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

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

180 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE
1928, adopted it. But subsequent experience has shown that
it was a mistake for the Congress to take this step, as it was
a mistake for the Congress to participate in a Round Table
Conference in which other people were present who had no
right to be there. The responsibility for producing a con-
stitution belongs solely and exclusively to the party that fights
for freedom. A report drafted by an All-Parties Committee
can have value only if it is ratified by all parties in the country.
But such ratification is never possible in a country which has
been under foreign rule for some time. In such a country,
there are bound to be parties which are under the thumb
of the Government and these parties can always hold up the
ratification of a document like the Nehru Report. Moreover,
what is the value of such ratification when the other parties
are not going to fight for freedom? The party that fights,
should not, therefore, look up to any other party to produce
the constitution for which it alone is fighting.
The most important conference of the year was the annual
session of the Indian National Congress held in Calcutta and
presided over by Pandit Motilal Nehru. The attendance at
the Calcutta session was the largest since the inception of the
Congress and all arrangements were made on a colossal scale.
Within the Congress there were two groups—the older group
who would be content if they had a Dominion form of
Government and who were therefore in favour of accepting
the Nehru Report in toto and the Left Wing who adhered to
the resolution of independence passed at the Madras Congress
and wanted to accept the Nehru Report only on the basis of
complete national independence. At a meeting of the All-
India Congress Committee held at Delhi in November, a
compromise had been arrived at between the two groups, at
the instance of Pandit Motilal Nehru. ‘At the Calcutta session
of the Congress, however, the Mahatma refused to accept the
Delhi formula on the ground that it was self-contradictory
and the breach between the two groups was thus opened once
again. Attempts for a compromise were made by the Mahatma
and Pandit Motilal Nehru but the maximum concession
which they could make, fell short of the minimum demand of
the Left Wingers. Though the Left Wing leaders were

THE BAROMETER RISES 181
inclined to avoid an open split, the rank and file of the Left
Wing would not think of a compromise. Thus the main
resolution of the Congress moved by Mahatma Gandhi was
opposed by the entire Left Wing, who supported the amend-
ment moved by the writer. The Mahatma's resolution stated
that 'subject to the exigencies of the political situation, the
'Congress will adopt the Nehru constitution in its entirety, if
it is accepted by the British Parliament on or before December
31st, 1929; but in the event of its non-acceptance by that
date, or its earlier rejection, the Congress will organise non-
violent non-co-operation by advising the country to refuse
taxation 'and in such other manner as may be decided upon.'
An amendment to the effect that the Congress would be
content with nothing short of independence, which implied
severance of the British connection, was moved by the writer
and was supported, among others, by Pandit Jawaharlal
Nehru. The amendment was lost by 973 votes to 1350—but
the vote could hardly be called a free one, as the followers
of the Mahatma made it a question of confidence and gave
out that if the Mahatma was defeated, he would retire from
the Congress. Many people therefore voted for his resolution
not out of conviction, but because they did not want to be
a party to forcing the Mahatma out of the Congress. Never-
theless, the voting showed that the Left Wing was strong
and influential.
The Calcutta Congress, coming after the Madras Congress,
was in the nature of an anti-climax. The President-elect on
the day of his arrival was given an ovation which would
excite the envy of kings and dictators, but when he left,
there was disappointment writ large on every face. There
was tremendous enthusiasm all over the country at the time
and every one had expected the Congress to act boldly. But
while the country was ready, the leaders were not. The
Mahatma, unfortunately for his countrymen, did not see
light. Hence the temporising resolution of the Calcutta
Congress which only served to kill precious time. Only
madness or folly could have led one to hope that the mighty
British Government would concede even Dominion Home
Rule without a struggle. During the sittings of the Congress

182 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE
a procession of 10,000 workers visited the Congress pandal to
demonstrate their solidarity with the struggle for national
freedom and to appeal to the Congress to take up the cause of
the starving workers. But all these signs of upheaval made no
impression on the leaders. The decision that should have
been made soon after the appointment of the Simon Com-
mission—and certainly not later than the Calcutta Congress
—was not made till the Lahore Congress in December 1929.
But by then the situation was to deteriorate.

