%

% .'

INDIAN

Dr. B. L. FADIAINDIAN GOVERNMENT

and

POLITICS

Thoroughly Revised Sixth Edition

Special Features of the Book

The book critically examines the dynamics of federalism and centre-state relations with special reference to the recommendations of the Sarkaria Commission Report.

The book gives due care to the recommendations of the National Commission to review the working of the Constitution.

The book gives due emphasis to the philosophy of the constitution and includes topics likeDoctrine of basic structure; Secularism; Directive Principles of State Policy; Right to Propertyfrom fundamental to legal right.

The book incorporates all the amendments upto and including the Constitution (Ninety-two Amendment) Act, 2003.

The topics on the President; Prime Minister; Governor; Judicial review, Judicial Activism in India and the Chief Minister are discussed with special reference to the relevant

cases.

Some of the core chapters of the book areMinority Politics in India; Electoral Reforms in India; Problem of Violence in India, Crime and Politics : The Nexus; Defection Politics in India; Coalition Politics in India, Fourteenth Lok Sabha Elections (2004) and Emerging Political Trends and the case!.-,:< -; ^ }

., n-y ti'^N SO

IINDIAN

GOVERNMENT

AND POLITICS

Dr. B.L. Fadia

Head

Department of Political Science Jai Narain Vyas University, JODHPUR

2006

SAHITYA BHAWAN PIIRI IPATIOMQ AfiRA, INDIAN POLITY

,SBN.81-72B8-062-6

PREFAC

-j t is with grea * being placed and, also, enlarg the book has sir and teachers of to make it more and also for tt India or State

India is a pi

and change. I*

conservative tr

pof the term li/pphas a well e:/ppalthough to t/ppaffected by n/ppThe revis/pppolitical syste/pp| and probe t/ppproper histor/ppConstitution,/ppevaluates th/ppstructures a/ppbook surve;/ppSarkaria C/ppparty syste/ppand makes/ppDuring form and Besides,/ppAGRAPREFACE/ppT t is with great pleasure that the sixth edition of 'Indian Government and Politics' is being placed in the hands of the readers. The book has been revised, updated and, also, enlarged. It is a matter of satisfaction to the author that the fifth edition of the book has since long been exhausted thus testifying to its usefulness to the students and teachers of Political Science. While preparing this edition efforts have been made to make it more analytical, meaningful and uptodate, both for the teachers and students and also for those who intend to appear in various competitive examinations at All India or State levels./ppIndia is a particularly significant laboratory of political, economic and social development and change. It is a static society in progress, with a political system grounded in conservative traditions but nevertheless in a process of change. In the strictest sense of the term India has perhaps not yet evolved a real political system at all; but it has a well established framework of government and law which is a working reality, although to be sure it sometimes operates in peculiar ways and is often strangely affected by non-political forces and development./ppThe revised volume presents a fairly comprehensive view of the evolving Indian political system at a critical period, of its development. The volume seeks to analyse and probe the diverse aspects and problems of contemporary Indian politics in their proper historical setting. It discusses the constitution making process, philosophy of the Constitution, Nature of the Indian State, Social structure and Democratic process. It evaluates the amendments to the Constitution uptodate and puts its focus on institutional structures and processes of the governmental system and analyses their working. The book surveys centre-state relations and critically examines the recommendations of the Sarkaria Commission on Centre-State relations. The book discusses the nature of the party system, regional political parties and investigates the problem of electoral reform and makes concrete suggestions./ppDuring the years that this work has grown from its earliest beginnings to its present form and content, I have greatly profitted from my discussion with several scholars./pp and works are(ii)/ppmentioned in the foot notes at the appropriate places and also included in the bibliography. To all of them I am grateful. I am also grateful to Mr. K. L. Bansal of Sahitya Bhawan Publications for his sincere and serious efforts in publishing the sixth revised edition of this book within a short period of time./ppNeedless to add, the views expressed in this work are my own and I am alone responsible for all the defects and shortcomings./ppCC/ppAuthor/ppCONTENTS/ppI. Overview of the Indian Political System/pp1./pp2./pp3./pp4./pp5./pp6./pp7./ppThe in India/ppHistorical Context: Nature of the British Colonial Rule/ppThe Movement/ppSstorical Context: Character of the Indian National/ppIndia on the Eve of Independence/ppApproaches to the Study of Indian Politics/ppThe Constituent Assembly of India : Its Perceptions of the Future Indian Polity ' ;:/ppSalient Features of the Indian Constitution/pp8./pp9./pp10./ppThe Preamble : Philosophy of the Constitution Secularism : The Soul of the Constitution/ppFundamental Rights : Charter of Political and Civil/ppThe Liberties/pp11./ppThe Directive Principles of State Policy : Manifesto of Aims and Objectives/ppThe Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy : Possibility of Conflict/pp20/pp58 65 72/pp87/pp97/pp105/pp115/pp132 14112./pp13./pp14./pp15./pp16./pp17./pp18./ppThe Fundamental Duties/pp19./pp20./pp21./pp22./pp23./pp24./pp25./pp26./pp27./pp28./ppRight to Property : From Fundamental to Legal Right The Ideology of the Constitution The Indian Constitution : Doctrine of Basic Structure Politics of Constitutional Amendments in India Nature of the Indian State/ppIndia : Social Structure and Democratic Process II. Constitutional Provisions and Institutional Functioning/ppThe Indian Federal System : Nature and Determinants Centre-State Legislative Relations : An Overview Centre-State Administrative Relations : An Overview Centre-State Financial Relations : An Overview Politics of Planning vis-a-vis State Autonomy Politics of President's Rule in the States/ppThe Party System and Political Dynamics of Indian Federalism/ppOver-Centralisation : A Plea for State Autonomy/ppCentre-State Relations : Areas of Conflict/ppThe Indian Parliament/pp148 152 158 162 168 189 201/pp213 232 240 244 256 270 294/pp306 320 33029./pp30./pp31./pp32./pp33./pp34./pp35./pp36./pp37./pp38./pp39./pp40./pp41./pp42./pp43./pp44./pp45./ppWorking of Parliament/ppOffice of the President : Election Method and Politics of Selection/ppPowers and Position of the President/ppThe Indian Prime Minister : Office and Powers/ppThe Union Council of Ministers/ppThe Supreme Court of India : Organisation and Powers/ppJudicial Review in India/ppJudicial Activism in India/ppState Politics in India : A Framework/ppEvolution of States in India/ppThe Office of the Governor: Mode of Selection/ppThe Role of Governor in State Politics/ppThe Chief Minister & The Council of Ministers in State Politics/ppThe State Legislature/ppThe State High Courts/ppPanchayati Raj System in India/ppNature and Role of the Administration/pp361 372/pp385 399 419 426 438/pp452 469 486 498 524/pp538 552 561 57646./pp47./pp48./pp49./pp50./pp51./pp52./pp53./pp54./pp55. 56./pp57. 58. 59. 60. 61./pp(iv) III. Party System and Elections/ppNature of the Party System in India 589/ppThe Party System in India : National Parties .600/ppThe Party System in India : Role of Regional and State 621 Parties/ppPressure Groups in Indian Politics 642/ppThe Election Commission : Organisation, Functions and 671 Role/ppElectoral Reforms in India 686/ppElections and the Process of Politicisation 708/ppLok Sabha Elections 1999 : Emerging Political Trends 714/ppLok Sabha Elections 2004 : Emerging Political Trends 735 IV. Development Process/ppStrategy of Development in India 756/ppIndia : Problems of Underdevelopment: Poverty, Illiteracy 768 & Environmental Degradation and Regional Imbalances/ppDefection Politics in India 791/ppCoalition Politics in India 815/ppCoalition Politics in the Indian States 829/ppCrime and Politics : The Nexus 855/ppPolitics of Minorities in India 864.(v)/pp62./pp63./pp64./pp65./pp66./pp67./pp68./pp69./pp70./pp71./ppCommunalism in Indian Politics/ppThe Caste and Indian Politics/ppLanguage Politics in India/ppRegionalism in Indian Politics/ppProblem of Violence in India/ppIndia : Struggle for Gender Justice/ppWomen's Political Participation in India : An Agenda for Empowerment/ppDalit Movements : Emerging Role of Dalits in Indian Politics/ppThe Case for Presidential System/ppReviewing the Indian Constitution : Recommendations of the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution Select Bibliography/pp876/pp890/pp907/pp920/pp935 942 945/pp953/pp965 979/pp995SIBChapter 7/ppTHE HISTORICAL CONTEXT/ppNATURE OF THE BRITISH COLONIAL RULE IN INDIA/ppAlmost from the very beginnings of recorded history, India had to face a ong succession of foreign invasions. While there were occasional plundering raids with the raiders carrying away with them the fruits of plunder, by and large all these groups of foreignerswhether of displaced persons, immigrants or invaderswho entered India before the Europeans, settled down in this country for good. They did not make her an "economic appendage of another country". India became their home and they themselves became part of her life./ppIt was in the 17th Century that the Europeans for the first time began taking interest in India on any large scale. The most important early entrants were the Portuguese, the Dutch, the French and the British. None of them came to India to settle here. They were all attracted by the stories of India's fabulous wealth and affluence and by the excellence of her manufactured goods which had a big market in Europe. According to the French traveller Bernier, India of those days was such a deep sink in which gold and silver from all over the world came and get accumulated but from which there was no outlet./ppAccording to R. Palme Dutt, three main periods stand out in the history of imperialist rule in India. The first is the period of early capitalism, represented by the East India Company and extending in the general character of its system to the end of the Eighteenth Century. The second is the period of Industrial Capital (capitalist machine industry) which established a new basis of exploitation of India in the 19th Century. The third in the modern period of Finance-capital, developing its distinctive system of the exploitation of India on the remains of the old, and growing up from its first beginnings in the closing years of the 19th Century to its fuller development in the 20th Century.1/ppTHE BRITISH CONQUEST OF INDIA/ppThe British also first came to India as a trading company like other Europeans. The company which later came to be known as the East India Company was incorporated in London on December 31, 1600 under a charter of Queen Elizabeth. By 1690 the British had gained a number of footholds and their business had prospered. So as to be constantly widening their areas of trade and obtaining from the Indian rulers greater concessions, the officers of the Company soon spread a wide net of corruption and intrigues throughout India. They succeeded in enticing to their side the ministers, courtiers and employees of Mughal Darbar through bribery and various other allurements. The situation deteriorated further after the death of the Mughal Emperor A,,^n^^nV, in 17ri7 TVio TT.mrviro hocrari t.r> rlisintfiorate and the central authorityINDIAN GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS

