She became so weak that
it became difficult for her to keep India under her control.
it became difficult for her to keep India under her control.
Cambridge History of India - v4 - Indian Empire
Swadeshi became popular.
Khadi became the uniform of the Indian patriots. The Congress
became a mass movement. "
THE SWARAJIST PARTY
Under the leadership of C. R. Das and Motilal Nehru, the
Swarajist Party was set up. Its object was the same as that of the
Congress, viz. , the establishment of Swaraj or Dominion Status
within the British Empire. However, its methods were different.
The Swarajist Party was to follow the policy of “uniform, continu-
ous and consistent obstruction. " Obstruction was the keynote of
the creed of the Party. It wanted to wreck the Legislatures from
within. It wanted to put up "resistance to the obstruction placed
in their path to Swaraj by the bureaucratic government. ” It wanted
to carry non-cooperation "into the very aisles and chance of the
bureaucratic church. ” Within the legislative bodies, its members
were to throw out budgets. They were to reject all proposals for
legislative enactments by which the bureaucracy proposed to conso-
lidate its position. They wanted to introduce all those resolutions,
measures and bills which were necessary for the healthy growth of
the national life of India and the consequent displacement of the
bureaucracy. They were to follow a definite economic policy to
prevent the drain of public wealth from India by checking all acti-
vities leading to exploitation. Outside the legislatures, they were
to give whole-hearted support to the constructive programme of
Mahatma Gandhi and work that programme unitedly through the
Congress organization. They were to supplement the work of the
Congress by helping the labour and peasant organizations through-
out the country. They declared that if they found that it was im-
possible to meet the selfish obstinacy of the bureaucracy without
civil obedience, they would place themselves without any reserva-
tion under the guidance of Mahatma Gandhi.
It cannot be denied that the Swarajist Party rendered a very
useful service to the national cause. It whipped up the enthusiasm
of the people, who were suffering from a sense of frustration on
account of the abrupt suspension of the Non-Cooperation Move-
ment. By throwing out budgets and bills introduced by the Gov-
ernment, they were able to create interest among the people in the
work of the Government. They were also able to discredit the
Government in the eyes of the world. The spirit of resistance was
maintained among the people against the foreign Government. The
passing of the Swarajist Resolution in February 1924 led to the
appointment of the Muddimar. Committee by the Government of
## p. 776 (#818) ############################################
776
THE NATIONALIST MOVEMENT IN INDIA
India to report on the working of dyarchy in the country. The
Simon Commission was appointed two years earlier on account of
the activities of the Swarajist Party. H. N. Brailsford observes:
"To my thinking the tactics of obstruction were justified for they
convinced even the British Conservatives that the system of dyarchy
was unworkable. ”
There was a lot of agitation in the country when the Simon
Commission visited India. At the Calcutta session of the Congress
held in 1928 it was intended to pass a resolution declaring complete
independence as the goal of India. However, Mahatma Gandhi
intervened and Dominion Status was declared to be the goal of
India. Mahatma Gandhi gave the assurance that he himself
would lead the movement for independence if by the end of 1929
the British Government did not confer Dominion Status on India.
It is true that Lord Irwin declared in October 1929 that Dominion
Status was the goal of the British Government in India, but a mere
declaration was not considered to be enough. Hence, under the
Presidentship of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the following Independ-
ence Resolution was passed at the Lahore session of the Congress
on the banks of the river Ravi on December 31, 1929: "This Con-
gress endorses the action of the Working Committee in connection
with the manifesto signed by party leaders, including Congressmen,
on the Viceregal pronouncement of October 31, relating to Domi-
nion Status, and appreciates the efforts of the Viceroy towards a
settlement of the national movement for Swaraj. The Congress,
however, having considered all that has since happened and the
result of the meeting between Mahatma Gandhi, Pandit Motilal
Nehru and other leaders, and the Viceroy, is of opinion that nothing
is to be gained in the existing circumstances by the Congress being
represented at the proposed Round Table Conference. This con-
gress, therefore, in pursuance of the resolution passed at its Ses-
sion at Calcutta last year, declares that the word 'Swaraj' in Article
of the Congress Constitution shall mean Complete Independence,
and further declares the entire scheme of the Nehru Committee's
Report to have lapsed, and hopes that all Congressmen will hence-
forth devote their exclusive attention to the attainment of complete
independence for India. As a preliminary step towards organising
a campaign for independence, and in order to make the Congress
policy as consistent as possible with the change of creed, this Con-
gress calls upon Congressmen and others taking part in the national
movement to abstain from participating directly or indirectly in
future elections, and directs the present Congress members of the
legislatures and committees to resign their seats. This Congress
appeals to the nation zealously to prosecute the constructive pro-
## p. 777 (#819) ############################################
CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE MOVEMENT
777
gramme of the Congress and authorises the All-India Congress
Committee, whenever it deems fit, to launch upon a programme of
civil disobedience, including non-payment of taxes, whether in
selected areas or otherwise and under such safeguards as it may
consider necessary. "
January 26, 1930, was declared the Independence Day and the
following pledge was taken on that day by the people of India and
the same was repeated year after year: "We believe that it is the
inalienable right of the Indian people to have freedom and enjoy
the fruits of their toil and have the necessities of life, so that they
may have full opportunities of growth.
“We believe also that if any Government deprives the people of
their rights and oppresses them the people have a further right to
alter it or abolish it. The British Government in India has not
only deprived the Indian people of their freedom but has based itself
on the exploitation of the masses and has ruined India economically,
culturally and spiritually.
“We believe, therefore, that India must sever the British connec-
tion and attain Purna Swaraj or Complete Independence.
“We recognize that the most effective way of gaining freedom is
not through violence.
“India has gained strength and self-reliance and marched a long
way to Swaraj following peaceful and legitimate methods and it is
by these methods that our country will attain independence.
“We believe that non-violent action in general and preparation
of non-violent direct action in particular requires the successful
working of the programme of Khadi, communal harmony and
removal of untouchability. We shall seek every opportunity to
spread goodwill among the fellowmen without distinction of caste
or creed. We shall endeavour to raise from ignorance and poverty
those who have been neglected and to advance in every way the
interests of those who are considered to be backward and suppress-
ed. ”
The civil disobedience programme was prepared and launched.
Mahatma Gandhi started his famous Dandi March on March 12,
1930, from Sabarmati Ashram. Thousands of Congress volunteers
were sent to jail. The Government used all kinds of repressive
methods to crush the nationalist movement but failed in its objec-
tive. The Congress boycotted the First Round Table Conference
held in London in 1930, but M. R. Jayakar and Sir Tej Bahadur
Sapru intervened and in March 1931, the famous Gandhi-Irwin
Pact was signed. Mahatma Gandhi described the Pact as a vic-
tory for both the sides. Both Mahatma Gandhi and Lord Irwin
sincerely wanted a settlement and the Pact was a victory for both.
## p. 778 (#820) ############################################
778
THE NATIONALIST MOVEMENT IN INDIA
However, the Pact was criticized by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and
Subhas Chandra Bose.
Mahatma Gandhi attended the Second Round Table Conference
as the sole representative of the Congress. It is true that his visit
to London had profound effect on the people of that country, but
the immediate object of his visit was not served on account of the
attitude adopted by Mr. Jinnah and Sir Samuel Hoare. Mahatma
Gandhi had to leave the Round Table Conference in disgust. As
soon as he reached India, he was arrested by the orders of Lord
Willingdon. Wholesale arrests of Congress volunteers were order-
ed. Leaders were put behind the bars. The Congress did not
participate in the Third Round Table Conference held in 1932.
General Elections were held in 1934 to the Central Assembly and
the Congress was able to win a large number of seats. When the
elections were held for the Provincial Legislatures under the Gov-
ernment of India Act, 1935, the Congress was able to secure majo-
rity in a large number of provinces. There was a deadlock between
the Congress and the Government on the question of the formation
of ministries, but after some time, the Government gave an under-
taking that the Governors would not interfere in the day to day
affairs of the Provincial Governments and the Congress Ministries
would be given a free hand. The Congress formed ministries in
July 1937 and those ministries continued till November 1939 when
they resigned after the declaration of the World War II. The Con-
gress Ministries did a lot of useful work in the provinces on account
of their devotion to work and the spirit of sacrifice.
QUIT INDIA MOVEMENT
After the beginning of the Second World War, Lord Linlithgow
made his offer to the Congress in August 1940 but the same was
rejected. In March 1942, Sir Stafford Cripps came to India with
his proposals which gave the people of India the right of making
their constitution after the ending of the World War. He was
prepared to transfer into the hands of the Indians all the Depart-
ments of the Government of India except that of Defence. The
Congress was willing to accept the long-term scheme but not the
interim scheme. The Congress did not like the attitude of “Take
it or leave it” adopted by Cripps. It was after the failure of the
talks with Cripps that the All-India Congress Committee passed
the famous Quit India Resolution on August 8, 1942. The Resolu-
tion declared "that the immediate ending of British rule in India
was an urgent necessity, both for the sake of India and for the suc-
cess of the cause of United Nations. The continuation of that rule
## p. 779 (#821) ############################################
QUIT INDIA MOVEMENT
779
is degrading and enfeebling India and making her progressively less
capable of benefiting herself and of contributing to the cause of
world freedom. The ending of British rule in this country was
thus a vital and immediate issue on which depends the future of
the war, and the success of freedom and democracy. The All-
India Congress Committee, therefore, repeats with all emphasis the
demand for the withdrawal of the British power from India. The
Committee resolves, therefore, to sanction for the vindication of
India's inalienable right to freedom and independence, the starting
of a mass struggle on non-violent lines on the widest scale possible.
Such a struggle must inevitably be under the leadership of Mahatma
Gandhi and the Committee requests him to take the lead and guide
the nation in the steps to be taken. ” Many reasons have been given
for starting the mass movement of 1942. The first was the grow-
ing threat of Japanese invasion of India. Gandhiji wanted to save
India from that attack and his view was that if the British Govern-
ment withdrew from India, the Japanese might not attack India.
