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

160 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE
permission and for funds to perform the ceremony. Since
similar facilities were given to Christian prisoners in Indian
prisons, the Superintendent gave us the necessary facilities,
in anticipation of Government sanction. The Government,
however, not only refrained from giving sanction but censured
the Superintendent, Major Findlay, for acting on his own
responsibility. Thereupon we informed the Government
that they should reconsider their decision, otherwise we
would be forced to go on hunger-strike. The reply being in
the negative, we commenced hunger-strike in February 1926.
All our correspondence with the outside world was at once
stopped. Nevertheless, three days after the hunger-strike
began, the Calcutta paper, Forward, published the news of our
hunger-strike and also the ultimatum we had sent to Govern-
ment. About the same time Forward published extracts
from the report of the Indian Jail Committee of 1919-21.
Before this Committee a high official of the Prison Depart-
ment, Lieut-Col. Mulvany, had given evidence to say that
he had been forced by his superior officer, the Inspector-
General of Prisons of Bengal, to withdraw the health reports
he had sent of some state-prisoners in his jail and to send in
false reports instead. These disclosures raised a storm of
indignation among the public. In the Indian Legislative
Assembly which was then sitting in Delhi, Mr. T. C. Goswami
a Swarajist member, moved the adjournment of the House
over the hunger-strike in Mandalay Jail and referred to the
evidence of Lieut.-Col. Mulvany to the effect that false
reports about the state prisoners are manufactured by the
Prison Department. The Home Member found himself in
an uncomfortable position and promised to redress the
grievances of the state prisoners on hunger-strike. No sooner
was the debate over than a searching inquiry was instituted
with a view to finding out how Forward got the necessary
material for publication. However, the Government issued
orders without delay that they would sanction the money
that had been spent by us and that in future they would
provide facilities and funds for our religious requirements.
So after fifteen days' starvation, having won our point, we
ended the strike.

IN BURMESE PRISONS 161
In the latter half of 1926 an interesting development took
place. The Legislatures were dissolved and fresh elections
were due in November. My fellow-prisoner, Mr. S. C.
Mitra, was offered a constituency for the Indian Legislative
Assembly by the Bengal Congress Party, and I was offered a
Calcutta constituency for the Bengal Legislative Council.
Both of us accepted the offer and decided to stand. While
Mr. Mitra was returned unopposed, I had a formidable
opponent in Mr. J. N. Basu, the leader of the Liberal Party
in Bengal. At the last election Mr. Basu had retained his
seat by defeating the Swarajist candidate and the Congress
Party thought that it was necessary to put me up against
him in order to dislodge him. He was exceedingly popular
in his constituency and was a fine type of gentleman and
he had nothing against him except his Liberal Politics. This
was the key-election of the year in Bengal and so the Party
had to put forward its best efforts in order to win. The
election was reminiscent of the early Sinn Fein elections in
which political prisoners were candidates and the slogan was
—'Put him in to get him out.' Modern electioneering
methods were used by the Party, including the use of rockets
for distributing leaflets and posters showing the candidate
behind prison bars. The voters felt that my success would
be a public vote of confidence in me and force the Government
either to release me or send me up for trial. So I got a
thumping majority. But the Government of India was less
responsive to public opinion than the Government in
Ireland and my incarceration continued.
Meanwhile, as a result of the unfavourable climatic con-
ditions and of the hunger-strike earlier in the year, my health
had begun to give way. Matters grew serious when during
the winter of 1926 I had an attack of broncho-pneumonia.
After the attack, I could not shake off the temperature and
simultaneously I began to lose weight. I was therefore
transferred to Rangoon for examination by a medical board.
The medical board composed of Lieut.-Col. Kelsall and my
brother, Dr. Sunil C. Bose, made a recommendation to the
effect that I should not be detained in prison. While I was
awaiting the orders of Government in Rangoon Jail, I had
L

