2011 FNF - Liberal Politics in Indo-Pak Sub Continent by Ahmed Salim

Liberal Politics in IndoPakistan Subcontinent
A Historical Perspective 19181947 by Ahmad Salim
Friedrich-Naumann-Stiftung fr die Freiheit would welcome reproduction and dissemination of the contents of the report with due acknowledgments. South Asian Research and Resource Centre House 763, Street 18, G-10/1, Islamabad Pakistan Supported by Friedrich-Naumann-Stiftung fr die Freiheit Post Box 1733, House 19, Street 19, F-6/2, Islamabad Pakistan Tel: +92 51 2 27 88 96, 2 82 08 96 Fax: +92 51 2 27 99 15 E-mail: pakistan@fnst.org Url: www.southasia.fnst.org Research Associates Leonard Dsouza Nosheen Dsouza No of printed copies: 1,500 ISBN: 978-969-9515-30-9 Disclaimer: Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the contents of this publication. The authors or the organization do not accept any responsibility of any omission as it is not deliberate. Nevertheless, we will appreciate provision of accurate information to improve our work. The views expressed in this report do not necessarily represent the views of the Friedrich-Naumann-Stiftung fr die Freiheit.
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Foreword Olaf Kellerhoff, Resident Representative FNF vii-viii PART ONE All India Scenario, 1918 1947 1 Chapter One The Roots of Liberal Ideas in Indian Polity 2-14 Chapter Two The Formation and Development of All-India Liberal Federation, 19181930 15-39 Chapter Three The Issues Raised by Liberals, 19181929 40-59 Chapter Four The Role of Liberal Parliamentarians 60-75 Chapter Five New Political Developments, 19301937 76-94
vi
Foreword
Lets give it a name

The love of freedom is found among all people, and within every individual. This desire is neither new nor geographically limited. Being respected and seeing ones wishes politically represented is neither new nor specific to only one region of our globe. Furthermore, the idea that worldly poli-tics should not intermingle with a sacrosanct and divine religion has been practised for centuries in large parts of the world including under the reign of Muslim rulers. This principle of separation of worldly and heavenly affairs was de facto mostly practised. The Age of Enlightenment, also called the Age of Reason, was the era when these ideas based on reason as primary source were conceptualised and widely published for the first time. This phi-losophy rooted in the Age of Enlightenment has a name: Liberalism. While the ideas are universal and eternal, they first gained currency in widely published literature and debates in 18th century Europe. Liberalism is a philosophy which emphasises the freedom of individuals to pursue their own goals in their own ways, provided they do not infringe on the equal liberty of others. It claims the utmost freedom of the individual and respect for the human rights for each person; it guarantees private property as foundation for economic action, and it asks the individual to take full responsibility for all their actions. Additionally, this philosophy reasons that it is in the best interest of all citizens that religion does not infringe on the equal right of another faith. This means that state affairs and religion should be dealt with in separate categories, so that the freedom of religion of one person does not compro-mise that of another. This concept is called secularism from the Latin word: saecularius, translated into English as worldly. This is not the same as the Arabic/Urdu term ladiniyya (without faith) as secularism explicitly grants freedom of religion, and more importantly, freedom to be able to worship without being oppressed by the state! Additionally, it should also be clear by now that liberalism has nothing to do with a libertine lifestyle. Some people in Pakistan claim to be liberal, but mean libertine or enjoying the license to misbehave. This is not being liberal at all as they, for example, would never grant the same rights they enjoy to their servants.
vii
It goes to the credit of Ahmad Saleem that he is able to clearly bring out in this book that the basic ideas of liberalism were practised in the Subcontinent long before they had a name in the West. They were practised and found followers even more so after these ideas received the name Liberal-ism, the philosophy of the Enlightenment. The Partition of the Subcontinent did not end this movement rather the opposite is the case. Liberalism has a great future in Pakistan as its content is universal: freedom, respect and representation as well as equal rights for every single individual. Olaf Kellerhoff Resident Representative Islamabad March 25, 2010
Part One All India Scenario 19181947
Chapter One
The Roots of Liberal Ideas in Indian Polity
This history of liberal thoughts in the Subcontinent is as old as the history of the region itself. There has been a controversy between the later Lokayata and Charvak materialist philosophy and early religious thought in Hinduism. The British introduced liberal ideas and political institutions in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh during the late eighteenth century, but people of the region have been familiar with the spirit of liberalism through centuries. The rulers of ancient India had always kept religion separate from the political and state affairs.
The Early Indian Scenario

In his remarkable study The Battle of Ideas in Pakistan Sibte Hassan suggests that the Chattriyas, the traditional rulers of ancient India, paid great respect to their Brahmin priests, and showered them with most valuable gifts and donations. They recognized the political utility of this class, but they never allowed it to interfere in their day-to-day administration. The priestly class accepted this subordinate position.1 In this way, the state mechanism set the rule that religion had nothing to do with the state apparatus. It is interesting to note that even in the Vedic age, we find sages challenging the authority of the Brahmin priests, ridiculing them for their servility and their greed for power and wealth. Notwithstanding the contention by Professor Radhakrishnan and other apologists of the Vedanta, that philosophy in India is essentially spiritual2 the fact is that except for the Vedantas, all major schools of Indian philosophy the Dehadi Asura practices of the Indus Valley Civilization, the Lokayata, Samkhya, NayayaVaisesika, Purva-Mimamsa, and Buddhism and Jainism were secular in their content. The Upanishads, perhaps the most sacred book after the Vedas and the earliest treatise on Indian philosophy (8th6th century B.C), freely discuss the Law of Causation, Nature (Svabhava), Material Elements (Bhutas), Primeval Matter (Prakriti), Time (Kala), Mind, Life and Death, rationally and fearlessly (cf. Svetasvatra and Chandogga Upanishads).3 It is a well-known fact that Buddha and Mahavir were of liberal and non-communal character. They believed in this world and denounced idol worship and the caste system. Their doctrine of Ahimsa (non-violence) was a revolt against the animal sacrifices, which were considered an integral part of Vedic religion.4 The following conversation between King Ajata Sattu, the ruler of Magadha and Buddha expresses the basic ideology of Ahisma. Once King Ajata Sattu visited Buddha and described what a teacher named Makkihali Gosala, had said to him: Though the wise should hope, by this virtue by this penance he would gain karma and the fool should by the same means hope to gradually rid himself of his karma, neither of them can do it. Pleasure and pain, measured out as it were, cannot be altered in the course of samsara [transmigration]. It can neither be
lessened nor increased just as a ball of string when thrown unwinds to its full length, so will the fool and wise alike will take their own courses and make an end of their sorrows. And this is what philosopher named Ajita Kesakambalin taught: There is no such thing, O king, as alms or sacrifice, or offerings there is no such thing as this world or the next A human being is made up of these four elements. When he dies the early in him returns to the earth, the fluid to water, the heat to fire, the wind to air, and his senses pass into space The talk of gifts is a doctrine of fools, an empty lie fools and wise men alike will cut off and perish. They do not survive after death. The first teacher belonged to the tradition of the Ajivikas. They have often been described as fatalists: those who believe that everything is predetermined. The second teacher belonged to the tradition of the Lokayatas, usually described as materialists. Texts from these traditions did not survive, we know about them only from traditions.5 Similarly, the following Buddhist text, part of the Sutta Pitaka, is a collection of verses composed by bhikkhunis. It provides an insight into womens social and spiritual experiences. Punna, a dasi or slave woman went to the river each morning to fetch water for her masters household. There she would speak to the God. The following are verses composed by Punna, recording her conversation with the Brahmana: I am a water carrier; Even in the cold I have always gone down to the water Frightened of punishment Or of the angry words of high-class women So what are you afraid of Brahmana, That makes you go down to the water (Though) your limbs shake with the bitter cold? The Brahmana replied: I am doing good to prevent evil; Anyone young or old 4
Who has done something wrong Is freed by washing in water Punna said: Whoever told you so? You are free of evil by washing in the water? In that cases all the frogs and turtles Would go to heaven, and so would the water snakes And crocodiles! (Instead) Dont do such a thing, The fear of which Brings you to the water Stop now Brahmana! Save your skin from the cold
Pre-Islamic Indian Monarchs and Liberalism

The tradition of liberalism continued in the empires of Mauryas, the Guptas and the Harsha, spread over nine centuries. About the time of Alexanders death, or a little earlier, as V.A. Smith suggests, a revolution took place in Aagadha, which cost the unpopular Nanda king his throne and life. A young man named Chandragupta from Punjab, who is said to have met Alexander, and seems to have been related to the Nanda royal family, assembled a force of clans from the north and seized the Kingdom of Magadha. His agent in effecting the revolution was Chanakya, also called Kautilya, who became his minister. An ancient treatise called Arthasastra, attributed to Kautilya, gives precise details of the systems of the government6 of the Maurya Empire by the beginning of the third century B.C., extended beyond the Hindukush on the North and beyond Herat in Afghanistan. Kutilya, the political mentor of Chandragupta Maurya, adopted a liberal approach towards the administrative problems of the Maurya state.7 Asoka was the grandson of Chandragupta. After he became the emperor he conquered the Kalinga country, present day Orissa and Ganjam in Madras. Carved inscriptions of his orders are seen in northern Mysore. During his rule the Maurya Empire included all of India except parts of Mysore and Madras and Travancore and Cochin. Although Asoka began his career as a conqueror, he is not, remembered for his conquests. Asoka was so affected by the horrors and sufferings of wars that after the Kalinga campaign, he was determined not to go to wars again. Since Buddhism taught the sacredness of life and the law of love, Asoka became a Buddhist.8 He became a religious reformer. All the forms of Indian religions were treated with respect, and the emperor forbade his 5
subjects from speaking ill of their neighbours faith. However, everyone irrespective of his caste and creed had to obey the law. People might believe in whatever they liked, but must do as they were told.9
The Muslim Era

The feudal society in India, whether with Hindu or Muslim monarchs, was not founded by the priestly class for religious purposes, but by warriors or tribal chiefs purely for worldly gains. Contrary to what our history books say, the fact is that the invasions of Muhammad b. Qasim and Mahmud Ghaznavi, too, were motivated by mundane desires. According to Chachnama when Hajjaj b. Yusuf, the Governor of Iraq, asked the Umayyad Caliph Walid b. Abdul Maliks (705715 A.D.) permission to send an expedition to Sindh, the Caliph first refused, but when Hajjaj in his second dispatch assured him that he would remit to the Caliphs treasury twice or thrice the amount they would be spent on the expedition the Caliph agreed.10 Hajjaj fulfilled his pledge. He paid to the treasury 120 million Dirhams over and above the amount distributed in the army.11 Mahmud of Ghazna, during his 17 expeditions, not only looted Hindu temples, he did not even spare the Muslims in Multan. His avarice is proverbial. Muslims rulers, who founded kingdoms in Delhi, Lahore, Jaunpur and the Deccan, were intelligent enough to realize that they could not remain in power without the cooperation of their subjects. They realized that cooperation of the local people would be achieved not by coercion but through tolerance of their religion, culture and life-style. Since they had made India their permanent home, over a period of time they themselves adopted the Indian culture.12 They managed to keep the State policy secular as far as possible. The Sultanate at Delhi was founded by the end of the 12th century. Those were turbulent times. The Mongol hordes had already overthrown the Muslim kingdoms in Turkestan and Iran and were now knocking at the western gates of India. The metropolis was swelling with Turkish nobles and ulema who had fled their homeland. Religious feelings among the Muslims were, therefore, high when Sultan Altamash came to the throne in 1211 A.D.13 However Altamash maintained a wise balance between state and religion. When the Muslim religious leaders whose number had considerably increased on account of the exodus after the Mongol incursions in Turkestan, demanded that the Hindus should be ordered to embrace Islam or put to death, the farsighted Sultan looked towards his Vizier, Nizam ul-Mulk Junaidi. The Vizier explained to the ulema the delicate situation in which a tiny minority of Muslims was ruling over a vast population of the Hindus. He also re-
minded them that Islam does not advocate conversion under duress. Moreover, We have not have enough swords to kill the Hindus. The orthodox elements received their first rebuff.14 When Altamashs daughter, Razia Sultana, ascended the throne, the conservatives were furious. The beautiful Queen was young and not married. She did not observe purdah, would go horse riding in male attire and even attend the durbar unveiled. These practices were unheard off in the 13th century among the Muslims. The Turk nobles were also enraged, because they were aspiring for the throne as well as for Razias hand in marriage. Their joint conspiracy with the conservatives succeeded and Razia Sultana lost her life.15 Sultan Alauddin Khilji (12961316), perhaps the greatest monarch of the Sultanate period, held similar views regarding the Mullahs. He used to say that mullahs and qazis had no understanding of the problems of the State. The Sultan believed that to formulate the state policies and the laws was the prerogative of the monarch. Religion had no role in the state affairs. Once he called for qazi Moghisuddin and asked him about the treatment that ought to be meted out to the Hindus. The qazi replied that if any state officer demanded silver from a Hindu, the latter should present him gold with great humility. And if the officer spat in his mouth he should open his mouth ungrudgingly. The qazi also suggested that the Sultan should take possession of their wealth and make them slaves. No wonder, Alauddin Khilji got so disgusted with the narrow-mindedness of fanatic mullahs that he thought of starting a new religion.16 Muhammad Tughlaq (13251351) was also opposed to the religious orthodox. The dislike was mutual. The orthodox were hostile towards him because Tughlaq was a rationalist who rejected the traditional interpretations of shariat. He was also fond of books on philosophy and science that have always been an anathema to the ulema. In order to get rid of them he ordered the religious leaders to leave Delhi and preach Islam in the farflung regions of the empire. He intended to start a new religion but the idea did not materialize.17 Liberalism further developed in the subcontinent under the Mughals. Babur, the founder of the Mughal Empire, propagated the philosophy of a secular state independent of religious believes. In his will to Humayun, he wrote: My son! India is inhabited by people of different religions. It is Gods great munificence that He has made you the ruler of this country. Therefore, you should always pay great attention to the following: 1. Do not let religious prejudices dwell in your heart. On the contrary, always do justice, without favour, showing fullest regard to the peoples religious feelings and customs. 7
2. 3.
You should particularly avoid cow slaughter. Never demolish any place of worship of any community and always do justice so that the relation between the king and his subjects remain friendly and peace prevails in the State. The propagation of Islam should be done by the sword of kindness and service and not by the sword of coercion and oppression. Always ignore the Shia-Sunni differences. Consider the different propensities of your subjects as different seasons of the year so that the government remains free from ailments and weaknesses.18
4.
5. 6.
The liberal and statesmanlike policies pursued by the Great Mughals and the Bahmani rulers of the Deccan not only proved successful but were also responsible for the blossoming of culture that was the most artistic synthesis of Indian, Persian and Turkish cultures. Never before had architecture and sculpture, music and dance, painting and handicrafts, trade and industry, learning and literature touched the pinnacle of excellence as in the days of the Mughals.19 Akbar the Greats unorthodox views and practices are well-known. He had collected in his court a galaxy of highly competent administrators and enlightened intellectuals, like Abdur Rahim Khan Khanan, Abul Fazl and his brother, poet Faizi, Raja Todar Mal, former Revenue Minister of Islam Shah Suri, Raja Mansingh, whose sister Jodha Bai was the mother of Jahangir, Abdul Qadir Badayuni, the famous historian, and several others. He invited Muslim ulema, Brahmin pundits, Jain teachers, Parsi destours and Christian missionaries for intellectual discussions.20 But much more important was, perhaps, his attempt to secularize education. In those days, in India as was the custom elsewhere in the world, education was conducted by the priestly class. Akbar made a number of secular schools, where mathematics, geometry, medicine, astronomy, principles of government, logic, physics and history were taught.21 According to Dr. Abid Husain, an eminent educationist, in schools where the medium of instruction was Persian, Hindu and Muslim students were taught secular subjects, such as logic, ethics, geometry, physics, medicine, political science, history and Persian literature.22
After Ashoka, Akbar was the only monarch who tried to create interfaith harmony all over India. He showed his tolerance for other religions in many ways. It was a custom among his soldiers to make the prisoners of war their slaves and sell the women and children. He gave orders that the dependents of the fallen warriors should be sent back to their homes. He abolished the jizya, a tax to be paid by non-Muslims. An Afghan ruler of India had first introduced jizya and the practice was followed by the subsequent Muslim kings. Akbar realized that the Hindus disliked it. Every religion is good, thought Akbar. There is one God before whom all are equal. So it is unjust to levy a tax on the Hindu Community. The tax was abolished. There was another tax similar to jizya, levied on Hindu pilgrims. It was sometimes so high that many Hindus could not afford to go on a pilgrimage.23 Akbar abolished that, too. Akbar was curious to learn about other religions. He wrote to the Portuguese authorities in Goa to send to his Court two learned priests who could instruct him in the doctrines of Christianity. They willingly agreed, for they thought that the Emperor could be converted. Father Montserrate along with another priest arrived in the royal court at Fatehpur Sikri. They were received by the Emperor who listened with great curiosity to every word they uttered. The Emperor was much satisfied. He asked them to translate the Holy Bible for him. He placed his second son Prince Murad under the care of Father Montserrate. Murad was only ten years old. He was clever and intelligent. The good Father taught him the Portuguese language and also the Bible.24 He built an interfaith hall for scholarly debates. Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, Zoroastrian and Sikh scholars used to assemble to discuss the commonalities and the differences of their religions. Akbar separated religion from the state. He dismissed the regular preacher at the mosque and ordered that religious questions were to be decided by the king and not by the Mullah. Akbar practically expressed the acts of harmony on time and again. Once he appeared dressed in Hindu fashion. He had a tilaka on his forehead. He had gold strings on his waist. This represented the sacred thread of the Brahmanas. He took to the worship of the Sun and celebrated festivals in honour of the Sun God.
Sufism and Bhakti Movement

The Sufi saints promoted tolerance amongst believers of different faiths. They were like weavers whose tapestry were societies at peace with themselves. With Sufism and Bkhakti movement begins the history of communal harmony in India. Across the country the Bhakti doctrine diversified into several movements. In North India, Bhakti movement was in many ways similar to the Chisti Sufi movement of Muslim saints. Both Muslims and Hindus followed identical objectives of peace and tolerance, but through different paths. One of the prominent Sufi saints of the Chishti order was Baba Sheikh Farid Shakarganj, the first Sufi saint of Punjab. The Bhaktis promoted peace and harmony amongst various communities of the sub-continent. There is no evidence of animosity between different religions. The interpretations of the situation that form the basis for the present day frictions between Pakistan and India stand in sharp contrast to the beliefs and convictions of Bhaktas. The Indo-Pak conflict is far more complex than its understanding at the popular level suggests. Its simplified popular version is an expediency designed to serve the political and economic interests of segments of both societies. Should the media and governments on both sides of the border play a positive role and highlight the traditions of tolerance, communal harmony and shared history and culture of the peoples of the region, they will find that the people will respond positively to the legacy of the Sufis and Bhaktas. Their values and beliefs still lie latent among the people of the two countries. The Sufi saints promoted tolerance amongst believers of different faiths. They were like weavers whose tapestry were societies at peace with themselves. With Sufism and Bkhakti movement begins the history of communal harmony in India. The Bhakti Movement (8001700) lies at the centre of communal harmony. Similarly the Sufi Movement had a profound impact on the society. It became part of the popular culture and is the basis of many religious traditions of Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs of the Indian Subcontinent. Kirtan at a Hindu Temple, qawwali at a dargah, and singing of gurbani at a gurdwara are derived from Bhakti Movement. Sufis and Bhagats like Kabir and Baba Farid were the leaders of this spiritual movement which relentlessly fought against dogma and orthodoxy. They did not believe in either Hindu or Muslim ritualism or the caste system. There was equality of genders, women saints were as revered and popular in the masses as their male counterparts. The Muslim stereotype symbolized by the likes of Aurangzeb is more a recent creation and formed a very small minority; as were Hindu extremists such as Shiva ji Maratha.
10
In pre-British India days, religious bigotry of Hindus and Muslims and communal antagonism did not exist in any significant way. In fact, the period is known for its communal harmony and tolerance for each other amongst ordinary people. Legend has it that Baba Farid Shakar Ganj was once presented with a pair of scissors. He returned them saying: I am not a divider, I am a weaver. Give me thread. The Brahman superiority, foreign invasions and various superstitions and convictions inherent to Indian society created antagonism between communities. However, emergence of Bhakti and various other similar movements which were initiated by common people are a testimony that the communal antagonism was only in the interest of the ruling and the religious elite. The discontentment experienced by the masses created hostilities in the society. Bhakti Movement celebrated equality, peace and unity amongst a community. Similarly the Sufi saints spread their message of love. Sufis and Bhakats believed that to attain unity with God, you have to love him in totality. Kabir and Guru Nanak liberally propagated Islamic as well as Hindu traditions of Love. Guru Arjan Dev (1567 1606) asked his contemporary, Hazrat Mian Mir, also known as Sai Mian Mir, to lay the foundation stone of the Golden Temple. Mian Mir according to the oral Sufi tradtions, barred Emperor Aurangzeb from entering his abode. When Aurangzeb arrived at Mian Mirs house to pay him a visit the doorkeeper stopped him at the entrance. Aurangzeb was furious and sent a letter to him saying. Dare Darvesh Ra Darbaan Naayad (There shouldnt be a doorkeeper at a dervishs door) Mian Mir sent a prompt reply: Baayad Ta Sage Duniya Naayad (There should be one so as to prohibit the entrance of the dog of the world) In November 2004 in order to celebrate the memory of communal integration in medieval India, the fact that Mian Mir laid the foundation of the Golden Temple, the Government in Indian Punjab established Hazrat Mian Mir Chair at Guru Nanak Dev University. It is a continuation of a tradition which spans over a thousand years when Kabirs Ram was also Rahim.
11
The British Days: From Company to Raj