weakened. Provincial satraps raised their heads. The East India Company very shrewdly exploited the internal disunity and discord among the princes of India for their own nefarious ends. By playing one prince against the other and lending the support of its armies sometimes to one and sometimes to the other, the company increased its power and influence in the Indian sub-continent.

East India Company's military operations in Bengal supplemented by Clive's policy of tricks, bribery and chicanery culminated in the victory at the Battle of Plassey in 1757. Nawab Siraj-ud-Daula suffered a disastrous defeat mainly to his own commander-in-chief, Mir Jafar having turned a traitor. The Company installed Mir Jafar as the new Nawab who in turn granted to the Company the zamindari of 24 Parganas. In 1760, the Company replaced Mir Jafar to Mir Kasim and in the process rewarded him with three more districts of Chittagong, Burdwan and Midnapore. The Company which could now change the Nawab at will, became the de-facto sovereign power in Bengal and in a sense the foundation of the British Empire in India could be said to have been laid at Plassey in 1757. '?a.u i>*>l>"o m k; ;;;jfT

In 1759, Shah Alam occupied the throne of Delhi. In 1764, at the Battle of Buxar, the Company secured a prestigious victory over the Nawabs of Oudh and Bengal as well as over the Mughal Emperor Shah Alam in whose name the Nawabs claimed to be fightings. As a result, all the real powers of the Nawab of Bengal were ended and he was reduced to a titular position. The whole of Bengal passed into the Company's hands. The Mughal Emperor Shah Alam was compelled to grant to the Company for rupees 26 lakhs per year the Diwani (Civil Government), i.e. the right to control the collection and administration of revenues of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa and the right of administering Civil Justice in those areas. The Company was also to control the maintenance or disbanding of military forces. The Nawabs were left with responsibilities of maintenance of law and order and criminal justice. The divorce between power and responsibility was thus complete. The double government of the Company and the Nawabs continued throughout the period 1765-72. During this period the country was subjected to the exploitation of its people. In the words of a Member of the British Parliament, Sir George Cornewall Lewis, "No civilized government ever existed on the face of this earth which was more corrupt, more perfidious and more rapacious than the government of the East India Company from 1765-72." The servants of the Company whose salaries were low, soon became owners of enoromous riches through private trade and corruption. According to Edmund Burke, the private trade of the servants of the Company was more like robbery than trade. The loot and plunder perpetrated by the servants of the Company in India enabled them at home to fight elections to the British House of Commons and Corrupt public life in that country.

u; The system of double government in Bengal set up after the grant of Diwani ended in 1772 when with the arrival of the new Governor of Bengal, Warren Hastings, the Company threw away the mask and took over direct responsibility for the administration of the territories of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa. Almost simultaneously in 1772, the Company became almost insolvent and was obliged to ask for loans from the British Government. To interfere in the internal affairs of the Company, for the Government this was a golden opportunity. Taking advantage of the situation, the Government decided to bring the company under Parliamentary control. The result was the Regulating Act of 1773 which was followed by the Act of Judicature of 1781, the Pitt's India Act of 1784 and the various Charter Acts from 1793 to 1853.THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT .... RULE IN INDIA

Within a century of Clive's victory at Plassey, practically the whole of India had come under the control of the East India Company. Almost all the princely states were either annexed or forced into humiliating treaty alliances under which the British were accepted as the paramount or suzerain power in the whole of India. It would, however, be wrong to imagine that the British on their own conquered India. Man to man, a British soldier was no match to an Indian soldier. Sunderlal citing colonel Malleson, says : "....of the numberless battles-fought between the British and the Indians from 1757 to 1857, there was not even one in which the British army was on one side and the Indian army on the other and in which the British had won a victory. There were many battles of this type, but in all such battles the British invariably suffered a defeat. Whenever the British won a battle, it was always a battle in which a section of the Indian army went over to the side of the British and fought against their own countrymen. It is an incontrovertible though shameful fact, that the British did not conquer India with their sword but that Indians themselves conquered their country with their own sword and handed it over to the British."

The conquest of Bengal by the English is unprecedented in the history of the world. Those who directed the conquest were mere merchants of a trading corporation who had no experience of wars and warlike operations. Many of their commanders were men from the clerical establishment who either volunteered or were pitchforked into soldiering. The people whom they conquered were neither like the primitive savages of Africa and Australia, nor like the semi-civilized Red-Indians of America. The conquest was peculiar in another sense. It was achieved wholly at the expense of the conquered, for the Company did not contribute a penny towards the expense of war and conquest. It was remarkable also because the instruments of the conquest were largely supplied by the conquered. In the Deccan War (1744-54) the Madras army consisted of 300 English soldiers and three to four thousand IndiansChristians, Muslims and Hindus, Clive commanded at Plassey a force of 950 English infantry and 150 artillery and 2100 Indian Sepoys, partly Telingas and partly North IndiansPathans, Jats, Rajputs and Brahmanas.

COLONIALISM

Colonialism is a policy which aims at creating, organizing and maintaining an empire. According to Charles A. Beard, "Colonialism is .... employment of the engines of government and diplomacy to acquire territories, protectorates, and I or spheres of influence occupied usually by other races or peoples and to promote industrial, trade and investment opportunities."3 Morgenthau defines colonialism altogether in terms of the expansion of a state's power beyond its borders.4 According to Charles Hodges, "Colonialism is a projection externally, directly or indirectly, of the alien political, economic or cultural power of one

nation into the internal life of another people.....It involves the imposition of

controlopen or covert, direct or indirect of one people by another." According to J. A. Hobson, "Colonialism, in its best-sense,, is a natural overflow of nationality; its test is the power of colonists to transplant the civilization. They represent to the new natural and social environment in which they find themselves."5 The main characteristics of the colonial rule are : exploitation, undemocratic government and bureaucratic system.

The British conquest of India was different in character from all the previous conquests of the country. In the past the change of rulers implied merely a change of the dynasty that exercised political authority over the ----i v.,,1- it t\\(\ not affect the social fabric, the productive organization, theINDIAN GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS

property relations or the system of administration. Under British rule all this was altered, and a socio-economic revolution was started which culminated in the destruction of the old institutions and in the emergence of new social classes and forces.

ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF BRITISH RULE

In the initial stages of their conquest of India, the English plundered the country's wealth and resources by : (i) exactions from Indian rulers, Zamindars, merchants and the common people; (ii) opression and exploitation of Indian artisans, indigo cultivators and merchants; and (iii) taking over of the surplus revenue.

When British rule was securely established and more settled conditions came to prevail, the earlier ways of'open and unashamed plunder' gave way to characteristic imperialist system of Colonial exploitation. Under this system the principal instruments of exploitation were : (1) unequal trade; (2) profitable export of British Capital and enterprise to India; (3) employment of British nationals in the colonial administration; (4) drain of Indian resources in the form of excess merchandise exports; (5) manipulation of exchange rates to the advantage of Britain and the disadvantage of India; (6) preferential tariffs to Britain, and (7) exploitation of Indian resources for purposes of conquest and war.