Another reason was the defencelessness of the British position in
India and their easy defeat in Singapore. The view of Mahatma
Gandhi was that India also would meet the same fate if the British
did not withdraw from India. The Mahatma also believed that
the British Governmen: left the people of Malaya and Burma
neither to God nor to anarchy but to the Japanese. To quote
Gandhiji, “Don't repeat that story here. Don't leav: India to
Japan but leave India to Indians in an orderly manner. " Another
cause was the alarming growth of Axis propaganda which was
having its effect on the minds of the people of India. This was
particularly so because Subhash Chandra Bose, the former Presi-
dent of the Indian National Congress, was himself broadcasting
from Berlin in the Indian languages. Another cause was that the
mind of Gandhiji was revolting against racial discrimination shown
in the process of evacuation from Burma. The British provided
separate routes for evacuation for Europeans and Indians. The
White Road was meant for Europeans and the Black Road for
Indians. The result was that the Indian evacuees had to undergo
too many hardships on the way. The late Mr. M. S. Aney who
was at that time a member of the Executive Council of the Viceroy
incharge of the Indian Overseas Department observed: "Indian
refugees are treated in such a way as to humiliate them and make
them feel that they belong to an inferior race. ” In the words of
Gandhiji, “The admitted inequality of treatment of Indian and
European evacuees and the nianifestly overbearing behaviour of
the troops are adding to the distrust of British intentions and dec-
larations. " There was a lot of resentment in the country when
## p. 780 (#822) ############################################
780
THE NATIONALIST MOVEMENT IN INDIA
the people heard of the sufferings of the Indians and this contribut-
ed to the decision of Gandhiji to start the Quit India Movement.
Another cause was the sufferings of the people on account of the
scorched earth policy followed by the British Government in India.
The lands belonging to the people of India were destroyed for mili-
tary purposes and they were not given adequate compensation.
They were deprived of their means of livelihood. To quote
Gandhiji, “For a Bengali to part with his Canoe, is like parting
with his life. ” A lot of harshness was used by the Government
while getting the houses of the peasants evacuated for the military.
The inefficient and ineffective controls and transportation muddles
added to the sufferings of the people. Prices rose in those months.
The people lost their faith in the paper currency issued by the Gov-
ernment. There was a lot of discontentment among the people and
Gandhiji decided to take advantage of it.
The immediate effect of the passing of the Quit India Resolution
was the arrest of Mahatma Gandhi and all the members of the All
India Congress Working Committee. The Indian National Congress
was banned and its offices were taken possession of by the Police. The
Government did all that it could to crush the Congress and the
movement. The people also hit back. They revolted against the
tyranny and oppression of the Government. Gandhiji had not un-
folded his strategy before his arrest. After the passing of the resolu-
tion, Gandhiji intended to carry on negotiations with the British
Government. As he was arrested all of a sudden, the people were
left without any plan and no wonder the movement was carried on
by the people in any way they could. When the Government re-
sorted to violence and shot innocent men, women and children, the
people also resorted to violence. The result was that in some parts
of the country, British authority completely collapsed. It was with
great difficulty that the British Government was able to restore law
and order in the country.
The movement did not have the support of the upper classes of
India consisting of rich merchants, landlords and princes and also
a part of labour. The Muslim League, under the leadership of
Mr. Jinnah, asked the Muslims to keep aloof from the movement.
It was declared that the movement was directed to coerce the British
Government to hand over to the Hindus the administration of the
country. The Muslim League raised the slogans of “Divide and
Quit” and “Bat Ke Rahega Hindustan” (Hindustan will have to
be divided). The Police and the bureaucracy remained loyal
throughout. Churchill praised “the loyalty and steadfastnesss of
the brave Indian Police as well as Indian official class generally. '
The Hindu soldiers were not trusted to put down the rioters and
## p. 781 (#823) ############################################
QUIT INDIA MOVEMENT
781
the Gurkhas, Baluchis and White soldiers were usually employed
for that purpose. Those who actually participated in the move-
ment were the lower middle classes and peasants from whom also
come most of the students and labour. The processions were com-
posed of small shopkeepers, milk vendors, street hawkers, petty
traders, students and workers in small establishments and mills.
Shops remained closed for many days in spite of the threats of the
Government to fine the shopkeepers and also imprison them. The
peasants of India also made great sacrifices. Collective fines were
imposed on them and also realised. This was particularly so in
Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Andhra, Gujarat and Maharashtra. The
movement of 1942 can appropriately be called a student-peasant-
middle class rebellion. The students provided the leadership and
the peasantry the fighting strength.
The revolt of 1942 had significance not only for India but the
whole world. Its reactions were widespread. “The abnormal
times in which it took place, the low fortunes of England and the
United Nations at the time of the occurrence, the importance of
India as a base of operation against Japan and as controlling the
supply line to China—the South-Eastern and Burma routes having
been conquered by Japan—and the danger of an immediate Japa-
nese move into India, all combined to make the widespread pheno-
menon of an uprising a matter of concern to the entire United
Nations. The fortunes of India were closely bound up with it.
The Axis Powers were not less interested as they found in the revolt
much to capitalize on. ”
Dr. Amba Prasad rightly points out that the failure of the move-
ment of 1942 was more marked than was the case with the move-
ments of 1921 and 1930. “The earlier movements had been in
the nature of preparatory training for a final struggle. They were
intended to create a national consciousness in the masses who had
been emasculated through centuries of subjection to a foreign rule.
The movement of 1921 was intended to revive the spirit of self-
respect among the people by removing the fear of going to jail for
the love of the country. The object of self-government was there
but it was realized that there was still a distant goal. The move-
ment of 1930 was a further stage in the direction of independence.
It was sought to remove the fear of loss of property and thereby to
create a spirit of sacrifice. The objective of independence was there
but there was a realization that still more sacrifices were needed. The
movement of 1942, however, was intended to be the last stage in that
struggle and, therefore, the supreme sacrifice of one's life was
required to attain independence. The call was ‘do or die' and
the mass slogan was 'we shall do or die. ' It is for this reason that
## p. 782 (#824) ############################################
782
THE NATIONALIST MOVEMENT IN INDIA
the word failure was more appropriately applicable to the revolt
of 1942 than it was to the earlier movements, which had constitut-
ed preparatory stages for the goal of independence. ”
The failure of the revolt of 1942 was due to many causes.
The
first was the tactical mistakes of organization and planning. The
arrest of Mahatma Gandhi and the Congress leaders left the people
without any leadership or guidance. No wonder, they made mis-
takes and were ultimately crushed. To quote Jai Prakash Narain,
“The lack of organization was so considerable that even important
Congressmen were not aware of the progress of the revolt and, till
late in the course of the rising, it remained a matter of debate in
many Congress quarters whether what the people were doing was
really in accordance with the Congress programme. " There was
no co-ordination and no strategy. Those who led the movement
were divided in their views on the course of action. Nobody knew
what to do. The loyalty of the services and the superior physical
strength of the Government succeeded in crushing the revolt. To
quote Dr. Amba Prasad, “Thus it was the superior physical power
of the Government which succeeded in putting down the revolt.
On the one side were large unarmed masses, unorganised, leader-
less, hesitating in their minds whether what they were doing would
be approved by Gandhiji or not; on the other side was the power
of the uniformed, disciplined policeman and soldier, armed with
rifles and guns, and the power of law and the use of all means of
communications. If necessary, the machine-gunning would be
done from the aeroplanes. In such a situation, the revolt could
only succeed, if it were a simultaneous rising which would have
paralysed the administrative machinery in the shortest possible
time. At its best it was a satyagraha or mass movement; at its
worst, it was an unorganised revolt of a violent character and, in
the latter form, it gave the Government a good excuse to crush down
with force. ”
As regards the gains of the revolt of 1942, Dr. Amba Prasad
observes: “Though the revolt of 1942 failed at the time, it prepared
the ground for independence in 1947. When people have reached
a stage where they can demonstrate that they can lay down their
lives for national independence, it becomes impossible for a foreign
power to continue to impose its will on them for any length of time.
The revolt of 1942 made the British nation realize, supreme realists
as they have been, that their rule was no longer wanted by India.
Woodrow Wyatt, who was adviser to the Cabinet Mission to India
throughout their negotiations, was of the opinion in 1946 that if
the British fail to find soon a way of handing over smoothly, there
may first be a revolution to drive them out. There was a deep and
## p. 783 (#825) ############################################
INDEPENDENCE OF INDIA
783
>
wide-spread anti-British feeling existing after 1942, mostly created
by the revolt of that year'. "
The Congress leaders remained in jail till the end of the Second
World War in 1945. Many attempts were made to find a solu-
tion to the political tangle in the country but all of them failed.
The Muslim League was adamant on getting Pakistan and ulti-
mately the Indian Independence Act, 1947 was passed and thus
India became independent on August 15, 1947.
WHY ENGLAND GAVE INDIA INDEPENDENCE ?
9
There were many reasons which forced the British Government
to grant independence to India and the most important was the
strength of the nationalist movement. That movement under the
leadership of Mahatma Gandhi had become so strong that the grant
of independence could not be postponed for long. The Quit India
Movement showed that the people of India could go to any length
to bring to an end the British Raj in the country. The people made
tremendous sacrifices to paralyse the administrative machinery. The
British Government was not ignorant of the slogans: "Do or Die"
and “Now or Never. ” The organization of the Indian National
Army under Subhash Chandra Bose and the cry of “Dilli Chalo”
made the British Government realise the folly of resisting the demand
of the people of India for independence.
Another reason which forced the Government to grant inde-
pendence was that it found itself unable to keep India under her
control with the help of sheer force. Great Britain became a
second rate power after World War II.
She became so weak that
it became difficult for her to keep India under her control. When
Great Britain gave independence to Burma, she gave independence
to India also. The strike of the naval officers and ratings in Bom-
bay in 1945 convinced the British Government that it was no
longer possible to rule India with the help of force and power must
be transferred into the hands of the Indians without further delay.
