Datasets:

cashu

/

indian-history2

like 0

attended by Swami Shraddhaflafld, Hakim Ajmal Khan and others. The Congress Working Committee appointed a committee to investigate the conduct of the police.

<s>[INST]attended by Swami Shraddhaflafld, Hakim Ajmal Khan and others. The Congress Working Committee appointed a committee to investigate the conduct of the police.[/INST]

216 | India’s Struggle For Independence Once again the Government had to climb down. As a face saving dev ice, it persuaded a retired Government servant to lease the disputed land from the mahant and then allow the Akalis to cut the trees. It also released all the arrested Akali volunteers. With the Gurdwaras under the control of the SGPC, the militant Akalis looked for some other opportunity of confr onting the Government since they felt that the larger Gurdwara -— the country was not yet liberated. In September 1923, the SGPC took up the cause of the Maharia of Nabba who had been forced by the Government to abdicate. This led to the famous morcha at Jaito in Nabha. But the Akalis could not achieve much success on the issue since it neither involved religion nor was there much support in the rest of the country. In the meanwhile, the Government had succeeded in winning over the moderate Akalis with the promise of legislation which was passed in July 1925 and which ha nded over control over all the Punjab Gurdwaras to an elected body of Sikhs which also came to be called the SGPC. Apart from its own achievement, the Akali Movement made a massive contribution to the political development of Punjab. It awakened the Punja b peasantry. As Mohinder Singh, the historian of the Aka li Movement, has pointed out: ‘It was only during the Akali move ment that the pro -British feudal leadership of the Sikhs was replaced by educated middle -class nationalists and the rural and urban clas ses united on a common platform during the two-pronged Akali struggle.’ This movement was also a model of a movement on a religious issue which was utterly non-communal. To further quote Mohinder Singh: ‘It was this idea of Liberation of the country from a foreign Government that united all sections of the Sikh community and brought the Hindus, the Muslims and the Sikhs of the province into the fold of the Akali movement.’3 The Akali Movement also awakened the

<s>[INST]216 | India’s Struggle For Independence Once again the Government had to climb down. As a face saving dev ice, it persuaded a retired Government servant to lease the disputed land from the mahant and then allow the Akalis to cut the trees. It also released all the arrested Akali volunteers. With the Gurdwaras under the control of the SGPC, the militant Akalis looked for some other opportunity of confr onting the Government since they felt that the larger Gurdwara -— the country was not yet liberated. In September 1923, the SGPC took up the cause of the Maharia of Nabba who had been forced by the Government to abdicate. This led to the famous morcha at Jaito in Nabha. But the Akalis could not achieve much success on the issue since it neither involved religion nor was there much support in the rest of the country. In the meanwhile, the Government had succeeded in winning over the moderate Akalis with the promise of legislation which was passed in July 1925 and which ha nded over control over all the Punjab Gurdwaras to an elected body of Sikhs which also came to be called the SGPC. Apart from its own achievement, the Akali Movement made a massive contribution to the political development of Punjab. It awakened the Punja b peasantry. As Mohinder Singh, the historian of the Aka li Movement, has pointed out: ‘It was only during the Akali move ment that the pro -British feudal leadership of the Sikhs was replaced by educated middle -class nationalists and the rural and urban clas ses united on a common platform during the two-pronged Akali struggle.’ This movement was also a model of a movement on a religious issue which was utterly non-communal. To further quote Mohinder Singh: ‘It was this idea of Liberation of the country from a foreign Government that united all sections of the Sikh community and brought the Hindus, the Muslims and the Sikhs of the province into the fold of the Akali movement.’3 The Akali Movement also awakened the[/INST]

of the Akali movement.’3 The Akali Movement also awakened the people of the princely states of Punjab to political consciousness and political activity. There were also certain weaknesses with long-term consequences. The movement encouraged a certain religiosity which would be later utilized by communalism. The Akali Movement soon divided into three streams because it represented three distinct political streams , which had no reasons to remain united as a distinct Akali party once Gurdwara reform had taken place. One of the movement’s streams consisted of moderate, pro- Government men who were

<s>[INST]of the Akali movement.’3 The Akali Movement also awakened the people of the princely states of Punjab to political consciousness and political activity. There were also certain weaknesses with long-term consequences. The movement encouraged a certain religiosity which would be later utilized by communalism. The Akali Movement soon divided into three streams because it represented three distinct political streams , which had no reasons to remain united as a distinct Akali party once Gurdwara reform had taken place. One of the movement’s streams consisted of moderate, pro- Government men who were[/INST]

217 | The Struggles For Gurdwara Reform And Temple Entry pulled into the mov ement because of its religious appeal and popular pressure. These men went back to loyalist politics and became a part of the Unionist Party. Another stream consisted of nationalist persons who joined the mainstream nationalist movement, becoming a part of the Gandhian or leftist Kirti -Kisan and Communist Wings. The third stream, which kept the title of Akali, although it was not the sole heir of the Akali Movement, used to the full the prestige of the movement among the rural masses, and became the politic al organ of Sikh communalism, mixing religion and politics and inculcating the ideology of political separation from Hindus and Muslims. In pre -1947 politics the Akali Dal constantly vacillated between nationalist and loyalist politics. * Till 1917 , the N ational Congress had refused to take up social reform issues lest the growing political unity of the Indian people got disrupted. 11 reversed this position in 1917 when it passed a resolution urging upon the people ‘the necessity, justice and righteousness of removing all disabilities imposed by custom upon the depressed classes.’ At this stage, Lokamanya Tilak also denounced untouchability and asked for its removal. But they did not take any concrete steps in the direction. Among the national leaders, it was Gandhi who gave top priority to the removal of untouchability and declared that this was no less important than the political struggle for freedom. In 1923, the Congress decided to take active steps towards the eradication of untouchability. The basic strategy it adopted was to educate and mobilize opinion among caste Hindus on the question. The nationalist challenge in this respect came to be symbolized by two famous struggles in Kerala. The problem was particularly acute in Kerala where the depressed classes or avarnas (those without caste, later known as Harijans) were subjected to degrading and de-humanising

<s>[INST]217 | The Struggles For Gurdwara Reform And Temple Entry pulled into the mov ement because of its religious appeal and popular pressure. These men went back to loyalist politics and became a part of the Unionist Party. Another stream consisted of nationalist persons who joined the mainstream nationalist movement, becoming a part of the Gandhian or leftist Kirti -Kisan and Communist Wings. The third stream, which kept the title of Akali, although it was not the sole heir of the Akali Movement, used to the full the prestige of the movement among the rural masses, and became the politic al organ of Sikh communalism, mixing religion and politics and inculcating the ideology of political separation from Hindus and Muslims. In pre -1947 politics the Akali Dal constantly vacillated between nationalist and loyalist politics. * Till 1917 , the N ational Congress had refused to take up social reform issues lest the growing political unity of the Indian people got disrupted. 11 reversed this position in 1917 when it passed a resolution urging upon the people ‘the necessity, justice and righteousness of removing all disabilities imposed by custom upon the depressed classes.’ At this stage, Lokamanya Tilak also denounced untouchability and asked for its removal. But they did not take any concrete steps in the direction. Among the national leaders, it was Gandhi who gave top priority to the removal of untouchability and declared that this was no less important than the political struggle for freedom. In 1923, the Congress decided to take active steps towards the eradication of untouchability. The basic strategy it adopted was to educate and mobilize opinion among caste Hindus on the question. The nationalist challenge in this respect came to be symbolized by two famous struggles in Kerala. The problem was particularly acute in Kerala where the depressed classes or avarnas (those without caste, later known as Harijans) were subjected to degrading and de-humanising[/INST]

as Harijans) were subjected to degrading and de-humanising social disabilities. For example, they suffered not only from untouchability but also theendal or distance pollution — the Ezhavas and Putayas could not approach the higher castes

<s>[INST]as Harijans) were subjected to degrading and de-humanising social disabilities. For example, they suffered not only from untouchability but also theendal or distance pollution — the Ezhavas and Putayas could not approach the higher castes[/INST]

218 | India’s Struggle For Independence nearer than 16 feet and 72 feet respectively. Struggle against these disabilities was being waged since the end of 19th century by several reformers and intellectuals such as Sri Narayan Guru, N. Kumaran Asan and T.K. Madhavan. Immediately after the Kakinada session, the Kerala Provincial Congress Committee (KPCC) took up the eradication of untouchability as an urgent issue While carrying on a massive propaganda campaign against untouchability and for the educational and social upliftment of the Harijans, it was decided to launch an immediate movement to open Hindu temples and all public roads to the avarnas or Harijans. This, it was felt, would give a decisive blow to the notion of untouchability since it was basically religious in character and the avarnas’ exclusion from the temples was symbolic of their degradation and oppression. A beginning was made in Vaikom, a village in Travancore. There was a major temple there whose four walls were surrounded by temple roads w hich could not be used by avarnas like Ezhavas and Pulayas. The KPCC decided to use the recently acquired weapon of Satyagraha to fight wnouchability and to make a beginning at Vaikom by defyrng the unapproachability rule by leading a procession of savarna s (caste Hindus) and avarnas on the temple roads on 30 March 1924. The news of the Satyagraha aroused immediate enthusiasm among political and social workers and led to an intense campaign to arouse the conscience of savarnas and mobilize their active sup port. Many savarna organizations such as the Nair Service Society, Na Samajam and Kerala Hindu Sabha supported the Satyagraha. Yogakshema Sabha, the leading organization of the Namboodins (highest Brahmins by caste), passed a resolution fuvouring the openi ng of temples to avarnas. The temple authorities and the Travancore Government put up barricades on the roads leading to the temple and the District Magistrate served prohibitory orders on the leaders of the

<s>[INST]218 | India’s Struggle For Independence nearer than 16 feet and 72 feet respectively. Struggle against these disabilities was being waged since the end of 19th century by several reformers and intellectuals such as Sri Narayan Guru, N. Kumaran Asan and T.K. Madhavan. Immediately after the Kakinada session, the Kerala Provincial Congress Committee (KPCC) took up the eradication of untouchability as an urgent issue While carrying on a massive propaganda campaign against untouchability and for the educational and social upliftment of the Harijans, it was decided to launch an immediate movement to open Hindu temples and all public roads to the avarnas or Harijans. This, it was felt, would give a decisive blow to the notion of untouchability since it was basically religious in character and the avarnas’ exclusion from the temples was symbolic of their degradation and oppression. A beginning was made in Vaikom, a village in Travancore. There was a major temple there whose four walls were surrounded by temple roads w hich could not be used by avarnas like Ezhavas and Pulayas. The KPCC decided to use the recently acquired weapon of Satyagraha to fight wnouchability and to make a beginning at Vaikom by defyrng the unapproachability rule by leading a procession of savarna s (caste Hindus) and avarnas on the temple roads on 30 March 1924. The news of the Satyagraha aroused immediate enthusiasm among political and social workers and led to an intense campaign to arouse the conscience of savarnas and mobilize their active sup port. Many savarna organizations such as the Nair Service Society, Na Samajam and Kerala Hindu Sabha supported the Satyagraha. Yogakshema Sabha, the leading organization of the Namboodins (highest Brahmins by caste), passed a resolution fuvouring the openi ng of temples to avarnas. The temple authorities and the Travancore Government put up barricades on the roads leading to the temple and the District Magistrate served prohibitory orders on the leaders of the[/INST]

Magistrate served prohibitory orders on the leaders of the Satyagraha. On 30th March, the Satyagrahis, led by K.P. Kesava Menon, marched from the Satyagraha camp towards the temple. They, as well as the succeeding batches of Satyagrahis, consisting of both savarnas and avarna s, were arrested and sentenced to impriso nment.

<s>[INST]Magistrate served prohibitory orders on the leaders of the Satyagraha. On 30th March, the Satyagrahis, led by K.P. Kesava Menon, marched from the Satyagraha camp towards the temple. They, as well as the succeeding batches of Satyagrahis, consisting of both savarnas and avarna s, were arrested and sentenced to impriso nment.[/INST]

219 | The Struggles For Gurdwara Reform And Temple Entry The Vaikom Satyagraha created enthusias m all over the country and volunteers began to arrive from different parts of 1ndia An Akali jatha arrived from Punjab. E.V. Ramaswami Naicker (popularly known as Periyar later) led ajatha from Madurai and undeiwent imprisonment. On the other hand, the orthodox and reactionaiy section of caste Hindus met at Vaikom and decided to boycott all pro-Satyagraha Congressmen and not to employ them as teachers or lawyers or to vote for them. On the death of the Maharaja in August 1924, the Maharani, as Regent, rele ased all the Satyagrahis. As a positive response to this gesture, it was decided to organize a jatha (a group of volunteers) of caste Hindus to present a memorial to the Maharani asking for the opening of the temple roads to all. Batches of caste Hindus from all over Kerala converged on Vaikom. On 31 October, a jatha of nearly one hundred caste Hindus started their march on foot to Trivandrum. It was given warm receptions at nearly 200 villages and towns on the way. By the time it reached Trivandrum, it con sisted of over 1,000 persons. The Maharani, however, refused to accept their demand and the Satyagraha was continued. In early March 1925, Gandhi began his tour of Kerala and met the Maharani and other officials. A compromise was arrived at. The roads around the temple were opened to avarnas but those in the Sankethan of the temple remained closed to them. In his Kerala tour, Gandhi did not visit a single temple because avarnas were kept out of them. * The struggle against untouchability and for the socia l and economic uplift of the depressed classes continued all over India after 1924 as a part of the Gandhian constructive programme. Once again the struggle was most Intense m Kerala. Prodded by K Kelappan, the KPCC took up the question of temple entry in 1931 during the period when the Civil Disobedience Movement was suspended. A vast campaign of public meetings

<s>[INST]219 | The Struggles For Gurdwara Reform And Temple Entry The Vaikom Satyagraha created enthusias m all over the country and volunteers began to arrive from different parts of 1ndia An Akali jatha arrived from Punjab. E.V. Ramaswami Naicker (popularly known as Periyar later) led ajatha from Madurai and undeiwent imprisonment. On the other hand, the orthodox and reactionaiy section of caste Hindus met at Vaikom and decided to boycott all pro-Satyagraha Congressmen and not to employ them as teachers or lawyers or to vote for them. On the death of the Maharaja in August 1924, the Maharani, as Regent, rele ased all the Satyagrahis. As a positive response to this gesture, it was decided to organize a jatha (a group of volunteers) of caste Hindus to present a memorial to the Maharani asking for the opening of the temple roads to all. Batches of caste Hindus from all over Kerala converged on Vaikom. On 31 October, a jatha of nearly one hundred caste Hindus started their march on foot to Trivandrum. It was given warm receptions at nearly 200 villages and towns on the way. By the time it reached Trivandrum, it con sisted of over 1,000 persons. The Maharani, however, refused to accept their demand and the Satyagraha was continued. In early March 1925, Gandhi began his tour of Kerala and met the Maharani and other officials. A compromise was arrived at. The roads around the temple were opened to avarnas but those in the Sankethan of the temple remained closed to them. In his Kerala tour, Gandhi did not visit a single temple because avarnas were kept out of them. * The struggle against untouchability and for the socia l and economic uplift of the depressed classes continued all over India after 1924 as a part of the Gandhian constructive programme. Once again the struggle was most Intense m Kerala. Prodded by K Kelappan, the KPCC took up the question of temple entry in 1931 during the period when the Civil Disobedience Movement was suspended. A vast campaign of public meetings[/INST]

Movement was suspended. A vast campaign of public meetings was organized throughout Malabar. The KPCC decided to make a

<s>[INST]Movement was suspended. A vast campaign of public meetings was organized throughout Malabar. The KPCC decided to make a[/INST]

220 | India’s Struggle For Independence beginning by organizing a temple entry Satyagraha at Guruvayur on 1st November 1931. A jatha of sixteen volunteers, led by the poet Subramanian Tirumambu, whn became famous as the ‘Singing Sword of Kerala,’ began a march from Cannanore in the north to Guruvayur on 21 October. The volunteers ranged from the lowliest of Harijans to the hig hest caste Namboodiris. The march stirred the entire country and aroused anti -caste sentiments. The 1st of November was enthusiastically observed as All -Kerala Temple Entry Day with a programme of prayers, processions, meetings, receptions and fund collect ions. It was also observed in cities like Madras, Bombay, Calcutta , Delhi and Colombo (Sri Lanka). The popular response was tremendous. Many all-India leaders visited Malabar. Money and volunteers poured in from everywhere. The youth were specially attract ed and were in the forefront of the struggle. The anti -untouchability movement gained great popularity. Many religious devotees transferred the offerings they would have made to the temple to the Satyagraha camp, feeling that the camp was even more sacred than the temple. The temple authorities also made arrangements. They put up barbed wire all around the temple and organized gangs of watchmen to keep the Satyagrahis out and to threaten them with beating. On 1 November, sixteen white khadi-clad volunteer s marched to the eastern gate of the temple where their way was barred by a posse of policemen headed by the Superintendent of Police. Very soon, the temple servants and local reactionaries began to use physical force against the peaceful and non-violent Satyagrahis while t he police stood by. For example, P Krishna Pillai and A.K. Gopalan, who were to emerge later as major leaders of the Communist movement in Kerala, were mercilessly beaten . The Satyagraha continued even after the Civil Disobedience Movemen t was resumed in January 1932 and all

<s>[INST]220 | India’s Struggle For Independence beginning by organizing a temple entry Satyagraha at Guruvayur on 1st November 1931. A jatha of sixteen volunteers, led by the poet Subramanian Tirumambu, whn became famous as the ‘Singing Sword of Kerala,’ began a march from Cannanore in the north to Guruvayur on 21 October. The volunteers ranged from the lowliest of Harijans to the hig hest caste Namboodiris. The march stirred the entire country and aroused anti -caste sentiments. The 1st of November was enthusiastically observed as All -Kerala Temple Entry Day with a programme of prayers, processions, meetings, receptions and fund collect ions. It was also observed in cities like Madras, Bombay, Calcutta , Delhi and Colombo (Sri Lanka). The popular response was tremendous. Many all-India leaders visited Malabar. Money and volunteers poured in from everywhere. The youth were specially attract ed and were in the forefront of the struggle. The anti -untouchability movement gained great popularity. Many religious devotees transferred the offerings they would have made to the temple to the Satyagraha camp, feeling that the camp was even more sacred than the temple. The temple authorities also made arrangements. They put up barbed wire all around the temple and organized gangs of watchmen to keep the Satyagrahis out and to threaten them with beating. On 1 November, sixteen white khadi-clad volunteer s marched to the eastern gate of the temple where their way was barred by a posse of policemen headed by the Superintendent of Police. Very soon, the temple servants and local reactionaries began to use physical force against the peaceful and non-violent Satyagrahis while t he police stood by. For example, P Krishna Pillai and A.K. Gopalan, who were to emerge later as major leaders of the Communist movement in Kerala, were mercilessly beaten . The Satyagraha continued even after the Civil Disobedience Movemen t was resumed in January 1932 and all[/INST]

Disobedience Movemen t was resumed in January 1932 and all Congress Committees were declared unlawful and most of the Congressmen leading the Satyagraha were imprisoned. The Satyagraha entered a new phase on 21 September 1932 when K. Kelappan went on a fast unto death before the temple until it was opened to the depressed classes. The entire country

<s>[INST]Disobedience Movemen t was resumed in January 1932 and all Congress Committees were declared unlawful and most of the Congressmen leading the Satyagraha were imprisoned. The Satyagraha entered a new phase on 21 September 1932 when K. Kelappan went on a fast unto death before the temple until it was opened to the depressed classes. The entire country[/INST]

221 | The Struggles For Gurdwara Reform And Temple Entry was again stirred to its depths. Once again meetings and processions engulfed Kerala and many other parts of the country. Caste Hindus from Kerala as well as rest of India made app eals to the Zamonn of Calicut, custodian of the temple, to throw open the temples to all Hindus; but without any success. Gandhiji made repeated appeals to Kelappan to break his fast, at least temporarily, with an assurance that he would himself, if neces sary, undertake the task of getting the temple opened. Finally, Kelappan broke his fast on October 2, 1932. The Satyagraha was also suspended. But the temple entry campaign was carried on ever more vigorously. A jatha led by A.K. Gopalan toured whole of Kerala on foot, carrying on propaganda and addressing massive meetings everywhere. Before it was disbanded the jatha had covered nearly 1,000 miles and addressed over 500 meetings. Even though the Guruvayur temple was not opened immediately, the Satyagraha was a great success in broader terms. As A.K. Gopalan has recorded in his autobiography, ‘although the Guruvayur temple was still closed to Harijans, I saw that the movement had created an impetus for social change throughout the country. It led t o a tran sformation everywhere.’ The popular campaign against untouchability and for temple entry continued in the succeeding years. In November 1936, the Maharaja of Travancore issued a proclamation throwing open all Government -controlled temples to all Hindus irrespective of caste. Madras followed suit in 1938 when its Ministry was headed by C. Rajagopalachari. Other provinces under Congress rule also took similar steps. The temple entry campaign used all the techniques developed by the Indian people in the cours e of the nationalist struggle. Its organizers succeeded in building the broadest possible unity, imparting mass education, and mobilizing the people on a very wide scale on the question of untouchability. Of

<s>[INST]221 | The Struggles For Gurdwara Reform And Temple Entry was again stirred to its depths. Once again meetings and processions engulfed Kerala and many other parts of the country. Caste Hindus from Kerala as well as rest of India made app eals to the Zamonn of Calicut, custodian of the temple, to throw open the temples to all Hindus; but without any success. Gandhiji made repeated appeals to Kelappan to break his fast, at least temporarily, with an assurance that he would himself, if neces sary, undertake the task of getting the temple opened. Finally, Kelappan broke his fast on October 2, 1932. The Satyagraha was also suspended. But the temple entry campaign was carried on ever more vigorously. A jatha led by A.K. Gopalan toured whole of Kerala on foot, carrying on propaganda and addressing massive meetings everywhere. Before it was disbanded the jatha had covered nearly 1,000 miles and addressed over 500 meetings. Even though the Guruvayur temple was not opened immediately, the Satyagraha was a great success in broader terms. As A.K. Gopalan has recorded in his autobiography, ‘although the Guruvayur temple was still closed to Harijans, I saw that the movement had created an impetus for social change throughout the country. It led t o a tran sformation everywhere.’ The popular campaign against untouchability and for temple entry continued in the succeeding years. In November 1936, the Maharaja of Travancore issued a proclamation throwing open all Government -controlled temples to all Hindus irrespective of caste. Madras followed suit in 1938 when its Ministry was headed by C. Rajagopalachari. Other provinces under Congress rule also took similar steps. The temple entry campaign used all the techniques developed by the Indian people in the cours e of the nationalist struggle. Its organizers succeeded in building the broadest possible unity, imparting mass education, and mobilizing the people on a very wide scale on the question of untouchability. Of[/INST]

course, the problem of caste inequality, oppress ion and degradation was very deep -seated and complex, and temple entry alone could not solve it. But Satyagrahas like those of Vaikom and Guruvay ur and the movements around them did make a

<s>[INST]course, the problem of caste inequality, oppress ion and degradation was very deep -seated and complex, and temple entry alone could not solve it. But Satyagrahas like those of Vaikom and Guruvay ur and the movements around them did make a[/INST]

222 | India’s Struggle For Independence massive contribution in this respect. As E.M.S. Namboodi ripad was to write years later: ‘Gu ruvayur Temple Satyagraha was an event that thrilled thousands of young men like me and gave inspiration to a vast majority of the people to fight for their legitimate rights with self-respect. . . It was the very same youth who gave this bold lead, who subsequently became founder - leaders of the worker -peasant organizations that were free from the malice of religious or communal considerations.” The main weakness of the temple entry movement and the Gandhian or nationalist approach in fighting caste oppression was that even while amusing the people against untouchability they lacked a strategy for ending the caste system itself. The strength of the national movement in this respect was to find expression in the Constitution of indepe ndent India which abolished caste inequality, outlawed untouchability and guaranteed social equality to all citizens irrespective of their caste. Its weakness has found expression in the growth of casteism and the continuous existence in practice of oppres sion and discrimination against the lower castes in post-1947 India .

