<<

UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT

SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION

SECOND SEMESTER M.A. HISTORY

PAPER- IV

IDEOLOGY AND PRACTICE OF THE NATIONAL MOVEMENT

(2008 Admission onwards)

Prepared by

Dr.N.PADMANABHAN

Reader

P.G.Department of History

C.A.S.College, Madayi

P.O.Payangadi-RS-670358

Dt.Kannur-.

CHAPTERS CONTENTS PAGES

1 NATURE OF THE COLONIAL STATE 02-38

11 COLONIAL IDEOLOGY 39- 188

111 TOWARDS A THEORY OF NATIONALISM 189-205

1V NATIONALIST RESISTANCE 206-371

V INDEPENDENCE AND PARTITION 371-386

1 CHAPTER-1

NATURE OF THE COLONIAL STATE

THE COLONIAL STATE AS A MODERN REGIME OF POWER

Does it serve any useful analytical purpose to make a distinction between the colonial state and the forms of the modern state? Or should we regard the colonial state as simply another specific form in which the modern state has generalized itself across the globe? If the latter is the case, then of course the specifically colonial form of the emergence of the institutions of the modern state would be of only incidental, or at best episodic, interest; it would not be a necessary part of the larger, and more important, historical narrative of modernity.The idea that was only incidental to the history of the development of the modern institutions and technologies of power in the countries of Asia and Africa is now very much with us. In some ways, this is not surprising, because we now tend to think of the period of colonialism as something we have managed to put behind us, whereas the progress of modernity is a project in which we are all, albeit with varying degrees of enthusiasm, still deeply implicated.

Curiously though, the notion that colonial rule was not really about colonial rule but something else was a persistent theme in the rhetoric of colonial rule itself.As late as ten years before Indian independence, a British historian of the development of state institutions in colonial began his book with the following words: “It was the aim of the greatest among the early British administrators in India to train the people of India to govern and protect themselves…….rather than to establish the rule of a British bureaucracy”. And at about the same time, Edward Thompson and G.T. Garratt, two liberal British historians sympathetic toward the aspirations of , closed their book with the following assessment:

2 Whatever the future may hold, the direct influence of the West upon India is likely to decrease.But it would be absurd to imagine that the British connection will not leave a permanent mark upon Indian life. On the merely material side the new Federal Government [the reorganized under the 1935 constitutional arrangements] will take over the largest irrigation system in the world, with thousands of miles of canals and water-cuts fertilizing between 30 and 40 million acres; some 60,000 miles of metalled roads; over 42,000 miles of railway, of which 3 quarters are State- owned; 230,000 scholastic institutions with over 12 million scholars; and a great number of buildings, including government offices, inspection bungalows, provincial and central legislatures.The vast area of India has been completely surveyed, most of its lands assessed, and a regular census taken of its population and its productivity.An effective defensive system has been built up on its vulnerable North-East frontier, it has an Indian army with century-old traditions, and a police force which compares favourably with any outside a few Western countries.The postal department handles nearly 1500 million articles yearly, the Forestry Department not only prevents the denudation of immense areas, but makes a net profit of between 2 and 3 crores. These great State activities are managed by a trained bureaucracy, which is to-day almost entirely Indian.Having read our Michel Foucault, we can now recognize in this account a fairly accurate description of the advance of the modern regime of power, a regime in which power is meant not to prohibit but to facilitate, to produce. It is not without significance, therefore, that Thompson and Garratt should mention this as the “permanent mark” left by the colonial presence in India. It is also significant that they entitle their history the Rise and Fulfillment of British Rule in India.

Indian nationalists are not, of course, quite so generous in attributing benevolent intentions to the colonial mission.But their judgment on the historical value of the state institutions created under British rule is not fundamentally different.The postcolonial state in India has after all only

3 expanded and not transformed the basic institutional arrangements of colonial law and administration, of the courts, the bureaucracy, the police, the army, and the various technical services of government.M.V. Pylee, the constitutional historian, describes the discursive constraints with disarming simplicity. “India”, he says, “inherited the British system of government and administration in its original form.The framers of the new Constitution could not think of an altogether new system. As a matter of fact, the criticisms Indian nationalists have made in the postcolonial period is that the colonial institutions of power were not modern enough, that the conditions of colonial rule necessarily limited and corrupted the application of the true principles of a modern administration. B.B. Misra, the nationalist historian of colonial bureaucracy, identified these limits as proceeding from two premises. The first was the Indian social system which was governed by irrational and prescriptive customs rather than a well- regulated rational system of law and a common code of morality.The second………was the British Imperial interest, which bred discrimination in the Services on racial grounds as well as differentiation in respect of social status and conditions of service.

Yet, despite these limits, “the degree of administrative rationalization during this period of bureaucratic despotism was far ahead of the country’s Brahmanic social order, which knew of no rule of law in the contractual sense” Whether imperialist or colonialist, all seem to share a belief in the self-evident legitimacy of the principles that are supposed universally to govern the modern regime of power. It is something of a surprise, therefore, to discover that a persistent theme in colonial discourse until the earlier half of this century was the steadfast refusal to admit the universality of those pricinples.

THE RULE OF COLONIAL DIFFERENCE

Although Vincent Smith was not the most distinguished imperial historian of India, he was probably the most widely known in India because of the success of his textbooks on Indian history. In 1919, Smith published a rejoinder to the

4 Montagu-Chelmsford constitutional proposals seeking to placate nationalist demands by conceding a certain measure of “responsible government” to Indians.The proposals, Smith said, were based on two propositions: “(1) that a policy, assumed to have been successful in Western communities, can be applied to India; and (2) that such a policy ought to be applied to India, even at the request of an admittedly small body of Indians, because Englishmen believe it to be intrinsically the best”.His argument was that both propositions were false.

The policy of responsible and democratic government, “supposed to be of universal application”, could not be applied to India because it went against “a deep stream of Indian tradition which has been flowing for thousands of years……The ordinary men and women of India do not understand impersonal government…..They crave for government by a person to whom they can render loyal homage”. The reason for the legitimacy of British rule in India lay in the fact that the King-Emperor was regarded by the Indian people as “the successor of Rama, Asoka and Akbar.Their heartfelt loyalty should not be quenched by the cold water of democratic theory”.In terms of social divisions, “India has been the battle-ground of races and religions from time immemorial”, and the anticipation of a common political identity was “not justified either by the facts of history or by observation of present conditions”. The fundamental principle of social organization in India was , which was incompatible with any form of democratic government.More importantly, the spread of modern institutions or technologies had not weakened the hold of caste in any way. The necessities of cheap railway traveling compel people to crowd into carriages and touch one another closely for many hours…..The immense practical advantages of a copious supply of good water from stand- pipes in the larger towns are permitted to outweigh the ceremonial pollution which undoubtedly takes place…….But such merely superficial modifications of caste regulations…….do not touch the essence of the institution………The Brahman who rides in a third-class carriage or drinks pipe-water does not think any better of his low-caste neighbour than when he traveled on foot and

5 drank from a dirty well…….So long as Hindus continue to be Hindus, caste cannot be destroyed or even materially modified. Smith then went on to argue that contrary to the plea of the reformers, the policy of promoting responsible government in India was bad even as a practical strategy of power.It would produce not consent for authority but its very opposite. Contentment, so far as it exists, is to be deliberately disturbed by the rulers of India in order to promote the ideal of Indian nationhood, the formation of a genuine electorate, and the development of the faculty of self-help.Do the high officials charged with the government of India, who propose deliberately to disturb the contentment of three hundred millions of Asiatic people, mostly ignorant, superstitious, fanatical, and intensely suspicious, realize what they are doing? Have they counted the cost? Once the disturbance of content has been fairly started among the untutored masses, no man can tell how far the fire may spread. Discontent will not be directed to the political objects so dear to Mr. Montagu and Mr. Curtis. It will be turned fiercely upon the casteless, impure foreigner and, inflamed by the cry of “religion in danger”, will attract every disorderly element and renew the horrors of 1857 or the great anarchy of the eighteenth century.The lesson of history cannot be mistaken.Our reaction today would be to dismiss these arguments as coming from a diehard conservative imperialist putting up what was even then a quixotic defense of old-style paternalistic colonialism.Yet Smith’s rejection of the claims to universality of the modern institutions of self-government raises, we think, an important question.

Let us put this plainly, even at the risk of oversimplification. If the principal justification for the modern regime of power is that by making social regulations an aspect of the self-disciplining of normalized individuals, power is made more productive, effective, and humane, then there are three possible positions with regard to the universality of this argument. One is that this must apply in principle to all societies irrespective of historical or cultural specificities.The second is that the principle is inescapably tied to the specific history and culture of Western societies and cannot be exported elsewhere;

6 this implies a rejection of the universality of the principle.The third is that the historical and cultural differences, although an impediment in the beginning, can be eventually overcome by a suitable process of training and education. The third position, therefore, while admitting the objection raised by the second, nevertheless seeks to restore the universality of the principle.While these three positions have been associated with distinct ideological formations, they are produced, however, in the same discursive field.Our argument is, first, that all three remain available today; second, that it is possible easily to slide from one to the other, because, third, all three adopt the same tactic of employing what we will call the rule of colonial difference. The implication of this argument is that if a rule of colonial difference is part of a common strategy for the deployment of the modern forms of disciplinary power, then the history of the colonial state, far from being incidental, is of crucial interest to the study of the past, present, and future of the modern state.We will first demonstrate the application of this rule in two well-known colonial debates over bureaucratic rationality, rule of law, and freedom of speech.We will then show that the same rule is effective in contemporary debates over colonial history.

BRACE AND RATIONAL BUREAUCRACY

It is in the fitness of things that it took an event such as the suppression of a rebellion of the scale and intensity of the Great Revolt of 1857 for the various pieces of the colonial order properly to fall into place.The rebels ripped the veil off the face of the colonial power and, for the first time, it was visible in its true form; a modern regime of power destined never to fulfill its normalizing mission because the premise of its power was the preservation of the alienness of the ruling group.The debates over colonial policy in the decades following the revolt are instructive.Historians generally characterize this period as an era of conservatism.Metcalf’s well-known study traces this shift to a decline in the enthusiasm for Benthamism and evangelism in Britain.Strengthening this reluctance to embark upon any further reform in

7 India was the suspicion that the earlier attack upon “immoral” native customs might have had something to do with the rebellion. Official opinion was now virtually unanimous in thinking that local customs were best left to themselves. “Radical reform”, says Metcalf “was not just dangerous, it had ceased to be fashionable”.

In keeping with this move away from liberal reform was the hardening of a certain intellectual opinion in Britain that was particularly influential in the making of colonial policy.Distressed by the extension of suffrage and of the politics of Gladstonian liberalism at home, this school of opinion sought to reestablish the precepts of property and order upon unashamedly authoritarian foundations and increasingly turned to British India as the ground where these theories could be demonstrated.James Fitzjames Stephen and Henry Maine were two leading figures in this campaign to unmask the “sentimentality” of all reformist postures in matters of colonial policy.The Indian people, Stephen reminded his countrymen, were “ignorant to the last degree” and “steeped in idolatrous superstition”.The British were under no obligation to fit such people for representative institutions.All they were expected to do was administer the country and look after the welfare of the people.The empire, he said, Is essentially an absolute Government, founded, not on consent, but on conquest? It does not represent the native principles of life or of government, and it can never do so until it represents heathenism and barbarism.It represents a belligerent civilization, and no anomaly can be so striking or so dangerous as its administration by men who, being at the head of a Government………having no justification for its existence except [the] superiority [of the conquering race], shrink from the open, uncompromising, straightforward assertion of it, seek to apologize for their own position, and refuse, from whatever cause, to uphold and support it.

The merit of hard-nosed arguments such as this was to point un- ambiguously to the one factor that united the ruling bloc and separated it from those over whom it ruled.Marking this difference was race. As officials in India

8 attempted, under directions from London, to install the processes of an orderly government, the question of race gave rise to the most acerbic debates. Indeed, the more the logic of a modern regime of power pushed the processes of government in the direction of a rationalization of administration and the normalization of the objects of its rule, the more insistently did the issue of race come up to emphasize the specially colonial character of British dominance in India.

It seems something of a paradox that the racial difference between ruler and ruled should become most precisely in that period in the last quarter of the nineteenth century when the technologies of disciplinary power were being put in place by the colonial state.Recent historians have shown that during this period there was a concerted attempt to create the institutional procedures for systematically objectifying and normalizing the colonized terrain, that is, the land and the people of India.Not only was the law codified and the bureaucracy rationalized, but a whole apparatus of specialized technical services was instituted in order to scientifically survey, classify, and enumerate the geographical, geological, zoological, and meteorological properties of the natural environment and the archaelogical, anthropological, historical, linguistic, economic, demographic, and epidemiological characteristics of the people.Yet, a social historian of the period notes that “racial feeling among the British became more explicit and more aggressive in the course of the nineteenth century and reached its peak during Lord Curzon’s viceroyalty, between 1899 and 1905”. There is, however, no paradox in this development if we remember that to the extent this complex of power and knowledge was colonial, the forms of objectification and normalization of the colonized had to reproduce, within the framework of a universal knowledge, the truth of the colonial difference.The difference could be marked by many signs, and varying with the context, one could displace another as the most practicable application of the rule. But of all these signs, race was perhaps the most obvious mark of colonial difference.

9 In the case of bureaucratic rationalization, for instance, which had proceeded through the middle decades of the century, the most difficult political problem arose when it became apparent that the system of nonarbitrary recruitment through competitive academic examinations would mean the entry of Indians into the civil service. Several attempts were made in the 1870s to tamper with recruitment and service regulations in order first to keep out Indians, and then to split the bureaucracy into an elite corps primarily reserved for the British and a subordinate service for Indians. But it was the so-called Ilbert Bill Affair that brought up most dramatically the question of whether a central claim of the modern state could be allowed to transgress the line of racial division.The claim was that of administering an impersonal, nonarbitrary system of rule of law.In 1882 Behari Lal Gupta, an Indian member of the civil service, pointed out the anomaly that under the existing regulations, Indian judicial officers did not have the same right as their British counterparts to try cases in which Europeans were involved. Gupta’s note was forwarded to the Government of India with a comment from the government that there was “no sufficient reason why Covenanted Native Civilians, with the position and training of District Magistrate or Sessions Judge, should not exercise the same jurisdiction over Europeans as is exercised by other members of the service”.The viceroy at this time was Ripon, a liberal, appointed by Gladstone’s Liberal government. But it did not require much liberalism to see that the anomaly was indeed an anomaly, and after more or less routine consultations, Ilbert, the law member, introduced in 1883 a bill to straighten out the regulations. Some historians have suggested that if Ripon had had even an inkling of the storm that was to break out, he would not have allowed such a minor issue to jeopardize the entire liberal project in India.As it happened, it was the force of public opinion of the dominant race that organized itself to remind the government what colonial rule was all about.The nonofficial Europeans – planters, traders, and lawyers in particular, and in Bengal more than anywhere else – rose in “almost mutinous opposition”.The agitation reached a fever pitch in Calcutta.Meetings

10 were held to denounce the bill that sought to take away “a much-valued and prized and time-honoured privilege of European British subjects” and aroused” a feeling of insecurity as to the liberties and safety of the European British subjects employed in the mufassal and also of their wives and daughters”. The British Indian presuppositions, with the Englishman of Calcutta at its head, declared a call to arms by claiming that the Europeans were “fighting against their own ruin and the destruction of British rule in India”.A European and Anglo-Indian Defence Association was formed, functions at Government House were boycotted, and there was even a conspiracy “to overpower the sentries at Government House, put the Viceroy on board a steamer at Chandpal ghat, and send him to England via the Cape”.

Gladstone, surveying the fracas from the vantage point of the metropolitan capital, was in a better position than most to see how this episode fitted into a longer story. “There is a question”, he said, To be answered: where, in a country like India, lies the ultimate power, and if it lies for the present on one side but for the future on the other, a problem has to be solved as to preparation for that future, and it may become right and needful to chasten the saucy pride so apt to grow in the English mind toward foreigners, and especially toward foreigners whose position has been subordinate. Ripon, on the other hand, chose to see his move as “an error in tactics” and decided to beat a retreat. The provisions of the bill were so watered down that the earlier anomalies were not only reinstated but made even more cumbrous.The question was not, as some historians have supposed, whether Ripon was “too weak a man” to carry out the liberal mission of making Indians fit for modern government.What his “failure” signaled was the inherent impossibility of completing the project of the modern state without superseding the conditions of colonial rule.When George Couper, lieutenant governor of the Northwestern Provinces, said in 1878 that the time had come to stop “shouting that black is white”, he was not being metaphorical.“We all know that in point of fact black is not white……That there should be one law alike for the European and Native is an excellent thing in theory, but if it could really be introduced in

11 practice we should have no business in the country”.The argument, in other words, was not that the “theory” of responsible government was false, nor that its truth was merely relative and contingent. Rather, the point was to lay down in “practice” a rule of colonial difference, to mark the points and the instances where the colony had to become an exception precisely to vindicate the universal truth of the theory.

RACE AND PUBLIC OPINION

Another question on which the Ilbert Bill Affair threw light was the relation between the state and those relatively autonomous institutions of public life that are supposed to constitute the domain of civil society.The interesting feature of this relation as it developed in colonial Calcutta, for instance, in the 19th century was that the “public” which was seen to deserve the recognition due from a properly constituted state was formed exclusively by the European residents of the country.Their opinion counted as public opinion, and the question of the appropriate relationship between government and the public came to be defined primarily around the freedoms of the British Indian press.English-language newspapers began to be published in Calcutta from the 1780s. In those early days of empire, when power was restrained by little more than brute force and intrigue and commerce was driven by the lust for a quick fortune, the press not unexpectedly provided yet another means for carrying out personal and factional feuds within the small European community in Bengal.Governors-general were quick to use legal means to “tranquilize” newspaper editors and even deport those who refused to be subdued.By the 1820s a more stable relation had been established and the censorship laws were lifted.But the events of 1857, when the very future of British rule seemed to be at stake, forced the issue once more into the open. “Public opinion” was now defined explicitly as the opinion of the “nonofficial” European community, and the English-language press of Calcutta, crazed by panic, directed its wrath at a government that, in its eyes, seemed too soft and indecisive in punishing the “d---d niggers”.Canning, the governor-general, was

12 a special target of vituperation, and in June 1857 he imposed the censorship laws once again, for a period of one year.

The contours of state-civil society relations in the new context of the Raj were revealed in interesting ways in the so-called Nil Durpan Affair.The origin of the case lay, curiously enough, in an effort by officials in Bengal to find out a little more about “native” public opinion. In 1861, when the agitations in the Bengal countryside over the cultivation of indigo had begun to subside, John Peter Grant, the governor, came to hear about Dinabandhu Mitra’s (1930-73) play.Thinking this would be a good way “of knowing how natives spoke of the indigo question among themselves when they had no European to please or to displease by opening their minds”, he asked for a translation to be prepared of Nildarpan.Grant’s intentions were laudable.

We have always been of opinion that, considering our state of more than semi-isolation from all classes of native society, public functionaries in India have been habitually too regardless of those depths of native feeling which do not show upon the surface, and too habitually careless of all means of information which are available to us for ascertaining them.Popular songs everywhere, and, in Bengal, popular native plays, are amongst the most potent, and most neglected, of those means. Seton-Karr, the secretary to the Government of Bengal, arranged for James Long, an Irish missionary later to become a pioneering historian of Calcutta, to supervise the translation “by a native” of the play.He then had it printed and circulated, along with a preface by Dinabandhu and an introduction by Long, to several persons “to whom copies of official documents about the indigo crisis had been sent”.The planters were immediately up in arms.They charged the government with having circulated “a foul and malicious libel on indigo planters”.When it was clarified that circulation of the play did not mean the government’s approval of its contents and that in any case the circulation had not been expressly authorized by the governor, the planters’ association went to court.An “extraordinary” summing up by the judge, which is said “not to have erred on

13 the side of impartiality”, influenced the jury at the Supreme Court into pronouncing James Long guilty of libel.He was sentenced to a fine and a month’s imprisonment. Long became a cause célèbre among the Indian literati of Calcutta: his fine, for instance, was paid by Kaliprasanna Sinha (1840-70), and a public meeting presided over by Radhakanta Deb (1783-1867) demanded the recall of the judge for his “frequent and indiscriminate attacks on the characters of the natives of the country with an intemperance………not compatible with the impartial administration of justice”. But, more interestingly, long also attracted a good deal of sympathy from Europeans, particularly officials and missionaries.They felt he had been punished for no offense at all. The bishop of Calcutta remarked that the passages“which the Judge described as foul and disgusting, are in no way more gross than many an English story or play turning on the ruin of a simple hunted rustic which people read and talk about without scruple”. At the same time, Canning, the viceroy, rebuked Grant for having allowed things to go this far and Seton-Karr, despite an apology, was removed from his posts both in the Bengal government and in the legislative council.The planters, it would seem, won an unqualified victory.

Nevertheless, it is worth considering what really was on trial in this curious case.It was to all intents and purposes a conflict between government and the public, the “public” being constituted by “nonofficial” Europeans.The charge against the government was that by circulating the play, it had libeled an important section of this public.Long was a scapegoat; in fact, neither he nor the play was on trial. Or rather, to put it more precisely, although Long was an ostensible culprit in the circulation of a libelous tract, the play itself and the body of opinion it represented were not recognized elements in this discourse about free speech.Such in fact was the confusion about where this principle of freedom of expression was supposed to apply that when one of Long’s supporters remarked that his punishment was “exactly as if the French clergy had prosecuted Molière”, it did not strike him that Dinabandhu Mitra, the author of the play, had not even been deemed worthy of being named in a suit

14 of libel and that Long was neither the author nor even the translator of the impugned material.Within these assumptions, of course, there really was no confusion.The real target of attack was clearly the government itself, and Canning, in trying to appease “public opinion”, recognized this when he moved against Grant and Seton-Karr.The original intent of the Bengal officials, however, had been to familiarize themselves and members of the European community with the state of “native” public opinion – a perfectly reasonable tactic for a modern administrative apparatus to adopt. What incensed the planters was the implicit suggestion that the government could treat “native” public opinion on the same footing as European opinion.A native play, circulated under a government imprint, seemed to give it the same status of “information” as other official papers.These planters were not prepared to countenance.The only civil society that the government could recognize was theirs; colonized subjects could never be its equal members. Freedom of opinion, which even they accepted as an essential element of responsible government, could apply only to the organs of this civil society; Indians, needless to add, were not fit subjects of responsible government.

LANGUAGE AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH

The question of native public opinion came up once again in the 1870s. In 1878, when the government felt it necessary to devise legal means to curb “seditious” writings in the native press, the law made an explicit distinction between the English-language and the vernacular press.An official pointed out that this would be “class legislation of the most striking and invidious description, at variance with the whole tenour of our policy”, but the objection was overruled on the ground that in this instance the exception to the general rule was palpable.The presumed difficulty, said Ashley Eden, the Bengal governor, was “imaginary rather than real”.That is to say, the notion of an undifferentiated body of public opinion that the government was supposed to treat impartially was only a theoretical idea; in practice, it was the duty of a

15 colonial government to differentiate, and language was a simple and practical sign of difference.

The papers published in this country in the English language are written by a class of writers for a class of readers whose education and interests would make them naturally intolerant of sedition; they are written under a sense of responsibility and under a restraint of public opinion which do not and cannot exist in the case of the ordinary Native newspapers.It is quite easy and practicable to draw a distinction between papers published in English and papers published in the vernacular, and it is a distinction which really meets all the requirements of the case, and should not be disregarded merely because some evil-disposed persons may choose to say that the Government has desired to show undue favour to papers written in the language of the ruling power.…..On the whole the English Press of India, whether conducted by Europeans or Natives, bears evidence of being influenced by a proper sense of responsibility and by a general desire to discuss public events in a moderate and reasonable spirit.There is no occasion to subject that Press to restraint, and therefore, naturally enough, it is exempted. It would be a sign of great weakness on the part of Government to bring it within the scope of this measure merely to meet a possible charge of partiality.

The Vernacular Press Act of 1878 was enacted in great haste so as to forestall long debates over principles, especially in Britain.Lytton, the viceroy, himself described it as “a sort of coup d’état to pass a very stringent gagging Bill”.The provisions were indeed stringent, since local officers were given the power to demand bonds and deposits of money from printers and publishers, and the printing of objectionable material could lead to confiscation of the deposit as well as the machinery of the press, with no right of appeal in the courts.4 years later, Ripon in his liberalism repealed the act, and “a bitter feeling obtained among officials that they were denied proper and reasonable protection against immoderate Press criticism”.In the 1890s, when the question of “sedition” acquired a new gravity, provisions were included in the

16 regular penal law to allow the government to move against statements “conducing to pubic mischief” and “promoting enmity between classes”.The distinction by language had by then ceased to be a practical index of difference because native publications in English could no longer be said to be confined in their influence to a class “naturally intolerant of sedition”.Other, more practical, means emerged to distinguish between proper members of civil society and those whom the state could recognize only as subjects not citizens. And in any case, a contrary movement of nationalism was then well on its way to constituting its own domain of sovereignty, rejecting the dubious promise of being granted membership of a second-rate “civil society of subjects”.

NATIONALISM AND COLONIAL DIFFERENCE

This domain of sovereignty, which nationalism thought of as the “spiritual” or “inner” aspects of culture, such as language or religion or the elements of personal and family life, was of course premised upon a difference between the cultures of the colonizer and the colonized. The more nationalism engaged in its contest with the colonial power in the outer domain of politics, the more it insisted on displaying the marks of “essential” cultural difference so as to keep out the colonizer from that inner domain of national life and to proclaim its sovereignty over it.But in the outer domain of the state, the supposedly “material” domain of law, administration, economy, and statecraft, nationalism fought relentlessly to erase the marks of colonial difference. Difference could not be justified in that domain. In this, it seemed to be reasserting precisely the claims to universality of the modern regime of power.And in the end, by successfully terminating the life of the colonial state, nationalism demonstrated that the project of that modern regime could be carried forward only by superseding the conditions of colonial rule.

Nevertheless, the insistence of difference, begun in the so-called spiritual domain of culture, has continued, especially in the matter of claiming agency in history.Rival conceptions of collective identity have become implicated in

17 rival claims to autonomous subjectivity.Many of these are a part of contemporary postcolonial politics and have to do with the fact that the consolidation of the power of the national state has meant the marking of a new set of differences within postcolonial society. But the origin of the project of modernity in the workings of the colonial state has meant that every such historical claim has had to negotiate its relationship with the history of colonialism.The writing of the history of British India continues to this day to be a matter of political struggle. In this contemporary battle, the case for a history of subordinated groups has often been stated by pointing out the continuities between the colonial and the postcolonial phases of the imposition of the institutions of the modern state and by asserting the autonomous subjectivity of the oppressed.But since the modern discourse of power always has available a position for the colonizer, the case on behalf of the colonizing mission can now also be stated in these new terms.To show the continued relevance of the question of the universality of the modern regime of power and of the rule of colonial difference, we will end this it by reviewing a recent attempt to revise the history of colonialism in India.

“IT NEVER HAPPENED!”

This revisionist history begins by challenging the assumption, shared by both colonialist and nationalist historiographies, that colonial rule represented a fundamental break in Indian history.There are two parts to this argument.The first part of the argument has been advanced by Burton Stein. He disputes the assumption in both imperialist and nationalist historiographies that the British regime in India was “completely different from all prior states”. The recent work of Christopher Bayly, David Washbrook, and Frank Perlin shows, he says, that “early colonial regimes” were “continuations of prior indigenous regimes”, that the 18th century was a time of “economic vigour, even development”, and not of chaos and decline and that the period from 1750 to 1850 was a “period of transition” from extant old regimes to the colonial regimes.The continuations were marked in two ways. One “structural

18 contradiction” in pre-British state formations was between “centralizing, militaristic regimes” and numerous local lordships.The British inserted themselves into these formations, “not as outsiders with new procedural principles and purposes (as yet), but, contingently, as part of the political system of the subcontinent, but possessed of substantially more resources to deploy for conquest than others”.The colonial state resolved the contradiction in favor of the centralizing tendency of “military-fiscalism” inherited from previous regimes.Here lay the continuity of the colonial state with its predecessors. The other contradiction was between “sultanism” (Max Weber’s term), which implied a patrimonial order based on personal loyalty of subordination to the ruler, and the existence of ideological discontinuities between ruler and local lordships, which made such patrimonial loyalties hard to sustain.Patrimonial sultanism was incompatible with the economic tendencies inherent in military-fiscalism.After initial hesitations, the colonial state in the second half of the 19th century broke entirely with the sultanist forms and founded a regime based not on patrimonial loyalties but on modern European principles, different both from the old regimes and the early colonial regimes.Here lay the discontinuity of the later colonial state with its predecessors.

Although Stein appeals, inter alia, to the work of Perlin, the latter actually makes a much more qualified argument, a qualification important for the revisionist position as well as for our judgment on it. Perlin argues that the process of centralization that characterized colonial rule “possessed roots in the earlier period”. But in accelerating this process, colonial rule gave it” a new, more powerful form deriving from its location in the agency of a conquest regime possessing sources of fiat external to the subcontinent, from its radical concentration of decision making, and from the surplus of new knowledge in the instruments of rule”.This produced “a substantial break” between the early colonial polity and its predecessors, despite the colonial use of “old-order institutions and its social underpinnings”. Moreover, whereas in the indigenous regimes of the 18th century the attempt to centralize produced large areas of

19 “quasi-autonomy”, where contrary forces and contrary principles of rights and social organization could emerge to resist the larged order, colonial rule up to the early 19th century was marked by a substantial loss of this “intermediary ground”.“Beneath the carapace of old terms and institutional shells, there has occurred a fundamental alteration of both State and state. This is bound up with the European origins and international character of the new colonial polity”.

Notwithstanding Perlin’s qualification, the idea of continuity from the precolonial to the early colonial period dominates this part of the revisionist argument.Since the later phase of colonialism is specifically distinguished from its early phase, one is justified in wondering if the revision is merely a matter of dates.Is the question one of identifying when the decisive break of colonialism took place? Earlier historians, whether imperialist or nationalist, with their simple faith in the proclamations of political rulers, had assumed that this occurred in the middle of the 18th century; are the revisionist historians, more skeptical of legal fictions and more sensitive to underlying social processes, now telling us that the date must be pushed forward by a hundred years? If this is all there is to the debate, the matter is easily settled. For if the period from the middle of the 18th century to the middle of the 19th is to be seen as a period of “transition”, then it must reveal not only the traces of continuity from the earlier period, as claimed by our recent historians, but surely also the signs of emergence of all of those elements that would make the late colonial period structurally different from the precolonial.In terms of periodization, then, the hundred years of transition must be seen as constituting the “moment” of break, the “event” that marks the separation of the pre-colonial from the colonial.The apparent conundrum of continuity and discontinuity then becomes one more example of the familiar historiographical problem of combining, and at the same time separating, structure and process. One might then react to the revisionist argument in the manner of the student radical in a Calcutta university in the early 1970s who, when asked in

20 a history test whether Rammohan Roy was born in 1772 or 1774, replied, “I don’t know.But I do know that he grew up to be a comprador”.

But it would be unfair to our revisionist historians to judge them on what is only one part of their argument.In its stronger version, the revisionist argument contains another part in which the continuity from the pre-colonial to the early colonial period is given a new construction.Not only was it the case, the argument runs, that the Europeans in the late 18th and early 19th centuries achieved “on a larger and more ominous scale what Indian local rulers had been doing for the last century”, but in responding to this conquering thrust Indians too “became active agents and not simply passive bystanders and victims in the creation of ”.This, says Chris Bayly in a recent book-length survey of the early colonial period, gives us a “more enduring perspective” on modern Indian history than do the earlier debates about the success or failure of the “progressive” impact of colonialism.This perspective reveals, first of all, the economic from the 18th century to the present as a history of “Indian ”, born prior to the colonial incursion and growing to its present form by responding to the forces generated by the European world economy.Most of the economic institutions of capitalism in India today, such as commodity production, trading and banking capital, methods of accounting, a stock of educated expertise and of mercantile groups that would ultimately become industrial entrepreneurs, emerged in the pre-colonial period. So did many of the political and cultural movements, including the rise of intermediary groups between townsmen and the countryside, the formation of regional cultures, movements for cultural reform and self-respect among disprivileged groups, and even the politics of “”. Second, such a perspective on Indian history also shows the resilience of both townspeople and country people in resisting the onslaughts on their means of survival and ways of life, especially in the period of colonialism.Indigenous propertied groups frustrated the “more grandiose economic plans” of both the colonial state and European businessmen to extract Indian wealth, while peasants overcame the pressures of war, taxation,

21 and repression “to adapt in a creative way to their environment”.By recovering these connections, Bayly says, the new perspective enables one to construct a narrative running from the pre-colonial past to the post-colonial present in which the Indian people are the subjects of history.

What, then, of colonialism? Surprisingly, there is no clear answer to this question.Nevertheless; it is not difficult to read the implication of the argument. At the time of their entry, the European trading companies were merely so many indigenous players in the struggle for economic and political power in 18th century India, striving for the same goals and playing by the same rules. In the latter half of the 19th century, when the British appear to have achieved complete dominance at the apex of the formal structure of power, their ability to reach into the depths of Indian social life was still severely restricted. By the early 20th century, even this hold at the top was seriously challenged, and of course by the middle of the century the colonial power was forced to leave. Looked at from the “more enduring” perspective of Indian history, then, colonialism appears as a rather brief interlude, merging with the longer narrative only when its protagonists manage to disguise themselves as Indian characters but falling hopelessly out of place and dooming itself to failure when it aspires to carry out projects that have not already taken root in the native soil.

We have a more detailed presentation of this stronger version of the revisionist argument in Washbrook.Once again, the claim is made that by tracing the continuities from pre-colonial to early colonial processes, one can restore the “Indianness” of this historical narrative and “recover the subject from European history”.Further, and this is Washbrook’s contribution to the argument, “historical theory” “is put on a rather more objective, or at least less ethnocentric, footing”. It is on this high ground of “historical theory”, then, that the revisionist flag is finally hoisted.What is this theory? It is the familiar theme of capitalist development, which in one form or another has framed all discussions of modern history.The new twist on this theme has as its vortex

22 the claim that not all forms of development of capital necessarily lead to modern industrialism.The development of industrial capital in England, or in Western Europe and North America, was the result of a very specific history.It is the perversity of Eurocentric historical theories that has led to the search for similar developments everywhere else in the world; whenever that search has proved fruitless, the society has been declared incapable of producing a true historical dynamic.Instead of tracing the particular course of the indigenous history, therefore, the practice has been to see the history of “backward” countries as a history of “lack”, a history that always falls short of true history.

The perspective can be reversed, says Washbrook, by taking more seriously the similarities rather than the differences between the development of capitalism in Europe and, in this case, in India.We will then see that the similarities are indeed striking.Contrary to the earlier judgment of imperialist, nationalist, and even Marxist historians, recent researches show that the economic and so institutions of pre-colonial India, far from impeding the growth of capitalism, actually accommodated and encouraged most of the forms associated with early modern capital. Not only did trading and banking capital grow as a result of long-distance trade, but large-scale exchange took place even in the subsistence sector.The legal-political institutions too acquired the characteristic early modern forms of military fiscalism, centralization of state authority, destruction of community practices, and the conversion of privileged entitlements into personal rights over property. Despite the cultural differences with Europe in the early capitalist era, India too produced institutions that were “capable of supplying broadly similar economic functions”.The entered the scene as one more player capable of pursuing the same functions: “rather than representing a set of governing principles imported from a foreign and ‘more advanced’ culture, the early East India Company state might be seen as a logical extension of processes with distinctively ‘indigenous’ origins”. And if one is not to disregard the “preponderant evidence” of early capitalist groups in India subverting indigenous regimes in order to seek support from the Company, one must

23 accept the conclusion that “colonialism was the logical outcome of South Asia’s own history of capitalist development”.

The tables have been turned!Once colonialism as an economic and political formation is shown to have been produced by an indigenous history of capitalist development, everything that followed from colonial rule becomes, by the ineluctable logic of “historical theory”, an integral part of that same indigenous history.Thus, the restructuring of the Indian economy in the period between 1820 and 1850, when all of the principal features of colonial underdevelopment emerged to preclude once and for all the possibilities of transition to modern industrialization, must be seen not as a process carried out by an external extractive force but as one integral to the peculiar history of Indian capitalism.The colonial state, responding as it did to the historical demands of Indian capital, offered the necessary legal and political protection to the propertied classes and their attempts to enrich themselves: “rarely in history”, says Washbrook, “can capital and property have secured such rewards and such prestige for so little risk and so little responsibility as in the society crystallizing in South Asia in the Victorian Age”.The result was a process in which not only the British but all owners of property – “capital in general” – secured the benefits of colonial rule.The specific conditions of capitalism in India had, of course, already defined a path in which the forms of extractive relations between capital and labor did not favor a transition to industrialism.The late colonial regime, by upholding the privileges of capital, destroying the viability of petty manufacturers, pulling down the remnants of already decrepit community institutions, and consolidating the formation of a mass of overexploited peasants constantly reduced to lower and lower levels of subsistence, made the transition more or less impossible.On the cultural side, the colonial regime instituted a “traditionalization” of Indian society by its rigid codification of “custom” and “tradition”, its freezing of the categories of social classification such as caste, and its privileging of “scriptural” interpretations of social law at the expense of the fluidity of local community practices.The result was the creation by colonial rule of a social order that

24 bore a striking resemblance to its own caricature of “traditional India”: late colonial society was “nearer to the ideal-type of Asiatic Despotism than anything South Asia had seen before”. All this can now be seen as India’s own history, a history made by Indian peoples, Indian classes, and Indian powers.

COLONIAL DIFFERENCE AS POST-COLONIAL DIFFERENCE

There is something magical about a “historical theory” that can with such ease spirit away the violent intrusion of colonialism and make all of its features the innate property of an indigenous history.Indeed, the argument seems to run in a direction so utterly contrary to all received ideas that one might be tempted to grant that the revisionist historians have turned the tables on both imperialist and nationalist histories and struck out on a radically new path. Like all feats of magic, however, this achievement of “historical theory” is also an illusion. If the revisionist account of Indian history makes one suspicious that this is one more attempt to take the sting out of anti-colonial politics, this time by appropriating the nationalist argument about colonialism’s role in producing underdevelopment in India and then turning the argument around to situate the origins of colonialism in India’s own precolonial history, then one’s suspicion would not be unjustified.There is much in this new historiographic strategy that is reminiscent of the debates we cited at the beginning of this chapter between conservative and liberal imperialists and their nationalist opponents.Like those earlier debates, this account shows a continued effort to produce a rule of colonial difference within a universal theory of the modern regime of power. Washbrook argues, for instance, that Eurocentrism and the denial of subjectivity to Indians were the result of the emphasis on difference; emphasizing similarity restores to Indian history its authenticity. It is obvious, of course, though not always noticed, that the difference which produces India (or the Orient) as the “other” of Europe also requires as its condition an identity of Europe and India; otherwise they would be mutually unintelligible. But “emphasizing” either identity or difference, however, it is possible to produce varied meanings; in this case, the effects noticed by Washbrook are

25 those of Indian authenticity on the one hand and Eurocentrism on the other. What he does not recognize is that the two histories are produced within the same discursive conditions.All that Washbrook is doing by emphasizing “similarity” is restating the condition of discursive unity.This condition is nothing other than the assumption that the history of Europe and the history of India are united within the same framework of universal history, the assumption that made possible the incorporation of the history of India into the history of Britain in the 19th century: Europe became the active subject of Indian history because Indian history was now a part of “world history”.The same assumption has characterized the “modern” historiography of India for at least the last hundred years, although the principal task of this nationalist historiography has been to claim for Indians the privilege of making their own history.

There have been many ways of conceptualizing this universal history. Washbrook chooses the one most favored in the rational, scientific discussions of academic social theory, namely, the universality of the analytical categories of the modern disciplines of the social sciences. In his version, this takes the form of assuming the universality of the categories of political economy.Thus, although the history of Indian capitalism, in his argument, is different from that of European capitalism, it is nonetheless a history of “capitalism”.The distinctness, and hence the authenticity, of Indian capitalism is produced at the level of Indian history by first asserting the universality of capitalism at the level of world history.Instead of saying, as do his predecessors in the discipline of political economy, that India was so different that it was incapable of capitalism and therefore required British colonialism to bring it into the orbit of world history, Washbrook has simply inverted the order of similarity and difference within the same discursive framework. In the process, he has also managed to erase colonialism our of existence.

26 What he has produced instead is a way of talking about postcolonial backwardness as the consequence entirely of an indigenous history.Indian capitalism today, his argument seems to say, looks so backward because it has been, from its birth, different from Western capitalism.It was ridiculous for anyone to have believed that it could be made to look like Western capitalism; if it ever did, it would stop being itself.Fitzjames Stephen or Vincent Smith would have understood the argument perfectly.It is possible to give many instances of how the rule of colonial difference – of representing the “other” as inferior and radically different, and hence incorrigibly inferior – can be employed in situations that are not, in the strict terms of political history, colonial.These instances come up not only in relations between countries or nations, but even within populations that the modern institutions of power presume to have normalized into a body of citizens endowed with equal and nonarbitrary rights. Indeed, invoking such differences are, we might say, commonplaces in the politics of discrimination, and hence also in the many contemporary struggles for identity.This reason makes it necessary to study the specific history of the colonial state, because it reveals what is only hidden in the universal history of the modern regime of power. Having said this, we need to move on to the next, and more substantial, part of our agenda, which is to look at the ways in which nationalism responded to the colonial intervention.That will be my task in the rest of this book.This, then, will be the last time that we will talk about Gladstone and Curzon, Lytton and Ripon, and pretend that the history of India can be written as a footnote to the history of Britain.Leaving such exiguous projects behind us, let us move on to a consideration of the history of India as a nation.

NATURE OF COLONIAL STATE

The colonial state is a basic part of the colonial structure. At the same time, the subordination of the colony to the metropolis and other features of the colonial structure evolve and are enforced through the colonial state.The parameters of the colonial structure are constructed through, and determined

27 and maintained by, the colonial state. The colonial state differs from temple capitalist state in important aspects. It does not “reflect” economic power but creates and enforces it.It is not a superstructure erected on the economic base. It helps create the economic base; it is a part of the economic base of colonialism. It not only enables the ruling classes to extract surplus, it is itself a major channel for surplus appropriation.Under capitalism, the ruling class is that which, to quote Ralph Miliband, “owns and controls the means of production and which is able, by virtue of the economic power thus conferred upon it, to use the state as its instrument for the domination of society”.Reverse is the case under colonialism.It is because of its control over the colonial state that the metropolitan ruling class is able to control, subordinate and exploit the colonial society. In other words, the metropolitan ruling class does not control state power and the social surplus in the colony mainly because of its ownership of the means of production in the colony.Rather, because the ruling class controls state power in the colony, it controls its social surplus and is able to subordinate its producers.The metropolitan capitalist class may own the means of production in the colony to a significant extent – as for instance, it did not in India to any significant extent till the 1920s and subsequently not even predominantly.

Furthermore, while the capitalist state is the instrument for enforcing the rule and domination of one class over another, the colonial state is the organized power of the metropolitan ruling class for dominating the entire colonial society.Also, while in the metropolis the state is a relation between classes, in the colony it is a relation between the foreign ruling class and the colonial people as a whole.This virtually amounts to a truism, but it still has to be stressed because nearly all historians and other social scientists of the imperialist school ignore or obscure this aspect and its implications.The colonial state, thus, does not represent any of the indigenous social classes of the colony. It subordinates all of them to the metropolitan capitalist class. It dominates all of them. None of them indigenous upper classes share state power in the colony, none of them are a part of the ruling class.They are not

28 even its subordinated or junior partners.The metropolitan ruling class may share the social surplus in the colony with the indigenous upper classes, but it does not share power with them.Not even princes, regents, landlords and compradors have a share in colonial state power. It is; of course, true that the economic class position of the landlords and capitalists in the colony is “articulated through, and by, the colonial state”.But they are not part of the ruling class.Their interests are freely sacrificed to the interests of the metropolitan bourgeoisie.This also enables the colonial state to introduce certain reforms at the cost of the indigenous upper classes such as factory legislation, tenancy and anti-usury legislation, support to minority communities, and so on. (This explains the paradox of the ease with which Irish landlords talk of tenant interests when they administer India, or the Lancashire spokespersons urge labour legislation in India, or anti-Semites become champions of minority rights.) The colonial state is thus able, for a certain period and in certain situations, to play against each other landlords and tenants, capitalists and workers, and higher and lower . It is also able to play all sorts of majorities against minorities.

On the other hand, this also means that even the uppermost classes and strata of colonial society are capable of turning against colonialism.Thus the anticolonial struggle can be led even by big landlords as in Poland or Egypt. This also explains the attraction of the elite theory of nationalism (the theory that nationalism was the result of struggle for power between the indigenous and foreign elites) to imperialist administrators and ideologues since the end of the nineteenth century and till today. For, this theory obfuscates the reality of colonialism and the imperialist ruling classes by equating the indigenous elite of colonial society with the imperialist ruling classes – suggesting that both were oppressors of the colonial people in the same manner or that the manner in which the indigenous elite were oppressors made no political difference to the anticolonial struggle.It was with this elite theory of nationalism that imperialist administrators and intellectuals tried to question the legitimacy of the actual anti-imperialist movement – a task which continues to be

29 undertaken till this day, sometimes with radical stance and terminology. To avoid or see through this obfuscation, it is necessary to use the concepts of ruling classes and exploiting classes, on the one hand, and those of the nature of the colonial state and colonial ruling class or classes, on the other hand.

It is also to be noted that a crucial difference between colonial and semi- colonial societies lies in this very aspect. First, large sections of the ruling classes in semi-colonial societies bear a determinate relation to the means of production:they appropriate social surplus because of the position they occupy in the .Second, the indigenous upper classes or some of them – landlords, compradors and even sections of the national bourgeoisie – are part of the class coalition that constitutes the ruling class.That is, they share in state power, sometimes even as senior partners.Arun Bose has put this aspect quite aptly:“The ‘class nature’ of a colonial state is determined by the dominant class of the conquering, dominating country.But the class nature of the semi-colonial state is determined by the class nature of the politically dominant class in the semi-colony”.The colonial state differs in this respect from the most authoritarian of the precolonial states.In the latter case, the state, however oppressive, is an organic part of the indigenous society; it is not an instrument for the enforcement of subordination of the society to a foreign society or ruling class, or for the export of social surplus. (Interestingly, this was the ground on which and other Indian nationalists differentiated between the British Indian colonial state and the Mughal state).Lastly, it is to be noted that the colonial state is basically a bourgeois state.Consequently, in several of its stages it does introduce bourgeois law and legal institutions as also bourgeois property relations, the rule of law and bureaucratic administration.It can, therefore, as is the case with the metropolitan bourgeois state, be authoritarian or even fascistic as in many of the colonies in Africa and Southeast Asia or it can be semi- authoritarian and semi-democratic as in India. (It can, of course, never be fully democratic). It can also, to a certain extent, create a constitutional space in

30 the colony for itself.It can rule by the bayonet or can assume a semi- hegemonic character, depending on the character of the colonial society, its size, history and so forth, as also the character of the colonizing society and its polity.Yet the bourgeois character of the state and its superiority in certain aspect to some of the pre-colonial or even some of the post-colonial states does not change its basically colonial and therefore negative character.

THE COLONIAL STATE

In this last section, we would like to make a few preliminary and tentative remarks regarding the colonial state, while keeping in view the fact that a truly historical study of the nature of the colonial state and its relation to colonial society has yet to be made.The main difference between out theory of the colonial state and that of the capitalist state is regarding historical specificity; otherwise our theoretical framework is the same as evolved for the study of the capitalist state by Marx, Engels and Lenin and developed further by , Ralph Miliband, Nicolas Poulantzas and others.Our major effort will be to outline what is specifically colonial about the colonial state. What Marx said about the state being “merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another” applies to the colonial state but with a basic difference: the colonial state is the instrument for oppressing entire societies. This virtually amounts to a truism, but needs to be stressed because nearly all historians and other social scientists of the imperialist school ignore or obscure this aspect. The state plays a much greater role, quantitatively as well as qualitatively, in the colonial system than perhaps in any other social formation.First of all, colonialism is structured by the colonial state.Moreover, the conquest of the colony itself is in many cases carried out by the colonial state and is in almost all cases paid for by the colonial state and the colonized people.Unlike in the capitalist system, where the state’s chief role is to provide the legal and institutional infrastructure for capitalist production relations – and where the state often did not intrude into the production process till the twentieth century, and the system is maintained by the production process

31 itself – the colonial state is not a superstructure erected on the base of colonial economy; it is an integral and intrusive element in the structuring and functioning of the colonial economy.While “the ‘ruling class’ of a capitalist society is that which owns and controls the means of production and which is able, by virtue of the economic power thus conferred upon it, to use the state as its instrument for the domination of society”, under colonialism the reverse is the case.It is because of its control over the colonial state that metropolitan capitalism is able to control, subordinate and exploit colonial society.This is true even of the laissez-faire period.

The colonial state guarantees law and order as also its own security from internal and external dangers.It also directly or indirectly, through acts of omission or commission, represses indigenous economic forces and processes hostile to colonial interests.It directly serves as a channel for surplus appropriation, mainly during the first state but also during the other stages of colonialism.This is a major point of departure from the capitalist state.Another is the role of the colonial state in preventing unity among the colonial people.While the capitalist state tries to prevent working-class unity but makes active efforts to promote unity and harmony among the propertied and the non-propertied classes, the colonial state tries to break up the emerging national unity in the colony, promotes segmentation of colonial social into any and all kinds of social groups, including social classes, and sets them at odds against one another.Simultaneously, it puts forward the theory that the colonial society would disintegrate in the absence of colonialism and that its unity is possible only under the colonial state. Thus, the anti-imperialist struggle of the colonial people is sought to be diverted into the struggle of caste against caste, ‘community’ against ‘community’, ‘tribe’ against ‘tribe’ and sometimes even class against class. More positively, the colonial state not only maintains favourable conditions for the continuous appropriation of colonial surplus, but actively and directly produces and reproduces these conditions, including production of goods and services, to a much greater extent than does the capitalist state.It actively aids foreign

32 enterprises.Above all, it directly undertakes the economic, social, cultural, political and legal transformation of the colony so as to make it reproductive on an extended scale.The colonial state, however, is not able to carry the heavy burden of such a catalogue of functions.A major contradiction within colonialism arises out of the relative weights to be assigned to its police and direct appropriational functions, on the one side, and its ‘transformational’ or ‘development’ functions, on the other.This contradiction finds expression in a perpetual crisis in the colonial budget, heavy taxation on the colonial people, and the atrophying of the ‘development’ functions.

In a colonial society, the relationship between the state and the underlying economic structure is direct and explicit.Consequently, the anticolonial forces are easily able to penetrate and expose the character of the colonial state as the instrument of the colonial economic structure.Once the economics of colonialism is analysed and understood, the colonial character of the state is easily and readily grasped and the anticolonial struggle invariably moves to the sphere of the state and is increasingly politicized.While under capitalism the struggle between the working class and capitalism occurs at the trade- union and economic planes and the task of raising it to the political plane – especially to the plane of struggle for state power – remains a serious, complex and prolonged problem, under colonialism the anticolonial forces almost from the beginning – even in their early moderate phases – put forward the demand for sharing of state power and then rapidly move into the politics of its capture.This is one of the reasons why a national liberation struggle is easier to organize than social (class) movements in capitalist or post-colonial societies where the connection between the state and the dominant economic structure is complex and not so evident.

Similarly, the mechanism of colonial control lies on the surface, that is, nearly all colonial policies are amenable to instrumentalist explanations, which are easier to grasp and expose.Whose interests does the colonial state serve? The anti-imperialists have a simple and unambiguous answer from the

33 beginning.The relationship between colonial administrative policies and metropolitan interests is easily established. Why does it serve metropolitan interests? Obviously, because it is visibly controlled from abroad.How can it be proved that the colonial state serves foreign interests? By simple instrumentalist reasoning.While under capitalism the complex policies and apparatuses of the state cannot be adequately explained in terms of their manipulation by the ruling class, under colonialism the task is not difficult. The colonial people have no part in policy making and controlling state apparatuses and processes. Moreover, the colonial state possesses, because of its basic character, very little capacity to undertake ameliorative and welfare measures and to thus promote harmony between the rulers and the ruled. In other words, the opaqueness of the colonial state, of its mystifying shell, is easily penetrated.It legitimacy is easily destroyed.The empirical proof of the anti-imperialist position is easy to gather and propagate.History and contemporary life are full of glaring incidents and examples.This aspect has two important consequences for post-colonial scientists.First, most of the anti- imperialist leaders successfully employ instrumentalist arguments and modes of analysis during the freedom struggle, and consequently, fail to dismantle the total structure of colonialism after political liberation.They come to believe that once the political mechanism comes under indigenous control, the colony will be successfully decolonized.Similarly, they overlook the role of colonial ideology and culture and the ideological apparatuses which often continue to exist and function fully and freely in the post-colonial situation.Second, faced with the different and complex task of organizing social struggle within the post-colonial society, the left-wing political groups hark back wistfully to the ease with which the anticolonial movement was organized and are tempted to look once again for the colonial situation and the national liberation tasks in their society.

However, in a profound sense, the scope for structural analysis is even greater with regard to the colonial state than the capitalist state.In fact, both the instrumental and structural aspects get exaggerated in the analysis of the

34 colonial state.Clearly, it is not the bureaucracy and other instruments of the colonial state which determine the functions of the colonial state and the thrust of colonial policies.For that we must study the structure of colonialism and above all its economic structure.This is particularly important because the colonial structure and consequently colonial policies undergo basic changes in the different stages of colonialism, even though the instruments of the state more or less continue to be the same. Colonialism is from the beginning riven with inner contradictions.Colonial policies at different stages of colonialism are determined by these contradictions and the efforts to resolve them. The colonial state relies much more heavily than the capitalist state on domination and the political, coercive apparatuses and much less on leadership or ‘direction’ based on consent.Under colonialism, consent of the ruled is at the most passive.Colonial society is much less a civil society. Under colonialism, the terrain occupied by civil society, which is often treated by colonialism as potentially hostile to itself, is more or less vacant.This is two consequences” (1) the colonial state very soon enters into a state of crisis; and (2) the vacant space is rapidly occupied by the anti-imperialist forces whose main task becomes that of mobilizing political forces to fight the domination of the colonial state.This, in fact, is another reason why it is initially much easier to organize a national liberation movement than a social movement.

Within this limited framework, colonialism does have a mystifying ideological element which has two distinct aspects: one is the belief system of the colonial bureaucracy and the other is the ideological penetration and control of the ruled.Unfortunately, neither has been studied adequately. It is necessary to analyse the ideology of colonialism in its different stages, both theoretically and empirically.In the second stage of colonialism, for example, colonial people are sought to be won over with the promise of total modernization including economic development, modern culture and the introduction of modern politics and political ideas – including self-government and .In the third stage, on the other hand, the emphasis is on benevolence and depoliticization.The permanent incapacity of the colonial

35 ‘child people’ to rule themselves or to practice democracy is emphasized. A ‘child people’ could also have no politics; they could only be passive recipients of benevolence.Thus, colonial authorities actively oppose politicization of the people and preach the ideology of non-politics.For a long period they propagate not loyalist politics but non-participation in politics.They take recourse to layalist politics and divisive communal, caste or ‘tribal’ politics only after all efforts to check the growing anti-imperialist politicization have failed.

What is the relationship between the colonial state and the foreign and indigenous exploiting classes? The colonial state is completely subordinated to the bourgeois state of the metropolis and the metropolitan bourgeoisie as a whole.Therefore, it possesses little of the relative autonomy that characterizes the capitalist state.It is, however, autonomous vis-a-vis the individual capitalists or individual capitalist groups. It serves the long-term interests of the metropolitan capitalist class as a whole.It acts on behalf of the metropolitan capitalists but not at their behest.In this sense, it perhaps possesses even a greater degree of relative autonomy that the capitalist state. The colonial state structure in the colony is not an arena of strife for the promotion of sectional interests of the different metropolitan capitalist groups. That strife occurs in the organs of the metropolitan state.For example, the political struggle for making the colonial state an instrument of transition from one stage of colonialism to another occurs in the metropolis. Colonialism and capitalism both constitute relations between human beings.But while under capitalism this relation exists between classes, under colonialism it is established between the foreign ruling class and colonial people as a whole.This is because the parameters of the colonial state are very different.Its main task is not to enable the extraction of surplus or surplus value from a subordinate class or classes, but to make the entire colonial economy and society sub-servient to the metropolitan economy, to enable the exploitation of the colony as a whole. Consequently, colonialism dominates all the indigenous classes in the colony.

36 One of the most important aspects of the class structure of a colony is that the ruling class is alien and the domestic propertied classes are not a part of the ruling class; they are not even its subordinate allies or junior partners; they are completely ruled by it; they, all equally impotent and equally mute, fall on their knees before it.The metropolitan bourgeoisie may share the social surplus in the colony with the indigenous upper classes but it does not share state power with them.Not even the semi-feudal landlords and compradors have a share in colonial state power.This is another aspect of the general proposition that the (alien) ruling class of a colonial society does not control state power because of economic power derived from the ownership of the means of production in the colony; rather, the economic power of the metropolitan bourgeoisie in the colony derives from the control of state power itself.Similarly, the colonial state protects the indigenous exploiting classes but in its own interests, that is, free of their political control.It does not have to protect them except in so far as defence or private property is inherent in any bourgeoisie society, including its colonial version. In fact, this aspect gives the colonial state a certain political manoeuvrability. It is able, for a certain period and in certain situations, to play landlords and tenants, and capitalists and workers; against each other.Thus it is inaccurate to describe any section of the colonial upper or middle classes as political elite. The relationship of the foreign ruling class to all of them is that of a master. This relationship between the colonial state and the indigenous upper classes is a crucial difference between colonies and semi-colonies. In the latter – for example, as was in , Egypt after 1920, Thailand and the Latin American countries – the landlords, the compradors, or even sections of the national bourgeoisie can be part of the class coalition that constitutes the ruling class; they can be junior or even senior partners in the state.

Returning to colonialism, there is no question of competition over state policies between the colonial ruling class and the indigenous upper classes, as certain political theorists would have it. No group of the colonial people forms a ‘competing interest group’ in the colonial state structure.The

37 indigenous classes influence colonial state policies from outside the state structure, through loyalism or through anti-imperialist parties and movements, they extort concessions.Thus, once the anti-imperialist movement emerges, it does have an impact on colonial policies because the colonial state has to ‘respond’ to it, sometimes with a carrot and sometimes with a stick.This is fully recognized by the indigenous upper classes.

In conclusion, it may be pointed out that colonialism, metropolitan control and the colonial state are best illuminated through a study of the numerous inner contradictions of colonialism.For example, the crucial economic contradiction of colonialism arises out of the objective need to make the colonial economy reproductive and the objective consequence of colonialism in producing the opposite result.This in turn leads to two other contradictions: (1) the external one between the colonial people (and their social development) and colonialism, leading to the subjective process of the colonial people’s struggle for the overthrow of colonialism; and (2) the internal one which tends to make the colony increasingly ‘useless’ or incapable of serving the needs of metropolitan capitalism on an extended scale. During the third stage, a large number of colonies fail to serve as adequate outlets for metropolitan capital or even metropolitan manufactures.Moreover, many of them become net importers of foodstuffs! The colonial state has now to play the role of overcoming both these contradictions, in one case through the suppression of the colonial people’s struggle and the mystification of the colonial processes, and in the other through initiating ‘development’, which can even take the form of ‘aid’ in the case of semi-colonies and post-colonial societies.

38 CHAPTER-11

COLONIAL IDEOLOGY

COLONIAL PERCEPTION OF HISTORY AND THE INDIGENOUS HISTORIOGRAPHY.

India was known to Europe in ancient times; indeed, parts of both Greece and India were under Iranian domination at the same time.Greek and Indian soldiers had fought together and against each other; diplomatic, commercial, and cultural relations existed for centuries between India and the Hellenic and the Hellenistic worlds; and countless adventurers, scholars, merchants, and missionaries had traveled to and fro. However, this close contact ceased after the emergence of Islamic power in the 7th century, and during the middle Ages there was little or no direct intercourse between India and the West. European knowledge of India was remote during the Crusades, and was, at best, fragmentary during the medieval period. Something of India was known through travel accounts, such as those of Marco Polo, but here reality often gave way to romantic imagination. However, Indian influence can definitely be traced in some works of literature.For instance, in the Alexander Song, composed by Priest Lambrecht in the 12th century, the flower girls, in their charming existence as half flowers – half humans, show a surprising similarity to the daughters of Mara who were supposed to seduce the Buddha. From the Alexander novel, the story, Girl with the Poison, entered the poetry of Frauenlob, Hugo von Trimberg, and others.This story belongs to Indian tradition in connection with the Maurya king, Chandragupta, and is found in Visakhadatta’s play, Mudrarakshasa. Again, the hero, Parzival, in Wolfram von Eschenbach’s poetry becomes the embodiment of compassion and mercy as the positive result of the commandment not to kill. Remarkable, too, is the description of the ‘schastel marvel” and the “lit marveile” which is reminiscent of the Buddhist stupas.Moreover, the development of the legend of Priest John who spread Christianity in India, and for whom the Portuguese went looking in vain, may well have a basis in some kind of cultural contact.

39 During the 15thcentury the Renaissance spirit drew Europe out of mediaevalism, and the new religious and commercial zeal inspired European explorers to find a direct sea link with India. It was the quest for India that led Columbus to stumble onto America in 1493.After persistent exploratory expeditions, the Portuguese, in their bid to reduce the power of the Muslims of North Africa and Western Asia, as well as in search of “Christians and spices”, circumnavigated Africa, crossed the Arabian Sea with the assistance of an Indian sailor, and reached Calicut on the southwest coast of India, on 27th May, 1498.This success eventually led to the almost complete elimination of Turkish supremacy on the Indian Ocean; the Arab trade monopoly between Asia and Europe was also destroyed by the incoming European powers. “It is to the discovery of the passage to India by the Cape of Good Hope, and to the vigour and success with which the Portuguese prosecuted their conquests and established their dominion there, that Europe has been indebted for its preservation from the most illiberal and humiliating servitude that ever oppressed polished nations”.This contact also slowly altered the whole character of Indian society.India became for a first time a political and economic appendage of another country, her weaknesses were exposed, and the processes of modernization were stirred into motion with increasing rapidity.The maritime activity of India, which had declined after the fall of the Roman empire, was revived.

Although profitable trade was always one motive for their activities, the Portuguese, as the first European power to come to Asia, looked upon themselves as crusaders against Islam.Every injury inflicted on the Moors or Muslims was a gain for Christianity.Even the capture of the spice trade was described as a device to reduce the financial strength of the Muslims. It was both a religious duty and a patriotic pride to combat Islam everywhere.The centuries-old struggle for the Iberian Peninsula had made the Portuguese intensely hostile to Muslims.Alfonso de Albuquerque, the Portuguese Commander, reporting the capture of Goa, an important centre of international trade and commerce, gloated over the fact that he had put every Moor he

40 could find to the sword, filled mosques with the bodies, and set them on fire. He calculated 6,000 persons had been killed, some roasted alive.These acts of terror and brutality, initially directed principally against Muslims, gradually became typical of Portuguese colonialism.They frequently attacked vessels carrying pilgrims to Mecca and set them on fire, sometimes with the passengers on board.The Portuguese were no less severe on Hinduism:“The fathers of the Church forbade the Hindu under terrible penalties the use of their own sacred books, and prevented them from all exercise of their religion.They destroyed their temples and mosques, and so harassed and interfered with the people that they abandoned the city in large numbers, refusing to remain any longer in a place where they had no liberty, and were liable to imprisonment, torture and death if they worshipped after their own fashion the gods of their fathers”.The Portuguese tried to build their empire in Asia on their bitter hatred of Islam and Hinduism.Their reign was devoid of scruples, honour, and morality, and was a major reason for the decline of Portuguese power. As the Papal Bulls of Alexander III protected Portugal from other Catholic powers, especially Spain, the Portuguese were able to carry on their trade without rival or restriction for about a century.They established a highly organized and flourishing commercial empire,stretching from the coast of Malabar to the Phillippines, which was incomparable to any empire in European history.The Portuguese supplied all of Europe with Asian goods, of which spices were the most considerable and precious commodity. Almost all the writers of the middle Ages confirm the widespread demand for Indian spices in Europe.Most European dishes were highly seasoned with Indian spices; they were regarded as essential at every entertainment and were principal ingredients in almost all medical prescriptions.Despite the reduction in the cost of transport due to themselves discovery of the direct sea route, and the consequent cheaper price, the Portuguese conducted such a lucrative trade that the jealousy of other European nations eventually could no longer be contained.Consequently, by the beginning of the 17th century, when

41 Mughal India was at the height of its glory, Dutch and British, and later French, trading companies emerged to capture the Asian trade.

The anti-Muslim aspect of European expansion in Asia was soon replaced by the rivalry between the Catholic and Protestant powers of Europe.Holland, inspired by the Reformation which began in Germany in 1517, revolted against Spanish tyranny and assumed independence in 1579. Soon England joined in, and the Protestant nations defied the Papal Bulls allocating the two halves of the world to Spain and Portugal.Their struggle for commercial supremacy in the East was one aspect of their religious defiance. During the reign of Elizabeth I, English world interests had broadened, and their triumph over the Spanish Armada gave the English confidence to expand their mercantile activity.Consequently, the East India Company was founded in 1600 to break the lucrative Portuguese monopoly of East Indian trade.The Portuguese were soon dislodged, and temple European desire for profit and power made religious rivalry insignificant; indeed, by the middle of the 18th century religious rivalry had assumed the pronounced character of a political and economic struggle.For over 200 years, however, the Western powers remained confined to coastal commerce, and acquired only small territorial possessions in Asia because at this time the Mughals in India, the Mings and Manchus in China, and the Safavis in Persia ruled prosperous and powerful states.These Asian states were strong land powers with limited interest in maritime activities.This was especially true of the Mughals, who had come to India by land from the northwest and did not appreciate the danger to their security from the sea, or the importance of maritime power. When they did realize their mistake it was too late; they had become too weak even on land to reverse the process.The early Europeans came to India as traders, not as invaders, which possibly concealed the emerging trend in their activities for some time, but it seems incredible that the Mughals, who were so jealous of the integrity of their Empire, should have failed to detect it.The era of the great Mughals ended after the death of Aurangzeb in 1707, and throughout the 18th century local powers continued to decline.In due course, this led to the

42 European domination of India and the industrial and technological advance of the West.

The Mughal period was in many respects a glorious period of Indian history, and the Mughals devoted much attention to art and culture, but they completely neglected practical and secular learning, especially the sciences. Throughout their long rule, no institution was established comparable to the modern university, although early India had world-famous centres of learning, such as Nalanda, Taxila and Kanchi.There were flourishing universities in medieval Europe, as in other parts of the Islamic world, some of which had been in existence for some centuries.The University of Paris, which became the model not only for the universities of France but also for Oxford and Cambridge, had an organized pattern and legal status by the early 13th century.By the 17th century, a number of universities had come into existence in Europe. These universities nurtured intellectualism and laid the foundations of Western scientific culture through disciplined thinking, systematic investigation, and free discussion of knowledge.What is significant is that European university had borrowed freely from the ancient Asian and Islamic models, which really were a part of the Mughal inheritance.Although their court was frequented by European visitors, the Mughals took no interest in European knowledge and technological accomplishments.Akbar received many European missionaries, and Ibadat Khana discussed religion and theology with them and protected them against the fanatic mullas.Christian missionaries at Akbar’s Court came fully equipped, having learned Persian and read the Quran, and repeatedly had the edge in discussion over the Muslim mullas who argued with intense faith but with no knowledge of their opponents’ holy book.Neither the nobles nor the mullas was stirred into learning Latin and investigating the Bible. Nor did Akbar show any curiosity in European science and philosophy, although both Hindus and Muslims had made notable scientific contributions in the past.Akbar was presented with printed books and a printing press, yet even the Indian classics were first printed by Europeans.It is, therefore, not surprising that during the period of

43 European struggle for power, India was in a state of unparalleled decline, which not only made it possible for the Europeans to pursue their rivalries at will but also to do so with unique success.

The Mughals’ power was gone, and a long trail of political upheavals followed.Intellectual inertia, already in evidence, became the prominent feature of Indian society, and the country lapsed into chaos, anarchy, and confusion.18th century India, in contrast to renaissant Europe; was so weak that it had little control over its affairs.It could not even tip the balance in favour of one of the European contenders struggling for power over Indian territory.It was the British who eventually triumphed in this contest, although it was the French who first conceived of European hegemony over Indian rulers. In this struggle for power, technology, rather than diplomacy, played a decisive role.In purely military terms, the West won command of the East because of two things – ships and, more important, gunpowder.To these could be added military organization and strategy.Superior armoury soon bred a military mentality and an aggressive policy.Immunity from retaliatory action led, at times, to unbridled tyranny.The West developed the bronze gun out of the bell-founding industry.Spain and Portugal, the first considerable ocean- goers of the times, borrowed northern European technology and met the cost of production from their overseas trade.England entered the arena later, successfully substituted cast iron for bronze, and, with the newer and cheaper technique, asserted her supremacy over others.By 1600 England was not only self-sufficient in artillery but also exported guns profitably.About the same time, France, and a little later Germany, entered the gun-making industry and eventually surpassed the English lead.Asians did not achieve any comparable results but fell farther and behind, and it was not until the middle of this century that they began to catch up with Europe in the race for arms.

Whilst the British were struggling for political supremacy in India, European scholars began an investigation into Indian literature and heritage.Some of these scholars were inspired by the spirit of inquiry, others by utilitarian ends,

44 but they all began to explore India’s past by working backwards from its current phase to its earliest one.They also began, understandably, by learning the languages spoken in the areas where they carried on their commercial and political activities.They soon became familiar with Persina, the court language of Mughal India, through which modern Europe first became acquainted with Indian literature and religion.It was only later that efforts were made to gain knowledge of the ancient classical language of India, Sanskrit, and finally of the Vedic literature and the early civilization. Discounting the mythical Sighelmus alleged to have been sent by Alfred on a pilgrimage to the shrine of St. Thomas at Mailapur, the first Englishman to visit India was a Jesuit priest, Thomas Stevens. He arrived in Goa in 1579 and was one of the first Europeans in modern times to study Indian languages seriously.He published a Konkani grammar, and in 1615 a remarkable poem entitled Kristana Purana, which was the story of the Bible intended for Indian converts to Christianity. He was a great admirer of the Marathi language, which he described as “a jewel among pebbles”. At about the same time, a Dutchman, Jan Huyghen Van Linschoten, published his Itineratio in 1595-1596 in which he referred to the imprisonments and tortures inflicted upon Indians by the Portuguese Inquisition. A Florentine merchant, Filippo Sassetti, who studied at the University of Pisa for 6 years (1568-1574) and lived at Goa for 5 years (1583-1588), collected a wide variety of data on India. Most of the letters in which his information was recorded deal with meteorological observations, but others deal with Indian folklore, science, and medicine.His interest in pharmaceutical texts awakened his interest in Sanskrit.He was, perhaps, the first person to declare that some relationship existed between Sanskrit and the principal languages of Europe.Until the last quarter of the 18th century, several other isolated missionaries and travelers acquired certain, chiefly impressionistic, knowledge of Indian literature, language, and contemporary life but few made any serious attempt to understand Indian civilization.They accepted Indian culture at its face value without investigating its origins or studying it in its proper historical perspective.

45 Those Europeans who came to India at the time were a motley crowd of merchants and medicos, envoys and ecclesiastics, soldiers and sailors, adventurers and fortune seekers.They arrived from different countries by different routes with different motives; some eccentrics, such as Tom Coryat even walked all the way from Aleppo to Ajmer.Seeking pecuniary gain or excitement, these early Europeans were generally untutored and ill-equipped to either transmit or absorb ideas.The English were no exception.Trade, and only trade, was their object and they endeqvoured to attain it, as merchants still do, not necessarily by sharing the beliefs of their customers or even by understanding their culture, but by making themselves agreeable to them. Consequently, they adopted Indian habits in food, often married Indian women, and respected Indian customs, beliefs, and authority. As traders they were concerned only with making money, regardless of scruples, morality, and learning.India was an “Elsewhere Dorado” for enterprising young men in search of a fortune.The travelers who carried information about India back to Europe were inadequately informed about the geography and society of the country as a whole, and their stay, in most cases, was too brief for accurate knowledge.Moreover, like most foreign visitors, they did not bring unprejudiced minds to the alien land, and whilst they fully understood and rationalized their own shortcomings and inconsistencies, they were much too willing to believe and record, if not magnify, anything which even vaguely had the ring of the extraordinary, unfamiliar, or exciting.And the complexities of Indian society and beliefs were far too paradoxical to lend themselves to easy comprehension.Furthermore, the impressions and the narratives of European travelers had unfortunately become stereotyped, and each visitor referred to practically the same things, as if he had come to India with preconceived ideas and was merely looking for reinforcement.Whilst some useful information reached Europe through these travelers, references to the exotic and romantic East became frequent and indiscriminate in European literature. At best, 17th century India to the European was the India of the great Mughals, depicted with extravagant imagination.For instance Dryden’s popular drama,

46 Aurengzebe published in 1675, portrayed the Mughal Court quite fantastically.Unreliable as these narratives were, they succeeded in projecting a picture of India in Europe which has never fully worn off. It is significant that although the early European travelers were imbued with an anti-Islamic bias, they usually accepted the fanatic Muslim point of view about the Hindus, presumably because they shared the Judaic tradition with Muslims, knew a good deal about Islam which was no longer so strange by that time, and also because they were taken by the splendour of the Mughal Court.They looked upon the Hindus as degraded and superstitious.This attitude was re-inforced by missionaries like Abbe Dubois, who focused their attention almost exclusively on the darker side of Hinduism, and sought to replace it with their own faith.

The French response to India was somewhat different from that of the British, possibly because many of the French travelers who came to India were known for their literary taste and gave interesting accounts of their travels.J.B.Tavernier, Thévenot, Francois Bernier, and Abbé Carré concentrated on the Mughal Court and Empire in their travel accounts.Tavernier, a jewel merchant, traveled to India as many as five times between 1641 and 1668. A competent businessman, he had no education or refinement, however, and wrote more to amuse than to inform. He probably saw more of India than any other traveller in the 17th century, although he said little that is worth remembering; his anecdotes are childish and often offensive. Bernier is better known, for he was an educated man, and was responsible for bringing Indian ideas to some of the prominent French scholars of the day.He spent 12 years as a physician at the Mughal Court, and upon his return met the eminent French fabulist, La Fontaine, at Mme, de la Sablief’s salon, and shared his knowledge of India with him and Pascal, the philosopher and mathematician.Jean Racine gave a flattering portrayal of Puru, Alexander’s Indian adversary, in his Alexandre.A fried and disciple of Rousseau, Bernardin de Saint Pierre, who had lived in Mauritius for 2 years, wrote Le Café de Surat and other pieces with an Indian setting. In 1778 a work was published dealing

47 with Sanskrit literature, Vedic legends, and doctrines, called L’Ezour Vedam, which created a sensation in the West by attracting the attention of Voltaire. But it was later shown to be a work faked by a European missionary, Roberto de Nobili, for the purpose of converting Hindus in the 17th century. Earlier, Voltaire had published a tragic-comic story relating the adventures of a Hindu and his wife, as well as his Historical Fragments on India.Whilst Voltaire’s information on India came from unreliable sources, he believed that the West received its knowledge of astronomy, astrology, and metempsychosis from India, and he looked to India for truth with the eyes of a disillusioned European. Several other well-known French writers of the Enlightenment were somewhat familiar with India. Diderot wrote several articles on Indian religion and philosophy in the Encylopédie of 1751.In 1770 Abbé Rayal, with the assistance of Diderot, d’Holback, and Naigon, produced the Philosophical and political History of the Europeans in the two .

Not long after the publication of Voltaire’s works, Abbé Dubois fled France as a political refugee from the to live in India for 31 years.Typical of the class of people who regard themselves as charged with civilizing the heathens, and convinced of the superiority of his own civilization, he published his widely read Hindu Manners, Customs and Ceremonies, which, despite his laboriously collected data, is essentially a scathing criticisms of Hindu belief and practices.Even if allowance is made for the Roman Catholic standards he applied to the Indian religions, many of his observations are grossly inaccurate and appear to be deliberate distortions. What is incredible, however, is that his work, despite the decisive exposition of its errors, has enjoyed almost continuous popularity in Europe, and was long accepted as a standard interpretation of Indian religions.Jacquemont, who visited India during the reign of Ranjit Singh, wrote Hindu Heroes and Heroines.Lemierre’s Veuve Dutch Malabar published in 1770, was epoch-making.M. de Jouy wrote the Tipoo Sahib and the opera, Legends Bayadères, in 1810, which Napoleon himself attended.

48 Meanwhile a few missionaries had been taking a close interest in Sanskrit. In the beginning, having come first to South India, they learned Tamil or some other South Indian language.It was only after some time that they felt the need to learn Sanskrit.A German priest, Heinrich Roth was the first European to produce a Sanskrit grammar, which was written in Latin and remained in manuscript form.In 1651, a Dutch preacher named Abraham Roger, who had lived at Pulicat near Madras as well as in Indonesia, published in Amsterdam Open Door to Hidden Heathendom.This book included about two hundred proverbs of the Sanskrit poet, Bharthrihari, from a Portuguese translation, and not only described the customs and religion of the Hindus but also mentioned the Vedas for the first time.Translated into German in 1663, it was drawn upon by Herder for his Stimmen der Volker in Liedern (Voices of the Peoples in Songs).After the stories of the Pancatantra, this work was the first Indian literature to become known in Germany.A German Jesuit, Johann Ernst Hanxleden, who worked in Malabar from 1699 to 1732, compiled a Sanskrit grammar in Latin and one in Malayalam.His Sanskrit grammar also remained unpublished but was used by the Austrian missionaries, Fra Paolino de St. Bartholomeo (whose real name was Johannes Philippus Wessdin), “undeniably the most important of the missionaries who worked at the earliest opening-up of Indian literature. He lived on the Malabar Coast from 1776 to 1789 and was well acquainted with Indian literature, languages, and religions. He wrote two Sanskrit grammars in Rome in 1790 and several learned treatises.Another missionaries, Coeurdoux, suggested in 1767 that there was a kinship between Sanskrit and European languages.He reached this conclusion with the help of Maridas Pillai of Pondicherry. It appears that he was quite familiar with Sanskrit literature. He correctly describes its system of grammar and refers to the Amarakosa and other Sanskrit dictionaries as well as to the Indian system of poetics; called alamkara.He also describes the six systems of Indian philosophy, in addition to Buddhism and Jainism.

The English were most closely bound in political and cultural relations with India, and although they initiated a systematic investigation of Sanskrit

49 literature, most of the work on the subject was done on the continent, particularly in France and Germany.Perhaps the Anglo-Indian political association, enforced and unequal as it was and often clouded by mutual distrust and fear, was not conducive to a deeper British appreciation of the Indian heritage.Moreover, the remarkable practical qualities of the British in commerce, military organization, and administration, and their faculty for recognizing and making use of opportunities, inevitably, although not inordinately, subordinated their cultural and intellectual sensitivities. Therefore it was administrative needs which initially induced the British to study Sanskrit. Despite the loss of countless texts, today there are scores of thousands of Sanskrit manuscripts in various libraries.When Alexander came, there existed in India an ancient literature far richer than that in Greece at the time.The first scholar to publish a real dissertation on Sanskrit learning was Alexander Dow, in a preface to his history of India, which appeared in Europe in three volumes in 1768. Whilst his history leaned on Ferishta, his Preface carried a significant account of Hindu religion and customs.He pointed out the existence of innumerable ancient Sanskrit texts, observing that the authentic history of the Hindus went back farther than that of any other nation.

The turning point in the European discovery of India’s past came during ’ Governor-Generalship.By this time the British had gained control of Bengal and their commercial interests in India depended on their ability to eliminate rampant corruption in their own ranks and to rationalize the administration of their Indian possessions.The merchants of the East India Company were generally greedy and corrupt, filling their own pockets by cheating the Company and the Indians.Their contributions to India were political anarchy, economic exploitation, cruel taxation, extravagant wars, unjust intervention, and forged treaties.London was appalled at this tarnishing of the British name.Born in 1732, Warren Hastings was the son of a clergyman from an old and once wealthy family.He went to India at the age of 17 as a writer in the Company’s service and, through his varied experiences in trade and administration, he acquired an exceptional knowledge of the Indian

50 mind and temperament.Well-disposed towards Indian literature and culture, he stressed the need for the study of Sanskrit, albeit mainly for utilitarian reasons. Hastings also realized that British supremacy in India could rest only on a proper understanding of Indian religion and culture.Although he was impeached for acts of corruption and tyranny, he gave the beginnings of a sound administration to British India.For the codification of the laws of the land and for the efficient operation of the administration, it was essential to gain an accurate knowledge of the ancient Sanskrit legal texts.Hastings had the Indian law books compiled by the local learned pundits under the title of Vivadarnavasetu (meaning bridge over the ocean of dispute) but there was no one who could translate the resultant text into English.Therefore a Persian translation was made and an English translation of this was published in London in 1776. This was entitled A Code of Gentoo Laws by N.B. Halhead; a schoolmate of Sir William Jones.This second-hand translation introduced the study of Sanskrit philology.

