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

22 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE
tation of Mohammedan leaders led by the Aga Khan waited
on the Viceroy on October 1st, 1906. In connection with the
impending reforms they demanded that the Mohammedan
community should have a certain number of seats reserved
for them and that these seats should be voted for, not by the
general body of Indian voters, but only by Mohammedan
voters. This demand by the Mohammedan leaders of what
is known in India as 'separate electorate' was granted in the
Indian Councils Act of 1909. This Act provided for enlarged
legislative councils both in the provinces as well as at the
centre. Additional powers were given to the members in the
matter of putting supplementary questions, moving resolu-
tions, discussing the budget, etc. The method of election was
however indirect and the Act was therefore regarded by many
Indians¹ as a retrograde measure in some respects, as compared
with the Indian Councils Act of 1892. The constituencies
were very small, the largest of them having only 650 voters.
After the introduction of the Morley-Minto Reforms, an
Indian was for the first time appointed as member of the
Viceroy's Executive Council and Sir (later Lord) S. P. Sinha
was the first recipient of this honour. This was followed by
the visit to India of King George V who was crowned at
Delhi as Emperor—following the ancient Indian precedent.
It was the Viceroy, Lord Hardinge, who was largely respon-
sible for this arrangement, as also for the transfer of the Capital
of India from Calcutta to Delhi. Lord Hardinge had a
wonderful historic sense and he thought that by these
measures British rule would be more firmly installed in India.
Others, like Lord Curzon, the former Viceroy, were opposed
to these innovations and they felt on the contrary that Delhi
had been the grave of many empires. However, the visit of
the King-Emperor in December 1911, and the annulment of
the partition helped to assuage public feelings and anti-
Government agitation subsided to a large extent. Within the
Indian National Congress a split had occurred in 1907 leading
to the expulsion of the 'Nationalists' (or 'Extremists') from
that body. Moreover, many of the leaders of the Congress
¹ This seems to be the view expressed by Sir Surendranath Bannerji
in his book A Nation in Making, pp. 123-25.

INTRODUCTION 23
Left Wing disappeared from the political arena for the time
being—through imprisonment, as in the case of Lokamanya
B. G. Tilak of Poona, or voluntary exile, as in the case of Sri
Aurobindo Ghosh of Bengal. Things were therefore quiet
till the Great War broke out, when the revolutionary party
which had been born during the first decade of this century
became very active. During the Great War, public opinion
in India demanded an announcement from the British
Government regarding the policy of British rule in India.
This demand was made all the more because Britain gave
out that she was fighting for the freedom of small nations
and of suppressed nationalities. To placate Indian opinion
an announcement was made on August 20th, 1917, by Mr.
E. S. Montagu, Secretary of State for India, that the policy
of His Majesty's Government was that of 'the increasing
association of Indians in every branch of the administration
and the gradual development of self-governing institutions
with a view to the progressive realisation of responsible
government in India as an integral part of the British Empire.'
In order to follow up this announcement, Mr. Montagu
visited India and a joint report was made by the Secretary of
State for India and the then Viceroy, Lord Chelmsford, on
the question of the Indian constitutional reforms. The
reforms proposed in the Montagu-Chelmsford report, were
embodied in the Government of India Act, 1919. The most
important innovation made in this Act was the system of
government, called dyarchy. In the provinces the govern-
ment was to be composed of two sections, called 'transferred'
and 'reserved.' The transferred departments like Education,
Agriculture, Excise and Local Self-Government were to be
administered by ministers who must be elected members of
the Legislative Council and who would be removable by a
vote of that council. The reserved departments like Police,
Justice and Finance were to be administered by members of
the Governor's Executive Council, who would be appointed
by His Majesty's Government and who would be independent
of the vote of the Legislative Council. The Governor's
Cabinet was thus to be composed of ministers administering
'transferred' departments and of members of the Executive