THE PLUNDER OF BENGAL HELPS THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION IN ENGLAND

The East India Company had received permission from the Mughal Emperor to start a factory at Surat early in the seventeenth century. After few years they purchased a patch of land in the South and founded Madras. In 1662 the island of Bombay was presented to Charles II of England by way of dowry from Portugal, and he transferred it to the Company. In 1690 the city of Calcutta was founded. Thus by the end of the seventeenth century the British had gained a number of footholds in India and established some bridge-heads on the Indian coastline. They spread inland slowly. The battle of Plassey in 1757 for the first time brought a vast area under their control, and within a few years Bengal, Bihar, Orissa, and the east-coast were subject to them. The next big step forward was taken about 40 years later, at the beginning of the nineteenth century. This brought them to the gates of Delhi. The third major advance took place after the last defeat of the Marathas in 1818; the fourth in 1849, after the Sikh wars, completed the picture.

Thus the British have been in the city of Madras a little over 300 years; they have ruled Bengal, Bihar, etc., for 187 years; they extended their domination over the south 145 years ago; they established themselves in the United Provinces, central and western India about 125 years ago and ninety-five years ago they spread to the Punjab. Leaving out the city of Madras as too small an area, there is a difference of nearly 100 years between their occupation of Bengal and that of the Punjab. During this period British policy and administrative methods changed repeatedly. These changes were dictated by new developments in England as well as the consolidation of British rule in India. The treatment of each newly acquired area varied according to these changes, and depended also on the character of the ruling group which have been defeated by the British. Thus in Bengal, where the victory had been very easy, the Muslim landed gentry were looked upon as the ruling classes and a policy was pursued to break their power. In the Punjab, on the other hand, power was seized from the Sikhs and there was no initial antagonism between the BritishTHE HISTORICAL CONTEXT.... RULE IN INDIA

and the Moslems. In the greater part of India the Marathas had been opponents of the British.

A significant fact which stands out is that those parts of India which have been longest under British rule are the poorest to-day. A few large cities and some new industrial areas do not make any essential difference to this survey. What is noteworthy is the condition of the masses as a whole, and there can be no doubt that the poorest parts of India are Bengal, Bihar, Orissa, and parts of the Madras presidency.

Bengal had the first full experience of British rule in India. That rule began with outright plunder, and a land revenue system which extracted the uttermost farthing not only from the living but also from the dead cultivators. The English historians of India, Edward Thompson and G.T. Garrett, tell us that "a gold-lust unequalled since the hysteria that took hold of the Spaniards of Cortes' and Pizarro's age filled the English mind. Bengal in particular was not to know peace again until she has been bled white." "For the monstrous financial immorality of the English conduct in India for many a year after this, Clive was largely responsible," Clive, the great empire-builder, whose statue faces the India Office in London to-day. It was pure loot. The 'Pagoda tree' was shaken again and again till the most terrible famines ravaged Bengal. This process was called trade later on but that made little difference. Government was this so-called trade, and trade was plunder. There are few instances in history of anything like it and must be remembered that this lasted, under various names and under different forms, not for a few years but for generations. The outright plunder gradually took the shape of legalized exploitation which, though not so obvious, was in reality worse. The corruption, venality, nepotism, violence and greed of money of these early generations of British rule in India is something which passes comprehension. It is significant that one of the Hindustani words which has become part of the English language is 'loot'. Says Edward Thompson, and this does not refer to Bengal only, one remembers the early history of British India which is perhaps the world's high-water mark of graft.

The result of all this, even in its early stages, was the famine of 1770, which swept away over a third of the population of Bengal and Bihar but it was all in the cause of progress, and Bengal can take pride in the fact that she helped greatly in giving birth to the industrial revolution in England. The American writer, Brooke Adams, tells us exactly how this happened : "The influx of Indian treasure, by adding considerably to the nation's cash capital, not only increased its stock of energy, but added much to its flexibility and the rapidity of its movement. Very soon after Plassey, the Bengal plunder began to arrive in London and the effect appears to have been instantaneous, for all authorities

agree that the 'industrial revolution' began with the year 1770.....Plassey was

fought in 1757, and probably nothing has ever equalled the rapidity of the change that followed. In 1760 the flying shuttle appeared, and coal began to replace wood in smelting. In 1764 Hargreaves invented the spinning jenny, in 1776 Crompton contrived the mule, in 1785 Cartwright patented in power-loom

and in 1768 Watt matured the steam engine.....But though these machines

served as outlets for the accelerating movements of the time, they did not cause

the acceleration. In themselves inventions are passive.....waiting for a sufficient

store of force to have accumulated to set them working. That store must always take the shape of money, and money not hoarded but in motion. Before the . -----m. T^^-n troasuro and the expansion of credit which followed, noINDIAN GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS

investment has ever yielded the profit reaped from the Indian plunder, because for nearly fifty years Great Britain stood without a competitor."*

THE DESTRUCTION OF INDIA'S INDUSTRY AND THE DECAY OF HER AGRICULTURE

The chief business of the East India Company in its early period, the very object for which it was started, was to carry Indian manufactured goods, textiles, etc., as well as spices and the like from the east to Europe, where there was a great demand for these articles. With the developments in industrial techniques in England a new class of industrial capitalists rose there, demanding a change in this policy. The British market was to be closed to Indian products and the Indian market opened to British manufactures. The British Parliament, influenced by this new class, began to take a greater interest in India and the working of the East India Company. To begin with, Indian goods were excluded from Britain by legislation, and as the East India Company held a monopoly in the Indian export business, this exclusion influenced other foreign markets also. This was followed by vigorous attempts to restrict and crush Indian manufactures by various measures and internal duties which prevented the flow of Indian goods within the country itself. British goods meanwhile had free entry. The Indian textile industry collapsed, affecting vast number of weavers and artisans. The process was rapid in Bengal and Bihar, elsewhere it spread gradually with the expansion of British rule and the building of railways. It continued through the nineteenth century, breaking up other old industries also, ship-building, metal working, glass, paper and many crafts.

To some extent this was inevitable as the older manufacturing came into conflict with the new industrial technique, but it was hastened by political and economic pressure and no attempt was made to apply the new techniques to India. Indeed every attempt was made to prevent this happening, and thus the economic development of India was arrested and the growth of the new industry prevented. Machinery could not be imported into India. A vacuum was created which could only be filled by British goods, and which led to rapidly increasing unemployment and poverty. The classic type of modern colonial economy was built up, India becoming an agricultural colony of industrial England, supplying raw material and providing markets for England's industrial goods.

The liquidation of the artisan class led to unemployment on a prodigious scale. What were all these scores of millions, who had so far been engaged in industry and manufacture, to do now? Where were they to go? Their old profession was no longer open to them, the way to a new one was barred. They could die of course; that way of escape from an intolerable situation is always open. They did die in tens of millions. The English Governor-General of India, Lord Bentinck, reported in 1834 that "the misery hardly finds a parallel in the history of commerce. The bones of the cotton weavers are bleaching the plains of India."

But still vast numbers of them remained, and these increased from year to year as British policy affected remoter areas of the country and created more unemployment. All these hordes of artisans and craftsmen had no job, no work and all their ancient skill was useless. They drifted to the land, for the land was still there but the land was fully occupied and could not possibly absorb them profitably. So they became a burden on the land and the burden grew, and

* Brooke Adams : 'The Law of Civilization and Decay' (1928), pp. 259-60, quoted by Kala Mitchel. 'India'(1943). ~. ....THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT.... RULE IN INDIA

with it grew the poverty of the country, and the standard of living fell to incredibly low levels. This compulsory back to the land movement of artisans and craftsmen led to an ever-growing disproportion between agriculture and industry; agriculture became more and more the sole business of the people because of the lack of occupations and wealth-producing activities.

India became progressively ruralized. In every progressive country there has been, during the past century, a shift of population from agriculture to industry; from village to town; in India this process was reversed, as a result of British policy. The figures are instructive and significant. In the middle of the nineteenth century about fifty-five percent of the population is said to have been dependent on agriculture; recently this proportion was estimated to seventy-four percent (this is pre-war figure). Though there has been greater industrial employment during the war, the number of those dependent on agriculture actually went up in the census of 1941 owing to increase of population. The growth of a few large cities (chiefly at the expense of the small town) is apt to mislead the superficial observer and give him a false idea of Indian conditions. jra :sm je tj ,v.

This then is the real, the fundamental, cause of the appalling poverty of the Indian people, and it is of comparatively recent origin.

The crisis in industry spread rapidly to the land and became a permanent crisis in agriculture. Holdings became smaller and smaller, and fragmentation proceeded to an absured and fantastic degree. The burden of agricultural debt grew and ownership of the land often passed to moneylenders. The number of landless labourers increased by the million. India was under an industrial-capitalist regime, but her economy was largely that of the pre-capitalists period, minus many of the wealth-producing elements of that pre-capitalist economy. She became a passive agent of modern industrial capitalism, suffering all its ills and with hardly any of its advantages.

