No More Learning

Pal, Annie Besant, Jinnah and M. M. Malaviya but the resolu-
tion was carried by a majority of 1,855 against 873. The pro-
gramme of the Non-Co-operation Movement was clearly stated in
the non-co-operation resolution. It involved the surrender of
titles and honorary offices and resignation from nominated posts in
the local bodies. The non-co-operators were not to attend Gov-
ernment Levies, Darbars and cther official and semi-official func-
tions held by the Government officials or in their honour. They
were to withdraw their children gradually from schools and col-
leges and establish national schools and colleges. They were to
boycott gradually the British courts and establish private arbitra-
tion courts. They were not to join the army as recruits for ser-
vice in Mesopotamia. They were not to stand for election to the
Legislatures and they were also not to vote. They were to use
Swadeshi cloth. Hand spinning and hand weaving were to be
encouraged. Untouchability was to be removed as there could be
no Swaraj without this reform. Mahatma Gandhi promised
Swaraj within one year if people conducted his programme since-
rely and whole-heartedly. Ahimsa or non-violence was to be
strictly observed by the non-co-operators. They were not to give
up Satya or truth under any circumstances.
The Non-Co-operation Movement captured the imagination of
the people. Both the Hindus and Muslims participated in it.
There was wholesale burning of foreign goods. Many students left
schools and colleges and the Congress set up such national educa-
tional institutions as the Kashi Vidyapeeth, Banaras Vidyapeeth,
Gujarat Vidyapeeth, Bihar Vidyapeeth, Bengal National Univer-
sity, National College of Lahore, Jamia Millia of Delhi and the
National Muslim University of Aligarh. Seth Jamna Lal Bajaj dec-
lared that he would give Rs. one lakh a year for the maintenance
of non-practising lawyers. Forty lakh volunteers were enrolled by


## p. 772 (#814) ############################################

772
THE NATIONALIST MOVEMENT IN INDIA
the Congress. Twenty thousand 'Charkhas' were manufactured.
The people started deciding their disputes by means of arbitration.
Mahatma Gandhi gave up the title of Kaisar-i-Hind and his ex-
ample was followed by others. When the Prince of Wales landed
in Bombay on November 13, 1921, a complete Hartal was ob-
served at Calcutta when he visited that city in December, 1921.
The Government followed a policy of repression to crush the mo-
vement. There was indiscriminate beating of the non-co-opera-
tors and the dispersal of their meetings with the help of force.
The Seditious Meetings Act was passed and thousands of persons
were arrested. All the Congress leaders, with the exception of
Mahatma Gandhi, were arrested. Mahatmaji was not arrested
because the government was afraid of the consequences of his ar-
It is estimated that the total number of arrested persons was
about 25,000.
The Congress reaction to this “virulent repression unworthy of
a civilised government” was its decision at the Ahmedabad Session
of the Congress in 1921 to start individual and mass civil disobe-
dience. Mahatma Gandhi was appointed the "sole executive au-
thority. ” On 1st February, 1922, Mahatma Gandhi informed the
Governor-General of India of his intention to start mass civil dis-
obedience in Bardoli and to sanction the no-tax campaign in
Guntur which was in progress since 12th January, 1922. How-
ever, he was “prepared to advise postponement of civil disobedien-
ce of an aggressive character” if all non-violent non-co-operating
persons were released and the government announced non-inter-
ference with all non-violent activities. He gave seven days to the
Government to accept his demands. However, before the period
of seven days was over, the tragedy of Chauri Chauia occurred
which “changed the course of Indian history. ” What actually
happened was that a mob of 3,000 persons killed 21 policemen
and one inspector, some of whom were burnt alive in the police
station. This was too much for Mahatma Gandhi who stood for
complete non-violence. The result was that Mahatma Gandhi
gave orders for the suspension of the Non-Co-operation Movement
at once. As soon as the movement was suspended, there was a lot
of criticism of Mahatma Gandhi and the Government of India
finding him in disgrace, decided to arrest him and prosecute him.
He was sentenced to six years' imprisonment although he was re-
leased in February, 1924 on grounds of health.
The action of Mahatma Gandhi in suspending the movement
was severely criticised from many quarters. According to Dr.
Pattabhi Sitaramayya, “Long letters were written from behind the
bars by Pt. Motilal Nehru and Lala Lajpat Rai. They took