24 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE
Council, administering 'reserved' departments. In the
Central Government there was to be no dyarchy. All the
departments would be administered by members of the
Executive Council of the. Governor-General, who would be
appointed by His Majesty's Government and who would be
independent of the vote of the Central Legislatures—the
Lower House, called the Indian Legislative Assembly and
the Upper House, called the Council of State. The Central
Legislatures were to be composed only of representatives
from British India and the Indian States ruled by Indian
Princes were to be independent of the Central Government
with regard to their internal administration, subject to the
provisions of the treaties made between them and the British
Government. The inadequacy of these reforms, the atrocities
committed by the armed forces of the Crown in the Punjab
in 1919 and the attempt of the Allied Powers to dismember
Turkey—set in motion a powerful movement in India in
1920 under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi. But in spite
of the unprecedented awakening in the country no further
political advance was made by the British Government. The
Government of India Act, 1919, contained a provision for the
appointment of a Royal Commission, ten years later, that is
in 1929, with the object of determining what further advance,
if any, should be made in the direction of self-government.
In accordance with this provision a Royal Commission was
appointed in 1927 under the chairmanship of Sir John Simon.
The Commission reported in 1930. Thereafter a Round
Table Conference of British and Indian representatives,
nominated by the British Government, was convened for
threshing out the details of the New Constitution. After three
sessions of the Round Table Conference, the Government
came forward with their own proposals regarding the new
Constitution. These proposals were published in March,
1933, in a White Paper. The White Paper was duly placed
for consideration before a Joint Committee of both Houses
of the British Parliament.¹
¹ The Report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee has been published
on November 22nd, 1934. Even the meagre proposals of the White
Paper have been further whittled down by the Joint Committee.

§ III. THE NEW AWAKENING IN INDIA
In considering the political conquest of India by such a small
country as England the first point that strikes one is as to
how such a feat could be at all possible. But if one knew the
Indian temperament and Indian traditions, it would not be
difficult to understand. The Indian people had never any
feeling against the foreigner. This mentality had been
developed partly through the philosophical outlook of the
people as a whole and partly through the largeness of the
country which made it possible to welcome as many people
as could come into the country. In the past, India had been
invaded by new tribes and peoples over and over again. But
though they came as foreigners they soon settled down and
made India their home. The feeling of strangeness dis-
appeared and the foreigners became a part of the body-
politic. On the whole, there was no intercommunal friction
for any length of time after foreigners came in. An under-
standing would be soon effected and the foreigners would
become members of the great Indian family.
Thus it was that when the European races—Portuguese,
Dutch, French and English—first arrived in India they did
not excite any suspicion or hostility or animosity. It was not a
new phenomenon in the history of India—at least so the
people thought. The fact that the majority of the foreigners
were either peaceful missionaries or traders further served to
disarm opposition. They were given facilities and even
allowed to acquire territory for carrying on their peaceful
avocation. Even when the foreigners took part in any political
strife, they were always careful to side with a section of the
people so that they would never get the entire people against
them. In this respect the diplomacy of the British was by
far the best. The question crops up here as to why a sec-
tion of the Indian people sought the help of the foreigners
in their own internal disputes. The reply to that has been
given already above. As contrasted with India, neighbouring
countries like Afghanistan, Tibet and Nepal, have still