<s>[INST]222 | India’s Struggle For Independence massive contribution in this respect. As E.M.S. Namboodi ripad was to write years later: ‘Gu ruvayur Temple Satyagraha was an event that thrilled thousands of young men like me and gave inspiration to a vast majority of the people to fight for their legitimate rights with self-respect. . . It was the very same youth who gave this bold lead, who subsequently became founder - leaders of the worker -peasant organizations that were free from the malice of religious or communal considerations.” The main weakness of the temple entry movement and the Gandhian or nationalist approach in fighting caste oppression was that even while amusing the people against untouchability they lacked a strategy for ending the caste system itself. The strength of the national movement in this respect was to find expression in the Constitution of indepe ndent India which abolished caste inequality, outlawed untouchability and guaranteed social equality to all citizens irrespective of their caste. Its weakness has found expression in the growth of casteism and the continuous existence in practice of oppres sion and discrimination against the lower castes in post-1947 India .[/INST]

223 | The Years Of Stagnation — Swarajists, No -Changers And Gandhiji CHAPTER 19. THE YEARS OF STAGNATION — SWARAJISTS , NO- CHANGERS AND GANDHIJI The withdrawal of the Non-Cooperation Movement in February 1922 was followed by the arrest of Gandhiji in March and his conviction and imprisonment for six years for the crime of spreading disaffection against the Government. The result was the spread of disintegration, disorganization and demo ralization in the nationalist ranks. There arose the danger of the movement lapsing into passivity. Many began to question the wisdom of the total Gandhian strategy. Others started looking for ways out of the impasse. A new line of political activity, which would keep up the spirit of resistance to colonial rule, was now advocated by C.R. Das and Motilal Nehru. They suggested that the nationalists should end the boycott of the legislative councils, enter them, expose them as ‘sham parliaments’ and as ‘a ma sk which the bureaucracy has put on,’ and obstruct ‘every work of the council.’ This, they argued, would not be giving up non -cooperation but continuing it in a more effective form by extending it to the councils themselves. It would be opening a new front in the battle. C.R. Das as the President of the Con gress and Motilal as its Secretary put forward this programme of ‘either mending or ending’ the councils at the Gaya session of the Congress in December 1922. Another section of the Congress, headed by Vallabhbhai Patel, Rajendra Prasad and C. Rajagopalachari, opposed the new proposal which was consequently defeated by

<s>[INST]223 | The Years Of Stagnation — Swarajists, No -Changers And Gandhiji CHAPTER 19. THE YEARS OF STAGNATION — SWARAJISTS , NO- CHANGERS AND GANDHIJI The withdrawal of the Non-Cooperation Movement in February 1922 was followed by the arrest of Gandhiji in March and his conviction and imprisonment for six years for the crime of spreading disaffection against the Government. The result was the spread of disintegration, disorganization and demo ralization in the nationalist ranks. There arose the danger of the movement lapsing into passivity. Many began to question the wisdom of the total Gandhian strategy. Others started looking for ways out of the impasse. A new line of political activity, which would keep up the spirit of resistance to colonial rule, was now advocated by C.R. Das and Motilal Nehru. They suggested that the nationalists should end the boycott of the legislative councils, enter them, expose them as ‘sham parliaments’ and as ‘a ma sk which the bureaucracy has put on,’ and obstruct ‘every work of the council.’ This, they argued, would not be giving up non -cooperation but continuing it in a more effective form by extending it to the councils themselves. It would be opening a new front in the battle. C.R. Das as the President of the Con gress and Motilal as its Secretary put forward this programme of ‘either mending or ending’ the councils at the Gaya session of the Congress in December 1922. Another section of the Congress, headed by Vallabhbhai Patel, Rajendra Prasad and C. Rajagopalachari, opposed the new proposal which was consequently defeated by[/INST]

224 | India’s Struggle For Independence 1748 to 890 votes. Das and Motilal resigned from their respective offices in the Congress and on 1 January 1923 announced the formation of the Congress -Khilafat Swaraj Party better known later as the Swaraj Party. Das was the President and Motilal one of the Secretaries of the new party. The adherents of the council - entry programme came to be popularly known as ‘pro -changers’ and those still advocating boycott of the councils as ‘no — changers.’ The Swaraj Party accepted the Congress programme in its entirety except in one respect — it would take part in elections due later in the ‘ear It declared that it would present the national demand for self- government in the councils and in case of its rejection its elected members would adopt ‘a policy of uniform, continuous and consistent obstruction within the councils, with a view to make the Government through the councils impossible. ’ The councils would, thus, be wrecked from within by creating deadlocks on every measure that came before them. Both Das (born in 1870) and Motilal (born in 1861) were highly successful lawyers who had once been Moderates but had accepted the politics of boycott and n on-cooperation in 1920. They had given up their legal practice, joined the movement as whole time workers and donated to the nation their magnificent houses in Calcutta and Allahabad respectively. They were great admirers of Gandhiji but were also his poli tical equals. Both were brilliant and effective parliamentarians. One deeply religious and the other a virtual agnostic, both were secular to the core. Different in many ways, they complemented each other and formed a legendary political combination. Das w as imaginative and emotional and a great orator with the capacity to influence and conciliate friends and foes. Mot ilal was firm, coolly analytical, and a great organizer and disciplinarian. They had such absolute trust and confidence in each other that ea ch could

<s>[INST]224 | India’s Struggle For Independence 1748 to 890 votes. Das and Motilal resigned from their respective offices in the Congress and on 1 January 1923 announced the formation of the Congress -Khilafat Swaraj Party better known later as the Swaraj Party. Das was the President and Motilal one of the Secretaries of the new party. The adherents of the council - entry programme came to be popularly known as ‘pro -changers’ and those still advocating boycott of the councils as ‘no — changers.’ The Swaraj Party accepted the Congress programme in its entirety except in one respect — it would take part in elections due later in the ‘ear It declared that it would present the national demand for self- government in the councils and in case of its rejection its elected members would adopt ‘a policy of uniform, continuous and consistent obstruction within the councils, with a view to make the Government through the councils impossible. ’ The councils would, thus, be wrecked from within by creating deadlocks on every measure that came before them. Both Das (born in 1870) and Motilal (born in 1861) were highly successful lawyers who had once been Moderates but had accepted the politics of boycott and n on-cooperation in 1920. They had given up their legal practice, joined the movement as whole time workers and donated to the nation their magnificent houses in Calcutta and Allahabad respectively. They were great admirers of Gandhiji but were also his poli tical equals. Both were brilliant and effective parliamentarians. One deeply religious and the other a virtual agnostic, both were secular to the core. Different in many ways, they complemented each other and formed a legendary political combination. Das w as imaginative and emotional and a great orator with the capacity to influence and conciliate friends and foes. Mot ilal was firm, coolly analytical, and a great organizer and disciplinarian. They had such absolute trust and confidence in each other that ea ch could[/INST]

use the other’s name for any statement without prior consultation. The no -changers, whose effective head was Gandhiji even though he was in jail, argued for the continuation of the full programme of boycott and non-cooperation, effective working of the constructive programme and quiet preparations for the resumption of the suspended civil disobedience.

<s>[INST]use the other’s name for any statement without prior consultation. The no -changers, whose effective head was Gandhiji even though he was in jail, argued for the continuation of the full programme of boycott and non-cooperation, effective working of the constructive programme and quiet preparations for the resumption of the suspended civil disobedience.[/INST]

225 | The Years Of Stagnation — Swarajists, No -Changers And Gandhiji * The pro-changers and the no -changers were soon engaged in a fierce controversy. There was, of course, a lot of common ground between the two Bot h agreed that civil disobedience was not possible immediately and that no mass movement could be carried on indefinitely or for a prolonged period. Hence, breathing time was needed and a temporary retreat from the active phase of the movement was on the ag enda. Both also accepted that there was need to rest and to reinvigorate the anti -imperialist forces , overcome demoralization, intensify politicization, widen political participation and mobilization, strengthen organizatio n, arid keep up the recruitment, training and morale of the cadre. In fact, the national movement was facing the basic problem that any mass movement has to face: how were they to carry on political work in the movements ’ non- active phases? It was in the answer to this last question tha t the two sides differed. The Swarajists said that work in the councils was necessary to fill in the temporary political void. This would keep up the morale of the politicized Indians, fill the empty newspaper spaces, and enthuse the people. Electioneering and speeches in the councils would provide fresh avenues for political agitation and propaganda. Even without Congressmen, said the Swarajists, the councils would continue to function and, perhaps, a large number of people would participate in voting. Th is would lead to the weakening of the hold of the Congress. Moreover, non - Congressmen would capture positions of vantage and use them to weaken the Congress. Why should such vantage points in a revolutionary fight be left in the hands of the enemy?’ By joi ning the councils and obstructing their work. Congressmen would prevent undesirable elements from doing mischief or the Government from getting some form of legitimacy for their laws.

<s>[INST]225 | The Years Of Stagnation — Swarajists, No -Changers And Gandhiji * The pro-changers and the no -changers were soon engaged in a fierce controversy. There was, of course, a lot of common ground between the two Bot h agreed that civil disobedience was not possible immediately and that no mass movement could be carried on indefinitely or for a prolonged period. Hence, breathing time was needed and a temporary retreat from the active phase of the movement was on the ag enda. Both also accepted that there was need to rest and to reinvigorate the anti -imperialist forces , overcome demoralization, intensify politicization, widen political participation and mobilization, strengthen organizatio n, arid keep up the recruitment, training and morale of the cadre. In fact, the national movement was facing the basic problem that any mass movement has to face: how were they to carry on political work in the movements ’ non- active phases? It was in the answer to this last question tha t the two sides differed. The Swarajists said that work in the councils was necessary to fill in the temporary political void. This would keep up the morale of the politicized Indians, fill the empty newspaper spaces, and enthuse the people. Electioneering and speeches in the councils would provide fresh avenues for political agitation and propaganda. Even without Congressmen, said the Swarajists, the councils would continue to function and, perhaps, a large number of people would participate in voting. Th is would lead to the weakening of the hold of the Congress. Moreover, non - Congressmen would capture positions of vantage and use them to weaken the Congress. Why should such vantage points in a revolutionary fight be left in the hands of the enemy?’ By joi ning the councils and obstructing their work. Congressmen would prevent undesirable elements from doing mischief or the Government from getting some form of legitimacy for their laws.[/INST]

In other words, the Swarajists claimed that they would transform the le gislatures into arenas of political struggle and that their intention was not to use them, as the Liberals desired, as organs for the gradual transformation of the colonial state, but to use them as the ground on which the struggle for the overthrow of the colonial state was to be carried out.

<s>[INST]In other words, the Swarajists claimed that they would transform the le gislatures into arenas of political struggle and that their intention was not to use them, as the Liberals desired, as organs for the gradual transformation of the colonial state, but to use them as the ground on which the struggle for the overthrow of the colonial state was to be carried out.[/INST]

226 | India’s Struggle For Independence The no -changers opposed council -entry mainly on the ground that parliamentary work would lead to the neglect of constructive and other work among the masses , the loss of revolutionary zeal and political corruption. T he legislators who would go into the councils with the aim of wrecking them would gradually give up the politics of obstruction. get sucked into the imperial constitutional framework, and start cooperating with the Government on petty reforms and piecemeal legislation Constructive work among the masses, on the other hand, would prepare them for the next round of civil disobedience. As the pro -changer no -changer clash developed, the atmosphere of dismay in nationalist ranks began to thicken, and they began to be haunted by the fear of the repetition of the disastrous split of 1907. Pressure began to develop on the leaders to put a check on their public bickerings. Both groups of leaders began to pull back from the brink and move ‘wards mutual accommodation. This trend was helped by several factors . First, the need for unity was felt very strongly by all the Congressmen. Secondly, not only the no -changers but also the Swarajists realized that however useful parliamentary work might be, the real sanctions whic h would compel the Government to accept national demands would be forged only by a mass movement outside the legislatures — and this would need unity. Lastly, both groups of leaders fully accepted the essentiality of Gandhiji’s leadership. Consequently, i n a special session of the Congress held at Delhi in September 1923, the Congress suspended all propaganda against council entry and permitted Congressmen to stand as candidates and exercise their franchise in forthcoming elections. * Gandhiji was release d from jail on 5 February 1924 on health grounds. He was completely opposed to council -entry as also to the obstruction of work in the councils which he believed

<s>[INST]226 | India’s Struggle For Independence The no -changers opposed council -entry mainly on the ground that parliamentary work would lead to the neglect of constructive and other work among the masses , the loss of revolutionary zeal and political corruption. T he legislators who would go into the councils with the aim of wrecking them would gradually give up the politics of obstruction. get sucked into the imperial constitutional framework, and start cooperating with the Government on petty reforms and piecemeal legislation Constructive work among the masses, on the other hand, would prepare them for the next round of civil disobedience. As the pro -changer no -changer clash developed, the atmosphere of dismay in nationalist ranks began to thicken, and they began to be haunted by the fear of the repetition of the disastrous split of 1907. Pressure began to develop on the leaders to put a check on their public bickerings. Both groups of leaders began to pull back from the brink and move ‘wards mutual accommodation. This trend was helped by several factors . First, the need for unity was felt very strongly by all the Congressmen. Secondly, not only the no -changers but also the Swarajists realized that however useful parliamentary work might be, the real sanctions whic h would compel the Government to accept national demands would be forged only by a mass movement outside the legislatures — and this would need unity. Lastly, both groups of leaders fully accepted the essentiality of Gandhiji’s leadership. Consequently, i n a special session of the Congress held at Delhi in September 1923, the Congress suspended all propaganda against council entry and permitted Congressmen to stand as candidates and exercise their franchise in forthcoming elections. * Gandhiji was release d from jail on 5 February 1924 on health grounds. He was completely opposed to council -entry as also to the obstruction of work in the councils which he believed[/INST]

was inconsistent with non -violent non-cooperation. Once again a split in the Congress loomed o n the horizon. The Government very much hoped for and banked on such a split. When releasing

<s>[INST]was inconsistent with non -violent non-cooperation. Once again a split in the Congress loomed o n the horizon. The Government very much hoped for and banked on such a split. When releasing[/INST]

227 | The Years Of Stagnation — Swarajists, No -Changers And Gandhiji the Mahatma, the Bombay Government had suggested that he ‘would denounce the Swarajists for their defection from the pure principle of non -cooperation, and thus co nsiderably reduce in legislatures their power for harm.’2 Similarly, Reading, the Viceroy, told the Secretary of State for India, on 6 June 1924: ‘The probability of a split between Swarajists and Gandhiji is increasing . . . Moonje, (The Swarajist leader from the Central Provinces) adds that the Swarajists are now driven to concentrating all their energy on breaking Gandhiji’s hold on the Congress.’ But Gandhiji did not oblige. Step by step, he moved towards an accommodation with the Swarajists. In fact, his approach towards the Swarajists at this stage brings out some of the basic features of his political style, especially when dealing with co - workers with whom he differed, and is therefore, worth discussing, however briefly. Gandhiji’s starting point wa s the fact that even when opposing the Swarajist leaders he had full trust in their bonafides. He described their as ‘the most valued and respected leaders’ and as persons who ‘have made great sacrifices in the cause of the country and who yield to no one in their love of freedom of the motherland’4 Moreover, he and Das and Motilal Nehru throughout maintained warm personal relations based on mutual respect and regard. Immediately after his release, Gandhiji refused to publicly comment on council -entry till he had discussions with the Swarajist leaders. Even after meeting them, while he continued to believe in the futility and even harmful character of the Swarajists’ programme, he remained convinced that public opposition to the ‘settled fact’ of council -entry would be counterproductive. The courageous and uncompromising manner in which the Swarajists had functioned in the councils convinced Gandhiji that, however politically wrong, they were certainly not becoming

<s>[INST]227 | The Years Of Stagnation — Swarajists, No -Changers And Gandhiji the Mahatma, the Bombay Government had suggested that he ‘would denounce the Swarajists for their defection from the pure principle of non -cooperation, and thus co nsiderably reduce in legislatures their power for harm.’2 Similarly, Reading, the Viceroy, told the Secretary of State for India, on 6 June 1924: ‘The probability of a split between Swarajists and Gandhiji is increasing . . . Moonje, (The Swarajist leader from the Central Provinces) adds that the Swarajists are now driven to concentrating all their energy on breaking Gandhiji’s hold on the Congress.’ But Gandhiji did not oblige. Step by step, he moved towards an accommodation with the Swarajists. In fact, his approach towards the Swarajists at this stage brings out some of the basic features of his political style, especially when dealing with co - workers with whom he differed, and is therefore, worth discussing, however briefly. Gandhiji’s starting point wa s the fact that even when opposing the Swarajist leaders he had full trust in their bonafides. He described their as ‘the most valued and respected leaders’ and as persons who ‘have made great sacrifices in the cause of the country and who yield to no one in their love of freedom of the motherland’4 Moreover, he and Das and Motilal Nehru throughout maintained warm personal relations based on mutual respect and regard. Immediately after his release, Gandhiji refused to publicly comment on council -entry till he had discussions with the Swarajist leaders. Even after meeting them, while he continued to believe in the futility and even harmful character of the Swarajists’ programme, he remained convinced that public opposition to the ‘settled fact’ of council -entry would be counterproductive. The courageous and uncompromising manner in which the Swarajists had functioned in the councils convinced Gandhiji that, however politically wrong, they were certainly not becoming[/INST]

a limb of imperial administration. To the contrary, he noted, ‘they have shown determination, grit, discipline and cohesion and have not feared to carry their policy to the point of defiance. Once assume the desirability of entering Councils and it must be admitted that they have introduced a new spirit into the Indian Legislatures.”

<s>[INST]a limb of imperial administration. To the contrary, he noted, ‘they have shown determination, grit, discipline and cohesion and have not feared to carry their policy to the point of defiance. Once assume the desirability of entering Councils and it must be admitted that they have introduced a new spirit into the Indian Legislatures.”[/INST]

228 | India’s Struggle For Independence Gandhiji was also pained by the bickerings in the worst of taste among the proponents of the two schools. As he wrote in April 1924: ‘Even the “changers” and the “no -changers” have flung mud against one another. Each has claimed the monopoly of truth and, with an ignorant certainty of conviction, sworn at the other for his helpless stupidity.’ He was very keen to end such mud -slinging. In any case, felt Gandhiji, council entry had already occurred and now to withdraw w ould be ‘disastrous’ and would be ‘misunderstood’ by the Government and the people ‘as a rout and weakness.” This would further embolden the Government in its autocratic behaviour and repressive policy and add to the state of political depression among the people. The last straw came when the Government launched a full attack on civil liberties and the Swarajists in Bengal in the name of fighting terrorism. It promulgated an ordinance on 25 October 1924 under which it conducted raids on Congress offices and house searches and arrested a large number of revolutionary terrorists and Swarajists and other Congressmen including Subhas Chandra Bose and two Swarajist members of the Bengal legislature, Anil Baran Roy and S.C. Mitra. Perceiving a direct threat to t he national movement, Gandhiji’s first reaction was anger. He wrote in Young India on 31 October: ‘The Rowlatt Act is dead but the spirit that prompted it is like an evergreen. So long as the interest of Englishmen is antagonistic to that of Indians, so lo ng must there be anarchi c crime or the dread of it and an edition of the Rowlatt Act in answer.’ As an answer to the Government’s offensive against the Swarajists, he decided to show his solidarity with the Swarajists by ‘surrendering’ before them. As he wrote in Young India: ‘I would have been false to the country if I had not stood by the Swaraj Party in the hour of its need. . . I must stand by it even

<s>[INST]228 | India’s Struggle For Independence Gandhiji was also pained by the bickerings in the worst of taste among the proponents of the two schools. As he wrote in April 1924: ‘Even the “changers” and the “no -changers” have flung mud against one another. Each has claimed the monopoly of truth and, with an ignorant certainty of conviction, sworn at the other for his helpless stupidity.’ He was very keen to end such mud -slinging. In any case, felt Gandhiji, council entry had already occurred and now to withdraw w ould be ‘disastrous’ and would be ‘misunderstood’ by the Government and the people ‘as a rout and weakness.” This would further embolden the Government in its autocratic behaviour and repressive policy and add to the state of political depression among the people. The last straw came when the Government launched a full attack on civil liberties and the Swarajists in Bengal in the name of fighting terrorism. It promulgated an ordinance on 25 October 1924 under which it conducted raids on Congress offices and house searches and arrested a large number of revolutionary terrorists and Swarajists and other Congressmen including Subhas Chandra Bose and two Swarajist members of the Bengal legislature, Anil Baran Roy and S.C. Mitra. Perceiving a direct threat to t he national movement, Gandhiji’s first reaction was anger. He wrote in Young India on 31 October: ‘The Rowlatt Act is dead but the spirit that prompted it is like an evergreen. So long as the interest of Englishmen is antagonistic to that of Indians, so lo ng must there be anarchi c crime or the dread of it and an edition of the Rowlatt Act in answer.’ As an answer to the Government’s offensive against the Swarajists, he decided to show his solidarity with the Swarajists by ‘surrendering’ before them. As he wrote in Young India: ‘I would have been false to the country if I had not stood by the Swaraj Party in the hour of its need. . . I must stand by it even[/INST]

though I do not believe in the efficacy of Council -entry or even some of the methods of conducting Cou ncil Warfare And again ‘Though an uncompromising No -changer. I must not only tolerate their attitude and work with them, but I must even strengthen them wherever I can.”

