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

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-

THE CLOUDS GATHER 57 ciation of titles bestowed by the Government and with the triple boycott (namely, boycott of legislatures, law-courts and educational institutions) and would end in non-payment of taxes. This resolution was carried by a large majority, 1,855 votes out of 2,728 being in his favour. The resolutions of the Special Congress at Calcutta came up for consideration at the regular annual session held at Nagpur in December, 1920, under the presidency of the veteran Congress leader from Madras, Mr. Vijayaraghava- chariar. Mr. Das and his followers mustered strong at Nagpur hoping to cross swords with Mr. Gandhi once again. But through the latter's tactful handling of the situation an understanding was arrived at between him and Mr. Das. The boycott of the legislatures, to which Mr. Das was chiefly opposed, was no longer a live issue, as the elections had already taken place. It was, therefore, possible to persuade Mr. Das to come to an agreement. When this was done, the non-co-operation resolution was ratified with practical unanimity, though Pandit Malaviya, Mrs. Besant, Mr. Jinnah and Mr. B. C. Pal remained irreconcilable. Besides ratifying the resolution on progressive non- co-operation, including the boycott of legislatures, law courts and educational institutions, the Nagpur Congress took a very important step in altering the Constitution of the Indian National Congress. Hitherto, the goal of the Congress, as defined in the Constitution, had been 'Self-Government within the British Empire.' This had antagonised all those Congressmen who believed in the severance of the British connection or who refused to be tied down to the Empire. To enable the Left-Wingers to return to the Congress fold, the goal of the Congress was declared to be 'Swaraj' (which means literally self-rule) and it was left to individual Con- gressmen to define 'Swaraj' in their own way. Mr. Gandhi however, defined 'Swaraj' to mean 'Self-Government within the Empire, if possible—and outside, if necessary.' Before the Nagpur Congress the machinery of the Congress had been a loose one. There were branches only in the big cities and throughout the year, no work was done according to a systematic plan. At Nagpur, it was decided to re-organise

58 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE the Congress on a country-wide basis. The smallest unit would be the Village Congress Committee. Several such Committees would combine to form a Union Congress Com- mittee. Then there would be formed in succession—sub- divisional (also called Taluka or Tahsil), district, provincial and All-India Congress Committees. The All-India Congress Committee would be a body of about 350 members consisting of representatives from the different provinces. This Committee would elect a Working Committee of 15 members which would be the Supreme Executive of the Congress for the whole country. Further, the provinces were re-organised on a linguistic basis. For instance, the Madras Presidency was divided into Andhra, which is Telegu-speaking and Tamil-Nadu, which is Tamil-speaking. The basis of the new Congress Constitution was of a democratic and parliamentary character. Besides setting up a new Constitution, the Nagpur Congress laid down a definite plan of work for the coming year. Regarding the means to be followed by the Congress for attaining Swaraj, a change was made in the Constitution. Hitherto the Congress had been tied down to ‘constitutional’ means, but in future the Congress could adopt ‘all peaceful and legitimate’ means. This change had to be made in order to enable the Congress to resort to non-co-operation, which could be regarded as unconstitutional. Regarding both the goal and the means, the decision of the Nagpur Congress represented the golden mean between the views of the Right-Wingers like Pandit Malaviya and Mr. Jinnah and the youthful Left-Wingers who swamped the Congress for the first time in 1920. The latter desired the goal of the Congress to be complete independence to be attained by all possible means. It was Mr. Gandhi, however, who by virtue of his tremendous influence and popularity was able to keep the Left-Wingers at bay. The Constitution that was adopted at Nagpur and which holds good even to-day, was practically his own draft. A year before, at Amritsar, he had been author- ised by the Congress to revise the existing Constitution of that body. Among the other resolutions adopted were those relating