162 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE
a quarrel with the Superintendent, Major Flowerdew (now
the Inspector-General of Prisons, Bengal), whereupon I was
transferred to Insein Jail. My transfer to Insein proved to be
a godsend. On arrival I found as Superintendent, Major
Findlay, who had been the Superintendent of Mandalay Jail
for some time. He was painfully surprised to see the condition
of my health. After keeping me under observation for three
weeks, he wrote a very strong note to Government about my
health. On receiving this note the Government were forced
to act. But they were still opposed to the idea of releasing
me. In the meantime they had made an offer in the Bengal
Legislative Council saying that if I wanted to go to Switzer-
land at my own expense, they would release me and put me
on board a ship at Rangoon sailing for Europe. This offer I
had rejected, partly because I could not accept the conditions
attached to the offer and partly because I did not like the
idea of going to Europe direct from Burma for an indefinite
period. After the rejection of this offer, the next order that
I received from Government, was for my transfer to Almora
Jail in the United Provinces. Once again arrangements for
my transfer were made with the utmost secrecy and early
one morning in May 1927, I was removed from Insein Jail
to a boat sailing from Rangoon. On the fourth day I reached
Diamond Harbour at the mouth of the river Hooghly. Before
our boat reached Calcutta, she was stopped and I was met
by Mr. Lowman (who was then the head of the Intelligence
Branch of the Police) who wanted me to alight. Thinking
that he wanted to smuggle me out of Calcutta, I refused.
But I was assured that His Excellency the Governor had
placed his launch at our disposal and that I had to appear
before a Medical Board who were waiting for me there and
I then agreed. The board composed of Sir Nilratan Sirkar,
Dr. B. C. Roy, Lieut.-Col. Sands and Major Hingston, the
Governor's physician, examined me and sent their report by
wire to the Governor at Darjeeling. I spent the day in the
Governor's launch and next morning Mr. Lowman, with a
telegram in his hand, came to inform me that the Governor
had ordered my release. Saying this, he handed over the
official order of release. It was May 16th, 1927, but the

IN BURMESE PRISONS 163
order was signed on May 11th. It looked like intriguing. I
asked Mr. Lowman why they had made a show of a medical
examination on May 15th, when the release order had actually
been signed on the 11th. He would not reply at first, but
on being pressed he said that on May 11th, other orders had
also been signed and kept in readiness, including my transfer
to Almora and it had been decided that the final decision
would come from Darjeeling after the Governor received the
report of the Medical Board. Later on, I was to discover
that when the Medical Board were considering what report
they would make, the police-officers tried their best to make
them submit a report in favour of my transfer to Almora, or
of my departure to Switzerland, with a view to preventing
my release, but fortunately for me, the board refused to do
so. Thus, it was clear that till the last moment the Police
Department tried to prevent my release. They would
undoubtedly have succeeded, if anyone else had been the
Governor. Fortunately for me, the new Governor, Sir
Stanley Jackson, had come with an open mind and he was a
strong man. With the unerring instinct of a trained politician
he had sensed the grievance of the people. He had realised
within a few days of his arrival that what the people demanded
was some protection from the tyrannical Police Department.
Under Lord Lytton's regime, the Police Department had
ruled and the Commissioner of Police of Calcutta had been
the virtual Governor of Bengal. All that was now changed.
Within a few weeks of his taking over the reins of office, Sir
Stanley Jackson gave everyone to understand that henceforth
he was to rule Bengal and not the Commissioner of Police.
When any conflict arose between the public and the police he
endeavoured to do justice even at the risk of offending the
latter. For nearly four years he was able to avoid trouble
through his firmness and tact. Only when the whole of
India was plunged again into the throes of another gigantic
upheaval, did Bengal become once again the political storm-
centre of India.

CHAPTER VIII
THE BAROMETER RISES (1927-28)
By the middle of 1927 the darkest hour had ended and the
horizon began to light up. Disgusted with the narrow
sectarianism, selfishness and fanaticism, which had seized
the country after the death of the Deshbandhu, the soul of
the people began to stir itself again. In the new awakening
the contribution of the youth was the largest. The leadership
of the Congress was, on the whole, found wanting. Mahatma
Gandhi was suffering from an acute mental depression and
was living in retirement from active politics. Pandit Motilal
Nehru had left for Europe, partly owing to professional
reasons and partly because of the serious illness of his daughter-
in-law. In the circumstances, the responsibility of leadership
was vested in Mr. Srinivasa Iyengar and he endeavoured to
rise to the occasion. He spent much of his time in 1927 in
touring the country for restoring inter-communal amity and
friendship. His crowning achievement during the year was
a successful session of the Unity Conference in Calcutta in
November, convened and presided over by him, which was
to pave the way for the coming upheaval in which all com-
munities and parties were to join once again. In Bengal,
where the worst demonstration of communal passion had
taken place during 1926, there were signs of the dawn of a
new era. In August, as a result of a vote of no confidence in
the Bengal Legislative Council, the Ministers were once again
thrown out. About this time a strike broke out in the biggest
railway workshop of the Bengal Nagpur Railway at Kharagpur,
seventy miles from Calcutta. The workers' organisation was
so strong that the Company had to climb down and meet the
demand of the workers. In November, the Unity Conference
in Calcutta helped to clear the atmosphere and restore the
friendly feelings hitherto existing between the Hindu and
Moslem communities. Later in the month, when the annual
164