The transition from a pre-industrialist economy to an economy of capitalist industrialism involves great hardship and heavy cost in human suffering born by masses of people. This was especially so in the early days when no efforts were made to plan such a transition or to lessen its evil results, and everything was left to individual initiative. There was this hardship in England during the period of transition but, taken as whole, it was not great as the change-over was rapid and the unemployment caused was soon absorbed by the new industries but did not mean that the cost in human suffering was not paid. It was indeed paid, and paid in full by others, particularly by the people of India, by famine and death and vast unemployment. It may be said that a great part of the costs of transition to industrialism in Western Europe were paid for by India, China and the other colonial countries, whose economy was dominated by European powers. .; ,

INDIA BECOMES FOR THE FIRST TIME A POLITICAL AND ECONOMICAL APPENDAGE OF ANOTHER COUNTRY

The establishment of British rule in India was an entirely novel phenomenon for her, not comparable with any other invasion or political or economic change. 'India had been conquered before, but by invaders who settled within her frontiers and made themselves part of her life' (like the Normans in England or the Manchus in China). 'She had never lost her independence, never ij rp!+ ,o rnmrnfircial classes. Among its early leaders were36

INDIAN GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS

Dadabhai Naoroji (1825-1917), Surendra Nath Banerjee (1848-1926), Justice M.G. Ranade (1842-1901) and Pherozeshah Mehta (1845-1915). Towards the end of this period the leading figure in the Congress was G.K. Gokhale (1866-1915), a disciple of Ranade, who devoted his life to the public service. For some years, until his death in 1915, Gokhale maintained his position of leadership of the Congress, save for the years when the extremist group in the Congress had the upper hand. In 1885, he joined the Deccan Education Society and he taught for several years at Fergusson College in Poona, which the society established in the year in which he became associated with it. In 1905, he founded the Servants of India Society, an organisation dedicated to the public welfare, which Gandhi once tried in vain to enter. Gandhi, however, regarded Gokhale as his 'political Guru'. For the last thirteen years of his life Gokhale was a member of the Imperial Legislative Council. While he believed in co-operation with the British and in a policy of gradualism, he did not hesitate to criticise British policies. His annual speeches on the imperial budget in the Imperial Legislative Council were brilliant exposer of the economic shortcomings of British rule. Lord Curzon had the greatest respect and admiration for him. "God has endowed you with extraordinary abilities", he once wrote to him, "and you have placed them unreservedly at the disposal of your country." He made such impression upon British people during succesive visits to England that Mr. Massingham, the great editor of The Nation, remarked that there was no statesman in England comparable to Gokhale, that he was easily greater than Mr. Asquith himself.18

Role of the Moderates in Freedom Struggle : An Estimate

The Liberals had among them very brilliant sons of all India reputation but they would not maintain healthy contacts with the masses. No doubt, they themselves were intellectuals and patriots and also had deep affection for India but at the same time they were only leaders and not the followers. They remained out of touch with the masses. Thus, under their control the Congress remained only a class organisation which subsequently led to failure of liberals in India.

But even then the liberals played a very significant part during their own times in India's freedom struggle. They exposed the exploitation of the British rule. They popularised among the people the ideas of democracy and civil liberty. They made the people of India conscious of the bonds of common political, economic and cultural interests. They prepared a strong base for the future freedom struggle. Due to strenuous efforts of the moderates, the Act of 1892 was framed which was far ahead of the Act of 1861.

The period from 1885 to 1905 was the seed-time of Indian nationalism, and the moderates sowed the seeds well and deep. It can, therefore, be said that in spite of their many failures, the moderate nationalists laid strong foundations for the national movement to grow upon and that they deserve a high place among the makers of modern India.

EXTREMIST NATIONALISM

In the closing years of 19th and the early years of 20th Century several forces and events combined to give birth to an extremist movement in Indian politics. Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak from Maharashtra, Lala Lajpat Rai from Punjab and Bipin Chandra Pal and Shri Aurobindo Ghosh from Bengal were the prominent leaders of the new movement of militant nationalism. They did not believe in the policy of political mendicancyin prayers, appeals and petitions to the British but in direct action and mass agitation for achieving theTHE HISTORICAL CONTEXT.... THE INDIAN NATIONAL MOVEMENT

37

demands. They emphasised the need for self-reliance, discipline, organisation and preparedness. Aurobindo Ghosh propounded the theory of passive resistance which much later, in the hands of Gandhiji was to become a powerful weapon. Lokmanya Tilak said, "Swaraj is my birth right and I must have it." The maxim later inspired many generations of freedom fighters.

Causes of the Growth of the Extremist Movement

There were many reasons for the growth of extremism in contemporary Indian politics. They were :

1. Discontent over the Congress Policy of Political Mendicancy : During the first 15 years of its existence for the achievement of its objectives the Congress stuck to the method of petitions and prayers alone. But the turn of the Century marked the beginning of a new phase in the political life of India. This was the emergence of militant leadership in Congress. The new leaders of the movement were Tilak, Pal and Lajpat Rai. These men denounced the Congress policy of the past 15 years as 'political mendicancy,' condemned the peaceful and constitutional methods as 'useless' and eulogized the virtues of direct action and forceful activity.

2. Discontent over the Reforms of 1892 : There was dissatisfaction with the working of the Act of 1892. The rights conferred by the Act were quite inadequate and disappointing. The councils were still ridden with official nominees with the result that the Government faced with no opposition in making laws. Even the elected members did not represent the voice of the people. The Government paid no heed to Congress demands of the Indianisation of services, reduction of military expenditure or lowering of taxes on the people.

3. Revivalism of Hinduism : In the last decade of 19th Century, the flood of religious revivalist sentiment was swamping the country and a feeling of pride in the past and of self-respect was roused. Vivekananda's triumphant tours were inspiring fresh hopes of a glorious future and the superiority of the West over the East was fast being repudiated.

Swami Dayananda Saraswati, Mrs. Annie Besant, Tilak and Aurobindo reminded the people of their glorious past and the superiority of Vedic culture. There teachings nursed the spirit of virile nationalism in the country. Shri Aurobindo declared that, "Nationalism is a religion that comes from God." He also stated "Independence in all our movements is the goal of life and Hinduism alone can fulfil this aspirations of ours." In Bengal, the worship of Kali and Durga was revived so as to inspire the people to take to arms against the usurpers of India's birth right of freedom.

4. Famine and Plague : During 1896 and 1900, a series of famines overtook different parts of the country and several million people were affected. Although the Government devised the Famine Code of India people died in large numbers. At about the same time virulent bubonic plague broke out in the Bombay Presidency and thousands of people died. The measures taken by the Government to control the epidemic were both defective and inadequate.

5. The Impact of Foreign Events : Events in many foreign countries during this period also helped to generate among the Indian people a militant nationalism. Especially the emergence of Japan as a modern powerful country after 1868 gave a new hope to Indians. Japan had proved that even a backward Asian country could, through its own efforts can become strong without help or

hands of38

INDIAN GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS

Ethiopia in 1896 and the victory of Japan over Russia in 1905 proved false all claims of white superiority over other people.

The fight of the people in Ireland, Russia, Egypt, Turkey and China for freedom proved to the Indian people that a united nation, prepared to suffer for its principles, could fight against even the most powerful government.

6. Repressive Policy of Lord Curzon : When Lord Curzon entered the scene, the ferment of extremism had already begun to work. His policy only quickened its growth. He attacked the cherished ideals of local self-Government, educational autonomy and freedom of the press. He curtailed the number of Indians in the Calcutta Corporation. He increased the official control over the Indian Universities in the name of educational reforms. His Indian official secrets (Amendment) Act aimed protecting the oppressive officials from public criticism. It seemed to be a continuation of Lytton's policy and turned the press more nationalist than before. He spent Indian money lavishly on foreign missions, the Delhi Durbar and the Tibetan expedition. According to Tara Chand, "Whatever Curzon did, good or bad, because it was based upon the assumption of racial superiority, was repugnant to Indian sentiment."

7. Partition of Bengal: The partition of Bengal opened a new phase in the struggle for national independence. It was ostensibly for better administration of an unwieldly province but really for curbing the radical Bengali nationalists. When Curzon set about partitioning Bengal, he had the sinister motive of creating a Muslim majority province and thereby creating a rift between Hindus and Muslims. He fully followed the principle of 'divide and rule' and without paying any heed to the feelings of the people planned to partition Bengal in 1905. There was a widespread agitation in the country against his high-handed action in forcing the partition of Bengal. The partition gave impetus to the boycott of British goods and advanced the Swadeshi movement for the use of indigenous products. A storm of protest, under the leadership of Surendra Nath Banerjee and such eminent Bengalis as Rabindra Nath Tagore, brought widespread popular opposition to the British Raj.

