2011 fnf - liberal politics in indo-pak sub continent by ahmed salim

7/30/2019 2011 FNF - Liberal Politics in Indo-Pak Sub Continent by Ahmed Salim

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2011-fnf-liberal-politics-in-indo-pak-sub-continent-by-ahmed-salim 1/102



Liberal Politics inIndo–Pakistan Subcontinent

A Historical Perspective 1918–1947by Ahmad Salim



Friedrich-Naumann-Stiftung für 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 für die Freiheit

Post Box 1733, House 19, Street 19, F-6/2, Islamabad – PakistanTel: +92 51 2 27 88 96, 2 82 08 96Fax: +92 51 2 27 99 15E-mail: [email protected]: www.southasia.fnst.org

Research AssociatesLeonard D’souzaNosheen D’souza

No of printed copies: 1,500ISBN: 978-969-9515-30-9

Disclaimer:

Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the contents of this publication. The authorsor the organization do not accept any responsibility of any omission as it is not deliberate. Never-

theless, we will appreciate provision of accurate information to improve our work. The views ex-pressed in this report do not necessarily represent the views of the Friedrich-Naumann-Stiftungfür die Freiheit.



Table of Contents

v

Table of Contents

Foreword

Olaf Kellerhoff, Resident Representative FNF

PART ONE

All India Scenario, 1918 – 1947

Chapter One

The Roots of Liberal Ideas in Indian Polity

Chapter Two

The Formation and Development of All-India Liberal Federation, 1918–1930

Chapter Three

The Issues Raised by Liberals, 1918–1929

Chapter Four

The Role of Liberal Parliamentarians

Chapter Five

New Political Developments, 1930–1937

vii-viii

76-94

60-75

40-59

15-39

2-14

1



vi



Foreword

vii

Let’s give it a name

The love of freedom is found among all people, and within every individual. This desire isneither new nor geographically limited. Being respected and seeing one’s wishes politi-cally 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 religionhas been practised for centuries in large parts of the world – including under the reignof 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 thefirst 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 publishedliterature and debates in 18th century Europe.

Liberalism is a philosophy which emphasises the freedom of individuals to pursue theirown 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 eachperson; it guarantees private property as foundation for economic action, and it asks theindividual to take full responsibility for all their actions.

Additionally, this philosophy reasons that it is in the best interest of all citizens that re-ligion does not infringe on the equal right of another faith. This means that state affairsand 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 sameas the Arabic/Urdu term ladiniyya (“without faith”) – as secularism explicitly grants free-dom of religion, and more importantly, freedom to be able to worship without being op-pressed by the state! Additionally, it should also be clear by now that liberalism hasnothing to do with a libertine lifestyle. Some people in Pakistan claim to be “liberal”, butmean libertine – or enjoying the license to misbehave. This is not being liberal at all asthey, for example, would never grant the same rights they enjoy to their servants.



It goes to the credit of Ahmad Saleem that he is able to clearly bring out in this bookthat the basic ideas of liberalism were practised in the Subcontinent long before theyhad a name in the West. They were practised and found followers even more so afterthese ideas received the name Liberal-ism, the philosophy of the Enlightenment. The Par-

tition 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 andrepresentation as well as equal rights for every single individual.

Olaf Kellerhoff IslamabadResident Representative March 25, 2010



1

Part One

All India Scenario

1918–1947



2

Chapter One

The Roots of

Liberal Ideas inIndian Polity




3

This history of liberal thoughts in the Subcontinent is as old as the history of the regionitself. There has been a controversy between the later Lokayata and Charvak materialistphilosophy and early religious thought in Hinduism. The British introduced liberal ideasand 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 throughcenturies. The rulers of ancient India had always kept religion separate from the politicaland 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 Brahminpriests, and showered them with most valuable gifts and donations. They recognized thepolitical utility of this class, but they never allowed it to interfere in their day-to-dayadministration. The priestly class accepted this subordinate position.1

In this way, the state mechanism set the rule that religion had nothing to do with thestate apparatus. It is interesting to note that even in the Vedic age, we find sages chal-lenging the authority of the Brahmin priests, ridiculing them for their servility and theirgreed for power and wealth. Notwithstanding the contention by Professor Radhakrishnan

and other apologists of the Vedanta, that “philosophy in India is essentially spiritual”2

the fact is that except for the Vedantas, all major schools of Indian philosophy – the De-hadi Asura practices of the Indus Valley Civilization, the Lokayata, Samkhya, Nayaya- Vaisesika, Purva-Mimamsa, and Buddhism and Jainism – were secular in their content.The Upanishads, perhaps the most sacred book after the Vedas and the earliest treatiseon Indian philosophy (8th–6th century B.C), freely discuss the Law of Causation, Nature(Svabhava), Material Elements (Bhutas), Primeval Matter (Prakriti), Time (Kala), Mind, Lifeand 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-communalcharacter. 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, whichwere considered an integral part of Vedic religion.4 The following conversation betweenKing 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 namedMakkihali Gosala, had said to him: “Though the wise should hope, by this virtue by thispenance 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 asit were, cannot be altered in the course of samsara [transmigration]. It can neither be



4

lessened nor increased just as a ball of string when thrown unwinds to its full length, sowill the fool and wise alike will take their own courses and make an end of their sor-rows.”

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 describedas fatalists: those who believe that everything is predetermined. The second teacher be-longed to the tradition of the Lokayatas, usually described as materialists. Texts fromthese 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 versescomposed by bhikkhunis. It provides an insight into women’s social and spiritual experi-ences. Punna, a dasi or slave woman went to the river each morning to fetch water forher master’s household. There she would speak to the God.