CHAPTER IX
SIGNS OF COMING UPHEAVAL (1929)
THE net result of the Calcutta Congress, as we have seen,
was to put the clock back. But a far-sighted politician like
the Mahatma could read the signs of the times. The Left
Wing opposition at the Calcutta Congress had indeed been
formidable and if his leadership was to be retained, he would
have to deal with the opposition in a diplomatic manner.
The tactics employed by the Mahatma during the next twelve
months were indeed superb. As we shall presently see, he
took the wind out of the sails of the Extremists,¹ by himself
advocating independence at the next Congress and divided
the ranks of the opposition by winning over some of the Left
Wing leaders. The Left Wing opposition had become a
menace to all sections among the older leaders; to the Swara-
jists as much as to the 'No-Changers,' and the Calcutta Con-
gress had found the Swarajist Pandit Motilal Nehru standing
side by side with the 'No-Changer' Mahatma Gandhi, in
order to fight the common danger. This temporary alliance
was further strengthened during the ensuing months and with
the help of a section of the Left-Wing leaders, it became
possible for the Mahatma to regain his hold on the Congress
machinery and his prestige in the country, which had been
badly shaken by the proceedings of the Calcutta Congress.
No one can seriously maintain that a shrewd politician like
the Mahatma really expected the Government to climb down
and to concede Dominion Home Rule without a fight, merely
as a result of a written ultimatum delivered by the Congress.
Therefore, one would be entitled to hold that at the Calcutta
Congress, the Mahatma was merely playing for time, because
¹ He began this propaganda soon after the Calcutta Congress by stating
publicly that if by December 31st, 1929, the Government did not concede
Dominion Status to India, he would become an 'Independencewallah' on
January 1st, 1930. This time-limit of one year was reminiscent of his
promise of Swaraj within one year in 1921.
183

184 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE
he was personally unprepared to launch a fight in the imme-
diate future. As a matter of fact, even at the Lahore Congress
in December 1929, the Mahatma had no plans for launching
an anti-Government campaign of any sort—though he
moved the resolution on independence, which was un-
animously adopted by the Congress. Not till February 1930,
after much searching of heart, did he make up his mind to
start a civil-disobedience movement in the country, beginning
with the campaign for the manufacture of salt. But though
the Congress did not give a bold and intelligent lead to the
country during the whole of 1929, the unrest did not abate
in any way. On the contrary, the forces making for revolution
began to grow stronger and stronger, while owing to lack of
co-ordination, much dissipation of energy resulted. Besides
the main current of the Congress movement, three other lines
of activity were clearly visible at this time. There was an
undercurrent of revolutionary activity with a certain amount
of following in northern India—an unrest in the labour world
which extended to every part of the country and an awakening
among the middle-class youths which was manifest everywhere.
The visible expression of the revolutionary movement was
afforded by two incidents which occurred at Lahore and at
Delhi. At Lahore an Inspector of Police, Mr. Saunders, a
Britisher, was assassinated. It was reported that the revolu-
tionaries believed that Mr. Saunders was responsible for the
attack on Lala Lajpat Rai at the time of the anti-Simon
demonstration in Lahore in 1928, which ultimately resulted
in his death and that his assassination was an act of reprisal.
The other incident was the throwing of a bomb in the
Assembly at Delhi during a sitting and two young men,
Sardar Bhagat Singh and Mr. Batukeshwar Dutt, were
arrested in connection therewith. After these overt acts,
there was a round-up of a large number of young men from
all over the country and an All-India conspiracy case was
started at Lahore about the middle of 1929. For some reason
or other, the Lahore conspiracy case excited not only public
interest but public sympathy as well. The reasons probably
were that prior to his arrest, Sardar Bhagat Singh was known
to be the leader of the youth movement (called the Naujawan

