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

INTRODUCTION
§ 1. THE BACKGROUND OF INDIAN POLITY
IT is only during the last three decades that attempts have
been made to give a true picture of the history of India since
the earliest times. Prior to that it was customary for British
historians to ignore the pre-British era of Indian history.
Since they were the first to interpret political India to modern
Europe, it was but natural that modern Europe should think
of India as a land where independent ruling chiefs had been
fighting perpetually among themselves until the British arrived
and after conquering the land, proceeded to establish peace
and order and bring the country under one political adminis-
tration.
In order to understand India, however, it is essential to
bear in mind at the outset two important facts. Firstly, the
history of India has to be reckoned not in decades or in
centuries, but in thousands of years. Secondly, it is only under
British rule that India for the first time in her history has
begun to feel that she has been conquered. Owing to her
long history and to the vastness of her territory, India has
passed through various vicissitudes of fortune. Neither for
the individual nor for the nation is it possible to have an
uninterrupted career of progress and prosperity. Consequently
there have been in the course of India's history, periods of
progress and prosperity followed by intervals of decay and
even chaos and the former have been always characterised by
a very high level of culture and civilisation. Only through
ignorance or through prejudice could one assert that under
British rule, India began to experience for the first time what
political unity was. As a matter of fact, though for reasons
of expediency, India has been brought under one political
administration by Great Britain and English has been enforced
on the people everywhere as the state language, no pains
have been spared to divide the people more and more. If
9

INTRODUCTION II
harya, who flourished in the eighth century A.D., built four
shramas (monasteries) in four corners of India, which
ourish to this day. Everywhere the same scriptures are read
nd followed and the epics, the Mahabharata and the Rama-
ana, are equally popular wherever'you may travel. With the
'dvent of the Mohammedans, a new synthesis was gradually
vorked out. Though they did not accept the religion of the
Hindus, they made India their home and shared in the com-
hon social life of the people—their joys and their sorrows.
Through mutual co-operation, a new art and a new culture
was evolved which was different from the old but which
nevertheless was distinctly Indian. In architecture, painting,
music—new creations were made which represented the
happy blending of the two streams of culture. Moreover, the
dministration of the Mohammedan rulers left untouched the
aily life of the people and did not interfere with local self-
overnment based on the old system of village communities.
With British rule, however, there came a new religion, a new
ulture and a new civilisation which did not want to blend
with the old but desired to dominate the country completely.
The British people, unlike the invaders of old, did not make
India their home. They regarded themselves as birds of
passage and looked upon India as the source of raw materials
and as the market for finished goods. Moreover, they
endeavoured to imitate the autocracy of the Mohammedan
rulers without following their wise policy of complete non-
nterference in local affairs. The result of this was that the
Indian people began to feel for the first time in their history
hat they were being dominated culturally, politically and
conomically by a people who were quite alien to them and
with whom they had nothing whatsoever in common. Hence
he magnitude of the revolt against the British domination
of India.
In order to study the present political movement in India
with the proper perspective, it is necessary to make a brief
survey of the development of political thought and of political
nstitutions in the past. The civilisation of India dates back
to 3000 B.C., if not earlier, and since then, there has been on
he whole a remarkable continuity of culture and civilisation.