THE BAROMETER RISES 165
meeting of the Bengal Congress Committee¹ was held, there
were signs of enthusiasm among the Congress workers of
Bengal. The most potent impetus to the new awakening
came, however, from the side of the Government.
It was an auspicious moment for the Indian Nationalists
when in November 1927 the Viceroy, Lord Irwin, made an
announcement, regarding the appointment of the Indian
Statutory Commission. The appointment was made under
Section 84a of the Government of India Act, 1919, which
provided for decennial reviews of the political situation in
India, somewhat reminiscent of the periodical surveys made
by the British Parliament into the affairs of the East India
Company at the time of the renewal of the Company's`
Charter. Since the Statutory Commission was due in 1929,
it was rather surprising to find a Tory Government accelerat-
ing the date of the Commission. The Indian National
Congress had been pressing since 1920 for a Round Table
Conference for revising the Constitution, with a view to the
early introduction of Dominion Home Rule, but this demand
had been consistently turned down by the British Govern-
ment. The Conservative Party had never taken kindly to
the Reforms of 1919, for which the Liberal, Mr. Montagu,
had been largely responsible, though Indian opinion con-
sidered them inadequate and unsatisfactory. They, therefore,
wanted to dispose of the Indian question themselves while
they were in power, so that the Labour Party, if they hap-
pened to succeed them, would not be able to make any further
concession to the Indian demand for Home Rule. Since the
next General Election in England was due in 1929, the
Conservative Cabinet found it necessary to appoint the
Statutory Commission in 1927.
The Commission was composed of Sir John Simon (Chair-
man), Viscount Burnham, Lord Strathcona, Hon. Edward
Cadogan, Mr. Stephen Walsh, Major Attlee and Col. Lane
Fox. (Mr. Walsh resigned and was succeeded by Mr. Vernon
Hartshorn.) There were seven members, of whom two were
Labourites, one (viz., the Chairman) was a Liberal, and the
¹ At this meeting of the Bengal Congress Committee the writer was
elected President and Mr. Kiron Sankar Roy, Secretary.

166 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE
rest were Conservatives. Thus the co-operation of all the
political parties in Britain was secured for the work of the
Commission. The Commission was charged with inquiring
into 'the working of the system of government, the growth
of education and the development of representative institutions
in British India and matters connected therewith and to what
extent it is desirable to establish the principle of responsible
government or to extend, modify or restrict the degree of
responsible government then existing therein, including the
question whether the establishment of second chambers of
the local legislatures is or is not desirable.' It was stated
on behalf of the Government that Indians had perforce to
be excluded from the Commission because it was an ex-
clusively Parliamentary Commission and the necessity of
having a Parliamentary Commission was explained by the
Viceroy in the following words: 'It would be generally
agreed that what is required is a Commission which would
be unbiased and competent to present an accurate picture
of facts to Parliament; but it must also be a body on whose
recommendations Parliament should be found willing to take
whatever action a study of these facts may indicate to be
appropriate.' Simultaneously with the announcement of the
Commission, the Viceroy and the Governor of Provinces
invited a number of public men in order to explain to them
the motive and intention of the Government. The Com-
mission was appointed by Royal Warrant of November 26th,
1927, and Lord Birkenhead, the Secretary of State for India,
while speaking in the House of Lords the same month on the
appointment of the Commission, challenged Indian politicians
to produce an agreed constitution for India.
The announcement regarding the Statutory Commission
evoked a chorus of condemnation from Congress leaders of
all parts of India as also from the public at large. The public
had become so much accustomed to the idea of self-deter-
mination for India, that they no longer regarded the British
Parliament as the arbiter of India's destiny. It was therefore
but natural that the Congress should, without hesitation or
delay, decide to boycott the Commission (popularly known
as Simon Commission). That was, of course, no surprise for

THE BAROMETER RISES 167
the Government. But what did surprise them was the
decision of the Indian Liberals to boycott the Commission.
It was not the violation of the principle of self-determination
which offended them but the exclusion of Indians from the
All-White Commission. In the face of this non-co-operation
on the part of the British Government, how could the Liberals
maintain their pet theory of Indo-British collaboration? The
attitude of the Liberals was explained by a resolution passed
at a public meeting held at Allahabad in December, which
was presided over by Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru and which
considered 'the exclusion of Indians a deliberate insult to the
people of India, as not only does it definitely assign to them
a position of inferiority, but what is worse, it denies them the
right to participate in the determination of the Constitution
of their own country.' The tenth session of the Liberal
Federation held at Bombay the same year and presided over
by the same gentleman, decided to reject the Simon' Com-
mission.
Following the Unity Conference in November, the All-India
Moslem League met in Calcutta in December. The League
passed a resolution recommending Hindu-Moslem unity on
the lines laid down by the Unity Conference. It also urged
the boycott of the Simon Commission and accepted the
principle of joint electorates with reservation of seats for
Moslems. This decision was a triumph for the Nationalist
Moslems and it was possible only because such prominent
Moslems as Mr. M. A. Jinnah and the Ali brothers partici-
pated in the conference and advocated the Nationalist point
of view. The same month the All-India Trade Union
Congress met at Cawnpore and it witnessed for the first time
a compact body of Communists who stood for an independent
Socialist Republic and for a definite break with the British
Trades Union Congress and the International Federation of
Trade Unions in Amsterdam. Towards the end of December,
the annual session of the Indian National Congress was held
at Madras and was presided over by Dr. M. A. Ansari, the
Nationalist Moslem leader of Delhi. The Madras Congress
is memorable for two reasons. A resolution was of course
passed boycotting the Simon Commission 'at every stage

