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

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-

THE CLOUDS GATHER 53
ment on January 5th, 1918, in which he said, among other
things, that Great Britain would not pursue a vindictive
policy and had no intention of depriving the Turks of the
rich lands of Asia Minor and Thrace which were pre-
dominantly Turkish. At the end of the war, however, when
it was clear that the Allies were aiming at nothing less than
the complete dismemberment of Turkey, a deputation of
Indian Moslems was sent to Europe in March, 1920, to plead
the cause of the Turks. This deputation which was led by
Moulana Mohammed Ali, the younger of the Ali brothers,
failed to achieve anything in spite of the best efforts of Mr.
Montagu, the Secretary of State for India. By the middle
of 1920, Indian Moslems began to feel that in all probability
Turkey would cease to exist as an independent state—that the
head of the Islamic Church, the Khalifa, who was also the
Sultan of Turkey, would be deprived of his territories in
Europe and in Asia and that the Holy Places of Islam would
pass into non-Moslem hands. The realisation of this un-
avoidable calamity produced a blaze of resentment among
every section of the Moslem Community in India. But
however deep their resentment might be, they were not in a
position to take up arms against the victorious British
Government. Therefore all that they could think of doing
was to oppose the working of the New Constitution.
About the middle of 1920, anti-British feeling was stronger
among the Moslems than among the rest of the Indian
population. Mr. Montagu had been able to divide the
nationalist forces but he had failed to win over any section
of the 'Moslems, though he had left no stone unturned
in his efforts to placate them and had ultimately to resign
from the Cabinet for ventilating their grievances.¹ An
organisation was set up by the Moslems under the name of
the All-India Khilafat Committee with the object of restoring
¹ In 1922 the Government of India urged on the British Cabinet that
the Indian demand for the revision of the Treaty of Sèvres should be
made public. The chief items of that demand were—restoration of Asia
Minor and Thrace to the Turks; suzerainty of the Sultan over the Holy
Places and the evacuation of Constantinople by the Allied troops. Mr.
Montagu thought that he had been authorised by the Cabinet to give
publicity to the demand—but as the Cabinet disowned him, he had to
resign.

54 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE
to the 'Khalifa,' the head of the Islamic Church, the temporal
power which he had enjoyed as Sultan of Turkey before the
Great War. The leadership of this Khilafat movement was
assumed by the Ali brothers, Moulana Mohammed Ali, the
younger but more influential, and Moulana Shaukat Ali, the
elder. Both of them were Oxford graduates. Moulana
Mohammed Ali had been a journalist and Moulana Shaukat
Ali a highly-paid officer in the Excise Department of the
Government of India. During the war both of them had been
interned for carrying on propaganda against the British Gov-
ernment and in favour of the Turks. The agitation following
in the wake of their incarceration had made them prominent
in the public eye and when the Khilafat movement began, it
was natural that they should be invested with the crown of
leadership. Moreover, their dress and mode of life, shaped
according to orthodox Moslem ideas, made a strong appeal
to the Moslem masses and served to make them tremendously
popular.
The Punjab atrocities and their sequel made a rebel of the
once loyal Mr. Gandhi. He who had pleaded for co-operation
at Amritsar in December, 1919, and had succeeded in carrying
the Congress with him, was in 1920 collecting his forces for
leading a revolt against the British Government. Before he
returned to India in 1914, he had tried the method of passive
resistance in South Africa, in his fight for the rights of
Indians against the South African Government and had
found it extremely helpful. In February, 1919, before the
Rowlatt Bills-became law, he had started an agitation on the
same lines, called the 'Satyagraha'¹ movement, against the
Bills—but the agitation had proved to be abortive for the
time being, because of the outbreak of violence. He was,
however, fully prepared to use the same method once again in
¹ 'Satyagraha' means literally 'persistence in truth.' It has been trans-
lated variously as non-co-operation, passive resistance, civil-disobedience,
civil-resistance. The Satyagraha pledge was first taken at a public meeting
in Johannesburg in South Africa, on September 11th, 1906, against the
Asiatic Law Amendment Ordinance. According to Mr. Gandhi, Satyagraha
eschews the use of violence in every form and has not the remotest idea
of injuring the opponent. Mr. Gandhi states in his preface to Satyagraha
in South Africa that before 1919 he had occasion to experiment with
Satyagraha five times in India.

