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

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

SIGNS OF COMING UPHEAVAL 191
created a split among Indian trade-unionists. When the
Congress met at Nagpur in November with Pandit Jawaharlal
Nehru as the President, it was found that the majority were
for the boycott of the Labour Commission (called the Whitley
Commission). Several factors accounted for this. Boycott
was then in the air. Moreover, the Labour Cabinet having
failed to do anything for the Meerut prisoners, it was felt
that a Commission appointed by them would be of no
benefit to India. Thirdly, the sweeping arrests made in
March last all over India had created sympathy in trade
union circles for the Left Wingers. When the boycott
resolution was carried, there were shouts of 'Down with
Chamanlal,' 'Down with Joshi,' etc., and placards were also
displayed to that effect. These demonstrations against Mr.
Joshi who had done so much for the Indian Labour Movement
and may be justly regarded as one of the fathers of that
movement—greatly offended the Right Wingers who walked
out of the Congress. Thereafter, they set up an organisation
of their own under the name of the 'All-India Trade Union
Federation.' The reason generally given for the secession
was that the Trade Union Congress had affiliated itself to the
League against Imperialism and the Pan-Pacific Trade Union
Secretariat—both of which were Communist organisations.
But the real reason was the boycott of the Whitley Commis-
sion, which if given effect to, would have entailed the resigna-
tion of Messrs. Joshi and Chamanlal from that body. As for
the affiliation to the League against Imperialism, it should be
noted that it was done at the Jharia session of the Trade
Union Congress in 1928—but at that time the Right-Wing
Trade-Unionists were able to swallow the resolution because
they were still strong enough to keep the Secretariat in their
hands. As a matter of fact, the Right-Wingers were defeated
over the question of the Whitley Commission, not because
the Communists were in a majority but because the Centre
Party who were not Communists, sided with them on that
question. Consequently, if the Right-Wingers had not
seceded from the Trade Union Congress at Nagpur, they
would still have played an important rôle: But they would
have to suffer one disadvantage—which probably they were

192 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE
not prepared to do—namely, to forgo the annual trip to
Geneva on the occasion of the International Labour Con-
ference. The Trade Union Congress passed a resolution
boycotting the International Labour Conference at Geneva
because the Conference had been of little help to the Indian
workers and the Indian representatives to that Conference
were appointed by the Government of India and not by the
All-India Trade Union Congress. This resolution, like the
one boycotting the Whitley Commission, was unacceptable
to the Right-Wingers and proved to be the proverbial last
straw.
It would have been in the fitness of things if a political
campaign had been launched in 1929. It would have then
synchronised with a movement in other spheres as well. But
that was not to be. So there was only marking time in
political circles. In Bengal, the Congress Party was able to
turn out the Ministers repeatedly. Disgusted with the
Party's tactics, the Governor dissolved the Legislative Council
in May and ordered a fresh election at once. The result was
that the Congress Party came back with added strength and
the Nationalist Moslems regained some of the seats they had
lost at the last election. Just before the election, judgment
was delivered in a suit brought against the Nationalist paper,
Forward, by the East Indian Railway¹ for defamation for
publishing reports damaging to the Company about a railway
accident near Calcutta. The court gave exemplary damages
to the tune of Rs. 150,000 (Rs. 13½=£1 approximately),
and it was expected that this would force the paper to close
down. However, the next day Forward ceased to appear, but
in its place another daily paper called Liberty was born.
The Congress Party did not therefore have to suffer any
inconvenience for want of an organ.
In June, the Labour Party came into power and Lord Irwin,
the Viceroy, was invited to London for consultation, where
he remained for some months. While he was there, a sudden
change came over the Mahatma. At a meeting of the Congress
Working Committee in July, a resolution was passed calling
¹ The East Indian Railway is a state-owned Railway and the most
important Railway in India.