The following are verses composed by Punna, recording her conversation with the Brah-mana:

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 womenSo 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




5

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) Don’t do such a thing,The fear of whichBrings 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 Har-sha, spread over nine centuries. About the time of Alexander’s 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 tohave met Alexander, and seems to have been related to the Nanda royal family, assembleda force of clans from the north and seized the Kingdom of Magadha. His agent in effectingthe revolution was Chanakya, also called Kautilya, who became his minister. An ancienttreatise 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., ex-tended beyond the Hindukush on the North and beyond Herat in Afghanistan. ‘Kutilya,the political mentor of Chandragupta Maurya, adopted a liberal approach towards theadministrative problems of the Maurya state’.7

Asoka was the grandson of Chandragupta. After he became the emperor he conqueredthe Kalinga country, present day Orissa and Ganjam in Madras. Carved inscriptions of hisorders 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 cam-

paign, he was determined not to go to wars again. Since Buddhism taught the sacrednessof 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



6

subjects from speaking ill of their neighbour’s 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 foundedby the priestly class for religious purposes, but by warriors or tribal chiefs purely forworldly 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 Malik’s (705–715 A.D.) permission to send an expedition to Sindh,the Caliph first refused, but when Hajjaj in his second dispatch assured him that he wouldremit to the Caliph’s treasury “twice or thrice the amount they would be spent on theexpedition” the Caliph agreed.10 Hajjaj fulfilled his pledge. He paid to the treasury 120million 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 sparethe 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 cooperationof their subjects. They realized that cooperation of the local people would be achievednot by coercion but through tolerance of their religion, culture and life-style. Since theyhad made India their permanent home, over a period of time they themselves adoptedthe Indian culture.12

They managed to keep the State policy secular as far as possible. The Sultanate at Delhiwas founded by the end of the 12th century. Those were turbulent times. The Mongolhordes had already overthrown the Muslim kingdoms in Turkestan and Iran and werenow knocking at the western gates of India. The metropolis was swelling with Turkishnobles and ulema who had fled their homeland. Religious feelings among the Muslimswere, 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 theMuslim religious leaders whose number had considerably increased on account of theexodus after the Mongol incursions in Turkestan, demanded that the Hindus should beordered 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 whicha tiny minority of Muslims was ruling over a vast population of the Hindus. He also re-



12

The British Days: From Company to Raj

As we have already established that the tradition of liberalism in India is much olderthan the formation of the Liberal party as a separate body from the Indian National Con-

gress in the year 1918. The tradition in the era of East India Company and later the BritishRaj dates back to Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Mahadev Govind, Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, Dadab-hai Nauroji, Jinnah and many others.

Raja Ram Mohan Roy, as V.N. Naik suggests, “was the pioneer of all progressive move-ments 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 beregulated 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 endeavourwas to awaken his countrymen not only to their rights as free men, but also to their ob-ligations to society. He strove in his day, and all by himself, to impress upon them onesupreme lesson, namely, to understand their country’s past alright, and then to assimilatethoroughly into that past the light that had come from the West as the result of the in-teraction of British and Indian cultures. Raja Ram Mohan Roy’s liberalism was before thedawn 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 anyother man after him. Sir Pherozeshah Mehta described him, as a robust optimist, andproudly owned himself as belonging to his school of thought. Ranade, speaking on Telangbefore 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 tri-umvirate of Bombay in his day, two strains had combined to make him the leader of thought between the years 1879–1893; “wisdom, sobriety and right direction” was oneof 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 Presidencyof Bombay, put these three great men together as the leading lights of India. And topoint out “the distinction without difference” between them, he attributed to each oneof them an outstanding quality peculiarly his own. Ranade he described as a man of his-toric imagination, Mehta as a man of courage, and Telang as a man of culture. In anypolitical movement marked for success, it will be realized that these three attributeshave 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 duringthe years that he was in England reading for the bar. Gokhale taught them sitting at thefeet of his political Guru Ranade. And later on, he learnt them in close and reverent as-



15

Chapter Two

The Formation

and development

of All-IndiaLiberal Federation

1918-30



18

The First Session, 1918

The new party held its first session in Mumbai (Bombay) on November 1–2, 1918 underthe chairmanship of Surendranath Banerjea.

Designated as the 'All-India Conference of the Moderate Party', it proved to be the nu-cleus of the NLF. It adopted for its creed the old Congress goal of gradual progress to-wards self-government, which had by then been left way behind by the parent body. Inthe result, the NLF became a rallying point for moderately progressive nationalist opinionwhich favored peaceful and constitutional means as opposed to the 'revolutionary' creedand policy of the Congress. The 'Conference of the Moderates' was in no sense a departurefrom 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 theradical left wing of the Congress.13

The Chairman of the Reception Committee of the NLF was Sir Dinshaw Wacha and thePresident, 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 ac-cording 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, how-ever unpalatable the dose may be.14

The Conference of the Moderates was, in no sense as V.N. Naik states a departure fromthe line of action laid down by the Indian National Congress. Rather it was a vindicationof the Congress ideal as against the new departure thrust upon that institution by, whatmay be called, its left-wing. Both the Chairman of the Reception Committee Sir DinshaWacha, and the President of the Conference, Surendranath Banerjea, made that positionclear in their respective addresses. "All or nothing" was not the motto of the Indian Na-tional Congress, said Sir Dinsha Wacha, and in support of that statement quoted thewords 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 inthe 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 con-

ceded.



28

Mere censure of General Dyer's atrocious crime is totally inad-equate. Council warns His Majesty's Government against half-hearted 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 smoothworking of the reforms is in danger, welcome to the Prince is doubtful and the people are likely to join non-co-operationmovement.24

The Punjab issue and Hunter Report remained under decision till the end of 1920. Anothermeeting of the Council of NLF held at Mumbai (Bombay) on October (30–31) 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 Govern-ment to render justice by imposing adequate punishment uponthe officers guilty of act of cruelty, oppression, humiliation dur-ing the period of Martial Law Administration in the Punjab. The

council records their conviction that the failure of Britishstatesmanship to rise to the demands of the situation in regard to the Punjab affair has largely prevented the people from re-alizing the value of constitutional reforms. 25

The Council also passed the resolutions on non-cooperation movement, the report onArmy in India (the Esher) Committee and recommendations of Medical Services Com-mittee and the issues of Indians in East Africa and Fiji.

NLF: The activities during 1921–22

During the first five to six years of its existence, the new party gained in strength andexercised a measure of influence. However, the death in England in 1922 of E. S. Mon-tagu, 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 intoprominence but the ‘reactionary provisions’ of the Government of India Act, 1935 ad-

ministered another powerful shock. General elections under the new Act further con-firmed the political eclipse of the Liberals: few of the party candidates contested and of



34

NLF: The Troubled Times 1923-29

As we earlier mentioned, the disappearance of Montagu from political scene, was seriousblow 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 andhad repeatedly promised to grant India her right determination, came to power in GreatBritain with J. Ramsay Macdonald as the Prime Minister in 1924 and again in 1929. TheLiberals’ 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, wherethe question of Indian self-government was concerned, there was very little to choosebetween one British party and another.35

In the new situation, the Liberals began to find themselves in the troubled times. During1923–29, 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 dif-ficult situation, however, did not effect the Commitment and work of the party. The sev-enth session of the NLF met a Lucknow on December 26, 1924. Paranjpye, the formerminister of Mumbai (Bombay). Around 300 delegates attended. In his presidential addressParanjpye discussed the current political situation, the issue of the Reform Enquiry Com-mittee, the communal relations, class representation, backward communities, religious

conversions, the extremists’ movements and the Bengal ordinance and the old Kenyaquestion. The Conference passed several resolutions including Hindu-Muslim relationsand 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 Lib-eral 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 al-together unsatisfactory. The Federation is strongly of opinion



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

35

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 (Bom-bay), Chennai (Madras, South India) also held in April,May and June, 1924 on the similar political agenda.