As we have already established that the tradition of liberalism in India is much older than the formation of the Liberal party as a separate body from the Indian National Congress in the year 1918. The tradition in the era of East India Company and later the British Raj dates back to Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Mahadev Govind, Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, Dadabhai Nauroji, Jinnah and many others. Raja Ram Mohan Roy, as V.N. Naik suggests, was the pioneer of all progressive movements in India including political progress. Himself a devout worshipper at the shrine of liberty, he realized even as far back as 1820 that liberty to be properly enjoyed must be regulated liberty. That freedom has its own restraints as much as order has. In the field of social and religious reform no less than in journalism and politics, his one endeavour was to awaken his countrymen not only to their rights as free men, but also to their obligations to society. He strove in his day, and all by himself, to impress upon them one supreme lesson, namely, to understand their countrys past alright, and then to assimilate thoroughly into that past the light that had come from the West as the result of the interaction of British and Indian cultures. Raja Ram Mohan Roys liberalism was before the dawn of liberalism in Europe, and it rose in the mid-Victorian period of English history.25 Mahadeo Goving Ranade, another great liberal of his times was endowed with the gifts of head and heart far greater than those of any of his contemporaries, or that of any other man after him. Sir Pherozeshah Mehta described him, as a robust optimist, and proudly owned himself as belonging to his school of thought. Ranade, speaking on Telang before the Hindu Union Club of Bombay, described that school as the Telang School of thought and action. In Telang, who along with Mehta and Tyabji formed the political triumvirate of Bombay in his day, two strains had combined to make him the leader of thought between the years 18791893; wisdom, sobriety and right direction was one of them. And the other was the welcoming of all light, and especially the Western light. Gokhale, speaking from the platform of a Provincial political Conference in the Presidency of Bombay, put these three great men together as the leading lights of India. And to point out the distinction without difference between them, he attributed to each one of them an outstanding quality peculiarly his own. Ranade he described as a man of historic imagination, Mehta as a man of courage, and Telang as a man of culture. In any political movement marked for success, it will be realized that these three attributes have come together into play. 26 Victorian liberalism influenced Dadabhai Naoroji before Ranade, as it influenced Mehta and Gokhale after him. Mehta took his lessons in politics from Dadabhai Naoroji during the years that he was in England reading for the bar. Gokhale taught them sitting at the feet of his political Guru Ranade. And later on, he learnt them in close and reverent as12
sociation with Mehta. All three of them looked up to Dadabhai Naoroji as their master. In a lecture on Dadabhai Naoroji in Bombay in September 1905, Gokhale spoke of him in the following words: No, gentlemen, whether Mr. Dadabhai uses mild or bitter words, our place is round his standard by his side. Whoever repudiates Dadabhai, he is none of us. Whoever tries to lay rude and irreverent hands on him, strike him down. On an occasion of unveiling Dadabhais portrait in Framji Cowasji Institute in Bombay, Ranade called him the teacher of political India one in three hundred millions, one in a century. About Mehta, Gokhale often said that he would rather be wrong with Mehta than right without him.27 The liberal tradition, before 1918, is well reflected in the speeches and writings of men like Dadabhai Nauroji, Pherozshah Mehta, Gokhale, Surendra Nath Banerji, Muhammad Ali Jinnah and other prominent leaders of the Congress movement in India. They gave us the fundamentals of Subcontinental liberalism. Jinnah, who later on parted his ways from liberal traditions, also contributed a lot in this direction. In his political creed we find him deeply influenced by two outstanding personalities of the time. It has been mentioned elsewhere that he came into contact with Dadabhai Naoroji at a very tender and impressionable age in England. The second figure in Indian politics which was a source of inspiration for Jinnah was Gopal Krishna Gokhale, who occupies a place of great honour and respect in the roll of Indias worthy sons. He combined in himself two of the rarest gifts a heart fired by great fervour and sincerity and an intellect of the highest order. We find impressions of Gokhales personality on the movement which he nurtured with his thought and service. He was the model which Jinnah placed before himself. On one occasion, in an unguarded moment of self-revelation, Jinnah said, It is my ambition to become the Moslem Gokhale. The true significance of these words can only be realized by those who know how reserved he was in his inner thoughts and sentiments. In the light of this revelation it is interesting to recall Gokhales own prediction about his gifted comrade. He has true stuff in him, he said, and that freedom from all sectarian prejudice which will make him the best ambassador of HinduMuslim unity. This estimate of Jinnah, generous as it sounds, is only a just tribute to his true and tried patriotism.28 Contrary to these nationalist and liberal leaders of modern India, Sir Syed was the pioneer of two-nation theory. Though, he advised Muslims not to join Indian National congress, yet he had to confess that the Hindus and Muslims were the two eyes of Mother India.29 The partition of India, however, went against the opinion of Sir Syed. Jinnah also had to go against the ideals of his mentor Dadabhai Nauroji and Guru Gokhale. It would be quite interesting to see it in the next chapters.
13
References
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29
Sibte Hassan, The Battle of Ideas in Pakistan, Karachi, 1989, p.136. Radhakarishnan, Indian Philosophy, Vol-I, London, 1933, p. 24. Sibte Hassan, op.cit., pp.136137. Ibid. p.137. Themes in Indian History, part-I, National council of educational research and training (NCERT), New Delhi, p.87. Vincent A. Smith (revised by H.G. Rawilson), 15th Ed. London, 1951, p.51. Sibte Hasan, op. cit., p.137. Landmarks of Indian History, Book I, London, n.d., p.123. Vincent A. Smith, op. cit., p.56. Dr. Nabi Bakhsh Baloch (ed.), Chachnama (Urdu tr.) Hyderabad, 1963, p.126. Ibid. Sibte Hasan. op. cit., p.138. Ibid. Ibid. pp. 138139. Ibid. p.139. Ibid. p.140. Ibid. S.M. Ikram, Roode Kausar (Urdu), Lahore 1970, p. 23, cited in Sibte Hasan, p.143. Sibte Hasan, op. cit., pp.139140. Ibid. p. 140. History of freedom Movement, Vol. II, Karachi, 1960, p. 170. Dr. Abid Hussain, The National Culture of India, Bombay, 1951, p. 71. Babar And Akbar, Longmans, Bombay, 1943, pp. 4344. Ibid. p. 50. V.N. Naik, Indian Liberalism: A Study of Bombay, 1945, p. 1. Ibid. p.2. Ibid. pp. 23. Usman Ahmad Anson, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, in L.F. Rushbrook Williams (Ed.), Great Men of India, n.d., pp. 3712. V.N. Naik, op. cit., pp. 2526.
14
Chapter Two
The Formation and development of All-India Liberal Federation 1918-30
15
The All-Indian Liberal Federation, known as National Liberation Federation (NLF) was constituted in the year 1918, as a break away from the Indian National Congress (INC), when the Congress rejected the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms in 1918. Its initial viewpoint was that though the reforms of 191819 did not offer as much as they should have, they contained the promise of enough real advances to warrant patriotic Indians sincere attempts to work them. The liberals thought that they would be able to modify the working of that part of the system over which under the constitution they had no control. Secondly, they also expected that by some outstanding administrative achievements, they would be able to establish themselves in the eyes of the countrymen. They would also be able to prove that the rash methods and under haste of the INC were unnecessary.
Historical Background of Breakup

Extremists like Tilak, Bipin Pal, C.R. Das and others, who had left the Moderate-dominated Congress after the Surat split of 1907, reentered the Congress in 1916. The stiff and obdurate attitude of the colonial rulers convinced both Hindus and Muslims alike that only a joint front by all Indians could hope to extract something close to self-government from the unwilling hands of the alien rulers. So, in December 1916, the leaders of the Indian National Congress and the leaders of the All India Muslim League met together at Lucknow (Lakhnaow) and jointly gave birth to what is known as the Lucknow Pact of 19161, in which they put forward the joint demand that the King Emperor should be pleased to issue a proclamation that it is the aim and intention of British policy to confer self- government on India at an early date; [...] that definite steps should be taken towards self-government by granting the reforms contained in the Scheme (of Congress and League) [...] .2 It was further stated that under such reform measures, India should cease to be a dependent country and should become an equal partner in the Empire with self-governing Dominions.3 On the Congress side, Bal Gangadhar Tilak was the main architect of the joint front, while his counterpart in the Muslim League was none other than Muhammad Ali Jinnah.4 Political opinion in India rapidly rallied round the Lucknow proposals for an immediate declaration of a new Constitutional reform measure granting responsible self-government to India, with something close to Dominion Status. The pressure and the difficult war situation combined to have substantial effect on the colonial rulers. But hardened imperialists obstructed any pro-reform move. An important English writer notes that one prominent member of the War Cabinet opposed any policy declaration that would promise substantial self-government to India.5
16
In June 1917 Annie Besant, leader of the Home Rule League, was interned by the authorities. This was followed by a nationwide protest movement. The Committee of the Indian National Congress and the Council of the Muslim League met jointly at Bombay in the last week of July 6 and repeated their demand that the British Government should immediately announce that they were pledged to a policy of making India a self-governing Dominion, within the British Empire. They called upon the British rulers to halt their repressive activities, accept the Congress-League reform proposals and to rally English public opinion. They further decided to send a deputation to England.7 Montagu, the new Secretary of State for India, acted quickly. On 30 July 1917 he circulated a note to the cabinet, drawing attention to the dangerous and restless mood of the Indian people and urged for an immediate policy declaration.8 On 14 August 1917 the British Cabinet sanctioned a policy statement, which was stated on the floor of the Commons on 20 August by Montagu, thus: The policy of His Majesty's Government with which the Government of India are in complete accord is that of the increasing association of Indians in every branch of the administration, and the gradual development of self-governing institutions, with a view to the progressive realization of responsible government in India as an integral part of the British Empire..9 The Moderates in Bengal (and elsewhere) were immediately jubilant and Surendranath Banerjea's newspaper, Bengalee wrote: We recognize in him [Montagu] the friend of India and of the aspirations for liberty and constitutional freedom as equal subjects of the crown, which are now throbbing in our hearts..10 Newspapers close to the extremists were somewhat more cautious and demanded that a definite declaration of the nature of responsible government proposed to be granted and the time when it may be conferred should be made without delay.11 Inside the Indian National Congress, both in Bengal and on an all-India plane, a battle royal started in 1917 between the Moderates who were still in power and the extremists who were staging a come-back. The fate of the struggle was still hanging in the balance and this was clearly reflected in the Congress Memorandum before Montagu and Chelmsford, the Viceroy. It expressed satisfaction and gratitude for the declaration of the British policy in India (satisfying the moderates) but demanded at the same time, a specific time-limit for the introduction of responsible self-government in India. Similar stance was taken at the annual session of the Congress, held at Kolkata (Calcutta) in December 1917. This had been preceded by the Bengal Provincial Conference, where the extremists led by the old guard Bipin Pal and his famous Lieutenant Chittaranjan Das had succeeded in totally ousting the moderates, including Banerjea, from the leadership of the Bengal Congress.12 This was the background that parted the way of extremists and liberals in Indian National Congress. Now, the stage was set for moderates to declare themselves as a separate political force in India.
17
The First Session, 1918

The new party held its first session in Mumbai (Bombay) on November 12, 1918 under the chairmanship of Surendranath Banerjea. Designated as the 'All-India Conference of the Moderate Party', it proved to be the nucleus of the NLF. It adopted for its creed the old Congress goal of gradual progress towards self-government, which had by then been left way behind by the parent body. In the result, the NLF became a rallying point for moderately progressive nationalist opinion which favored peaceful and constitutional means as opposed to the 'revolutionary' creed and policy of the Congress. The 'Conference of the Moderates' was in no sense a departure from the line of action once laid down by the Congress. Rather, it was a vindication of the latter as against the new departure sought to be imposed by what may be called the radical left wing of the Congress.13 The Chairman of the Reception Committee of the NLF was Sir Dinshaw Wacha and the President, as noticed, Surendranath Banerjea. In the words of its secretary, H. M. Samrath, the key note of the NLF's political, philosophy was: Whatever I consider to be right according to my lights and according to my reason, I will say freely, frankly and fearlessly to Government and the public, whether it pleases them or not, is not my concern. What is good to them, I will administer, however unpalatable the dose may be.14 The Conference of the Moderates was, in no sense as V.N. Naik states a departure from the line of action laid down by the Indian National Congress. Rather it was a vindication of the Congress ideal as against the new departure thrust upon that institution by, what may be called, its left-wing. Both the Chairman of the Reception Committee Sir Dinsha Wacha, and the President of the Conference, Surendranath Banerjea, made that position clear in their respective addresses. "All or nothing" was not the motto of the Indian National Congress, said Sir Dinsha Wacha, and in support of that statement quoted the words of Charles Bradlaugh who had attended the Congress session of 1889 in Mumbai (Bombay) along with Sir William Wedderburn, than whom India had no better friend in the English official world. The words were: Not only do not expect too much, but do not expect all at once. Don't be disappointed if, of a just claim, only something is conceded.
18
And these words were uttered by Bradlaugh when he had taken upon himself to introduce a bill in the House of Commons on the lines of the Reforms Scheme, the broad outlines of which the Congress itself had formulated. It is enough to state here that Charles Bradlaugh was a radical of radicals in English politics, and, at one time, a co-worker in England with Mrs. Besant on behalf of the common people in that country.15 Another quotation that Sir Dinsha Wacha gave in his address was from the speech of A. O. Hume at Allahabad in 1886: The Congress was intended to educate all who took part in it in the practice of self-control, moderation and willingness to give and take, to educate them, in fact, into what has been described as a genuine parliamentary frame of mind. The cry of unreasoning negation it was not definitely the intention of the Congress to foster among its adherents. That the Moderates' Conference was in continuation of the tradition of the Congress was brought out by Mr. C. Y. Chintamani in the following felicitous words. Said he, Those who may criticize and taunt us for having stayed away from the special session of the Congress that was held in this city sometime ago, may well be asked whether we are faithful or we are wanting in fidelity to the-traditions and the policy of the Congress when we are here with a Senior Ex-President of the Congress as Chairman of the Reception Committee, when the proposition now before you, has been moved by another ExPresident, and supported by a third Ex-President, and that proposition is that the senior-most of all Ex-Presidents, and the one living Ex-President who twice presided over the Congress should be the President of this Conference. When, gentlemen, a couple of days hence, the resolutions that this Conference will have passed will be widely read and known in the country, I am confident that every thinking man will recognize in these resolutions a more faithful continuity of the well-known policy of the National Congress than in the pronouncement which has been recently made, it may be, at a larger, but I feel sure, not, a wiser or more patriotic body. The President of the Conference after quoting the basic principle imbedded in the Congress Constitution, and asking straight if the Montagu Scheme had not complied with the conditions laid down by the Congress itself, definitely told the audience, 19
I am, therefore, justified in holding that if the illustrious men, now dead and gone, who made the Congress what it was, were now in our midst, if Dadabhai Naoroji, Gopal Krishna Gokhale, W. C. Bonnerjee, Sir Pherozeshah Mehta, Sir William Wedderburn and others had been spared to us to lead and guide our counsels, they would have welcomed with alacrity the Reform Proposals as laid down by His Excellency the Viceroy and the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for India, subject, of course, to necessary improvements. They are in conformity with the principles laid down by the great Congressmen of the past whose memories we venerate and whose percepts are our guide.16
Jallianwala Massacre and After 1919-20

The second session of the All-India Moderates' Conference met at Kolkata (Calcutta) in the Town Hall on December 30th 1919. Sir B.C. Mitter was the Chairman of the Reception Committee and Sir P. S. Sivaswamy Aiyer was the President. About 500 delegates collected from all over India and about an equal number of local visitors attended. The proceedings opened with Sir B. C. Mitter's welcome address after which Mr. Surendra Nath Banerjea proposed Sir P. S. Sivaswamy Aiyer to be president.17 In his presidential address Aiyer dealt with issues like legislative reforms, Congress proposals, the name of the new party, press Act, national defense, arms act, Indians in Africa, education, economic development and above all the massacre in Jallianwala Bagh in Amritsar in April 1919. Regarding the name of Party, the president said. The name to be adopted by our party is a matter which may perhaps be considered here. At the last session of our Conference our President expressed his dislike of the term 'Moderate and suggested the name the centre group of the Nationalist party. If I may be allowed to offer a remark, it seems too long an expression for the purpose of nomenclature and the word 'group is suggestive of an undesirable fissiparous tendency. I have no particular predilections. We may call ourselves Liberals or 'Progressives or 'National Liberals or by any other name you like. I would only respectfully suggest a much shorter and handier name than the one suggested last year. 18 On the day, December 30, a resolution was adopted in this regard.The Chairman moved
20
a resolution for the organization of the Liberal Party. The resolution ran thus: The Liberal Party of India will work for the success of the constitutional reforms by following a policy of co-operation and of promoting good understanding among the different communities and interests in the country. It will aim at a higher standard of national efficiency by means of administrative reforms, a wider spread of education, improvement of public health, economic development and amelioration of the condition of the backward classes of population. The organization of the Liberal Party shall be known as the National Liberal Federation of India and the future sessions of the All India Moderate Conference shall be designated the annual sessions of the National Liberal Federation. The work of the Federation shall be carried on between one annual session and another by a Council consisting of not more than fifteen members from each province in addition to the office bearers elected at the annual session.19 As far as the massacre in Jallianwala, Amritsar and imposition of Martial Law by the British Colonial Raj was concerned, the president spoke his heart openly and fearlessly, despite the fact that the liberals had supported the Constitutional reforms while parting their ways from the Indian National Congress: I shall now pass on to a subject which has been engrossing the mind of the public even more than the subject of constitutional reforms. The disturbances in the Punjab in April last and the measures taken by the authorities to deal with them attracted the keenest and most wide-spread interest at the time. While the acts of lawlessness committed by the mobs were duly published at the time, the public were not kept equally informed of the doings of the authorities and the nature and extent of the measures adopted by them in the restoration of order. The movements of people to and from the Punjab were prohibited or restricted. Accused persons were deprived of the services of counsel from outside the province. A rigorous censorship was exercised over the press and security was demanded from papers which had the temerity to publish accounts of the manner in which martial law was administered. Such information, however, as leaked out and was published sent a thrill of horror over the land. While all political organizations expressed their detestation of the wanton destruction of life and property and 21
communications and all the other outrages committed by the mobs and their approval of all measures reasonably necessary for the suppression of disorder, they, felt it their duty to condemn the excesses of the authorities administering martial law and press for the prompt withdrawal of martial law. After a delay of several months the promised Committee of Enquiry has been appointed and the inquiry has been going on for two months. It is to be deeply regretted that the government should not have seen their way to suspend the sentences of the leading citizens who were convicted in Lahore and Amritsar and enable them to be present when evidence affecting them was being given at the inquiry and to give instructions to counsel for the cross-examination of the witnesses. It is also unfortunate that for this reason the Congress Committee to whose patriotic labours we owe an ungrudging tribute of praise should have decided to withhold their assistance from the Committee and let in no evidence on behalf of the people. Notwithstanding these disadvantages, the evidence tendered by the government and especially the evidence of the European officers who were charged with the duty of restoring order, has thrown a flood of lights upon the administration of the Punjab during those eventual months. The disclosures now made have confirmed the worst suspicions of the public as to the ruthless and inexcusable barbarity of the administration and have created a feeling of intense indignation throughout the country. In view of the fact that the inquiry is not yet concluded, a considerable measure of reserve is called for in expressing an opinion on the matters pending before them. It is neither possible, nor desirable at this stage to express any opinion as to the causes of the disturbances or as to the necessity for the employment of military force or for the introduction of martial law; but the evidence of the European officers which has been already taken has made it abundantly clear that martial law was continued long after the necessity for it, if any, had ceased, that the means adopted by the military authorities to put them down were far in excess of the requirements of the situation and that the proceedings of the officers concerned were not guided by any considerations of common sense, humanity or decency, whether the disturbances in the various localities amounted only to riots or rebellion is a matter which may be left, for the present, to the
22
decision of the Committee. It is well settled that necessity is the sole measure of the duration and extent of the force to be employed for putting down an insurrection and restoring order and that it is only when it is impossible for the ordinary courts of law to sit or enforce the execution of their judgments, that martial law can be indulged. There is nothing to show that except perhaps during the few days immediately following the disturbances the ordinary civil courts could not sit. Apart from any question of the legality of the ordinance providing for the trial of offences by special or martial law tribunals, there was no moral justification for the continuance of martial law or for the continuance of the special tribunals after the disturbances had been put down. The fact that trial by courts-martial is bound to be quicker or would serve as an example of terror to others and help to keep them in due awe and obedience is no justification whatever for the establishment or continuance of martial law. It is also clear that the martial law officers had no right to treat contraventions of their own orders as offences and proceed to try and punish people for infringement of their orders.20 We do not know what the findings of the Enquiry Committee may be; but if we may be allowed to voice the wishes of the people we should ask, (1) for reparation for all serious hardship and suffering caused by unwarranted acts of severity, (2) for steps being taken to bring to justice any officials, high or low, civil or military, who may be found to have acted unreasonably and in excess of their powers or authorized such acts, (3) for the provision of safeguards against the recurrence of such things in the future and (4) for the abolition of flogging in the Indian Army. Let us see what reasonable safeguards it is possible to suggest. One remedy which may perhaps be thought of is that in dealing with internal out-breaks the civil authorities should only invoke the aid of military forces, but should not allow the introduction of martial law. This suggestion raises a very large issue and in view of the incidents of the martial law regime in Ireland, Egypt, India and Ceylon may deserve consideration, but it seems to me doubtful whether it is likely to be entertained as a practical proposition. No enactment of any Declaration of rights as suggested by our friends in the congress can avert the possibility of the introduction of martial law; for, by the very nature of the
23
case martial law is a creature of necessity and transcends all law. Martial law is a state of no law where the will of the General who commands the army prevails; but if, as is only too likely, the abolition of martial law for the purpose of suppressing internal outbreaks is put aside as an impracticable suggestion, we are entitled to ask that the constitutional limitations to which its exercise and duration are subject according to the opinions of eminent English jurists shall be authoritatively set forth either in a statute or in a memorandum of instructions to be issued to the Governor-General. It should be made clear that martial law should not be introduced, unless it is impossible for the civil courts to sit and exercise their functions. It is further necessary that the power of creating new offences for breach of regulations and providing penalties therefore should not be delegated to Military Officers and that if courts-martial and civil courts are both sitting, any person not subject to Naval Discipline Act or to Military Law, who is alleged to be guilty of the contravention of any regulation should be allowed to claim to be tried by a Civil Court instead of by a Court Martial. The happenings in the Punjab have emphasized the necessity for providing that the Indian element in the Executive Council of the Viceroy shall be at least equal to the European element. They point to the urgent need for the cheapening and quickening of cable communications with England. They have also demonstrated the evil effects of a prolonged exodus to the hills and the consequent isolation of the government from the world of humanity beneath.21 The conference also passed several resolutions on the subjects of the proclamation of responsible government, the khilafat question, the Press Act, and Indian in South Africa including the tragedy occurred in the Punjab.
Liberals visit England