Thus, Lord Curzon and his policy were largely responsible for strengthening the forces of extremism and intensifying the national movement.

8. Miserable plight of Indians abroad : The anti-British feelings were further roused by the treatment out to Indians in the British Colonies in Africa, particularly in South Africa, where they were treated as 'social sub-castes'. In some places, they could even walk on footpaths, could not travel in first and second class compartments of railways and could not go out of their houses after 9 o'clock in the night, Dr. B.S. Moonje, who returned from South Africa in 1903, regretted that "our rulers do not believe that we are men." B.N. Sharma told the British that there could not exist in the Empire "a permanent racial supremacy, one race dominating another." The Congress, in its annual sessions, adopted resolutions expressing annoyance and displeasure over the ways the Indians were being treated within the Empire. But the policy-makers in London remained unmoved and the condition of the Indians abroad continued to deteriorate.

The Split of the Congress : Emergence of Extremists

The first definite manifestation of split in the Congress rank took place in the annual session of the Congress at Varanasi in December 1905. Every one of the 758 delegates attended the Congress on December 27-30, 1905, felt that the country was passing through a crisis. Gokhale, who presided over theTHE HISTORICAL CONTEXT.... THE INDIAN NATIONAL MOVEMENT

39

session made an assessment of the British rule in India and condemned Lord Curzon's administration in most scathing terms. But the 'Boycott Resolution' proved a bone of contention. The Bengal delegates, particularly the Extremist or Nationalist section desired that the Congress should give its seal of approval upon the Boycott movement. But the Moderate leaders were averse to it as it was in conflict with the policy of petition and persuasion which they had hitherto pursued. The Moderates proposed to send a message of welcome to the Prince and Princess of Wales during their forthcoming visit to India. But the delegates from Bengal opposed it on the ground that Bengal was in mourning and could not receive the Prince with a smiling face. The Moderates were sure of getting it passed by a majority of votes but absence of unanimity would take away the grace and charm of such a message. At last both sides yielded to a considerable degree and a compromise was effected. The Bengal delegates agreed to leave the Congress Pandal before the resolution about the message was moved, so that it might be unanimously passed. On their side the moderates offered an indirect support to the Boycott movement.

The year 1906 witnessed a distinct cleavage between the two political groups, known at that time, as the Moderates and the Extremists. The Moderates had scored a triumph over the Extremists, in the matter of selecting the President. It was actually in the air that the Extremists would propose the name of Tilak. To avert such a contingency the Moderates forestalled any move on the other side by persuading Dadabhai Naoroji then 82 years old to accept the Presidentship of the Congress. The President's speech showed that he was altogether out of touch with the new spirit that was animating India. The only redeeming feature of the President's speech was the reference to Swaraj as the goal of India, uttered for the first time on the Congress platform by Dadabhai Naoroji. But he did not choose to define Swaraj or explain what he meant. So the Moderates and the Extremists put different interpretations upon it.

It had been decided in the Calcutta session that the next annual session of the Congress in 1907 would be held at Nagpur. When the preliminary arrangements were being made, there were acute difference between the two groups at the meeting of the Reception Committee over the election of the President. The meeting broke out in confusion and the venue of the Congress was shifted to Surat.

The extremists opposed the venue of the session and alleged that Surat was purposely selected by the Moderates as a safe place where they could, with the help of local delegates, have their own way. The Extremists wanted Tilak to preside but the Moderates were opposed to this. The Reception Committee elected Dr. Rash Behari Ghosh to be the President and the Extremists resented it as 'undemocratic'.

The Congress met for the first day on 7th December. Dr. Ghosh read out his address of welcome. Then, his name was proposed for Presidency of the Congress for approval by the 1,600 delegates. When S.N. Banerjee proceeded to second the proposition, the Extremists created a pandemonium. They wanted an open election of the President. The disorder was so great that Dr. Ghosh adjourn the meeting. When the delegates met next day there was again a general melee. Shoes and stones were hurled; Chairs were thrown and sticks brandished. The President, finding that the disorder went on increasing, suspended the session of the Congress sine die. On the 28th December, an attemnt was made to arrive at a compromise and Tilak formally gave in writing40

INDIAN GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS

the election of Rash Behari Ghosh as President and were prepared to act in the spirit of forget and forgive, provided, the last year's resolutions on Swadeshi, Swaraj, Boycott and national education were adhered to and re-affirmed. Tilak's letter was taken to the Moderate leaders but no compromise was arrived at. A convention of the Moderates was, therefore, held in the Congress Pandal the next day, where the Extremists were not allowed to go,^ven some of them were ready and offered to sign the required declaration. The Moderates eventually decided to have no connection in future with the Extremists. The Moderates took control of the Congress organisation and rewrote its constitution. The Extremists, meeting under the chairmanship of Aurobindo Ghosh, re-affirmed their belief in Swaraj, Swadeshi, boycott and national education.

"The unfortunate split at Surat is a great landmark in the history of the Congress, as it practically ended the first phase of that great national organisation."19

The Political Ideology and Principles of the Extremists

Under the influence of the Extremists, the nationalist movement gave up the practice of merely issuing appeals to the government and adopted new radical ways of political agitation. The demands put forward also assumed a more radical character.

The Extremists believed that freedom never comes by making representations and requests. They were opposed to the idea that the Britishers were in any way superior to Indians and that their stay in the Country was in any way to the advantage of people of India. They believed that the Britishers were exploiting Indians and reducing them to poverty. Unlike the Moderates, the Extremists asserted that political freedom could be won only by waging a war against the enemy. Whereas the Moderates believed that they would be able to achieve self-government with the blessings of British rulers, the extremist Tilak declared that "Swaraj is my birth right and I will have it."

The Extremists, unlike the Moderates, did not praise the western culture and civilisation. They openly said that their aim of struggle was not merely to get legislative reforms in piecemeal, but to have Swaraj in which the people of India will have full share in running their administration and propagate glory of their ancient culture and civilisation. These people made it very clear that they had no faith in British sense of justice and fair play and in fact British Government in India had not proved itself worthy of that. Also unlike the Moderates, the Extremists openly used Hindu religious symbols and traditions to stimulate nationalist sentiments among the masses. They never stopped attacking the Moderates for their subservience to the western culture.

Programme and Methods of the Extremists

After having determined the goal of complete self-rule, the Extremists devised a three-fold programme for effective political action. It comprised boycott, swadeshi and national education. Originally, the programme was designed for use in Bengal to undo the wrong that had been done by Curzon, but soon it was realised that the policies of the British affected the entire country, and the decision was, therefore, made to enforce the programme all over India.

The call for boycott and swadeshi was given at thousands of public meetings all over Bengal and in most of the major cities and towns of India. It had two aspects. On the one hand, British wares were burnt at public places and shops selling them were picketed; on the other, a vigorous drive was made for the production and sale of Swadeshi goods. The confectioners vowed againstTHE HISTORICAL CONTEXT.... THE INDIAN NATIONAL MOVEMENT

41

using foreign sugar, washermen against washing foreign clothes, priests against performing pujas with foreign materials. Women of Deccan and Bengal gave up foreign bangles and glass utensils. Students refused to use foreign paper. Even doctors and pleaders refused to patronise dealers in British manufactures. On the positive side, the movement gave a stimulus to cottage industries and even large-scale enterprises of various sorts. Swadeshi textile mills, match and soap factories, potteries and tanneries sprouted up everywhere. The third programme of the Extremists was national education. Western learning was decried and Indian philosophy, culture and way of life eulogized. Efforts were made to awaken the pride of the Indian people in their past. A programme of setting up national educational institutions was drawn up to re-emphasize and to re-teach the classical values to the younger generation.

The Extremist Leaders

The Extremists drew its chief support from Bengal, Maharashtra and the Punjab. In Bengal the leaders were Bipin Chandra Pal and Aurobindo Ghosh, in the Punjab the chief leader was Lala Lajpat Rai and in Maharashtra the more militant school of nationalism was led by Bal Gangadhar Tilak. The movement in Bengal was strongly coloured by the religious mysticism of the great Hindu mystic Rama Krishna Paramhans, especially as interpreted by his greatest disciple, Swami Vivekanand. \

Tilak turned to India's past for inspiration and he sought to induce a spirit of pride and self-respect in his fellow countrymen. He revived the cult of Shivaji and the Ganapati festivals, and used these for political purposes. Later, during his years of exile and confinement in Mandalay (1908-14), he wrote a lengthy commentary on Bhagavad Gita, in which he reinterpreted that great Indian classic as preaching a philosophy of political and religious action.