The first Englishman who, urged by Warren Hastings, acquired a knowledge of Sanskrit was Charles Wilkins (1749-1836).He was a founding member of the Asiatic Society of Bengal and had acquired considerable knowledge of Sanskrit at Varanasi (Banaras).He subsequently became the first librarian of the famous India Office Library at London, then known as the East India Company Library.He is described by his contemporaries as the first European who really understood Sanskrit, and he gave Europe its earliest acquaintance with actual Sanskrit writing. H.T. Colebrooke, a founder of Sanskrit scholarship in Europe, said that Wilkins had more information and knowledge respecting the Hindus than any other foreigner since the days of Pythagoras. In 1785 Wilkins published an English translation of the Bhagavad Gita – the first Sanskrit work rendered directly into a European language. Later, Wilkins published the Hitopadesa and the Sakuntala episode from the Mahabharata.These Sanskrit works were translated principally to familarize European intellectuals with Indian ideas; their literary merit was a subordinate consideration if at all.13 years later, in 1808, Wilkins’ Sanskrit grammar

51 appeared, using Devanagari type (which he himself had carved and cast) for the first time in Europe.Wilkins also initiated the study of Indian inscriptions and translated some of them into English.

It was, however, the celebrated Orientalist, Sir William Jones (1746-1794), who pioneered Sanskrit studies.He came to India as a puisne judge of the Supreme Court at Calcutta in September 1783, having already gained competence in Asian learning, especially Persian and Arabic, and having formed a deep appreciation of Indian culture.He had ardently sought the Indian appointment, and had waited in un-easy uncertainty for 5 years, first, in order to make enough money to be able to retire early and conduct his researches without financial worries, and second, to “give the finishing stroke to his Oriental knowledge”.He lived in India for about 10 years, until his premature death, and was extremely happy there.He said that, although he was never unhappy in England, for it was not in his nature to be unhappy, he was never really content until he was settled in India. His admiration for Indian thought and culture was almost limitless. “It gave me inexpressible pleasure to find myself in the midst of so noble an amphitheatre, almost encircled by the vast regions of Asia, which has even been esteemed the nurse of sciences, the scene of glorious actions, fertile in the productions of human genius, abounding in natural wonders, and infinitely in the forms of religion and government, in the laws, manners, customs, and languages, as well in the features and complexions, of men”. Even at a time when Hinduism was at low ebb and it was quite fashionable to run it down, he held it in great esteem.Whilst Jones believed in Christ and Christianity, he was attracted to the Hindu concepts of the non-duality of God, as interpreted by Sankara, and the transmigration of the human soul.The latter theory he found more rational than the Christian doctrine of punishment and eternity f pain. Writing to his erstwhile pupil and close friend, Earl Spencer, in 1787, after 3 years in India, he said: “I am no Hindu; but I hold the doctrine of the Hindus concerning a future state to be incomparably more rational, more pious, and more likely to deter men from vice, than the horrid opinions, inculcated on punishments

52 without end”. Although he had nourished political ambitions, which fortunately for Oriental learning did not materialize, and although he was a professional barrister, Jones was essentially a scholar.He was a brilliant Qrientalist and linguist, for whom his eminent contemporaries, such as Burke, Gibbon, Sheridan, Garrick, and Johnson, had great respect.Literary London admired him so much that he was elected a member of the Club, Samuel Johnson’s immortal coterie, a month before even Boswell was given that honour.He was made a Fellow of the Royal Society in April 1772 when he was learning Sanskrit during his initial years in India. His interest in botany was much more than mere pleasure; it was stimulated by his deep religious feelings, for in every flower, every leaf, and every berry he could see the attributes of God more eloquently illustrated than in the wisdom of man.

He learned Sanskrit with the assitance and encouragement of Charles Wilkins before the latter left India in 1786.In January 1784, a few months after his arrival in Calcutta, Jones founded the famous Asiatic Society of Bengal, of which he remained President until his death.The object of the Society was to inquire into the history, culture, literature, and science of Asia; it has done enormous work to advance the knowledge of Asian civilization both in India and abroad. It was in the journal of this Society, Asiatick Researches that the initial attempts were made to unearth India’s past. Within 3 years Jones became so proficient in Sanskrit that he could converse familiarly with Indian pundits.In 1789, five years after his arrival in India, he published in Calcutta his translation of the celebrated Sanskrit drama, Abhijnana Sakuntala, by Kalidasa.This work became so popular that it went into 5 English editions in less than 20 years.In 1791 a German translation of the English version was made by George Förster, the world traveller and revolutionary.This inspired men like Herder and Goethe.Many other translations of the Sakuntala were made in the first half of the 19th century from Jones’ English version, and later from the Sanskrit original. In 1792 Jones brought out an English translation of Jayadeva’s Gita Govinda, and published in Calcutta, Kalidasa’s Ritusamhara in the original; this was the first Sanskrit text ever printed.Of greater

53 importance, however, was his translation of the well-known legal text of ancient India, the Manusmriti, which was published posthumously in 1794 under the title Institutes of Hindu Law or the Ordinances of Manu.3 years later, in 1797, a German translation of the book appeared.Not only did Jones produce excellent translations but he also wrote original hymns to Indian deities, which are lasting monuments of Anglo-Indian literature. By the time of his death, his reputation as a Sanskrit scholar had eclipsed all his many other accomplishments.

William Jones was the first British scholar to definitely assert the genealogical connection of Sanskrit with Greek and Latin, and possibly with Persian, German, and Celtic.In his third annual discourse of the Asiatic Society on 2nd February, 1786, he declared that the Sanskrit language was of a wonderful structure, more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either, yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and in the forms of grammar, than could possibly have been produced by accident. All 3 languages must have come from some common source.The greatest influence of Jones work was, of course, on the study of Oriental learning itself.The interest in Indian literature awakened by Jones and Wilkins, led to scholars searching for Sanskrit manuscripts “with the avidity of explorers seeking Australian goldfields”.Of those scholars, the most outstanding was Henry Thomas Colebrooke (1765-1837), who put the study of Sanskrit on a scientific footing. “Had he lived in Germany”, says Max Müller, “we should long ago have seen his statue in his native place, his name written in the letters of gold on the walls of academies; we should haveheard of Colebrooke jubilees and Colebrooke scholarships. In England if any notice is taken of the discovery of Sanskrit – a discovery in many respects equally important, in some even more important, than the revival of Greek scholarship in the 15th century – we may possibly hear the popular name of Sir William Jones and his classical translation of Sakuntala; but of the infinitely more important achievements of Colebrooke, not one word”.Colebrooke entered the service of the East India

54 Company in 1782 and left India in 1815 at the age of 50.During this period he had a distinguished career as an administrator and lawyer, but his claim to eminence is mainly based upon his being “the founder and the father of true Sanskrit scholarship in Europe”.He pursued his study of Sanskrit most energetically with the assistance of some excellent Indian instructors.A man of extraordinary industry and clear intellect, Colebrooke published many texts, translations, and essays dealing with practically all aspects of Sanskrit literature.His writings included works on Indian law, philosophy, religion, grammar, astronomy, and arithmetic.In 1797-1798, he published his first four- volume translation, A Digest of Hindu Law on Contracts and Successions, which immediately established his reputation as the best Sanskrit scholars of his day.His famous Essay on the Vedas, published in 1805, the same year as his Sanskrit Grammar, gave the first definite and reliable information on the sacred Hindu texts.In 1808 he published a critical edition of the Amarakosa, a Sanskrit lexicon. By this time Colebrooke had become President of the Court of Appeal, a high and lucrative position, but demanding; nevertheless, he continued his Sanskrit studies. Unlike Jones, Colebrooke’s interests lay chiefly in scientific literature.His love of mathematics and astronomy stirred his intellectual curiosity to investigate Indian work in these disciplines. Although some scholars such as Burrow and Strachery had preceded him, it was entirely through his work that scientists were able to form a clear idea of the Indian achievement in mathematics, especially indeterminate analysis.But it is chiefly for his philological researches and services to Indian jurisprudence that Colebrooke is remembered. Apart from his writings, Colebrooke collected a wide variety of Sanskrit manuscripts and presented them to the East India Company in 1818.This collection is one of the most valuable treasures of the India Office Library in London. In 1822 he founded the Royal Asiatic Society in London which has since done much to promote Oriental learning in Europe. He published many of his most valuable papers in this sociology’s Transactions.

55 An eminent English contemporary of Colebrooke, Horace Hayman Wilson came to India in the Medical Service of the East India Company and became deeply interested in Sanskrit studies.He pursued his interest with vigour and industry, and published his elegant translation of Kalidasa’s Meghaduta in 1813; this made both an immediate and a lasting impact on European readers, and it has since been translated into many languages.In 1819, Wilson published his Sanskrit dictionary, and he translated the Visnu Purana into English.In 1832, he became the first occupant of the Boden Chair of Sanskrit at Oxford and this provided him a fuller opportunity to advance the study of Indology.By this time, however, Indian studies in England had lost their earlier vigour.The British, now masters of India and the supreme maritime power of the day, were less inclined to learn from aliens; they listened to Macaulay instead. To professors of Sanskrit, Wilson at Oxford and Lee at Cambridge, bemoaned the fact that not much attention was paid at their respective universities to Sanskrit, a language “capable of giving a soul to the objects of sense, and a body to the abstractions of metaphysics”.The best philological works published in England were generally translations from the German.

France began to take a closer interest in Indian learning and commenced a systematic investigation by the beginning of the 18th century. In 1718, Bignan, the librarian of the French king, asked travellersto purchase or make a copy of every book of note, as well as grammars and dictionaries, available in India or in regions where Indian culture prevailed.In response, many French officials, residents, missionaries, and visitors began to acquire Indian texts.The missionaries, Calmette, obtained copies of the Rig Veda, the Vajur Veda, and the Sama Veda, although he failed to get a copy of the 4th Veda, the Atharva Veda.The Rig Veda was first sent to Paris in 1731, together with its Aitareya Brahmana.Other Sanskrit books, such as Gangesa’s Tattvacintamani, which was very popular at the time in the southern and eastern regions of India, together with some Tamil books, a Tamil grammar, and a Tamil dictionaory, were also sent to France about the same time by the Italian Jesuit, Beschi. A

56 number of books were obtained from Bengal.Pere Pons, stationed in Chandernagore, succeeded in collecting main works in the different branches of classical Sanskrit literature.His catalogue containing one hundred and sixty- eight entries was astonishingly accurate for its time.Pons, who himself knew Sanskrit, had been assisted in the selection of his manuscripts by competent Indian scholars.His collection included a Sanskrit grammar which he had written in Latin, following the Samkshiptasara, and a Latin translation of the Amarakosa.Because of the labours of these men, the first printed catalogue of Sanskrit literature was published in Paris in 1739.The following year, Pons published in a letter, which has been repeatedly reproduced since, the first sound report on Sanskrit literature. Whilst the difficulties of reading these manuscripts held up progress, French scholars learned something of Indian thought and history through Arabic, Persian, Chinese, Greek, and Latin works.The collection of Indian materials continued, however, and Joseph Deguignes accumulated as much material as was possible from non-Indian sources.Strictly speaking, Deguignes was not an Indologist; he was essentially a Sinologist who wrote a vast history of the Huns, but he gathered remarkably accurate knowledge about India.He was perhaps the first modern European to show, through his study of Chinese sources, the wide influence of Buddhism on Central Asian and Chinese peoples, and to give a tentative translation of a part of an ancient Chinese Buddhist text, the Sutra in 42 Articles. Still greater was his accomplishment in fixing the basis of Indian chronology.In this he had received invaluable help from an Indian scholar of Tamil, Maridas Pillai of Pondicherry, who knew Latin and French well. Both these contributions are extremely significant, and are worthy of much greater recognition than has hitherto been accorded to Deguignes.Possibly because of their background of English education, Indians have exhibited equal indifference to the contribution of Maridas Pillai. “All French scholars who visited Pondicherry during that period were indebted to him for most of the valuable information. He apparently played a part in the discovery of original links between Sanskrit on the one hand, and Latin and Greek on the other.The

57 astronomer Le Gentil, one of the first who gave substantial account of Indian astronomy, wrote that he himself had been a grateful pupil of Maridas Pillai and of other Tamil scholars of Pondicherry in that matter”.Some of his translations and analyses of Indian texts were profitably used by French scholars.For instance, his translation of the Bagavatam was sent to Deguignes before its publication, and it was in this manuscript that the latter found the dynastic lists of the Suryavamsa and the Somavamsa kings who had reigned since Parikshit, including Chandragupta which Deguignes immediately recognized as the Sandrokottos of the Greeks.This synchronism was published in the Mémoires de l’Academie described Inscriptions et Belles Lettres; this same synchronism was rediscovered by Sir William Jones, who is generally given the credit for identifying it. Whilst Jones may not have been the real discoverer of Indian chronology, he indeed popularized it.

At about this time, Anquétil Dutch Perron (1731-1805) visited India and later prepared the first European translation in Latin of the Upanishads from the literal Persian version made for the Mughal prince, Dara Shikoh, in 1636. As a young man of twenty-three, Dutch Perron, whilst working in the Bibliothèque de Roi at Paris in 1754, saw a fragment of a mysterious manuscript which the Bodleian Library at Oxford had acquired in 1718 and which was reputed to be a book by Zoroaster.Dutch Perron was so moved by it that he at once decided to visit India and learn the language so that he could read it.He arrived at Pondicherry in 1754.This was the period when the English and the French were engaged in a bitter conflict for supremacy in India and Dutch Perron was caught in it. He finally managed to learn Persian at Surat, and returned home via England in 1762.Whilst studying at Surat, he discovered the Avesta, and published his Zend-Avesta in 3 volumes in 1771.He also published an account of his travels, Voyage aux Grandes Indes, in 1781.Dutch Perron acquired the Persian manuscript of the Upanishads in 1775 from M. Gentil, the French Resident at Fyzabad in North Bengal, and he translated them into French word for word, in the Persian word-order. Realizing his error, he set out to make a Latin translation of 50 Upanishads.

58 He finished the work in 1796, but it was not printed until 1801-1802 in Paris. It is remarkable that this translation of the Upanishads, which had so profound an influence on European thought, was an incidental product of a venture undertaken for an altogether different purpose. With Wilkins’ version of the Bhagavad Gita, and Dutch Perron’s translation of the Upanishads, entitled Oupenekhat, the fundamental texts of Indian philosophy were available to Western thinkers.Dutch Perron did not know Sanskrit but, despite the imperfections of his translations, it made an important contribution to European knowledge.It caught the attention of the German philosopher, Schelling, and later of Schopenhauer, who in 1813 praised it as “a production of the highest human wisdom” and adopted an upanishadic motto, “whosoever knows God, himself becomes God”.

For many decades, attention in France had been centered on China, about which much was heard from the sympathetic reports of Jesuit missionaries, mariners, and merchants; on Siam with whom France had come into diplomatic contact; and on Western and Central Asia, with which Europe had been closely linked historically and culturally.To Europe, China appeared culturally unique and politically powerful.Thus China came to influence European life in many respects, ranging from religious thought to opera. Hebrew had been taught regularly at the Collège Royal, later called Collège de France, since its inception in the 16th century. Syriac, Arabic, Persian, and Turkish were also actively cultivated. Consequently, when France awakened to Indian literature, there was already an existing tradition of learning into which Indology could easily fit.French possessions in India, and later domination over Indochina, provided further incentive for French interest. A determined French scholar of Persian studies, Lèonard de Chèzy had become a passionate admirer of William Jones’ translation of the Sakuntala. He was seized by the desire to read the masterpiece in its original. With the help of Pons’ grammar of the Amarakosa, and later of Wilkins’ translation of the Hitopadesa, he began learning Sanskrit.By sheer perseverance and remarkable ingenuity he was finally able to realize his dream – to read, and

59 even publish, the text of the Sakuntala.Leonard de Chèzy, like many contemporary French thinkers, realized that Europe should be acquainted with the achievements of Asian nations. Consequently, there developed in France an influential body of opinion advocating the study of India as well as China. As a result, in 1814, a Chair of Sanskrit and a Chair of Chinese were created for Chèzy and Abel-Rèmusat respectively.These Chairs, a radical innovation in academic life, were set up between the disasters of 1814 and Waterloo, when the whole nation was undergoing political unrest and military conflicts.Only a nation like France, whose intellectual and cultural attitudes dominated most of Europe during the 17th and 18th centuries, could turn its attention to scholarship at such a time.

Although Abel-Rémusat was a Sinologist, he made important contributions to Indology by collecting Chinese data on India and translating the account of Fa-hsien’s traversl.Both de Chézy and Abel-Rémusat died of cholera in 1832, but their traditions did not die with them.Abel-Rémusat’s successor was Stanislas Julien, who furthered research on Indian antiquity through Chinese documents. De Chézy was followed by several outstanding pupils. Amongst these were two Germans: Franz Bopp, the founder of the comparative philology of Indo-European languages, and August Schlegel.His French pupils included Loiseleur Deslongchamps, who published the Manusmriti and the Amarakosa, and Langlois, who was responsible for the first translations made directly from the manuscripts of the Rig Veda and the Harivamsa. But the most important of all was Eugene Burnout, who in turn had many eminent students, including Max Müller. Eugène Burnouf’s father, Jean-Louis Burnouf, had been a student of de Chézy, and was an able classical scholar who was amongst the first to realize that much progress could be made in the morphology of European classical languages by a comparison with Sanskrit.Eugène Burnouf learned Sanskrit not so much to study philology as to investigate the depths of Indian culture, as well as comprehend hitherto unknown languages and the civilizations associated with them.With the help of Sanskrit, he was able to decipher Pali and discover the rules of Avestan and

60 its relationship with Sanskrit. His An Essay on Pali, published in 1826 jointly with Christian Lasses, who was later to become a leading German Indologist, led to the recognition of a relationship between I’ali and Sanskrit.Burnouf not only researched classical Sanskrit literature, but also the fundamental vedic literature, which had remained unused in the Royal Library for about a century.He translated the Bhagavata Purana into French in 1840, and devoted himself to the study of Indian Buddhism. Making use of the work done by Deguignes and Abel-Rémusat on Chinese sources, he realized the importance of Buddhism in the expansion of Indian culture abroad.He made a comparative study of Buddhist texts in Pali and Sanskrit.He wrote his famous Introduction a I’Histoire Dutch Bouddhisme Indien in 1844, and published Lotus de laterite Bonne Loi, an annotated translation of the Saddharma- Pundarika, the most important Mahayana text. His work thus led to a great advance in the study of Indian literature and culture in Europe.He succeeded de Chézy as Professor of Sanskrit from 1832 until his untimely death in 1853.According to him, the publications of the Asiatic Society of Bengal were widely sold and read in France, and people frequently bought copies of Indian classics that were available in various languages.He also refers to the exchange of learned publications between France and India.

Meanwhile, in 1822, the Société Asiatique, the first of its kind in Europe, had been founded in Paris. Many other French scholars had now come to take a deep interest in Indian thought.One of Burnouf’s colleagues, the philosopher and translator of Aristotle, Barthélémy de Saint-Hilaire, who was later swept up to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs by the peculiar current of politics, published valuable studies on the Nyaya and Samkhya systems of Indian philosophy.Burnouf encouraged his pupil Ariet to study Tamil and its literature.Ariel collected many Tamil manuscripts and translated part of the Tirukkural and the poems of Auvaiyar.Burnouf helped Max Müller to publish the Rig Veda, and Rudolph Roth and Adolph Régnier to interpret it.The Piedmontese, Gaspere Gorresio, disciple of Barthélémy de Saint-Hilaire, published in Paris a monumental edition of the Ramayana, in 5 volumes, with

61 financial assistance from the King of Sardinia.He also published two Italian translations of the work. Fauche translated the Ravanavadha Mahakavya of Bhartrihari, the Gitagovinda of Jayadeva, and all the works of Kalidasa, the Dasakumaracarita of Dandin, the Sisupalavadha of Magha, the Mricgkakatika of Sudraka, the entire Ramayana, and the first nine parvas of the Mahabharata into French.Having read read Fauche’s translation of the Ramayana in 1863, the French historian Michelet said: “That year will always remain a dear and cherished memory; it was the first time I had the opportunity to read the great sacred poem of India, the divine Ramayana. If anyone has lost the freshness of emotion, let him drink a long draught of life, and youth from that deep chalice”.

With the creation of the École described Hautes Études in 1868, a new centre for the study of Indology was opened up.Amongst many other Sanskritists who flourished in France were scholars such as Paul Régnaud, whose chief work was on Sanskrit rhetoric and on Bharatiya Natyasastra, Hauvette-Besnault, Auguste Barth, Abel Bergaigne, and Emile Senart. Barth devoted himself for more than forty years to the study of Indian religions in their historical perspective and to the criticism of works published in every field of Indology. Bergaigne wrote an epoch-making work, The Vedic Religion according to the Hymns of the Rig-Veda.This was followed by other works, of which the Researches on the Samhita of the Rig-Veda is most noteworthy. He brought about a revolution in the realm of religious history by his tireless work on the Rig Veda.The vedic hymns, which had been interpreted as songs of worship dedicated to the forces of nature, came to reveal through his interpretation an artificial pedantic religion surcharged with liturgy and rituals. Bergaigne founded the teaching of Sanskrit at the Sorbonne. Although at first purely a Vedic and Sanskrit scholar, Bergaigne later turned to the study of Indian civilization and to the history of Indo-china.Many inscriptions in impeccable Sanskrit, frequently elaborated in kavya style, were found in Cambodia and on the eastern coast of the Indochinese Peninsula. Bergaigne

62 and Barth deciphered and translated many of these.With the help of such data; a part of the history of Champa was disclosed.

French scholars preferred to study Indian civilization in its broader perspective, including its phase of foreign expansion, through non-Indian sources. Foucaux, Professor of Sanskrit at the Collège de France, and Leon Féér workoed on Buddhist subjects from Sanskrit and Tibetan works.The former published the Lalitavistara in Tibetan and French, and the latter translated many texts from Sanskrit, Pali, Tibetan, Mongolian, and Chinese. With the increasing interest in the archaeological remains of Indo-china, Indian art also attracted French attention.At the beginning of the 19th century; Langles compiled his comprehensive ‘The Monuments of Hindustan’.Later, Emile Guiment founded, first in Lyons and later in Paris, a special museum of history of religions, Musée Guimet, which became a world-renowned museum of Indian and East Asian art and archaeology.Since every major Asian country had been in the closest possible contact with India in the past, an understanding of Indian culture was essential to appreciate other neighbouring civilizations.Therefore in addition to their interest in Indian civilization or in Sanskrit, the French need to evaluate Indo-chinese society and culture led them back to India, and to Central Asia. In Khotan, Dutreuil de Rhins bought a manuscript written on birch bark in Kharoshthi script. It was a Buddhist work, containing a middle Indian version of the Dharmapada.It was studied and published by Emile Senart.He published a new edition of Asoka’s inscriptions, and of those found at Nasik and Karle. He edited the Pali grammar of Kaccayana and the Mahavastu, and wrote the Essay on the Legend of Buddha, in which he tried to show how the Buddhists introduced into the life story of the Buddha many elements taken from the saga of Vishnu- Mahapurusha.

The discovery of Dutreuil de Rhin’s manuscript was the first in a series of finds.Since the end of the 19th century, a number of competent French scholars of Asian history and culture have undertaken historical explorations.

63 Amongst the first of these were four friends of slightly different ages, Sylvain Lévi, Alfred Foucher, Edouard Chavannes, and Louis Finot, Edouard Chavannes was a Sinologist, but he contributed much to Indology through his studies on Chinese pilgrims, Chinese inscriptions of Bodhgaya, and the Chinese renderings of Buddhist stories and legends.However, his work cannot be separated from that of Sylvain Lévi. In 1894 Sylvain Lévi, a former pupil of Bergaigne succeeded Foucaux to the Chair of Sanskrit at the College de France, at the age of 31. Earlier he had done field work in India, mainly in Nepal, looking for inscriptions and manuscripts.He was devoted to the study of Hindu-Buddhist literature and texts. He first published The Indian Theatre and then Doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Brahmanas.It was his findings in Nepal and his collaboration with Chavannes which finally led Levi to Buddhist studies.Having learned both Tibetan and Chinese, he was able to correct the Sanskrit texts he rediscovered, such as Mahayana-sutralankara by Asanga, Trimsika and Vimsatika by Vasubandhu, and Mahakarmavibhanga, by checking them against their Tibetan and Chinese versions.With the help of the linguist, Antoine Meillet, Levi also deciphered the Kuchean language. He found fragments of a Kuchean poem very similar to the Karmavibhanga, the sculptural illustrations of which he also later noticed in the famous Buddhist temple, Borobudur, in Jave.Another French scholar, Paul Pelliot, in 1908 discovered many fragments of Indian texts in Central Asia. Albert Foucher came to India long before he succeeded Victor Henry at the Sorbonne.He was a devoted humanist who was greately attracted to Sanskrit literature, its grammar, system of philosophy, and archaeology. It was he who connected the art of Buddhist India, widely known as the Gandhara School, with that of the Graeco-Roman world.He edited Maridas Pillai’s French translation of the Bhagavata Purana, and in association with Finot, was responsible for the foundation of a research institute, the École Francaise d’Extreme-Orient, in Indochina, to study and preserve Indochinese culture.This institute helped to join Indology with Sinology.He also founded the French Archaeological Institute at Kabul, and the Franco-Japanese Mansion at Tokyo. Many French

64 Indologists, including Jean Przyluski and Jules Bloch, have worked in these institutions.Przyluski was attracted to Buddhist studies, linguistics, and ethnology, and wrote many books with the intention of tracing the remains of Munda, or popular, elements of non-Aryan origin in Indian documents.Jules Bloch, having first studied in Paris under Sylvain Lévi, Meillet, the famous linguist, and Vinson, the specialist in Tamil studies, came to India as a member of the École Francaise d’Extreme-Orient to learn modern Indian linguistics, where he worked with the Indian scholar, R.G. Bhandarkar.In addition to working on the grammatical structure of Dravidian languages and Asoka’s edicts, he wrote a study of the Gypsies, Legends Tsiganes. His work, Formation de la langue Marathe, contributed greatly to the study of modern dialects as well as to the rigorous science of linguistics.

The Belgian scholar, Louis de la Vallée Poussin (1869-1938), who studied with Emile Senart and Sylvain Lévi, contributed 3 volumes to the famous Histoire Dutch Monde series between 1924 and 1935.His volumes form a complete political history of pre-Muslim India and are outstanding works of scholarship.The French, even after withdrawing from their Indian territorial possessions, retained their interest in Indian studies.With the concurrence of India they have founded a centre at Pondicherry to continue research on Indian life and culture. Louis Renou, who died in 1966, was not only the leading French Indologist of his generation, but the most distinguished in the West. His output was phenomenal, but he was chiefly a scholar of the Vedas.Amongst his many books and articles were a Veda bibliography, a Veda index, a study of Indo-Iranian mythology, a Sanskrit-French dictionary, and a study of Panini, the grammarian.Jean Filliozat, who has made outstanding contributions to Indian studies, especially to the history of Indian science, worked for many years at the Pondicherry institute.Filliozat, a qualified medical practitioner and an accomplished linguist, has the rare competence to study ancient Indian medicine.His work, The Classical Doctrine of Indian Medicine, must remain a standard text.

65 Germany, unlike Britain or even France, was not at all politically connected with India, but undertaook Sanskrit studies most enthusiastically.German Indologists produced work exceptional both in quality and quantity, and they soon became the leaders in the study of Sanskrit language and literature, as well as Indian thought and culture.Although the English scholars were the first to study Sanskrit, they did not maintain their lead for long, presumably because they were mainly motivated by considerations other than scholarship. Whilst a Chair of Sanskrit, which was first held by August Schlegel, was instituted at the University of Bonn in 1818, it was not until 1832 that the first Chair of Sanskrit was created in England, at Oxford, to recognize the work done by H.H. Wilson. Later, Chairs of Sanskrit were established at London, Cambridge, and Edinburgh Universities, and by the first quarter of the 19th century practically every intellectual capital of Europe had initiated a full fledged study of Sanskrit.A contemporary of Jones and Colebrooke, Alexander Hamilton (1765-1824), who had learned Sanskrit in India, inadvertently introduced the language to Germany.Returning from India to England in 1802; he was detained in France when hostilities were suddenly renewed between England and France. By a remarkable coincidence, the German poet and philosopher, Friedrich von Schlegel (1772-1829), was also in Paris.By that time German interest in Indian literature had already been awakened by the work of the English scholars.Consequently, when Schlegel met Hamilton in 1803 he quickly took advantage of the opportunity and began learning Sanskrit. In 1808 Schlegel published Über dic Sprache und Weishcit der Inder (On the Language and Wisdom of the Indians), and thus became the founder of Indian philology in Germany.This work contained the first direct translation from Sanskrit into German.It gave an account of Indian mythology, and of the theories of incarnation and the transmigration of soul, all illustrated by translations from Sanskrit texts.Friendrich von Schlegel declared that a real history of world literature could be written only when Asian literature was included in it.However, his brother, August Wilhelm von Schlegel (1767- 1845), whose translation of Shakespear’s plays is a German classic, became

66 an even more active Sanskrit scholar.He had learned Sanskrit under Leonard de Chezy in France, and led the extensive development of Indology in Germany.He edited and translated a number of Sanskrit texts and wrote works on philology. He edited the original text of the Bhagavad Gita, together with a Latin trtanslation, and paid tribute to its unknown authors: “I shall always adore the imprints of their feet.” Schlegel insisted that the critical methods evolved in classical philology, of which he was an expert, should be applied to Sanskrit texts. He established a Sanskrit press at Bonn, at a time when the printing of Sanskrit was only beginning in India. With painstaking care he drew the Devanagari types, supervised their casting, and invented important technical improvements for their printing.He composed his first text, a critical edition of the Bhagavad Gita with his own hands. With the help of a Subscription from Geothe, he then started a critical edition of the Ramayana, but only the first volume was published.Franz Bopp (1791-1867), who had also studied Sanskrit in Paris, was, unlike the Schlegel brothers, more interested in language than in literature. Professor of Sanskrit at the University of Berlin, he published.On the Conjugational System of the Sanskrit language in comparison with that of the Greek, Latin, Persian, and Germanic languages in 1816, thus laying the foundations for the new science of comparative philology.In addtion, Bopp selected a number of episodes from the Mahabharata, especially that of Nala and Damayanti, translated them into Ferman and Latin, and published them in 1819.His Glossarium Sanscritum, an important complement to this translation, appeared in 1830.

During the initial phase of Sanskrit studies, until about 1830, European attention was mainly focused on the classical period of Sanskrit.The Vedic literature remained almost unknown except for Colecrooke’s essay. Little was known of the extensive Buddhist literature.The Upanishads were better known through Anquetil du Perron’s Latin trnslation from the Persian.The Indian linguistic genius, , edited the Sanskrit text of several Upanishads and published their English translation in 1816-1817. Later, Paul Deussen (1845-1919) reinforced the study of the Upanishads with his

67 translations and philosophical writings; he also made a selection of texts from the Mahabharata with philosophical commentary.Many Indologists reproduced consecutive depictions of the Mahabharata.The pioneer in this field, however, was Hermann Jacobi, whose book, Mahabharata-Inhaltsangabe, Index, Concordanz, was published in 1903.The real philological investigation of the Vedas began in 1838 with the publication of the first eight parts of the Rig Veda in London by a German Scholar, Friedrich Rosen.Vedic literature contains many forms which became extinct in the later Sanskrit, but which existed in similar forms in Greek and other Indo-European languages.For instance, classical Sanskrit has no subjunctive mood unlike most of the older Indo-European languages, but it is common enough in vedic Sanskrit.Moreover, Vedic Sanskrit has a tonic accent unlike the later Sanskrit, but similar to the Greek system. After his premature death, Rosen’s work was continued by Eugene Burnouf. One of Burnouf’s students, Rudolph Roth (1821-1895), published his work on the history and literature of the Vedas in 1846.In association with another German scholar, Otto Bohtlingk (1815- 1909), Roth produced the enormous Sanskrit-German dictionary, the St. Petersburg Sanskrit Dictionary, commonly known as the St. Petersburg Lexicon because it was published by the Russian Imperial Academy of Sciences between 1852 and 1875.Comprising almost ten thousand pages, this is the most outstanding of all the achievements of German Indology.

The most celebrated German Indologist, Friedrich Max Muller (1823-1900) continued vedic research by bringing out his splendid edition of the Rig Veda in 6 volumes between 1840 and 1874, and, from 1875 onwards, necessary editing the authoritative and annotated translation series, Sacred Books of the East, in 51 volumes 31 of which are Indian texts.This work laid the beginnings of the study of comparative religion. It caused a tremendous sensation even in India, where a cultural renaissance and renewed national consciousness were taking place.Max Muller’s translations of the Upanishads and the Rig Veda and other works, which have since been published in a variety of forms and editions, made Indian knowledge better known and appreciated everywhere.

68 He guided considerable research in Indology, comparative religion, and mythology.The essays on mythology are amongst his most delightful writing. Max Muller lived during the formative period of modern India.Armed resistance to the British rule in India had collapsed, having gained its momentum in 1857, but political opposition to British domination had become more organized and intensive.Whilst the Indian rebellion, especially the military revolt of 1857, enraged many British thinkers, such as Tennyson and Ruskin, to the point of writing unkindly of India, Max Muller remained a great friend and admirer, and his name is often Sanskritized as “Moksa-mula,” meaning the root of salvation.Muller was the first European scholar to announce that India had a spiritual message for Europe, and he praised Indian thought and philosophy in almost lyrical terms: “If I were to look over the whole world to find out the country most richly endowed with all the wealth, power, and beauty that nature can bestow-in some parts a very paradise on earth-I should point to India.If we were asked under what sky the human mind has most fully developed some of the choicest gifts, has most deeply ponded on the greatest problems of life, and has found solutions of some of them which well deserve the attention even of those who have studied Plato and Kant-I should point to India…”

Max Muller first came under the influence of German Orientalists, and later studied in Paris under Burnouf.He went to Oxford in 1848 to supervise the printing of his Rig Veda, and spent the rest of this long working life in England. An eminent classical scholar and a master of languages, including English, he was blocked from succeeding to the Chair of Sanskrit at Oxford in 1860 because he was of foreign birth and his liberal views on theological questions were unacceptable to the clergy in England.The Chair was given to Sir Monier-Williams, an important Sanskrit scholar who did a great deal to make Indian culture known in English-speaking countries. In 1868, however, Max Muller was appointed to a new Chair of Comparative Philosophy. Muller’s influence on Indian studies has been extensive, deep and lasting.For instance, when he pointed out that Alexander is not mentioned in the entire body of

69 Sanskrit literature, historians felt compelled to revise their exaggerated assessment of his campaigns in India.

By the middle of the 19th century, Indian texts began to appear in rapid succession, and knowledge about India was keenly sought. One of the most important works of this period was Indische Alterthumskunde by Christian Lassen (1800-1876), a pupil of August Wilhelm von Schlegel.The work was published in four large volumes between 1843 and 1862.Lassen, a Norwegian who regarded himself as a German, worked for many years as Professor of Sanskrit at the University of Bonn.His work, although somewhat absolete today, is of outstanding merit.The discovery of the vedic hymns also led to the emergence of a new science of comparative mythology.Theodor Benfey published in 1859 his edition of the Indian fable collection, the Pancatantra, which created a literary revolution.Benfey showed through meticulous research how the fables of India reached Europe, traveling step by step, though Pahlavi, Persian, Arabic, Hebrew, Latin, and the modern languages of Europe, till they supplied even La Fontaine with some of his most charming themes.Benfey’s various Sanskrit grammars, founded as they were on the classical grammar of panini, and his History of Sanskrit philology are still important.In 1852, A. Weber published his History of Indian Literature in German, the first connected historical account of Indian literature.The work was translated into English and has been printed several times.Weber brought out a second edition in 1876 which he updated by adding notes to the texts.He also opened up a new branch of Indian study through his work in 1883-1885 on the sacred writings of the Jains.

Towards the end of the 19th century, the literature on Indian studies had grown too vast and unwieldy for an individual scholar to master. Consequently, the need for an encyclopaedia surveying the work done in all branches of the subject was felt.Grundriss der into-arischen Philologic und Altertumskunde (Compendium of Indo-Aryan Philology and Antiquities) began to appear in 1897 under the general editorship of the versatile Sanskrit

70 scholar, Georg Bühler (1837-1898), who had studied under Benfey, and published many works of his own.This was an attempt by thirty leading scholars from throughout the world to give an encyclopaedic view of the work done in the various branches of Indology.The publication was continued under the editorship of other scholars and was one of the important developments in the field of Indian studies.Later, in 1900, A.A. Macdonell, a successor of Wilson at Oxford, published A History of Sanskrit Literature and in 1907 M. Winternitz, Professor of Indology at Prague, brought out A History of Indian Literature in German.Today almost every library in Germany has a special collection of books of India and every university has a departmental library of Indology.6 universities – Bonn, Tübingen, Göttingen, Marburg, and Hamburg and Munich – have Chairs of Sanskrit, and practically every university provides for the teaching of Sanskrit within its department of comparative linguistics. Three German universities have their own magazines of Indology.

Holland’s interest in India was direct, because of her commercial and political involvements in the East Indies, but Indology did not begin in that country until the 19th century.During the 17th and 18th centuries, a number of Dutchmen learned modern Indian languages, but only one, Herbert de Jager of the University of Leyden, is known to have been familiar with Sanskrit.The first professor to teach Sanskrit was Hamaker at the University of Leyden, who encouraged the study of comparative linguistics.But the real foundation of Sanskrit studies was laid by his eminent pupil, Hendrik Kern, whose work evoked much interest.A Chair of Sanskrit was consequently established at the University of Leyden in 1865, and was filled by Kern. Before Kern began his professional career, he had taught in England and India.By his publications and through his pupils, several of whom became eminent Indologists, Indian studies made considerable progress in Holland. Later, Holland produced such scholars as Speyer, Vogel, Gonda, Gabestios, Bosch, and Faddegon.Today Chairs of Sanskrit exist at Leyden, Utrecht, Amsterdam, and Groningen.In Italy, also, there developed a keen interest in any systematic study of Indology.Italian missionaries, merchants, and mariners continuously visited

71 India.Those who left valuable accounts of their travels included Marco Polo; Florentine Filippo Sassetti, who made the first suggestion in his letters of a possible link between Italian and Sanskrit in the 16th century; Nicolo Manucci; Florentine Francesco Carletti; Pietro della Valle; Giovanni Francesco Gemelli Careri, who wrote Giro del Mondo, one volume of which is devoted to India; and Roberto De Nobili. Indian studies in Italy did not begin, on a scientific basis, until the middle of the 19th century.Italian interest in Indian thought was initially inspired by German romanticism.The father of Italian Indology was the Piedmontese, Gaspare Gorresio.As soon as Italy achieved political harmony and the kingdom of Italy was formed in 1870, the first Chairs of Oriental Studies were set up.Since then Italy has produced famous Indologists from Graziadio Ascoli to Giuseppe Tucci of the present day. Even in those small nations of Europe which were not directly concerned with India, the knowledge of ancient India spread.In Czechoslovakia, which has a long tradition of learning, Indology was to occupy a place of prominence.Czech scholars were first attracted to Indian studies through the work of a Jesuit missionary, Karel Prikryl, who arrived in Goa in 1748 as director of the Archbishops seminary.During his 14 years in India, he studied Marathi, and is reputed to have written several books.Only one of these, Principia Linguae Brahmanicae (The Principles of the Brahmanic Tongue), has survived; this was probably the first grammar of Konkani dialect to have been written. Inspired by Prikryl’s works, Josef Dobrovski, a philologist and historian, learned Sanskrit during the last part of the 18th century and pointed out the similarities between many Indian and Slav words and forms. In 1812 Joseph Jungmanr, wrote on Indian prosody and metre, and nine years later his brother, Antonin Jungmann, published the first Sanskrit grammar in Czech.

Of the numerous comparative philologists, Joseph Zubaty made notable contributions to Sanskrit philology and to the history of Vedic literature and classical Indian epic and dramatic literature.He published his Qualitative Changes in the Final Syllable in Vedic in 1888, and, two years later, a study of Indian metrics entitled The Construction of Tristubh and Jagati Verses in the

72 Mahabharata.Alfred Ludwig, Zubaty’s teacher, and Moriz Winternitz were the first scholars who advanced Indian studies from comparative philology to Indology proper.Ludwig’s philological studies were important but he is better known for his German translation of the Rig Veda in 6 volumes, published in Prague in 1876 -1888, and for his studies of classical Indian literature.Ludwig was the first Czech scholar to study Dravidian languages. Winternitz succeeded Ludwig to the Chair of Indology at the University of Prague and held it for several decades.He wrote the three volume History of Indian Literature in German, the first two volumes of which were translated into English and published in India in 1927-1933.In addition, he wrote many shorter studies on Indian literature, some of which were published in book form in Calcutta in 1925 under the title, Some Problems of Indian Literature.

After the 1st World War, a new Chair of Indology was founded at the Charles University of Prague, the oldest university in Central Europe. Its first occupant, Wincerc Lesny had traveled extensively in India, and was a scholar of Indian, as well as of Iranian, languages.He published a number of books on India, including a monograph on , and translated many of Tagore’s works directly from Bengali.His work, Buddhismus, analyzing the Buddhism of the Pali canon and its development in India and abroad, is yet to be translated from Czech into other languages. Lesny also founded the periodical, ‘The New East and the Indian Society’, before Second World War. In Hungary, Indian studies did not reach such an advanced level as in some major countries of Europe, but Indian thought made a significant impact on Hungarian intellectual life, and Hungary has made some contributions to Indology. One of these is the work of Sir Aurel Stein, a British citizen of Hungarian origin whose archaeological surveys and work in Central Asia are classical contributions to the study of Indian culture abroad. Born in Budapest, he studied in Austria and Germany, and taught Sanskrit at the University of the Punjab, before he led Indian archaeological expeditions to the hitherto unexcavated ruins in Serindia. He bequeathed his valuable library to the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.The first Hungarian

73 Orientalist was Alexander Csoma de Körös who visited India in 1830 at the invitation of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, and who died at Darjeeling in 1842 during his second visit.His work and that of Tivadar Duka were the beginnings of Indian studies in Hungary.Some of the scholars whose contributions to Hungarian Indology are particularly notably are Karoly Fiolk, who translated several Sanskrit classical texts; Sandor Kegl and Josef Schmidt who made Indian, philosophy accessible to Hungarians; Charles Louis Fabri, whose writings on Indian art and aesthetics are well known to Indian scholars; Ervin Baktay; and Ferenc Hopp, who founded the Museum of East Asiatic Art in Budapest, which is named after him.

Some Rumanian scholars and poets were also fascinated by Indian culture. G. Coshbue, called “the singer of the Rumanian Peasantry”, translated the Sakuntala from a German version in 1897, and compiled a Sanskrit anthology.B.P. Hashdeu studied the problems of Sanskrit literature or linguistics.His disciple, Lazar Saineanu, went to Paris where he studied Sanskrit at the Sorbonne with Abel Bergaigne.Constantin Georgian who had worked with A. Weber at Berlin, was the first Rumanian Orientalist to make persistent efforts to introduce the study of Sanskrit into his country. However, the authorities did not approve of the teaching of Sanskrit; original translations from Sanskrit and works of Indology did not appear in Rumania until the 1930’s.Amongst many other Rumanian scholars who made Sanskrit and Indian culture their intellectual pursuit and formed a literary circle (Juimea), the names of Vasile Pogor, Vasile Burla, and Teohari Antonescu, can be mentioned as more prominent.Antonescu’s important work on the philosophy of the Upanishads was the first study in Rumania to deal with such a problem in its entirety.

Information about early Russian awareness of India and Indian culture is at present insufficient.In the South Russian Steppes, some Buddhist images of the pre-Mongol period have been found. Indian fables and stories have long been known in Russia, although it is doubtful if their origins were known. A

74 Russian traveller, Athanasius Nikitin, went to India in the 15th century but his diary, a valuable source of information, was unfinished. At the end of the 17th century a Russian merchant, Semen Malinkov, was received by Aurangzeb.A small colony of Indian traders and artisans was established in Astrakhan about 1615 and some Indian religious men settled in the region and enjoyed freedom of worship.The first translation of a Sanskrit text was published in Russia in 1787 by N.I. Novikov.This was not a direct translation from Sanskrit but a Russian version of Wilkins’ translation of the Bhagavad Gita. Later, a Russian musician, Gerasim Lebedev who lived in India from 1785 to 1797 and played a significant role in the renaissance of the Bengali Theatre, published his Grammar of Pure and Mixed East Indian Dialects with Dialogues in 1801, and An Impartial Survey of the Systems of Brahmanical East India in 1805.He also cast the first Devanagari type by the command of Tsar Alexander I.

An Asian Academy was established at St. Petersburg in 1810, and Robert Lenz who learned Sanskrit under Franz Bopp at Berlin, was appointed the first professor of Sanskrit and Comparative philology, but he died at the age of 28. His work, however, was continued by Pave Yakovlevich Petrov, who taught a number of Russian philologists and Indologists, including F. Korsch, F.F. Fortunator, and V.F. Miller, and translated into Russian the Sitaharana episode of the Ramayana with a glossary and a grammatical analysis. Once the process had begun, Sanskrit studies expanded rapidly in the receptive atmosphere of Russian intellectual life, and Russia produced famous Indologists, such as V.P. Vasilyev and V.P. Minayev.A pupil of Minayev, Sergei Fedorovich Oldernburg, founded in 1897 the Bibliotheca Buddhica, a series devoted to the publication of Buddhist texts and monographs on Buddhist subjects.The Russian school of Indology had already produced the monumental St. Petersburg Lexicon, between 1852 and 1875.Possibly Oldenburg’s greatest achievement was his archaeological explorations of Eastern Turkistan, and his participation in the organization of Russian scientific exploration of Central Asia; Russian explorers were the first to point

75 out the rich archaeological sites on the edges of the Taklamakan Desert.Redor Ippolitovich Stcherbatsky (1886 – 1941), who studied under Minayev and Oldenburg in St. Petersburg, Büchler in Vienna, and Jacobi in Bonn, published important works on Buddhist thought and edited numerous Tibetan and Sanskrit texts for the Bibliotheca Buddhica. Since the end of the last century, Russian interest and work in Indian studies have become even more comprehensive.

The first direct contact between India and the United States was commercial, and began in the end of the 18th century.By the middle of the 19th century; American trade with India had greatly increased.Diplomatic and missionary activity followed. American knowledge of India was at first vague, fragmentary, and indirect, acquired through the writings of oeu scholars. Later, however, the impact of , Rabindranath Tagore, and other visiting Indians was clearly felt. Since Yale University was founded in 1718 with the help of a cargo of gifts raised in India by Elihu Yale, who was a governor of Madras, it was only appropriate that it was there that Indian studies in the United States begun in 1841.Edward Elbridge Salisbury, a pupil of Franz Bopp, was appointed the first Professor of Sanskrit.Later, his pupil, William Dwight Whitney, who had also studied with Weber and Roth, filled the Chair with distinction and made the first important American contributions to Sanskrit studies, including editions of the Vishnu Purana and the Atharva Veda. Johns Hopkins University was next to set up a Chair in Sanskrit in 1876, within 2 years of its own foundation.A pupil of Whitney, Charles Rockwell Lanman, the author of the widely known Sanskrit Reader and the editor of the Harvard Oriental Series, was appointed to the position, but he moved to Harvard University two years later to set up what was to become an outstanding Department of Sanskrit. Later, several other universities, such as Columbia, California, and Pennsylvania, instituted Chairs of Sanskrit, and America produced many well-known scholars, such as Washburn Hopkins, Maurice Bloomfield, Franklin Edgerton, Arthur Ryder, A.U. William Jackson, and W. Norman Brown.Whilst American scholarship has

76 made notable contributions of its own. Indian thought made its impact on the American mind mainly through European Indology. Until the 11nd World War American academic interest was primarily confined to the linguistic and literary study of ancient texts.Now, with the independence of India and the role of America in world affair,s the study of India in American universities and colleges has increased and become phenomenally diversified.Research in Indian history, sociology, politics, economics, and many other fields is rapidly expanding, and the recently established American Institute of Indian Studies has given a new impetus to American Indology.Thousands of Indian students are studying at American universities – over one thousand Indian scholars are now teaching there – and countless American scholars, journalists, artists, and tourists have visited India. Without further straining the patience of the reader, it is not possible to mention here the considerable Indological work done in the other countries of Europe, and the many outstanding contributions made by scholars not already noted; the works of Sten Knnow and Georg Morgenstierne from Norway; Jarl Carpentier and Helmer Smith from Sweden; Myles Dillon from Eire; W.S. Majewski, J. Lelewal, D.L. Boskowsk, and S. Schayer from Poland; Hermann Brunnhofer, Ernst Leumann, and Jacob Wockernagel from Switzerland; and Fausboll from Denmark are particularly valuable.

Whilst a good deal of work was thus being done in Europe and America, the study of ancient Indian culture was progressing in India as well, through the efforts of both European and Indian scholars.Amongst the Indians themselves there developed during the 19th century a class of scholars who were educated in Western learning and were inspired by the growing spirit of cultural renaissance in India. Of these the works of R.G. Bhandarkar and Rajendralal Mitra are best known.Their tradition gave rise to successive generations of Indian scholars who now do the vast majority of the work in Indian studies.The initial work of the Asiatic Society of Bengal on written records was soon to lead attention to archaeological remains.Inscriptions in long-forgotten alphabets, coins, etc, were closely scrutinized.Working back

77 from current scripts the older languages were deciphered.One of the most remarkable achievements in this field was james prinsep’s (1799 – 1840) reading of the Brahmi script in 1837.An erudite scholar skilled in epigraphic techniques, he was able to interpret the edicts of Asoka, giving India knowledge of her noblest ruler, and placing Indian archaeology on a secure chronological basis. His death at the age of 41 was a grievous blow to Indian studies. A colleague of his, Alexander Cunningham, was an engineer with the British Indian Army and greatly interested in Indian archaeology.He continued Prinsep’s work, and in 1862 became the first archaeological surveyor of India. Later his work was carried forward by a number of archaeologists, prominent amongst who were James Burgess, John Marshall, and R.D. Banerji, who discovered the cities of the Indus civilization in 1922.

WESTERN RESPONSE TO MODERN INDIA

Whilst Europe’s debt to Greek literature is generally acknowledged, and often overemphasized, it is not always easy for modern generations to imagine the effect Indian ideas have had on European intellectual and cultural progress.The stimulus of Indian literature was such that scholars, exemplified by Macdonell, said: Since the Renaissance there has been no event of such world-wide significance in the history of culture as the discovery of Sanskrit literature in the latter part of the 18th century.Indeed, the impact of Indian thought on the intellectual life of renaissant Europe was so powerful that may European writers have not taken kindly to it. Driven by some strange fear of losing their cultural identity, they endeavoured to minimize or ignore the influence of Indian philosophy, and stretch logic to explain intellectual evolution purely in terms of what they call Western traditions. India, however, was only one of the several factors which influenced European thought and life.The entire political, social, and intellectual life of Europe at this time was far more active and complex than during any previous age, and perhaps any subsequent one. France led the . Germany was rapidly advancing, asserting its intellectual prowess in literature and philosophy;

78 America and Russia had begun to make important contributions; and science had scored fresh advances.These were far-reaching changes, in which the discovery of Indian literature and philosophy played a limited but significant role.Inevitably, European response to Indian ideas differed from country to country: indeed, from thinker to thinker.Some received Indian thought more readily and understood it better than others.Others reacted against it almost instinctively.Whatever the response, favourable or unfavourable, deep or fragmentary, it was entirely conditioned by the intellectual climate of Europe and its variations.There was no organized movement to advocate the adoption of Indian ideas.If there were those anxious to underline the virtues of Indian literature, they were the Europeans themselves, acting individually.Seldom were Indian doctrines adopted wholesale – to expect otherwise would be to deny the existence of a powerful indigenous tradition and the intellectual independence of the receiver.Some found in Indian thought reinforcement of their own ideas; others an escape or diversion from their own tradition.

Indian thought and literature had its finest European reception in Germany. In fact, Indology became largely a province of German scholarship, stimulated entirely by academic considerations, as Germany, unlike Britain and France, had no political ties with India or her neighbours.Although Abraham Roger’s work, The Open Door to Hidden Heathendom, a German translation of two hundred maxims of Bhartrihari, appeared in 1663, it made little impact. Not until the end of the 18th century did the Germans come to know some of the famous works of Indian literature. Europe took Sakuntala to heart, and in Germany the popularity of this work ensured that later translations would be welcomed.The first German to recognize the beauty of Sakuntala was the poet and critic, Johann Gottfried Herder (1744 – 1803).Although not familiar with India or its languages, he had already given a somewhat idealized picture of the Indian people in his chief work, Ideen Zur Philosophic der Menschheit (Ideas on a philosophy of the History of Mankind), in 1787.According to him, mankind’s origin was to be traced to India, where the “human mind got the first shapes of wisdom and virtue with a simplicity, strength and sublimity which

79 has – frankly spoken – nothing, nothing at all equivalent in our philosophical, cold European world”.He regarded the Hindus, because of their ethical teachings, as the most gentle and peaceful people on earth.His concept of India was taken up by the Romantic Movement, and long dominated the fantasy of German poets. The connection which the teachings of reincarnation established between all forms of life opened a new field to Herder and his contemporaries.Herder’s Thoughts of Some Brahmins (1792), which contains a selection of gnomic stanzas in free translations, gathered from Bhartrihari, theHitopadesa and the Bhagavad Gita, expressed these ideals.When George Förster sent him his German translation of the English version of the Sakuntala in 1791, Herder responded: “I cannot easily find a product of the human mind more pleasant than this……..a real blossom of the Orient, and the first, most beautiful of its kind!……Something like that, of course, appears once every two thousand years”.He published a detailed study and analysis of Sakuntala, claiming that this work disproved the popular belief that drama was the exclusive invention of the ancient Greeks.

Herder’s letters, published under the title, The Oriental Drama, claim that Kalidasa’s masterpiece contains perfection unique in world literature both in poetic substance and the characterization of the heroine.Herder hurriedly passed on his discovery of the Indian drama to his friend, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749 – 1832), whose own enthusiasm for this play was no less exuberant. Goethe expressed the admiration for Sakuntala more than once.Nearly 40 years later, in 1830 when de Chézy sent him his edition of the original with his French translation, he wrote to the Frenchman expressing his deep gratitude: “The first time I came across this inexhaustible work it aroused such enthusiasm in me and so held me that I could not stop studying it. I even felt impelled to make the impossible attempt to bring it in some form to the German stage.These efforts were fruitless but they made me so thoroughly acquainted with this most valuable work, it represented such an epoch in my life, I so absorbed it, that for thirty years I did not look at either the English or the German version…….It is

80 only now that I understand the enormous impression that work made on me at an earlier age”.Goethe goes on to point out the beauties of the work, saying that in it the poet appears in his highest function, as the representative of the most natural state, of the most refined form of life, of the purest moral striving, of the worthiest majesty and the most solemn contemplation of God; at the same time he is lord and master of his creation to so great an extent that he may venture vulgar and ludicrous contrasts which yet must be regarded as necessary links of the whole organization. No wonder he modeled the prologue of his Faust (1890) on the prologue to Sakuntala. The jester in the prologue of Faust is reminiscent of one of the vidusaka in the Indian drama, a parallel first noticed by Heinrich Heine.

Goethe’s friend, Schiller, who otherwise took little interest in Indian literature, was also moved to enthusiastic praise of Sakuntala, which he found in some respects unparalleled in the classical literature of Greece and Rome.He published part of the Sakuntala in Thalia, and in a letter to Wilhelm Humboldt he wrote that “in the whole of Greek antiquity there is no poetical representation of beautiful love which approaches Sakuntala even afar”. Goethe also admired other Indian poems, such as Jayadeva’s Gita Govinda and Kalidasa’s Meghaduta which he read in Wilson’s English translation in 1817 and welcomed as “a great treasure”.Goethe’s second Indian ballad, “Der Paria” was his best.The plot for “Der Paria” comes from the work of the French traveller, Sonnerat who had returned to Europe in 1782 after 7 years in India.Goethe’s first Indian ballad, “Der Gotund die Bajadere”, published in 1797, was also based on Sonnerat.Whilst Herder and Goethe shared enthusiasm for the Sakuntala, their attitudes toward India were very different. Herder was gradually becoming old and moralizing.The Sakuntala had captivated him, but it was the rich treasure of Indian gnomic and didactic poetry that appealed to him most.Herder admired India, as did Novalis and Heine, for its simplicity, and denounced the Europeans for their greed, corruption, and economic exploitation of India.

81 Goethe, on the other hand, reacted to Indian literature as a poet and an artist.Although he was delighted by the harmonious beauty and lyrical intensity of the epics and kavya, he did not care for the Hitopadesa and philosophy, and he took no interest in Indian mythology and sculpture.He was particularly interested in poetry that expressed human feelings and sentiments in a simple and natural way, Indian sculpture, with its variety and abundance of form, offended his classical ideal of unified beauty.His admiration for India was strong and deep, but it could not compare with his appreciation for Greece. He was fascinated by India, but he understood Greece. Consequently Goethe did not actively participate in the expansion of Indian studies and did not learn Sanskrit, although in the Goethe Archives there are some papers on which the poet tried the Devanagari script. Extreme attraction unaccompanied by proper intellectual understanding was bound to unnerve a thinking, sensitive scholar, such as Goethe.He expressed this feeling to his friend Humboldt in 1826; “I have by no means an aversion to things Indian, but I am afraid of them, for they draw my imagination into the formless and the diffuse against which I have to guard myself more than ever before”.However, he consistently acknowledged the tremendous stimulus of Indian thought on Western civilization, and followed the work of German Indologists such as the Schlegel brothers and Bopp with interest and approval. Inspired by Herder’s idealist concepts there developed a belief that the highest form of romantic poetry could be found only in India.The very reason which made Goethe hesitant gave the Romantics a predilection of India. Consequently, they did not content themselves with glorifying it in poetry alone; they laid the foundation for a real science of India.

Until the end of the 18th century, French was the language of the German elite and, together with Latin, the language of learning.During the and Napoleonic Wars, Germany suffered heavily.After the war, educated Germans became more aware of their own language and heritage, and took an increasing pride in it.At this psychological moment Indian literature appeared in Germany; a certain undoubted cultural and historical

82 affinity between India and Germany probably assumed greater imaginary proportions than it would have at any other time. Shakespeare on the one hand, and Indian literature on the other, formed the main inspiration of the German Romantic movement.Both were introduced into Germany at about the same time and by the same persons, Friedrich and August Wilhelm von Schlegel. The Romantics found in India that dynamic and synthetic approach to life which they felt was lacking in the formalism and artificiality of the early European Romantic movement, and sought to substitute aesthetic standards for utilitarian ones. The religions of India also fascinated the Romantics of Germany; throughout the 19th century Western religious criticism was inspired by the discovery of Indian polytheism.“If one considers”, comments Schlegel, “the superior conception which is at the basis of the truly universal Indian culture and which, itself divine, knows how to embrace in its universality everything that is divine without distinction, then, what we in Europe call religion or what we used to call such, no longer seems to deserve that name.And one would like to advise everyone who wants to see religion, he should, just as one goes to Italy to study art, go to India for that purpose where he may be certain to find at least fragments for which he will surely look in vain in Europe”.

Amongst those men of letters who took an enthusiastic interest in Indian literature was the versatile Prussian minister of education, Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767 – 1835), a brilliant linguist and the founder of the science of general linguistics. He began to learn Sanskrit in 1821 and was greatly moved by Schlegel’s edition of the Bhagavad Gita, on which he published an extensive study and which he described as “the deepest and liftiest thing the word had to show”.He declared that he was grateful to God for granting him a life so long that he could read the Gita. Ludwig van Beethoven was also attracted by Indian thought, as is clearly attested by numerous passages and notes referring to in ideas and texts found in the Beethoven papers.He was first introduced to Indian literature by the Austrian Orientalist, Hammer- Purgstal, who founded a periodical for the dissemination of Eastern

83 knowledge in Europe as early as January 1809.Beethoven had a deep interest in Indian knowledge long before Indological studies began in Germany.The fragments of Indian religious texts that have been discovered in the Beethoven manuscripts are partly translations and partly adaptations of the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita. It is not certain if Beethoven himself or his Orientalist friends selected these passages for him.

The German poet, Friedrich Rückert (1788 – 1866), Professor of Oriental Languages at the University of Erlangen from 1827 to 1841, produced, under the inspiration of August Wilhelm von Schlegel, numerous skilful translations from Sanskrit.His published translations from Indian classical poetry made Indian lyrics and poems widely popular in Germany.Amongst his translations are Nalopakhyana, the Amarusataka, the Raghuvamsa, and the Gita Govinda, which lost nothing of its beauty, colour, and atmosphere in Rückert’s German version.The Indian poem is such a complex work from the viewpoint of rhyme, alliteration, and allusion that Rückert’s version represents a brilliant accomplishment. Of all the German poets, it was he who best understood the character of Indian poetry. Novalis, one of Germany’s greatest Romantic poets, wrote in his essay, Christendom in Europe, that poetry, pure and colourful like a beautiful India, stood opposed to the cold and deadening mountains of philistine reason.For him Sanskrit was the most mysterious linguistic symbol of any human expression; Sanskrit took him back to the “original people” who had been forgotten.However, in spite of his emotional enthusiasm for India, Novalis did not really understand Indian thought.Unlike those Indians who believe the objective world is an illusion.Novalis sought to perfect this world. Similarly, when E.T.A. Hoffmann attempted to create Indian characters in some of his stories, they were magicians who, although traditionally associated with India, were not really representative.Schelling also accorded India an important position in his Philosophy of Mythology.He was a great admirer of ancient Indian literature, especially the Upanishads, which he regarded, like Schopenhauer, to be the genuine wisdom of Indians and of mankind. Heinrich Heine, a late Romantic lyric poet, whose influence

84 was enormous not only in Germany but in most countries of the Western world, describes the India of his imagination: “……in the glass I saw the dear motherland, the blue and sacred Ganges, the eternally shining Himalayas, the gigantic forests of Banyan trees on whose wide shadowy paths quietly walk wise elephants and white pilgrims……” His poem, “Auf Flügeln described Gesanges”,

Am Ganges duftet’s und leuchtet’s?

Und Riesenbäume blühn,

Und schöne, stille Menschen

Vor Lotosblumen knien.

Created a picture of India widely familiar in Germany.Heine’s acquaintance with Indian thought, acquired in Bonn under Schlegel and Bopp, remained important to him throughout his life.His approach to Indian works was intimate and sensitive, but it die not lead to un-critical enthusiasm for them. He did not care for the story of the rivalry between Vasistha and Visvamitra, in which he saw a parallel with the investiture contest in medieval Europe.However, he had a particular feeling for Indian scenery, as is revealed by his verses in his famous Buch der Lieder (Book of Songs).He remarked that if the Portuguese, the Dutch, and the English had carried away ships laden with Indian treasures, Germany would do likewise, but hers would be treasures of spiritual knowledge.

Although Gutzkow titled his novel Mahaguru (1832), he shows no evidence of real knowledge of Indian thought. F. Hebbel’s attention was drawn to India by Ad. Holtzmann’s Indian Sagas. In 1863, he wrote the story of King Sibi who by sacrificing his own life saved a dove from a hawk, and his poem, “The Brahmans”, gives a moving expression of the Indian concept of the equality of all living beings.Immanuel Kant (1712 – 1804) was apparently the first important German philosopher to have some acquaintance with Indian philosophy.Kant’s differentiation between the physical world as seen in space

85 and time, and the unknowable thing in itself beyond these concepts, is very similar to the doctrine of Maya. There are certain parallels between Kantian thought and Buddhist philosophy. Like the Buddha, Kant declared a number of questions unsolvable, such as “Has the world a beginning or not?” “Is it finite or eternal?” Stcherbatsky has shown that Kant’s doctrine of the categorical imperative has its counterpart in Hindu philosophy, and has pointed out similarities between Kantian thought and later Buddhist thinkers like Chandrakirti. Moreover, according to Hermann Jacobi, Kant’s Aesthetics had been preceded by Indian writers on poetics. These are important parallels and strongly indicative of Kant’s familiarity with Indian philosophy.But, considering that Sanskrit studies were only beginning to emerge in Europe, and Europe knew very little of Indian philosophy at the time, it seems unlikely that Kant had any direct knowledge of Indian thought. However, the possibility of his acquaintance, as distinct from knowledge, with Indian ideas through earlier Western writings and contemporary travel accounts cannot be ruled out. In his lectures at the Königberg University in East Prussia from 1756 to 1796, he talked about the physiography of India and the customs and manners of the people, and it seems likely that an intellectual of his genius would have gathered other information about India and reflected upon it with utmost care and competence.His observations about Buddhism in Asia and about Hindus appear to endorse the view that he had extensive and accurate knowledge of Indian thought. He said the Hindus were gentle and tolerant of other religions and nations. He was very much impressed by the Hindu doctrine of transmigration, which corresponded in some respects to his own teaching about the destiny of the soul after death. Similarly, Kant’s successor, Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762 – 1814), includes in his Anweisung Zu cinem selingen Leben (Hints for a Blessed Life) numerous passages which approximate the Advaita doctrine.Whilst Kant and Fichte were not familiar with original Sanskrit texts, Arthur Schopenhauer knew them, at least in some measure, and openly acknowledged his debt to Indian systems in Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung (The World as Will and Idea): “I acknowledged that I

86 owe the best part of my developed, beside the impression of the outward world, to the works of Kant and to the holy scriptures of the Hindus and Plato”. He believed that if “…..the reader has also received and assimilated the sacred, primitive Indian wisdom, then is he best of all prepared to hear what I have to say to him”. Schopenhauer, who was unusually free from nationalism, and who has been called the philosopher of disillusion and profound pessimism, was introduced to Indian thought in 1813 by one of Goethe’s friends, the Orientalist Friedrich Mayer. From then on, Schopenhauer never lost interest.In 1818, he published his most important work, Die Welt ALS Wills und Vorstellung, in which he put forward the doctrines of pessimism and the subjectivity of will to knowledge.Although his university career had come to an abrupt end at this time, he continued to work on his doctoral thesis privately.He read whatever he could lay his hands on at the Weimar Library concerning Indian thought.Of these, Anquetil Dutch Perron’s translation of the Upanishads was his chief source of information.Schopenhauer, although working with an imperfect translation, was extremely enthusiastic about the Upanishads’ philosophy and declared them to be “the production of the highest human wisdom”. For him no study was as elevating as that of the Upanishads: “It has been the solace of my life, it will be the solace of my death”.A few years later when he became acquainted with Buddhism, he regarded it as more profound than Christianity.He did not think that Christianity could ever displace Buddhism in the East: “It is just as if we fired a bullet against a cliff”. On the contrary, he thought that Indian philosophy would profoundly alter European knowledge and thought:The influence of Sanskrit literature will penetrate not less deeply that did the revival of Greek letters in the 15th century.Schopenhauer, mainly influenced by the discovery of upanishadic thought, has been called the first apostle of Buddhism in Germany. He was so impressed by Buddhism that he claimed fundamental identity of his philosophy with the teachings of Buddhism, kept a bronze of the Buddha in his study, and occasionally referred to himself and his followers as

87 “we Buddhists”.But there are important differences between his philosophy and Indian thought, whether Buddhist or vedantic.

Schopenhauer regarded the Hindus as deeper thinkers than Europeans because their interpretation of the world was internal and intuitive, not external and intellectual.For intuition unites everything; the intellect divides everything. The Hindus saw that the “I” is a delusion, that the individual is merely phenomenal, and that the only reality is the Infinite One “That art Thou”. Another German philosopher, Karl Christian Friedrich Krause was even more strongly influenced by Indian philosophy.He praised the Vedanta particularly in his Vorlesungen über dic Grundwahrheiten der Wissenschajten (1829), although he wrote on Buddhism, Jainism, and the Carvakas.Paul Deussen, a rare combination of a scholar of European philosophy as well as of Indology, was also greatly attracted by the Vedanta philosophy.Works on the Vedanta philosophy and his translation of the Vedanta Sutras were published in 1883 and in 1887 respectively.By translating the original texts of the Upanishads into German and commenting upon them he increased the understanding of Indian philosophy amongst European thinkers.He called the Vedanta system one of the greatest achievements of humanity in the search for eternal truth.Not all German philosophers were fascinated by Indian thought. Once Europe had recovered from the ravages of the Napoleonic Wars and Indian culture lost its novelty, European intellectuals began to analyze Indian civilization, even if they had no familiarity with original texts. A typical example was Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770 – 1831), a contemporary of Schopenhauer, who, in reaction to the undiluted romanticism towards India, gave a full chapter to India in his philosophy of World History (1822 – 1823), and drew some depressing conclusions.With his stress on reason, he criticized the Romantics for idolizing India.He considered the prevailing degenerate condition of Indian society as its natural condition, and maintained it was a society condemned by its own inability to rejuvenate itself. Hegel not only applied erroneous standards bureaucracies relied on undependable sources – the writings of British administrators and Abbé Dubois’ book. How

88 ill-informed Hegel was of things Eastern can best be seen in the brief attempt he makes in his book to define Buddhism. “There is a great dispute going on”, he says, “which of the two religions (Buddhism and Hinduism) is older and simpler; for both there are reasons, but one cannot discern it clearly.The Buddhistic religion is simpler, but this may be due either to the fact that it is older, or that it is the result of a Reformation. Probably, however, Buddhism is the older of the two”.

Yet it is interesting to notice a likeness between Hegel’s famous “dialectical movement”, that every idea and every situation in the world leads irresistibly to its opposite and then unites with it to form a new whole, and the Buddhist concept of the “golden mean”.Hegel expressly refers to Indian predecessors of his logic of contradictions.Also, his view that man reaches his full stature only through suffering is quite close to the Buddha’s declaration that life is dukkha.Whilst Hegel reacted against Romanticism and against Schopenhauer’s enthusiasm for Indian thought, Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 – 1900) protested as much against Schopenhauer’s philosophy as against Deussen’s interpretation of the Vedanta. Nietzsche, however, was deeply influenced by Schopenhauer in his youth, and regarded himself as his successor, although superior to him in some ways.He found in The World as Will and Idea “a mirror in which I espied the world, life, and my own nature depicted with frightful grandeur”. Although he later denounced pessimism as decadent, he remained an unhappy man and under the permanent influence of Schopenhauer’s thought.Nietzsche was very appreciative of the Upanishads and, indeed, contemptuous of those Europeans who, devoid of intellectual discernment, wanted to convert and “civilize” the Brahmans.When Paul Deussen told him his plan of translating ancient Hindu texts and expounding their wisdom, he expressed great enthusiasm saying that Indian philosophy was the one parallel to their own European philosophy. Spake Zarathustra, the most revealing and personal of all his writings, Nietzsche propounded his central doctrine, the gospel of the superman, which is his chief legacy to the world.Passionately individualistic; he was a believer in the

89 hero. He found in the Manusmriti one of the sources of his own philosophy of superman.He so highly esteemed the Hindu text that he declared all other ethical codes to be imitations and even caricatures of this.He saw the supremacy of the Indian Brahmans as the implicit obedience of the herd to the religious and moral command of the “ruling” caste.Nietzsche was not a nationalist and showed no excessive admiration for Germany; he certainly was not anti-Semitic.He wanted an international ruling race, a vast aristocracy of artist-tyrants.Seldom in Western thought is the difference between man as he now is and man as he might become more emphatically pronounced than by Nietzsche.

During the first half of the 19th century, interest was directed towards India as a whole, but in the second half of the century, German scholars were drawn towards Buddhist thought and literature, through the publication of Burnouf’s Introduction à i’histoire Dutch Bouddhisme indien and Koppen’s Buddhismus.Even Nietzsche, who had moved away from Schopenhauer and Wagner, included in his book, Revaluation of All Values, a hymn of praise to Buddhism which he found a “hundred times more realistic than Christ’s Nativity”.Richard Wagner was so profoundly influenced by Buddhism as propagated by Schopenhauer and his followers that he confessed he had involuntarily become a Buddhist.He was fascinated by the doctrine of salvation and the ethics of compassion, before which every other dogma appeared to be small and narrow.In his play, The Victors, Wagner uses a story from Burnouf’s book about a chandala (untouchable) female, Prakriti, who was accepted into the monastic order by the Buddha to enable her to find fulfillment in here love for Ananda who had also become a monk, and to make amends for her past sins.Prakriti and Ananda were later transformed into Kundry and Parsifal in his last opera, Parsifal.The flowergirls (which Wagner took from Lambrecht’s Alexander Song) and Kingsor’s lance, which hangs above Parsifal’s head, have their origins in the story about the Buddha’s temptation through Mara.In Götterdämmerung (Twilight of the Gods), Wahnheim (the abode of illusion) and Wunschhim (the abode of desire), for

90 which the man, delivered from the necessity of having to be born again, strives, are typically Indian concepts.Countless borrowings from India are found in Wagner’s work.

In 1881 Hermann Oldenberg published his brilliant study, Buddha – His Life, Teachings and Community, which added greatly to Buddhism’s popularity in Germany.Oldenberg also edited and translated the Dipavamsa and the Vinaya Pitaka.The abundance of new material and the inherent atheism of original Buddhism inspired some German poets of the following decades. J.V. Widmann created a historically inaccurate picture of the Buddha in his epic, Buddha, as the Master who urged pantheism and atheism so that “a new golden age” could be achieved.Karl Bleibtreu’s dramas, Karma and Saviour, attempted to ease the entrance of Buddhism into Europe, but again it was interpreted inaccurately.The most complete treatment of the Buddha was achieved by Karl Gjellerup in Pilgrim Kamanita. He tried to convey some of the nature of Buddhism, and showed much knowledge of Indian customs and Hinduism. Whilst a general feeling of weariness towards all matters of the world encouraged the influx of Eastern, especially Buddhist, ideas at the beginning of the 20th century, this impact was considerably increased in the years following because of the intellectual restiveness generated by 1st World War. Buddhism in Germany was encouraged by the poetry of P. Dahlke and Harappans Much.A particularly powerful poetic treatment of the Buddha legend was achieved by Albrecht Schaffer in The Gem in the Lotas which was partly inspired by Sir Edwin Arnold’s The Light of Asia.Werfel’s play, The Mirror Man, appeared in 1920. The hero of this play leaves an Indian monastery and through the “mirror man” (the manifestation of illusion) he gradually overcomes maya (illusion) and realizes that dissociation from one’s own existence is the highest possible aim.

Most poets at that time no longer believed in the superiority of Christianity. In Josef Winckler’s comedy, Labyrinth of God or the Comdey of Chaos, the Buddha has only a smile for the twelve Apostles who want to convince him

91 that his time has ended.The hero of Stefan Zweig’s The Eyes of the Eternal Brother, the Indian Virata, attempts to lead a life without guilt.He moves down socially from one step to the other and finally realizes that one should strive to subject one’s will but not attempt to live without guilt.The hero in Alfred Döblin’s epic, Manas, is haunted by the question of where the enemies he has slain in battle will continue to suffer.He therefore goes to the land of the dead in the Himalayas, where he witnesses such terrible things that he suffers a breakdown and dies.His wife who has followed him brings him back to life.The hero then overcomes gods and demons; he no longer rejects the world but worships the forces of nature.Döblin’s descriptions of visions belonging to Siva’s world show his familiarity with Indian religious literature.Herman Keyserling who found a strong affinity between Christianity and Buddhism, was much impressed by the metaphysical profundity of India.He used Indian thought to measure European standards of conduct and morality.The influence of Keyserling on the European intelligentsia after the 1st World War particularly in Germany, was deep but short-lived.Germany, shattered from the disastrous war, had returned its attention towards India for solace and new inspiration, as is indicated by the publication of innumerable novels and poems with a predominantly Asian background.

Hermann Hesse, awarded the Nobel Prize for literature in 1946, found in Indian thought an answer to his yearning for deliverance from “ego”, and from the tyrannical dictates of temporality.Indian thought offered the most radical possibility of undoing the curse of individuation, of annihilating the “idiotic one- after-the-other” by the postulation of the eternal simultaneity of nirvana. The positive attitude of the Bhagavad Gita also appealed to Hesse.Yoga and maya are the background to the events portrayed in the Glasperlenspicl (The Game of Glass Beads).Hesse himself claimed that Yoga had an invaluable effect upon him as a means of improving his powers of concentration.The threefold sequence of sensual love, wisdom, and self-denial experienced by the poet Bhartrihari is interpreted by Hesse as the result of humble and wise humanity. In Journey to the Orient, Hesse, whose mother was born in Malabar, says of

92 India that it was “not only a country and something geographical, but the home and the youth of the soul, the everywhere and nowhere, the oneness of all times”. It is significant that Hesse, although a Christian, repeatedly substituted the upanishadic tat tvamasi, literally “love your neighbour for he is yourself”, for Christ’s command, “love theory neighbour as thyself”.In Siddhartha, he tried to reconcile Christian and Indian piety.Other prominent German writers, such as Paul Dahlke, H. Much, Josef Winckler, Albrecht Schaffer, Franz Werfel, Stefan Zweig, Hermann Kasack, Gustav Meyrink, and Thomas Mann, drew upon Indian materials.Thomas Mann gave a new interpretation to an Indian story from the Vatalapancavimsati in The Transposed Heads, which Goethe had previously used in his poem, “Der Paria”.

French interest in Indology is also reflected in their literature, especially during the Romantic period.In common with many of his contemporaries, Francois René de Chateaubriand (1768 – 1848), who deeply influenced the Romantic Movement in France, was an enthusiastic admirer of Sakuntala. He had lived in English as a refugee from Napoleonic France between 1793 and 1800, when Sir William Jones’ translations of Sanskrit works were published. Victor Hugo (1802 – 1885) imitated an Upanishad in his poem; “Suprématie” (1870).He gathered his information from G. Pautheir’s Legends Livres Sacrés de l’Orient. Alphonse de Lamartine who did for French poetry what Chateaubriand did for French prose, wrote about Sanskrit epics, drama, and poetry in his Cours familier de Littérature in 1861. Jean-Jacques Ampère, friend of Hugo, is reputed to have said that during the Renaissance Creek works were given the attention they deserved, but in his day Indian works would be studied and another Renaissance would be witnessed.Louis Revel went a long step farther when he remarked that if Greek culture had influenced Western civilization, the ancient Greeks themselves were “the sons of Hindu thought”.Joseph Mery who wrote satirical poems on the French Restoration, could recite the works of Kalidasa and Bhavabhuti from memory. In 1825 Philaré le Charles who did much to familiarize his readers with the literature of foreign countries, wrote The Bride of Banaras and Indian Nights,

93 Paul Verlaine wrote the poem, “Savitri”, which is a short piece but is indicative that the French writers had an accurate knowledge of Indian literature.Verlaine became keenly interested in Hindu mythology during his high school days.His enthusiasm was such that he said, “Particular Indra! Qualitative c’est beau, et comme ca vous dégotte la Bible, i’Evangile et toute la dégueulade des Pères de I’Eglise”. (By Indra! How beautiful this is and how much better than the Bible, the Gospel and all the words of the Fathers of the Church.)Louis Jacolliot who worked in as a government official and was at one time President of the Court in Chandranagar, translated numerous Vedic hymns, the Manusmriti, and the Tamil Work, Kural. His masterpiece, La Bible dans I’inde, stirred a storm of controversy. He praised the Vedas in his Sons of God, and said: “The Hindu revelation, which proclaims the slow and gradual formation of worlds, is of all revelations the only one whose ideas are in complete harmony with modern science”.Anatole France saw in the Buddha “the best adviser and sweetest comforter of suffering mankind”.

English response to Indian culture in the 18th century was conditioned by the ostentatious “nabobs”, who amassed great wealth through unscrupulousness and deceit.The nabobs “raised the price of Parliamentary seats and made themselves otherwise objectionable to the old-established aristocratic society into which they intruded with their outlandish ways”.The image of the epic greatness of India was thus tinctured by the money-making vulgarity of these Englishmen.Consequently, the first reaction of the English was against their own people who were spoiling the good name of Britain in the East.During this period a large number of books were published dealing satirically with the English administration in India: for example, Mackenzie’s The Lounger, Samuel Foote’s The Nabob, Harley House, and a number of passages in Cowper’s poems. Later, English administration became firm and settled and lost some of its earlier unpopularity, and Indian philosophy and literature came to be known in England.Even before Sir Charles Wilkins translated the Gita, or Halhead published Sanskrit Grammar, Alexander Dow had published an essay on Hinduism entitled A Dissertation Concerning the

94 Customs, Manners, Language, Religion and Philosophy of the Hindus.The first European scholar to produce a real dissertation on Sanskrit learning, he pointed out the vast quantities of Sanskrit literature in existence, plus the fact that the history of the Hindus was older than that of any other people.Jones had come to India, unlike most of his contemporaries, not to amass a fortune or to seek adventure, but to study Sanskrit and Indian culture in order to transmit Indian learning to the West.Already a master of Greek, Latin, Persian, Arabic, and Hebrew, he had high regard for Western knowledge which had culminated in British achievements.Whilst British culture continued to advance, he believed, because of the free institutions of the West, the Eastern tradition of despotism caused cultural stagnation in Asia.Yet he had great esteem for Indian civilization.He was not a romantic admirer of India but, in fact, a conservative commentator.In assessing Indian heritage he employed his own criteria and Western standards. His initial conclusion was that Europe excelled in the realm of reason; India, in that of reflection. But, as he delved deeper into Indian literature, he modified his earlier opinion to admit the impressive Indian accomplishments in the natural sciences. In 1794, the last year of his life, he declared that “…..without detracting from the ‘never fading laurels of Newton’, the whole of Newton’s theology, and part of his philosophy were to be found in the Vedas and other Indian works”.His opinion of Indian philosophy was immeasurably high.“One correct version of any celebrated Hindu book would be of greater value than all the dissertations or essays that could be composed on the same subject”. Jones’ evaluation of Indian thought attracted the attention of contemporary British scholars and writers of diverse interests, such as Gibbon, Byron, and George Borrow, who acknowledged their debt to Jones’ Works and the Life. His Hymn to Narayana, in which he described the process of creation, inspired Shelley’s “Hymn to Intellectual Beauty”.Southey and Moore often cite from Jones’ writings, and E. Koeppel has recently illustrated that Shelley and Tennyson borrowed from Jones in their Queen Mab and Locksley Hall.William Robertson, Principal of the College of Edinburgh and a well-known historian, published his book, An

95 Historical Disquisition Concerning Ancient India (1791), describing the knowledge ancient Greeks and Romans had of India, her progress, and trade activities prior to the discovery of the direct sea route between India and Europe.Robertson based his assessment of Indian works on the existing literature, supplemented by his frequent conversations with high British officials in India, whose names he, for reasons of confidence, did not specify.He found both merits and defects in Indian thought and literature.