## p. 773 (#815) ############################################

NON-COOPERATION MOVEMENT
773
Gandhi to task for punishing the whole country for the sins of a
place. ” According to Subhash Chandra Bose, C. R. Das was
beside himself with sorrow. ” To quote Bose, “To sound the
order of retreat just when public enthusiasm was reaching the
boiling point was nothing short of a national calamity. ” Accord-
ing to Jawaharlal Nehru, “We in prison learnt to our amazement
and consternation that Gandhi had stopped the aggressive aspect
of our struggle, that he had suspended civil disobedience. ” Ac-
cording to C. R. Dass, “The Mahatma opens a campaign in a bril-
liant fashion, he works it up with skill, he moves from success to
success still he reaches the zenith of his campaign but after that
he loses his nerve and begins to falter. ” According to Polak, “The
Muslims wilted under the blow and it was never again possible to
restore the confidence and fraternity that had united the two com-
munities during this brief period of alliance. ”
However, Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru justified the action of Mahatma
Gandhi later on, on ground of practical politics. The incident of
Chauri Chaura was not a solitary one. It was only the last straw.
There was practically no discipline among the volunteers. There
were frequent cases of violence. As practically all the leaders of
the Congress were in jail with the exception of Mahatma Gandhi,
it was not possible to lead the movement on the right lines. To-
wards the end of 1921, there had occurred the Moplah rising in
Malabar with the object of establishing a Khilafat State. How-
ever, it took a communal turn and the Moplahs slaughtered not
only a few British officials but far more Hindu neighbours. If the
movement had not been stopped by Mahatma Gandhi, there was
every possibility of more violence in the country and that would
have given the government a chance to crush the same with a lot
of cruelty. To quote Jawaharlal Nehru, “This would have been
crushed by the Government in a bloody manner and a reign of
terror established which would have thoroughly demoralised the
people. ” It was the action of Mahatma Gandhi that saved the
people from that danger. According to Romain Rolland, "It is
dangerous to assemble all the forces of a nation, and to hold the
nation panting, before a prescribed movement to lift one's arm to
give the final command and then, at the last moment, let one's arm
drop and thrice call a halt just as the formidable machinery has
been set in motion. "
As regards the shortcomings and achievements to the Non-
Cooperation Movement, the movement apparently failed to achieve
its object of securing the redress of Khilafat and Punjab wrongs.
The Swaraj was not attained in one year as promised by Mahatma
Gandhi. According to Subhash Chandra Bose, “The promise of


## p. 774 (#816) ############################################

774
THE NATIONALIST MOVEMENT IN INDIA
Swaraj within one year was not only unwise but childish. ” The
Congress ought not to have identified itself with the Khilafat Move-
ment. According to Polak, the Khilafat Movement "rested on a
wrong foundation. While Indian Muslims were reviving the roman-
tic, old world tradition of an Islamic theocracy, the Turks in
whose interest they believed they were acting, were tossing it aside
as medieval lumber. ” Under Kamal Pasha, Turkey became a secu-
lar State and the institution of the Khilafat was abolished in 1922
and the Khalifa himself was exiled. The sudden suspension of
the movement increased Hindu-Muslim tension. There started "a
series of communal riots which raged, with brief intervals, for many
years and surpassed in bitterness the records of the past. ”
However, there is a lot to be said in favour of the achievements
of the Non-Cooperation Movement. According to Subhash Chandra
Bose, “The year 1921 undoubtedly gave the country a highly organ-
ized party organization. Before that the Congress was a constitu-
tional party and mainly a talking body. The Mahatma not only
gave it a constitution and a nation-wide basis, but what is more
important converted it into a revolutionary organization. Uni-
form slogans were repeated everywhere and uniform policy and
ideology gained currency from one end of India to the other. The
English language lost its importance and the Congress adopted
Hindi as the lingua franca for the whole country. Khadi became
the official uniform for all Congressmen. ” According to Coupland,
"He (Gandhi) had done what Tilak had failed to do. He had
converted the national movement into a revolutionary movement.
He had taught it to pursue the goal of India's freedom not by
constitutional pressure on the government, still less by discussion
and agreement, but by force, none the less force because it was
meant to be non-violent. And he had not only made the national
movement revolutionary, he had also made it popular. It had
hitherto been confined to the urban intelligentsia; it had made no
appeal to the country folk. Gandhi's personality had deeply stirred
the countryside. ” According to Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru, “The old
feeling of oppression and frustration was completely gone. There
was no whispering, no round-about legal phraseology to avoid get-
ting into trouble with the authorities. We said what we felt and
shouted it out from the house-tops. " According to A. R. Desai,
“With the section of workers and peasants participating in it, the
nationalist movement which was restricted to the upper and middle-
classes till 1917, got a mass basis for the first time. " The Non-
Cooperation Movement added to the self-reliance of the people.
They were no more afraid of the strength of the British Govern-
ment. The prisons lost their terror and became places of pilgrim-
"


## p. 775 (#817) ############################################

THE SWARAJIST PARTY
775
age for the liberation of the country. 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.