10 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE
there is nevertheless a powerful nationalist movement in th
country to-day and a strong sense of unity, it is due entirel
to the fact that the people have for the first time in their histor
begun to feel that they have been conquered and simul
taneously they have begun to realise the deplorable effect
—both cultural and material—which follow in the wake o
political servitude.
Though geographically, ethnologically and historically
India presents an endless diversity to any observer—there i
none the less a fundamental unity underlying this diversity.
But as Mr. Vincent A. Smith has said: 'European writers a
a rule, have been more conscious of the diversity than of the
unity of India. . . . India beyond all doubt possesses a dee
underlying fundamental unity, far more profound than tha
produced either by geographical isolation or by politica
suzerainty. That unity transcends the innumerable diver-
sities of blood, colour, language, dress, manners and sect.'¹
Geographically, India seems to be cut out from the rest o
the world as a self-contained unit. Bounded on the north by
the mighty Himalayas and surrounded on both sides by the
endless ocean, India affords the best example of a geographica
unit. The ethnic diversity of India has never been a pro-
blem—for throughout her history she has been able to absorb
different races and impose on them one common culture and
tradition. The most important cementing factor has been
the Hindu religion. North or South, East or West, wherever
you may travel, you will find the same religious ideas, th
same culture and the same tradition. All Hindus look upon
India as the Holy Land. The sacred rivers like the sacre
cities are distributed all over the country.² If as a pious
Hindu you have to complete your round of pilgrimage, you
will have to travel to Setubandha-Rameswara in the extreme
south and to Badrinath in the bosom of the snow-capped
Himalayas in the north. The great teachers who wanted to
convert the country to their faith had always to tour th
whole of India and one of the greatest of them, Shankara-
¹ Vincent A. Smith, The Oxford History of India, Introduction, p. 10.
² These and other facts and arguments will be found in Prof. Radh
Kumud Mookerji's The Fundamental Unity of India. (Longmans, 1914.

12 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE
This undisturbed continuity is the most significant feature of
Indian history and it incidentally explains the vitality of the
people and of their culture and civilisation. The latest archæo-
'logical excavations at Mohenjodaro and Harappa in North-
Western India prove unmistakably that India had reached a
high level of civilisation as early as 3000 B.C. if not earlier.
This was probably before the Aryan conquest of India. It
is too early to say what light these excavations throw on con-
temporary political history, but since the Aryan conquest of
India, more facts and historical materials are available. In
the earliest Vedic literature there is reference to non-mon-
archical forms of government. Where these existed, tribal
democracy prevailed. In those days, Grāma (or village) was
the smallest and Jana (or tribe) was the highest social and
political organisation among the Vedic communities.¹ In the
later Epic literature, the Mahabharata for example, there is
clear reference to republican forms of government.² There
is also evidence that since the earliest times popular assemblies
used to be held in connection with public administration.
Throughout the Vedic literature one finds reference to two
kinds of assembly—the Sabhā and the Samiti (also called
Samgati or Samgrāma). The ‘Sabhā’ has been interpreted
to mean the advisory council of the selected few, while
‘Samiti’ has been interpreted as a gathering of the entire
community. The ‘Samiti’ met on important occasions like
royal coronations, times of war or national calamity, etc.³
In the next stage of political development one notices a
distinct tendency towards the growth of monarchical power
following the expansion of Aryan influence and domination
in India. At this time there would be frequent wars between
the independent states flourishing in Northern India, with a
view to obtaining supremacy. The issue of these wars would
be not political annexation but acceptance of the overlordship
of the victor by the vanquished parties. The victorious king
¹ Development of Hindu Polity and Political Theories by Narayan Chandra
Bandyopadhyaya, p. 60, published by Chuckerverty Chatterjee & Co. Ltd.
15 College Square, Calcutta.
² K. P. Jayaswal, Republics in the Mahabharata, (J. O. and B. Res. Soc.
Vol. 1. pp. 173-8.)
³ Development of Hindu Polity and Political Theories by Narayan
Chandra Banyopadhyaya, pp. 115-118.