By the beginning of the 19th century, whilst Britain had gained India and Canada, she had lost America.Her industrial revolution was well under way and Britain was emerging as a new type of nation-state combining an industrial capitalist society with an imperialist democratic government.The newly gained prosperity and security from foreign aggression, and the pride of possessing a vast colonial empire, produced a sense of power – a national feeling of implicit faith in her own historical processes and political institutions – which was later to manifest itself, not infrequently, in racial arrogance. These changes inevitably affected Britain’s material and intellectual life. It was during this formative period that words of capital importance in the English language and way of life at present, and which illustrate the changing patterns in culture and ways of thinking, such as industry, democracy, class, art, and culture, came to be used with new meanings. Between the appearance of William Blake’s Song of Innocence, in which he first revealed his mystical inclination, and the death of Sir Walter Scott in 1832, the English literary tradition changed its course; the Romantic period, in essence, aimed at liberating human personality from the letters of social conventions.Whilst English Romanticism largely provided its own momentum, it was deeply influenced by Germany in the beginning of the 19th century, and India played a significant part, either directly or through the medium of Germany or Neoplatonism.

William Blake’s (1757 – 1827) belief that human life is a manifestation of eternal being ahs an upanishadic ring.His idea, quite different from the

96 prevalent one in England, that soul was the true reality and its corporal form a passing shadow, an encumbrance, and his belief that the human was divine, are reminiscent of Indian monism.He declared Jesus Christ “was the only God – and so am I and so are you”.He even regarded the beasts as “beings, the Living ones”.Blake’s deep concern and preoccupation with fundamental questions of life, his emphasis on complete harmony between art, moral problems, and beliefs, his conviction that the human and the divine are One, and his painstaking study of Neoplatonism, Gnosticism, and the Bhagavad Gita, are clearly manifested in his wirting.His Four Zoas appear to have a source in the 4 Guardians (Lokapalas) of the four quarters of the Hindu mythology.According to Damon, Blake’s zoas were derived from the three Goons, sativa, rajas and tamas described in the Bhagavad Gita.Blake’s profound emphasis on mysticism, especially in ‘Songs of Experience’ and his principal prose work, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell (1790), was radically out of character with the literary tradition in England at the time, and he was long regarded as an eccentric. In The Marriage of Heaven and Hell he vigorously and satirically denied the reality of matter and eternal punishment. In Songs of Experience, too, he protested against restrictive codes and exalted the spirit of love.His main poems were written between 1788 and 1820, the period of European discovery of Indian literature, thus Indian inspiration of Blake is plausible.Whilst some attempts to explain Blake’s thought as an independent growth away from Indian ideas could have been conditioned by prejudice against alien influences, others are the result of the critics’ inadequate knowledge of philosophical thought in general, and of Indian philosophy in particular.Consequently, even some competent recent studies, such as Désirée Hirst’s Hidden Riches, do not give proper consideration to the Indian inspiration of Blake or of English Romanticism.

Thomas De Quincey (1785 – 1859), whose qualities as a writer are fascinating despite criticism of his indulgences as a man, knew something of Indian ideas.In his famous autobiographical narrative, Confessions of an English Opium Eater who describes how in his opium dreams he was

97 hounded by Brahma, Visnu, and Siva. Thomas Carlyle (1795 – 1881) found a basis for his doctrine of superiority in the cast system. Carlyle, who was a radical early in life and in the course of years became more and more hostile to democracy and advocated British , divided humanity into supermen and helots.His way of combating anarchy by finding heroes who commanded obedience is somewhat reminiscent of Indian brahmanical supremacy. William Wordsworth (1770 – 1850), who expressed the deepest aspirations of English Romanticism, endeavoured throughout his writing to communicate his new vision of nature, which was so alien to English tradition that it was not until 1830 that his poetry was given wide public recognition. In intimacy with nature and its beauties, he also found a corrective to his personal despondency.Apart from this; however, Wordsworth seriously attempted to work out a bridge between mental and material worlds. It is impossible for a person familiar with Indian thought not to see the reflections of Vedanta in Wordsworth when he reads:

And I have felt

A presence that disturbs me with the joy

Of elevated thoughts; a sense sublime,

Of something far more deeply interfused,

Whose dwelling is the light of setting suns?

And the round ocean and the living air,

And the blue sky and in the mind of man:

A motion and a spirit, that impels

All thinking things, all objects of all thought,

And rolls through all things.

(“Tintern Abbey”, 1798)

Although Hindu thought is recognizable in Wordsworth’s poetry, it is often characterized as “unconscious” or coincidental for he is considered to have

98 been deeply impressed in his romantic ideas by his enthusiasm for France and the French Revolution.This view, however, does not sufficiently account for the fact that, after his return from France at the age of 28, Wordsworth – together with Coleridge – gave up his dreams of political regeneration for the vision of brining the greatest possible degree of happiness to the world through proper cultivation of sensibility and imagination in ‘Lyrical Ballads’. By the time Lyrical Ballads appeared, the works of Sir William Jones had spread some knowledge of Indian thought in England.Wordsworth’s friend, collaboratork, and “his spirit’s brother”, Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772 – 1834), was also guided by the same vision.Indeed, he went a step farther in dabbling with the supernatural, as is reflected in “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner”.Although Coleridge did not use Indian material, he was greatly attracted by the words and pictures of old tales, some of which must have come from India.His Eastern inspiration is to some extent attested to by the elusive yet arresting images in “Kuba Khan”.This influence is also displayed in his Circassian love song, “Lewti

Coleridge emphasized the Neoplatonic tradition and introduced into England the new idealism of Germany, which was influenced by Indian thought.More than any other English Romantic, he was responsible for bringing about the literary revolution which regarded imagination as the most important creative faculty.His cardinal doctrine, reminiscent of the Vedanta, was the wholeness of, and continuity in, self-consciousness as the basis of mental experience which was all absorbed into a single dynamic force, the divine spark in each person, the “I” of every rational being, the free will which was the eventual source of religious faith as well as of genuine perception. Coleridge was well aware of Indian literature, as is illustrated by his letter to John Thirlwell in which he said he often wished to sleep or die, or “like the Indian Vishnu, to float about along an infinite ocean cradled in the flower of the Lotus and wake once in a million years for a few minutes”. John Keats (1795 – 1821), although he knew little about India, was somewhat drawn to her as the passage about the Indian maid in

99 Endymion (1818) reveals.Keats was fascinated by the romantic aspect of Greek mythology but Endymion was severely criticized at the time for its un-Greek quality. Keats wrote all the poems which brought him such fame within twelve months of Endymion’s publication. Percy Bysshe Shelley (1792 – 1822), who wrote The Revolt of Islam and was attracted by an idealized version of the Vale of Kashmir, propounds most magnificently the vedantic doctrine of maya in his elegy dedicated to Keats.Shelley’s suggestion that birth interrupts a state of bliss which death restores

That lights whose smile kindles the Universe,

That Beauty in which all things work and move,

That Benediction which the eclipsing curse of

Birth can quench not…….. (Adonais)

Is very close to the Indian concept. Engaged in the pursuit of an unattainable ideal of beauty, Shelley was inspired by his love for the universe, which included not only the human race or even all living beings, but all elements of nature. His identification with nature – be become one with the lark in “To a Skylark”, with the cloud in “The Cloud”, and with the wind in “Ode to the West Wind” – and penetrating perception of its hidden meaning approximate Indian thought.

In 1810, Robert Southey published his long narrative poem, The Curse of Kehama, drawing upon romantic material from India.Although Soumey had studied Indian society and literature and claimed his poem as an authentic picture of India, his knowledge was imperfect, and he graphically endeavoured to show that Hinduism was a false and monstrous religion. Based on a theme from Hindu mythology, this poem conveyed little of India, but added distortion and confusion to the British view of Indian life.Ultimately, Southey himself found the poem unsatisfactory, as did his contemporaries, such as Sir Walter Scott.Southey, neither as famous nor as brilliant as his friends Wordsworth and Coleridge, was united with them in the ardour of youthful ideas, and

100 during the years of maturity, in reaction against those same ideas.The foreign influence in his poetry is so prominent that he is remembered primarily for his outlandish settings.

Thomas Moore (1779 – 1852) was also attracted by Indian material. He showed an insight into Indian society and customs in his poem Lalla Rookh (1817), which brought the then huge sum of three thousand guineas for the author.The first edition sold out immediately and during the course of the century it went into innumerable editions.In view of the fact that novels were far too expensive to buy in relation to the average income of the time, the rapid reprints of Lalla Rookh reveal more than ordinary attraction for Indian situations.Lalla Rookh consisted of four narrative poems woven into the romantic tale of a Mughal princess’ love for a Kashmiri poet.Mainly concerned with delighting his readers, Moore presented India as a land of dazzling beauty, full of magnificent palaces, splendid temples, and perfumed gardens. His descriptions of the country, however, merely underlined the prevalent conventionally distorted picture of political India.He relied on rather undependable sources, and occasionally let his imagination get the better of him, as a result of which certain absurd, even nonsensical, descriptions crept into his work. Many writers used India as a locale for European adventure. For instance, India figured prominently in The Surgeon’s Daughter by Sir Walter Scott (1771 – 1832).However, he knew nothing of India, and hinted as much in the introduction to the novel. The story begins in Scotland and ends in the territory of Haider Ali and Tipu Sultan, the famous rulers of eighteenth-century Mysore, which had recently been conquered by the British after a series of prolonged and exacting campaigns.Scott’s characters and situations were, of course, fictitious; his knowledge of Indian history inaccurate; and he had a Sctosman’s love for fairy tales, fables, and folklore.

Most fiction writers of this period had no personal knowledge of India, and used Indian situations primarily to advance the popularity of their works. But the case of Lord Thomas Babington Macaulay is somewhat different and,

101 therefore, puzzling.He was a well-known man of letters when he came to India in1834 where he lived for four years.However, he read little of Indian literature and made no serious evaluation of India and her heritage, even though scores of European scholars had revealed the richness of Indian learning, which was available in any number of European languages.If he had done so, the history of the Anglo-Indian relationship might have been different.He wrote one small volume of essays on India, but it was written with such fervour and effect that it was the standard authority on India for many years in England.The revolt of 1857 gave these essays additional popularity as they were easy on the English ear. Despite the abundance of evidence contradicting Macaulay, later English writers continued to echo his ideas again and again, thereby keeping a falsehood alive.Macaulay’s India was a distant land across boundless seas and deserts where dusky natives lived under strange stars, worshipped strange gods and wrote strange characters from right to left.

It is not surprising that India figured in English Romanticism.What does astonish historians is that the Romantic writers found India of only passing and minor interest.Perhaps the complexities of a political relationship hampered a better understanding of Indian culture. Britons came to India to govern, acquire wealth; live without interrupting their own habits and customs, and return home in comfort and economic security.Belief in their political ascendancy and material prosperity as evidence of cultural superiority possibly rendered them unreceptive to any but the negative aspects of Indian society.There were, no doubt, some British administrators who made notable contributions to Indology, but most of the traders, as well as the adventurers serving at Indian courts, were hardly men of culture; they were merely interested in “shaking the pagoda tree”.Whilst British power was reaffirmed with a certain degree of finality after the revolt of 1857, the uprising left scars on both sides.The British, proud and arrogant with success, still were mindful of how close they had come to total loss and disaster, which made them cautious, suspicious, even afraid.The Indians, on the other hand, smarting under defeat, turned to more organized preparations for their national

102 reconstruction.Each side remembered the savagery and brutalities of the other, without recalling their own part in it. It was in this atmosphere of mutual distrust and fear, later worsened by political crises and conflicts, that cultural intercourse between India and Britain took place. For instance, John Ruskin whose opinion was coloured by the events of 1857, dismissed Indians and their philosophy as “childish, or restricted in intellect and similarly childish or restricted in their philosophies or faiths”,

Ruskin wrote and spoke with equal authority and arrogance on subjects he knew well and those he knew nothing about.However, he was a great teacher – he was Slade Professor of Art at Oxford – and a master of prose.But he was a complex person, at once charming and sinister, righteous and satanic. He inherited a strain of madness and suffered intermittently from insanity. Tennyson expressed sentiments similar to Ruskin’s in his Defence of .But these are extreme examples of English response to India in which reason was subordinated to prejudice. During the second half of the 19th century, Buddhism became better known in Britain, as in Europe.Indeed, since the end of the 19th century, many European thinkers and writers have proposed the adoption of Buddhism by the West.Whatever their success, there is no doubt that in recent times Buddhism, because of its rational and realistic character, has gained popularity in the West. Of the three Eastern civilizations, Indian, Chinese, and Islamic, and Indians have influenced the modern West most, especially through Buddhism.In fact, the West – especially Christians – regarded Buddhism as so powerful that it was dangerous.

Sir Edwin Arnold’s famous poem, The Light of Asia published in 1879, which is based on Lalitavistara singing the praise of the Buddha, has become extremely popular.In America it has gone through one hundred editions, and in England between fifty to one hundred.It has been translated into several European languages.Later, scholars like T.W. Rhys Davids who greatly aided the interpretation of early Buddhism by editing Pali sources, Mrs. Caroline

103 Rhys Davids, Paul Carus, Edward Conze, Christmas Humphreys, and others contributed to the popularity of Buddhism in the West. In 1881 T.W. Rhys Davids founded the Pali Text Society, which attracted the attention of a number of European scholars to a new and important branch of Indian thought and literature.In addition to two dozen volumes of translations, the Society published one hundred and seventeen volumes of Pali texts and a Pali- English dictionary.The Buddhist Society in London and elsewhere has also played an important role in exposing the West to Buddhist teaching. Looking at the notices of meetings and lectures in any recent issue of the London New Statesman, for example, one must get the impression that during the past decade or so interest in Indian thought, particularly Buddhism, has been steadily growing in Europe. Actually, early in the 19th century, attempts were made to prove the Buddhistic origins of primitive Christianity. N.A. Notovick’s book, Inconnue Vie de Jesus Christ (Unknown Life of Jesus Christ), published in 1834, sought to prove that Jesus had been initiated into his career by a 16 year stay with Brahmans and Buddhist monks.Many scholars from different countries later combined in trying to discover cases of Christian dependence on Buddhism, such as Rudolf Seydel, A.S. Edmunds, and Richard Garbe.In 1882 Notovick’s book came under heavy criticism.In the English translation of the work he endeavoured to answer the criticisms, maintaining that the doctrine contained in the Tibetan verses was the same as that of the Gospels, differing only in outward appearance.

India even partly conditioned English character, for the conquest of India made England a powerful political and military empire.A sense of racial superiority and national exclusiveness, and of a predetermined mission, inverted nationalism which often manifests itself in understatements and in deceptively disguised self-praise for which the British are well known, strict individualism neatly integrated in collective discipline, and ability for endurance under sustained pressure, are natural consequences of the British association with India. From the early days of the East India Company, Indian words have been continuously adopted into English.Typical words are durbar,

104 bazaar, pukka, khaki, bungalow, divan, pundit, pajamas, baksheesh, begum, chop, chit, conquests, fakir, purdah, raj, nabob, darshan, verandah, vakil, zenana, palanquin, mulligatawny, chutney, , and shikar.“The Oxford English Dictionary”, observes Subba Rao “which rejects over half the words noticed by Hobson-Jobson and does not contain words which have become familiar only in very recent times, accords recognition to about a thousand words, apart from numerous compounds and derivatives”.It is, however, true that this number, large as it is, is small considering the length and intensity of Indo-British contact, and also in comparison to the English words adopted by Indian languages.The assimilation of language over this period was conditioned by the nature and need of the relationship. For instance, in the early phase when contact was predominantly commercial, the words borrowed were mainly from that vocabulary.Later, when Indian thought, literature, and philosophy began to attract the attention of the English scholars, English men of letters began to use terminology from these fields in their writing.Milton, Dryden, Orme, Burke, Scott, Thackeray, and T.S. Eliot are some of the eminent writers who made effective use of Indian words.

In a unique although incidental way, India helped to develop not only British economy and social life, but also political thought.The increasing influx of Indian wealth into England created a new class, whose widening horizon for the deployment and experimentation of political ideas required a setting of India’s size.In the East India Company Adam Smith saw an embodiment of the hated “mercantile system”.Many English political movements tested their strength and fought their early contests upon Indian questions.A few Englishmen had succeeded in carving out an empire and enforcing an organized, although intensely authoritarian, government.India provided the much needed efficiency in administration and the purpose in government for the dominant English Liberalism of the day, in addition to an operation base for free trade and the missionary activities of Evangelicalism.It was this Indian experience which influenced Utilitarian thought, and caused John Stuart Mill to criticize Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity.He called his book “little more than

105 the turning of an Indian lantern on European problems”.One obvious example of Indian influence is the development of British imperialism, another lies in the reform of the civil service.Maine was deeply influenced by India in his study of early societies. He wrote after the publication of Popular Government: “If there was an ideal Toryism I should probably be a Tory; but I should wish to win now.The truth is, India and the India Office make one judge public men by standards which have little to do with public opinion.

Echoes of Indian thought could be heard even in lands only remotely concerned with India.For instance, in the works of Mihai Eminescu (1850 – 1889), the greatest poet of Rumania, Sanskrit and Buddhist influences are found.Eminescu learned of Indian philosophy through Schopenhauer. He also had some knowledge of the Sanskrit language, although it is doubtful that he could read original Sanskrit texts.However, he translated Franz Bopp’s Glossarium Sanskriticum and a part of his Dictionary.Parts of his poetry appear to be Rumanian versions of well-known Sanskrit texts. For example, in Letter number one, his vision of the origin of the world, when the existent and the non-existent were not, is reminiscent of the “Hymn of Creation” from the Rig Veda.The idea of nirvana is frequently found in his poems.The Hindu approach to reality and beauty is reflected in many of his verses. Indian literary legends and themes are also found in poems such as “God and Man” and “Looking for Sheherezade”.Not only the title of his poem, “Tattwamasi”, indicates his familiarity with upanishadic thought, but the content deals with the identity of Atman and Brahman. Hindu monism is reflected in his

So it is that bird and man,

Sun and moon

Are born and ideological in Brahma

The Sacred –

Where all things become one.

106 Eminescu’s poetry also contains many erotic themes, such as Kamadeva, after the Hindu god of love, the spark of creation.That Eminescu chose an Indian symbol to express one of his intimate sentiments is held as “yet another proof of the deep and wide contact he had with the ancient literature of India”.

Russian intellectuals, too, reacting against the increasing mechanization of life, turned towards the East for inspiration.Although this movement was not as powerful as the Romantic movement in Western Europe, especially in Germany, Russia, aided by her rapidly expanding territorial frontiers in Asia, acquired a new Asian awareness in her national disposition.In fact, even before the big Russian advance eastwards, Chadaiev said in 1840 that “We are the darling children of the East. ……Everywhere we are in contact with the East, it is from there that we have drawn our belief, our laws, our virtue…….” He goes on to claim that as the East is declining, Russia is the natural successor to Eastern wisdom. Maxim Gorki (1968 – 1936) in a letter to Romain Rolland said that Russia was more Oriental than China. Dostoievsky declared that it would be beneficial for Russia to turn her soul towards the East.In fact, there has always been a sort of gulf between Western Europe and Russia; the former frequently referring to the latter as the East. Leo Tolstoy (1828 – 1910) responded to the East with great sensitivity. At Kazan he studied Oriental languages and literature, and came into close contact with Asian people during his frequent visits to Caucasus. He acquired an early reverent interest in Indian culture which he always retained. In 1870 he published a collection of folktales which included some Indian stories. His confession, in which he describes his spiritual struggles, refers more than once to the Buddha with admiration, relates some of the episodes of the Buddha’s Renunciation, and seeks to demonstrate the futility of human life on earth in terms of an ancient Indian parable.Ancient Indian literature, Max Müller’s series, Sacred Books of the East, and later, the writings of Vivekananda made a deep impression on him. He opposed the imposition of what he considered a degenerating Western structure on India, but disagreed with Hinduism on a number of points including Hindu cosmology. Indeed, he

107 looked upon Hinduism through the eyes of a social reformer, yet Indian thought helped him to acquire new standards by which he could revaluate Christianity.Tolstoy corresponded with a number of his Indian friends, including and C.R. Das. In Letter to a Hindu, addressed to Gandhi in 1909, Tolstoy quoted from the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita, the Tamil Kural, and modern Hindu religious writings, including Vivekananda. He urged Indians to adopt what he called “the Law of Love”, and not give up their ancient religious culture for the materialism of the West. Tolstoy was amongst the first European intellectuals who reflected on the problems facing India. It is well known that his ideas on resistance to aggression influenced Mahatma Gandhi.

Indian thought made a better impression not only in 19th century Germany than in England but even in distant America. An illustration of this influence is the America transcendentalist movement inspired by Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803 – 1882).Emerson’s central theme is that all that exists is the manifestion of a simple universal spirit.The development of Emerson’s thought is revealed in his Journals which cover 20 years.India is first mentioned in 1842. It seems that in the beginning Buddhism aroused conflicting feelings in him. Whilst he admitted the greatness of Buddhist teaching, he was uncertain of its practicability.He was drawn by the concept of the transmigration of soul: “Then I discovered the Secret of the World, that all things subsist, and do not die, but only retire a little from sight and afterwards return again”.The discovery of Hinduism and Buddhism impressed on Emerson that all religions are fundamentally the same.8 years later, Romain Rolland came to a similar conclusion which he described as the “predisposition to Vedantism”. Repelled by the increasing materialism of the West, Emerson turned to India for solace:“The Indian teaching, through its cloud of legends, has yet a simple and grand religion, like a queenly countenance seen through a rich veil. It teaches and to despise trifles”. As he grew older he became increasingly devoted to Hinduism and Buddhism.Nowhere does Emerson’s transcendentalism find more complete expression than in his remarkable

108 poem, “Brahma”, which Sencourt suggests is a translation from Kalidasa through a Latin version known to Dr. Morrison of the Indian Institute.The poem may not have been a direct translation from Kalidasa, but it was derived from him. In his essay on Plato, Emerson explicitly acknowledges his debt to India: “In all nations there are minds which incline to dwell in the conception of the fundamental Unity.The raptures of prayer and ecstasy of devotion lost all being in one Being.This tendency finds its highest expression in the religious writings of the East, and chiefly in the Indian Scriptures, in the Vedas, the Bhagavat Geeta, and the Vishnu Purana.Those writings contain little else than this idea, and they rise to pure and sublime strains in celebrating it”.

Another American who turned his attention towards India was Henry David Thoreau, a younger contemporary and friend of Emerson. He is chiefly remembered for Walden, which much inspired the pioneers of the British , and for his essay, “On Civil Disobedience”, in which he protested the government’s interference with individual liberty.In some respect, Mahatma Gandhi’s philosophy of life and programme of action were similar to Thoreau’s. Both were keen naturalists; both believed in the dignity of human labour and attempted to run self-sufficient farms; both were vegetarians, teetotalers, and non-smokers; both derived their inspiration from the Bhagavad Gita; and both were rebels against human injustice. There is some controversy about Mahatma Gandhi’s debt to Thoreau.Thoreau partisans suggest that his “On Civil Disobedience”, published in 1849, was Gandhi’s source book in his political campaign for civil resistance, because the Mahatma used themselves phrase “civil disobedience” to describe his resistance to the tyranny of the State.Beyond this use of identical phrases, there is little to substantiate this assertion. In his autobiography, My Experiments with Truth, Gandhi lists and analyzes the books that most influenced him during the formative period of his public life when he was experimenting with the political weapon which he called . In his generous acknowledgement of debts, he does not refer to the work of Thoreau.Some weight has been lent to this misconception by an open letter

109 that Gandhi wrote to the people of America, on the eve of the launching of his in 1942, in which he showed his great esteem for Thoreau, whom he called, in his characteristic humility, his “teacher”.This letter, however, also clearly states that Gandhi had found in Thoreau a teacher who, through his essay on civil disobedience, furnished him with scientific confirmation of what he was doing, and Gandhi was punctilious in his use of language.

Thoreau was deeply impressed by Hindu thought and his Journal contains many comments on his extensive reading of Hindu texts.He wrote in 1850 that the inspiration of the Vedas had fallen on him like the light of a higher and purer luminary, and risen on him like the full moon after the stars had come out.Walden contains explicit references to Indian scriptures, such as “How much more admirable the Bhagvat-Geeta than all the ruins of the East”. He even followed a traditional Hindu way of life. “It was fit that I should live on rice mainly, who loved so well the philosophy of India”.Thoreau invokes the language of silence, which is so common in India, in his silent communion with the old fisherman at the pond. Even more significant, perhaps, are the many references to the river and the definite equation of Walden Pond with the sacred Ganges. “To dismiss all of these references as simply part of Thoreau’s temperamental affinity for India is to underestimate the extraordinary influence of the Orient on his own thinking and to misunderstand the purpose of Walden”.Walt Whitman who championed American intellectual independence, was amongst those who came under the influence of the Transcendentalists.There are no explicit quotations from Indian literature in Whitman’s writings, but he knew of Indian texts.His poems show a strong sense of the brotherhood of man, and it was possibly from the Transcendentalists that he learned an all-inclusive mystical self-identification with all men and all things. In Song of Myself he says that “all religions are true”; a doctrine which has always found favour with Hindu thought. In the nineteenth century, this doctrine was powerfully reaffirmed by Swami .In some of his later poems Whitman shows a definite interest in

110 Hindu mysticism.Most significant of these is Passage to India in which he voices the characteristic Hindu doctrine that his own soul is one with the soul of the universe.

The Christian Science movement in America was possibly influenced by India. The founder of this movement, Mary Baker Eddy, in common with the Vedantins, believed that matter and suffering were unreal, and that a full realization of this fact was essential for relief from ills and pains. In Science and Health she asserts: “Christian Science explains all cause and effect as mental, not physical. It lifts the veil of mystery from Soul and body. It shows the scientific relation of man to God, disentangles the interlaced ambiguities of being, and sets free the imprisoned thought. In divine Science, the universe, including man, is spiritual, harmonious, and eternal. Science shows that what is termed matter is but the subjective state of what is termed by the author mortal mind”.The Christian Science doctrine had naturally been given a Christian framework, but the echoes of Vedanta in its literature are often striking. Late in the 19th century, Vivekananda made two trips to the United States, and was received with enthusiastic popular acclaim.There were, however, some critics who were ill-informed of his motives and of the concepts he represented, and who dreaded the influx of alien ideas. Both the devotion and dispute which his lectures evoked stimulated further American interest in Indian religion and thought.As a result, Vedanta Centres and Ramakrishna Mission were established in various parts of the country, and they flourish today as active nuclei of India thought.Even before Vivekananda fired the imagination of the American people, Sanskrit philosophy had made an impact on American scholarship by the teaching of Sanskrit at leading American universities. Later, Tagore visited the United States three times and traveled throughout the country lecturing on Indian art and philosophy and giving readings from his poetry and plays.His writing had already, and have always, received widespread appreciation.

111 Because of the advance in the mass communication media, the Indian national movement attracted the attention of European peoples who were themselves going through a period of democratic advance, fighting against traditional and aristocratic oppression.Some European intellectuals took a purely academic interest in India during this period, but others were inclined towards a synthesis between East and west.Amongst the latter, Romain Rolland, the French pacifist and author, is outstanding.He was deeply concerned with and championed the cause of Indian thought and culture.He saw a close affinity between the Aryans of the East and those of the West. He met many Indian intellectuals, especially from the Ramakrishna Mission in Europe.He wrote the Life of Ramakrishna in which he said, “I am bringing to Europe, as yet unaware of it, the fruit of a new autumn, a new message of the soul, the symphony of India, bearing the name of Ramakrishna.The man whose image I evoke was the consummation of a thousand years of the spiritual life of three hundred million people. He also wrote the world-famous biography of Mahatma Gandhi, which inspired many European thinkers. Having read this biography, Mira ben (Madeline Slade), the daughter of an English admiral, renounced a life of luxury to live in the ashram of Gandhi. In Gandhi, Rolland saw the embodiment of all that was simple, modest, and pure.Surprisingly, Rolland had never visited India. In close contact on the one had with Tagore and Gandhi, and one the other with European Intellectuals, Romain Rolland was a unique mediator between India and the West. Although a devout Christian himself, he often felt that his Christianity had more in common with the religions of India than with the church in which he was brought up.

Of modern India thinkers, M.K. Gandhi (1869-1948) had the most influence on the outside world. Gandhi has often been described as the greatest man since Jesus; he certainly was India’s greatest since the Buddha.He represented Indian idealism at its best.All his life he worked on almost all fronts of the Indian revolution, but he combated evil with good and in the true spirit of love. Satya (truth) was his God; ahimsa (non-violence), his creed. He

112 believed violence to be the antithesis of the spirit of truth. Inflicting physical injury or uttering an unkind word, even thinking ill of others, were serious violations of ahimsa. Indeed, to be truly non-violent meant that one must love his opponent and pray for him even when attacked.No wonder many Christians see in Gandhian doctrines a reflection of Christian thought. Indeed, Gandhi was a great admirer of Christianity, and often admitted the influence of the Sermon on the Mount which he believed contained Jesus’ message of non-violence.Frequently he would read passages from the Bible in his daily prayer meetings.“When I survey the wondrous Cross” and “Lead kindly light amid the encircling gloom” was his favourite hymns.Romain Rolland described Gandhi as the “St. Paul of our own days”.Gandhi was so devoted to Jesus that in the earlier phase of his career many of his Christian friends thought his conversion was imminent. But he was a Hindu to the core. Defining his attitude to a prominent Indian Christian, Kali Charan Banerjee, he said: “Today my position is that, though I admire much in Christianity, I am unable to identify that Hinduism, as I know it, entirely satisfies my soul, fills my whole being, and I find a solace in the Bhagavad Gita and Upanishads that I miss even in the Sermon on the Mount.”Kropotkin’s essays awakened Gandhi’s ideas of pacific .His completely no-violent society to be stateless, for it was not possible to impose no-violence on a person or society.Tolstoy’s The Kingdom of God is Within You and Ruskin’s Unto This Last contributed to Ghandhi’s philosophy.

Gandhi, although he belonged to humanity and wielded unparalleled influence over millions of people all over the world, was, in all respects, essentially an Indian.As a London Times editorial said on the day after his death: “No country but India and no religion but Hinduism could have given birth to a Gandhi.” Whilst the full repercussions of Ghandi’s influence are still to be seen, there is no doubt they will be unending and inexhaustible.His philosophy has already assumed a self-perpetuating quality.His doctrines of non-violence and satyagraha have Europe not only given Indians a new means of fighting for their rights but have become a source of inspiration to all

113 seekers of justice everywhere.Indeed, non-Indian movements, notably those led by Martin Luther King, Jr. in the American South and Kenneth Kaunda in Northern Rhodesia, might even be regarded as more truly Gandhian in essence than similar movements within India today.Since the days of the Montgomery bus boycott of 1955-1956, followed by the upsurge of the sit- Indians and freedom rides of 1960-1961, the movement for civil rights in the United States has been strongly based on the Gandhian concept of non- violence.The movement, as expected, has assumed a distinctively local character and personality, and has gained notable successes in advancing the Negro revolution in America. Martin Luther King often acknowledges his debt to Gandhian thought and literature.

In Nazi Germany, the real resistance that developed within the country itself was inspired by Gandhian theories of passiveness and non-violent revolution. Ist leader, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, was so impressed by the possibility of applying these ideas to Christianity, and employing Gandhian resistance against Hitler’s tyranny that he arranged to make a “pilgrimage to India” to visit Gandhi, but political events prevented him from undertaking the journey. Today, wherever there is a popular people’s movement against injustice, it proceeds along lines inspired by Gandhian satyagraha.Indeed, what Marx is to Gandhi is to modern active Europe pacifism.His doctrine of class co-operation and trusteeship inspires hope in those who loathe the prospect of achieving progress only through . Persuasion, not coercion, is the keynote of polity today. In fact, serious, and in some ways diverse, British writers, such as Sir Stephen King-Hall and Kingsley Martin, suggest that any resistance to nuclear war must be non-violent, organized on Gandhian lines. An Indian Gandhi scholar writes, “Countries distant from India, wherever the field is ready or rather where there are workers in the field have been influenced by the Gandian approach to the spiritual and practical fusion. Serious studies in Group Dynamics, group and individual action-therapy are being pursued in great institutions abroad; the Gandhian quantum which

114 stimulates higher loyalties and cohesion rather than spreads negative crowd- infection has stimulated new sociological and applicational research.’

Romain Rolland spoke for many of Gandhi’s Western admirers when he wrote “Gandhi is not only for India a hero of national history whose legendary memory will be enshrined in the millennial epoch.He has not only been the spirit of active life which has breathed into the peoples of India the proud consciousness of their unity, of their power, and the will to their independence. He has renewed, for all the people of the West, the message of their Christ, forgotten or betrayed. He has inscribed his name among the sages and saints of humanity; and the radiance of his figure has penetrated into all the regions of the earth. The American missionary, John Haynes Holmes, declared: “If I believe in rebirth, I should-I mention it with due respect-see in Mahatma Gandhi the Christ returned to our world.” Aurobindo Ghose (1872-1950), the modern Indian philosopher, transformed the Hindu spiritual heritage into a dynamic spiritual evolution. He is the only modern Indian thinker known both as a Yogi and as a philosopher. He sought to reconcile the theories of ancient Vedanta with those of modern scientific materialism and vitalism, thus attempting to harmonize spiritual and material demands.He was opposed to scientific materialism that sought to reduce man to the position of an insect. He believed in the omnipresence of the One and the inevitable culmination of man’s evolution into an integral and dynamic union with Him in life. Reality, although manifold in self-expression, is one and indivisible. There is nothing else but Him, and to infuse His unity, harmony, and perfection into worldly life and nature is the mission of eventually every individual human soul. This was the core of Aurobindo’s philosophy and the central aim of his Yoga. His Spiritual Realism thus departs from the traditional Indian doctrine of maya. Aurobindo was educated in Europe, and his philosophy was greatly influenced by the theory of evolution and the Western positive attitude to the material world, but he discovered both of these elements in the Saiva and the Sakta forms of the Advaita.Romain Rolland regarded Aurobindo as the highest synthesis of the genius of Europe and the genious of Asia. He was an Indian

115 rishi who had gained a clear insight into the modern scientific mind. Instead of finding a conflict between East and West, he saw the old heritage of the East and the new knowledge of the West as one organized whole. His philosophy, like that of Gandhi, was couched in a language drawn from India’s past, but was addressed to problems posed in the modern West.

Whilst Aurobindo’s philosophy was rooted in the vedantic consciousness, his Muslim contemporary, Sir Muhammed Iqbal (1876 – 1938), was deeply committed to Islam.Poet and philosopher, he wrote one of the most popular national songs of India, “Sare Jahan settlement Acchha Hindustan Hamara”. He was well versed in European thought and culture but is better known as a poet than as a philosopher, although he inspired the creation of Pakistan. In Germany, where he completed his doctoral thesis on Persian metaphysics, he became acutely conscious of both the good and the evil of Western scientific materialism, and of the consequent agonizing inner conflicts amongst European intellectuals and nations.He admired the vitality and dynamism of European life but criticized its mechanistic and utilitarian aspects.In his poems and teaching he combined his Islamic beliefs with Western rationalism, and was heavily influenced by Nietzsche.Although a mystic, he preached the glorification and divination of desire rather than its negation.Somewhat like the Bhagavad Gita, he urged man not so much to seek God as to seek his own true self.The essence of his philosophy was the quest for perfect man which could only be achieved through persistent and continuous personal effort. During the last years of his life, Iqbal was increasingly attracted by the progress of Soviet Russia.

Rabindranath Tagore (1861 – 1941) was a poet, philosopher, educator, and above all, a humanist. Fundamentally inspired by the Upanishads, he did not believe the new India belonged to one race or religion but to humanity. His visits to Western capitals were invariably attended by huge crowds, and he became an object of world-wide adoration. For a poet, especially of a subject-nation, this reception was unique. Despite this, the award of the Nobel

116 Prize in 1913 to Tagore, against the claims of such famous Europeans as Thomas Hardy, Anatole France, Tolstoy, and Zola, drew protests from certain sections of the European and American press because Tagore was not “white”. Perhaps in honouring Tagore, the West was endeavouring to show its appreciation of the Indian heritage which he so nobly symbolized.Tagore wrote in both Bengali and English, and from 1913 onwards his poetry was translated into practically every European language.No other Indian has received greater honour in the West during his life-time. Such appreciation cannot be altogether devoid of understanding.The west, involved in the conflicts of political and military alignments, and on the brink of the First World War was frustrated at the futility of material advancement. At this time Tagore brought to them a message which appealed “to their intelligence, their goodwill, their longing for emancipation from the chains of dead matter, speaking to white, black and yellow in the same language …….with the simplicity of a child and a prophet”. After the war, Europe’s response to the culture of Asia took conflicting forms. Whilst some thinkers defend the West, others hailed the East. In this process of European rethinking, India and Tagore played an important role, Numerous Western readers eagerly read Tagore’s works, hoping to find mystical solace from the frustrations of life. Many European intellectuals were so firmly convinced that only Eastern ideals could save them that innumerable pseudo-oriental societies were founded all over Europe.Many of these societies had inaccurate knowledge of the East and practiced popularized forms of pseudo-Buddhistic and yogic cults.

Amongst the many European intellectuals and artists Tagore met, William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939) was one of his more intimate friends.He dedicated The Gardener to Yeats. Yeats’ belief that poetry was the product of a mystical experience, a state of trance where worldly conflicts melt away and the subconscious is transformed into artistic creation had Indian origins.Yeats had discovered India, in fact, long before his intimate contact with Tagore. He had published his essay The Celtic Element in 1897, followed three years later by an essay on Shelley in which he compared the ministering spirits of

117 intellectual beauty with the Devas of the East. Impressed in his adolescence by Sinnett’s Esoteric Buddhism, he was alienated from science; Theosophy, Buddhism, Odic Force, and poetry constituted his world for a long time. In his Autobiography he recalls that it was under the impact of psychical research and mystical philosophy that he broke away from his father’s influence, and he spent much time in mystical gatherings during his school days. Describing his first meeting with a Hindu philosopher at Dublin, Yeats said: “It was my first meeting with a philosophy that confirmed my vague speculations and seemed at once logical and boundless.Consciousness, he taught, does not merely spread out its surface but has, in vision and in contemplation, another motion, and can change in height and in depth”. His appreciation of India, however, in common with many European intellectuals, was more romantic than academic.After his contact with Tagore and his discovery of the English version of the Gitanjali, he turned more towards the East for inspiration. When Sir William Rothenstein, the celebrated English art critic and painter who was chiefly responsible for introducing Tagore to English intellectuals, gave Yeats the manuscript of the Gitanjali to read before it was published, Yeats was so deeply moved by it that he carried it with him everywhere. He records in his preface to the first edition of Gitanjali: “The lyrics…..display in their thought a world I have dreamed of all my life long.The work of a supreme culture, they yet appear as much the growth of the common soil as the grass and the rushes”.He continues: “A whole people, a whole civilization, immeasurably strange to us, seem to have been taken up into this imagination; and yet we are not moved because of its strangeness, but because we have met our own image, as though we had walked in Rossetti’s willow wood, or heard, perhaps for the first time in literature, our voice as in a dream”.Yeats wrote some poems which had an Indian setting, such as “Jealousy”. “Kanva on Himself” is based on a Hindu prayer: “I have lived many lives…….Everything that has been shall be again”.

The quality Yeats valued most in Tagore’s poetry was his union of sensuous images and deep spiritual appreciation of life. Yeats also aspired to

118 what he called the “unity of being”, to bring together the natural and the spiritual world in his poetry.In his conception, nature and God were not separated by thought, and the constricting sense of guilt was banished by gaiety and joyfulness in which the creative mind of the artist had been freed. According to Yeats, European writing, despite its familiar metaphor and general structure, was no longer acceptable because spirit and matter were irrevocably separated and as a result nature had become evil. Yeats could not forsake nature which was so full of art, beauty, and music. In Tagore he found a saint who sand of the joy in life without disturbing its deep sense of sanctity.Unlike Tagore, however, Yeats was keenly interested in the Yoga system and the Tantra.The authoritative texts of these two systems had reached Europe at about the same time and they made a further impact on Yeats.Towards the end of his life Yeats moved away from Tagore a little, but he continued to draw inspiration from India, which contained for him the vision of the final harmony in human life.Like another Irish poet, George William Russell (popularly known as A.E.) who had also come under the influence of the Upanishads and Theosophy, Yeats discovered an identical spirit underlying both Gaelic and Indian civilizations. In his “Meru” (1935) – Meru is the central mountain of the world in Indian mythology – Yeats contrasts the peaceful life of the mystic, despite the hardships of nature, with the transitory cycle of creation and destruction exemplified in the world of man.Yeats was influenced not only by Indian mysticism, but also by the secular aspects of Indian classical literature and art.Traces of the influence of Indian secular thought are also noticed in the works of other writers, such as , Havelock Ellis, and D.H. Lawrence, who found support in the Kama Sutra for their revolt against the rigid sexual ethics of an earlier period.This text, widely read despite restrictions on it of various kinds, has had a far more subtle effect on West people than is often realized.

The mysticism of T.S. Eliot, Aldous Huxley, and W.H. Auden clearly stems from Hindu roots.Aldous Huxley, an exacting critic, a brilliant novelist, and a satirist of his age, was deeply concerned with Indian religions and philosophy.

119 He was, however, a highly sophisticated European with scientific training. He tested both aesthetic enjoyment and mystic experience by what he saw in conduct and behaviour, both in himself and in the world around him. He found many faults with the Indian attitude towards life. Yet he was convinced, after prolonged reflection, that society could not be changed unless the individual sensibility, cleansed of all passions, proceeded towards self-realization through selflessness.In ‘Beyond the Mexique Bay’ and ‘Ends and Means’ he suggests that the flux of time is an illusion caused by man’s preoccupation with his personal affairs, and it is through contemplation that man can merge into the timelessness of reality. For the first time in Ends and Means, a pacifist manifesto, Huxley almost reverentially mentions Gandhi, in whose achievement means and ends are inseparable.In Ape and Essence, he regarded Gandhi’s assassination as a cosmic tragedy.The Perennial Philosophy is yet another illustration of his knowledge of Indian thought, especially the Vedanta.T.S. Eliot shows considerable knowledge of and sympathy with Hinduism and Buddhism in his writings.The Waste Land, for instance, contains references to a sermon of the Buddha and to a famous passage of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, and concludes, like an Upanishad, with the Sanskrit words Shantih shantih shantih (Peace! Peace! Peace!!!!).Four Quartets reaffirms his familiarity with and interest in the Hindu and Buddhist texts. In “The Dry Salvages”, which treats time and eternity, he makes an explicit reference to the Bhagavad Gita and to its cardinal doctrine of niskama karma – that all man’s actions should be motivated by rightness and goodness, not by expectation of gain or merit.

Indian influences can easily be seen in Somerset Maugham’s The Razor’s Edge, and in the writings of Edith Sitwell, Christopher Isherwood, and Gerald Heard.C.G. Jung interpreted Hinduism and Buddhism in terms of his psychological system, and pointed out the great significance of Indian thought for the modern West: “We do not yet realize that while we are turning upside down the material world of the East with our technical proficiency, the East

120 with its psychic proficiency is throwing our spiritual world into confusion. We have never yet hit upon the thought that while we are overpowering the Orient from without, it may be fastening its hold upon us from within”.Many other Western scientists have been profoundly attracted by Indian thought, causing them to revise their own intellectual pre-suppositions and inheritance.The relationship between the body and the mind is as much a concern of the Western psychologist as it was of the ancient Indian philosopher. Kenneth Walker, a famous British surgeon, has devoted a good deal of time and writing to the study of Indian thought and literature in search of an answer: From the point of view of science we see man as an elaborate piece of mechanism, his actions determined by man’s endocrine glands, his central nervous system, his hereditary endowments, and his environment. From philosophy we learn that his capacity for knowledge is strictly limited, so that by means of the sense organs alone he can never know reality.This is confirmed by Eastern philosophy, but a new idea is added. Man, as he is, can see no more and do no more, but by right effort and right method, he can gain new powers, understand more, and achieve more. Finally we have the confirmation of this idea by religion. Whatever may be the differences in their creed, whatever may be the variations in their philosophy, all religions, without exception, contain this idea of the possibility of change, so that a man may become other than he is. From the point of view of all religions man is a being in who are lying latent higher powers.

Amongst contemporary interpreters of Indian culture and philosophic thought, S. Radhakrishnan is the best known. His many works, almost thirty, written in superb English with arresting originality, his long period of teaching Indian philosophy at Oxford University, and his eloquent, lucid lectures, have made him the representative Indian philosopher for most foreigners.His scholarly status, no doubt, has been aided by his pre-eminence in Indian political life; he served a term as India’s Rastrapati, President. In fact, well

121 before Radhakrishnan’s work became widely known, he had made such an impact on the West that more than thirty years ago C.E.M. Joad published a book entitled Counter-attack from the East.The Philosophy of Radhakrishnan. Generally, Radhakrishnan is regarded as the philosopher of a dynamic idealism characterized by a deep spiritual note, a catholic outlook, an appreciation of the eternal values of all cultures and religions, and an abiding, confident optimism as to the future of human civilization.His idealism contains certain influences of Western thinkers such as Plato and Hegel, but it is essentially upanishadic in its comprehensiveness.He accepts the monistic and the theistic view of the Upanishads, and does not subordinate the one to the other.The essence of his idealism is the primacy of the spirit and its manifestation in matter, life, mind, and self. It is not the substance of Hegel, for it is not immobile but dynamic and real. It is felt everywhere, although seen nowhere.The spirit is the absolute, and is not only imminent but also transcendent.He is a follower of Samkara, but does not regard the world as an illusion (maya), as most other Advaitins do. Although the creation of the world is inexplicable, the world is inexplicable; the world is not devoid of value and importance. He would prefer to treat the world as a combination of being and non-being.

Of the other interpreters of Indian culture who have made substantial impact on Western thinking. Ananda Coomaraswamy (1877 – 1947) is unique. Born in Ceylon of a highly successful Ceylonese barrister and a British mother, and originally trained as a geologist, he became a scholar and philosopher wholly wedded to the Indian tradition.His masterly analysis of Indian culture exhibits a rare combination of scientific investigation and artistic formulation.His researches include work on archaeology, philology, iconography, metaphysics, and religion. For the last thirty years of his life he worked at the Boston Museum of Fine Arts. His writing reveals a devoted, painstaking, and erudite scholarship, encyclopaedic intellect, and sensitive insight.His works have acquired such a high degree of authority that it is virtually impossible to pick up any significant modern work on Indian art which

122 has not drawn upon Coomaraswamy. He wanted India to remain Indian and continue to demonstrate that a pattern of life rooted in religion and philosophy can also be elegant, graceful, and fully satisfying.In India philosophy has been the key to the understanding of concrete life, not a mere intellectual exercise in abstract thought. In Jagdish Chandra Bose can be seen a remarkable Indian response to Western impact.Bose, a pioneer of modern Indian science, combined ancient Indian introspective methods with modern experimental methods to demonstrate “the universal livingness of matter” or “the omnipresence of Life in Matter”.He demonstrated by laboratory tests, using special scientific instruments of extreme delicacy and precision, that plants possessed life. Modern science thus endorsed the ancient upanishadic truth that the entire universe is born of a life-force and is quivering with a touch of animation.His work represents the triumph of spirituality over extreme materialism.

In 1897, two disciples of Sri Ramakrishna, Swami Vivekananda and Swami Brahmananda, founded the Ramakrishna Mission with its headquarters at Belur near Calcutta.Whist Brahmananda remained in India as head of the organization, Vivekananda pioneered the establishment of Ramakrishna Missions in America and other Western countries.However, when Vivekananda first visited the United States in 1893 to attend the World- Parliament of Religions at Chicago, he did not come as a missionary of the Ramakrishna cult but as an exponent of Vedanta philosophy.So Vedanta philosophy got further circulation before the Ramakrishna movement gained currency.In any case, the distinction between the two is small. Vivekananda boldly proclaimed that Vedanta was destined to be the religion of mankind. He received a spontaneous ovation at the Chicago meeting when he gave his remarkable presentation of the Hindu religion.He won popular recognition abroad for India’s ancient civilization, for the Vedanta philosophy, and for India’s newborn claim to nationhood.Such was the impact of his personality that wherever he went, whether in Europe, China, or Egypt, he created a minor sensation; in America he was called the “cyclonic Hindu”. The influence

123 of Vivekananda and the Ramakrishna Missions, through their maths in almost every Western capital, is considerable.Although essentially Hindu, they advocate the oneness of all religions and the doctrine of “one goal of the many paths”.This extreme religious tolerance has a natural appeal to many in the West.There are some, however, who dread a deeper challenge in this “live and let live” approach.

How deeply Indian ideas have impressed the Western mind through Theosophy can be gauged by the great popularity of the works of J. Krishnamurti who was acclaimed in his youth as “Messiah”. The central theme of Krishnamurti’s teaching is that it is through self-knowledge that man comes to eternal reality. The term Theosophy is a translation of the Sanskrit term, Brahmavidya.First used in the third century by the Greek philosopher, Iamblichus, it meant the inner knowledge concerning the things of God.In its modern sense, Theosophy was a movement founded by Madame H. P. Blavatsky in 1875 in New York.The Theosophical Society is a non-sectarian body whose creed is that there is no religion higher than truth.It seeks to form a nucleus of the universal brotherhood of humanity, without distinction of race, creed, sex, caste, or colour; to encourage the study of comparative religion, philosophy, and science; and to investigate unexplained laws of nature and the powers latent in man. Theosophy, signifying knowledge of Brahman or the Absolute, closely follows the concepts propounded by the Upanishads and Indian philosophies.For example, the doctrine of the one transcendent, eternal, all pervading, all sustaining, self-existent life, and of the re-incarnation and liberation of soul bear deep affinity to Hindu ideas.Theosophists regard India as the guardian of secret wisdom and esoteric science, and the chief exponent of the transcendent unity of all religions. In addition to the influence of the Theosophical Society in the West, Theosophy has also had a notable impact in the countries to the east of India. In Indonesia, for instance, early nationalism came under Theosophist influence through Taman Siswa, literally garden of pupils, and Sukarno at one time subscribed to Theosophy.Madame Blavatsky founded a branch of the Theosophical Society in Java in 1883; by

124 1910 it had a membership of over two thousand, about half of which were Europeans, and the rest Indonesians and Chinese.The Theosophical movement in Indonesia also ran its own schools, called the Arjuna Schools.

Yoga, which seeks to join the unenlightened nature of man to the enlightened and divine part of himself through knowledge and discipline of mind and body, is becoming increasingly popular in the West.The Western world is best acquainted with Hatha-yoga (the yoga of body control), as is indicated by a flood of publications on the subject and the rapidly growing number of Yoga schools. Paul Brunton’s The Hidden Teaching beyond Yoga, published in 1941, and has gone through eleven printings.The first official recognition by a British local authority was given recently when the Birmingham City Council introduced courses in Yoga, for which there had been a growing demand for some years. Reporting on the Birmingham Yoga Schools, the Times (London) on 23rdFebruary 1965 observed: “The attractions are often relaxation and gentle exercise, and the air of Oriental mystery which surrounds the classes.The long list of pleasures from which a fulltime yogi should abstain seems not to be observed by night school students. Many of them say they would not want to ‘go in any deeper’, but in subtle ways the classes have changed some of their beliefs”.The father of the Yoga philosophy, Patanjali, defined it as “restraining the mind-stuff from taking various forms”. Based on psychological conception by the proper training of mind, Yoga aims to reach the higher levels of consciousness. It is a method of finding things out for oneself rather than a preconceived metaphysical theory of reality or of universe.Yoga aims at removing suffering, sin, and all imperfections caused by avidya (ignorance), egoism, attachment, aversion, and clinging to life, which belie the true nature of self. By eliminating these obstacles through knowledge or illumination, and by controlling the flow of ideas in one’s mind, one can become a true man. It is only natural that such a widely known system should be wrongly interpreted and even denounced at times for its quaint practices. Apparently its influence perturbed a widely read naturalized British writer so deeply that he venomously attacked Indian

125 thought, about which he knew, by his own confession, but little, and reiterated the prejudices of those who are convinced that Western philosophies are the unfailing standards of all truth.

The growing influence of Indian thought in recent years has indeed frightened some Western religious writers, such as Hendrik Kraemer (World Cultures and World Religions), who have designated it as the “Eastern invasion of the West”.Perhaps excessive anxiety to defend the Western Christian tradition may have led Kraemer to over-rate Indian influence. But there are many European scholars who have denounced Indian thought in unmistakable terms.Whether response or resistance, admiration or denunciation, all are equally indicative of impact and stimulus. In a limited way the migration of Indian labour to other countries provided yet another link between India and the outside world. Indian settlers began to move to other countries in 1830, mainly to work on British plantations.This made the abolition of slavery commercially possible a few years later, when the notorious indenture system was introduced in the British Empire.Indian migration, enforced or voluntary, has possibly been second only to that of the Europeans. Whilst it does not come anywhere near the combined migration of all the European countries, it exceeds – in absolute numbers, not in the proportion of population – the recorded overseas migration of any single country. According to one estimate, twenty-eight million Indians migrated to various countries between 1834 and 1932. Today there are said to be more than four million Indians in forty countries all over the globe, in some of which they form a majority, such as British Guiana, Fiji, and Mauritius. In some they constitute strong minorities; in Britain, a recent estimate would show them to be over forty thousand.Their economic and political importance is considerable, and there must also be a significant cultural impact.

An important social survey, carried out in Britain about ten years ago, produced some surprising results.A representative sample of five thousand persons, of both sexes and all ages and classes, was chosen for questioning.

126 Nearly a quarter of the population of England did not consider that they belonged to any religion or denomination. About half the population – 47%– expressed a positive belief in a future life; a third –30%– stated that they were uncertain.What is most significant, however, is that a quarter of all those who professed belief in an after-life – an eighth of the population – did not believe that this after-life would be eternal; eleven per cent of the believers actually declared their faith in transmigration. This was “perhaps the most surprising single piece of information to be derived from this research”.Belief in reincarnation is a typically Indian doctrine and is contrary to the creeds of Europe and western Asia.Politically and intellectually it was inevitable that there should have been some reaction in Europe against an invasion of Indian learning.Reaction against alien ideas appears to be a common human irrationality.Certainly, the nature of political relationships and nationalistic pride understandably played a significant role.European nations generally were more receptive to Indian ideas during the early period of their relationship which was based on relative equality.But as European political, technological and economic supremacy over Asia came to be recognized, an attitude of superiority crept into the European – and particularly the British – outlook. The influence of political relationships on cultural intercourse is further illustrated by the fact that, once the British became overlords of India, Indian learning drew more sympathetic and imaginative understanding from other European countries than it did form the British.

The discovery of Indian thought by European scholars in the 18th and 19th centuries led to an outburst of admiration and enthusiasm, mainly because they felt that Indian thought filled a need in their European culture.Neither Christianity nor the classical cultures of Greece and Rome were considered satisfactory any more and the European intelligentsia sought to apply the new knowledge, brought in increasingly by Indologists, to their own spiritual preoccupations.Upon closer examination of Indian thought, whilst some of the deeper ideas were revealed, illusions were exposed.Even some admirers became critical and skeptical.Both reactions were based on insufficient

127 knowledge. Goethe himself moved from one opinion to the other, although he continually acknowledged the tremendous stimulus of Indian thought.This conflicting approach is in fact characteristic of the modern European attitude towards India. Although in recent years some European writer’s have made a thorough and understanding study of Indian thought, India still conjures up conflicting images in Western minds, and evokes a variety of responses ranging from Kipling’s caricatures to Max Müller’s “the very paradise on earth”. It is significant that, with notable exceptions, India appears to have been most attractive to those European who did not visit the country personally. In other words, Indian thought made a better impact on the European mind than did contemporary Indians. Although it was uneven, intermittent, and in many ways limited, the stimulus provided to the West by Indian thought was timely and invaluable.Of all the European nations Germany’s response to India was most enthusiastic and open-hearted. Perhaps the similarity between the German and the Indian mind, in the sense that both are given to contemplation, abstract speculation, and pantheism, and both have a tendency towards formlessness, inwardness, and transcendentalism, contributed toward German understanding of Indian literature.Leopold von Schroeder says:“The Indians are the nation of romanticists of antiquity: The Germans are the romanticists of modern times”. He even concludes that all the romantic minds of the West turn towards India because of the deep-rooted similarity between romanticism in Europe, and, what he considers to be, romanticism in India.Sentimentality and feeling for nature are common to both German and Indian poetry, whereas they are foreign, for instance, to Hebrew or Greek poetry.The similarity between the two peoples is further illustrated, in a different area, by the Indian tendency to work out scientific systems; India was the nation of scholars of antiquity, in the same way as the Germans are the nation of scholars of the modern times.Even if suggestions of parallels between the Germans and Indians are discounted as being over emphasized, if not altogether misleading, it cannot be denied that German response to Indian literature and philosophy was prompt and profuse, which must have

128 been considerably conditioned by some intrinsic appeal of Indian thought for the German mind.

The French were not amongst the first Europeans to come into contact with India. But, as soon as French travelers, who are known for their literary taste, visited India and reported on their travels, french literary circles responded enthusiastically. French interest in Indian studies, which was much anterior to that of the English, was distinctive for their imaginative understandings of Indian literature and thought.There have been many eminent French Indologists, and both the volume and quality of French contributions to Indian studies are remarkable. In fact it is a matter of some surprise that Indologists working in the English speaking world have not made full use of these French contributions.The British response to Indian learning was most mixed.Whilst India remained a trying political problem, she was a symbol of British power and achievement, as well as a major source of her economic wealth.India as a national political problem required collective reaction, but intellectual response was a personal matter.Individual thinkers, studied India closely and whilst some were fascinated, others were repelled.In both cases, Indian ideas stimulated British imagination and exercised influence in a variety of ways, which at times were conflicting.Often for political expedience – for instance the need to justify domination of India to the British public – British administrators were compelled to interpret Indian culture as degenerate and decadent. Even the Utilitarians, who advocated liberty and democracy, supported the continued rule of the Company so that Indian society could be rejuvenated. Another barrier between Indian and British cultural co-operation was the Englishmen working in India.The early administrators were in-different to anything except trade and profits; the later ones, after 1830, suffered from a sense of cultural inferiority, which, compounded with political superiority, manifested itself in self-righteousness, prejudices, and arrogance. They often came to India for only a few years, invariably lived an exclusive life, and returned home to condemn Indian culture and traditions with gusto. Their collous indifference to Indian art is well reflected by the fact that the liberal

129 William Bentinck, who initiated social reforms in India, seriously considered the possibility of dismantling the Taj Mahal and selling the marble to meet the shortage of money in the Company’s treasury. He was prevented because “the test auction of materials from the Agra palace proved unsatisfactory”. Fed on Macaulay, Mutiny, and Kipling, the English, no wonder, did not appreciate India.

In spite of these handicaps, Indian literature captured the imagination of a few British scholars and writers.This unknown land of romantic dynasties, luxury and exotic beauty, and mystic religions and developed philosophies became a source of inspiration for romantic literature.Indian peoples, scenery, costumes, courts, religious ceremonies, folk songs, tiger hunts, hermits, and buildings presented a kind of fairytale picture, which increasingly captured popular interest.It is a pity that Europeans did not press on with their advantage and make better use of Indian knowledge.If Indian philosophy, literature, and art had received a fuller and less inhibited appreciation in Europe, some new form of all inclusive civilization or European renaissance, more comprehensive than a mere technological and industrial revolution, might have emerged. However, a British-Indian civil servant and historian, Garratt, considered that the British rulers of India were not a good channel for cultural intercourse, for they had “failed to achieve a ‘union of Hindu and European learning’ or to give any scope to the technical skill and knowledge inherent among the people”.

INDIAN RESPONSE TO MODERN EUROPE

Whilst Europe sought ancient Indian learning, India focused her at tention on modern European knowledge.In this cultural encounter, initiative remained for the most part with Europe, for she was a young developing society with an inquisitive mind and the material resources to obtain easy access to what she fancied.In contrast, Indians even if they knew what they knew what they needed, could not get at it at will.As a result, Europe absorbed Indian wisdom within a much shorter period than Indians took to gain Western knowledge.

130 Indeed, some Western scientific theory and technological know-how has only been acquired since Indian independence.Once the initial period of romanticism and disillusionment had been overcome, and the Indo-British political relationship was firmly established, a new phase of cultural interaction between India and the West began. With the increasing Western domination of Asia and the advance in science and technology, the process of cultural exchange gained speed and momentum.The traffic of people and ideas between India and Europe grew correspondingly, and numerous, Indian intellectuals, students, officials, soldiers, tourists, princes, and merchants began to visit Britain and Europe. The cultural encounter between India and modern Europe hardly has a parallel in history.

Western tradition is a highly generalized, extremely vague, and ill-defined concept that is often stretched to included or exclude anything at will to suit the purpose in hand.It is not a unitary system of thought, nor has it an unbroken historical continuity.There are deep controversies as to its exact nature and value, and it is a complex of diverse, even contradictory, ideologies and traditions.For instance, it is equally proud of the imprints of early Greek and Christian traditions which were relentlessly opposed to each other. Even a casual investigation reveals the inherent contradictions of Western tradition.Western tradition is often characterized as one of material progress and scientific advancement, yet Christian mystical thought is superbly well developed, and until recently science was positively denounced in the Christian West.In most respects scientific inquiry was much more highly developed in the Hellenistic period than it was in medieval Europe. In fact, exactly why Hellenistic science declined needs an explanation.Again, it is repeatedly pointed out that Western tradition stems from the enlargement of individual liberties, and that individual liberty is the essence of Western civilization. Some Western scholars go much farther and assert that the West has regarded “a denial of freedom as a denial of the value of the individual and therefore as a sin against the soul of man”.Yet it is not possible to completely ignore the Western institutions of slavery, feudalism, colonialism

131 and imperialism, and racism.Western liberalism, of which the West can be justly proud, was born in the seventeenth century, as a reaction against the violence and hatred that had prevailed during the almost unbelievably atrocious religious wars.But even since then, liberalism has not remained unchallenged in the West. Indeed, totalitarianism and suppression of freedom of thought and person appear to be the unbroken trend of a Western tradition that can claim most of the great despots of world history, including Alexander, Julius Caesar Nero, Napoleon, Hitler, and Mussolini.This fact is even more startling when these dictators and conquerors are contrasted with the prophets of non-violence and peace, such as Jesus Christ, Gautama Buddha, Asoka, and Mahatma Gandhi, who were all born in Asia. Even the concept of the divine right of kings found far more serious advocates amongst Western monarchs – the Greek Alexander, the Roman Caesars, Russians Czars, French Bourbons, and British Stuarts.It is true that the Western world has continuously fought for liberty, but this only serves to illustrate the existence of anti-freedom forces and a totalitarian current in Western tradition.

Again, it cannot be claimed, as is often done, that the rise of Christianity did much to improve the position of the individual, for religious persecution has been a common feature of Western Christianity.The once persecuted Christians, having gained power, themselves became persecutors; Caesar was more, not less, divine when he became the sword of Christianity. The terrible struggles between Church and State were not fought for individual, or even religious, freedom; the Church sought to compel the secular power to serve its own purposes.Any individual who did not subscribe to the Church’s belief was at once denounced as a heretic.Crusades and religious wars of extermination were often as bloody as Hitler’s slaughter of the Jews and Gypsies.The Church even persecuted the medieval minstrels and Gypsies because they loved freedom. Once the so-called heretics came to power they were no less tyrannical and no more tolerant than their erstwhile persecutors. It was Calvin, an apostle of Protestantism, who managed to bring secular and religious life under a single authority, and thus to direct thought and action

132 alike by “the rule of the saints”.His was the first monolithic party of the Western civilization, from which all totalitarian states have learned. “Toleration, when it came did not spring from deep-rooted conviction; it originated in the boredom and weariness of the mass of ordinary men with the conflict of totalitarian rulers who had struggled to tear Europe apart”.

Christianity, which is in practice a unique combination of beliefs and clergy, whilst owing its religion to Jesus and his early Asian disciples, is, in strict ecclesiastical hierarchy, an essentially Western movement.Whatever may have been the value of the Church in religious practice, it has inhibited freedom of thought and individual liberty by relentlessly enforcing its presuppositions as eternal truths. It is the Church which sets moral standards for the individual and prescribes his belief.The organization of the Church is unparalleled in history.No federation of states has been as comprehensive and universal in taking hold of the minds of people, and no monarch or dictator has been given the complete and willing obedience of such a wide and vast body of peoples as has the Church.The Islamic Caliphate and Buddhist monasticism were, in this respect, no way comparable to the Christian Church.The former was too often divided, and was always too temporal to command any control of minds, and eventually was abolished. The Buddhist Sangha was, at best, a collection of autonomous monasteries.

Communism, with all its scientific reason, humanism, and economic equality, is essentially a totalitarian doctrine, negating individual liberty, and is a typical, almost exclusive, Western concept. stresses the primacy of reason, but, like a missionary religion, it has a sense of its own infallibility and an obligation to world-wide expansion. Its greatest exponents have mainly been Western or Western-trained.

Even British thought, which was more directly and closely linked with India than that of other European countries, had its own inner conflicts and contradictions in respect to India, ranging from Edmund Burke’s liberalism and John Stuart Mill’s utilitarianism to John Bright’s radicalism. Burke desired India

133 to stay Indian; in fact, he was rather anxious to reform the disreputable English trustees in India.He strongly condemned the facile and much used aspersion of “Oriental Despotism” and warned his countrymen against passing judgment upon a people, for ages civilized and cultivated, who formed their laws and institutions prior to “our insect origins of yesterday”. The Utilitarians and Evangelicals, on the contrary, saw little good in Indian society and desired to Westernize it completely by denying individual liberty to the Indian. The Utilitarians, whilst not denying the abstract right to liberty, could see no alternative to a benevolent British despotism in India, conducted from London. India exposed Utilitarianism’s paradox between its principle of liberty and that of authority.The Evangelicals’ viewpoint was religious; they believed that only through Christianity could temporal welfare and spiritual salvation be achieved.Therefore they looked upon the British conquest of India as a divine act of punishment for Indian paganism, and an opportunity for Indians to redeem themselves from their depraved system of superstition.Thus they sought the rapid conversion of the peoples of India to Christian ways, as interpreted by Western clergy.If utilitarianism provided a justification and a practical basis for British imperial rule in India, Evangelicalism gave it a sense of urgency and intense zeal. Each diverse current of thought or tradition had its corresponding influence on India, and the Indian response, consequently, was as varied as Western tradition itself.The Portuguese were the first European power to expand into India.Their activities were essentially an extension of the Christian crusade against Islam, and a search for trade. Although they were the last of the colonial powers to leave Indian Territory (in 1961), their imprint on Indian culture is negligible.

Whilst the 17th century marked the zenith of India’s mediaeval glory, the 18th century was a spectacle of corruption, misery, and chaos.The glory of the Mughals had vanished, life had become increase, the nobility was deceitful and oppressive, and intellectual curiosity had given way to superstitious beliefs.The country was in a state of military and political helplessness. In this atmosphere, literature, art, and culture could barely survive.The malaise of

134 India was aggravated in full measure by the East India Company with its indiscriminate exploitation, corruption, and bribery. In contrast, Europe was robust and vigorous.This was the Age of Enlightenment, and Europeans had gone through a process of rebirth during which religion was detached from state, alchemy from science, theology from philosophy, and divinity from art.A Western scholar recently asserted that “Western science and philosophy as they have developed in the last three or four centuries, are the most sustained, comprehensive, and rigorous attempt ever made by man to understand himself and his environment, physical and social…..”Even if the achievement of the modern West is not as unprecedented as is claimed, there can be little doubt that the cultural vitality, the variety, and the spirit of scientific inquiry displayed by Europeans in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries mark the rise of a civilization more dynamic than anything seen in the West since Alexandria’s heyday. Thus, the impact of Western culture on India was that of a dynamic society on a static one. It is a cruel irony of history that whilst two major – the French and the American – upholding the human rights to liberty and equality were taking place in the West, India was in the throes of losing her own freedom to Western mercantile imperialism.

The West provided India with the necessary impetus for a real stock taking and reform.The introduction of Western culture, education, and scientific techniques gave traditional Indian life a jolt, shocking Indians into a new awareness and vitality in thought and action.Long dormant intellectual impulses emerged and a new Indian spirit was born.During the period of Western supremacy in India, the conflict of two civilizations certainly produced unrest, but it also sustained and stimulated intellectual life. Western influences became effective in India mainly through the British, who were the pioneers of a new technological and industrial civilization.They represented a new historic force which was later to change the world, and thus were the forerunners of change and revolution.Although Indian and Western civilizations were at approximately the same level at the time, they were tending in different directions: the former was declining, the latter progressing.India lost to Europe

135 because it lacked political organization, including a central government, and a progressive outlook.

The British domination of India has been described as a “political and economic misfortune”, and in some respects it was indeed enervating and devitalizing. Dadabhai Naoroji, whilst pointing out the many blessings oflaw and order it had conferred on India, called the despotic system of government in British India “un-British”, for it was as destructive to British ideals and honour as it was to India. In 1937, a distinguished British civil servant, G.T. Garratt, declared that the period of Indo-British civilization of the previous one hundred and fifty years had been most disappointing, and “in some ways the most sterile in Indian history”.This must come as a shock not only to those who have been brought up to believe in British virtue but also to those who do not take an uncritical view of British colonialism.Garratt was no Indian nationalist charged with exaggerated patriotism.He had scrupulously analyzed the problem and advanced some impressive arguments in support of his assertion, although he no doubt overstated his indignation at “what could be done but was not done”.Whilst it may be irrelevant to dwell here upon the merits and demerits of British colonial policies, there can be no doubt that British impact led to such a transformation of Indian society that Indians, in retrospect, may even be thankful for what the British did regardless of what they did not do.Western influences were very different from any India had received before. This time the newcomers not only had a different religion but also a different outlook on life, and an which was the result of new scientific and technological advances.They had firm political values, well-developed cultural traditions, and superior technological skills.Above all, their organization in all respects – military, religious, economic, and political – was remarkable and iron-cast. Whilst India has always held her own in the realm of thought, broadly speaking, organization and co-ordination have never been her strong points.Indeed, in India, as in no other civilization, except with doubtful and partial exceptions in ancient Greece and modern France, extreme intellectual individualism has been a dominant, zealously guarded

136 characteristic. Complete freedom of individual thought, academic disputes, and philosophical debates led to enriched Indian cultural heritage.But individualism caused frequent clashes, frustration, and indifference in political and military spheres.No serious attempt was ever made by Indian states to direct and superintend the dissemination of Indian culture.It is indeed surprising that whilst intellectually so independent and individualistic, Indians followed for centuries a caste system almost unparalleled in its rigidity.That they were unable to suppress its ugly features, and paid for it heavily in terms of social suffering and cultural decline, would further emphasize the Indian lack of collective discipline and organization.

It is not a rarity that intellectual perseverance and thoroughness of analysis add to the infirmity, rather than to the clarity, of conclusions. Having searched into all aspects of a problem, Indians do not necessarily feel the need to opt for one view or the other.They are quite content to accept the reality of contradictions in a given situation, a quality which baffles most people but is easily acceptable to the Indian mind. Indians accept reality as it is, which may or may not be unitary, and their decisions and beliefs are generally tentative, for the finite mind cannot always comprehend totality.Contradiction, not compromise, has been the keynote of Indian intellectual and political strengths and weaknesses, and even conditions her present-day revolution. Compulsion to make a firm choice in cases of conflicting views often results in merely selecting a preference for the one against the other.There is no fervour of conviction in it.Whenever there is fervour in Indian convictions it is generally emotional and indecisive; belief based on pure emotion is passion, not conviction.Consequently, upon being confronted with British power, India could neither penetrate the steel ring of British organization nor could she absorb their culture into her own pattern. Intellectually indifferent, spiritually subdued, and physically weak at the time, Indians found an adjustment with the newcomers not only practical but essential.

137 Indian response to Western impact was first noticed in religion.Indians were not unfamiliar with Christianity, nor were they ill-disposed towards it. Christianity dated to the 1st century A.D. in India, long before Britain had even acquired the necessary degree of cultural sophistication to be able to appreciate Christian doctrines.Whilst Indians were attracted of Christian missionaries, and they were repelled by their excessive zeal, their religious arrogance, and their harsh criticisms of Indian religious practices and social customs. Indians could not understand the narrowness and intolerance of the Christians, in marked contrast to India’s inclusive and tolerant religion. They were prepared to admit Christ as one of the prophets of God, but not as the only son of God.Despite their indignation at the new heralds of Christianity, Indians became acutely conscious of their own inadequacies and intellectual inertia. Even though Christian missionary activity in India became widespread during British rule, the East India Company was disinclined to mix trade and religion. From the beginning it set its face against all missionary activities, and after 1757 it decided to exclude missionary in the territories under its control.However, the Company’s attempts to restrict missionary work within its territory were frustrated in 1808 by Spencer Perceval, who has been called “the Evangelical Prime Minister” because of his zeal for Church reform. He was assassinated in 1812, but by then his efforts, in combination with those of Wilberforce and the Evangelicals, had already broken the Company’s resistance to missionaries.The Charter of 1813 required the East India Company to allow missionaries to travel on its ships, and to admit a British bishop at Calcutta. By this Act, however, the Company’s trade monopoly was abolished and its commercial opposition to missionaries weakened.

In any case, the Company had never successfully controlled missionary activity in India.Several Christian missions had been at work in various parts of India for a long time. Catholic missions had been active since the arrival of the Portuguese, and in 1780 the Serampore Mission was established in Bengal. By 1792, the spirit of evangelism had permeated Protestant churches deeply enough to move the English Baptists into organizing the first protestant

138 mission. Three years later the London Missionary Society was formed, and a powerful evangelical movement began in Britain, the vibrations of which, under the direction of William Carey, were felt in British India.Whilst the Company itself, as a mercantile corporation, could not lend its support to Christian missionary activity, many individuals in the administration felt deeply convinced of the need for evangelical work in India, and gave their active co- operation to the missionaries. Although the Christian missionaries intensified their activities under the stimulus of the Act of 1813, they met with only limited success through conversions.The impact of Christian thought itself, however, was considerable, culminating in a revival, reinterpretation, and reorientation of Indian thought.Just as the impact of Islam had given encouragement to the Bhakti movement in medieval times, the advent of Western civilization caused the growth of numerous reform movements in modern times.

Bengal, where British power was concentrated at the time, and which had felt the worst of the East India Company’s early misrule, took the lead in both cultural and political advances.The earliest stirrings of the Indian cultural renaissance appeared under the leadership of Raja Ram Mohan Roy (1772 – 1833) who made the first organized efforts to adapt Hinduism to the new situation.He made a clear distinction between good and bad traditions, and reasserted the wisdom of welcoming a good concept, regardless of its nationality. He was a scholar of Sanskrit, Hebrew, Greek, Persian, English, and Arabic.A devout Hindu inspired by the vedantic philosophy, he was also deeply influenced by Sufism and was an admirer of Christianity and Western thought, especially the writings of Montesquieu, Black-stone, and Bentham. Towards the end of his life, he was also attracted by the revolutionary movements of America and Europe. He was perhaps the first earnest modern scholar of comparative religion.Making a clear distinction between Western virtues and Western failings, he defended Hinduism against the attacks of missionaries as stoutly as he challenged the orthodoxy to abandon its ritualistic conventions.He kept in close touch with Oriental research and interpreted the ancient Indian texts in the light of Western doctrines and

139 ideas.Consequently he became an uncompromising and vehement opponent of idolatry and of all rituals connected with it. At the age of thirty-one, he published a book in Persian, denouncing idolatry and advocating belief in one god and a universal religion. He conceived the idea of a universal church, somewhat in the tradition of Akbar’s Din-i-ilahi, combining the best spiritual traditions of Hinduism, Christianity, and Islam and accepting equally the teachings of all religions. He looked beyond dogma, ritual, and philosophical dialectics to seek the fundamentals of each faith, and found them identical.

Although willing to join in Christian worship, Ram Mohan Roy was an ardent Hindu who found Hinduism’s defence against Christianity in Vedanta, which supported his ideas on the unity of God, the futility of idolatry and pilgrimages, and the doctrine of Karma and incarnations. In an exposition on Christianity, The Precepts of Jesus, the Guide to Peace and Happiness, he extolled the ethical teachings of Christ but rejected the miraculous legends about his life which he said were due to a misinterpretation on the part of his followers. Moreover, he did not believe that man could atone for his sins simply by repentance.This was, in fact, a reply to missionaries rather than a call to Indians.He regarded a bigoted Christian to be as conceited as a bigoted Hindu, and ignored both. He accepted the humanism of European thought. Whilst his denunciation of Hindu orthodoxy antagonized Hindu traditionalists, his discriminating approach to Christian doctrines displeased Christian diehards.Despite strong opposition from a superstitious and indifferent people, aggressive missionaries, and a mercenary government, he persisted in his endeavours.As a result he set India on a course of cultural reformation, which gradually gathered momentum and support, and eventually made it possible for modern India to emerge. In his attempt to bring about harmony between faiths, Roy founded the in 1828. Brahmo Samaj was not an entirely new religion, for it was based on the Vedanta philosophy, but its outlook was European, and it derived its inspiration from the intellectual movements of the eighteenth century.Doctrinally somewhat similar to

140 Unitarianism and attempting to synthesize the cultures of East and West, it encouraged rationalism and social reform.

Ram Mohan Roy, however, was much more than a religious reformer. He was a patriot who represented Indian nationalism on the defensive; its leaders at this stage were cautious, and apprehensive.He commenced the task of national reconstruction on several fronts with vigour and industry. In 1823, twelve years before Macaulay wrote his famous minute on education, Ram Mohan Roy had petitioned the British Government to introduce English rather than continue traditional Indian education. A few years earlier he had founded a Hindu college at Calcutta, where Western learning was taught. Macaulay, who is credited with having forced the issue in favour of English education, not only followed the arguments advanced by Ram Mohan Roy, but even borrowed some of his language. Roy relentlessly battled the ugly but hallowed custom of sati to save women from cruel deaths.This custom, for some unknown reason, increased in Bengal during British expansion.Ram Mohan filed petitions for its abolition before the British, and ten years later, when William Bentinck did abolish sati, Roy was profoundly moved.When a group of reactionary Indians petitioned the Privy Council in London to reverse the abolition, he appeared before the Council personally and successfully defended Bentinck’s measure. Many sincere leaders before him had exposed the evils in Indian life and religion, but none had grasped with as much clarity the passivity which had come to paralyze the Indian mind, and none had worked with such devotion, perseverance, and conviction to revitalize Indian thinking.

Ram Mohan Roy was received enthusiastically in Europe, and exercised a considerable influence upon liberal Protestants, especially Unitarians. He went to England ostensibly as the ambassador of the Mughal king to recover Mughal authority from the British Company. He did not succeed in his political mission, but he helped to bring India a good deal closer to the West. During his stay, he met leading British statesmen, philosophers, and historians, such

141 as Jeremy Bentham and James Mill. So highly did Bentham hold Ram Mohan Roy in his esteem that when the Indian scholar arrived in London in April 1831, Bentham was the first man to call on Roy at the Adelphi Hotel. Bentham was eighty-three years of age at the time and fastidious – he refused to see Mme. de Staāl in 1813 because he thought she had nothing of interest to say. In welcoming Roy at the British Unitarian Association’s reception, Sir John Bowring placed Ram Mohan in the same class as “a Plato or a Socrates, a Milton or a Newton”.Bentham even actively agitated to secure Roy’s election to the British Parliament.The new spirit of humanism and rationalism stimulated Indian thought and literature enormously. No longer was Indian writing appended to theology, mythology, and scholasticism.No gods and goddesses descended from heaven and played a part in human life. Man now occupied the foremost place, steering his course of life without divine help.This concept of the world was somewhat similar to that which had existed in the ancient past, of which only a dim recollection had survived. Soon new ideas began to fill old patterns and Indian writers and thinkers were inspired not only by the renewed spirit of humanism but also by the French revolutionary spirit of liberty and equality.