26 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE
remained comparatively independent, because people in these
countries have been always suspicious of and hostile towards
foreigners. Besides their diplomacy there was one other
factor which accounted for the success of the Europeans.
That was their superior military skill. Unfortunately for
India, though up to the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries
she kept abreast of the modern world in her knowledge of the
science and art of warfare, during the eighteenth and nine-
teenth centuries she was no longer up to date. Her geogra-
phical position had kept her isolated from modern Europe.
The wars of the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries in Europe had effected a considerable improvement
in the science and art of fighting and this knowledge was at
the disposal of the European races, when they went over to
the East. The first physical conflict between Indians and
Europeans showed that the former were at a disadvantage
in the matter of military skill. It is significant that before
the British conquest of India, the Indian rulers had Europeans
in their service in the army as well as in the navy and many of
them occupied high positions.
The first important success of the British in India happened
in Bengal. The ruler was a young man, Sirajudowla, who
was still in his twenties. Nevertheless, it must be said to his
credit that he was the only man in the province who realised
what a great menace the British were and he was determined
to try his level best to throw them out of the country. If
only he had had as much diplomacy as he had patriotism, he
might have been able to alter the course of Indian history.
In order to overthrow him, the English won over to their
side the influential Mir Jaffar, by giving him a promise of
the throne, and their combined forces were more than a
match for Sirajudowla. It did not however take Mir Jaffar
long to realise that he had been used as a tool by the British
and that what they were really aiming at was political mastery
for themselves. Sirajudowla was overthrown in 1757 but many
decades were to pass before they could extend their supremacy
to different parts of the country. In the meantime the rest of
India, which was still independent, hardly realised the danger
of British conquest. Being practically the first portion of

INTRODUCTION 27
India to come under British rule—the consolidation of
British power naturally began first in Bengal. The over-
throw of the old regime was naturally followed by a period
of disorder and it took the British several years to put things
in order. By the end of the eighteenth century, order had
been established and the government then had to face the
question of building up their administration on a sound and
permanent basis. In order to administer a big country the
Government had naturally to educate on their own lines a
new class of people who would be able to work as their agents.
The British commercial houses also wanted Indians educated
and trained on British lines. In the meantime British mis-
sionaries had been active in trying to impart their culture and
their religion to the Indian people. Out of these different
sources there arose a consciousness on the part of the Britisher
of a cultural or civilising mission in India. It was this which
produced the first revolt among the Indians. As long as the
Britishers were merely trading, no one thought of them
since they were petty traders. As long as they were merely
ruling, people did not care, for Indians had in the past
gone through many political vicissitudes and a change in
government had never meant a change in their daily life—
because no government in the past had interfered with local
self-government. Out of the consciousness of a civilising
mission there came the attempt on the part of Britain to
‘anglicise’ every sphere of the life of the Indian people.
The missionaries became very active in propagating their
religion and educational institutions on the British model
were founded by them, as well as by the state, in different
parts of Bengal. The entire educational system was built up
on the British model and English was made the medium of
instruction, not only in the university but also in the secondary
schools. In art and architecture also, British models were
imposed on the country. In fact in inaugurating the new
educational system, the Government deliberately stated that
their object was to train up a nation who would be English
in everything, except in race. In the new schools, students
began to think, to talk, to dress and to eat as Englishmen
would. The new generation turned out by these schools was

28 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE
quite different from the old. They were no longer Indians
in their equipment but English.
Faced with the menace of being swallowed up by a new
religion and a new culture, the soul of the people revolted.
The first visible embodiment of this revolt was Raja Ram
Mohon Roy and the movement of which he was the father
was the Brahmo Samaj movement. Ram Mohon Roy stood
out as the apostle of a religious revival. He urged a return to
the original principles of Vedantism and for a total rejection
of all the religions and social impurities that had crept into
Hinduism in later times. He also advocated an all-round
regeneration of the social and national life and the acceptance
of all that is useful and beneficial in the modern life of Europe.
Raja Ram Mohon Roy therefore stands out against the dawn
of the new awakening in India as the prophet of the new age.
The Raja was succeeded by Devendranath Tagore, father of
the poet, Rabindranath Tagore, as the head of the Brahmo
Samaj. In appreciation of the pure life that he lived, which
reminded one of the Rishis or saints of old, Devendranath
Tagore was given the title of Maharshi (a great saint) by the
people. His successor was Keshav Chandra Sen, one of the
most prominent Indian personalities in the latter half of the
nineteenth century. During the earlier portion of his life,
Keshav Chandra Sen seemed to be inspired more by the
sayings and teachings of Christ and in his public life he laid
great emphasis on social reform. So vigorous was his per-
sonality and so enthusiastic was he in giving effect to his
ideas that a split took place in the Brahmo Samaj. The older
generation who were less radical, called themselves the Adi
or original Brahmo Samaj. Among the rest of the members
a further split took place. The followers of Keshav Chandra
Sen called themselves the Naba Bidhan, or the New Dis-
pensation, while the rest called themselves the Sadharan (or
general body) Brahmo Samaj. All branches of the Brahmo
Samaj had however some principles in common. They all
took their stand on the original doctrines of the Vedanta
philosophy. They all condemned the use of images in religious
worship and they all advocated the abolition of caste in society.
The Brahmo Samaj movement spread all over India and in