The NLF’s 8th Session was held at Kolkata (Calcutta) on

December 28, 1925. Sir Moropant Joshi presided it. Is-sues like the Civil Services, Liberal party and Govern-ment, Excise Duty on cotton goods, Communaldisturbances, Indians in South Africa and the consti-tutional amendments of NLF were thoroughly dis-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 De-

cember 1929. It is noteworthy that the issues of Hindu-Muslim Relations, religious mi-norities, Communal disturbances and interfaith harmony were raised in all theseconference. 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 withforeign 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, ex-pects to be here for all eternity. The fear of minorities being un-fairly treated comes with ill-grace from the Britishers. Moreover,

The disappearance of Mon-tagu from political scene, wasserious blow to the Indian Lib-erals. Thenceforth they couldno longer hope for any sup-port from the British Govern-ment circles. Their impact inIndian affairs started steadilyto dwindle.



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

39

34 Ibid. pp. 225-226.35 S.D. Gajrani, The Liberals: Study of their participation in Politics (1919-37), The

Punjab Past and Present, October, 2007, pp. 105–06.36 Ibid. p. 106.37 The Indian Annual Register, 1924, Vol. II, p. 471.38 Ibid. p. 472.39 Ibid., 1925, Vol. II, p. 382.40 Ibid., 1926, Vol. II, pp. 338–339.41 Ibid. pp. 346–47.42 Ibid. p. 347.



42

and the ministers under him, in the administration of his Province, to the point of atten-uation. Sir Narayan Chandavarkar started right tradition about the privileges of theHouse. 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 rea-

son 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 1919reforms, while the Liberals welcomed the Act. The party termed it a “definite and sub-stantial 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 outof the first installment of responsible government, it would go a great way to bring us afuller measure of reform in its wake to take us rapidly to the goal that all of us aspiredto reach,” he appealed to all, “so that our march to the final goal may be firm and sureand we may not lose the ground we occupy.”5

The Punjab Tragedy

The Jallianwala massacre and thereafter, the excesses of the Martial Law authorities inthe Punjab were condemned by the People and all political parties of India. The NobelLaureate Rabindra Nath Tagore, denounced his knighthood and stood with the people of Punjab. The National Liberal Federation firmly supported the cause of freedom lovingpeople. 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 JallianWalla Bagh without giving the crowd an opportunity to dis-perse, 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 com-pelling of school children of 5 to 7 to attend on parade to salute the flag, the order imposing upon owners of property the re-

sponsibility for the safety of the martial law posters stuck ontheir properties, the flogging of a marriage party, the censorship




43

of mails, the closure of the Badshahi mosque for sixweeks, the arrest and detention of people without any substantial reasonand 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 con-struction of an open cage for the confinement of arrested per-sons, 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 aero-planes 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 Hin-dus and Muhammadans in pairs with the object of demonstrat-ing 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 Euro-peans, 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 consti-tution 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 govern-ment. 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 canever happen under the name of martial law in Ireland. That they could have happened in India shows the ineptitude of the pres-ent 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 strengthbetween the people and the government and that having given

their promise of support to the local authorities, they were pre-vented by panic and love of prestige from listening to the rep-resentations of Indian leaders, or making any attempt to see




45

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 prayerand a suspension of business. The Congress Leader Mahatma Gandhi had earlier servedan ‘ultimatum’ on the Viceroy accompanied by ‘a heart-felt prayer to the tyrant to desist

from evil.’ Besides he condemned the government’s unscrupulous, immoral and unjustattitude and, in high dudgeon – returned all the medals which had been conferred onhim by the British. At its special session at Kolkata (Calcutta) in September 1920, the In-dian 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 thepeople of Indian but to approve [...]. The policy of progressive non-violent, non-cooper-ation’ until ‘swaraj is established’. The Calcutta decision was later ratified unanimouslyat 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 Gandhi’s influence. The funds of more thanten million rupees were raised. A volunteer corps was enrolled “to help promote variousboycotts – social, education, legal and economic.” 10 However, the movement went outof conrol from Gandhi’s hands. The violent incident of Chauri Chaura holocaust demon-strated how the seeds of violence were imbedded deep in the national psyche. On Feb-ruary 6th, Gandhi declared to suspend the movement. He also announced to abandonthe proposed Civil Disobedience Movement.

Well before February 1922, the Liberals had anticipated the failure of the Movement. Atthe fourth Session of the NLF at Allahabad on December 29th, 1921 the Movement wasthoroughly 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



48

civil disobedience, the political situation prior to it, as also the question of self-govern-ment 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 asthe change in the Provinces. The Conference resolution on the subject was divided underthree heads. First, it demanded full autonomy in the Provinces; secondly, in the CentralGovernment it demanded autonomy except in the spheres of defense, foreign affairs, re-lations with the Indian States, and ecclesiastical affairs, with such safeguards as may besuitable and necessary for the protection of vested interests; and thirdly, it made the de-mand 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 reiter-ating 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 opin-

ion, 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 al-most 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 of-ficial 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 leg-islative measure or a fiscal measure, they have no idea as to




51

National Congress the all India Muslim League, the Hindu Mahasabha – as well as theFederation of Indian Chambers of Commerce were signatories to a statement declaringthat ‘India Could not’ conscientiously take any part or share in the work of the commissionas 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 tenthsession 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 movedin a manner it had never been moved before and a feeling of solidarity and unity in up-holding the national self-respect and national rights had exhibited itself in a marvelousmanner. The announcement of the Statutory Commission had evoked throughout thecountry deep and universal dissatisfaction and people of all shades of political opinionhad compraised their protest. 27

In his presidential address Sir Taj Bahadur Sapru termed the members of the Commissionas “no men of ideas”. He further said:

The irony of it is that we are invited to rejoice in such a teamand to believe that these six worthies in the “second flight” cantake 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 com-mission:

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 fram-ing 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.