After the death of Ram Mohan Roy in Bristol in 1833, the Brahmo Samaj remained the focus of the Hindu renaissance. (1817 – 1905), who had been in intimate contact with Roy, continued the monotheistic tradition.In 1839, he founded the Tattvabodhi Sabha, which played a significant role in the cultural revival of India, especially in Bengal.Unlike Ram Mohan, and however, his ideas reflect little Christian influence. In spite of his impressive missionary activity, Debendranath, who became an ascetic, seems to have embraced Brahmoism primarily out of an intense spiritual craving, not out of any inclination for social reform. After him came the dynamic, although somewhat erratic, Keshab Chandra Sen (1838 – 1884), under whose direction the eclecticism of the Brahmo Samaj gathered momentum. His enthusiasm was infectious and he wielded tremendous influence upon his contemporaries.Widely read in Western philosophy, he was especially

142 attracted by Carlyle and Emerson.His own background was vaisnava, and Ramakrishna’s idea of the harmony of all religions captured his imagination.He wanted the Samaj to maintain not merely that there were truths in all religions but that all religions of the world were true. Not a Christian, he was nevertheless a great admirer of Christ. Indeed, his teachings were so close to Christianity that at one time his conversion to the Christian faith was thought imminent. But he was deeply saturated in Hindu thought and often, especially in his later life, would stress the validity of many vedantic ideas.He believed that many Hindu rituals and usages could be reinterpreted and restored with new symbolic meaning to suit the Bramho Samaj.Consequently, he retained many Hindu practices in Bramho worship but turned to Christianity for ethical guidance. Despite his mental prowess and unquestionable integrity, clarity or consistency of thought was not his strong point. In his New Dispensation, published in 1818, he set out to create a third dispensation – the Old Testament being the first centre of it, as Christ was of his dispensation. But immediately he felt he was a sinner; a slave of Christ, Jesudasa. He called himself “a child of Asia” and loudly claimed Christianity to be an Asian religion. He asserted that Jesus was akin to his Asian nature and ways of thinking, and that Christianity was more comprehensible to the Asian mind than to the European. He made a clear distinction between the spirit of Christianity and the fashions of Western civilization.He was a relentless opponent of hypocrisy, insisted on social purity and upright individual conduct, and preached his views throughout India with unsparing energy. In some ways he was ahead of his times. He was the first Brahmo Samaj leader to advocate the welfare and rights of men, to attempt a new interpretation of history, and to evolve a modern prose style in Bengali. He took radical positions on social and religious issues which may not have endeared him to some of his contemporaries but undoubtedly left an impact on them.After his death, the Brahmo Samaj ceased to be a living force, but by that time it had served its extremely vital purpose of national awakening. The Brahmo Samaj was an attempt to achieve a synthesis of East and West

143 by some educated and restive men of Bengal. It did not become a mass movement, but impressive leaders gave impetus to a chain of religious reforms and social consciousness which gradually bound the whole country together. Not all of these movements were kindly disposed towards Western culture, but they all created a new spirit and the face of the country began to change. Later religious movements were mainly concerned with asserting the pure and original form of Hinduism and returning to it.

Under the stimulus of renascent Hinduism in Bengal, the Prarthana Samaj so was founded in Maharastra in 1867. Bengal and Maharastra had divergent historical experiences during the Mughal period, nut they had much in common in the nineteenth century. Both had for some time been the scene of European activities and both had developed the urge to reform traditional society in a reaction against foreign domination. Eminent persons joined the Prarthana Samaj, such as M. G. Ranade (1842 – 1901) and Sir R.G. Bhandarkar; the former being its most outstanding leader. Somewhat milder in policy than the Brahmo Samaj, the Prarthana Samaj believed in the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man, but their theism rested largely on ancient Hindu thought.The Vedas, however, were not their source of inspiration, and transmigration was left an open question.The Prarthana Samaj opposed idolatry, child-marriage, prohibition of widow remarriage, and caste, but membership was not forfeited if these practices were continued. The Prarthana Samaj did for Maharastra what Brahmo Samaj did for Bengal.

Through the efforts of these cultural movements, the spread of English education, the study of Indian culture, and the increasing order-lines of political organization, there had awakened in India a deep sense of nationality and cultural pride.The emergent India demanded a more militant defence of its own inheritance, and the growth of national, as opposed to regional, movements. Soon the initiative passed to Swami Dayananda Sarasvati (1824 – 1883), who based his teachings entirely on the Vedas, “the primeval scripture of humanity”, which he regarded as the revealed word of God. He

144 thought the amorphous nature of Hinduism exposed it to much weakness, which could be repaired by possessing, like Islam and Christianity, a revealed work of unquestionable authority. Born in 1824 in Kathiawar in western India, Swami Dayananda spent many years in the quest of truth.He began his public life in 1868. After an extensive lecture tour severely criticizing certain weaknesses of Hinduism, as well as those of Christianity and Islam, he founded the in 1875; it has since been an active movement in Hindu life, especially in the Punjab.

Untutored in English but a profound Sanskrit scholar, Dayananda, in his most important work, the Satyartha Prakash, made a brilliant attempt to discover in the Vedas the bases of the Christian and Muslim religions. His chief convictions were that there was only one God to be worshipped, without the aid of idols.The many divine names which occur in the Vedas were all epithets of the one true God. Many other Hindu texts were of value but they were not to be followed where they contradict the Vedas.Swami Dayananda relentlessly opposed priests, who he believed had caused discord and disunion, in marked contrast to prophets of other faiths who had attempted to unite humanity.He emphasized the fundamental purity of Hinduism, as he conceived it, which was to him the original Vedic religion.

Fearless and overpowering, Dayananda aimed at giving self-confidence back to Hindus, although he ruthlessly denounced the deplorable practices prevalent in contemporary Hinduism. He asked Hindus to adopt modern ideas that impressed him, and he introduced militancy into Hinduism.His strong urge to assert found expression in the Shiddhi movement to take Hindus who had been converted to Islam or Christianity back into the fold. This was a novel experiment which was resented by Muslims and Christians. However, belonging to proseletyzing religions themselves, they really had no logical argument against this practice, even if it were a new one for the Hindu. As there is no sanction in the Vedas for caste and other taboos that had gripped Hindu society the Arya Samaj vigorously advocated drastic social

145 reform.For example, it spent large sums of money on sacred thread for millions of untouchables, thus making them equal to other members of the Hindu society.However successful the Arya Samaj may have been as a militant organization, its appeal was mainly confined to the Punjab, chiefly for two reasons.By exclusively emphasizing the Vedas, it ignored the rich tradition of Hindu culture which had followed them for over two thousand years.The concept of Arya and Aryavarta, inherent in vedic supremacy, excluded South India, which has been in many ways the real repository of Hindu culture in later times. Swami Dayananda and his followers disclaimed any indebtedness to Western ideas, but this would appear rather an assertion of national pride than a statement of fact.A distinctive feature of the Arya Samaj has been its remarkable contribution to the spread of English education, through its numerous Dayananda Anglo-Vedic schools and colleges throughout the country. It is significant that a movement which superficially seemed inward- looking and which raised the cry of “back to the Vedas” should have done more than any other single Indian public organization to spread Western knowledge in India.

Dayananda’s contemporary, Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa (1834 – 1886), in preaching selfless devotion to God and seeking self-realization, approached Muslim and Christian mystics.He emphasized that different religions are but different paths to reach the one God, and that if one religion is true, then by the same logic; all other religions are also true. Ramakrishna, who lived at the temple of Dakshineshwar near Calcutta, was a poor priest without any formal education.It has been claimed that what Socrates was to the Greek consciousness, Ramakrishna was to the modern Indian renaissance.Max Müller said that in comparison to the illiterate Ramakrishna the brightest intellects of Europe were mere gropers in the dark. In a recent study, Christopher Isherwood has called Ramakrishna the incarnation of Siva. Ramakrishna never claimed to be the founder of a new religion. He simply preached the old religion of India, founded on the Vedas and the Upanishads, and systematized in later commentaries. He was not an

146 original thinker in the true sense of the word, but he could recognize many things, including the divine presence, which others could not. He never wrote a philosophical treatise, but his pithy sayings and simple, commonplace illustrations are marvels of lucid exposition.Not urbane, and often even devoid of grace, he was utterly genuine, sincere, and forthright. His dynamic disciple, Swami Vivekananda, preached the teaching of his guru to India and to the world in somewhat the same manner as Saint Paul preached the gospel of Jesus. Whilst Ramakrishna was a mystic, depending upon intuition and vision, Vivekananda was an intellectual, relying mainly upon reason. In India he pioneered reationalism in religion and philosophy, as Ram Mohan Roy had done in the field of social thought. He preached the “oneness of all religions”, asking Hindus to become better Hindus, Muslims to become better Muslims, and Christians to become better Christians. He impressively interpreted Indian thought to Western peoples and provided a bridge between the East and West, both of whom needed reform; the former lacked food and education, the latter, spirituality. Through his forceful and logical speeches, he established the inherent virtues of the Hindu religion. The period of apologies was over; his was the voice of the self-confident Hindu who expounded his faith with the fullest conviction and righteous pride. Rooted in the past and full of pride in India’s heritage, Vivekananda was modern in his approach to the problems of life, providing a bridge between the past of India and her present. He foreshadowed Mahatma Gandhi in his burning enthusiasm for the uplifting of the masses. He regarded India, in spite of her degradation, as the home of spiritualism and enlightenment, but he attacked Indian inertia, disunity, and lack of national pride.He was impressed with American efficiency and equality, and British tenacity, law-abidingness, and sense of loyalty.In 1897 he founded the Ramakrishna Mission at Belur, near Calcutta, and the new institution adopted a comprehensive programme of social service. It started schools, colleges, hospitals, orphanages, and libraries, and has remained a leader in rendering humanitarian services in India. Although Vivekananda died at the age of thirty-nine, he left a permanent mark on Indian life and thought.The

147 great national leaders, such as Gandhi, Tagore, and Nehru, often acknowledged their debt to him.Towns, streets, bridges, and institutions are named after him in all corners of India, and it has been said that to understand India an understanding of Vivekananda is essential.

The Theosophical Society moved its headquarters from New York to India in 1879. At first the Society aimed mainly at the investigation and propagation of the belief in life beyond death, but later the scope of its inquiry was broadened considerably.Today it is a blending of the wisdom of the East and the West.Theosophists, whilst seeking liberation, are pledged to lead a life of sacrifice.They are encouraged to act according to their oft-quoted maxim, “Light on the Path”, and to “try to lift a little of the heavy Karma of the world”. The members of the Society are required to lead highly ethical and moral lives and oppose the increasingly materialistic outlook on life. Religious fanaticism is not allowed and the followers of any religion can become members, adhering to what is best in their own religion.At a time when Hinduism, Christianity, and Islam were competing with each other, this stress on the unity of religions served a very useful purpose.Although not a mass movement, the Society significantly affected the outlook of the emerging nation.For a while, at least, it accommodated the urge of educated Hindus to find a common denomination for their various sects. (1847 – 1933), who came to India in 1893, was the Society’s most forceful leader. She was at one time a British socialist leader and an atheist. She said that she remembered India from her past incarnation and looked upon it as her “motherland”.She adopted the Indian way of life, and translated various important Hindu texts into English. A persuasive speaker, she advanced the popularity of Hinduism and Indian culture through her widely attended public lectures. She took an active part in the Indian national movement and became the first woman President of the . However, she disagreed vigorously with her contemporary Indian nationalism leaders, Lokamanya Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi.

148 Indian Islam also felt the impact of the West, but its response was somewhat different from that of Hinduism.Whilst many educated Hindus were eager to reconcile Western ideas to their own inheritance, Muslims remained markedly disinclined for some time to accept the validity of any knowledge not blessed by the Quran.The Muslims refused to give up Persian and Arabic to learn English.Typical of early Muslim response was Mirza Abu Talib Khan (1752 – 1807), who was one of the first Indians to visit Europe where he was lionized by English aristocracy.In The Travels of Mirza Talib Khan, he described the peculiarities of European customs and the evils of Western materialism, and advised his fellow Muslims to continue to ignore Western learning out of “zeal for their religion”. In 1835, when Bentinck decreed the introduction of Western education, a number of Muslim notables of Calcutta presented a petition to the British Government asking them to rescind the decree.They felt it was a slight on their own learning and feared that it was aimed at the Christianization of India. The centuries’ old rivalry between Islam and Christianity also contributed to Indian Islam’s hostility. In 1837, Persian was discarded as the official language, Muslim laws and Muslim courts were abolished, and high positions in government and the army were closed to Muslims in the same way as they were to other Indians. The loss of political ascendancy and the secularization of government produced discontent, resentment, and resistance to the West. Many Muslims even felt, like the Arabian Wahhabis, that British India was no longer a suitable place for the Muslim community, and some of the more zealous ones, under the leadership of Sayyid Ahmad of Rae Bareli, preached the need to emigrate to other Muslim countries.The inevitable consequence of this self-imposed isolation and resistance to modernization was that by the middle of the century Muslims were left well behind the Hindus in progress.

In 1857, the Mughal Empire was irrevocably ended, and with it Muslim hopes of political supremacy in India. Not only were the Mughals dislodged but the Muslim political superstructure built upon Indian society over a period of centuries was shattered.In 1867, the Muslim intellectuals and nationalist

149 leaders who had taken a prominent part in the Indian revolt of 1857, set up the Darul-Ulum at Deoband, professing loyalty to Islamic law and religious orthodoxy.The Deoband School derived its doctrines from Shah Walli Allah Aihlawi (1703 – 1762), who envisaged Islam as an unfinished social movement begun by Muhammad, and who aimed at purifying the faith.The school made a vigorous and determined effort to resuscitate classical Islam. It accepted the old order but tried to revive and purify it.The Deoband School became the most important and respected theological academy of Muslim India, indeed of the entire Islamic world next to Al Azhar of Cairo.It produced some brilliant Muslim leaders and developed a strong tradition of vitality and quality.

The first concrete efforts to adapt modern thought to Islamic culture were made in the second quarter of the 19th century at , where a group of able men set out to revive Urdu by publishing Western works in that language. Later, in 1863, under the leadership of Nawab Abdul Latif, some liberal Muslims founded the Muhammadan Literary Society at Calcutta whose main objective was to emphasize the increasing importance of Western learning and culture.In trying to assimilate Western knowledge, leaders of this movement leaned too heavily on the British for support, and primarily attracted loyalist Muslims.Even theologically the movement distinguished itself by being thoroughly pro-British. It opposed the popular Wahhabi jihad agitation against the British “infidels” and by this denunciation; the Society gained the gratitude of both the British Government and the well-to-do Muslims.Continuing somewhat in the same tradition, Sir (1817 – 1898) attempted to persuade Muslims to change their religious outlook and reconcile themselves to the changing environment. Sir Syed convinced of the futility of fighting the British, “remained faithful to the British and helped them by saving the lives of those in danger” during the revolt of 1857. He sought to improve the position of Indian Muslims through co-operation with the British authorities.

150 Anxious to draw the Muslims out of their shell of orthodoxy and to reconcile modern scientific thought with Islam, he actively pursued a policy of social and educational reform. He pointed out the basic similarities between Islam and Christianity, attacked the purdah system which segregated women from men, advocated the emancipation of women, opposed allegiance to the Turkish Caliphate, and, above all, advised his fellow Muslims to accept English education.He founded the Anglo-Oriental College at Aligarh in 1877; the College gained university status and played a vital role in the movement for Pakistan. He published a multi-volume commentary on the Quran in which he tried to prove that the teachings of Islam were in complete harmony with modern scientific theories, and sought to assimilate the best of Western thought into the Islamic faith.He was consequently severely criticized by the orthodox section of the community and his interpretation of Islam has generally been ignored.But his religious writings and advocacy of social reforms have made a lasting impression on Indian Islam.

Maulana (1888 – 1958) was also influential in helping modernize Indian Muslims.Unlike Sir Syed, Azad was an uncompromising adversary of the British imperial rule, and an important leader of the Indian National Congress.He was an even greater Islamic scholar than Sir Syed and a versatile litterateur, combining religious knowledge with scientific research. Azad’s commentary on the Quran is universally acknowledged as an outstanding contribution to Islamic studies. Although educated entirely in the orthodox tradition, he imbibed the spirit of the modern West.He interpreted Islam as a universal religion which could embrace the diversity of all creeds. A brilliant theologian, his work is distinguished by a spirit of free inquiry. His interpretation evoked criticism from the orthodox, and admiration from liberal thinkers.A progressive revolutionary dedicated to true freedom, he is included amongst the Ulama (learned men) because of his religious learning, in which he was unsurpassed.

151 There was bitter rivalry between Deoband and Aligarh.The achievement of Pakistan may be regarded as Aligarh’s success, but the cultural response goes on, and it is yet to be seen which of the two schools will finally triumph in reconciling Islam to modernity.It seems likely that the uninhibited cultural response of the Muslims of India and Pakistan may well proceed along the lines of Deoband, resuscitating the purity of classical Islam with the assistance of modern concepts and needs. Looking at what has happened in these two countries since the partition, it would appear that Islam in Pakistan is primarily a political consideration whilst in India it is more concerned with cultural and religious advancement.Whilst the Deoband and Aligarh movements represented the two divergent Muslim responses to Western impact, Muslim response generally was significantly different from that of the Hindus. The Hindu reform movements were ruthlessly self-critical, often questioning the very validity of some of their sacred texts and eager to absorb or adapt Western knowledge, and all – orthodox and unorthodox – were nationalistic in varying degrees of intensity. In contrast, the Muslims on the whole were not so anxious to accept new ideas.Whilst the orthodox movement, attempting to resuscitate classical Islam, was intensely opposed to British rule in India, the unorthodox movement, seeking to carve a new image of Islam, advocated loyalty to British power. The orthodox saw the security of Islam in a free and united India. The unorthodox, fearful of Hindu supremacy, eventually sought the partition of the country.In other words, the cultural and religious response of the Indian Muslim community to the West was largely conditioned by economic and political factors, as a result, the orthodox dreaded European Christian domination, the unorthodox dreaded Indian Hindu domination.

The British established an orderly and centralized government in India, although it was unwieldy and extremely bureaucratic.The British administration in India, by its very nature, first demolished the traditional personal rule and later brought about the development of the rule of law. In contrast to the older Indian system, the fundamental feature of the British administration was its impersonal character, which had its merits as well as its

152 demerits.The multiplicity of governmental functions gave rise to a highly graded paternalistic bureaucracy which eclipsed the self-governing village Panchayats and at times discouraged individual initiative.But a somewhat democratic control served as a continual reminder of the superior value of parliamentary democracy.

Although independent India has borrowed profusely from other Western political systems, such as the United States and Ireland, and is inevitably developing its own body of parliamentary experience, her political values and institutions are based principally on British experience.Broadly speaking, Indian political organization is Western in its aims, assumptions, and techniques. The concepts of human rights and of human equality, implied in the ideal of democracy, are a Western legacy.These concepts are so inseparably grafted onto the Indian body politic and appear so natural that many scholars have tried to trace their origins to early India. Democracy is working most satisfactorily in India today but not in most other countries of Asia and Africa, many of which were also ruled by the British.These facts lend considerable weight to the view that democracy was not altogether alien to Indian temperament and tradition.Again, if Indians were borrowing from the British, irrespective of their own values and national considerations, they would have sought to set up a typically British, monarchical democracy, but instead they worked frantically to abolish the princedoms left behind by the British. Whilst it is possible to trace prototypes of some modern political ideas in ancient Indian tradition, such as democracy and individual liberty, it is difficult to find approximate parallels of such Western political institutions as parliamentary democracy or the cabinet system. Whatever Indian precedents there may be, there is no doubt that in contemporary India these concepts and institutions are of Western inspiration.

The Indian civil service, now called the Indian Administrative Service, was carefully built up during the British rule into a powerful and efficient, although impersonal and bureaucratic, force.Once the much criticized patronage

153 system of recruitment was replaced by competitive examination in 1855, the service acquired a unique reputation for skill, experience, and devotion to duty.The core of the service consisted of the Disstrict Officers, modern variants of Asoka’s Rajukas, whose duties were, similarly, to collect revenue and keep peace. Many members of the I.C.S. became deeply interested in historical research, and much of Indian historiography was pioneered by these administrators. More important, however, was the British impact on law, which has been described as the finest and the most abiding British contribution of India. Before the British period, both Hindus and Muslims merely applied, at best, the sacred law and, at worst, the will of the ruler; often there were different laws for different regions and casts. A Brahman could sometimes go free, or escape with relatively light punishment, where a Sudra incurred heavy penalties for the same offence; often the former could not be punished on the evidence of the latter.In many cases Muslim law was based on religious partisanship and privileged birth.The Mughal Emperor regarded himself as the earthly Shadow of God and the source of all law and justice. The British made the law applicable to all alike, and detached it from religion.

Neither in Hindu nor Muslim India was there a law-making body.The former relied on ancient codes, as interpreted by the learned Brahmans, to regulate life and society.For the Muslim, Prophet Muhammad had revealed once and for ail the divine law which was above modification.Islamic law, derived from the Quran and the Hadith, was all comprehensive, compulsorily regulating the public and private life of society and the individual.Thus, law an appendix to religion until British impact liberated it and made it an instrument of social advancement. It was this changed character in Indian legal attitudes that made is possible for free India to enact laws abolishing untouchability, unequal status of women, and other social evils. It must, however, be pointed out that law did not become fully Independent of faith. During the British period it remained largely restricted by firm religious conventions and susceptibilities, especially in the social sphere. Even in India today the social life of Muslim is regulated by law based on Islamic beliefs; for instance, their marriage customs

154 and property and inheritance rules are yet to be secularized.With this new legal systems and the monolithic administration, came a complicated structure of high and low courts, giving rise to litigation, often unnecessary and always prolonged.A poor man found justice remote and beyond his reach, for it became expensive and too technical.What was previously “known” locally now had to be “proven” in distant courts, through a tedious procedure and an often unfamiliar law.The lawyer, with his skill to convince the judge of the validity of evidence but not necessarily of the actuality of crime, assumed paramount importance. There developed a long hierarchy of judicial officials whose ranks had first to be penetrated before the case could be heard. The familiar and ancient system of the Panchayati Raj was suppressed. Whilst some of these undesirable features were inherent in the system, many were the result of misguided and ill-controlled practice.

Pre-British Indians were not litigious.Numerous authorities of the contemporary scene have amply testified to the general truthfulness and honesty of Indians, and to the integrity of Indian merchants. Typical was the comment made in 1852 by Sir Erskine Perry, who had been the Chief Justice of Bombay that “the sanctity of mercantile books was such that in the Native Courts of justice, the production of the books was quite conclusive as to the veracity of any transaction in dispute.” Similarly, Colonel Sleeman reported that he had witnessed innumerable cases in which a man’s property, liberty, and life had depended on his telling a lie, and he had refused to do so. Whilst the British impact discouraged economic progress it proved beneficial in social life, despite hesitant and unvertin policy.The prohibition of sati, the abolition of child-marriage, and the undermining of caste or sex distinctions were commendable measures which, if taken to their logical end, could have purged India of its social evils long before the enactments independent India. The economic consequences of British rule, looking at both the credit and debit sides, leave much to be desired.Indian economy, on the eve of British expansion, was not backward for the time, and India had a flourishing export trade in silk, cotton, brocade, salt, and sugar, but economic exploitation by the

155 new rulers led to its rapid impoverishment Indian rural economy was transformed to suit the new modes of industrial Britain.This transformation led to drastic changes in the Indian way of life, the most fundamental of which was the disintegration of the old village community structure, partly as a result of the spread of commercial agriculture. Pre-British Indian agriculture was, by the standards of the period, robust, rich, and well provided for by widespread irrigation systems which had a history stretching back to pre-Mauryan days. The entire country was carved by an extraordinary labyrinth of canals, tanks, and dams, constructed by the state at prodigious expense. Bernier marveled at the extent and size of the engineering works he saw in India, and in 1800, France Buchanan, who traveled extensively in India between 1800 collecting agricultural data for the British Government, saw several large reservoirs which were still functioning.

Indian manufacturing skills and economic were well advanced; spinning and weaving were national Industry suffered severely because of the partisan and protective policy favouring British manufactured goods.Indian textiles, ivory works, brassware, gold and silver, filigree and luxury goods, which were once famous abroad, gradually fell into disuse, reducing millions of the artisan class to unemployment, poverty, and many to death.Vast numbers of these displaced artisans were forced to go back to their villages to live on the already fully occupied land.The crisis in industry led to a crisis in agriculture. Land holdings became smaller, the number of landless labourers increased, and villages became overcrowded. Poverty thus multiplied, famines became common, and rural India became progressively more ruralized. Famines were not unknown in Indian history but the frequency and intensity with which they occurred during the British period were unprecedented and disconcerting. It has been estimated that in earlier times a major famine occurred, on an average, once in fifty years, and that between the eleventh and the seventeenth centuries, there were fourteen famines, almost all of which were confined to small local areas. But, from 1765,

156 when the British took over Bengal, to 1858, when they quelled India’s first major revolt, twelve famines and four “severe scarcities” occurred. This frequency increased in the latter part of the nineteenth century. Although there is no accurate record, a conservative estimate suggests that in the 19th century alone more than twenty-one million people died of starvation.In 1943 four years before British withdrawal from India, more than three million people perished in the Bengal Famine.It is significant that those parts of India which had been longest under British rule were the poorest at the time of Indian Independence.

Although India remained predominantly agricultural, the inflow of British capital, the development of a modern banking and communications systems, the establishment of textile, jute, sugar, and cement factories, and the European demand for tea and coffee led to the beginnings of Industrialization. However, it remained extremely limited until the withdrawal of British power. Towards the latter part of British rule, the changed nature of the British economy and the demands of war rendered Indian industrial development a little more necessary, and after the British industrial revolution had reached the height of safety, it not only allowed but even required Indian small-scale Industrialization in certain specified spheres. The growth of modern commerce and industry brought urbanization. Old towns, located in religious, political, or trading centres, were now replaced by large metropolitan cities, such as Bombay, Madras, and Calcutta, and by purely industrial towns, like Ahmadabad. The densely populated cities were an inevitable source of slums, but they also became dynamic political, cultural, and economic centres of a type unknown in India before.The cities and traditions of civic life later played an important role in developing the national consciousness and progressive aspiration of India, as they had done elsewhere.Rome introduced the city into most of continental Europe, and with the city came citizenship and the civic tradition, the greatest contribution of Mediterranean culture. When Rome declined, the Romanized cities upheld the Roman tradition.Later, the rise of the mediaeval city in Europe led to far-reaching changes in the intellectual life

157 of Western society.In India, and urbanization attracted landless labour from the village, which weakened the joint family system and the traditional social structure.

The growing complex of new occupations could not be accommodated within the caste system. Industrialization, secular education, and improved means of transportation and communications all operated against the institution of caste. Untouchability and caste discrimination can only survive in small village community where everyone’s caste is known. Where crowds of people were thrown together, caste was not visible, nor was it possible to follow all the rules of caste in modern urban surroundings.The need to survive in new conditions, the increasing knowledge of the irreligious character of caste, and crusades by national leaders, especially Mahatma Gandhi, shook the foundations of the caste structure.Consequently, when India became independent, there were, except for the inevitable orthodox, no mental reservations against the abolition of caste. During the British period, India developed considerable interest, if not competence, in science and its application to human affairs, even though Indian technological development was still in its infancy. Scientific thought was a major part of the Indian inheritance but modern technology was a Western innovation.The British mainly encouraged humanistic and literary education in India, and neglected technical studies and sciences. Whilst there were many liberal arts colleges in India, there were only a few engineering or medical colleges. But the enthusiasm with which the Indians have taken to science and the rapid progress made in recent years is instructive, especially to those who think of them as unworldly recluses, levitating in forests and holy places.Modern education, in which aesthetic values seldom find a place, is not conducive to artistic development, in India or elsewhere.Indian artists, however, managed to retain their traditional values and forms, partly because the modernists neglected them, and partly and partly because of pride in their rich heritage. Consequently, the old canons are still systematically applied in every form of popular art in India, and modern Indian art, on the whole, retains the spirit of

158 its exceedingly rich past.But it has been influenced by artistic developments in Western countries. Reflecting the new technical civilization and expressing the spirit of its time, modern Indian art has become no less experimental than that of Europe or America.

The Portuguese were the first to introduce late Renaissance and Barque art into their Indian possessions. It had limited effect. It was with the British, and their need to build bunglows, factories, forts cathedrals, and cities, that Indian art came under a major European influence; Bombay government offices, the railway station, the palaces of Gwalior and Baroda, and the Victoria Memorial in Calcutta are but a few examples of various European architectural styles.Later in the 19th century, a reaction against imitating Europe set in, and Indian art took a new turn under Englishmen, such as E.B. Havell, and Indians, such as A.N. Tagore.For a while, an art revival persisted which attempted to recreate a national style of painting. But, as in other spheres of cultural life, a process of synthesis commenced. New schools began to arise, and there is no doubt that a fully developed Indian art will be an integration of past and present, a synthesis of East and West.Modern Indian artists are expressing themselves in all the modern idioms of Europe and America, accompanied by the modes of art practiced in India.Whilst Indian painters follow the styles and techniques of modern Europe, especially of France, they depict scenes and people in recognizably Indian manner. British-built structures guided Indian architects.The importation of European styles was soon followed by a period of blending the rich Indian tradition with European design.An example of this was the capital of British India, , built by Sir Edwin Lutyens and his associate, Sir Edward Baker, in the 1930’s.Their first designs were a type of neo-Roman style but, under severe criticism from innumerable people in England, including such outstanding names in literature and art as and Sir William Rothenstein, the plans were revised to incorporate Indian motifs. But the product did not turn out to be a synthesis of styles but an assortment of patterns, hybrid and uninspired, partly because New Delhi was built at a time

159 when the old style had lost all virility, and the new style was yet to be developed.However, further changes have taken place since and a composite style may well be on its way, blending elements of Hindu, Mughal, and Victorian Gothic architecture. Dance and music remained almost uninfluenced by European styles. Certain modifications, however, are noticed in popular music, especially in Indian cinemas, and in modern musical compositions which have adopted Western techniques. Some Indian composers, such as Sarabji, have written music in Western styles, sometimes using Indian motifs. Ali Akbar Khan occasionally incorporated a certain amount of harmony and Western melodies into his improvisations.

Direct British impact on Indian social and cultural life may not have been as decisive as it was on Indian economic and political organization.But the revival of the tradition of learning and the introduction of English secular education illuminated the path of Indian modernization, just as the Indian appetite for knowledge had sustained India’s greatness in the past. Education in ancient India, though somewhat limited in scope, was not commercial, teachers were generally not paid, nor did students race through examinations to pick up lucrative jobs.It was a voluntary partnership in pursuit of truth.Standards were too demanding and academic freedom so firm that even the strongest ruler could not tamper with universities. On the whole, the system of learning was exceedingly effective. Emphasis was on philosophy but science was also studied, and in all subjects and attitude of criticism and a spirit of inquiry and reason were encouraged.However, this tradition of learning declined during the long period of changing political patterns in India.

The medieval rulers remained indifferent to scientific and secular education, and whilst the Western countries were making rapid scientific progress, India allowed her intellectual heritage to go unused.The spirit of inquiry was replaced by a sacrosanct attitude towards authority, and an uncritical acceptance of opinions discouraged rational analysis.The rise of Muslim power in India did not help matters much. Islam, which had stirred

160 Indian intellectual and cultural life into a burst of activity, did not subscribe to the absolute supremacy of the human intellect; it was decisively restricted by the Holy Scriptures as interpreted by the Ulama. Islam had begun as an assertion of interpretation freedom, but the initial urgency for this freedom was soon lost. Once Islam’s earlier democracy was replaced by authoritarianism, Muslim education also became subject to state authority, even in the most creative centres of Islamic civilization. It is no small wonder that Muslim education in India also became increasingly dogmatic, inward-looking, and stereo-typed.There was, no doubt, a wide network of schools, but the system of education, consisting chiefly of the study of theology and scripture, was not conducive to the sustained growth of higher learning. Neither science nor technology was taught, although during the reign of Feroz Shah Tughlaq an unsuccessful attempt was made to introduce a simple form of technical education.

Indian education was in an especially neglected state on the eve of British supremacy in India.Whilst the Hindu system of learning was jealously guarded in Brahman caste interests, Muslim education, although open to all, was dominated by theologians and confined to the faithful study of the Quran. Both systems neglected literary and scientific education, critical analyses, and women’s education.The East India Company was reluctant to take responsibility for expensive programs, such as religion, public welfare, and education; although there were notable individual exceptions, for example, William Carey and Sir William Jones. Until compelled to act otherwise, the British Company’s rule was like that of a medieval police state, anxious to extract revenue and keen to maintain internal and external security with no sense of obligation and responsibility for public welfare, health, and education. Under the Act of 1813 the Company was required to promote public education, and to make a ridiculously inadequate annual grant of one lakh of rupees for educational purposes.Many Indians were already somewhat familiar with Western education through the activities of Christian missionaries.Danish missionaries had taken the lead in starting English

161 education in India from the middle of the eighteenth century.Ram Mohan Roy even founded an English school, the Hindu College – now known as the Presidency College – at Calcutta in 1817. Starting with a hundred students, the College soon became the leading educational institution of Bengal. In other parts of the country, English schools and colleges had been established through private efforts.Although Ram Mohan Roy wanted Western knowledge, he wanted to use education to promote the moral and rational development of the individual. He was as much distressed at the secularism of the Hindu College as at the orthodoxy of the pundits.Whilst Roy believed that the new learning “was indispensable for the progress of the nation”, he never lost his admiration for the Hindu Sastras which he sought to study in the light of modern thought.

After years of agitation, in 1835 Macaulay’s minute was written and Governor General Bentinck took a definite decision in favour of English. However, it was not until 1853, forty years after the Act of 1813, that East India Company officials seriously investigated Indian education, as a result of which the modern system of education in India emerged. The universities of Bombay, Calcutta, and Madras, modeled on the lines of London University, were founded in 1857.For a long time these universities continued to be staffed by Europeans and taught a Western curriculum. The British were not very generous with expenditures on education; at the turn of the century, after more than a century of rule, they provided little more than a million pounds a year for the education of about 240 million Indians – a penny a head. Widespread progress of Western education, however, was made possible by the open-door policy introduced by the British, and by the vast sums donated by Indian philanthropists.Learning, hitherto mainly confined to Brahmans, rulers, or aristocrats, was now available to all those who cared for it, although the expense involved made it still the privilege of the well-to-foreign few. However, the multiplication of presses meant greater production and wider circulation of books and, in turn, education. (The art of printing had been

162 introduced by Portuguese missionaries in the 16th century but it made progress only after the establishment of the British rule.

Western education was like an explosive force as it shattered dogma and superstition.The Indians were compelled to reflect upon the bases of their beliefs and institutions and to measure them against European standards. If this new thinking helped the modernization of India, it also gave rise to a class of Indian thinkers who shared Macaulay’s contempt of Oriental learning and, like Macaulay, without bothering to study it. Indians took to Western learning so wholeheartedly and uncritically that many of these newly educated men became comic imitators, without any enduring contact with either West or East. They were overawed by Western knowledge and in their eagerness to profit by it, missed its very essence-intellectual skepticism and scientific investigation.Without a critical understanding of Western learning, they made no effort to learn their own. Even competent Indian scholars acquired, at best, a high level of scholarly knowledge, but made no creative contributions to learning.With great expertise they either elaborated Western concepts or sought endorsement of their ideas in Western literature.Whilst Western learning opened up new vistas of knowledge for the Indians, in some ways it blunted the edge of their intellectual skepticism.Consequently, English trained Indian scholars were generally inferior to European authorities. Their intellectual subservience had been so intense that eventually even at present, despite political independence; Indians have yet to assert their intellectual freedom.

Some effects of English education were quite ugly, for it gave rise to a cultural minority with its own distinct features and interests. Although the English-educated Indians were a very small minority in the country (less than one per cent), they were numerous enough to constitute a class of their own. Patronized by the British Government, this class soon dominated the tope levels of Indian life. It became a kind of middle class interposed between the masters and the masses, often acting as an insulator protecting the former

163 against the latter.Whilst peasants, workers, and petty tradesmen did not speak English, those above them, from clerk to councilor, did. Spurred by the class- preservation instinct, the Westernized Indian was led to rather indiscriminately adopt Western forms in speech, dress, and manners; and to isolate himself from the “illiterate” and “uncouth” masses of his own people. At best, he was a laboriously cultivated English gentleman. At worst, he was clumsy if not ludicrous, and often crude, pretending to enjoy European food, music, and painting, at times even speaking his own native language with an English accent.The snob value of English degrees was so great that those who had any kind of degree would take care to display it meticulously, and those who could not pass their examinations would be anxious to let it be known that they had reached the take-off point, even if they could not take off. As a result, there grew up not only a class of B.A.’s, but also a class of “B.A. failed” or “Intermediate passed”. The English-educated had a hierarchy of their own; the Brahmans of this class were those who returned from England, preferably with a degree-any degree-but without it if necessary.Those Indians who desired a Western education other than English flocked to Germany and other Western centres of learning.History does not offer a parallel to this phenomenon where efforts for learning such a pathetic class of self- complaisant and servile scholars. The nearest example, perhaps, may be that of the English themselves during the Norman period, when it was fashionable to be French in speech, appearance, and behaviour, and English was the language of the vulgarian.

Reaction against this kind of English education inevitably set in. A number of “national” institutions which imparted both Indian and Western learning, such as the Kashi Vidyalaya, the Jamia Milia, and the Gurukula, were established.In contrast, the Anglicized schools and colleges strongly emphasized English education-not even European learning-and students learned a good deal of England, its birds, countryside, and flowers, and of English literature and history. The national institutions did not, as expected, gain widespread support in the absence of government patronage. They were

164 not assisted financially or otherwise by the state, nor were their degrees recognized. On the contrary, the British Government language looked upon them with distrust as centres of “subversive” propaganda. Indeed, these institutions did seek to inculcate a sense of nationhood and Indian-ness and therefore attracted students with nationalistic inclinations. As their degrees did not originally entitle them to government or other positions, they did not draw a response from the practical-minded. Despite their limitations and small numbers, they have produced quite a number of competent and successful national leaders, such as Acharya Narendra Deva, a much respected Indian patriot-scholar, Lal Bahadur Sastri, who succeeded as India’s Prime Minister, and Zakir Hussain, who was the first Muslim president of India.

The influence of English literature on the literature of Indian languages was intensive.Poetry had been composed in India since the days of the Rigi Veda, but prose began to be written for the first time after a break of more than a thousand years. Begun as polemics for and against religious and social reform, prose forms rapidly reached maturity. Novels, short stories, essays, and modern drama developed in Indian writing-the short story particularly in the 20th century.Shakespeare became an integral part of Indian studies, exercising an almost hypnotic influence on Indian literature and drama. Shakespeare was not known to Indian until the beginning of the nineteenth century, although he was writing his great tragedies around the time the East India Company was founded in 1600.Once, however, English education was begun and a knowledge of Western literature and thought became a status symbol and an essential prerequisite for professional and pecuniary gain, Shakespeare became familiar reading in Indian literary and dramatic circles. For most English –educated Indians, Shakespear’s characters, the situations in his plays, and significant quotations, became almost as intimate a part of their lives as those of their own best writers. Most of Shakespear’s better plays have been translated into Indian languages. First to appear, in 1853, was a Bengali translation by Harachandra Ghosh called Bhanumati

165 Chittavilasa, an adaptation of the Portia-Bassanio theme from The Merchant of Venice.Since then all of Shakespear’s comedies have been translated, with the exception of the “dark comedy”, (in fact unclassifiable as a kind of drama) Troilus and Cressida. The Marathi version of the minor comedy, The Taming of the Shrew, rendered by V.B. Kelkar in 1891 has been “acclaimed to be such a perfect stage version that even if Shakespeare were a Hindu, he could not have improved on it.” P. Sambada Mudaliar’s Tamil adaptations of Shakespear are well known.The four best known tragedies have been translated with alterations to suit the Indian taste, which prefers a happy ending.For instance, Hamlet and Ophelia are reconciled at the end; Desdemona is not really dead; a daughter is provided for Macbeth in answer to the famous question, “How many children had Lady Macbeth?” to make it possible for her to be married to Malcolm at the end. However, it is doubtful if Shakespeare will continue to attract Indian universities as before, and the modern scholar’s image of Shakespear-emphasizing the technical, social, source-hunting, and temporal aspects of his work-does not appeal much to Indians, who prefer to look at him from literary and human viewpoints, as did the romantic poet-critics during the last century.

The continual growth of secular and scientific knowledge affected the whole Indian attitude towards life. Indians were overpowered by the ideas of Western liberty, parliamentary government, and nationalism. Later, and socialism also permeated Indian thinking. Early Indian nationalists even drew their inspiration from European patriots. In the 1870’s, Italian nationalist leaders, such as Mazzini and Garibaldi, were popular idols of Indian patriots. The Irish movement for self-rule was closely watched and admired by many Indian leaders, for whom the Irish patriots were models of devotion and sacrifice. De Valera was as much an Indian as an Irish hero, and Subhas Bose was called the Indian De Valera. Two major political ideologies have dominated Indian life for about a century-nationalism and Marxism. Indian nationalism has long assumed its own individual personality, and there is every likelihood that

166 Indian communism may well become distinctly Indian before gaining any widespread adherence in Indian communists already look more to Gandhi and Nehru than to Marx and Lenin. Nationalism was, no doubt, primarily a reaction against British imperialism, which gave in the consciousness of a common political community, the urge to organize, and the power to attract widespread attention.It was further strengthened by territorial unification, a uniform educational system, the establishment of a communication network, and a highly centralized administration. But its ideological rationalization and form came from the influx of Western liberal ideas and a growing pride in its own cultural past.

How much Indian nationalism owes to the direct impact of European liberalism would be extremely difficult to ascertain.The force of liberal ideas certainly made British imperialism more humane and receptive to Indian demands, although the growing power of commercial interests in an era of industrial revolution invariably counseled authoritarianism.Democracy at home was to “co-exist with despotism abroad”.The conflicting principles of liberty and empire were to be blended into a new and unique doctrine of “domination for the dominated”.Many of the prophets and leaders of Indian nationalism were, no doubt, greatly influenced by European liberal thought, but their main inspiration was India’s cultural renaissance, which was almost contemporary with Western liberalism.Ram Mohan Roy implored the British to introduce colleges of Western, not Oriental, learning to India.He saw no contradictions between the freedom of liberalism and the intrinsic values of Hinduism.Roy was not a product of the West, and did not visit there until the end of his life. Even Jawaharlal Nehru, who adopted British habits and thought-processes “more than even the British themselves”, regarded Indian cultural heritage as the driving force behind unity and progress. , the “Father of Indian Unrest” and the first man to suggest to Indians the goal of “swaraj (freedom) is my birth-right”, did not visit England until almost the end of his career. He was deeply inspired in his political philosophy by the Bhagavad

167 Gita. However, it would not be correct to assume that Western ideas did not influence their thinking. The common people, who formed the great bulk of the Indian national movement, knew little of Western liberal ideas.The only impact they felt directly was Western imperialism.To them, Western concepts of rights and freedom were vague, hypothetical, and even hypocritical.They could see the value of these concepts only when they were presented in Indian terms. Thus, Aurobindo Ghose, a completely Westernized and English-educated intellectual, who renounced politics to retire to Pondicherry in the pursuit of Divine consciousness, spoke of nationalism as an Avatar (an incarnation of God), which must emancipate humanity from demonic oppression. Nationalism, being God, was immortal, and therefore no government could destroy it. Aurobindo Ghose, despite his too brief incursion into politics from 1905 to 1910, was able to introduce into the Indian nationalist movement an esoteric philosophy which proved to be of immense political value both at home and abroad.The divinity of “Mother India”, long cherished as an abstract and ethical conception by many generations of Indian nationalists, became a political weapon of unquestionable efficacy in his hands. He preached that the sanctification of patriotism was the dedicated worship of India personified as the Great Mother.Much later, Mahatma Gandhi spoke along the same lines to “the teeming millions of India”, who followed him. His concept of political freedom was translated into “Ramarajya”, the kingdom of Rama, which was based on principles of universal morality, and in which justice, righteousness, and the will of the people were supreme.

It was this alliance between the imported concepts of liberty and unity, and the developing ideals of renascent Hinduism which gave Indian nationalism not only a distinctive character but also a worthwhile meaning and force. The concept of nationality, that is, the existence of a community within a defined territory, and patriotism were both known to Indians throughout their history. Ancient literature testifies to a well-defined image of Mother India and to a clear consciousness of national solidarity called Bharatavarsha, or just Bharat, a name now reinstated in the republican .Deep sentiments

168 of love and service of India were voiced in the Vedic and epic literature. The Manusmriti contains passages of extreme patriotic fervour such as “Mother and Mother-country are greater than Heaven”.The protective natural frontiers of India helped to weld all Indian peoples into an Indian oneness.The resuscitation of this image gave a definite meaning to Indian nationalism, and Indians responded with intense feeling. Indian leaders visualized political and social development as going hand in hand, and considered social rejuvenation essential for political and economic progress.Consequently, Indian nationalism in its early phases was closely linked with cultural renaissance.Later, it became more virile and political in character. It was not only the pride of the old, but the vigour of the new which agitated for change (inqilab). Liberation from alien rule was not sufficient; the nationalist movement was to be the comprehensive crusade against all kinds of oppressions – including social and economic. In the final phase, the cry for change almost subordinated the demand for political independence (swaraj or azadi).

The fact that Mahatma Gandhi, who was typically representative of the Indian synthesis of contradictions which baffles logic, was able to gain leadership of the national movement with little resistance and held it almost unchallenged until his death, would further illustrate the syncretic nature of Indian nationalism. Mahatma Gandhi, however, made a distinction between Western and modern civilizations.Although both were equally good, he believed the latter had taken a wrong turn in the West. He, therefore, asked India to keep clear of that kind of modernized West.His position was somewhat similar to that of Tolstoy – a moral man in an immoral world, which had been brought about by a materialist, militarist, and imperialist way of life. He called upon his countrymen to select those elements from Western culture, as from any other, which were essential for their own progress.The spirit of the century was to be reconciled with that of the country.In the era of intense nationalism, cultural pride, and racial prejudice, Rabindranath Tagore sought to broaden India’s outlook to one of world-wide humanism.Truly a world- citizen, he consistently warned his countrymen against the evils of

169 nationalism, and, like Gandhi, spoke of India’s self-purification and constructive work. For him, the ideal of humanity transcended the love of country. Political freedom was not necessarily real freedom but might merely be a means of becoming more powerful. Real freedom was of the mind and the spirit, and this could not come to India from outside. Tagore was not against any one nation in particular but the idea of nationalism in general. He was, however, very proud of Indian culture, and called upon the West to understand its good qualities.Tagore’s influence over the Indian mind has been incalculable; more than any of his contemporaries, he helped to harmonize the ideals of East and West, and to broaden the bases of Indian nationalism. He was one of the world’s great internationalists, believing in and working for international co-operation, taking India’s culture to other countries and bringing theirs to India.

Jawaharlal Nehru’s greatest gift to renaissant India was to underline the intrinsic merits of Western culture. Although influenced by his Indian heritage, Nehru was completely Western in his outlook.Scientific rationalism, humanism, and socialism had a profound influence on him, enabling him to fill a gap in Indian political life, a gap that could otherwise have proven very costly.Western individualism was essential in order to give the Indian a feeling of self-reliance. Contemptuously discarding traditional self-effacement, he preached and practiced self-assertion, even at the risk of appearing arrogant; competent arrogance was preferable to empty humility in a society ridden with multiple social and economic inequalities. Nehru was the living symbol of what was best in the West.Most Indian intellectuals saw in Nehru the ideal expression of their Westernization, and a bridge between tradition and modernity. Even at a time when Nehru lay in a British prison, he recorded in his Autobiography, “in spite of my hostility to British imperialism and all , I have loved much that was England……” Yet, he spoke the Gandhian language of India: “Do away with evil; put your faith in goodness – in your goodness and the goodness of your opponent”.

170 Influenced by the ethical norms of Western humanism, the precepts of the Upanishads, and the rationalism of the Buddha, Nehru had been attracted by Marxist theory, during the late 1920’s. He was generally regarded as the patron of democratic , although he was never a member of any .It was mainly through his efforts that Marxism, a completely Western product, was admitted to Indian political life, and it has since considerably influenced modern Indian thought, politics, literature, economic life, and social outlook. It was mainly Gandhi’s moral influence and Nehru’s admiration for Gandhian Satyagraha that restrained Nehru from becoming a Marxist socialist.During his visit to Europe in 1926 – 1927, he came into contact with numerous Marxist intellectuals and leaders, especially at the Congress of the League of Oppressed Peoples at Brussels. Later, he went to Russia and was greatly impressed by the achievements of Socialist Russia. Since then he always advocated a socialistic society for India, based on democracy and individual liberty. From the declaration of Indian independence until his death in 1964, Nehru dominated Indian life and politics blending modern values into Indian tradition with a skill that hardly has a parallel in history.Throughout; he remained a key man in world politics. A leader of an anti-imperialist revolution, he embodied the hopes of peace of men all over the globe. Others looked upon him as the architect of a unique democracy, struggling between divergent forces to acquire economic prosperity and social justice.The Indian revolution, although rooted in Gandhian ethics, could be described as “Nehruesque”, for it is to Nehru that it owes its present form, reflecting his typical combination of Indian idealism and Western materialism.

Nehru was not a philosopher in the sense that Gandhi was, but without him much of would have remained in disuse, somewhat in the same way as Marxism would have without Lenin. He commanded both the respect of the intelligentsia and the love of the common man. He was not only an exponent of the cherished ideals of his people but an expression of human conscience.Features statesmen could claim his empiricism without opportunism, and doctrinism without dogmatism. He could win the personal

171 affection of his political adversaries without compromising either relationship. He believed that the “creative mind”, with its social sensitiveness, could alone solve the crisis of the human spirit. It is this humanism which made him a representative of the West in the East and of the East in the West.

A major consequence of the West’s impact on Indian tradition has been in psychological attitudes. Being a self-contained, rich, agricultural community, India was conservative, hospitable, tolerant, ad somewhat fatalistic. But all this changed, first under prolonged foreign domination, and later under the pressure of the newly developing competitive society.India’s natural contentment has given way to a spirit of rebellion and self-reliance which, under the excessive zeal of new converts, often inclines Indians to self- deprecation and lack of collective discipline.Highly individualistic, Indians have always resisted any regimentation of thought. Extrovert, nonconformist, and informal, they express themselves uninhibitedly, and indulge too often in reflection and introspection.Whilst these qualities gave India a distinctive character, and advanced her learning and democracy, they have often enough in the past, as in the present, reached a point where they hinder organization, team work, and discipline, the essential virtues of material transformation. It is curious, for the Indian does not lack in self-discipline, or even in self-denial. In fact, self-discipline to the Indian is not denial of one’s liberty but an aid to individual spiritual perfection. However, any collective political discipline is regarded as an abridgement of individual liberty. Despite exemplary devotion and the spirit of self-sacrifice, conspiracies, mutinies, and underground revolutionary movements failed in India because of poor co-ordination and the inevitable leakage of information.Mass movements, such as Mahatma Gandhi’s satyagraha, succeeded because they were open, and required essentially individual effort.Whilst crowds of people participated in satyagraha, in effect, each individual was a self-contained movement, and as an individual he could successfully protest against what he thought was unjust.Gandhi often did, alone.

172 Indians have yet to strike a balance between these two opposites and learn to blend individual liberty with social discipline in order to speed national advance.The value of compromise and discipline in a collective effort cannot be overestimated.No chapter of history is more instructive in this respect than that of Western activities in Asia. Western domination was, in fact, the triumph of organization and teamwork over personal valour and an unco-ordinated approach to politics. It is this Indian inability to integrate individual qualities into a collective pattern which, more than any other finds its expression in a variety of meaningless disagreements, consuming national effort and morale.It seems sometimes that every Indian is a walking as well as a moral preceptor What India needs, and has often stood in need of, is not so much sound advice as sustained endeavour. Reflection and criticism are, no doubt, indispensable for both the political and spiritual health of a nation, but they can be overdone. Democracy after all consists of both criticism and effort. In India, they sometimes part company. Excessive self-criticism soon leads to loss of self-confidence, and thoughtless and irresponsible expression creates an atmosphere of general frustration.Together they drain national energy.Today, India’s most severe criticism comes from thinking Indians, especially from perfectionists and those whose expectations far exceed their competence.As perfection is unattainable, and undeserved expectations remain unfulfilled, frustration is inevitable, with the result that the very class of people who should be in the vanguard of an Indian revolution are its great liability.One often finds on the one side the educated Indians, extremely critical of everything and exuding gloom, and on the other the common people solemnly engaged in the tasks of national reconstruction. Irrespective of what awaits them – although it is prosperity they expect to find – and unmindful of the urgency of their job, the common men in India evidently find honest work for honest ends inspiring and satisfactory in itself.

The frustration of educated Indians is in no small measure conditioned by Western criticisms of Indian achievements, which are not always valid. Indians cannot shut themselves away from criticism, valid or invalid, for they

173 respect their own right to criticize.Often Western critical analysis is more effective than it should be because it is couched in English, a language in which the Indians are at a disadvantage. Indians, however, are often reluctant to confess to this inadequacy for they still confuse knowledge of English with knowledge itself and unconsciously tend to measure the degree of a person’s learnedness by his command of English.But even well meaning critics of India, who would like to see India progress, quite often inadvertently measure India in Western terms and confuse a difference of values and emphasis with unsoundness of policy and practice.In any case, in their anxiety to achieve rapid results they have imposed a sense of urgency on the Indian experiment. Delay might explode India, they fear, and may even disrupt world order.Indisputably; the sooner Indian poverty is banished the better.But it would be imprudent to lose balance for speed. It is better to reach the goal late on one’s own feet than to arrive soon on a stretcher.India is not racing against time, economic poverty, political rivalry, or alien criticism. She is fighting herself. If, during this period of development, she cannot keep up national morale, avoiding the frustrations inherent in partial successes or failures, and stand firmly optimistic against the unsolicited flood of gloomy prophecies, no amount of her past glory or professions of noble faith can lead her to the desired goal.

If the British brought out the best in Indian society, they also emphasized its hitherto dormant weakness.One such influence was on the social and political relationship between Hindus and Muslims, which finally destroyed the political unity of India. Before the advent of the British in India, Hindus and Muslims had lived side by side for about a thousand years in distinct social compartments, accommodating each other’s religious beliefs.In political spheres, there were, as anywhere else, divisions within each community as dictated by the politics of power.Political relationship was not hinged to religious beliefs.Socially, Muslims were yet another caste in India. Just as the caste system separating Hindus from Hindus came under condemnation, so did the exclusion of Muslims from Hindu society. But Hindu-Muslim social

174 assimilation was a very different problem, because of their diverse faiths and traditions.Later, the development of modern politics, involving a relentless struggle between Indian nationalism and British imperialism, gave rise to Muslim nationalism. Whilst the ruling power remained alien, both Hindus and Muslims were equally deprived of authority, but once the prospects of democratic self-government began to emerge, the numerical superiority of Hindus caused a natural concern to Muslims. Whether the British deliberately introduced the policy of “divide and rule” or not, they did little to maintain the separation of religion and politics, and still less to tone down the consciousness of communalism.They certainly did make positive efforts to accommodate the problems and to allay the fears of minorities.But their attitudes and statements, made either in genuine ignorance of the effect of their policy or in conscious effort to profit by it, overemphasized the problem, and even inflamed fears.Practically every Secretary of State and Viceroy kept notes for a stereotyped statement, which was repeated with necessary but minor variations on every public occasion, stressing the manifold divisions in Indian society.Referring to India’s many languages, races, and creeds, it sought to mobilize all the interests opposed to Indian nationalism and unity. It paraded minority statistics, not always quite accurate, and invariably dwelt on the opposed religions and depressed classes.Sometimes this was done in a tone of fatalistic regret, sometimes with an air of polemical triumph, but always the stress was on the divisions of India. This was surely the wrong way to try to bridge such divisions.The reverse would have been more appropriate.The British might have emphasized the fundamental unity of the two religions and their common historical past.

It must, however, be pointed out that Western thought is, unlike Indian, permeated with the consciousness of religious differences and antagonisms, even amongst denominations of the same Christian faith.Religion was the keynote of British politics and education until the end of the nineteenth century. The British could have recalled that it was only in 1829, after a period of prolonged opposition, that the Catholic Emancipation Act was passed in

175 Britain, even if they chose to ignore the terribly bitter Catholic-Protestant conflicts and other religious struggles. It was in 1836 that the Marriage Act of 1753, under which no one could be legally married except by a Church of England parson, and which was an intolerable insult to Catholics, was remedied.Religious bigotry was intense in education.Catholics could not enter the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge until 1871, after the working class of the towns had been enfranchised by the Reform Act of 1867, and long after the rise of liberalism and concepts of individual freedom. The treatment of the Jews was no better; indeed, the Jews did not get full and equal citizenship rights until 1866. Charles Bradlaugh was not allowed to take his seat in Parliament because he was an atheist, and it took six years of painstaking struggle before he could enter the House and voice the views of his constituents.Indeed, religion in England was more than a matter of personal preference, and the Anglican Church was more than an ecclesiastical choice.Protestant ascendancy was an integral part of the British Constitution; the Coronation oath pledged the monarch to defend Protestantism by law and power, and the Act of Settlement ensured a Protestant succession.Yet the British might have communicated to Muslims and Hindus the Western discovery made long ago, that creed was an irrelevance in modern politics, and emphasized the significance of economic and social issues. “If every day and in every way, each according to his temperament and opportunities, using the press and the wireless, schoolbooks and white papers, the officials and spokesmen of this mighty government had sought to minimize religious differences and promote an outlook of secular commonsense, and done this steadily for fifty years, is it certain that this feud would rage as it does today? They chose to make the other speech”.

The influx of Western culture was a gradual, persistent, and unpremeditated process, brought in by a motley crowd of Europeans ranging from unscrupulous adventurers to devoted intellectuals, missionaries, and administrators.As a class, these heralds of change, however, made no conscious effort to hasten the process.This part of Indian cultural

176 transformation is a fascinating period of physical endurance, intellectual interaction, and social rejuvenation.Indian response to the West was ambivalent.It endeavoured, on the one side, to reassert India’s great cultural past and, on the other, to purge its traditional character. Consequently, India sought to strike a delicate balance between the two. As might be expected in any cultural encounter between two powerful civilizations, Western impact on India highlighted both the virtues and evils of Indian society and culture.Whilst the British industrial revolution inaugurated a new material era that transformed Indian economy, it also gave rise to poverty, overpopulation, and famine.Whilst it stirred the depths of the Indian mind, awakened its dormant spirit of scientific inquiry, and made new contributions to Indian life, it also compelled Indian society to defend its traditional inheritance, causing a cultural revivalism.In its totality it acted as a catalyst, setting in motion cultural processes which gradually led to an organized national consciousness and unity, and eventually to the modernization of traditional India.Western influence on modern India, transmitted through English education, Christian missions and, mainly, British domination, had indeed been both extensive and varied.Although Christian missionaries initiated cultural exchange in India, it was not until the British colonial administration began to train Indian personnel for utilitarian ends and the Indians themselves felt the pressure for change, that India began to break away from tradition to enter modernity.Despite many commentaries on the subject, the process and all its implications are yet to be evaluated dispassionately.Perhaps its full magnitude can only be seen after it has stood the test of time. India today is both old and new, and this makes her at once distinctive and complex.That Indian modernization began under Western impact is not denied, but how much of it is her own renewed vitality is often a subject of intense, if not acrimonious, debate.The two views are not really contradictory or even incompatible; the differences mainly arise when too much is claimed on one side and too much discounted on the other.

Historians have achieved no consensus, nor are they expected to, on the nature and consequences of the British impact on India. British rule of

177 India was a long process with several clearly marked phases.Inevitably, cultural processes during this period proceeded in various directions and at various levels.In some respects, the British influence was positive; in others, negative.Again, some influences were the outcome of a conscious policy, whilst others were unintentional and incidental. But in all respects it was a stimulant on a stagnant society, with reactions ranging from imitation and assimilitation to rejection.The restoration of law and order, the unification of the country under one central authority, the emergence of the middle classes, the development of transport and communications, the revival of international consciousness, on themselves are praiseworthy contributions.But what is more important is that because of these it was possible for Indians to pursue other cultural and intellectual activities.It is not for what the British actually contributed that they should be judged, but for making it possible for Indians to rejuvenate the best of their culture and determine their own destiny. By making them conscious of both their weaknesses and of their strengths, the British gave the Indians objectives and methods to approach these objectives. Knowledge of Western thought and method, and especially Western experience gave Indians hope for the success of their new ideals.Without the awareness of the modernization processes, which the West itself had gone through, it is extremely unlikely that Indian society could have been stirred into action. Precept without precedent seldom appears attractive.

The spirit of modern India is something like the spirit of nature itself. It is ever new, constantly changing yet old. Whilst they are actively engaged in the pursuit of scientific achievements, the Upanishads will continue to fascinate and inspire Indians, who will retain their search for the ultimate, without sacrificing material prosperity.Meanwhile, they will bear the weight of poverty with their characteristic quietness and happiness.Gandhi will always inspire them more than Marx, and their means will be as important as their ends. Yet what India represents today is the emergence of a new civilization, not merely the continuation of an old one.India was in need of modernization, and the West introduced it to her. Modernism, however, must not be confused, as is

178 so often done, with materialism or even Westernism.There is nothing inherently Western about modernism because it does not emanate from space but time.The modern Indian man, for example, may be agnostic, atheist, religious, or mystical. He is quite capable of experimenting with dangerous microbes of exploring outer space in search of truth.His motivation may be the spiritual conviction that man must know the truth about all things, or the faith that human suffering will be reduced if not eliminated.A modern saint, like a Karma Yogi, is often seen with hospital instruments or laboratory test-tubes praying inarticulately to an impersonal God called science or humanity.Modernism may have begun in the West but it is a universal and common human heritage. Even if there had been no British rule in India, modernism would still have come, as it came, for instance, to Japan.In an era of increasing scientific and technological advancement, the cultural isolation of one region could scarcely be possible.Without the impediment of colonial rule, Indian response to the West might have been even more unrestrained. Even so, although her choice of Western learning was somewhat limited by British imperial needs, the initiative to select from what was offered was mainly her own. India elected to absorb voluntarily.She resisted Western domination, but not Western learning.

In subsequent years, eminent scholars like late Shri Rakhaldas Banerjee, Dr. D.R. Bhandarkar, Dr. K.P. Jayswal, Dr. R.C. Majumdar, Dr. H.C. Ray Chaudhuri, Dr. U.N. Ghosal, Dr. A.S. Attekar, Professor Nilakantha Sastri and some others have contributed to the progress of research in Indian culture and antiquities.Some of the Indian Universities and Research Institutes, started at different places in our country, have been actively engaged in original researches into our culture.The Ancient Monuments Preservation Act passed during the regime of Lord Curzon has done much to safeguard preservation of antiquities and relics of the past.The Archaeological Department of the Government of India and the archaeological departments started in some states and universities have been fruitfully pursuing exploration and the preservation of old relics.Some of the important archaeological excavations

179 like those at Kohenjo-daro, Harappa, Taxila, Nalanda, Kumrahar, Vikramsila and Chirand in Bihar, and Paharpur and Mahasthan in Bengal, and Nagarjunakonda in south India revealed many new and important facts about the history of our country, in some cases almost revolutionizing our knowledge.

ETHNOGRAPHY

During the colonial period, ethnography helped to contain and manipulate populations.The English succeeded in propagating that the teriitory held by them could not be administered by the indigenous people as they were not one nation but a conglomerate of many nations.As the colonial powers had approached other cultures primarily to ensure their political subjugation, they developed a methodology of gaining cultural definition that relied not on cultural parameters but on political and administrative premises.Ethno- sociologists combined documentary and literary data with oral traditions and field data. In Indian studies, tribe, caste and region have been linked with each other in a variety of ways.They deal with aggregates of people in a number of locals, villages, towns and city.During the colonial period a number of ethnographic works were written by J.H. Hutton, Edward Thomson, H. Risley, L.S.S.O’Malley and others.There were writings of Sir Henry Maine and W.H. Baden Powell on the village community in India. Edgar Thurston conducted extensive ethnographic studies of South Indian tribes and castes. Indian scholars like L.A.Ananthakrishna Iyer published works on tribes and castes in Cochin.District Gazetters produced by the British officials contained ethnographic and economic data pertaining to Indian society.The missionaries also recoreded valuable data about the society of the period. Abbe Duboi, a French missionary in Mysore wrote in 1816, Hindu manners, Customs and Ceremonies, which is very valuable even today. It deals with the customs and rituals of the people with whom he lived.

Ethnographic studies were supplemented by social anthropology. Several Indian and foreign scholars such as Brajendranath Seal, Patrick Geddes,

180 W.H.R Rivers, L.K. Ananthakrishna Iyer and S.C. Roy contributed to this field. Their writings brought to light various aspects of the sub-stratum of Indian social scale.In contrast, the European civilization represented the highest point of this social ladder.This was an ethnographic belief of European scholars who believed that their society was the best and most evolved while the rest of the world was in various stages of evolution, Indian scholars D.N.Majumdar and N.K.Bose were trained anthropologists and studies races tribes and cultures in various regions of India.

European ethnography supported the theory of an invasion with the introduction of Indo-Aryan and its supporters as the founders of Indian History. This appealed to members of the upper castes who identified themselves as descendants of a superior race – the Aryans. The hypothetical existence of an Aryan race that supposedly swept down from the Nordic race, find into Greece, then into Iran and finally into India to oust from the Gangetic plains the Dravidian inhabitants of the Indian sub-continent.Even though there is hardly any evidence of a distinct Dravidian race in terms of physical anthropology, nonetheless, on the basis of linguistic differences, the South Indians and Tamils have used the Aryan-Dravidian theory to practice an aggressive Tamil nationalism. Romila Thapar remarked:”The theory provided what was thought to be an unbroken, linear history for caste Hindus. However, the discovery of Indus civilization and its city culture in the 1920s contradicted this theory of linear descent. “She further added: “Today mainstream historians argue that despite little archeological evidence of a large scale Aryan invasion with a displacement of the existing culture, there is linguistic evidence of the Indo-Aryan language belonging to the Indo- European family, having been brought to Northern India from beyond the Indo- Iranian border lands and evolving through a series of probably small scale migrations and settlements.” It is obvious, and then the whole construct of the ethnic is only for categorizing non Eurogenic cultures and is evident in colonial ethnography.

181 CENSUS, SURVEY, MANUALS AND GAZATTEERS

During the colonial era, the British sought to establish control over the Indian subjects by extensive record keeping and documentation.The native population was an object of scientific study. Every year through Gazetteers ethnographic and anthropological survey, the Crown was informed of the progress of the empire. These surveys brought to life the image of India in the minds of her rulers. Besides the Indologists, there were British administrators who made extensive study of Indian people, their races and cultures. Most of these studies helped to generate a body of knowledge, preserved in the census reports, Imperial Gazaetteers, District Gazetteers, Manuals, etc., as well in books and monographs which are referred by social anthropologists and ethnologists even today.

Prof. K.N.Panikkar in one of his interviews observed thus: “Gazetteers that have published from the 1880s are a statement of that time.It is chronological information of that time but it was undertaken under a particular context.Most Gazetteers were also known as Manuals.One of the most outstanding Gazetteers is the Gazetteer of Malabar by William Logan, which is known as Malabar Manual.They were written for the use of the colonial administrators for administrative purpose because they hardly knew the substance “. He further added, “The Gazetteers are like the ‘native newspaper reports’, a series which were a summary of newspapers in Indian languages. They were published from 1880s onwards but were stopped in 1936 when Congress ministries came into being”.The District Gazetteers were a part of the Imperial Gazetteer of India which the British undertook to gain a stronger understanding of the culture, economy and geography of the Indian subcontinent.

CENSUS.

In 1871 the first all India census was undertaken by the British Government.The ethnological and anthropological studies have been a continuous feature of Indian census.It throws light on economic, social and

182 cultural life of the people comprising of a spectrum of ethnic groups. In the first census of 1870s, the questionnaire adopted items on ‘religion, caste or class besides race of nationality or country of birth’. In the 1818 census, ‘mother tongue’ was added.In 1921 census, for ‘low castes’ the term ‘depressed classes’ was substituted.The 1901 census classified castes into seven main categories according to their social standing.

In 1901, Sir Herbert Risely attempted to establish an ethnographic survey of India which was part of the census. The census data became an instrument of official policy. It became a method of creating barriers between Hindus and other groups like tribes, between various castes and so on.The British began recording the scheduled casts as distinct from other Hindu castes as a policy. The linguistic terminology Aryan and Dravidian was introduced in Risley’s racial classification.In conjunction with ethnographic survey, a linguistic survey of India was started in 1896.The data provided by these censuses and surveys helped the colonial state to regulate, constrict, count, standardize and hierarchically subordinate the colonial people.

SURVEYS.

The British had conducted the surveys mainly in view of their revenue, commercial and military needs.Some of the well known surveys were conducted by John Mather, the Mysore Survey in 1801, Colin Mackenzie, Survey of Mysore, District of Nizan and Kurnool, Lt.Ward and Connor, Survey of Travancore and Cochin States, James Garlings Survey of Sonda District and so on.The British made divisions, provinces, princely states altogether consistently drawing boundaries depending on political contingencies. Intermediate grouping of districts introduced in 1789 as a part of an important bureaucratic reform. Extensive boundary changes took place under colonial political climate.

The colonial rulers were fairly successful in drawing definite lines dividing different jurisdictions – presidencies, princely states, provinces, divisions, districts, landed estates through surveys and partition.The British thus

183 reinforced the idea of India as a ‘natural’geogrphical entity with obvious physical frontiers defining the sphere in which they and their state were paramount.The surveys, as a gradual process, had led to the expansion of British territories across the subcontinent. The boundaries were reinforced by their representation in laws, gazetteers and maps. Such modern units were significantly different from other cultural or geographical divisions.

ANGLICISTS AND ORIENTALISTS.

The bitter dispute over colonial languages in education policy during the 1830s raised fundamental questions about the role and status of the English language and the Indian vernaculars and classical languages in the diffusion of Western lnowledge and ideas on the subcontinent.Macaulay’s Minute of 2nd February 1835 ended the long standing controversy between Anglicist and Orientalist over the content and medium of Indian education. By simply siding with the Anglicist faction, Macaulay ensured that educational funding would be devoted to the ‘British Model’. It slammed the door on indigenous tradition on learning. The East India Company’s modest patronage of traditional Orientalist studies (Calcutta Madrasa and Sanskrit College) was one manifestation of the prevailing policy of Orientalism which was the official ideology of British India from the time of Warren Hastings (1773-85) until the arrival of William Bentick (1828-35).

The policy of Orientalism interwove the Company’s politicall need to reconcile Indians to the emerging with the scholarly interest of individual British officials in Indian languages and culture. Aware of the fragile bais of British power in India, Hastings believed that effective governance depended on the presence of an elite corps of acculturated British officials who, through their knowledge and sympathetic understanding of Indian Institutions, laws and customs, would exercise power in the manner of traditional Indian rulers.Despite growing pressure for introduction of English language education, during the first two decades of the 19th century, British education policy in India retained a predominantly Orientalist character.

184 British administrators like Munro, Malcolm and Elphinstone supported education policy dictated towards the improvement of Oriental studies.The notion of ‘engraftment’ formed the basis of Orientalist in their dispute with Macaulay. New generation Orientalists, confident in the supremacy of British power, culture and religion increasingly came to believe that Britain’s Mission on the subcontinent involved the transformation of Indian culture and society through the agencies of the English language and Christianity.

ANGLICISTS.

At the forefront of the campaign to anglicize Indian education and society was the evangelical movement.In India, evangelical movement found expression in the work of the Company official Charles Grant who believed that the introduction of Western education and Christianity would transform a morally decadent society.The central issue for Grant, as it would be for Macaulay in the 1830s was the medium through which this light and knowledge should be imparted.The utilitarian view of Indian society was reflected in the ‘History of British India’ (1817). Mill shared Grant’s contempt for Oriental learning.He was of opinion that English was an appropriate medium for the diffusion of ‘useful’ knowledge.There was also pressure for the introduction of English language education from the middle class Hindus.Rajaram Mohan Roy demanded teaching English as a language and believed that it was the key to the revival of Indian culture.Trevelyan replacing H.H.Wilson, gradually introduced Western sciences and English in Oriental colleges as he believed them ‘sleepy, sluggish, inanimate machines’.

The Orientalist- Anglicist controversy finally came to a head in 1834, when Trevelyan and other committee members of public instruction proposed replacing Sanskrit and Arabic studies with English language.The Anglicist claimed that one of the ultimate objectives of their programme was the cultivation of Indian vernaculars through the agency of the English educated elite.The Orientalist maintained that this could be accompanied only by means of the Indian classical languages, whereas the Anglicist believed that the only

185 credible medium of instructions was English.Macaulay wrote; “English had ready access to all the vast intellectual wealth which all the wisest nations of the earth have created and hoarded in the cause of ninety generations “. The creation of acculturated Indian elite is justifiably regarded as the epitome of cultural and linguistic imperialism.

By the close of 19th century, the indiscriminate spread of English medium education had brought into being a class of disaffected ‘would be’ clerical workers.This was not Macaulay’s elite class of Anglicised Indians. Alienated to some extent from the cultural roots by their smattering of Western knowledge and English, denied power and responsibility by the British and disillusioned by the increasing shortage of employment opportunities, the discontented products of the English schools were seen as a potential political threat to the Raj rather than as a class of cultural intermediaries between the British and Indian masses.

SERVICE AND TECHNOLOGY.

Colonization of India succeeded through the cultivation of local elites who could make a complete break with almost all prior social obligations. Such elites were trained to be loyal colonial servants, but disloyal to their fellow citizens.British Raj used the colonial inhabitabts for achieving imperial development schemes.Civil administration of British India was mainly divided into two branches – judicial and executive.In both branches the statues reserved superior posts for the European and Englishmen. In the Indian civil service the English and European entrants had to sign a Covenant and hence it was known as Covenated Civil Service.The uncovenated civil service constituted mainly of educated Indians with a small sprinkling of Europeans. The members of the lower service performed the great bulk of Magisterial and revenue work.The proportion between the convenanted and uncovenated services was one to six.

In 1853, it was decided to recruit the members of the Convenanted Civil Service by competition.This decision gave the Indians opportunities to enter

186 the realm of higher services hitherto exclusively reserved for the Europeans. It was extremely difficult to the majority of Indians to go to London for the competitive examination.Another handicap for the Indians was the age limit, which in 1866 was reduced from 22 to 21.In 1870 an act was passed in the British Parliament which permitted Government of India to appoint a limited number of Indians to any post in the Indian Civil Service without competitive examinations.With Ripon’s recommendation, in 1886, a Commission was appointed and it recommended raising age limit and transferring certain post from the imperial to provincial services.

TECHNOLOGY.

Much colonial historiography recognizes the importance of science and technology to the colonial development policies. Historians have explained the critical role played by scientists and engineers in colonial administration. Similarly, economic historians have addressed science, technology and industrialization as factors critical to colonial economic growth. The interaction of Western and indigenous technology affected both colonizing and colonized societies, creating class differentiation and multiple layers of social strata. Colonial technologies are being analysed as co-constructed or creolized, products of complex social processes.Technological determinist model of modernization formed the basis of development policies throughout the early 20th century. Historians are beginning to problematize the presumed influence of this modernization principle on the levels of scientific practice and technological change in colonial settings.

The construction of canals, dams, irrigation tanks, roads and railways all helped commercialization of agriculture but led to de-industrialisation and retarded growth in certain areas.Transfer of technology in a way helped Indians to modernize.The railways for example, expedited the movement of inland British manufactured goods, the transport of raw materials and strategic deployment of imperial goods.Industrial development was not a colonial priority and British acted ambivalently to safeguard their interests.

187 ENGLISH AND REGIONAL LANGUAGE.

Colonial language policy was intended to reinforced and perpetuate British hegemony.The British sought to accomplish their imperial objectives in India by promoting indigenous languages and cultures in education in the early periods of consolidation of their power.The most serious effects of British language policies and practices were the extensive emphasis on English in schools and neglect of vernacular languages as subjects and instructional medium.Knowledge of English language by Indians from different regions, of course, played a part in generating and creating the sense of a nation in India. The use of English in administration was advocated for efficiency and to reduce fraud.The direct influence, however, of English was small on the population at large. More important was state promoting indigenous language. In the early stages, state translations of official documents promoted orthography and influenced vocabulary. State printing presses played a major part in developing public literary culture. Later the Government was influential further defining linguistic boundaries.

In the pre-colonial days, definable languages had undoubtedly existed in several senses, yet they had not been exclusive or standardized, even in formal versions.The British helped decide which were languages and dialects, as in the case of Oriya and Bengali.Colonial rule linked each language to a distinct written form, to a region and in some cases to race or religion. Standardization of regional languages and linguistic division repeated in every part of British India.This notion was inherent in the empire’s ‘civilising mission’.Because of the political and administrative convenience, the British created languages barriers and regional divisions.Imagined hierarchies of languages and dialects of localities helped the British to generate social and political cleavages among the colonized subjects.Romila Thapar asserted; “By the mid-20th century, the notion that language and race can be equated was found to invalid and indeed the entire construction of unitary races was seriously doubted “.

188 CHAPTER-111

TOWARDS A THEORY OF NATIONALISM

THE NATIONALIST MOVEMENT IN INDIA

It’s Nature

It is wrong to say that the Nationalist Movement in India was the result of a few agitators.Basically, nationalism in India arose to meet the challenge of foreign domination.The very existence of a foreign rule helped the growth of a national sentiment among the people.There was also a clash between the British interests in India and those of the Indian people.The British had conquered India to promote their own interests and they ruled over her primarily with that object in view.With the passage of time, there was a realization in India and that realization brought bitterness against foreign rule and that was responsible for the growth of the nationalist movement to drive out the foreigners from the country.All classes of people in India joined at one stage or the other the nationalist movement.The intelligentsia in India, the peasants, the artisans and the workers all played their part in the freedom struggle.

Causes

1. The nationalist movement in India was the outcome of a large number of factors and the most important among them was British imperialism.It aims during the British rule that the whole of India was conquered and brought under one sovereign authority.This domination by one country over the whole of India enabled the people of India to think and act as one nation. Before the coming of the British to India, the people of the South were usually separated from the rest of India except for short intervals. British imperialism helped the process of the unification of the country.Prof. Moon rightly says: “British

189 imperialism in India gave her a political unity under a third party in spite of the many discordant elements in Indian society”.

2.The improvements in the means of transport and communication also quickened the pace of the nationalist movement in the country.The Indian leaders found themselves in a position to carry on their propaganda in every nook and corner of the country.Without those means of communication and transport, such a thing would have been unthinkable.The frequent meetings of the leaders among themselves and their personal contact with the people in different parts of the country gave a momentum to the nationalist movement.

3. Many scholars, poets and religious reformers contributed towards the progress of the nationalist movement. The study and publication of the ancient Indian literature by the Asiatic Society of Bengal and scholars like Max Muller, Monier Williams, Colebrooke, Ranade. Har Prasad Sastri, R.G. Bhandarkar, Rajendra Lal Mitra, etc., revealed to the people of India the majesty of the Sanskrit language and also inculcated among them a feeling of pride in their past and their faith in the future.

4. The religious and social reformers like Raja Rama Mohan Roy, Keshab Chandra Sen, Debendra Nath Tagore, Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar, Swami Dayanand Saraswati, Ramakrishna Paramhans.Vivekanand and others exercised a tremendous influence on the people of India and they were responsible in different ways in putting the people of India on the road to progress. It is contended that political agitation in India began with Raja Ram Mohan Roy.His study of English literature, history and parliamentary institutions acquainted him with the western political ideas and he introduced the methods of political agitation by petitions, pamphlets, memorials public meetings and the press.He was a great lover of liberty.To him, liberty was indivisible.The enslavement of one section of humanity was incompatible with the liberty of another section.He followed with intense interest the course of the French Revolution.He is said to have given a public dinner in the Town Hall of Calcutta as a mark of his joy at the establishment of constitutional

190 government in Spain.Keshab Chandra Sen also made his contribution towards the cause of nationalism by helping the movement for social and religious reform.The missionaries of the Brahmo Samaj carried their message of new religionsand social freedom far and wide all over the Indian continent.

Swami Dayanand Saraswati founded the Arya Samaj. He preached to the people of India the lesson of self-confidence and faith in their future. He reminded them of the glory and greatness of India’s past and exhorted his audience to leave no stone unturned to make India great.He declared that good government was no substitute for self-government and the rule of India by the Indians was to be preferred in every way.It is well-known that many leaders of the Arya Samaj like played a glorious part in the nationalist movement of the country.Col. Olcott has rightly pointed out that Swami Dayanand exercised “great nationalizing influence upon his followers”. The view of Annie Besant was: ‘It was Dayanand Saraswati who proclaimed India for the Indians”.