After the publication of the report of the Franchise Committee, the NLF organized a deputation to England. It was a supreme moment, as Surendranath Banerjea notes, in the history of the reforms. There were the enemies of Indian advancement; there were the Indian extremists playing into their hands; there were elements in NLF itself, who were not satisfied with the reforms and who wanted more. The whole atmosphere was charged 24
with differences and disorder. The liberals felt their duty to send a strong contingent to England to support the reforms, and to press for their expansion, where it was thought necessary. Surendranath Banerjea was the head of the deputation. Amongst its members were Shastri, Smarth, Chintamani, Kamat, P.C. Roy, Ram Chunder Rao and Mr. K.C. Roy. Sir Taj Bahadur Sapru joined soon. Samarth was the first to arrive in England.22 The deputation actively advocated the interests of Indian people; particularly the issue of mass killing in Punjab was strongly raised.
Resumption of Jallianwala debate, 1920

A meeting of the council of NLF was held on June 12th in Kolkata (Calcutta), to consider the Hunter Report and the policy of the Government. Surendranath Banerjea presided the meeting. The council discuss the whole issue and passed the following eight resolutions on Punjab. 1. The Council of the National Liberal Federation of India view with deep disappointment the Majority report of the Hunter Committee whose conclusions are in the main unsupported by weight of the published evidence. The Council regrets that the majority have supported the declaration and continuation of martial law in the Punjab without justification and the atrocities that were perpetrated or condoned in most cases in disregard of the canons of civilized Government. The Council feel constrained to say that the majority report lacks the authority that should have attached to a State Paper treating of such grave and far reaching issues as were raised by the recent deplorable events in the Punjab. The Council endorse the conclusion of the Majority that there was no rebellion in the Punjab and their condemnation of the declaration of martial law and its prolongation without even a colorable excuse, as well as of the ruthlessness with which it was administered, entailing cruel hardships upon large numbers of innocent persons and wantonly causing humiliation to the people by bringing home to them their utter helplessness. While appreciating the Secretary of States dispatch for its condemnation of some of the worst horrors of last year and its repudiation of the doctrine of military necessity that made them possible, the Council must express their sense of strong disapproval of the awarding of a wholly
2.
3.
25
inadequate punishment to General Dyer and of none as yet to several other officers who were guilty of unpardonable excesses. The Council would earnestly urge that the Government should take immediate steps for the suitable punishment of all officers military or civil, of whatever status, who were guilty of or condoned gross abuse of power and indisputably failed to maintain the standards of conduct, which as the Secretary of States dispatch says, no civilized Government can with impunity neglect and which His Majestys Government are determined to uphold. The Council believes that without such punishment neither will the enormity of their conduct be brought home to the offending officers nor will the national self respect of India be vindicated. 4. The Council records their emphatic protest against the high encomium bestowed upon Sir Michael ODwyer both by the Government of India and His Majestys Government in the admission that His Majestys Government do not regard Sir Michael ODwyer as immune from criticism, their criticism of the application of martial law procedure to certain trials which, it is admitted, must be taken as applying to Sir Michael ODwyer in so far as he was personally responsible for the action in question and the avowal that with the general question of Sir Michael O'Dwyer's administration of the Punjab, His Majesty's Government are not now immediately concerned. Sir Michael O'Dwyer's opinions of the educated classes of India and of even legitimate and constitutional political agitation have been publicly expressed and are non-officially recorded, while his responsibility for the declaration and continuation of martial law and the manner in which it was administered cannot be gainsaid. He even accorded unqualified approval to General Dyer's action at Jallianwalla Bagh which has been disapproved by the majority report and the Government of India and condemned by His Majesty's Government. The praise of such an officer by His Majesty's Government has made a painful impression on Indian mind. In the opinion of the Council the least that His Majesty's Government should do, failing any more drastic action, is to take steps to mark in an effective manner their unqualified disapproval of the policy and conduct of Sir Michael O'Dwyer and they should in no circumstances allow him to be associated with Indian affairs in any capacity. The Council regret that His Majesty's Government while testifying to the manner in which His Excellency the Viceroy fulfilled his high trust and continuing to repose fullest confidence in his discretion, have ig-
5.
26
nored altogether the responsibility of His Excellency and His Government who instead of examining the situation on the spot and exercising the much-needed control over the Punjab Government gave it virtually a free hand. 6. The Council urge upon the Government that adequate compensation should be allowed to those who have suffered in the Punjab owing to the high-handed action of civil or military officers and further that steps should be taken to revise the fines imposed or levied from certain areas in Punjab. The council strongly urge that His Majesty's Govt. should provide for effective safeguards against a recurrence of such things as happened last year and to this end urge, among other measures, (1) That the introduction, exercise and duration of martial law should be subject to the same constitutional limitations as in England, (2) That Martial Law should not be introduced unless it is impossible for civil courts to sit and exercise their functions, (3) That the power of creating new offences for breach of regulations and providing penalties thereof should not be delegated to military officers, (4) That if courts martial are allowed to sit when civil courts are sitting, any person not subject to the Naval discipline Act or to Military law, who is charged with the contravention of any regulation should be allowed the option of trial by Civil Court, (5) That free and unrestricted legal assistance should be available as a matter of right to the accused persons placed before martial law tribunals and this should not be left to the discretion of or any interference by civil or martial law authorities, and (6) that the remedy in the nature of Habeas Corpus should be made available in all parts of British India. The Council places on record their warm appreciation of the ability, courage and sense of justice which the Honourable Pandit Jatgat Narain, Sir Chimanlal Setalvad and Shahebzada Sultan Ahmad Khan brought to bear upon the discharge of their arduous duty as members of the Hunter Committee.23
7.
8.
A great liberal leader of that time, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, president Mumbai (Bombay) branch of the All-India Home rule League sent the following cable to the Secretary of state for India. Consider the Majority Hunter Report as utterly and an unwarranted exoneration of Sir Michael O'Dwyer and the Viceroy. 27
Mere censure of General Dyer's atrocious crime is totally inadequate. Council warns His Majesty's Government against halfhearted measures regarding officers whose guilt is proved beyond doubt. Future good government cannot be guaranteed without serious notice of the misdeeds already committed. Cruel wrong done about Khilafat has already created dangerous situation. This has been aggravated by the Punjab miscarriage of justice. If both Wrongs are not remedied in time, the smooth working of the reforms is in danger, welcome to the Prince is doubtful and the people are likely to join non-co-operation movement.24 The Punjab issue and Hunter Report remained under decision till the end of 1920. Another meeting of the Council of NLF held at Mumbai (Bombay) on October (3031) 1920, P.S. Sivaswai Iyer chaired the session. In its resolution on Punjab Tragedy it was said: The Council reaffirms the opinions recorded in the resolution of the last meeting and protest against the failure of the Government to render justice by imposing adequate punishment upon the officers guilty of act of cruelty, oppression, humiliation during the period of Martial Law Administration in the Punjab. The council records their conviction that the failure of British statesmanship to rise to the demands of the situation in regard to the Punjab affair has largely prevented the people from realizing the value of constitutional reforms. 25 The Council also passed the resolutions on non-cooperation movement, the report on Army in India (the Esher) Committee and recommendations of Medical Services Committee and the issues of Indians in East Africa and Fiji.
NLF: The activities during 192122

During the first five to six years of its existence, the new party gained in strength and exercised a measure of influence. However, the death in England in 1922 of E. S. Montagu, at one time Secretary of State for India, proved to be a great set back and liberal influence gradually waned. The Round Table Conference brought the party again into prominence but the reactionary provisions of the Government of India Act, 1935 administered another powerful shock. General elections under the new Act further confirmed the political eclipse of the Liberals: few of the party candidates contested and of
28
those who did hardly any was successful. All this notwithstanding, for many years the party did make a significant contribution in the political field. During 192122, the Liberals were quite active in the national politics. They were in parliament and government to play significant role for social and political change. On December 29, 1921, the Liberals held the fourth session of NLF at Allahabad. In his presidential address L.A. Govindaraghava Iyer spoke about the significance of dominion status, India and the League of Nations, Councils and growth of Conventions, the Khilafat question, reform scheme and tragedy of Punjab. Regarding Punjab tragedy he said: The next wrong that led to the movement is the Punjab tragedy. Sir William Vincent has called it an unhappy episode in the history of British India. An indelible stain has been left on the fair fame of Britain, and it will take years, if not decades, before the memory of that tragedy is wiped out from the Indian mind. I share the view that the punishment inflicted on the delinquents was not adequate [...] 26 Resolution on the working of the reform Act, Civil Disobedience, Indianisation of the army, Moplah rebellion and prisoners of the Punjab Martial Law. Regarding Civil Disobedience movement the resolution said: This Federation NLF is strongly of opinion that the campaign of civil disobedience, resolved upon by the Congress, is fraught with the gravest danger to the real interests of the country and is bound to cause untold suffering and misery to the people and earnestly appeals to the country not to follow a course which imperils peace, order and personal liberty, and is bound to produce a mentality inimical not merely to the present Government, but to any form of Government. 27 Resolutions expressing dissatisfaction at the inadequacy of the Viceroys action regarding the Punjab Martial Law prisoners and for suitable punishment of the officers found guilty during the Martial Law administration, urging for the revision of the Turkish Treaty, appreciating the services at the Imperial Conference of the rtd. Hon. Srinivasa Sastri for obtaining equal status for Indians in the Empire, and welcoming the resolution of the Imperials Conference regarding the status of Indians in the Empire, and trusting the position of Indians in East Africa would be determined in accordance with the policy approved of by the Imperial Conference were also passed.
29
The Fall of Liberals, 1923

By the end of the year 1922, the stage was set for the game of routing the Liberals. 1923 opened with the resignation of Sir Taj Bahadur Sapru, from the government of India. His sudden retirement from office was a great trial for the party and for sometime speculation ran rife whether it was really due to ill health, as was declare, or because Sir Taj Bahadur had, from his inner experience of the Governments of Whitehall and Simla, a warning of coming events. Of these events, recorded in detail in this volume, may be mentioned some further Liberal resignations, notably of Sir Chimanlal Setalvad from the Mumbai (Bombay) Government and of Chintamani and Jagat Narain from the U. P. The disillusion about the reality of the Reforms came gradually, first in the shape of the appointment of a Royal Commission to consider the pay and prospects of the European Services without entering into the question of Indianisation which was brushed aside, secondly, the Secretary of States Despatch denying any further advance in constitutional reforms as demanded by the Assembly, and thirdly, a regular train of certifications both in the Central and Provincial Governments, which showed how little the bureaucracy cared even for the moderate popular opinion prevailing in the Councils, and to cap all, the doubling of the Salt Tax against the united voice of all India, and, lastly, the insult offered to the Indian nation by the outrageous Kenya decisions of July 1923.28 The Liberals, however, did not take long to recover from these staggering blows, and towards the end of the year they began roundly to retaliate. When the third and last session of the Assembly met at Simla, the strained feeling between the legislature and the executive was at its height and some strong defeats were inflicted on the Government. A resolution was passed against the Government recommending curtailment of the special powers under which the Viceroy had acted in certifying the Finance Bill with the doubled Salt Tax. Another for shortening the period of probation under the reforms act was also carried against Government. The Reciprocity Bill aimed against the Kenya decision was also passed against the Government, and on all sides it was apparent that there was now little love lost between the government on one aide and the Liberals on the other. Whatever the real reason of Sir Sapru's resignation, he immediately threw himself into the task of reorganizing the Liberal party; the very existence of which was then threatened. With Government (support gone, and the greatest popular antipathy raging against them for haying made themselves a mere cats-paw in the hands of Government, it was necessary for the Liberals to rally strength specially as two great blows were coming from Whitehall. One was the Royal Commission on the Services and the other was the Secretary of State's Despatch on the Reforms addressed to the Viceroy and published early in January 1923.29 30
The greatest sensation in Liberal circles and an affair which served to give a new orientation to their politics was the sudden resignation of the Ministries of the U.P. Government in the earlier part of 1923. C.Y. Chintamani and Lala Jagat Narain were Liberals who had opposed the national war-cry against the Reforms and had undertaken to work them for all they were worth. Their sudden resignation as Ministers under circumstances which clearly showed that they were intended by the Government to remain under the thumb of the I.C.S. autocracy, and its matter of fact and chilly acceptance by the governor, dispelled the last optimistic vision of the Liberals of what they had hoped the new Government of India act to produce.30 The Mumbai (Bombay) Liberals were at this period more fortunate. They had as yet nothing to complain of Diarchy. Sir Chimanlal Setalvads resignation from the Executive of the Bombay Government early in June came as a surprise and the people expected another round of revelation anent the reforms. But Sir Chimanlal chose not to take the public into confidence and recite his experience in the Government. In his letter of resignation to the Governor he wrote that he felt very strongly that in the present state of politics in the country and looking to the needs of his party with the general elections imminent, it is his imperative duty to resign office and seek re-election to the Assembly.31 Soon after, however, everything went wrong against the National Liberal Federation. Before elections, the party issued their manifesto. Stating its achievements during 1918 23, the party released its following program. (1) the same status for India in her dealings with other members of the British Commonwealth as is accorded to the Self-governing Dominions ; (2) the approximation as far as may be of the relations between the Secretary of State for India and the Government of India to the relations that subsist between the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Governments of the Dominions, and the abolition of the Council of the Secretary of State for India; (3) a reform of the constitution and functions of the Government of India so as to make it responsible to the Legislative Assembly in all matters save foreign, political and military affairs and including fiscal policy ; [Such acts as the recent Certification of the Finance Bill doubling the salt tax against the will of the Legislative Assembly should no longer be possible ;] (4) the abolition of Executive Councils in the provinces and the conversion of the whole of the provincial Governments into Ministries responsible to the Legislatures; (5) the extinction of the provincial contributions to the Central Government ; a radical reform of military policy such that Indians may get into their
31
proper place in all the branches of the defensive organization of the country, and a substantial reduction of military expenditure; (7) a rapid Indianization of the Civil Services and their control by the Government of India instead of by the Secretary of State, as an integral and indispensable part of the policy of responsible government for India; (8) the widest possible diffusion of education and a reform of the system so as to bring it into greater harmony with Indian conditions and requirements; (9) the adoption of measures for the uplift of all the backward classes, and specially the provision of extended educational facilities for their boys and girls; (10) legislation to bring; land revenue policy under the control of the Legislature for the better protection of the legitimate interests of landholders, and for the amelioration of the condition of tenants; (11) the improvement of agriculture and the development of the cooperative movement; (12) the development of Indian industries; (13) social legislation, and the welfare of labour; (14) the complete separation of judicial and executive functions as well as the Services; (15) the eradication of the drink evil. 32 The party appealed for support in coming elections to be held in November, 1923. The NLF met a shameful defeat all over the country. The fall of Sir Surendranath in the Kolkata (Calcutta) polls, coming immediately after the disastrous defeat of S.R. Das by the Swarajists, sounded, as many believed, the deathknell of the Indian Moderates. The great stalwarts of the Party were one by one unseated. In Mumbai (Bombay) the Education Minister, Dr. R. P. Pranjpye was defeated; Sir Chimanlal Setalvad and Kamat shared the same fate; so in the U. P. Chintamani. The defeat of Hriday N. Kunzru in the U. P., though backed by the great name of Malaviya, was a hopeless portent for the Moderates. In Chennai (Madras), Seshagiri Iyer was defeated and Sir Sivaswamy Iyer entered the Assembly through the backdoor of nomination. Everywhere the Swarajists were the heroes of the hour, and won seat after seat with incredible rapidity as against men of the NLF. Before all this the Moderates following in the wake of their leaders fell into utter disorganization. This was reflected in a large measure in their annual meeting at Poona held in the Christmas week. Not more than 430 delegates from all over India attended.33 The attendance from other provinces than Mumbai (Bombay) was not large, the Punjab, Behar and Bengal being totally unrepresented. Not a word of explanation was heard of
32
this abstention on the part of these provinces, one of which boasts of having been the birth place of moderation in politics. Chennai (Madras) did not send its weightiest representatives, while the absence of the Mumbai (Bombay) stalwarts, in spite of the nearness of Poona, cannot be explained on any ground except the existence of some deep-rooted cause of disunion. It has been stated that these kept aloof even from the combined demonstration of all political parties which took place a few months ago in Mumbai (Bombay) in connection with the Kenya decisions. The whole attention of the Liberal Federation was concentrated on the Kenya question, as the two great personalities, Sastri and Sir Taj Bahadur Sapru, who dominated, it had made the Kenya Indians problem their very own. While the Indian National Congress at Cocanada was deliberating on the consolidation of the position of Indians in their own home, the Liberal Federation was engaged in discussing the position of Indians abroad, in Kenya and other Dominions and British colonies.34 In his concluding speech of the conference, Sir Taj Bahadur Sapru, stressed on reorganization of the party. The task was entrusted to a Committee consisting of: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Sir Taj Bahadur Sapru V.S. Shrinivasa Sastri Dr. R.P. Paranjpye S.M. Chiltnavis C.Y. Chintamani; and Pandit Gokaran Nath Misra.
The persons named above were asked to visit important centers in the country to interview the members of NLF, address meetings and to take such all other steps as may be necessary for the raising of the funds and increasing the membership of the party and securing support for its program and policy. The party also instructed them to prepare a scheme of work by the party members to be carried on among the electorates and the people at large. The three day conference was concluded on December 28, 1923.
33
NLF: The Troubled Times 1923-29