THE CLOUDS GATHER 59 to the revival of hand-spinning and hand-weaving, removing of untouchability¹ among the Hindus and the collection of a fund of ten million rupees in memory of the late Lokamanya Tilak. (The idea of bringing back into use the ancient spinning-wheel in order to produce cloth as a cottage industry had struck Mr. Gandhi a year before). While the above resolu- tions were all of a useful or beneficial character, there was one resolution which must be regarded as a great blunder. That was the decision to wind up the British Branch of the Indian National Congress and stop publication of its organ, the paper India. With the carrying into effect of this resolu- tion, the only centre of propaganda which the Congress had outside India was shut down. The Nagpur Congress, like the Calcutta Congress, was a great triumph for Mr. Gandhi. It was his Constitution and his plan of work that was adopted there. The gathering was an unprecedented one, twenty thousand people attending the Congress. Public enthusiasm was at a very high pitch and among the distinguished visitors were two Labour members of the British Parliament, Mr. Ben Spoor and Col. Wedgwood. The Nagpur Congress was an important landmark in the history of the Indian Nationalist Movement. It stood for a complete break with the Moderates, but it did not represent a complete victory for the Extremists. The latter as we shall see subsequently, would have to work for many years before they could bring the Congress round to their point of view. Considered objectively, the plan which Mr. Gandhi placed before the Congress and the country was not something altogether new in the recent history of India. The fight which the people of Bengal had waged against the Govern- ment as a protest against the partition of their province in 1905 by the then Viceroy, Lord Curzon, had many features in common with the war of non-violent non-co-operation started in 1920 under the leadership of Mr. Gandhi. In 1905, Bengal had resorted to the boycott of British goods and of state-owned educational institutions and there had simul- taneously been a revival of national industries and a growth of national schools and colleges, free from state interference of ¹ This is explained later on.

60 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE every kind. Moreover, leaders like Mr. B. C. Pal had refused to give evidence before British law courts on the ground that they refused to recognise their jurisdiction. Sri Arabindo Ghosh, the leader of the Extremist section of the Nationalist Movement in Bengal in those days had compared this policy with the policy of the Irish Sinn Fein Party. Several decades earlier, the country had witnessed another movement which could also be regarded as a precursor of Mr. Gandhi's non- co-operation. Before scientists in Europe learnt to produce synthetic indigo, Bengal was an important supplier of indigo. The indigo plantations in those days were owned by Britishers and these foreign landlords were oppressive and brutal in their behaviour towards the tenants. When their brutality became unbearable, the tenants in Jessore and Nadia took the law into their own hands. They refused to pay rent, stopped cultivating indigo and made it impossible for the British landlords to live there and terrorise them. (A graphic description of these incidents can be found in the book Nil-darpan of the well-known Bengali writer, Dinabandhu Mitra.) Thus the people had already learnt to rid themselves of oppression through their own exertions, where they found that the Government neglected its duty. It is a well-known fact that Mr. Gandhi had in his earlier life been considerably influenced by the teachings of Jesus Christ and the ideas of Leo Tolstoy. It cannot therefore be claimed that he was altogether original in his ideas or novel in his practice. But his real merit was a twofold one. He translated the teachings of Christ and the ideas of Tolstoy and Thoreau into actual practice and demonstrated that it was possible to fight for liberty without resorting to violence. Secondly, he used 'non-co-operation' not for remedying local grievances, but for winning national freedom and he well-nigh demonstrated that it was possible to paralyse the civil adminis- tration of a foreign Government thereby and bring the Govern- ment to its knees. A happy combination of factors helped to bring Mr. Gandhi to the forefront in 1920. The attempted revolution during the Great War had failed and the Revolu- tionary Party had been crushed. There was consequently no possibility of another revolution in 1920. Nevertheless, the