52

Sir Sivaswami Iyer, said the resolution was intended as a protest against the constitutionof the Commission and the procedure to be followed by it. Even Lord Birkenhead had toadmit that the terms of the statute did not forbid the appointment of a mixed commis-sion. 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 statuteimposed no fetters at all on the Government as regards the constitution of the Commis-sion. If so, it was no right or accepted mode of construction to refer to what passed inthe minds of the framers of the statute. Sir Sivaswamy quoted in support of his statementthe dictum of Lord Halsbury that the persons worst qualified to interpret the statutewere its framers, who would be tempted to import what was in their minds and not whatwas 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 exis-tence the party advocating complete independence. Govern-ment 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 muchlost 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 SimonCommission are typical of this mentality. Under the government of India Act, they were not bound to set up the Statutory Com-mission till the end of 1929. They decided to accelerate the ap-pointment of the Commission in order to meet united Indianpublic 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 canwork 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 impor-tance dealing with the future constitution of this country




53

should have been constituted with general good-will. In spite of grave warnings, they persisted in constituting the Commis-sion entirely excluding Indians therefrom and thereby alienating very large and important sections of public opinion. It is in-

evitable that the conclusions of the Commission are bound to suffer from the fatal infirmity of having been arrived at practi-cally ex parte in the absence of the recognized political organ-izations 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 lamenta-

ble 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 be-tween the public and the police, in the course of which re-spected 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 Lib-eral Party have disapproved of hartals (strikes) and black flag

processions and other demonstrations of a like nature, but whenpopular resentment is aroused different people have different ideas and methods of giving expression to it. The bitter memo-ries 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 Commissiondeserve sympathy for their unpleasant experiences. It is really unfair to them that Government have no hopelessly misman-aged the matter that the Commission would not get the valu-able 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 fromrepresentative bodies and men and to belittle the volume and importance of the abstaining sections.

The claim made that the Commission is receiving a large meas-ure of cooperation from representative men and bodies will not stand close examination. The Legislative assembly which was at



54

one time during the preliminary debates on the constitution of the Commission described in Parliament, as the body pre-emi-nently representing all India, rejected the proposal to elect the Central Committee to work with the Simon Commission. At-

tempts 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 mem-bers. 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. Whenthe Assembly decided for abstention, its representative charac-

ter 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 withthis promise it is said that inasmuch as most of the Provincial Councils have appointed committees it is evident that the coun-try as a whole is in favour of cooperation with the Commission.But, here again, it is conveniently forgotten that, in the Provin-cial Councils, if you eliminated the official block and the nom-

inated 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 opin-ion. How unfounded is the claim that representative bodies and men have cooperated with the Commission is clear, if one con-siders by way of illustration, the bodies and men who appeared before the Commission in the Bombay Presidency. Any one withany acquaintance of the Presidency will have no hesitation insaying that those who submitted memoranda or appeared be-fore 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 representa-tive bodies of standing in the Presidency, like the Bombay Pres-idency 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.




55

It is to me wonderful how the Government of India and the British Cabinet do not yet realize the futility and tragedy of at-tempting to evolve and inaugurate a big and important step inthe 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 ge-nius 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 im-perative necessity of continuing the boycott of Simon Commis-sion 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, cannotlook at things Indian from the same point of view as we Indians do. Our boycott of theCommission 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, hadlost its moral authority, had become clear to Lord Irwin in India and to the Labour Gov-ernment in England, is evident from the fact that, they tried to appease the country bythe 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 Commission’s 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



56

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 Govern-

ment 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 decadelater, Edwin Samuel Montagu’s pronouncement of 1917 had spoken inter alia of ‘thegradual development of Self-government institutions with a view to the progressive re-alization of responsible government.’

In December 1928, at its Allahabad Session, the NLF passed a resolution on the DominionStatus. Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru moved the resolution, which said:

This Federation is strongly of opinion that the system of Gov-

ernment 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 Na-tions 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 contradictionthat so far as many members of the Liberal party were concerned they offered to workthe Montagu reforms knowing full well that they were incurring a great unpopularityamong their countrymen. It did not lie in the mouth of any Government to say that Lib-erals did not give fair trial to the reforms. But the spirit which actuated Montagu in in-troducing 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 Officehad been very discreditable to British justice and statesmanship. Since then the positionwent on deteriorating until they found that the Government of Lord Irwin had placedthemselves 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 theirrefusal to listen to the advice of their friends that so much extremism had grown in this



58

himself behind the advice of men who were not in touch with the country then he wouldsay that he was living in a fool’s 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 hadinterpreted responsible government to mean something different from the status in theirevidence before the Simon Commission, as well as, long before that, in the LegislativeAssembly. The NLF fully denounced this interpretation in 1928–29 annual Conferences.




59

References

1 H. N. Mitra, The Indian Annual Register, 1920, Vol. I, p. 410.2 V. N. Naik, Indian Liberalism – A study, Bombay (Mumbai), 1945, p. 54.3 Ibid. p. 55.4 The Indian Annual Register, op. cit. p. 393.5 V. N. Naik, op. cit. p. 58.6 The Indian Annual Register, 1920, Vol. I, pp. 396–97.7 Ibid. p. 412.8 Parshotam Mehra, A Dictionary of Modern Indian History, Delhi, 1985, pp. 515–

16.9 Ibid. p. 516.10

Ibid.11 The Indian Annual Register, 1921–22, Vol. I, pp. 88.12 Ibid. p. 89.13 Ibid. pp. 89–90.14 Parshotam Mehra, op. cit., pp. 517–18.15 Ibid. pp. 516–17.16 V.N. Naik, op. cit., p.80.17 Ibid. p. 89.18 Ibid. pp. 89–91.19 Ibid. p. 93.20 Ibid. p. 106.21 S. D. Gajrani, op. cit., p. 106.22 India in 1929-30, Government of India, Appendix II, pp. 466–68.23 Parliamentary Debates Lords 1929-30, Vol. 75, pp. 375–79.24 S. Gopal, Vice royalty of Lord Irwin, p. 169.25 Parshotam Mehra, op. cit., pp. 668–69.26 Ibid. p. 669.27 The Indian Annual Register, 1927, Vol. II p. 421.28 Ibid. p. 425.29 Ibid. p. 432.30 Ibid., 1928, Vol. II, pp. 383–85.31 Ibid., p. 391.32 V. N. Naik, op. cit., p. 181.33 The Indian Annual Register, 1928, Vol. II, pp. 391–92.