As we earlier mentioned, the disappearance of Montagu from political scene, was serious blow to the Indian Liberals. Thenceforth they could no longer hope for any support from the British Government circles. Their impact in Indian affairs started steadily to dwindle. It was true that the Labour Party, which had committed itself against imperialism and had repeatedly promised to grant India her right determination, came to power in Great Britain with J. Ramsay Macdonald as the Prime Minister in 1924 and again in 1929. The Liberals opinion expected that the Labour Party would do big things for India. However, the attitude of the Labour Party, at that time made them realize that, after all, where the question of Indian self-government was concerned, there was very little to choose between one British party and another.35 In the new situation, the Liberals began to find themselves in the troubled times. During 192329, the Liberals had to face a pusillanimous Government afraid of the rashness of its own promises.36 Under such conditions, they had to suffer and they suffered. The difficult situation, however, did not effect the Commitment and work of the party. The seventh session of the NLF met a Lucknow on December 26, 1924. Paranjpye, the former minister of Mumbai (Bombay). Around 300 delegates attended. In his presidential address Paranjpye discussed the current political situation, the issue of the Reform Enquiry Committee, the communal relations, class representation, backward communities, religious conversions, the extremists movements and the Bengal ordinance and the old Kenya question. The Conference passed several resolutions including Hindu-Muslim relations and the Kohat riots. Regarding Hindu-Muslim relations, the resolution said: The Federation deplores the outbreaks of lawlessness in several parts of the country due to the tension of feeling between the two great communities of India and emphasizes the need of all possible measures to create a feeling of mutual trust and regard. It commends the resolutions of the Unity Conference held at Mumbai (Bombay) in September to provincial and district Liberal leagues and associations as being eminently practical and fair-minded and urges them to secure the largest measure of support for them by means of propaganda.37 The session also criticized the Government. It reads: The Federation is of opinion that the report of the Government enquiry on the Kohat tragedy is incomplete, one-sided and altogether unsatisfactory. The Federation is strongly of opinion
34
that the local authorities responsible for law and order failed utterly in the discharge of their duty and their failure should be dealt with by the Government. The Federation further urges that every possible step should be taken to resettle the Hindus of Kohat in their homes and to make reparation for the losses they have sustained. 38 The provincial conferences were also held in Allahabad (UP) Ahmad Nagar Mumbai (Bombay), Chennai (Madras, South India) also held in April, The disappearance of MonMay and June, 1924 on the similar political agenda. tagu from political scene, was th The NLFs 8 Session was held at Kolkata (Calcutta) on serious blow to the Indian LibDecember 28, 1925. Sir Moropant Joshi presided it. Is- erals. Thenceforth they could sues like the Civil Services, Liberal party and Govern- no longer hope for any supment, Excise Duty on cotton goods, Communal port from the British Governdisturbances, Indians in South Africa and the consti- ment circles. Their impact in tutional amendments of NLF were thoroughly dis- Indian affairs started steadily to dwindle. cussed and approved. Similarly, the 9th, 10, 11th and 12th sessions were held at Akola in December 1926, Mumbai (Bombay) in December 1927, Allahabad in December 1928 and Chennai (Madras) in December 1929. It is noteworthy that the issues of Hindu-Muslim Relations, religious minorities, Communal disturbances and interfaith harmony were raised in all these conference. NLF had a clear stand of Hindu-Muslim unity and it always supported it.
Religious Harmony and Liberals

In his presidential address (Kolkata, December 28, 1925), Sir Moropant Joshi said: Unfortunately, communal disturbances do take place in this country, music before mosques and cow-killing being the two main heads of contention between Hindus and Mahomedans. The state of Hindu-Muslim relations is a very favourite plea with foreign rulers eager to show the dire necessity of their holding the balance in a disinterested manner between two contestants. The plea amounts to a justification of British domination over India for as long as the Sun and Moon endure as there is no hope of the two religions merging into one. No Britisher, I hope, expects to be here for all eternity. The fear of minorities being unfairly treated comes with ill-grace from the Britishers. Moreover, 35
both the Indian and Muslim communities realize that they have to live here in this country side by side and that Islam has made its home in India. After the Unity Conference between Hindus and Mahomedans efforts are being made in several places to settle the music question and it is due to the efforts of Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and Pandit Motilal Nehru that a solution has been found at Nagpur by the Hindus agreeing to stop music at prayer times before certain ancient mosques and the Mahomedans not objecting to music at other times. This is being followed in several places in the Central Provinces and is a good working compromise for other provinces to follow. 39 Similarly, Rao Bahadur Damle, another senior liberal leader, talked about Hindu-Muslim unity. In his welcome address (Akola, December 27, 1926), made a lengthy review of political scenario, since the first war of Indian independence in 1857. Referring to the Hindu-Muslim Unity, he said: It is now common knowledge how Turkey has emerged from war and in the light of the world knowledge the Angora Republic baa shaken off the hold of old religious notions, ideals and prejudices. With the Turks religion does not stand above politics. Its claims on its followers have been subordinated to those of the State. In India, however, the same old notion is sticking in full force and the Mahomedans continue to attach to religion a higher place than to the duty towards the State. Their idea, as it appears to the outside world, seems to be that humanity has come into being and exists for the service of religion. With due respect to this religious doctrine which it is nobody's right to meddle with, it will be admitted on all bands that a substantially major part of the Mahomedan everyday life is engaged like that of the non-Mahomedan population in attending to non-religious matters of purely worldly importance and in their lifelong continuous associations with their fellowmen of different faiths they have very rare occasions to reflect the peculiar impress of religious preachings on their everyday actions and dealings. As men of the world, therefore, they have to subordinate the demands of religion to those of social and political duties.
36
Continuing the speaker said: The religious truths so far as they are divine claim common allegiance and homage from humanity as a whole. That being so the apparent points of antagonism discernible in what may be strictly deemed to be mere outward conventional appendages should not be regarded as of great significance and value. They may be made adjustable to suit varying needs and circumstances; such adjustment does not affect the high divine truths. It behooves the leaders of both the communities, therefore, to seriously consider the religious aspect of the situation and to find out a workable formula in practice to avoid the outbursts of religious passion and consequent communal disturbances. 40 In the same session on December 28, 1927, Sir Chimanlal Setalvad, moved a resolution on Hindu-Muslim relations. The National Liberal Federation India deplores the estrangement of Hindu-Muslim relations exhorts both communities to make earnest and sustained efforts to bring about better understanding and urges the Government to see that law is enforced with firmness and strict impartiality in all matters likely to engender communal friction. Sir Chimanlal, in moving the resolution, said that it was a very important matter that all public men in all public institutions had to deal with and unless some method was devised to remove the present undesirable tension between the two great communities all their hopes of placing India in her proper position among the nations and of political advancement were doomed to failure. The country divided as at present and the two communities full of distrust of each other could never expect to attain self-Government. Already the Hindu-Muslim division had no doubt been very much exploited by the enemy of the country to keep them back, but it was at the same time no use minimizing its importance. C. Y. Chintamani, in seconding the resolution, made a feeling speech in the course of which he said it would be more than a platitude if he was to enlarge upon the information on the estrangement of relations between the two communities.41 Concluding, Chintamani said that the Liberal Party should consider it the first duty to do everything in their power so far as opportunities were opened to them to remove misunderstandings between the two communities but it was also a complement of the same duty that they must not hesitate to tell the Government what they thought of its part in the affairs in the past.42 37
References
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
Gautam Chattopadhyay, Bengal Electoral Politics and Freedom Struggle, 1862 1947, Delhi, 1984, p.53. Amrita Bazar patrika, December 30, 1916, Calcutta (Kolkata). Ibid. Gautam Chattopadhyay, op. cit. p.53. Lord Ronaldshay, The Life of Lord Curzon, 1928, Vol. III, p.164. Amrit Bazarpatrika, July 30, 1917. Calcutta (Kolkata). Ibid. Indian Reform Memo: by Montagu to Chamberliain, quoted in Gautam Chattopadhyay, op. cit. pp. 5455. Montagu: Speech in Commons, Hansard, parliamentary debates. Bengalee, August 22, 1917, Calcutta (Kolkata). Amrita Bazar patrika, August 22, 1917, Calcutta (Kolkata). Gautam Chattopadhyay. Parshotam Mehra, A Dictionary of Modern Indian History, Delhi, 1985, pp. 402 403. Ibid. p. 403. V.N. Naik, Indian Liberalism, Bombay (Mumbai), 1945, p. 43. Ibid. pp. 4345. H.N. Mitra, N.N. Mitra, The Indian Annual Register, 1920, Vol. I, 2nd Ed, Delhi, 1990, p. 410. Ibid. p. 395. Ibid. p. 413. Ibid 1920, Vol. I, pp. 395397. Ibid. pp. 498499. Surendranath Banerjea, A Nation in Making: Being the Reminiscences of Fifty years of Public life, OUP Madras (Chennai) 1925, p. 41. N.H. Mitra, N.N. Mitra, op. cit., 1921, Vol. I, pp. 108-111. Ibid. p. 112. Ibid. 1921, Vol. I, p. 133. Ibid, December 21, 1921-22 vol. I, p. 95. Ibid. p. 110. Ibid., 1923, Vol. II, p. 71. Ibid., p. 72. Ibid. p. 95 Ibid. p .107. Ibid. p. 120. Ibid. 1923, Supplementary, pp. 225.
38
34 35
36 37 38 39 40 41 42
Ibid. pp. 225-226. S.D. Gajrani, The Liberals: Study of their participation in Politics (1919-37), The Punjab Past and Present, October, 2007, pp. 10506. Ibid. p. 106. The Indian Annual Register, 1924, Vol. II, p. 471. Ibid. p. 472. Ibid., 1925, Vol. II, p. 382. Ibid., 1926, Vol. II, pp. 338339. Ibid. pp. 34647. Ibid. p. 347.
39
Chapter Three
The Issues Raised by Liberals, 191829
40
In previous chapter, we have dealt in length, the issues of Punjab massacre and Hunter Commission, Civil Disobedience Movement, Non-cooperation Movement, the Montagu Act and Reform Scheme, the responsible Government and religious harmony. In this chapter we will try to portray a clearer picture on above mentioned issues in addition to statutory commission and Dominion Status, covering the decade 19181929.
Constitutional Reforms, 1919

The Liberals gathered at Kolkata (Calcutta) to attend the second session of their annual conference on December 30, 1919. In his presidential speech Sir. P. Sivaswamy Iyer observed: The Montague-Chelmsford report on Indian Constitutional Reforms was the subject of heated discussion at the time of our first conference. The Government of India Bill which was introduced into Parliament six months ago has just been placed on the Statute Book and we have met to celebrate with heart-felt rejoicing the auspicious event which has started India on the path of Self-Government and is destined within a measurable period of time to lead her to the goal of full responsible government. 1 The crux of the change that the Montagu Reforms, as embodied in the Act, had brought about in the administration of the country lay in the fact that the Act had taken the Indians from the stage of consultation and association to the stage of participation.2 The right to the legislatures to elect their own presidents after the first term of the new elections, both at the Center and in the Provinces, was a new and desirable departure. In the Mumbai (Bombay) Council under the Act of 1919, its first president, Sir Narayan Chandavarkar, guided its deliberations, and established procedure and conventions, following in that respect, the model of the Speaker in the British House of Commons. Sir Fredrick White in the Central Assembly also worked in a similar spirit. In Chennai (Madras) Lord Willingdon sought, and very much succeeded in working diarchy on the plan of joint and collective responsibility. He minimized the difference between the reserved and the transferred departments, and between the executive Councilors The crux of the change that the Montagu Reforms, as embodied in the Act, had brought about in the administration of the country lay in the fact that the Act had taken the Indians from the stage of consultation and association to the stage of participation.
41
and the ministers under him, in the administration of his Province, to the point of attenuation. Sir Narayan Chandavarkar started right tradition about the privileges of the House. He regulated procedure and introduced conventions based on his deep study of Sir Erskine May and of the pages of Hansard, which study, later on, as we have good reason to say so, was of immense help to the first elected president of the Central Assembly, Vithalhai Patel, in shaping his own conduct in the Chair.3 After departing the ways from each other, the Congress naturally stood against the 1919 reforms, while the Liberals welcomed the Act. The party termed it a definite and substantial step towards the progressive realization of responsible Government. 4 Sir Sivaswami Iyer concluded that if the present measure were properly appreciated and an honest endeavour made on our part to cooperate fully in the successful carrying out of the first installment of responsible government, it would go a great way to bring us a fuller measure of reform in its wake to take us rapidly to the goal that all of us aspired to reach, he appealed to all, so that our march to the final goal may be firm and sure and we may not lose the ground we occupy.5
The Punjab Tragedy

The Jallianwala massacre and thereafter, the excesses of the Martial Law authorities in the Punjab were condemned by the People and all political parties of India. The Nobel Laureate Rabindra Nath Tagore, denounced his knighthood and stood with the people of Punjab. The National Liberal Federation firmly supported the cause of freedom loving people. In his presidential address Sir P. Sivaswami Iyer (Kolkata, December 30, 1919) described the details of British atrocities: The wholesale slaughter of hundreds of unarmed men at Jallian Walla Bagh without giving the crowd an opportunity to disperse, the indifference of General Dyer to the condition of the hundreds of people who were wounded in the firing, the firing of machine-guns into crowds who had dispersed and taken to their heels, the flogging of men in public the order compelling thousands of students to walk 16 miles a day for roll-calls, the arrest and detention of 500 students and professors, the compelling of school children of 5 to 7 to attend on parade to salute the flag, the order imposing upon owners of property the responsibility for the safety of the martial law posters stuck on their properties, the flogging of a marriage party, the censorship
42
of mails, the closure of the Badshahi mosque for sixweeks, the arrest and detention of people without any substantial reason and especially of people who had rendered services to the State in connection with the War Fund or otherwise, the flogging of six of the biggest boys in the Islamiah school simply because they happened to be school boys and to be big boys, the construction of an open cage for the confinement of arrested persons, the invention of novel punishments like the crawling order, the skipping order and others unknown to any system of law, civil or military, the hand-cuffing and roping together of persons and keeping them in open trucks for 15 hours, the use of aeroplanes and Lewis guns and the latest paraphernalia of scientific warfare against unarmed citizens, the taking of hostages and the confiscation and destruction of property for the purpose of securing the attendance of absentees, the handcuffing of Hindus and Muhammadans in pairs with the object of demonstrating the consequences of Hindu-Musalman unity, the cutting off of electric and water supplies from Indian houses, the removal of fans from Indian houses and giving them for use by Europeans, the commandeering of all vehicles owned by Indians and giving them to Europeans for use, the feverish disposal of cases with the object of forestalling the termination of martial law, are some of the many incidents of the administration of martial law which created a reign of terror in the Punjab and have shocked the public. It is a strange feature of the mental constitution of those military officers that they should have imagined that the steps they took were a remedy for the sullenness of the people and a means for promoting the popularity of the government. We are naively told by General Sir William Beynon that instead of being unduly severe, the administration erred on the side of leniency and that he and Sir Michael O'Dwyer approved of General Dyers exploit. It is inconceivable that such things can ever happen under the name of martial law in Ireland. That they could have happened in India shows the ineptitude of the present system of government. It is obvious that the Government of India must have regarded the opposition to the Rowlatt Bill as a direct challenge of their authority and as a trial of strength between the people and the government and that having given their promise of support to the local authorities, they were prevented by panic and love of prestige from listening to the representations of Indian leaders, or making any attempt to see 43
things for themselves. It is no wonder that the hearts of our people have been stirred by these doings to their inmost depths. The indecent haste with which the Indemnity Bill was rushed through the Imperial Council is now intelligible. It will also be clear how well-founded the objection of the people was to the provisions of the Rowlatt Bill which entrust the liberties of the subject to the mercy of the executive. 6 In the same session a resolution was also passed on the subject. It reads: This Conference wishes to record its emphatic condemnation of the outrages committed by the mobs at several places in the Punjab and elsewhere and its deep sympathy with the victims and their families. This Conference while in no way wishing to anticipate the decision of the Hunter Committee must express its sense of profound horror and indignation at the manner in which the situation which arose in the Punjab in April and May last was dealt with by the officials concerned as disclosed in their own evidence. This Conference is of opinion that it is imperatively necessary(1) make amends for the outraged feeling of the Indian nation and that British honour and justice should be vindicated by taking step to bring to justice any official high or low, civil or military, who may be found to have acted unreasonably and in excess of their powers or to have authorized such acts; (2) that reparation should be made for all serious hardships caused by unwarranted acts of severity; (3) that safeguards should be provided against the recurrence of such things in future. This Conference authorizes its All-India Committee(i) to take such action as may be necessary on the publication of the Report of the Hunter Committee; (2) to consider the necessity of the following safeguards among others and taking such further action as may be necessary: (a) that the introduction, exercise and duration of martial law should be subject to the same constitutional limitations as in England as in England; (b) that martial law should not be introduced unless it is impossible for the civil courts to sit and exercise their functions; (c) that power of creating new offences for breach of regulations and providing penalties therefore should not be delegated to military officers; (d) that if courts martial are allowed to sit when civil courts are sitting any person not subject to Naval Discipline Act or to Military law who is charged with the contravention of any Regu44
lation should be allowed the option of a trial by the civil court; (e) that the remedy in the nature of Habeas Corpus should be made available in all parts of British India; (3) to further the object of the Resolution by arranging for a deputation to England or otherwise. 7
Non-Cooperation Movement, Civil Disobedience and Liberals

The Non-cooperation Movement was launched on August 1, 1920, with fasting and prayer and a suspension of business. The Congress Leader Mahatma Gandhi had earlier served an ultimatum on the Viceroy accompanied by a heart-felt prayer to the tyrant to desist from evil. Besides he condemned the governments unscrupulous, immoral and unjust attitude and, in high dudgeon returned all the medals which had been conferred on him by the British. At its special session at Kolkata (Calcutta) in September 1920, the Indian National Congress (INC) approved and ratified the decision to launch the Movement.8 According to INC version, it put forth the view that there is no course left open for the people of Indian but to approve [...]. The policy of progressive non-violent, non-cooperation until swaraj is established. The Calcutta decision was later ratified unanimously at the Nagpur session in December 1920. Gandhi described his Movement as a state of peaceful rebellion and called for defiance of every single state-made law.9 The Movement was of great success due to Gandhis influence. The funds of more than ten million rupees were raised. A volunteer corps was enrolled to help promote various boycotts social, education, legal and economic. 10 However, the movement went out of conrol from Gandhis hands. The violent incident of Chauri Chaura holocaust demonstrated how the seeds of violence were imbedded deep in the national psyche. On February 6th, Gandhi declared to suspend the movement. He also announced to abandon the proposed Civil Disobedience Movement. Well before February 1922, the Liberals had anticipated the failure of the Movement. At the fourth Session of the NLF at Allahabad on December 29th, 1921 the Movement was thoroughly analyzed. In his presidential address L. A. Govindaraghava Iyer said: We are all aware of the difficulties to which the members of the party under the distinguished leadership of Mahatma Gandhi are now subjected. It is, therefore, perhaps an ungracious task to examine the principles and the programme of that party. But the highest interest of the country imperatively demands that the present situation should be closely examined with a view to
45
see how far it would be met and improved by further persistence in the policy with which Mr. Gandhi has identified himself. 11 After dealing with the Non-Cooperation Movement in its different aspects and trying to show its impracticability, Iyer continued: In the recent history of our country no single individual had a greater control over any movement than Mr. Gandhi has over the Non-cooperation movement. He is virtually the dictator of the movement, I use the expression in no offensive sense. My point is that the distinguished author of the movement has been himself unable to definitely settle the programme ; and in order to make it acceptable to the people in general,and I lay special emphasis on this aspect,he had to incorporate into it items which could not be said to be distinctive of the Non-co-operation movement and which have public sympathy and support independently of that movement, such as, for instance, the problem of un-touchability, the drink evil and the Swadeshi movement. It is claimed for the movement that it has a spiritual side and tends to the development of the soul force. It is a problem, however, whether Non co-operation is the only or the best means of bringing about the development of soul force such as the Mahatma wishes to see effected. 12 As far as the claims of non-violence were concerned, the president looked closely on the whole issue: Now the chief merit that is claimed for the movement is that the objects in view are to be attained by absolute; non-violence and this contention deserves close examination. We can admitthat the movement of Passive Resistance attained remarkable success and led to striking results in South Africa, but it has to be noted that the conditions there were very different from those obtaining here. Given a personality like Mahatma Gandhi and a comparatively small and compact body of persons such as were the Indian settlers in South Africa, with sufficient opportunities for the Mahatma to come into frequent and intimate contact with the persons asked to adopt Passive Resistance, it is obvious that the movement is deprived of its dangers. But when the principle is asked to be adopted by over 300 millions belonging to different strata of society and of dif46
ferent grades of culture and refinement and living in a vast area and subject to varying influences and beyond the possibility of the personal attention of the Mahatma and his devoted followers, the conditions presented are not such as to inspire confidence that similar results would ensue. As a matter of fact, when the movement was put to the test on anything like a large scale, it has been found again and again to belie the expectations of the author and the promoters of the movement. 13 The Chauri Chaura holocaust intervened and finally persuaded Gandhi to countermand the agitation and retrace his steps. Additionally, there had been mounting pressure in the same direction by such Liberals as Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya and Jayakar from inside the Congress and of the veteran social reformer Kamakshi Natarajan and Jinnah from outside. It may also be recalled that serious differences had developed among Congressmen on the correctness of The Chauri Chaura holocaust Gandhi's stand in withdrawing the Movement because intervened and finally perof the strains to which the party had been exposed. The suaded Gandhi to countersudden if abrupt countermanding of the Movement mand the agitation and which had raised popular enthusiasm to a high pitch retrace his steps. Additionally, created strong resentment and even political confu- there had been mounting sion. The Congress was sharply split.14 On 6th February pressure in the same direction 1922, the day following Chauri Chaura, Gandhi decided by such Liberals as Pandit to suspend the Movement and at the same time aban- Madan Mohan Malaviya and don the proposed Civil Disobedience campaign at Bar- Jayakar from inside the Condoli in Gujrat. On February 16th, he published My gress and of the veteran social Confession: The drastic reversal of the whole of the reformer Kamakshi Natarajan aggressive programme may be politically unsound and and Jinnah from outside. unwise, but there is no doubt, it is religiously sound Civil Disobedience is a preparation for mute suffering. Let the opponent glory in our socalled defeat. It is better to be charged with cowardice than to sin against God.15 On March 10th, he was arrested and sentenced to six years imprisonment.
NLF and the Montague Act