THE CLOUDS GATHER 55
organising a non-violent revolt against the British Govern-
ment. He had disciplined his body and mind for a life of
suffering. He had, moreover, brought with him a group of
loyal followers from South Africa and during his six years'
stay in India, had won many supporters for his cause. He
only wanted more allies in order to be able to capture the
leadership of the Indian National Congress. About this
time the Ali brothers and other Moslem leaders were pre-
paring to launch the Khilafat movement and they, too, were
looking out for allies. Nothing could please them more than
to find that the premier nationalist organisation of the country
would take up the cause of Turkey. So an alliance was at
once struck between Mr. Gandhi and the Ali brothers on the
basis of two issues, viz., the Punjab atrocities and the Khilafat
grievances. The Ali brothers and their followers while
keeping up a separate organisation—the All-India Khilafat
Committee—would join the Indian National Congress and
agitate for the redress of the Punjab and Khilafat wrongs and
for the attainment of political freedom, which was the only
guarantee against such wrongs in future. On the other
hand, the Indian National Congress would lend its full
support to the Khilafat organisations in the country and
agitate for the redress of the Khilafat or Turkish grievances.¹
The elections to the legislatures under the new Con-
stitution—called the Government of India Act, 1919—were
due in November, 1920. The Amritsar Congress had resolved
in December, 1919, to work this Constitution but in the
meantime public opinion had changed considerably. A
special session of the Congress was therefore summoned in
Calcutta in September, 1920, under the presidency of Lala
Lajpat Rai, the well-known Punjab leader. Mr. Gandhi was
fully aware that his new policy of opposition to the reformed
constitution would not be accepted by an influential section
in the Congress. He had, therefore, strengthened himself
¹ In November, 1919, a Khilafat Conference was held in Delhi composed
of both Hindus and Moslems under the guidance of Mr. Gandhi, to consider
what steps should be taken to help the cause of the Khalifa (who was also
the Sultan of Turkey). At this conference, Moulana Hasrat Mohani, an
influential Moslem, suggested the boycott of British goods while Mr.
Gandhi proposed non-co-operation with the Government. It was not till
1920, however, that the Khilafat Movement was actually launched.

56 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE
by an alliance with the Moslem leaders and the All-India
Khilafat Committee. In fact, he was so sure of his position
in the country that if the Congress had rejected his plan of
non-violent non-co-operation, he could have launched his
campaign with the support of the Khilafat organisations.
Matters did not, however, come to such a pass. Besides the
Moslem leaders, Mr. Gandhi had a powerful ally in Pandit
Motilal Nehru, the leading advocate of Allahabad and the
leader of the United Provinces. The opposition to Mr.
Gandhi's plan was sponsored by Mr. C. R. Das, the leading
advocate of Calcutta and the leader of Bengal and Pandit
Malaviya and Mrs. Besant, both ex-Presidents of the Con-
gress, who had influential support from many provinces.
Shortly before the Calcutta Congress, Lokamanya Tilak died.
He was the only possible rival of Mr. Gandhi and at the
time of his death, one could not say definitely what attitude
he would take up if he were to attend the Calcutta Congress.
At the Amritsar Congress he had taken up a middle position
between Mr. Gandhi's proposal of co-operation and Mr. B.
C. Pal, Mr. B. Chakravarti, and Mr. C. R. Das's proposal of
opposition. Lokamanya Tilak held that the proper attitude
should be one of responsive co-operation. In other words,
the Congress should accept and work what was useful and
beneficial in the New Constitution and reject what was use-
less or harmful. The closest followers of Lokamanya Tilak
have declared since his death that he adhered to this view
till the time of his death. Throughout his public career
Lokamanya Tilak had been the leader of the Left Wing of
the Indian National Congress called the Extremists or
Nationalists—as opposed to the Right Wing, called the
Moderates or Liberals. He was a man of profound erudition
and unbounded courage and sacrifice. His six years' incar-
ceration in a far-off Burma prison had brought him additional
lustre and popularity and if he had pitted himself against
Mr. Gandhi at the Calcutta Congress, the position of the
latter would have been a difficult one. With L. Tilak's
death, however, it was smooth sailing for Mr. Gandhi.
He moved the adoption of a policy of progressive non-

THE CLOUDS GATHER 57
ciation of titles bestowed by the Government and with the
triple boycott (namely, boycott of legislatures, law-courts and
educational institutions) and would end in non-payment of
taxes. This resolution was carried by a large majority,
1,855 votes out of 2,728 being in his favour.
The resolutions of the Special Congress at Calcutta came
up for consideration at the regular annual session held at
Nagpur in December, 1920, under the presidency of the
veteran Congress leader from Madras, Mr. Vijayaraghava-
chariar. Mr. Das and his followers mustered strong at
Nagpur hoping to cross swords with Mr. Gandhi once again.
But through the latter's tactful handling of the situation an
understanding was arrived at between him and Mr. Das.
The boycott of the legislatures, to which Mr. Das was chiefly
opposed, was no longer a live issue, as the elections had
already taken place. It was, therefore, possible to persuade
Mr. Das to come to an agreement. When this was done,
the non-co-operation resolution was ratified with practical
unanimity, though Pandit Malaviya, Mrs. Besant, Mr.
Jinnah and Mr. B. C. Pal remained irreconcilable.
Besides ratifying the resolution on progressive non-
co-operation, including the boycott of legislatures, law courts
and educational institutions, the Nagpur Congress took a
very important step in altering the Constitution of the Indian
National Congress. Hitherto, the goal of the Congress, as
defined in the Constitution, had been 'Self-Government
within the British Empire.' This had antagonised all those
Congressmen who believed in the severance of the British
connection or who refused to be tied down to the Empire.
To enable the Left-Wingers to return to the Congress fold,
the goal of the Congress was declared to be 'Swaraj' (which
means literally self-rule) and it was left to individual Con-
gressmen to define 'Swaraj' in their own way. Mr. Gandhi
however, defined 'Swaraj' to mean 'Self-Government within
the Empire, if possible—and outside, if necessary.'
Before the Nagpur Congress the machinery of the Congress
had been a loose one. There were branches only in the big
cities and throughout the year, no work was done according
to a systematic plan. At Nagpur, it was decided to re-organise