SIGNS OF COMING UPHEAVAL 193
upon Congressmen to resign their seats in the Legislatures.
No notice was given to the Congress Parties in the different
Legislatures, nor was their opinion invited and the most
surprising thing was the acquiescence of Pandit Motilal
Nehru, who had been leading the Congress Party in the
Assembly. The Pandit had in the month of May encouraged
the Bengal Congress Party to fight the elections and had
especially enjoined on them to recapture some of the Moslem
seats. When a meeting of the All-India Congress Committee¹
was held at Allahabad the same month, a strenuous opposition
was put forward by the late Mr. J. M. Sengupta and the
writer, both of whom were members of the Congress Working
Committee. As a result of this opposition and also of the
dissatisfaction expressed by the Congress Parties in the
different Legislatures, the resolution regarding resignation
from the Legislatures was rescinded and the whole matter
was adjourned till the Lahore Congress in December. Up
till now it is a puzzle to many as to what happened between
May and July to make Pandit Motilal Nehru change his front.
Was he suddenly disappointed at the work put in by the
Congress Parties in the Legislatures? Was he faced with a
revolt or a faction in his own Party in the Assembly and
therefore wanted to dissolve it? Or did he want to put up a
united front against the Left-Wingers who were growing
more powerful, and for that reason wanted to placate the
Mahatma by agreeing to his pet theory of Council-boycott?
In any case, there is no doubt that without the support of
Pandit Motilal Nehru, the Mahatma would never have forced
his views on the Congress. And one has to remark with great
regret that Pandit Motilal Nehru who was the only man
who could influence the Mahatma either way at that time,
did a positive disservice to his country by actively supporting
the Mahatma in his policy of reviving the boycott of the
Legislatures. The harmful effect of this boycott became
more and more evident in the years to come. To say the
least, it was tactically a great blunder to boycott the Legis-
¹ The All-India Congress Committee is a body of about 350 members
representing the different provinces of India. Every year it elects an
Executive of 15 members, called the Working Committee.
N

194 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE
latures when the new Constitution was under consideration,
especially when it had been demonstrated the year before,
that because of the presence of Congressmen in the Assembly,
that body had been able to repudiate the Simon Commission.
The writer was among the few men who fought against the
proposed boycott till the very last—but with the support of
Pandit Motilal Nehru and subsequently of the late Mr. J. M.
Sengupta, the Mahatma could easily carry the Congress with
him and even Bengal could not put up an undivided opposi-
tion, as had been possible at the Allahabad meeting of the
All-India Congress Committee in July, before the breach
between the late Mr. Sengupta and the writer took place.
In August, a special meeting of the All-India Congress
Committee was called to decide who should preside over the
ensuing Congress. In accordance with the Congress Con-
stitution, the vast majority of the Provincial Congress Com-
mittee had nominated Mahatma Gandhi, but he declined to
accept the nomination. The general feeling in Congress
circles was that the honour should go to Sardar Vallabhbhai
Patel. But the Mahatma decided to back the candidature of
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. For the Mahatma the choice was
a prudent one, but for the Congress Left Wing it proved to
be unfortunate, because that event marked the beginning of
a political rapprochement between the Mahatma and Pandit
Jawaharlal Nehru and a consequent alienation between the
latter and the Congress Left Wing. Since 1920, Pandit
Jawaharlal Nehru had been a close adherent of the policy
advocated by the Mahatma and his personal relations with
the latter had been always friendly. Nevertheless, since his
return from Europe in December 1927, Pandit Jawaharlal
Nehru began to call himself a Socialist and give expression
to views hostile towards Mahatma Gandhi and the older
leaders and to ally himself in his public activities with the
Left-Wing opposition within the Congress. But for his
strenuous advocacy, it would not have been possible for the
Independence League to attain the importance that it did.
Therefore, for the Mahatma it was essential that he should
win over Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru if he wanted to beat down
the Left-Wing opposition and regain his former undisputed

: SIGNS OF COMING UPHEAVAL 195
supremacy over the Congress. The Left-Wingers did not
like the idea that one of their most outstanding spokesmen
should accept the Presidentship of the Lahore Congress,
because it was clear that that Congress would be dominated
by the Mahatma and the President would be a mere dummy.
They were of opinion that a Left-Wing leader should accept
the Presidentship only when he was in a position to have his
programme adopted by the Congress. But the Mahatma took
a clever step in supporting the candidature of Pandit Jawaharlal
Nehru and his election as President opened a new chapter
in his public career. Since then, Pandit J. L. Nehru has been
a consistent and unfailing supporter of the Mahatma. '
In the meantime the Simon Commission had been busy
with its own work and on October 16th, 1929, after some sort
of pre-arrangement, Sir John Simon wrote to the Prime
Minister, Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, asking for an extension of
the terms of reference in order to enable him to examine the
methods whereby the future relations between the Indian
states and the British Indian provinces could be readjusted.
He also suggested that after the publication of the Commis-
sion's Report, a conference should be arranged between the
representatives of His Majesty's Government and represen-
tatives of British India and the States. To both these sug-
gestions the Cabinet agreed. The same month Lord Irwin
returned to India and soon after his arrival, he issued a
statement on October 31st, 1929, saying that he had been
'authorised by His Majesty's Government to state clearly
that in their judgment, it is implicit in the Declaration of
1917 that the natural issue of India's constitutional progress,
as there contemplated, is the attainment of Dominion Status.'
He further stated that a Round Table Conference would be
held in London after the publication of the report of the
Simon Commission as had been suggested by Sir John Simon
himself.
The situation created by this new attitude on the part of
the British Cabinet and the Viceroy did not remain un-
noticed or unutilised. In the absence of Deshbandhu Das,
there was at least one other personality who could seize the
opportunity at once and, fortunately for him, he then occupied