The opening months of 1922 saw the beginning and the end of the civil disobedience movement. The years 1921 and 1922 were also the first two years of the working new Reform Act.16 The Liberal Federations session at Allahabad at the end of 1921 discussed
47
civil disobedience, the political situation prior to it, as also the question of self-government in the light of the resolution adopted on it by the Imperial Legislative Assembly. The Legislative Assembly had passed a resolution advocating a change to full provincial autonomy within five years of the completion of the Government of India Act of 1919, and a step towards responsible government in the centre to start at the same time as the change in the Provinces. The Conference resolution on the subject was divided under three heads. First, it demanded full autonomy in the Provinces; secondly, in the Central Government it demanded autonomy except in the spheres of defense, foreign affairs, relations with the Indian States, and ecclesiastical affairs, with such safeguards as may be suitable and necessary for the protection of vested interests; and thirdly, it made the demand in response to feeling in the country.17 Responding to the objection that such a demand was absurd and non-sense Sir Iyer argued: In making that claim we do not now put forward something which was not put forward originally, but we are simply reiterating the demand originally made. To those who maintained that the experience of one year was too short, he answered, it may be truly said that during this period it has not been proved that the working of the Reforms has been a failure. Another valid reason for making the demand was, in the speaker's opinion, apart from compliments and tributes paid by men to the successful working of the New Legislatures, a rapid growth of national consciousness and a strong demand among all sections of the people for a fuller control over their destinies. We may be permitted to remind the critic, in furtherance of this plea, of the fact that the Chartist movement in England had started almost on the heel of the Reform Act of 1832. But this reason was not enough, and, therefore, the mover of the resolution added that in view of the experience gained in the working of the Act we were entitled to ask for a further concession, and that, not merely on the ground of proved capacity, but on the ground of defects clearly revealed. The Government is now in a minority in the Legislature. The official members who are there and the nominated members who are there, all put together, do not give them any majority at all. The elected members are in a majority, and the Government does not know precisely where they stand and what amount of support they will get. Whenever they have to introduce a legislative measure or a fiscal measure, they have no idea as to 48
what support they can command. Hence, it was not possible to regulate procedure, economize time, and to direct the energies of the legislature into the most fruitful channels, with the maximum of advantage to the community. That was a solid argument in favour of introducing responsibility at the centre along with full autonomy in the Provinces. I think the grant of responsible government may have the effect of precipitating the formation of parties which cannot but help the Government to determine its programme, to frame its policy, and to go forth to the Assembly confident in the expectation of support. I have no doubt that the introduction of responsible government and the principle of responsibility will have the effect of promoting better organization. 18 Concluding his argument, Sir Iyer said: I venture to claim that the legislatures are as representative as possible in the present position of affairs. As far as the provincial Governments were concerned, the resolution had asked for full provincial autonomy at the end of the first term. Sir Sivaswami Iyer clinched the whole argument in favour of the proposed advance in the following significant words: The reason which I have urged for the introduction of responsibility in the Provincial Governments apply with as much force to the case of the Central Government.19
National Unity
On the subject of National Unity V. N. Naik suggested that the years between 1923 and 1929 were years of comparative political peace in India, though the period witnessed Hindu-Muslim riots, on a scale and all over the country, as they had not been witnessed before. If the warnings of the liberals at the end of 1922 had been heeded and acted upon by authorities in England and India, the situation would not have gone worse as it did go worse from 1926 onwards. The extremists and non-cooperators had realized the un-wisdom of intolerance, but they did nothing to improve the relations between themselves and other parties in the country, except for a brief space of time on the issue of the Simon Commission, and, later, when they had agreed to an All-Parties Conference.20 Up to the time of the Simon Commission, the Liberals in India were passing through a very poor period; many of them were passing time occasionally taking part in various
49
conferences with the motive of expediting the progress of the constitutional development of India or devoting their energies to such matters as ameliorating the conditions of Indians overseas. When the government of India declared the setting up of a purely parliamentary commission in the autumn of 1927, the Liberals joined the Indian National Congress in declaring a boycott.21 The Liberals could get a fresh lease of life with Viceroy Lord Irwin's announcement on the Round Table Conference on Dominion Status on October 1929.22 They understood at the same time very well the need of securing the cooperation of the Congress, for the acceptance of the announcement by them would have little practical worth in India if the Congress Party was not reconciled to it. In the autumn of 1929, the Liberals reemerged in Indian politics in the role of mediators between the government and the Congress. However, all their efforts at securing the co-operation of the Congress were rendered futile by the reactionary debate in British Parliament,23 and the subsequent rough handling of the situation by the government of India.24
Simon Commission and Liberals

On November 8th, 1927, the Secretary of State for India, Frederick Edwin Smith, 1st Earl of Birkenhead, in London, and the Viceroy, Lord Irwin (Edward Fredrick Linkley Wood, 1st Earl of Halifax) in New Delhi, announced the setting up of the Indian Statutory commission under Sir John Simon. It consisted, in addition to the chairman, of six members. Party-wise, there were four conservatives, two laborites and one Liberal (the chairman of the commission). The commission was to inquire into the working of the system of government, the growth of education and the development of representative institutions, in British India, and matters connected therewith and should report as to whether and to what extent it is desirable to establish the principle of responsible government or to extend, modify or restrict the degree of responsible government than existing therein including the question whether the establishment of second chambers of the local legislatures is or is not desirable. It was stipulated that the proposals made by the commission would be the two houses of parliament. The later was to invite the views of the Indian central Legislature by delegations as also of any other bodies whom the parliamentary committee may desire to consult.25 It is noteworthy that throughout 1928 there was intense excitement all over India on account of the impending visit of the commission which evoked a popular political and even social boycott. Simon Go Back was the common slogan of all political and civil society organizations. Apart from their conflicting manifestoes, statements and resolutions, all the major political parties. The All India National Liberal Federation, the Indian
50
National Congress the all India Muslim League, the Hindu Mahasabha as well as the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce were signatories to a statement declaring that India Could not conscientiously take any part or share in the work of the commission as at present constituted. The Central Legislative Assembly too expressed it vehement opposition. 26 There was just a section of the Muslim League and few other loyalist groups, who welcomed the commission. As it is known, the NLF opposed the commission throughout its work in India. The tenth session of All India National Liberation Federation opened at Mumbai, on December 27, 1927, before a very large gathering of delegates and visitors. Welcoming the Federation to the City of its birth, Sir Chimanlal Setalvad said, today they were meeting under very exceptional circumstances. The whole country had been moved in a manner it had never been moved before and a feeling of solidarity and unity in upholding the national self-respect and national rights had exhibited itself in a marvelous manner. The announcement of the Statutory Commission had evoked throughout the country deep and universal dissatisfaction and people of all shades of political opinion had compraised their protest. 27 In his presidential address Sir Taj Bahadur Sapru termed the members of the Commission as no men of ideas. He further said: The irony of it is that we are invited to rejoice in such a team and to believe that these six worthies in the second flight can take good care of the present interests and of the future of three-hundred millions of this country. 28 On December 28, 1927, Sir Sivaswamy Iyer moved a principal resolution about the commission: The National Liberal Federation is strongly of opinion that the official announcement made about the constitution of the Statutory Commission and the functions of the committees of Indian legislatures is unacceptable, as it flagrantly denies the right of the Indian people to participate on equal terms in framing the future constitution of the country, that the legislatures and Indians throughout the country should have nothing to do with the Commission at any stage or in any form and that the Council of the Federation, be authorized to take all necessary steps to give effect to this resolution.
51
Sir Sivaswami Iyer, said the resolution was intended as a protest against the constitution of the Commission and the procedure to be followed by it. Even Lord Birkenhead had to admit that the terms of the statute did not forbid the appointment of a mixed commission. He had said that it was obvious that the Commission must be purely parliamentary. But to the speaker it was far from obvious. What was very obvious was that the statute imposed no fetters at all on the Government as regards the constitution of the Commission. If so, it was no right or accepted mode of construction to refer to what passed in the minds of the framers of the statute. Sir Sivaswamy quoted in support of his statement the dictum of Lord Halsbury that the persons worst qualified to interpret the statute were its framers, who would be tempted to import what was in their minds and not what was justifiable by the plain meaning of the statute.29 Next year, the eleventh Session of the NLF was held at Allahabad on December 30, 1928. Sir Chimanlal Setalvad, the President of the Conference, calling the commission a blunder, further remarked: The Simon commission muddle of last year brought into existence the party advocating complete independence. Government have always failed to respond adequately and timely to legitimate Indian aspiration as voiced by sane and responsible political sections, and by their hesitation and delay have lost opportunity after opportunity of catching the imagination of the people and securing their contentment. They are so much lost in admiration of what they had done for India and of the efficiency of their administration that they wonder and resent that Indians should be dissatisfied with the present order of things and should demand full self-government. The action and attitude of Government in respect of the Simon Commission are typical of this mentality. Under the government of India Act, they were not bound to set up the Statutory Commission till the end of 1929. They decided to accelerate the appointment of the Commission in order to meet united Indian public opinion, but then they proceeded to do so in a manner that has aroused hostility and opposition throughout the land. They forgot that no constitution however well-designed can work with fruitful results and that no Government however powerful can rule a country like India with its vast area and population except with the general acquiescence of the people. It is obvious common sense that a commission of such importance dealing with the future constitution of this country 52
should have been constituted with general good-will. In spite of grave warnings, they persisted in constituting the Commission entirely excluding Indians therefrom and thereby alienating very large and important sections of public opinion. It is inevitable that the conclusions of the Commission are bound to suffer from the fatal infirmity of having been arrived at practically ex parte in the absence of the recognized political organizations and leaders of the Indian people and will not find acceptance. Government have however neglected and failed to do anything adequate to secure general cooperation. We have the lamentable spectacle of the Commission ushered into every importance place with police protection to cheek and shroud from their view hostile demonstrations, leading in some places to conflict between the public and the police, in the course of which respected popular leaders like Lala Lajpat Rai and others were injured. In Lucknow the police grossly insulted a highly respected All-India leader, the Maharaja of Mahumadabad, who till lately was the Home member of the U. P. Government. We of the Liberal Party have disapproved of hartals (strikes) and black flag processions and other demonstrations of a like nature, but when popular resentment is aroused different people have different ideas and methods of giving expression to it. The bitter memories of these unfortunate events will last for a long time, and be a great obstacle in the way of harmonious understanding and cooperation between England and India which is very much to be desired. Sir John Simon and his colleagues of the Commission deserve sympathy for their unpleasant experiences. It is really unfair to them that Government have no hopelessly mismanaged the matter that the Commission would not get the valuable materials and assistance necessary to lead them to correct conclusions. The situation is not of their creation but they lay themselves open to criticism when they join in the propaganda to make out that the Commission is receiving cooperation from representative bodies and men and to belittle the volume and importance of the abstaining sections. The claim made that the Commission is receiving a large measure of cooperation from representative men and bodies will not stand close examination. The Legislative assembly which was at 53
one time during the preliminary debates on the constitution of the Commission described in Parliament, as the body pre-eminently representing all India, rejected the proposal to elect the Central Committee to work with the Simon Commission. Attempts were made to depreciate the value of the decision of the Assembly on the ground that it was passed only by the majority of six. It is conveniently ignored that the minority consisted largely of the Government official block and nominated members. If the elected members were considered an overwhelming majority such members voted for abstention. The majority of elected Muslim members cast their vote for abstention. When the Assembly decided for abstention, its representative character was questioned. It was argued that the Assembly members were not in intimate touch with the people in the provinces and that the members of the provincial Councils more truly reflected the views of the masses who were for cooperation. Starting with this promise it is said that inasmuch as most of the Provincial Councils have appointed committees it is evident that the country as a whole is in favour of cooperation with the Commission. But, here again, it is conveniently forgotten that, in the Provincial Councils, if you eliminated the official block and the nominated members, in almost every province the majority of the elected members was against cooperation, and surely it is the elected members and not the official block and nominated members who can rightly claim to reflect the real public opinion. How unfounded is the claim that representative bodies and men have cooperated with the Commission is clear, if one considers by way of illustration, the bodies and men who appeared before the Commission in the Bombay Presidency. Any one with any acquaintance of the Presidency will have no hesitation in saying that those who submitted memoranda or appeared before the Commission, in no sense represented the views of the bulk of the people of the Presidency. One looks in vain in the list of those who sent memoranda, for the recognized representative bodies of standing in the Presidency, like the Bombay Presidency Association, the Indian merchants Chamber, the Poona Sarvajanik Sabha, the Deccan Sabha, the Gujarat Sabha and others that can be mentioned. And what is true of Bombay is also true of other provinces.
54
It is to me wonderful how the Government of India and the British Cabinet do not yet realize the futility and tragedy of attempting to evolve and inaugurate a big and important step in the political advance of India in an atmosphere of such general dissatisfaction and strife. They are repeating in a very intensified degree the tragedy that surrounded the inauguration of the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms. It should not be beyond their genius boldly to take hold of opportunities even now to restore harmony and solve the constitutional problem of India in close cooperation with all sections on public opinion and with general good-will which alone can secure the successful working of any scheme that may be devised. 30 A resolution to boycott the Commission was also move, said: The National Liberal Federation urges upon all Indians the imperative necessity of continuing the boycott of Simon Commission in full vigour; (b) Emphatically condemns police assaults committed in the name of peace and order which have marked the reception accorded by officials to the Simon Commission at certain places. J. N. Basu said that the members of the Commission, however, able they may be, cannot look at things Indian from the same point of view as we Indians do. Our boycott of the Commission is an indication of the real heart of the people. 31 By the end of 1929, as the result the Simon Commission, with all its fanfaronnading, had lost its moral authority, had become clear to Lord Irwin in India and to the Labour Government in England, is evident from the fact that, they tried to appease the country by the announcement of the Round Table Conference. The high promises held forth about the Simon Commission, after all, came to nought. Exactly ten years after, Chintamani wrote of its work for India as follows: The Commissions inquiries aroused but little interest in the country, and when its belated report was produced in 1930, it amazed Indians by some of its astounding proposals. India was not to have Dominion Status; she was not to have a responsible
55
Central Government. The present Legislative Assembly (1937) must give place to a body indirectly elected which could be trusted to be more acquiescent in executing decrees. The Army of India was to be under the control of His Majesty's Government in England, India however paying for its cost. It is needless to say more upon this portentous document than that Sir Siva Swami Aiyer, of all people, dismissed it with the remark that it should be placed on the scrap-heap. 32
The Dominion Status

A demand for the grant of Dominion Status in India was made as early as 1908. A decade later, Edwin Samuel Montagus pronouncement of 1917 had spoken inter alia of the gradual development of Self-government institutions with a view to the progressive realization of responsible government. In December 1928, at its Allahabad Session, the NLF passed a resolution on the Dominion Status. Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru moved the resolution, which said: This Federation is strongly of opinion that the system of Government to be established in place of the present system should be the same as which prevails in the self-governing dominions which are equal members of the British Commonwealth of Nations and this step should be taken immediately. Any further delay and postponement is fraught with danger to the mutual relations of India and England. He could say, said Sir Tej Bahadur in moving the resolution, without fear of contradiction that so far as many members of the Liberal party were concerned they offered to work the Montagu reforms knowing full well that they were incurring a great unpopularity among their countrymen. It did not lie in the mouth of any Government to say that Liberals did not give fair trial to the reforms. But the spirit which actuated Montagu in introducing those reforms was a very short-lived spirit. The moment Montagu left office, the India Office was a very different one and since then the action of the India Office had been very discreditable to British justice and statesmanship. Since then the position went on deteriorating until they found that the Government of Lord Irwin had placed themselves in a position of losing friends, public support and public sympathy. It was due, continuing Sir Tej Bahadur asserted, to the action of the Government and to their refusal to listen to the advice of their friends that so much extremism had grown in this
56
country. Sir Tej Bahadur, proceeding, recalled the resolution moved in 1924 in the Legislative Assembly by Pandit Motilal Nehru. That resolution expressed not only the sentiments of this party but the sentiments of Liberals outside. It was a perfectly moderate and well reasoned resolution but the strongest opposition was offered by Government members and hair splitting was made between Dominion Status and responsible SelfGovernment. If it was said that the Parliament never promised India Dominion Status but it was committed to responsible Self-Government, Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru submitted with confidence that if British statesmen studied their own declarations and the declarations of the highest in the British Empire they would find that so far as British Salesmanship was concerned it stood committed to Dominion Status for India. Therefore, it came to many as a surprise when in the year 1924 or early in 1925 Lord Birkenhead made a famous speech in which he threw a challenge to the Indians to explain what they meant by swaraj. Sir Tej regretted that none of the political parties took up that challenge so seriously then as they did at this time. The challenge was taken up when a strong challenge was offered to nationalism, when a distinct insult was offered to India. That insult was offered when the Simon Commission was appointed. There was no option left to them as self-respecting Indians but to accept their challenge. There could be no denying the fact, continuing Sir Tej said, that the proposals put forward by the All-Parties Committee in the idea of Dominion Status carried with them the largest amount of agreement in this country. Referring to the last portion of the resolution Sir Tej Bahadur begged of the audience not to take it as a threat. That was only a warning to the Government because when he attended the Convention at Calcutta he felt that there was a distinct cleavage between the younger generation of politicians in India and the older generation. Youngmen were thinking on different lines and even leaders of distinction like Pandit Motilal Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi were finding it difficult at the present moment to have their word accepted by their own followings unlike few years ago. It was said, Sir Tej Bahadur continued, that the Dominion Status idea was a very low idea, that it was not an idea which could arouse any enthusiasm among the younger generation. Sir Tej repudiated such a suggestion. The idea of Dominion Status had been growing until they found that in the Imperial Conference which met in London in 1927 Self-Governing Dominions were not separated and were not going to separate. I was because in their homes they felt that they were masters, because they felt that they were equal members of the Commonwealth, because they considered it expedient and necessary to remain members of the British Commonwealth. They might not grant Dominion Status, the speaker proceeded, to India but they could not prevent men running on the dangerous side. He felt perfectly certain that the younger generation was not prepared to bear and suffer and the danger key of the situation lay in the hands of the Viceroy. If the Viceroy was going to entrench
57
himself behind the advice of men who were not in touch with the country then he would say that he was living in a fools paradise. 33 The Liberal Conference at Allahabad dealt mainly with the question of Dominion Status. It had to deal fully with this question, because certain high officials of government had interpreted responsible government to mean something different from the status in their evidence before the Simon Commission, as well as, long before that, in the Legislative Assembly. The NLF fully denounced this interpretation in 192829 annual Conferences.
58
References
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
H. N. Mitra, The Indian Annual Register, 1920, Vol. I, p. 410. V. N. Naik, Indian Liberalism A study, Bombay (Mumbai), 1945, p. 54. Ibid. p. 55. The Indian Annual Register, op. cit. p. 393. V. N. Naik, op. cit. p. 58. The Indian Annual Register, 1920, Vol. I, pp. 39697. Ibid. p. 412. Parshotam Mehra, A Dictionary of Modern Indian History, Delhi, 1985, pp. 515 16. Ibid. p. 516. Ibid. The Indian Annual Register, 192122, Vol. I, pp. 88. Ibid. p. 89. Ibid. pp. 8990. Parshotam Mehra, op. cit., pp. 51718. Ibid. pp. 51617. V.N. Naik, op. cit., p.80. Ibid. p. 89. Ibid. pp. 8991. Ibid. p. 93. Ibid. p. 106. S. D. Gajrani, op. cit., p. 106. India in 1929-30, Government of India, Appendix II, pp. 46668. Parliamentary Debates Lords 1929-30, Vol. 75, pp. 37579. S. Gopal, Vice royalty of Lord Irwin, p. 169. Parshotam Mehra, op. cit., pp. 66869. Ibid. p. 669. The Indian Annual Register, 1927, Vol. II p. 421. Ibid. p. 425. Ibid. p. 432. Ibid., 1928, Vol. II, pp. 38385. Ibid., p. 391. V. N. Naik, op. cit., p. 181. The Indian Annual Register, 1928, Vol. II, pp. 39192.
59
Chapter Four:
The Role of Liberal Parliamentarians
60
Under the Government of India Act, 1919, the first elections for the Council of State, the Legislative Assembly and the provincial council were held in late 1919. The Indian National Congress completely boycotted these elections. The other political parties, including the NLF participated in the elections. Around two million voters, one third of the total registered voters, went to the polling stations to cast their votes. Considering the general ignorance and illiteracy of the voters and the location of constituencies far and wide in the country, the activity was quite encouraging. The general voting, as a contemporary report suggests, was only a little lower in France.1
In the Central Legislature