After World War II, all the three branches of the Defence forces
were inspired by the new spirit of patriotism and the revolt of the
naval officers was of special significance in the context of the exist-
ing circumstances. It was for the first time after 1857 that a
section of the defence forces openly revolted against the British
Government on a political issue. The rebellion was not an isolated
event. The Indian National Army which had been formed out of
the prisoners of war had attacked India. After the surrender of
Japan, many officers of the Indian National Army were captured
and publicly tried in the Red Fort at Delhi. There was a lot of
## p. 784 (#826) ############################################
784
THE NATIONALIST MOVEMENT IN INDIA
public excitement and enthusiasm and in the end, all of them were
released. All these developments convinced the British Govern-
ment that they could not rely upon the armed forces in holding the
country against the wishes of the people.
Another cause was a conviction in the minds of those who ruled
India that it was no longer profitable to keep India in chains. It
was felt that Great Britain could gain more by giving India inde-
pendence. This has actually been found to be true as there is
more trade between India and Great Britain today than it was
before her independence.
The grant of independence to India was facilitated by the fact
that the Labour Party came to power in England in 1945. The
members of the Labour Party had always been the advocates of
independence for India and they actually gave the same to her when
they themselves came to power. Things would have been certainly
more tedious and the grant of independence would have been delay-
ed if a person like Winston Churchill was in power in 1945-47.
Another factor which helped the grant of independence was the
acceptance by the Congress of the Muslim League demand for the
establishment of Pakistan. The situation was so serious that if
the Congress had not agreed to partition India, it would not have
been possible for the British Government to hand over the admin-
istration of India into the hands of the Indian leaders. By dividing
India and giving the Muslim League a separate state of Pakistan,
the British rulers must have felt that they had avoided a bloody
civil war.
The American Government also played its part. It is well
known that during World Wai II, President Roosevelt put a lot
of pressure on the British Government to grant independence to
India. That pressure continued even after the death of Roosevelt
in 1945. The British Government which depended upon American
Government for help after 1945, could not resist the pressure of
public opinion in America in favour of the grant of independence
to India.
We are reliably informed by some respectable Indians who re-
turned to India from England during the year immediately follow-
ing the end of the Second World War that British soldiers who had
first hand knowledge of the poverty of the Indian masses spoke
about it feelingly to their friends and relatives. That knowledge
filtered down to the people. A feeling was created in England that
perhaps with independence, the Indians might be able to improve
their economic condition. That explains the unanimous support
given by the members of Parliament to the India Independence
Bill in July, 1947.
## p. 785 (#827) ############################################
INDEPENDENCE OF INDIA
785
According to Prime Minister Attlee, the independence of India
was the fulfilment of Britain's mission in India. The British were
leaving India after fulfilling their mission in the country. They
had taught the Indians to govern themselves and they were now
leaving the reins of Government in their hands.
Similar sentiments had been expressed earlier by English ad-
ministrators and politicians from time to time. Mountstuart
Elphinstone of whom it was said by Bishop Heber that "he had
seen more of India and the adjoining countries than any man now
living,” never ceased to preach the importance of training Indians
for that self-government which, he believed, must eventually come.
As early as 1819, he wrote of the British Empire in India that "the
most desirable death for us to die or should be, the improvement
of the natives reaching such a pitch as would render it impossible
for a foreign nation to retain the government; but this seems at an
immeasurable distance. . . . . . A time of separation must come; and
it is for our interest to have an early separation from a civilised
people, rather than a rupture with a barbarous nation, in which
it is probable that all our settlers and even our commerce would
perish, along with all the institutions we had introduced into the
country. " When Elphinstone became the Governor of Bombay,
his views got further crystallised. One day, Lieutenant-General
Briggs visited his camp and on seeing in his tent a pile of printed
Marathi books asked him what they were. The reply of Elphin-
stone was: “To educate the native, but it is our high-road back
to Europe. ” After many years, the Directors of the English East
India Company refused to appoint Indians to the Covenanted
Medical Service and on that occasion, Elphinstone protested in
these words: “I conceive that the administration of all the depart-
ments by a great country by a small number of foreign visitors, in
a state of isolation produced by a difference in religion, ideas, and
manners, which cuts them off from all intimate communion with
the people can never be contemplated as a permanent state of
things. I conceive also that the progress of education among the
natives renders such a scheme impracticable, even if it were other-
wise free from objection. It might, perhaps, have once been pos-
sible to have retained the natives in a subordinate condition (at the
expense of national justice and honour) by studiously repressing
their spirit and discouraging their progress in knowledge; but we
are now doing our best to raise them in all mental qualities to a
level with ourselves, and to instil into them the liberal opinions in
government and policy which have long prevailed in this country,
and it is vain to endeavour to rule them on principles only suited to
a slavish and ignorant population. '
## p. 786 (#828) ############################################
786
THE NATIONALIST MOVEMENT IN INDIA
A similar view was expressed by Sir Thomas Munro is these
words: “We should look upon India, not as a temporary posses-
șion, but as one which is to be maintained permanently until the
natives shall in some future age have abandoned most of their
superstitions and prejudices, and become sufficiently enlightened,
to frame a regular government for themselves, and to conduct and
preserve it. Whenever such a time shall arrive, it wiil probably
be best for both countries that the British control over India should
be gradually withdrawn. That the desirable change contemplated
may in some after-age be effected in India, there is no cause to
despair. Such a change was at one time in Britain itself at least
as hopeless as it is here. When we reflect how much the character
of nations has always been influenced by that of goveruments, and
that some, once the most cultivated, have sunk into barbarism,
while others, formerly the rudest, have attained the highest point
of civilisation, we shall see no reason to doubt that if we pursue
steadily the proper measures, we shall in time so far improve the
character of our Indian subjects as to enable them to govern and
protect themselves. "
The belief of Lord Macaulay was that "it may be that the pub-
lic mind of India may expand under our system until it has out-
grown our system. . . . . . that having become instructed in Euro-
pean knowledge, they may in some future age demand European
institutions”, and when that happened, it would be the proudest
day in English History. The following passage occurs in his
speech in the House of Commons: “Are we to keep these men sub-
missive? or do we think we can give them knowledge without
awakening ambition? or do we mean to awaken ambition and pro-
vide it with no legitimate vent? Who will answer any one of these
questions in the affirmative? Yet one of them must be answered
in the affirmative by every person who maintains that we ought
permanently to exclude the people of India from high office. I
have no fears. The path of duty is plainly before us, and it is
also the path of wisdom, of national prosperity, and of honour. "
Similar views were expressed by Sir Charles Wood in these
words: “Of course, there will be a struggle and blood and treasure
to an enormous amount will be spent in vain. This is, I am afraid,
the most probable end of our indian rule, but good conduct, wise
measures and sound policy towards the natives may avert it for
many years, if it can do no better. Whatever may be the result,
our course ought be the same: to improve the native, reconcile him
if we can to our rule and fit him for ruling himself. I don't believe
that his fitness to rule well wi'l make him a worse subject, till his
time arrives. ”
## p. 787 (#829) ############################################
CHAPTER XXXVI
PAKISTAN
THE Muslims ruled India for more than 6 centuries. They were
able to conquer practically the whole of India. However, towards
the end of the reign of Aurangzeb, the Mughal Empire began to
break up. The Marathas raised the standard of revolt and ulti-
matly were able in the 18th century to set up a big Maratha
Empire. The Sikhs, after some time, were also able to carve out
a kingdom of their own. Many small Muslim States also came
into existence. Both the English and the French East India Com-
panies joined the scramble for power. After defeating their rivals,
in Bengal and the Deccan, the English East India Company was
able to establish its own empire in India. One by one, the Mus-
lim states were conquered and annexed. The Marathas were fin-
ally defeated and their territories also annexed. Sind and the
Punjab were annexed during the 1840's. By the middle of the
19th century, British hold over the whole of India was complete
and they ruled the country with an iron hand, without the people
having any say in the administration of the country.
The relations between the English and the Muslims were parti-
cularly bad as the Muslims nursed a grievance that it were the
British who snatched away power from their hands. They refus-
ed to study the English language and maintained an attitude of
aloofness from the British. No wonder, they were not taken in
the employment of the English East India Company and the Hindus
alone from India were to be found there. The Muslim resent-
ment against the British Government exhibited itself during the
Wahabi Movement, but the same was suppressed ruthlessly by the
British Government. During the rising of 1857-58, the Muslims
played an important part. The Mughal Emperor put himself at
the head of the rebels and naturally the British Government took
stern action against the Muslims not only during the period of che
national uprising but even after that. This state of affairs conti-
nued up to 1870. It was then that a change took place in the Bri-
tish attitude towards the Muslims. In 1871 was published a book
entitled “The Indian Mussalmans” by Sir William Hunter. The
contention of the author was that the Muslims were too weak for
rebellion and "it was expedient now to take them into alliance
rather than continue to antagonise them. ”
## p. 788 (#830) ############################################
788
PAKISTAN
SIR SYED AHMED KHAN
The work of Sir William Hunter was facilitated by Sir Syed
Ahmed Khan (1817-98). He belonged to a Mughal official family
and had entered the British judicial service. During the 1857-58
days, he remained faithful to the British Government. After that,
he published a book analysing the causes of the revolt of 1857-58.
His conclusion was that the Indian Muslims must come to terms
with the British Government and at the same time remain aloof from
the Hindus. He put emphasis on the community of fundamental
.
Islamic and Christian ideas with their common Judaic heritage.
Reason and revelation were basic to both Islam and Christianity.
Sir Syed joined the Viceroy's Legislative Council in 1878 but
even before that he had founded in 1875 the Muhammadan Anglo-
Oriental College at Aligarh. That college became the centre of
all the Muslims of India and even for Muslims abroad and was
given the status of a University in 1920.