Ramakrishna Paramhans exercised great influence on his followers.He has rightly been given the credit of assisting the growth of national consciousness among the people.The Ramakrishna Math and Mission have in many ways helped the cause of self-consciousness among the people of India. Swami Vivekanand was the pupil of Ramakrishna Paramhans and he in his own way helped the people of India in reviving their faith in themselves and also in the future of the country. About Swami Vivekanand, Niveditta says: “The queen of his adoration was the motherland”.Like Swami Dayanand, Swami Vivekanand taught young India self-confidence and self-reliance.The founders of the Theosophical Society of India and Mrs. Annie Besant made their own contribution towards the cause of the national awakening.They asked the people of India to realize that they were not so bad as the Christian missionaries painted them to be.They were as good as many advanced people of the world were.They asked the people of India to look to their

191 glorious past and try to bring back the same. They taught people to have faith in themselves.

5.The Indian press and literature, both English and Vernacular, also aroused national consciousness.Great was the influence of newspapers like the Indian Mirror, the Bombay Samachar, the Hindu Patriot.The Amrita Bazar Patrika, The Hindu, The Kesari, The Bengalee, The hurkura, The Bengal Public Opinion, The Reis and Rayet, the Somprokash, The Sulabh Samachar, The Sanjibam, The Sadharm, The Hitavadi, The Rast Goftar, The Industries Prakash, The Standard The Swadeshmitran, The Herald of Bihar, The Advocate of Lucknow, etc., on the political life of the country.The growth of the Indian press was phenomenal and by 1875, there were no less than 478 newspapers in the country.Without them, it would have been impossible to create an atmosphere in which the people of India could be made to think of their common problems and common grievances.Undoubtedly, the Indian Press played a meritorious role in not only creating a national awakening in the country but also guiding the people of India throughout their struggle for independence.It goes without saying that the Indian press also paid a part of the price for the freedom of the country.The Indian press was the target of the British Government from the very beginning but it boldly and fearlessly faced the challenge.

The writings of Dinbandhu Hemchandra Banerjee, Navin Chandra Sen, R.C. Dutt, Rabindra Nath Tagore and Bankim Chandra Chatterjee affected the minds of the people of India.Through his writings, Rabindra Nath Tagore appealed to thehigher sentiments of the people of India to work for the glory of their country.He tried to raise the moral tone of his countrymen.The Anand Math of Bankim Chandra Chatterji which embodied the patriotic song “Bande Mataram” (Hail to the Mother), has rightly been called “The Bible of Modern Bengal patriotism”.

6.It goes without saying that the concepts of nationality and patriotism were known to the Indians throughout their history. Ancient literature and religious

192 texts testify to a well-defined image of Mother India and to a closer consciousness of national solidarity.The ancient Indians gave it the name of Bharatvarsha or simply Bharat.The Puranas expressly define the term Bharat as the country that lies north of the Indian Ocean and south of the snowy Himalayas.The Hindu consciousness of national frontier is illustrated in their institution of pilgrimages which expects a Hindu to visit the various holy places, distributed throughout the length and breadth of the country.

7. There was a lot of discontentment in the country on account of many causes and that discontentment gave a stimulus to the growth of the nationalist movement in the country.The masses suffered from economic troubles. The middle classes suffered from the bugbear of unemployment. All the intelligent Indians felt and bewailed the economic exploitation of their country.The British officials working in India were a very heavy drain on the Indian resources.The economic system of India was adjusted to the needs of the people of England.The interests of the Indians were completely ignored. Blunt rightly points out that the vice of Indian finance was that the Finance Minister of India looked more to the interests of Great Britain than to those of India.All tariff duties were abolished in 1879 with a view to benefit Lancashire. In 1895, an excise duty of 5 per cent was imposed on Indian cotton goods with a view to countervail similar tariff on Lancashire goods imposed in the interests of revenue.The value of the Indian rupee in terms of the English pound was fixed in such a way as to help imports from England and discourage exports from India.Sir Henry Cotton condemned the economic exploitation of India and the consequent miseries of the people of the country. The Indians resented the attitude of the Englishmen towards them.The Europeans in India were arrogant.They had a very low opinion of the Indian character.They took pleasure in calling the Indians the creatures of an inferior breed, ‘Half Gorilla, half Negro”.They ridiculed the Indian black heathens “worshipping stocks and stones and swinging themselves on bamboo trees like bees”.The European masters regarded the Indians as “the belots of the land, the hewers of wood and the drawers of water”.The life of an Indian was

193 estimated by most Europeans as no higher than that of a dog. In 1819, Sir Thomas Munro confessed that although the foreign conquerors have treated the natives with violence and cruelty they had not treated them with so much scorn as the Englishmen had done.Seton Kerr, a Secretary to the Government of India, spoke of the “cherished conviction which was shared by every Englishman in India, from the highest to the lowest…….the conviction in every man that he belongs to a race which God has destined to govern and subdue”.Lord Roberts, who at one time was the Commander-in-Chief of India, did not regard even the bravest of the Indian soldiers as equal to a British officer.

There was a lopsided development of the Indian economy. While Indian handicrafts and industries were allowed to starve, Indian agriculture was encouraged with a purpose.Most of the raw materials were produced in the country so that those could be used to feed the industries in England. That policy made India dependent on England.The free trade policy helped the British manufacturers and sacrificed the interests of India.The public debt increased tremendously.After 1858; the Crown took over the entire debt of 70 millions from the English East India Company. Between 1858 and 1876, the public debt was practically doubled.Out of the additional debt, only about 24 millions were spent on the construction of railways and irrigation works. No proper use of the money was made while constructing the railways.Those who constructed them was given more than what was due to them.

Before the outbreak of the Mutiny in 1857, there were many Englishmen who honestly believed and worked for the good of India. However, during the Mutiny days a lot of blood was shed on both sides.The Europeans wreaked their vengeance on the helpless and innocent industries after the Mutiny. It was this policy of oppression and repression which added to the discontent of the country.The Indians were completely excluded from the legislatures in the country and also from the key-posts in the administration.

194 8. The English language played a very important part in the growth of nationalism in the country.It acted as the lingua franca of the intelligentsia of India.Without the common medium of the English language, it would have been out of the question for the Madrasis, Bengalees and the Punjabs to sit at one table and discuss the common problems facing the country.The English language also made the Indians inheritors of a great literature which was full of great ideas and ideals.

9. The ground was ready and acts of omission and commission in the time of Lord Lytton accelerated the nationalist movement.The period from 1876 to 1884 has been called the seedtime of Indian nationalism. Lord Lytton held his famous Delhi Durbar in 1877 at a time when the people of South India were suffering terribly from the destruction brought about by famine.They wondered at the callousness of Lytton.An appropriate comment was made in these words: ‘Nero was fiddling while Rome was burning”.The second Afghan War cost the Indian treasury a lot. No wonder, the Indians criticized Lytton mercilessly.In order to gag the Indian public opinion.Lytton passed the notorious Vernacular Press Act in 1878.The discriminatory provisions of this Act were universally condemned by the people belonging to all walks of life. Sir Erskine Perry points out that the Act was “a retrograde and ill-conceived measure injurious to the future progress of India”.It was called the Gagging Act, Lytton passed the Arms Act in 1878 which made an invidious distinction between the Indians and the Europeans.While the Europeans were allowed to keep arms freely, the Indians could not do so without a licence.In the words of Surendra Nath Banerjee, the Arms Act “imposed upon us a badge of racial inferiority”.Such a measure was derogatory to the self-respect of the people of India.Lord Lytton removed the import duty on cotton manufacturers with a view to help the British manufacturers and this was resented by the Indians. It is true Lord Ripon tried to remove some of the grievances of India but before he could do so, the Ilbert Bill controversy came to the fore.

195 10. The Ilbert Bill was a simple measure whose object was to put the Indian judges on the same footing as the European judges in dealing with all cases in Bengal Presidency.The necessity of this bill arose as the Indians who had joined the judicial service were rising in the ranks and that involved the possible trial of Europeans by an Indian judge without a jury.This was considered to be too much by the Europeans. A strong agitation was brought into edistence by the Europeans who were not prepared to be tried by an Indian judge.Lord Ripon became the target of the agitation. He was boycotted by the European community. He was threatened to be kidnapped to England. Ultimately a compromise was arrived at which suited the Europeans. However, this set a wrong precedent. The flag of racialism was hoisted by the Europeans.The Indians realized that they could not expect any justice or fair- play from the Englishmen when their own interests were involved. Surendranath Banerjee observes: “No self-respecting Indian could sit idle under the fierce light of the revelation. It was a call to high patriotic duty to those who understood its significance”.Before the effect of the Ilbert Bill controversy was over, the Indians had already organized themselves into the Indian National Conference which was the forerunner of the Indian National Congress founded in 1885.

ECONOMIC CRITIQUE OF COLONIALISM: DADABHAINAOROJI

The Indian belief that British rule was a divine blessing to this country underwent a profound change with the passage of time.The deliberate policy of the English to rule India for her own economic benefit wounded the feeling of the Indians. Dadabhai Naoroji was the first Indian to devote his attention to this particular field of study, ie. The economic exploitation of the country by the British. On the basis of elaborate data, Dadabhai Naoroji exposed the evils of British rule.He pointed out that the average annual income of the population of British India was 40 shillings per head. According to him the expenditure of the British administration, especially the huge military expenditure was out of proportion to the Indian revenue.The result was heavy taxation which specially

196 fell upon the poorer section.In this famous Drain Theory, Dadabhai Naoroji stated the various methods employed by the rb for expropriating Indian material and human resources.Another important question which he raised was protection.Indian industries, in his opinion, needed protection.Free Trade was good for those countries which had equal command over their own resources. But ‘Free trade between England and India is something like a race between a starving, exhausted invalid, and a strong man with a horse to ride on’. For freeing the Indian economy from British rule, Dadabhai said, political independence was a pre-condition.He had no hesitation in declaring that unchecked British exploitation would one day lead to revolution. Even in 1875 Salisbury, the Secretary of State for India, urged caution by remarking that ‘India must be bled, but the bleeding should be done judicioulsy’.

It was in 1879 when Lord Lytton abolished the import duties on cotton that the Indians reacted sharply.The press attacked the measures in the most vigorous language and hundreds of public meetings were held.The condition of the cultivators grew from bad to worse. Serious agrarian disturbances had occurred in Bengal in 1872-73 when tenants began something like a no-rent campaign.Agrarian discontent had reached its climax in western India when the Prince of Wales visited India in 1875.The discontent of the Moplah peasants which had organized 22 rebellions from 1836 to 1854 found expression in five major outbreaks from 1873-80.Similarly, a series of peasant riots took place in the plains of Assam during 1893-94 owing to high land revenue assessment.But the peasant movements did not assume such dimensions as to operate as a threat to British supremacy in India. Apart from the peasant unrest, the neglect of primary education, restrictions imposed on Indians by the Arms Act and the Vernacular Press Act fanned Indian discontent against the British.

197 THE NATIONALISTS, SOCIALISM AND : AN OVERVIEW

The trend represented by the socialists in the national movement was broadly represented in the ideas of Jawaharlal Nehru, , , Narendra Developed and their associates in the Congress Socialist Party.Despite differences among them, they were attracted towards the ethical ideal of socialism emphasizing abolition of inequality, exploitation and injustice; they were simultaneously ardent nationalists and were opposed to the methods of conflict and violence by using which the socialist revolution had been accomplished in the USSR. In other words, they aimed at a socialist restructuring of India on the basis of Indian nationalism. At the same time, they also distanced themselves from the trend represented by Hindu revivalism. Broadly, they emphasized the secular basis of Indian nationalism and it was with in this framework that they projected their vision of socialism.

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU.

Nehru’s understanding of the problem of social transformation of India was primarily guided by his secular and scientific outlook, which aimed at the modernization of Indian society.In this venture Nehru, had before him two major alternatives. One, the model of free in the West, based on unrestricted capitalism; the other was the model of as pursued in the USSR.Nehru had reservations against both of these approaches. He could not accept the first one, since this would eventually lead to gross inequality and exploitation, in violation of the basic norms of humanism.As regards the Marxian model of socialism which was being practiced in Soviet Russia, Nehru was deeply impressed by its achievements and he quite openly proclaimed that sosm was the onlyoption for India, if a society free from the clutches of exploitation, injustice and inequality was to be built.His socialist sympathy was most strongly evident in his Presidential address at the Lucknow Session of the AICC in 1936. He could at the same

198 time never reconcile himself to the methords.Thus, he could not accept the idea of the cult of one centralized party, restrictions on rights and freedoms of individuals and above all, Soviet socialism’s emphasis on class struggle and the forcible overthrow of an exploitative social order.Nehru’s socialism was broadly based on limited public control of private enterprise, planned economy etc. on the one hand, and pluralism, freedom of the individual etc. on the other. In developing this perspective, he was deeply influenced by the Fabian idea of in a nationalist framework. While this nationalism was sharply different from the idea of Hindu revivalism with which Nehru never compromised, he emphasized that India’s road to socialism would have its foundations based on traditional Indian ideals like co-operation, peaceful development, humanism and accommodation of all religious beliefs, i.e. secularism.

It becomes quite strongly evident that Nehru was projecting a vision which was bound to unleash tensions and difficulties, since it was an attempt to reconcile things which were contradictory. While Nehru’s goal was to seek a society based on justice and free from exploitation, he attempted to do it in a framework of thought where rights and freedoms of individuals placed in unequal circumstances would not be restricted. This was a kind of humanism which was unworkable in practice, since the privileged and the underprivileged were advised to work in a spirit of cooperation. Effectively speaking, Nehru’s nationalistic vision blurred his perspective of socialism and dissipated the possibility of any real social revolution, since his radical outlook contradicted his path of compromise.

SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE.

Subash Chandra Bose’s idea of social transformation of India was guided primarily by a spirit of intense nationalism and the considerations of practical politics.While he quite strongly emphasized that political freedom was meaningless without social and economic emancipation of the masses and that in free India it was not the vested interests (i.e., the landlords, money-

199 lenders and capitalists) but the interests of the peasants and workers which would be protected, the ideological framework which he envisaged for realizing these goals contradicted his objectives. In fighting vested interests, since he stood for the abolition of landlordism, and uniform land-tenure system and sound planning, he distanced himself from the capitalist path of free- market economy and came certainly closer to the radical ideology of socialism.But his spiritual background, particularly the influence of Vivekananda, his militant nationalism and above all, his primary consideration being practical politics, led Bose to reject the Marxist model of socialism with emphasis on class struggle and materialism.Thus, while he was certainly attracted towards socialism’s crusade against injustice and exploitation and its advocacy of the cause of equality, he could not endorse the political strategy of Marxism for realization of these objectives.

Bose’s ideological vision became particularly clouded because, guided primarily by militant nationalist sentiments he aimed at realizing his goal by adopting a path which would give him quick, immediate and effective results. This inclination towards pragmatism being a major feature of Bose’s political outlook, he looked towards with its emphasis on centralized state control and militarism.He felt that the quickest road to social transformation was possible by combining the ideological goal of Marxism, socialism with emphasis on equality and the fascist methods of discipline, militant nationalism and rigid state control. In this regard, the views of Bose sharply differed from those of Nehru, who was uncompromisingly opposed to fascism for its inhuman character. Bose, how, could not convincingly explain as to how this odd mixture was really possible in practice, since fascism was basically a defence of the vested interests of capitalism, while Marxian socialism was uncompromisingly opposed to capitalism.The result was that Subhas Chandra Bose’s nationalist ideological vision did not enable him to develop any real and effective understanding of the problem of social revolution in India.

200 THE SOCIALISTS.

Socialism was a trend broadly represented by Narendra Developed, Jayaprakash Narayan and Rammanohar Lohia who distanced themselves from the Congress and claimed to be more racial than views. However, like Nehru they too, were not much inclined towards the soviet model of socialism nor was the Leninist concept of a centralized party acceptable to them Guided primarily by the spirit of nationalism and the idea of co-operation, they considered themselves radical in the sense that they aimed at the realization of the ideal of socialism based on equality and social justice by emphasizing the importance of democratic decentralization regarding the village as the main unit of development and encouraging the growth of small scale cottage industries and handicrafts rather than heavy industrialization.They believed that in India social transformation would be effective only along the traditional path, that is, by encouraging agricultural growth and it is in this respect that they distinguished themselves from the path of Nehru, who aimed at the modernization of Indian society primarily by adopting the strategy of industrialization and planned economy.

The socialists, broadly identified with the ideology of the Congress Socialist Party, however, stood for secularism, resistance against obscurantist practices like untouchability and were inclined towards the ethical and humanitarian goals of socialism. In this sense their ideological viewpoint also had common ground with the perspective of the Indian National Congress, predominantly represented by Nehru. But the socialists, too, could not provide any real and effective solution to the problem of social transformation, since their outlook emphasized primarily the values of co-operation and social harmony in a situation where people were placed unequally in the social structure. Neither the idea of co-operation nor the programme of rural development with emphasis on decentralization could provide any real and lasting solution to the problem of social revolution in India.

201 THE MARXISTS, SOCIALISM AND SOCIAL REVOLUTION

The freedom struggle witnessed another trend represented broadly by the Marxists who distanced themselves from the socialist minded nationalists on a number of questions. Their idea of social revolution was broadly guided by the basic tenets of Marxism and the experience of the that had taken place in1917.On the one hand, they were skeptical about the very ideology of nationalism and the solutions provided by people like Nehru, Subhas Chandra Bose, Narendra Dev and others, since in their opinion the nationalist framework of thought would perpetuate the basic problem of inequality, exploitation and injustice in India; on the other hand, they stood for a social order where the interests of the workers and poor peasants would be primarily safeguarded and real power would vest in their hands.This meant an alternative understanding of the problem of social revolution in the framework of a radical variant of socialism, i.e. Marxism.This trend was reflected collectively in the viewpoint of the communists associated broadly with the of India, the Workers’ and Peasants’ Party and other radical groups which broadly swore in the name of marxism. Individually, the Marxists position was best represented in the thought of M.N.Roy in his early years when he was associated with the communist movement. Later, however, there took place a major shift in his outlook when he provided a reinterpretation of Marxism and distanced himself from the Communists.

THE COMMUNIST CRITIQUE OF NATIONALISM.

The alternative strategy of social revolution proposed by the communists was primarily a product of their critique of the nationalist brand of socialism. While they also were genuine patriots and stood for secularism, opposition to Hindu revivalism and obscurantist practices like untouchability, their basic argument was that the objectives of socialism, i.e. equality, justice and freedom from exploitation could not be realized without a radical restructuring of society.In their vision, this was impossible by adopting the nationalist solution which emphasized primarily the idea of accomplishment of national

202 freedom under the leadership of the middle-class oriented parties and groups as represented by Nehru, Subhas Bose and Congress Socialists.The Communists also could not agree with their perspective of social transformation which mainly justified the values of harmony and co-operation among the contending groups and classes in society where discrimination between the privileged and underprivileged was extremely acute.In other words, their main objection against nationalism was that it was virtually a defence of the vested interests and real social transformation was impossible by adopting the framework of nationalism.

Motivated by this idea the communists, who professed their adherence to marxism, developed an alternative approach towards the understanding of the question of social revolution.They followed what is generally known as the class approach and therein lay their fundamental difference with the nationalists approach. They argued that if the ordinary man was to be the real beneficiary of social transformation, then it would have to be the alliance of the working class and peasantry which would be the guiding force of revolution. This, they argued, could not be done by adopting the methods of co-operation and preaching harmony of contending groups and classes in society; to achieve this objective, the communists thus preached the idea of violent, forcible overthrow of the propertied classes which included the nationalists, i.e. the middle classes also. In proclaiming this goal, they were largely inspired by the experience of the Russian Revolution.

This approach, however, despite its strongly radical thrust, proved unworkable for a number of reasons.One, despite the criticism of the nationalists, it could not be appreciated by the communists that nationalist sentiments and appeals were too strongly embedded in the minds of the masses, which could not be just brushed aside. Rather, this virulent attack on nationalism and the castigation of the nationalist leaders like Gandhi, Nehru and Subhas Bose as agents of capitalists quite often isolated the communists from the mainstream of the freedom struggle.Two, the model of the Russian

203 Resolution was virtually unworkable in India, because the material conditions were fundamentally different.Three, the communists overestimated the potential and organizational strength of the working class was somewhat mechanical and to a large extent unreal, with the consequence that their vision of social revolution eventually remained unreal and unworkable.

M. N. ROY

M.N. Roy quite often regarded as one of the founders of communist movement in India, was one of the early Marxists who attempted a radical understanding of the issue of social transformation of Indian society as distinct from the framework of nationalism. In his early phase (extending up to the late 20s) Roy’s understanding suggested that the social emancipation of the Indian masses was possible only by effecting a socialist revolution in the country under the leadership of the working class, since he believed that in India nationalism was a spent force and that the nationalist movement was virtually aimed at ultimate consolidation of the interests of the middle class which spearheaded it.This hostility towards ad cynicism about nationalism made Roy an uncompromising critic of the leaders of the Indian National Congress like Gandhi and Nehru.Moreover, Roy’s optimism about the prospects of a socialist revolution in India was largely guided by his understanding that industrialization had proceeded quite rapidly in the country with the result that a strong working class had emerged with the potentiality to unleash a revolution. Subsequent research has proved that this understanding was totally at variance with reality, since the British were not at all interested in any real and effective industrialization of India.

M.N. Roy, as we know, later returned to India following his dissociation with the Communist movement and this second phase, broadly known as the period of ‘radical humanism’witnessed Roy’s reinterpretation of marxism in a new perspective. During this period, while he maintained his earlier critique of nationalism and thereby continued to distance himself from the Congress Party, his views underwent a change in regard to the earlier understanding of

204 Marxism as just a political instrument for violent overthrow of the exploiter class. Roy now came round to the position that for a real social revolution in India what was primarily necessary was the assertion of a new kind of ethical consciousness with which the people would have to be imbued. The emphasis now shifted in his thought from political confrontation to a kind of abstract humanism which, however, was of little practical use.As a transition took place in his writings from focusing on the masses to that on the individual and from political action to abstract humanism, his perspective of social revolution became blurred and virtually unworkable.

He we have broadly tried to arrive at an overall evaluation of the contending viewpoints of the nationalists with a socialist outlook and the Marxists on the question of social revolution. We have seen that despite their agreement on some major issues like opposition to and overthrow of British imperialism, Hindu revivalism and different types of obscurantism on the one hand and their inclination towards the values of Socialism and rejection of absolute free market economy on the other, they ultimately differed in regard to the issue of the complex interrelation between social revolution and nationalism. For the nationalists it was nationalism which was more important than social revolution and, consequently, the basic issue of social transformation ultimately got compromised.For the Marxists however, it was social revolution which was more important and they felt that this was in issue which could not be effectively settled within the framework of nationalism. In this venture, while emphasizing class struggle they quite often mechanically contraposed the two and there were occasions when they got themselves isolated from the mainstream of the freedom struggle.

205 CHAPTER-1V

NATIONALIST RESISTANCE

GENESIS OF THE INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS.

There is no unanimity of opinion regarding the origin of the Indian National Congress. Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya says that the origin of the Congress is “shrouded in mystery”.There are many accounts and theories about it.

1.Themost widely accepted view is that Hume, under the protection of Lord Dufferin, organized the Congress with two main purposes and those were to provide a “safety-valve” to the anticipated or actual discontentment of the Indian intelligentsia and to form a quasi-constitutional party similar to Her Majesty’s Opposition in England.The view of W.C. Banerjee, the First Congress President, was that the Indian National Congress as it was originally started, was in reality the work of Lord Dufferin, Governor General of India. According to him, when Hume in 1884 conceived the idea that it would be a great advantage to the country if leading Indian politicians could be brought together once a year to discuss social matters and be upon friendly footing with one another, he did not desire that politics should form part of their discussions.Hume was also of the view that the Governor of the province, where the politicians met, should be asked to preside and thereby cordiality should be established between the official classes and the non-official Indian politicians.With these ideas, Hume met Lord Dufferin at Simla early in 1885. The Viceroy showed keen interest in the matter and after considering it for some time; he sent for Hume and told him that inhis opinion his project would not be of much use.He suggested to him that there was no body of persons in India who performed the functions which Her Majesty’s Opposition did in England.Dufferin’s view was that Indian politicians should meet every year and point out to the Government in what respects the administration was defective and how the same could be improved.The assembly proposed by him should not be presided over by the local Governor.It is contended that Hume was convinced of the argument of Dufferin and when he placed the two

206 schemes, his own and that of Dufferin, before the leading politicians in Calcutta, Bombay, Madras and other parts of the country, the latter unanimously accepted Dufferins’ scheme and proceeded to give effect to it.

2. Prof. Sundar Raman has given a slightly different version of the same theory.According to him, Dufferin persuaded Hume to stay on and work in India rather than go back to England and work from there.The idea of Hume was to arouse the consciousness of the people of England by carrying on agitation in England.However, Dufferin convinced Hume that the latter could secure his own aims best by confining the agitation to India for the present and by helping the Indian public men all over the country to organize and develop a national organization in India conducted by her own leaders with the help and sympathy of men like Hume. A similar view was expressed by Gokhale in 1913 in these words:“No Indian could have started the Indian National Congress. Apart from the fact that any one putting his hand to such a gigantic task had need to have Mr. Hume’s commanding personality, even if an Indian had possessed such a personality and had come forward to start such a movement embracing all India, the officials would not have allowed it to come into existence.If the founder of the Congress had not been a great Englishman and a distinguished example-official, such was the distrust of political agitation in those days that the authorities would have at once found some way or the other of suppressing the movement”.

3. There is another theory which attributes Hume’s initiative to the fear of a rebellion of the peasants, especially in Northern India.There are two versions of the theory.One view is that Hume came to know of the impending calamity while still a member of the Indian Civil Service through the secret reports from the C.I.D.The other view is that Hume got the information not from official sources but from reports from Chelas and Gurus (disciples and masters). It was through them that Hume got access to 7 large volumes containing references to a general state of rebellion in Northern India. Critics point out

207 that the theory of rebellion has no historical basis and it was merely for propaganda value.

4. Another view is that the Theosophical Society of India was the parent of the Indian National Congress.Olcott asserted in 1886 that the Theosophical Society had first shown the possibility of bringing men from different parts of India together into friendly relations whi had never been known before. Reghunath Rao and N.N. Sen virtually accused Hume of having stolen their thunder.Their contention was that the real origin of the Congress should be traced back to the meeting held at Raghunath Rao’s house in Madras late in December, 1884.Rejecting this view, critics point out that the idea of holding annual conferences of representative men from different parts of the country in order to promote national objectives had been current in India long before the founders of the Theosophical Society landed in Bombay in February, 1897.

5. The view of Dr. Nand Lal Chatterji is that the “Congress was founded in fact as a precautionary move against an apprehended Russian invasion of India”. The relations between Russia and Afghanistan were very strained over the question of Panjdeh and there was a danger of Great Britain being involved in it.The fear of Russian advance in Central Asia worried the Government of India and the people of India gave a demonstration of their loyalty to the Crown by offering themselves as volunteers for the defence of their country. The Indian Press and the educated Indians demanded the organization of a Volunteer Corps.The attitude of the Government was unsympathetic towards the movement which died out as the danger of Russian invasion receded. It is pointed out that Russophobia and the Volunteer Movement worked as a lever to political activity in India.The prevailing atmosphere in the country was conducive to the birth and growth of an all-India political organization.It was in March 1885 that the Russian danger was at its highest and it was then that Hume met the Viceroy and explained to him his proposal to organize the Indian National Congress and succeeded in securing the neutrality, if not

208 active support of othe Viceroy.Thus, Russophobia played its part in the creation of the Indian National Congress.

6. Another view gives the Congress an “impressive origin, a birth in substance, a spontaneous character”.It is contended that “its roots are to be discovered in the separate political associations in various parts of India. It was watered by the controversies over the Vernacular Press Act, the Arms Act, the reduction of the age limit for entrance into the Indian Civil Service and the Ilbert Bill.Another view is that the Congress was “the first rich harvest of what had been sown long before by the wise and beneficent statesmen in the shape of schools and colleges”.The view of Surendranath Banerjee is that the Congress was the “outcome of those civilizing influences which Macaulay and his Congress-adjutors were instrumental in implanting in the Government of the country”.Wedderburn regarded the Congress as “the direct result of thenoblest efforts of the British statesmen, the rational and healthy fruit of higher education and free institutions” granted to the people of India.The Congress was a visible embodiment of the national awakening in India as a result of the impact of Western civilization on Indian thought.

FIRST SESSION OF THE CONGRESS.

The first meeting of the Indian National Union which was subsequently renamed the Indian National Congress was to be held at Poona but its venue had to be shifted to Bombay.Originall it had been decided to request Lord Reay, Governor of Bombay, to be the first President of the Indian National Congress but the idea had to be dropped as the Governor was advised by the Viceroy not to accept the offer.In his place W.C. Bannerjee, a leading Barrister of Calcutta and a very safe and loyal person, was elected the first President. 72 delegates came from different parts of the country and most important among them were Dadabhai Naoroji, Dinshaw Wacha, Ranade, Pherozeshah Mehta, K.T. Telang; etc.The meeting was truly a national gathering consisting of leading men from all parts of India.

209 SECOND SESSION OF THE CONGRESS.

The second meeting of the Indian National Congress was held at Calcutta and was presided over by Dadabhai Naoroji.Dadabhai praised the blessings of the British rule in India and he was cheered by the members of the audience. Hume moved a resolution for three cheers for Her Most Gracious Majesty, the Queen Empress and a further resolution for the long life of the Queen.He also advised his colleagues to look upon Dufferin not as an enemy but as a friend and well-wisher.Dufferin invited the members of the Congress as “distinguished visitors” to a garden party at the Government House. A similar welcome was given by the Governor of Madras in 1887. However, a change took place in the attitude of the Government.After the Madras session in 1887, an aggressive propaganda was started among the masses.Hume published a pamphlet entitled “An Old Man’s Hope”, in which he appealed to the people of England in these words: “Ah Men ! Well-fed and happy! Do you at all realize the dull misery of these countless myriads? From their births to their deaths, how many rays of sunshine think you chequer their gloom- shrowded paths? Toil, Toil, Toil; hunger, hunger, hunger, sickness, suffering, sorrow; these alas, alas, alas are the key-notes of their short and sad existence”.In December 1889, the Congress session was held at Bombay under the Chairmanship of Sir William Wedderburn.It was attended by Charles Bradlaugh; a member of British Parliament.He addressed the Congress in these words: “For whom should I work if not for the people? Born of the people, trusted by the people, I will die for the people”.

LAHORE SESSION OF THE CONGRESS.

Dadabhai Naoroji was re-elected as the President of the Lahore session of the Congress held in December 1893.His travel from Bombay to Lahore presented the spectacle of a procession.Citizens of the various places on the way presented him addresses.At the Sikh Golden Temple at , he was given a robe of honour.He brought the following message from the Irish members of the Parliament:“Don’t forget to tell your colleagues at the

210 Congress that every one of the Ireland’s Home Rule members in Parliament is at your back in the cause of the Indian people”. Addressing the audience at the Session, Dadabhai declared: “Let us always remember that we are children of our mother country. Indeed, I have never worked in any other spirit than that I an Indian and owe duty to my work and all my countrymen. Whether I am a Hindu or a Mohammedan, a Parsi, a Christian, or of any other creed, I am above all an Indian. Our country is India, our nationality is Indian”.

The next session of the Congress was held in Madras in 1894 under the Presidentship of Alfred Webb, an Irish member of the British Parliament.The next session was held at Poona in 1895 and was presided over by Surendranath Banerjee.Gokhale presided over the Banaras Session of the Congress in 1905.The next session was held at Calcutta in 1906 under the Presidentship of Dadabhai Naoroji.On that occasion, Dadabhai unfurled the flag of Swaraj for India and four resolutions on self-government, boycott, Swadeshi and national education were passed.

THE MODERATES (1885 – 1905) OR THE FOLLOWERS OF CONSTITUTIONAL METHOD.

The early Congressmen who dominated the affairs of the Indian National Congress from 1885 to 1905 were known as the Moderates. They belonged to a class which was Indian in blood and colour but British in tastes, in opinions, in morals and in intellect.They were supporters of British institutions.They believed that what India needed was a balanced and lucid presentation of her needs before the Englishmen and their Parliament and their demands were bound to be satisfied.They had faith in the British sense of justice and fairplay. India’s connection with the West through England was considered to be a boon and not a curse.The Moderates believed in loyalty to the British Crown.This fact is clearly brought out by the statements made from time to time by the Moderate leaders.Dadabhai Naoroji is said to have observed thus: “Let us speak out like men and proclaim that we are loyal to the backbone; Surendranath Banerjee described his attitude towards England in these

211 words:“Let us work……with unwavering loyalty to the British connection…..Then will the Congress have fulfilled its mission – justified the hopes of those who founded it, one who worked for it……not by the supersession of British rule in India, but by broadening its basis, liberalizing its spirit, ennobling its character, and placing it upon the unchangeable foundations of a nation’s affections.It is not severance that we look forward to – but unification, permanent embodiment, as an integral part of that great Empire which has given the rest of the world the models of free institutions …..Covered the world with free states”. Again, “To England we look for guidance.To England we look for sympathy in the struggle.From England must come the crowning mandate which will enfranchise our peoples.England is our political guide and ourmoral preceptor in the exalted sphere of political duty.English history has taught those principles of freedom which we cherish with our life-blood. We have been fed upon the strong food of English constitutional freedom”.

The Moderates relied upon the solemn pledges given by thebr Government to the people of India from time to time and the Queen’s proclamation of 1858 was one of them.Surendranath Banerjee called this proclamation as “The Magna Carta of our rights and liberties”.He went to the extent of saying that “The Proclamation, the whole Proclamation and nothing but the Proclamation is our watchword our battle-cry and the ensign of victory. It is the gospel of our political redemption”.The Moderates believed in orderly progress and constitutional agitation.They believed in patience, steadiness, conciliation and union.To quote Surendranath Banerjee, “The triumphs of liberty are not to be won in a day Liberty is a jealous goddess, exacting in her worship and claiming from her votaries prolonged and assiduous devotion”.In 1887, Congress President Badruddin Tyabji observed: “Be moderate in your demands, just in your criticism, correct in your facts and logical in your conclusions”.Dr. Rash Behari Ghosh is said to have observed: “You must have patience.You must learn to wait and everything will come to you in time”. The Moderates believed in constitutional agitation within the four corners of

212 law.They believed that their main task was to educate the people, to arouse national political consciousness and to create a united public opinion on political questions.For this purpose they held meetings.They criticized the Government through the press.They drafted and submitted memorials and petitions to the Government, to the officials of the Government of India and also to the British Parliament.They also worked to influence the British Parliament and British public opinion.The object of the memorials and petitions was to enlighten the British public and political leaders about the conditions prevailing in India. Deputations of leading Indian leaders were sent to Britainin 1889.A British Committee of the Indian National Congress was founded in 1906 and that Committee started a journal called “India”. Dadabhai Naoroji spent a major part of his life and income in British doing propaganda among its people and politicians.

The object before the movements was “wider employment of Indians in higher offices in the public service and the establishment of representative institutions”. Surendranath Banerjee pointed out that “They lay at the root of all other Indian problems.If power were vested inus to legislate and to control the finances and to carry on the administration through and by our men, in accordance with the principles laid down by our representatives we should have self-government in the true sense”.This could be accomplished by the goodwill and cooperation of the British people.With their firm faith in the values of Western culture and the sense of justice of the Englishmen, noother attitude was possible.They believed in slow progress towards democracy which according to many of them was an exotic plant than would take time toget acclimatized to the Indian soil and involve long training for the people to get used to it.The Moderates were fully aware of the fact that India was a nation in the making.Indian nationhood was gradually coming into being and could not be taken for granted as an accomplished fact.They worked constantly for the development and consolidation of the feeling of national unity irrespective of region, caste or religion.They hoped to make a humble beginning in this direction by promoting close contacts and friendly relations among the people

213 from different parts of the country.The economic and political demands of the Moderates were formulated with a view to unify the Indian people on the basis of a common political programme.They organized a powerful all India agitation against the abandonment of tariff-duties on imports and against the imposition of cotton excise duties.This agitation aroused the feelings of the people and helped them to realize the real aims and purposes of British rule in India.

The Moderates carried on agitation for the reduction of heavy land revenue payments.They urged the Government to provide cheap credit to the peasantry through agricultural banks and to make available irrigation facilities on a large scale.They asked for improvement in the conditions of workd of the plantation labourers.They demanded a radical change in the existing pattern of taxation and expenditure which put a heavy burden n the poor while leaving the rich, especially the foreigners, with a very light load.They demanded the abolition of salt tax which hit the poor and lower middle classes hard. The Moderates complained of India’s growing poverty and economic backwardness and put all the blame on the policies of the British Government. They blamed the Government for the destruction of the indigenous industries in the country.They demanded the rapid development of the modern industries and wanted the Government to give tariff protection to the Indian industries. They advocated the use of Swadeshi goods and the boycott of British goods. They demanded that the economic drain of India by England must stop.The Moderates criticized the individual administrative measures and worked hard to reform the administrative system which was ridden with corruption, inefficiency and oppression.They demanded the Indianisation of the higher grades of the administrative services.The demand was put forward on economic, political and moral grounds.Economically, the high salaries paid to the Europeans put a heavy burden on Indian finance and contributed to the economic drain.The Europeans sent out of India a large part of their salaries and also got their pensions in England. That added to the drain of wealth from India.Politically, the European civil servant ignored the needs of the Indians and favoured the European capitalists at the cost of their Indian counter-parts.

214 It was hoped that the Indianisation of the service would make the administration more responsive to Indian needs.Morally; the existing system dwarfed the Indian character reducing the tallest Indian to permanent inferiority in his own country.

The Moderates demanded the separation of the judiciary from the executive.They were opposed to the policy of disarming the people of India by the Government.They wanted the Government to spend more money on the spread of education in the country.They also took up the cause of the Indians who had migrated to the British colonies.They opposed tooth and nail the restrictions imposed by the Government on the freedom of speech and the press. In 1897, Tilak and many other leaders were arrested and sentenced to long terms of imprisonment for spreading disaffection against the Government through their speeches and writings.The Natu brothers of Poona were deported without trial.The arrest of Tilak marked the beginning of a new phase of the Nationalist movement.The Amrita Bazar Patrika wrote: “There is scarcely a home in this vast country where Tilak is not now the subject of melancholy talk and where his imprisonment is not considered as a domestic calamity”.The Moderates demanded the expansion and reform of the existing Legislative Councils.They demanded the introduction of the system of direct elections and an increase in the number of members and powers of the Legislative Councils.It is true that their agitation forced the Government to pass the Indian Councils Act of 1892 but the Moderates were not satisfied with what was given to the people of India.No wonder, they declared the Act of 1892 as a “hoax”.They demanded a larger share for the Indians in the Legislative Councils.Later on, the Moderates put forward the claim for Swarajya or self-government within the British empire on the model of the other self-governing colonies.

The basic weakness of the Moderates lay in their narrow social base. There movement did not have a wide appeal.The area of their influence was limit to the urban community.As they did not have the support of the masses,

215 they declared that the time was not ripe for throwing out a challenge to thefo rulers.That was likely to invite premature repression.To quote Gokhale, “You do not realize the enormous reserve of power behind the Government.If the Congress were to do anything such as you suggest, the Government would have no difficulty in throttling it in five minutes”.However, it must nto be presumed that the Moderate leaders fought for their narrow interests.Their programmes and policies hampioned the cause of all sections of the Indian people and represented nation wide interests against colonial exploitation.

ATTITUDE OF THE GOVERNMENT.

As regards the attitude of the Government towards the Moderates, it became hostile soon after the inception of the Indian National Congress. Lord Dufferin looked upon the foundation of the Congress with suspicion.In 1887, he attacked the Congress and ridiculed it as representing a “microscopic minority of the people”.Hamilton, Secretary of State for India, accused the Congress leaders of possessing “seditious and double sided character”.He went to the extent of abusing Dadabhai Naoroji and declared that Dadabhai’s residence and association with radical and socialist British leaders had “deteriorated whatever brains or presence of mind he may originally have possessed”.The British officers publicly criticized and condemned the Indian National Congress and its leaders.They were branded as “disloyal Babus”, “seditious Brahmins” and “violent villains”.The Congress was described as a “factory of sedition” and the Congressmen as disappointed candidates for office discontented lawyers who represented no one but themselves.Lord Curzon declared in 1900:“The Congress is tottering to its fall and one of my great ambitions, while in India, is to assist it to a peaceful demise”.He described the Congress as an “unclean thing”.Some Englishmen accused the Indian National Congress of receiving the Russian gold.Lord Elgin openly threatened the Indians in 1898 in these words: “India was conquered by the sword and by the sword it shall be held”. The British officials relied upon the policy of “divide and rule” to weaken the nationalist movement.They

216 encouraged Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, Raja Shiv Prasad and other pro-British Indians to start an anti Congress movement.They tried to drive a wedge between the Hindus and Muslims.They fanned communal ‘rivalries among the educated Indians on the question of jobs in Government service.

ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE MODERATES.

If we critically evaluate the work of the Moderates,it appears that they did nto achieve much success.Very few of the reforms advocated by them were carried out.The foreign rulers treated them with contempt.To quote Lala Lajpat Rai, “After more than 20 ears of more or less futile agitation for concessions and redress of grievances, they had received stones in place of bread”.The Moderates failed to acquire any roots among the common people and even those who joined the Congress with high hopesm were feeling more and more disillusioned.The politics of the Moderates were described as “halting andhalf- hearted”.Their methods were described as those of mendicancy or beggary through prayers and petitions.

The Moderates failed to keep pace with the yearnings and aspirations of the people.They failed to understand and appreciate the impatience of the people who were suffering under the foreign yoke.They did not realize that the political and economic interests of the Indians and the British clashed and consequently the British people could not be expected to give up their rights and privileges in India without a fight. Moreover, it was during the period that a movement started among the Muslims to keep away from the Congress and that ultimately resulted in the establishment of Pakistan. In spite of their best efforts, the Moderates were not able to win over the Muslims.

It is wrong to say that the political record of the Moderates was a barren one.Taking into consideration the difficulties they had to confront with at that time, themods achieved a lot. It is their achievements in the widen sense that led later on to the more advanced stages of the nationalist movement.The Moderates represented the most aggressive forces of the time.They made possible a decisive shift in Indian politics.They succeeded in creating a wide

217 political awakening and in arousing among the middle and lower middle class Indian, and the intelligentsia the feeling that they belonged to one common nation.They made the people of India conscious of the bonds of common political, economic and cultural interests and the existence of a common enemy and thus helped to weld them into a common nationality.They popularized among the people the ideas of democracy and civil liberty.They did pioneering work in mercilessly exposing the true character of British imperialism in India.Even though they were moderate in politics and political methods they successfully brought to light the most important political and economic aspects of the Indian reality that India was being ruled by a foreign power for economic exploitation.The agitation of the Moderates in the economic field completely undermined the moral foundations of British rule in India. This was the seed-time of Indian nationalism.The Moderates sowed the seeds well and deep.They evolved a common political and economic programme which united the different sections of the people. In spite of their many failures, they laid strong foundations for the national movement to grow upon and they deserve a high place among the makers of modern India. To quote Gokhale, “Let us not forget that we are at a stage of the country’s progoress when our achievements are bound to be small, and our disappointments frequent and trying.That is the place which it has pleased Providence to assign to us in this struggle, and our responsibility is ended when we have done the work which belongs to that place. It will, no doubt, be given to our countrymen of future generations to serve India by their successes; we of the present generation must be content to serve her mainly by our failures. For, hard though it is out of those failures the strength will come which in the end will accomplish great tasks”. Again, “The minds of the people have been familiarized with the ideas of a united India working for her salvation; a national public opinion has been created; close bonds of sympathy now knit together the different provinces; castes and creeds hamper less and less the pursuit of common aims; the dignity of a consciousness of national existence has spread over the whole land. Above all, there is a

218 general perception now of the goal towards which we have to strive and a wide recognition of the arduous character of the struggle and the immense sacrifices it requires”.

THE SURAT SPLIT (1907).

In 1907, there was a split in the Congress and the Moderates parted company with the Extremists.That split was due to many causes.The Moderates had controlled the Congress from its very beginning and even now they were in control of it.They had their own ways of thinking and doing which were not acceptable to the younger generation who were impatient with the speed at which the Moderates were moving and leading the nation.Under the circumstances, a confrontation between the two was inevitable and that actually happened in 1907.

1. There were fundamental differences between the Moderates and the Extremists on the question of loyalty to the English throne and the continuance of British rule in India.The Moderates believed in loyalty to the English throne. They also believed that the continuance of the British rule was in the interests of the people of India.The view of the Extremists was that the British rule in India was a curse and the question of loyalty to the English throne did not arise at all.

2.Another difference between the two was regarding the emphasis on the ultimate goal as well as the actual form of ultimate goal.The Moderates believed in a policy of conciliation and compromise.They were satisfied with the small concessions given by the British Government from time to time. A little representation here and a few jobs there were enough to satisfy them. They stood for self-government for India in the same way as the position of the British dominions like Canada and Australia was.The Extremists did not bother about the petty concessions given by the British Government.They did not care for the petty reforms which they considered to be merely palliatives and not the final remedy.According to the Extremists, Swaraj alone was the

219 final remedy.They considered instalments of constitutional reforms as mere local applications

3.The moderates believed in adopting strictly constitutional methods for agitation and that also of the feeblest type, so that there was not the slightest chance of any violence.They believed in reasoned and emotional appeals, lucid presentation of the case, irresistible statements of facts, irrefutable arguments and presenting petitions.The view of Pherozeshah Mehta was: “We delegates meet together to present our Petition of Rights, our Grand Remonstrance, our appeal and our prayer”.A.C. Mazumdar considered the right of petition to be the highest privilege of a nation.The Moderates were not prepared to resort to a policy of non-cooperation or passive resistance.They did not accept even the programme of Swadeshi wholeheartedly.They considered boycott as a vindictive act which was liable to create feeling of ill- will.On the other hand, the Extremists were convinced that constitutional agitation will lead them nowhere.They believed that constitutional methods could not cut ice against the autocratic rule of a foreign nation.They also believed that the Government of India would not allow even peaceful propaganda to go on and would intervene at every step to hinder and stop the progress of the nationalist movement.They believed that the national problems could not be solved by resorting to arguments, ethics and piety and only a vigorous agitation could meet the needs of the situation.They believed in a policy of passive resistance which could make the government of India impossible.

4. Another point of difference between themods and the Extremists was with regard to their approach and strategy.Under the Moderates, the Congress movement was not a popular movement. It had no touch with the masses. As a matter of fact, the Moderates depended for their success on the goodwill and sympathy of the Englishmen.They worked on the hypothesis that if the grievances of the people of India were brought to the notice of the Englishmen, the same would be redressed.The Extremists rejected such an

220 approach.They believed that the people of India were themasters of their own destiny and not any foreign power.?

5. Another point of difference between the Moderates and the Extremists was regarding the fitness of Indians to rule themselves without depending upon the British Government.The Moderates believed that the people of India were still not fit for self-Government.However, the Extremists believed that the people of India were fit to rule themselves and self-government could not be denied to them on the ground of their unfitness.

6. Another point of difference between the Moderates and the Extremists was that while the Moderates believed that they would get what they asked for without any sufferings, the Extremists were of the definite view that the salvation of India was not possible without sufferings and self-sacrifice.

On account of these differences, there were clashes between the Moderates and the Extremists even during the 19th century. However, events during the Viceroyalty of Lord Curzon aggravated matters.There is no denying the fact that the Moderates were as much vehement in their denunciation of the partition of Bengal as the Extremists, but they had their own limitations and could not go beyond them.The Congress passed resolutions on boycott, Swadeshi and national education in 1906 but there was opposition from the Moderates.The result was that some of them were shouted down by the audience.The Moderates did not approve of all that happened at the Calcutta session in 1906 and tried to undo the same at the next session of the Congress in 1907 at Surat.This the Extremists were not prepared to allow them. Under the circumstances, an open clash between them was inevitable. When the Congress met on 27th December, 1907, the atmosphere was surcharged and there were all kinds of rumours.The name of Dr. Rash Behari Ghose was proposed for the Presidentship.When Surendranath Banerjee got up to second the proposal, attempts were made to shout him down and pandemonium prevailed in the Pandal.The meeting had to be adjourned.On the next day, Dr. Ghose was elected the president, but when he got up to

221 deliver his Presidential address, Tilak ascended the platform, stood in front of the President and demanded that he be allowed to address the audience. He refused to sunmit to the ruling of the Chair that he could not be allowed to address at that stage.While this tussle was going on, the rank and file of the Extremists created trouble and there were clashes.All efforts to persuade Tilak failed.He stood with folded hands and refused to go to his seat unless he was bodily removed.Some persons from Nagpur and Poona rushed to the platform with Lathis in their hands.A shoe was hurled from the audience and it struck Pherozeshah Mehta.Pandemonium prevailed.Chairs were thrown at the dais and sticks were freely used.The session had to be suspended.

On 28th December 1907, a Convention of the Moderates was held in the Congress Pandal from which the Extremists were excluded although some of them were willing to sign the necessary declaration. Those who did not wish to go back from the position taken at the Calcutta Congress met at a separate place to consider what steps were to be taken to continue the work of the Congress.It was in this way that the Surat Session of the Congress ended. Afteh the Surat fiasco, it was clear that the Moderates were not prepared to yield to the Extremists.They knew that once the plant of extremism was planted, it was bound to grow.They were not prepared for any compromise. Tilak was ridiculed, abused and called a traitor.In spite of the attacks from the Moderates.Tilak was prepared to accommodate them.He wanted the Moderates and the Extremists to unite to carry on the work of the Indian National Congress.The Moderates put the blame on the Extremists for the Surat split.Their contention was that they had no intention to drop or alter the resolutions passed at the Calcutta session of the Congress.What they intended to do was merely to modify or to use such words in those resolutions which would save them from chances of misconstruction.However, such a contention cannot be accepted.A critical study of the relevant record shows that what the Moderates intended to do was not only to save the Calcutta resolutions from missionaries-construction but also to reconstruct them with a view to watering them down.If that had not been so, the Moderates would hav

222 reaffirmed the Calcutta resolutions in their Madras Session held in 1908, but that was not done.At the Madras Session, the resolution on boycott was entirely dropped. Instead of national education, the Moderates merely talked about supplementing the existing institutions and the efforts of the Government. In 1906, the Congress had declared Swaraj or self-government, not only as their final goal but also demanded immediate steps leading to it.At the Madras Session, the Congress expressed deep and general satisfaction at the reform proposals formulated in Lord Morley’s Despatch.

At the Calcutta Session in 1906, the Moderates had accepted the resolutions on Swaraj, national education, boycott and Swadeshi on account of the pressure brought on them from all quarters. In their hearts, they did not accept the new resolutions.Their fear was that the growing pace on the national struggle might lead to lawlessness and that would provide the British with an excuse to deny the reforms on the one hand and to crush all political activity on the other.They had no self-confidence.They did not believe that sustained and dignified national struggle was possible and desirable.They considered the Extremists irresponsible persons who were likely to put in danger the future of the country.The British Government also tried to win over the Moderates against the Extremists.There were frequent meetings between the Moderates leaders and the Viceroy before the Surat split.While the Extremists were roughly handled by the Government, the Moderates were shown all the favours.Lala Lajpat Rai, Sardar Ajith Singh, Tilak and many leaders of Bengal were deported.Public meetings were held all over the country to condemn the action of the Government. In Bombay the protesting crowd clashed with the military and police and many were killed.However, there was no word of condemnation by the Moderates. On the other hand, the Moderates Congress President observed thus in 1908 at the Madras Congress Session: “The clouds are now breaking….The time of the singing of the birds is come; and the voice of the turtle is heared in our land”. It cannot be denied that the Surat split not only weakened the Indian National Congress but it virtually destroyed its effectiveness till the Lucknow Session in 1916. For

223 the next 8 years, India’s nationalist movement remained a house divided against itself, half constitutional and half revolutionary in aspirations.

RISE OF EXTREMISM OR MILITANT NATIONALISM

Many factors were responsible for the rise of extremism in the Congress. The Indian Council Act 1892 did not satisfy the aspirations of even the Moderates.It was contended that the policy of appeals and prayers had brought forth no result.The Government of India considered that policy as a sign of weakness.To quote Tilak, “Political rights will have to be fought for. The Moderates think that these can be won by persuasion. We think that they can only be obtained by strong pressure”.The constant economic drain on the resources of the country due to foreign domination added to the discontentment in the country.The writings of men like Dinshaw Wacha, R.C. Dutt and Dadabhai Naoroji proved that the impoverishment of the people of India was due largely to the deliberate policy of the British Government. The policy of the Government of India sacrificed the industries of India in the interests of British manufacturers.There seemed to be no prospects for Indian industries.

Another cause was the discontent created by the outbreak of famine in 1897.It affected about 20 million people and 70,000 square miles of Indian territory.The attitude of the Government of India was rather unhappy.While the people were in the grip of famine, the Government was busy celebrating the Diamond Jubilee Celebrations of Queen Victoria.The money which was required for the relief of the people was being wasted on needless celebrations.This was interpreted as an attitude of callousness on the part of the Government.The outbreak of the Bubonic Plague in Bombay Presidency also added to the discontentment among the people.It is true that the Government of India adopted certain measures to check the spread of the disease but the methods adopted by it were unfortunate.No consideration was shown for the sentiments of the people.Mr. Rand, the Plague Commissioner of Poona, was most ruthless in his operations.Such a state of affairs could not be

224 tolerated by the people and no wonder the plague policy of the Government was attacked vigorously by the critics of the Government, particularly by Tilak.The resentment was so great that Mr. Rand and one of his associates were shot dead when they were returning from the Government House at Bombay after taking part in the Jubilee Celebrations of Queen Victoria.

The exclusion of the intelligentsia of India from all the big jobs in the country created bitterness.The anti-Indian policy of Lord Curzon added to the discontentment.The view of Lord Curzon was that “the highest ranks of civil employment must, as a general rule, be held by Englishmen”.He emphasized that it was only the Englishmen who by their birth and training were fit to rule India, and not the Indians.According to him, Providence had selected the Englishmen to rule over India and to give freedom to India was against the will of God.Such a theory of divine right to rule could not be palatable to the Indians who were learning to demand the right to govern themselves.Lord Curzon was a bureaucrat par excellence and he put the greatest emphasis on efficiency.He had no sympathy with the aspirations of the people of India. As a matter of fact, he ignored them altogether.He acted unmindful of the reactions of the people.He regarded the administration as a machine and acted only in the interests of the efficiency of the machine, although the people were adversely affected by the machine.His reign was full of missions, omissions and commissions”.In 1899, he passed the famous Calcutta Corporation Act, which completely officialised the Calcutta Corporation.The total number of the members of the Calcutta Corporation was reduced from 75 to 50.The 25 members who were eliminated were those persons who were the representatives of the people of Calcutta.The result of this measure was that there was a European majority in the Corporation.No wonder, the measure was vehemently condemned.In 1904 was passed the Indian Universities Act. This law reduced the size of the Syndicates, Senates and Faculties with a view to giving prominence to the Europeans.The result of this law was that the Indian Universities became the most officialised universities in the world. They were practically left with no autonomy.In 1904 was also passed the

225 famous Official Secrets Act.The definition of the term “sedition” was widened. The Official Secrets Acts of 1889 and 1898 related to the disclosure of only military secrets.The Act of 1904 covered also the official secrets relating to the civil affairs and newspaper criticism which were likely to bring the government into contempt.

PARTITION OF BENGAL (1905).

Lord Curzon’s most controversial measure was the partition of Bengal in Bengal in 1905 which led to widespread agitation not only in Bengal but also in other parts of India.The Government published its official schee for the partition of Bengal on 20th July, 1905.There was violent agitation against it.It was suggested that all Honorary Magistrates, Municipal Commissioners and members of District Boards should resign in protest.A national mourning for 12 months was also advocated.Seditions leaflets were printed and circulated among the people.When the agitation was at its height, Lord Curzon resigned as Viceroy on account of his differences with the British Government.However, the necessary legislation to give effect to the partition of Bengal was rushed through the Legislative Council in September 1905 in order to make sure that the partition became a settled fact before he left India. 16th October, 1905 was the day fixed for the coming into force of the partition and after a month, Lord Curzon left India. 16th October 1905 was declared to be a day of national mourning throughout Bengal. It was observed as a day of fasting. There was a Hartal in Calcutta.People went to the Ganges barefooted in the early hours of the morning and took their bath.Rabindranath Tagore composed a national song for this occasion.The song was sung by huge crowds parading the streets.There were cries of Bande Mataram which became a national song of Bengal.The ceremony of Raksh Bandhan was observed on 16th October, 1905.

The leaders of Bengal felt that mere demands, public meetings and resolutions were not enough and something more concrete was needed and the answer was Swadeshi and boycott.Mass meetings were held all over

226 Bengal and big crowds took the oath of Swadeshi.Patients refused to take foreign medicines and were willing to take the consequences.People burnt foreign clothes and foreign cigarettes.Large sums were collected to help the .Many textile mills, soap and match factories, national banks and insurance companies were started.A prominent part was played by the students of Bengal in the Swadeshi agitation.They picketed the shops selling foreign cloth and other foreign goods. Women also joined processions and picketed the shops dealing in foreign goods.The programmes of Swadeshi and boycott went hand in hand. The leaders of Bengal took up the work of national education in right earnest.National educational institutions were opened by them and literary, technical and physical education was given there.On 15th August 1906, a National Council of Education was set up and Aurobindo Ghose was appointed the first Principal of the National College.

The Government of the new province tried to suppress the anti-partition agitation with a heavy hand.Meetings were broken and political leaders were insulted and threatened.Gorkha soldiers were let loose on the people.B. Fuller, Lieutenant Governor of the new province, went out of his way to insult the people.Brutal repression took its heaviest toll at Barisal in East Bengal where the Provincial Council was disbanded on the strict orders of the Lieutenant Governor.When the local leaders and the people protested they were mercilessly battoned on the chests and backs.Many were killed on the spot and hundreds of them were severely injured.The Lieutenant Governor of the new province warned the Hindus that they would be thrown 500 years back and barred from government service for 3 to 4 generations.Students were sent to jail for throwing away sweets made of foreign sugar.Gorkha soldiers were ordered to stop the singing of Bande Mataram by the people. Shopkeepers were ordered to supply the needs of the Gorkhas even if they did not pay for them.Orders were issued to stop the grants-in-aid to the educational institutions suspected of being against the Government. Disciplinary action against the teachers and professors was threatened.The Government also followed a policy of “divide and rule”.

227 In its earlier stages, the anti-partition movement was led by the Moderates but they were disheartened when Lord Morley, Secretary of State for India, declared that the partition was a settled fact which would not be changed. At this stage, the militant nationalists or the Extremists came to the fore and gave a call for passive resistance in addition to Swadeshi and boycott.They called upon the people and colleges, courts and Government offices.Their programme was “to make the administration under present conditions impossibleby an organized refusal to do anything which shall help either the British commerce in the exploitation of the country or British officialdom in the administration of it……unless and until the conditions are changed in the manner and to the extent demanded by the people”.The question of partition of Bengal got merged with the question of India’s freedom.The Extremists called upon the people to offer sacrifices at the altar of theMotherland.In 1907, Lala Lajpat Rai and Ajit Singh were deported from the Punjab. In 1908, Tilak was arrested and sentenced to 6 years imprisonment.Chidambaram Pillai in Madras and Harisarvottan Rao and others in Andhra were put behind the bars.Aurobindo Ghose was arrested and prosecuted and although acquitted, he retired to Pondicherry.There was a lot of discontentment and bitterness in the country.This state of affair was allowed to continue.

Lord Minto was succeeded by Lord Hardinge and he and Marquis of Crew who was then Secretary of State for India, decided to take steps to pacify Indian resentment over the partition of Bengal.At the Delhi Durbar held in 1911 the King and Queen and the Secretary of State for India were present. The occasion was taken advantage of to announce the cancellation of the partition of Bengal.The treatment of the Indians abroad also created resentment in the country. The Government of India had encouraged Indian labourers to go to British colonies and had given them big promises regarding their future.The Indians were responsible for the development of Kenya, Uganda, Fiji, Mauritius, Trinidad and South Africa.In spite of their services, the Indians were despised, insulted and degraded.Their privileges were withdrawn.They were excluded from trade and were treated as intruders.They

228 could not purchase property and could not vote.They were required to give their thumb impressions and carry identity cards.They were forced to travel in separate third class railway compartments.They were driven out of train cars and kept out of the hotels.They were not allowed to sit in public parks.They were required to walk only on the footpaths and live outside the towns in places set apart for them.They were required to put off lights and go to bed after 9 p.m.They were “spat upon, hissed, cursed, abused and subjected to a variety of other indignities”.

Certain international events also had their repercussions in India.The rise of Japan after 1868 proved that even a backward Asian country could develop herself without Western control.The defeat of Italy by Abyssinia and Russia by Japan exploded the myth of European superiority.This was interpreted as a harbinger of the rise of the East.The Indians could take inspiration from those events.It was felt that if the European nations could be defeated by an Asiatic power, it was also possible for the Indians to drive away the Englishmen from their country.The growth of education in India increased the influence of Western ideas of democracy, nationalism and radicalism.The educated Indians became the strongest advocates of militant nationalism.The treatment given to them by the foreigners added to their bitterness.They were low paid. Many of them were unemployed.They felt very strongly the foreign domination.There was a feeling in the country that self-government was necessary for the economic, political and cultural advancement of the country. Leaders like Tilak and B.C. Pal preached the message of self-respect and asked the nationalists to rely on the character and capacities of the Indian people.They called upon the people to build their own future by otheir own efforts.They advocated agitation and mass action.They had no faith in the efficacy of constitutional methods.They believed that prayers, petitions and protests were not going to convince the British Government whose only object was to exploit the people of India with a view to add to their own prosperity. To quote Tilak, “Protests are of no avail.Mere protests not backed by self- reliance will not help the people.Days of protest and prayers have gone”.

229 Again, “Prepare your forces, organize your power and then go to work so that they cannot refuse you what you demand”.

The methods of the Extremists were boycott, Swadeshi and national education.Boycott was directed primarily against the foreign goods but it also included the boycott of the Government services, honours and titles.About the methods of the Extremists, Lala Lajpat Rai wrote, “We desire to turn our faces away from the Government Houses and turn them to the huts of the people. We want to stop our mouth so far as an appeal to the Government is concerned and open our mouth with a new appeal to the masses of our people.This is the psychology, this is the ethics, this the spiritual significance of the boycott movement”. Both the boycott and Swadeshi movements were a great success.In his whirlwind tour of the country, Tilak declared that the Moderates could not deliver the goods and the people should look up to the Extremists for the liberation of their Motherland.The repetition of the resolutions full of prayers to the Government could not bring any result.The remedy was not petitions but boycott.After the Surat session, Tilak had no rest. Single-handed, he started a many-sided struggle and spread the fire of patriotism in every nook and corner of the Bombay Presidency.He went on tours and collected a lot of money for the various national causes.He asked his audiences to work for Swaraj and get ready for sufferings which alone could bring Swaraj.His slogan at the meetings was “Swarajya is my birth-right, I will have it”.

The Government of India passed the Public Meetings Act, the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, the Seditions Meetings Act, 1907, the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, the Newspaper (incitement to Offences) Act, 1908 and the Indian Press Act, 1910 to take effective action against the Extremists. Several circulars and ordinances were issued which had the effect of abrogating the right of free speech and criticism.Processions, meetings and demonstrations were banned.Students and citizens were prohibited from taking part in politics.The students who defied the orders were rusticated from

230 their schools and colleges.Many leaders were deported from Bengal alone. Tilak was arrested, sentenced to imprisonment for 6 years and kept in Burma in “virtual solitary confinement in a prison cell”. Lala Lajpat Rai and Sardar Ajit Singh were arrested in the Punjab and sent to Burma.Aurobindo Ghose was kept in jail for a year awaiting his trial although he was acquired by the court. was hanged.Bhupendra Nath Datta, Editor of the Yugantar, was given a long sentence of imprisonment.The Yugantar, the ‘Sandhya’ and ‘Bande Mataram’ were suppressed.Police raids, house searches, confiscations and espionage became the order of the day. C.I.D. officers were let loose upon society. So great was the repression that Lord Morley had to ask Lord Minto to have more restraint.

As regards their achievements, the militant nationalists added a glorious chapter to the history of the nationalist movement.They clarified its objectives taught people self-confidence and self-reliance and prepared the social base of the movement to include the lower middle classes, students, youth and women.New methods of political organization and new modes of waging political struggles were introduced.However, the mass of the common people, the workers and the peasants were still outside the main-stream of national politics.The Yugantar wrote thus on 22nd April, 1906 afte rthe Barisal Conferecne: “The remedy lies with the people themselves.The thirty crores of people inhabiting India must raise their sixty crores of hands to stop this course of oppression.Force must be stopped by force”.

IDEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND: BANKIMCHANDRA, VIVEKANANDA AND DAYANANDA.

The militant nationalism was created by the preachings of Bankimchandra, Swami Vivekananda and . The name of Bankimchandra is often associated with the famous song Bande Mataram included in his novel Anandamath.Bande Mataram was the keystone of the arch of Indian nationalism which inspired generations after generations to supremeself- sacrifice.Bankimchandra was the precursor of the Extremists who had no faith

231 in the policy of the Moderates.Bankim turned to the Mahabharata, (Hindu Epic) Bhagavad Gita (‘the song of the lord’, best-known expression of Hinduism) as Rammohan had once turned to the Upanishads (speculative interpretation of the Vedas, the Hindu religious books).Bankim visualized a united India through Sri Krishna who established dharmarajya (right rule) after destroying evil.The militant nationalists took their cue from Bankim’s emphasis on dharmarajya.

The spiritual side of nationalism was voiced by Swami Vivekananda (1863 – 1902), the patriot of patriots.Before Bankimchandra’s death in 1894, Swami Vivekananda had taken up the cause of Hindu regeneration.He rebuked the Hindus for weakness and passivity.‘We have become real earthworms, crawling at the feet of everyone who dares to put his foot on us’.He called upon Hindus to become strong.‘Religion will come afterwards’. He said, ‘You will be nearer to Heaven through football than through the study of the Gita’. He placed Indian nationalism above everything else.The extremists drank deeply of the love of motherland. ‘Swami Vivekananda might well be called the father of modern Indian Nationalism; he largely created it and also embodied in his own life its highest and noblest elements. called him the prophet of nationalism.His message ‘Arise, Awake and stop not till the goal is reached’ had a perennial appeal to the teeming millions of Indians. In 1893 he attended the Parliament of Religions at Chicago where he propounded the true meaning of Hinduism.The message of spiritual hope which he gave India acted as a potent force in the course of Indian nationalism.He died in 1902 at the age of 39. ‘Vivekananda’s was the voice of the Soul. It went into the heart of the nation and restored it firmly on its feet’.

Aurobindo recognized the imperishable influence of Vivekananda on the people of India. In 1915 he wrote: ‘Vivekananda was a very lion among men……We perceive his influence still working gigantically, we know not well how, we know not well where, in something that is not yet formed, something leonine, grand, intuitive, upheaving, that has entered the soul of India’.

232 Aurobindo once commented that the Indian people were so stimulated by Vivekananda that there would have been an upsurge like the French Revolution,had they been politically trained.C.A.Tegart,Special Superintendent of Police of the Intelligence Branch, in his confidential report of April 22, 1914 observed that Swamiji’s teachings appealed to the revolutionary party and helped to sow the seeds of revolution and anarchy in the minds of the Indian youth.The Sedition Committee (Rowlatt) Report (1918) also observed that Vivekananda’s teachings and writings survived him and his influence was perverted by Barindra and his followers in order to creat an atmosphere suitable for the execution of their projects. Romain Rolland paid a glowing tribute to Vivekananda in his inimitable words:If the generation that followed, saw, three years after Vivekananda’s death, the revolt in Bengal, the prelude to the great movement of Tilak and Gandhi, if India today has definitely taken part in the collective action of organized masses, it is due to the initial shock of the mighty ‘Lazarus, come forth’ of (Vivekananda’s) message.

Neither Bankimchandra Chatterjee nor Swami Vivekananda was Congressmen, but their concerns were echoed in the wirtings of Surendranath Banerjea, Rameshchandra Dutt, Rabindranath Tagore and many others. Between Vivekananda’s death in July 1902 and the beginning of the Swadeshi Movement in August 1905, , Vivekananda’s Irish disciple, did much to foster the new spirit of national awakening.In 1900 she wrote a booklet, Kali the Mother, which Aurobindo described as ‘inspiring and full of rebel spirit’.In 1904 appeared her famous book, The Web of Indian Life in which she expounded the philosophy of nationalism. S.K. Ratcliffe, one time editor of The Statesman rightly observed.The influences that have gone into the shaping of the New India are still obscure; but this may be said with complete assurance that among them all there has been no single factor that has surpassed, or equaled the character, and life and words of Sister Nivedita’.

233 If Rammohan appealed to the Upanishads, Bankim to the Gita and Vivekananda to the Advaita (of Shankara), Dayananda appealed to the Vedas (Hindu religious books).In 1875 Swami Dayananda Saraswati (1824 – 83) founded the Arya Samaj.Dayananda denounced idolatry, polygamy and caste and harked back to the Vedas as the fountain of all truth and the sheet anchor of Hinduism.Manu Smriti (one of the ancient Law-books of India) formed the basis of Dayananda’s ethics for daily conduct.Religion was complementary to the good life as well as to the soul.Dayananda eschewed politics. Foreign rule had been brought upon Indians by their own fault.‘It is only when brothers fight among themselves that an outsider poses as an arbiter’. He broke the barrier of orthodox Hinduism by initiating the Suddhi (purification) movement by which the non-Hindus and untouchables could be converted to Hinduism.The Suddhi movement was intended to unify India.The movement had certain political overtones.In the opinion of Bipin Chandra Pal ‘the movement, at least in those days, seemed to me, in fact, far more political than religious or spiritual’. However, Dayananda’s legacy to the present was the key word of the Vedas ‘truth in the Soul, truth in vision, truth in the intention, and truth in the act’. Dayanand died in 1883. In his memory, his followers started the Anglo-Vedic College in Punjab (1889) and a Gurukul was started at Hardwar where religious education was imparted.

POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC FACTORS:

While the ideological background was slowly being prepared for the growth of extremism, political and economic factors were no less responsible for it. The Indian Councils Act of 1892 failed to introduce an elective element in India as it provided for selection of some members.The simultaneous Civil Service examinations, pressed for by the Congress, were disallowed as it might imperil the predominance of the European element.The Moderates’ protest against the increase in military expenditure (1885,1891) had been turned down by the British authorities.The Tariff and Cotton Duties Act of 1894 and 1896 added fuel to the fire.These Acts, obviously designed to serve the

234 interests of British manufacturers, were a severe blow to the Indian Cotton industry.‘Never before’, protested Tilak in the Mahratta (February 9, 1896) ‘was perpetrated an act of injustice as flagrant as the readjustment of the cotton duties in favour of Lancashire’.R.C. Dutt, the leading economist among the Moderates, characterized it as ‘an instance of fiscal injustice ……unexampled in modern times’.Tilak wrote inanguish ‘Surely India is treated as a vast pasture reserved solely for the Europeans to feed upon’. Tilak made a fervent appeal: ‘Let this terrible crisis make us one’. It was around this issue that the idea of boycott was first put into practice. ‘If the insatiable greed of Lancashire is to rule India let the heroic determination of India ruin Lancashire’.In the beginning of the 20th century Dadabhai Naoroji produced his bulky volume Poverty and Un-British Rule in India (1901) on the solid foundation of facts and figures while Rameshchandra Dutt published his monumental Economic History of India (1902).The Indian public became aware of the causes of their grinding poverty and hoped for the end of the British economic exploitation of the country.

AUROBINDO GHOSH

The early nineties of the 19th century were the seed time of extremism. It was Aurobindo Ghosh who decried the Congress policy. In one article he said ‘A body like the Congress which represents not the mass of the population, but a single and very limited class, could not be called national’.In 1893 he wrote from Baroda that the “actual enemy [of the nationalist movement] is not any force exterior to ourselves, but our own crying weaknesses, our cowardice, our selfishness, our hypocrisy…..”. Aurobindo pointed out the widening gap between the rich and poor and the imminence of a revolution of the proletariat. He criticized the Moderates for ignoring the proletariat ‘the real key of the situation’ and of ‘playing with bubbles’ like the Legislative Council and simultaneous Civil Service examinations. He asked his countrymen not to make England as their source of inspiration, but France which ‘blotted out in

235 five terrible years the accumulated oppression of thirteen centuries’. He emphasized the need of purification by blood and fire.

Aurobindo wrote in Bande Mataram on 14th April, 1908 that the alien government carried the germs of a malady and therefore it was urgently necessary to get rid of foreign rule.Earlier Aurobindo had declared that extremism had been born of a conviction that the time had come when India could become a great and free nation.Indian nationalism was not negative but a positive impulse towards the making of free India. ‘It is not a cry of revolt of despair, but gospel of national faith and hope.It true description is not Extremism, but Democratic Nationalism’.

LALA LAJPAT RAI

In the Punjab, the radical trend found great response in the person of Lala Lajpat Rai, the ‘Lion of Punjab’.He was a prolific writer, a lwayer and a worker in the Arya Samaj.He was interested not only in the political awakening of India but also in the cultural renaissance of India.He pointed out the main weakness of the Congress.‘The Congress movement’, observed Lajpat Rai ‘was neither inspired by the people, nor devised or planned by them. It was a movement not from within’.He argued that few Congress leaders could be called patriots as they were making hardly any sacrifices. They were inactive for most of the year, yet they were confident of the ultimate success of the Congress agitation.He appealed to Indians to realize that “politics is a religion, and a science, much higher both in its conception and in its sphere, than mere political agitation”.Criticising the aims and methods of the Congress, he wrote in 1901 that political reforms could not be secured by merely delivering speeches and passing resolutions.Next year he stated that ‘no nation is worthy of any political status if it cannot distinguish between begging rights and claiming them’.He asked the Congress to realize that “Sovereignty rests with the people, the state exists for them and rules in their name’.

236 BAL GANGADHAR TILAK

The founder of the militant nationalism was BAL Gangadhar Tilak; a Chitpavan Brahman of Poona.He argued ‘we will not achieve any success in our labours if we croak once a year like a frog’. Appealing to the glory and greatness of Indian culture, Tilak asked the Indians to rely on their own strength.He gave a new colour to the movement by declaring that ‘the political goal of India is self-government or Swaraj, rather than reforms in administration’. He fostered patriotism and national spirit among the people by inaugurating the celebration of the Ganapati festival in 1893 and of the Shivaji festival in 1895.

The inauguration of the Ganapati and Shivaji festivals marked an in lankmark in the history of the new movement.Tilak’s object was to utilize the religious instincts and historical traditions of India for infusing patriotism among the people.He wrote in 1896 ‘No man can deny that our country is badly in want of a religious revival.Well, such a revival is taking place …..Swami Vivekananda and the high philosophy of the Upanishads have appealed to the B.A.’s and M.A.’s of our Universities.The God Ganapati and the vigorous preachings of Ramdas have appealed to the common people. Religion is the main stay, the only proprietors for a falling nation….’ The Shivaji festival was ‘national hero-worship’.As Bipin Chandra Pal said Shivaji was ‘the symbol of a grand idea, the memory of a noble sentiment, the mouthpiece of a great movement’. Shivaji was fully justified in killing Afzal Khan, because it was a great unselfish act for national self-preservation.

As editor of the Kesari, in Marathi and The Mahratta, in English, Tilak became the acknowledged awakener of India. In 1889, he joined the Indian National Congress.But very soon he became disillusioned with the programme and policies of the Congress dominated by Moderates.In 1896 he clearly stated his disagreement with the policies of the Congress.For the last twelve years we have been shouting hoarse, desiring that the Government should hear us. But our shouting has no more affected the Government than the

237 sound of a gnat.Our rulers disbelieve our statements or profess to do so. Let us now try to force our grievances into their ears by strong constitutional means.We must give the best political education possible to the ignorant villagers.We must meet them on terms of equality, teach them their rights and show how to fight constitutionally.Then only will the Government realize that to despise the Congress is to despise the Indian Nation.Then only will the efforts of the Congress leaders be crowned with success.

Tilak struck a new note in Indian politics when a severe famine struck Maharashtra in 1896.He was aware of the imminent danger that gripped the peasants in the wake of the famine.He called upon the Government to take those measures of relief which were provided for under law in the Famine Relief Code.He distributed pamphlets explaining the provisions of the Famine Relief Code to the people and urged them to take their case to the Government.Through his paper Kesari he made passionate appeal to the people to refuse taxes which the official circles regarded as ‘no-rent campaign’. ‘Can you not be bold, even when in the grip of death’? His efforts aroused the people and alienated the bureaucracy.

Hardly had the disastrous famine been over when plague ravaged the city of .The Bombay administration reacted to this natural disaster with harsh measures.Rand, the Collector of Pune, enforced the anti-plague measures with undue severity and employed soldiers to segregate real and presumed plague victims.The newspaper Mahratta complained ‘Plague is more merciful to us than its human prototypes now reigning in the city’.On 22nd June, 1897, the date of the Jubilee Celebration of Queen Victoria, Rand and his associate Lt. Ayerst were murdered by the Chapekar brothers, Damodar and Balkrishna. The day after the shooting Damodar was said to have sent a message to Tilak to the effect that the mission had succeeded.Tilak sympathized with the Chapekars’ activities, although it might be too much to say that he approved of the murder of Rand and Ayerst.Officials suspected that both the Natus – Balwant Natu and Hari Natu, two well-known Sirdars – and Tilak might be

238 responsible.Tilak was arrested and charged with sedition for his newspaper articles justifying assassination.The Bombay Government detained without trial the Natus and attached their property.The Chapekar brothers were arrested and executed.Their younger brother, Wasudeo Chapekar and his friend Mahadeo Ranade killed the Dravid brothers, who had been the principal witnesses in Damodar’s trial. Wasudeo Chapekar and Ranade were arrested, found guilty and hanged to death.Wasudeo died clutching a copy of the Bhagavad Gita.The spirit of sacrifice for a cause that was displayed by Chapekar brothers can be traced back to the great mother who could offer three valiant sons at the altar of the motherland in the course of a few months. Nivedita was astounded to find themother completely self-composed, unruffled and serene.

Tilak became a martyr. Surendranath Banerjea observed in the Congress of 1897: ‘For Mr Tilak my heart is full of sympathy.A nation is in tears’.Tilak emerged from prison before the expiry of his full term with enhanced prestige. He was acclaimed as the Lokmanya, the one honoured and respected by the people.Tilak was uncompromising inhis political belief which he summed up in terse memorable words. ‘Swaraj is my birth-right and I must have it’. As early as 1895, he had begun to preach the necessity for Swaraj or self-rule.To Tilak, Swaraj was a historical necessity.

GROWTH OF REVOLUTIONARY TERRORISM

Many factors were responsible for the rise and growth of the revolutionary and terrorist movement in the country.The rising of 1857 had its effect on the future generations of India.The sacrifices made by the Indians on that occasion gave inspiration to many to follow their example.The spirit of revenge with which the rebel of 1857 were crushed and even the innocent Indians were massacred by the British soldiers even after the failure of the revolt inflamed the minds of many Indians.There was a general awakening in the country and the people started thinking in terms of ending the foreign rule at any cost even if the use of force was necessary for that purpose.The timidity

239 of temple Moderates exasperated the youth of India and they decided to take to violence to turn out the foreigners from the country.The Indian press was instrumental in putting the Indian case before the people and asked for action against British tyranny in the country.The minds of the Indians were also affected by the large number of political assassinations in Europe at the hands of the anarchists.The murderer of the Empress of Austria-Hungary is stated to have declared: “Long live anarchy! Let there be only 200 such brave men as myself and all the thrones of the world will be empty”.All these murders took place a few years before the partition of Bengal in 1905 and naturally their effect on the youth was bound to be profound.The unification of Germany and Italy, the defeat of Italy by Abyssinia in 1896 and of Russia by Japan in 1904, the Nihilist Movement in Russia and the Young Turk Movement in Turkey had their effect on the revolutionaries in India.Many people in India were convinced that the British rule in India could not be ended by constitutional methods and force had to be employed for that purpose.These revolutionaries believed in the philosophy of bomb and pistol in one hand and the Gita in the other.

Maharashtra

Tilak played an important part in furthering the cause of revolutionary movement in Maharashtra.In 1895; he inaugurated the Shivaji and Ganpati festival.By doing so, he gave a religious sanction to the movement against the British Government.These festivals became the spring-boards of revolutionary enterprises.Fiery speeches were delivered on these occasions.At the Shivaji Coronation Festival held on12 June 1897, Tilak called upon the people to “rise above the Penal Code into the rarified atmosphere of the sacred Bhagwat Gita”.He justified the murder of Afzal Khan by Shivaji and observed.“If thieves enter our house and we have no strength to drive them out, should we not without hesitation shut them in and burn them alive? God has conferred on the Molechhas (foreigners) no grant of Hindustan inscribed onimperishable brass”. Towards the end of 1896, there was a severe famine in the Deccan

240 and Tilak started a no-rent campaign.He called upon the peasants not to pay land-revenue to the Government.In 1897 occurred the plague and Mr. Rand was murdered.Tilak was arrested and sentenced to 18 months’ rigorous imprisonment.There was a lot of political activity in Maharashtra.There were Shivaji clubs, anti-cow-killing societies, Ganpati choirs, national festivals, gymnastic clubs, etc.Poona, Nasik, Kolhapur and Bombay were the centres of these activities.The statue of Queen Victoria was mutilated at Bombay.And attempt was made to burn the Church Mission Hall.The Marathi press was revolutionary in tone.The editors of many newspapers and magazines were arrested and sentenced.Tilak himself was arrested in 1908, prosecuted and convicted and sentenced to 6 years transportation.