168 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE
and every form.' But along with that another resolution was
passed directing the Executive to convene an All-India All
Parties Conference with a view to drawing up a constitution
for India acceptable to all parties. A somewhat contradictory
resolution was also passed declaring the goal of the Indian
people to be 'complete independence.'
The proceedings of the Madras Congress clearly indicated
that the appointment of the Simon Commission had been
made at an auspicious moment and it had a wonderful effect
in whipping up the enthusiasm of the people. From one end
to the other, the country exhibited a solidarity which it had
seldom shown before in recent times. It was this feeling of
solidarity, as also the resolve to give an effective reply to
Lord Birkenhead's challenge in the House of Lords, which
was responsible for the decision to convene an All-Parties
Conference. Apart from the effect produced by the appoint-
ment of an All-White Commission, there was another factor
which at this time put an indelible stamp on the Congress.
That was the awakening among the youths. The youthful
element in the Congress had been demanding a more extremist
ideology for some time past and under their influence,
resolutions had been passed from time to time by Provincial
Conferences recommending to the Indian National Congress
that the goal of the Indian people should be defined as
complete national independence. The resolution of the
Madras Congress regarding independence¹ was therefore but
the logical fulfilment of a process going on within the Congress
for a long time. Along with this resolution the Madras
Congress took a significant step in appointing to the Working
Committee, representatives of the Left Wing. And as
General Secretaries for the coming year were appointed
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru (i.e., Nehru Junior), Mr. Shuaib
Qureshi and the writer. Thus the Madras Congress may be
regarded as standing for a definite orientation towards the Left.
¹ This resolution was passed unanimously at the Madras Congress but
after the Congress was over, Mahatma Gandhi declared that it had been
'hastily conceived and thoughtlessly passed.' Lala Lajpat Rai declared
that it was passed because 'many people believed that Dominion Status,
also meant complete national independence.' At the Lahore Congress in
December, 1929, a similar resolution was moved by the Mahatma and
unanimously adopted.

THE BAROMETER RISES 169
Another factor which lent significance to the proceedings
of the Madras Congress was the return of Pandit Jawaharlal
Nehru from Europe and his participation in the Congress
deliberations. Pandit J. L. Nehru had had a most interesting
career. After completing his studies at Cambridge he had
been called to the Bar. But when in 1920 the non-co-operation
movement was launched, he threw up his professional work
and joined the Mahatma. According to popular gossip, he
was largely responsible for persuading his father, Pandit
Motilal Nehru, to do the same. He did not agree with the
Swarajists on the question of working inside the Legislatures
and since they came into power, he had voluntarily occupied
a back seat in the councils of the Congress. Latterly he had
been to Europe with his sick wife and during his stay there
he studied some of the latest developments in Europe and
especially in Soviet Russia. Since his return to India he gave
expression to a new ideology and declared himself to be a
Socialist, which was extremely welcome to the Left Wing in
the Congress and to the youth organisations in the country.
The new phase in his public career was first given expression
to at the Madras Congress.
The solid wall of opposition put up against the Simon
Commission came as an eye-opener to the Government.
Something had to be done to soften the opposition. There-
fore, soon after his arrival in India, in February 1928, Sir
John Simon wrote to the Viceroy suggesting that the sittings
of the Commission should be in the nature of a 'Joint Free
Conference' consisting of the seven British members and a
body of representatives chosen by the Indian Legislatures.
In response to an inquiry from Sir Sankaran Nair, Sir John
Simon further stated that the reports, submitted by the
Committees appointed by the Legislatures would be attached
to the main report to be submitted to Parliament by the
Commission. In spite of the above modification proposed by
Sir John Simon, leaders of all parties soon after declared in a
manifesto issued from Delhi that their opposition to the
Simon Commission still held good. In the Indian Legislative
Assembly, Lala Lajpat Rai moved a resolution repudiating
the Simon Commission and this was duly carried. No com-