INTRODUCTION 13
would be called 'Chakravartin' or 'Mandaleswar' and
elaborate ceremonies—Rājasuya or Vājapeya or Aswamedha
—would be held to celebrate such victories. This tendency
towards the centralisation of authority grew stronger during
the Vedic and Epic periods of Indian history till from the
sixth century B.C. the movement for the political unification
of India took definite shape. This movement reached its
fulfilment during the next era—namely the Buddhistic or
Maurya period—when the Maurya emperors were able to unify
India politically for the first time and establish an empire.
After the retreat of Alexander the Great from India,
Chandragupta Maurya founded his empire in 322 B.C. About
this time and also later on, there were many republics in
India. The Malavas, Kshudrakas, Lichhavis and other tribes
had republican constitutions. Mr. K. P. Jayaswal in his book
Hindu Polity gives a long list of such republics. There is no
doubt that when India was unified politically under one
emperor, these republics continued to flourish as autonomous
states recognising the suzerainty of one emperor. Besides,
the popular assembly was a well-established institution
during this period of Indian history. The greatest of the
Maurya emperors was Asoka, the grandson of Chandragupta,
who ascended the throne about 273 B.C. Asoka's empire
embraced not only modern India but also Afghanistan,
Beluchistan and a portion of Persia. Under the Maurya
emperors, public administration reached a high level of
efficiency. The military organisation was perfect for that
age. The government was divided into separate departments
under different ministers. The municipal administration of the
capital, Pataliputra, near modern Patna, was also creditable.
In short, the whole country was politically unified for the first
time under one sound administration. And when Asoka
accepted Buddhism, the entire state machinery became the
handmaid of the Buddhistic faith. Not being contented with
political sovereignty or with propagating Buddhism within
the limits of his empire, Asoka sent missionaries to all parts
of Asia—from Japan on one side to Turkey on the other—
to preach the lofty tenets of Buddhism. This period has
been regarded by many people as the Golden Age of Indian

14 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE
history, when there was a uniform and all-round progress in
every department of life.¹
After some time decay set in and there was an interval of
chaos—religious, cultural and political. Largely because of
its exaggerated asceticism, Buddhism lost its hold on the
Indian people and there was a revival of Brahmanical Hin-
duism. On the philosophical side, the Vedanta philosophy
which was first propounded in the Upanishads, was restored
to its pride of place. Socially, there was a revival of the
caste-system and a new breath of realism took the place of
the morbid asceticism of the latter-day Buddhists. Political
anarchy was ended through the rise of the Gupta Empire
which flourished in the fourth and fifth centuries A.D. The
greatest of the Gupta emperors was Samudragupta who
ascended the throne in A.D. 330. During the Gupta period,
the country was not only unified politically but art, literature
and science flourished and once again reached the high-water
mark of excellence.² This renaissance took place under the
influence of Brahmanical Hinduism and this period is there-
fore regarded by orthodox Hindus as a more glorious age
than the preceding Buddhistic period. As under the Maurya
emperors, India once again had active contact, both cultural
and commercial, with Asia and also with some countries in
Europe, like Rome. After the fifth century the political
power of the Gupta emperors came to an end but the cultural
renaissance continued unabated till once again it reached its
peak in A.D. 640, when under King Harsha the country was
once again unified politically.
This did not last very long and after some time, once again
signs of decline appeared. Then there appeared a new
element in Indian history—the Mohammedan invaders.
Their raids into the heart of India began as early as the tenth
century A.D., but it took them some time to conquer the
country.³ Mohammed Bin Tughlak succeeded for the first
¹ An impartial observer like the Greek Megasthenes bears testimony to
the above facts.
² Impartial testimony is borne this time by the Chinese pilgrim and
traveller Fa-hien.
³ Sindh was conquered in the eighth century but this remained as an
isolated phenomenon.

