in Bengal—provincial Congresses are held from time to time. In all the Congress Committees in India, women now have an honoured place and in the Supreme Executive of the Congress—the Working Committee—there is at least one woman representative. Two of the recent annual sessions of the Indian National Congress have been presided over by women—by Mrs. Besant in 1917 and Mrs. Sarojini Naidu, the poetess, in 1925.

INTRODUCTION 45 Besides the political organisations of women referred to above, there are other organisations working solely with social and educational aims. These organisations are con- ducted on an All-India basis and All-India Conferences are held from time to time. Among these organisations is the All-India Women's Conference which held its last session in Calcutta towards the end of 1933. To sum up, the most important organisation in India to-day is the Indian National Congress. It stands for the whole country and for all communities. It strives for political freedom for India—but it also aims for an all-round develop- ment of national life and for the amelioration of all social evils. With the exception of the communal parties all the other organisations or parties in the country are on the whole friendly towards the Congress, and work in close co-operation with it. The undisputed leader of the Congress to-day is Mahatma Gandhi—but within the Congress there is a powerful radical Left Wing.¹ The Mahatma has so far maintained a middle position on all such questions as capital and labour, landlord and peasant, as well as the social question of caste. The Left Wing, however, is working for a more radical and uncompromising policy on social and economic issues and it is not unlikely that before long the Congress will adopt its views. ¹ The present writer belongs to this wing.

The provided image is completely blank and contains no text to transcribe.

THE INDIAN STRUGGLE 1920-1934

The provided image is completely blank and contains no text to transcribe.

CHAPTER I THE CLOUDS GATHER (1920) THE annual session of the Indian National Congress met at Amritsar in the Punjab in December 1919, under the shadow of the atrocities perpetrated there earlier in the year. In spite of the opposition of Mr. C. R. Das, Mr. B. C. Pál and Mr. B. Chakravarti, the Bengal leaders, a resolution was passed in favour of working the New Constitution (called the Government of India Act, 1919) and thanking the Secretary of State for India, Mr. Montagu, who had played so im- portant a part in launching it. Mr. Gandhi, who had been largely responsible for the decision arrived at by the Amritsar Congress, welcomed the Royal proclamation announcing the assent to the Government of India Act, 1919, and in his weekly paper, Young India, he wrote on December 31st, 1919: 'The reforms Act coupled with the Proclamation is an earnest of the intention of the British people to do justice to India and it ought to remove suspicion on that score. . . . Our duty therefore is not to subject the Reforms to carping criticism but to settle down quietly to work so as to make them a success.' But during the next nine months events moved with dramatic suddenness. What actually happened can best be described in the words of Mr. Gandhi himself. When he was tried by a British Judge, Mr. Broomfield, in March 1922, for writing seditious articles in his paper, Mr. Gandhi made a remarkable statement in the course of which he explained why after having co-operated with the British Government all his life, he was ultimately forced to turn against it. Therein he said: 'The first shock came in the shape of the Rowlatt Act, a law designed to rob the people of all real freedom. I felt called upon to lead an intensive agitation against it. Then followed the Punjab horrors beginning with the massacre at Jallianwalla Bagh (in Amritsar) and culminating in crawling 49 D

50 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE orders, public floggings and other indescribable humiliations. I discovered, too, that the plighted word of the Prime Minister to the Mussalmans of India regarding the integrity of Turkey and the holy places of Islam was not likely to be fulfilled. But in spite of the foreboding and the grave warnings of friends, at the Amritsar Congress in 1919, I fought for co-operation and working the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms, hoping the Prime Minister would redeem his promise to the Indian Mussalmans, that the Punjab wound would be healed and that the Reforms, inadequate and unsatisfactory though they were, marked a new era of hope in the life of India. But all that hope was shattered. The Khilafat promise was not to be redeemed. The Punjab crime was whitewashed and most culprits were not only unpunished but remained in service and some continued to draw pensions from the Indian revenue, and in some cases were even rewarded. I saw, too, that not only did the reforms not mark a change of heart, but they were only a method of further draining India of her wealth and of prolonging her servitude.' As already indicated in Section III of the Introduction on 'The New Awakening in India,' the new legislation, popularly known as the Rowlatt Act,¹ was enacted on March 18th, 1919, for conferring permanently on the Government of India extraordinary powers for the arrest of individuals and their imprisonment without trial, when the war-time emergency ordinances lapsed. In February, 1919, Mr. Gandhi started an agitation against the Rowlatt (or 'Black') Bill when it was introduced in the Imperial Legislative Council.² In trying to suppress this agitation in the Punjab, indescribable atrocities were perpetrated by the forces of the Crown. At Jallianwalla Bagh in Amritsar on April 13th, there was a massacre of unarmed men, women and children who had gathered on the occasion of a public meeting. This was followed by a reign of terror under Martial Law, in the course of which many people were publicly flogged, while others were forced to crawl on their bellies when passing along certain streets. ¹ According to Sir Surendranath Bannerji, 'the Rowlatt Act was the parent of the Non-co-operation movement.' (A Nation in Making, London, 1927, p. 300.) ² Now called the Indian Legislative Assembly.