Not content with this, Sir Syed laid the foundation of the Annual
Muslim Educational Conference in 1886. This was done only a
year after the establishment of the Indian National Congress in
1885. The Muslim Conference was held cach year at a different
place in India. In addition to being a centre of information re-
garding the general and educational condition of the Indian Mus-
lims, it became a forum of dissemination of Muslim political opi-
nions. With the help of this Annual Conference, the Muslims hop-
ed to cover "the whole of Upper India with a network of societies,
committees and individuals, all working harmoniously in the great
cause, so that a big evil may be dealt with by a strong remedy and
by the vigorous work of one generation the tide of misfortune may
be turned and the Mahommedan Nation may be set moving on
the tide of progress abreast of all the other Nations of India. "
Nawab Imad-ul-Mulk Maulvi Sayyid Husain Bilgrami made it
clear in his inaugural address as President of the Conference on 27
December, 1900 that several purposes were associated with the
Annual Conference and it provided a meeting ground for the edu-
cated Musalmans of different parts of India, so that they might
have opportunities of mutual consultation for the progress of their
community and take concerted action for its achievement. The
Annual Conference gradually gained ground and it succeeded in
collecting information regarding the number, aims and methods of
the Muslim societies in each district, the number,
and
addresses of eminent Musalmans, Maulvis, Ulema and the mem-
bers of the Muslim nobility "who may be thought earnest in devot-
ing their leisure and money to matters of communal interest. ”
## p. 789 (#831) ############################################
SIR SYED AHMED KHAN
789
Both the educational and political objectives of the Conference were
emphasized during the Annual Conferences.
Sir Syed also founded in 1888 the Indian Patriotic Association.
The objectives of the new organisation were to “(a) publish and
circulate pamphlets and other papers for information of members
of Parliament, English journals and the people of Great Britain, in
which those mis-statements will be pointed out by which the sup-
porters of the Indian National Congress have wrongly attempted
to convince the English people that all the Nations of India and the
Indian chiefs and rulers agree with the aims and objects of the
National Congress, (b) to inform members of Parliament and the
newspapers of Great Britain and its people by the same means of
the opinions of Mohammedans in general, of the Islamia Anjmans,
and those Hindus and their societies which were opposed to the
objects of the National Congress, (c) to strive to preserve peace in
India and to strengthen the British rule; and to remove those bad
feelings from the hearts of the Indian people, which the supporters
of the Congress are stirring up throughout the country and by
which great dissatisfaction is being raised among the people against
the British Government. "
In addition to these, Sir Syed started in 1893 the Mohammedan
Defence Association of Upper Iridia. Principal Beck of the Aligarh
College played an important part in starting this organisation. On,
30 December, 1893, a meeting of some influential Muslims was
held at the house of Sir Syed to discuss the political condition of
the Musalmans. The proceedings of this meeting were started with
an address by Principal Beck himself. The Principal was not in
favour of political agitation as that could alienate the Muslims
from the British Government. However, he felt the necessity of
an organisation to give political lead to the young Muslims. To
quote Principal Beck, “With the press pouring out a stream of
political articles, our young educated Mohammedans will be drawn
into the current to support or cppose the measures proposed. . . .
I think it would be a mistake to leave them without guidance. "
The advice of Principal Beck was accepted and the Mohammedan
Defence Association of Upper India was set up through a resolu-
tion passed to that effect in the same gathering.
Sir Syed was a true Muslim and he was jealous of the progress
made by the Hindus. He felt that Muslims had made a mistake
in ignoring the study of the English language and European ideas.
He would like to pull up the Muslims of India so that they were
not handicapped in any way in their struggle for existence. He
also felt that the future of the Muslims in India was not bright.
A beginning had already been made by the introduction of demo-
## p. 790 (#832) ############################################
790
PAKISTAN
a
cratic institutions in India by the British Government. If ultimate-
ly, the British Government agreed to transfer power into the hands
of the Indians, the Muslims will be nowhere. The Muslims being
in a minority in India will not be able to safeguard their own inter-
ests. The Hindu majority could do anything against the Muslim
minority. It was for that reason that Sir Syed advised the Muslims
of India not to join the nationalist movement in the country and
keep away from it. Sir Syed was not bothered about the fact
whether India became free or not. His only worry was that if
more powers were given to the Indians by the Englishmen, those
were going to be used by the Hindus against the Muslims. He
was not prepared to put up with the majority rule of the Hindus
in the distant future. That was the reason why he called upon
all the Muslims of India not to join the Indian National Congress.
Sir Syed jeered at the national agitation for freedom and called it
as "no more than the cries of jackals and crows” and advised the
British Government to rule with the help of force a country like
India which did not have a common nationality, common blood,
common aims and common ways of thinking. He assured the
Government of India that the Muslims would not join the Indian
National Congress and in this he was eminently successful. Sir
Sved definitely succeeded in keeping most of the Muslims away
from the Indian National Congress. As a matter of fact, a delibe-
rate attempt was made both by the British bureaucracy in India
and the influential Muslims to keep the Muslims away from the
Hindus. Aligarh became the centre of Muslim thought and cul-
ture. Practically every big Muslim in India sent his children to
Aligarh for education or he was persuaded or coerced to do so by
the British bureaucracy in India. The credit for separating the
Muslims from the Hindus must go to Sir Syed Ahmed Khan. He
may have played the game which some of the Englishmen in India
wanted him to play but the fact remains that as a result of the
policy advocated by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, the nationalist move-
ment in India became positively weak and ultimately it resulted in
the partition of India in 1947.
PRINCIPAL BECK
A reference must be made in this connection to the work of Mr.
Beck who was the Principal of the Aligarh College from 1883 to
1899. It was Principal Beck who organised the Muslim opposition
in 1899 to Bradlaugh's Bill in the British Parliament for giving
representative institutions to India. The memorial which was sent
on behalf of the Muslims of India claimed that the introduction of
## p. 791 (#833) ############################################
PRINCIPAL BECK
791
democratic institutions was not suited to India because India was
not one nation. It has already been pointed out above that Princi-
pal Beck was the prime mover in the establishment of the Moham-
medan Defence Association of Upper India in 1893. The object
of that organisation was to prevent the Muslims from joining the
Congress. To quote Beck, “The objective of the Congress is to
transfer the political control of the country from the British to the
Hindus. . . . . . Muslims can have no sympathy with these demands.
It is imperative for the Muslims and the British to unite with a
view to fighting these agitators and prevent the introduction of
democratic form of Government unsuited to the needs and genius
of the country. We, therefore, advocate loyalty to the Govern-
ment and Anglo-Muslim collaboration. ” Again, “The parliamen-
tary system in India is most unsuited and the experiment would
prove if representative institutions are introduced. The Muslims
will be under the majority opinion of the Hindus, a thing which
will be highly resented by Muslims and which I am sure, they will
not accept quietly. "
Principal Beck was able to convince Sir Syed that while an
Anglo-Muslim alliance would ameliorate the condition of the Mus-
lim community, the nationalist alignment would lead them once
again to sweat, toil and tears. He was further led to believe that
supporting the Government was the surest way of making up the
leeway for his community. As a result, his unique influence was
used to keep the Muslims, particularly in Northern India, away
from the Congress.
On the death of Principal Beck, Sir John Strachey wrote: “An
Englishman who was engaged in empire-building activities in a
far off land has passed away. He died like a soldier at the post of
his duty. The Muslims are a suspicious people. They opposed
Mr. Beck in the beginning suspecting him to be a British spy but
his sincerity and selflessness soon succeeded in his gaining their
confidence. "
There is a temptation to compare the work of Principal Beck
with that of Hume. The latter founded in 1885 the Indian Natio-
nal Congress which fought for more than 60 years the battle of
India's freedom and ultimately made her free in 1947. On the
other hand, Principal Beck tried to separate the Musliins from the
Hindus and ultimately succeeded in his object. It were his ideas
that in a way helped the establishment of Pakistan in 1947. While
Hume stood for the unity and freedom of India, Beck stood for the
division of India and if possible keeping the Muslims attached to
the British Government.
## p. 792 (#834) ############################################
792
PAKISTAN
PARTITION OF BENGAL
On 16 October, 1905, Lord Curzon announced the Partition of
Bengal into two parts. It was pointed out that this was being
done with a view to overcome the administrative difficulties which
were being faced by the British Government in India. The pro-
vince of Bengal was an unwieldy one and its boundaries were un-
scientific and required readjustment. However, the real object of
the partition of Bengal was the desire of the British Government
to create a Muslim majority province and to reward the Muslims
for their devotion to the British Government and to punish Bengali
Babus for their audacity to defy the British Government in India.
As was expected, the Hindus of Bengal carried on a vigorous agita-
tion against the partition for practically 6 years and ultimately the
same was cancelled in 1911.
So far as the Muslims were concerned, they attached very great
importance to the creation of a Muslim majority province. They
were very grateful to Lord Curzon for what he had given them.
While the Hindus criticised the re-appointment of Lord Curzon,
the Muslims welcomed the same and showered praises on him.
They considered Lord Curzon as the best Viceroy. No wonder,
when Bengal was partitioned, the Muslims were overjoyed. They
not only thanked the Government for their gift but also opposed
the anti-partition agitation. The Muslims were made to believe
that partition was beneficial to them. At a meeting of the Muslim
League held on 30 December, 1906 at Dacca, a resolution was
passed to the effect that the partition of Bengal was beneficial to
the Muslims. Agitation against partition was condemned. In
its extraordinary meeting held in 1908, the Muslim League ex-
pressed its grave anxiety over the anti-partition movement and
hope in the steady and firm stand of the Government in the matter
because the Partition was believed to have brought salvation to the
Musalmans of Eastern Bengal from degradation and ruin. The
Muslim League also declared that any change in the partition would
result in the feeling of a grave injury to the Musalmans from one
part of India to another. Sayyid Ahmad Delhvi, Editor of Farhing
Asafia, remarked that although the illiterate and ignorant frontier
tribes could not estimate the power and strength of the British
Government, there was no reason why the Bengalis who were ex-
perts in the English language and familiar with the history of the
world should be unaware of it. They might succeed in killing 10
or 20, 50 or 100 Englishmen with the help of bombs, but they
would not be able to uproot the British rule in India. They ought
to have known that even the children of Englishmen were brave
## p.
Khadi became the uniform of the Indian patriots. The Congress
became a mass movement. "
THE SWARAJIST PARTY
Under the leadership of C. R. Das and Motilal Nehru, the
Swarajist Party was set up. Its object was the same as that of the
Congress, viz. , the establishment of Swaraj or Dominion Status
within the British Empire. However, its methods were different.