INTRODUCTION 29'
some places it was known by a different name—for instance,
in Bombay Presidency it was known as the Prarthana Samaj.
The Brahmo Samaj had considerable influence on the new
generation of English-educated Indians and even those who
did not become converts to the Brahmo Samaj accepted the
spirit of reform and progress for which it stood. But the
ultra-modern, ideas of the Samaj caused a revulsion of
feeling among the old-fashioned Pandits, who attempted to.
justify all that there was in Hindu religion and in Hindu
society. But this reactionary movement could not make any
appeal to the new generation of youths. About this time, in
the eighties of the last century, two prominent religious
personalities appeared before the public who were destined
to have a great influence on the future course of the new
awakening. They were Ramkrishna Paramahansa, the saint,
and his disciple Swami Vivekananada. Ramkrishna, the
master, was brought up in the orthodox Hindu fashion, but
his disciple was a young man educated at the university
who was an agnostic before he met the former. Ramkrishna
preached the gospel of the unity of all religions and urged
the cessation of inter-religious strife. He emphasised the
necessity of renunciation, celibacy and asceticism in order to
live a truly spiritual life. As against the Brāhmo Samaj, he
advocated the necessity of symbolism in religious worship
and condemned the ultra-modern imitative tendency of the
Samaj. Before he died, he charged his disciple with the task
of propagating his religious teachings in India and abroad
and of bringing about an awakening among his countrymen.
Swami Vivekananda therefore founded the Ramkrishna
Mission, an order of monks, to live and preach the Hindu
religion in its purest form in India and abroad, especially in
America and he took an active part in inspiring every form
of healthy national activity. With him religion was the
inspirer of nationalism. He tried to infuse into the new
generation a sense of pride in India's past, of faith in India's
future and a spirit of self-confidence and self-respect. Though
the Swami never gave any political message, everyone who
came into contact with him or his writings developed a spirit
of patriotism and a political mentality. So far at least as

30 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE
Bengal is concerned, Swami Vivekananda may be regarded as
the spiritual father of the modern nationalist movement. He
died very young in 1902, but since his death his influence has
been even greater. About the time that Ramkrishna Parama-
hansa flourished in Bengal, another prominent religious
personality flourished in North-Western India. He was
Swami Dayananda Saraswati, the founder of the Arya Samaj.
The Arya Samaj movement had the largest following in the
Punjab and the United Provinces. Like the Brahmo Samaj
it advocated a return to the early Hindu scriptures and it
condemned all latter-day accretions and impurities. Like
the Brahmo Samaj it also advocated the abolition of the
caste-system which did not exist in the oldest times. In
short, according to Swami Dayananda Saraswati, people were
to go back to the pure Arya religion and live the life of the
Aryas of old. His characteristic slogan was: 'Back to the
Vedas.' Both the Brahmo Samaj and the Arya Samaj
attempted proselytisation but the Ramkrishna Mission never
made any such attempt, for Ramkrishna was against 'the
creation of a new sect. But while the Brahmo Samaj was
influenced to some extent,by Western culture and Christianity,
the Arya Samaj derived all its inspiration from indigenous
sources. None of the three societies had any political mission,
nevertheless, whoever came under their influence rapidly
developed a sense of self-respect and a spirit of patriotism.
The Brahmo Samaj was founded in 1828. By that time
British rule in India had spread through a large portion of
the country and people had begun to realise slowly that the
new invaders were different from the old. They had come
not merely to make money or to preach religion, but to con-
quer and to rule—and unlike the invaders of old they were
not going to make India their home but were going to rule
as foreigners. The realisation of this national menace quickly
roused the masses to a sense of the danger that threatened
them. Thus occurred the revolution of 1857. It was by no
means merely a revolt of the troops—a sepoy mutiny—as
English historians are wont to say—but a real national
revolution. It was a revolution in which both Hindus and
Mohammedans joined and they all fought under the flag of