THE CLOUDS GATHER 61 country wanted a bold and vigorous policy on the part of the Congress and the only alternative was a movement like the one which Mr. Gandhi started. Secondly, the death of Lokamanya Tilak on the eve of the Calcutta Congress removed from the field the only possible rival of Mr. Gandhi. Thirdly, as a result of his long and careful preparation, Mr. Gandhi was fully prepared to assume the undisputed leadership of the Indian National Congress in 1920. Through ascetic discipline he had equipped himself for a life of suffering and during the period of his apprenticeship in Indian politics, from 1914 to 1920, he had been able to gather round him a band of loyal and trusted followers. Fourthly, he had acquired experience in the use of the weapon of 'Satyagraha.' Though his movement against the Rowlatt Bills in 1919 had proved to be abortive, he had won considerable success in South Africa. Before 1919 he had occasion, moreover, to make use of Satyagraha five times in India with very good results. Last but not least, he had gathered round his head a halo of saintliness which was of inestimable value to him in a country where the people revere the saint more than the millionaire or the Governor. In spite of the democratic constitution of the Indian National Congress, at Nagpur, Mr. Gandhi emerged as the virtual Dictator of the Congress. He was, moreover, spon- taneously acclaimed by the people as Mahatma (meaning literally a high-souled man or a saint). That was the highest tribute that the Indian people could give him. Throughout the year 1919, lightning and thunder had raged in the political sky of India—but towards the end of the year the clouds lifted and the Amritsar Congress seemed to herald an era of peace and quiet. But the promise of Amritsar was not fulfilled. Once again the clouds began to gather and towards the end of 1920 the sky was dark and threatening. With the new year came whirlwind and storm. And the man who was destined to ride the whirlwind and direct the storm was Mahatma Gandhi.

CHAPTER II THE STORM BREAKS (1921) THE defection of the Moderates from the Congress was res- ponsible for lowering to some extent the intellectual level of that body. But this loss was more than compensated by the rallying of the masses round the Congress banner. Moreover, Mahatma Gandhi did get as his trusted colleagues some veteran Congressmen whose reputation stood high in the country and who now renounced their professional work in order to give their whole time to the Congress. Mr. C. R. Das,¹ the leader of the Calcutta Bar, who had already made a name in Indian politics as also in Bengali literature, gave up his princely income and plunged into the Non-co-operation Campaign. From Allahabad came Pandit Motilal Nehru, the leader of the Allahabad Bar, who also gave up his professional work. He was joined by his son—Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru— also an advocate by profession, who was destined to make a name for himself in the days to come. From the Punjab, Lala Lajpat Rai, the uncrowned king of that province who had been a lawyer in his earlier life, came forward to join the Mahatma. From the Bombay Presidency, the Mahatma got the support of the Patel brothers, Mr. Vithalbhai and Mr. Vallabhbhai, both advocates by profession—and also Mr. N. C. Kelkar of Poona, who was the successor of the late Lokamanya Tilak in Maharashtra (the southern and eastern portion of Bombay Presidency). The leaders of the Central Provinces who joined the Mahatma were Dr. Moonje, an eye-physician and Mr. Abhyankar, an advocate. The leader of Bihar was Mr. Rajendra Prasad, who renounced a fat income and a most promising career at the Patna Bar in order to work for the Congress. From the Tamil-speaking ¹ So great was the popularity of Mr. C. R. Das at the time that he was spontaneously given the title of ‘Deshbandhu’ by the people. ‘Deshbandhu’ means literally ‘friend of the country’. 62