INTRODUCTION 15
time in bringing a large portion of the country under one
rule in the fourteenth century but it was reserved for the
Moghul kings to unify the country and usher in a new era
of all-round progress. During the sixteenth and seventeenth
century under the rule of the Moghul emperors, India once
again reached the pinnacle of progress and prosperity. The
greatest of them was Akbar, who ruled in the latter half of
the sixteenth century. The great merit of Akbar was not only
the political unification of the country, but what was perhaps
more important, the working out of a new cultural synthesis
—in order to reconcile the new stream of culture with the old
—and evolve a new culture.¹ The state machinery which he
built up was also based on the whole-hearted co-operation of
the Hindu and Mohammedan communities. The last great
emperor among the Moghuls was Aurangzeb who died in
1707 and after his death the empire began slowly to break up.
From the above historical narrative it will be evident that
democratic republican forms of government existed in India
in the ancient times. They were usually based on a homo-
geneous tribe or caste. In the Mahabharata these tribal
democracies are known as Ganas.² Besides these full-fledged
republics, in monarchical states also, the people enjoyed a
large measure of liberty, as the king was virtually a con-
stitutional monarch. This fact, which has been consistently
ignored by British historians, has now been fully established
through the researches of Indian historians. Besides political
matters, in other matters also, the people enjoyed a large
measure of liberty.
Indian literature from the earliest times abounds in
references to public bodies called ‘Paura’ and ‘Jānapada.’
The former correspond to our modern municipalities—while
the latter probably mean non-urban public bodies of some
sort. Moreover, owing to the existence of caste, the people
were self-governing in social matters, through a system of
¹ Akbar even attempted to bring about a synthesis of religions. He
evolved a new religion on an eclectic basis and called it ‘Din Ilahi.’ He
had many supporters during his lifetime but after his death the new
religion lost all following.
² As late as 1927 the writer has personally seen such institutions flour-
ishing among the Khasi tribe in Assam in North-East India.

16 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE
caste-democracy under the control of a Panchayat.¹ There
were popular Panchayats in India since the oldest times, not
only for carrying on the village administration—but also for
administering the caste-regulations and maintaining discipline
within the caste. Throughout the succeeding Buddhistic
period the people enjoyed large self-governing powers.
During this period, the 'assembly' and the 'vote' were
popular institutions. The advent of Maurya imperialism did
not encroach on these powers nor did it destroy the republics
which still continued to flourish. The Empire of the Guptas
and of Harsha proceeded on the same lines. Under the Mo-
hammedan rulers, though there was unbridled autocracy, the
Central Government rarely interfered in provincial or local
affairs. The governor of a 'Suba' or a province was of course
appointed by the Emperor, but as long as revenue was
regularly sent into the imperial coffers, the provincial adminis-
tration was not interfered with in any way. Though occa-
sionally a fanatical ruler would attempt proselytisation, on the
whole the people enjoyed complete freedom in religious,
cultural and social affairs, no matter who occupied the throne
at Delhi. British historians are without exception guilty of
overlooking this fact and when they loosely talk of despotism
to which orientals are accustomed, they forget that behind
this cloak of despotism, the people enjoyed a large measure of
real liberty, which they have been denied under British rule.
Both before and after the Aryan conquest of India, autono-
mous village institutions have been a consistent feature of
the public life of India. This is true as much of the Aryan
kingdoms of the north as of the Tamil kingdoms of the
south.² But under British rule these institutions have been
destroyed and the long arm of the bureaucracy stretches into
the remotest villages. There is not one square foot of land
where the people feel that they are free to manage their own
affairs. With regard to political literature also, ancient India
has much to boast of. The Mahabharata is a storehouse of
knowledge and information for the student of political science.
¹ Panchayat which literally means a committee of five, is a very ancient
institution.
² In this connection it is worth while studying the Chola kingdom of
South India of the tenth and twelfth century A.D.