Ganesh Damodar Savarkar, the young brother of V.D. Savarkar, was the head of the revolutionary activities at Nasik.He was the founder of . In April 1907 he printed 2,000 copies of the Marathi version of the autobiography of Mazzini.In 1909; he published a pamphlet which contained many inflammatory verses. In one of the poems he said: “Take up the sword and destroy the Government because it is foreign and aggressive”. The title of another poem was: “Who obtained independence without a battle”? He was prosecuted and sentenced to transportation for life with forfeiture of property. V.D. Savarkar had sent a parcel containing 20 Browning automatic pistols with ammunition to Bombay concealed in the false bottom of a box forming part of the luggage of one Chaturbhuj Amin who was working as a cook in the .The pistols were to be used by the members of the Abhinav Bharat Society.Before the parcel reached India, Ganesh had already been arrested.The members of the Abhinav Bharat Society decided to murder Jackson, District Magistrate of Nasik, as he had convicted Ganesh Savarkar. Jackson was actually shot dead on 21st December, 1909.The details of the Nasik conspiracy were divulged by one Ganu Vaidya who was a member of the Nasik Branch of Abhinav Bharat Society.Acting on the information supplied by him, the police rounded up 37 youngmen, 3 of whom were hanged and the rest were sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment. Mr. Jackson

241 had arrested Ganesh Savarkar on the instigation of Sir Curzon Willie who had laid a ring of spies around the India House to watch the activities of the Indian students.He also dictated the British policies concerning India. He was shot dead on 1st July, 1909 by Madan Lal Dhingra.

Bengal

In addition to Maharashtra, the revolutionary movement was also strong in Bengal.The revolutionaries of Bengal came from the educated classes. The work done by Bankim Chandra Chatterji, Ram Krishna Paramhans, Swami Vivekananda, Raj Narain Bose and Nabagopal Mitra had its effect. Unemployment among the educated classes in Bengal made the situation intolerable.Things were made worse by the Anti-Bengalee attitude of the English officials who refused to recruit Bengalees in Government service.The Government advertisements contained the following words:“Bengalee Baboos need not apply”.This was bound to have its repercussions.In order to reduce the influence of the Bengalees, Lord Curzon partitioned Bengal in 1905.The people of Bengal who had fought against the European Indigo planters with their Oshspears and bamboo clubs, were not going to be cowed down and they accepted the challenge.On 25th December 1907, Mr. Allen, who was formerly the District Magistrate of Dacca, was shot in the back but the injury did not prove fatal. On 30th April 1908, Mrs. Kennedy and Miss Kennedy were killed by a bomb thrown by Khudi Ram which was actually meant for Mr.Kingsford, Presidency Magistrate.Khudi Ram was arrested, tried and hanged. He became a martyr and a hero. Schools were closed for 2 or 3 days as a tribute to his memory. His photographs had an immense sale.Youngmen begal to wear Dhoties with the name of Khudi Ram woven into their borders.

In the Alipore conspiracy case searches were made by the police at Maniktala and other places.In May 1908, bombs, dynamite, cartridges, and correspondence were seized.Many persons were arrested, charged and convicted.Heavy punishments were inflicted on them.Narinder Gosain became an approver but he was shot dead by his companions in the jail. Nand Lal, the

242 Sub-Inspector who had arrested Khudi Ram, was murdered. Asutosh Biswas who had acted as public prosecutor in the Gosain murder case and the Alipore conspiracy case was shot dead.Shams-ul Alam, Deputy Superintendent of Police who was connected with the Alipore case, was shot dead.

The Punjab

The Punjab also played its part in the revolutionary movement.The Punjabis detested the policy of repression followed by the Government of India. They also protested against the treatment given on them in various parts of the British Empire and the failure of the British Government to protect them. Sardar Ajit Singh, a revolutionary of the Bharat Mata Society of Lahore, took an active part against the Colonisation Act which deprived the peasants of Lyallpur and other districts of the fruits of the lands which they had converted from barren areas into rich fields. He addressed many meetings which began with the song of Banke Dayal known as “Pagri Sambhal Oh! Jatta”. (Oh peasant! take care of the turban, i.e. self-respect). There were disturbances in Rawalpindi in May 1907 and many Arya Samaj leaders were arrested and prosecuted.

On 23rd , Lord Hardinge was taken in a procession on the back of an elephant in Delhi.When the people were showering lowers and coconuts on the procession in , a bomb exploded which injured the Viceroy and killed his A.D.C.The procession was turned into a funeral.The bomb was thrown by .There was a lot of confusion and Rash Behari managed to escape.A reward of Rs. 7,500 was announced for the arrest of Rash Behari Bose. He was chased from place to place but every time he managed to escape. He went away to Japan under a fictitious name. He played an important role in organizing the in Japan. He died in 1945. The action taken by the Government in this connection is known as the .13 persons were arrested in that connection and among them were Master Amir Chand, Dina Nath, Bhai

243 Balmukand, Balraj Bhalla, Basant Kumar and Avadh Behari.Two of them were sentenced to 7 years imprisonment and 4 of them were hanged.Dina Nath became an approver.It is stated that when Avadh Behari was going to be hanged, an Englishman asked him what his last wish was and his reply was: “The end of the British rule”.When the Englishman advised him to die peacefully, he replied, “Peace! I wish that a conflagration may break out in the country gutting the British rule. Let my country emerge out of this fire like pure gold”.

THE GHADAR PARTY.

The Ghadar Party was determined to wage war against the British in India and with that object in view decided to send arms andmen to India to start a revolt with the help of soldiers and local revolutionaries.Several thousand men volunteered to go back to India.Millions of dollars were collected for that purpose.The Ghadarites contacted Indian soldiers in the Far East, South-East Asia and all over India and persuaded many regiments to revolt.21st February 1915 was fixed for an all-India revolt and vigorous preparations were made for that purpose.Rash Behari Bose, Sachindra Sanyal, Ganesh Pingale and Baghi Kariar Singh prepared a master plan for that purpose.Some revolutionaries were killed and several others were arrested.They were also hanged.The all-India revolt failed because one passed on all the secret plans to the Government.Many places were raided and bombs were recovered.Secret papers were also captured by the Government.Most of the ring leaders of the Punjab fell into the hands of the police.The Ghadarites were tried in 9 batches in the Lahore Conspiracy Case and the supplementary cases. Out of 291 sent up for trial. 42 were sentenced to death and hanged and 114 were transported for life. 93 were imprisoned for varying terms and 42 were acquitted.Prominent leaders like Baghi Kartar Singh, , Ganesh Pingale, Jagar Singh and Harnam Singh were also tried for conspiracy to overthrow the British Government. Kartar Singh and Pingale admitted that they were wholly responsible for the conspiracy.

244 The Tribunal announced its judgment on 14thSeptember, 1915.Bhai Parmanand was so indifferent to death that on that day, he slept till 8 in the morning.When he woke up, he found everybody around him laughing. One of them asked him, “Why? Are you going to your inlaws”? These blessed souls sang sweet songs for the Motherland and at last they prayed this together for the last time: “Oh Mother! We have not been able to snap your fetters. If any one of us remains alive he will strive for your honour and the liberty and equality of Indians”.24 of them including Kartar Singh, Pingale, Bhai Parmanand, Jagat Singh and others were awarded death sentence.On hearing that all of them began to dance.Those who were condemned to transportation for life cried out: “Give us death? Reward us with hanging!” Kartar Singh thanked the President.Pingale said this much: “So that’s all!” The Viceroy committed the death sentences of 17 to transportation for life. Pingale was hanged on 16 November 1915 and he was the last to behanged. The Officer-in-charge told him. “I tried to give you as much time for life as I could. I kept your turn last”.The reply of Pingale was: “Then you have made a mistake. I’ve been separated from my friends.They may lose their faith in me. Had you sent me earlier, I would have got the privilege of arranging for their reception and comforts there.Oh, you have deprived me of that good luck”. He was questioned about his last desire and his reply was; “Kindly remove my chains so that I can offer prayers to my Mother with the palms of my hands joined”.When the chains were taken off, he prayed aloud, “Lord, you know our heart’s desire. Our only prayer is that you fulfil the mission for which we have so readily laid down our lives”.It is stated that the Chief Justice was inclined to commute the death sentence of Kartar Singh but the latter replied, “I prefer gallows to life sentence. I wish I were born again to unfetter by Motherland. I shall be glad to be hanged every time I am reborn till my country achieved independence”.

245 POST-FIRST WORLD WAR MOVEMENT

There was revival of the revolutionary and terrorist movement in the country when the people were suffering from a sense of frustration and pessimism after agitations and demonstrations against the Rowlatt Bills, the Non- cooperation movement and the .The revolutionaries put before the young men of the country a new programme.They called upon them to start a revolutionary and uncompromising struggle for the independence of their country.They tried to impress upon the people of India the secret of the British character that they could be bullied but not argued into justice and generosity.The terrorism of theGhdar party was to be met by counter-terrorism.Such a policy alone could restore self-confidence among the people who were suffering from a sense of utter helplessness.The revolutionaries believed that the English masters and their hired lackeys should not be allowed to do whatever they liked, unhampered and unmolested and every possible difficulty and resistance must be thrown in their way.Terrorism had an international bearing as the attention of the enemies of England was drawn towards India through acts of terrorism and revolutionary demonstrations.The terrorists made it clear that they did not believe in terrorism for terrorism sake.They resorted to it as an effective means of retaliation.The revolutionaries believed that the repressive measures of the Government had destroyed all hopes of political reform being gained without violence.Moreover, armed resistance against something “Satanic and ignoble” was infinitely more befitting for any nation that the prevalence of “effortless and philosophical cowardice”.The revolutionaries went to the villages not to get votes but to secure “Congress-martyrs” for the country who would die without anybody knowing where their corpses lay.They would like to go down in history unknown, unhonoured, unsung, unlamented and unwept.These “mad lovers” of the country were not actuated by avarice, rivalry, jealousy or enmity.They were inspired by divine motive of devotion and service.The revolutionaries were above sectarian and communal considerations.Unlike the former movements, religion was not allowed to have precedence over the

246 secular and nationalistic outlook of its organizers who belonged to different religious groups in the country.The revy brotherhood had reached a stage where there was no caste, no religion or even separate identity.

There was a fundamental difference between the pre-1919 phase and post- 1919 phase of the revolutionary movement.The pre-119 revolutionaries were inspired by Mazzini and Garibaldi of Italy and the Sinn Feinners of Ireland. The post-1919 revolutionaries derived their inspiration from the October Revolution of Russia and the socialistic principles of Soviet leaders like Lenin. The slogans and code words like “Bharat Mata Ki Jai”, “Bande Mataram”, “Om”, “Ram Hari”, “Allaho Akbar” and “Sat Sri Akal” were substituted by “Inqilab Zindabad”, “Down with Imperialism”, “Long Live the Proletariat” and “Long Live India”.A leaflet issued by Naujawan Bharat Sabha discarded Buddha and Christ and described and Engels as the greatest men of the world.While the old revolutionaries got their inspiration from the Bhagwat Gita and the writing of Aurobindo, Vivekananda and Bankim Chandra Chatterjee, the new revolutionaries got their inspiration from the wirtings of Marx and Engels. While the revolutionaries like Lala Hardayal and his followers thought in terms of the past glory of ancient India. Sardar and his comrades relied upon the master-pieces of Lenin and such books as “Roos Ki Rajya Kranti”.

The revolutionaries lived a life of sufferings hardships, insults and humiliations at the hands of the agents of the foreign Government.They believed that no weapon could kill them and no fire could burn them.They were prepared in mind and body to pass through the severest ordeals.They were transported for life to the Andamans where life was extremely difficult. The jail authorities invented various devices to make the revolutionaries as miserable as they could. “The prisoners were mishandled at the time of taking meals.Barbarous punishments were inflicted upon the revolutionaries to extort confessions or to convert them as approvers.Their hands, were kept under the Legislatures of the cots and the police constables sat on them.Sometimes

247 they were wrapped in a blanket and then mercilessly beaten to avoid legal complications.Sometimes they were made to stand on their Legislatures for days together with their hands tied with a chain nailed in the wall. Sometimes they had to wear cross bars which were worse than the bar fetters because the prisoners under this sentence could not bring their feet or Legislatures close to each other and they had to walk, sit, work and sleep with stretched out feet and Legislatures for weeks. Sometimes the revolutionaries resorted to hunger-strikes to remonstrate against the inhuman treatment meted out to them.They excited a lot of public sympathy.There were public hartals in support of their demands.A certain section of the press also sympathized with them.They published short stories, poems, plays and essays about them. Whenever an official was murdered, there was praise instead of condemnation.Whenever a revolutionary was hanged, he was praised as a courageous hero and a martyr.

KAKORI CASE.

The revolutionaries were in great need of money for the manufacture of bombs and consequently a few revolutionaries boarded a train on 9th August 1925 on the Lucknow Saharanpur line.They had with them revolvers and cartridges.After the departure of the train the Kakori railway station, one of the revolutionaries pulled the alarm chain of the train. When the train stopped, the revolutionaries tried to take away money from the iron box which was broken open with great effort by the hammer blows given by Ashfaq Ullah Khan. However, the revolutionaries were able to get Rs. 5,000only.The Government took action and arrested about 40 persons.The trials in the Kakori case concluded on 7th April 1927.It was a mere farce, Pandit Ram Prasad Bismal, and Rajendra Lahiri were given death sentence. Manmath Nath Gupta got 14 years and many others got death sentences.Ashfaq and Sachindra Nath Bakshi were caught later on and given death sentence and transportation for life respectively.

248 The visited Lahore on 20th October 1928.The Hindustan Socialist Republican Party took out a huge procession against the Simon Commission, under the leadership of Lala Lajpat Rai, I.P. Saunders gave blows on the head and chest of Lajpat Rai and theory caused grievous injuries on his person. As a result of those injuries, Lajpat Rai died on 17th November, 1928. In order to have revenge, Sounders was murdered on 17th December, 1928 by Raj Guru and Bhagat Singh. After the murder, Bhagat Singh and Raj Guru managed to escape. On 8th April 1929, two bombs were thrown from the Visitors’ gallery of the Central Assembly Hall in New Delhi by Bhagat Singh and B.K. Dutt.They could have run away but surrendered to the police.Their trial started on 7th May, 1929 and on 12th June, 1929, the Sessions Judge sentences them to transportation for life. In the Saunders murder case, the trial started at Lahore. Bhagat Singh was taken from Delhi to Lahore to stand his trial for murder alongwith others.The tribunal which tried Bhagat Singh and his companions gave its decision on 7th October, 1930 and Bhagat Singh, Raj Guru and Sukh Developed were sentenced to death. They were hanged on 23rd March 1931 at Lahore.

CONTRIBUTION OF THE REVOLUTIONARIES.

It is true that the revolutionaries failed to bring about the independence of India.However, it cannot be denied that they had made their own contribution to the national cause.It is they who set an example before the Indians by sacrificing their own lives.They taught the people not by precept but by personal example.They taught them to face death and do everything for the sake of their country.By their sacrifices they created a new spirit were helped the Indians later on to wintheir freedom.It is they who revolted against the policy of the Moderates and thereby opened a new chapter in the history of the freedom movement in India.Their desperate deeds, daring plans, cool action and indifference to death won for them a lasting place in the memory of the nation.They succeeded in what they desired to do – evoking by the maximum sacrifices of the minimum chosen persons the spirit of minimum

249 sacrifice on the part of the maximum number of people. The impression which the revolutionaries left on the minds of thepeo was very effective and great. They exhorted the people to live dedicated lives – self-sacrifice for national emancipation a feeling of service for the needy and the oppressed and dislike for self-publicity. The revolutionaries were the heroes who left their footprints on the sands of time.

INDIA AND THE FIRST WORLD WAR (1014-18)

When the war started, there was great enthusiasm in the country.The people of India were willing to serve the government in every possible way. After Marne, there was an increasing demand for Indian troops outside India. When Turkey joined the Central Powers in October 1914.Indian troops garrisoned the Suez Canal and repulsed a Turkish attack.Indian troops fought through the long campaigns of Macedonia and German East Africa.They played an important part in the Iraq campaign leading to the capture of Baghdad in 1917. In this way, they helped to found the present State of Iraq. They were in the Allied army which took Jerusalem in 1917. All this involved a great effort in India itself.Eight llakhs of men were recruited for the fighting forces, together with four lakhs of non-combatants.This resulted in a great expansion in the Military machine, a great mixture of classes and a stronger feeling of self-confidence all around.Indian self-confidence grew when the magnitude of their effort and the extent to which it depended upon Indians themselves, were realized.

In the administrative sphere, the British government made a mistake inallowing the British civilian officers to serve the forces during the war. Many of them never returned and those who returned found themselves in a strange new mental world to which it was difficult to adapt themselves. When times grew difficult towards the end of the war, the Government had only an ageing and tired cadre of officers to rely upon. In the economic sphere, the first effect of the war was one of stimulus.The industrial development of modern India owes a good deal to the demands of First World War.However, increasing

250 demands and expenditure led to rise in prices and ultimately enthusiasm was turned into discontent.Englishmen could be expected to put up with inconveniences because they felt that they were fighting for their very- existence and their victory was likely to add to their glory. The same could not be said about the Indians for whom the War was merely an external affliction.No doubt; they became not only exhausted and war-weary but also sour, discontented and resentful.

The attitude of India towards Europeans and its people was altered radically and permanently.The Indians gave up the feeling that the Europeans were superior to them morally and technically.They were regarded merely as more powerful.The First War casualty in India was the image of Western superiority. The Russian Revolution of 1917 also had a profound influence on the minds of the Indians.They felt that if the people of Russia could over-throw an imperialist regime, the same could be done by the Indians in their own country.The Fourteen points of President Wilson had great influence on the Indians.They also demanded the rights of national freedom and self- determination of peoples. No wonder, the Indians demanded self-government in thename of the fundamental principles accepted by the Allied Powers. As regards the effect of war on Muslims, they were very unhappy.They did not approve of temple dimemberment of Turkey, which was regarded as the sword of Islam.They also did not like the treatment given to the Arabs who were considered to be rebels against the Turkish Khalifa.Their princes were regarded as stooges of the infidel.

When the war started, the Congress was still a middle class body of Westernised professionals with some commercial and industrial backing.It was firmly under the control of Gokhale and the Moderates. However, all this was change dduring the war. Tilak came back from jail and became a leader of all-India importance. Tilak was opposed to the old policy of making prayers to the British Government.His contention was that every Indian had the

251 birthright to be free.He laid the foundations for the great anti-government movement led by Gandhiji in the next few years.

THE HOME RULE MOVEMENT

While the Moderate leaders were busy forging unity among the different political parties in order to recover their strength and wring as much political concession from the British as they thought possible or proper, the wind was taken out of their sails by the Home Rule movement which soon cast into shade all other political activities in India.The idea of starting a Home Rule League originated with Mrs. Annie Besant, and she announced it on 25th September, 1915.She was, comparatively speaking, a new figure in the political field, but her activities as the head of the Theosophical Society had madeher name quite familiar in India.She came to this country in 1893 and devoted herself to the cause of social and educational uplift with undaunted energy.Gradually she came to realize that no real improvement could be effected without raising the political status of India.She was equally convinced that the Indian National Congress, under the guidance of its Moderate leaders, was not likely to achieve much. With characteristic energy she plunged herself into the political struggle. As early as 1913 she championed the cause of “the building up of India into a mighty self-governing community”.The definite campaign for Home Rule began with the publication of a weekly Review, The Commonweal, on 2nd January, 1914.The paper adopted as its cardinal programme, “religious liberty, national education, social reform, and political reform”, aiming at self-government for India within the British Commonwealth. In 1914 Mrs. Besant went to England to try to form an Indian party in Parliament. The attempt failed, but she roused sympathy for the cause of India by her public addresses, declaring that “the price of India’s loyalty in India’s freedom “.On her return to India she bought a daily paper in Madras, renamed it New India, and published it on 14th July, the date of the fall of the Bastille. In September, 1915, she made a speech at Bombay pleading India’s case for Home Rule or self-government in which she said: “I mean by self-government

252 that the country shall have a government by councils, elected by all the people, elected with power of the purse, and the government is responsible to the House”.

On 25th September, 1915, Mrs. Besant made a formal announcement of her decision to start the ‘Home Rule League’ with ‘Home Rule for India’ as its only obeject, as an auxiliary to the Indian National Congress, and moved a resolution to that effect in the Congress session at Bombay (1915).The Moderate leaders did not like theidea slaves they thought that such a new organization would weaken the Congress. Besant’s resolution on Home Rule was ruled out by the President on the ground that it contravened Article I of the Congress Constitution which restricted the scope of the demand for self- government by the words “bringing about a steady reform of the existing system of administration”.In the end it was decided that a draft scheme should be prepared by the All India Congress Committee after consulting other bodies. Mrs. Besant, having agreed to abide by this decision of the All-India Congress Committee, postponed formation of the League.The draft Home Rule scheme which was to be prepared by the All-India Congress Committee before 1st September, 1916, having not been produced by that date, Mrs. Besant considered herself absolved of the understanding, and decided to organize the Home Rule League on a regular basis.It was formally inaugurated in September, 1916, and within a few days, branches were formed at Ahmadnagar, Allahabad,Bombay,Calicut,,Varanasi,Mathura, Madras etc.

Mrs. Besant now began an active propaganda by personal addresses and through her two organs, New India and Commonweal.She took full advantage of the ready-made organization of the Theosophical Society with its branches all over India and even outside, as well as of the personal devotion and admiration felt for her intellect, learning and religious mission by a wide circle of Indians.She set up Home Rule organizations all over the country, made extensive tours, delivered stirring addresses and distributed vast quantities of

253 propagandist literature. She was nothing, if not extraordinary, in whatever she took up, and her short period of political activity of less than five years was marked by an “indomitable will, concentrated purposefulness, undaunted courage, and indefatigable zeal”.Her superboratory and matchless literary gifts enabled her to reach the foremost rank in politics in an incredibly short time. Even the Moderates, who detested her most, admitted that “she stirred the country by the spoken as well as the written words as scarcely anyone else could do”.

In the meantime Tilak had also taken up the idea of Home Rule.A short account of his early political activities up to 1908, when he was sentenced to imprisonment for six years on a charge of sedition, and a general review of his contribution to the growth of nationalism in Inid have been given above. After his released in 1914, he set himself to the task of reorganizing the Nationalist party and making it a dynamic force in Indian politics.He wanted to move on with the Congress, if possible, and without it, if necessary. He honestly tried his best to bring the two wings of the Congress together, and, as mentioned above, it was achieved in 1915 after a great deal of difficulty, and only by the accident of the death of Gokhale and Mehta.Tilak was, however, convinced by the attitude of these two leaders that so long as the Congress was led by the Moderates they would not follow Mrs. Besant and take up Home Rule as their war cry.Subsequent events, mentioned above, show that he was right in his judgment.As unlike Mrs. Besant, Tilak was outside the fold of the Congress, he could give effect to his ideas without any reference to the body or without deference to its desire or decision.He therefore summoned a Conference of the Nationalists of Bombay, Central Provinces and Berar at Poona on 23 and 24th December, 1915.The Conference appointed a Committee, and its report was placed before the Belgaum Conference held on 27-29 April. On the basis of this report the Conference resolved to establish the Indian Home Rule League, its objects being “to attain Home Rule or Self-Government within the British Empire by all constitutional means and to educate and organize public opinion in the country towards the attainment of the same”.The League was

254 accordingly established on 28th April, 1916, with Joseph Baptista as President and N.C. Kelkar as Secretary.The members included G.S. Khaparde, B.S. Moonje, and R.P. Karandikar.Tilak did not accept any office.There was a definite understanding that the Provincial Conference and the Indian Home Rule League would remain two distinct bodies.In a leading article in the Mahratta explaining the reasons why it became necessary to bring the League into existence Tilak wrote:“It was generally recognized that the time had positively come for an organization to be started for educating public opinion and agitating for Home Rule throughout the country.The Congress was the body which naturally possessed the greatest authority for understanding such a work with responsibility.The scheme of self-government which the Congress is supposed to be intending to hatch, served as a plausible excuse for most of the Moderates to negative a definite proposal to establish a Home Rule League.But the Congress, it is generally recognized, is too unwieldy to be easily moved to prepare a scheme for self-government and actively work for its political success.The spade work has got to be done by someone.It can afford to wait no longer.The League may be regarded as a pioneer movement and is not intended in any sense to be an exclusive movement”.Week after week Tilak wrote stirring articles in his two weeklies, urging for Home Rule.

About the middle of 1916, Tilak undertook an extensive lecture tour for instructing masses on Home Rule and exhorting them to become members of the Home Rule League.He appealed mainly to the masses and spoke to them in homely language with simple illustrations such as could easily bring home to them the idea of self-government.Tilak’s homely speeches and direct appeals made himnot only popular but a hero among themasses.He earned the epithet Loka-mānya (Respected by the people) and was almost worshipped as a god.Wherever Europe went he received a right royal reception.He appealed to the people to imbibe the virtues of patriotism, fearlessness and sacrifice, and held out the national hero Shivaji as their model.Although there were two Home Rule Leagues of Mrs. Besant and Tilak, they acted in close co-operation.There was an informal understanding

255 between them that Mrs. Besant’s field of work would cover the whole of India except Maharashtra and C.P., where Tilak’s League would carry on the work.

The wrath of the Government now fell on the devoted heads of Tilak and Mrs. Besant. It was the peculiar mentality of Indian bureaucracy to ignore the underlying causes and strength of a public movement, but to look upon one or more persons as solely responsible for it. So they tried to muzzle the two leaders as the best way to crush the movement. In July, 1916, a case was instituted against Tilak for certain speeches he had delivered at the Home Rule meetings.He was ordered to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties of Rs. 10,000 each, to be of good behaviour for a period of one year.About the same time a security of Rs. 2,000 was demanded from the New India, the daily paper of Mrs. Besant. It was forfeited on August 28 and a new security of Rs. 10,000 was levied.The Bombay High Court set aside the order against Tilak, but Mrs. Besant’s appeal was rejected both by the Madras High Court and the Privy Council. Mrs. Besant sold the two presses where her two papers were printed.She also suspended the publication of New India on June 18, but it re-appeared three days later under another editor.These pin- prick did not cripple the activities either of Tilak or of Mrs. Besant, both of whom continued their efforts with redoubled vigour.The unwearied activities of Mrs. Besant, Tilak and their associates propagated the idea of Home Rule far and wide, and made it practically the only living issue in Indian politics. The movement had its repercussion on the Indian National Congress and infused it with new strength and vigour.This is clearly proved by comparing the Presidential Address in the annual session of the Congress at Bombay in December, 1915, and the Resolution on Reform passed by it, with the Presidential Address in 1916 and the Congress-League scheme adopted in that year at Lakhnau.For the first time after 1907 the Extremists or Nationalists attended this session of the Congress.A “Home Rule Special” carried Tilak and his party to Lakhnau and they received unique ovations all along the way. Tilak received a right royal reception at Lakhnau.When he arrived at the pandal of the Congress he was carried by his admirers on their shoulders, and

256 when he rose to speak he was greeted with deafening cheers.After the conclusion of the Congress session in 1916 Tilak and Mrs. Besant visited many parts of India and these visits were referred to in police reports as “triumphant tours”.Largely attended meetings were addressed by them and many leaders who had hitherto belonged to the Moderate party joined the Nationalists in welcoming them.

The Home Rule movement was spreading over India like wild-fire.Two characteristic features of it were the participation of women and the religious colouring given to it as in the case of Swadeshi movement in Bengal.It was not long before the Government realized the intensity of the movement.On 17th January, 1917, the Home Member of the Government of India wrote in a confidential report: “The position is one of great difficulty.Moderate leaders can command no support among the vocal classes who are being led at the heels of Tilak and Besant”.He therefore expressed his opinion that the Moderates should be placated by an early sanction of the reform proposals already made to the Secretary of State (which recommended) greater Indianization of the local bodies and increase of Indian element in the Legislature.But, true to the policy of reform-cum-repression, the Bombay Government had prohibited Mrs. Besant from entering into Bombay.The Government of C.P. also externed Mrs. Besant, while Tilak and B.C. Pal were prohibited by the Governments of the Punjab and Delhi from entering into their jurisdiction. Lord Pentland, Governor of Madras, warned the people against the extravagant demands of Home Rule and uttered a threat which was soon followed by action.On 15th June, 1917, the Government of Madras issued orders of internment against Mrs. Besant and her two co-workers, G.S. Arundale and B.P. Wadia.All this had an effect on political India just the opposite of what was intended.

The Government’s determined hostility against the Home Rule Leagues and evident desire to declare them as illegal associations stirred the whole country.Sir Subrahmaniya Aiyar, recognized throughout India as an eminent

257 lawyer, boldly stood forward as the champion of the Home Rule League. He declared that he would stand by them even if the Government declared them illegal, and was prepared to suffer any punishment that would be meted out to him for that offence. More than two thousand persons, including many men of light and leading, pledged themselves to stand by the Home Rule League if it was declared illegal.The internment of Mrs. Besant was adversely criticized even in Britain and other foreign countries.A storm of indignation swept India from one end to the other.Protest meetings were held all over the country and those nationalist leaders, who had hitherto stood aloof, joined the Home Rule Leagues and actively participated in their campaigns. Even the placidity of the Congress was disturbed.Under the inspiration of Tilak the All-India Congress Committee made a vigorous protest to the Viceroy against the repressive and reactionary policy and asked for an official declaration accepting the political demands of the Indians.They also asked for the release of Mrs. Besant and her associates.They placed on record their appreciation of the work carried on by the Home Rule Leagues, and as a mark of it, elected Mrs. Besant as President of the Congress session in 1917.As a matter of fact, Mrs. Besant and her associates served the cause of Home Rule far better in jail than if they had been free.

The Home Rule League was making rapid strides.At the end of the first year Tilak’s League alone had 14,000 members with an income of about Rs. 16,000.In winding up the first annual Conference of the League, held at Nasik on 17th – 18th May, 1917, Tilak emphasized the role of the League and its difference from the Congress.The latter, he said, was merely a deliberative body whose only or main function was to pass pious resolutions.The Home Rule League, on the other hand, was pledged to work zealously throughout the year for the sole object of achieving Home Rule.He did not thank those who wished the League a long life, but would prefer that the League be dissolved in two years after the grant of Home Rule to India. After the annual Conference was over, the workers re-doubled their efforts to carry the Home Rule propapganda to the villagers.The local officials sent alarming reports of

258 their seditious teachings and the Government of India were urged by Local Governments to take strong measures.The Viceroy, being impressed by the strength and popularity of the movement, put a brake ontheir ardour, but apprised the Secretary of State of the real situation in India.While doing so, he observed:“Mrs. Besant, Tilak and others are fomenting with great vigour the agitation for immediate Home Rule, and in the absence of any definite announcement by Government of India as to their policy in the matter, it is attracting many of those who hitherto have held less advanced views.The agitation is having mischievous effect on public feeling throughout the country”.

The Home Rule League was equally anxious that the Government would publicly declare their policy.In England, Lord Pentland had ridiculed the idea of Home Rule in a public speech.Tilak took up the challenge and advised the Congress organizations all over India not only to make vigorous protests, but also to get up a monster petition urging upon the Secretary of State to grant Home Rule to India.There was already a suggestion to resort to Passive Resistance in order to secure the release of Mrs. Besant, and Tilak now proposed to broadbase it on the main political issue of Home Rule.The influence of the Home Rule movement is best evidenced by the fact that both the Congress and the Muslim League considered the proposal of starting Passive Resistance.It was referred to the Provincial Congress Committees and was considered by them in August and September.The Madras Committee fully approved of the idea on 14th August, 1917, and appointed a sub-committee to formulate practical steps to give effect to it. Six days later the Secretary of State, E.S. Montagu, made his historic pronouncement in the House of Commons, declaring Responsible Government as the goal of British policy in India.There can be hardly any doubt that it was the direct result of the Home Rule movement. In any case it altered the political situation in India.The Congress and the Muslim League dropped the idea of Passive Resistance and decided to send an All-India deputation to the Viceroy.Mrs. Besant also dropped the Home Rule movement.Tilak, however, did not suspend or relax

259 the Home Rule agitation. He knew that it was this agitation that had forced the Government to meet the Indian demands half-way, and it was therefore necessary to keep it alive in order to obtain substantial concessions from the Government.The Home Rule movement became more and more popular and tended to become a mass movement, though within a restricted zone in India. Still more surprising is the face that even prominent Muslim leaders like Jinnah and the family of Muhammad Ali joined it. Indeed both the people and the Government now began to look upon Tilak as the live wire in politics and the real leader of India.Tilak’s activities after Montagu’s statement were described in an official report as follows: “The capture of the Congress organization by Mrs. Besant and Tilak is complete.The Moderate Party in the Congress is extinguished. The Congress is completely indentified with Home Rule”.Montagu, after his arrival in India, had an interview with Tilak on 27 November and tried, in vain, to secure the support of Tilak for his Reform proposals. But he wrote inhis Diary that Tilak “is at the moment probably the most powerful leader in India, and he has it in his power, if he chooses, to help materially in the war effort. His procession to Delhi to see me was a veritable triumphant one”.

There is no doubt that the Home Rule campaign had practically ousted the Moderates from the political field which they had dominated till the return of Tilak to active politics in 1914. Neither Pherozeshah Mehta nor Gokhale could have possibly prevented his re-entry into the Congress even if they were alive, but their anticipations about its effect upon the Congress proved to be only too true.This was made quite clear when even with the utmost efforts the Moderate leaders could not prevent the election of Tilak’s nominee, Mrs. Besant, as President of the Congress session in 1917.This leader of the Home Rule movement uttered words, as President, which were never heard before in the Congress pandal.The Moderates who successfully prevented in the past the election of Tilak and Lajpat Rai as Congress President, now failed in the case of Mrs. Besant, and must have read their doom in the applause

260 with which the vast audience greeted the new tone she introduced in an organization which they had hitherto claimed to be their special citadel.

The Congress session, held in Culcutta in 1917 with Mrs. Besant as the President, was a great triumph for the Home Rule movement. There was a record gathering-nearly five thousand delegates and an equal number of visitors, including four hundred ladies, forming the most significant feature. The general view was that it was “the congress of Mrs. Besant and Mr. Tilak- of Mrs. Besant more than of Mr. Thilak”.Mrs. Besant with her usual eloquence, made a vigorous plea in her Presidential Address for immediate introduction of a bill in the British Parliamentfor the establishment of self-government in India, preferable in 1923, and not later than 1928.She rose to the height of her stature as the following passages, taken at random from her Address, will show:

“Early in the War I ventured to say that the War could not end until England recognized that autocracy and bureaucracy must perish in India as well as in Europe.The good Bishop of Calcatta, with a courage worthy of his free race, lately declared that it would be hypocritical to pray for victory over autocracy in Europe and to maintain it in India.” “I once said in England: ‘The condition of India’s loyalty is India’s freedom’.I may now add: “The condition of India’s usefulness to the Empire is India’s freedom.” “India demands Home rule for two reasons: one essential and vital, the other less important but weighty.First, because Freedom is the birthright of every Nation; secondly, because her most important interests are now made subservient to the interests of the British Empire without her consent, and her resources are not utilized for her greatest needs. It is enough only to mention the money spent onher Army, not for local defence but for Imperial purposes, as compared with that spent on primary education”. “Thank God that India’s eyes are opening; that myriads of her people realize that they are men, with a man’s right to manage his own affairs. India is no longer on her knees for boons’ she is on her feet for Rights.It is

261 because I have taught this, that the English in India misunderstand me, and call me seditious; it is because I have taught this, and that I am President of this Congress to-day”.

The Presidential address of Mrs. Besant offers a striking contrast to those delivered by Bjupendra-nath Basu and S.P. Sinha during the last two sessions of the Congress dominated by the Moderates, to which reference has been Rule League, Madras, and in this capacity wrote a letter to President Wilson of the U.S.A. on 24th June, 1917.He described the intolerable condition of India under alien rule and made a moving appeal to the President to apply his war- message of democracy and self-determination of nations to India.“At present”, he said, “we are a subject nation, held in chains”; but, he added, “immediate promise of Home Rule – autonomy – for India would result in an offer from India of at least 5,000,000 men in three months for service at the front, and of 5,000,000 more in another three months”.The publication of this letter created a furore in the House of Lords and the House of Commons.Montagu described the letter as ‘disgraceful’ and Aiyar, as a protest, renounced his titles, K.C.I.E. and Diwan Bahadur.

Far different was, however, the reception of the letter in America. ‘A printed copy of the letter was placed on the desk of the Senators and Congressmen. There was a great sensation and 1500 newspapers with 20,000,000 readers flashed the offer of ten million men.England was strongly criticized.The military men were strongly impressed.American Labour at once wanted Home Rule for India as in Canada and Australia’.An Indian Home Rule League was established in New York.It started a monthly journal, called Young India, in July, 1918, which supplied correct news about India to the outside world and exposed the organized campaign of misrepresentation against India’s fitness for Home Rule carried on by a section of themselves American Press at the instance of the British. Tilak strongly felt the need of propaganda in the U.S.A. whose democratic ideals were highly admired in India.Lajpat Rai, with N.S. Hardikar and K.D. Sastri, proceeded there on behalf of the Home Rule

262 League, a branch of which was established at Sanskrit Francisco.Hardikar gave the following account of his activities in a letter written to Tilak: “From the 9th of February to the 6th of May (1919), a period of 86 days, I traveled through 20 States of the Union. I gave 83 popular addresses, and arranged 25 different conferences. The conferences were held in ten States and 25 large cities, and were the result of 24 extensive tours.In the cities the audiences ranged from 25 to 3,000. I sold 4,000 copies of ‘Self-determination for India’, and 1500 copies of ‘Get Together on India’.In all the cities I was received at the principal colleges, and by the chief newspaper proprietors.Going from one place to another to speak, I could only arrange conferences at 25 places, and had to refuse nine invitations”.Lajpat Rai also sent Tilak a brief report in which he wrote: “Dr. Hardikar has returned from his tour which was very successful from every point of view.He brought new members, established new branches, and secured also some funds.We have been issuing occasional bulletins to the United States Press giving them a summary of what we put in the English press”.Tilak wrote in 1918 to M. Clemenceau, President of the Peace Conference, requesting him to solve the Indian problems so that India might “be a leading power in Asia” and “a powerful steward of the League of Nations in the East for maintaining the peace of the world”.

A Home Rule for India League was also established in London.Mrs. Besant sent a stirring message to the British labourers concluding with the following words: “Help us to become a free Commonwealth under the British Crown and we will bring our manpower to secure the World-peace.Our people have died in your war for freedom.Will you consent that the children of our dead shall remain a subject race?”The activities of the Home Rule Leagues bore fruit.Eminent Americans and Englishmen wrote and spoke for self-government in India.A Committee of members of Parliament was formed in London for the purpose of pressing forward the claims of India to self-government.The Labour Party Conference at Nottingham, early in 1918, unanimously passed a resolution in favour of Home Rule for India.

263 The Home Rule movement marked the beginning of a new phase in India’s struggle for freedom.It placed before the country a concrete scheme of Self- Government, bereft of the verbiage with which the Congress, led by the Moderates, surrounded this political goal.I also emphasized the point that if the Congress really wanted to achieve this goal it must cease to be a club of arm-chair politicians taking to public work only to the extent to which their leisure permitted them; instead it should be guided by leaders who were prepared to place their whole time and energy at the service of their country. This new ideal of a political leader soon commended itself to the whole country and developed a new standard of public life.The Home Rule movement was the fitting end of Tilak’s noble political career, which shines brilliantly, particularly in contrast with the transformation that came over his colleague, Mrs. Besant, a little later.This great movement shows him at his best – a sincere, fearless, unbending patriot, who fought for his country with a religious zeal without caring for the favour or frowns, either of the people or of the Government.An intellectual aristocrat, he brought himself down to the level of the common people, and initiated that mass movement in the political field which worked such a miracle in the hands of Mahatma Gandhi.

EMERGENCE OF MAHATMA GANDHI-NON-VIOLENT, NON-CO- OPERATION AND KHILAFAT MOVEMENTS

The year 1919 marked a definite stage in the history of India’s struggle French freedom. The most outstanding event was the emergence of Gandhi in blasing colours that was to shape the political destiny of India.Born on 2nd October, 1869; Gandhi had spent 21 years (1893 – 1914) of his life in South Africa fighting for the rights and dignity of Indians in Africa. Influenced by the writings of Tolstoy, Ruskin and Thoreau, Gandhi organized Satyagraha (non- violent passive resistance) against the racial laws in South Africa.This was the assertion of moral superiority of Indians against the material superiority of the British.In 1909 Gandhi wrote to Tolstoy that ‘this struggle of the Indians in South Africa…..is highly likely to serve as an example to the millions inIndia

264 and to the people in other parts of the world, who may be downtrodden’.Gandhi’s wife, Kasturba, by her selfless work set an example of service and sacrifice in Africa.The moderate success he achieved in South Africa led him to place implicit faith in non-violent passive resistance. As a recent writer rightloy remarked ‘South Africa had transformed Gandhiji from a shy and youthful pleader with no experience of public life into a mature idealist and leader’.By 1915 he had become a skilled political mobilizer and had evolved a political technique of super flexibility which was to be his hallmark when he returned to India.

Returning to India in January 1915, Gandhi, at the advice of his political guru, Gokhale, kept himself aloof from Indian politics for one year.He founded the Sabarmati ashram at Ahmedabad in May 1915 where he could obtain the spiritual ‘deliverance’ he sought in his homeland.Gandhi’s entry into Indian politics was not in blazing colour.On his return to India, he contacted prominent personalities like Mehta, Gokhale and Tilak.He recorded his impression as follows:

Sir Pherozeshah Mehta had seemed to me like the Himalaya and Lokamanya like the ocean. But Gokhale was like the Ganges.One could have a refreshing bath in the holy river. The Himalaya was unscaleable, and could not easily launch forth on the sea, but the Ganges invited one to its bosom.

Gokhale’s premature death at the age of 49 was a great personal loss to Gandhi.He was a passive onlooker of Indian politics till 1917 when he emerged like a morning sun from his self-imposed exclusion. The great merit of Gandhi was that he could identify himself with the masses and brought the latter into the limelight of Indian politics. Even a Communist writer like R.P. Dutt acknowledged this contribution of Gandhi: ‘The achievement of Gandhi consisted in that he, almost alone of all the leaders, sensed and reached out to the masses’.M.N. Roy almost complimented Gandhi for his method of non- violent mass struggle against the established regime.In 1917 Gandhi

265 explained that Satyagraha was not mere passive resistance.It meant intense activity –political activity-by large masses of people.It was a legitimate form of political action by the people against the injustices of the state, an active mass resistance to unjust rule.He once summed up his entire philosophy of life as follows: ‘The only virtue I want to claim is truth and non-violence. I lay no claim to super-human powers: I want none. In his Autobiography, Gandhi wrote ‘I wanted to acquaint India with the method I had tried in South Africa, and I desired to test in India the extent to which its application might be possible’.The opportune moment came in April 1917 when he had gone to Motihari, the headquarters of Champaran district of Bihar, to enquire into the grievances of the tenants against the English indigo planters.Soon after his arrival in Motihari, Gandhi was served with a government order to leave Champaran.When he refused to do so, he was asked to appear on trial for disobeying the government order.Gandhi pleaded guilty and requested the Magistrate to try him. Explaining his refusal to leave Champaran, Gandhi said ‘I have disregarded the order served upon me not for want of respect for lawful authority, but in obedience to the higher law of our being, the voice of conscience’.The moral challenge thrown to the Magistrate, perplexed him. Eventually the case against him was withdrawn and he was permitted to conduct his proposed enquiry. who had participated with Gandhi in the Champaran campaign observed. ‘The statements of tenants continued to be recorded the whole day.There was such a continuous stream of these tenants that there was not a minutes’ break between 6-30 and 6-30 P.M’.As a result of the enquiry theGovernment appointed a commission.Gandhi’s moral victory became complete when most of the cultivators’ grievances were redressed.Gandhi recorded with satisfaction:‘The ryots who had all along remained crushed now somewhat came into their own’.Impressed by his idealism, young nationalists like Rajendra Prasad, Mazhar-ul-Huq, Mahadev Desai and J.B. Kripalani worked with him in Champaran.

266 W.H. Lewis, the Sub-divisional officer for Bettiah reported that Gandhi had captured the ryot’s loyalty. ‘To the ryots he is their liberator and they credit him with extraordinary powers’.For the first time Gandhi earned the title of Mahatma or ‘Great Soul’ and the nickname of ‘Bapu’ or ‘Father’.When the Secretary of State met him later in 1917, he described him as ‘the renowned Gandhi’.‘He is the real hero of the settlement of the Indian question in South Africa, where he suffered imprisonment.He has just been helping the Government to find a solution for the grievances of the indigo labour in Bihar’. The next scene of Gandhi’s activity was Ahmedabad where an agitation had been going on between the labourers and the owners of cotton textile mill for an increase of pay.While Gandhi was negotiating with the mill-owners, the labourers went on strike.Having advised the strikers to depend upon their soul-force, Gandhi himself gave up all his clothes except the loin cloth and went on a ‘fast unto death’.The mill-owners gave way and a settlement was reached after 21 day’s strike.The mill-owners agreed to grant 35 per cent increase in wages and appoint an arbitrator. In 1920 Gandhi formed the Majur Mahajan (Labour Tribunal) which stood for peaceful relations, arbitration and social service. Gandhi’s next involvement was in the Kaira district of Gujarat where the cultivators were hard hit by a poor harvest.Though the cultivators were entitled to a remission of the land revenue under the law, it was withheld by the Government.Gandhi organized Satyagraha and asked the cultivators not to pay the land-revenue.The Government yielded and a compromise was reached.Gandhi himself reported “The Kheda Satyagraha marks the beginning of an awakening amongst the poor peasants of Gujarat, the beginning of their true political education”.During the movement, Indulal Yagnik was one of the chief lieutenants of Gandhi., an eminent barrister of Ahmedabad, was so impressed by the success of the Kaira Satyagraha that he became one of the trusted followers of Gandhi. The success of Satyagraha had given Gandhiji supreme self-confidence. But until 1918, he was a supporter of the British Government. He did not want to embarrass the Government in its hour of crisis.Instead he wanted to give

267 unstinted support to the Empire.He believed that by this act ‘India would become the most favoured partner in the Empire’.But despite his profession of loyalty, the Government’s antipathy towards Gandhi remained undiminished which was intensified by later events.

ROWLATT ACT (1919).

During his 1917 – 18 visit to India, Montagu, Secretary of State for India from 1917 to 1922, had felt that the Government of India was inadequate to cope with the tense political atmosphere.In his opinion Chelmsford (1916 – 21) was nervous.By 1919 matters seemed to be drawing to a head.The publication of the Rowlatt Bills set the stage for widespread agitation against the Government.The Rowlatt Bills introduced in the central legislature on February 6th , 1919 armed the executive with unlimited powers to suppress political violence.Coming soon after the war when the Indians were expecting generous treatment from Britain, it definitely aroused violent protest from all parts of India.The Bills were opposed by all elected non-official members of the legislature, including Surendranath Banerjea, Srinivasa Sastri and Tej Bahadur Sapru .Jinnah declared that a government which enacted such a law in peace time had no right to be called a civilized government.Gandhi considered the ‘Bills to be an open challenge to us’. A person, who had offered to go to Mesopotamia on behalf of England, now felt an irresistible, call to fight an unjust cause. Gandhi decided to oppose the Rowlatt Bills which he described as ‘symptoms of a deep-seated disease’.The remedy he proposed was Satyagraha. As he said ‘I think the growing generation will not be satisfied with petitions, etc.We must give them ‘something effective; Sathyagraha is the only way, it seems to me, to stop terrorism’.

LAUNCHING OF SATYAGRAHA

Before the Bills passed into Acts, Gandhi had organized in February 1919 a Satyagraha Committee, the members of which were to take a pledge to refuse to obey these laws.But in this struggle they were to follow truth and refrain from violence to life, person or property.Satyagraha, according to Gandhi, was

268 a ‘religious movement, a process of purification and penance’.The Satyagraha Pledge of 2nd March,1919 described the bills as ‘unjust, subversive of the principles of liberty and justice and destructive of the elementary rights of individuals’.The Satyagraha Pledge made an immediate impact on young Nehru. It filled a void in his soul.The vague nationalism of his childhood at last found a refuge.Jawaharlal intended to join the Satyagraha Sabha.Motilal did not like the idea as he held that unconstitutional agitation was not only foolish but futile.Torn by the conflict between his political convictions and family affections, Jawaharlal ‘wandered about alone and trying to grope’ his way about.

Early in 1919 the Government of India failed to recognize the strength of Gandhi, ‘the giant of Indian politics’.Even at the eleventh hour on March 12, 1919, Gandhi requested the Viceroy ‘to pause and consider before passing the Rowlatt Bills’.The Viceroy and his advisers were convinced that the bills were necessary ‘in the public interest’.The Bills were enacted on March 18, 1919 with the support of the official majority. In his plan to start a mass civil disobedience movement, Gandhi was opposed by Mrs Besant who feared that this might lead to violence. It was a clash for leadership and Gandhi won.Mrs Besant lost her popularity and leadership.15 non-official Indian members of the Imperial Legislative Council – like D.E. Wacha, Surendranath Banerjea, Tej Bahadur Sapru and Srinivasa Sastri – though opposed to the , were firmly against Satyagraha. Gandhi launched his movement with a day of hartal when business was to be suspended and the people were to fast and pray. 30th March, 1919 was the date first fixed but it was changed to April 6.While inaugurating the Satyagraha agitation, Gandhi warned that the fight against the Rowlatt Bills was ‘probably the most momentous in the history of India’.The Hindu wrote: ‘Whether Satyagraha succeds or fails it is due to our self-respect as the only form of protest left us’.Great excitement seized the people of India.Gandhi said to the people:Whether you architecture satyagrahis or not, so long as you disapprove of the Rowlatt agitation, all can join and I hope that there will be such a response throughout the length and

269 breadth of India as would convince the Government that we are alive to what is going on in our midst.

On 20th March the police fired on a procession of Hindus and Muslims in Delhi.The next day, Swami Shraddhanand, the Arya Samajist leader, led the procession defying the police.Hindus and Muslims marched hand in hand. Owing to a misunderstanding, Delhi observed hartal on 30 March.On 6th April, the whole of India ‘from one end to the other’ observed a complete hartal. According to Gandhi the hartal was a magnificent success.Sir Michael O’Dwyer, Lieutenant Governor of Punjab, said that the people regarded the 6th of April as ‘our national day’. Gandhi was arrested on April 9 but was set free.The news of his arrest provoked serious disturbances in Bombay, Ahmedabad, Nadiad and elsewhere.Gandhi decided to suspend non-violent civil discharge-obedience as he felt that the people were not yet fit for the movement.Gandhi’s experience of the Rowlatt Satyagraha was that ‘a rapier run through my body could hardly have pained me more’.He had made a massive error of judgment as he confessed ‘I think that I at least should have foreseen some of the consequences, special in view of the gravest warnings that were given to me by friends whose advice I have always sought and valued. But I confess that I am dense’.He observed a three-day fast to atone his ‘Himalayan Miscalculation’.Despite the suspension of the movement, Gandhi’s faith in Satyagraha remained undiminished. ‘Satyagraha alone’, he wrote to Maffey, Private Secretary to Lord Chelmsford ‘can smooth the relations between Englishmen and Indians’.The Rowlatt Satyagraha as a political campaign was a failure as it did not attain its object – the repeal of the Rowlatt Act.But it projected Gandhi as ‘an all-India leader of immense potential’.

PUNJAB HAPPENINGS.

In the meantime events were moving fast in the Punjab.The Lieutenant- Governor, Sir Michael O’Dwyer had already become notorious for his repressive measures.Within a week of the hartal of 6th April,a considerable

270 part of the Punjab was convulsed with agitation.Gandhi was served with an order not to enter the Punjab.When he refused to comply with it, he was arrested. On April 10th, Dr Satyapal and Dr. Kitchlew, two popular leaders of the province, were deported from Amritsar.This created great commotion. On the same day a peaceful procession at Amritsar was fired upon.Thereupon the people committed acts of arson and assaulted a few Europeans.On 11th April, Brigadier General Dyer took command of the troops in Amritsar which was quiet for the next two days.

JALLIANWALLA BAGH MASSACRE (APRIL 13, 1919)

On the afternoon of April 13, a public meeting was held at Jallianwalla Bagh in Amritsar, despite a ban on meetings.Dyer took no steps to prevent irrigation being held.The meeting ground was enclosed on all sides by high walls and had onenarrow entrance.General Dyer marched to the spot with his troops and machine guns. Without warning Dyer ordered firing on an unarmed crowd of a few thousands strong.The firing lasted for ten minutes until the ammunition was exhausted. A virtual massacre followed, about 500 persons were killed and 1200 wounded.Martial Law was proclaimed in Amritsar, Lahore and several districts of the Punjab.The Punjab Government justified Dyer’s action by raising the ‘bogey of the Frontier’ and the existence of a conspiracy.But the Intelligence Bureau of the Government of India found no traces of organized conspiracy in the Punjab.The Punjab tragedy had a lasting impact on succeeding generations.Rabindranath Tagore renounced his Knighthood as a measure of protest.Gandhi returned the ‘Kaiser-i-Hind’ medal given to him for his work during the Boer War. C.F. Andrews, a friend of Tagore, Gandhi and the Nehrus, wrote to Mahadev Desai after a visit to Amritsar, ‘It was a massacre, a butchery’. Romain Rolland wrote: ‘It was as if the law of non-violence proclaimed by India stirred European violence or frenzy’.

271 APPOINTMENT OF HUNTER COMMITTEE

The Jallianwala Bagh massacred provoked a strong public reaction in India and England. Montagu made a speech in the House of Commons denouncing the brutality of Dyer’s action in Jallianwala Bagh.To Chelmsford he wrote on29th August 1919 “Don’t let us make the mistake of defending O’Dweyerism right or wrong. Nothing is fatal to British prestige in a developing country like India than a belief that there is no redress for mistake and that whatever an official does, he will be backed…..’ The nationalist leaders asked the Government to institute an enquiry. The Government appointed a Committee of Enquiry consisting of four British and three Indian members under the chairmanship of Lord Hunter to enquire into the Punjab disturbances.The Indian National Congress decided to boycott the Hunter Committee and appointed a non-official committee consisting of eminent lawyers, including Motilal Nehru, C.R. Das, Abbas Tyabji, M.R. Jayakar and Gandhi.The Congress Enquiry Committee described General Dyer’s action as ‘nothing but a cold-blooded, calculated massacre of innocent, unarmed men and children, unparalleled for its heartless and cowardly brutality during modern times’. Before the Hunter Committee began its proceedings, the Government passed an Indemnity Act for the protection of its officers.The ‘whitewashing bill’ as the Indemnity Act was called, was severely criticized by Motilal.As he said ‘indeed the way the Government of India has behaved would do little credit even to and ordinary litigant in a court’.

AMRITSAR CONGRESS (1919)

In this atmosphere of distrust and anger came the Proclamation of King George V. Issued on December 24, 1919, the King gave his assent to the Government of India Act of 1919 and granted an amnesty to all political prisoners.The King called upon officials and the people to Congress-operate. These sentiments of the King created a most favourable atmosphere in Amritsar where the Congress session was held towards the end of December. Simultaneously the annual session of the Muslim League also met at Amritsar

272 under Ajmal Khan.The Amritsar Congress which met under the presidency of Motilal urged the British Government to take early steps to establish full responsible government in India. The Amritsar Congress was significant as Gandhi considered his participation in the proceedings ‘as my real entrance into the Congress politics’.Gandhi cast his influence in favour of constitutional reforms.‘The Reforms Act’, he wrote, ‘coupled with the Proclamation is an earnest of the intention of the British people to do justice to India’.The Amritsar Congress rededicated itself to the cause of the peasants. It declared that the peasants should be made the actual owners of the soil they cultivate and they should be subjected to tax but not rent.Though the Royal Proclamation of December 1919 raised in Gandhi a last flicker of hope, he warned his countrymen that they must not sit’ with folded hands…..and still expect to get what we want. Under the British Constitution no one gets anything without a hard fight for it’. Hardly had the sense of jubilation at the Amritsar Congress died down, when Gandhi was disillusioned with the faithlessness of the British Government.He soon changed his opinion and told his people that ‘Congress- operation in any shape or form with this Satanic government is sinful’.The events of the next few months turned the great loyalist into a rebel.

KHILAFAT MOVEMENT

As the war progressed and Turkey came under pressure from the Allies, Muslim anxiety increased.The Muslims like the Ali brothers, Muhammad Ali and Shaukat Ali and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad had organization a Khilafat (Caliphate) party.Its avowed object was the restoration of the Sultan of Turkey to his pre-war status as Khalifa (Caliph) of Islam.The primary object of the Khilafat movement, according to the British confidential report, was ‘the independence of India, more especially Mohammedan India, with the object of uniting her to a revived Islam’.Gandhi decided to extend support to the Khilafat movement as this was to him an ‘opportunity of uniting the Hindus and the Muslims’.In March 1918 he petitioned the Viceroy for the Ali brothers’ release. ‘My interest in your release’, he wrote to Muhammad Ali on November 18,

273 1918, ‘is quite selfish.We have a common goal and I want to utilize your services to the uttermost in order to reach that goal. In the proper solution of the Mahommedan question lies the realization of Swaraj’.But a joint front developed only afte the Delhi riot of March 30th , 1919, in which members of both communities were shot dead in police firing.

The Khilafat movement assumed great significance in September 1919, when a decision at the Peace conference appeared to be imminent. Meetings of protest were held in Bombay and in North India.17th October, 1919 was observed as Khilafat Day when the Hindus united with the Muslims in fasting and observed a hartal on that day.Gandhi was elected President of the All- India Khilafat conference which met at Delhi on 23rd November, 1919. Khilafat committee at Bombay collected huge sums of money.Muhammad Ali, the Khilafat leader visited Europe to popularize the movement. He met the British Prime Minister on 19th March, 1920, apparently to plead the case of Turkey. About the same time, Lloyd George alienated the Khilafat deputation by observing that Turkey could not be allowed to retain the lands which were not Turkish.The Muslim delegation also wrote to Mustaga Kemal of Turkey in the name of Indian Muslims in order to mobilize international public opinion in favour of the pan-Islamic political objective. Finding little response in France or elsewhere, Muhammad Ali turned to Russia which, according to the secret memorandum, ‘promised freedom to Indian Mohammadans’.

In his manifesto of March 4th , 1920, Gandhi made it clear that the Khilafat question was the only burning issue.Gandhi persuaded the Muslims to accept his Non-violent non-cooperation movement.March 19, 1920 was also observed as Khilafat Day with a hartal.Tension, however, arose between Gandhi’s ideal of Satyagraha and the Khilafat leaders’ adoption of it as a political technique.It was felt that the Khilafat movement might degenerate into violence.The Intelligence Report of May 10, 1920 observes:The association of Gandhi with any movement is a great asset, because his name is one to conjure with among the ignorant masses….. His scheme is obviously

274 comprehensive and easily stretched into something far more than passive resistance.Using the glamour of Gandhi’s name and their own weapon of religious fanaticism, the most ardent and revolutionary Pan-Islamist can work at this scheme, knowing that from passive to active resistance is but a step.

The terms of Treaty of Sevres with Turkey were settled on August 10, 1920. Turkey retained Constantinople but was severely reduced in size.This was considered by the Muslims as a breach of the pledges given earlier by the British Prime Minister, Lloyd George (1916 – 22).The Central Khilafat Committee warned Chelmsford that unless the peace terms were revised, Muslims would resort to non-cooperation and would ask the Hindus to join them.‘The Khilafat movement from early 1919 until the inauguration of non- cooperation on August 1st, 1920 was the context of Gandhi’s rapid emergence as an all-India political leader’.In his letter of August 1st, 1920 to the Viceroy, Gandhi pointed out that the scheme of non-cooperation inaugurated today was essentially in connection with the Khilafat movement and that the Punjab question had merely given ‘additional cause for it. By participating in the Khilafat movement, Gandhi had tried to organize a mass movement of political protest.According to a Government Report Gandhi occupied ‘a unique position as the leader of two sections of the Indian population most opposed to the British Indian Government’.

DISILLUSIONMENT OF GANDHI: NON-VIOLENT

NON-COOPERATION MOVEMENT (1920)

Indians became indignant at the support extended to Dyer by the Government.The report of the Hunter Committee which was published on 28th May,1920 appeared to them as an attempt to justify Dyer’s action.“The cold- blooded approval of the deed’, shocked young Jawaharlal Nehru.Motilal wrote to his son ‘My blood is boiling even since I read the summaries you have sent. We must hold a special Congress now and raise a veritable hell for the rascals’.On 9th June, 1920 Gandhi condemned the Hunter Report which he described as an ‘official whitewash’.Gandhi became convinced that ‘the

275 present representatives of the Empire’ had become‘dishonest and unscrupulous’.To an enraged people Gandhi suggested the way of Non- violent Non-cooperation to secure redress for the Khilafat and the Punjab wrongs.He suggested total non-cooperation with the rulers with the intention ‘so far to paralyse the Government as to compel justice from it’.The famous doctrine of Non-violent Non-cooperation movement which Gandhi had issued in March 1920 was formally launched on 1st August, 1920.Tilak died on the same day.His last message to the nation was ‘Unless Swaraj is achieved, India shall not prosper. It is required for our existence’. The loss of this valiant son of India was deeply mourned. Gandhi wrote: ‘A giant among men has fallen.The voice of the lion is hushed….. He will go down to the generations yet unborn as a Maker of Modern India’.

Tilak’s death removed the most vocal critic from the field. , Lajpat Rai, B.C, Pal, Malaviya had mental reservations about Gandhi’s programme.They believed that it was folly to boycott the new Councils, thereby cutting themselves off from the fountain head of political power. In N.C.Kelkar’s words ‘we will not be able to correct Government by remaining outside the Council’. When the Congress met in a special session at Calcutta on 4th September, 1920, Gandhi faced some opposition from veteran leaders. Motilal was the only front-rank leader who supported Gandhi at the Calcutta Congress. But Gandhi was not disheartened.He emphasized the fact that by the adoption of his Non-cooperation resolution, Swaraj might be attained within one year.Gandhi’s resolution on Non-cooperation was passed.It recommended the renunciation of Government titles, boycotting of the Legislatures, law-courts, Government educational institutions and foreign goods.Great emphasis was laid on the promotion of Swadeshi goods by means of reviging hand-spinning in every home.In his hour of triumph Gandhi behaved with exemplary humility. The result was that in a few months his erstwhile critics C.R.Das, Lajpat Rai and others rallied round him. The adoption of Non-cooperation ushered in a new era in India’s struggle for

276 freedom and marked a turning point in the history of the Indian National Congress.

NAGPUR CONGRESS (1920):

CONGRESS, A MASS-BASED ORGANISATION

The movement launched by Gandhiji was ratified at the annual session of the Congress at Nagpur in December 1920. It was declared that ‘the object of the Indian National Congress is the attainment of Swaraj by the people of India by all legitimate and peaceful means’. Malaviya and Jinnah opposed the goal of Swaraj because it was not made clear whether any connection would be maintained with the British Empire.Jinnah left the Congress after his association with the organization for fifteen years. Fortunately C.R. Das was won over. The Nagpur session revolutionized the structure of the Congress by making it a mass-based organization. A Working Committee of 15 and an All- India Committee of 350 members with roots going down to districts, towns and villages was formed.The Congress thus became a broad-based organization. Nehru said: ‘He (Gandhi) sent us to the villages and the country side hummed with the activity of innumerable messengers of the new gospel of action’. Any one who accepted its creed and paid four annas as the annual subscription could become its members.The revised constitution was largely Gandhi’s own handiwork.Gandhi was now the great force of the nation.A wave of unprecedented enthusiasm swept the land.Gandhi toured different places of India, ‘From Aligarh to Dibrugarh and then as far as Tinnevelly he went from village to village from town to town, sometimes speaking in temples and mosques. Wherever he went he had to endure the tyranny of love’.

An unusual frenzy of burning foreign cloth overtook the country.Nearly two- thirds of the voters abstained from taking part in the election to the Councils held in November 1920.A large number of students abstained from attending schools and colleges. Among those who gave up their lucrative careers were Motilal Nehru,Rajendra Prasad,C.R.Das,Vallabhbhai Patel,C. Rajagopalachari.The movement exercised such a profound influence upon

277 Jawaharlal that he recorded in his Autobiography:’We were full of excitement and optimism….We sensed the happiness of a person crusading for a cause. We were not troubled with doubts or hesitation; our path seemed to lie clear in front of us and we marched ahead….. There was no more whispering….. We said what we felt and shouted it from the house-tops.What did we care for the consequences? Prison? We look forward to it; that would help our cause still further’.Subhas Chandra Bose who passed the I.C.S. examination in 1920, resigned his post.Jails lost their terror and the people courted arrest voluntarily.

SPREAD OF THE MOVEMENT

Non Cooperation spread to rural areas.The peasants of Midnapur in Bengal led by Birendranath Sasmal organized a very effective no-tax movement.Tension ran high in Champaran and Muzaffarpur districts of Bihar. The Tana Bhagat sect of Chhotanagpur tribals boycotted liquor.The Bihar Government panicked: ‘If the aboriginals are stirred up, we shall have a new source of trouble on our hands’.The United Provinces became one of the strongest centres of the Non Cooperation movement.From this province came a host of leading nationalists – Motilal Nehru, Jawaharlal Nehru, Purushottamdas Tandon, Ganesh Shankar Vidyarthi, , Lal Bahadur Shastri.The peasant upsurge in Avadh associated with Baba Ramchandra culminated in widespread agrarian riots in Rae Barelli, Pratapgarh, and Sultanpur.Tea gardens in Assam were largely affected by the movement. There were also signs of a no-revenue movement among the peasants.It was reported on February 9, 1922 ‘It is being widely stated in the villages that Gandhi raj had come and there is no longer any necessity to pay anything to anybody.They are consequently not only refusing, to pay rent and taxes but also repudiating their debts’! Non Congress- operation attained its great strength in the Andhra delta region with outstanding leaders like Konda Venkatappayya, A. Kaleswara Rao, T. Prakasam and Pattabhi Sitaramayya.Among the highlights of the Andhra

278 upsurge was the resistance of the small town of Chirala-Parala in Guntur district. Led by Duggirala Gopalakrishnayya, its 15,000 inhabitants refused to pay taxes.

The Non-violent, Non Congress-operation movement which started auspiciously was marred by violence in August 1921.The Moplah Muslims of Malabar butchered Hindu money-lenders.The Ali brothers began to give way. They apologized to the Viceroy for their violent speeches at the persuation of Gandhi.The new Viceroy, Lord Reading (1921 – 6), was hoping for a rift between Gandhi and Ali brothers. This would mean, according to the Viceroy, the ‘collapse of the bridge over the gulf between Hindu and Muslim’. However, in September 1921, the Ali brothers were arrested. Soon afterwards 45 Indian leaders, headed by Gandhi, issued a manifesto calling upon every Indian civilian and soldier to give up his job.

This was an open challenge but the Government hesitated to take action owing to the impending visit of the Prince of Wales in November 1921. When the Prince landed in Bombay on 17th November, people grew violent and attacked the police. In the riots that followed 53 died and 400 were wounded. Gandhi, and others failed to pacify the crowd.Gandhi atoned by fasting for five days and declared that ‘swaraj stank in his nostrils because of this vilence’.The Government now began to take drastic action.Prominent leaders were arrested.Motilal was arrested along with his son in December 1921.In a farewell message to his countrymen Motilal said ‘Having served you to the best of my ability, it is now my high privilege to serve the motherland by going to gaol with my only son’. In two months nearly 30,000 people were imprisoned. Chittaranjan Das courted arrest and Lajpat Rai and Gopabandhu Das of Orissa followed him to prison.

WOMEN’S PARTICIPATION

Bombay and Calcutta were the main centres of women’s participation in the Swadeshi Movement, though sporadic demonstrations by women occurred in other cities. During the Satyagraha week from 6-13, April 1921, Sarojini Naidu

279 addressed a number of meetings in Bombay. A women’s political organization, Rashtriya Stree Sangha (RSS) was formed. Urmila Devi, the widowed sister of the Bengali leader C.R. Das, addressed them urging the latter to leave their homes and serve the country.In November 1921 one thousand Bombay women demonstrated against the visit of the Prince of Wales.In Calcutta, C.R. Das’s wife Basanti Devi, his sister Urmila Devi and his niece, Suniti Devi, were arrested on 7th December, 1921, while selling Khaddar.The next day, the whole city was in commotion and they were released.Members of the Das family thereafter resumed picketing cloth shops and selling Khaddar joined by numerous other lady volunteers, especially Sikh ladies.In Ahmedabad and Lahore women also participated in the movement. Gandhi wanted women from the upper strata of society to take the Swadeshi vow because they would be emulated by other women.

AHMEDABAD CONGRESS (1921)

It was against this ominous background that the Indian National Congress met at Ahmedabad in December 1921.The outbreak of violence had cautioned Gandhi.He wanted to ‘hasten slowly’ with the mass civil discharge-obedience. It was, as Gandhi said, like an earthquake ‘a sort of general upheaval on the political plane’. He, therefore, wanted to experiment with it, in Bardoli; a small sub-division in the Surat district.He gave a clear warning that if violence broke out in any form, the movement would lose its character.Gandhi sent an ultimatum to the Viceroy on 1st February, 1922. He demanded, among other things, the release of political prisoners, and the removal of restrictions on the press. If these demands were not conceded within seven days, he threatened to start civil disobedience in Bardoli ‘to mark the national non-violent revolt against the Government’.

VIOLENCE AT CHAURI CHHURA:

SUSPENSION OF THE MOVEMENT (FEBRUARY 1922)

Before the movement was launched, mob violence at Chauri Chaura village, in Gorakhpur district of U.P. took place on 4th February, 1922. 22

280 policemen were killed including the young son of a sub-inspector of police.This was followed by more mob violence at Bareilly. Gandhi viewed the tragedy as a red signal and suspended his Non Congress-operation on 12th February, 1922.On 24th February, the Congress Working Committee which met at Delhi, endorsed the decision.From Lahore prison, Lala Lajpat Rai attacked Gandhi’s blundering tactics just when his followers’ hopes were at their highest. He wrote bitterly: ‘The fact is that no single man how able, high- minded, wise and sagacious can lead a movement of this nature without making mistakes’.

The sudden suspension of Non-Cooperation by Gandhi caused profound shock to his followers. ‘At a word from Gandhi India would have risen in revolt. That word was not said’.Gandhi justified his action by writing to Jawaharlal Nehru on 19th February, 1922 ‘I assure you that if the thing had not been suspended we would have been leading not a none=violent struggle but essentially a violent struggle’. Gandhi emphasized that the movement had not been abandoned but suspended.‘We may have to adjust our sails to the varying winds, we may have to alter our course to avoid the shoals and the breakers ahead….. But there can be no question of changing our destination or our good ship which we have chartered for the voyage’.Gandhi was arrested, tried at Ahmedabad on 18th March, 1922 and sentenced to six year’s simple imprisonment.In his historic trial Gandhi observed ‘I came reluctantly to the conclusion that British connection had made India more helpless than she ever was before, politically and economically.She has become so poor that she has little power of resisting famines’.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE NON-COOPERATION MOVEMENT

The first phasr of the Non Congress-operation Movement ended with Gandhi’s crying halt.Though the movement failed to achieve Swaraj, it generated a feeling of freedom among the masses and inspired them to meet the forces of repression unleashed by the Government. Even Lajpat Rai, who did not fully agree with Gandhi’s political ideas, observed that the passive

281 resistance in India was an ‘achievement unique in our history, nay even in the history of the world. It has raised the political consciousness of the country by one big leap…’The Intelligence Branch of the Government reported confidentially in March 1921: Never before has any political leader, or perhaps even a religious leader, in his own lifetime stirred the masses to their very depths throughout the country and received the homage of som many people, Hindus and Moslems alike.His influence is certainly phenomenal and quite unprecedented. The Government was alarmed at the sweep of the movement and the influence it exercised over the ignorant masses.This fear was expressed in the following language:The factory hands and the railway employees who strike, the convicts who have broken out of jail, the coolies who have migrated from Assam and themselves peasants who recently defied law and order in Oudh, all proclaim Gandhi as their leader and appear to think that if they obey what are represented as his orders, the British raj will disappear and a golden age of prosperity for India will begin.

For the first time the Congress, freed for the dominant middle class, turned to the masses as a sheet-anchor of their programme and policy.The movement also contributed to an awakening of the masses to economic problems.Even the common villagers began to feel that Swaraj was the sovereign remedy for their ills.There was also an increasing awareness of social evils like untouchability and drinking and of the importance of Khadi. A supreme self-confidence seized the people.Gandhi became aware of the strength of the movement.As he himself said ‘The fight that was commenced in 1920 is a fight to the finish, whether it lasts one month or one year or many months or many years’.Gandhi was not vainglorious when he claimed that the movement achieved in one year what could not have been achieved in thirty years by earlier methods.‘The net effect of non-violent, non-cooperation has been of the greatest benefit to India. It has brought about an awakening which would probably have taken generations otherwise’.As a recent writer observes ‘non Congress-operation marked a major change in the depth and dimensiosns of concerted political hostility to the Raj. Never before had the

282 British faced a continental campaign against their rule’.Even after the suspension of the movement, the Additional District Magistrate of , Peddie, had to flee for his life owing to the upsurge of the Santals.‘It is the first time I have had to run away and I did not like doing so-but there was nothing else possible’.

MUSLIM OPINION CONCILIATTED

With the suspension of the Non Congress-operation movement, the Khilafat question became unimportant. The Government also felt the necessity of confiliating Muslim opinion by a revision of the Treaty of Sevres of August 1920 in favour of Turkey. ‘We believe’, wrote the Viceroy to the Secretary of State on February 9, 1922 ‘that the appeasement of 70 million Muhammadans of India……is of the utmost importance’. A sudden change in the politics of the Near East also helped the Government to bring to an end the Hindu-Muslim combination that had manifested in the Khilafat agitation.Mustapha Kemal desposed the Sultan, a puppet of the British Government and started the modernization of Turkey. In November 1922 the Treaty of Sevres was revised in Turkey’s favour.The Hindu-Muslim alliance which Gandhi had so laboriously built up now faded and communal disturbances between the two communities became frequent.

EVOLUTION OF SWARAJISTS

1. The Genesis

In spite of the suspension of all subversive activities by the Non-co- operators after the arrest of Gandhi, the Government continued its repressive policy in some localities, and this gave rise to a feeling that the Congress should resort to Civil Disobedience. The All-India Congress Committee which met at Lakhnau on 7th June, 1922, thereupon requested the President to nominate a few eminent persons to tour round the country for reviewing the present situation.This is the genesis of the Civil Disobedience Enquiry

283 Committee.A section of Congressmen, how, felt that they should carry the fight inside the Councils set up by the Government of India Act, though this would mean going back upon the resolution of boycotting the Councils.The Civil Disobedience Enquiry Committee reported that the country was ‘not prepared at present to embark upon general Mass Civil Disobedience’, nor was there much enthusiasm for the constructive programme laid down as part of Non-co-operation activities.This undoubtedly gave a fillip to the views of Council-entry, but an overwhelming majority of the witnesses who appeared before the Civil Disobedience Enquiry Committee were against the programme of Council-entry with a view to fighting the Government inside the Councils. This led to a split in the Congress rank – a section headed by Motilal Nehru and C.R. Das supporting the Council-entry, and another headed by Rajagopalachari leading the orthodox party of no-changers.

The question came to ahead at the annual session of the Congress at Gaya in December; 1922.The President, C.R. Das, in his Presidential Address made a vigorous plea for Council-entry, but the motion of Rajagopalachari in support of continuing the boycott was carried by a large majority.C.R. Das resigned the Pressidentship and, along with Motilal Nehru and others, formed a new party within the Congress, called the Congress Khilafat , briefly referred to as the Swarajya party. By successful propaganda the new party rapidly gained in strength and a special session of the Congress, held at Delhi on 15th September, 1923, arrived at a compromise on the qun, by passing the following resolution:“While re-affirming its adherence to the principle of Non-co-operation this Congress declares that such Congressmen as have no religious or other conscientious objections against entering the legislatures are at liberty to stand as candidates and to exercise the right of voting at the forthcoming elections….”

As the next election to the Councils was to be held in November, 1923, the Swarajya party began to make preparations without delay for the coming contest.They issued a manifesto from Allahabad on14th October, 1924,

284 explaining the policy and programme of the party.They declared at the very outset that the Swarajya party was an integral part of the Congress and always kept in view the essential principles of ‘non-violent Non-co-operation’ as they understood them.The party, on entering the Legislative Assembly, wddemand the right of framing their own constitution, and if this was refused, and they constituted a majority, they would resort to a policy of “uniform, continuous, and consistent obstruction with a view to make Government through the Assembly and Councils impossible”. The manifesto made it quite clear that for achieving their purpose they would try to secure the co-operation with Nationalist members of the Legislatures who, “without agreeing with the principles of Non-co-operation, are in sympathy with the party programme so far as it relates to Councils”.The party would also readily accept the invitation of other parties to join with them “for the purpose of defeating the Government on any non-official measure opposed by the Government or on an official measure opposed by the inviting party or members”.The Swarajya party’s contest for election in November, 1923, roused great enthusiasm all over the country which seemed to have got over the political inertial brought about by the sudden suspension of the Non-co-operation movement.Considering the very short time in which the party had to prepare for the contest, its success must be regarded as very remarkable.It practically routed the Moderate or Liberal party. Even veteran leaders of this party like Surendranath Banerji in Bengal, Sheshagiri Iyer in Madras, and Paranjpye in Bombay, were thoroughly beaten at the polls.The defeat of C.R. Das (Calcutta), Mr. Chintamani (U.P.), Hriday Nath Munzru and others completed the debacle of the Moderates who henceforth ceased to count as an effective factor in Indian politics.The utter disorganization of the Liberal party was clearly reflected in the poor attendance at the session of the National Liberal Federation held at Poona on 26 December.The President of the session, Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, ascribed the debacle of the party at the recent election to lack of organization and failure to educate public opinion. But the plain truth seems to be that they had

285 forfeited the confidence of the educated classes and had no influence upon the masses.

The success of the Swarajya party varied in different provinces. It had captured the majority of seats in C.P., but very few members of the party were elected to the Legislative Councils of Madras and the Punjab. In Bengal the Swarajists formed the single largest party, though they did not command an absolute majority of votes. In Bombay, Assam, and U.P., the Swarajists were fairly strong; no member of the Swarajya party was sent up for election to the Legislative Council in Bihar and Orissa, but the Nationalists were returned in large number.

2. Change in the Programme.

In the Legislative Assembly the Swarajists had 48 members, and there was a group, calling itself Independent, of 24 members under the leadership of Jinnah .The number of official and non-official nominated members was, respectively, 25 and 14, forming practically a solid bloc of 39 votes controlled by the Government.It was obvious that the Swarajists and Independents joining together could defeat the Government.Ere long there was such a coalition, generally known as the new Nationalist party. The Swarajya party maintained its separate identity, but had to revise its declared policy of “uniform, continuous and consistent obstruction”, and draw up a new programme of work within the Assembly.They would not only throw out budgets and official resolutions andbills, but also themselves move resolutions and support measures necessary for thehealthy growth of national life and the constructive programme of the Congress.The programme of the Joint Party was laid down as follows:

“If the Government do not make a satisfactory response to the resolution demanding reforms within a reasonable, time, the party (Joint Party) will then be bound to a policy of obstruction and will put the policy into operation at the earliest period when the demands for grants are made by the Government, Buddhism refusing supplies, provided the party decide by a majority of three-

286 fourths at a meeting specially to be convened for the purpose, that the response, if any, made by Government is not satisfactory”.

This policy worked remarkably well and the Joint Party achieved notable successes.But the Independents soon changed their mind and were not prepared to join the Swarajists to the full extent in the policy of obstruction. The result was that though on some important occasions the Swarajists, with the help of the Independents, inflicted defeat upon the Government, they were defeated on many occasions when the Independents deserted them; the latter not only remained neutral, but some of them voted with the Government against the Swarajists.When the 4th session of the Assembly opened in Delhi in January, 1925, a revised rule was introduced by the Independents to the following effect:

“In the event of the Party desiring to resort to a policy of obstruction including refusal of supplies or rejection of Finance Bills, no such decision shall be taken in the Nationalist party unless both the Swaraj and Independent parties have separately met in the first instance and decided at their respective meetings to make it a party question.If either group does not desire to resort to a policy of obstruction or of refusing supplies, the Nationalist party shall not make it a party question. In that event either group will be free to act as it may determine”.

The definite end of the coalition made it impossible for the Swarajists to follow effectively their policy of obstruction. This was undoubtedly the main cause of their final decision to walk out of the Assembly, as directed by the Congress at the end of 1925.