60

Chapter Four:

The Role of LiberalParliamentarians




61

Under the Government of India Act, 1919, the first elections for the Council of State, theLegislative Assembly and the provincial council were held in late 1919. The Indian Na-tional Congress completely boycotted these elections. The other political parties, includingthe 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 generalignorance and illiteracy of the voters and the location of constituencies far and wide inthe country, the activity was quite encouraging. The general voting, as a contemporaryreport 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 muchlarger numbers who were non-official members of the Legislature made strenuous at-tempts to promote the well-being and advancement of the people in every manner opento them.

The many irritating racial discriminations that disfigured the Criminal Procedure Codehad nearly been done away with.

The Legislative Assembly had several times advocated the introduction of further sub-

stantial constitutional reforms at an early date.

The Fiscal Commission with an Indian Chairman and a majority of Indian members wasconstituted at the instance of the Assembly, and its recommendations when carried intoeffect were likely to give a much needed stimulus to the development of Indian industries.The separation of judicial from executive functions, extended educational facilities, anda reform of educational policy so as to bring the system into closer accord with Indianconditions and requirements, measures for the improvement of agricultural methods,more effective control by the Legislature of land revenue policy so that zemindars (peas-ants) and ryots may suffer no hardship or injustice, measures for the improvement of theposition of tenants, the welfare of labour, the bringing of district administration into ap-proximation with public opinion, a more enlightened and humane jail administration in-cluding the special treatment of political prisoners,temperance reform,a more economicaladministration 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 ade-quate 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-



62

tion perform the better its true function of serving the public interests:—to these endshad the activities of the Liberal Party inside and outside the Legislative Chambers beensystematically directed with not complete, it was true, but no small measures of suc-cess.

The record of the public activities of members of the Liberal party, marks an unmistakableadvance 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 repres-

sive Acts. Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, as law member in the Government of India, had a largeshare in effecting the change, though the initiative came from a member in the Councilof State, no other than V.S. Sreemivasa Sastri. He brought up a resolution (14-2-21) pro-posing a Committee “to examine the Repressive laws and to recommend their repeal ormodification.” Government accepted the resolution with the amendment agreed to bythe-House, that an equal number of members from the Legislative Assembly and theCouncil 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 thePress 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, SirWilliam 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 tocope with terrorism was repealed by an Act called the Indian Criminal Law AmendmentRepealing Act of 1922. The year 1923 saw the passing of an act known as the CriminalLaw Amendment Act which removed a certain existing discrimination between EuropeanBritish subjects and Indians in criminal trials. It may be said in conclusion that the Actsthat were modified and not repealed, continued on the Statute book as safeguardsagainst unrest in the country due to non co-operation and its last phase of civil disobe-dience.3

All labor Legislation, according to the agreements arrived at the international conferenceson this important subject, found its place on the Statute Book during the first three yearsof the new reforms. The Indian Factories Act was amended to limit the hours of work ina 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; anhour's rest for six hours work was imposed; one day's rest in a week was made compulsory




63

by law; the term ‘factory’ was interpreted “to mean an institution employing twenty per-sons 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 healthychange 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 adequatecompensation. A third measure was the Indian Mines Act. The Act provided for the in-spection of mines, the constitution of a Mining Board with representation for labour. TheBoard was empowered to scrutinize rules and regulations and to act as an advisory bodyto the Chief Inspector of Mines and to local government. The Indian Emigration Act safe-guarded the rights of emigrating labour, especially of the unskilled kind, by making em-igration unlawful except to such countries and under such conditions as may be notifiedby 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 cham-pioning the rights of labour and his ventilating the grievances of labour in the Legislativeassembly. Though many of the resolutions he moved did not find their place on the statutebook as he would have liked, still the bills introduced by Government clearly show theinfluence 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 Assemblyexercised its power with admirable freedom and decision. In regard to finance the fol-lowing 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 ex-empted from its share of contribution for three years as the result of the resolution movedto that effect in the Legislative Assembly on 30th September 1921. Another resolutionmoved by Dr. Gour in the Assembly in the following year February 3, 1922, recommendingto Government the appointment of a Retrenchment Committee of officials and non-of-ficials to go into the cost of the Central Government, was passed in the House and ac-cepted by Government. Permission to Bombay Government to raise a loan for Sukkurbarrage was "granted according to a resolution moved on the subject by a member fromSindh. Madras, U.P. and the Punjab together would have secured an exemption fromprovincial grants to the tune of two crores if the resolution to that effect moved by Jam-nadas 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 1921–22 to 1923–24, we find hownon-official members — and a large number of them were liberals – had succeeded inshaping the policy of the Government in regard to finance and taxation, the like of whichwas not found under the Minto-Morley Reforms. First, seven cuts were effected, thebiggest 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 amendmentsproposed to the taxation proposals of Government were several in numbers. The chief



64

one of them related to the retention of the price of the postcard to its old level. The lossto Government in the estimated revenue was Rs. 75 lakhs. The action of the Assembly inits disposal of the budget may be summarized thus: it effected a reduction by Rs. 1.29crores on expenditure side, and of Rs. 0.85 crore in taxation.

A ruling given by the Chair about these amendments, established a principle which de-serves notice here.

The framers of the Act have given therein statutory expressionto the English constitutional rule that demands for supply must come from the Crown, in other words, the Legislatures can re-duce 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 Crownproposes taxation, the Council can reduce the demand for tax-ation, 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 bythe Maharajah of Cossimbazar for such increase in the budget of 1922–23.

The non-official members effected the following reduction in Government proposals fortaxation. A reduction was made of the total amount of Rs. 9.56 crores with the resultthat the Government had to face an uncovered deficit of Rs. 9.16 crores apart from anyadditional liability in Waziristan. And yet in introducing the Finance Bill in the Councilof State the member in charge declared that the Governor-General had decided not toexercise his powers of certification. In the debate on Salt Duty in 1922–23, the memberin charge explained the position thus: “The position of the Government is, we deliberatelysought the verdict of the Indian Legislature on this proposal, and we have received theverdict. However much we may deplore it, however much we may fear the consequencesof that verdict, yet Government has decided to accept it.”