The Swarajist Party was to follow the policy of “uniform, continu-
ous and consistent obstruction. " Obstruction was the keynote of
the creed of the Party. It wanted to wreck the Legislatures from
within. It wanted to put up "resistance to the obstruction placed
in their path to Swaraj by the bureaucratic government. ” It wanted
to carry non-cooperation "into the very aisles and chance of the
bureaucratic church. ” Within the legislative bodies, its members
were to throw out budgets. They were to reject all proposals for
legislative enactments by which the bureaucracy proposed to conso-
lidate its position. They wanted to introduce all those resolutions,
measures and bills which were necessary for the healthy growth of
the national life of India and the consequent displacement of the
bureaucracy. They were to follow a definite economic policy to
prevent the drain of public wealth from India by checking all acti-
vities leading to exploitation. Outside the legislatures, they were
to give whole-hearted support to the constructive programme of
Mahatma Gandhi and work that programme unitedly through the
Congress organization. They were to supplement the work of the
Congress by helping the labour and peasant organizations through-
out the country. They declared that if they found that it was im-
possible to meet the selfish obstinacy of the bureaucracy without
civil obedience, they would place themselves without any reserva-
tion under the guidance of Mahatma Gandhi.
It cannot be denied that the Swarajist Party rendered a very
useful service to the national cause. It whipped up the enthusiasm
of the people, who were suffering from a sense of frustration on
account of the abrupt suspension of the Non-Cooperation Move-
ment. By throwing out budgets and bills introduced by the Gov-
ernment, they were able to create interest among the people in the
work of the Government. They were also able to discredit the
Government in the eyes of the world. The spirit of resistance was
maintained among the people against the foreign Government. The
passing of the Swarajist Resolution in February 1924 led to the
appointment of the Muddimar. Committee by the Government of
## p. 776 (#818) ############################################
776
THE NATIONALIST MOVEMENT IN INDIA
India to report on the working of dyarchy in the country. The
Simon Commission was appointed two years earlier on account of
the activities of the Swarajist Party. H. N. Brailsford observes:
"To my thinking the tactics of obstruction were justified for they
convinced even the British Conservatives that the system of dyarchy
was unworkable. ”
There was a lot of agitation in the country when the Simon
Commission visited India. At the Calcutta session of the Congress
held in 1928 it was intended to pass a resolution declaring complete
independence as the goal of India. However, Mahatma Gandhi
intervened and Dominion Status was declared to be the goal of
India. Mahatma Gandhi gave the assurance that he himself
would lead the movement for independence if by the end of 1929
the British Government did not confer Dominion Status on India.
It is true that Lord Irwin declared in October 1929 that Dominion
Status was the goal of the British Government in India, but a mere
declaration was not considered to be enough. Hence, under the
Presidentship of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the following Independ-
ence Resolution was passed at the Lahore session of the Congress
on the banks of the river Ravi on December 31, 1929: "This Con-
gress endorses the action of the Working Committee in connection
with the manifesto signed by party leaders, including Congressmen,
on the Viceregal pronouncement of October 31, relating to Domi-
nion Status, and appreciates the efforts of the Viceroy towards a
settlement of the national movement for Swaraj. The Congress,
however, having considered all that has since happened and the
result of the meeting between Mahatma Gandhi, Pandit Motilal
Nehru and other leaders, and the Viceroy, is of opinion that nothing
is to be gained in the existing circumstances by the Congress being
represented at the proposed Round Table Conference. This con-
gress, therefore, in pursuance of the resolution passed at its Ses-
sion at Calcutta last year, declares that the word 'Swaraj' in Article
of the Congress Constitution shall mean Complete Independence,
and further declares the entire scheme of the Nehru Committee's
Report to have lapsed, and hopes that all Congressmen will hence-
forth devote their exclusive attention to the attainment of complete
independence for India. As a preliminary step towards organising
a campaign for independence, and in order to make the Congress
policy as consistent as possible with the change of creed, this Con-
gress calls upon Congressmen and others taking part in the national
movement to abstain from participating directly or indirectly in
future elections, and directs the present Congress members of the
legislatures and committees to resign their seats. This Congress
appeals to the nation zealously to prosecute the constructive pro-
## p. 777 (#819) ############################################
CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE MOVEMENT
777
gramme of the Congress and authorises the All-India Congress
Committee, whenever it deems fit, to launch upon a programme of
civil disobedience, including non-payment of taxes, whether in
selected areas or otherwise and under such safeguards as it may
consider necessary. "
January 26, 1930, was declared the Independence Day and the
following pledge was taken on that day by the people of India and
the same was repeated year after year: "We believe that it is the
inalienable right of the Indian people to have freedom and enjoy
the fruits of their toil and have the necessities of life, so that they
may have full opportunities of growth.
“We believe also that if any Government deprives the people of
their rights and oppresses them the people have a further right to
alter it or abolish it. The British Government in India has not
only deprived the Indian people of their freedom but has based itself
on the exploitation of the masses and has ruined India economically,
culturally and spiritually.
“We believe, therefore, that India must sever the British connec-
tion and attain Purna Swaraj or Complete Independence.
“We recognize that the most effective way of gaining freedom is
not through violence.
“India has gained strength and self-reliance and marched a long
way to Swaraj following peaceful and legitimate methods and it is
by these methods that our country will attain independence.
“We believe that non-violent action in general and preparation
of non-violent direct action in particular requires the successful
working of the programme of Khadi, communal harmony and
removal of untouchability. We shall seek every opportunity to
spread goodwill among the fellowmen without distinction of caste
or creed. We shall endeavour to raise from ignorance and poverty
those who have been neglected and to advance in every way the
interests of those who are considered to be backward and suppress-
ed. ”
The civil disobedience programme was prepared and launched.
Mahatma Gandhi started his famous Dandi March on March 12,
1930, from Sabarmati Ashram. Thousands of Congress volunteers
were sent to jail. The Government used all kinds of repressive
methods to crush the nationalist movement but failed in its objec-
tive. The Congress boycotted the First Round Table Conference
held in London in 1930, but M. R. Jayakar and Sir Tej Bahadur
Sapru intervened and in March 1931, the famous Gandhi-Irwin
Pact was signed. Mahatma Gandhi described the Pact as a vic-
tory for both the sides. Both Mahatma Gandhi and Lord Irwin
sincerely wanted a settlement and the Pact was a victory for both.
## p. 778 (#820) ############################################
778
THE NATIONALIST MOVEMENT IN INDIA
However, the Pact was criticized by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and
Subhas Chandra Bose.
Mahatma Gandhi attended the Second Round Table Conference
as the sole representative of the Congress. It is true that his visit
to London had profound effect on the people of that country, but
the immediate object of his visit was not served on account of the
attitude adopted by Mr. Jinnah and Sir Samuel Hoare. Mahatma
Gandhi had to leave the Round Table Conference in disgust. As
soon as he reached India, he was arrested by the orders of Lord
Willingdon. Wholesale arrests of Congress volunteers were order-
ed. Leaders were put behind the bars. The Congress did not
participate in the Third Round Table Conference held in 1932.
General Elections were held in 1934 to the Central Assembly and
the Congress was able to win a large number of seats. When the
elections were held for the Provincial Legislatures under the Gov-
ernment of India Act, 1935, the Congress was able to secure majo-
rity in a large number of provinces. There was a deadlock between
the Congress and the Government on the question of the formation
of ministries, but after some time, the Government gave an under-
taking that the Governors would not interfere in the day to day
affairs of the Provincial Governments and the Congress Ministries
would be given a free hand. The Congress formed ministries in
July 1937 and those ministries continued till November 1939 when
they resigned after the declaration of the World War II. The Con-
gress Ministries did a lot of useful work in the provinces on account
of their devotion to work and the spirit of sacrifice.
QUIT INDIA MOVEMENT
After the beginning of the Second World War, Lord Linlithgow
made his offer to the Congress in August 1940 but the same was
rejected. In March 1942, Sir Stafford Cripps came to India with
his proposals which gave the people of India the right of making
their constitution after the ending of the World War. He was
prepared to transfer into the hands of the Indians all the Depart-
ments of the Government of India except that of Defence. The
Congress was willing to accept the long-term scheme but not the
interim scheme. The Congress did not like the attitude of “Take
it or leave it” adopted by Cripps. It was after the failure of the
talks with Cripps that the All-India Congress Committee passed
the famous Quit India Resolution on August 8, 1942. The Resolu-
tion declared "that the immediate ending of British rule in India
was an urgent necessity, both for the sake of India and for the suc-
cess of the cause of United Nations. The continuation of that rule
## p. 779 (#821) ############################################
QUIT INDIA MOVEMENT
779
is degrading and enfeebling India and making her progressively less
capable of benefiting herself and of contributing to the cause of
world freedom. The ending of British rule in this country was
thus a vital and immediate issue on which depends the future of
the war, and the success of freedom and democracy. The All-
India Congress Committee, therefore, repeats with all emphasis the
demand for the withdrawal of the British power from India. The
Committee resolves, therefore, to sanction for the vindication of
India's inalienable right to freedom and independence, the starting
of a mass struggle on non-violent lines on the widest scale possible.
Such a struggle must inevitably be under the leadership of Mahatma
Gandhi and the Committee requests him to take the lead and guide
the nation in the steps to be taken. ” Many reasons have been given
for starting the mass movement of 1942. The first was the grow-
ing threat of Japanese invasion of India. Gandhiji wanted to save
India from that attack and his view was that if the British Govern-
ment withdrew from India, the Japanese might not attack India.