3. Work in the Legislative Assembly.

The Legislative Assembly met on 30th January, 1924, when oath was administered to the members. Next day the Viceroy, Lord Reading, addressed the Assembly.The Address was resented by the nationalist members on two grounds.There was no reference to Gandhi who had undergone a serious operation while in jail.Secondly, the Viceroy practically threatened the

287 Swarajists that if they did not behave well the British Government might withdraw the reforms. The extent of the indignation may be judged by the fact that even Pandit Malaviya and his followers boycotted the garden party arranged by Mr. A.C. Chatterji, Member for Industries and Labour, to meet the Viceroy and the Countess of Reading.The Swarajists had already decided upon this course and Malaviya group joined them as a protest against the Viceroy’s speech.On 8th February the adjourned motion of Mr. Rangachariar on constitutional advance came up for discussion.It asked for “the appointment of a Royal Commission for revising the Government of India Act so as to secure for India full self-governing Dominion Status within the British Empire and Provincial autonomy within the provinces”.The Government opposed it but agreed to make a departmental inquiry into the defects and difficulties in the actual working of the present constitution.Pandit Motilal Nehru, the Leader of the Swarajya party, then moved the following amendment on behalf of the newly formed Nationalist party:

“The Assembly recommends to the Governor-General in Council to take steps to have the Government of India Act revised with a view to establish full Responsible Government in India and for the said purpose (a) to summon at an early date a representative Round Table Conference to recommend with due regard to the protection foreign the rights and interests of important minorities the scheme of a constitution for India, and (b) after dissolving the Central Legislature, to place the said scheme before a newly elected Indian Legislature for its approval and submit the same to the British Parliament to be embodied in a statute”.

The matter was discussed for full three days, namely 8th, 13th and 18th February, andNehru’s amendment was carried by 76 to 48 votes.This was the first great victory – an almost historical one – of the Swarajya Party-cum- Independents.This was shortly followed by other triumphs.When the Budget debate on the voting of demands was held on March 10, Nehru moved for the total omission of the grant under Customs.It was carried by 63 to 56 votes.

288 Similarly, the Assembly refused the demands under the heads, Income-Tax, Salt, and Opium.On 17th March, the motion for leave to introduce the Finance Bill was rejected.Three days later a resolution to repeal thenotorious Regulation III of 1818 and other repressive laws was passed by 68 votes to 44.In the September session of the Legislative Assembly, the most important subject that came up for discussion was the consideration of the Report of the Royal Commission on the Superior Civil Services in India, generally known as the Lee Commission from the name of the Chairman, Lord Lee.On 10th September, 1924, the Home Member moved a resolution to give effect ot the chief recommendations of the Commission. The more important among these were the following:

1. That while the existing system of appointment and control of the All-India Services should, in present conditions, be maintained in Reserved fields, the Services operating in Transferred fields should, so far as future recruits are concerned, be appointed and controlled by Local Governments.

2.The recruitment of Indians for the Services in Reserved fields should be increased as recommended (direct recruitment of 40 Europeans and 40 Indians out of every hundred, the remaining being promoted from the Provincial service so that there will be a half and half composition in 15 years.)

3. The Constitution of a Public Service Commission.

4. That pay, passage, concessions and pensions be granted to the officers on the scale recommended (increase of basic pay in the Indian Police Service and the Indian Service of Engineers, privilege granted to European officers to remit his total overseas pay at two shillings to the Rupee, grant of four return passages to the European officers and their wives and one passage for each child, increased pension for the members of the I.C.S serving as Members of Council or Governor).

Motilal Nehru moved a long amendment to the Government resolution of which the principal points were the following:

289 1. That the recommentation of the Lee Commision be not accepted.

2. That all further recruitment in England for the Civil services in India be stopped.

3. That the powers of appoinment and control of the services now vested in the secretary of state be transferred to the Government of India and the Local Governments, such powers to be exercised under laws to be passed by the Indian and Local Legislatures.

4. That a public service commission be established in Indiaand the constitution and functions of that Commission is determined on the recommentation of a committeeelected by this Assembly.

5. That instead of accepting the recommentation number 4 of the Home Member’s resolution a committee elected by this House should go into the entire question so far as the present in cumbent are concerned.

Mr. Rangachariar pointed out that there was a revision of pay on the ground of high prices in 1919-20, when the prices had already reached the highwater-mark, and there was total increase of over a crore in emoluments. Now that prices had fallen, they were asked to sanction a further increase costing another crore and a quarter.Colonial. Crawford remarked that the House was representative to some extent of the intellegensia of India, but it did not represent the voice of the people of India who desired to retain the European element in the Services. If the Pandit’s amendment were carried, the House would show that it was not a civilized body. More than one speaker pointed out that the Service should be in the real sense services as they were in other countries, but must not be masters.After 2 days’ debate the amendment of Pandit Motilal Nehru was put to vote and carried by 68 votes against 46 on 12 September. On September 16, Dr. Gour’s Bill to repeal Part II of the Criminal Amendment Act of 1908 was taken into consideration.The Home Member strongly opposed the motion on the ground that Association with the objective of assassination and murder were still active. Malaviya said that the dacoities and murders mentioned by the Home Member could be very

290 well dealt with by the ordinary law, and strongly condemned the action of the Bengal Government in sending thousands of Congress volunteers to jail under this Act and of the Punjab Government in declaring the Sikh Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee as an unlawful Assembly.Dr. Gour’s motion was carried obviously 71 votes against 31.

Although the Labour Government rejected the demand of othe Swarajua party of revision of constitution, it was evidently at their instance that a Committee was appointed in February, 1924, in inquire into the working of the reforms. The terms of reference were: (1) to inquire into the difficulties arising from or defects inhesrent in the working of the Government of India Act and the rules thereunder in regard to the Central Government and the Government of Governors’ Provinces, and (2) to investigate the feasibility and desirability of securing remedies for such difficulties or defects, consistent with the structure, policy, and purpose of the Act, (a) by action taken under the Act and the Rules; or (b) by such amendments of the Act as appear necessary to rectify any administrative imperfections.The Committee consisted of nine members with Sir Alexander Muddiman, the Home Member, as the Chairman.There were two reports known as the Majority and the Minority Reports.The Majority Report was signed by five members’ three of whom were officials, one an example-official, and the other a European capitalist. The Minority Report was signed by four members’ three of whom were example-officials and the remaining one, the leader of the Independent party in the Legislative Assembly. But shortly after the publication of the Report one of the members of the Majority, M.M. Shafi supported the recommendations of the Minority as soon as he was free from the restraints of office. Thus the so-called Minority Report may be taken to be really representing the views of the majority.

The assumption underlaying the Majority Report was that they were prevented from recommending any remedies which were inconsistent with the Act, whether such remedies were to be found by action within the scope of the Act or by the amendment of the Act itself.Their recommendations were

291 therefore confined to a few minor adjustments. The Minority Report, however, held that Dyarchy had fialed and “the only cure to be had is in the replacement of the Dyarchical by a unitary and responsible Provincial Government”.The most significant feature of the so-called Minority Report is that its analysis of causes of the failure of Dyarchical system, as well as the recommendation of replacing it by a Unitary and Responsible Provincial Government, is entirely based on the opinion held by the Ministers and Indian Members of the Executive Councils in all the Provinces. Esven some of the Provincial Governments admitted in thneir eventually idence that “Dyarchy is obviously a cumbrous, complex, confused system, having no logical basis’ (U.P.); “very little can be done to smooth the working of Dyarchy or to elimenate the different administrative imperfections; whatever defect exit are inherent in the system itself” (Bihar and Orissa); Dyarchy cannot solve the political problem (Assam); and necessarily contains illogicalities and anomalies(Punjab).The following observation of the U.P.Government might easily be mistaken as an extract from the Minority Report:

“It seems to the Governor in Council that the difficulties and defects inherent in the scheme are quite incurzble by any mere alternation of the Act or rules. The utmost that their changes so restricted could do would be to oil the wheels of the constitutional machinery, they could have no effect on the general and permenant tendencies of the constitution itself.”

The Majority attributed some of the difficulties in working the constitution to the atmosphere in which it was introduced,and observed that”the constitution required to be worked by reasonable men in reasonable spirit’.On this the Minority observed:“In our opinion the system of Dyarchy was during the first three years every where worked in the Legislature by men most of whom were professedly its friend and who, generally speaking, tried to work it in that spirit of reasonableness which is reffered to by the majority of our collegues, and it is no exaggeration to say indeed this is aiso the testimony of several local Governments which we have quoted above-that generally a spirit of harmony

292 and cooperation prevailed between the Legislature and the Executive,notwhithstanding the fact that the atmosphere outside was for some time markedly unfavourable.”The Committee had verbal and written evidence from past and present Ministers and Executive Councillers from all the Provinces. With the exceptin of three disgruntled Ministers of Bengal who were driven out by the Swarajists in 1924, they all expressed the view, supported by reasons, that the experiment of Dyarchy has already taught all that it can be used to teach, that it is impossible to work it satisfactorily, that it is condemened, not only by themselves, who have tried to work it, and by all politicians of all Indian partiss, but by an increasingly pronounced popular feeling, due to its failure to fulfil popular expectations. The assumption in the Majority Report that it could not suggest any amendment of othe Act in any case, was denied by the Prime Minister, Ramsy MacDonald. “Domination status for India’ he said, ‘is the ideal of the Labour Government… An inquiry is being held obviously the Govrnment, which means that inquiry to be a serious one. We do not mean it to be an expedient for wasting and losing time. We mean that the inquiry shall produce results which will be a basis for consideration of the Indian Constitution, its working and its possibilities, which we hope will help Indians to Councils-operate on the way towards the creation of a system which will be welf-Government.

Ramsay MacDonald’s Government fell before the Report of the Committee was submitted, and a Conservative Government took its place. It is significant to note in this connection that the Labour Party, at its Conference in Liverpool in September, 1925, declared ‘its agreement with the conclusions of the Minority Report of the Indian Reforms Inquiry Committee’’, and that Lord Olivier, writing in December, 1925, associated himself entirely with the resolution passed by the Conference of the Labour Party at Liverpool.The Majority Report was strongly condemned by all political parties. In the Madras Council, when voting on Budgets commenced on 16 March, 1925, an adjournment motion was moved to discuss the unsatisfactory character of the Muddiman Committee Report.Speakers of all parties described it a

293 unsatisfactory, retrogressive and disappointing, and the motion was carried. The Assam Council passed a resolution on March 18, disapproving of the recommendations, and recommended the appointment of a Royal Commission or Round Table Conference. An adjournment motion was also passed in the Bombay Council on 10; C.P. Council on 14, and the Punjab Council on 18 March.On 7th September, 1925, the Report was discussed by the Legislative Assembly. After Sir Alexander Muddiman moved for the acceptance of the Majority Report, Motilal Nehru moved a long amendment. After reiterating the dedmand contained in the resolution of 18 February, 1924, it recommended some fundamental changes in the present constitutional machinery and administration of India.The more important of these were follows:

1. The principle of responsibility to the Legislature shall be introduced in the Central Government subjected to some reservation of powers to the Governor-General.

2. Unitary and autonomous Governments shall be established in the Provinces.

3. The Central and Provicial Legislatures shall consist only of members elected on a wide franchise.

4. The Indian army shall be nationalized within a reasonably short and definite period of time.

Finally, the Amendment recommended the appointment of a Convention, Round Table Conference, or other suitable agency to frame a detailed scheme on the above principles. After a full dress debate for two whole days, the Amendment was carried on 9th September.In the Council of State the motion for the acceptance of theMajority Report was carried by 28 votes to 7.It is necessary now to go back and refer to some other important matters discussed in the Assembly. The first in point of importance was the notorious Bengal Ordinance mentioned above. The Government of Bengal introduced in the Bengal Council, on 7th January, 1925, “The Bengal Criminal Law

294 Amendment Bill 1925,” to take the place of the Ordinance, issued in October 1924. The Government motion for leave to introduce the Bill was, however, defeated, 57 voting for and 66 against it. The Governor certified the Bill under section 72-Europe (1) of the Government of India Act and forwarded it to the Viceroy for assent. On January 20, in his opening address to the Legislative Assembly, othe Viceroy announced that he fully approved of the action of othe Governor and reserved the Act for the assent of His Majesty in Council.

On 28 January, 1925, Doraiswami Iyergar moved in the Assembly “that steps be taken forthwith to osupersede by an Act of Indian Legislature the Criminal Law Amedment Orodinance 1 of 1924 made and promulgataed by the Governor-General for and in the province of Bengal.” After two days’ debate the resolution was carried by 58 against 45 votes. On 23 Narch, after the Royal assent was given the Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Act, the Government of India brought in a Supplementary Bill, as certain provisions of othe Bengal Ordinance, such as those affecting the jurisdiction of the High Court, were beyond the scope of the Bengal Legislature, and cound not be incorporated in that Act. The motion for consideration of othe Bill was agreed to. But Clause 4, empowering detention outside Bengal, was rejected by 74 against 34 votes, and Clause 5, suspending jurisdiction of Civil and Criminal Court, was rejected by 73 against 37 votes. After Clause 6 was also defeatad by 73 to 39 votes, the Home Member refused to proceed further with the “mutilated” Bill. Next day, 24 March, the Viceroy sent a message to the Assembly asking it to pass the Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Supplementary) Bill as recommended by him. The Home Member first moved the re-instating of Clause 4 without any speech. It was strongly opposed. Finally, all othe three clauses proposed to be reinstated were put together to vote and rejected by 72 to 41. On 26 March, the Council of State passed the Bill as recommended by the Governor-General. The Viceroy certified the Act.Many interesting disclosures were made in the course of the various debated that took place. Motilal Nehru examined one by one the various acts of terrorism quoted by the Government in justification of the

295 Bengal Ordinance, and showed that many of them were proved to be false and fabricated by the Police. In one decoity case the approver said that he had driven a car, but when asked to drive a car, could not do so. Motilal also pointed out how othe people had in many cases openly assisted the police in arresting dacoits, and othey were convicted in open trial. There was therefore no case for the abolition of the ordinary course of law. In this connection he quoted an extract from a letter written by Sir Reginald Clarke, example- Commissioner of Police, Calcutta, to The Times: “I have had much experience of those agencies in the East, and often wonder they donot raise more devils than they lay. One has to use them (Police informers) to fight anarchy, but their inevitable concomitants, the agent provacateur and the letter de cachet alienate public opinion to such an extent that they can never be contined for long.’

The Legislative Assembly had also a long and protracted debate over the repeal of repressive Europe laws. On 4th February, 1925, V.J. Patel asked for leave to introduce his Bill to amend the Code of Criminal Procedure. In spite of Government opposition leave was granted by 49 votes against 41. After several adjournments and strenuous opposition of the Government at every stage, Patel’s Bill was passed on March 19 by 71 against 40 votes. As usual, a motion for the consideration of the Bill in the Council of State was defeated, 9 voting for and 29 against it.It was apparent at the time of othe discussion of the Budget that the coalition of the Swarajists and the Independents had broken down.On 25th February, 1925, Nehru moved the rejection of the demand for the grant re expenses of the Railway Board, on the old principle that there should obe redress of grievances before supply. Jinnah, the leader of the Independent party, announced that his party had discussed the question and thought that refusal of supplies was not a proper course. There was ahot exchange of words between Jinnah and V.J. Patel, who pointed out that the Nationalist party, by its very constitution and programme, was bound to a policy of obstruction. But Jinnah replied that the Nationalist party rules had been recently revised, so that the Independents and Swarajists were free

296 to odecide as they pleased unless there was an agreement between them. Patel admitted it, but added, “I still affirm that we are bound, in honour, to go by the original agreement.” But the Independents voted against Motila’s motion which was lost by 41 votes against 66.The General Budget was introduced on 28 February, 1925. The Swarajya and Independent parties met separataely on 2 March, to determine their attitude.The Swarajya party adopted the sub-committee’s recommendation to reject all demands under several heads of General Administration and the Secretary of State’s expenditure, besides the provision for the Excise establishment.The Independents did not think it necessary to join the Swarajists in this plan.

The voting of demands began on 6 March, and the provision for the establishment for collecting the Cotton Excise Duty was opposed by various parties on different grounds.Eventually the demand was rejected by 70 vootes against 41. On 14th March, Motilal Nehru moved the omission of the whole demands for the Executive Council. It was, he said, a motion of censure on the Government of India, and the Swarajya party would vote for it on the principle of reofusal of supplies before redress of grievances.After a prolonged discussion the motion was carried by p65 to 48 votes. But other demands were granted; thoiugh the Swarajists opposed each of them. Pandit Motilal also opposed the Finance Bill and there was a passage at arms between him and Jinnah, who opposed the Swarajist “purpose of wrecking the present constitution” .The Bill, was passed.In pursuance of the Government of India Act, the Legislative Assembly was called upon, for the first time, to elect its own President on 22 August, 1925. There were two candidates-V.J. Patel and Rangachariar-who received, respectively, 58 and 56 votes, Patel, an eminent leader of the Swarajya, who came to the Assembly to wreck it by non- Councils-operation, was accordingly elected, and it was approved by the Governor-General. On 24 August, after high tributes were paid to the retiring President, Sir, Frederick Whyte, Patel took the Chair and received selcome from all sections of the Houose.In reply, Patel remarked that from that moment he had ceased to be a party man, and asked his friend Motilal Nehru to pass a

297 resolution absolving him fromo all the obligations of a Swarajist.The most important event during this session of the Assembly was the discussion on the Report of the Muddiman Enquiry Committee, and the adoption, on 9th September, of the amendment moved by Motilal Nehru, as mentioned above.

On 26th January, 1926, the Assembly discussed the question of the release of political prisoners and the treatment accorded to them in jails. The main resolution was moved by Muhammad Shafi, but T.C. Goswami, a Swarajist member from Bengal, moved the following amendment: “That this Assembly recommends to the Governor-General in Council.

(a). forthwith to secure the immediate release of all political prisoners detained without trial;

(b). to take steps to remove all difficulties in the way of the return to India of Indian exiles in foreign countries who may be or may have been suspected of being concerned in any revolutionary or other activities regarded by the Government as prejudicial to the interests of India; and

(c). to bring to trial under the ordinary law of the land such persons against whom the Government think that they ohave osufficient eveidence to go to court.”

The Government opposed the amendment, but it was carried by 53 againtst 45 votes.On 12th February, the assembly discussed the Bill for the repeal of Regullation lll of 1818. It was discussed the whole day and next taken up on 19 February.The main contention of the debate centred round terroism in Bengal and its realation to Bolshebism.The home member asserted that the Bolshebism danger was undoubted and considerable, and hinded darkly at documents in his possession more than proving his case.He also reffered to attempts which had been made by Communist at Oxford to convert Indian students to their way of thinking. The motion to take the Bill into consideration was defeated by 49 votes to 46.On 26 February; the Assembly passed a motion for the adjournment of the House to discuss the situation

298 created by the hunger-strike among the Regulation and Ordinance prisoners in Mandalay jail, by 57 votes against 40.

The Budget was introduced in the Assembly on 1st March, 1926. Neither the Swarajists noro the Independents participated in the general discussion of the Budget; the former, in accordance with the mandate of the Kanpur Congress, and the latter as a protest against the recent attitude of Birkenhead and Lord Reading towards the question of constitutional reforms.When the House met on 8 March to discuss demands for grants, Jinnah moved that the demand under the head Executive Council be taken up first. His motive was to defeat it with the help of the Swarajists, for under the Congress mandate the Swarajya party was to walk out after opposing the first demand for grant. The President, however, ruled him out of order.Jinnah thereupon moved the adjournment of the discussion under Customs.This was put to vote and lost by 43 to 49 votes.Pandit Motilal then got up and announced that his party was under a mandate to walk out in view of the Government attitude over the Reform issue.He referred to the resolution of the Kanpur Conogress in December, 1925, and the All India Congress Committee at Delhi on arch 6 and 7, to which reference has been made elsewhere. He gave a short history of the demands for constitutional reforms made by the Assembly, and the refusal of the Government to make even any conciliatory gesture.The Government passed repressive laws in the teeth of oppostion of the Assembly by powers of certificate and there was also the ‘Lee loot.”. “The Councils- operation we offered”’ said Motilal, “has been contemptuously rejected, and it is time for us to think of other ways to achieve our object”. In conclusion he said: “There is no more use of us here. We go out into the country to seek tsahe suffrage of the electorates once more. We do not give up the fight… We feel that we have no further ouse for these shsm institutions, and the least we can do to vindicate the honour and self-resoect of the nation is to get out of them and go back to the country for work in the country. We will try to devise those sanctions which alonoe can compel any Government to grant the demands of the nations. We hope and trust that the nation will give a suitable

299 replay to the truculent rejection of our demands, and will send us again in larger numbers, with a stronger mandate, and God willing, with the mission of fulfilling its aspirations and enforcing its commands”.

After Motilal’s speech was over, he and all the Swarajist members walked out of the House in a body. It must be said that the concluding part of Motilal’s speech, quoted above, is not only vague, but somewhat self-contradictory. If there was no further use of these sham institutions, one might ask, thenwhy again seek for election to them? Nor is it easy to understand what is meant by a ‘stronger mandate’, or “those sanctions” which will compel Government to grant the demands of the Swarajya party. It is not, perhaps, an unreasonable conjecture that Motilal deliberately chose these vague expressions as the future course of action was not finally decided upon.It was soonapparent that the interest, importance, enthusiasm, and excitement walked out of the Assembly along with the Swarajist members.Mr. Jinnah moved for the omission of the demand for the Executive Council in order that the House might record its unequivocal vot of censure on the Government policy with regard to the reforms. Both he and Rangachariar denounced the Government for its policy in regard to reforms, and the refusal to accept the hand of Councils-operation which the Swarajists had extened to the Government. But Jinnah’s motion was defeated by 47 to 31 votes in spite of his pathetic appeal to the nominated and non-official European members.This was the last flicker of the lamp before it went out, and henceforth the proceedings of the Assembly ceased to evoke much interest.

In spite of the unfortunate end of the Swarajya party’s activity in the Assembly, there cannot be two opinions on the signal service it had rendered to the country.For the first time, the Legislative Assembly wore the appearance of a truly national Assembly, where national grievances were fully voiced, national aims and aspirations expressed without any reservation, and real character of the British rule through sham legislatures ruthlessly exposed. The British autocracy and Indian bureaucracy, in their naked form of tyranny

300 and repression, stood exposed to the whole world.This, by itself, was no mean achievement, even though the Party could not continue this useful function during the whole life of the Assembly owing to the secession of the Independents.The stewardship of Pandit Motilal Nehru was fully vindicated, and the aims and aspirations of the Swarajya party were fulfilled to a very large degree.Reference has been made above to the change of the policy and programme of the Swarajya party in the light of experience gained in the Assembly.The decision to promote the constructive programme of the Congress, and to pursue a definite economic policy against foreign exploitation and in furtherance of national industrial development, within the Assembly, bore rich fruit. Reference may be made to the Steel Protection Bill and the undertaking given by the Government for the appointment of a Committee to examine the question of the importation of foreign capital into the country. In addition to the various measures for the repeal of repressive laws, amelioration of the lot of Indian detenus and prisoners, and the removal of various grievances, either of individual or collective nature, to which they always drew the attention of the Government, some outstanding measures passed by the Assembly were undoubtedly due to their support, if not initiation. The most important among these were the abolition of the Cotton Excise Duty, reduction of the duty on salt, and the abolition of the import duty on sulphur. The Party also passed various resolutions of national importance such as the improvement of labour condition, protection to Indian industries, removal of racial distinction in railway and of grievances of Indians abroad, imposition of a countervailing duty upon the South African coal, establishment of a military college in India, protection and growth of Trade Unions, and relieving the burden of the poor by reduction of railway fare and the price of postage stamps.The Swarajya party was also instrumental in instituting an inquiry into the currency problem of the country.

As noted above, the credit for all this also goes to the Independent members of the Assembly without whose votes the Swarajya party could not defeat the Government.The wisdom of the policy of the Independents in

301 withdrawing their support from the Swarajists may be questioned.But it cannot be looked upon as a treachery or unpatriotic act, inasmuch as they stood for the policy they declated at the time of the election. They were not returned on the Swarajya party ticket and were not bound legally or morally to pledge their full support to it.

WORK IN THE PROVINCIAL COUNCILS- CENTRAL PROVINCES.

It was in the Central Provinces that the Swarajya party could carry out its policy and programme to the fullest extent, because it commanded an absolute majority of votes in the Council. In his opening speech at the inauguration of the Council on 15 January, 1924, the Governor mentioned that as neither the Swarajists, who formed the Majority party, nor some of the Independents agreed to accept the Ministry, he had to select ministers from a very “narrow sphere”.On 18th January, Raghavendra Rao moved “That a formal address be moved to His Excellency, the Governor, submitting that the Hon’ble Ministers do not enjoy the confidence of the Council and he be pleased to request them to resign”.After a whole day’s discussion the motion was carried by 44 votes against 24. But the ministers did not resign. The Swarajya party therefore threw out two bills introduced by the two Ministers on March 4. On 8th March, voting took place on Government grants which were all summarily rejected one after another.Only one amendment was passed, reducing the minister’s salary to two rupees a year. On 10th March, when the Council met for the last time, it passed the following resolution:

“That no articles manufactured in any part of the British Empire outside India should be used in any Department by the Local Government or by its contractors unless they are not obtainable in any other part of the world”.

After the wholesale rejection of the Budget the two Ministers resigned on 27th March, and the Governor took over the administration of the Transferred Subjects.He restored the grants in the Reserved Department, with minor exceptions, but as regards the Transferred Departments he only authorized expenditure on the scale necessary for the carrying on of each department,

302 and all new schemes of development had to be dropped for want of funds. The Government instructed its officials to bring home to the villagers the mischief caused by othe Swarajists, for whom they had voted, by refusing grants to carry on the various beneficent projects it had in view. Leaflets were issued telling people: “Those who tell you that men were happy in the earlier days before them (British), are liars…. When the British came, they found the people ignorant, oppressed and frightened” and “they were killing one another like ravening wolves”.The Swarajya party decided to create a Publicity Bureau of their own to counteract such official propaganda.After about one year the C.P. Council met again on 3 March, 1925. A question was put concerning the sensational Government communication, published in several Indian dailies, purporting to contain Government instructions issued to all Deputy Commissioners to fight out Swarajist tactics throughout the Province. The Chief Secretary tacitly admitted the truth of the said document. Mr. S.B. Tambe, Swarajist, was elected President of the Council.

On 12th March, the Governor invited Dr. Moonje and Raghavendra Rao to discuss the question of the Ministry.Dr. Moonje and his section were opposed to the formation of any ministry, whilst Mr. Rao and his section did not desire to form one without the support of Dr. Moonje and his section. It was agreed that the sense of the Council should be taken on this issue by making a demand for the Ministers’ salaries.Accordingly on 13th March, 1925, the Government asked for a grant of Minister’s salary at the rate of Rs. 4,000 each. A Swarajistmember moved for the reduction of the amount of annual salary to rupees two only. While moving the amendment he said: “As there has been no change in the political situation during the last year……and particularly as the Muddiman Committee’s Report is not only disappointing and unsatisfactory, but in some respects positively retrograde, I see no reason why we would vote for the salaries of ministers”. The amendment was carried by 37 votes against 28.The same procedure was repeated in 1926, on 9 March. Next day the Swarajists, after rejecting the demand for Land-revenue, withdrew from the Council in obedience to the instructions of the Congress.

303 1. BENGAL

In Bengal the Swarajists did not have an absolute majority in the Council, but formed the largest single party.The Governor, Lord Lytton, asked C.R. Das, the leader of the Swarajya Party, to form the Ministry; but he declined, and ministers were selected from among thenon-Swarajist elected members of the Council. The action of Lord Lytton in inviting Das to form a Ministry was perfectly constitutional, and perhaps the most legitimate one in accordance with constitutional theory and practice. Nevertheless, it provoked the wrath of the European community in Calcutta. The Statesman, theleading English daily in Calcutta, denounced the conduct of Lytton in strong language, and it formed a subject of acrimonious discussion in a meeting of the European association in Calcutta where overwhelming majorities were against the Governor.On 23rd January, 1924, the Governor formally opened the Council.On 24th January, J.M. Sen Gupta moved for the release of all political prisoners of an belonging to Bengal, detained under Bengal Regulation III of 1818.

In the course of the debate that followed, C.R. Das tore to pieces the various arguments and justifications advanced by the Governor and his officials for keeping hundreds of men in confinement without any trial. “We have done it, trust us, was the whole argument of the bureaucracy in support of the deportations”, said Das. To Lord Lytton’s statement that the materials against the persons deported were placed before two judges who found every one of them guilty of active participation in revolutionary conspiracy, Das gave an effective reply. This opinion, he said, is based on official reports containing statements of certain persons. He pointed out that no man, however gifted he might be, is in a position to test the truth of a statement, unless the man who makes the statement is brought before him and questions are put to him. “The wonder is”, he observed, “that judges can be found to report as to the guilt or innocence of persons upon what we Calcutta dead records”. This opinion, coming from an eminent member of the English Bar, must have been a home thrust. Continuing, Das said that he had persuaded many of the old

304 revolutionaries to accept the Congress creed and renounce violence, but he found to hishorror that they were pounced upon by the Police and lodged in jail under Regulation III of 1818. In reply to the Government statement that the deportees were furnished with charges against them, he exposed the whole show by reproducing the statements of some of these deportees whom he had interviewed with the permission of the Government. Beyond a few vague allegations no definite charges were communicated to them. Some of the remarks made by Das on this occasion have become classic. One of these may be quoted here: “We are told that the Government will never be coerced. If by coercion is meant the application of physical force, I agree. But if that statement means that the Government is not to yield to the wishes of the people, I differ entirely. If it is stated that Government is not to be coerced, may I not make this declaration on behalf of the people of this country that the people of this country will not be coerced either”.

When the resolution was put to vote it was declared lost. A division was demanded and the result showed that 76 members voted for a 45 against it. The next resolution which was carried by 72 votes against 41 ran as follows: “This Council recommends to the Government that all political prisoners of and eblonging to Bengal, namely(a).those convicted for offences committed with a political motive before the Royal amnesty granted in the Royal Proclamation issued by His Gracious Majesty, the King Emperor, on the 23rd of December, 1919;(b).those convicted under the Criminal Law Amendment Act (XIV of 1908) during 1921 and 1922; and(c).those convicted for sedition, and those bound down and imprisoned under section 108 of the Criminal Procedure Code for delivering seditious speeches during 1921, 1922 and 1923.After these two resolutions were carried, the following resolution was moved:“This Council recommends to the Government to request the Government of India for the immediate repeal or withdrawal in regard to Bengal of the following laws:

1. The prevention of Seditious Meetings Act, 1911 (X of 1911);

305 2. The Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908 (XIV of 1908);

3.Sections 15 and 15A and other sections so far as they relate to Sections 15 and 15 A of the Police Act, 1861 (V of 1861); and

4. Bengal Regulation III of 1818.

The Council adjourned while the motion was still being discussed, and it was again taken up on 28th January.In reply to the taunting remark of Sir Abdur Rahim, a member of the Governor’s Executive Council, that the gentlemen who want to have the statutes repealed would not take up the responsibility of the Government, C.R. Das said: “The moment the Government is made responsible to the people of this country Sir Abdul Rahim will find every one of us ready to take up the responsibility of the Government”.The resolution was carried.The passing of the above three resolutions in the teeth of the opposition from the Government and their henchmen showed the degree of unpopularity which the Government had incurred. Here, as in the Legislative Assembly, the Swarajists were supported by a group of Independents, both Hindu and Muslim, and it was apparent, that like his Councils-adjutor, Motilal Nehru, C.R. Das had succeeded in evolving a Nationalist party by the alliance of the Swarajists with a group of Independents.

When the Council reassembled after the recess on 18 February, the President announced that he had received notices of two motions of no- confidence against the Ministers, and had ruled them out of order. But in view of a contrary ruling by the President of the Madras Legislative Council, he explained at length his reasons for disallowing them and suggested how the same object could be achieved by other means.In accordance with the suggestion of the President a no-confidence motion against the Ministers was brought in the shape of an adjournment motion, but it was lost by the narrow margin of one vote. The Government, however, sustained several defeats, the most important being the following resolution moved by Dr. P.N. Banerji:“That early steps be taken to move the proper authorities to amend rule 6 and

306 schedule 11 of the Devolution Rules so as to include, in the list of Provincial subjects for transfer in Bengal, all subjects except Land Revenue Administration, European and Anglo-Indian education, and Local Fund Audit”. The resolution was carried by 71 against 49 votes.

The voting on the Budget began on 18 March. The Nationalist party held a meeting thenight before and decided to throw out the whole Budget.This unnerved the Government and the Governor came to the Council without notice and clearly explained to the house the possible effects of the refusal of demands, particularly with regard to Transferred Subjefts, as he had no power to restore a single grant.The Dacca University, which depended entirely on Government Grant, would have to close down at once, and Education, Public Health, Medical, Agricultural and Industries would be starved and crippled. He concluded with the following words:“It may be thought perhaps that Government would not dare to face such a situation. Let there be no illusions on this point – my Government would not be embarrassed by such situation which was not of our creation, and from which we would in no way suffer whilt it lasted”. After His Excellency left, the first Demand for Expenditure under Land Revenue was opposed by J.M. Sen Gupta who moved for a total refusal. “Delhi has rallied”, said he. “C.P. has done its duty. Wil Bengal fails? The Councillors are to reply by their votes on the Budget”. Themotion for refusal was carried by 65 votes to 63. The motion for refusal of grant under Excise was lost by the margin of one vote but that under Stamps was carried by the same majority of one vote. 4 Demands were disposed of on thenext day of which three were refused.The most important item, the salary of the Ministers, came up for discussion on the 24th. On the motion of Maulvi Sayedul Huq the whole salary was refused by 63 to 62 votes.The result was hailed with deafening applause and cries of “resign, resign”.Then the Demands under the heads “General Administration” and “Administration of Justice” were refused as well as that under “Jails and Convict Settlements”.

307 On 31st March, the Governor held Conference of Government members and their supporters in the Council, within closed doors at the Government House. Next day, when the Council met, the propriety of the conduct of the Governor was questioned by the members of the Nationalist party. When the first motion on the refusal of grant was lost, C.R. Das scanned the Division list and found that some members of his party had voted in favour of the Government. He thereupon remarked that “the voting of today has been influenced by last evening’s conference”.There were loud cries of ‘no’ from European and Government benches, to which Das replied: “A thousand times yes”. C.R. Das observed that under the circumstances it was useless to go on and, following him, all the members of the Nationalist party left the Chamber in a body.The remaining grants were then put without any speech and were hurriedly carried unopposed.Before concluding the account of the Bengal Council in 1924 reference should be made to the manifestation of communal spirit.This was first evident on 20 February, when the no-confidence against the Ministers was to be moved by way of an adjournment motion, as noted above. Shortly before the Council began its proceedings, a number of Muslim boys came in a procession to the Town Hall (where the Council met) with placards containing warning to the Muslim members not to run the risk of falling in with the endeavours of some of the Hindu members of the Council to break the Muslim Ministry.During the course of the proceedings a large number of leaflets containing a similar appeal were freely distributed amongst the Muslim members, asking them “to save the Muhammadan Ministry and not to be wiled away by the camouflage and guise of their bitterest enemies”. To the same communal spirit may be traced the motion moved by Nawab Musharaff Hussain that while making appointments in future the Government should give eighty per cent of the posts to the Muslims till the number of Muslim officials in each category specified by him become 55 per cent of the whole.The House, however, accepted an amendment of C.R. Das that the motion be adjourned sine die.

308 The refusal of Ministers’ salaries in the Bengal Council had a very interesting sequel. In the communiqué issued by the Governor of Bengal on 14 April, 1924, stating the action taken by him in respect of the grants refused by the Council, he said that the Ministers did not regard this vote as a censure on themselves, necessitating their resignation, and he agreed with this view. At the same time the Ministers expressed their willingness, if necessary, to serve in an honorary capacity.The Governor, however, thought that it would be against the spirit of the constitution, except as a purely temporary expedient, either for Ministers to serve in a honorary capacity or for him to authorize the payment to them of salaries which have been refused by the vote of the Legislative Council. He therefore decided to resubmit the matter to the Legislative Council. He therefore decided to resubmit the matter to the Legislative Council at its next session, and in the meantime to authorize the payment of salary to the Ministers up to the statutory limit.In pursuance of this policy the Governor summoned a meeting of the Bengal Council on 7 July, 1924, and included in the agenda an item of supplementary grant for Ministers’ salaries. The Swarajists regarded this as a clear violation of the Constitution and decided to challenge its legality in a Court of Law. Accordingly a case was instituted in the High Court, Calcutta, and the Judge, Mr. C.C. Ghose, issued an order restraining the President of the Legislative Council from putting the item of Ministers’ salaries before the Council for its consideration until the final determination of the suit. The order was issued on 7 July just when the Council was to begin its proceedings.The President came to the Council a quarter of an hour late, and declared that in view of the injunction the Governor had asked him to adjourn the House till Monday. On 10th July, the Governor prorogued the Legislative Council.On 21st July; a Gazette of India Extraordinary was issued announcing an amendment to the Indian Legislative Rules with the sanction of the Secretary of State in Council, which legalized the proposed action of the Governor of Bengal. Thereupon a meeting of the Bengal Legislative Council was called for 26 August to reconsider the grant of Ministers’ salaries and other rejected demands. When

309 the Grant for the salaries was moved Akhil Chandra Datta moved an amendment that the Demand be refused. Datta’s amendment was carried by 68 votes against 66. As a result of this voting the Ministers resigned and the Governor assumed charge of the Transferred Departments.

On 25th October, 1924, the Governor-General, on the recommendation of the Governor of Bengal, promulgated the Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, giving almost unlimited authority to the Executive to deal with political suspects. Although the Ordinance would automatically continue in force for six months, the Government of Bengal introduced on 7th January, 1925, the Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Bill 1925, to continue the provisions of the Ordinance for a period of five years by regular Legislative Act. Its main provisions, like those of the Ordinance, were:

1. Trial by three Commissioners instead of Ordinary Courts of Law.

2. Various restrictions on a person, on mere suspicion, including custory in jail.

3. Arrest and search without any warrant.

The Governor, Lord Lytton, addressed the Council explaining the reasons or necessity of the Bill.The most interesting speech was that of Prabhas Chandra Mitter, a signatory to the Rowlatt Report. In opposing the Bill he stated:“The present Bill departs from the recommendations of the Rowlatt Report in almost every important question of principle and proceeds on the Defence of India Act….. The Government …… in following the principles of the war time measure …… is following a quack’s remedy and not a physician’s treatment in dealing with this dangerous malady”. The motion for leave to introduce the Bill was lost, 57 voting for and 66 against it.On 7th February, the Governor held a conference of the leaders of different groups in the Council to discuss the question of Ministers’ salaries. In accordance with the decision of this conference Sir Abdur Rahim moved a resolution in the Council on February 17, recommending the provision of Ministers’ salaries in the next Budget. In spite of the opposition of the Swarajists the resolution was carried by 75 votes to 51, as some of the Independents remained neutral, and

310 some voted in favour of the resolution. Accordingly the Governor appointed two Ministers. In course of the voting on Demands, the Swarajists moved an amendment that the demand of Rs. 1, 28,000 for the salary of two Ministers be reduced by Rs. 1, 27,998. C.R. Das, in spite ofill health, attended the meeting and explained the position of the Swarajist Party. The amendment was carried by 69 against 63 votes.

On 13th June, 1925, the government decided that the transfer of all Transferable Subjects in Bengal be suspended for the life time of the present Council.On 8th December, J.M. Sen Gupta, the leader of the Swarajya party after the death of Das, moved the adjournment of the House to discuss the recent treatment of certain prisoners who were transferred from one jail to another in winter night without notice and without proper clothing. The motion was carried by 58 votes to 50.On 15th March, when the Council re-assembled for voting on Budget grants, J.M. Sen Gupta made a statement and walked out followed by all the Swarajist members. Nine Independent members also refused to participate in the business of the House from this day.

11. OTHER PROVINCES

No spectacular successes attended the efforts of the Swarajya party in any Province other than Central Provinces and Bengal. Still they occasionally scored some significant victory over the Government.Thus the Bombay Council passed a motion of adjournment to protest against the speech of Lord Oliver, the Secretary of State, to which reference will be made later. In U.P., notices of no-confidence against the Ministers were given by two members, but none of these was actually moved and was treated as withdrawn. An attempt was also made to form a Nationalist party by combining with the Independents as in Bengal and the Assembly, to refuse the Grants. But after a few trials it broke down. On March 25th, Maulvi Faiznur Ali, the leader of the Swarajya party in Assam, moved the following resolution in the Assam Legislative Council. “This Council recommends to the Government to request the Secretary of State for India and the Governor-General in Council to take

311 such immediate steps as may be necessary in order to establish full Responsible Government in Assam”. After a lengthy debate the resolution was carried by 29 votes to 17. The Assam Council also passed by the margin of one vote two important resolutions, one for the inclusion of Forests, P.W.D, Excise and Fishery in the Transferred Subjects, and another for the reduction of the salary of Ministers, amounting to Rs, 84,000 by Rs. 48,000. In accordance with the directions of the Kanpur Congress in December, 1925, the Swarajist members walked out of the Council in U.P., the Punjab, Assam, Bihar and Orissa, Madras and Bombay.

111. SWARAJYA PARTY &MAHATMA GANDHI

On 13th January, 1924, the whole of India was started by the news that Gandhi had been removed from the Yeravda jail to the Sassoon Hospital, Poona, for an operation of appendicitis. The Swarajya party gave notice of a resolution in the Assembly demanding the release of Gandhi, and 5th February was fixed as the date for moving it.At midnight on February 4, the Government issued a press-note to the following effect: “The Government of Bombay have received medical advice that Mr. Gandhi should be removed to the seaside for a prolonged period of convalescence, not less than six months in any event. In these circumstances they have decided, with the concurrence of the Government of India, to remit unconditionally…..the unexpired portion of his sentences….”As soon as Gandhi had sufficiently recovered his health, he held a long discussion with Motilal Nehru and C.R. Das, but remained as convinced as before that the Council-entry was inconsistent with the Non-Co-operation programme.There was a show-down on both sides at the A.I.C.C. meeting held at Ahmadabad on 27th June, 1924.Gandhi proposed to disqualify for the membership of any Congress Executive Board those who did not fully subscribe to the Non-co-operation programme.Motilal opposed Gandhi in a vigorous speech. “The Charka programme”, said he “was not going to bring them any nearer toward Swaraj”. He also asked the supporters of Gandhi how much they worked his Constructive Programme during his imprisonment.

312 Motilal’s motion that the resolution of Gandhi was out of order, being against the constitution of the Congress, was defeated by 82 against 68 votes, and both Nehru and Das, with their followers, left the meeting by way of protest. But after lapse of some time an agreement was reached in Calcutta between Gandhi on one side and Das and Nehru on the other, the essential part of which read as follows:“Spinning and weaving, removal of untouchability and promotion of Hindu-Muslim unity should be carried on by all sections within the Congress, and the work in connection with the Central and Provincial legislatures should be carried on by the Swarajya Party on behalf of the Congress and as an integral part of the Congress organization, and for such work the Swarajya Party should make its own rules and raise and administer its own funds”.

NEGOTIATIONS OF C.R.DAS WITH THE GOVERNMENT.

The Pact was agreed to by both the Congress and the Swarajya party, but ere long the political views of C.R. Das underwent a great change.At Ahmadabad he had fought against Gandhi’s resolution condemning Gopinath Saha who had murdered a European, and moved an amendment which appreciated Saha’s ideal of self-sacrifice and expressed respect for the same. This amendment was lost by only eight votes, 70 voting for and 78 against it. Das’s amendment merely endorsed a resolution passed by the Bengal Provincial Conference at Sirajgunje on 1st June, 1924, which was denounced by Englishmen both in India and England, even in the House of Commons. But on 25 March, 1925, Das issued a manifesto condemning unreservedly all acts of violence for political purposes. Lord Birkenhead, the Secretary of State for India, referred to it in appreciative terms in the House of Lords and requested Das to co-operate with the Government. Das reciprocated the sentiment in a statement issued on 3rd April.On 6th April, it was stated by the Under-Secretary in the House of Commons that “if, as he (Lord Birkenhead) hopes, Mr. Das now makes constructive proposals which obtain the support of the Government of Bengal and Government of India, His Majesty’s

313 Government, so far as they are concerned, will give such proposals their sympathetic consideration”.

On 2nd May, Das outlined his policy in his Presidential speech at the Bengal Provincial Conference held at Faridpur.He defended the ideal of Dominion Status as against independence. He also offered co-operation with Government on the following terms:

“In the first place, the Government should divest itself of its wide discretionary powers of constraint, and follow it up by proclaiming a general amnesty to all political prisoners. In the next place, the Government should guarantee to us the fullest recognition of our right to the establishment of Swaraj within the Commonwealth in the near future, and that in the meantime, till Swaraj comes, a sure and sufficient foundation of such Swaraj should be laid at once”.

It is evident that Das extended the hand of fellowship to the Government even by sacrificing some of the cherished principles of his party. As a matter of fact, the speech of Das created great discontent among a section of his followers, and it was openly talked about that it was the result of a secret negotiation between Das and the Government.This suspicion grew stronger when the Viceroy, Lord Reading, left for London, and it was announced that after consulting him Birkenhead would make an important pronouncement about India. But all these speculations were set at rest by othe sudden death of C.R. Das on 16th June, 1925.According to Subhas Bose who testifies to the negotiations mentioned above, the death of Das led the British Government to change its mind; the official pronouncement, carefully prepared by Birkenhead on behalf of the Cabinet, and announced to be made on 7 July, 1925, was suppressed, and a non-committal speech was made instead on that day.

1V.DISINTEGRATION OF THE SWARAJYA PARTY AFTER THE DEATH OF C.R.DAS.

The General Council of the Swarajya party met at Calcutta on 16th July, 1925, and passed a resolution wholly endorsing the sentiments and the

314 conditions of honourable co-operation with the Government laid down in the Faridpur speech by the late President, C.R. Das, on 2nd May, 1925. The Council also regretted “that the recent pronouncement of the Secretary of State for India in the House of Lords is not only no response to the late President’s offer, but is calculated to make the chances of honourable co- operation different, if not impossible”.Gandhi’s reaction to the death of Das and the speech of Birken-head was of a different character.In a letter to Motilal Nehru, dated 10 July, he wrote: “I have come to the conclusion that I should absolve the Swaraj party from all obligations of the pact of last year. The result of this act is that the Congress need no longer be predominantly a spinning association.I recognize that under the situation created by the speech, the authority and the influence of the Swaraj party need to be increased….. This can be done if the Congress becomes a predominantly political body.Under the pact the Congress activity is restricted to the constructive programme mentioned therein. I recognize that this restriction should not continue under the altered circumstance that faces the country….. I propose to ask the forthcoming meeting of the A.I.C.C. to place the whole machinery of the Congress at your disposal”.Gandhi’s ideas were carried out in the meeting of the All India Congress Committee held at Patna on 22nd, September, 1925, which passed the following resolution:

“That the Congress now take up and carry on all such political work as may be necessary in the interest of the country. And for this purpose do employ the whole of the machinery and funds of the Congress provided that the work in the Legislatures shall be carried on by the Swarajya Party under the constitution framed by the party and the rules made thereunder, subject to such modifications made by the Congress as may be found necessary from time to time for the purpose of carrying out the said policy”.There was, however, one important departure. A separate autonomous organization was set up under the name of All-India Spinners’ Association for the development of hand-spinning and Khaddar.It was a permanent organization under a Council of its own with a constitution laid down by the A.I.C.C. and funds and

315 assets of the Congress were earmarked for this body, which were specifically excluded in the above resolution from those available for political purposes. In other words, the position of the Swarajya party Vis a Vis the Congress was now reversed; the party and its politics now became the main concern of the Congress, and the constructive programme was relegated to a separate non- political organization within the Congress.This was further emphasized by changing the franchise of the Congress membership, the annual subscription of four annas being restored as an alternative qualification to spinning, in modification of the decision of the Belgaum Congress.But ere long the Swarajya party was threatened by a split in its own rank. There was a growing feeling within the Party that its policy should be revised and brought into line with the programme of ‘Responsive Co-operation’ formulated by Tilak. But the majority steadily pursued the old policy.In the annual session of the Congress, held at Kanpur on 25th December, 1925, Motilal Nehru moved the adoption of the following directives to the Party: ‘If by the end of February, 1926, the Government do not give any satisfactory reply to the demands for constitutional reforms set forth in the resolution passed by the Assembly on 18 February, 1924, the Party will no longer continue to work in the present legislatures.

Pandit Malaviya moved by way of amendment:“That the work in the Legislatures shall be so carried on as to utilize them to the best possible advantage for early establishment of full responsible government, co- operation being resorted to when it may be necessary to advance the national cause, and obstruction, when that may be necessary for the advancement of the same cause”.Jayakar, who seconded this amendment, dramatically announced at the very outset that he, Kelkar and Moonje had resigned their seats in the Legislaturesas they could not subscribe to the policy of the Swarajya party. He said that either they must come out of the Councils altogether, or, being in, “take the last juice out of it by occupying every place of power, initiative and responsibility, and would give no quarter to the Bureaucracy”.The amendment was, however, lost and Nehru’s resolution was

316 passed by a large majority. In the meantime the wing of the Swarajya party in favour of Responsive Co-operation grew in strength.On 23rd June, 1926, a meeting was held in Calcutta to organize a party within the Congress which would work this programme.By the end of July, 1926, the most influential section of the members of the Legislative Council in C.P. seceded from the Congress. Lajpat Railway tendered resignation from the Swarajya party on 24 August, 1926. Malaviya made a last but vain effort to unite the different sections of the Congress in a Conference at Delhi on 11th September, 1926. At last the Responsivists and Independent Congressmen formed a Coalition party known as the Independent Congress party, which issued a manifesto on 28 September, 1926, laying down a policy and programme based on Responsive Co-operation.

The position of the Congress was further weakened by the growth of communalism.A section of the Muslims carried on propaganda that they would have nothing to do with the Hindus carrying on Non-co-operation, but should work out the constitution.The Hindu Mahasabha made a counter-propaganda that if the Hindus non-co-operated while the Muslims co-operated with the Government, the Hindus would be placed at great disadvantage.The result of the election of 1926 showed that the old Swarajya party had been replaced by three disotinct groups, namely, the Swarajists, the Responsivists and communal Muslims.Thanks to the Responsivist Party in C.P. and the Muslim members in Bengal, the Ministers in both these Provinces were kept in the saddle.As a result of the election the Congress in the Gauhati session in 1926 abandoned the walk-out policy, but it ceased to play any effective part in politics.

THE CONGRESS SOCIALIST PARTY

The foundation of the Congress socialist Party in May 1934 was an important step in the development of socialism in India.The Bihar Socialist Party was founded in 1931 and the Bombay Socialist group was organized in 1934.The Congress Socialist Party was founded by those younger

317 Congressmen who during their long termsof imprisonment in the Civil Disobedience Movement came into contact with Marxist ideas.They were not satisfied with the conservative leadership of the Congress Party after 1933. They had their reservations about Mahatma Gandhi’s constructive programme.They left that it was necessary to organize the workers and peasants on class lines and bring them into the freedom movement.Those who thought alike met together at Patna and Bombay in 1934 and thus the Congress Socialist Party was launched with Jayaprakash Narayan ad its General Secretary.Acharya Narendra Deva, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia, Kamala Devi Chattopadhyaya, Yusuf Meherally, Minoo Masani, S.M. Joshi and other comrades were his colleagues.There were also yound people like E.M.S. Namboodiripad, P, Ramamurthy, Sundarayya and others. They later on left the Congress Socialist Party and joined the Communist Party.However, Jayaprakash Narayan continued to have excellent relations with them.

At its first Conference in Bombay in 1934, the Congress Socialist Party adopted a 15-Point programme which included the repudiation of the public debt of India, transfer of all power to producing masses, planned development of the economic life of the country by the state, socialization of the key industries, state monopoly of foreign trade, and collective farming, organization of for production, distribution and credit and elimination of princes and landlords without compensation.The members of the Congress Socialist Party criticized the leadership of the Congress but professed loyalty to the organization. In the words of Acharya Narendra Deva, their object was “to resuscitate and reinvigorate the Congress” and to draw into it the mass of workers and peasants in order to widen the base of the anti- imperialist front.They criticized Mahatma Gandhi and his non-violence, his ethical approach to politics and his theory of trusteeship. There was bound to be a clash between the members of the Congress Socialist Party and the old members of the Congress. They differed on the question of the Government of India Act, 1935, the formation of ministries in 1937, the organization of Kisan Sabhas and agitation for agrarian reforms, the release of political detenus and

318 agitation in the Indian States.There were bitter controversies in which the Congress leadership was severely criticized.Jayaprakash Narayan went to the extent of saying that “Gandhism has played its part. It cannot carry us further and hence we must march and be guided by the ideology of socialism”. The leaders of the Congress Socialist Party did not realize the difficulties of the Congress Party which had to fight both against the British Government and the Muslim League and that could not be done without discipline in the Congress Party itself.

It is true that Jawaharlal Nehru was ideologically the closest to the Congress Socialist Party. He was in jail when the new party was formed and when he became the Congress President, he included Jayaprakash Narayan, Narendra Deva and in the Congress Working Committee. Mahatma Gandhi was against the Congress Socialist Party and he made it clear that if the Congress Socialist Party gained ascendancy in the Congress, he would not remain in the Congress.He did not approve of class war, expropriation and violence.Subash Chandra Bose asked Nehru to be firm with the Congress establishment but Nehru was not prepared to defy Gandhi or break away from the Congress. Mahatma Gandhi offered again and again to step down if his ideas were not acceptable to the Working Committee or the All-India Congress Committee.In October 1939, Mahatma Gandhi wrote to Nehru, “I must not lead if, I cannot carry all with me.There should be no divided counsels among the members of the Working Committee. I feel you should take full charge and lead the country leaving me free to voice my opinion”.Nehru was not prepared to allow Mahatma Gandhi to give up the leadership of the Congress. He was not unaware of his own limitations. He could rouse the masses and inspire the intelligentsia but he was not an expert in party management.

Whatever the differences between the Congress Socialist Party and the leadership of the Indian National Congress, there was no intention to carry the opposition to the breaking point.The Congress Socialists knew well that they

319 could not realize their programme unless the British were ousted from India and that could be done only by the Indian National Congress. The Congress Socialist Party got a lot of support from the youth, the industrial labour and the peasantry, but it was still a minority.It was not a homogeneous group.It consisted of Marxists like J.P. Narayan and Narendra Deva, Socialist Democrats like Asoka Mehta and M.R. Masani, Gandhians like Patwardhan and populists like Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia.It is true that the Congress Socialist Party was not able to have its own way on many important issues but it certainly succeeded in giving radical orientation to the Congress policies in certain respects.The Second World War and the breach with the Government brought the Congress Socialists nearer to Mahatma Gandhi and the Congress leadership.Both the Congress leadership and the Congress Socialists worked against the Government during the Quit Indiamo. During that movement, J.P. Narayan who was already in jail since 1940, made a daring escape from Hazaribagh jail with colleagues like Ram Nandan Misra and joined the ranks of the freedom fighters.Achyut Patwardhan, Aruna Asaf Ali, Dr. Lohia, Sucheta Kriplani and others were operating under the name of the underground All- India Congress Committee and trying to widen the scope of the mass struggle. When J.P. Narayan came out of jail, he declared that only armed resistance could achieve the objectives. He organized squads which operated in Bihar. Nepal was used as a base of operations. Ultimately, J.P. Narain and Dr. Lohia were arrested.

The Congress Socialists were always keen to consolidate all leftist forces in the country.The Congress Socialist Party opened its doors to the communists in 1936.The Communist Party was an illegal party at that time and its leaders were happy to get a chance of functioning openly through the Congress Socialist Party and the Indian National Congress. The communists created trouble for the leaders of the Congress Socialist Party and hence were expelled from it in 1940.However, they took away with them the Southern branches of the Congress Socialist Party. If the Communists had not been expelled in 1940, they would have created more trouble. About the Congress

320 Socialist Party, Shri P.L. Lakhanpal worte the following in 1946. “The role played by the C.S.P. within the Congress as well as without it was magnificient indeed. Within it, it served as a rallying point for all the radical elements; without it, it organized peasant movements, brought about a union between the various T.U. Congress and Federations, won the sympathy and support of the other radical organizations and put socialism till then a subject for academic discussion on the political map of India”. In March 1948 ath the Nasik Convention, the Socialists decided to leave the Congress because the leadership of the Congress forbade all inner groupings within that organization.The socialists left the Congress in 1948 and formed a separate party known as the Socialist Party of India.After the General Elections of 1952, the Socialist Party and Krishak Mazdoor Praja Party led by J.B. Kriplani decided to merge.The decision for merger was taken on 25th August 1952 at Lucknow and the merger actually took place at a meeting in Bombay on 26 and 27th September 1952.

The National Executive of the Praja Socialist Party at its meeting in Bomba on 16th October 1959 outlined a 12-point programme for India. It stood for intensification of agricultural and industrial production, equitable distribution and democratic decentralization.Its basic political and economic philosophy was to bring about reconciliation and synthesis of nationalism, secularism and democratic decentralization.The Socialist Party was merged in the Janata Party in 1977 and also joined the Janata Government. After the fall of the Janata Government in 1979, some of the Socialist members remained in the Janata Party and some joined the Lok Dal.

FORWARD BLOC.

A reference may be made to some other minor leftist parties in India. The Forward Bloc was formed by Subash Chandra Bose after his quarrel with Mahatma Gandhi.The Forward Bloc accepted the creed, policy and programme of the Congress but was not bound to have confidence in the Congress High Command. When India became free in 1947, the Forward Bloc

321 described the transfer of power as a bogus one. Its view was that the bourgeois leadership of the Congress had entered into a partnership with British imperialism to defeat the mass struggle.The Revolutionary Socialist Party was started in 1940.In the tussle between Mahatma Gandhi and Subhas Chandra Bose, it supported Subash Chandra Bose.It did not support the Government of India even after the joined World War II.The Bolshevik Party of India was started in 1939 by N. Dutt Mazumdar.The Revolutionary Communist Party was started in 1942. The Bolshevik-Leninist Party was started in 1941. Shri M.N. Roy started the Radical Democratic Party in 1940.

THE CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE MOVEMENT

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.

When the Congress leaders met on the banks of the river Ravi, near Lahore, in 1929 they were disappointed over the attitude of the British Government.Leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru, Subhash Chandra Bose and Srinivas Iyengar asked for bold action against the Government.In his presidential address, Jawaharlal Nehru condemmed British imperialism. Kings and Princes and declared himself to be a socialist and a Republican. He called upon the leaders assembled there to take strong action in these words: “Talking of high stakes and going through great dangers were the only way to achieve great things”.He declared that complete independence should be the goal of the Congress.Mahatma Gandhi also approved of that goal but he did not like to precipitate matters. A resolution was passed that the word Swaraj in the Congress Constitution means “complete independence”. All

322 Congressmen taking part in the National Movement were asked not to take part, directly or indirectly, infuture elections and the sitting members were asked to resign their seats.The All-India Congress Committee was authorized to launch a programme of cicil disobedience including the non-payment of taxes. At midnight of 31st December 1929, the Tricolour Flag of Independence was hoisted on the banks of the river Ravi by the Congress President, Jawaharlal Nehru.

26th January 1930 was declared and a pledge was taken by the people of India onthat date and the same was repeated year after year. From 14 to 16 February, 1930, the Congress Working Committee met as Sabarmati Ashram and vested Mahatma Gandhi with full powers to launch the Civil Disobedience Movement” at a time and place of his choice”. On 27 February, the plan of the agitation was announced and Mahatma Gandhi declared that he would first defy the Salt laws along with 78 chosen members of his Ashram. On 2nd March 1930, Mahatma Gandhi wrote to othe Viceroy in which he gave his own assessment of the situation in the country and put forward his programme to ease the situation.He made it clear that if his suggestion was not accepted, he would start the Civil Disobedience Movement.His threat was treated by the Government with amusement and contempt. On 12 March 1930, accompanied by 78 inmates of the Sabarmathi Ashram, Mahatma Gandhi started onhis march of 240 miles to the sea-coast at Dandi.Huge crowds gathered at the Ashram to see him off. Gandhiji hoped that he would not return to the Ashram until Swaraj was won. His march assumed the character of a Padayatra with object of achieving for India. Moti Lal Nehru compared the Dandi march with the “historic march of Ramchandra to Lanka”.Gandhiji described it as the war against Salt Tax”. Prayers were offered all over India for the success of Mahatma Gandhi’s mission and the people watched with great interest the progress of the march. At every stage where Mahatma Gandhi halted on the way the people flocked in othousands to hear him and asked for his blessings.He addressed numerous meetings and urged the people to remain non-violent.

323 Gandhiji reached Dandi on 5 April and broke the salt laws on 6 April by picking up the salt lying on the beach. He called upon the people to celebrate the week from 6 April to 15 April as the national week and defy the salt laws and picket liquor shops, opium dens and foreign cloth dealers’ shops. He also appealed to the people to leave the Government schools, colleges and services.There was a favourable response from the people.Public meetings were held all over the country.Hundreds of Government servants left their jobs.Many legislators resigned their seats and hundreds of people violated the salt laws.Liquor shops were boycotted.Peasants refused to pay taxes and debts.The country appeared to be in open revolt.

The Government followed a policy of repression to suppress the movement.Even before the movement was actually started; thousands of Congress workers were arrested and put in jails. Subhash Chandra Bose was sentenced to one year’s rigorous imprisonment.On 16 April 1930, Jawaharlal Nehru was put in jail and his imprisonment was followed by thousands of others.Police firing, lathi charges and arrests became the order of the day. Even women were not spared.From Delhi alone, about 1,600 women were arrested.On 23rd April 1930, the Bengal ordinance was promulgated and the life of freedom fighters was made very hard.The Press Act of 1910 was strictly enforced and many restrictions were put on the newspapers.Many newspapers and magazines stopped their publications.Civilian property was destroyed.Innocent men and women were beaten up. Prisoners were starved and suffocated. Hundreds of men and women were killed as a result of police firing.

Mahatma Gandhi was arrested on 5th May 1930 and his place was taken by Abbas Tyabji as a leader of the movement.When he was arrested, he was succeeded by Sarojini Naidu.Demonstrations were organized throughout India against Gandhiji’s arrest.In Bombay, riots broke out. In Madras, police beating was indiscriminate.The boycott of British goods was the highest in Bengal, Bihar and Orissa.In U.P., the peasants and zamindars were called upon to

324 withhold all payments of revenue.In the Central Provinces, Satyagraha was launched against forest taxes.In Karnataka a successful no-tax campaign was launched in the Midnapur District of .Gorkha troops and punitive police started a reign of terror which did not spare even the honour of women. The peasants cheerfullysaw before their eyes the destruction of their huts and all the little possession they had on earth but they refused to pay taxes. In Gujarat, the peasants began to migrate to the State of Baroda.

Regarding the results of the Civil Disobedience Movement of 1930, Louis Fischer wrote: “Gandhi did two things in 1930: he made the British people aware that they were cruelly subjugating India and he gave Indians the conviction that they would, by lifting their heads and straightening their spines, lift the yoke from their shoulders.The British beat the Indians with batons and rifle butts.The Indians neither cringed nor complained nor retreated. ‘That made England powerless and India invincible”.

The First Round Table Conference was held in London from 12th November 1930 to 19th January 1931.Not much was done at the Conference on account of the absence of any representative of the Congress.While winding up the deliberations of the Conference, Prime Minister Ramsay Macdonald declared that “steps would be taken to enlist the Congress-operation of those sections of public opinion which had held aloof from the Conference”.

The Government seemd to be in a mood to come terms with the Congress. It was felt that there was no prospect of the successful working of the new reforms unless the Congress was willing to work them. On 25th January 1931, Lord Irwin appealed to the people of India to consider the statement made by the British Prime Minister.He also declared that Mahatma Gandhi and all other members of the Congress Working Committee would be released at an early date to consider the matter “freely and fearlessly”.In pursuance of this statement, the Congress leaders were released. Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, M.R. Jayakar and V.S. Sastri were able to persuade Mahatma Gandhi to see the Viceroy and discuss the possibility of a compromise.The discussions between

325 the Viceroy and Mahatma Gandhi continued for 15 days and on 5th March 1931 was signed the Gandhi-Irwin Pact.

As regards the terms of the Pact, both the Congress and the Government were required to do certain things.The Government of India was to make concessions and the Congress was to withdraw the Civil Disobedience Movement.It was agreed that the Government would take steps for the participation of the representatives of the Congress in the Second Round Table Conference.It was specifically provided that if the Congress failed to give full effect to the obligations of the settlement, the Government was to be at liberty to take such action as might be considered necessary for the protection of the public and the individuals and due observance of law and order.

The spirit in which the Gandhi-Irwin Pact was signed did nto last long. In spite of protests from all quarters, the Government carried out the execution of Sardar Bhagat Singh.Sukh Developed and Raj Guru on 23rd March 1931. On 18th April 1931, Lord Irwin was succeeded by Lord Willingdon.The new Viceroy had no intention to abide by the terms of the Pact.In the United Provinces, the armed police and the magistracy terrorized and harassed the people.The houses of the Congress workers were raided.The Congress flag was burnt and women were insulted.The holding of public meetings was prohibited and those who violated the law were prosecuted.The confiscated property of the peasants was restored with great difficulty in Gujarat. Congressmen were imprisoned without trial in Bengal.Legal practitioners were required so give understandings.Prisoners were not released in Bombay. Peaceful picketing was not allowed.Many students were rusticated from schools and colleges. There were similar violations of the Pact in Madras and Delhi.Mahatma Gandhi brought those violations to the notice of the Government but there was no response.However, Mahatma Gandhi went to attend the Second Round Table Conference in London in 1931.

326 Mahatma Gandhi attended the conference as the sole representative of the Congress.He demanded control over defence and foreign affairs. There was a complete deadlock on the question of representation of minorities.M.A. Jinnah, H.H. the Agha Khan, and Dr. Ambedkar were not willing to come to a settlement with Mahatma Gandhi. Mahatma Gandhi was not satisfied with the statement of Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald made on 1 December 1931, and declared that they had “come to the parting of ways” and their ways would hereafter “take different directions”.

Mahatma Gandhi came back to India on 28th December 1931.On 29 December, he sent a telegram to the Viceroy in which he expressed his great concern over the happenings in the country.He particularly referred to the uncalled for shootings in the country. In reply, the Government justified its stand.The Viceroy also refused to grant an interview to Mahatma Gandhi. On 4 January 1932, the Government of India issued 4 Ordinance, viz., Power Ordinance, Unlawful Instigation Ordinances, Unlawful Association Ordinance and Prevention of Molestation and Boycott Ordinance. Within a short time, the number of Ordinances reached 13. The scope of these Ordinances was very comprehensive and they covered “almost every activity of Indian life”.

By 10th January 1932, all leading Congressmen were behind the prison- bars. Not only the Congress was declared illegal, even those organizations which were in any way connected with it or were sympathetic towards it were declared illegal.Youth leagues, students’ associations, national schools and institutions, Congress hospitals, Swadeshi concerns and libraries were all declared illegal.There were hundreds of names of this kind in each province.

Even before the civil disobedience movement was actually started by Gandhiji, he was arrested along with Vallabhbhai Patel who at that time was the President of the Congress.Thousands of Congressmen were arrested. The Government took forcible possession of the offices of the Congress. Lathi-charges were common to disperse the crowds.Even women and children

327 were not spared. Every effort was made to break the spirit of the people. The cattle, household furniture, utensils, jewellery, etc., were either confiscated or destroyed.A deliberate police was followed by the Government to make the lot of the political prisoners worse than that of convicts.A confidential circular was sent to all the prison authorities emphasizing the fact that the prisoners of the civil disobedience movement must be dealt with severely.Whipping became a common punishment.

In spite of the pressure, the civil disobedience movement continued. Meetings and demonstrations were held in spite of the restrictions imposed by the Government.Liquor shops and foreign cloth shops were picketed.The people refused to pay taxes.Salt laws were broken.National flags were hoisted on the Government buildings.The boycott programme was very extensive affecting even banks, insurance companies and the bullion exchanges. The no-tax campaign was also continued.However, a stage came when the political enthusiasm of the people became less and less and feelings of frustration set in.The movement was suspended in May 1933 and completely withdrawn in May 1934.Gandhiji withdrew himself from active politics.

QUIT INDIA MOVEMENT

After the failure of the , there were differences of opinion among the Congress leaders regarding the future course of action to be adopted.The view of Maulana Azad who at that time was the Congress President, was that negotiations should be resumed with Great Britain and full co-operation should be extended to the United Nations if Great Britain made an absolute promise of Indian independence after the war and if the American President or the United Nations gave a guarantee that the promise will be fulfilled.Nehru’s view was that the British Government must make a formal declaration of India’s independence at once.The Provisional Government then formed should negotiate with Great Britain the terms of co-operation.The Commander-in-Chief of the Allied Forces was to be given full support in all decisions relating to military matters and the Japanese must be resisted by

328 the Indians at all costs. Mahatma Gandhi advocated mass action to drive out the British out of India.

A meeting of the Congress Working Committee was held at Wardha and after a lot of discussion, a resolution was passed on 14 July 1942, which stated that the failure of the Cripps Mission and the attitude of the British Government towards India “has resulted in a rapid and widespread increase of ill-will against Britain and a growing satisfaction at the influence of Japanese arms”.It was stated that the Congress desired “to build up resistance to any aggression on or invasion of India by the Japanese or any foreign power” and the Congress would change the ill-will against Great Britain into good-will “if India feels the glow of freedom”.It was made clear that “in making the proposal for the withdrawal of the British rule from India, the Congress had no desire whatsoever to embarrass Great Britain or the Allied Powers in their prosecution of the war, or in any way to encourage aggression on India or increased pressure on China by the Japanese or any other power associated with the Axis Group”.It was hoped that this “very reasonable and just proposal” would be accepted by Great Britain, “not only in the interests of India but also that of Britain and of the cause of freedom to which the united Nations proclaimed their adherence”.It was made clear in the resolution that in case India’s appeal was not accepted, the Congress would “then be reluctantly compelled to utilize all the non-violent strength it might have gathered since 1920, when it adopted non-violence as part of its policy, for the vindication of political rights and liberty”.The final decision was to be taken by the All India Congress whose meeting was fixed for 7th August 1942 at Bombay.

The Congress gave 24 days to the Government to make a favourable response. On 15th July 1942 Mahatma Gandhi told the foreign press that if the movement had to be launched it would be a non-violent one. On 25th July 1942, President Chiang Kai-shek wrote to President Roosevelt to intervene so that the Congress was not forced to launch the movement.The letter was forwarded to Churchill but nothing came out of it.

329 A meeting of the All India Congress Committee was held in Bombay on 7 August 1942 as scheduled. The general feeling was that an attempt be made to come to terms with the Government and for that purpose Mahatma Gandhi expressed the wish to meet the Viceroy.However, on 8 August 1942, the famous “Quit India” resolution was moved by Jawaharlal Nehru and passed by an overwhelming majority.It was declared in that resolution that the immediate ending of the British rule in India was an urgent necessity, both for the sake of India and for the success of the cause of the United Nations.India had become the crux of the question, Great Britain and the United Nations will be judged by the independence of India. Addressing the Congress delegates on the night of 8 August 1942, Gandhiji said, “I, therefore, want freedom immediately, this very night, before dawn, if it can be had.You may take it from me that I am not going to strike a bargain with the Viceroy for ministers and the like. I am not going to be satisfied with anything short of complete frem. Here is a Mantra, a short one that I give you.You may imprint it on your hearts and let every breath of yours give expression to it.The Mantra is: “Do or die’. We shall either free India or die in the attempt; we shall not live to see the perpetuation of our slavery”.

When the resolution was passed, an appeal was made to Great Britain and the United Nations to respond to the “call of reason and justice”.It was also decided that all efforts should be made to come to a settlement with the government and it was only when thosoe efforts failed that the movement was to be started after Mahatma Gandhi had given his sanction. Mahatma Gandhi and Maulana Azad openly declared that they would approach the Viceroy again and the heads of the various Governments for an honourable settlement.It was also decided that Jawaharlal Nehru was, to explain on 9 August 1942 to the United States the scope and contents of the ‘Quit India’ resolution.

It appears that the Government had already finalized their plans to arrest the Congress leaders and crush their movement and consequently in the early

330 hours of the morning of 9 August, Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Maulana Azad, Sardar Patel, Rajendra Prasad, Acharya Kripalani, etc, were arrested. As many as 148 Congress leaders were arrested and interned along with their followers. The people were stunned. As their leaders were arrested all of a sudden, they did not know what to do. The result was that they carried on the movement in any way they could.All over the country, there were ‘hartals’ and strikes in factories, schools and colleges and public demonstrations.Angered by repeated firing, and lathi charges, the people took to violence at many places.They attacked the police stations, post offices, railway stations, etc.They cut off telegraph and telephone wires and railway lines.They burnt the Government buildings.Railway carriages were put on fire. Even the military vehicles were destroyed. Madras and Bengal were the most affected in this respect.In many places, the people got temporary control over towns, citizens and villages.British authority disappeared in parts of , Bihar, Orissa, West Bengal, Maharashtra, Andhra and Madras. At some places, the people set up parallel Governments.To quote Jawaharlal Nehru, “For the first time since the great revolt of 1857, vast numbers of people rose to challenge by force (but a force without arms) the fabric of British role in India”.

The Government used all its machinery to suppress themo Hundreds of persons were arrested and imprisoned.A large number of them were killed chiefly by the firing of the military and the police.The people were insulted, assaulted and injured regardless of their position and status.Whipping was inflicted on many and heavy collective fines were imposed and recovered. K.C. Neogy called those fines as communal fines as those were realized only from the Hindus. There was machine-gunning of mobs from air at five places: Patna, Bhagalpur and Monghyr in Bihar.Nadia in Bengal and Talchar city. According to the official figures, the civilian casualties from August to December 1942 were 940 killed and many more injured.Nehru’s view was that figures of the dead varied between 4,000 to 10,000.More than 60,000 persons

331 were arrested up to the end of 1942, 26,000 persons were convicted and 18,000 were detained under the Defence of India Rules.

Many reasons have been given for starting the “Quit India” movement.The first was the growing threat of Japanese invasion of India. Mahatma Gandhi wanted to save India from that attack and his view was if the British Government withdrew from India, the Japanesw might not attack India. Another reason was the defencelessness of the British position in India and their easy defeat inSingapore.The view of Mahatma Gandhi was that India would meet the same fate if the British did not withdraw from India. Another reason was the alarming growth of Axis propaganda which was having its effect on the minds of the people ofIndia. This was particularly so on account of the broadcasts of Subhash Chandra Bose from Berlin in the Indian languages.Another cause was that the mind of Mahatma Gandhi was revolting against the racial discrimination shown in the process of evacuation from Burma.The British provided separate routes for the evacuation of 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.There was a lot of resentment in the country when the people heard of the sufferings of the Indians and that contributed to the decision of Mahatma Gandhi 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 taken for military purposes and they were not given adequate compensation.They were deprived of their means of livelihood.A lot of harshness was used by the Government while getting the houses of 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 and the people lost their faith in the paper currency issued by the Government.There was a lot of discontentment among the people and Mahatma Gandhi decided to take advantage of it.

332 The failure of the Quit India movement was due to many causes.The first was the tactical mistakes of organization and planning.The arrest of Mahatma Gandhi and the co leaders left the people without any leadership or guidance. There was no co-ordination and no strategy.Those who led the movement were divided in their views of 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.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.On the whole, the Muslims remained aloor from the movement.They were told by the Muslim League that the movement was directed to coerce the British Government to hand over to the Hindus the administration of the country.

As regards the gains of the revolt of 1942, Dr. Amba Prasad says that although the revolt failed it prepared the ground for independence in 1947. After the revot, no doubt was left in the minds of the British rulers that the days of British domination of India were numbered. It was only a question of time. The revolt marked the culmination of the Indian freedom movement. It gave utterance to India’s anger against imperialism and her determination to be free.It is true that there were many political developments and much parleying and bargaining between the revolt of August 1942 and the independence of India in August 1947, but there was no doubt about the fact that the freedom struggle was bound to win.

Two important events took place in 1945.One was that general elections took place in England and the Labour Party came to power.The other was the surrender of Japan on 14 August 1945 and the termination of hostilities in the Far East.Unlike Churchill, the new Labour Government was sympathetically inclined towards the Indian demand for freedom. As the pre-occupation with war was over, the Labour Government tried to solve the Indian problem. The Viceroy of India was summoned to London. After prolonged discussions, the Viceroy came back to India and declared on 19 September 1945 that the

333 Government had decided to convene a constitution-making body in the near future.It was declared that elections to the Central Assembly and the Provincial Legislatures would be held “during the coming cold weather”.

Elections to the Central Assembly were held in November and December 1945.In the first week of January, 1946, the Parliamentary Delegation came to India to meet the Indian leaders.On 15th March 1946, Prime Minister Attlee declared in the House of Commons that India herself must decide her future Constitution and no minority in India would be allowed to place a veto on the advance of the majority.The Cabinet Mission reached Delhi on24 March 1946 and on 16 May 1946, it gave its own solution of the problem; known as the Cabinet Mission Scheme.On 2 September 1946, Jawaharlal Nehru formed the Interim Government.The Constituent Assembly met on 9 December 1946 but was boycotted by the Muslim League.On 20 February 1946, the British Government declared that it would transfer power into the hands of the Indians by a date not later than June 1948. Lord Mountbatten gave his 3 June Plan for the .The Indian Independence Act was passed in July 1947 and India became Independent on 15 August 1947.

INDIA AND THE SECOND WORLD WAR (1939-45)

The outbreak of war in September 1939 found India even more unprepared in a material sense than Britain and with a much more divided mind. Almost the only material sign of preparation had been the visit of Lord Chatfield’s mission.The public and officials alike had been absorbed in the unfolding drama of the constitutional experiment. Europe was still far off, and it did not seem, even if war broke out, that India would be very directly affected. Not that the public was unaware or uninterested in Europe development, Indian nationalists as good democrats were strongly anti-Fascist; they joined in the chorus for strong measures without any great expectation of being called to take part in them.Meanwhile the rise of the Muslim League, the struggle between right and left wings of Congress, and the fate of the provincial ministries were of much more absorbing interest.Amongst the Congress

334 leaders, Jawaharlal Nehru was the only one to be fully aware of the import of international events for India and to seek to interest the public in these issues. In foreign affairs the attitude ofmind which was fast disappearing in home politics still lingered, a feeling that it was the business of the paramount power. India could only interest herself when freedom had been won. Theold feeling was widespread that Britain’s embarrassment might be India’s opportunity.No one dreamt that embarrassment might become mortal peril, not only to Britain herself, but to India as well.

When the war broke out, therefore, there was a general approval of the cause coupled with a widespread reluctance to do very much about it. It was Britain’s affair, not India’s.The old slogan of ‘no taxation without representation ‘was translated to read ‘no popular war effort without responsible government’. The Congress ministries resigned on the manner of India’s participation in the war. Individuals and groups were willing to give help, but India as a whole sat back to watch the mighty drama unfold in the European arena from what was thought to be a secure and comfortable seat in the grandstand.This mood persisted until Dunkirk and the fall of France. A moment of alarm gave place to a feeling of admiration for British doggedness and spirit. When invasion failed it was realized that the war would be a long one and that India would have an important part to play.There was more willingness to assist, but still the divided mind persisted. How could India assist the cause of liberty abroad without first obtaining her freedom at home? The entry of Japan into the war intensified rather than modified this mood.There was more awareness of danger and more readiness to help, but also a deepening sense of frustration at India’s inability to control her own destiny.

It will now be convenient to touch on the various aspects of war-time India in tern.To the Viceroy fell the task of not only managing a restive public opinion as best he could but of organizing the war of India as a member of the British empire and potentially of the British common wealth of Nations. A large programme of military expantion was put in hand.The Middle East was

335 the obvious theatre for Indian troops, and thither forces were dispatched to assist Sir. Archibald Wavell in his watching brief in Egypth. The fall of France, with its elimination of French strength in the Middle East and the entry of Italy into the war, transformed this theater overnight in to the most crusial military area outside Britain itself.Indian troops suddenly found themselves at the centre of events.Their courage and skill rose to the occasion. In the famous desert campaign of 1940-1 Indian troops bore a distinguished part. The 4th and the 7th Divisions added fresh laurels to Indian arms, and proved themselves masters of the rigours and intricacies of desert warfare. With modern equipment they were second to none in the world. Indian participation lasted through the commands of Wavell and Auchinleck to the final desert campaign of Montgomery.It also included the Iraq, Syrian, and Persian operations. In Iraq Indian intervention was decisive.

Before that time, however, the major Indian military effort had been diverted eastward.From the beginning of 1941 the Japanese menace to South-east Asia had been visibly growing.Along with British and Australians, Indian troops were used to garrison Malaya. When the Japanese stroke fell in December 1941 Indian troops shared in the long retreat to the south and in the disaster of Singapore.In its capitulation 90,000 Indian troops were involved.Indian formations played an honourable part in Alexander’s fighting retreat from Burma, and henceforth were concerned with the defence of India itself. Their posts were now the hilly jungles and fever-haunted valleys of the Indology- Burman border down to the rain-drenched tracts of Arakan.In this situation they had two fresh problems of the first magnitude to solve.The first was the exchange of tropical jungle for desert conditions of warfare, and the second the tactics of the Japanese trained to this type of warfare and possessing the mobility which came of frugal habits and lifht transport. From 1943 the active Indian army passed under Mountbatten’s South-East Asia Command (S.E.A.C.) and became a part of Sir William Slim’s Fourteenth Army.Their moment of trial and their greatest triumph came with thejap invasion of Assam in the spring of 1944.The 7th Division’s stand at Kohima, cut off from all aid,

336 save by air, broke the spearhead of the Japanese advance, and made inevitable the rout which followed.Thenceforward the story was one of increasing success, though always in the most arduous conditions, until the crowning triumph of the recapture of Rangoon.The Indian army had shown its mettle in themost difficult of all terrains of the war and the most testing of all types of warfare.A Japanese document listed the Gurkhas as the troops most to be feared of all the nationalities opposed to them. When the Japanese war ended in August 1945 Indian troops were poised for the assault on Malaya under the command of Mountbatten. Alongside the army, the Royal Indian Air Force and Navy, both negligible at the outbreak of war, played a distinguished and increasingly significant part.