196 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE

a strategic position as an intermediary between the Viceroy
and the people's representatives. That man was Mr. Vithal-
bhai Patel who, though a veteran Congressman, had been
elected to the Presidential chair of the Assembly in 1925.
President Patel had had a remarkable public career. An
advocate by profession, he had made politics his first love.
Through thick and thin, he had been with the Congress for a
long period and at times he had been the General Secretary of
the All-India Congress Committee. In that capacity he had
been a member of the Congress deputation which visited
England before the Reforms of 1919. He was a close student
of Constitutional Law and an expert in parliamentary pro-
cedure and especially in obstructive tactics. People used to
say of him: 'Give Vithalbhai the most perfect constitution
in the world and he will tear it to pieces.' So great was his
success as a President, that in 1927 he was re-elected un-
opposed, following the procedure in the British House of
Commons. Without causing undue annoyance to the Govern-
ment, he was able to conduct the affairs of the Assembly in a
manner which would do credit to any popular President.
In 1929 when a bomb was thrown in the Assembly, the
Government wanted to use the opportunity for taking over
the entire control of the guards in the Assembly premises
and it was a tough fight that the President had to wage in
order to thwart the Government. He had also to fight hard in
order to bring under his control the Secretariat of the
Assembly, that was formerly under the Government of India.
But in all these fights he conducted himself with such tact
and adhered so scrupulously to Constitutional procedure,
that he was able to win the respect of the Viceroy, Lord Irwin.
Mr. Vithalbhai Patel persuaded the Viceroy that he should
personally meet the Congress leaders, Mahatma Gandhi and
Pandit Motilal Nehru, and attempt an understanding with
them. To this the Viceroy agreed and the interview took
place in December. But before that, he had to prepare the
ground by arranging for a gesture to be made on behalf of
the leaders as a reply. Thus there met at Delhi in November
the conference of leaders of all parties. The Conference by
an overwhelming majority decided to issue a manifesto.

SIGNS OF COMING UPHEAVAL 197
appreciating the sincerity underlying the Viceroy's pro-
nouncement and tendering co-operation to His Majesty's
Government in their effort to evolve a Dominion Constitution
'for India. The signatories further hoped that the Round
Table Conference proposed 'not to discuss when Dominion
Status is to be established but to frame a scheme of Dominion
Constitution for India.' They also urged that the Round
Table Conference should be preceded by a general amnesty.
The manifesto was signed by Mahatma Gandhi, Messrs.
Nehru (father and son), Pandit M. M. Malaviya, Dr. Ansari,
Dr. Moonje, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, the Right Hon. V. S.
Sastri, Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, Mrs. Besant, Mrs. Naidu and
others. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru did not at first agree with
the other leaders and intended issuing a contrary manifesto
together with the writer. But towards the end of the meeting,
Mahatma Gandhi prevailed upon him to sign the leaders'
manifesto on the ground that he was the President-elect of
the Lahore Congress, and the manifesto would lose much of
its value if his signature did not appear on it. Thereafter
Dr. S. Kitchlew (Lahore), Mr. Abdul Bari (Patna) and the
writer issued a separate manifesto opposing the acceptance
of Dominion Status and also the idea of participating in the
so-called Round Table Conference. The manifesto pointed
out that in a real Round Table Conference only the belligerent
parties should be represented and the Indian representatives
should be selected not by the British Government as had
been intended, but by the Indian people. It also warned the
Indian people that the Viceroy's pronouncement was a trap
laid by the British Government. It was reminiscent of a
similar move made by the British Government some years
ago in the case of Ireland when the Prime Minister, Mr.
Lloyd George, suggested that an Irish Convention consist-
ing of all parties should be held for framing a Constitution
for Ireland—but the Sinn Fein Party were clever enough to.
see through the game and boycott the convention. The
leaders' manifesto drew public attention and a large measure
of public support as well. The contrary manifesto, however,
was welcomed only by Left-Wing Congressmen and by the
youth in general.