Another reason was the defencelessness of the British position in
India and their easy defeat in Singapore. The view of Mahatma
Gandhi was that India also would meet the same fate if the British
did not withdraw from India. The Mahatma also believed that
the British Governmen: left the people of Malaya and Burma
neither to God nor to anarchy but to the Japanese. To quote
Gandhiji, “Don't repeat that story here. Don't leav: India to
Japan but leave India to Indians in an orderly manner. " Another
cause was the alarming growth of Axis propaganda which was
having its effect on the minds of the people of India. This was
particularly so because Subhash Chandra Bose, the former Presi-
dent of the Indian National Congress, was himself broadcasting
from Berlin in the Indian languages. Another cause was that the
mind of Gandhiji was revolting against racial discrimination shown
in the process of evacuation from Burma. The British provided
separate routes for evacuation for Europeans and Indians. The
White Road was meant for Europeans and the Black Road for
Indians. The result was that the Indian evacuees had to undergo
too many hardships on the way. The late Mr. M. S. Aney who
was at that time a member of the Executive Council of the Viceroy
incharge of the Indian Overseas Department observed: "Indian
refugees are treated in such a way as to humiliate them and make
them feel that they belong to an inferior race. ” In the words of
Gandhiji, “The admitted inequality of treatment of Indian and
European evacuees and the nianifestly overbearing behaviour of
the troops are adding to the distrust of British intentions and dec-
larations. " There was a lot of resentment in the country when
## p. 780 (#822) ############################################
780
THE NATIONALIST MOVEMENT IN INDIA
the people heard of the sufferings of the Indians and this contribut-
ed to the decision of Gandhiji to start the Quit India Movement.
Another cause was the sufferings of the people on account of the
scorched earth policy followed by the British Government in India.
The lands belonging to the people of India were destroyed for mili-
tary purposes and they were not given adequate compensation.
They were deprived of their means of livelihood. To quote
Gandhiji, “For a Bengali to part with his Canoe, is like parting
with his life. ” A lot of harshness was used by the Government
while getting the houses of the peasants evacuated for the military.
The inefficient and ineffective controls and transportation muddles
added to the sufferings of the people. Prices rose in those months.
The people lost their faith in the paper currency issued by the Gov-
ernment. There was a lot of discontentment among the people and
Gandhiji decided to take advantage of it.
The immediate effect of the passing of the Quit India Resolution
was the arrest of Mahatma Gandhi and all the members of the All
India Congress Working Committee. The Indian National Congress
was banned and its offices were taken possession of by the Police. The
Government did all that it could to crush the Congress and the
movement. The people also hit back. They revolted against the
tyranny and oppression of the Government. Gandhiji had not un-
folded his strategy before his arrest. After the passing of the resolu-
tion, Gandhiji intended to carry on negotiations with the British
Government. As he was arrested all of a sudden, the people were
left without any plan and no wonder the movement was carried on
by the people in any way they could. When the Government re-
sorted to violence and shot innocent men, women and children, the
people also resorted to violence. The result was that in some parts
of the country, British authority completely collapsed. It was with
great difficulty that the British Government was able to restore law
and order in the country.
The movement did not have the support of the upper classes of
India consisting of rich merchants, landlords and princes and also
a part of labour. The Muslim League, under the leadership of
Mr. Jinnah, asked the Muslims to keep aloof from the movement.
It was declared that the movement was directed to coerce the British
Government to hand over to the Hindus the administration of the
country. The Muslim League raised the slogans of “Divide and
Quit” and “Bat Ke Rahega Hindustan” (Hindustan will have to
be divided). The Police and the bureaucracy remained loyal
throughout. Churchill praised “the loyalty and steadfastnesss of
the brave Indian Police as well as Indian official class generally. '
The Hindu soldiers were not trusted to put down the rioters and
## p. 781 (#823) ############################################
QUIT INDIA MOVEMENT
781
the Gurkhas, Baluchis and White soldiers were usually employed
for that purpose. Those who actually participated in the move-
ment were the lower middle classes and peasants from whom also
come most of the students and labour. The processions were com-
posed of small shopkeepers, milk vendors, street hawkers, petty
traders, students and workers in small establishments and mills.
Shops remained closed for many days in spite of the threats of the
Government to fine the shopkeepers and also imprison them. The
peasants of India also made great sacrifices. Collective fines were
imposed on them and also realised. This was particularly so in
Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Andhra, Gujarat and Maharashtra. The
movement of 1942 can appropriately be called a student-peasant-
middle class rebellion. The students provided the leadership and
the peasantry the fighting strength.
The revolt of 1942 had significance not only for India but the
whole world. Its reactions were widespread. “The abnormal
times in which it took place, the low fortunes of England and the
United Nations at the time of the occurrence, the importance of
India as a base of operation against Japan and as controlling the
supply line to China—the South-Eastern and Burma routes having
been conquered by Japan—and the danger of an immediate Japa-
nese move into India, all combined to make the widespread pheno-
menon of an uprising a matter of concern to the entire United
Nations. The fortunes of India were closely bound up with it.
The Axis Powers were not less interested as they found in the revolt
much to capitalize on. ”
Dr. Amba Prasad rightly points out that the failure of the move-
ment of 1942 was more marked than was the case with the move-
ments of 1921 and 1930. “The earlier movements had been in
the nature of preparatory training for a final struggle. They were
intended to create a national consciousness in the masses who had
been emasculated through centuries of subjection to a foreign rule.
The movement of 1921 was intended to revive the spirit of self-
respect among the people by removing the fear of going to jail for
the love of the country. The object of self-government was there
but it was realized that there was still a distant goal. The move-
ment of 1930 was a further stage in the direction of independence.
It was sought to remove the fear of loss of property and thereby to
create a spirit of sacrifice. The objective of independence was there
but there was a realization that still more sacrifices were needed. The
movement of 1942, however, was intended to be the last stage in that
struggle and, therefore, the supreme sacrifice of one's life was
required to attain independence. The call was ‘do or die' and
the mass slogan was 'we shall do or die. ' It is for this reason that
## p. 782 (#824) ############################################
782
THE NATIONALIST MOVEMENT IN INDIA
the word failure was more appropriately applicable to the revolt
of 1942 than it was to the earlier movements, which had constitut-
ed preparatory stages for the goal of independence. ”
The failure of the revolt of 1942 was due to many causes.
The
first was the tactical mistakes of organization and planning. The
arrest of Mahatma Gandhi and the Congress leaders left the people
without any leadership or guidance. No wonder, they made mis-
takes and were ultimately crushed. To quote Jai Prakash Narain,
“The lack of organization was so considerable that even important
Congressmen were not aware of the progress of the revolt and, till
late in the course of the rising, it remained a matter of debate in
many Congress quarters whether what the people were doing was
really in accordance with the Congress programme. " There was
no co-ordination and no strategy. Those who led the movement
were divided in their views on the course of action. Nobody knew
what to do. The loyalty of the services and the superior physical
strength of the Government succeeded in crushing the revolt. To
quote Dr. Amba Prasad, “Thus it was the superior physical power
of the Government which succeeded in putting down the revolt.
On the one side were large unarmed masses, unorganised, leader-
less, hesitating in their minds whether what they were doing would
be approved by Gandhiji or not; on the other side was the power
of the uniformed, disciplined policeman and soldier, armed with
rifles and guns, and the power of law and the use of all means of
communications. If necessary, the machine-gunning would be
done from the aeroplanes. In such a situation, the revolt could
only succeed, if it were a simultaneous rising which would have
paralysed the administrative machinery in the shortest possible
time. At its best it was a satyagraha or mass movement; at its
worst, it was an unorganised revolt of a violent character and, in
the latter form, it gave the Government a good excuse to crush down
with force. ”
As regards the gains of the revolt of 1942, Dr. Amba Prasad
observes: “Though the revolt of 1942 failed at the time, it prepared
the ground for independence in 1947. When people have reached
a stage where they can demonstrate that they can lay down their
lives for national independence, it becomes impossible for a foreign
power to continue to impose its will on them for any length of time.
The revolt of 1942 made the British nation realize, supreme realists
as they have been, that their rule was no longer wanted by India.
Woodrow Wyatt, who was adviser to the Cabinet Mission to India
throughout their negotiations, was of the opinion in 1946 that if
the British fail to find soon a way of handing over smoothly, there
may first be a revolution to drive them out. There was a deep and
## p. 783 (#825) ############################################
INDEPENDENCE OF INDIA
783
>
wide-spread anti-British feeling existing after 1942, mostly created
by the revolt of that year'. "
The Congress leaders remained in jail till the end of the Second
World War in 1945. Many attempts were made to find a solu-
tion to the political tangle in the country but all of them failed.
The Muslim League was adamant on getting Pakistan and ulti-
mately the Indian Independence Act, 1947 was passed and thus
India became independent on August 15, 1947.
WHY ENGLAND GAVE INDIA INDEPENDENCE ?
9
There were many reasons which forced the British Government
to grant independence to India and the most important was the
strength of the nationalist movement. That movement under the
leadership of Mahatma Gandhi had become so strong that the grant
of independence could not be postponed for long. The Quit India
Movement showed that the people of India could go to any length
to bring to an end the British Raj in the country. The people made
tremendous sacrifices to paralyse the administrative machinery. The
British Government was not ignorant of the slogans: "Do or Die"
and “Now or Never. ” The organization of the Indian National
Army under Subhash Chandra Bose and the cry of “Dilli Chalo”
made the British Government realise the folly of resisting the demand
of the people of India for independence.
Another reason which forced the Government to grant inde-
pendence was that it found itself unable to keep India under her
control with the help of sheer force. Great Britain became a
second rate power after World War II.
She became so weak that
it became difficult for her to keep India under her control. When
Great Britain gave independence to Burma, she gave independence
to India also. The strike of the naval officers and ratings in Bom-
bay in 1945 convinced the British Government that it was no
longer possible to rule India with the help of force and power must
be transferred into the hands of the Indians without further delay.