170 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE
mittee could accordingly be appointed by the Assembly to
co-operate with the Simon Commission. Of the Provincial
Legislatures, the Central Provinces Legislative Council alone
was able to resist the appointment of a committee. In spite
of the opposition of the Congress and Liberal Parties, all the
other Provincial Legislatures, however, appointed com-
mittees to co-operate with the Commission.
The arrival of the Simon Seven in India in February 1928,
was greeted with an All-India 'hartal' or boycott-demonstra-
tion, organised under the direction of the Congress Working
Committee. Enthusiasm all over the country and particularly
in Bengal was very great. The public expected a positive
lead from the Congress leaders, which could bring the
boycott home to those against whom it was directed. But no
such directions came from the Congress headquarters. Only
in Bengal, the Provincial Congress Committee on its own
responsibility launched an intensive campaign for the boycott
of British goods, the day the Commission landed in Bombay.
There is absolutely no doubt that if the Congress Working
Committee had taken courage in both hands, they could
have anticipated the movement of 1930 by two years and the
appointment of the Simon Commission could have been
made the starting point of such a movement. When the
writer visited the Mahatma in May 1928, at his Ashrama at
Sabarmati, he reported to him the public enthusiasm which
he had met with in many provinces and begged him to come
out of his retirement and give a lead to the country. At
that time the reply of the Mahatma was that he did not see
any light, though before his very eyes the peasantry of
Bardoli were demonstrating through a no-tax campaign that
they were ready for a struggle. During the whole of 1928
and 1929, there was so much unrest in the labour world that
if a political campaign had been started at that time, it would
have been well-timed. Moreover, in 1928 and 1929, there
was more enthusiasm and excitement in provinces like Punjab
and Bengal than in 1930. In 1930, when the movement was
launched by the Mahatma, the labour unrest had subsided to
a large extent and the situation in some provinces was much
quieter than before. After starting the movement in 1930, the

THE BAROMETER RISES 171
Mahatma observed in his paper, Young India, that he could
have launched the campaign two years earlier. The respon-
sibility for not utilising the situation in 1928 devolves not
only on the Mahatma but also on the Swarajist leaders who
had the Congress machinery in their hands at the time, but
who had unfortunately lost their dynamic impulse. If a
leader like Deshbandhu Das had been available then, the
events following the boycott of the Prince of Wales' visit to
India in 1921 would have been repeated in 1928.
Undeterred by the opposition which faced them, the Simon
Seven travelled from place to place. Wherever they went,
they met black flags, hostile demonstrations and shouts of
'Simon go back.' The Government tried to organise counter-
demonstrations with the help of a section of the Moslems and
a section of the depressed classes but such attempts did not
meet with success. Though the boycott campaign was kept
strictly within the limits of non-violence, elaborate police
arrangements were made wherever the Commission went and
in some places unnecessarily harsh repression was resorted to.
In the clashes that took place between the unarmed public
and the armed police in different parts of the country,
generally there were no serious consequences except in one
place—Lahore. There the black flag procession which was
being led by Lala Lajpat Rai was charged by the police with
sticks and batons. Lala Lajpat Rai, who was in the front rank
of the procession, was seriously injured in the attack and was
laid up in bed for some time. He recovered to some extent
at first but there was some permanent injury to his heart
which caused a relapse leading to his death. Great sorrow
and indignation followed the death of Lalaji and since the
Simon Commission was indirectly responsible for his death,
the Commission became more unpopular with the people
who used to idolise the great Punjab leader.
The activities of the leaders were not confined to a negative
boycott of the Simon Commission. The great task ahead of
them was to give a fitting reply to the challenge of Lord
Birkenhead by producing an agreed Constitution. To that
end, the All-Parties Conference met at Delhi in February
and March, 1928. The most thorny problem which the

172 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE
Conference had to tackle was the question of Hindu-Moslem-
Sikh representation in the Legislatures under the new
Constitution. When the Conference re-assembled in May at
Bombay, the outlook appeared gloomy, because no progress
whatsoever had been made. Thanks to the prudence of
Mahatma Gandhi, the Conference instead of publicly record-
ing its failure, appointed a small committee with Pandit
Motilal Nehru as Chairman, to determine the principles of
the new Constitution for India and draft a report thereon.
The Committee met frequently at Allahabad and ultimately
issued its report¹ in August which was unanimous, subject
to certain reservations made in the preamble, and was signed
by Pandit Motilal Nehru, Sir Ali Imam, Sir Tej Bahadur
Sapru, Mr. M. S. Aney, Sardar Mangal Singh, Mr. Shuaib
Qureshi, Mr. G. R. Pradhan and the writer. The Report of
the Committee, popularly known as the Nehru Committee,
was cordially welcomed by all Nationalists in the country as
it rendered the work of the Simon Commission superfluous.
Mahatma Gandhi sent his warmest congratulations to Pandit
Motilal Nehru who had worked so much over the report
and for whom it was a great achievement. The report was
placed before the plenary session of the All-Parties Con-
ference in Lucknow in August and was unanimously adopted.
It was again placed before the All-Parties Convention in
December 1928, in Calcutta and objections were raised at
that meeting by the representatives of the Moslem League,
Sikh League and Hindu Mahasabha. The opposition of the
Moslem League was the most serious and served to rouse the
opposition of the other two bodies.
It was stated in the preamble to the Nehru Report that the
Committee could not be unanimous on the question of the
fundamental basis of the Constitution, since a minority²
would not accept Dominion Status and pressed for complete
national independence as the basis of the Constitution.
The majority of the members of the Nehru Committee, how-
ever, adopted Dominion Status as the basis of the Constitution
¹ Report of the Committee appointed by the All-Parties Conference to
determine the principles of the Constitution for India. Published by the
Indian National Congress, Allahabad, 1928.
² The present writer was among them.

