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

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

42 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE
in 1920 and Mr. N. M. Joshi was one of the founders of that
organisation. Since then the Trade Union Congress has had
a stormy career. In 1929 at the Nagpur session, presided
over by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, a split took place, the
Right Wing represented by Mr. N. M. Joshi, Mr. V. V. Giri,
Mr. Shiva Rao, Mr. R. R. Bakhale, and others, breaking
away from the Congress and starting another body called the
Trade Union Federation. The Trade Union Federation
now works hand in hand with the British Trades Union
Congress and is affiliated to the International Federation of
Trade Unions of Amsterdam. The politics of this body is
closely allied to the politics of the Liberal Party. In 1931, at
the Calcutta session of the Trade Union Congress, presided
over by the writer, a further split took place, as a result of
which the extreme section broke away and started the Red
Trade Union Congress. This section is alleged to work
under the inspiration of the Communist International, but
their organisation has not exhibited much activity ever
since its birth. The present Trade Union Congress, to
which the writer belongs, holds a middle position between
the Trade Union Federation and the Red Trade Union
Congress. In other words, it is definitely socialist but is
opposed to the policy and tactics of the Third International.
But neither is it affiliated to the Second International at
Zurich or to the International Federation of Trade Unions at
Amsterdam. Unlike the Trade Union Federation, the Trade
Union Congress has no faith whatsoever in the British
Trades Union Congress and in Indian politics, the Trade
Union Congress has more in common with the Indian
National Congress than with the Liberal Federation. The
President of the Congress now is Pandit Harihar Nath Sastri
of Cawnpore and the Secretary is Mr. Shib Nath Bannerji
of Calcutta. It is interesting to speculate what part Mr. M.
N. Roy, formerly of the Communist International, will play
in future in the worker's movement in India and also in the
political movement. Though he is still regarded as a com-
munist by many, in view of his past activities, associations
and writings—the Communists themselves call him a counter-
revolutionary. He is now serving a term of six years' impris-

INTRODUCTION 43
onment in India for his former activities, but meanwhile
his followers in the worker's organisations in Bombay are
working in the Trade Union Congress and in opposition to
the Red Trade Union Congress, which is alleged by many
to be a Communist body. Since Mr. M. N. Roy severed his
connection with the Communist International, a split has
taken place among those workers' leaders who were formerly
alleged to be Communists. The group headed by Mr.
Dange of Bombay, have declared for Mr. M. N. Roy, while
the other group denounce him as a counter-revolutionary.
Since 1920, a peasants' awakening has taken place all over
India and the Indian National Congress has been indirectly
responsible for its birth. But up till now no All-India organi-
sation has been formed. The peasants' movement is very
strong in the United Provinces and has been organised there
in the name of the Kishan (Peasant) League. The Left
Wing Congressmen of the province are intimately connected
with the peasants' movement and their general outlook is
radical. In Gujerat, too, where Mahatma Gandhi's influence
is greatest, there is a strong peasants' movement—but this
movement is entirely under Congress influence and the right-
hand man of the Mahatma, Sardar Patel, is the leader of the
peasants. The peasants' movement in Gujerat has not so far
been developed on a class-conscious basis, but a radical turn
in the movement is bound to come before long. In Punjab
the Kirti (Workers) Kishan (Peasant) Party is influential and
some elements in the party seem to be under the influence
of communistic ideas. The party would have made more
rapid progress if it had a prominent personality at its head.
In Bengal, the peasants' movement has made much progress
and has been organised under the name of Krishak (Peasant)
Samities (Societies)—but it has been handicapped by want
of sufficient honest and able leaders. So far, the political
movement in Bengal has drawn the best and ablest workers,
but in view of the new alignment that is going to take place
in Indian politics before long, it is not likely that there will
be a dearth of workers in the peasants' movement in future.
In Central India, too, the peasants' movement is fairly strong
but in South India—in the Madras Presidency—it is rather

44 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE
backward. Only in some parts of the northern portion of
Madras Presidency, called Andhra, is the movement strong.
There is an independent movement among the students
and also among the youth in India. From time to time, all
India Congresses of students and of youths are held—but
there is no permanent All-India Committee to co-ordinate
these activities. These two movements are generally conducted
on a provincial basis. In Bengal, of all the provinces, the
students' movement is the strongest. The last 'All-India
Congress of Students was held at Lahore in December 1929.
The youth movement is organised in different provinces under
different names. In Bengal the name 'Yuba Samity' or
'Tarun Sangha' is popular. In Punjab and the United
Provinces, the name 'Naujawan Bharat Sabha' is more in.
vogue. The first Congress of Youths was held in Calcutta
in December 1928, and was presided over by Mr. Nariman,
the Congress leader of Bombay. The second and the last
Congress was held in Karachi in March 1931, and was
presided over by the writer. The students' and youth organi-
sations work in close co-operation with the Indian National
Congress, though they have a more radical outlook and
programme.
Last but not least, the women's movement is an important
factor in the public life of India to-day. This movement has
advanced by rapid strides during the last fourteen years.
One of the miracles for which the Mahatma is responsible
to a very large extent, is this awakening. This movement
has been intimately connected with the Indian National
Congress, nevertheless, independent women's committees have
come into existence all over the country. The movement is,
generally speaking, organised on a provincial basis and in
many provinces—as in Bengal—provincial Congresses are
held from time to time. In all the Congress Committees in
India, women now have an honoured place and in the Supreme
Executive of the Congress—the Working Committee—there
is at least one woman representative. Two of the recent
annual sessions of the Indian National Congress have been
presided over by women—by Mrs. Besant in 1917 and Mrs.
Sarojini Naidu, the poetess, in 1925.