58 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE
the Congress on a country-wide basis. The smallest unit
would be the Village Congress Committee. Several such
Committees would combine to form a Union Congress Com-
mittee. Then there would be formed in succession—sub-
divisional (also called Taluka or Tahsil), district, provincial
and All-India Congress Committees. The All-India Congress
Committee would be a body of about 350 members consisting
of representatives from the different provinces. This
Committee would elect a Working Committee of 15 members
which would be the Supreme Executive of the Congress for
the whole country. Further, the provinces were re-organised
on a linguistic basis. For instance, the Madras Presidency
was divided into Andhra, which is Telegu-speaking and
Tamil-Nadu, which is Tamil-speaking. The basis of the new
Congress Constitution was of a democratic and parliamentary
character. Besides setting up a new Constitution, the Nagpur
Congress laid down a definite plan of work for the coming
year.
Regarding the means to be followed by the Congress for
attaining Swaraj, a change was made in the Constitution.
Hitherto the Congress had been tied down to ‘constitutional’
means, but in future the Congress could adopt ‘all peaceful
and legitimate’ means. This change had to be made in
order to enable the Congress to resort to non-co-operation,
which could be regarded as unconstitutional. Regarding
both the goal and the means, the decision of the Nagpur
Congress represented the golden mean between the views of
the Right-Wingers like Pandit Malaviya and Mr. Jinnah and
the youthful Left-Wingers who swamped the Congress for
the first time in 1920. The latter desired the goal of the
Congress to be complete independence to be attained by all
possible means. It was Mr. Gandhi, however, who by virtue
of his tremendous influence and popularity was able to keep
the Left-Wingers at bay. The Constitution that was adopted
at Nagpur and which holds good even to-day, was practically
his own draft. A year before, at Amritsar, he had been author-
ised by the Congress to revise the existing Constitution of that
body.
Among the other resolutions adopted were those relating

THE CLOUDS GATHER 59
to the revival of hand-spinning and hand-weaving, removing
of untouchability¹ among the Hindus and the collection of a
fund of ten million rupees in memory of the late Lokamanya
Tilak. (The idea of bringing back into use the ancient
spinning-wheel in order to produce cloth as a cottage industry
had struck Mr. Gandhi a year before). While the above resolu-
tions were all of a useful or beneficial character, there was
one resolution which must be regarded as a great blunder.
That was the decision to wind up the British Branch of the
Indian National Congress and stop publication of its organ,
the paper India. With the carrying into effect of this resolu-
tion, the only centre of propaganda which the Congress had
outside India was shut down.
The Nagpur Congress, like the Calcutta Congress, was a
great triumph for Mr. Gandhi. It was his Constitution and
his plan of work that was adopted there. The gathering was
an unprecedented one, twenty thousand people attending the
Congress. Public enthusiasm was at a very high pitch and
among the distinguished visitors were two Labour members
of the British Parliament, Mr. Ben Spoor and Col. Wedgwood.
The Nagpur Congress was an important landmark in the
history of the Indian Nationalist Movement. It stood for a
complete break with the Moderates, but it did not represent
a complete victory for the Extremists. The latter as we shall
see subsequently, would have to work for many years before
they could bring the Congress round to their point of view.
Considered objectively, the plan which Mr. Gandhi placed
before the Congress and the country was not something
altogether new in the recent history of India. The fight
which the people of Bengal had waged against the Govern-
ment as a protest against the partition of their province in
1905 by the then Viceroy, Lord Curzon, had many features
in common with the war of non-violent non-co-operation
started in 1920 under the leadership of Mr. Gandhi. In 1905,
Bengal had resorted to the boycott of British goods and of
state-owned educational institutions and there had simul-
taneously been a revival of national industries and a growth of
national schools and colleges, free from state interference of
¹ This is explained later on.