198 'THE INDIAN STRUGGLE
The same month—in November—the annual meeting of
the Bengal Congress Committee was held for electing office-
bearers, etc. At that meeting it was found that two groups
had formed within the Committee, one following the leader-
ship of the late Mr. Sengupta and the other of the writer.
There was a keen contest and the latter party ultimately won
by a narrow margin. This was the beginning of the Bengal
dispute and the split in the Congress Committee led to a
split among the youths and students as well. The breach
had begun at the time of the Calcutta Congress when the late
Mr. Sengupta supported the Mahatma and wanted the writer
to do so. Since then a separate party had grown up in Bengal
under the leadership of the late Mr. Sengupta which stood for
unquestioning obedience to the Mahatma and his policy.
The majority party in Bengal did not bind itself to the
Mahatma in that way and in its outlook and programme, it
was allied with the Left-Wing opposition to the Mahatma in
the Congress.
The Congress leaders, Mahatma Gandhi and Pandit Motilal
Nehru were to meet the Viceroy in December. On the eve of
that interview an unfortunate event took place. There was
an attempt to wreck the Viceroy's train, but fortunately
nothing serious happened and Lord Irwin had a providential
escape. The longed-for interview took place but it proved
abortive. The Congress leaders wanted an assurance from
the British Government, or at least from the Viceroy, that
Dominion Status would be granted to India, but that assurance
was not forthcoming. They had therefore to leave the
Viceroy disappointed and come to the Lahore Congress with
empty hands.¹ The general atmosphere in the country was
in favour of an extremist policy. Throughout the year there
had been unrest. In Punjab, following the arrest of Sardar
Bhagat Singh and his comrades, the Naujawan Bharat Sabha
had done a lot of propaganda on their behalf. The self-
immolation of Jatin Das had further electrified the atmosphere.
¹ It is generally believed that neither the British Government nor
Lord Irwin could give any assurance to Mahatma Gandhi because of the
opposition raised in England by Mr. Churchill, Lord Birkenhead, Lord
Reading and others, soon after the Viceregal pronouncement of October
31st, 1929.

SIGNS OF COMING UPHEAVAL 199
On the other hand, the leaders who had cried halt at the
Calcutta Congress had not been able to achieve anything.
The Mahatma had further compromised himself by making
statements to the effect that if there was no response from the
Government by December 31st, 1929, he would be an
'independencewallah' on January 1st, 1930. His orthodox
followers like himself, had all along been advocates of
Dominion Home Rule and they did not like to depart from
that attitude. But the Mahatma felt that in the atmosphere
then prevailing in the country, a resolution on independence
would be carried in spite of his opposition and it was therefore
much better for him to move it.
The Congress met under the Presidentship of Pandit
J. L. Nehru at Lahore. As had been anticipated, the President
was a figurehead and the entire proceedings were dominated
by Mahatma Gandhi, who by advocating independence, was
able to win over some of the Left-Wing elements as well.
The Madras Congress in 1927, though it passed a resolution
on independence, had not altered the goal as defined in the
Congress Constitution, and this was done at Lahore. There
was considerable excitement over a clause in the resolution
moved by the Mahatma, which congratulated the Viceroy on
his providential escape when his train was bombed. The
feeling in the Congress was that that clause was uncalled for
in a political resolution, but the Mahatma insisted on retaining
it, probably because he wanted to placate Lord Irwin and
prepare the ground for a rapprochement in future. Be that
as it may, the Mahatma made it a question of confidence and
by a narrow margin, he won. Next came the question of the
plan of campaign for the coming year. Here the Mahatma
was quite unprepared. A resolution was passed by the
Congress calling upon Congressmen to resign their seats in
the Legislatures and thereby the victory of the Swarajists in
1923 was avenged in 1929. As for the positive part of his
plan, the Working Committee adopted a resolution, at the
instance of the Mahatma, recommending that autonomous
boards, like the All-India Spinners' Association, should be
organised for carrying on propaganda for the removal of
untouchability, for the promotion of temperance and sup-