In the budget for 1923–24, the last budget during the term of three years that the Leg-islative Assembly sat as the result of the elections held in November 1919, the chief fea-

ture was the Inchcage Committee's Report. In non-military matters the Committee hadrecommended reductions of Rs. 8.50 crores on the budget of 1922–23 of Rs. 103.90




65

crores. There was an initial cut of Rs. 2.60 crores in the civil estimates for 1923–24 whichamounted 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 militaryexpenditure 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, bythe 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, andRs. 3 lakhs on miscellaneous items. Of these Rs. 114 lakhs under railways for the transferof 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 Gov-ernment supported an amendment to raise it from Rs. 1–4 to Rs. 2, but it was defeatedby 55 to 48. On account of the decision given by the Chair that non-official membershad not the power to move amendments which would have the effect of enhancing tax-ation, a numbers had not the power to move amendments which would have the effectof 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 theSalt duty doubled, and passed in that Chamber by 28 to 10. It was reintroduced in theLegislative 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 fullfiscal autonomy to India was moved in the council of State by Lalubhai Samaldas. Gov-ernment 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 tax-ation.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 ArmyCommittee appointed by the House we have already referred. Here we give the followingextract from an authorized summary of that work, to show what remarkable contributionwas 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 res-

olutions 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 de-



66

fend India against foreign aggression. India's military obligationwas to be no more than that of the Dominions. The assumptionof 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 re-sources 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 pro-duction and provision were to be placed in the hands of a sur-veyor-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 onthe nomination of the Secretary of State in consultation withthe Government of India. The Commander-in-Chief’s right of correspondence with the chief of the Imperial General Staff was to be restricted, so that the Government of India was not com-mitted 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 Auxil-

iary 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 es-tablished at Dehra Dun. A royal Military College at Dehra Dun,on lines similar to Sandhurst was sanctioned, but was not thenestablished owing to financial stringency. The creation of ter-ritorial and Auxiliary Forces was recommended and action takenthereon. Several measures such as India’s 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 reso-lution for the Indianization of the higher ranks of the Army, anannouncement 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 theHouse adopted fifteen and negatived one. Additionally the government was all along




67

sympathetic to them, either taking action themselves or forwarding them for consider-ation to the Secretary whole or of diarchy included in it, that they had been “a pitfall tothe feet or a fetter to the limbs” of those who had come forth to work them. The attentionof 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 theLee Report. On September 11, 1924 Sir Sivaswami Iyer said that he was not for the whole-sale 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 thatthey approached their work in fairness and with a desire to solve it. He however felt thatthis was an intimate connection between the question of the organization of the servicesand constitutional reforms. But he was glad to hear from the Government that they con-sidered that the Report would in no way prejudice the consideration of the constitutionalissues. As for the organization of the services, he believed that the Forest and the Irriga-tion Services could be safely transferred and that there was no insuperable difficulty intransferring 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 believedthat 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 thecountry 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 bestopped because it would take ten to twelve years even with the existing element to at-tain equality in the cadre. He said that constitutional changes were impending and whocould 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 withthis cloud of uncertainty hanging over them and then promising them compensation forthis uncertainty by way of a right of retirement on proportionate pensions? Was it fairto India to recruit more Europeans when they were already in such a large number? Hebelieved that the country would invite them when it needed thorn and he hoped thatthey would come to India as hitherto when needed. It was contended that the stoppagewould 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 retireand that the senior officers would be Indians. He hoped that when Indians had served solong under British seniors the Britisher would not object to serve under an Indian.




71

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 cit-izenship with European settlers; and this Council records its in-

dignant 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 In-dian residents the necessary protection; and this Council records its emphatic conviction that no restrictions on new immigrationfrom 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 aCrown Colony like Kenya rested on grounds of equality and this equality Indians in Kenyaclaimed only by stages. In the first place they did not ask for universal suffrage, nor thatthe Legislative Council of Kenya should be composed of Indians according to their nu-merical 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 agood deal of agitation by European settlers who had imbibed the spirit that prevailed inSouth 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 caseequality was granted, they were riot merely bluffing but were earnest. Our people (Indi-ans) whether in India or abroad have shown such humility and modesty, such respect forlaw and order, such patience even under the greatest provocation that what an Americanlady told me recently is perfectly true, namely, that we 'Indians are the only Christianson the face of the earth.' After a good deal of angry talk which the Government Membertried 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 LegislativeCouncils during 1920–23. In the U. P. Legislative Council on January 24, 1920, c.y. Chin-tamani moved that the development of industries should be a provincial subject with fullliberty of action to the Local Government and Government of India officers should standin the relation of advisers to the Local Government. Chatterjee, the Chief Secretary saidthe question was under discussion between the Government of India and the Local Gov-

ernment and he was not in a position to express any opinion. Chintamani also movedthat the Government of India should allow the Local Government to draw upon its ac-



72

cumulated balance to the needed extent for expenditure non-recurring or recurring incoming financial year. The Financial Secretary Sim opposed and said: as regards the firstpart, Government had no objection to make provision for non-recurring expenditure inthe 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 re-quiring Deputy Collectors to call on Superintendents of Police. The resolution after dis-cussion was withdrawn. Shahid Hosain moved a resolution of congratulation to SatyendraPrasano Sinha on his elevation to the peerage ”as Bason Sinha of Raipur” becoming thefirst 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 PanditGokaran, Math Misra, C. Y. Chintamani, Crawshaw, the Maharaj-Kumar of Benares, the

Maharaja of Balrampur and Sheikh Shahid Hosain. All of them offered their congratula-tions to Sim, the Financial Secretary, on the excellence of the Budget, especially thatwhich with the expenditure on education. Sim thanked his non-official colleagues forthe able assistance he had received from the Finance Committee. The Government ac-cepted a resolution moved by Chintamani recommending the early consideration of thesubject of minute subdivision of agricultural holdings and the taking of such steps toremedy the evil as may be found practicable.9

On Feb. 27, 1923 there was again a volley of questions on the release of political pris-

oners. 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 re-consider the cases of all political prisoners not yet released. Non-official business wasthen taken up. A resolution of Kunzru that approval of the Council should be got in re-vision by Government of irrigation rates roused some interest, but the Finance Member'sprompt acceptance of the principle of consulting the Council before future enhancementwas taken up rendered voting unnecessary and the resolution was withdrawn. The nextresolution was that of Rai Sita Ram Saheb about, the reconstitution of the AllahabadUniversity which came in for vehement speeches on both sides and even among the Lib-eral members there was divergence of opinion. Chintamani was uncompromising andpresented a closely argued case against the resolution which was however carried by 31against 24.