<s>[INST]though I do not believe in the efficacy of Council -entry or even some of the methods of conducting Cou ncil Warfare And again ‘Though an uncompromising No -changer. I must not only tolerate their attitude and work with them, but I must even strengthen them wherever I can.”[/INST]

229 | The Years Of Stagnation — Swarajists, No -Changers And Gandhiji On 6 November 1924 , Gandhiji brought the strife between the Swarajists and no -changers to an end, by signing a joint statement with Das and Motilal that the Swarajist Party would carry on work in the legislatures on behalf of the Congress and as an integral part of the Congress. This decision was endorsed in December at the Belgaum session of the Congress over which Gandhiji presided. He also gave the Swarajists a majority of seats on his Working Committee. * Electi ons to the legislative councils were held in November 1923. The Swarajist manifesto, rele ased on 14 October, took up a strong a nti- imperialist position: ‘The guiding motive of the British in governing India is to secure the selfish interests of their own country and the so -called ref onus arc a mere blind to further the said interests under the pretence of granting responsible go vernment to India, the real object being to continue the exploitation of the unlimited resources of the country by keeping Indians permanently in a subservient position to Britain.” It promised that the Swarajists would wreck the sham reforms from within t he councils. Even though the Swarajists got only a few weeks to prepare for the elections and the franchise was extremely narrow -— only about 6.2 million or less than three per cent had the right to vote — they managed to do quite well. They won forty-two out of 101 elected seats in the Central Legislative Assembly they got a clear majority in the Central Provinces; they were the largest party in Bengal; and they fared quite well in Bombay and U.P., though not in Madras and Punjab because of strong castei st and communal currents. In the Central Legislative Assembly, the Swarajists succeeded in building a common political front with the Independents led by M.A. Jinnah, the Liberals, and individuals such as Madan Mohan Malaviya. They built similar coalition s in

<s>[INST]229 | The Years Of Stagnation — Swarajists, No -Changers And Gandhiji On 6 November 1924 , Gandhiji brought the strife between the Swarajists and no -changers to an end, by signing a joint statement with Das and Motilal that the Swarajist Party would carry on work in the legislatures on behalf of the Congress and as an integral part of the Congress. This decision was endorsed in December at the Belgaum session of the Congress over which Gandhiji presided. He also gave the Swarajists a majority of seats on his Working Committee. * Electi ons to the legislative councils were held in November 1923. The Swarajist manifesto, rele ased on 14 October, took up a strong a nti- imperialist position: ‘The guiding motive of the British in governing India is to secure the selfish interests of their own country and the so -called ref onus arc a mere blind to further the said interests under the pretence of granting responsible go vernment to India, the real object being to continue the exploitation of the unlimited resources of the country by keeping Indians permanently in a subservient position to Britain.” It promised that the Swarajists would wreck the sham reforms from within t he councils. Even though the Swarajists got only a few weeks to prepare for the elections and the franchise was extremely narrow -— only about 6.2 million or less than three per cent had the right to vote — they managed to do quite well. They won forty-two out of 101 elected seats in the Central Legislative Assembly they got a clear majority in the Central Provinces; they were the largest party in Bengal; and they fared quite well in Bombay and U.P., though not in Madras and Punjab because of strong castei st and communal currents. In the Central Legislative Assembly, the Swarajists succeeded in building a common political front with the Independents led by M.A. Jinnah, the Liberals, and individuals such as Madan Mohan Malaviya. They built similar coalition s in[/INST]

most of the provinces. And they set out to inflict defeat after defeat on the Government. The legislatures, reformed in 1919, had a ‘semblance’ of power without any real authority. Though they had a majority of

<s>[INST]most of the provinces. And they set out to inflict defeat after defeat on the Government. The legislatures, reformed in 1919, had a ‘semblance’ of power without any real authority. Though they had a majority of[/INST]

230 | India’s Struggle For Independence elected members, the executive at the c entre or in the provinces was outside their control, being responsible only to the British Government at home. Moreover, the Viceroy or the Governor could certify any legislation, including a budgetary grant, if it was rejected in the legislature. The Swar ajists forced the Government to certify legislation repeatedly at the centre as well as in many of the provinces, thus exposing the true character of the reformed councils. In March 1925, they succeeded in electing Vithalbhai Patel, a leading Swarajist, as the President of the Central Legislative Assembly . Though intervening on every issue and often outvoting the Government, the Swarajists took up at the centre three major sets of problems on which they delivered powerful speeches which were fully reported in the Press and followed avidly every morning by the readers. One was the problem of constitutional advance leading to self -Government; second of civil liberties, release of political prisoners, and repeal of repressive laws; and third of the development of indigenous industries. In the very first session, Motilal Nehru put forward the national demand for the framing of a new constitution, which would transfer real power to India. This demand was passed by 64 votes to 48. It was reiterated and passed in September 1925 by 72 votes to 45. The Government had also to face humiliation when its demands for budgetary grants under different heads were repeatedly voted out. On one such occasion, Vithalbhai Patel told the Government: ‘We want you to carry on the ad ministration of this country by veto and by certification. We want you to treat the Government of India Act as a scrap of paper which I am sure it has proved to be. ’ Similarly, the Government was defeated several times on the question of the repeal of repr essive laws and regulations and release of political prisoners. Replying to the official criticism of

<s>[INST]230 | India’s Struggle For Independence elected members, the executive at the c entre or in the provinces was outside their control, being responsible only to the British Government at home. Moreover, the Viceroy or the Governor could certify any legislation, including a budgetary grant, if it was rejected in the legislature. The Swar ajists forced the Government to certify legislation repeatedly at the centre as well as in many of the provinces, thus exposing the true character of the reformed councils. In March 1925, they succeeded in electing Vithalbhai Patel, a leading Swarajist, as the President of the Central Legislative Assembly . Though intervening on every issue and often outvoting the Government, the Swarajists took up at the centre three major sets of problems on which they delivered powerful speeches which were fully reported in the Press and followed avidly every morning by the readers. One was the problem of constitutional advance leading to self -Government; second of civil liberties, release of political prisoners, and repeal of repressive laws; and third of the development of indigenous industries. In the very first session, Motilal Nehru put forward the national demand for the framing of a new constitution, which would transfer real power to India. This demand was passed by 64 votes to 48. It was reiterated and passed in September 1925 by 72 votes to 45. The Government had also to face humiliation when its demands for budgetary grants under different heads were repeatedly voted out. On one such occasion, Vithalbhai Patel told the Government: ‘We want you to carry on the ad ministration of this country by veto and by certification. We want you to treat the Government of India Act as a scrap of paper which I am sure it has proved to be. ’ Similarly, the Government was defeated several times on the question of the repeal of repr essive laws and regulations and release of political prisoners. Replying to the official criticism of[/INST]

the revolutionary terrorists, C.S. Ranga Iyer said that the Government officials were themselves ‘criminals of the worst sort, assassins of the deepest dy e, men who are murdering the liberties of a liberty -loving race.” Lala Lajpat Rai said: ‘Revolutions and revolutionary movements are only natural . . . there can be no progress in the world without revolutions and revolutionary movements.” CR. Das was no less critical of the Government’s repressive policy. He told the Bengal Provincial

<s>[INST]the revolutionary terrorists, C.S. Ranga Iyer said that the Government officials were themselves ‘criminals of the worst sort, assassins of the deepest dy e, men who are murdering the liberties of a liberty -loving race.” Lala Lajpat Rai said: ‘Revolutions and revolutionary movements are only natural . . . there can be no progress in the world without revolutions and revolutionary movements.” CR. Das was no less critical of the Government’s repressive policy. He told the Bengal Provincial[/INST]

231 | The Years Of Stagnation — Swarajists, No -Changers And Gandhiji Conference: ‘Repression is a process in the consolidation of arbitrary power — and I condemn the violence of the Government for repression is the most violent form of violen ce —just as I condemn violence as a method of winning political liberty.” The Swarajist activity in the legislatures was spectacular by any standards. It inspired the politicized persons and kept their political interest alive. People were thrilled every time the all - powerful foreign bureaucracy was humbled in the councils. Simultaneously, during 1923 -24, Congressmen captured a large number of municipalities and other local bodies. Das became the Mayor of Calcutta (with Subhas Bose as his Chief Executive Officer), and Vithalbhai Patel. the President of Bombay Corporation, Vallabhbhai Patel of Ahmedabad Municipality, Rajendra Prasad of Patna Municipality, and Jawaharlal Nehru of Allahabad Municipality. The no -changers actively joined in these ventures since they believed that local bodies could be used to promote the constructive programme. Despite their circumscribed powers, many of the municipalities and district boards, headed by a galaxy of leaders, set out to raise, however little, the quality of life of the people. They did excellent work in the fields of education, sanitation, health, ariti -untouchability, and khadi promotion, won the admiration of friend and foe, and quite often aroused popular enthusiasm . The Swarajists suffered a major loss when C. R. Das died on 16 June 1925. Even more serious were a few other political developments. In the absence of a mass movement, communalism raised its ugly head and the political frustrations of the people began to find expression in communal riots. Actively encouraged by the colonial authorities, the communalists of all hues found a fertile field for their activities. Its preoccupation with parliamentary politics also started

<s>[INST]231 | The Years Of Stagnation — Swarajists, No -Changers And Gandhiji Conference: ‘Repression is a process in the consolidation of arbitrary power — and I condemn the violence of the Government for repression is the most violent form of violen ce —just as I condemn violence as a method of winning political liberty.” The Swarajist activity in the legislatures was spectacular by any standards. It inspired the politicized persons and kept their political interest alive. People were thrilled every time the all - powerful foreign bureaucracy was humbled in the councils. Simultaneously, during 1923 -24, Congressmen captured a large number of municipalities and other local bodies. Das became the Mayor of Calcutta (with Subhas Bose as his Chief Executive Officer), and Vithalbhai Patel. the President of Bombay Corporation, Vallabhbhai Patel of Ahmedabad Municipality, Rajendra Prasad of Patna Municipality, and Jawaharlal Nehru of Allahabad Municipality. The no -changers actively joined in these ventures since they believed that local bodies could be used to promote the constructive programme. Despite their circumscribed powers, many of the municipalities and district boards, headed by a galaxy of leaders, set out to raise, however little, the quality of life of the people. They did excellent work in the fields of education, sanitation, health, ariti -untouchability, and khadi promotion, won the admiration of friend and foe, and quite often aroused popular enthusiasm . The Swarajists suffered a major loss when C. R. Das died on 16 June 1925. Even more serious were a few other political developments. In the absence of a mass movement, communalism raised its ugly head and the political frustrations of the people began to find expression in communal riots. Actively encouraged by the colonial authorities, the communalists of all hues found a fertile field for their activities. Its preoccupation with parliamentary politics also started[/INST]

Its preoccupation with parliamentary politics also started telling on the internal cohesion of the Swaraj Party. For one, the limits of politics of obstruction were soon reached. Having repeatedly outvoted the Government and forced it to certify its legislation, there was no way of going further inside the legislatures and escalating the politics of confrontation. This could be done only by a mass movement outside. But the Swarajists lacked any policy of coordinating their militant work

<s>[INST]Its preoccupation with parliamentary politics also started telling on the internal cohesion of the Swaraj Party. For one, the limits of politics of obstruction were soon reached. Having repeatedly outvoted the Government and forced it to certify its legislation, there was no way of going further inside the legislatures and escalating the politics of confrontation. This could be done only by a mass movement outside. But the Swarajists lacked any policy of coordinating their militant work[/INST]

232 | India’s Struggle For Independence in the legislatures with mass political work outside. In fact, they relied almost w holly on newspaper reporting . The Swarajists also could not carry their coalitio n partners for ever and in every respect, for the latter did not believe in the Swarajists’ tactic of ‘uniform, continuous and consistent obstruction.’ The logic of coalition politics soon began to pull back the Swarajists from militant obstructionism. Som e of the Swarajist legislators could also not resist the pulls of parliamentary perquisites and positions of status and patronage. The Government’s policy of creating dissension among the nationalists by trying to separate the Swarajists from the Liberals , militant Swarajists from the more moderate Swarajists, and Hindus from Muslims began to bear fruit. In Bengal, the majority in the Swaraj Party failed to support the tenants’ cause against the zamindars and, thereby, lost the support of its pro- tenant, mostly Muslim, members. Nor could the Swaraj Party avoid the intrusion of communal discord in its own ranks. Very soon, a group of Responsivists arose in the party who wanted to work the reforms and to hold office wherever possible. The Responsivists joine d the Government in the Central Provinces. Their ranks were soon swelled by N.C. Kel kar, M.R. Jayakar and other leaders. Lajpat Ra i and Madan Mohan Malaviya too separated themselves from the Swaraj Party on Responsivist as well as communal grounds. To pre vent further dissolution and disintegration of the party, the spread of parliamentary ‘corruption,’ and further weakening of the moral fibre of its members, the main leadership of the party reiterated its faith in mass civil disobedience and decided to withdraw from the legislatures in March 1926. Gandhiji, too, had resumed his critique of council -entry. He wrote to Sriniva sa Iyengar in April 1926: The more I study the Councils’ work, the effect of the entry into the Councils upon public life, its

<s>[INST]232 | India’s Struggle For Independence in the legislatures with mass political work outside. In fact, they relied almost w holly on newspaper reporting . The Swarajists also could not carry their coalitio n partners for ever and in every respect, for the latter did not believe in the Swarajists’ tactic of ‘uniform, continuous and consistent obstruction.’ The logic of coalition politics soon began to pull back the Swarajists from militant obstructionism. Som e of the Swarajist legislators could also not resist the pulls of parliamentary perquisites and positions of status and patronage. The Government’s policy of creating dissension among the nationalists by trying to separate the Swarajists from the Liberals , militant Swarajists from the more moderate Swarajists, and Hindus from Muslims began to bear fruit. In Bengal, the majority in the Swaraj Party failed to support the tenants’ cause against the zamindars and, thereby, lost the support of its pro- tenant, mostly Muslim, members. Nor could the Swaraj Party avoid the intrusion of communal discord in its own ranks. Very soon, a group of Responsivists arose in the party who wanted to work the reforms and to hold office wherever possible. The Responsivists joine d the Government in the Central Provinces. Their ranks were soon swelled by N.C. Kel kar, M.R. Jayakar and other leaders. Lajpat Ra i and Madan Mohan Malaviya too separated themselves from the Swaraj Party on Responsivist as well as communal grounds. To pre vent further dissolution and disintegration of the party, the spread of parliamentary ‘corruption,’ and further weakening of the moral fibre of its members, the main leadership of the party reiterated its faith in mass civil disobedience and decided to withdraw from the legislatures in March 1926. Gandhiji, too, had resumed his critique of council -entry. He wrote to Sriniva sa Iyengar in April 1926: The more I study the Councils’ work, the effect of the entry into the Councils upon public life, its[/INST]

repercuss ions upon the Hindu -Muslim question, the more convinced I become not only of the futility but the inadvisability of Council -entry.” *

<s>[INST]repercuss ions upon the Hindu -Muslim question, the more convinced I become not only of the futility but the inadvisability of Council -entry.” *[/INST]

233 | The Years Of Stagnation — Swarajists, No -Changers And Gandhiji The Swaraj Party went into the elections held in November 1926 as a party in disarray — a much weaker and demoralized force. It had to face the Government and loyalist elements and its own dissenters on the one side and the resurgent Hindu and Muslim communalists on the other. A virulent communal and unscrupulous campaign was waged against the Swarajists. Motilal Nehru was, for example, accused of sacrificing Hindu interests, of favouring cow -slaughter, and of eating beef. The Muslim communalists were no less active in branding the Swarajists as anti - Muslim. The result was a severe weakening of the Swaraj Party. It succeeded in winning forty seats at the centre and half the seats in Madras but was severely mauled in all other provinces, especially in U.P., C.P., and Punjab. Moreover, both Hindu and Muslim communalists increased their representation in the councils. The Swaraj ists also could not form a nationalist coalition in the legislatures as they had done in 1923. Once again the Swarajists passed a series of adjourn ment motions and defeated the Government on a number of bills. Noteworthy was the defeat of the Government o n the Public Safety Bill in 1928. Frightened by the spread of socialist and communist ideas and influence and believing that the crucial role in this respect was being played by British and other foreign agitators sent to India by the Communist Internation al, the Government proposed to acquire the power to deport ‘undesirable’ and ‘subversive’ foreigners. Nationalists of all colours, from the moderates to the militants, united in opposing the Bill. Lala Lajpat Rai said, ‘Capitalism is only another name for Imperialism . . . We are in no danger from Bolshevism or Communism. The greatest danger we are in, is from the capitalists and exploiters.’17 Motilal Nehru narrated his experiences in the Soviet Union and condemned anti -Soviet

<s>[INST]233 | The Years Of Stagnation — Swarajists, No -Changers And Gandhiji The Swaraj Party went into the elections held in November 1926 as a party in disarray — a much weaker and demoralized force. It had to face the Government and loyalist elements and its own dissenters on the one side and the resurgent Hindu and Muslim communalists on the other. A virulent communal and unscrupulous campaign was waged against the Swarajists. Motilal Nehru was, for example, accused of sacrificing Hindu interests, of favouring cow -slaughter, and of eating beef. The Muslim communalists were no less active in branding the Swarajists as anti - Muslim. The result was a severe weakening of the Swaraj Party. It succeeded in winning forty seats at the centre and half the seats in Madras but was severely mauled in all other provinces, especially in U.P., C.P., and Punjab. Moreover, both Hindu and Muslim communalists increased their representation in the councils. The Swaraj ists also could not form a nationalist coalition in the legislatures as they had done in 1923. Once again the Swarajists passed a series of adjourn ment motions and defeated the Government on a number of bills. Noteworthy was the defeat of the Government o n the Public Safety Bill in 1928. Frightened by the spread of socialist and communist ideas and influence and believing that the crucial role in this respect was being played by British and other foreign agitators sent to India by the Communist Internation al, the Government proposed to acquire the power to deport ‘undesirable’ and ‘subversive’ foreigners. Nationalists of all colours, from the moderates to the militants, united in opposing the Bill. Lala Lajpat Rai said, ‘Capitalism is only another name for Imperialism . . . We are in no danger from Bolshevism or Communism. The greatest danger we are in, is from the capitalists and exploiters.’17 Motilal Nehru narrated his experiences in the Soviet Union and condemned anti -Soviet[/INST]

experiences in the Soviet Union and condemned anti -Soviet propaganda. He described the Public Safety Bill as ‘a direct attack on Indian nationalism, on the Indian National Congress’ and as ‘the Slavery of India, Bill No. 1.’ T. Prakasam said that the Bill’s main aim was to prevent the spread of nationalism among workers and peasants.’ Diwan Chaman Lall, then a firebrand protege of Motilal, declared: ‘If you are trying to preach against socialism, if you are demanding powers to suppress socialism, you will have to walk over our dead bodies before you can get that power.’ Even the two spokesmen of the capitalist class,

<s>[INST]experiences in the Soviet Union and condemned anti -Soviet propaganda. He described the Public Safety Bill as ‘a direct attack on Indian nationalism, on the Indian National Congress’ and as ‘the Slavery of India, Bill No. 1.’ T. Prakasam said that the Bill’s main aim was to prevent the spread of nationalism among workers and peasants.’ Diwan Chaman Lall, then a firebrand protege of Motilal, declared: ‘If you are trying to preach against socialism, if you are demanding powers to suppress socialism, you will have to walk over our dead bodies before you can get that power.’ Even the two spokesmen of the capitalist class,[/INST]

234 | India’s Struggle For Independence Purshottamdas Thakurdas and G.D. Birla, firmly opposed the Bill. In March 1929, having failed to get the Bill passed, the Government arrested thirty -one leading communists, trade unionists and other leftwing leaders and put them on trial at Meerut. This led to strong criticism of the Government by the natio nalists. Describing the arr ests as presaging a period of terrorism,’ Gandhi said that the motive behind these prose cutions is not to kill Communism, it is to strike terror.’ He added: ‘Evidently it (the Government) believes in a periodical exhibition of its capacity ( supersede all law and to discover to a trembling India the red claws which usually remain under cover.’ The Swara jists finally walked out of the legislatures in 1930 as a result of the La hore Congress resolution and the beginning of civil disobedience. Their great achievement lay in their filling the political void at a time when the national movement was recoup ing its strength. And this they did without getting co -opted by the colonial regime. As Motilal Neh ru wrote to his son: ‘We have stood firm.’ While some in their ranks fell by the wayside as was inevitable in the parliamentary fra mework, the overwhelming majority proved their mettle and stood their ground. They worked in the legislatures in an orderly disciplined manner and withdrew from them whenever the call cam e. Above all, they showed that it was possible to use the legislatures in a creative manner even as they promo ted the politics of self-reliant anti -imperialism. They also successfully exposed the hollowness of the Reform Act of 1919 and showed the people that India was be ing ruled by ‘ lawIess laws. * In the meantime, the no -changers carried on laborious, quiet, undemonstrative, grass -roots constructive work around the promotion of khadi and spinning, national education and Hindu -Muslim unity, the struggle against untouchability and the

<s>[INST]234 | India’s Struggle For Independence Purshottamdas Thakurdas and G.D. Birla, firmly opposed the Bill. In March 1929, having failed to get the Bill passed, the Government arrested thirty -one leading communists, trade unionists and other leftwing leaders and put them on trial at Meerut. This led to strong criticism of the Government by the natio nalists. Describing the arr ests as presaging a period of terrorism,’ Gandhi said that the motive behind these prose cutions is not to kill Communism, it is to strike terror.’ He added: ‘Evidently it (the Government) believes in a periodical exhibition of its capacity ( supersede all law and to discover to a trembling India the red claws which usually remain under cover.’ The Swara jists finally walked out of the legislatures in 1930 as a result of the La hore Congress resolution and the beginning of civil disobedience. Their great achievement lay in their filling the political void at a time when the national movement was recoup ing its strength. And this they did without getting co -opted by the colonial regime. As Motilal Neh ru wrote to his son: ‘We have stood firm.’ While some in their ranks fell by the wayside as was inevitable in the parliamentary fra mework, the overwhelming majority proved their mettle and stood their ground. They worked in the legislatures in an orderly disciplined manner and withdrew from them whenever the call cam e. Above all, they showed that it was possible to use the legislatures in a creative manner even as they promo ted the politics of self-reliant anti -imperialism. They also successfully exposed the hollowness of the Reform Act of 1919 and showed the people that India was be ing ruled by ‘ lawIess laws. * In the meantime, the no -changers carried on laborious, quiet, undemonstrative, grass -roots constructive work around the promotion of khadi and spinning, national education and Hindu -Muslim unity, the struggle against untouchability and the[/INST]

boycott of foreign cloth. This work was symbolized by hundreds of ashrams that came up all over the country where political cadres got practical training in khadi work and work among the lower castes and tribal people. For example, there was the Vedchi

<s>[INST]boycott of foreign cloth. This work was symbolized by hundreds of ashrams that came up all over the country where political cadres got practical training in khadi work and work among the lower castes and tribal people. For example, there was the Vedchi[/INST]

235 | The Years Of Stagnation — Swarajists, No -Changers And Gandhiji Ashram in Bardoli taluqa, Gujarat, where Chimanlal Mehta, Jugatram Dave and Chimanlal Bhatt devoted their entire lives to the spread of education among the adivasis or kaliparaj; or the work done by Ravishankar Maharaj among the lower caste Baralyas of Kheda district. In fact, Gandhian constructive work was multi -faceted in its content. It brought some much -needed relief to the poor, it promoted the process of the nation -in-the-making; and it made the urban -based and upper caste cadres familiar with the conditions of villages and lower castes. It provided Congress political workers or cadres Continuous and effective work in the passive phases of the national movement, helped build their bonds with those sections of the masses who were hitherto untouched by politics, and developed their organizing capacity and self-reliance. It filled the rural masses with a new hope and increa sed Congress influence among them. Without the uplift of the lower castes and Adivasis there could be no united struggle against colonialism. The boycott of foreign cloth was a stroke of genius which demonstrated to rulers and the world the Indian people’ s determination to be free. National schools and colleges trained young men in an alternative, non -colonial ideological framework. A large number of young men and women wh o dropped out in 1920 -21 went back to the officially recognized educational instituti ons but many often became whole time cadres of the movement. As a whole, constructive work was a major channel for the recruitment of the soldiers of freedom and their political training — as also for the choosing and testing of their ‘officers’ and leade rs. Constructive workers were to act as the steelframe of the nationalist movement in its active Satyagraha phase. It was, therefore, not accidental that khadi bhandar workers, students and teachers of national schools and colleges, and Gandhian

<s>[INST]235 | The Years Of Stagnation — Swarajists, No -Changers And Gandhiji Ashram in Bardoli taluqa, Gujarat, where Chimanlal Mehta, Jugatram Dave and Chimanlal Bhatt devoted their entire lives to the spread of education among the adivasis or kaliparaj; or the work done by Ravishankar Maharaj among the lower caste Baralyas of Kheda district. In fact, Gandhian constructive work was multi -faceted in its content. It brought some much -needed relief to the poor, it promoted the process of the nation -in-the-making; and it made the urban -based and upper caste cadres familiar with the conditions of villages and lower castes. It provided Congress political workers or cadres Continuous and effective work in the passive phases of the national movement, helped build their bonds with those sections of the masses who were hitherto untouched by politics, and developed their organizing capacity and self-reliance. It filled the rural masses with a new hope and increa sed Congress influence among them. Without the uplift of the lower castes and Adivasis there could be no united struggle against colonialism. The boycott of foreign cloth was a stroke of genius which demonstrated to rulers and the world the Indian people’ s determination to be free. National schools and colleges trained young men in an alternative, non -colonial ideological framework. A large number of young men and women wh o dropped out in 1920 -21 went back to the officially recognized educational instituti ons but many often became whole time cadres of the movement. As a whole, constructive work was a major channel for the recruitment of the soldiers of freedom and their political training — as also for the choosing and testing of their ‘officers’ and leade rs. Constructive workers were to act as the steelframe of the nationalist movement in its active Satyagraha phase. It was, therefore, not accidental that khadi bhandar workers, students and teachers of national schools and colleges, and Gandhian[/INST]

and teachers of national schools and colleges, and Gandhian ashrams’ inmates served as the backbone of the civil disobedience movements both as organizers and as active Satyagrahis. The years 1922 -27 were a period of contradictory developments. While the Swarajists and Gandhian constructive workers were quite active in their own separate ways, there simultaneously prevailed virulent factionalism and indiscipline in

<s>[INST]and teachers of national schools and colleges, and Gandhian ashrams’ inmates served as the backbone of the civil disobedience movements both as organizers and as active Satyagrahis. The years 1922 -27 were a period of contradictory developments. While the Swarajists and Gandhian constructive workers were quite active in their own separate ways, there simultaneously prevailed virulent factionalism and indiscipline in[/INST]

236 | India’s Struggle For Independence both the camps. By 1927, on the whole, an atmosphere of apathy and frustration had begun to prevail. Gandhiji wrote in May 1927: ‘My only hope therefore lies in p rayer and answer to prayer.’ But underneath, after years of rest and recoupment, the forces of nationalism were again getting ready to enter a period of active struggle. This became evident in the rise of youth power and the national response to the Simon Commission.