THE BAROMETER RISES 173
'without restricting the liberty of action of those political
parties whose goal was complete independence.' The Con-
stitution outlined in the Report was only for British India.
With regard to the Indian States, the Report stated that the
Central Government should exercise the same rights in rela-
tion to, and discharge the same obligation towards, the Indian
States, arising out of the treaties or otherwise, as the present
Government of India had exercised and discharged. A future
federal linking up of the Indian States with the rest of India
was, however, looked forward to, whenever the States were
ready for the surrender of rights which federation necessitated.
The Report recommended autonomy for the provinces and
suggested the creation of Sindh and Karnataka as separate
provinces. The Executive, both in the provinces and at the
centre, was to be responsible to the Legislature. The Central
Legislature was to be composed of a Senate and House of
Representatives—the Senate to be elected by the Provincial
Legislatures. Every adult of either sex was to be entitled to
vote and there would be joint electorates for Hindu, Moslem
and other communities. For a minority community, there
would be reservation of seats for a period of ten years only.
In Bengal and Punjab there would be no reservation of seats at
all. There would be a Supreme Court for India and a radical
restriction of appeals to the Privy Council. The Civil Services
would be under the control of the Central Government. The
Report further enumerated nineteen fundamental rights
which were to be embodied in the Statute. The residuary
powers were to be vested in the Central Government.
The greatest achievement of the Nehru Committee was the
settlement of the question of Hindu-Moslem-Sikh represen-
tation in the Legislatures under the proposed Constitution.
Such an achievement would not have been possible so soon
after the recent inter-communal disturbances, but for the
new situation created by the appointment of the Simon
Commission. The Report provided for a common electorate
for all communities. Minority communities would be entitled
to a reservation of seats in the Legislature in-proportion to
their population and they would, in addition, have the right
to contest the elections for the other seats. The reservation

174 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE
would, however, be only for a period of ten years. For
Bengal and Punjab, the Committee decided to have no
reservation at all. The Hindus, who are in a minority in
these two provinces, did not demand any reservation, as
being against the principle of nationalism—and the Com-
mittee considered it unfair and unreasonable that there
should be a reservation of seats for the majority community
—namely, the Moslems. As for the Sikhs, they were prepared
to forego reservation of seats for their community if the
other two communities did so—and if they did not, then the
Sikhs demanded representation in excess of their numbers.
Besides the question of principle which appealed to the
Nehru Committee, practical considerations also showed that
the best solution of the Bengal and Punjab problem would
be not to have any reservation there. In Bengal, under the
existing Constitution, the Moslems have 40 per cent. of the
elected seats and the Hindus 60 per cent.—while the Moslem
population is about 54 per cent. and the Hindu population
about 46 per cent. In Punjab under the existing Constitution,
the Moslems have 50 per cent. of the elected seats, the
Hindus 31 per cent. and the Sikhs 19 per cent., while in
population the Moslems are 55 per cent., the Hindus 34 per
cent. and the Sikhs 11 per cent. The Hindu-Moslem-Sikh
representation now in vogue is based on the 'Congress
League Scheme' which was adopted as a compromise between
the Indian National Congress and the All-India Moslem
League at Lucknow in 1916. In proportion to their popula-
tion, the Moslem representation in Bengal and Punjab was
reduced under the 'Congress League Scheme,' because in
the other provinces the Moslems got representation far in
excess of their numbers and the adjustment of Hindu-Moslem
interests was made on an All-India basis. Moslem representa-
tion as provided under the Congress League Scheme was no
longer acceptable to the Moslems of Bengal and Punjab. At
the same time the Nehru Committee found it well-nigh
impossible to fix another proportion which would be accept-
able to the parties concerned. Therefore, from the practical
point of view also, the Committee found it advisable to decide
on non-reservation of seats in Bengal and Punjab.