INTRODUCTION 45
Besides the political organisations of women referred to
above, there are other organisations working solely with
social and educational aims. These organisations are con-
ducted on an All-India basis and All-India Conferences are
held from time to time. Among these organisations is the
All-India Women's Conference which held its last session in
Calcutta towards the end of 1933.
To sum up, the most important organisation in India to-day
is the Indian National Congress. It stands for the whole
country and for all communities. It strives for political
freedom for India—but it also aims for an all-round develop-
ment of national life and for the amelioration of all social
evils. With the exception of the communal parties all the
other organisations or parties in the country are on the whole
friendly towards the Congress, and work in close co-operation
with it. The undisputed leader of the Congress to-day is
Mahatma Gandhi—but within the Congress there is a
powerful radical Left Wing.¹ The Mahatma has so far
maintained a middle position on all such questions as capital
and labour, landlord and peasant, as well as the social question
of caste. The Left Wing, however, is working for a more
radical and uncompromising policy on social and economic
issues and it is not unlikely that before long the Congress
will adopt its views.
¹ The present writer belongs to this wing.

The provided image is completely blank and contains no text to transcribe.

THE INDIAN STRUGGLE
1920-1934

The provided image is completely blank and contains no text to transcribe.

CHAPTER I
THE CLOUDS GATHER (1920)
THE annual session of the Indian National Congress met at
Amritsar in the Punjab in December 1919, under the shadow
of the atrocities perpetrated there earlier in the year. In spite
of the opposition of Mr. C. R. Das, Mr. B. C. Pál and Mr.
B. Chakravarti, the Bengal leaders, a resolution was passed
in favour of working the New Constitution (called the
Government of India Act, 1919) and thanking the Secretary
of State for India, Mr. Montagu, who had played so im-
portant a part in launching it. Mr. Gandhi, who had been
largely responsible for the decision arrived at by the Amritsar
Congress, welcomed the Royal proclamation announcing the
assent to the Government of India Act, 1919, and in his
weekly paper, Young India, he wrote on December 31st,
1919: 'The reforms Act coupled with the Proclamation is an
earnest of the intention of the British people to do justice
to India and it ought to remove suspicion on that score. . . .
Our duty therefore is not to subject the Reforms to carping
criticism but to settle down quietly to work so as to make
them a success.'
But during the next nine months events moved with
dramatic suddenness. What actually happened can best be
described in the words of Mr. Gandhi himself. When he was
tried by a British Judge, Mr. Broomfield, in March 1922, for
writing seditious articles in his paper, Mr. Gandhi made a
remarkable statement in the course of which he explained
why after having co-operated with the British Government
all his life, he was ultimately forced to turn against it. Therein
he said: 'The first shock came in the shape of the Rowlatt
Act, a law designed to rob the people of all real freedom. I
felt called upon to lead an intensive agitation against it.
Then followed the Punjab horrors beginning with the massacre
at Jallianwalla Bagh (in Amritsar) and culminating in crawling
49 D

50 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE
orders, public floggings and other indescribable humiliations.
I discovered, too, that the plighted word of the Prime Minister
to the Mussalmans of India regarding the integrity of Turkey
and the holy places of Islam was not likely to be fulfilled.
But in spite of the foreboding and the grave warnings of
friends, at the Amritsar Congress in 1919, I fought for
co-operation and working the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms,
hoping the Prime Minister would redeem his promise to the
Indian Mussalmans, that the Punjab wound would be healed
and that the Reforms, inadequate and unsatisfactory though
they were, marked a new era of hope in the life of India.
But all that hope was shattered. The Khilafat promise was
not to be redeemed. The Punjab crime was whitewashed
and most culprits were not only unpunished but remained
in service and some continued to draw pensions from the
Indian revenue, and in some cases were even rewarded. I
saw, too, that not only did the reforms not mark a change of
heart, but they were only a method of further draining India
of her wealth and of prolonging her servitude.'
As already indicated in Section III of the Introduction on
'The New Awakening in India,' the new legislation, popularly
known as the Rowlatt Act,¹ was enacted on March 18th, 1919,
for conferring permanently on the Government of India
extraordinary powers for the arrest of individuals and their
imprisonment without trial, when the war-time emergency
ordinances lapsed. In February, 1919, Mr. Gandhi started
an agitation against the Rowlatt (or 'Black') Bill when it was
introduced in the Imperial Legislative Council.² In trying to
suppress this agitation in the Punjab, indescribable atrocities
were perpetrated by the forces of the Crown. At Jallianwalla
Bagh in Amritsar on April 13th, there was a massacre of
unarmed men, women and children who had gathered on the
occasion of a public meeting. This was followed by a reign
of terror under Martial Law, in the course of which many
people were publicly flogged, while others were forced to
crawl on their bellies when passing along certain streets.
¹ According to Sir Surendranath Bannerji, 'the Rowlatt Act was the
parent of the Non-co-operation movement.' (A Nation in Making, London,
1927, p. 300.)
² Now called the Indian Legislative Assembly.