<s>[INST]236 | India’s Struggle For Independence both the camps. By 1927, on the whole, an atmosphere of apathy and frustration had begun to prevail. Gandhiji wrote in May 1927: ‘My only hope therefore lies in p rayer and answer to prayer.’ But underneath, after years of rest and recoupment, the forces of nationalism were again getting ready to enter a period of active struggle. This became evident in the rise of youth power and the national response to the Simon Commission.[/INST]

237 | Bhagat Singh, Surya Sen and the Revolutionary Terrorists CHAPTER 20. BHAGAT SINGH, SURYA SEN AND THE REVOLUTIONARY TERRORISTS The revolutionary terrorists were severely suppressed during World War I, with most of th e leaders in jail or absc onding. Consequently, in order to create a more harmonious atmosphere for the Montagu e-Chelmsford reforms, the Government released most of them under a general amnesty in early 1920. Soon after, the National Congress launched the Non Cooperation Movement and on the urging of Gandhij i, C.R. Das and other Leaders most of the revolutionary terrorists either joined the movement or suspended their own activities in order to give the Gandhian mass movement a chance. But the sudden suspension of the Non -Cooperati on Movement shattered the high hopes raised earlier. Many young people began to question the very basic strategy of the national leadership and its emphasis on non violence and began to look for alternatives. They were not attracted by the parliamentary politics of the Swarajists or the patient and undramatic constructive work of the no-changers.. Many were drawn to the idea that violent methods alone would free India. Revolutionary terrorism again became attractive. It is not accidental that nearly all the major new leaders of the revolutionary terrorist politics, for example, Jogesh Chandra Chatte rjea, Surya Sen, Jatin Das, Chandrashekhar Azad, Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev, Shiv Varma, Bhagwati Charan Vohra and Jaidev Ka pur, had been enthusiastic participants in the non -violent Non -Cooperation Movement. Gradually two separate strands of revolutionary terrorism developed — one in Punjab, U.P. and Bihar and the other in Bengal. Both the strands came under the influence of several new social forces. One was the upsu rge of working class trade

<s>[INST]237 | Bhagat Singh, Surya Sen and the Revolutionary Terrorists CHAPTER 20. BHAGAT SINGH, SURYA SEN AND THE REVOLUTIONARY TERRORISTS The revolutionary terrorists were severely suppressed during World War I, with most of th e leaders in jail or absc onding. Consequently, in order to create a more harmonious atmosphere for the Montagu e-Chelmsford reforms, the Government released most of them under a general amnesty in early 1920. Soon after, the National Congress launched the Non Cooperation Movement and on the urging of Gandhij i, C.R. Das and other Leaders most of the revolutionary terrorists either joined the movement or suspended their own activities in order to give the Gandhian mass movement a chance. But the sudden suspension of the Non -Cooperati on Movement shattered the high hopes raised earlier. Many young people began to question the very basic strategy of the national leadership and its emphasis on non violence and began to look for alternatives. They were not attracted by the parliamentary politics of the Swarajists or the patient and undramatic constructive work of the no-changers.. Many were drawn to the idea that violent methods alone would free India. Revolutionary terrorism again became attractive. It is not accidental that nearly all the major new leaders of the revolutionary terrorist politics, for example, Jogesh Chandra Chatte rjea, Surya Sen, Jatin Das, Chandrashekhar Azad, Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev, Shiv Varma, Bhagwati Charan Vohra and Jaidev Ka pur, had been enthusiastic participants in the non -violent Non -Cooperation Movement. Gradually two separate strands of revolutionary terrorism developed — one in Punjab, U.P. and Bihar and the other in Bengal. Both the strands came under the influence of several new social forces. One was the upsu rge of working class trade[/INST]

238 | India’s Struggle For Independence unionism after the War. They could see the revolutionary potential of the new class and desired to harness it to the nationalist revolution. The second major influence was that of the Russian Revolution and the success of the you ng Socialist State in consolidating itself. The youthful revolutionaries were keen to learn from and take the help of the young Soviet State and its ruling Bolshevik Party. The third influence was that of the newly sprouting Communist groups with their emp hasis on Marxism, Socialism and the proletariat. * The revolutionaries in northern India were the first to emerge out of the mood of frustration and reorganize under the leadership of the old veterans, Ramprasad Bismil, Jogesh Chatterjea and Sachindranath Sanyal whose Bandi Jiwan served as a textbook to the revolutionary movement. They met in Kanpur in October 1924 and founded the Hindustan Republican Association (or Army) to organize armed revolution to overthrow colonial rule and establish in its place a Federal Republic of the United States of India whose basic principle would be adult franchise. Before armed struggle could be waged, propaganda had to be organized on a large scale, men had to be recruited and trained and arms had to be procured. All the se required money. The most important ‘action’ of the HRA was the Kako ri Robbery. On 9 August 1925, ten men held up the 8-Down train at Kakori, an obscure village near Lucknow, and looted its official railway cash. The Government reaction was quick and har d. It arrested a large number of young men and tried them in the Kakori Conspiracy Case. Ashfaqulla Khan, Ramprasad Bismil, Ràshan Singh and Rajendra Lahiri were hanged, four others were sent to the Andamans for life and seventeen others were sentenced to long terms of imprisonment. Chandrashekhar Azad remained at large. The Kakori case was a major setback to the revolutionaries of northern India but it was not a fatal blow. Younger men such

<s>[INST]238 | India’s Struggle For Independence unionism after the War. They could see the revolutionary potential of the new class and desired to harness it to the nationalist revolution. The second major influence was that of the Russian Revolution and the success of the you ng Socialist State in consolidating itself. The youthful revolutionaries were keen to learn from and take the help of the young Soviet State and its ruling Bolshevik Party. The third influence was that of the newly sprouting Communist groups with their emp hasis on Marxism, Socialism and the proletariat. * The revolutionaries in northern India were the first to emerge out of the mood of frustration and reorganize under the leadership of the old veterans, Ramprasad Bismil, Jogesh Chatterjea and Sachindranath Sanyal whose Bandi Jiwan served as a textbook to the revolutionary movement. They met in Kanpur in October 1924 and founded the Hindustan Republican Association (or Army) to organize armed revolution to overthrow colonial rule and establish in its place a Federal Republic of the United States of India whose basic principle would be adult franchise. Before armed struggle could be waged, propaganda had to be organized on a large scale, men had to be recruited and trained and arms had to be procured. All the se required money. The most important ‘action’ of the HRA was the Kako ri Robbery. On 9 August 1925, ten men held up the 8-Down train at Kakori, an obscure village near Lucknow, and looted its official railway cash. The Government reaction was quick and har d. It arrested a large number of young men and tried them in the Kakori Conspiracy Case. Ashfaqulla Khan, Ramprasad Bismil, Ràshan Singh and Rajendra Lahiri were hanged, four others were sent to the Andamans for life and seventeen others were sentenced to long terms of imprisonment. Chandrashekhar Azad remained at large. The Kakori case was a major setback to the revolutionaries of northern India but it was not a fatal blow. Younger men such[/INST]

as Bejoy Kumar Sinha, Shiv Varma and Jaidev Kapur in U.P., - Bhaga t Singh, Bhagwati Charan Vohra and Sukhdev in Punjab set out to reorganize the HRA under the overall leadership of

<s>[INST]as Bejoy Kumar Sinha, Shiv Varma and Jaidev Kapur in U.P., - Bhaga t Singh, Bhagwati Charan Vohra and Sukhdev in Punjab set out to reorganize the HRA under the overall leadership of[/INST]

239 | Bhagat Singh, Surya Sen and the Revolutionary Terrorists Chandrashekhar Azad. Simultaneously, they were being influenced by socialist ideas. Finally, nearly all the major young revolutionaries of no rthern India met at Ferozeshah Kotla Ground at Delhi on 9 and 10 September 1928, created a new collective leadership, adopted socialism as their official goal and changed the name of the party to the 1-lindustan Socialist Republican Association (Army) . * Even though, as we shall see, the HSR.A and its leadership was rapidly moving away from individual heroic action and assassination and towards mass politics, La la Lajpat Rai’s death, as the result of a brutal lathi -charge when he was leading an anti-Simon Commission demonstration at Lahore on 30 Oct ober her 1928, led them once again to take to individual assassination. The death of this great Punjabi lea der, popularly known as Sher-e-Punjab, was seen by the romantic youthful leadership of the HSRA as a direct challenge. And so, on 17 December 1928, Bhagat Singh, Azad and Rajguru assassinated, at Lahore, Saunders, a police official involved in the lathi charge of Lab Lajpat Rai. In a poster , put up by the HSRA after the assassination, the assassination was justified as follows: ‘The murder of a leader respected by millions of people at the unworthy hands of an ordinary police official . . . was an insult to the nation. it was the bounden duty of young men of India to efface it. . . We regret to have had to kil l a person but he was part and parcel of that inhuman and unjust order which has to be destroyed.’ The HSRA leadership now decided to let the people know about its changed objectives and the need for a revolution by the masses. Bhagat Singh and B.K. Du tt were asked to throw a bomb in the Central Legislative Assembly on 8 April 1929 against the passage of the Public Safety Bill and the Trade Disputes Bill which would reduce the civil liberties of citizens in general and

<s>[INST]239 | Bhagat Singh, Surya Sen and the Revolutionary Terrorists Chandrashekhar Azad. Simultaneously, they were being influenced by socialist ideas. Finally, nearly all the major young revolutionaries of no rthern India met at Ferozeshah Kotla Ground at Delhi on 9 and 10 September 1928, created a new collective leadership, adopted socialism as their official goal and changed the name of the party to the 1-lindustan Socialist Republican Association (Army) . * Even though, as we shall see, the HSR.A and its leadership was rapidly moving away from individual heroic action and assassination and towards mass politics, La la Lajpat Rai’s death, as the result of a brutal lathi -charge when he was leading an anti-Simon Commission demonstration at Lahore on 30 Oct ober her 1928, led them once again to take to individual assassination. The death of this great Punjabi lea der, popularly known as Sher-e-Punjab, was seen by the romantic youthful leadership of the HSRA as a direct challenge. And so, on 17 December 1928, Bhagat Singh, Azad and Rajguru assassinated, at Lahore, Saunders, a police official involved in the lathi charge of Lab Lajpat Rai. In a poster , put up by the HSRA after the assassination, the assassination was justified as follows: ‘The murder of a leader respected by millions of people at the unworthy hands of an ordinary police official . . . was an insult to the nation. it was the bounden duty of young men of India to efface it. . . We regret to have had to kil l a person but he was part and parcel of that inhuman and unjust order which has to be destroyed.’ The HSRA leadership now decided to let the people know about its changed objectives and the need for a revolution by the masses. Bhagat Singh and B.K. Du tt were asked to throw a bomb in the Central Legislative Assembly on 8 April 1929 against the passage of the Public Safety Bill and the Trade Disputes Bill which would reduce the civil liberties of citizens in general and[/INST]

workers in particular. The aim was no t to kill, for the bombs were relatively harmless, but, as the leaflet they threw into the Assembly hail proclaimed, ‘to make the deaf hear’. The objective was to get arrested and to use the trial court as a forum for

<s>[INST]workers in particular. The aim was no t to kill, for the bombs were relatively harmless, but, as the leaflet they threw into the Assembly hail proclaimed, ‘to make the deaf hear’. The objective was to get arrested and to use the trial court as a forum for[/INST]

240 | India’s Struggle For Independence propaganda so that people would become familiar with their movement and ideology. Bhagat Singh and B.K. Du tt were tried in the Assembly Bomb Case. Later, Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev, Rajguru and tens of other revolutionaries were tried in a series of famous conspiracy cases. Their fearless and defiant attitude in the courts — every day they entered the court -room shouting slogans ‘Inquilab Zindabad,’ ‘Down, Down with Imperialism ,’ ‘Long Live the Proletariat’ and singing songs such as ‘Sarfaroshi ki tamanna ab hamare di l mei hai’ (our heart is filled with the desire for martyrdom) and ‘Mera rang de basanti chola’ (dye my clothes in saffron colour (the colour of courage and sacrifice) — was reported in newspapers; unsurprisingly this won them the support and sympathy of people all over the country incl uding those who had complete faith in non -violence. Bhagat Singh became a household name in the land. And many persons, all over the country, wept and refused to eat food, attend schools, or carry on their daily work, when they heard of his hanging in Marc h 1931. The country was also stirred by the prolonged hunger strike the revolutionary under -trials undertook as a protest against the horrible conditions in jails. They demanded that they be treated not as criminals but as political prisoners. The entire nation rallied behind the hunger - strikers. On 13 September, the 64th day of the epic fast, Jatin Das, a frail young man w ith an iron will, died. Thousands came to pay him homage at every station passed by the train carrying his body from Lahore to Calcutt a. At Calcutta, a two -mile-long procession of more than six lakh people carried his coffin to the cremation ground. A large number of revolutionaries were convicted in the Lahore Conspiracy Case and other similar cases and sentenced to long terms of impri sonment; many of them were sent to the Andamans. Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev and Rajguru were sentenced

<s>[INST]240 | India’s Struggle For Independence propaganda so that people would become familiar with their movement and ideology. Bhagat Singh and B.K. Du tt were tried in the Assembly Bomb Case. Later, Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev, Rajguru and tens of other revolutionaries were tried in a series of famous conspiracy cases. Their fearless and defiant attitude in the courts — every day they entered the court -room shouting slogans ‘Inquilab Zindabad,’ ‘Down, Down with Imperialism ,’ ‘Long Live the Proletariat’ and singing songs such as ‘Sarfaroshi ki tamanna ab hamare di l mei hai’ (our heart is filled with the desire for martyrdom) and ‘Mera rang de basanti chola’ (dye my clothes in saffron colour (the colour of courage and sacrifice) — was reported in newspapers; unsurprisingly this won them the support and sympathy of people all over the country incl uding those who had complete faith in non -violence. Bhagat Singh became a household name in the land. And many persons, all over the country, wept and refused to eat food, attend schools, or carry on their daily work, when they heard of his hanging in Marc h 1931. The country was also stirred by the prolonged hunger strike the revolutionary under -trials undertook as a protest against the horrible conditions in jails. They demanded that they be treated not as criminals but as political prisoners. The entire nation rallied behind the hunger - strikers. On 13 September, the 64th day of the epic fast, Jatin Das, a frail young man w ith an iron will, died. Thousands came to pay him homage at every station passed by the train carrying his body from Lahore to Calcutt a. At Calcutta, a two -mile-long procession of more than six lakh people carried his coffin to the cremation ground. A large number of revolutionaries were convicted in the Lahore Conspiracy Case and other similar cases and sentenced to long terms of impri sonment; many of them were sent to the Andamans. Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev and Rajguru were sentenced[/INST]

Andamans. Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev and Rajguru were sentenced to be hanged. The sentence was carried out on 23 March 1931. * In Bengal, too, the revolutionary terrorists started reorganizing and developing their undergr ound activities. At the

<s>[INST]Andamans. Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev and Rajguru were sentenced to be hanged. The sentence was carried out on 23 March 1931. * In Bengal, too, the revolutionary terrorists started reorganizing and developing their undergr ound activities. At the[/INST]

241 | Bhagat Singh, Surya Sen and the Revolutionary Terrorists same time, many of them continued to work in the Congress organization. This enabled them to ga in access to the vast Congress masses; on the other hand, they provided the Congress with an organizational base in small towns and the c ountryside. They cooperate d with C.R. Das in his Swarajist work. After his death the Congress leadership in Bengal got divided into two wings, one led by Subhas Chandra Bose and the other by J.M. Sengupta, the Yugantar group joined forces with the first an d Anushilan with the secon d. Among the several ‘actions’ of the reorganized groups was the attempt to assassinate Charles Tegart, the hated Police Commissioner of Calcutta, by Gopinath Saha in January 1924. By an error, another Englishman named Day was killed. The Government came down on the people with a heavy hand. A large number of people, suspected of being terrorists, or their supporters, were arrested under a newly promulgated ordinance. These included Subhas Chandra Bose and many other Congressmen. S aha was hanged despite massive popular protest. The revolutionary activity suffered a severe setback. Another reason for stagnation in revolutionary terrorist activity lay in the incessant factional and personal quarrels within the terrorist groups , especi ally where Yugantar and Anushilan rivalry was concerned. But very soon younger revolutionaries began to organize themselves in new groups, developing fraternal relations with the active elements of both the Anushilan and Yugantar parties. Among the new Rev olt Groups,’ the most active and famous was the Chittagong group led by Surya Sen. Surya Sen had actively participated in the Non -Cooperation Movement and had become a teacher in a national school in Chittagong, which led to his being popularly known as M asterda. Arrested and imprisoned for two years, from 1926 to 1928, for revolutionary activity, he continued to work in the Congress. He

<s>[INST]241 | Bhagat Singh, Surya Sen and the Revolutionary Terrorists same time, many of them continued to work in the Congress organization. This enabled them to ga in access to the vast Congress masses; on the other hand, they provided the Congress with an organizational base in small towns and the c ountryside. They cooperate d with C.R. Das in his Swarajist work. After his death the Congress leadership in Bengal got divided into two wings, one led by Subhas Chandra Bose and the other by J.M. Sengupta, the Yugantar group joined forces with the first an d Anushilan with the secon d. Among the several ‘actions’ of the reorganized groups was the attempt to assassinate Charles Tegart, the hated Police Commissioner of Calcutta, by Gopinath Saha in January 1924. By an error, another Englishman named Day was killed. The Government came down on the people with a heavy hand. A large number of people, suspected of being terrorists, or their supporters, were arrested under a newly promulgated ordinance. These included Subhas Chandra Bose and many other Congressmen. S aha was hanged despite massive popular protest. The revolutionary activity suffered a severe setback. Another reason for stagnation in revolutionary terrorist activity lay in the incessant factional and personal quarrels within the terrorist groups , especi ally where Yugantar and Anushilan rivalry was concerned. But very soon younger revolutionaries began to organize themselves in new groups, developing fraternal relations with the active elements of both the Anushilan and Yugantar parties. Among the new Rev olt Groups,’ the most active and famous was the Chittagong group led by Surya Sen. Surya Sen had actively participated in the Non -Cooperation Movement and had become a teacher in a national school in Chittagong, which led to his being popularly known as M asterda. Arrested and imprisoned for two years, from 1926 to 1928, for revolutionary activity, he continued to work in the Congress. He[/INST]

and his group were closely associated with the Congress work in Chittagong. In 1929, Surya Sen was the Secretary and five of his associates were members of the Chittagong District Congress Committee.

<s>[INST]and his group were closely associated with the Congress work in Chittagong. In 1929, Surya Sen was the Secretary and five of his associates were members of the Chittagong District Congress Committee.[/INST]

242 | India’s Struggle For Independence Surya Sen, a brilliant and inspiring organizer, was an unpretentious, soft -spoken and transparently sincere person. Possessed of immense personal courage, he was deeply humane in his approach. He was fond of saying: ‘Humanism is a special virtue of a revolutionary.’ He was also very fond of poetry, being a great admirer of Rabindranath Tagore and Kazi Nazrul Islam. Surya Sen soon gathered around himself a large band of revolut ionary youth including Anant Singh, Ganesh Ghosh and Lokenath Baul. They decided to organize a rebellion, on however small a scale, to demonstrate that it was possible to challenge the armed m ight of the British Empire in India. Their action plan was to include occupation of the two main armouries in Chittagong and the seizing of their arms with which a large band of revolutionaries could be formed into an armed detachment; the destruction of the telephone and telegraph systems of the city; and the dislocat ion of the railway communication system between Chittagong and the rest of Bengal. The action was carefully planned and was put into execution at 10 o’clock on the night of 18 April 1930. A group of six revolutionaries, led by Ganesh Ghosh, captured the Po lice Armoury, shouting slogans such as Inquilab Zindabad, Down with Imperialism and Gandhiji‘s Raj has been established. Another group of ten, led by Lokenath Paul, took over the Auxiliary Force Armoury along with its Lewis guns and 303 army rifles. Unfort unately they could not locate the ammunition. This was to prove a disastrous setback to the revolutionaries’ plans. The revolutionaries also succeeded in dislocating telephone and telegraph communications and disrupting movement by train. In all, sixty- five were involved in the raid, which was undertaken in the name of the Indian Republican Army, Chittagong Branch. All the revolutionary groups gathered outside the Police Armoury where Surya Sen, dressed in immaculate white khadi

<s>[INST]242 | India’s Struggle For Independence Surya Sen, a brilliant and inspiring organizer, was an unpretentious, soft -spoken and transparently sincere person. Possessed of immense personal courage, he was deeply humane in his approach. He was fond of saying: ‘Humanism is a special virtue of a revolutionary.’ He was also very fond of poetry, being a great admirer of Rabindranath Tagore and Kazi Nazrul Islam. Surya Sen soon gathered around himself a large band of revolut ionary youth including Anant Singh, Ganesh Ghosh and Lokenath Baul. They decided to organize a rebellion, on however small a scale, to demonstrate that it was possible to challenge the armed m ight of the British Empire in India. Their action plan was to include occupation of the two main armouries in Chittagong and the seizing of their arms with which a large band of revolutionaries could be formed into an armed detachment; the destruction of the telephone and telegraph systems of the city; and the dislocat ion of the railway communication system between Chittagong and the rest of Bengal. The action was carefully planned and was put into execution at 10 o’clock on the night of 18 April 1930. A group of six revolutionaries, led by Ganesh Ghosh, captured the Po lice Armoury, shouting slogans such as Inquilab Zindabad, Down with Imperialism and Gandhiji‘s Raj has been established. Another group of ten, led by Lokenath Paul, took over the Auxiliary Force Armoury along with its Lewis guns and 303 army rifles. Unfort unately they could not locate the ammunition. This was to prove a disastrous setback to the revolutionaries’ plans. The revolutionaries also succeeded in dislocating telephone and telegraph communications and disrupting movement by train. In all, sixty- five were involved in the raid, which was undertaken in the name of the Indian Republican Army, Chittagong Branch. All the revolutionary groups gathered outside the Police Armoury where Surya Sen, dressed in immaculate white khadi[/INST]

Armoury where Surya Sen, dressed in immaculate white khadi dhoti and a long coat and stiffly ironed Gandhi cap, took a military salute, hoisted the National Flag among shouts of Bande Mataram and Inquilab Zindabad, and proclaimed a Provisional Revolutionary Government. It was not possible for the band of revolutionaries to put up a fight in the town against the army which was expected. They, therefore, left Chitt agong town before dawn and marched towards the Chittagong hill ranges, looking for a safe place. It was on the