The British journalist, Valentile Chirol, called Tilak "the Father of Indian Unrest." Undoubtedly, the policies which he championed were twisted by more extremist followers into a philosophy of justiciable violence and his own attitude towards the many acts of violence which agitated Bengal after 1908 was always rather paradoxical. But he was not himself an apostle of violence. He was a spokesman of the extremist of nationalist group within the nationalist movement which emphasised the political struggle rather than social and economic reforms, which distrusted the British rather than believed in the importance of co-operating with the foreign rulers and which advocated stronger pressures than the moderates were willing to endorse. 'Political rights,' argued Tilak, "will have to be fought for. The Moderates think that these can be won by permission. We think that they can be got by strong pressure." He was perhaps the first nationalist leader who had a great appeal to the masses of the people. In a sense he foreshadowed the great work of Mahatma Gandhi in this respect. He is still referred to today by the name by which he was best known during his lifetime : 'Lokamanya'.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MODERATES AND THE EXTREMISTS

While the main support for the Moderate leaders had come from the intelligentsia and the urban middle class, the new leaders 'the Extremists'who emerged appealed to a wider circle of the lower middle classes, the students, and even a section of the workers and peasants.

The fundamental differences between the two parties concerned both the nolitical eroal and the method to be adopted to achieve it. As regards the goal,42

INDIAN GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS

self-government, but the Extremist Party's ideal was absolute autonomy free from foreign control.

As regards the method, the Moderates believed in the policy of political mendicancyin prayers, appeals and petitions to the British while the Extremists concentrated its whole attention upon the attainment of Swaraj or self-government. Their programme was boycott, swadeshi and national education. The Extremists prescribed organised 'Passive Resistance' as the only effective means, by which the nation could wrest the control of national life from the grip of an alien bureaucracy.

Appraisal of Extremist Nationalism : The British Government tried to deal with the Extremist nationalists with firmness. It arrested and deported most of the extremist leaders and completely banned their newspapers. Despite this policy of repression, the activities and policies of the Extremists continued to gain in popularity. People developed a growing admiration for the Extremist leaders who by their self sufferings stirred their hearts and promoted the spirit of self-reliance and self-confidence amongst the people. In the words of Bipin Chandra, "The Extremists had added a glorious chapter to the history of the national movement.....New methods of political struggles had been introduced."20 According to N.D. Palmer, "Tilak and others in the extremist group preached a kind of Hindu revivalism which gave new life to the nationalist movement, but which at the same time further alienated many Muslims from the movement."21

MAHATMA GANDHI AND NATIONAL MOVEMENT

The most important event in Indian politics in 1919 is the emergence of Mahatma Gandhi as the political leader. In 1915, M.K. Gandhi returned to India after 20 years in South Africa. In South Africa, he had gone upon completing several years of study in England, he developed ideas and a philosophy of action which represented his own individualistic blend of Western and Indian ideas and practices. Notable among these were his concepts of Satyagraha, which he often translated loosely as 'soul force', his emphasis on the doctrine of Ahimsa, or non-violence, and his theories of the relation of ends and means. For some months after his return to India he travelled about the country and observed conditions at first hand. Then became to take an active part in the freedom struggle, through the Congress and the Home Rule League. He had firm belief in the policy of co-operation with the Government. During the World War-I, Gandhiji had fully extended his help and co-operation in the war efforts of the Government for which he was honoured by conferment of the gold medal Kaisar-i-Hind.

After the death of Tilak in 1920 Gandhi became the unquestioned leader of the nationalist movement, although some other nationalist leaders, Hindus as well as Muslims, did not approve of his methods and although he sometimes openly disagreed with Congress policies. But whether his advice was followed at a given time or not, and whether he was in the forefront of the nationalist struggle or in prison or in 'retirement' he gave the struggle the imprint of his powerful personality. Gandhi had the courage of his convictions and he won a following among the masses of the people that is unparalleled in the long course of Indian history. He gave a new direction and a new purpose to the nationalist struggle. It is impossible to exaggerate his contribution, not only to the nationalist cause but to the rebirth of modern India in far more than a political sense.THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT.... THE INDIAN NATIONAL MOVEMENT

43

The Congress might have lost much of its momentum if it had not come under the influence of a man who was big enough to bring the different factions together and to give the movement a mass base, a new technique of political action and a deeper meaning. Gandhi taught that Swaraj should be the goal and Satyagraha the means, but first the people of India should understand the means and be worthy of the goal. "The English have not taken India," Gandhi declared, "We have given to them....It is Swaraj when we learn to rule ourselves."

"After Tilak's death in 1920, the leadership passed into the hands of M.K. Gandhi (1869-1948). Gandhi rejected the moderates' gradualist approach to political reforms but he also rejected the extremists' philosophical justification of violence. His non-violent approach, using mass mobilisation and peaceful defiance of British authority, radicalized Indian politics far beyond the expectations of Tilak's followers.

During the twenty years he lived in South Africa practising law among the Indian settlers, Gandhi developed his concept of Satyagraha and the technique of civil disobedience. On his return to India, before he plunged into Indian politics, Gandhi travelled widely throughout the country, observing the culture, traditions and living conditions of the people. He felt that the leaders of the nationalist movement were out of touch with the people who lived in India's many villages. He realised that in order to win freedom from Britain, the nationalist movement required a mass base; it needed to involve the people living in the countryside.

If Satyagraha was successful in Africa, why not try it in India? "I have no doubt," he said, "that the British Government is a powerful Government but I have no doubt also that Satyagraha is a sovereign remedy." He experimented with it in Champaran in Bihar and in Ahmedabad and Kaira in Gujarat. These first experiments in Satyagraha brought Gandhiji into close touch with the masses, both the peasants in the rural areas and the workers in the urban areas.

Gandhi was greatly influenced by Gokhale's political philosophy. He agreed to Gokhale's policy of co-operating with the Government in working out the constitutional reforms. But the phase of Gandhi's role as a co-operator proved a shortlived one. There were certain reasons which shook his faith in British fairness and justice. The events which changed Gandhiji from a co-operator into a staunch non-co-operator were as follows :

NON-CO-OPERATION MOVEMENT

Mahatma Gandhi was the undisputed leader of the nationalist movement since 1920 to 1947. Three powerful mass movements were launched under his leadership. These were Non-co-operation Movement (1920); Civil Disobedience Movement (1930) and Quit India Movement (1942).

Causes of Non-co-operation Movement

Apart from Gandhiji's leadership, several other factors led to the growth of nationalism into a mass movement. The war expenditure imposed on India had further impoverished the masses. The spread of influenza epidemic took a huge toll of human lives. The war was followed by an upsurge of nationalism in many countries. Three autocracies had been overthrownHohenzollern in Germany, Habsburg in Austria and Romanov in Russia. The fall of autocracies

f\n 4-1" O nr\ 11 f-i nol r*\ i r

, T>____:___T>-------1 44

INDIAN GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS

parts of Asia. All these developments influenced the consciousness of the Indiai people and inspired them to plunge themselves into the nationalist struggl* with greater vigour.

The Montague-Chelmsford Reforms, which became the Government o India Act in 1919 introduced a system called 'dyarchy' in the provinces. Th< reforms introduced were a far cry from the aim of swaraj and were condemnec both by the Congress and the League.

The defeat of Turkey in the War and the dismemberment of the Turkisr. Empire enraged the Muslim masses and led to an outburst of popular feeling against the British government.

When the Rowlatt Bill was passed, in spite of unanimous Indian opposition, Gandhiji's patience came to an end. He decided to try to oppose it with Satyagraha. This time it was not to be a local campaign with limited objectives, He started a Satyagraha Sabha and devised a pledge to disobey these repressive laws. A general strike all over the country was called for April 6, 1919, and this was a unique success, but police firing on a Delhi crowd caused a number oi casualties, both Hindus and Muslims. When Gandhiji, who was on his way to Delhi was stopped en-route and forcibly sent back to Bombay, police charged again upon the milling crowd. /

And then occurred the massacre of Jallianwala Bagh on April 13, 1919. In Punjab, the protest movement against the Rowlatt Act was particularly strong. The Government resorted to lathi-charges and firing in many places. On April 10, two outstanding leaders of the Congress, Satya Pal and Dr. Kitchlew were arrested and taken to an unknown place. To protest against the arrests, a public meeting was held on 13th April in Jallianwala Bagh, a small park enclosed by buildings on all sides, in Amritsar. General Dyer with his British troops entered the park, closed the only exit and, without giving any warning, ordered the troops to fire. The meeting had been peaceful and there had been no provocation. Among those who had come to the meeting were women, children and old persons. The firing lasted about ten minutes and about 1,600 rounds were fired. As the means of exit which was a narrow passage had been closed, no one was allowed to escape. After some time, Dyer left with his troops. About 1,000 dead and about 2,000 wounded persons lay unattended to in the Bagh. Immediately after the massacre, martial law was declared throughout Punjab and a reign of terror was let loose.