INTRODUCTION 17
The Dharma Sastras also, with a mass of subsidiary literature,
are of immense value. But most interesting of all is Artha-
shastra of Kautilya which probably belongs to the fourth
century B.C.
To resume the thread of our narrative, with the gradual
disruption of the Moghul Empire, the question arose as to
which power would take its place. About this time, two in-
digenous powers made a bid for supremacy—the Mahratta
power from Central India and the Sikh power from the
north-west. The Mahratta power was consolidated by
Sivaji (1627-80) who was great as a general and great also as
a ruler. After his death the Mahratta power flourished till the
end of the eighteenth century. Its expansion was checked
in 1671 at the third battle of Panipat, where the Mahrattas
were defeated, and it was finally overthrown in 1818 by the
British. Though Mahratta rule was based on benevolent
despotism it could boast of a highly efficient army and an
excellent civil administration. The Sikh power was con-
solidated by Maharaja Ranjit Singh (1780-1839), who, during
his lifetime built up a fine army and an excellent civil adminis-
tration. But after his death, no one with equal ability could
take his place and when war broke out between the Sikhs and
the British, the former were overthrown. Unfortunately for
India, while she was going through a period of political
anarchy and was attempting to evolve a new social and
political order, she became the sport of the European powers.
The Portuguese, the Dutch, the French and the British came
in succession. Each of them, not content with carrying on
trade or preaching religion, tried to wrest political power from
the warring chieftains. In the long run a lively struggle took
place between the French and the British. Luck favoured
the latter. Moreover, British diplomacy was more astute and
their strategy more clever—while their Home Government
gave them greater support than did France to her nationals.
The French made South India the base of their operations
and attempted to dominate India from the south. The
British, following historical precedent, operated from the
north, after seizing Bengal, and were more successful than the
French.
B

18 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE
After going through the pages of Indian history, chapter
by chapter, we can draw the following general conclusions:
(1) A period of rise has been followed by a period of
decline, to be followed again by a new upheaval.
(2) The decline is the result chiefly of physical and intel-
lectual fatigue.
(3) Progress and fresh consolidation has been brought about
by an influx of new ideas and sometimes an infusion of fresh
blood.
(4) Every new epoch has been heralded by people possess-
ing greater intellectual power and superior military skill.
(5) Throughout Indian history all foreign elements have
always been slowly absorbed by Indian society. The British
are the first and the only exception to this.
(6) In spite of changes in the Central Government, the
people have all along been accustomed to a large measure
of real liberty.
§ II. LANDMARKS IN BRITISH RULE IN INDIA
England first obtained her foothold in India through the
East India Company. This company received a Royal Charter
which conferred large powers in the matter of trade mono-
poly, acquisition of territory, etc. The East India Company
succeeded in establishing itself in India towards the begin-
ning of the seventeenth century as a trading concern. Gra-
dually friction arose between the Company and the local
Indian rulers of the day. And this led in some places, as
Bengal, to armed conflict. During the course of one of
these conflicts the then ruler of Bengal, Nawab Sirajudowla,
was defeated by the combined forces of the Company and the
Indian renegades who conspired against him. This was
practically the beginning of the political conquest of India.
A few years later in 1765, the Emperor Shah Alam of Delhi,
who was then the nominal ruler of India, granted the Dewani
of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa to the East India Company.

INTRODUCTION 19
The grant of the Dewani meant that the entire revenue and
financial administration of these areas passed into the hands
of the Company. Thus the East India Company, while being
a trading concern, became an administrative body as well.
During the course of the next few years, there were complaints
about the corruption and maladministration of the Company's
officials. In 1773, therefore, an Act was passed, called Lord
North's Regulation Act which provided for governmental
control over the policy and administration of the East India
Company. The principal administrative change introduced
with the passing of the Act was that the three Presidencies of
Bengal, Bombay and Madras, which had been independent
of one another, were brought under a Governor-General who
with the help of four councillors was to rule over all the
territories, his headquarters being in Bengal. There were
manifold defects in the new system introduced and in addition
to that, there were serious complaints of corruption against
the administration of the Governor-General, Warren Hast-
ings. After some time, therefore, another Act called Pitt's
India Act was passed in 1784 which provided for a Board of
Control. There were cabinet ministers on this board and the
entire operations of the East India Company were brought
under its control. The appointment of a Board of Control,
composed partly of cabinet ministers, eventually led to the
establishment of the supremacy of the British Parliament
over India.
The East India Company had to renew its charter from
time to time. The Charter Act of 1833 introduced a remark-
able change in the status and function of the Company.
With the passing of this Act, the East India Company ceased
to exist as a trading concern and became a purely political
and administrative body, governing India on behalf of the
British Crown. According to the provisions of the Act, the
direction of the entire civil and military administration and
the sole power of legislation were vested in the Governor-
General in Council. Twenty years later, that is 1853, when
the Charter Act was renewed, the control of the Government
over the Company was further strengthened. The Act required
that one-third of the members of the Court of Directors of