<s>[INST]Armoury where Surya Sen, dressed in immaculate white khadi dhoti and a long coat and stiffly ironed Gandhi cap, took a military salute, hoisted the National Flag among shouts of Bande Mataram and Inquilab Zindabad, and proclaimed a Provisional Revolutionary Government. It was not possible for the band of revolutionaries to put up a fight in the town against the army which was expected. They, therefore, left Chitt agong town before dawn and marched towards the Chittagong hill ranges, looking for a safe place. It was on the[/INST]

243 | Bhagat Singh, Surya Sen and the Revolutionary Terrorists Jalalabad hill that several thousand troops surrounded them on the af ternoon of 22 April. After a fierce fight n which over eighty British troops and twelve revolutionaries died, Surya Sen decided to disperse into the neighbouring villages; there they formed into small groups and conducted raids on Government, personnel and property. Despite several repressive measures and combing operations by the authorities, the villagers, most of them Muslims, gave food and shelter to the revolutionary outlaws and enabled them to survive for three years. Surya Sen was finally arrested on 16 February 1933, tried and hanged on 12 January 1934. Many of his co-fighters were caught and sentenced to long terms of imprisonment. The Chittagong Armoury Raid had an immense impact on the people of Bengal. As an official publication remarked, it ‘fired the imagination of revolutionary -minded youth’ and ‘recruits poured into the various terrorist groups in a steady stream.’ The year 1930 witnessed a major revival of revolutionary activity, and its momentum carried over to 1931 and 1932. There were numerous instances of death -defying heroism. In Midnapore district alone, three British magistrates were assassinated. Attempts were made on the lives of two Governors; two Inspectors - General of Police were killed. During this three -year period, twenty -two officials and twenty non -officials were killed. The official reaction to the Armoury Raid and the revival of revolutionary terrorist activity was initially one of panic and, then of brutal reprisals. The Government armed itself with twenty repressive Acts and let loose the police on all nationalists. In Chittagong, it burnt several villages, imposed punitive fine on many others, and in general established a reign of terror. In 1933, it arrested and sentenced Jawaharlal Nehru to a two-year term in jail for s edition. He had in a speech in Calcutta

<s>[INST]243 | Bhagat Singh, Surya Sen and the Revolutionary Terrorists Jalalabad hill that several thousand troops surrounded them on the af ternoon of 22 April. After a fierce fight n which over eighty British troops and twelve revolutionaries died, Surya Sen decided to disperse into the neighbouring villages; there they formed into small groups and conducted raids on Government, personnel and property. Despite several repressive measures and combing operations by the authorities, the villagers, most of them Muslims, gave food and shelter to the revolutionary outlaws and enabled them to survive for three years. Surya Sen was finally arrested on 16 February 1933, tried and hanged on 12 January 1934. Many of his co-fighters were caught and sentenced to long terms of imprisonment. The Chittagong Armoury Raid had an immense impact on the people of Bengal. As an official publication remarked, it ‘fired the imagination of revolutionary -minded youth’ and ‘recruits poured into the various terrorist groups in a steady stream.’ The year 1930 witnessed a major revival of revolutionary activity, and its momentum carried over to 1931 and 1932. There were numerous instances of death -defying heroism. In Midnapore district alone, three British magistrates were assassinated. Attempts were made on the lives of two Governors; two Inspectors - General of Police were killed. During this three -year period, twenty -two officials and twenty non -officials were killed. The official reaction to the Armoury Raid and the revival of revolutionary terrorist activity was initially one of panic and, then of brutal reprisals. The Government armed itself with twenty repressive Acts and let loose the police on all nationalists. In Chittagong, it burnt several villages, imposed punitive fine on many others, and in general established a reign of terror. In 1933, it arrested and sentenced Jawaharlal Nehru to a two-year term in jail for s edition. He had in a speech in Calcutta[/INST]

term in jail for s edition. He had in a speech in Calcutta condemned imperialism, praised the heroism of revolutionary youth (even while criticizing the policy of terrorism as futile and out-of-date) and condemned police repression. A remarkable aspect of this new phase of the terrorist movement in Bengal was the large -scale participation of young women Under Surya Sen’s leadership, they provided shelter, acted as messengers and custodians of arms, and fought, guns in hand. Pritilata Waddedar died while condu cting a raid, wh ile

<s>[INST]term in jail for s edition. He had in a speech in Calcutta condemned imperialism, praised the heroism of revolutionary youth (even while criticizing the policy of terrorism as futile and out-of-date) and condemned police repression. A remarkable aspect of this new phase of the terrorist movement in Bengal was the large -scale participation of young women Under Surya Sen’s leadership, they provided shelter, acted as messengers and custodians of arms, and fought, guns in hand. Pritilata Waddedar died while condu cting a raid, wh ile[/INST]

244 | India’s Struggle For Independence Kalpana Dutt (now Joshi) was arrested and tried along with Surya Sen and given a life sentence. In December 1931, two school girls of Comilla, Santi Ghosh and Suniti Chowdhury, shot dead the District Magistrate. In February 1932, Bina Das fired point b lank at the Governor while receiving her degree at the Convocation. Compared to the old revolutionary terrorists, as also Bhagat Singh and his comrades, the Chittagong rebels made an important advance. Instead of an individual’s act of heroism or the assassination of an individual, theirs was a group action aimed at the organs of the colonial state. But the objective still was to set an example before the youth, and to demoralize the bureaucracy. As K alpana Josh i(Dutt) has put it, the plan - was that when, after the Chittagong rebellion, ‘the Government would bring in troops to take back Chittagong they (the terrorists) would die fighting — thus creating a legend and setting an example befor e their countrymen to emulate.’ Or as Sur ya Sen told Ananda Gupta: ‘ A dedicated band of youth must show the path of organized armed struggle in place of individual terrorism. Most of us will have to die in the process but our sacrifice for such a noble cause will not go in vain.’ The Bengal revolutionaries of the l920s and 1930s had shed some of their earlier Hindu religiosity — they no longer took religious oaths and vows. Some of the groups also no longer excluded Muslims — the Chittagong IRA cadre included many Muslims like Sattar, Mir Ahmad, Fakir Ahmad Mian, Tunu Mian and got massive support from Muslim villagers around Chittagong. But they still retained elements of social conservatism, nor did they evolve broader socio -economic goals. In particular, those revolutionary terrorists, who worked in the Swaraj party, faile d to support the cause of Muslim peasantry against the zamindars. * A real breakthrough in terms of revolutionary ideology and

<s>[INST]244 | India’s Struggle For Independence Kalpana Dutt (now Joshi) was arrested and tried along with Surya Sen and given a life sentence. In December 1931, two school girls of Comilla, Santi Ghosh and Suniti Chowdhury, shot dead the District Magistrate. In February 1932, Bina Das fired point b lank at the Governor while receiving her degree at the Convocation. Compared to the old revolutionary terrorists, as also Bhagat Singh and his comrades, the Chittagong rebels made an important advance. Instead of an individual’s act of heroism or the assassination of an individual, theirs was a group action aimed at the organs of the colonial state. But the objective still was to set an example before the youth, and to demoralize the bureaucracy. As K alpana Josh i(Dutt) has put it, the plan - was that when, after the Chittagong rebellion, ‘the Government would bring in troops to take back Chittagong they (the terrorists) would die fighting — thus creating a legend and setting an example befor e their countrymen to emulate.’ Or as Sur ya Sen told Ananda Gupta: ‘ A dedicated band of youth must show the path of organized armed struggle in place of individual terrorism. Most of us will have to die in the process but our sacrifice for such a noble cause will not go in vain.’ The Bengal revolutionaries of the l920s and 1930s had shed some of their earlier Hindu religiosity — they no longer took religious oaths and vows. Some of the groups also no longer excluded Muslims — the Chittagong IRA cadre included many Muslims like Sattar, Mir Ahmad, Fakir Ahmad Mian, Tunu Mian and got massive support from Muslim villagers around Chittagong. But they still retained elements of social conservatism, nor did they evolve broader socio -economic goals. In particular, those revolutionary terrorists, who worked in the Swaraj party, faile d to support the cause of Muslim peasantry against the zamindars. * A real breakthrough in terms of revolutionary ideology and[/INST]

* A real breakthrough in terms of revolutionary ideology and the goals of revolution and the forms of revolutionary struggle was made by Bhagat Singh and his comrades. Rethinking had, of course, started on both counts in the HRA itself. Its manifesto had declared in 1925 that it stood for ‘abolition of all systems

<s>[INST]* A real breakthrough in terms of revolutionary ideology and the goals of revolution and the forms of revolutionary struggle was made by Bhagat Singh and his comrades. Rethinking had, of course, started on both counts in the HRA itself. Its manifesto had declared in 1925 that it stood for ‘abolition of all systems[/INST]

245 | Bhagat Singh, Surya Sen and the Revolutionary Terrorists which make the exploitation of man by man possible.’4 Its founding council, in its meeting in October 1924, had decided ‘to preac h social revolutionary and communistic principles.’ Its main organ, The Revolutionary, had proposed the nationalization of the railways and other means of transport and large-scale industries such as steel and ship building. The HRA had also decided ‘to start labour and peasant organizations’ and to work for ‘an organized and armed revolution.’ In a message from the death -cell, Ramprasad Bismil had appealed to the youth to give up ‘the desire to keep revolvers and pistols’, ‘not to work in revolutionary con spiracies,’ and to work in ‘the open movement.’ He had asked the people to establish Hindu -Muslim unity and unite all political groups under the leadership of the Congress. He had also affirmed his faith in communism and the principle that ‘every human bei ng has equal rights over products of nature.’ Bhagat Singh, born in 1907 and a nephew of the famous revolutionary Ajit Singh, was a giant of an intellectual. A voracious reader, he was one of the most well-read of political leaders of the time. He had devoured books in the Dwarkadas Library at Lahore on socialism, the Soviet Union and revolutionary movements, especially those of Russia, Ireland and Italy. At Lahore, he organized several study circles with the help of Sukhdev and others and car ried on intens ive political discussions. When the HSRA office was shifted to Agra, he immediately set up a library and urged members to read and discuss socialism and other revolutionary ideas. His shirt pockets always bulged with books which he constantly offered to le nd his comrades. After his arrest he transformed the jail into a veritable university. Emphasizing the role of ideas in the making of revolution, he declared before the Lahore High Court: ‘The sword of revolution is sharpened on the whetting -stone of ideas .’ This

<s>[INST]245 | Bhagat Singh, Surya Sen and the Revolutionary Terrorists which make the exploitation of man by man possible.’4 Its founding council, in its meeting in October 1924, had decided ‘to preac h social revolutionary and communistic principles.’ Its main organ, The Revolutionary, had proposed the nationalization of the railways and other means of transport and large-scale industries such as steel and ship building. The HRA had also decided ‘to start labour and peasant organizations’ and to work for ‘an organized and armed revolution.’ In a message from the death -cell, Ramprasad Bismil had appealed to the youth to give up ‘the desire to keep revolvers and pistols’, ‘not to work in revolutionary con spiracies,’ and to work in ‘the open movement.’ He had asked the people to establish Hindu -Muslim unity and unite all political groups under the leadership of the Congress. He had also affirmed his faith in communism and the principle that ‘every human bei ng has equal rights over products of nature.’ Bhagat Singh, born in 1907 and a nephew of the famous revolutionary Ajit Singh, was a giant of an intellectual. A voracious reader, he was one of the most well-read of political leaders of the time. He had devoured books in the Dwarkadas Library at Lahore on socialism, the Soviet Union and revolutionary movements, especially those of Russia, Ireland and Italy. At Lahore, he organized several study circles with the help of Sukhdev and others and car ried on intens ive political discussions. When the HSRA office was shifted to Agra, he immediately set up a library and urged members to read and discuss socialism and other revolutionary ideas. His shirt pockets always bulged with books which he constantly offered to le nd his comrades. After his arrest he transformed the jail into a veritable university. Emphasizing the role of ideas in the making of revolution, he declared before the Lahore High Court: ‘The sword of revolution is sharpened on the whetting -stone of ideas .’ This[/INST]

atmosphere of wide reading and deep thinking pervaded the ranks of the HSRA leadership. Sukhdev, Bhagwati Charan Vohra, Shiv Varma, Bejoy Sinha, Yashpal, all were intellectuals of a high order. Nor would even Chandrasheka r- Azad, who knew little English, accept any idea till it was frilly explained to him. He followed every major turn in the field of ideas through discussion. The draft of the famous statement of revolutionary position, The

<s>[INST]atmosphere of wide reading and deep thinking pervaded the ranks of the HSRA leadership. Sukhdev, Bhagwati Charan Vohra, Shiv Varma, Bejoy Sinha, Yashpal, all were intellectuals of a high order. Nor would even Chandrasheka r- Azad, who knew little English, accept any idea till it was frilly explained to him. He followed every major turn in the field of ideas through discussion. The draft of the famous statement of revolutionary position, The[/INST]

246 | India’s Struggle For Independence Philosophy of the Bomb, was written by Bhagwati Charan Vohra at the instance of Azad and after a full discussion with him. Bhagat Singh had already, before his arrest in 1929, abandoned his belief in terrorism and individual heroic action. He had turned to Marxism and had come to believe that popular broad -based mass movements alone could lead to a successful revolution; in other words revolution could only be achieved ‘by the masses for the masses.’ That is why Bhagat Singh helped establish the Punjab Naujawan Bharat Sabha in 1926 (becoming its founding Secretary) , as the open wing of the revolutionaries. The Sabha was to carry out open political work among the youth, peasants and workers. It was to open branches in the villages. Under its auspices, Bhagat Singh used to deliver political lectures with the help of magic lantern slides. Bhagat Singh and Sukhdev also organized the Lahore Students Union for open, legal work among the students. Bhagat Singh and his comrades also gave expression to their understanding that revolution meant the development and organizatio n of a mass movement of the exploited and suppressed sections of society by the revolutionary intelligentsia in the course of their statements from 1929 to 1931 in the courts as well as outside. Just before his execution, Bhagat Singh declared that ‘the re al revolutionary armies are in the villages and in factories.’ Moreover, in his behest to young political workers, written on 2 February 1931, he declared: ‘Apparently, I have acted like a terrorist. But I am not a terrorist. . . Let me announce with all t he strength at my command, that I am not a terrorist and I never was, except perhaps in the beginning of my revolutionary career. And I am convinced that we cannot gain anything through those methods.’ Then why did Bhagat Singh and his comrades still take recourse to individual heroic action? One reason was the very

<s>[INST]246 | India’s Struggle For Independence Philosophy of the Bomb, was written by Bhagwati Charan Vohra at the instance of Azad and after a full discussion with him. Bhagat Singh had already, before his arrest in 1929, abandoned his belief in terrorism and individual heroic action. He had turned to Marxism and had come to believe that popular broad -based mass movements alone could lead to a successful revolution; in other words revolution could only be achieved ‘by the masses for the masses.’ That is why Bhagat Singh helped establish the Punjab Naujawan Bharat Sabha in 1926 (becoming its founding Secretary) , as the open wing of the revolutionaries. The Sabha was to carry out open political work among the youth, peasants and workers. It was to open branches in the villages. Under its auspices, Bhagat Singh used to deliver political lectures with the help of magic lantern slides. Bhagat Singh and Sukhdev also organized the Lahore Students Union for open, legal work among the students. Bhagat Singh and his comrades also gave expression to their understanding that revolution meant the development and organizatio n of a mass movement of the exploited and suppressed sections of society by the revolutionary intelligentsia in the course of their statements from 1929 to 1931 in the courts as well as outside. Just before his execution, Bhagat Singh declared that ‘the re al revolutionary armies are in the villages and in factories.’ Moreover, in his behest to young political workers, written on 2 February 1931, he declared: ‘Apparently, I have acted like a terrorist. But I am not a terrorist. . . Let me announce with all t he strength at my command, that I am not a terrorist and I never was, except perhaps in the beginning of my revolutionary career. And I am convinced that we cannot gain anything through those methods.’ Then why did Bhagat Singh and his comrades still take recourse to individual heroic action? One reason was the very[/INST]

recourse to individual heroic action? One reason was the very rapidity of the changes in their thinking. The past formed a part of their present, for these young men had to traverse decades within a few years. Moreover, effective acquisition of a new ideology is not an event; it is not like a religious conversion: it is always a prolonged historical process. Second, they were faced with a classic dilemma: From where would come the cadres, the hundreds of full-time young political worke rs, who would fan out

<s>[INST]recourse to individual heroic action? One reason was the very rapidity of the changes in their thinking. The past formed a part of their present, for these young men had to traverse decades within a few years. Moreover, effective acquisition of a new ideology is not an event; it is not like a religious conversion: it is always a prolonged historical process. Second, they were faced with a classic dilemma: From where would come the cadres, the hundreds of full-time young political worke rs, who would fan out[/INST]

247 | Bhagat Singh, Surya Sen and the Revolutionary Terrorists among the masses? How were they to be recrui ted? P atient intellectual and political work appealed to be too slow and too akin to the Congress style of politics which the revolutionaries wanted to transcend. The answer appeared to be to appeal to the youth through ‘propaganda by deed,’ to recent the initial cadres of a mass revolutionary party through h eroic dramatic action and the consequent militant propaganda before the courts. In the last stage , during 1930 and 1931, they were mainly fighting to keep the glory of the sacrifice of their comrades’ wider sentence shining as before. As Bhagat Singh put it, he had to ask the youth to abandon revolutionary terrorism without tarnishing the sense of heroic sacrifice by appearing to have reconsidered his politics under the penalty of death.” Life was bound to teach, sooner or later, correct politics; the sense of sacrifice once lost would not be easy to regain. Bhagat Sing h and his comrades also made a major advance in broadening the scope and definition of revolu tion. Revolution was no longer equated with mere militancy or violence. Its first objective was national liberation — the overthrow of imperialism. But it must go beyond and work for a new socialist social order, it must bend exploitation of man by man.’ The Phi losophy of the Bomb, written by Bhagwati Charan Vohra. Chandrasekhar Azad and Yashpal, defined revolution as independence, social, political and economic’ aimed at establishing ‘a new order of society in which political and economic exploitation will be an impossibility’.’ In the Assembly Bomb Case, Bhagat Singh told the cowl. “Revolution,” does not necessarily involve sanguinary strife, nor is there any place in it for individual vendetta. It is not the cult of the bomb and the pistol. By “Revolution ” we mean that the present order of things, which is based on manifest injustice,

<s>[INST]247 | Bhagat Singh, Surya Sen and the Revolutionary Terrorists among the masses? How were they to be recrui ted? P atient intellectual and political work appealed to be too slow and too akin to the Congress style of politics which the revolutionaries wanted to transcend. The answer appeared to be to appeal to the youth through ‘propaganda by deed,’ to recent the initial cadres of a mass revolutionary party through h eroic dramatic action and the consequent militant propaganda before the courts. In the last stage , during 1930 and 1931, they were mainly fighting to keep the glory of the sacrifice of their comrades’ wider sentence shining as before. As Bhagat Singh put it, he had to ask the youth to abandon revolutionary terrorism without tarnishing the sense of heroic sacrifice by appearing to have reconsidered his politics under the penalty of death.” Life was bound to teach, sooner or later, correct politics; the sense of sacrifice once lost would not be easy to regain. Bhagat Sing h and his comrades also made a major advance in broadening the scope and definition of revolu tion. Revolution was no longer equated with mere militancy or violence. Its first objective was national liberation — the overthrow of imperialism. But it must go beyond and work for a new socialist social order, it must bend exploitation of man by man.’ The Phi losophy of the Bomb, written by Bhagwati Charan Vohra. Chandrasekhar Azad and Yashpal, defined revolution as independence, social, political and economic’ aimed at establishing ‘a new order of society in which political and economic exploitation will be an impossibility’.’ In the Assembly Bomb Case, Bhagat Singh told the cowl. “Revolution,” does not necessarily involve sanguinary strife, nor is there any place in it for individual vendetta. It is not the cult of the bomb and the pistol. By “Revolution ” we mean that the present order of things, which is based on manifest injustice,[/INST]

must change.” In a letter from jail, he wrote: ‘The peasan ts have to liberate themselves n ot only from foreign yoke bum also from the yoke of landlords and capitalists.” In h is last message of 3 March 1931, he declared that the struggle in India would continue so long as ‘a handful of exploiters go on exploiting the labour of common people for their own ends. It matters little whether these exploiters are purely British capita lism, or British and Indians in alliance, or even purely Indians.’ “(Bhagat Singh defined socialism in a scientific manner — it must mean abolition of capitalism and class domination. He fully accepted Marxism and the class approach to society.1 In fact, h e saw himself above

<s>[INST]must change.” In a letter from jail, he wrote: ‘The peasan ts have to liberate themselves n ot only from foreign yoke bum also from the yoke of landlords and capitalists.” In h is last message of 3 March 1931, he declared that the struggle in India would continue so long as ‘a handful of exploiters go on exploiting the labour of common people for their own ends. It matters little whether these exploiters are purely British capita lism, or British and Indians in alliance, or even purely Indians.’ “(Bhagat Singh defined socialism in a scientific manner — it must mean abolition of capitalism and class domination. He fully accepted Marxism and the class approach to society.1 In fact, h e saw himself above[/INST]

248 | India’s Struggle For Independence all as a Precursor and not maker of the ‘revolution, as a propagator of the ideas of socialism ad communism as a humble initiator of the socialist movement in India.’ Bhagat Singh was a great innovator in two area s of politics. Being f ully and consciously secular, he understood, more clearly than many of his contemporaries, the danger that communalism posed to the nation and the national movement. He often told his audience that communalism was as big an enemy as colonialism. In April 1 928, at the conference of youth where Naujawan Bharat Sabha was reorganized, Bhagat Singh and his comrades openly opposed the suggestion that youth belonging to religious - communal organizations should be permitted to become members of the Sabha. Religion w as one’s private concern and communalism was an enemy to be fought, argued Bhagat Singh.” Earlier in 1927, condemning communal killings as barbaric, he had pointed out that communal killers did not kill a person because he was guilty of any particular act but simply because that person happened to be a Hindu, Muslim or Sikh. But, wrote Bhagat Singh, a new group of youth was coming forward who did not recognize any differences based on religion and saw a person first as a human being and then as an Indian. Bhagat Singh revered Lajpat Rai as a leader. But he would not spare even Lajpat Rai, when, during the last years of his life, Lajpat Rai turned to communal politics. He then launched a political -ideological campaign against him. Because Lajpat Rai was a res pected leader, he would not publicly use harsh words of criticism against him. And so he printed as a pamphlet Robert Browning’s famous poem, ‘The Lost Leader,’ in which Browning criticizes Wordsworth for turning against liberty. The poem begins with the line ‘Just for a handful of silver he left us.’ A few more of the poem’s lines were: ‘We shall march prospering, — not thro’ his presence; Songs may inspirit us, —