THE BAROMETER RISES 175
While the Nehru Committee was engaged in threshing out
the principles of the new Constitution, interesting events
were taking place elsewhere. In May 1928, I was called upon
to preside over the Maharashtra Provincial Conference at
Poona. The enthusiasm I met with there was striking. In my
speech I advocated some new lines of activity for Congress-
men which I had decided on during my prolonged incar-
ceration in Burma. For instance, I urged that the Congress
should directly take up the task of organising labour and that
youths and students should start organisations of their own
for looking after their own interests and also for serving
their country. I also urged separate political organisations
for women, in addition to their participation in the Congress
organisations. From Poona I went to Bombay and found
that the youths there had already founded the Bombay
Presidency Youth League and were preparing to take the
initiative in national service at a time when the Congress
Committee was not giving the lead expected of it. The
month of June found a no-tax campaign in full swing in the
Bardoli sub-division in Gujerat where in 1922 the Mahatma
had sounded the order of retreat. A 20 per cent. increase in
land revenue assessment had been ordered by the Govern-
ment and the peasants under the leadership of Mr. Vallabhbhai
Patel (the younger of the Patel brothers) refused to pay and
resorted to Satyagraha. The usual police repression followed,
including the confiscation of property and land. A heroic
non-violent battle was waged by the peasantry of Bardoli for
several months and ultimately the Government had to yield.
The whole of Bombay Presidency—and particularly Bombay
city—rallied to the support of the Bardoli peasants and women
took an active part in the movement. The Bardoli campaign
was the precursor of the larger fight that Bombay was to wage
in 1930. Out of this campaign Mr. Vallabhbhai Patel emerged
with a great reputation. Prior to this he was of course known
as one of the sincerest and staunchest lieutenants of the
Mahatma but the Bardoli victory brought him into the front
rank of India's leaders. In appreciation of his heroic service,
the Mahatma gave him the title of 'Sardar' (meaning Leader)
by which he is now generally called.

176 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE
At the time of the All-Parties Conference in Lucknow in
August, a new development took place. While the settlement
of the communal question made by the Nehru Committee
was welcome to the younger Nationalists, the recommendation
regarding a dominion form of government, coming as it did
after the Madras Congress resolution on independence, was
quite unacceptable to them. Their intention, therefore, was
to oppose the adoption of the Report at the All-Parties
Conference at Lucknow. Such a step would have given great
satisfaction and delight to the enemies of the Congress, would
have weakened the forces working for national unity and
would have increased the prestige of the Simon Commission
instead of destroying it. A private meeting of members of
the Congress Left Wing was therefore held at Lucknow to
decide our course of action and Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and
I suggested that instead of dividing the House and thereby
wrecking the All-Parties Conference, we should content our-
selves by voicing our protest at the Conference and then
proceed to organise an Independence League in order to
carry on an active propaganda in the country in favour of
independence. This suggestion was accepted by the meet-
ing of Left-Wingers and following it, Pandit J. L. Nehru
and I made our position clear at the All-Parties Conference
on the question of independence, but refrained from dividing
the House. After the Conference, we started organising
branches of the Independence League all over the country
and in November, at a meeting held at Delhi, the Indepen-
dence League was formally inaugurated.
The ‘Independence Movement’ started at Lucknow was
contemporaneous with another movement—viz., the Students’
Movement. When the boycott of the Simon Commission was
launched in February, students all over Bengal and parti-
cularly in Calcutta, took an active part in it. Disciplinary
action was taken against many of them by the College authori-
ties and the students then began to feel the want of an organi-
sation of their own for fighting for their interests. Out of
this experience the Students’ Movement in Bengal was born.¹
¹ Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and the writer were among the few public
men who encouraged the students at the time to organise themselves.

THE BAROMETER RISES 177
The first All-Bengal Conference of students was held in
August in Calcutta and was presided over by Pandit Jawa-
harlal Nehru. After the Conference, students' organisations
were started all over Bengal and somewhat later, similar
organisations were started in other provinces as well. The
unrest in the student world was accompanied by unrest in the
labour world as well. The year before, there had been a
strike at Kharagpore not far from Calcutta, among the
railway workers. In 1928 a strike broke out in the Tata
Iron and Steel Works¹ at Jamshedpur, about 170 miles
south-west of Calcutta, in which 18,000 workers were involved.
The strike dragged on for some months. Ultimately a
settlement was arrived at between the workers and the
management, which was extremely favourable to the former.
Even more important than the Tata Strike was the Textile
Strike in Bombay in which at least 60,000 workers were
involved. This strike was in the first stages a phenomenal
success and caused serious embarrassment not only to the
mill-owners but to the Government as well. Following this,
there was a strike in the workshop of the East India Railway
at Lillooah near Calcutta in which 10,000 workers were
involved, in the Tinplate Company at Jamshedpur in which
4,000 workers were involved, in the Oil and Petrol Works at
Budge-Budge about twenty miles from Calcutta, in which
6,000 workers were involved, and last but not least, in the
Jute Mills in and near Calcutta, in which about 200,000
workers were involved. The Bombay textile strike deserves
special mention because it was under the leadership of a
compact disciplined party who were alleged to hold com-
munistic ideas and some of whom at least declared themselves
later at the Meerut Conspiracy Case Trial to be avowed
Communists. Most of the above strikes were conducted by
the more militant section in the Trade Union Congress and
they were therefore gaining in importance from day to day.
¹ Owing to pressure from the workers the writer took up the leadership
of the strike when it was about to collapse. The strike was then revived
and strengthened and it led to an honourable settlement. Unfortunately
differences broke out among the workers after the settlement and this
had disastrous consequences. The Tata strike served for the writer as
an initiation into the workers' movement, with which he has been intim-
ately connected ever since.
M