INTRODUCTION 31
a Mohammedan. At that moment it looked as if the English
would be thrown out of the country. But through sheer
luck they won by the skin of their teeth. The failure of the
revolution was due among other causes to lack of support
from some quarters, viz., the Sikhs of the Punjab and to
hostility on the part of the Gurkhas of Nepal. When the
revolution was crushed, a reign of terror followed and the
country was disarmed from end to end. The reaction lasted
for a long time and no one dared to raise his head during that
period. By the eighties of the last century a change set in.
People began to recover their courage and armed with the
knowledge of the modern world, they began to devise new
means of coping with the foreigners. Thus in 1885 was born
the Indian National Congress, the object of which was not to
organise another revolution but to fight for Home Rule along
constitutional lines.
The renaissance in Western India, unlike that in Northern
India, appeared more in the form of a movement for educa-
tional and social reform than as a religious movement. The
father of this awakening was Justice M. G. Ranade who,
later on, found a worthy disciple in Mr. G. K. Gokhale.
In 1884, Mr. B. G. Tilak, Mr. G. G. Agarkar and Mr. V.
S. Apte founded the Deccan Education Society. Soon
after, Mr. Gokhale joined the Society. Later on there
arose differences between Lokamanya Tilak and Mr. Gokhale.
The former was not interested in social reform like the latter
and he belonged to the 'extremist' school of politics, while
the latter was one of the outstanding 'moderate' leaders. In
1905, Mr. Gokhale founded the Servants of India Society,
the object of which was to train 'national missionaries for the
service of India and to promote by all constitutional means
the true interests of the India people.' Among the different
measures adopted by Lokamanya Tilak to rouse the people
was the revival of the Ganapati festival—which was a religious
festival given a national interpretation by him—and the
Shivaji festival held every year on the birthday anniversary
of Shivaji, the great hero of Maharashtra.
In South India the Theosophical Society founded at
Adyar near Madras in 1886 by Madame Blavatsky and Col.

32 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE
Olcott, played an important rôle in social and public life.
Mrs. Besant joined the society in India in 1893 and became
the President in 1907, which office she continued to hold till
her death in 1933. Mrs. Besant became the great champion
of Hinduism against all attacks. Even the errors and abuses
of Hinduism she would explain away, rather than attack.
Thereby she helped to bring back into the hearts of the people
faith in their own culture and civilisation which had been
badly shaken as a result of the impact of the West. The large
following which she managed to gather round herself through
her religious and educational work, was of great value and
strength to her when in 1916-17 she took an active part in
politics and carried on a raging and tearing campaign for
demanding Home Rule for India.
By the beginning of the present century, the foreign
government was able to strike its roots deeper into the soil of
India. The political administration was no longer a centralised
government with autonomy in the branches as in former
times. It was a highly-complicated system with its rami-
fications in every town and village of the country and with a
bureaucracy ruling with a firm hand under orders from the
centre. People began to feel for the first time in their history
what foreign rule really meant. The beginning of the twen-
tieth century found the Boers of South Africa fighting against
the British for their freedom, the newly-awakened Japanese
fighting the Russians for their existence and safety and the
Russian masses fighting the all-powerful Tsar for their
bread and their liberty. About this time the pride and the
haughtiness of the rulers reached its limit and signs of serious
political unrest appeared in Bengal and in order to nip it in
the bud, the then Viceroy, Lord Curzon, ordered the dis-
memberment of the province. This was the signal for a
country-wide revolt and people everywhere began to feel that
constitutional agitation was not enough. The partition of
Bengal was taken as a challenge by the people and as a reply,
for the first time in British Indian history, a movement was
launched for the boycott of British goods. The political
agitation gave a strong impetus to the growth of national art,
national literature and national industry. Simultaneously,