<s>[INST]248 | India’s Struggle For Independence all as a Precursor and not maker of the ‘revolution, as a propagator of the ideas of socialism ad communism as a humble initiator of the socialist movement in India.’ Bhagat Singh was a great innovator in two area s of politics. Being f ully and consciously secular, he understood, more clearly than many of his contemporaries, the danger that communalism posed to the nation and the national movement. He often told his audience that communalism was as big an enemy as colonialism. In April 1 928, at the conference of youth where Naujawan Bharat Sabha was reorganized, Bhagat Singh and his comrades openly opposed the suggestion that youth belonging to religious - communal organizations should be permitted to become members of the Sabha. Religion w as one’s private concern and communalism was an enemy to be fought, argued Bhagat Singh.” Earlier in 1927, condemning communal killings as barbaric, he had pointed out that communal killers did not kill a person because he was guilty of any particular act but simply because that person happened to be a Hindu, Muslim or Sikh. But, wrote Bhagat Singh, a new group of youth was coming forward who did not recognize any differences based on religion and saw a person first as a human being and then as an Indian. Bhagat Singh revered Lajpat Rai as a leader. But he would not spare even Lajpat Rai, when, during the last years of his life, Lajpat Rai turned to communal politics. He then launched a political -ideological campaign against him. Because Lajpat Rai was a res pected leader, he would not publicly use harsh words of criticism against him. And so he printed as a pamphlet Robert Browning’s famous poem, ‘The Lost Leader,’ in which Browning criticizes Wordsworth for turning against liberty. The poem begins with the line ‘Just for a handful of silver he left us.’ A few more of the poem’s lines were: ‘We shall march prospering, — not thro’ his presence; Songs may inspirit us, —[/INST]

prospering, — not thro’ his presence; Songs may inspirit us, — not from his lyre,’ and ‘Blot out his name, then, record one lost soul more.’ There was not one word of criticism of Lajpat Rai. Only, on the front cover, he printed Lajpat Rai’s photograph! Significantly, two of the six rules of the Naujawan Bharat Sabha, drafted by Bhagat Singh, were: ‘To have nothing to do with communal bodies or other parties which disseminate communal ideas’ and ‘to create the spirit of general toleration

<s>[INST]prospering, — not thro’ his presence; Songs may inspirit us, — not from his lyre,’ and ‘Blot out his name, then, record one lost soul more.’ There was not one word of criticism of Lajpat Rai. Only, on the front cover, he printed Lajpat Rai’s photograph! Significantly, two of the six rules of the Naujawan Bharat Sabha, drafted by Bhagat Singh, were: ‘To have nothing to do with communal bodies or other parties which disseminate communal ideas’ and ‘to create the spirit of general toleration[/INST]

249 | Bhagat Singh, Surya Sen and the Revolutionary Terrorists among the public considering religion as a matter of personal belief of man and to act upon the same fully.’ Bhagat Singh also saw the importance of freeing the people from the mental bondage of religion and superstition. A few weeks before his death, he wrote the article ‘Why I am an Atheist’ in which he subjected religion and religious philosophy to a scathing critique. He traced his own path to atheism, how he first gave up belief ‘in the mythology and doctrines of Sikhism or any other religion,’ and in the end lost faith in the existence of God. To be a revolutionary, he said, one required immense moral strength, but one also required ‘criticism and independent thinking. ’ In the struggle for self -emancipation, humanity had to struggle against ‘the narrow conception of religion’ as also against the belief in God. ‘Any man who stands for progress,’ he wrote, ‘has to criticise, disbelieve and challenge every item of the old faith. Item by item he has to reason out every nook and corner of the prevailing faith.’ Proclaiming his own belief in atheism and materialism, he asserted that he was ‘trying to stand like a man with an erect head to the last; even on the gallows.’ * Government action gradually decimated the revolutionary terrorist ranks. With the death of Chandrashekhar Azad in a shooting encoun ter a public park at Allahabad in Februa ry 1931, the revolutionary terrorist movement virtually came to an end in Punjab, U.P. an d Bihar. Surya Sen’s martyrdom marked an end to the prolonged saga of revolutionary terrorism in Bengal’ A process of rethinking in jails and in the Andamans began large number of the revolutionaries turned to Marxism and the idea of a socialist revolution by the masses. They joined the Communist Party, the Revolutionary Socialist Party, and other Left parties. Many others joined the Gandhian wing of the Congress. The politics of the revolutionary terrorists had severe

<s>[INST]249 | Bhagat Singh, Surya Sen and the Revolutionary Terrorists among the public considering religion as a matter of personal belief of man and to act upon the same fully.’ Bhagat Singh also saw the importance of freeing the people from the mental bondage of religion and superstition. A few weeks before his death, he wrote the article ‘Why I am an Atheist’ in which he subjected religion and religious philosophy to a scathing critique. He traced his own path to atheism, how he first gave up belief ‘in the mythology and doctrines of Sikhism or any other religion,’ and in the end lost faith in the existence of God. To be a revolutionary, he said, one required immense moral strength, but one also required ‘criticism and independent thinking. ’ In the struggle for self -emancipation, humanity had to struggle against ‘the narrow conception of religion’ as also against the belief in God. ‘Any man who stands for progress,’ he wrote, ‘has to criticise, disbelieve and challenge every item of the old faith. Item by item he has to reason out every nook and corner of the prevailing faith.’ Proclaiming his own belief in atheism and materialism, he asserted that he was ‘trying to stand like a man with an erect head to the last; even on the gallows.’ * Government action gradually decimated the revolutionary terrorist ranks. With the death of Chandrashekhar Azad in a shooting encoun ter a public park at Allahabad in Februa ry 1931, the revolutionary terrorist movement virtually came to an end in Punjab, U.P. an d Bihar. Surya Sen’s martyrdom marked an end to the prolonged saga of revolutionary terrorism in Bengal’ A process of rethinking in jails and in the Andamans began large number of the revolutionaries turned to Marxism and the idea of a socialist revolution by the masses. They joined the Communist Party, the Revolutionary Socialist Party, and other Left parties. Many others joined the Gandhian wing of the Congress. The politics of the revolutionary terrorists had severe[/INST]

The politics of the revolutionary terrorists had severe limitations — above all theirs was no t the politics of a mass movement; they failed to politically activate the masses or move them into political actions; they could not even establish contact with the masses. All the same, they made an abiding contribution to the national freedom movement. Their deep patriotism,

<s>[INST]The politics of the revolutionary terrorists had severe limitations — above all theirs was no t the politics of a mass movement; they failed to politically activate the masses or move them into political actions; they could not even establish contact with the masses. All the same, they made an abiding contribution to the national freedom movement. Their deep patriotism,[/INST]

250 | India’s Struggle For Independence courage and determination, and sense of sacrifice stirred the Indian people. They helped spread nationalist consciousness in the land; and in northern India the spread of socialist consciousness owed a lot to them.

<s>[INST]250 | India’s Struggle For Independence courage and determination, and sense of sacrifice stirred the Indian people. They helped spread nationalist consciousness in the land; and in northern India the spread of socialist consciousness owed a lot to them.[/INST]

251 | The Gathering Storm 1927 -29 CHAPTER 21. THE GATHERING STORM — 1927 -29 In the years following the end of the Non -Cooperation Movement in 1922 , the torch of nationalism had been kept alive by the Gandhian constructive workers who dug their roots deep into village soil, by the Swarajists who kept the Government on its toes in the legislatures, by the Koya tribals in Andhra who heroically fought the armed might of the colonial state under the leadership of Ramachandra Raju from 1922 -24, by the Akalis in Punjab, by the Satyagrahis who flocked to defend the honour of the national flag in Nagpur in 1923, and countless others who engaged themselves in organizational, ideological and agitational activities at a vari ety of levels. It was, however, from the latter part of 1927 that the cu rve of the mass anti-imperialist upsurge began to take a marked upward turn. As with the Rowla tt Bills in 1919, it was the British Government that provided a catalyst and a rallying ground by an announcement on 8 November 1927 of an all-White commission to recommend whether India was ready for further constitutional progress and on which lines. Indian nationalists had fo r many years declared the constitutional reforms of 1919 as inadequate and had been clamouring for an early reconsideration of the constitu tional question, but the Government had been adamant that the declared period of ten years must lapse before fresh proposals were considered. In 1927, however, the Conservative Government of Britain, faced with the prospect of electoral & feat at the hands of the Labour Party, suddenly decided that it could not leave an issue which concerned the future of the British Empire in the irresponsible hands of an inexperienced Labour Government and it was thus that the Indian Statutory Commission, popularly known as the Simon Commission after its Chairm an, was appointed. The response in India was immediate and unanimous. That

<s>[INST]251 | The Gathering Storm 1927 -29 CHAPTER 21. THE GATHERING STORM — 1927 -29 In the years following the end of the Non -Cooperation Movement in 1922 , the torch of nationalism had been kept alive by the Gandhian constructive workers who dug their roots deep into village soil, by the Swarajists who kept the Government on its toes in the legislatures, by the Koya tribals in Andhra who heroically fought the armed might of the colonial state under the leadership of Ramachandra Raju from 1922 -24, by the Akalis in Punjab, by the Satyagrahis who flocked to defend the honour of the national flag in Nagpur in 1923, and countless others who engaged themselves in organizational, ideological and agitational activities at a vari ety of levels. It was, however, from the latter part of 1927 that the cu rve of the mass anti-imperialist upsurge began to take a marked upward turn. As with the Rowla tt Bills in 1919, it was the British Government that provided a catalyst and a rallying ground by an announcement on 8 November 1927 of an all-White commission to recommend whether India was ready for further constitutional progress and on which lines. Indian nationalists had fo r many years declared the constitutional reforms of 1919 as inadequate and had been clamouring for an early reconsideration of the constitu tional question, but the Government had been adamant that the declared period of ten years must lapse before fresh proposals were considered. In 1927, however, the Conservative Government of Britain, faced with the prospect of electoral & feat at the hands of the Labour Party, suddenly decided that it could not leave an issue which concerned the future of the British Empire in the irresponsible hands of an inexperienced Labour Government and it was thus that the Indian Statutory Commission, popularly known as the Simon Commission after its Chairm an, was appointed. The response in India was immediate and unanimous. That[/INST]

The response in India was immediate and unanimous. That no Indian should be thought fit to serve on a body that claimed

<s>[INST]The response in India was immediate and unanimous. That no Indian should be thought fit to serve on a body that claimed[/INST]

252 | India’s Struggle For Independence the right to decide the political future of India was an insult that no Indi an of even the most moderate political opinion was willing to swallow. The call for a boycott of the Commission was endorsed by the Liberal Federation led by Tej Bahadur Sapru, by the Indian Industrial and Commercial Congress, arid by the Hindu Mahasabha the Muslim League even split on the issue, Mohammed Ali Jinnah carrying the majority with him in favour of boycott. It was the Indian National Congress, however, that turned the boycott into a popular movement. The Congress had resolved on the boycott at its annual session in December 1927 at Madras, and in the prevailing excitable atmosphere, Jawaharlal Nehru had even succeeded in getting passed a snap resolution declaring complete independence as the goal of the Congress. But protest could not be confined to the passing of resolutions, as Gandhiji made clear in the issue of Young India of 12 January 1928: ‘It is said that the Independence Resolution is a fitting answer. The act of appointment (of the Simon Commission) needs for an answer, not speeches, how ever heroic they may be, not declarations, however brave they may be, but corresponding action . . .’ The action began as soon as Simon and his friends landed at Bombay on 3 February 1928. That day, all the major cities and towns observed a complete hartal , and people were out on the streets participating in mass rallies, processions and black -flag demonstrations. In Madras, a major clash with the police resulted in firing and the death of one person. T. Prakasam symbolized the defiant spirit of the occasio n by baring his chest before the armed policemen who tried in vain to stop him from going to the scene of the killing. Everywhere that Simon went — Calcutta, Lahore, Lucknow, Vijayawada, Poona — he was greeted by a sea of black -flags carried by thousands o f people. And ever new ways of defiance were being constantly invented. The youth

<s>[INST]252 | India’s Struggle For Independence the right to decide the political future of India was an insult that no Indi an of even the most moderate political opinion was willing to swallow. The call for a boycott of the Commission was endorsed by the Liberal Federation led by Tej Bahadur Sapru, by the Indian Industrial and Commercial Congress, arid by the Hindu Mahasabha the Muslim League even split on the issue, Mohammed Ali Jinnah carrying the majority with him in favour of boycott. It was the Indian National Congress, however, that turned the boycott into a popular movement. The Congress had resolved on the boycott at its annual session in December 1927 at Madras, and in the prevailing excitable atmosphere, Jawaharlal Nehru had even succeeded in getting passed a snap resolution declaring complete independence as the goal of the Congress. But protest could not be confined to the passing of resolutions, as Gandhiji made clear in the issue of Young India of 12 January 1928: ‘It is said that the Independence Resolution is a fitting answer. The act of appointment (of the Simon Commission) needs for an answer, not speeches, how ever heroic they may be, not declarations, however brave they may be, but corresponding action . . .’ The action began as soon as Simon and his friends landed at Bombay on 3 February 1928. That day, all the major cities and towns observed a complete hartal , and people were out on the streets participating in mass rallies, processions and black -flag demonstrations. In Madras, a major clash with the police resulted in firing and the death of one person. T. Prakasam symbolized the defiant spirit of the occasio n by baring his chest before the armed policemen who tried in vain to stop him from going to the scene of the killing. Everywhere that Simon went — Calcutta, Lahore, Lucknow, Vijayawada, Poona — he was greeted by a sea of black -flags carried by thousands o f people. And ever new ways of defiance were being constantly invented. The youth[/INST]

new ways of defiance were being constantly invented. The youth of Poona, for example, took advantage of the fact that for a long stretch between Lonavala and Poona the road and the rail -track ran within sight of each other. They climbed into a lorry and drove alongside the train that was carrying Simon and Company, waving black flags at them all the way from Lonavala to Poona. In Lucknow, Khaliquzzaman executed the brilliant idea of floating kites and balloons imprinted with the popular s logan ‘Go Back

<s>[INST]new ways of defiance were being constantly invented. The youth of Poona, for example, took advantage of the fact that for a long stretch between Lonavala and Poona the road and the rail -track ran within sight of each other. They climbed into a lorry and drove alongside the train that was carrying Simon and Company, waving black flags at them all the way from Lonavala to Poona. In Lucknow, Khaliquzzaman executed the brilliant idea of floating kites and balloons imprinted with the popular s logan ‘Go Back[/INST]

253 | The Gathering Storm 1927 -29 Simon’ over the reception organized in Kaiserbagh by the taluqdars for members of the Commission . If humour and creativity was much in evidence, so too was popular anger at the manner in which the police dealt with the protesters. Lathi char ges were becoming all too frequent, and even respected and senior leaders were not spared the blows. In Lucknow, Jawaharlal and Govind Ballabh Pant were beaten up by the police. But the worst incident happened in Lahore where Lala Lajpat Rai, the hero of t he Extremist days and the most revered leader of Punjab, was hit on the chest by lathis on 30 October and succumbed to the injuries on 17 November 1928. It was his death that Bhagat Singh and his comrades were seeking to avenge when they killed the white p olice official, Saunders, in December 1928. * The Simon boycott movement provided the first taste of political action to a new generation of youth. They were the ones who played the most active role in this protest, and it was they who gave the movement i ts militant flavour. And although a youth movement had already begun to take shape by 1927, it was participation in the Simon agitation that gave a real fillip to the formation of youth leagues and associations all over the country. Jawaharlal Nehru and Su bhas Bose emerged as the leaders of this new wave of youth and students, and they travelled from one province to another addressing and presiding over innumerable youth conferences. The upsurge among the youth also proved a fruitful ground for the germina tion and spread of the new radical ideas of socialism that had begun to reach Indian shores. Jawaharlal Nehru had returned from Europe in 1927 after representing the Indian National Congress at the Brussels Congress of the League against Imperialism. He al so visited the Soviet Union and was deeply impressed by socialist ideas. It was with the youth that he first shared his evolving perspective. Although Jawaharlal

<s>[INST]253 | The Gathering Storm 1927 -29 Simon’ over the reception organized in Kaiserbagh by the taluqdars for members of the Commission . If humour and creativity was much in evidence, so too was popular anger at the manner in which the police dealt with the protesters. Lathi char ges were becoming all too frequent, and even respected and senior leaders were not spared the blows. In Lucknow, Jawaharlal and Govind Ballabh Pant were beaten up by the police. But the worst incident happened in Lahore where Lala Lajpat Rai, the hero of t he Extremist days and the most revered leader of Punjab, was hit on the chest by lathis on 30 October and succumbed to the injuries on 17 November 1928. It was his death that Bhagat Singh and his comrades were seeking to avenge when they killed the white p olice official, Saunders, in December 1928. * The Simon boycott movement provided the first taste of political action to a new generation of youth. They were the ones who played the most active role in this protest, and it was they who gave the movement i ts militant flavour. And although a youth movement had already begun to take shape by 1927, it was participation in the Simon agitation that gave a real fillip to the formation of youth leagues and associations all over the country. Jawaharlal Nehru and Su bhas Bose emerged as the leaders of this new wave of youth and students, and they travelled from one province to another addressing and presiding over innumerable youth conferences. The upsurge among the youth also proved a fruitful ground for the germina tion and spread of the new radical ideas of socialism that had begun to reach Indian shores. Jawaharlal Nehru had returned from Europe in 1927 after representing the Indian National Congress at the Brussels Congress of the League against Imperialism. He al so visited the Soviet Union and was deeply impressed by socialist ideas. It was with the youth that he first shared his evolving perspective. Although Jawaharlal[/INST]

first shared his evolving perspective. Although Jawaharlal Nehru’s was undoubtedly the most important role, other groups and individuals too played a cru cial part in the popularization of the socialist vision. Subhas Bose was one such individual, though his notion of socialism was nowhere as scientific and

<s>[INST]first shared his evolving perspective. Although Jawaharlal Nehru’s was undoubtedly the most important role, other groups and individuals too played a cru cial part in the popularization of the socialist vision. Subhas Bose was one such individual, though his notion of socialism was nowhere as scientific and[/INST]

254 | India’s Struggle For Independence clear as Jawaharlal’s. Among groups, the more important ones were the Naujawan Bharat Sabha in Lahore , and the small group of Communists who had formed the Workers’ and Peasants’ Parties with the specific aim of organizing workers and peasants and radicalizing the Congress from within. As a result, the young people who were being drawn into the anti -imper ialist movement were also simultaneously becoming sympathetic to the ideas of socialism, and youth groups in some areas even developed links with workers’ and peasants’ struggles. * Lord Birkenhead, the Conservative Secretary of State responsible for the appointment of the Simon Commission, had constantly harped on the inability of Indians to formulate a concrete scheme of constitutional reforms which had the support of wide sections of Indian political opinion. This challenge, too, was taken up and meetin gs of the All-Parties Conference were held in February, May and August 1928 to finalize a scheme which popularly came to be known as the Nehru Report after Motilal Nehru, its principal author. This report defin ed Dominion Status as the form of government d esired by India. It also rejected the principle of separate communal electorates on which previous constitutional reforms had been based. Seats would be reserved for Muslims at the Centre and in provinces in which they were in a minority, but not in those where they had a numerical majority. The Report also recommended universal adult suffrage, equal rights for women, freedom to form unions, and dissociation of the state from religion in any form. A section of the Muslim League had in any case dissociated itself from these deliberations, but by the end of the year it became clear that even the section led by Jinnah would not give up the demand for reservation of seats for Muslims especially in Muslim majority provinces. The dilemma in which Motilal Nehru and other secular leaders found themselves was not one that was

<s>[INST]254 | India’s Struggle For Independence clear as Jawaharlal’s. Among groups, the more important ones were the Naujawan Bharat Sabha in Lahore , and the small group of Communists who had formed the Workers’ and Peasants’ Parties with the specific aim of organizing workers and peasants and radicalizing the Congress from within. As a result, the young people who were being drawn into the anti -imper ialist movement were also simultaneously becoming sympathetic to the ideas of socialism, and youth groups in some areas even developed links with workers’ and peasants’ struggles. * Lord Birkenhead, the Conservative Secretary of State responsible for the appointment of the Simon Commission, had constantly harped on the inability of Indians to formulate a concrete scheme of constitutional reforms which had the support of wide sections of Indian political opinion. This challenge, too, was taken up and meetin gs of the All-Parties Conference were held in February, May and August 1928 to finalize a scheme which popularly came to be known as the Nehru Report after Motilal Nehru, its principal author. This report defin ed Dominion Status as the form of government d esired by India. It also rejected the principle of separate communal electorates on which previous constitutional reforms had been based. Seats would be reserved for Muslims at the Centre and in provinces in which they were in a minority, but not in those where they had a numerical majority. The Report also recommended universal adult suffrage, equal rights for women, freedom to form unions, and dissociation of the state from religion in any form. A section of the Muslim League had in any case dissociated itself from these deliberations, but by the end of the year it became clear that even the section led by Jinnah would not give up the demand for reservation of seats for Muslims especially in Muslim majority provinces. The dilemma in which Motilal Nehru and other secular leaders found themselves was not one that was[/INST]

other secular leaders found themselves was not one that was easy to resolve: if they conceded more to Muslim communal opinion, then Hindu communalists would withdraw support and if they satisfied the latter, then Muslim leaders would be estranged. In the event, no further concessions were forthcoming and Jinnah withdrew his support to the report and went ahead to

<s>[INST]other secular leaders found themselves was not one that was easy to resolve: if they conceded more to Muslim communal opinion, then Hindu communalists would withdraw support and if they satisfied the latter, then Muslim leaders would be estranged. In the event, no further concessions were forthcoming and Jinnah withdrew his support to the report and went ahead to[/INST]

255 | The Gathering Storm 1927 -29 propose his famous ‘Fourteen Points’ which were basally a reiteration of his objections to the Nehru Report. * Young and radical nationalists le d by Jawaharlal Nehru had their own, very different, objections to the Nehru Report. They were dissatisfied with its declaration of Dominion Status on the lines of the self -governing dominions as the basis of the future constitution of India. Their slogan was Complete Independence.’ And it was in December 1928, at the annual session of the Congress at Calcutta, that the battle was joined. Jawaharlal Nehru, Subhas Bose and Satyamurthi, backed by a large number of delegates, pressed for the acceptance of ‘Purna Swaraj’ or complete independence as the goal of the Congress. Gandhiji, Motilal Nehru and many other older leaders felt that the national consensus achieved with such great difficulty on Dominion Status should not be abandoned in such haste and a period of two years be given to the Government for accepting this. Under pressure, the grace of period for the Government was reduced to a year a nd, more important, the Congress decided that if the Government did not accept a constitution based on Dominio n Statu s by the end of the year the Congress would not only adopt complete independence as its goal , but it would also launch a civil disobedience movement to attain that goal. A resolution embodying this proposal won over the majority of the delegates, and furth er amendments seeking immediate adoption of complete independence were defeated. * If civil disobedience was to be launched after the end of ‘the present year of probation and grace,’ as Gandhiji called it, then preparations had to begin in right earnest. Gandhiji cancelled his plans for a European tour, and explained in the issue of Young India dated 31 January, 1929: ‘ I feel that I would be guilty of desertion if I now went away to Europe. . . The voice within me tells me that I must not only hold myself in readiness to do what

<s>[INST]255 | The Gathering Storm 1927 -29 propose his famous ‘Fourteen Points’ which were basally a reiteration of his objections to the Nehru Report. * Young and radical nationalists le d by Jawaharlal Nehru had their own, very different, objections to the Nehru Report. They were dissatisfied with its declaration of Dominion Status on the lines of the self -governing dominions as the basis of the future constitution of India. Their slogan was Complete Independence.’ And it was in December 1928, at the annual session of the Congress at Calcutta, that the battle was joined. Jawaharlal Nehru, Subhas Bose and Satyamurthi, backed by a large number of delegates, pressed for the acceptance of ‘Purna Swaraj’ or complete independence as the goal of the Congress. Gandhiji, Motilal Nehru and many other older leaders felt that the national consensus achieved with such great difficulty on Dominion Status should not be abandoned in such haste and a period of two years be given to the Government for accepting this. Under pressure, the grace of period for the Government was reduced to a year a nd, more important, the Congress decided that if the Government did not accept a constitution based on Dominio n Statu s by the end of the year the Congress would not only adopt complete independence as its goal , but it would also launch a civil disobedience movement to attain that goal. A resolution embodying this proposal won over the majority of the delegates, and furth er amendments seeking immediate adoption of complete independence were defeated. * If civil disobedience was to be launched after the end of ‘the present year of probation and grace,’ as Gandhiji called it, then preparations had to begin in right earnest. Gandhiji cancelled his plans for a European tour, and explained in the issue of Young India dated 31 January, 1929: ‘ I feel that I would be guilty of desertion if I now went away to Europe. . . The voice within me tells me that I must not only hold myself in readiness to do what[/INST]

comes my way, but I must even think out and suggest means of working out what to me is a great programme. Above all I must