The motion was:

That this Council recommends to the Government that the ex-ternal 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




73

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 voteas the resolution of the council was only a recommendation. The council could howevermove 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 Coun-cil, to provide for certain matters in connection with the Budget Estimate of the Corpo-ration of Calcutta for the year 1924–25, 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 bemade in connection with the raising of loans during that year, for the fixing of the per-centage of the consolidated rate in respect of the added areas during the four succeedingyears, and for the amendment of Section 20 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923, in re-spect of the qualification of electors. The bill was opposed by Dr. Pramatha Nath Banerjeewho criticized the principle and object of the Bill which was, however, introduced andreferred 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 Improve-ment (Amendment) Bill be referred to a Select Committee with instructions to submittheir report in time for its consideration by the Council at the next August session. Themotion was carried. Two other government bills were introduced by the MaharajadhirajaBahadur of Burdwan viz.; the St. Thomas School Bill and the Bengal Tenancy (UthandiAmendment) 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 party’s ac-tivities in the provincial Councils was also included. It said:

The separation of judicial and executive functions; extended ed-ucational 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 Za-mindars [peasants] and Ryots may suffer no hardship or injus-tice; 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 hu-mane jail administration including the special treatment of po-litical prisoners; temperance reform; a more economical



74

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 in-

cluding the encouragement of indigenous system of medicine; measures of social legislation; and generally a vigilant criticismof administrative acts, methods and omissions, so as to mini-mize abuses of authority and make the administration performthe 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 un-fortunate circumstance that Ministers were called to administer their departments when financial difficulties became very se-rious, and, therefore, naturally the first reforms to be effected were those which did not entail much outlay of money. For in-stance, 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 in-creases 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 Com-pulsory Education Act which replaces the optional compulsionof the Act of 1918 by absolute compulsion, and seeks to univer-salize primary education in the whole of Presidency within tenyears. 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



76

Chapter Five

New Political

Developments,1930–37




77

Towards the end of the third decade, the appointment of the all-white Simon Commissionfuelled the fires of political agitations. The inept handling of the situation by Whitehallprecipitated 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 ex-tremist elements on the one hand and Government’s show of repression on the otherhand.

The Disobedience Movement, 1930–32

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 dis-astrous 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 fol-lowing the discredited maxim of ‘victory first and conciliationnext’.

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 irre-pressible and wide-spread self-consciousness, which has un-doubtedly 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



78

contrary, they are making the task of the supporters of the con-ference more and more difficult and hardly seem to realize that they are making their own impossible. In England the positionseems to be scarcely seen in its proper perspective. Shortly after

the announcement made by Lord Irwin the speeches in Parlia-ment and particularly those in the House of Lords did incalcu-lable mischief in India as I can assert from personal knowledge.They then followed the most wicked campaign in the Rother-mere 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 mental-

ity, 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 Par-liament 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 economicloss to the country caused by the political situation, and suggested a way out for theconsideration, both of the leaders of the Civil Disobedience Movement and the Govern-ment. In explaining the position of those who had consistently made efforts for co-op-eration 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 our-selves 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 na-tional 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




79

and social unrest fraught with serious and dangerous conse-quences — no one can deny that the evidence to-day for the de-termination 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 evenbehind 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 Con-ference will be proposals before Parliament for Dominion Self-government 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 SimomCommission 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 con-tinues.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 de-manded that the Government must recognize the forceful national urge for freedom of which Civil Disobedience was only a symptom. The Government must show itself eagerto discover some acceptable formula to solve the issue. The Liberals’ appeals did not bringany fruit and congress did not attend the first session.



80

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 RoundTable Conference, we find the following liberals among the members of the British Indiandelegation to that Conference. They were Sir C. P. Ramaswami Iyer, J. N. Basu, C. Y. Chin-tamani, Sir Cowasji Jehangir, N.M. Joshi, Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, Sastri, Sir Chimanlal Se-talwad, Sir Phiroz Sethna and M.R. Jayakar. M.R. Jayakar was not a liberal by label. Stillhis association with Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru and his membership of the Responsive Co-

operation Party, as Sir Sivaswami Iyer once described, made him a liberal for all practicalpurposes.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 theLiberal Conference held in Bombay in July 1931, “this first decision affected and influ-enced all subsequent proceedings”, and not to India's advantage. The Liberals were notslow 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 Chi-manalal 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 Re-sponsible Central Government for British India. In my humble opinion there is cause for regret that the advocates of this opin-ion failed and the Business Committee's decision prevailed. 6

They also spoke about communal harmony with quite clarity. Unity between Hindus andMuslims was key for constitutional progress. But unfortunately it was not heard withthe success they deserved and the best interests of India required. Sir Chimanlal Setalvadobserved that the greatest difficulty was presented by Bengal and the Punjab. He sug-gested:




81

No liberal was a good liberal who had a communal mind. Of ne-cessity 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 Indiancase 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 successof the conference.

Was it a success? In Chintamani’s 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 ple-

nary session had but one resolution laid before it, and it defi-nitely affirmed only this, that the work on which it had beenengaged should be continued without interruption. It acknowl-edged the value of the reports of the sub-committees, but recorded no decision on the merits of a single subject of whichthese reports treated. But the Conference was not a failure ei-ther. Its deliberations in sub-committees and committee and inplenary 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 disap-pointments 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 India’s stand-




83

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 Statusand for responsible government at the centre which it implied. Both welcomed an All-India Federation, a fact which must be particularly noted in the light of subsequent de-

velopments.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 Europeanfriends 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 sin-cerely 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 PrimeMinister, 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



84

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 ca-pable.

He concluded that the declaration of India as a Dominion will serve a double purpose; itwill satisfy the natural desire, nay, the intense craving of Indians to be reckoned as equalpartners in the British Commonwealth of Nations. It will be a sure earnest of the fulfill-ment of the promise that England desired India to be, in fullness of time, a full-pledgeddominion; he was not without hope that the Indians and English will then labour whole-heartedly together for the happiness and prosperity of India. The happiness and prosperityof 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, increas-ing 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 India’sfuture constitutional set-up, the executive authority of Government should be responsibleto the legislature both at the center and the provinces. This was conditional on the ac-ceptance of the principle of federation between British India and Indian India. In his ad-dress on 19 January 1931, at the conclusion of the session, the British Prime Ministerdeclared:

The view of HMG is that responsibility for the government of India should be placed uponlegislatures, 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 pro-tect their political liberties and rights.15



86

The Communal Award

On August 16, 1932, Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald announced in the British Par-liament decision with regard to what he called ‘representation of the British Indian Com-

munities in the provincial Legislatures’ envisaged in the proposed scheme of constitutional reform in India which was to emerge, later as the Government of IndiaAct, 1935. The announcement came to be popularly known as ‘Communal Award.’ It pro-vided, interalia for separate electorates for Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Anglo-Indians, andEuropeans. Voters not belonging to any of these communities would vote a general con-stituency. The depressed classes were assured separate special constituencies with theright to vote separately in the remaining general constituencies also. Special constituen-cies with separate communal electorates were to be constituted for women in all

provinces except the NWFP. The announcement was disappointing for the Liberals. Theyseverely criticized it in their 1932 and 1933 annual conferences.