. THE STORM BREAKS 63 portion of Madras Presidency came Mr. Rajagopalachari, Mr. A. Rangaswami Iyengar and Mr. Satyamurti, and from the Telegu-speaking portion Mr. Prakasam, all lawyers by pro- fession. On the supreme executive of the Congress there also sat the Ali brothers—Moulana Mohammed and Moulana Shaukat Ali—Moulana Abul Kalam Azad, one of the most learned of the Moslem divines and Dr. Ansari of Delhi—all of whom represented the new awakening among the Indian Moslems. Thus it will be seen that it was a very good team that Mahatma Gandhi was able to collect at the outset of his campaign. Among those who gave up their professional work in response to the appeal of the Congress, the lawyers played a most important part. The example of lawyer-princes like Deshbandhu Das and Pandit Motilal Nehru was followed by lesser lights among the lawyer-fraternity throughout India and as a result, the Congress ranks were replenished by a large number of whole-time workers of standing and influence. The appeal of the Congress for boycott of law-courts met with a fair measure of success. While a large number of lawyers gave up their practice for good, there was, on the other hand, an intensive campaign to dissuade litigants from approaching British law-courts and persuade them to settle their disputes by arbitration. As a matter of fact, arbitration- boards under the control of the Congress, came into existence all over the country and owing to their efforts the Government revenue from litigation was considerably reduced. Along with the boycott of law-courts, a campaign was started for promoting temperance and stopping the use of intoxicants of all kinds: The success of this campaign was remarkable throughout India and in many provinces the excise revenue (that is, the revenue from the trade in liquor and other intoxicants) was reduced to one-third of what it formerly was. In some provinces, as in Bihar, the Government felt obliged to conduct a campaign for popularising the use of liquor and other intoxicants in order to increase their revenue. The temperance movement was exceedingly popular among the masses and it fulfilled a moral as well as an economic purpose, while it caused considerable embarrassment to the

64 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE Government. This movement was accompanied by a cam- paign for the removal of untouchability. In certain parts of India, especially in the south, some castes like sweepers, scavengers, etc., had been treated as untouchables. That is to say, the other castes would not dine with them, would not take food or drink served by them and in some places, would not allow them to enter the temples. This custom was a factor working against the solidarity of the Indian people and from the moral and human standpoint, was quite unjustifiable. It was therefore but natural that when the Congress resolved to launch a campaign for winning political freedom for India, it should also seek to emanci- pate the masses from the shackles of social bondage of every kind In order to afford some measure of economic relief to the masses, the Congress advocated the boycott of foreign cloth and the revival of hand-spinning and hand-weaving on a large scale. The idea of boycotting foreign cloth was not a new one—since the cry of boycott of British cloth had been first raised in Bengal as early as 1905. The revival of hand- weaving was also not a new proposal, since the Indian hand- loom industry had held its own against the competition of foreign and Indian mills. But the idea of reviving hand- spinning, which had practically gone out of use, was a novel and a daring one. It was difficult at first to find the men or women who could teach others to spin. The Mahatma, who was himself a good spinner arranged to turn out batches of men and women who themselves could spin and teach spinning. Within a short time thousands of men and women were sent out all over the country, including the remotest villages, to teach the villagers how to spin. It was also difficult at first to get or buy spinning-wheels. They had to be manu- factured in the cities and sent out to the villages, till the village carpenters learned how to make them once again. The cloth woven in hand-looms out of hand-spun yarn was called 'Khadi' or 'Khaddar' and was more coarse than mill-made cloth. As the production of this cloth began to increase, it automatically became the uniform of all Congress- men in India. They were required to set an example to the

THE STORM BREAKS 65 people by voluntarily wearing coarse ‘Khadi’ and discarding fine mill-made cloth. To undertake the above work, both men and money were required. The Mahatma therefore appealed to the nation for ten million members for the Congress and a fund of ten million rupees (13½ rupees = one pound approximately). The response to this appeal proved to be most encouraging but in order to go round collecting money and enlisting members, an initial band of workers was necessary. This band of workers had to be supplied by the student com- munity and the year 1921 therefore opened with an extensive campaign for the boycott of schools and colleges. Students responded to the appeal in large numbers and the response was the greatest in Bengal where the imagination of the youths had been stirred by the colossal sacrifice made by Deshbandhu C. R. Das. It was these student-workers who carried the message of the Congress to all corners of the country, who collected funds, enlisted members, held meet- ings and demonstrations, preached temperance, established arbitration-boards, taught spinning and weaving and en- couraged the revival of home industries. Without them, all the influence of Mahatma Gandhi would not have carried the country very far. There has been much criticism of the policy of withdrawing students from educational institutions in 1921. Nevertheless, if one dispassionately reviews the situation in the country in 1920-21, the conclusion will be irresistible that the Congress had no option in the matter, if it desired its resolutions to be translated into action. It should also be stated that though originally the Congress did not take in hand the task of establishing ‘national’ institutions, later on such institutions were started all over the country. Those students who had withdrawn from state-owned or state-controlled institutions in a spirit of non-co-operation but who desired to continue their studies under more salutary conditions, could join the newly-started national institutions and continue their studies. Such institutions were started in Bombay, Ahmedabad (in Bombay Presidency), Poona (in Bombay Presidency), Nagpur (in Central Provinces), Benares (in the United Provinces), E