<s>[INST]comes my way, but I must even think out and suggest means of working out what to me is a great programme. Above all I must[/INST]

256 | India’s Struggle For Independence prepare myself for next year’s struggle, whatever shape it may take.’ Gandhiji had of course been preparing t he people for the future struggle in multifarious ways. For one, since his release from jail in 1924 on medical grounds, he had been travelling incessantly through the country. By the beginning of 1929, he had already toured Kathiawad, Central Provinces, B engal, Malabar, Travancore, Bihar, United Provinces, Kutch, Assam, Maharashtra, Karn ataka, Tamil Nadu, and Orissa, many of them not once but twice. In 1929, in his sixtieth year, he began a tour of Sind, then proceeded via Delhi to Calcutta, then on to Bur ma, and back to Calcutta. in April, he began a six -week tour of Andhra Pradesh in which he visited 319 villages. In June , he was in Almora in the hills of U.P., and in September he covered the U.P. plains. The end of the year saw him in Lahore for the annu al Congress session. He had also planned a visit to Kohat in the North -West Frontier Province, but was refused permission by the Government. The significance of these mass contact tours was expressed by Gandhiji in these words: ‘ I travel because I fancy t hat the masses want to meet me. I certainly want to meet them. I deliver my simple message to them in few words and they and I are satisfied. It penetrates the mass mind slowly but surely.’ While in his pre -1929 tours Gandhiji’s emphasis had been on the co nstructive programme — khadi, Hindu -Muslim unity, and the removal of untouchability — he now began to prepare the people for direct political action. In Sind, for example, he told the youth to prepare for ‘the fiery ordeal,’ and it was at his instance that the Congress Working Committee constituted a Foreign Cloth Boycott Committee to promote an aggressive programme of boycott and public burning of foreign cloth, in Calcutta, on 4 March, 1929, Gandhiji took the lead in initiating the campaign of public burn ing of foreign cloth by lighting a bonfire in a public

<s>[INST]256 | India’s Struggle For Independence prepare myself for next year’s struggle, whatever shape it may take.’ Gandhiji had of course been preparing t he people for the future struggle in multifarious ways. For one, since his release from jail in 1924 on medical grounds, he had been travelling incessantly through the country. By the beginning of 1929, he had already toured Kathiawad, Central Provinces, B engal, Malabar, Travancore, Bihar, United Provinces, Kutch, Assam, Maharashtra, Karn ataka, Tamil Nadu, and Orissa, many of them not once but twice. In 1929, in his sixtieth year, he began a tour of Sind, then proceeded via Delhi to Calcutta, then on to Bur ma, and back to Calcutta. in April, he began a six -week tour of Andhra Pradesh in which he visited 319 villages. In June , he was in Almora in the hills of U.P., and in September he covered the U.P. plains. The end of the year saw him in Lahore for the annu al Congress session. He had also planned a visit to Kohat in the North -West Frontier Province, but was refused permission by the Government. The significance of these mass contact tours was expressed by Gandhiji in these words: ‘ I travel because I fancy t hat the masses want to meet me. I certainly want to meet them. I deliver my simple message to them in few words and they and I are satisfied. It penetrates the mass mind slowly but surely.’ While in his pre -1929 tours Gandhiji’s emphasis had been on the co nstructive programme — khadi, Hindu -Muslim unity, and the removal of untouchability — he now began to prepare the people for direct political action. In Sind, for example, he told the youth to prepare for ‘the fiery ordeal,’ and it was at his instance that the Congress Working Committee constituted a Foreign Cloth Boycott Committee to promote an aggressive programme of boycott and public burning of foreign cloth, in Calcutta, on 4 March, 1929, Gandhiji took the lead in initiating the campaign of public burn ing of foreign cloth by lighting a bonfire in a public[/INST]

park before a crowd of thousands. The Government issued warrants for his arrest, but allowed him to go to Burma on his scheduled tour and face trial on his return. His arrest sparked off bonfires of fo reign cloth all over the country. And when he returned to face trial, another wave of bonfires was lit to defy the Government. Gandhiji warned the people that while they must

<s>[INST]park before a crowd of thousands. The Government issued warrants for his arrest, but allowed him to go to Burma on his scheduled tour and face trial on his return. His arrest sparked off bonfires of fo reign cloth all over the country. And when he returned to face trial, another wave of bonfires was lit to defy the Government. Gandhiji warned the people that while they must[/INST]

257 | The Gathering Storm 1927 -29 carry on all manner of preparations for civil disobedience, t hey must remember th at civil diso bedience had not yet begun, and that they must as yet remain within the law as far as possible. Apart from the preparations which the Congress carried on at various levels, there were a number of other developments that kept political excitem ent in 1929 at fever -pitch. On 20 March, 1929, in a major swoop, the Government arrested thirty -one labour leaders, most of them Communists, and marched them off to Meerut, in U.P., for trial. Their arrest was condemned by all sections of the national move ment including Gandhiji and the Congress. Youth organizations organized protest demonstrations. On 8 April, 1Q29, Bhagat Singh and Batukeswar Du tt of the Hindustan Socialist Republican Army (HSRA) threw harmless bombs in the Central Legislative Assembly an d were arrested. In jail, the members of the HSRA went on a prolonged hunger strike demanding better treatment for political prisoners, and in September the death of one of them. Jatin Das on the 64th day of the hunger strike led to some of the biggest dem onstrations the country had ever witnessed. Meanwhile, in May 1929, a Labour Government headed by Ramsay MacDonald took power in Britain and Lord Irwin, the Viceroy, was called to London for consultations. The sequel was an announcement on 31 October: ‘ I am authorized on behalf of His Majesty’s Government to state clearly that in their judgement it is implicit in the Declaration of 1917 that the natural issue of India’s progress as there contemplated, is the attainment of dominion status.’ He also promise d a Round Table Conference as soon as the Simon Commission submitted its report. Two days later, a conference of major national leaders met and issued what came to be known as the Delhi manifesto, in which they demanded that it should be made clear that th e purpose of the Round Table Conference was not to discuss when Dominion

<s>[INST]257 | The Gathering Storm 1927 -29 carry on all manner of preparations for civil disobedience, t hey must remember th at civil diso bedience had not yet begun, and that they must as yet remain within the law as far as possible. Apart from the preparations which the Congress carried on at various levels, there were a number of other developments that kept political excitem ent in 1929 at fever -pitch. On 20 March, 1929, in a major swoop, the Government arrested thirty -one labour leaders, most of them Communists, and marched them off to Meerut, in U.P., for trial. Their arrest was condemned by all sections of the national move ment including Gandhiji and the Congress. Youth organizations organized protest demonstrations. On 8 April, 1Q29, Bhagat Singh and Batukeswar Du tt of the Hindustan Socialist Republican Army (HSRA) threw harmless bombs in the Central Legislative Assembly an d were arrested. In jail, the members of the HSRA went on a prolonged hunger strike demanding better treatment for political prisoners, and in September the death of one of them. Jatin Das on the 64th day of the hunger strike led to some of the biggest dem onstrations the country had ever witnessed. Meanwhile, in May 1929, a Labour Government headed by Ramsay MacDonald took power in Britain and Lord Irwin, the Viceroy, was called to London for consultations. The sequel was an announcement on 31 October: ‘ I am authorized on behalf of His Majesty’s Government to state clearly that in their judgement it is implicit in the Declaration of 1917 that the natural issue of India’s progress as there contemplated, is the attainment of dominion status.’ He also promise d a Round Table Conference as soon as the Simon Commission submitted its report. Two days later, a conference of major national leaders met and issued what came to be known as the Delhi manifesto, in which they demanded that it should be made clear that th e purpose of the Round Table Conference was not to discuss when Dominion[/INST]

Round Table Conference was not to discuss when Dominion Status should be granted, but to formulate a scheme for its implementation. A debate in the House of Lords on 5 November, 1929 on this question had already raised serious doubts about British intentions; and, finally, on 23 December Irwin himself told Gandhiji and the others that he was in no position to give the assurance they demanded. The stage of negotiations was over and the stage of confrontation was about to begin.

<s>[INST]Round Table Conference was not to discuss when Dominion Status should be granted, but to formulate a scheme for its implementation. A debate in the House of Lords on 5 November, 1929 on this question had already raised serious doubts about British intentions; and, finally, on 23 December Irwin himself told Gandhiji and the others that he was in no position to give the assurance they demanded. The stage of negotiations was over and the stage of confrontation was about to begin.[/INST]

258 | India’s Struggle For Independence * The honour of hosting what was, perhaps, the most memorable of the Congress annual sessions went to Lahore, the capital city of Punjab, and the honour of declaring ‘Puma Swaraj’ as the only honourable goal Indians could strive for went to the man who had done more th an any other to popu larize the idea — Jawaharlal Nehru. It was Gandhiji again who was the decisive voice in investing Jawaharlal Nehru with the office of President in what was to be a critical year of mass struggle. Only three out of eighteen Provincial Co ngress Committees had wanted Jawaharlal, but recognizing the appositeness of the occasion, and the upsurge of the youth who had made such a glorious success of the Simon Boycott, Gandhiji insisted and as usual got his way. The critics he countered by an as surance: ‘Some fear in this transference of power from the old to the young, the doom of the Congress. I do not. . . “He is rash and impetuous,” say some. This quality is an additional qualification, at the present moment. And if he has the dash and the ra shness of a warrior, he has also the prudence of a statesman. . . He is undoubtedly an extremist thinking far ahead of his surroundings. But he is humble and practical enough not to force the pace to the breaking point.’ He added: ‘Older men have had their innings. The battle of the future has to be fought by younger men and women. And it is but meet that they are led by one of themselves . . . Responsibility will mellow and sober the youth, and prepare them for the burden they must discharge. Pandit Jaw aharlal has everything to recommend him. He has for years discharged with singular ability and devotion the office of secretary of the Congress. By his bravery, determination, application, integrity and grit, he has captivated the imagination of the youth of the land. He has come in touch with labour and the peasantry. His close acquaintance with European politics is a great asset in

<s>[INST]258 | India’s Struggle For Independence * The honour of hosting what was, perhaps, the most memorable of the Congress annual sessions went to Lahore, the capital city of Punjab, and the honour of declaring ‘Puma Swaraj’ as the only honourable goal Indians could strive for went to the man who had done more th an any other to popu larize the idea — Jawaharlal Nehru. It was Gandhiji again who was the decisive voice in investing Jawaharlal Nehru with the office of President in what was to be a critical year of mass struggle. Only three out of eighteen Provincial Co ngress Committees had wanted Jawaharlal, but recognizing the appositeness of the occasion, and the upsurge of the youth who had made such a glorious success of the Simon Boycott, Gandhiji insisted and as usual got his way. The critics he countered by an as surance: ‘Some fear in this transference of power from the old to the young, the doom of the Congress. I do not. . . “He is rash and impetuous,” say some. This quality is an additional qualification, at the present moment. And if he has the dash and the ra shness of a warrior, he has also the prudence of a statesman. . . He is undoubtedly an extremist thinking far ahead of his surroundings. But he is humble and practical enough not to force the pace to the breaking point.’ He added: ‘Older men have had their innings. The battle of the future has to be fought by younger men and women. And it is but meet that they are led by one of themselves . . . Responsibility will mellow and sober the youth, and prepare them for the burden they must discharge. Pandit Jaw aharlal has everything to recommend him. He has for years discharged with singular ability and devotion the office of secretary of the Congress. By his bravery, determination, application, integrity and grit, he has captivated the imagination of the youth of the land. He has come in touch with labour and the peasantry. His close acquaintance with European politics is a great asset in[/INST]

close acquaintance with European politics is a great asset in enabling him to assess ours.’ To those who argued that he should himself assume the office because of the delicate nature of the negotiations that would have to be carried out with other parties and the Government, especially on the Hindu -Muslim question, he said: ‘So long as I retain the affection and the confidence of our people, there is not the slightest danger of my not bei ng able without

<s>[INST]close acquaintance with European politics is a great asset in enabling him to assess ours.’ To those who argued that he should himself assume the office because of the delicate nature of the negotiations that would have to be carried out with other parties and the Government, especially on the Hindu -Muslim question, he said: ‘So long as I retain the affection and the confidence of our people, there is not the slightest danger of my not bei ng able without[/INST]

259 | The Gathering Storm 1927 -29 holding office to make the fullest use of such powers as I may possess. God has enabled me to affect the life of the country since 1920 without the necessity of holding office.’ And to the youth he said: ‘They may take the election of Jawa harlal Nehru as a tribute to their service. . . (and as) proof of the trust the nation reposes in its youth Let them prove worthy of the trust.” Jawaharlal Nehru’s Presidential Address was a stirring call to action: ‘We have now an open conspiracy t o free this country from foreign rule and you, comrades, and all our countrymen and countr ywomen are invited to join it.” Nehru also made it known that in his view liberation did not mean only throwing off the foreign yoke: ‘I must frankly confess that I am a so cialist and a republican, and am no believer in kings and princes, or in the order which produces the modern kings of industry, who have greater power over the lives and fortunes of men than even the kings of old, and whose methods are as predatory as thos e of the old feudal aristocracy.” He also spelt out the methods of struggle: ‘Any great movement for liberation today must necessarily be a mass movement, and mass movements must essentially be peaceful, except in times of organized revolt . . . And if the principal movement is a peaceful one, contemporaneous attempts at sporadic violence can only distract attention and weaken it.” On the banks of the river Ravi, at midnight on 31 December 1929, the tricolour flag of Indian independence was unfurled amidst c heers and jubilation. Amidst the excitement, there was also a grim resolve, for the year to follow was to be one of hard struggle. * The first task that the Congress set itself and the Indian people in the New Year was that of organizing all over the coun try, on 26 January, public meetings at which the Independence Pledge would be read out and collectively affirmed. This programme was a huge success, and in villages and towns,

<s>[INST]259 | The Gathering Storm 1927 -29 holding office to make the fullest use of such powers as I may possess. God has enabled me to affect the life of the country since 1920 without the necessity of holding office.’ And to the youth he said: ‘They may take the election of Jawa harlal Nehru as a tribute to their service. . . (and as) proof of the trust the nation reposes in its youth Let them prove worthy of the trust.” Jawaharlal Nehru’s Presidential Address was a stirring call to action: ‘We have now an open conspiracy t o free this country from foreign rule and you, comrades, and all our countrymen and countr ywomen are invited to join it.” Nehru also made it known that in his view liberation did not mean only throwing off the foreign yoke: ‘I must frankly confess that I am a so cialist and a republican, and am no believer in kings and princes, or in the order which produces the modern kings of industry, who have greater power over the lives and fortunes of men than even the kings of old, and whose methods are as predatory as thos e of the old feudal aristocracy.” He also spelt out the methods of struggle: ‘Any great movement for liberation today must necessarily be a mass movement, and mass movements must essentially be peaceful, except in times of organized revolt . . . And if the principal movement is a peaceful one, contemporaneous attempts at sporadic violence can only distract attention and weaken it.” On the banks of the river Ravi, at midnight on 31 December 1929, the tricolour flag of Indian independence was unfurled amidst c heers and jubilation. Amidst the excitement, there was also a grim resolve, for the year to follow was to be one of hard struggle. * The first task that the Congress set itself and the Indian people in the New Year was that of organizing all over the coun try, on 26 January, public meetings at which the Independence Pledge would be read out and collectively affirmed. This programme was a huge success, and in villages and towns,[/INST]

This programme was a huge success, and in villages and towns, at small meetings and large ones, the pledge was read out in the local language and the national flag was hoisted. The text of the pledge bears quoting in full’: ‘We believe that it is the inalienable right of the Indian people, as of any other people, to have freedom and to enjoy the fruits of their toil and have the necessities of l ife,

<s>[INST]This programme was a huge success, and in villages and towns, at small meetings and large ones, the pledge was read out in the local language and the national flag was hoisted. The text of the pledge bears quoting in full’: ‘We believe that it is the inalienable right of the Indian people, as of any other people, to have freedom and to enjoy the fruits of their toil and have the necessities of l ife,[/INST]

260 | India’s Struggle For Independence so that they may have full opportunities of growth. We believe also that if any government deprives a people of these rights and oppresses them, the people have a further right to alter it or to abolish it. The British Government in India has not only deprived the Indian people of their freedom but has based itself on the exploitation of the masses, and has ruined India economically, politically, culturally and spiritually. We believe, therefore, that India must sever the British connection and attain Poorna Swaraj or Complete Independence. ‘India has been ruined economically. The revenue derived from our people is out of all proportion to our income. Our average income is seven p1cc, less than two pence, per day, and of the heavy taxes we pay, twenty per cent are raised from the land revenue derived from the peasantry and three per cent from the salt tax, which falls most heavily on the poor. ‘Village industries, such as hand -spinning, have been destroyed, leaving the peasantry idle for at least four months in the year, and dulling their intellect for want of handicrafts, and nothing has been substituted, as in other countries, for the crafts thus destroyed. ‘Customs and currency have been so manipulated as to heap further burdens on the peasantry. Th e British manufactured goods constitute the bulk of our imports. Customs duties betray clear partiality for British manufacturers, and revenue from them is used not to lessen the burden on the masses, but for sustaining a highly extravagant administration. Still more arbitrary has been the manipulation of the exchange ratio which has resulted in millions being drained away from the country. ‘Politically, India’s status has never been so reduced, as under the British regime. No reforms have given real polit ical power to the people. The tallest of us have to bend before foreign authority. The rights of free expressi on of opinion and free

<s>[INST]260 | India’s Struggle For Independence so that they may have full opportunities of growth. We believe also that if any government deprives a people of these rights and oppresses them, the people have a further right to alter it or to abolish it. The British Government in India has not only deprived the Indian people of their freedom but has based itself on the exploitation of the masses, and has ruined India economically, politically, culturally and spiritually. We believe, therefore, that India must sever the British connection and attain Poorna Swaraj or Complete Independence. ‘India has been ruined economically. The revenue derived from our people is out of all proportion to our income. Our average income is seven p1cc, less than two pence, per day, and of the heavy taxes we pay, twenty per cent are raised from the land revenue derived from the peasantry and three per cent from the salt tax, which falls most heavily on the poor. ‘Village industries, such as hand -spinning, have been destroyed, leaving the peasantry idle for at least four months in the year, and dulling their intellect for want of handicrafts, and nothing has been substituted, as in other countries, for the crafts thus destroyed. ‘Customs and currency have been so manipulated as to heap further burdens on the peasantry. Th e British manufactured goods constitute the bulk of our imports. Customs duties betray clear partiality for British manufacturers, and revenue from them is used not to lessen the burden on the masses, but for sustaining a highly extravagant administration. Still more arbitrary has been the manipulation of the exchange ratio which has resulted in millions being drained away from the country. ‘Politically, India’s status has never been so reduced, as under the British regime. No reforms have given real polit ical power to the people. The tallest of us have to bend before foreign authority. The rights of free expressi on of opinion and free[/INST]

authority. The rights of free expressi on of opinion and free association have been denied to us, and many of our countrymen are compelled to live in exile abroad and they cannot return to their homes. All administrative talent is killed, and the masses have to be satisfied with petty village offices and clerkships. ‘Culturally, the system of education has torn us from our

<s>[INST]authority. The rights of free expressi on of opinion and free association have been denied to us, and many of our countrymen are compelled to live in exile abroad and they cannot return to their homes. All administrative talent is killed, and the masses have to be satisfied with petty village offices and clerkships. ‘Culturally, the system of education has torn us from our[/INST]

261 | The Gathering Storm 1927 -29 moorings, our training has made us hug the very chains that bind us. Spiritually, compulsory disarmament has made us unmanly, and the presence of an alien army of occupation, employed with deadly effect to crush in us the spirit of resistance, has made us think that we cannot look after ourselves or put up a defence a gainst foreign aggression, or defend our homes and families from the attacks of thieves, robbers, and miscreants. ‘We hold it to be a crime against man and God to submit any longer to a rule that has caused this four -fold disaster to our country. We recog nize, however, that the most effective way of gaining our freedom is not through violence. We will prepare ourselves, by withdrawing, so far as we can, all voluntary association from the British Government, and will prepare for civil disobedience including non-payment of taxes. We are convinced that if we can but withdraw our voluntary help, stop payment of taxes without doing violence, even under provocation, the end of this inhuman rule is assured. We, therefore, hereby solemnly resolve to carry out the C ongress instructions issued from time to time for the purpose of establishing Poorna Swaraj.’

<s>[INST]261 | The Gathering Storm 1927 -29 moorings, our training has made us hug the very chains that bind us. Spiritually, compulsory disarmament has made us unmanly, and the presence of an alien army of occupation, employed with deadly effect to crush in us the spirit of resistance, has made us think that we cannot look after ourselves or put up a defence a gainst foreign aggression, or defend our homes and families from the attacks of thieves, robbers, and miscreants. ‘We hold it to be a crime against man and God to submit any longer to a rule that has caused this four -fold disaster to our country. We recog nize, however, that the most effective way of gaining our freedom is not through violence. We will prepare ourselves, by withdrawing, so far as we can, all voluntary association from the British Government, and will prepare for civil disobedience including non-payment of taxes. We are convinced that if we can but withdraw our voluntary help, stop payment of taxes without doing violence, even under provocation, the end of this inhuman rule is assured. We, therefore, hereby solemnly resolve to carry out the C ongress instructions issued from time to time for the purpose of establishing Poorna Swaraj.’[/INST]

262 | India’s Struggle For Independence CHAPTER 22. CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE — 1930 -31 The Lahore Congress of I929 authorized the Working Committee to launch a programme civil disobedience including non-payment of taxes. It had also called upon all members of legislatures to resign their seats. In mid-February, 1930, the Working Committee, meeting at Sabarmati Ashram, invested Gandhiji with fill powers to launch the Civil Disobedie nce Movement at a time and place of his choice. The acknowledged expert on mass struggle was already ‘desperately in search of an effective formula.” His ultimatum of 31 January to Lord Irwin, stating the minimum demands in the form of II points, had been ignored, and there was now only one way out: civil disobedience. * By the end of February, the formula began to emerge as Gandhiji began to talk about salt: ‘There is no article like salt outside water by taxing which the State can reach even the starvin g millions, the sick, the maimed and the utterly helpless. The tax constitutes therefore the most inhuman poll tax the ingenuity of man can devise.’ On 2 March, he addressed his historic later to the Viceroy in which he first explained at great length why he regarded British rule as a curse: ‘It has impoverished the dumb millions by a system of progressive exploitation . . . It has reduced us politically to serfdom. It has sapped the foundations of our culture . . . it has degraded us spiritually.’ He then informed the Viceroy of his plan of action, as he believed every true Satyagrahi must: ‘...on the 11th day of this month. I shall proceed with such co -workers of the Ashram as I can take , to disregard the provisions of the salt laws. It is, I know, open to you to frustrate my design by arresting me. I hope that there will be tens of thousands ready, in a disciplined manner, to take up the work after me, and, m the act of

<s>[INST]262 | India’s Struggle For Independence CHAPTER 22. CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE — 1930 -31 The Lahore Congress of I929 authorized the Working Committee to launch a programme civil disobedience including non-payment of taxes. It had also called upon all members of legislatures to resign their seats. In mid-February, 1930, the Working Committee, meeting at Sabarmati Ashram, invested Gandhiji with fill powers to launch the Civil Disobedie nce Movement at a time and place of his choice. The acknowledged expert on mass struggle was already ‘desperately in search of an effective formula.” His ultimatum of 31 January to Lord Irwin, stating the minimum demands in the form of II points, had been ignored, and there was now only one way out: civil disobedience. * By the end of February, the formula began to emerge as Gandhiji began to talk about salt: ‘There is no article like salt outside water by taxing which the State can reach even the starvin g millions, the sick, the maimed and the utterly helpless. The tax constitutes therefore the most inhuman poll tax the ingenuity of man can devise.’ On 2 March, he addressed his historic later to the Viceroy in which he first explained at great length why he regarded British rule as a curse: ‘It has impoverished the dumb millions by a system of progressive exploitation . . . It has reduced us politically to serfdom. It has sapped the foundations of our culture . . . it has degraded us spiritually.’ He then informed the Viceroy of his plan of action, as he believed every true Satyagrahi must: ‘...on the 11th day of this month. I shall proceed with such co -workers of the Ashram as I can take , to disregard the provisions of the salt laws. It is, I know, open to you to frustrate my design by arresting me. I hope that there will be tens of thousands ready, in a disciplined manner, to take up the work after me, and, m the act of[/INST]

263 | Civil Disobedience 1930 -31 disobeying the Salt Act to lay themselves open to the penalties of a law that should never have disfigured the Statute -book.’ The plan was brilliantly conceived though few realized its significance when it was first announced. Gandhiji, along with a band of seventy -eight members of the Sabarmati Ashram, among whom were men belonging to almos t every region and religion of India, was to march from his headquarters in Ahmedabad through the villages of Gujarat for 240 miles. On reaching the coast at Dandi, he would break the salt laws by collecting salt from the beach. The deceptively innocuous m ove was to prove devastatingly effective. Even before the march began, thousands began to throng the Sabarmati Ashram in anticipation of the dramatic events that lay ahead. And Gandhiji painstakingly explained his plans, gave directions for future action, impressed on the people the necessity for non -violence, arid prepared them for the Government’s response: ‘Wherever possible, civil disobedience of salt laws should be started . . . Liquor and foreign - cloth shops can be picketed. We can refuse to pay taxe s if we have the requisite strength. The lawyers can give up practice. The public can boycott the courts by refraining from litigation. Government servants can resign their posts . . . I prescribe only one condition, viz., let our pledge of truth and non - violence as the only means for the attainment of Swaraj be faithfully kept.’ Explaining the power of civil disobedience, he said: ‘Supposing ten persons from each of the 700,000 villages in India come forward to manufacture salt and to disobey the Salt Act, what do you think this Government can do? Even the worst autocrat you can imagine would not dare to blow regiments of peaceful civil resisters out of a cannon’s mouth. If only you will bestir yourselves just a little, I assure you we should be able to tire this Government out in a very short time.’