SIGNS OF COMING UPHEAVAL 185
Bharat Sabha) in the Punjab, and the fearless and defiant
attitude adopted by him and his comrades, after their arrest
and during their trial, made a deep impression on the public.
Moreover, Sardar Bhagat Singh came from a well-known
patriotic family—being a nephew of Sardar Ajit Singh, who
had been deported to Burma in 1909 along with Lala Lajpat
Rai. The Naujawan Bharat Sabha was first started as a
thorough-going nationalist movement, in order to fight com-
munalism and religious fanaticism in the Punjab. If the
official allegations are to be believed, the Sabha developed
into a revolutionary organisation and some members of the
Sabha also went in for terrorist activities. Whatever the truth
or otherwise of the allegations may be, there is no doubt that
the Sabha developed a frankly Socialistic tendency. And
incidentally it may be remarked that all youth organisations
in the Punjab have a strong Socialist bent. In March 1931,
when a session of the All-India Naujawan Bharat Sabha was
held at Karachi, members of the Punjab Naujawan Bharat
Sabha openly declared that they were against terrorism and
that they believed in mass action on Socialist lines.
Soon after their arrest, the Lahore Conspiracy Case prisoners,
headed by Sardar Bhagat Singh, made a demand that they
should be accorded better treatment than ordinary criminals
on the ground that they were political prisoners and under
trial, who should be deemed to be innocent until they were
actually convicted. After trying the usual constitutional
methods, when they found that no remedy was forthcoming,
they resorted to hunger-strike. Among the prisoners was a
young man from Calcutta Mr. Jatindra Nath Das, who was at
first rather averse to hunger-strike because he regarded it as
a dangerous game to play. The enthusiasm of the rest forced
him to join the strike but before doing so, he warned them
that come what may, he would not turn back until their
demands were fully conceded. There was an intense agitation
throughout the country over the hunger-strike and there was
a public demand that the Government should remedy their
just grievances and thereby save their lives. When the
condition of the prisoners grew serious, the Government
made half-hearted attempts at compromise. For instance,

186 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE
they offered better treatment to the hunger-strikers on
medical grounds. But their demand was not merely for
better treatment for themselves, but for all prisoners similarly
circumstanced and on the ground that they were political
prisoners. To this demand the Government would not yield
and so the strike went on. Besides an intensive Press agitation,
meetings and demonstrations were held all over the country
demanding humane treatment for political prisoners. In
connection with a demonstration of this kind in Calcutta, a
number of prominent Congressmen, including the writer,
were arrested in September and sent up for trial for sedition.
As the days rolled by, one by one the hunger-strikers
dropped off but young Jatin was invincible. He never
hesitated, never faltered for one small second—but marched
straight on towards death and freedom. Every heart in the
country melted but the heart of the bureaucracy did not. So
Jatin died on September 13th. But he died the death of a
martyr. After his death the whole country gave him an
ovation which few men in the recent history of India have
received. As his dead body was removed from Lahore to
Calcutta for cremation, people assembled in their thousands
and tens of thousands at every station to pay their homage.
His martyrdom acted as a profound inspiration to the youth
of India and everywhere youth and student organisations
began to grow up. Among the many messages that were
received on the occasion was one which touched the heart of
every Indian. It was a message from the family of Terence
McSwiney, the Lord Mayor of Cork, who had died a martyr
under similar conditions in Ireland. The message ran thus:
‘Family of Terence McSwiney have heard with grief and
pride of the death of Jatin Das. Freedom will come.’
Jatin Das was twenty-five at the time of his death. While a
student he had joined the non-co-operation movement in
1921 and had spent several years in prison. After a break of
many years he had resumed his studies again at a Calcutta
College. At the time of the Calcutta Congress in 1928 and
after, he had taken a leading part in organising and training
volunteers and in the Bengal Volunteer Corps, of which the
writer was the Chief Officer or G.O.C., he held the rank of