Those Liberals who were appointed members of the government as well as the much larger numbers who were non-official members of the Legislature made strenuous attempts to promote the well-being and advancement of the people in every manner open to them. The many irritating racial discriminations that disfigured the Criminal Procedure Code had nearly been done away with. The Legislative Assembly had several times advocated the introduction of further substantial constitutional reforms at an early date. The Fiscal Commission with an Indian Chairman and a majority of Indian members was constituted at the instance of the Assembly, and its recommendations when carried into effect were likely to give a much needed stimulus to the development of Indian industries. The separation of judicial from executive functions, extended educational facilities, and a reform of educational policy so as to bring the system into closer accord with Indian conditions and requirements, measures for the improvement of agricultural methods, more effective control by the Legislature of land revenue policy so that zemindars (peasants) and ryots may suffer no hardship or injustice, measures for the improvement of the position of tenants, the welfare of labour, the bringing of district administration into approximation with public opinion, a more enlightened and humane jail administration including the special treatment of political prisoners,temperance reform, a more economical administration of the public works department, extension and reform of the system of local self-government in municipal as well as rural areas including the establishment of village Panchayats (Parish), measures for the improvement of public health, more adequate medical relief including the encouragement of indigenous systems of medicine, measures of social legislation, and generally a vigilant criticism of administrative acts, methods and omissions so as to minimize abuses of authority and make the administra-
61
tion perform the better its true function of serving the public interests:to these ends had the activities of the Liberal Party inside and outside the Legislative Chambers been systematically directed with not complete, it was true, but no small measures of success. The record of the public activities of members of the Liberal party, marks an unmistakable advance along the path of self-government. 2
Liberals Struggle to Repeal the Repressive Laws

The new legislatures succeeded largely in doing away with almost all special and repressive Acts. Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, as law member in the Government of India, had a large share in effecting the change, though the initiative came from a member in the Council of State, no other than V.S. Sreemivasa Sastri. He brought up a resolution (14-2-21) proposing a Committee to examine the Repressive laws and to recommend their repeal or modification. Government accepted the resolution with the amendment agreed to by the-House, that an equal number of members from the Legislative Assembly and the Council of State was to constitute the Committee and to report before the Simla Sessions. The report of the Committee was given full effect to by the Government. Accordingly the Press Act of 1910 and Newspaper Incitement Offence Act of 1908 were repealed in 1922. The bill for the repeal was introduced in the Lower House by the Home Member, Sir William Vincent. So also were repealed the Bengal State Offences Regulation of 1804 (used in the Punjab in 1919 by the Special Laws Repealing Act of 1922). The Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1908 used in Bengal and Eastern Bengal to cope with terrorism was repealed by an Act called the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Repealing Act of 1922. The year 1923 saw the passing of an act known as the Criminal Law Amendment Act which removed a certain existing discrimination between European British subjects and Indians in criminal trials. It may be said in conclusion that the Acts that were modified and not repealed, continued on the Statute book as safeguards against unrest in the country due to non co-operation and its last phase of civil disobedience.3 All labor Legislation, according to the agreements arrived at the international conferences on this important subject, found its place on the Statute Book during the first three years of the new reforms. The Indian Factories Act was amended to limit the hours of work in a factory to 60 a week; the minimum age for employing children in factories was raised to twelve; the maximum working hours of a day were to be no more than twelve; an hour's rest for six hours work was imposed; one day's rest in a week was made compulsory
62
by law; the term factory was interpreted to mean an institution employing twenty persons with power to local governments to extend it to the minimum limit of ten persons. Another important act was the Workmen's Compensation Act which introduced a healthy change in favour of labor as it protected and guaranteed the labourer against accidents to life, and provided security to his survivors, in case of death, in the shape of adequate compensation. A third measure was the Indian Mines Act. The Act provided for the inspection of mines, the constitution of a Mining Board with representation for labour. The Board was empowered to scrutinize rules and regulations and to act as an advisory body to the Chief Inspector of Mines and to local government. The Indian Emigration Act safeguarded the rights of emigrating labour, especially of the unskilled kind, by making emigration unlawful except to such countries and under such conditions as may be notified by the Government. The protection to labour afforded by these Acts may be rightly called a form of state socialism. N. M. Joshi, a liberal, was largely responsible for by his championing the rights of labour and his ventilating the grievances of labour in the Legislative assembly. Though many of the resolutions he moved did not find their place on the statute book as he would have liked, still the bills introduced by Government clearly show the influence he had in changing Government's outlook on Labour questions. 4 A matter of equal importance was finance and taxation. In that respect also the Assembly exercised its power with admirable freedom and decision. In regard to finance the following facts deserve notice. We have referred to the dispute about grants to be made by provinces to the Central Government under the Meston Award. And yet Bengal was exempted from its share of contribution for three years as the result of the resolution moved to that effect in the Legislative Assembly on 30th September 1921. Another resolution moved by Dr. Gour in the Assembly in the following year February 3, 1922, recommending to Government the appointment of a Retrenchment Committee of officials and non-officials to go into the cost of the Central Government, was passed in the House and accepted by Government. Permission to Bombay Government to raise a loan for Sukkur barrage was "granted according to a resolution moved on the subject by a member from Sindh. Madras, U.P. and the Punjab together would have secured an exemption from provincial grants to the tune of two crores if the resolution to that effect moved by Jamnadas Dwarkadas had not been negatived by the House itself by 38 to 48 votes. If we turn to the Central Budgets for three years from 192122 to 192324, we find how non-official members and a large number of them were liberals had succeeded in shaping the policy of the Government in regard to finance and taxation, the like of which was not found under the Minto-Morley Reforms. First, seven cuts were effected, the biggest of which was of Rs. 1.12 crores under posts and telegraphs. The lynx-eyed N. M. Samarth pointed out the error in the budget figures, and it was rectified. The amendments proposed to the taxation proposals of Government were several in numbers. The chief
63
one of them related to the retention of the price of the postcard to its old level. The loss to Government in the estimated revenue was Rs. 75 lakhs. The action of the Assembly in its disposal of the budget may be summarized thus: it effected a reduction by Rs. 1.29 crores on expenditure side, and of Rs. 0.85 crore in taxation. A ruling given by the Chair about these amendments, established a principle which deserves notice here. The framers of the Act have given therein statutory expression to the English constitutional rule that demands for supply must come from the Crown, in other words, the Legislatures can reduce but cannot increase expenditure. If that is so, it seems to involve the necessary consequences that taxation to provide for such expenditure must also be initiated by the Crown. I think, I must, therefore, rule that an amendment by a non-official member speaking on behalf of the Government which has the effect of increasing taxation, proposal by the Bill, is out of order. The point is this, that the Crown makes a demand, the Crown proposes taxation, the Council can reduce the demand for taxation, but it can neither increase the demand nor can it increase taxation. The ruling was given as a result of notice of two amendments proposed to be moved by the Maharajah of Cossimbazar for such increase in the budget of 192223. The non-official members effected the following reduction in Government proposals for taxation. A reduction was made of the total amount of Rs. 9.56 crores with the result that the Government had to face an uncovered deficit of Rs. 9.16 crores apart from any additional liability in Waziristan. And yet in introducing the Finance Bill in the Council of State the member in charge declared that the Governor-General had decided not to exercise his powers of certification. In the debate on Salt Duty in 192223, the member in charge explained the position thus: The position of the Government is, we deliberately sought the verdict of the Indian Legislature on this proposal, and we have received the verdict. However much we may deplore it, however much we may fear the consequences of that verdict, yet Government has decided to accept it. In the budget for 192324, the last budget during the term of three years that the Legislative Assembly sat as the result of the elections held in November 1919, the chief feature was the Inchcage Committee's Report. In non-military matters the Committee had recommended reductions of Rs. 8.50 crores on the budget of 192223 of Rs. 103.90
64
crores. There was an initial cut of Rs. 2.60 crores in the civil estimates for 192324 which amounted to Rs. 103.30 crores, and, another, after the publication of the Report, of Rs. 4.07 crores. The balance of less than Rs. 2 crores was an allowance for the lag. In military expenditure the provision was for Rs. 62 crores. As a result, the budget had to face the deficit of Rs. 5.85 crores, which was sought to be covered, along with other means, by the Government proposal to double the duty on salt, that is, to raise it from Rs.1-4 to Rs. 2-8 per maund. The action taken by the Assembly, with a full sense of its responsibility, was a cut of Rs. 5-10 lakhs under general administration, Rs. 1.64 lakhs on railways, and Rs. 3 lakhs on miscellaneous items. Of these Rs. 114 lakhs under railways for the transfer of annuities from Revenue to Capital Account were restored by the Governor-General, as also Rs. 3 lakhs, which were the expense for Royal Commission. The proposal to double the Salt duty, the Assembly negatived by 59 to 44 votes. The Government supported an amendment to raise it from Rs. 14 to Rs. 2, but it was defeated by 55 to 48. On account of the decision given by the Chair that non-official members had not the power to move amendments which would have the effect of enhancing taxation, a numbers had not the power to move amendments which would have the effect of enhancing taxation, a number of amendments to that effect were ruled out of order. The Finance Bill was introduced in the Council of State in a recommended form, with the Salt duty doubled, and passed in that Chamber by 28 to 10. It was reintroduced in the Legislative Assembly and was again rejected by 58 to 47. It was, therefore, certified by the Governor-General under powers vested in him by the Act. Resolution to grant full fiscal autonomy to India was moved in the council of State by Lalubhai Samaldas. Government accepted it with the amendment subject to provisions in the government of India Act and it was subsequently given effect to in full. So much for finance and taxation.5
Indianisation of Army
As regards the Army, the credit of that good work goes principally to Sir Sivaswami Iyar, to whose resolutions on the Esher Committee's Report, and to whose work on the Army Committee appointed by the House we have already referred. Here we give the following extract from an authorized summary of that work, to show what remarkable contribution was made to that task by him: There were twenty resolutions, all private of which 17 were adopted and three negatived. Some of the results of these resolutions may be stated. The principle was emphasized that the Indian Army was to be free from the control of the War Office regarding policy and organization, and its function was to de65
fend India against foreign aggression. India's military obligation was to be no more than that of the Dominions. The assumption of the Esher Committee that the Indian. Army might be regarded as part of the armed forces of the Empire was repudiated. So also was repudiated the assumption that India's military resources might be developed to suit Imperial necessities. Further, it was laid down that the Indian Army was to be employed only in India, but might be sent for garrison duty overseas with the consent of the Governor-General in Council, on condition that the expenditure was not borne by India. The functions of production and provision were to be placed in the hands of a surveyor-General of staff, who was to be a civilian member of the Army Council. The Commander-in-Chief and the Chief of the General Staff were to be appointed by the British Cabinet on the nomination of the Secretary of State in consultation with the Government of India. The Commander-in-Chiefs right of correspondence with the chief of the Imperial General Staff was to be restricted, so that the Government of India was not committed to any pecuniary responsibility or to any military policy not previously decided upon. Indians were to be freely admitted to all arms of the Military and Naval and Air Forces, the Auxiliary Services and the Auxiliary Forces, and no less than 25 per cent of the King's Commissions granted every year, were to be allotted to Indians. A school for training to enter was to be established at Dehra Dun. A royal Military College at Dehra Dun, on lines similar to Sandhurst was sanctioned, but was not then established owing to financial stringency. The creation of territorial and Auxiliary Forces was recommended and action taken thereon. Several measures such as Indias capacity to bear the present standard of Military Expenditure, the training of Indians in National Self-defense etc. were investigated by the Military requirements Committee. Many resolutions which were adopted by the Assembly were communicated to the Secretary of State. In the course of a debate, in February 1923, on a resolution for the Indianization of the higher ranks of the Army, an announcement was made that Eight units would be Indianised. Out of the 20 resolutions brought before the House in connection with reorganization and Indianisation of the army, 16 were moved by Sir Sivaswami Iyer, out of which the House adopted fifteen and negatived one. Additionally the government was all along
66
sympathetic to them, either taking action themselves or forwarding them for consideration to the Secretary whole or of diarchy included in it, that they had been a pitfall to the feet or a fetter to the limbs of those who had come forth to work them. The attention of the Legislative assembly was particularly fixed on two subjects The Army and Finance. The Assembly showed much good work in both these spheres. 6
Discussion on Lee Committee Report

On September 10, 1924, Sir Alexander Muddiman rose and moved his resolution on the Lee Report. On September 11, 1924 Sir Sivaswami Iyer said that he was not for the wholesale rejection of the Report nor did he desire the disappearance of the British and was prepared to grant such relief as the circumstances justified. He thought the members of the Commission were as competent as any member in the Assembly and conceded that they approached their work in fairness and with a desire to solve it. He however felt that this was an intimate connection between the question of the organization of the services and constitutional reforms. But he was glad to hear from the Government that they considered that the Report would in no way prejudice the consideration of the constitutional issues. As for the organization of the services, he believed that the Forest and the Irrigation Services could be safely transferred and that there was no insuperable difficulty in transferring those subjects. He was however emphatic that the Indian Civil Service (ICS), and the Indian Police Service (IPS), should continue as All-India Services. He believed that every sane Indian desired the maintenance of a proper standard of administration, but at the same time they must devise a measure to use the talents of the people of the country and develop it. He conceded that at present they should aim at making it half and half European and Indian element. He claimed to be a practical politician when he urged that the British recruitment be stopped because it would take ten to twelve years even with the existing element to attain equality in the cadre. He said that constitutional changes were impending and who could say that within the next ten years there would not be any constitutional advance? Was it then, he asked, fair to the English recruits to ask them to enter the Services with this cloud of uncertainty hanging over them and then promising them compensation for this uncertainty by way of a right of retirement on proportionate pensions? Was it fair to India to recruit more Europeans when they were already in such a large number? He believed that the country would invite them when it needed thorn and he hoped that they would come to India as hitherto when needed. It was contended that the stoppage would produce a gap in the British official hierarchy, and that by the time the new British Officers came on the resumption of recruitment the senior British Officers would retire and that the senior officers would be Indians. He hoped that when Indians had served so long under British seniors the Britisher would not object to serve under an Indian. 67
As for the Royal Army Medical Corps (RAMC) he from his past experience of the War Office would say, the less the control of the War Office the better for India. The RAMC door was not open to Indians. How could they then entrust it with military work wholly? He fully recognized the necessity for providing a military reserve, but suggested that it could be maintained in the, Provincial Medical Services by providing for a compulsory medical training to the required extent. Moreover the efficiency of the Indian Medical Service (IMS) on military work had been questioned by the Esher Report. He considered it natural that the Britisher should desire the attendance by British Doctors, but what he questioned was as to why the basis of organization of the service in this particular Service be adopted not according to the needs of the population but to cater for the needs of the Officers scattered here and there? He wanted that the Provincial Medical Service should absorb 75 per cent, of posts held by the Indian Medical Service (IMS), Officers in civil employ, that the Indian Medical Service (IMS), be so organized as to cater to the needs of Indian Units of the Indian Army and to provide officers to fill up 25 percent of the Civil Posts now held by the Indian Medical Service (IMS). As for financial relief he felt that it would not be fair to put off the Service by promising another enquiry. He would grant them some relief though not all that the Commission recommended. Sir Chimanlal Setalvad referred to the atmosphere of suspicion and distrust both on the side of Europeans and Indians. He regretted the existence of such an atmosphere and said that the association of the European element in the Public Services was not only desirable but necessary even when India attained self-government. But the constitution of the Services was a matter to be determined not by some authority six thousand miles away, and Sir Chimanlal referred to the fear in the Indians mind that so long as the Services, were manned by Europeans, their hopes of attaining self-government were frustrated to that extent. Indians desired that the Services should be in the real sense Services as they were in other countries, and not as masters and arbitrators. That was the problem before the country and Sir Chimanlal asked if the Royal Commission had succeeded in solving that problem [cries of no]. He did not blame the Commission for arriving at a compromise because compromise was the essence of politics, but the problem of making the Services real services and not masters had not been tackled. In view of the growing needs of public economy, a basic salary for Indians should have been fixed at a level lower than the present one, and the basic salary for Europeans should also have been fixed. There was a desire on the part of India to get rid of the British element than whom a more loyal devoted and hardworking lot it was difficult to find and Sir Chimanlal agreed that it was necessary to give them security of tenure, but there was the question of constitutional change which must be tackled, if not immediately, at any rate in 1929 by the Statutory Commission, and any recruitment in Britain 68
at present would only complicate that issue if the recommendations of the Lee Commission were at once adopted. He therefore urged that recruitment of European element should be stopped for the present. He recognized the need of granting pecuniary relief to the existing incumbents and therefore he suggested that the recommendations of the Lee Commission should be put into execution for that purpose. Sir Chimanlal Setalvad recognized the necessity of the executive being possessed of emergent powers, but there should be some safeguards in the Act for the prevention of abuse by allowing judicial authority, to test the order declaring associations unlawful. If the Government accepted his suggestion and introduced the safeguard, there would not be any objection to this Act remaining on the Statute Book.7
In the Council of State

On February 27, 1923 after some official bills passed in the Lower House had been passed, the Council took up for consideration the non-official bill to amend the law relating to hereditary priests to claim emoluments in respect of religious ceremonies as passed by the Assembly. After a series of motions for amendments the operative part of the bill itself was thrown out by a majority of the non-officials, the officials remaining neutral, and the whole bill was accordingly rejected. This was the first time that a bill passed by the Assembly was thrown out by the Upper House. On the February 28, 1923 Sastri moved: This Council recommends to the Governor-General in Council that in order to give Indian members of the Indian Civil Service an insight into the large problems of Imperial administration and policy, he would be pleased to appoint, so far as possible, at least one such officer as Secretary, Joint Secretary or Deputy Secretary in every Department of the Secretariat of the Government of India. Sastri complained that during the last 20 years only three Indians belonging to the Indian Civil Service had come into the Secretariat and two of them had been there for very short periods. He referred to the Preamble to the Government of India Act, gave figures showing the number of Indians eligible for such appointments, and vainly pleaded for a fulfillment of the pledge Government had given to prepare Indians as rapidly as possible to sustain their own self-Government. Raza Ali moved an amendment so as to enlarge the scope of the resolution in order to include Indians generally. Home Member Sir James Crerar in
69
his reply contended that there was really no divergence in principle between the views expressed by Sastri and the views entertained and acted upon by the Government of India. But the government must adhere scrupulously and strictly to the principle of selection on the basis of proved merit and ability, implying that Indians had less merit. Moreover, the adoption of such a rule would undoubtedly trench upon the reasonable and proper interests of the European members. The cat was at last out of the bag! The Home Secretary proposed the following amendment: This Council recommends to the Governor General in Council that in order to give Indians an insight into the larger problems of Imperial administration and policy they should be afforded wider opportunities to become qualified for appointment for the posts of Secretary, Joint Secretary or Deputy Secretary in all departments of the Secretariat of the Government of India. Once more the Upper Chamber refused to be gulled by the Government. Crerar's amendment was thrown out by 13 votes against 19 and Sastri's resolution, as amended by Raza Ali, was adopted without a division in the following form: That this Council recommends to the Governor-General in Council that, in order to give Indians an insight into the large problems, of Imperial administration and policy, he would be pleased to appoint, so far as possible, at least one Indian as Secretary, Joint Secretary or Deputy Secretary to every Department of the Secretariat of the Government of India. This closed the business for February. On March 1, 1923 budget was presented. Of the important non-official resolutions of March may be mentioned the following: On March 5, 1923 Sastri's Kenya resolution created a stir in the Upper House. On this day the first motion was Ramsaran Dass for a duty on Benzin and Petrol exported from Burma to foreign countries. This was first moved on the February 19, 1923 and was postponed till after the budget and the debate was now resumed. Kale moved an amendment that the duty be not less than six annas a gallon. Government opposed it obviously for the benefit of the Companies. Sethna pointed out the huge fraud that was being perpetrated by the Petrol companies, but Government stood to its guns and the motion fell. Next came Sastri's resolution on Kenya. He moved: This Council recommends to the Governor-General in Council that he be pleased to convey by telegraphic message to His Majesty's Government the view of this Council that no settle70
ment regarding the political rights and status of Indian settlers in the Crown Colony of Kenya would satisfy the people of India unless Indians in Kenya are granted full and equal rights of citizenship with European settlers; and this Council records its indignant protest at the reported threats of violence on the part of the latter and fully trusts His Majesty's Government will take effective steps to prevent any such outbreak and to afford Indian residents the necessary protection; and this Council records its emphatic conviction that no restrictions on new immigration from India will be acceptable to public opinion here. At the outset he drew a distinction which was not commonly understood. He said the Imperial Conference resolution recognizing the right to determine the composition of the population related only to self-governing Dominions of the Empire. The case for a Crown Colony like Kenya rested on grounds of equality and this equality Indians in Kenya claimed only by stages. In the first place they did not ask for universal suffrage, nor that the Legislative Council of Kenya should be composed of Indians according to their numerical strength. They were content if the number of Indians was less than half. Thus, they only wanted a very partial fulfillment of the rights of equality. And yet there was a good deal of agitation by European settlers who had imbibed the spirit that prevailed in South Africa, namely, no equality to Indians, expulsion of Indians if possible and, what is more, a union of East Africa with South Africa. When they threatened violence in case equality was granted, they were riot merely bluffing but were earnest. Our people (Indians) whether in India or abroad have shown such humility and modesty, such respect for law and order, such patience even under the greatest provocation that what an American lady told me recently is perfectly true, namely, that we 'Indians are the only Christians on the face of the earth.' After a good deal of angry talk which the Government Member tried his best to calm down, the resolution was put and carried.8
In the Provincial Legislatures