66 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE Patna (in Bihar), Calcutta and Dacca (in Bengal). Some of these were for literary education, while others were for technical or medical education—but spinning was compulsory in all of them. In many places there were separate institutions for girls. Many of these institutions still exist and some of them are in a flourishing condition. Besides these educa- tional institutions, another set of institutions spontaneously grew up all over India. These were called ‘Ashramas.’ Built on the model of the hermitages of old, they were homes for the whole-time political workers. New recruits were also trained there and the local office of the Congress would often be housed in the same premises. The Ashramas also served sometimes as centres for spinning and weaving. From these centres, raw cotton and yarn would be distributed among the spinners and weavers and would be received back as yarn and cloth respectively. In many Ashramas there would also be a reading-room and a library for the use of the Congress workers and of the local public. In the programme of progressive non-co-operation adopted at Nagpur in December, 1920, there was, besides the triple boycott, an item regarding the renunciation of titles conferred by—and resignation of all posts held under—the Government. A comparatively large number of men gave up their titles but an insignificant number resigned their jobs and among the latter was myself. I had passed the Indian Civil Service in England in 1920, but finding that it would be impossible to serve both masters at the same time—namely the British Government and my country—I resigned my post in May 1921, and hurried back to India with a view to taking my place in the national struggle that was then in full swing. I reached Bombay on July 16th and the same afternoon I obtained an interview with Mahatma Gandhi. My object in seeking the interview was to get from the leader of the campaign I was about to join, a clear conception of his plan of action. During the last few years I had made some study of the methods and tactics employed by revolutionary leaders in other parts of the world and in the light of that knowledge I wanted to understand the Mahatma’s mind and purpose. I remember vividly the scene of that afternoon. On arriving

THE STORM BREAKS 67 at Mani Bhuvan, the usual residence of the Mahatma in Bombay, I was ushered into a room covered with Indian carpets. Almost in the centre, facing the door, sat the Mahatma surrounded by some of his closest followers. All were clad in home-made Khadi. As I entered the room, I felt somewhat out of place in my foreign costume and could not help apologising for it. The Mahatma received me with his characteristic hearty smile and soon put me at ease and the conversation started at once. I desired to obtain a clear understanding of the details—the successive stages—of his plan, leading on step by step to the ultimate seizure of power from the foreign bureaucracy. To that end I began to heap question upon question and the Mahatma replied with his habitual patience. There were three points which needed elucidation. Firstly, how were the different activities con- ducted by the Congress going to culminate in the last stage of the campaign, namely, the non-payment of taxes? Secondly, how could mere non-payment of taxes or civil disobedience force the Government to retire from the field and leave us with our freedom? Thirdly, how could the Mahatma promise ‘Swaraj’ (that is, Home Rule) within one year—as he had been doing ever since the Nagpur Congress? His reply to the first question satisfied me. The response to his appeal for ten million members and ten million rupees having been found to be satisfactory, he had proceeded to the next item in his plan—namely, the boycott of foreign cloth and the propagation of home-made Khadi. During the next few months, his efforts would be concentrated on the Khadi campaign. And he expected that the Government would take the initiative in attacking the Congress, the moment it realised that the peaceful constructive activities of the Congress were proving to be successful. When the Government did so, the time would come for disobeying governmental decrees and marching to prison. The prisons would before long be filled to overflowing and then would come the last stage of the campaign—namely, the non-payment of taxes. The Mahatma’s replies to the other two questions were not convincing. I asked him if he expected that the boycott movement would create so much distress in Lancashire that