After World War II, all the three branches of the Defence forces
were inspired by the new spirit of patriotism and the revolt of the
naval officers was of special significance in the context of the exist-
ing circumstances. It was for the first time after 1857 that a
section of the defence forces openly revolted against the British
Government on a political issue. The rebellion was not an isolated
event. The Indian National Army which had been formed out of
the prisoners of war had attacked India. After the surrender of
Japan, many officers of the Indian National Army were captured
and publicly tried in the Red Fort at Delhi. There was a lot of
## p. 784 (#826) ############################################
784
THE NATIONALIST MOVEMENT IN INDIA
public excitement and enthusiasm and in the end, all of them were
released. All these developments convinced the British Govern-
ment that they could not rely upon the armed forces in holding the
country against the wishes of the people.
Another cause was a conviction in the minds of those who ruled
India that it was no longer profitable to keep India in chains. It
was felt that Great Britain could gain more by giving India inde-
pendence. This has actually been found to be true as there is
more trade between India and Great Britain today than it was
before her independence.
The grant of independence to India was facilitated by the fact
that the Labour Party came to power in England in 1945. The
members of the Labour Party had always been the advocates of
independence for India and they actually gave the same to her when
they themselves came to power. Things would have been certainly
more tedious and the grant of independence would have been delay-
ed if a person like Winston Churchill was in power in 1945-47.
Another factor which helped the grant of independence was the
acceptance by the Congress of the Muslim League demand for the
establishment of Pakistan. The situation was so serious that if
the Congress had not agreed to partition India, it would not have
been possible for the British Government to hand over the admin-
istration of India into the hands of the Indian leaders. By dividing
India and giving the Muslim League a separate state of Pakistan,
the British rulers must have felt that they had avoided a bloody
civil war.
The American Government also played its part. It is well
known that during World Wai II, President Roosevelt put a lot
of pressure on the British Government to grant independence to
India. That pressure continued even after the death of Roosevelt
in 1945. The British Government which depended upon American
Government for help after 1945, could not resist the pressure of
public opinion in America in favour of the grant of independence
to India.
We are reliably informed by some respectable Indians who re-
turned to India from England during the year immediately follow-
ing the end of the Second World War that British soldiers who had
first hand knowledge of the poverty of the Indian masses spoke
about it feelingly to their friends and relatives. That knowledge
filtered down to the people. A feeling was created in England that
perhaps with independence, the Indians might be able to improve
their economic condition. That explains the unanimous support
given by the members of Parliament to the India Independence
Bill in July, 1947.
## p. 785 (#827) ############################################
INDEPENDENCE OF INDIA
785
According to Prime Minister Attlee, the independence of India
was the fulfilment of Britain's mission in India. The British were
leaving India after fulfilling their mission in the country. They
had taught the Indians to govern themselves and they were now
leaving the reins of Government in their hands.
Similar sentiments had been expressed earlier by English ad-
ministrators and politicians from time to time. Mountstuart
Elphinstone of whom it was said by Bishop Heber that "he had
seen more of India and the adjoining countries than any man now
living,” never ceased to preach the importance of training Indians
for that self-government which, he believed, must eventually come.
As early as 1819, he wrote of the British Empire in India that "the
most desirable death for us to die or should be, the improvement
of the natives reaching such a pitch as would render it impossible
for a foreign nation to retain the government; but this seems at an
immeasurable distance. . . . . . A time of separation must come; and
it is for our interest to have an early separation from a civilised
people, rather than a rupture with a barbarous nation, in which
it is probable that all our settlers and even our commerce would
perish, along with all the institutions we had introduced into the
country. " When Elphinstone became the Governor of Bombay,
his views got further crystallised. One day, Lieutenant-General
Briggs visited his camp and on seeing in his tent a pile of printed
Marathi books asked him what they were. The reply of Elphin-
stone was: “To educate the native, but it is our high-road back
to Europe. ” After many years, the Directors of the English East
India Company refused to appoint Indians to the Covenanted
Medical Service and on that occasion, Elphinstone protested in
these words: “I conceive that the administration of all the depart-
ments by a great country by a small number of foreign visitors, in
a state of isolation produced by a difference in religion, ideas, and
manners, which cuts them off from all intimate communion with
the people can never be contemplated as a permanent state of
things. I conceive also that the progress of education among the
natives renders such a scheme impracticable, even if it were other-
wise free from objection. It might, perhaps, have once been pos-
sible to have retained the natives in a subordinate condition (at the
expense of national justice and honour) by studiously repressing
their spirit and discouraging their progress in knowledge; but we
are now doing our best to raise them in all mental qualities to a
level with ourselves, and to instil into them the liberal opinions in
government and policy which have long prevailed in this country,
and it is vain to endeavour to rule them on principles only suited to
a slavish and ignorant population. '
## p. 786 (#828) ############################################
786
THE NATIONALIST MOVEMENT IN INDIA
A similar view was expressed by Sir Thomas Munro is these
words: “We should look upon India, not as a temporary posses-
șion, but as one which is to be maintained permanently until the
natives shall in some future age have abandoned most of their
superstitions and prejudices, and become sufficiently enlightened,
to frame a regular government for themselves, and to conduct and
preserve it. Whenever such a time shall arrive, it wiil probably
be best for both countries that the British control over India should
be gradually withdrawn. That the desirable change contemplated
may in some after-age be effected in India, there is no cause to
despair. Such a change was at one time in Britain itself at least
as hopeless as it is here. When we reflect how much the character
of nations has always been influenced by that of goveruments, and
that some, once the most cultivated, have sunk into barbarism,
while others, formerly the rudest, have attained the highest point
of civilisation, we shall see no reason to doubt that if we pursue
steadily the proper measures, we shall in time so far improve the
character of our Indian subjects as to enable them to govern and
protect themselves. "
The belief of Lord Macaulay was that "it may be that the pub-
lic mind of India may expand under our system until it has out-
grown our system. . . . . . that having become instructed in Euro-
pean knowledge, they may in some future age demand European
institutions”, and when that happened, it would be the proudest
day in English History. The following passage occurs in his
speech in the House of Commons: “Are we to keep these men sub-
missive? or do we think we can give them knowledge without
awakening ambition? or do we mean to awaken ambition and pro-
vide it with no legitimate vent? Who will answer any one of these
questions in the affirmative? Yet one of them must be answered
in the affirmative by every person who maintains that we ought
permanently to exclude the people of India from high office. I
have no fears. The path of duty is plainly before us, and it is
also the path of wisdom, of national prosperity, and of honour. "
Similar views were expressed by Sir Charles Wood in these
words: “Of course, there will be a struggle and blood and treasure
to an enormous amount will be spent in vain. This is, I am afraid,
the most probable end of our indian rule, but good conduct, wise
measures and sound policy towards the natives may avert it for
many years, if it can do no better. Whatever may be the result,
our course ought be the same: to improve the native, reconcile him
if we can to our rule and fit him for ruling himself. I don't believe
that his fitness to rule well wi'l make him a worse subject, till his
time arrives. ”
## p. 787 (#829) ############################################
CHAPTER XXXVI
PAKISTAN
THE Muslims ruled India for more than 6 centuries. They were
able to conquer practically the whole of India. However, towards
the end of the reign of Aurangzeb, the Mughal Empire began to
break up. The Marathas raised the standard of revolt and ulti-
matly were able in the 18th century to set up a big Maratha
Empire. The Sikhs, after some time, were also able to carve out
a kingdom of their own. Many small Muslim States also came
into existence. Both the English and the French East India Com-
panies joined the scramble for power. After defeating their rivals,
in Bengal and the Deccan, the English East India Company was
able to establish its own empire in India. One by one, the Mus-
lim states were conquered and annexed. The Marathas were fin-
ally defeated and their territories also annexed. Sind and the
Punjab were annexed during the 1840's. By the middle of the
19th century, British hold over the whole of India was complete
and they ruled the country with an iron hand, without the people
having any say in the administration of the country.
The relations between the English and the Muslims were parti-
cularly bad as the Muslims nursed a grievance that it were the
British who snatched away power from their hands. They refus-
ed to study the English language and maintained an attitude of
aloofness from the British. No wonder, they were not taken in
the employment of the English East India Company and the Hindus
alone from India were to be found there. The Muslim resent-
ment against the British Government exhibited itself during the
Wahabi Movement, but the same was suppressed ruthlessly by the
British Government. During the rising of 1857-58, the Muslims
played an important part. The Mughal Emperor put himself at
the head of the rebels and naturally the British Government took
stern action against the Muslims not only during the period of che
national uprising but even after that. This state of affairs conti-
nued up to 1870. It was then that a change took place in the Bri-
tish attitude towards the Muslims. In 1871 was published a book
entitled “The Indian Mussalmans” by Sir William Hunter. The
contention of the author was that the Muslims were too weak for
rebellion and "it was expedient now to take them into alliance
rather than continue to antagonise them. ”
## p. 788 (#830) ############################################
788
PAKISTAN
SIR SYED AHMED KHAN
The work of Sir William Hunter was facilitated by Sir Syed
Ahmed Khan (1817-98). He belonged to a Mughal official family
and had entered the British judicial service. During the 1857-58
days, he remained faithful to the British Government. After that,
he published a book analysing the causes of the revolt of 1857-58.
His conclusion was that the Indian Muslims must come to terms
with the British Government and at the same time remain aloof from
the Hindus. He put emphasis on the community of fundamental
.
Islamic and Christian ideas with their common Judaic heritage.
Reason and revelation were basic to both Islam and Christianity.
Sir Syed joined the Viceroy's Legislative Council in 1878 but
even before that he had founded in 1875 the Muhammadan Anglo-
Oriental College at Aligarh. That college became the centre of
all the Muslims of India and even for Muslims abroad and was
given the status of a University in 1920.