The members of the Provincial Liberal Federation also participated in Provincial Legislative Councils during 192023. In the U. P. Legislative Council on January 24, 1920, c.y. Chintamani moved that the development of industries should be a provincial subject with full liberty of action to the Local Government and Government of India officers should stand in the relation of advisers to the Local Government. Chatterjee, the Chief Secretary said the question was under discussion between the Government of India and the Local Government and he was not in a position to express any opinion. Chintamani also moved that the Government of India should allow the Local Government to draw upon its ac-
71
cumulated balance to the needed extent for expenditure non-recurring or recurring in coming financial year. The Financial Secretary Sim opposed and said: as regards the first part, Government had no objection to make provision for non-recurring expenditure in the coming financial year. The first part of the resolution was carried and the second lost. Chintamani then moved that the Lieutenant Governor should abrogate the rule requiring Deputy Collectors to call on Superintendents of Police. The resolution after discussion was withdrawn. Shahid Hosain moved a resolution of congratulation to Satyendra Prasano Sinha on his elevation to the peerage as Bason Sinha of Raipur becoming the first indian member of the British House of Lods. The Government agreed. The discussion of the budget took place on April 7, 1928. Among the speakers were Pandit Gokaran, Math Misra, C. Y. Chintamani, Crawshaw, the Maharaj-Kumar of Benares, the Maharaja of Balrampur and Sheikh Shahid Hosain. All of them offered their congratulations to Sim, the Financial Secretary, on the excellence of the Budget, especially that which with the expenditure on education. Sim thanked his non-official colleagues for the able assistance he had received from the Finance Committee. The Government accepted a resolution moved by Chintamani recommending the early consideration of the subject of minute subdivision of agricultural holdings and the taking of such steps to remedy the evil as may be found practicable.9 On Feb. 27, 1923 there was again a volley of questions on the release of political prisoners. After question time the President announced that he disallowed, as being out of order, a motion of Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru for the adjournment of the Council to reconsider the cases of all political prisoners not yet released. Non-official business was then taken up. A resolution of Kunzru that approval of the Council should be got in revision by Government of irrigation rates roused some interest, but the Finance Member's prompt acceptance of the principle of consulting the Council before future enhancement was taken up rendered voting unnecessary and the resolution was withdrawn. The next resolution was that of Rai Sita Ram Saheb about, the reconstitution of the Allahabad University which came in for vehement speeches on both sides and even among the Liberal members there was divergence of opinion. Chintamani was uncompromising and presented a closely argued case against the resolution which was however carried by 31 against 24. The motion was: That this Council recommends to the Government that the external side of the reconstituted Allahabad University as such be abolished, that it be recognized instead as the University of Agra of the affiliating type, and that a committee be appointed to
72
draw up the necessary legislation at an early date with a view to submit it to the present Legislative Council as far as possible. Though defeated Chintamani traded a statement in the end to the effect that consistently with the opinion he had expressed he had no intention of any action on the resolution. But he would not set an awkward precedent of resigning on account of an adverse vote as the resolution of the council was only a recommendation. The council could however move a vote of want of confidence in him when the budget was before the Council.10 In July 1923, Sir Surendra Nath Banerjea introduced a bill in the Bengal Legislative Council, to provide for certain matters in connection with the Budget Estimate of the Corporation of Calcutta for the year 192425, the fixing of the rates at which the consolidated rate and the taxes for that year shall be levied and imposed, and the arrangements to be made in connection with the raising of loans during that year, for the fixing of the percentage of the consolidated rate in respect of the added areas during the four succeeding years, and for the amendment of Section 20 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923, in respect of the qualification of electors. The bill was opposed by Dr. Pramatha Nath Banerjee who criticized the principle and object of the Bill which was, however, introduced and referred to a Select Committee. The Bengal Smoke Nuisances Bill to amend the existing Act was then introduced and passed by the Council. Sir Surendra Nath Bannerji then moved that the Calcutta Improvement (Amendment) Bill be referred to a Select Committee with instructions to submit their report in time for its consideration by the Council at the next August session. The motion was carried. Two other government bills were introduced by the Maharajadhiraja Bahadur of Burdwan viz.; the St. Thomas School Bill and the Bengal Tenancy (Uthandi Amendment) Bill. Both the bills were referred to a Select Committee. 11 The NLF released the new manifesto of the party in August 1923. A note on partys activities in the provincial Councils was also included. It said: The separation of judicial and executive functions; extended educational facilities and a reform of educational policy; measures for the improvement of agricultural methods, more effective control by the Legislatures of land revenue policy so that Zamindars [peasants] and Ryots may suffer no hardship or injustice; measures for the improvement of the position of tenants; the welfare of labour; the bringing of district administration into approximation with public opinion; a more enlightened and humane jail administration including the special treatment of political prisoners; temperance reform; a more economical 73
administration of the public works department; extension and reform of local self-government in municipal and rural areas, including establishment of village punchayats; measures for the improvement of public health; more adequate medical relief including the encouragement of indigenous system of medicine; measures of social legislation; and generally a vigilant criticism of administrative acts, methods and omissions, so as to minimize abuses of authority and make the administration perform the better its true function of serving the public interests to these ends have the activities of the Liberal Party inside and outside the Legislative Chambers been emphatically directed, with not complete success it is true, but with no small measure of success. The record of the public activities of members of the Liberal Party marks an unmistakable advance along the path of self-government. The specification of this work in the Provinces is given by Sastri in the following words: Ministers in all the provinces have to their credit legislative measures which will redound to the country's advantage. I need instance only a few in order to show how successful they are in initiating policies in their respective departments. It is an unfortunate circumstance that Ministers were called to administer their departments when financial difficulties became very serious, and, therefore, naturally the first reforms to be effected were those which did not entail much outlay of money. For instance, municipalities and District Boards have in most provinces been placed on a popular footing. But ministers have not shrunk from undertaking large schemes involving heavy increases in expenditure and thus facing additional taxation. Some of the measures introduce bold new departures in policy which would have been almost inconceivable in the old regime. I would give the first place among these to Dr. Paranjpye's Compulsory Education Act which replaces the optional compulsion of the Act of 1918 by absolute compulsion, and seeks to universalize primary education in the whole of Presidency within ten years. Mr. Chintamani has introduced in the United Provinces, excise reforms calculated to effect a very drastic reduction in the consumption of alcohol etc. In the Bombay Presidency Mr. C. V. Mehta has already introduced a reform which, if small in
74
itself, initiates a new policy substituting direct for indirect checks on consumption. In Madras (Chennei), Ministers have adopted the policy of giving judicious state aid to new or nascent industries and have put in hand several other measures of no small benefit to the Province. Reform of old Universities and establishment of new ones are taken in hand in several Provinces. These and other measures of the kind are the first fruits of the popular control over transferred departments for which we, the constitutionalists, need not blush. 12 In the words of Sastri: The new Legislatures, under the double blight of non-co-operation and financial bankruptcy, faced their task with courage and sagacity which promised well for the future of India.
References
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
V.N. Naik, Indian Liberalism: A Study, Bombay, 1945, p. 108. The Indian Annual Register, 1923, Vol. II, pp. 11718. V. N. Naik, op. cit., pp. 116-17. Ibid., pp. 11516. Ibid., pp. 11215. Ibid., pp. 11012. The Indian Annual Register, 1924, Vol. II, pp. 8084. Ibid. 1923, Vol. II, pp. 276278. Ibid., 1920, Vol. I, p. 174. Ibid., 1923, Vol. II pp. 321(x)321 (xi). Ibid., 1923, Vol. II, pp. 321 (vi). V. N. Naik, op. cit., pp. 118119.
75
Chapter Five New Political Developments, 193037
76
New Political Developments, 193037
Towards the end of the third decade, the appointment of the all-white Simon Commission fuelled the fires of political agitations. The inept handling of the situation by Whitehall precipitated events leading to the refusal of the congress to attend the first session of the Round Table Conference (RTC). This was followed by the Civil Disobedience Movement in early 1930. The Liberals were not happy with the political atmosphere created by extremist elements on the one hand and Governments show of repression on the other hand.
The Disobedience Movement, 193032

The eminent Liberal Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru wrote a letter in The Indian Daily Mail in June 1930 on the political situation of India before the first session of RTC he noted: Lathi charges, firing, arrests and imprisonment reinforced by Special Emergency Powers, are some of the means resorted to by Government, irrespective of the consequences that are bound to flow from all this. If I have not at any time believed in Civil Disobedience, if I feel that its consequences are bound to be disastrous to the country, I also feel that the aftermath of a policy like the one which is finding favour at Simla at present, is bound to be full of bitterness and hatred which it may be im-possible to eradicate even though the authors of this policy may be following the discredited maxim of victory first and conciliation next. The tragedy of it all is that this should happen in the time of a Viceroy possessed of the ideals and intentions of Lord Irwin. Conciliation has got to come sooner or later. No big country like India, with the surging tide of nationalism, and with the irrepressible and wide-spread self-consciousness, which has undoubtedly arisen in the country, can be ruled for long on the basis of the suspension ordinary law and by the suppression of civil authority.1 He posed a question: What is the Government doing to secure the success of the R.T.C.? His own reply was simple and straight: Here in India I see very little evidence of any attempts on the part of the Government to secure such co-operation. On the
77
contrary, they are making the task of the supporters of the conference more and more difficult and hardly seem to realize that they are making their own impossible. In England the position seems to be scarcely seen in its proper perspective. Shortly after the announcement made by Lord Irwin the speeches in Parliament and particularly those in the House of Lords did incalculable mischief in India as I can assert from personal knowledge. They then followed the most wicked campaign in the Rothermere and the Beaverbrook Press, and the Daily Mail demanded the head of Lord Irwin on a charger. The debate in the House of Lords a few days ago in which Lord Reading, Lord Lloyd, the Marquis of Zetland and Earl Russel took part, betrays a mentality, which augurs ill for the future. It is amusing to see those noble Lords now extending their loyal support to Lord Irwin, when some of them, at any rate in November last, challenged his wisdom and denounced his idealism. If Lord Salisbury may be taken to represent the English mind, there have been no pledges given to India by England, by her Sovereign and her Parliament and therefore her only policy can be iron rule. 2 Sir Chimanlal Setalvad and Sir Cowasji Jehangir (junior), two leading Liberals of Bombay, gave joint expression to a statement, which drew attention to the incalculable economic loss to the country caused by the political situation, and suggested a way out for the consideration, both of the leaders of the Civil Disobedience Movement and the Government. In explaining the position of those who had consistently made efforts for co-operation with the Government to produce a peaceful and mutually agreeable solution of the Indian problem, they said: Our continued support to the Round Table Conference plan and our opposition, genuine and consistent, to Civil Disobedience must not be interpreted as evidence that on the major issue of our country's right to govern herself, we are willing to ally ourselves with forces which would retard the nation's progress and self-government. What we do not approve of is the method used by some of our countrymen to achieve the common end. We have witnessed during the past few weeks a tremendous national uplift, quickening and awakening, and although we have deplored and continue to deplore the means which have been adopted to give expression to it means which are bringing with it a legacy of economic disturbance and moral, political
78
and social unrest fraught with serious and dangerous consequences no one can deny that the evidence to-day for the determination of the country to achieve self-Government is stronger than it has ever been in the past. It must be apparent to any observer that behind the organized lawlessness and even behind the undisciplined lawlessness there is a strong flowing stream of national aspirations which will not be checked by mere repression and force.3 They urged Government for a clear statement of the objects of RTC noting: We are confident that even now if it is made sufficiently clear to the sceptical mind that the outcome of the Round Table Conference will be proposals before Parliament for Dominion Selfgovernment for India with the necessary safeguards for the transition period, the Civil Disobedience movement will lose many of its present supporters. This advice has been repeatedly preferred to Government from various quarters, but they have made no move in the direction indicated. The ill-fated Simom Commission has hung like a dead weight over the Labour party who made the mistake of agreeing to participate in it and unless its recommendations meet adequately the Indian desires they are likely further to stimulate the present unrest. As far as one can judge from the first part of the Commission's report there is every indication of their recommendations being not of a character that will satisfy public opinion. Daily the position of those who are standing for a peaceful solution by means of the Round Table Conference is becoming more and more difficult and it is sure to become impossible if the present deadlock continues.4 They also appealed Gandhi and the leaders of Civil Disobedience Movement to call it off immediately but also made clear that peace should be restored with honour. They demanded that the Government must recognize the forceful national urge for freedom of which Civil Disobedience was only a symptom. The Government must show itself eager to discover some acceptable formula to solve the issue. The Liberals appeals did not bring any fruit and congress did not attend the first session.
79
Round Table Conferences, 1930

In the first session of the conference, the three principal political parties in Britain (Labour, Conservative and Liberal) were represented by 16 members; British India by 57, all nominees of Governor General; and the Indian States by 16. The first session started on November 12, 1930. Looking up the report of the first Round Table Conference, we find the following liberals among the members of the British Indian delegation to that Conference. They were Sir C. P. Ramaswami Iyer, J. N. Basu, C. Y. Chintamani, Sir Cowasji Jehangir, N.M. Joshi, Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, Sastri, Sir Chimanlal Setalwad, Sir Phiroz Sethna and M.R. Jayakar. M.R. Jayakar was not a liberal by label. Still his association with Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru and his membership of the Responsive Cooperation Party, as Sir Sivaswami Iyer once described, made him a liberal for all practical purposes.5 They actively participated in the long proceedings of first session. The first item which it took up for discussion was whether the future constitution of India was to be unitary or federal. As Chintamani put it in his presidential address at the Liberal Conference held in Bombay in July 1931, this first decision affected and influenced all subsequent proceedings, and not to India's advantage. The Liberals were not slow to perceive how it meant diversion from what they had expected as the result of the Conference. Chintamani put it, as follows: There were some of us who thought, among them Sir Chimanalal Setalvad, that the Conference should rather get to grips at once with the matter that was uppermost in the Indian mind and for which we went to England braving the wrath of large numbers of our countrymen viz: Dominion Status with a Responsible Central Government for British India. In my humble opinion there is cause for regret that the advocates of this opinion failed and the Business Committee's decision prevailed. 6 They also spoke about communal harmony with quite clarity. Unity between Hindus and Muslims was key for constitutional progress. But unfortunately it was not heard with the success they deserved and the best interests of India required. Sir Chimanlal Setalvad observed that the greatest difficulty was presented by Bengal and the Punjab. He suggested:
80
No liberal was a good liberal who had a communal mind. Of necessity every liberal was; or one or another community, but it was his duty to appreciate all points of view and try to meet them. I am glad and happy to be able to report to the Federation that every liberal without exception had acted conscientiously in this spirit in the discussions in London, and some Liberals had laboured strenuously to promote a settlement which would err on the side of generosity to the Muslims. It was not their fault that they had failed. 7 It was quite unfortunate that the Liberals suffered in their championship of the Indian case from the fact that they were being criticized in the Nationalist Indian press as a collection of hand-picked Government men, whose voice was not the voice of India. However, they did not bother about such blame games and worked hard for the success of the conference. Was it a success? In Chintamanis words, it was neither a success, nor a failure. It was not a success because it stood adjourned before it could record a decision on a solitary question. Disbelieve and disregard every statement to the contrary. The Conference in its last plenary session had but one resolution laid before it, and it definitely affirmed only this, that the work on which it had been engaged should be continued without interruption. It acknowledged the value of the reports of the sub-committees, but recorded no decision on the merits of a single subject of which these reports treated. But the Conference was not a failure either. Its deliberations in sub-committees and committee and in plenary sessions were enlightening and useful and it promoted a good understanding between the statesmen of England and the public men of India. Above all, it created an atmosphere of goodwill such had not existed, I was assured, at any previous time after the never-to-be-forgotten Mr. Montagu was forced out of the India Office, and not often before. Immediate disappointments may be many and serious, but on a long view of things it is my conviction that the Conference has on the whole done good service, and even if success may not crown its effort it will have paved the way to easier and surer success at a later date than if it had not bee convoked. If the last session of the Conference had been nothing but a failure from Indias stand-
81
point, would Mahatma Gandhi have thought that there was a prima facie case for a reconsideration of the Congress position, and courted the Viceroy to invite him, if he will forgive me to quote his own words, for those memorable talks which resulted in the Irwin-Gandhi settlement? 8 The work of the first session of the conference was taken up in its numerous sub-committees the Federal Structure SubCommittee, the Provincial Constitution Sub-committee, the Franchise Sub-committee, the Sind[h] committee, the NWFP Sub-committee, the Defense Sub-committee, the Services Sub-committee, and the Minorities Sub-committee.9 The Liberals played important roles in various committees, particularly the Minorities Sub-committee. If we look at the overall performance of the Liberals in the conference from day one, they contributed a lot. From his speech in the first plenary session of the conference, Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru maintained that: India wants and is determined to achieve a status of equality equality with the other free members of the British Commonwealth, an equality which will give it a government not merely responsive but responsible to the popular voice. He added that, for the period of transition, if it was inevitable, provide as many safeguards as you like, so long as these safeguards do not destroy the vital principle, and then go ahead with courage and with faith. When he found that the British side was not inclined to support the proposition in favour of British India, he declared himself at once and decisively for an All-India Federation and Federal constitution, and he invited the Princes to agree forthwith to the creation of such a Federation. He agreed to such a Federation on two grounds: First, that it would stabilize the constitution; and secondly, that it would lead to the unification of India. This concord between the Princes and the Indian representative in the Conference, created a common united India front in favour of the immediate grant of Dominion Status.10 While the Liberals were on the initial part of the work, the Muslim minority, at this stage sounded no discordant note on the proposition put forward by Sir Tej Bahadur. Muham-
82
mad Ali Jinnah for one wing of the Muslim League and Sir first name Shafi for the other, were both in full agreement with Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru. Both asked for Dominion Status and for responsible government at the centre which it implied. Both welcomed an AllIndia Federation, a fact which must be particularly noted in the light of subsequent developments.11 Sir Pheroz Sethna, a businessman and liberal, a Parsi and no communalist, talked about the constitutional future of India. He said: What do we ask for? As Mr. Jinnah pointed out we want to be masters in our own house. We do not want to rob our European friends of their vested interests but I would ask this Conference to remember that the vested interests were created by them, when the Indians had not the ghost of a chance to come in. Are we asking you to do anything more than you are doing in your own country? Because you discovered that the British Cinema film industry was not getting along as well as it ought to be doing, you imposed a quota. Then there was another case of the electrical company in regard to which you laid down by-law that the percentage of shares held by the Britishers must be no less than 51 per cent, so that its control may vest with you. I sincerely trust that when we go back with a constitution which will help us politically and economically, we Indian and European merchants will stand together side by side for the advancement of India and England and, consequently of the Empire. 12 Another liberal stalwart, Sastri, spoke at the conference. Addressing the British Prime Minister, Ramsey Macdonald, he simply cried out: Who are these people from whom we fear disturbance? No doubt they have caused trouble so far. Are our measures here not designed to conciliate them? Are these not pacificatory steps that we are taking? Are they not calculated to win over once more their hearts to the ways of loyalty and ordered progress? Believe me, they are not hereditary criminals; they are not savage barbarian hordes; they are not the sworn enemies of Great Britain or of British Institutions. They are men of culture, men of honour, most of them; men who have made their mark in the professions; they are our kinsmen both in spirit and by blood. It is a sense of political grievance that has placed them in this position, which we view with so much distrust and so much disapprobation. Remove the discontent and you will find
83
them alongside of you, working the new constitution that we shall frame to its highest issues, and drawing from these new institutions that we frame all the benefits of which they are capable. He concluded that the declaration of India as a Dominion will serve a double purpose; it will satisfy the natural desire, nay, the intense craving of Indians to be reckoned as equal partners in the British Commonwealth of Nations. It will be a sure earnest of the fulfillment of the promise that England desired India to be, in fullness of time, a full-pledged dominion; he was not without hope that the Indians and English will then labour wholeheartedly together for the happiness and prosperity of India. The happiness and prosperity of India meant greater happiness and prosperity for England.13 Similarly Sir Chimanlal Setalvad exclaimed: And if England failed in this high mission what will happen? That also was plainly told to the conference by an Indian liberal, Sir Chimanlal Setalvad. He warned them the die-hards among the delegates: If you do not grant now what India wants, the position will be this; you will have to enter into a long-drawn struggle, increasing every day. You may put down disorder; you are bound to put it down, and you will do so; but at every stage, sooner or later, it will again break forth with increased vigour, and you cannot rule 320 million people continuously by force and by military power.14 The first session did result in the British government accepting the principle that in Indias future constitutional set-up, the executive authority of Government should be responsible to the legislature both at the center and the provinces. This was conditional on the acceptance of the principle of federation between British India and Indian India. In his address on 19 January 1931, at the conclusion of the session, the British Prime Minister declared: The view of HMG is that responsibility for the government of India should be placed upon legislatures, central and provincial, with such provisions as may be necessary to guarantee, during the period of transition, the observance of certain obligations and to meet other special circumstances, and also with such guarantees as are required by minorities to protect their political liberties and rights.15
84
The first session of the RTC was the most important of all three. The second session of the Conference opened on 7 September 1931. Among the new comers were Gandhi, Sir Muhammad Iqbal, the celebrated Urdu poet, Dr. S. K. Datta, a leading Indian Christian, G.D. Birla, the business magnate, Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya, Sarojini Naidu and Ali Imam. The session grappled with the problem of communal representation in general and of Muslim representation in particular. It closed on 1 December 1931. Despite its failure to solve the communal problem, the structure of the federal judiciary had taken shape; the intricate question of the distribution of resources between the centre and the provinces had been examined, if not settled. The main points, besides the communal issue, on which agreement was still to be worked out were the composition of the federal legislature and the manner in which the states were to be fitted into the federation. The main work of the second session was done by two large sub-committees on Federal Structure and the Minoritieswhich re-examined and amplified the reports presented by the corresponding subcommittees of the first session. As the contentious debate on communal representation could not be settled by mutual agreement, the British Prime Minister made this the reason for announcing, 4 August 1932, what was called the Communal Award. It provided for separate representation not only to the recognized minorities but also to the depressed classes. Gandhi fasted on the latter issue, with the result that the Poona Pact modified the original award substantially in regard to the representation of the depressed classes.16 The third session of the conference agreed upon certain broad principles for the future constitutional set up. These were published later as a White Paper (March 1933), which was referred to a Joint Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament for examination and scrutiny. Eventually, the Committee's report was to form the basis of the Government of India Act, 1935. As V. N. Naik sums up, the first Conference had left everything fluid, the second had crystallized nothing, and the third ended with crystallization in the shape of a White Paper which was anything but responsible government or Dominion Status for British India. The Joint Parliamentary Committee did not improve matters. The Memorandum of the Indian Delegates to the Third Round Table Conference was simply brushed aside.17 It is noteworthy that Gandhi attended the second session on behalf of Indian National Congress as its sole representative. Interestingly the absence of INC from the third session of RTC made things even more complicated.
85
The Communal Award