THE CLOUDS GATHER 51 Two committees were appointed to inquire into these incidents and submit a report—a non-official committee . appointed by the Indian National Congress and an official committee appointed by the Government of India, called the Hunter Committee. The Congress Enquiry Committee published unimpeachable evidence of the most brutal atro- cities committed by the forces of the Crown, including outrages on helpless women. The findings of the Hunter Committee did not go as far as those of the Congress Enquiry Committee, nevertheless, they were sufficiently damaging for any government. After the publication of these two reports the public naturally expected that in view of the new era to be ushered in by the Constitutional Reforms, the Government of India would take courage in both hands and punish the wrong-doers, while granting adequate com- pensation for all those who had been killed or injured or had been otherwise made to suffer. By the middle of 1920 it was clear, however, that the Government of India did not propose to take any such action.¹ The attitude and conduct of the Government appeared to the public eye as tantamount to condoning all the inhuman atrocities that had been perpetrated. This created a revulsion of feeling all over the country, even in circles favourably disposed towards the Government and the New Constitution. There can be little doubt that if the Government of Lord Chelmsford, the then Viceroy and Governor-General of India, had in 1920, taken drastic action against the authors of the Punjab atrocities, the confirmed 'Co-operator,' Mr. Gandhi, would not have been forced to the path of non-co-operation, nor would the Indian National Congress have set aside the resolution adopted at the Amritsar Session in December, 1919. Thus, on the rock of Jallianwalla Bagh ¹ In the Imperial Legislative Council an Indemnity Act was passed in order to protect all the officers who had taken part in the Punjab atrocities. Besides the Lieutenant-Governor of the Punjab, Sir Michael O'Dwyer, was untouched, and General Dyer, who was responsible for the Jallianwalla Bagh massacre and for the administration of Martial Law, was merely declared unfit for future service in India. Even the meagre action taken by the Government was disapproved by the House of Lords and unpre- cedented public subscriptions were raised in England for the authors of the Punjab tragedy.

52 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE was wrecked the ship of co-operation built by the Secretary of State for India, Mr. Montagu, through his sympathetic gestures and his elaborate intrigues during his visit to India in 1917-18. It is an open secret that while Mr. Montagu and Lord Chelmsford were touring India with a view to preparing their joint memorandum on the new constitutional reforms, the former was engaged in rallying public support in favour of working the New Constitution. Before he left India in 1918, Mr. Montagu succeeded in definitely winning over the Moderate section in the Indian National Congress. When the Indian National Congress met at a special session in Bombay in 1918 to consider the Montagu-Chelmsford Report, the Moderate Congressmen who were then being led by Sir Surendranath Bannerji and Mr. Srinivasa Sastri, absented themselves and soon after they seceded from the Congress and formed a separate political party under the name of the All-India Liberal Federation, pledged to work the New Reforms. The Special Congress at Bombay in 1918 pronounced the Montagu-Chelmsford Report as unacceptable. Nevertheless, in December, 1919, the Amritsar Congress resolved to work the constitution drafted on the basis of that report and also thanked Mr. Montagu. Thus, in spite of all the unfortunate events of 1919, Mr. Montagu was able through his personal influence, to keep the Congress back from the path of opposition. It was only the Government of India's attitude towards the Punjab atrocities that proved to be the proverbial last straw. A British politician in 1934 will naturally inquire why attempts were not made in 1920 to win over the Moslem Community when it was apparent that the Indian National Congress was heading towards an oppositionist policy. On this point, Mr. Montagu was not inactive and he did his level best to influence the British Cabinet, but the odds were against him. During the Great War, Indian Mohammedans had expressed their uneasiness as to what the policy of Britain towards Turkey would be when the time came for discussing peace-terms. To placate them the British Prime Minister, Mr. Lloyd George, had made a conciliatory state-