INTRODUCTION 33
institutions were started where national education could be
imparted and young men could be trained as scientists and
engineers for organising new industries. The Government
naturally did not like the new movement and steps were
taken to put it down. As a reply to official repression, young
men took to the bomb and revolver and the first explosion
took-place in 1907. This was the beginning of the revolu-
tionary movement of the twentieth century and in order to
suppress it, the Government issued a notification in 1909,
declaring as illegal many of the institutions for imparting
physical training to the youths in Bengal. Simultaneously
with the appearance of the revolutionary movement, there
was a split within the ranks of the Indian National Congress.
The Left-Wing leaders, Lokamanya Tilak of Poona and Sri
Aurobindo Ghosh and Mr. B. C. Pal of Bengal, wanted to
adopt the boycott of British goods as a part of the Congress
plan, and they were not content with the goal of self-govern-
ment within the British Empire. The Right-Wing leaders,
Sir Pherozhah Mehta of Bombay, Mr. G. K. Gokhale of
Poona and Mr. (later on Sir) Surendranath Bannerji of
Bengal, stood for a more moderate policy. Lala Lajpat Rai
of the Punjab occupied a middle position in this fight. An
open rupture took place in the Surat Congress in 1907 when
the Left Wing (also called 'Nationalists' or 'Extremists')
were defeated and the Congress organisation passed into the
hands of the Right Wing (also called 'Moderates' or
'Liberals'). Not long after this, Lokamanya Tilak was
sentenced to six years' imprisonment for sedition, Sri Auro-
bindo Ghosh was forced into exile, while Mr. B. C. Pal gave
up extremist politics. Driven out of the Congress, persecuted
by the Government and deprived of their leaders, the Left
Wingers (or the Extremists) had a bad time up to 1915 and
the Moderates were the masters of the show. The Morley-
Minto Reforms of 1909 which were welcomed by the
Moderates and condemned by the Extremists, served as a
temporary sop to the political agitators. With the outbreak
of the Great War and the return of Lokamanya Tilak from
imprisonment, there was a decided improvement in the
political situation from the Indian point of view. In 1916
C

34 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE
at the Lucknow session of the Indian National Congress, a
compromise was effected between the two wings of the
Congress and once again Extremists and Moderates
appeared on the same platform. A further compromise was
effected between the Congress and the All-India Moslem
League at Lucknow. The upshot of this rapprochement was
that the Congress and the Moslem League put forward the
same demand for self-government and agreed about the
representation to be given to Moslems in the legislatures
under the reformed constitution, on the basis of 'separate
electorate.' About this time a new factor appeared in Indian
politics in the person of Mr. M. K. Gandhi, who had returned
to India from South Africa in December 1914, after winning
laurels for himself in the passive-resistance movement against
the South African Government. After the Lucknow Congress,
an intensive campaign was started by Lokamanya Tilak, Mrs.
Annie Besant and Mr. M. A. Jinnah for demanding Home
Rule for India. Mrs. Besant was interned by the Government
in this connection in 1917, but was released some months
later, owing to the pressure of public agitation. The Extre-
mists wanted to make Mrs. Besant the President of the next
session of the Indian National Congress in Calcutta, but the
Moderates were opposed to it. At the eleventh hour an
agreement was reached and Mrs. Besant became President
with the support of both parties. That was however the last
Congress attended by the Moderates, for, the next year,
they broke away and formed a separate organisation of their
own, called the All-India Liberal Federation. In 1917, a
statement was made by the Secretary of State for India,
Mr. Montagu on the behalf of the British Government to the
effect that the progressive realisation of responsible govern-
ment was the goal of British rule in India. Soon after this
Mr. Montagu came to India and together with the Viceroy,
Lord Chelmsford, made a report on the coming reforms,
called the Montagu-Chelmsford report. This report was
considered by a special session of the Congress held at Bom-
bay, presided over by the late Mr. Hassan Imam, a dis-
tinguished advocate of Patna and ex-Judge of the High
Court and was rejected by the Congress as unacceptable.