On August 16, 1932, Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald announced in the British Parliament decision with regard to what he called representation of the British Indian Communities in the provincial Legislatures envisaged in the proposed scheme of constitutional reform in India which was to emerge, later as the Government of India Act, 1935. The announcement came to be popularly known as Communal Award. It provided, interalia for separate electorates for Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Anglo-Indians, and Europeans. Voters not belonging to any of these communities would vote a general constituency. The depressed classes were assured separate special constituencies with the right to vote separately in the remaining general constituencies also. Special constituencies with separate communal electorates were to be constituted for women in all provinces except the NWFP. The announcement was disappointing for the Liberals. They severely criticized it in their 1932 and 1933 annual conferences. The Liberal Conference held at Kolkata was presided over by Dewan Bahadur Ramachandra Rao. It had been specially convened to voice the protest of the Liberal Party against the conclusions embodied in the White Paper or Communal Award issued to Parliament by the Cabinet in England in fulfillment of the announcement of 1929, and as the result of the deliberations in the Indian Round Table Conference, The announcement was far from being a whole hearted attempt to meet the Indian demand for responsible government and Dominion Status. As the president of the Liberal Conference in 1933 showed in his address, there was no mention in it of the word Dominion Status; there was no responsibility in the Centre; there was no transfer of real control over finance to the Minister; there was no clear indication of federal policy and when it would be a fact at the latest. The Viceroy was to be set up under it as Agent of the Crown to deal with the Indian States over the head of the Government of India. 18 Analyzing the Communal Award Chintamani concluded in the following words: We are not going to have genuine provincial autonomy. We are not going to have anything worthy of being called responsible government at the Centre. It is uncertain whether we shall have any federation at all. It is equally certain that such federation, as we may have, will not satisfy any one of the tests of a sound federal constitution which students of politics are aware of. And even when the Federation is introduced the British will continue to be the masters. The English will still remain our masters. We are sermonized at every step by every Englishman to put trust in them and not to be hypercritical, not to solve all doubt on the
86
darker side; but at every single step, in every important matter, the British tell us, we do not trust you, we do not trust your common sense, we do not trust your good-faith, we do not trust your responsibility, we do not believe you will be able to administer your country. At every step we must be your fathers and mothers rolled into one. As far as the communal character of the award was concerned Maulvi Abdul Samad, a Muslim delegate of the Liberal Conference, disapproved it in plain words speaker gave as his reason of non-agreement between the Hindus and the Muslims at the RTC the care that Government had taken to choose only such Muslim nominees as had subscribed before hand, under the leadership of H.H. the Aga Khan, to Mr. Jinnah's 14 points. These Muslims, the speaker then told, had almost agreed to the Hindu proposal of Joint Electorates with reservation of seats, when came out the decision of the Government that the Muslims were entitled to get 46 per cent in Bengal and 49 per cent in the Punjab with separate electorate to spoil it. So the agreement that they had almost arrived at with the Hindus had broken down, not on its own merits or demerits but because the Government had maneuvered that it should not come about. The Government had given to the Muslims, by one stroke of the pen, and that before the Communal Award, what even the notorious Simon Commission would not concede to them. For the Commission had laid down that if they desired separate electorates these could be conceded to them only on the basis of the Lucknow Pact, and if they gave up separate electorates they would get representation only on the basis of population. Sapru and other Indian Liberal leaders were willing to concede to the 51 per cent of the seats in Bengal and the Punjab with Joint Electorates and they had agreed. But the agreement had broken down, as was shown above, because of the intervention of the Government itself. Why then blame the Indian delegates for their failure to come to terms on the vexed minority problem? 19 Tracing the history of the question of Hindu-Muslim relations in India, he further raised the following questions: The communal riots, be it noted, have been the special features of India since the inauguration of the Reforms, inspite of separate and communal electorates given to Muslims for the sake of peace and unity in India. Will these communities ever unite and live in peace and cooperation if you divide them still further by these means? Will self government for the whole of India, ever materialize by the perpetuation of these differences in a constitution that was meant to take us to the goal? Or will there
87
be demands by other communities than the Mohomedan for a favoured treatment at the hands of bureaucracy and the Government? Will Muslims be more political minded and more national if you separate them from the Hindus in this way? 20 Rightly did Chintamani say, in his lectures on Indian Politics delivered in 1937 that if there is any Indian who can enthuse over this scheme of Reforms. I confess I am not he, and if I should find him, I will not envy him.
The Liberals and the Minorities Issue

The thirteenth annual three day session of the National Liberal Federation was held at the Sir Cowasji Jehangir Hall Mumbai, on the July 31, 1931 under the presidency of Chintamani. A large and distinguished gathering including a good many Parsi ladies attended. Among the prominent members and visitors were: Sir Chimanlal Setalvad, Sir Chunilal Mehta. Sir Lallubhai Samaldas. Sir Feroze Sethna. Dewan Bahadur Godbole, Sarojini Naidu. N. M. Joshi, B. No. Kamat. G. A. Natesan, K. Natarajan. D. G. Dalvi, Hussainbhoy Lalji, M. C. Chogla, Dazi Kabiruddin, M. I. Curtay, Dr. G. V. Deshmukh and Dr. Shorab P. Mehta. Besides RTC., recruited to the services, future of Burma, administration in the State and no-confidence in central Legislature, the conference also dealt with the issue of religious minorities. Regarding the minorities problem, the Federation accepted the following resolution after amendment. Before the amendment, clause I read as follows: Separate electorates should be done away with or in the alternative, they should not be maintained beyond a fixed term of years. This clause was amended and finally passed as follows: Separate electorates should be done away with and they should be replaced by joint electorates with reservation of Beats for minorities, (b) There should not be a statutory fixation of the majority. (c) The position of all important minorities should be equitably considered in the determination of weightage. (d) There should be no statutory recognition of communal representation in the All-India, Provincial, or Executive services, but by convention fair and adequate representation should be secured for the various communities consistently with the consideration of efficiency qualifications, (e) All necessary
88
reasonable and practicable guarantees should be given to all communities regarding religion, culture, language and special laws. When the Resolution on the Minorities Problem was taken up, a lively yet instructive debate ensued evoking most eloquent speeches from two different angles of vision, old veteran Liberal leaders like Sir Chimanlal Setalvad and Sir Cowasjee Jehangir (junior) ranged on one side and young Liberals strong numerically, opposing them vehemently on the question of joint versus separate electorates. Sir Chimanlal was the protagonist of a compromise resolution which though it favoured the abolition of separate electorates accepted them for a fixed period in order to placate that section of Muslims who unflinchingly demanded separate electorates. Sir Chimanlal in the course of an eloquent plea for the acceptance of the resolution, said he fully realized both from the democratic, point of view as well as in the Muslims interests that continu- Sir Chimanlal in the course of ation of separate electorates was abominable but he an eloquent plea for the acsaid he could not overlook the fact that a large section ceptance of the resolution, of Muslims, whether, right or wrong, still clung to sep- said he fully realized both arate electorates. If they were not placated, they would from the democratic, point of be a handle to the reactionaries at the London Confer- view as well as in the Muslims ence to retard progress. He added that even if Indian interests that continuation of delegates to the Round Table Conference succeeded in separate electorates was compelling the Government to concede them all their abominable but he said he demands, the new constitution would not be worth could not overlook the fact twenty four hours' purchase if a large section of Mus- that a large section of Muslims remained discontented. He therefore urged that lims, whether, right or wrong, they should accept his resolution, so that they could still clung to separate elecwin over Muslims and present a united front at the torates. Conference. Rao Bahadur Kale moved an amendment omitting the continuation of separate electorates altogether, and substituting in their place joint electorates with reservation of seats for the minorities. The mover of the amendment opposed the resolution and he was supported by Chandavarkar, and several other young Liberals. The burden of their speeches was that they as Liberals should stick to their principles, and never yield to reactionaries for the sake of compromise on such an important question.
89
The vehement appeal made by the young Liberals went home, with the result that the amendment was carried by an overwhelming majority.21
The Liberal Polity, 193237

During the period under review, the Liberals were losing ground due to rapid political changes in India. The three sessions of RTC 193032, the Communal Award, 1932 and Government of India Act, 1935 changed the whole atmosphere. They lost elections in 1937. The Liberals at the end of 1935 were no where in India either with the Government or with Congress leaders. Being non-communal, the Muslims treated them with scant courtesy, if not with haughty indifference. Their role henceforward, unlike in 1921, was that of critics, a party in opposition who warned both the Government and the Congress how by their action they were taking the country backwards, and were creating a situation for themselves much worse than they had to face from 1921 to 1935. After the Act was an accomplished fact Sastri marked the event in the Liberal Conference held at Nagpur in 1935, in words: The blow had fallen. How was India to stand up to the fact which it could not avoid? The Liberals in 1935 advised all concerned to join forces and select representatives by mutual agreement so that unnecessary conflict might be avoided and the best men in the country be sent to the new legislatures, who, by cooperation and the shaping of a common constructive policy, might help the advance of the country along right lines. This would also have helped to organize public opinion in the country and to get support for legislative action of men of all parties who knew how to work on right lines. But Congress chose otherwise. The Liberals did not succeed in the elections as, on individual merit and past record of work they should have done. As such they went out of the picture for the rest of the time so far as legislatures and the working of the forms were concerned. Speaking of the New Constitution the Liberal Conference resolved that in its considered opinion it was a constitution imposed upon India by the British Parliament in utter disregard of almost unanimous Indian opinion, inasmuch as it not only did not accept a single suggestion for improvement from India's point of view, but had added on to it further objectionable features. The resolution, however, in the peculiar circumstances of India, considered anything like a boycott of the New Constitution futile and impossible.22
90
The eighteenth session of the NLF met at Lucknow, on December 29, 1936. In his presidential address Sir Cowasji Jahangir shed light on the recent political developments and role of the Liberals. He stated: We have always stood for Dominion Status as a practical and feasible goal of our ambition. The Congress raised the banner of independence which the orthodox Congressmen refused to acknowledge. The Congress adopted direct methods of action which they have now suspended, while we continue to believe in constitutional methods of agitation, as expounded and followed by the founders of the Congress. But now unfortunately, the differences between us are widening. We have, from the very beginning, advocated a policy of getting into the legislatures and taking office. We consider boycott of the legislatures most detrimental to the interests of our country. The Congress started, boycotting the Legislatures in 1919, and have since changed their minds on more than one occasion. To-day, most unfortunately for the country, they have not decided upon any settled policy. They have decided upon capturing the Legislatures at the nest elections, but they hesitate to commit themselves on the principle of taking office. There can be no doubt about the serious differences of opinion that exist among themselves. Although this may be no business of ours, it affects us every vitality, being just before the general elections. All candidates are not committed one way or the other. This is most unfair to the electorate. Such a state of affairs would not be tolerated in, any country where the electorate was trained to a sense of responsibility. It is felt that, taking advantage of a first election on a much wider franchise, the most important political party in the country, confident of its popularity, treats the electorate with contempt. Unable to come to a decision on a vital issue, due to differences amongst themselves, they postpone decision until after the elections. Thus those of the electorate who are definitely against the acceptance of office can vote for the Congress candidate, hoping that the Party will decide for non-acceptance, while Congressmen in favour of acceptance can also vote for the same candidate, hoping that their point of view will finally prevail. This is surely a unique form of democracy! In short, they state: Vote for us, as the most im-
91
portant political party in the country, but we will decide what we shall do,it is no business of yours! We treat the electorate with much greater respect. We lay our cards on the table, we clearly state that we are strongly of opinion that the party with the majority in the Legislatures should take office, and we fervently hope that better counsels will prevail, with the result there will be found in every legislature in India good men and true, willing to shoulder responsibilities and discharge their duty in the best interests of their country. Our advocacy of the acceptance of office does not, by any means, imply our satisfaction with the Government of India Act of 1935. It has even been said that the Liberals were the strongest critics of the future constitution. We have, year in and year out, drawn attention to its shortcomings, and I may, therefore, be permitted to point out in a few words some of our main objections which have met with no redress.23 The Conference also moved a detailed resolution on the Government of India Act, 1935. The resolution reiterated the Federation's considered opinion that the constitution embodied in the Government of India Act 1935 was extremely unsatisfactory and altogether unacceptable. It was not merely utterly inadequate but retrograde in many respects and included features obnoxious to Indian national opinion. Nevertheless, it had to be utilized to the best advantage of the people for the amelioration of their social and economic condition and accelerating the pace of further constitutional advance to the dominion status. The resolution expressed the earnest hope that in the elections to the new provincial legislatures, the electors would return National candidates who would neither attempt the impossible nor be subservient to authority nor prefer sectional interests to national, but who would do their best for the well-being and advancement of the people as a whole. The resolution opined that Governors are Provinces should not farther whittle down such meagre concessions as the act had made to the Indian demands but if the Governors used their powers so as to impede political or economic progress of the country, the Ministers should resign their offices. The resolution further urged that no concession should be made to Princes in the course of negotiations now going on as regards the establishment of the Federation which was calculated to increase still more the powers of Princes at the expense of the Federal Government.
92
Venkalarama Sastri moving the resolution, referred to the omission of Dominion Status as the goal of India's aspirations, in the Act. He said that there were various safeguards in the Act for commercial interests and the services of Britishers which attitude the Liberals had so often criticized. Referring to the Congress Sastri said that a large majority had come to the conclusion that they must go to the Councils. They had kept the office acceptance issue in abeyance till after the elections. The Liberals' attitude was clear for acceptance of offices and the people now opposed to acceptance of offices, were those who carried socialist propaganda in the country and who were really in a hopeless minority. He was sure that the, vast majority on the whole, and in Madras particularly, would vote for office acceptance. The working of reforms would go on merrily while attempts to wreck them would throw power in the hands of the Government and add to their worries. On the other hand, if the wreckers succeed in their attempts, they would take centuries to achieve their end. The speaker warned that the Governors of Provinces should not interfere with the work of ministers and if they unnecessarily did so, ministers should resign. Seconding the resolution, Dr. Paranjpye said that it would be the responsibility of ministers to see that governors did not thwart their progress, since they would be responsible for any mischief done and consequently they should always carry their resignations in their pockets. But they should have no axe of their own to grind. The resolution was unanimously passed.24 Briefly, the return of the Congress to the constitutional path in the post-1935 years ousted the Liberals from active politics. The main scope for their activity now was to act as mediators between extremist groups rather than as principals. In so far as their leaders were mostly drawn from retired administrators who owned no party affiliations or had severed their party allegiances, this was a great help. In his address to the NLF in 1937, Sastri said: Maybe the days of our power are gone. But the days of our influence are by no means gone. Few though we are, we are not without the power of warning against danger, of advising in difficulty, of pointing out the way of safety and sanity. 25 The Liberals were put to the test and the test had gone against them.
93
References
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
The Indian Annual Register, 1930, Vol. II, p. 120. Ibid., pp. 12021. Ibid., pp. 121. Ibid., p. 122. V.N. Naik, Indian Liberalism: A Study, Bombay, 1945, p. 210. Ibid., p. 211. Ibid., p. 212. Ibid., p. 213. Parshotam Mehra. A Dictionary of Modern Indian History, Oxford University Press, 1985, p. 617. V. N. Naik, op. cit., pp. 21415. Ibid., p. 216. Ibid., p. 219. Ibid., pp. 220221. Ibid., pp. 221. Parshotam Mehra, op. cit., p. 617. Ibid. Ibid., p. 147. V. N. Naik, op. cit., pp. 23940. Ibid. p. 245. Ibid., pp. 25253. The Indian Annual Register, 1931, Vol. I, pp. 31920. V. N. Naik, opp. Cit., pp. 26162. The Indian Annual Register, 1936, Vol. II, p. 243. Ibid., pp. 24647. Parshotam Mehra, op. cit., p. 403.
94

2011 FNF - Liberal Politics in Indo-Pak Sub Continent by Ahmed Salim

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

2011 FNF - Liberal Politics in Indo-Pak Sub Continent by Ahmed Salim

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Liberal Politics in IndoPakistan Subcontinent

A Historical Perspective 19181947 by Ahmad Salim

Lets give it a name

Part One All India Scenario 19181947

The Roots of Liberal Ideas in Indian Polity

The Early Indian Scenario

The Roots of Liberal Ideas in Indian Polity

Pre-Islamic Indian Monarchs and Liberalism

The Muslim Era

The Roots of Liberal Ideas in Indian Polity

The Roots of Liberal Ideas in Indian Polity

Sufism and Bhakti Movement

The Roots of Liberal Ideas in Indian Polity

The British Days: From Company to Raj

The Roots of Liberal Ideas in Indian Polity

Historical Background of Breakup

The Formation and development of All-India Liberal Federation 1918-30

The First Session, 1918

The Formation and development of All-India Liberal Federation 1918-30

Jallianwala Massacre and After 1919-20

The Formation and development of All-India Liberal Federation 1918-30

The Formation and development of All-India Liberal Federation 1918-30

Liberals visit England

The Formation and development of All-India Liberal Federation 1918-30

Resumption of Jallianwala debate, 1920

The Formation and development of All-India Liberal Federation 1918-30

NLF: The activities during 192122

The Formation and development of All-India Liberal Federation 1918-30

The Fall of Liberals, 1923

The Formation and development of All-India Liberal Federation 1918-30

The Formation and development of All-India Liberal Federation 1918-30

NLF: The Troubled Times 1923-29

The Formation and development of All-India Liberal Federation 1918-30

Religious Harmony and Liberals

The Formation and development of All-India Liberal Federation 1918-30

The Formation and development of All-India Liberal Federation 1918-30

The Issues Raised by Liberals, 191829

Constitutional Reforms, 1919

The Punjab Tragedy

The Issues Raised by Liberals, 191829

The Issues Raised by Liberals, 191829

Non-Cooperation Movement, Civil Disobedience and Liberals

The Issues Raised by Liberals, 191829

NLF and the Montague Act

The Issues Raised by Liberals, 191829

Simon Commission and Liberals

The Issues Raised by Liberals, 191829

The Issues Raised by Liberals, 191829

The Issues Raised by Liberals, 191829

The Dominion Status

The Issues Raised by Liberals, 191829

The Issues Raised by Liberals, 191829

The Role of Liberal Parliamentarians

In the Central Legislature

Liberals Struggle to Repeal the Repressive Laws

The Role of Liberal Parliamentarians

The Role of Liberal Parliamentarians

The Role of Liberal Parliamentarians

Discussion on Lee Committee Report

The Role of Liberal Parliamentarians

In the Council of State

The Role of Liberal Parliamentarians

In the Provincial Legislatures

The Role of Liberal Parliamentarians