68 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE pressure would be brought to bear on Parliament and the Cabinet to make peace with India. But the Mahatma gave me to understand that he did not consider that to be the means whereby the Government would be forced to come to terms with the Congress. What his real expectation was, I was unable to understand. Either he. did not want to give out all his secrets prematurely or he did not have a clear conception of the tactics whereby the hands of the Govern- ment could be forced.¹ Altogether, his reply to the second question was disappointing and his reply to the third was no better. What was to him a question of faith—namely, that Swaraj would be won within one year—was by no means clear to me and personally speaking, I was prepared to work for a much longer period. However, I had no other course but to feel thankful for what I had been able to learn after an hour's conversation. But though I tried to persuade myself at the time there must have been a lack of understanding on my part, my reason told me clearly, again and again, that there was a deplorable lack of clarity in the plan which the Mahatma had formulated and that he himself did not have a clear idea of the successive stages of the campaign which would bring India to her cherished goal of freedom. Depressed and disappointed as I was, what was I to do? The Mahatma advised me to report myself to Deshbandhu C. R. Das on reaching Calcutta. I had already written to the latter from Cambridge that I had resigned the Indian Civil Service and had decided to join the political movement. Stories had reached us in England that he had given up his princely career at the Bar and was going to devote his whole time to political work, while making a gift of his entire property to the nation. In my eagerness to meet this great man, I overcame the somewhat depressing effect of my interview with Mahatma Gandhi and I left Bombay with the same excitement and the same enthusiasm with which I had landed there. On reaching Calcutta, I went straight to the house of Deshbandhu Das. Once again I was disappointed. ¹Looking back on the incident to-day, it strikes me that possibly the Mahatma expected a 'change of heart' on the part of the British Govern- ment, leading to an acceptance of India's national demands.

·THE STORM BREAKS 69 He was out on a long tour in the interior of the province and I had no option but to wait for his return. When I heard that he was back, I called again. He was out at the time but I was received with great kindness and cordiality by his wife, Srijukta Basanti Debi. Before long he arrived on the scene. I can still picture before my mind's eye his massive figure as he approached me. He was not the same Mr. Das whom I had once approached for advice when he was one of the leaders of the Calcutta Bar and I a student, expelled from the University for political reasons. He was not the same Mr. Das who was earning thousands in a day and spending thousands in an hour. Though his house was no longer a palace, he was however the same Mr. Das, who had always been a friend of youth, could understand their aspirations and sympathise with their sorrows. During the course of our conversation I began to feel that here was a man who knew what he was about—who could give all that he had and who could demand from others all they could give—a man to whom youthfulness was not a short- coming but a virtue. By the time our conversation came to an end my mind was made up. I felt that I had found a leader and I meant to follow him. On settling down in Calcutta I proceeded to take stock of the situation in the country and particularly in the province of Bengal. Throughout the country there was unparalleled enthusiasm. The 'triple boycott' had been fairly successful. Though the legislatures were not empty, no Congressmen had gone there. The lawyers had on the whole made a good response and the student community had come out of the ordeal with flying colours.¹ The appeal for Congress members and for funds had borne good fruit and feeling highly en- couraged at the state of affairs, the Mahatma had launched in July a campaign for the boycott of foreign cloth and the revival of spinning and weaving. On the anniversary of the death of Lokamanya Tilak, August 1st, 1934, there were huge bonfires of foreign cloth all over the country. A symbolic meaning was also given by the Congress leaders to these ¹ The people had taken up enthusiastically the propaganda for the re- moval of untouchability and for the stoppage of the drink and drug traffic.