INTRODUCTION 35
On the basis of the Montagu-Chelmsford report, a new
constitution was drawn up and passed by the British Govern-
ment, called the Government of India Act, 1919. This
constitution was regarded as inadequate and unsatisfactory
by nationalist opinion in India. While attempts were made
on the one hand to put India on the road to self-government,
the Government of India forged fresh fetters for the people.
A new Act was passed by the Government in the teeth of popu-
lar opposition, whereby people could be imprisoned without
trial on political grounds for an indefinite period. A country-
wide agitation was raised against this Act and it was led by
Mahatma Gandhi. In the attempt to suppress the agitation
in the Punjab, terrible massacres were committed by the
troops in Amritsar under General Dyer. The Amritsar
massacre caused an unparalleled indignation not only in
India but. also among all fair-minded people in England.
After the Amritsar incident, two enquiry committees were
appointed, one by the Congress and the other by the Govern-
ment. Both the committees strongly condemned the action
of the military, though the Congress Enquiry Committee
went much further in its condemnation. But the steps taken
by the Government to compensate the sufferers and to punish
the wrong-doers were extremely inadequate. The Amritsar
Congress in December 1919, had decided to work the new
constitution in spite of its unsatisfactory character, but when
the attitude of the Government towards the Amritsar massacre
was made known, there was a revulsion of popular feeling.
Meanwhile the attempt of the Allied Powers to dismember
Turkey, produced discontent and resentment among the
Indian Moslems who turned against the Government. In
defence of the Sultan of Turkey who was also the 'Khalifa'
or head of the Islamic Church, a movement was started by
the Indian Moslems under the name of the Khilafat move-
ment. At this stage an alliance was struck between the
Khilafat leaders and Mr. Gandhi, the Congress leader. In
September 1920, a special session of the Congress was held
in Calcutta to determine the attitude of the Congress towards
the reforms and particularly towards the elections to be held
that year under the new Constitution. At the instance of

36 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE
Mr. Gandhi, the Congress decided to adopt a policy of non-
co-operation towards the new constitution. Three factors
accounted for this decision—the atrocities in the Punjab, the
attitude of Great Britain towards Turkey, and the inadequacy
of the new constitutional reforms.
Lord Irwin, the ex-Viceroy of India, holds the view that
every great step in England and in the Dominions towards
the development of responsible government has been accom-
panied at a greater or lesser interval by a corresponding
advance in India. As examples he has mentioned that the
Charter Act of 1833, the Indian Councils Act of 1861, the
Indian Councils Act of 1892 and the Indian Councils Act of
1909, have followed popular movements in England or in
other parts of the British Empire. There is considerable
force in what Lord Irwin says. But one should go further
and say that the Indian movement is organically connected
with the world movement for liberty. In India, as elsewhere,
the beginning of the nineteenth century was an important
landmark. The revolution of 1857 followed in the wake of
world revolution of 1848. The birth of the Indian National
Congress took place at a time, when there was a similar
upheaval in other parts of the world. The movement of
1905 closely followed the Boer War in South Africa and was
contemporaneous with the Russian revolution of 1905. The
attempted revolution during the Great War was a phenomenon
visible all over the world, at about the same time. Last but
not least, the movement of 1920-21 was contemporaneous
with the Sinn Fein Revolution in Ireland, with the fight of
the Turks for their independence, and it closely followed
revolutions which brought freedom to countries like Poland
and Czechoslovakia. There is no doubt therefore, that the
awakening in India is organically connected with the upheaval
all over the world during the last and the present century.

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

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

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

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

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