The Punjab tragedy brought Gandhiji into the forefront of Indian politics. The Congress boycotted the official committee of enquiry headed by Lord Hunter, which the Government had appointed.

Khilafat and Non-Co-operation Movement

In those days the Khilafat Movement was organised by the famous Ali brothers, in protest against the injustice done to Turkey after the war. In fact, it became the means of the Indian national movement. Gandhiji sympathised with their cause and saw in the development the possibility of forging the much needed Hindu-Muslim unity to fight the British. He advised the Khilafat Committee to launch non-co-operation movement against the Government.

A special session of the All India Congress Committee was held in September, 1920 at Calcutta. Lala Lajpat Rai presided. About 3,000 delegates attended and among them a large number were Muslims. It was at this session that the Congress for the first time devised upon a course of non-co-operation with the British Governmentdirect action against the administration, boycott of theTHE HISTORICAL CONTEXT.... THE INDIAN NATIONAL MOVEMENT

45

Legislative Councils and launching the non-co-operation movement. The policy of non-co-operation movement was confirmed by the Congress at its annual session held at Nagpur in December 1920.

At Nagpur the new constitution of the Congress was adopted thus converting it into a working dynamic organisation for carrying on the struggle for freedom.

The declaration of non-co-operation with the Government was in fact a revolutionary step tantamount to the proclamation of war, with this difference that the war was non-violent. This was a unique kind of war. It inflicted neither pain nor injury upon the opponent, reserving all suffering for the non-co-operation.

The Congress and the Khilafat Committee had agreed upon the triple purpose of non-co-operationredress of Punjab grievances, rectification of Khilafat wrongs and establishment of Swaraj. Gandhiji felt it necessary to explain the grounds on which he joined the Khilafat movement. Essentially, his reasons were humanitarian and moral. They were not political in the narrow sense, although undoubtedly intended at securing permanent national interests.

Non-co-operation : Programme and Movement

The campaign had two kinds of objects : constructive and destructive. Establishment of national educational institutions and Panchayat Courts, abolition of untouchability, Hindu-Muslim unity and promotion of spinning and weaving were some of the positive or constructive programmes. In pursuance of them it was decided to raise a fund of one crore of rupees in the name of Tilak to finance the non-co-operation activities, to enrol a volunteer corps of one crore members to help in the promotion of the various boycottssocial, educational, legal and economicand to distribute twenty lakhs spinning wheels to provide work for the unemployed or underemployed and to replace foreign cloth by handmade Indian cloth.

In regard to the latter, the important items were :

1. The boycott of the law courts by the lawyers who would set up popular tribunals for administering justice;

2. The boycott of schools and colleges owned or aided or recognised by Government and the establishment of national educational institutions;

3. The boycott of elections to the assembly and the provincial councils;

4. The surrender of honours, titles, etc., and the boycott of official functions;

5. The boycott of British goods and the encouragement of Swadeshi, especially Khaddar or home-spun home-woven cloth; and

6. The prohibition of drinking liquor.

The country was profoundly stirred and an unprecedented wave of enthusiasm ran through India's teeming millions. Unparalleled scenes of fervour, devotion and sacrifice were witnessed everywhere. Lawyers of the distinction of Motilal Nehru, C.R. Das, Rajendra Prasad, Rajagopalachari surrendered their highly profitable profession; thousands of students came out of colleges and schools and many national institutions were founded where teachers worked on a pittance. A number of pupils of the Aligarh University left their studies at the bidding of Muhamad Ali and founded the Jamia Millia Islamia46

INDIAN GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS

ICS and worked as Principal of the National College at Calcutta. Jawaharlal Nehru bade adieu to the Allahabad High Court and was drawn into the whirlpool of non-co-operation.

The effect of the boycott of foreign cloth was felt throughout India. It attained considerable success in Bengal, Bombay, Madras and the United Provinces. In November 1921, the Prince of Wales arrived in India. The All India Congress Committee had decided to boycott the visit. Hartals, demonstrations and political meetings greeted him in the place he visited.

As repression was intensified, the movement gained greater momentum. The Police became a gangster force, entering private dwellings, beating, looting and dishonouring the inmates. The Congress picketeers were assaulted; flags, badges and even the khadi cloths on their body were snatched and destroyed; Congress offices were ransacked. By the end of the year all the prominent leaders like the Ali Brothers, Motilal Nehru, C.R. Das, Lajpat Rai, Maulana Azad were behind bars. In all about fifty thousand persons were jailed during the movement. Only the government did not dare touch Gandhiji himself.

The Ahmedabad Session of the Congress held in December 1921, decided to further intensify the non-co-operation movement by starting a campaign for mass civil disobedience and nori payment of taxes. Full authority for taking necessary steps for conducting the new movement was vested in Mahatma Gandhi. However, on February, a procession of Satyagrahis at village Chauri-Chaura in the Gorakhpur district of U.P. lost self-control and clashed with the police. The agitated crowd set on fire the village police station along with its 22 policemen, Gandhiji was so much upset and pained by this outburst of violence and was so anxious to prevent its spread that he immediately ordered the suspension of the movement and advised concentration only on constructive aspects of the programme like removal of untouchability, Hindu-Muslim unitj propagation of Swadeshi and spinning. Gandhiji thought that the country wai not yet ready for a non-violent movement of his conception and that it wa: 'Himalayan blunder' on his part to start the Satyagraha movement withou adequately preparing the masses for it. The sudden suspension of the movemen at a time when it was at its height, annoyed many of Gandhiji's own colleague and followers. His popularity among the people was also adversely affectec doubts began to crop up about his leadership. Taking advantage of the genert feeling of resentment against Gandhiji, the Government arrested him on Marcl 10, 1922.

Non-Co-operation Movement: An Evaluation

Although with the arrest and conviction of Gandhiji the first phase of tr. non-co-operation movement came to an end, its importance in the struggle f< freedom cannot be belittled. According to Dr. Subhash Kashyap, "The non-c operation movement has its own unique importance in the history of India freedom struggle. No other movement since 1857 had generated such ma: upsurge throughout the country as the non-co-operation movement did. brought Gandhiji in the forefront of the national struggle and can be said have started the Gandhian era in India's political history and thought.' Coupland also pointed out that Gandhi "converted the nationalist moveme into a revolutionary movement." He gave it a direction and a purpose whi became dear to every heart in India.

The non-co-operation movement changed the nature and the outlookt structure and the spirit of the Congress. Hereafter it became a popuL democratic, all India party drawing its sustenance from the common people.THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT.... THE INDIAN NATIONAL MOVEMENT

47

.,20

was no more an organisation of the middle class intellectuals, of educated armchair politicans or of the urban elite. In fact, the Congress itself became a people's movement. According to Coupland, "Gandhi had already changed the course of Indian history. He had done what Tilak had failed to do."21

The non-co-operation movement had introduced a new technique of political struggle and had prepared the people for non-violent revolt. Apart from arousal of popular consciousness, the popularity of swadeshi also increased and thousands of weavers got employment. The fear of the British Raj was conquered. Ordinary people, men and women, rich and poor showed willingness and ability to endure hardships and punishment in defiance of Government. There was also an increasing recognition of social evils like untouchability and drinking. The emphasis of Khadi was a realistic assessment of rural needs. The boycott of foreign goods proved greatly detrimental to British commercial interest. Subhash Chandra Bose has rightly commented, "Before 1921, Congress was a constitutional party and mainly a talking body," Gandhiji "not only gave it a new constitution and a nationwide basis but, what is more important, converted it into a revolutionary organisation."

The biggest weakness of the non-co-operation movement was that it was incompatible with the principles of secularism. Instead of treating religion as a matter of personal concern and keeping it out of politics, the attempt to bring Hindus and Muslims nearer through the purely religious affairs of Khilafat, was to some extent responsible for mixing religion and politics in India's public life that the communal problem became more and more difficult and insoluble. Perhaps it was a mistake to involve the question of Khilafat in Indian politics.

CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE MOVEMENT

In December 1929, the Congress session was held at Lahore with Jawahar-lal Nehru as the President. The Congress declared the attainment of complete Independence as its aim and decided to celebrate January 26 as the Independence Day all over the country. In January 1930, the Working Committee of the Congress passed a resolution stating : "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, politically, culturally and spiritually. We believe therefore, that India must sever the

British connection and attain Puma Swaraj or complete independence.....We

recognise, however, that the most effective way of gaining our freedom is through non-violence. We will, therefore, prepare ourselves.....for civil disobedience, including non-payment of taxes."

The civil disobedience movement began with what is known as the Dandi March. Gandhiji, along with some of his followers, went to Dandi on the sea-coast on foot and broke the law by making salt. The Mahatma selected the simple act of making salt from the sea, in defiance of British laws, because the salt tax affected almost every Indian villager. "As the independence movement is essentially for the poorest in the land," he explained, "the beginning will be made with this evil. "As a result of his decision salt, as Nehru said, "Suddenly became a mysterious word, a word of power." On April 6, 1930, after a 24-day march of 240 miles from Ahmedabad to Dandi, Gandhi defied the British by taking a small amount of salt from the sea.