SIGNS OF COMING UPHEAVAL 187
Major. The Bengal Volunteer Corps came into existence at
the time of the Calcutta Congress. For the Congress and the
National Exhibition connected with it, a large body of volun-
teers had been necessary and the writer had been entrusted
by the Congress authorities with the organisation and training
of the Corps. Though the Corps was a peaceful and unarmed
body, military discipline and training in military drill was
imparted to the volunteers and they were also given a semi-
military uniform. After the Congress was over, the Volunteer
Corps was maintained and branches were opened all over the
province. In this arduous work, Jatin had played an important
rôle. The officers and rank and file of the Volunteer Corps
therefore took a leading part in the funeral demonstrations.
In this connection the attitude of the Mahatma was
inexplicable. Evidently the martyrdom of Jatin Das which
had stirred the heart of the country did not make any impres-
sion on him. The pages of Young India ordinarily filled with
observations on all political events and also on topics like
health, diet, etc., had nothing to say about the incident. A
follower of the Mahatma who was also a close friend of the
deceased, wrote to him inquiring as to why he had said nothing
about the event. The Mahatma replied to the effect that he
had purposely refrained from commenting, because if he had
done so, he would have been forced to write something
unfavourable.
The news of the self-immolation of Jatin Das was received
in Delhi when the Assembly was in session. For a moment
it looked as if the heart of the Government throbbed. But
the throbbing was a momentary phenomenon. What emotion
was roused at the time was soon drowned in official diplomacy
and duplicity. The Government promised to take up the
question of the treatment of political prisoners but after a
great deal of deliberation and delay, when the public excite-
ment had somewhat abated, they finally produced their
proposals. It was then found that the remedy suggested was
worse than the disease. At the outset the Government
refused to class anyone as a political prisoner—so that the
principal demand of the Lahore hunger-strikers was turned
down. The Government proposed instead that prisoners

188 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE
would in future be put into either of three classes—A, B
and C or Divisions I, II, and III respectively. C class
prisoners would be treated exactly like ordinary criminals;
B class prisoners would be treated slightly better than C class
in the matter of food, letters, interviews and other facilities
—while A class prisoners would be treated somewhat better
than B class. The distinction at the time of classification
would be made according to the social status of the prisoner.
When these rules were applied in practice, it was found that
at least 95 per cent. of the political prisoners were classed as
C; about 3 or 4 per cent. were classed as B and less than 1 per
cent. as A. The effect of the new rules therefore was to give
somewhat better treatment to a microscopic minority in
order to break the solidarity of the political prisoners. The
principle of 'divide and rule' was thus extended to the domain
of prison administration. The only welcome feature in the
new rule was that it abolished in theory the classification of
certain prisoners as 'European,' who used to get better food,
clothing and accommodation than Indians of the highest
rank. In practice, however, the writer has personally seen
that in many provinces, e.g., Bengal, Central Provinces and
Madras, the facilities previously enjoyed by 'European'
prisoners are still being continued. And in the Madras
Penitentiary, where the writer was confined for two months
in 1932, he even found the placard 'European Ward' in front
of the ward occupied by 'European' prisoners and on his
objecting to it, the placard was removed. In this connection
it should be admitted that when the new rules were drafted,
the Assembly members, including the Swarajists, did not
put up the opposition expected of them. And some members
like Mr. Jinnah, who had no experience of prison life, even
thought that the new rules would prove to be a blessing.
As has been already remarked, the years 1928 and 1929
witnessed an unprecedented awakening among the youths.¹
¹ This was followed immediately by a similar awakening among women.
In Bengal the Deshbandhu had started in 1921 the 'Nari Karma Mandir'
for training women for national service. After his death this institution
ceased to exist. In 1928 when the writer resumed his public activities,
a political organisation for women was started under the name of the
'Mahila Rashtriya Sangha' in Calcutta, which was followed by many other
organisations all over the country.