THE CLOUDS GATHER 51
Two committees were appointed to inquire into these
incidents and submit a report—a non-official committee .
appointed by the Indian National Congress and an official
committee appointed by the Government of India, called
the Hunter Committee. The Congress Enquiry Committee
published unimpeachable evidence of the most brutal atro-
cities committed by the forces of the Crown, including
outrages on helpless women. The findings of the Hunter
Committee did not go as far as those of the Congress Enquiry
Committee, nevertheless, they were sufficiently damaging
for any government. After the publication of these two
reports the public naturally expected that in view of the
new era to be ushered in by the Constitutional Reforms, the
Government of India would take courage in both hands
and punish the wrong-doers, while granting adequate com-
pensation for all those who had been killed or injured or had
been otherwise made to suffer.
By the middle of 1920 it was clear, however, that the
Government of India did not propose to take any such
action.¹ The attitude and conduct of the Government appeared
to the public eye as tantamount to condoning all the inhuman
atrocities that had been perpetrated. This created a revulsion
of feeling all over the country, even in circles favourably
disposed towards the Government and the New Constitution.
There can be little doubt that if the Government of Lord
Chelmsford, the then Viceroy and Governor-General of
India, had in 1920, taken drastic action against the authors
of the Punjab atrocities, the confirmed 'Co-operator,'
Mr. Gandhi, would not have been forced to the path of
non-co-operation, nor would the Indian National Congress
have set aside the resolution adopted at the Amritsar Session
in December, 1919. Thus, on the rock of Jallianwalla Bagh
¹ In the Imperial Legislative Council an Indemnity Act was passed in
order to protect all the officers who had taken part in the Punjab atrocities.
Besides the Lieutenant-Governor of the Punjab, Sir Michael O'Dwyer,
was untouched, and General Dyer, who was responsible for the Jallianwalla
Bagh massacre and for the administration of Martial Law, was merely
declared unfit for future service in India. Even the meagre action taken
by the Government was disapproved by the House of Lords and unpre-
cedented public subscriptions were raised in England for the authors of the
Punjab tragedy.

52 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE
was wrecked the ship of co-operation built by the Secretary
of State for India, Mr. Montagu, through his sympathetic
gestures and his elaborate intrigues during his visit to India
in 1917-18.
It is an open secret that while Mr. Montagu and Lord
Chelmsford were touring India with a view to preparing
their joint memorandum on the new constitutional reforms,
the former was engaged in rallying public support in favour
of working the New Constitution. Before he left India in
1918, Mr. Montagu succeeded in definitely winning over
the Moderate section in the Indian National Congress.
When the Indian National Congress met at a special session
in Bombay in 1918 to consider the Montagu-Chelmsford
Report, the Moderate Congressmen who were then being
led by Sir Surendranath Bannerji and Mr. Srinivasa Sastri,
absented themselves and soon after they seceded from
the Congress and formed a separate political party under
the name of the All-India Liberal Federation, pledged to
work the New Reforms. The Special Congress at Bombay
in 1918 pronounced the Montagu-Chelmsford Report as
unacceptable. Nevertheless, in December, 1919, the Amritsar
Congress resolved to work the constitution drafted on the
basis of that report and also thanked Mr. Montagu. Thus,
in spite of all the unfortunate events of 1919, Mr. Montagu
was able through his personal influence, to keep the Congress
back from the path of opposition. It was only the Government
of India's attitude towards the Punjab atrocities that proved
to be the proverbial last straw.
A British politician in 1934 will naturally inquire why
attempts were not made in 1920 to win over the Moslem
Community when it was apparent that the Indian National
Congress was heading towards an oppositionist policy. On
this point, Mr. Montagu was not inactive and he did his
level best to influence the British Cabinet, but the odds were
against him. During the Great War, Indian Mohammedans
had expressed their uneasiness as to what the policy of
Britain towards Turkey would be when the time came for
discussing peace-terms. To placate them the British Prime
Minister, Mr. Lloyd George, had made a conciliatory state-