One of Linlithgow’s principal claims to fame was his organization of the Indian war effort. Here the mind of the administrator could range unhampered by personal vagaries and political perplexities. The first question was that of supply and the second that of military expansion.At first it was not thought that India would lie in close proximity to a large-scale comapign, but its vital relationship to the Middle East was early recognized.Before the war Lord Chatfield’s committee had recommended a capital outlay of 7 crores of rupees (£5,400,000) for expanding Indian ordnance factories, and this, with additions, was at first thought to be sufficient. After the fall of France, however, India was conceived as a centre of a Commonwealth group for themselves supply of the Middle Eastern theatre.The visit of the supply mission of Sir Alexander Roger in the autumn of 1940 coincided with the holding of the Eastern Group Conference which was attended by representatives, in addition to those of India, from Australia,Burma,Ceylon, New Zealand, South Africa, Southern Rhodesia, Malaya, Hong Kong, Palestine, and East Africa.From the conference came the Eastern Group Supply Council, which rationalized the supply of materials from the various territories.India became the principal supplier of cotton textile, jute and jute products, leather products, and wooden furniture. In the first year of the council’s work India supplied 60 per cent of its total demands and later 75 per cent.When Japan and America entered the

337 war picture changed.Some sources of supply dried up and fresh needs appeared nearer home.Moreover in America there was a reservoir of productive power which could make good deficiencies throughout the Allied world.Inda developed new needs and at the same time became eligible for Lend-Lease. Early in 1943 the council was wound up, its function ofallocating orders being taken over by the British Central Provision Office with a British Ministry of Supply Mission working in collaboration.But the work industrial development went on with even greater energy.The expansion of industry was not limited to India’s traditional crafts like textiles, but included heavy industry and new industries altogether.Tata’s already great steel plant was further extended and this was supplemented by the Bengal Steel Corporation’s works at Burnpur and the Kumardhuti group. The cement industry was expanded on a large scale; the Indian deposits of bauxite were exploited to develop the new aluminium industry, and the mica industry, in which India held a monopoly outside Russia and Brazil, was largely increased.

Along with the organization of supply went the rapid growth of the armed forces. The peace-time strength of 175,000 was steadily increased until there was a total of more than 2 millions under arms.Mechanization and motorization went hand in hand with this process with the result that India not only gained an armed forced of unprecedented size, but a large number of technicians of varied skills.The navy, under the British vice-admiral, became an efficient and effective force which played its part both in the Burma campaign and against the Japanese submarine menace. The air force built up a reputation for smartness and efficiency which it carried over into the new era of independence.Though only a relatively small proportion of the military forces were actually engaged in military operations, the displacement of such large numbers from their customary life, and their equipment with new skills, was bound to open up new horizons and to stimulate the spirit of change.

The war in Indian experience had 3 well-defined stages.The first was the period of ‘phoney’ war, when life went on much as before.The war was a

338 remote spectacle, a matter for talk and the newspapers.This phase ended for India with the fall of France in June 1940.The old International order seemed to have vanished overnight and the country was for a time bewildered and alarmed.Then followed the Battle of Britain, which was watched with growing admiration; the old order, it seemed, was to survive after all.The second stage was that of organization as a Middle Eastern base.Trade and industry boomed; headquarters swelled and men in khaki appeared; cities grew congested and there was an air of bustle and purpose. But still it was not India’s war so much as one to which India was contributing. The third stage opened with the Japanese aggression. From the spring of 1942 India began to suffer some of the perplexities and inconveniences of toehr belligerents and later met trials of her own. The war cloud spread over the whole country and became part of its daily experience.The herald of this transformation was perhaps the Japanese bombardment of Vizagapatam in April 1942.

The first effect was the appearance of the Americans in Delhi and in the East.To then were added large numbers of British troops concerned no longer with the Middle East but with the Japanese menace in Burma.The immediate consequence was the dislocation of the economic life of the country.Supply lines had to be re-orientated from lines from the interior to the ports to lateral lines from the ports to eastern India. To the strain, which this placed upon the railways, already somewhat depleted by shipments to the Middle East, had to carry the whole weight of the war effort as well as the whole burden of the country’s economic life.A period of unprecedented strain began which lastedc until the end of the war.The mounting expenditure on the local war effort, together with large sums spent by both British and Americans in making airfields and in other preparations, set in motion a price-rise from which India had hitherto been largely exempt.Shortages began to appear, and culminated in the Bengal famine of 1943.

It had been thought that famines were things of the past in India. There was the Famine Code, which had worked successfully for sixty years. It was

339 based on the distribution of grain to threatened areas with arrangements for the employment of agriculturists on productive work until the next harvest could restore the countryside. But this assumed the import of foodstuffs from abroad if necessary.The war had now cut off supplies from abroad except from neighbouring Burma. Food was short everywhere.The loss of Burma denied her rice supplies to Bengal and the south. At the same time the price rise tempted peasants to dispose of their reserve stocks at what seemed to them heaven-sent prices. But then rice disappeared from the markets and decline inindebtedness proved a poor substitute for a lack of sustenance. The overall shortage has been estimated at 5 per cent, but this was aggravated by faults of distribution and control.Extensive black markets developed and famished peasants began to appear in Calcutta. An added difficulty was the absence of rice in the rest of India so that only unpalatable grains and pulses could be offered to starving rice-eating areas. During the summer of 1943 it became apparent that the Bengal administration was unable to cope with the situation.An undue tenderness for the principle of provincial autonomy delayed action by the Centre and it was only on the arrival of Lord Wavell in October 1943 that the nettle was firmly grasped.The British army was entrusted with relief distribution and a system of rationing instituted for all large towns. Never had the British army been so popular.Thenceforth, though shortages continued, no one starved, and a feeling of confidence returned.Food became a central concern.

It is now time to turn to the constitutional problem during the war period. In the summer of 1939 the hesitancy of the princes still delayed the establishment of the federal centre.The Congress watched and waited and Gandhi, more fully persuaded of his pacifism as the war clouds lowered, sent a personal letter to Hitler. On the outbreak of war Lord Linlithgow thus found himself without a responsible ministry to consult, and without a legal option to proclaiming that ‘war has broken out between His Majesty and Germany’. He followed this up by addressing both houses of the legislature and by consultations with the national leaders, beginning with Mahatma Gandhi

340 himself. Such action was legal and perhaps inevitable, but it was natural for it to appear provocative to the rapidly growing national consciousness of India, and so in fact it seemed to both League and Congress.The premiers of the non-Congress or League ministries of Bengal, the Punjab, and Sind were backed by their legislatures in pledging support to the war effort and the princes did the same individually. But the Congress demanded an immediate definition of war aims and an immediate declaration of independence, ‘present application to be given to this status to the largest possible extent’.The League made its support dependent on ‘justice for Muslims’ in Congress provinces and a guarantee of no constitutional advance without League approval. The Viceroy met this situation on 17th October by affirming dominion status to be the goal of constitutional development, action to be taken after the war with due regard to minority opinions. Meanwhile he proposed the formation of an advisory council representing all sections of opinion to associate the Indian public with the prosecution of the war. This was rejected by the Congress High Command as inadequate, and the provincial Congress ministries forthwith resigned. The League was less forthright and indeed commended the stress of minority rights, but demanded the abandonment of the whole federal scheme.

The deadlock thus created lasted throughout the war.It had two aspects. In relation to the British the Congress demanded full responsibility before sharing in the war effort. The British on their side were precluded by constitutional difficulties from agreeing to this and could only offer self-government de facto in anticipation of the end of the war.To the British, with the precedent of Canada in mind, this seemed an honest, and, in the circumstances, a common-sense procedure.To the Congress it savoured of Machiavellian delay and dark designs to frustrate legitimate aspirations.The second aspect was the relation of Congress to other parties.The Congress continued its 1937 policy of regarding itself as the sole legitimate representative of the Indian people.This was unacceptable, not only to the government, but also to the League. It encouraged the League to proceed to the formal acceptance of the

341 Pakistan programme in the early months of 1940, and the League’s attitude in its turn sustained the British in declining to make a unilateral settlement with the Congress.The three parties to the constitutional struggle thus strultified each other.The deadlock bred a steadily increasing sense of frustration as between British and Congress on the one hand, and a stedily deepening suspicion as between the League and Congress on the other.

The fall of France produced a temporary easing of tension. ‘The tone of Congress hostility’, in Professor Coupland’s words, ‘softened’. For a moment it seemed as though the fall of Britain might be the prelude to a Nazi occupation. ‘We do not seek our independence’, wrote the Mahatma on 1 June, ‘out of British ruin’.The Congress High Command threw overboard Gandhi’s pacifism. (He had praised Petain’s armistice and had called ‘on every Briton to adopt…….a nobler and a braver way’ of surrender to Hitler.) There was talk of a national government and of parallel bodies to organize defence. The reply of the new British war cabinet was the ‘August offer’. The offer contained one new point of substance along with the usual provisos of British obligations and minority rights.The post-war constitution was to be drawn up by an Indian constituent Assembly whose decisions were virtually accepted beforehand.Thus Parliament virtually surrendered its right of legislating for India, a right which it had hitherto jealously guarded.But by August the first panic fears of British collapse had passed. Though the issue in fact was still in the balance it was known that the British would fight to the last, and the evident British resolution inspired a new confidence in their ability. This had the effect, not of warming Congress hearts but of reviving suspicions of real British intentions.Britain, thought many, was still playing with India. There could be no settlement except on the basis of independence now and with Congress alone as representing India. Consciousness of strength joined with revived suspicion to reject the offer. The appeals of the new Secretary of State (Mr. Amery) as well as the Viceroy fell on deaf ears; the deadlock was more complete than ever.The League for its part, newly converted to the Pakistan ideal, insisted that any national government should be on a Hindu-

342 Muslim fifty-fifty basis and pointed the moral of partition.The communal deadlock was as complete as the Indology-British one.

The Congress was thus thrown back on Mr. Gandhi’s pacifism and non-co- operation.Mr. Gandhi insisted on preaching pacifism in opposition to the war effort and organizing civil disobedience as a sanction for this right when disputed or denied by the government.The most reluctant and least successful of civil disobedience movements followed. Organized in easy stages from the autumn of 1940, it reached its peak in the following May, when some 14,000 congressmen were in prison. This bore no comparison with the figure of 1930 and thereafter the numbers steadily fell.The movement had in fact no real popular backing, and was chiefly interesting as an index of what the Mahatma could achieve through personal influence alone. The Viceroy on his side carried out the long-promised expansion of his council to a total of fifteen of whom eleven were Indians.

The entry of Japan and America into the war and the imminent threat of invasion which followed produced a new situation. The need to break the deadlock was not very urgent, and to the British desire to achieve a settlement was added an evident American interest in Indian freedom. All Congressmen, including Pandit Nehru, had been released on the eve of Pearl Harbour and the stage was set for a further effort.On 11th March 1942 the prime minister announced the dispatch of Sir , then Leader of the House of Commons and a member of the war cabinet, on a mission to India with a new and radical offer. The Cripps offer dominated Indian politics for the rest of the war. It first reiterated the intention of His Majesty’s government to set up an Indian union which should take its place as a dominion of the Commonwealth as soon as possible after the war, and it then proposed specific steps towards that end.A constituent assembly would be elected by the provincial legislatures acting as an electoral college.This body would then negotiate a treaty with the British government.The future right of secession from the Commonwealth was explicitly stated.The Indian states would be free to join,

343 and in any case their treaty arrangements would be revised to meet the new situation. The only proviso was the right of any province to contract out of the constitution and ‘to retain its present constitutional position, provision being made for its subsequent accession if it so desires’. The offer ended with a call for co-operation by the popular parties in a national war-time administration.

The great advance which the Fripps offer marked was its frankness and precision.Gone were the hesitancies and the generalities of the 1939 and 1940 declarations.But there were new feas as well.A Constituent Assembly had already been conceded, but it was now made clear that the framing of the new Constitution would be the work of Indians alone.The right of secession was acknowledged.The device of a bilateral treaty for implementing the new Constitution and dischargeing British obligations (reminiscent of the Irish settlement) was introduced. Finally the provision for provincial contracting out provided a means of reassuring Muslim fears within the orbit of democratic principles.At one moment it seemed as though a settlement was in sight, but then the Congress leaders insisted that the new government must have immediately the full powers of a dominion cabinet. On this rock thediscussions foundered; high hopes had been raised, and their disappointment left the sense of frustration deeper than before. The League watched pensive in the wings and observed the collapse not without signs of sardonic satisfaction.

It is perhaps too early to assess the exact cause of the breakdown. It is certainthe Mahatma Gandhi took an unfavourable view and eventually overbore the more generous instincts of Nehru and Rajagopalachari.One consideration was the imminent Japanese threat; was it any use to draw a cheque on a failing bank? But even if invasion did not occur immediately, would not the situation again be critical when military movements again became possible after the monsoon? The British had gone so far under the stress of the Japanese threat that they might go further yet if they continued to survive and the threat persisted. Communal considerations led Hindu minds in the same direction.The offer represented almost but not quite a settlement

344 with Congress on Congress terms.The provision for contracting out represented, for its entire democratic colour, a concession to the League and as such was distasteful.Congress still underrated the League’s hold over Muslims and was confident that it could smother its agitation if given full power at the Centre. A little waiting might give that full power.The stake of a united India under Hindu control was one worth playing for. So the golden moment passed and with it the last real chance of establishing a united independent India. The rejection of the offer was the prelude to partition. This decision was not made without some internal stress, the chief sign of which was the ejection of Rajagopalachari from the Congress party. For the rest Congress was rallied behind the one more ascendant Gandhi. The enigmatic Mahatma refashioned his pacifist principles and non-violent technique to meet the new situation. The presence of the British in India, he decalred, was a provocation to the Japanese.He coined the ‘Quit India’ slogan, and prepared a resolution demanding British abdication on pain of a revived civil disobedience campaign.‘There is no question of one more chance’, he said. ‘After all, this is open rebellion’. All the signs suggested that events would reach a crisis at the moment the Japanese might be able tomove again at the beginning of October.When, therefore, the resolution was passed by the All-India Congress Committee on 7th August, the Viceroy, with the unanimous support of the Executive Council, acted swiftly.The whole working committee was interned at Poona. A serious but short outbreak of violence followed, which cost some 900 lives and caused damage estimated at a million pounds. Though responsibility was disclaimed by the leaders, it is difficult to believe that all of them were unaware of such large scale planning by extremists.

During this period India owed much to the rock-like firmness which the Viceroy combined with his patience.The failure of the rebellion did much to discredit the Congress and the improved military situation did still more. The Congress had not only acted wrongly, they had made a mistake.They had backed the wrong horse.The conviction spread that the British were immovable

345 for the duration of the war, and was reinforced by the Viceroy’s firmness in dealing with another Gandhian fast early in 1943. Mounting military success and the vigorous measures of Lord Wavell to deal with the food crisis still further strengthened the government’s position.Cautious feelers were put out for breaking the deadlock with the British and abortive conversations held between League and Congress leaders; but the end of the war in Europe found the position apparently unchanged. It was, however, in appearance only. For in the interval the League had greatly strengthened its position.The strength of Muslim separatism was now plain for all to see. Even if the Congress should now accept the Cripps offer in the hope of avoiding partition the League would reject it in the hope of achieving it.

THE COMMUNIST PARTY

The beginning of the Communist Party may also be traced to this period. Attempts were made to organize a Communist party in India since1921 by M.N.Roy and others, who followed the traditional and now well-known methods of organizing the working classes in Unions, teaching them the principles of Communism, inciting them to strikes etc. – all preparatory to an industrial and agrarian revolution.‘A and four Workers’ and Peasants’ parties in Bombay, Bengal, the Punjab, and the United Provinces, were formed.These bodies were given financial aid from Moscow and their policy was dictated from Moscow, both directly, as well as via England and the Continent’.But no conspicuous success attended the efforts of M.N.Roy and his colleagues till the Communist party in Britain took up the matter and sent a few agents to India. One of them, Philip Spratt, who arrived in India in December, 1926, infused fresh life into the Party which, though started in1924, had as yet very few members, probably and not even a dozen. Spratt, with the financial help from Moscow, increased the number of Unions, held organized demonstrations, edited newspapers, instituted youth movements, initiated and conducted strikes, and used all possible methods of propaganda, with the result that the number of Communists reached a high

346 figure.But further activity of the Communist party was cut short by the arrest of 31 members, including almost all the prominent leaders, on 20March, 1929. They were brought to Meerut for trial in what is known as the Merrut Conspiracy Case.The arrests were accompanied by search operations throughout the country, which brought to light a mass of records, including plans, secret codes, letters written in cryptic terms or in invisible ink, and many secret documents.These, together with other evidences and testimony of the accused of the activity of the Communist party in India. It is interesting to note that quite a large number of the accused did not know that they had fallen into the traps of the Communists. Spratt himself bore testimony to the fact that “almost half the accused were nationalists or trade unionists who were largely ignorant of the real nature of the conspiracy and of its underhand methods. When those were revealed during the trial, they were taken aback.The demoralization and quarrels among the prisoners during the later stages of the trial could partly be attributed to this factor”.

After a protracted trial 27 accused persons were found guilty and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment on16 January, 1933.The High Court considerably reduced the sentences, and by 1935 all the accused were set free.It is interesting to note that the accused in the Meerut case gained the sympathy of the Indian nationalists of all shades of opinion who were presumably moved by the liberal professions and principles as well as the anti-British sentiments cherished by the accused.The team of lawyers who formed a defence committee to fight for them included Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and K.N. Katju.Nehru looked upon the trial as “one phase of the offensive, which the Government here has started against the Labour Movement”.He added: “There is a lot of shouting about Communists and . Undoubtedly there are some Communists in India, but it is equally certain that this cry of Communism is meant to cover a multitude of sins of the Government”.Gandhi also visited the jail and offered encouragement to the prisoners.The attitude of the nationalists and the publicity of the prolonged Meerut trial offered rare propaganda opportunities to

347 the Communists, of which they took full advantage. Spratt says: “On the whole the revelation of our secret methods caused people to admire us; we had done what most young men wanted to do…… We had our opportunity in the session court to make political statements, and these were widely published in the press.Several of them were long enough to make a short book, and altogether no doubt most of what can be said in favour of Communism was said”. Saumyendra-nath Tagore observed that the Merrut Case “placed Communism on a sure footing in India”. Spratt agreed.

Next to the Muslim League, the Communist Party of India (CPI) was fast growing to be the most powerful political organization outside the Congress. Its origin and history up to the Meerut Conspiracy Case has been discussed above.The effect of this case upon CPI was twofold. On the one hand, the prolonged trial of the Communist leaders from 1929 to 1933 gained for them wide sympathy of the Indian nationalists. Jawaharlal Nehru and Ansari joined the Committee set up to arrange for the defence of the communists under trial; even Gandhi visited them in jail and offered encouragement. More important still was the publicity and propaganda value of the longdrawn trial which the Communists fully exploited.

On the other hand, the CPI suffered a heavy blow, at least for the time being, by the sudden removal of almost all its prominent leaders. It not only crippled the nascent organization and its activity, but makes it difficult for the Communists to face new dangers and difficulties. The chief of these was the new ultra-leftist policy laid down for India by the Comintern. “The CPI’s course was now clearly and authoritatively mapped out; it was to dissolve any remnants of the Workers and Peasants Party (WPP), severs connections with all elements of the bourgeoisie, and launches a full-scale attack on Gandhi, Nehru, and the Indian National Congress.The new policy, pursued during 1928-34, was revealed in the “Draft Platform of Action of the C.P. of India” published in December, 1930.It described the Congress as a “class organization of the capitalists working against the fundamental interests of the

348 toiling masses of our country”.It called for ”ruthless war on the ‘Left’ national reformists”. “The road to victory”, it declared, “is not the method or individual terror but the struggle and the revolutionary armed insurrection of the widest possible masses, of the working class, the peasantry, the poor of the towns and the Indian soldiers, around the banner and under the leadership of the Communist Party of India”.So far as the present stage of revolution was concerned its main objects according to the platform were: “The confiscation without compensation of all lands, forests and other property of the landlords, ruling princes, churches, the British Government, officials and money lenders and handing them over for use to the toiling peasantry; cancellation of slave agreements and all the indebtedness of the peasantry to money-lenders and banks”.Such a policy was sure to alienate the sympathy of all the politically active elements in Indian society.“The Draft Platform was a bill of divorcement from the main nationalist movement”.

While the ultra-leftist policy isolated the CPI from other political parties, its effective strength was further reduced by internal differences. The old leaders tried to direct affairs from the Meerut prison, but new leaders were actively working in the trade-union movement. There was disagreement even among the new leaders. While some of them were moderate, others tried to follow the militant Comintern line. The party in Bombay was split into two groups and the “major arena of their struggle, the trade-union movement, became badly riven with factionalism”. But this was not all. Birendra-nath Chattopadhyaya and Clemens Dutt established a Secretariat in Berlin, later removed to London, from which they attempted to guide the Indian Communist movement. Further, M.N. Roy, who was expelled from the Communist Party in December, 1929, arrived in India a year later on a forged passport.“Working underground, with the police in vigorous pursuit, he succeeded in getting a major section of the trade-union movement to abandon ultra-leftism and to adopt a more moderate policy under his leadership”.According to the report of the British Intelligence Department, “he made serious and by no means unsuccessful endeavours to impregnate the Congress with his views and was received, and

349 well received, by several of the Congress leaders in different parts of India”. Roy certainly attended the Karachi Congress, and Gandhi was aware of it. There is a general belief that the socialist resolution passed in Karachi was really drafted by him, but Nehru denies it and claims the whole draft to be his alone.Unfortunately, Roy was arrested in July, 1931, prosecuted as an accused in the original Kanpur Conspiracy Case, and sentenced on 9 January, 1932, to imprisonment for twelve years. The period was reduced on appeal and Roy was released on 20 November, 1936.Thus, during the period 1930-33, when Gandhi’s Civil Disobedience movement swept the country and the nationalist movement reached its highest peak, the CPI, instead of joining the fight for freedom, did their best to weaken and sabotage the greatest mass campaign India had so far seen.

To judge by definite and concrete results, the Communist Party in India achieved the greatest success in establishing its influence over the All-India Congress (AITUC). As a result, genuine Trade Unions seceded from the All-India Trade Union Congress and formed a separate organization called the National Trade Union Federation (N.T.U.F.).30 Unions joined the latter while only twenty continued affiliation with the parent body. There was a further split in this body in1931 when the Communists organized their own labour front called the Red Trades Union Congress.After the Communist leaders convicted in the Meerut Conspiracy Case were released, they tried to organize the party and strengthen the Red Trades Union Congress.They called for a wide strike of all textile workers on 23 April, 1934, and it received overwhelming response all over the country.The Government of India took alarm and the Communist party, along with some dozen Trade Unions under their control, was declared illegal. The Communist party then went completely underground.The Communist party soon realized that the extreme left and anti-Congress views entertained by them had practically isolated them from the political life in India which was gathering tremendous force under the leadership of Gandhi.The Communist High Command also realized the position and adopted an altogether new plan. It may be described as a policy

350 of infiltration into the Indian National Congress, with a view to wrecking it from within. The first step in this direction was to make an alliance with the recently formed Congress Socialist Party dominated by Jayaprakash Narayan. The task was not a difficult one.For, many Indians, particularly those with a leaning to socialism, felt wide sympathy for Communist principles in general without any attachment to the party itself, and sought from Russia inspiration minus active control or direction. The Congress Socialist Party, without any suspicion of the ‘Trojan Horse’ policy on the part of the Communists, welcomed their proposal and formed a United Front. Rules were laid down for joint action by the All-India Congress Socialist Party, the All-India Trade Union Congress, National Trade Union Federation and the Red Trades Union Congress. This United Front was not only a body for joint action on party basis; it also permitted individual Communists to become members of the Congress Socialist Party, and, therefore, also of the Indian National Congress. Thus while the Communist Party, being declared an illegal organization by the Government of India, could not function in its own name, it established its influence in the left wing of the Congress, and used the Congress organization itself for its own propaganda.Several Communists occupied high official positions in the Congress Socialist Party, and some of them became members of the All India Congress Committee. At about the beginning of 1937 the two parties concluded the so-called “Lucknow Agreement” which, according to the Socialist interpretation, signified that they would eventually merge in a single organization. Unfortunately, secret documents of the Communist Party came to light which clearly showed that the United Front was being used only as a platform to serve its own ends. It opened the eyes of the Congress Socialists, and matters came to a head in 1938 over the election of the new Executive of the Congress Socialist Party. Jayaprakash Narayan made a proposal in which the Communists were given one-third seats. The Communists produced their own list which gave the Communists a clear majority in the Executive. Under the open threat of secession by Jayaprakash and his party in case the Communist list was accepted the Conference adopted, by a narrow majority,

351 the composite list proposed by him. Two years later, in 1940, the Communists were expelled from the Congress Socialist Party and the United Front was dissolved. But the Communists carried with them the branches of the Socialist Party in Andhra, Tamil Nadu and Kerala.

The Communists also infiltrated heavily into students’ organizations. The All-India Students’ Federation was hitherto dominated by nationalist ideas, but a Communist faction soon made its influence felt, and the Students’ Federation was clearly divided into two groups, - Communist and non- Communist. The split was complete and the two groups held rival conferences. The conference of the Communist students in December, 1940, led by Hiren Mukherji and K.M.Ashraf, challenged the right of the Congress to speak for the whole of India, and passed a resolution declaring “that the future India should be a voluntary federation of regional States based on mutual confidence”.Thus, instead of a single nation comprising the people of India as a whole, the Communists upheld the ideal of India as a multinational State. This resolution was a clear bid to enlist the support of the Muslims by conceding the claim of Pakistan.In various other ways; too, the CPI conciliated the Muslims in an attempt to win them over to Communism. But it did not prove very successful.About the same time the Communists also broke from the Forward Bloc, a leftist organization founded by Subhas Bose. Bose, like Jayaprakash, realized that the Communists had used the Left Consolidation Committee merely as a platform for “popularizing their own organization”, while carrying out “reprehensible propaganda” against the Forward Bloc. But there was a deeper motive behind the Communist policy.The split with the Forward Bloc was a deliberate attempt to reduce the prestige of what might prove to be a dangerous rival, and which, therefore, must be prevented from seizing the opportunity to build a mass following based on a radical programme. P.C. Joshi, the General Secretary of the CPI, very frankly stated: ”Workers, peasants, and students have already adopted the proletarian technique of struggle – mass action. They have already come under the influence of socialism.The effort of the Forward Bloc to win over these

352 movements has to be resisted as the infiltration of bourgeois influence over the masses.Before the working class, Kisan, and student workers, the Forward Bloc has to be opposed not as being too left but as being the disruptive agency of bourgeoisie”.

The CPI also declared an open war against the Congress leadership. They wanted to “free the national front from the influence of bourgeois and develop the political strength of the proletariat”.At the Ramgarh session of the Congress (1940) the CPI issued a new statement of policy entitled “Proletarian Path”. It demanded that India should “make revolutionary use of the war crisis”; the first step toward this objective, it declared, would be a “political general strike in the major industries together with country-wide no- rent and no-tax action”. Next, the national movement would enter “a new and higher phase – the phase of armed insurrection”. The principal features of this forthcoming struggle, according to “Proletarian Path”, would be “storming of military and police stations by armed bands of national militia in rural as well as urban areas, destruction of Government institutions, and actual offensive against the armed forces of the Government on the most extensive scale”. In pursuance of this policy two Communist delegates proposed an amendment to the main resolution at the Ramgarh Congress which urged “immediate launching of the struggle” and condemned any talk of compromise with the British. It was, of course, defeated.As a first instalment of the policy chalked out in the “Proletarian Path”, the CPI organized a general strike in the textile mills in the Bombay area, and 150,000 workers were involved at its peak. These pronouncement and activities led the Government to take drastic action against the CPI.They arrested and detained under the Defence of India Rules 480 persons who were “acknowledged Communists or else supporters of the Communist programme of violent mass revolution”. The CPI was disorganized and seriously crippled.

The Communists all over the world, outside Russia, were puzzled by the Stalin-Hitler Pact in August, 1939. But they had to obey instructions from

353 Moscow. So Hitler ceased to be a Fascist menace, and became a friend of peace, while England and France were the imperialist war-mongers.The Indian Communists were in a more happy position than their comrades in Britain and France. For Indian National Congress, as noted above, declared itself against the war and the Communist could, and did, easily fall in with the popular opposition to the war, posing as genuine revolutionist and anti- imperialist. But while the CPI was engaged in a bitter war against the British imperialism for the freedom of India, Russia was invaded by Germany in June, 1941. It altered the whole international situation. Russia, the fountain source of and the determinant of its policy, was now forced to align herself with the capitalist countries and the bourgeois, and the international Communist policy had to be suitably altered. This had a serious reaction on Indian Communists. As mentioned above, the Congress refused to help the war efforts of the British unless India’s freedom was assured, and so far the CPI not only endorsed this view, but, as we have just shown, were prepared to go to further extremes than the Congress to achieve this object. The International Communist authorities, however, demanded that the CPI must support war, with or without Indian freedom. This immediately created a critical situation for the CPI. There were at this time two Communist Parties in India, isolated from each other.The first was composed of the arrested leaders and members kept in a detention camp at Deoli in Ajmer-Merwara; the second, consisting of those outside prison, formed a disorganized underground party led by P.C.Joshi. The “old guards” at Deoli fell in with the view of the British Communist Party which was expressed as follows by R. Palme Dutt: “The interest of the peoples of India and Ireland and of all the colonial peoples, as of all the peoples of the world, is bound up with the victory of the peoples against Fascism; that interest is absolute and unconditional, and does not depend on any measures their rulers may promise or concede”. The Deoli group accordingly decided that CPI must fully support the British war efforts since this now contributed to the defence of the Soviet Union. The fatherland of Communism. Whether the Deoli leaders independently arrived at

354 this conclusion or merely followed the direction of the British Communist party, is difficult to say.It has been alleged that the Home Secretary of the Government of India arranged to transmit to the Communist detenus at Deoli camp the letter from the Secretary of the British Communist Party communicating the new policy.

In any case the so-called Deoli Thesis, propounding the “People’s War” slogan, was smuggled out of prison to the underground party. They at first refused to accept it, declaring that “the purpose of the war was broader than the mere victory of the Soviet Union”, and included a “world-wide victory of the people”, - or, in short, liberation from the old order as well as from Fascism”. The underground CPI therefore adhered to the old view of fighting against both the British Government and its imperialist war. As late as the end of October, 1941,the party declared that those who urged support of the British war effort” are following an imperialist policy” and” echoing the imperialist lie”. During the whole period from June to November, 1941, the underground CPI suited their action to these brave words. But then came the change. As blood is thicker than water, so is Communism thicker than nationalism. Never was this dictum more clearly established than by the complete volte-face of the CPI, when, on15December, they passed the following resolution:

“We are a practical party and in a new situation it is our task not only to evolve a new form of struggle for it, but also to advance new slogans…. The key slogan of our Party (now) is “Make the Indian people play a people’s role in the people’s war”.

Therefore the table was completely turned. The Communist leaders were set free and on 24July, 1942, the ban against the Communist party was lifted. Henceforth the Communists functioned as a lawful party and enjoyed the favours of the Government of India who used them as counterpoise to the Congress. The strange spectacle was thus witnessed of the leftist Communist party being anti-National and pro-Imperial, and eating up the very words by which till recently they had incited the people against the Imperial and war-

355 monger British.The whilom Imperialist war turned overnight into a People’s war. During the great national upsurge of 1942, the Communists acted as stooges and spies of the British Government, and helped them against their own countrymen fighting for freedom.The part played by the Communists can be best understood from confidential correspondence during the years 1942, 1943 and 1944 between P.C. Joshi, the General Secretary of the Communist Party in India, and Sir Reginald Maxwell, Home Member of the Government of India.This file was seen by S.S. Bativala, a former member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party, who referred to its contents in an interview given to the Press on 22 February,1946. According to him, it is quite clear from that correspondence that ”an alliance existed between the Politbureau of the Communist Party and the Home Department of the Government of India, by which Mr.Joshi was placing at the disposal of the Government of India the services of his Party members”; that the various political drives undertaken by the Party in the name of anti-Fascist campaigns were a part of the arrangement which helped the Government of India to tide over certain crises, and that P.C.Joshi had “detailed certain Party members, without the knowledge of the Central Committee or the rank and file of the Party, to be in touch with the Army Intelligence Department, and supplied the CID chiefs with such information as they would require against nationalist workers who were connected with the 1942 struggle, or against persons who had come to India on behalf of the Government of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose”.

In a letter published in the Bombay Chronicle on 17 March, 1946, Batlivala added further: “Joshi had, as General Secretary of the Party, written a letter in which he offered ‘unconditional help’ to the then Government of India and the Army GHQ to fight the 1942 underground workers and the Azad Hind Fauj (Indian National Army) of Subhas Chandra Bose, even to the point of getting them arrested.These men were characterized by Joshi in his letter as ’traitors’ and fifth columnists”.Joshi’s letter also revealed that the CPI was receiving financial aid from the Government, had a secret pact with the Muslim League,

356 and was undermining Congress activity in various ways. “On the industrial front, the communists, using the control they exercised over the AITUC, similarly exerted their utmost to keep the workers out of the national unrest. The Party which had called for strikes, strikes and more strikes now demanded work, work and no strikes”.The Communists did not rest satisfied with sabotaging the national movement for freedom. They sought to destroy the unity of India. “Not only did the communists support the demand for Pakistan, but went much further by saying that every linguistic group in India had a distinct nationality, and was therefore entitled, as they claimed was the case in the USSR, to the right to secede”.

As most of the nationalist leaders were in jail or in hiding the Communists had the field left to themselves, and were able to capture many organizations of the labour, students and peasants.They even infiltrated into the All-India Women’s Conference, and many members in non-party capacity set up literary and cultural organizations which might serve as centres of propaganda. But this success was shortlived. After the War was over, the Communist Party was thoroughly discredited and lost the good faith and esteem of the people for the anti-national part it had played in the recent struggle for freedom. So when, in1945, the Congress began to function again, the Communist Party tried to curry favour with Gandhi and the Congress. But Gandhi was not impressed, and the Communists were excluded from the Congress.The almost overnight transformation of the Communist attitude towards the War at the bidding of Moscow showed the Communist Party of India in its true colour, and it failed to win a single sea at the general election to the Central Legislative Assembly in 1945.It lost the influence it had acquired in the Women’s Conference and the various cultural organizations.The control over the working class also passed from their hands.For, both the nationalists and socialists formed their own trade union centres (National Trade Union Congress and the Hind Mazdoor Sabha) which soon outstripped the All-India Trade Union Congress in membership and importance.The Communists realized their isolated position in Indian politics.So after independence was

357 achieved in1947, they made one more bid to win the favour of the Congress. They vigorously supported the Nehru administration and showed as much enthusiasm for the Congress now as it had shown dislike and opposition to it during the War.

SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE AND I.N.A.

BOSE’S FLIGHT TO GERMANY.

The failure of the ‘Quit India’ movement and the collapse of the outbreak of 1942 practically marked the end of the heroic fight for freedom in India under the leadership of the Congress and revolutionary leaders. But it did not end the struggle for India’s freedom which now took the shape of a grim fight waged beyond the eastern frontier of India by the Indian National Army led by Subhas Bose in co-operation with the Japanese army invading India. It was not only an interesting incident in the Second Second World War, but also one of the most important episodes in the long history of the freedom movement in India.

Reference has been made above to the political activities of Bose and how, after twice being elected President of the Indian national Congress, his fundamental differences with Gandhi, in respect of both policy and tactics, forced him to quiet the congress and form a new party known as the Forward Bloc.The British Government naturally looked up on Bose as a dangerous revolutionary, and arrested him on 2nd July, 1940, under section 129 of the Defence of India Rules. Even while he was in detention in the Presidency Jail, Calcutta, he was undergoing trials in two criminal suits brought against him by the Government.He decided to go on hunger-strike, and on 26th November, 1940, addressed a letter to the Governor of Bengal and his minister, two sentences of which read as follows: “The individual must die, so that the nation may live.Today I must die so that India may win freedom and glory.” He commenced his fast on 29th November, 1940, but as he developed alarming symptoms the Government released him on 5th December.After his release Bose remained quietly in his ancestral house in Elgin Road, Calcutta,

358 which was under strict surveillance by the police. He was last seen there on 16 January, 1941, but ten days later it was reported that he was not to be found in the house.His sudden disappearance long remained a mystery, but his movements are now fairly well-known.

Bose left his home on 17th January, 1941, at about 1-25 a.m. and proceed by car to Gomoh.Thence he went by Railway train to Peshawar, and then passing through Jamurd and by passing the Landikotal fort, crossed the Indian border and reached Kabul, via Jalalabad, traveling party on foot, partly in Tonga and partly by motor bus or truck. He then proceeded to Russia with an Italian passport, and on 28th March, 1941, flew from Moscow to Berlin. Bose’s journey from Calcutta to Berlin, full of thrilling details, was a historic one, and its nearest parellel is the escape of Shivaji from the clutches of Aurangzeb.Bose was well received by Ribbontrop, the right-hand man of Hitler, and proposed that (1) he would broadcast anti-British propaganda form Berlin; and (2) raise “Free Indian” units form Indian prisoners of war in Germany; while (3) the Axis Powers would jointly make a Declaration of Indian Independence.Neither Germany nor Italy agreed to the third proposal, but the other two were accepted.The idea of forming Indian military units got an impetus when Germany declared war against Russia on 22nd June, 1941. Bose had also founded Free India Centres in Rome and Paris and raised the legion to its full strength of 3000. But further activities in Germany were suddenly stopped when Bose heard of the phenomenal success of the Japanese against the British, culminating in the fall of Singapore.He instinctively felt that the Far East would provide a more advantageous base for fight against the British, and his presence was needed there.

INDIANS IN SOUTH-EAST ASIA.

The outbreak of war in the east in 1941 caused a great stirring among the Indians in these regions.Those living in territories freed from European domination organized themselves into associations with the twofold objects of contributing their quota to the liberation of India from the British Yoke and

359 serving the interests of the overseas Indians during the critical, transitory period.Such associations were established in a large number of towns, even in villages, and attained great popularity.Out of these associations was born the idea of an Indian Independence League, of which they regarded themselves as branches. A definite shape was given to this idea by the great Indian revolutionary, Rash-behari Bose, whose early activities in India have been referred to above.He had fled to Japan in June 1915, married a Japanese girl, and became a Japanese citizen. But he never ceased to work for his motherland, and it was mainly due to his inspiration and efforts that a conference was held at Tokyo from 28 to 30 March, 1942, for the discussion of political issues.

The Tokyo Conference passed a resolution to form an Indian National Army.An Indian Independence League of overseas Indians was provisionally established throughout Japanese Asia, and it was decided to hold a fully representative conference of Indians at Bangkok in June.This conference was held in Bangkok form 15th to 23rd June, 1942.It was attended by about 100 delegates form Burma, Malaya, Thailand, Indo-China, Philippines, Japan, China, Borneo, Java, Sumatra, Hong Kong and Andamans. Rash-behari Bose was elected Chairman.The tricolour flag was raised by Rash-behari Bose, and the Conference formally inaugurated the Indian Independence League (I.I.L) with a definite constitution.The object of the League was defined to be the attainment of complete and immediate independence of India.The Conference passed altogether 35 resolutions, including one inviting Subhas Bose to East Asia.In the meantime the nucleus of an Indian National Army had come into being.In December, 1941, when the Japanese invaded North Malaya and defeated the British forces there, Captain Mohan Singh and a small party with him, wandering in the forest, surrendered to the Japanese. He was taken to Bangkok by Giani Pritam Singh, a holy man who had set up an association there for the independence of India, of the type described above.

360 Both Giani Pritam Singh and Major Fuzihara, a Japanese military officer, tried to induce Mohan Singh to work for the independence of India.After a great deal of discussion Mohan Singh yielded to their persuasions.After the fall of Singapore on 15th February, 1942, Colonial. Hunt, on behalf of the British government, handed over 40,000 Indian prisoners of war to Major Fujiwara, representative of the Japanese government, who, in his turn, handed them over to Capt Mohan Singh.Mohan Singh now asked for volunteers from among the prisoners to join the Indian National Army (I.N.A) or Azad Hindusthan Fauz to be organized by him to fight along with the Japanese army, against the British in order to drive the latter form India. Many of them joined the I.N.A., but many refused to do so. By the end of August, 1942, forty thousand prisoners of war signed. A number of young men without any previous military training, also volunteered their services, and a military camp was opened for training them.Captain Mohan Singh attended the Bangkok conference, mentioned above which adopted the following resolutions, among others;

(1).That an Indian National Army be formed comprising the Indian troops and civilians of East Asia. Capt. Mohan Singh would be the Commander-in- Chief of this ‘Army of Liberation’ for India.The Indian Independence League would make arrangements for the supply of men, material, and money required by the Indian National Army, and would request the Japanese Government to supply the necessary arms and equipment, ships and aeroplanes required by the Indian National Army which would be commended entirely by Indian officers and would fight only for the liberation of India.

(2).That a Council occupation Action is established for carrying out all necessary actions in connection with the independence movement and prosecution of the War of Independence.

Rash-behari Bose was elected the President and Mohan Singh, one of the four members, took up the portfolio of the Army as well as the position of the Commander-in-Chief.On the 1st September, 1942, the Indian National Army

361 (I.N.A) was formally established.The Military department was organized with almost all its branches. Arrangements were also made for an intensive training of the men of I.N.A.To the normal physical training of the soldiers was added a type of mental training in order to rouse their national spirit and patriotism. For this purpose arrangement was made for lectures on national history with special reference to the condition of India under British rule.The trainees were urged to free their motherland from the foreign yoke and exhorted to adopt the three principles laid down by the Indian Independence League, viz. unity, faith and sacrifice.Unfortunately, the progress of work was hampered by internal dissensions and as soon as Subhas Bose arrived at Singapore, Rash-behari Bose surrendered his power and position to him.

SUBASH BOSE IN THE EAST.

Subash Bose accepted the invitation of the Bangkok conference, and on 8th February, 1943, accompanied by Abid Hassan (founder of the at Frankenburg), left Kiel in a German U-boat.The boat made a wide detour in the Atlantic to avoid the British ships, and met the Japanese submarine 129, which by previous arrangements, was waiting at a place four hundred miles S.S.W. of Medagascar.On 28th April Bose and his colleague were transferred by a rubber dinghy to the Japanese Submarine which took them across the Indian Ocean to Sumatra. They were met by a Japanese officer and arrived at Tokyo on 1st June, 1943. Bose was received by Tojo on the day after his arrival. The Japanese Premier was frank; whether India was invaded or not. She would come under Japanese control on the beyond the necessities of war, and intended her to be independent. Bose was encouraged in his project of a Provisional government which would take control of Indian territory as the Japanese forces moved on; he then heard Tojo make a declaration about India in the Diet: “Japan is firmly resolved to extend all means in order to help to expel and eliminate form India the Anglo-Saxon influences which are the enemy of the Indian people, and enable India to achieve full independence in the true sense of the term”

362 Subash Bose spoke form Tokyo, over the Radio, his determination to launch an armed fight against the British form India’s eastern borders.The overseas Indians were thrilled with delight at the prospect of participating in this great venture.When Bose arrived at Singapore on 2nd July, 1943, he was welcomed with tumultuous enthusiasm by an immense surging crowd who instinctively felt that at last the Man of Destiny had come to lead them on as victors to liberate their own motherland. On 4th July, Rash-behari Bose handed over the leadership of the Indian independence Movement in East Asia.He was hailed as Netaji-the supreme leader as in Germany, and henceforth he was always referred to by this honorific title. Netaji revealed to the gathering his decision to form a Professional Government of the Free India and to lead the Indian National Army towards India. Next day, he reviewed the Indian National Army and gave it the rousing war cries of “Chalo Delhi” (March to Delhi) and “Total Mobilisation”.

Immediately after taking over the leadership of the movement Netaji put through a comprehensive plan of reorganization and expansion of the League with a view to achieving these two goals. There was a through re organization of Recruitment and Training Departments.Training Campus were open for men as well as women, commands, orders and instructions being given in Hindustani.After about six month of intensive training the recruits were absorbed in to the I.N.A. Netaji also organized the civil departments that were already functioning at the headquarters and added new ones.Having thus made a good start Netaji inaugurated the Provisional Government. Delegates from all over Asia were summoned to Singapore. After discussing the matter with them Netaji summoned a public meeting at Cathay Hall on 21st October, 1943.There, before an almost hysteric crowd who stormed the precincts of the Cathay Hall and presented indescribable scenes of over powering feelings and emotions, Netaji read his famous proclamation setting up the Provisional Government of Free India at Singapore.On 23rd October, the Provisional Government, at a Cabinet meeting, decided to declare war on Britain and

363 U.S.A.The declaration was broad cast over radio by Boss himself and Sanskrit Francisco Radio communicated it to the world.

In a few days, 9 world powers – Japan, Germany, Italy, Croatia, Burma, Tai8land, Nationalist China, the Philippines and Manchuria-accorded there recognition to the Provisional Government of Azad Hind.“On the 28th of October, Netaji flew to Tokyo were he attended the Greater East Asia Conference in the first week of November, and was received by the Japanese Emperor with all honours due to the Head of the State and the Provisional Government of the Free India.“At the Greater East Asia Conference, Premier Tojo Announced on the 6th November, 1943, that Japan had decided to hand over the Andaman and Nicobar Islands to the Provisional Government of Azad Hind.Thus the Provisional Government acquired its first stretch of territory in Free India.”

I.N.A’s FIGHT FOR INDIA’S FREEDOM:

1. The status of I.N.A.

There was no doubt in the mind of Netaji and his followers that the main task of the Provisional Government was to take part in the Japanese offensive campaign against British India.Steps were accordingly taken to equip the I.N.A. properly for these purpose. But an unexpected difficulty presented itself at the very beginning.When Netaji first raised the question of I.N.A. participating in the proposed Japanese campaign against Imphal (in Manipur, India), Field-Marshal Count Terauchi, the Commander of all the Japanese forces in South-East Asia, expressed unwillingness to accept the proposal. Its soldiers, he said, had been demoralized by defeat in Malaya; they could not stand up to the rigours of the Japanese campaign, and would have an irresistible compulsion to cross over to their old friends and easier circumstances.He proposed that the Japanese Army should do all that was necessary to liberate India, that Bose himself should assist by enlisting the goodwill and co-operation of the Indian population, that the main part of the I.N.A. should be left in Singapore, and that only espionage and propaganda

364 groups should be used in the field.This proposal, which virtually meant that Netaji should merely play the role of the fifth columnist, gave a rude shock to him. He made a proud and dignified reply. “Any liberation of India secured through Japanese sacrifices” he said, “is worse than slavery”. He talked about the national honour of India, insisted that Indians must make the maximum contribution of blood and sacrifices themselves, and urged that the I.N.A. be allowed to form the spearhead of the coming offensive.Terauchi at last consented to the employment of one regiment as a trial. If this regiment came up to Japanese standard the rest of the army would be sent into action. He also agreed that some I.N.A. troops should remain attached to the different units of the Japanese army as irregulars.

2. General Plan and Military Operations.

After the main issue was thus settled, Netaji decided to raise a new brigade by selecting the best soldiers from the other three brigades, named after Gandhi, Azad, and Nehru, and that this brigade should go into action first. The regiment was raised at Taiping in Malaya, in September, 1943, and Shahnawaz Khan was appointed its commander.The soldiers themselves called it Subhas Brigade much against the will of Bose.On 24th January, 1944, General Katakura, Chief of the Japanese General Staff in Burma, met Netaji and Shahnawaz and discussed, behind closed doors, the general strategy of the impending campaign against India, and the role that had been assigned in it to the I.N.A.. Thereupon the Subhas Brigade was placed, for purposes of operations only, under the direct command of Japanese General Headquarters in Burma. The role allotted to the Subhas Brigade was as follows:

Battalion No. 1 was to proceed via. Prome to the Kaladan Valley in Arakan.The Battalions Nos. 2 and 3 were to proceed via Mandalay and Kalewa to the Chin Hill areas of Haka and Falam.On 4th February, 1944, the 1st Battalion of the Subhas Brigade left Rangoon by train for Prome. From Prome they marched on foot and arrived at Kyauktaw (in Akyab) on the

365 Kaladan River, suffering casualties on the way from aerial bombing of the enemy. Here they formed the base in the middle of March, 1944, and inflicted a defeat upon the much-praised Negro troops from West Africa in the British army, while engaged in constructing a bridge over the Kaladan.

The Indian battalion, reinforced by Japanese troops, then advanced along both the banks of the Kaladan for about fifty miles north to Paletwa. After a severe fight they captured it and also another place, Daletme, in the neighbourhood. From Daletme they could see the frontier of India forty miles to the west, and were very eager to reach it.The nearest British post on the Indian side was Mowdok, about fifty miles to the east of Cox Bazar.It was captured by a surprise attck during night (May, 1944) and the enemy fled in panic leaving large quantities of arms, ammunitions and rations. “The entry of the I.N.A. on Indian Territory was a most touching scene.Soldiers laid themselves flat on the ground and passionately kissed the sacred soil of their motherland which they had set out to liberate. A regular flag-hosting ceremony was held amidst great rejoicing and singing of the Azad Hind Fauz National Anthem”.On account of the difficulty of supply as well as impending counter- attack by the British forces, the Japanese forces decided to withdraw from Mowdok and advised the I.N.A. commander to do the same.The I.N.A. officers with one voice refused to do so. “No, Sir”, they told their Commander, “the Japanese can retreat because Tokyo lies that way; our goal – the Red Fort, Delhi – lies ahead, of us. We have orders to go to Delhi. There is no going back for us”.

The Commanding Officer of the I.N.A. thereupon decided to leave one Company under the command of Capt. Suraj Material at Mowdok to guard the flag and withdraw the remainder.The Japanese, admiring the spirit – almost a suicidal role – of the I.N.A. men, left one platoon of their own troops to share the fate of the Indians.These Japanese troops were put under direct command of Capt. Suraj Material. “It was probably the first time in the history of the ajp army that their troops had been placed under command of a foreign officer”.

366 Evidently moved by this heroic sacrifice and the brilliant record of the I.N.A. men, “the Japanese Commander-in-Chief in Burma went to Netaji, and bowing before hijm, said: “Your Excellency, we were wrong.We misjudged the soldiers of the I.N.A. We know now that they are no mercenaries, but real patriots”.Capt. Suraj Material and his band of heroic fighters stayed at Mowdok from May to Sept, 1944. During this period they were constantly attacked by the British forces but always succeeded in repulsing them.

The 2nd and the 3rd Battalion took over the charge of Falam and Haka from the Japanese.The area was infested by British guerilla forces, and the I.N.A., by sudden attacks, inflicted severe defeats upon them. Some of their exploits were highly creditable. Special mention may be made of the rout of Major Manning’s forces at Klankhua, the successful defence of the post on the Klang Klang Road by 20 men of the I.N.A. against 100, and the capture of the British stronghold at Klang Klang.The Japanese were satisfied of the military skill and efficiency of the I.N.A., and issued instructions “that the main body of the Brigade would proceed to Kohima and would be prepared, on the fall if Imphal, to advance rapidly and cross the brahmaputra into the heart of Bengal”.Accordingly, about 150 and 300 men of the I.N.A. were left, respectively at Haka and Falam, and the rest marched towards Kohima, the capital of the Naga Hills in Assam.It had been already captured by the Japanese forces accompanied by small detachments of I.N.A. who hoisted the tricolour flag on the hill tops. But by the end of May when the regular I.N.A. troops arrived, the military position of the Japanese forces in the area had changed for the worse. A few days later the Japanese forces, and the I.N.A. with them, had to withdraw to the east bank of the Chindwin River. Thus ended the career of the Subhas Brigade.

The Gandhi Brigade was ordered to proceed towards Imphal which was besieged by the Japanese forces. Its fall was supposed by both sides to be impending, and a severe fight was gpomg pm a; pmg the Tavazhimu-Palel road leading to Imphal.The Gandhi Brigade was instructed to carry out guerilla

367 activity against the enemy forces and won several victories, the most memorable operation being the successful defence of the height around Mythun Khunou by 600 I.N.A. men against a whole British Brigade, 3,000 strong, supported by heavy artillery and aeroplanes.This happened in June, 1944, but shortly after this the position of the Japanese forces changed for the worse for failure to take Imphal.Three special auxiliary units of the I.N.A. were attached to the Japanese force attacking Imphal. These crossed the Indology- Burma frontier and planted the national Tricolour flag for the first time on the liberated Indian soil on 19 March, 1944.There was tremendous enthusiasm and the Indian troops vied with one another to be the first set foot on the free Indian soil. On the same day, Tojo, the Prime Minister of Japan, stated in the Diet that the Provisional Government of Azad Hind would administer the occupied territory.

As mentioned above, the Japanese were somewhat over-sanguine about the capture of Imphal at an early date. Possibly the idea was due to the easy capture of Singapore, and would most probably have been realized but for the entanglements of the Japanese with the Americans in the Pacific.The Japanese had to withdraw their aeroplanes from the Indology-Burma border to the Pacific zone, and this enabled thebr to bring full one division by air from the Arakans. The Japanese calculation was that they would capture Imphal by the middle of May at the latest, and then the advent of monsoon would make British counter-attack impossible, enabling the Japanese to consolidate their position and, if possible, tocross the Brahmaputra into Bengal and Bihar. But the monsoon started before the fall of Imphal, and by the end of June, 1944, it became almost impossible to supply rations and ammunition to the forces besieging Imphal. This, together with the constantly increasing pressure of the British reinforcements – thanks to the absence of Japanese aeroplanes – forced the Japanese, and the I.N.A. along with them, to withdraw to the east bank of the Chindwin.Summing up the whole situation, Shahnawaz Khan, the Commander of the Subhas Brigade, writes: “Thus ended the main I.N.A. and Japanese offensive which had been started in March, 1944. During this period

368 the I.N.A., with much inferior equipments and an extremely poor supply system was able to advance as much as 150 miles into Indian Territory. While the I.N.A. was on the offensive, there was not a single occasion on which our forces were defeated on the battlefield, and there was never an occasion when the enemy, despite their overwhelming superiority in men and material, was able to capture any post held by the I.N.A. On the other hand, there were very few cases where I.N.A. attacked British posts and failed to capture them. In these operations the I.N.A. lost nearly 4000 men as killed alone”.

3. The last Phase.

The British began their counter-offensive in the cold season of 1944-45. Arakan was cleared of enemy troops and the British advanced towards Burma. The Japanese retreated. Rangoon, which was left in the hands of the I.N.A. after its evacuation by the Japanese, was occupied by the British early in May, 1945.The I.N.A. men were disarmed and made prisoners.The Indian Independence Movement in South-East Asia collapsed.Netaji left Burma in the hope of renewing the fight – a hope that was never to be realized. It is unnecessary to describe in detail his “historic twenty-one-day trek over three hundred miles from Rangoon to Bangkok, his flight to Singapore to carry on non-stop broadcasting campaign addressed to India against the Wavell offer in June-July (1945), the Japanese surrender of mid-August, and finally his last flight from (Bangkok via) Saigon”. After that there is a blank.

Netaji left Bangkok with a single companion in a twin-engined Japanese bomber carrying senior Japanese officers to Tokyo via Dairen in Manchuria. It arrived safely at Taipei (Taihoku) in Formosa at about 2 p.m. on18th August. After lunch it left Taipei.This is all that is definitely known.What happened after this is uncertain.The Japanese official version, issued at the time, was that almost immediately after the plane had taken off, it caught fire. Netaji, badly burnt, somehow came out of the plane, and was removed to a hospital where he died that very night, between 8 and 9 p.m.This story was discredited in

369 India from the very beginning.The Government of Free India evidently shared the suspicions of the public and appointed a Committee of Inquiry.The majority of the members held that the official versionwas substantially correct, but one member – the elder brother of Netaji – disagreed and pointed out many serious flaws in the method of inquiry.There the matter rests, and the end of this valiant fighter for freedom is shrouded in mystery. Very few outside the official circles attched any importance to the report of the Committee of Inquiry which did not take the evidence of the fellow-passengers ofni, nor visited the aero-drome of Taipei where the accident is supposed to have occurred.A few years later, Satya Narain Sinha visited the site and met at least one official who was there on 18 August, 1945, the day of the accident. Sinha was convinced by his testimony as well as the records that no plane accident occurred there on that date.Pursuing his inquiry with admirable energy and patience; he could trace definitely the further progress ofni’s journey. The result of this inquiry may be summed up as follows:

Netaji’s plane halted at Taipei for refueling and took off for Dairen (in Manchuria) at 14:30 hours on 18th August.He arrived safely at Dairen and stayed there in disguise even after it was occupied by the Russians. But his identity was discovered by the Russian officers. He was looked upon as a friend and partisan of the German Nazis and was transporoted to Siberia. No further information could be gathered by Sinha about Netaji’s life behind the iron curtain.The truth of Sinha’s story has not been tested by either the Government of India or any other public body, though it regularly appeared in the Sunday issues of the Hindusthan Standard, Calcutta, in April, 1965. A large section of Indians believe that Netaji certainly did not die at Taipei, and is probably still alive.

In spite of failure, the I.N.A. occupies an important place in the history of India’s struggle for freedom.The formation of this force and its heroic exploits proved beyond doubt that the British could no longer rely upon the Indian sepoys to maintain their hold on India.The universal sympathy expressed all

370 over India for the I.N.A. officers, when they were tried for treason in the Red Fort at Delhi, gave a rude shock to the British, inasmuch as it clearly demonstrated that Indians of all shades of opinion put a premium on the disloyalty of the Indian troops to their foreign masters and looked upon it as a true and welcome sign of nationalism.The honour and esteem with which every Indian regarded the members of the I.N.A. offered a striking contrast to the ill- concealed disgust and contempt for those sepoys who refused to join the I.N.A. and remained true to their salt.Incredible though it may seem, it is none the less true, that even the stories of oppression and torture suffered by the latter for their loyalty evoked no sympathy for them in the hearts of the Indians who remained absolutely unmoved.All these opened the eyes of the British to their perilous situation in India.They realized that they were sitting on the brink of a volcano which might erupt at any moment.As will be shown later, this consideration played an important role in theirfinal decision to quit India.So the members of the I.N.A. did not die or suffer in vain, and their leader, Netaji Subhas Bose, has secured a place of honour in the history of India’s struggle for freedom.

CHAPTER-V

INDEPENDENCE AND PARTITION

When the cease-fire sounded ine the position of the Indian government seemed stronger than at any time since 1942. It enjoyed the prestige of success and evident strength. The caravan was passing on steadily to victory. But the apparent calm of Indian politics was superficial and deceptive. It was the last manifestation in the British period of the Indian genius for accepting a situation too intractable to be altered, and of biding one’s time for a more favourable moment.Beneath the surface the same tensions persisted, and indeed were growing more acute.The Congress was even more suspicious of

371 the British in victory than they had been of them in defeat. Imperfectly aware, in spite of the precedent of 1919, of the exhaustion which cripples even the victorious in total war, Indian leaders could not believe that the British would ‘stand and deliver’ from the plenitude of power.Were not their expressions of benevolence merely a further example of British hypocrisy, and was not their constant harping on minority rights a subtle device to sabotage the idea of anindt India by encouraging Muslim truculence?In spite of the long succession of League victories inboth central and provincial elections, the Congress leaders did not yet believe that there was substance behind the demand for Pakistan,Firmness, they thought, could still secure a united independent India on their own terms.Jinnah and the League leaders, on the other hand, were equally suspicious of Congress intentions.They were also conscious of greatly increased strength.They were not yet irrevocably committed to outright partition, in spite of their public declarations, any more than the Congress itself had been after its declaration of independence in 1928, but they believed that the pressing of their claims was the only way to secure the future of their community.Between Congress suspicion of the British, Muslim suspicion of the Congress, and Congress underestimation of League strength, the path of British statesmanship towards the goal of Indian self-government was bound to be hard and stony.

Lord Wavell had succeeded Lord Linlithgow as Viceroy in the autumn of 1943.Thus far his administration had been conspicuously successful. He had been conciliatory but quite firm towards Congress; he had dealt vigorously with the Bengal famine and had instituted a steadily improving control over the whole food administration; he had presided over a steadily expanding war effort in an atmosphere of growing success; he had kept inflation within bounds; his presence and prestige exuded strength and confidence. He had now to face a wholly different task.He had first to convince two highly critical bodies of the reality of British sincerity and then to persuade two mutually highly suspicious bodies that co-operation, with its attendant give and take, was both necessary and feasible.Failure meant partition with all its

372 incalculable consequences.It is easy to see, at even this short distance of time that the dice of fortune was heavily loaded against him. Nevertheless he bent himself manfully to the task.

Wavell’s first move was to attempt the formation of a national administration as contemplated in the Cripps proposals (which had never been withdrawn).This would complete the war with Japan (then expected to last another year) and then arrange for the promised Constituent Assembly. Conversations were held in June 1945, but they broke down on the allotment of seats in the Executive Council and the Congress refusal to accept the League’s claim to be the sole representatives of Muslim opinion.The sudden ending of the Japanese war in August made the situation more urgent. Wavell now put the controversy over the League’s representative claim to the test of a general election, both provincial and central. This occupied the winter of 1945- 6 while tension gradually mounted. It now became clear that the League dominated Muslim opinion almost as completely as the Congress dominated Hindu. In the key province of the Punjab, the Unionist party, long infiltrated by League sentiment, almost disappeared, and its rump under Sir Khizr Hayat Khan Tiwana could only continue in office with the help of the Congress.The carefully devised weightage system here placed a minority government in power in circumstances of rising passion.A short-lived naval mutiny in February 1946 revealed the narrow margin by which the British continued to maintain order of a kind.

The new British government now intervened directly. A cabinet mission led by Lord Pethwick-Lawrence, now a leading member of the new government, and consisting besides of Sir Stafford Cripps and Mr. A.V. (later Viscount) Alexander, visited India in April.After further efforts at mediation between the parties the mission made its own proposals in May. The aim was still to preserve a united India while giving reasonable satisfaction ot Muslim claims to autonomy.The method proposed was an ingenious modification of the earlier Cripps offer.There was to be a federal union controlling defence,

373 foreign affairs, and communications, and consisting of the British Indian provinces.The states were to be included after negotiation.There were two new features.The powers of the federal government were reduced (in accordance with Muslim desires) and individual provinces were to be at liberty to form subordinate unions of their own. Each of these was to decide for itself the p[owers it would exercise outside the range of the federal subjects. On this basis a constituent Assembly would be convened representing all parties, and once more it was proposed to form an interim national government. This was Pakistan in parvo and seemed to open an avenue for the reconciliation of a united India with Muslim autonomy.

For a moment there was a gleam of hope, for both sides accepted the plan as a basis for action. But breakdown once more occurred over the communal allotment of seats. The Congress insisted on appointing a Muslim to one of their five seats and thus reducing League representation to four; the League insisted on parity and refused to work with nationalist Muslims whom they regarded as traitors to their cause. When the Congress refused to precede the League offered to take office alone and resented the Viceroy’s refusal to proceed with one party only. When, a few weeks later, the Congress repented and the Viceroy admitted their leaders to office with Nehru as Vice-President of the Council, the League denounced the action as a breach of faith and proclaimed a ‘’ on 16th August. The tension could no longer be restrained within peaceful bounds, and to the bloody August riots in Calcutta (where Hindus were the sufferers) was added the communal outbreak in Bihar (where Muslims were the victims). There were also outbreaks in East Bengal and the United Provinces.The hope of a united independent India was extinguished in the blood and monsoon passion of 1946. Partition was not the only possible solution, though it took another 9 months to convince all parties of the fact. These months were passed instrain and mounting misery. In October 1946 the League joined the Executive Concil. But it was soon seen that they had come to curse and not to bless. Pandit Nehru found himself in real danger when he visited the north-west in

374 the same month; it became obvious that the Frontier would not stand for Hindu rule, Red Shirts, and the Frontier Gandhi notwithstanding.The Constituent Assembly met in December only to be boycotted by the League. Early in the New Year there followed the fall of the Khizr ministry in the Punjab to the accompaniment of fighting which destroyed Amritsar and Multan.Section 93 rule and suppressed civil war succeeded the feeble directives of a minority ministry. Something had to be done and done quickly.

Once more the British cabinet directly intervened, Pandit Nehru, Mr. Jinnah (now the Qaid-i-Azam or great leader), and Sardar Baldev Singh (a Sikh leader) were called to London for discussion, but these were as fruitless as before.In a last effort to dissipate suspicion it was announced on 20th February 1947 that June 1948 had been determined as the date of the withdrawal of British power.At the same time Lord Wavell was recalled in favour of Lord Mountbatten, who was charged with the preparation of a procedural plan. But neither the persuasions of London, nor the shock of an imminent political vacuum, nor the stimulus of a new personality could now break the Congress-League deadlock. Mr. Jinnah saw victory in sight, ‘The Muslim League will not yield an inch in its demand for Pakistan’, he said. He had so cast Congress tactics back upon itself that it was that body itself which now began to see in partition the only alternative to prolonged civil war and fearful destruction of human life.In May they themselves proposed the partition of the Punjab as the only alternative to civil war.

Lord Mountbatten soon convinced himself that Pakistan was now the only alternative to anarchy. A visit home secured the consent of the cabinet for this plan. On 3rd June he announced the British government’s acceptance of the principles of partition, a procedural plan for carrying it through, and an acceleration of the date of British withdrawal to 14th August.The plan was accepted on the same day by Congress, League, and Sikhs.Each party professed dissatisfaction but each believed that they would gain nothing further by fighting.The Sikhs were the least satisfied, and a powerful section

375 determined to fight in any case, but they were the weakest party of the three and suffered from divisions and poor leadership.The least common denominator of Indian power politics had at last been discovered.

The plan worked smoothly and was carried through with remarkable address by the Viceroy. In essence it was a further adaptation of the Cripps offer of 1942, implemented by a master of ruch tactics. The partition of the Punjab and Bengal was recognized, provided that the Legislative Assemblies, voting if necessary by communities, asked for it. Boundary commissions were to determine the actual frontiers. In Sind the decision for partition rested with the Legislative Assembly.In the Frontier Province, where the Red Shirt ministry retained a precarious hold, a referendum was to be held to decide the future of the province, and the same held good for the district of Sylhet in Assam.Thus Pakistan, with its eastern and western wings, came into existence, and with India formed two new dominions in the British Commonwealth of Nations.Each had its own Constituent Assembly and arrangements were made for the proportional sharing of assets and liabilities. Lord Mountbatten became the first Governor-General of the Indian dominion and Mr. Jinnah of Pakistan.Only the states remained to be fitted into the picture. The British treaties were ended and with it British paramountcy; each state became in theory independent, but with a strong hint from the departingbr that they should associate themselves with one or other of the dominions.

Thus the British period in India came to an end after nearly three and a half centuries of trading, two centuries of political power, and a hundred and thirty years of general supremacy. The dream of Macaulay, Elphinstone, and their contemporaries came true in a way that they would not have expected. They might have disapproved in part, but on the whole they would have felt that their prescience had been justified. For the India which the in 1947 differed greatly from the archaic country which their diplomacy and arms had mastered a century and a half before. If there was not aclass ‘of Indians in

376 blood and colour but English in taste, in morals and in intellect’, as Macaulay and Munro had hoped for, a radical transformation had in fact taken place. Not only the external conditions of life but the soul of India itself had been greatly changed. The pessimism of the Punjab school of cuvukuabs had been disproved.While the superstructure of Indian society remained impressive to the casual observer, ideals and ideas from the West, new values along with new institutions had taken root in the country.The process had continued with gathering force beneath nostalgic cultural archaism fostered by growing national sentiment.The very weapons and arguments used by Congress against the British were largely of western provenance. India broke her British fetters with western hammers. And it was significant of the community of ideas between the two sides that the fetters were never in fact broken by force, but began to be removed by one side as soon as they began to be rattled by the other.

WHY ENGLAND GAVE INDIA INDEPENDENCE?

1. 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.The 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 had shown that the people of India could go to any length to bring to an end the British Raj in the country. They made tremendous sacrifices to paralyse the administrative machinery. The British Government was fully aware 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 “Delli Chalo” made the British Government realize the folly of resisting the demand of the people of India for independence.

2. Another cause was that the British Government lost faith in the loyalty of the armed forces in India, particularly the Navy.Throughout; Great Britain had relied upon force and military superiority for maintaining its hold over India.

377 Force was always available to crush any revolt on the part of the Indians. However, circumstances changed to such an extent during the Second World War that theloyalty of the Indian forces could not be depended upon. Thousands of Indians from all over India joined the armed forces during the Second World War.They not only fought for the victory of the Allied Powers but also hoped that India would get independence after the war. No wonder when the war was over, these persons began to clamour for the freedom of India.They were willing to give a helping hand to the nationalist movement in the country.Political consciousness was visible in the armed forces of the country.On 19 February 1946, the Ratings of the Royal Indian Navy stopped work and gave a notice to the Government that unless their demands were met by a particular date, they would resign en bloc.There were strikes at the Air Force bases.Signs of open revolt were visible in Bombay, Calcutta and Karachi.It is true that the revolts were crushed but a feeling was created among the British that they could not keep India under their control with the help of the Indian forces.The British troops in the Indian Ocean could help in maintaining British control over India for some time, but that could not continue for long.It was under these circumstances that the British Government decided to withdraw from India.

3. After the end of the Second World War, the British authorities decided to try Colonial. Shah Nawaz.Captain Sehgal and Dhillon and other members of the Indian National Army for the crime of waging war against the King-Emperor before a Court Martial.There was a lot of agitation in the country against the decision of the Government.On 22 September 1945, the Co Working Committee appointed a committee to defend the I.N.A. men. The trial started on 5 November 1945 in the Red Fort of Delhi and lasted up to 31 December. The decision was announced on 3 January 1946 and Shah Nawaz, Sehgal andDhillon were found guilty and sentenced to transportation for life. Many more trials were held and the accused were found guilty. During the trial, the sufferings of the I.N.A. officers and men came to light. The arguments put forward by the defence counsel were published in the newspapers and read

378 by millions of Indians.Shah Nawaz, Sehgal and Dhillon became popular heroes.There were mass demonstrations throughout the country for their release.On certain occasion, the police resorted to firing and many Indians lost their lives. The result was that Field Marshal Auchin leck, Commander-in- Chief of India, granted clemency to Shah Nawaz, Sehgal and Dhillon. On 6 February 1946, the Government of India announced its decision not to proceed any further with the trials and consequently cases against the rest of the I.N.A. men were withdrawn. After their release, the I.N.A. officers and men toured all over the country and they were greeted with cries of “Jai Hindusthan”. So great was the enthusiasm among the people that the English began to feel that it was not possible for them to keep India in chains.

3. There had been a feeling in India that the British power was invincible. However, this impression was removed during the Second World War as a result of themilitary reverses suffered by the British troops at thehands of the Japanese.British troops were forced to evacuate Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaya and Burma.Their best ships, “The Repulse” and “Prince of Wales”, were sunk.Great Britain was not in a position “to demonstrate in Asia the background of strength and influence which had for so long enabled her to rule a million people with one man on the spot”.

4. Great Britain had to spend so much during the Second World War that she was completely exhausted.She was forced to borrow on an enormous scale. She had to depend upon other countries not only for foodstuffs but also for raw materials to run her factories.She depended upon American help in every field.The Englishmen had too many problems to tackle at home.It was felt that it was not wise to keep herself involved in India when all her energy was required at home.The American Government also put pressure on the British Government to grant India independence as the Allied Powers had been fighting for freedom and democracy.Even die-hards like Churchill began to feel that it was not of any advantage to keep India under bondage.

379 5. Mr. Attlee, Prime Minister of England at that time, had a lot to do with the grant of independence to India.He had always taken keen interest in the Indian affairs.When he became Prime Minister of England in 1945, he came to the conclusion that even if Great Britain was able to keep India in bondage with the help of force, that was not profitable to her as by doing so, she was bound to lose the goodwill of the people of India and in that case, the Indology-British relations were bound to suffer in the long run. His view was that Great Britain was bound to gain if she was able to win the goodwill of the people of India by giving them independence.To begin with, he sent the Cabinet Mission to India, but when that failed, he sent Lord Mountbatten to complete the process of transfer of power in India.

6. Another reason why Great Britain decided to leave India was that she got involved in the cold war after the Second World War.Both the united States and the Soviet Union accused each other.The Russians had an advantage over the Americans in the cold war.They could always point out the fact that Great Britain was keeping India in chains.Great Britain could be in a better position if she granted India independence.

7. A large number of persons advocated the cause of India’s freedom abroad. Among them were Louis Fischer, Pearl Buck, Lin Yu-tang, Norman Thomas and J.J. Singh.The Indian viewpoint was put forward before the Conference at Sanskrit Francisco which met to finalise the Charter of the United Nations. Great Britain was not only a signatory to the Charted but her delegates played an important part in framing it. This fact was bound to affect the attitude of the British Government towards India. She could not talk of freedom for all while keeping India in bondage.

8. Another factor which influenced the British decision to leave India was a change in the concept of the British Commonwealth.In July 1947; the Commonwealth Relations Office was set up. It the British could treat other Dominions in that manner; there was no reason why the same could not be done with regard to India.It was felt that even after India was given

380 independence, she could be persuaded to be a part and parcel of the Commonwealth of Nations and hence no loss to Great Britain.

9.The view of Maulana Azad was that the British Government decided to leave India only after making sure that she could continue to have a foot-hold on the Indian sub-continent.The British decision to partition India and then to transfer power was the culmination of the policy of “divide and rule”.The partition of India in which the Muslim majority provinces formed a separate and independent state would give Britain a foot-hold in India.A state dominated by the Muslim League would offer a permanent sphere of influence to Great Britain.

10. We are reliably informed by some respectable Indians who returned to India from England during the year immediately following 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 the independence, the Indians might be able to improve their economic condition. That explains the unanimous support given by the members of Parliament to the Indian Independence Bill in July 1947.

11. The view of Prime Minister Attlee was that the independence of India was the fulfillment 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.

THE FACTORS THAT MADE THE PARTITION OF THE COUNTRY INEVITABLE.

The British Government throughout its rule in India followed a policy of economic exploitation.As a result people lost all their faith in the British. So much so that even the police and a part of the armed forces started showing disrespect and disobedience towards the British Government. People in India were bent on achieving independence for Indian and that they did. However,

381 the way power was transferred from the British to the Indian hands was unique in the history of the world. It was done with decency and good grace. Besides the Indian attempts other factors also weighed with the British. These were the weakened position of England during and after the Second World War and the force of world opinion.That much about India’s achieving independence. But now the question is whether this partition was inevitable. The answer to this question is: yes, it was.The following were the factors which made the partition imperative.

1. Hindu Communalism:- The blame for the culmination of Muslim separation in the demand for Pakistan must also be shared by certain Hindu organizations like the Hindu Mahasabha.In its early stages the Hindu Mahasabha was led by certain staunch nationalists like Pt. Malvia and Lala Lajpat Rai but later on certain conservative and reactionary elements gradually assumed a dominating position.By 1937, V.D. Sararvar was preaching his doctrine of Hindu Rashtra. In 1939, he asserted: “Our politics henceforth will be purely Hindu politics. Such like ideas did not light the fire but it did feed the flames of communal strife and helped to drive Muslims into the arms of Pakistan.

2. Manoeuvres by the Muslim League: The British did not want to leave India a powerful country and a great nation of the world. India undivided would have been very strong.They wanted to make India weak and powerless. Therefore, they encouraged the Muslim League to have the country partitioned.This conspiracy of the English and the Muslim League made the latter and its leader, Mr. Mohammad Ali Jinnah, clamour for the creation of Pakistan.Since they were encouraged by the British in every way, the members of the Muslim League started Direct Action.A sort of conspiracy was hatched against the innocent Hindus in Muslim majority provinces. Hindus were slaughtered and their houses were burnt and so on.Then the Hindus woke up and another round of slaughter, burning and loot went afoot. These communal riots created anarchy in the whole of India. Law and order was

382 always in danger.The British Government distinctly failed to cope with the situation.This venom could be traced to the direct and indirect encouragement given by the British Government to the Muslim League and their step-motherly treatment to the Congress.

3. Interim Government and League: The Cabinet Mission Plan of 1946 was accepted by the Muslim League and the Congress.The then Viceroy and Governor-General, Lord Wavell, invited Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru to form the Interim Government.However the Muslims declined to join the Interim Government and declared to observe16th August, 1946 as the Direct Action Day.Riots broke out in Calcutta on August 16, 1946 and they ran for four days or so. Thousands of innocent people were brutally slaughtered and immense property was burnt or damaged.The Interim Government was formed by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru on September 2, 1946, without the representative of the Muslim League. Later on, the Muslim League decided to join the Interim Government with the idea of wrecking the administration from within.On 15th October, 1946 five representatives of the Muslim League entered the Government with their pre-plans.Naturally then when the Constituent Assembly met on 9th December, 1946, the Muslims refused point blank to participate in its deliberations. The Congress blamed the British Government, particularly Lord Wavell for bring-

HOW INDEPENDENCE WAS ACHIEVED?

The Indian Independence Act drafted in Delhi which came into effect on 15th August 1947 provided for two Independent dominions – India and Pakistan.Thus the long awaited dawn of independence by the Indians became a reality.But the students of history is often baffled at the question that “Why did the British decide to Quit India on 15th August 1947 “? The general feeling about the decision of the British was that the foreigners were tired of the prolonged struggle for freedom waged by the people of India.But the withdrawal of the British from India was the logic of history.

383 A small country with limited resources controlling a big country with unlimited resources using the army and constabulary constituted by the people of the conquered country will have to succumb if the rules demand rulers to quit their home land. Although the British were able to withstand the Non-violent agitations organized by the Indian National Congress and the violent methods resorted by the revolutionary terrorists, the British Government was totally helpless after the Second World World War.Indeed Great Britain was able to bring the ‘Facist reactionaries’ to the knees.But Britain was totally exhausted in this effort.The irreparable losses incurred by the Great Britain in the Great War compelled her to abandon the ‘brightest gem on the crown of English King – India. Added to this the defiant mood of the Indian soldiers and sailors during the RIN mutiny of 1946 disheartened the British Statesmen.So in an attempt to avert a pathetic and humiliating situation for his countrymen who had been controlling India for the last 190 years, Clement Atlee sent Lord Mount Batten to India to expedite the withdrawal of the British.

A group of scholars believed that the British could not withstand the popular struggle carried out by the Indian National Congress headed by Mahatma Gandhi.Under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi the congress launched three major nation wide agitations based on the principle of Ahimsa. They were the Non-co-operation Movement during the early 20’s the Civil- Disobedience Movement during the early30’s and the Quit India Movement during the early 40’s of the 20th century.The Gandhian struggle had already attracted the world attention towards the grievances and demands of the people of India, On the occasion of the Dandi March Gandhi had declared that the purpose of the Dandi March. He said “I want World sympathy in this battle of right against might “.The Irish people extended their moral support to the Indians during the Home Rule Movement.Chiang-Kai Shek of China and Franklin D Roosevelt of the U.S. exerted pressure on Wintson Churchill to consider the demands of the Indians during World War II. All these incidents

384 show that the Gandhian struggle were able to attract the attention of the International community towards the ongoing freedom struggle of India.

Another group of scholars held the view that the change of guards in England after the General Election of 1945 facilitated an atmosphere favourable of India’s independence.The conservative party was defeated in the General Election; the Indian masses heaved a sigh of relief, because Churchill was dead against granting independence for India. He had already stated that he is not going to be “the first minister of His Majesty’s Government to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire “.But the labour party headed by voted to power was ideologically committed to the cause of Indian freedom.As expected by the Indians Clement Attlee took a bold step towardsa the demand of the Indians. He sent a Cabinet Mission to India to take stock of the political situation in India. He then withdrew Viceroy Lord Wavell and appointed Lord Mount Batten as new Viceroy with plenipotentiary powers.The assignment given to Lord Mount Batten was “to expedite the withdrawl” of the British from India. But leaders of the Communist Party of India such as S.A. Dange and P.C.Joshi did not consider the transfer of power that had taken place on 15th August 1947 as real independence of India.They held the view that what has happened on 15th August 1947 was a mere transfer of power from “imperialist bourgeoisie “to “National bourgeise “. They held the view that only when the representatives of the toiling masses, workers and peasants get the opportunity to take the rein of administration of the country, the real independence of India can be achieved.

Historians like Sumit Sarkar held the view that the popular risings in various parts of India in the wake of the Second World World War compelled the British to Quit India.The sensational INA trial and the Rin mutiny created a favourable political climate in India.Added to these developments the peasants uprisings such as Punnapra Vayalar and Thebhaga Movement of Bengal accelerated the process of Independence.But this view was countered by Suchetha Mahajan who believed that the impact of the local uprisings is

385 being exaggerated.The local uprisings of the last phase of the freedom struggle can only be counted as “the last staw on Camels back”.

======

386