20 THE INDIAN STRUGGLE
the Company should be nominated by the Crown. So far as
India was concerned, further administrative changes were
made. Bengal was made a separate province under a Lieu-
tenant-Governor and the Government of India was thereby
separated from the provincial governments. The Act also
provided for a Legislative Council for India consisting of
twelve members, all of whom were, however, to be officials.
During the discussions in the House of Commons in con-
nection with the renewal of the Charter in 1853, John Bright
spoke strongly against the Company's administration, which
he said had 'introduced an incredible amount of disorder and
corruption into the state and poverty and wretchedness
among the people.' He demanded that the Crown should
assume direct responsibility for the administration in India.
The advice was not heeded and a few years later the revolu-
tion (called by English historians the 'Sepoy Mutiny' and by
Indian Nationalists the 'First War of Independence') broke
out. After the suppression of the revolt, a new Act was
passed called the Government of India Act, 1858. By this
Act the Crown took over from the East India Company the
entire administration of India. With the introduction of this
Act, Queen Victoria issued a Royal Proclamation, which
was read out by the Governor-General, Lord Canning, on
November 1st, 1858, at Allahabad. In view of the respon-
sibility of the British Cabinet to the British Parliament, the
latter became the virtual arbiter of India's political destiny.
The next important step was taken in 1861 when the
Indian Councils Act was passed. The Act provided for the
Governor-General's Legislative Council which was to have
not more than twelve and not less than six members, half of
whom were to be non-officials. Besides the Central Legis-
lative Council, Provincial Councils, consisting partly of non-
official members appointed by the government were also
introduced. Thus Bengal got a Provincial Legislative Council
in 1862 and the North-West Provinces and Oudh (now
called the United Provinces) in 1886.
The failure of the revolution of 1857 was followed by a
period of reaction and during this period all anti-British
movements in India were ruthlessly suppressed, while the

INTRODUCTION 21
people at large were completely disarmed. By the eighties of
the last century the political depression was over and the
public began to raise their head once again. This time the
policy and the tactics of the liberty-loving and progressive
Indians were quite different from those of 1857. An armed
revolution being out of the question, constitutional agitation
was substituted in its place. Thus in 1885, the Indian
National Congress was founded for striving for self-govern-
ment for India by constitutional means. The agitation con-
ducted by the Indian National Congress made the Govern-
ment of India feel that a further political advance was neces-
sary. So in 1892 another Act was passed called the Indian
Councils Act of 1892. Under this Act the Legislative Councils
were given the right to put questions and to discuss the
Budget, though voting on the Budget was not allowed.
Further, provision was made in the Legislatures for a non-
official element to be appointed by the Government. The
Governor-General's Legislative Council was also increased
by sixteen members.
With the dawn of the present century there was a national
awakening in India on a large scale and Bengal, which had
suffered longest from the British yoke, was the pioneer in
the new movement. In 1905 the Viceroy, Lord Curzon,
ordered the partition of that province. The official reason
given for this action was one of administrative exigency—but
the people felt that the object was to cripple the new renais-
sance in Bengal. A stormy agitation against the partition was
set in motion in Bengal and this was accompanied by a
powerful movement all over the country, in the course of
which attempts were made to boycott British goods as a
retaliatory measure against the Government. The pressure
of these events forced the Government to make another
meagre concession to popular clamour and so the Morley-
Minto Reforms followed. Lord Morley was then the Secretary
of State for India and Lord Minto the Viceroy of India.
The Morley-Minto scheme of reforms was first announced
in December 1906, and was finally passed into law as the
Indian Councils Act of 1909. As a result of official inspiration,
a few months before the announcement was made, a depu-

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