Before launching the movement and breaking the salt law, Gandhiji decided to make one more effort to meet the Viceroy and arrive at some negotiated settlement. Accordingly he wrote to the Viceroy mentioning his48

INDIAN GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS

Gandhiji's letter, Viceroy Lord Irwin summarily refused to see him or consider his demands. So the die was cast and Gandhiji began his historic march.

The unique march on foot, with all the accompanying publicity in the Press and on the route of the march, for the deliberate and declared defiance of British might, proved to be a master stroke of political strategy. He asked people, "Let every village fetch or manufacture contraband salt, sisters should picket liquor

shops, opium dens and foreign cloth dealers' shops.....Foreign clothes should be

burnt. Hindus should eschew untouchability.....Let students leave government schools and colleges and government servants resign their services and we shall soon find that Purna Swaraj will come knocking at our doors."

The civil disobedience movement was a great success. Salt law and other lawless laws were openly violated throughout the country. In some parts of the country payment of taxes and land revenue was refused. Many teachers and students came out of their schools and colleges. Foreign cloth and liquor shops were boycotted. Many government servants left their jobs and scores of legislators left the legislatures. Under Gandhiji's advice, the work of picketing liquor and foreign cloth shops was specially taken up by the women who got arrested m in thousands.

As soon as the Civil Disobedience Movement started, all the important leaders including Gandhiji and Jawaharlal Nehru were arrested. By the beginning of 1931, 90,000 persons were in jails and 67 papers had been banned. In January 1931, Gandhiji and some other leaders were released. In March an agreement known as the Gandhi-Irwin Pact was signed under which the movement was called off. The Government promised to release all political prisoners except those charged with acts of violence. The Congress agreed to i participate in the Second Round Table Conference which had been called to j consider a scheme for a new constitution of India. |

Thus Gandhi's salt march in 1930 ushered in the second mass campaign of civil disobedience and demonstrated the driving power of his techniques of peaceful non-co-operation. It awakened the Indian masses and shook British Empire.

Gandhiji participated in the Second Round Table Conference as a representative of the Congress. The conference deadlocked on the question on communal electorates and Gandhi returned 'empty handed' to India. With the renewal of Government repression, the Congress reopened the civil disobedience campaign and called for the boycott of British goods. By March 1933, more than 1,20,000 people had been imprisoned.

At this inopportune moment, the Government announced its constitutional proposals, which included a provision for separate electorates for the untouchables. Believing the untouchables to be an integral part of the Hindu Community, Gandhiji, in jail, vowed to 'fast unto death' against the provision. On the fifth day, as Gandhi's life was believed to hang in the balance, Dr. Ambedkar, leader of untouchables, gave way and agreed to abandon separate communal electorates, but, to safeguard the interests of the untouchables he demanded that a number of seats be reserved for them within the allotment of seats to the Hindu community.

QUIT INDIA MOVEMENT

In September 1939, the Second World War broke out and the Britisl Government declared India a belligerent. Indian opinion was not consulted am by a unilateral decision, India was made a party to the war. The BritislTHE HISTORICAL CONTEXT.... THE INDIAN NATIONAL MOVEMENT

49

Government had used Indian resources and Indian people for her own narrow ends in the earlier wars which she has waged in the 19th and 20th centuries to extend her imperialist conquests. In the meantime, however, the people of India had woken up to this and were no longer prepared to be exploited.

As soon as the war was declared, the Congress clearly stated its attitude. It condemned the aggression committed by fascist countries and expressed its sympathies with the Allied cause. However, it insisted upon immediate transfer of effective administrative control to Indian hands and a categorical assurance of full independence after the War. The British claimed to be fighting the war, as the Viceroy's announcement of October 18, 1939 sought to emphasise, not for any selfish ends but "to make the world safe for democracy" and "to protect the right of self-determination of all nations." It was natural, therefore for Indian leaders to demand application of the same principles of democracy and self-determination to India.

The Congress demanded the establishment of an Indian Government responsible to the Central Legislative Assembly and the promise that independence would be given as soon as the war was over. The British Government did not agree even to this. In October 1939, the Congress ministries in the provinces resigned because it was now clear that Britain was pursuing her own imperialist ends in the war. Soon after the resignations of the Congress ministries in November 1939 the Congress Working Committee passed a resolution reiterating the demand for acceptance of the right of Indians to frame their constitution through a constituent assembly. In July 1940, the Congress Working Committee again demanded "acknowledgement by Britain of the complete independence of India and a declaration that as an immediate step in giving effect to it, a provisional National Government would be constituted at the Centre."

In March 1942, Sir Stafford Cripps came to India to talk to Indian leaders, with a view to granting India dominion status at the end of the war. Complete independence was not promised and no mention was made of the formation of a national government by the Indian people during the war. The Congress rejected the offer.

The failure of the Cripps Mission plunged the country in despondency and anger. There was a general mood of frustration prevalent in most quarters.

Gandhiji had not taken much interest in the Cripps offer but the failure of the Mission had disappointed him very much. He was also perturbed by the development in South-East Asia. The British withdrawal from Malaya, Singapore and Burma had been followed by a total collapse of local resistance and surrender to Japan was total and abject. Gandhiji and the Congress leaders were anxious that what had happened in Malaya and Burma should not be repeated in India. Gandhiji came to the conclusion that the only way the people of India could be made to shed all fear and fight the aggressor was to make them feel not only that they were their own masters but also that the defence of the country was their duty and they could not shirk the responsibility in the belief that defence was the concern of the British. Therefore, he decided to launch a movement calling upon the British to hand over power to the Indians and quit.

Quit India Resolution : The Congress Working Committee meeting at Wardha on July 14, 1942 gave shape to Gandhiji's ideas and the famous 'Quit

,]+/! t+ ooiiori nnnn Rritain immfidiatelv to transfer

_ _!__!.___J _w50

INDIAN GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS

will then be reluctantly compelled to utilize all the non-violent strength it might have gathered since 1920," and launch a movement of direct action. A meeting of the AICC was called at Bombay on August 7 to endorse this policy decision.

The AICC session at Bombay in August 1942 had become historic. It passed the famous 'Quit India Resolution'. The Congress resolution demanded the 'immediate ending of British rule in India' as 'an urgent necessity both for the sake of India' and 'the success of the United Nations.' The Congress resolved to launch a mass civil disobedience struggle on the widest possible scale 'for the vindication of India's inalienable right to freedom and independence,' if the British rule did not end immediately.

In couple of his highly inspiring and forceful speeches to the All India Congress Committee at Bombay, Gandhiji warned the people that freedom could not fall from the sky, it had to be fought for. "The Britishers," he said, "will have to give us freedom when we have made sufficient sacrifices and proved our strength." In a prophetic vein he went on to give to the people, what he himself called a short mantra and said. The mantra is this : "We shall do or die." We shall either free India or die in the attempt. We shall not live to see the perpetuation of slavery. Gandhiji believed that the 'Quit India Movement'would be 'a fight to the finish', a 'do or die' struggle, the last struggle of his life for India's independence and that it would be open and non-violent.

Repression of Revolution by Government

The Congress resolution was adopted on August 8. On the morning of August 9, all the principal Congress leaders were arrested. This provoked nation-wide demonstrations and disorganised partial conflicts and disorders which were met with violent and brutal repression by police and military action with wholesale firing and many killed and wounded. Between August 9, 1942 and December 31, 1942 according to the summary of official statements 62,229 persons were arrested; 18,000 detained under the Defence of India Regulations; 940 killed by police or military firing.

According to Michael Brecher, the 1942 movement constituted the gravest threat to British rule since the Rebellion of 1857. "In almost similar vein," Nehru himself said, "for the first time since the Great Revolt of 1857, vast number of people again rose to challenge by force the fabric of the British rule in India."

Even though the 1942 'Quit India Movement' appeared to have failed in its object of attaining freedom for India, it was in no small measure responsible for the final transfer of power which came barely five years later. If the 1857 uprising was the first, the 1942 struggle could well be considered to be the last fight for freedom from British rule.

Thus, Gandhi was the hero of the freedom struggle. With the coming of Gandhiji the masses became all at once active participants in the movement. By making the Congress a more representative organisation, Gandhi fundamentally changed the character of the nationalist struggle for independence.

THE INDIAN NATIONAL ARMY (INA)

The triumphant campaign of the Japanese in the Pacific Ocean and the South-eastern Asia lands caused much excitement among the people of Indian origin living in the region. The successes of an Asiatic power over western empires roused great hopes, which led to the formation of the Indian Independence League. The organiser of the League was Rash Behari Bose, an old revolutionary who was then residing in Japan. He conve