178 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE
Towards the end of the year, when the Trade Union Congress
met at Jharia in the mining area, it was found that the Left
Wing had considerably increased their numbers and among
them, the Communists were a compact and well-disciplined
group. A new move was taken at this Congress in as much as
the Trade Union Congress was affiliated to the League against
Imperialism.¹
December was as usual a month of congresses and con-
ferences. The most important among them were the All-
India Youth Congress (which was going to hold its first
session), the All-Parties Convention and the Indian National
Congress. The Youth Congress was presided over by Mr.
K. F. Nariman, the Parsi leader from Bombay, who had
grown extremely popular with the Congress Left Wing. A
lawyer by profession, he was at first a Swarajist member of
the Bombay Legislative Council where he distinguished
himself as an able fighter. He, however, came into prominence
through his attempt to expose publicly the colossal waste of
money which had resulted from the Back Bay Reclamation
Scheme of the Bombay Government. He had to face a
defamation suit in a court of law because of the allegations
he made, but he came out of it with flying colours. Mr.
Nariman, since he came into prominence, continued to
uphold and give expression to extremist views until he was
made a member of the Congress Working Committee at the
instance of the Mahatma. The Youth Congress was important
in as much as it indicated the emergence of a new factor in
the public life of the country and gave expression to a mentality
somewhat different from that which prevailed within the
precincts of the National Congress.²
The All-Parties Convention held in Calcutta during the
¹ The League against Imperialism was at first declared to be a non-
Communist body and the Indian National Congress as well as the All-
India Trade Union Congress were affiliated to it. Later on when the
League became virtually a Communist body, the National Congress and
the Trade Union Congress ceased to affiliate themselves any longer.
² In his speech as the Chairman of the Reception Committee the writer
advocated activism, as opposed to the passivism which was being preached
from Sabarmati Ashrama of the Mahatma and Pondicherry Ashrama of
Sri Aurobindo Ghosh. He also pleaded for modernisation of the material
side of life. The speech caused resentment among the followers of the
Mahatma and of Sri Aurobindo Ghosh.

THE BAROMETER RISES 179
Congress week had unfortunate consequences. All those
who did not have a hand in drafting the Nehru Report now
made a dead set against it. Mr. M. A. Jinnah, who a year
earlier had advocated a progressive nationalist point of view
at the Moslem League Conference in Calcutta, now came
forward with his famous 'fourteen points' in order to amend
the communal settlement embodied in the Nehru Report.
He demanded, among other things, one-third of the elected
seats in both Houses of the Indian Legislature for Moslems,
reservation of seats for Moslems in Bengal and Punjab on a
population basis, vesting of residuary powers in the provinces,
etc. This attitude served to make Mr. Jinnah popular with
his reactionary co-religionists but undermined the value and
importance of the Nehru Report. Following the Moslems,
the Sikhs also made extreme demands, while the represen-
tatives of the Hindu Mahasabha refused to make any further
concessions beyond what had been already embodied in the
Nehru Report and they even criticised adversely the conces-
sions made by the Nehru Committee to the Moslem demands.
It was difficult to get the support of the Moslem League
for the Nehru Report, because of the parties within that
body, based largely on personal considerations. For instance,
the group led by the late Sir Mohammed Shafi took up a
non possumus attitude on the communal question and on
the political question, advocated co-operation with the Simon
Commission. The Nationalist bloc stood for whole-hearted
acceptance of the Nehru Report and for complete boycott
of the Simon Commission. The group led by Mr. Jinnah
had a reactionary attitude on the communal question but
advocated the boycott of the Simon Commission. A meeting
of the Moslem League was summoned at Delhi in March
1929, to consider the question and there was a clash between
the warring sections, so that the meeting ended in pande-
monium.
In December 1927, when the Madras Congress decided in
favour of convening an All-Parties Conference, it appeared
as if the decision was a right one. This feeling was confirmed
when the Nehru Committee was able to produce a unanimous
report and the All-Parties Conference at Lucknow in August