SIGNS OF COMING UPHEAVAL 189
The halting attitude of the Congress at Calcutta and the stale
tactics of the Swarajists in the Legislatures roused the youths
to a sense of their duty. The success of the first session of
the Youth Congress at Calcutta served as an inspiration and
a further impetus came from the undying example set by
Jatindra Nath Das through his martyrdom. Throughout
1929, youth and student organisations grew up all over
Bengal, as branches of the Provincial Youth Association and
Provincial Students' Association. Besides the political con-
ferences held in different districts of Bengal from time to
time, separate conferences for youths and for students
began to be held from now onwards. In other provinces too,
the same phenomena were visible. In Poona, the Maharashtra
Youth Conference was held and Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru
presided over it. In Ahmedabad, the Bombay Presidency
Youth Conference met in October 1929, and was presided
over by Mrs. Kamaladevi Chattopadhyaya, sister-in-law of
Mrs. Sarojini Naidu, who within a short time had become a
popular figure among the youths. In September, the first
session of the Punjab Students' Conference was held in Lahore
and was presided over by the writer. Following this, the
Central Provinces Youth Conference was held in November
at Nagpur and the Berar Students' Conference at Amraoti in
December, both being presided over by the writer. In the
Madras Presidency, too, similar conferences were held. At
the end of the year, at Lahore, during the Congress week,
an All-India Congress of Students was held and was presided
over by Pandit Madan Mohon Malaviya, the Vice-Chancellor
of the Benares Hindu University.
The awakening among the youths was contemporaneous
with a widespread unrest in the labour world and there were
strikes all over the country. But the strike which unnerved
the Government most was the textile strike which com-
menced in 1928 in Bombay, because it was conducted by a
compact party of well-educated men and women following
communistic ideas.. The employers and the Government
made common cause in their efforts to break the strike and a
large number of rowdy blacklegs were imported from outside
for the purpose. When the strike showed signs of weakening,

190 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE
the Government struck hard. A round-up of trade union
leaders holding advanced ideas was made simultaneously all
over India in March, 1929, and thirty-one of them were
brought to Meerut, near Delhi, for trial in connection with
an All-India Communist Conspiracy Case. They were
brought to Meerut of all places for trial, probably because
Meerut being a small town, there would be no public demon-
stration there and also because trial by jury does not obtain
there. There were three Englishmen among them and
probably because of this, the case roused great interest and
sympathy among British Labour circles of all shades of
opinion. The trial dragged on for nearly four years and
during this period, bail was refused to the accused, though
repeatedly asked for. The prosecution case was that the
accused had conspired to deprive the King of the sovereignty
of India and with the help of the Communist International
had endeavoured to set up a government on the Soviet model.
On January 16th, 1933, judgment was delivered. Three of the
accused were acquitted and the rest (excluding one who had
died during the course of the trial) were sentenced to various
terms of imprisonment—from three years' imprisonment to
transportation for life.
The Meerut arrests were made when the Conservative
Party was in power but in June, as a result of the General
Election, the Labour Party came into office with Captain
Wedgwood-Benn as the Secretary of State for India. It was
expected that the Labour Party would do something for the
Meerut prisoners but actually nothing was done. Neverthe-
less, another move was taken by the Labour Cabinet in order
to placate Indian Labour circles. As the Labour counterpart
of the Simon Commission, a Royal Commission on Labour
was appointed, with Mr. Whitley as the Chairman. The Com-
mission was to report on labour conditions in India and the
possible lines of amelioration. Having gathered experience
from the boycott of the Simon Commission, the Labour
Government offered two seats to Indian trade-union leaders
—to Mr. N. M. Joshi (Bombay) and Mr. Chamanlal (Lahore).
Both of them who belonged to the Right Wing of the Labour
Movement accepted the offer and that decision at once