The Liberal Conference held at Kolkata was presided over by Dewan Bahadur Ramachan-dra Rao. It had been specially convened to voice the protest of the Liberal Party againstthe conclusions embodied in the White Paper or Communal Award issued to Parliamentby the Cabinet in England in fulfillment of the announcement of 1929, and as the resultof the deliberations in the Indian Round Table Conference, The announcement was farfrom being a whole hearted attempt to meet the Indian demand for responsible govern-

ment and Dominion Status. As the president of the Liberal Conference in 1933 showedin his address, there was no mention in it of the word ‘Dominion Status’; there was noresponsibility in the Centre; there was no transfer of real control over finance to theMinister; there was no clear indication of federal policy and when it would be a fact atthe latest. The Viceroy was to be set up under it as Agent of the Crown to deal with theIndian 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




87

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 admin-

ister 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, aMuslim delegate of the Liberal Conference, disapproved it in plain words speaker gave ashis reason of non-agreement between the Hindus and the Muslims at the RTC “the carethat Government had taken to choose only such Muslim nominees as had subscribed be-fore 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 Govern-ment that the Muslims were entitled to get 46 per cent in Bengal and 49 per cent in thePunjab with separate electorate to spoil it. So the agreement that they had almost arrivedat with the Hindus had broken down, not on its own merits or demerits but because theGovernment had maneuvered that it should not come about. The Government had givento the Muslims, by one stroke of the pen, and that before the Communal Award, whateven 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 themonly on the basis of the Lucknow Pact, and if they gave up separate electorates theywould get representation only on the basis of population. Sapru and other Indian Liberalleaders were willing to concede to the 51 per cent of the seats in Bengal and the Punjabwith Joint Electorates and they had agreed. But the agreement had broken down, as wasshown above, because of the intervention of the Government itself. Why then blame theIndian 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 raisedthe following questions:

The communal riots, be it noted, have been the spe¬cial features of India since the inauguration of the Reforms, inspite of sepa-rate 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




89

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 de-bate ensued evoking most eloquent speeches from two different angles of vision, old vet-eran Liberal leaders like Sir Chimanlal Setalvad and Sir Cowasjee Jehangir (junior) rangedon one side and young Liberals strong numerically, opposing them vehemently on thequestion of joint versus separate electorates.

Sir Chimanlal was the protagonist of a compromise resolution which though it favouredthe 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, saidhe fully realized both from the democratic, point of view as well as in the Muslims interests that continu-ation of separate electorates was abominable but hesaid he could not overlook the fact that a large sectionof Muslims, whether, right or wrong, still clung to sep-arate electorates. If they were not placated, they would

be a handle to the reactionaries at the London Confer-ence to retard progress. He added that even if Indiandelegates to the Round Table Conference succeeded incompelling the Government to concede them all theirdemands, the new constitution would not be worthtwenty four hours' purchase if a large section of Mus-lims remained discontented. He therefore urged thatthey should accept his resolution, so that they couldwin over Muslims and present a united front at theConference.

Rao Bahadur Kale moved an amendment omitting the continuation of separate elec-torates 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 Chan-davarkar, 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 sakeof compromise on such an important question.

Sir Chimanlal in the course of an eloquent plea for the ac-ceptance of the resolution,said he fully realized bothfrom the democratic, point of

view as well as in the Muslimsinterests that continuation of separate electorates wasabominable but he said hecould not overlook the factthat a large section of Mus-lims, whether, right or wrong,still clung to separate elec-

torates.




91

The eighteenth session of the NLF met at Lucknow, on December 29, 1936. In his presi-dential address Sir Cowasji Jahangir shed light on the recent political developments androle 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 ac-knowledge. The Congress adopted direct methods of actionwhich they have now suspended, while we continue to believe in constitutional methods of agitation, as expounded and fol-lowed by the founders of the Congress.

But now unfortunately, the differences between us are widen-ing. We have, from the very beginning, advocated a policy of getting into the legislatures and taking office. We consider boy-cott of the legislatures most detrimental to the interests of our country. The Congress started, boycotting the Legislatures in1919, and have since changed their minds on more than one oc-casion. To-day, most unfortunately for the country, they have not decided upon any settled policy. They have decided uponcapturing the Legislatures at the nest elections, but they hesi-

tate to commit themselves on the principle of taking office.There can be no doubt about the serious differences of opinionthat 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 advan-tage of a first election on a much wider franchise, the most im-portant political party in the country, confident of its popularity,treats the electorate with contempt. Unable to come to a deci-sion 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 of-fice 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 formof democracy! In short, they state: ‘Vote for us, as the most im-



94

References

1 The Indian Annual Register, 1930, Vol. II, p. 120.2 Ibid., pp. 120–21.3 Ibid., pp. 121.4 Ibid., p. 122.5 V.N. Naik, Indian Liberalism: A Study, Bombay, 1945, p. 210.6 Ibid., p. 211.7 Ibid., p. 212.8 Ibid., p. 213.9 Parshotam Mehra. A Dictionary of Modern Indian History, Oxford University Press,

1985, p. 617.10

V. N. Naik, op. cit., pp. 214–15.11 Ibid., p. 216.12 Ibid., p. 219.13 Ibid., pp. 220–221.14 Ibid., pp. 221.15 Parshotam Mehra, op. cit., p. 617.16 Ibid.17 Ibid., p. 147.18 V. N. Naik, op. cit., pp. 239–40.19 Ibid. p. 245.20 Ibid., pp. 252–53.21 The Indian Annual Register, 1931, Vol. I, pp. 319–20.22 V. N. Naik, opp. Cit., pp. 261–62.23 The Indian Annual Register, 1936, Vol. II, p. 243.24 Ibid., pp. 246–47.25 Parshotam Mehra, op. cit., p. 403.

2011 fnf - liberal politics in indo-pak sub continent by ahmed salim

Documents