<s>[INST]263 | Civil Disobedience 1930 -31 disobeying the Salt Act to lay themselves open to the penalties of a law that should never have disfigured the Statute -book.’ The plan was brilliantly conceived though few realized its significance when it was first announced. Gandhiji, along with a band of seventy -eight members of the Sabarmati Ashram, among whom were men belonging to almos t every region and religion of India, was to march from his headquarters in Ahmedabad through the villages of Gujarat for 240 miles. On reaching the coast at Dandi, he would break the salt laws by collecting salt from the beach. The deceptively innocuous m ove was to prove devastatingly effective. Even before the march began, thousands began to throng the Sabarmati Ashram in anticipation of the dramatic events that lay ahead. And Gandhiji painstakingly explained his plans, gave directions for future action, impressed on the people the necessity for non -violence, arid prepared them for the Government’s response: ‘Wherever possible, civil disobedience of salt laws should be started . . . Liquor and foreign - cloth shops can be picketed. We can refuse to pay taxe s if we have the requisite strength. The lawyers can give up practice. The public can boycott the courts by refraining from litigation. Government servants can resign their posts . . . I prescribe only one condition, viz., let our pledge of truth and non - violence as the only means for the attainment of Swaraj be faithfully kept.’ Explaining the power of civil disobedience, he said: ‘Supposing ten persons from each of the 700,000 villages in India come forward to manufacture salt and to disobey the Salt Act, what do you think this Government can do? Even the worst autocrat you can imagine would not dare to blow regiments of peaceful civil resisters out of a cannon’s mouth. If only you will bestir yourselves just a little, I assure you we should be able to tire this Government out in a very short time.’[/INST]

tire this Government out in a very short time.’ He also explained how non -violence enabled the widest participation of the people, and put the Government in an unenviable quandary. To a crowd who came to the ashram on 10 March, he said: ‘Though the battle is to begin in a couple of days, how is it that you can come here quite fearlessly? I do not think any one of you would be here if you had to face rifle -shots or bombs. But you have no fear of rifle -shots or bombs? Why?

<s>[INST]tire this Government out in a very short time.’ He also explained how non -violence enabled the widest participation of the people, and put the Government in an unenviable quandary. To a crowd who came to the ashram on 10 March, he said: ‘Though the battle is to begin in a couple of days, how is it that you can come here quite fearlessly? I do not think any one of you would be here if you had to face rifle -shots or bombs. But you have no fear of rifle -shots or bombs? Why?[/INST]

264 | India’s Struggle For Independence Supposing I had announced that I was g oing to launch a violent campaign (not necessarily with men aimed with rifles, but even with sticks or stones), do you think the Government would have left me free until now? Can you show me an example in history (be it in England, America or Russia) where the State has tolerated violent defiance of authority for a single day? But here you know that the Government is puzzled and perplexed.’ And as Gandhiji began his march, staff in hand, at the head of his dedicated band, there was something in the image t hat deeply stirred the imagination of the people. News of his progress, of his speeches, of the teeming crowds that greeted and followed the marchers, of the long road lovingly strewn with leaves and festooned with banners and flags, of men and women quiet ly paying their homage by spinning yam on their charkas as Gandhiji passed, of the 300 village officials in Gujarat who resigned their posts in answer to his appeal, was carried day after day by newspapers to readers across the country and broadcast live b y thousands of Congress workers to eager listeners. By the time Gandhiji reached Dandi, he had a whole nation, aroused and expectant, waiting restlessly for the final signal. On 6 April 1930, by picking up a handful of salt, Gandhiji inaugurated the Civil Disobedience Movement, a movement that was to remain unsurpassed in the history of the Indian national movement for the country -wide mass participation it unleashed. * While Gandhiji was marching to Dandi, Congress leaders and workers had been busy at var ious levels with the hard organizational task of enrolling volunteers and members, forming grass -roots Congress Committees, collecting funds, and touring villages and towns to spread the nationalist message. Preparations for launching the salt Satyagraha were made, sites chosen, volunteers prepared, and the logistics of battle worked out.

<s>[INST]264 | India’s Struggle For Independence Supposing I had announced that I was g oing to launch a violent campaign (not necessarily with men aimed with rifles, but even with sticks or stones), do you think the Government would have left me free until now? Can you show me an example in history (be it in England, America or Russia) where the State has tolerated violent defiance of authority for a single day? But here you know that the Government is puzzled and perplexed.’ And as Gandhiji began his march, staff in hand, at the head of his dedicated band, there was something in the image t hat deeply stirred the imagination of the people. News of his progress, of his speeches, of the teeming crowds that greeted and followed the marchers, of the long road lovingly strewn with leaves and festooned with banners and flags, of men and women quiet ly paying their homage by spinning yam on their charkas as Gandhiji passed, of the 300 village officials in Gujarat who resigned their posts in answer to his appeal, was carried day after day by newspapers to readers across the country and broadcast live b y thousands of Congress workers to eager listeners. By the time Gandhiji reached Dandi, he had a whole nation, aroused and expectant, waiting restlessly for the final signal. On 6 April 1930, by picking up a handful of salt, Gandhiji inaugurated the Civil Disobedience Movement, a movement that was to remain unsurpassed in the history of the Indian national movement for the country -wide mass participation it unleashed. * While Gandhiji was marching to Dandi, Congress leaders and workers had been busy at var ious levels with the hard organizational task of enrolling volunteers and members, forming grass -roots Congress Committees, collecting funds, and touring villages and towns to spread the nationalist message. Preparations for launching the salt Satyagraha were made, sites chosen, volunteers prepared, and the logistics of battle worked out.[/INST]

out. Once the way was cleared by Gandhiji’s ritual beginning at Dandi, the defiance of salt laws started all over the country. In Tamil Nadu, C. Rajagopalachari, led a salt mar ch from Trichinopoly to Vedaranniyam on the Tanjore coast. By the time

<s>[INST]out. Once the way was cleared by Gandhiji’s ritual beginning at Dandi, the defiance of salt laws started all over the country. In Tamil Nadu, C. Rajagopalachari, led a salt mar ch from Trichinopoly to Vedaranniyam on the Tanjore coast. By the time[/INST]

265 | Civil Disobedience 1930 -31 he was arrest ed on 30 April he had collected enough volunteers to keep the campaign going for quite some time in Malabar, K. Kelappan, the hero of the Vaikom Satyagraha, walked from Calicut to Payannur to break the salt law. A band of Satyagrahis walked all the way from Sy lhet in Assam to Noakhali on the Bengal Coast to make salt. In Andhra, a number of sibirams (military style camps) were set up in different districts to serve as the he adquarters of the salt Satyagraha, and bands of Satyagrahis marched through villages on their way to the coastal centres to de fy the law. On their return journeys, they again toured through another set of villages. The Government’s failure to arrest Gandhi ji for breaking the salt law was used by the local level leaders to impress upon the people that ‘the Government is afraid of persons like ourselves,’ and that since the starting of the salt Sa1yagrah the Gove rnment ‘has disappeared and hidden itself somew here, and that Gandhi Government has already been established.’9 Jawaharlal Nehru’s arrest on 14 April, for defiance of the salt law, was answered with huge demonstrations and clashes with the police in the cities of Madras, Calcutta and Karachi. On 23 Ap ril, the arrest of Congress leaders in the North West Frontier Province led to a mass demonstration of unprecedented magnitude in Peshawar. Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan had been active for several years in the area, and it was his mass work which lay behind the formation of the band of non -violent revolutionaries, the Khudai Khidmatgars, popularly known as the Red Shirts — who were to play an extremely active role in the Civil Disobedience Movement. The atmosphere created by their political work contributed to th e mass upsurge in Peshawar during which the city was virtually in the hands of the crowd for more tha n a week . The Peshawar demonstrations are significant because it was here that the soldiers of the Garhwali regiments

<s>[INST]265 | Civil Disobedience 1930 -31 he was arrest ed on 30 April he had collected enough volunteers to keep the campaign going for quite some time in Malabar, K. Kelappan, the hero of the Vaikom Satyagraha, walked from Calicut to Payannur to break the salt law. A band of Satyagrahis walked all the way from Sy lhet in Assam to Noakhali on the Bengal Coast to make salt. In Andhra, a number of sibirams (military style camps) were set up in different districts to serve as the he adquarters of the salt Satyagraha, and bands of Satyagrahis marched through villages on their way to the coastal centres to de fy the law. On their return journeys, they again toured through another set of villages. The Government’s failure to arrest Gandhi ji for breaking the salt law was used by the local level leaders to impress upon the people that ‘the Government is afraid of persons like ourselves,’ and that since the starting of the salt Sa1yagrah the Gove rnment ‘has disappeared and hidden itself somew here, and that Gandhi Government has already been established.’9 Jawaharlal Nehru’s arrest on 14 April, for defiance of the salt law, was answered with huge demonstrations and clashes with the police in the cities of Madras, Calcutta and Karachi. On 23 Ap ril, the arrest of Congress leaders in the North West Frontier Province led to a mass demonstration of unprecedented magnitude in Peshawar. Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan had been active for several years in the area, and it was his mass work which lay behind the formation of the band of non -violent revolutionaries, the Khudai Khidmatgars, popularly known as the Red Shirts — who were to play an extremely active role in the Civil Disobedience Movement. The atmosphere created by their political work contributed to th e mass upsurge in Peshawar during which the city was virtually in the hands of the crowd for more tha n a week . The Peshawar demonstrations are significant because it was here that the soldiers of the Garhwali regiments[/INST]

refused to fire on the unarmed crowd. * It was becoming increasingly clear that the Government’s gamble — that non -interference with the movement would result in its spending itself out, that Gandhiji’s salt strategy would fail to take off — had not paid off. In fact, the Government had never

<s>[INST]refused to fire on the unarmed crowd. * It was becoming increasingly clear that the Government’s gamble — that non -interference with the movement would result in its spending itself out, that Gandhiji’s salt strategy would fail to take off — had not paid off. In fact, the Government had never[/INST]

266 | India’s Struggle For Independence been clear on what course it should follow, and was, as Gandhiji had pred icted, ‘puzzled and perplexed.’ The dilemma in which it found itself was a dilemma that the Gandhian strategy of non - violent civil disobedience was designed to create. The Government was placed in a classic ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’ fix, i.e. if it did not suppress a movement that brazenly defied its laws, its administrative authority would be seen to be undermined and its control would be shown to be weak, and if it did suppress it, it would be seen as a brutal, anti -people administration that used violence on non -violent agitators. ‘If we do too much , Congress will cry “repression” . . . if we do too little. Congress will cry “victory,” ‘ — this is how a Madras civilian expressed the dilemma in early 1930.” Either way, it led to the erosion of the hegemony of the British government. The rapid spread of the movement left the Government with little choice but to demonstrate the force that lay behind its benevolent facade. Pressure from officials, Governors and the military establishment started building up , and, on 4 May, the Viceroy finally ordered Gand hiji’s arrest. Gandhiji’s announcement that he would now proceed to continue his defiance of the salt laws by leading a ra id on the Dharasana Salt Works certainly forced the Government’s hand, but its timing of Gandhiji’s arrest was nevertheless ill -conceived. It had neither the advantage of an early strike, which would have at least prevented Gandhiji from carefully building up the momentum of the movement, nor did it allow the Government to reap the benefits of their policy of sitting it out. Coming as it did at a high point in the movement, it only acted as a further spur to activity, and caused endless trouble for the Gove rnment. ’ There was a massive wave of protest at Gandhiji’s arrest. In Bombay, the crowd that spilled out into the streets was so large

<s>[INST]266 | India’s Struggle For Independence been clear on what course it should follow, and was, as Gandhiji had pred icted, ‘puzzled and perplexed.’ The dilemma in which it found itself was a dilemma that the Gandhian strategy of non - violent civil disobedience was designed to create. The Government was placed in a classic ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’ fix, i.e. if it did not suppress a movement that brazenly defied its laws, its administrative authority would be seen to be undermined and its control would be shown to be weak, and if it did suppress it, it would be seen as a brutal, anti -people administration that used violence on non -violent agitators. ‘If we do too much , Congress will cry “repression” . . . if we do too little. Congress will cry “victory,” ‘ — this is how a Madras civilian expressed the dilemma in early 1930.” Either way, it led to the erosion of the hegemony of the British government. The rapid spread of the movement left the Government with little choice but to demonstrate the force that lay behind its benevolent facade. Pressure from officials, Governors and the military establishment started building up , and, on 4 May, the Viceroy finally ordered Gand hiji’s arrest. Gandhiji’s announcement that he would now proceed to continue his defiance of the salt laws by leading a ra id on the Dharasana Salt Works certainly forced the Government’s hand, but its timing of Gandhiji’s arrest was nevertheless ill -conceived. It had neither the advantage of an early strike, which would have at least prevented Gandhiji from carefully building up the momentum of the movement, nor did it allow the Government to reap the benefits of their policy of sitting it out. Coming as it did at a high point in the movement, it only acted as a further spur to activity, and caused endless trouble for the Gove rnment. ’ There was a massive wave of protest at Gandhiji’s arrest. In Bombay, the crowd that spilled out into the streets was so large[/INST]

that the police just withdrew. Its ranks were swelled by thousands of textile and railway workers. Cloth -merchants went on a six -day hartal. There were clashes and firing in Calcutta and Delhi. But it was in Sholapur, in Maharashtra, that the response was the fiercest. The textile workers, who dominated the town went on strike from 7 May, arid along with other residents, bur nt liquor shops and proceeded to attack all symbols of Government authority -- the railway station, law courts, police stations and municipal buildings. They took over the city and established a

<s>[INST]that the police just withdrew. Its ranks were swelled by thousands of textile and railway workers. Cloth -merchants went on a six -day hartal. There were clashes and firing in Calcutta and Delhi. But it was in Sholapur, in Maharashtra, that the response was the fiercest. The textile workers, who dominated the town went on strike from 7 May, arid along with other residents, bur nt liquor shops and proceeded to attack all symbols of Government authority -- the railway station, law courts, police stations and municipal buildings. They took over the city and established a[/INST]

267 | Civil Disobedience 1930 -31 virtual parallel government which could only be dislodged wit h the imposition of martial law after 16 May . * But it was non -violent heroism that stole the show as the salt Satyagraha assumed yet another, even more potent form. On May 21, with Sarojini Naidu , the first Indian woman to become President of the Congress , and Imam Saheb, Gandhiji’s comrade of the South African struggle, at the helm, and Gandhiji’s son, Manual, in front ranks, a band of 2000 marched towards the police cordon that had sealed off the Dharasana salt works. As they caine close, the police rush ed forward with their steel -tipped lathis and set upon the non -resisting Satyagrahis till they fell down. The injured would be carried away by their comrades on make -shift stretchers and another column would take their place, be beaten to pulp, and carried away. Column after column advanced in this way; after a while, instead of walking up to the cordon the men would sit down and wait for the police blows. Not an arm was raised in defence, and by 11 a.m., when the temperature in the shade was 116 degrees Fa hrenheit, the toll was already 320 injured and two dead. Webb Miller, the American journalist, whose account of the Dharasana Satyagraha was to carry the flavour of Indian nationalism to many distant lands, and whose description of the resolute heroism of the Satyagrahis demonstrated effectively that non - violent resistance was no meek affair, summed up his impressions in these words: ‘In eighteen years of my reporting in twenty countries, during which I have witnessed innumerable civil disturbances, riots, street fights and rebellions, I have never witnessed such harrowing scenes as at Dharasana. ’ This new form of salt Satyagraha was eagerly adopted by the people, who soon made it a mass affair. At Wadala, a suburb of Bombay, the raids on the salt works culm inated on 1 June in mass action by a crowd of 15,000 who repeatedly broke the police

<s>[INST]267 | Civil Disobedience 1930 -31 virtual parallel government which could only be dislodged wit h the imposition of martial law after 16 May . * But it was non -violent heroism that stole the show as the salt Satyagraha assumed yet another, even more potent form. On May 21, with Sarojini Naidu , the first Indian woman to become President of the Congress , and Imam Saheb, Gandhiji’s comrade of the South African struggle, at the helm, and Gandhiji’s son, Manual, in front ranks, a band of 2000 marched towards the police cordon that had sealed off the Dharasana salt works. As they caine close, the police rush ed forward with their steel -tipped lathis and set upon the non -resisting Satyagrahis till they fell down. The injured would be carried away by their comrades on make -shift stretchers and another column would take their place, be beaten to pulp, and carried away. Column after column advanced in this way; after a while, instead of walking up to the cordon the men would sit down and wait for the police blows. Not an arm was raised in defence, and by 11 a.m., when the temperature in the shade was 116 degrees Fa hrenheit, the toll was already 320 injured and two dead. Webb Miller, the American journalist, whose account of the Dharasana Satyagraha was to carry the flavour of Indian nationalism to many distant lands, and whose description of the resolute heroism of the Satyagrahis demonstrated effectively that non - violent resistance was no meek affair, summed up his impressions in these words: ‘In eighteen years of my reporting in twenty countries, during which I have witnessed innumerable civil disturbances, riots, street fights and rebellions, I have never witnessed such harrowing scenes as at Dharasana. ’ This new form of salt Satyagraha was eagerly adopted by the people, who soon made it a mass affair. At Wadala, a suburb of Bombay, the raids on the salt works culm inated on 1 June in mass action by a crowd of 15,000 who repeatedly broke the police[/INST]

cordon and triumphantly carried away salt in the face of charges by the mounted police. In Ka rnataka, 10,000 invaded the Sanikatta salt works and faced lathis and bullets. In Madras, the defiance of salt laws led to repeated clashes with the police and to a protest meeting on 23 April on the beach which was dispersed

<s>[INST]cordon and triumphantly carried away salt in the face of charges by the mounted police. In Ka rnataka, 10,000 invaded the Sanikatta salt works and faced lathis and bullets. In Madras, the defiance of salt laws led to repeated clashes with the police and to a protest meeting on 23 April on the beach which was dispersed[/INST]

268 | India’s Struggle For Independence by lathi charges and firing, leaving three dead. This incident completely divided the city on racial lines, even the most moderate of Indians condemning the incident, and rallying behind the nationalists. In Andhra bands of village women walked miles to carry away a handful of salt, and in Bengal, the old Gandhian ashrams, regenerated by the flood of volunteers from the towns, continued to sustain a powerful salt Satyagraha in Midnapore and other coastal pockets. The districts of Balasore, Pun and Cuttack in Orissa remained active centres of illegal salt manufacture. * But salt Satyagraha was only the catalyst, a nd the beginning, for a rich variety of forms of defiance that it brought in its wake. Before his arrest Gandhiji had already called for a vigorous boycott of foreign cloth and liquor shops and had especially asked the women to play a leading role in this movement. ‘To call woman the weaker sex is a libel: it is man’s injustice to woman ,” he had said; and the women o f India certainly demonstrated in 1930 that they were second to none in strength and tenacity of purpose. Women who had never stepped unescorte d out of their home s, woen who had stayed in purdah, young mothers and widows and unmarried girls, became a familiar sight as they stood from morning to night outside liquor shops and opium dens and stores selling foreign cloth, quietly but firmly persuadi ng the customers and shopkeepers to change their ways. Along with the women, students and youth played the most prominent part in the boycott of foreign cloth and liquor. In Bombay, for example, regular Congress sentries were posted in business districts to ensure that merchants and dealers did not flout the foreign cloth boycott. Traders’ associations and commercial bodies were themselves quite active in implementing the boycott, as were the many mill owners who refused to use foreign yarn and pledged not to manufacture coarse cloth that

<s>[INST]268 | India’s Struggle For Independence by lathi charges and firing, leaving three dead. This incident completely divided the city on racial lines, even the most moderate of Indians condemning the incident, and rallying behind the nationalists. In Andhra bands of village women walked miles to carry away a handful of salt, and in Bengal, the old Gandhian ashrams, regenerated by the flood of volunteers from the towns, continued to sustain a powerful salt Satyagraha in Midnapore and other coastal pockets. The districts of Balasore, Pun and Cuttack in Orissa remained active centres of illegal salt manufacture. * But salt Satyagraha was only the catalyst, a nd the beginning, for a rich variety of forms of defiance that it brought in its wake. Before his arrest Gandhiji had already called for a vigorous boycott of foreign cloth and liquor shops and had especially asked the women to play a leading role in this movement. ‘To call woman the weaker sex is a libel: it is man’s injustice to woman ,” he had said; and the women o f India certainly demonstrated in 1930 that they were second to none in strength and tenacity of purpose. Women who had never stepped unescorte d out of their home s, woen who had stayed in purdah, young mothers and widows and unmarried girls, became a familiar sight as they stood from morning to night outside liquor shops and opium dens and stores selling foreign cloth, quietly but firmly persuadi ng the customers and shopkeepers to change their ways. Along with the women, students and youth played the most prominent part in the boycott of foreign cloth and liquor. In Bombay, for example, regular Congress sentries were posted in business districts to ensure that merchants and dealers did not flout the foreign cloth boycott. Traders’ associations and commercial bodies were themselves quite active in implementing the boycott, as were the many mill owners who refused to use foreign yarn and pledged not to manufacture coarse cloth that[/INST]

foreign yarn and pledged not to manufacture coarse cloth that competed with khadi. The recalcitrant among them were brought in line by fines levied by their own associations, by social boycott, by Congress black -listing, and by picketing.

<s>[INST]foreign yarn and pledged not to manufacture coarse cloth that competed with khadi. The recalcitrant among them were brought in line by fines levied by their own associations, by social boycott, by Congress black -listing, and by picketing.[/INST]