THE CLOUDS GATHER 53 ment on January 5th, 1918, in which he said, among other things, that Great Britain would not pursue a vindictive policy and had no intention of depriving the Turks of the rich lands of Asia Minor and Thrace which were pre- dominantly Turkish. At the end of the war, however, when it was clear that the Allies were aiming at nothing less than the complete dismemberment of Turkey, a deputation of Indian Moslems was sent to Europe in March, 1920, to plead the cause of the Turks. This deputation which was led by Moulana Mohammed Ali, the younger of the Ali brothers, failed to achieve anything in spite of the best efforts of Mr. Montagu, the Secretary of State for India. By the middle of 1920, Indian Moslems began to feel that in all probability Turkey would cease to exist as an independent state—that the head of the Islamic Church, the Khalifa, who was also the Sultan of Turkey, would be deprived of his territories in Europe and in Asia and that the Holy Places of Islam would pass into non-Moslem hands. The realisation of this un- avoidable calamity produced a blaze of resentment among every section of the Moslem Community in India. But however deep their resentment might be, they were not in a position to take up arms against the victorious British Government. Therefore all that they could think of doing was to oppose the working of the New Constitution. About the middle of 1920, anti-British feeling was stronger among the Moslems than among the rest of the Indian population. Mr. Montagu had been able to divide the nationalist forces but he had failed to win over any section of the 'Moslems, though he had left no stone unturned in his efforts to placate them and had ultimately to resign from the Cabinet for ventilating their grievances.¹ An organisation was set up by the Moslems under the name of the All-India Khilafat Committee with the object of restoring ¹ In 1922 the Government of India urged on the British Cabinet that the Indian demand for the revision of the Treaty of Sèvres should be made public. The chief items of that demand were—restoration of Asia Minor and Thrace to the Turks; suzerainty of the Sultan over the Holy Places and the evacuation of Constantinople by the Allied troops. Mr. Montagu thought that he had been authorised by the Cabinet to give publicity to the demand—but as the Cabinet disowned him, he had to resign.

54 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE to the 'Khalifa,' the head of the Islamic Church, the temporal power which he had enjoyed as Sultan of Turkey before the Great War. The leadership of this Khilafat movement was assumed by the Ali brothers, Moulana Mohammed Ali, the younger but more influential, and Moulana Shaukat Ali, the elder. Both of them were Oxford graduates. Moulana Mohammed Ali had been a journalist and Moulana Shaukat Ali a highly-paid officer in the Excise Department of the Government of India. During the war both of them had been interned for carrying on propaganda against the British Gov- ernment and in favour of the Turks. The agitation following in the wake of their incarceration had made them prominent in the public eye and when the Khilafat movement began, it was natural that they should be invested with the crown of leadership. Moreover, their dress and mode of life, shaped according to orthodox Moslem ideas, made a strong appeal to the Moslem masses and served to make them tremendously popular. The Punjab atrocities and their sequel made a rebel of the once loyal Mr. Gandhi. He who had pleaded for co-operation at Amritsar in December, 1919, and had succeeded in carrying the Congress with him, was in 1920 collecting his forces for leading a revolt against the British Government. Before he returned to India in 1914, he had tried the method of passive resistance in South Africa, in his fight for the rights of Indians against the South African Government and had found it extremely helpful. In February, 1919, before the Rowlatt Bills-became law, he had started an agitation on the same lines, called the 'Satyagraha'¹ movement, against the Bills—but the agitation had proved to be abortive for the time being, because of the outbreak of violence. He was, however, fully prepared to use the same method once again in ¹ 'Satyagraha' means literally 'persistence in truth.' It has been trans- lated variously as non-co-operation, passive resistance, civil-disobedience, civil-resistance. The Satyagraha pledge was first taken at a public meeting in Johannesburg in South Africa, on September 11th, 1906, against the Asiatic Law Amendment Ordinance. According to Mr. Gandhi, Satyagraha eschews the use of violence in every form and has not the remotest idea of injuring the opponent. Mr. Gandhi states in his preface to Satyagraha in South Africa that before 1919 he had occasion to experiment with Satyagraha five times in India.