Not content with this, Sir Syed laid the foundation of the Annual
Muslim Educational Conference in 1886. This was done only a
year after the establishment of the Indian National Congress in
1885. The Muslim Conference was held cach year at a different
place in India. In addition to being a centre of information re-
garding the general and educational condition of the Indian Mus-
lims, it became a forum of dissemination of Muslim political opi-
nions. With the help of this Annual Conference, the Muslims hop-
ed to cover "the whole of Upper India with a network of societies,
committees and individuals, all working harmoniously in the great
cause, so that a big evil may be dealt with by a strong remedy and
by the vigorous work of one generation the tide of misfortune may
be turned and the Mahommedan Nation may be set moving on
the tide of progress abreast of all the other Nations of India. "
Nawab Imad-ul-Mulk Maulvi Sayyid Husain Bilgrami made it
clear in his inaugural address as President of the Conference on 27
December, 1900 that several purposes were associated with the
Annual Conference and it provided a meeting ground for the edu-
cated Musalmans of different parts of India, so that they might
have opportunities of mutual consultation for the progress of their
community and take concerted action for its achievement. The
Annual Conference gradually gained ground and it succeeded in
collecting information regarding the number, aims and methods of
the Muslim societies in each district, the number,
and
addresses of eminent Musalmans, Maulvis, Ulema and the mem-
bers of the Muslim nobility "who may be thought earnest in devot-
ing their leisure and money to matters of communal interest. ”
## p. 789 (#831) ############################################
SIR SYED AHMED KHAN
789
Both the educational and political objectives of the Conference were
emphasized during the Annual Conferences.
Sir Syed also founded in 1888 the Indian Patriotic Association.
The objectives of the new organisation were to “(a) publish and
circulate pamphlets and other papers for information of members
of Parliament, English journals and the people of Great Britain, in
which those mis-statements will be pointed out by which the sup-
porters of the Indian National Congress have wrongly attempted
to convince the English people that all the Nations of India and the
Indian chiefs and rulers agree with the aims and objects of the
National Congress, (b) to inform members of Parliament and the
newspapers of Great Britain and its people by the same means of
the opinions of Mohammedans in general, of the Islamia Anjmans,
and those Hindus and their societies which were opposed to the
objects of the National Congress, (c) to strive to preserve peace in
India and to strengthen the British rule; and to remove those bad
feelings from the hearts of the Indian people, which the supporters
of the Congress are stirring up throughout the country and by
which great dissatisfaction is being raised among the people against
the British Government. "
In addition to these, Sir Syed started in 1893 the Mohammedan
Defence Association of Upper Iridia. Principal Beck of the Aligarh
College played an important part in starting this organisation. On,
30 December, 1893, a meeting of some influential Muslims was
held at the house of Sir Syed to discuss the political condition of
the Musalmans. The proceedings of this meeting were started with
an address by Principal Beck himself. The Principal was not in
favour of political agitation as that could alienate the Muslims
from the British Government. However, he felt the necessity of
an organisation to give political lead to the young Muslims. To
quote Principal Beck, “With the press pouring out a stream of
political articles, our young educated Mohammedans will be drawn
into the current to support or cppose the measures proposed. . . .
I think it would be a mistake to leave them without guidance. "
The advice of Principal Beck was accepted and the Mohammedan
Defence Association of Upper India was set up through a resolu-
tion passed to that effect in the same gathering.
Sir Syed was a true Muslim and he was jealous of the progress
made by the Hindus. He felt that Muslims had made a mistake
in ignoring the study of the English language and European ideas.
He would like to pull up the Muslims of India so that they were
not handicapped in any way in their struggle for existence. He
also felt that the future of the Muslims in India was not bright.
A beginning had already been made by the introduction of demo-
## p. 790 (#832) ############################################
790
PAKISTAN
a
cratic institutions in India by the British Government. If ultimate-
ly, the British Government agreed to transfer power into the hands
of the Indians, the Muslims will be nowhere. The Muslims being
in a minority in India will not be able to safeguard their own inter-
ests. The Hindu majority could do anything against the Muslim
minority. It was for that reason that Sir Syed advised the Muslims
of India not to join the nationalist movement in the country and
keep away from it. Sir Syed was not bothered about the fact
whether India became free or not. His only worry was that if
more powers were given to the Indians by the Englishmen, those
were going to be used by the Hindus against the Muslims. He
was not prepared to put up with the majority rule of the Hindus
in the distant future. That was the reason why he called upon
all the Muslims of India not to join the Indian National Congress.
Sir Syed jeered at the national agitation for freedom and called it
as "no more than the cries of jackals and crows” and advised the
British Government to rule with the help of force a country like
India which did not have a common nationality, common blood,
common aims and common ways of thinking. He assured the
Government of India that the Muslims would not join the Indian
National Congress and in this he was eminently successful. Sir
Sved definitely succeeded in keeping most of the Muslims away
from the Indian National Congress. As a matter of fact, a delibe-
rate attempt was made both by the British bureaucracy in India
and the influential Muslims to keep the Muslims away from the
Hindus. Aligarh became the centre of Muslim thought and cul-
ture. Practically every big Muslim in India sent his children to
Aligarh for education or he was persuaded or coerced to do so by
the British bureaucracy in India. The credit for separating the
Muslims from the Hindus must go to Sir Syed Ahmed Khan. He
may have played the game which some of the Englishmen in India
wanted him to play but the fact remains that as a result of the
policy advocated by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, the nationalist move-
ment in India became positively weak and ultimately it resulted in
the partition of India in 1947.
PRINCIPAL BECK
A reference must be made in this connection to the work of Mr.
Beck who was the Principal of the Aligarh College from 1883 to
1899. It was Principal Beck who organised the Muslim opposition
in 1899 to Bradlaugh's Bill in the British Parliament for giving
representative institutions to India. The memorial which was sent
on behalf of the Muslims of India claimed that the introduction of
## p. 791 (#833) ############################################
PRINCIPAL BECK
791
democratic institutions was not suited to India because India was
not one nation. It has already been pointed out above that Princi-
pal Beck was the prime mover in the establishment of the Moham-
medan Defence Association of Upper India in 1893. The object
of that organisation was to prevent the Muslims from joining the
Congress. To quote Beck, “The objective of the Congress is to
transfer the political control of the country from the British to the
Hindus. . . . . . Muslims can have no sympathy with these demands.
It is imperative for the Muslims and the British to unite with a
view to fighting these agitators and prevent the introduction of
democratic form of Government unsuited to the needs and genius
of the country. We, therefore, advocate loyalty to the Govern-
ment and Anglo-Muslim collaboration. ” Again, “The parliamen-
tary system in India is most unsuited and the experiment would
prove if representative institutions are introduced. The Muslims
will be under the majority opinion of the Hindus, a thing which
will be highly resented by Muslims and which I am sure, they will
not accept quietly. "
Principal Beck was able to convince Sir Syed that while an
Anglo-Muslim alliance would ameliorate the condition of the Mus-
lim community, the nationalist alignment would lead them once
again to sweat, toil and tears. He was further led to believe that
supporting the Government was the surest way of making up the
leeway for his community. As a result, his unique influence was
used to keep the Muslims, particularly in Northern India, away
from the Congress.
On the death of Principal Beck, Sir John Strachey wrote: “An
Englishman who was engaged in empire-building activities in a
far off land has passed away. He died like a soldier at the post of
his duty. The Muslims are a suspicious people. They opposed
Mr. Beck in the beginning suspecting him to be a British spy but
his sincerity and selflessness soon succeeded in his gaining their
confidence. "
There is a temptation to compare the work of Principal Beck
with that of Hume. The latter founded in 1885 the Indian Natio-
nal Congress which fought for more than 60 years the battle of
India's freedom and ultimately made her free in 1947. On the
other hand, Principal Beck tried to separate the Musliins from the
Hindus and ultimately succeeded in his object. It were his ideas
that in a way helped the establishment of Pakistan in 1947. While
Hume stood for the unity and freedom of India, Beck stood for the
division of India and if possible keeping the Muslims attached to
the British Government.
## p. 792 (#834) ############################################
792
PAKISTAN
PARTITION OF BENGAL
On 16 October, 1905, Lord Curzon announced the Partition of
Bengal into two parts. It was pointed out that this was being
done with a view to overcome the administrative difficulties which
were being faced by the British Government in India. The pro-
vince of Bengal was an unwieldy one and its boundaries were un-
scientific and required readjustment. However, the real object of
the partition of Bengal was the desire of the British Government
to create a Muslim majority province and to reward the Muslims
for their devotion to the British Government and to punish Bengali
Babus for their audacity to defy the British Government in India.
As was expected, the Hindus of Bengal carried on a vigorous agita-
tion against the partition for practically 6 years and ultimately the
same was cancelled in 1911.
So far as the Muslims were concerned, they attached very great
importance to the creation of a Muslim majority province. They
were very grateful to Lord Curzon for what he had given them.
While the Hindus criticised the re-appointment of Lord Curzon,
the Muslims welcomed the same and showered praises on him.
They considered Lord Curzon as the best Viceroy. No wonder,
when Bengal was partitioned, the Muslims were overjoyed. They
not only thanked the Government for their gift but also opposed
the anti-partition agitation. The Muslims were made to believe
that partition was beneficial to them. At a meeting of the Muslim
League held on 30 December, 1906 at Dacca, a resolution was
passed to the effect that the partition of Bengal was beneficial to
the Muslims. Agitation against partition was condemned. In
its extraordinary meeting held in 1908, the Muslim League ex-
pressed its grave anxiety over the anti-partition movement and
hope in the steady and firm stand of the Government in the matter
because the Partition was believed to have brought salvation to the
Musalmans of Eastern Bengal from degradation and ruin. The
Muslim League also declared that any change in the partition would
result in the feeling of a grave injury to the Musalmans from one
part of India to another. Sayyid Ahmad Delhvi, Editor of Farhing
Asafia, remarked that although the illiterate and ignorant frontier
tribes could not estimate the power and strength of the British
Government, there was no reason why the Bengalis who were ex-
perts in the English language and familiar with the history of the
world should be unaware of it. They might succeed in killing 10
or 20, 50 or 100 Englishmen with the help of bombs, but they
would not be able to uproot the British rule in India. They ought
to have known that even the children of Englishmen were brave
## p.