THE CLOUDS GATHER 55 organising a non-violent revolt against the British Govern- ment. He had disciplined his body and mind for a life of suffering. He had, moreover, brought with him a group of loyal followers from South Africa and during his six years' stay in India, had won many supporters for his cause. He only wanted more allies in order to be able to capture the leadership of the Indian National Congress. About this time the Ali brothers and other Moslem leaders were pre- paring to launch the Khilafat movement and they, too, were looking out for allies. Nothing could please them more than to find that the premier nationalist organisation of the country would take up the cause of Turkey. So an alliance was at once struck between Mr. Gandhi and the Ali brothers on the basis of two issues, viz., the Punjab atrocities and the Khilafat grievances. The Ali brothers and their followers while keeping up a separate organisation—the All-India Khilafat Committee—would join the Indian National Congress and agitate for the redress of the Punjab and Khilafat wrongs and for the attainment of political freedom, which was the only guarantee against such wrongs in future. On the other hand, the Indian National Congress would lend its full support to the Khilafat organisations in the country and agitate for the redress of the Khilafat or Turkish grievances.¹ The elections to the legislatures under the new Con- stitution—called the Government of India Act, 1919—were due in November, 1920. The Amritsar Congress had resolved in December, 1919, to work this Constitution but in the meantime public opinion had changed considerably. A special session of the Congress was therefore summoned in Calcutta in September, 1920, under the presidency of Lala Lajpat Rai, the well-known Punjab leader. Mr. Gandhi was fully aware that his new policy of opposition to the reformed constitution would not be accepted by an influential section in the Congress. He had, therefore, strengthened himself ¹ In November, 1919, a Khilafat Conference was held in Delhi composed of both Hindus and Moslems under the guidance of Mr. Gandhi, to consider what steps should be taken to help the cause of the Khalifa (who was also the Sultan of Turkey). At this conference, Moulana Hasrat Mohani, an influential Moslem, suggested the boycott of British goods while Mr. Gandhi proposed non-co-operation with the Government. It was not till 1920, however, that the Khilafat Movement was actually launched.

56 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE by an alliance with the Moslem leaders and the All-India Khilafat Committee. In fact, he was so sure of his position in the country that if the Congress had rejected his plan of non-violent non-co-operation, he could have launched his campaign with the support of the Khilafat organisations. Matters did not, however, come to such a pass. Besides the Moslem leaders, Mr. Gandhi had a powerful ally in Pandit Motilal Nehru, the leading advocate of Allahabad and the leader of the United Provinces. The opposition to Mr. Gandhi's plan was sponsored by Mr. C. R. Das, the leading advocate of Calcutta and the leader of Bengal and Pandit Malaviya and Mrs. Besant, both ex-Presidents of the Con- gress, who had influential support from many provinces. Shortly before the Calcutta Congress, Lokamanya Tilak died. He was the only possible rival of Mr. Gandhi and at the time of his death, one could not say definitely what attitude he would take up if he were to attend the Calcutta Congress. At the Amritsar Congress he had taken up a middle position between Mr. Gandhi's proposal of co-operation and Mr. B. C. Pal, Mr. B. Chakravarti, and Mr. C. R. Das's proposal of opposition. Lokamanya Tilak held that the proper attitude should be one of responsive co-operation. In other words, the Congress should accept and work what was useful and beneficial in the New Constitution and reject what was use- less or harmful. The closest followers of Lokamanya Tilak have declared since his death that he adhered to this view till the time of his death. Throughout his public career Lokamanya Tilak had been the leader of the Left Wing of the Indian National Congress called the Extremists or Nationalists—as opposed to the Right Wing, called the Moderates or Liberals. He was a man of profound erudition and unbounded courage and sacrifice. His six years' incar- ceration in a far-off Burma prison had brought him additional lustre and popularity and if he had pitted himself against Mr. Gandhi at the Calcutta Congress, the position of the latter would have been a difficult one. With L. Tilak's death, however, it was smooth sailing for Mr. Gandhi. He moved the adoption of a policy of progressive non-