::Subhas Chandra Bose :: The Indian Struggle

	MISSION NETAJI

	PRESS RELEASE

	EDITORIAL

	OPINION

	MN IN NEWS

	REGISTER

Our aim is to create an online archive of all information related to Subhas Chandra Bose. If you have any unpublished document, photograph or audio-visual material, or even out of print books/magazines,we request you to share it with us, so that we can share it with everyone through this site.

MN believes that all of Netaji's works are national property, and information on him should be easily available at the lowest cost, if not for free. You are free to use any material from this site with proper acknowledgement. At the same time, MN respects the copyright of authors of original works and would not intentionally violate their copyright or any part of the Indian Copyright Act. If you think you have noticed any infringement, please do let us know.

CHAPTER FOURTEEN

DEFEAT AND SURRENDER (1933-34)

With the dawn of the new year, Congressmen who were more politically-minded began to realise that the civil-disobedience movement was in danger of fizzling out. The Independence Day celebrations on January 26th, 1933, were therefore organised with much enthusiasm with a view to rousing the people again. The response everywhere was encouraging. In Calcutta alone, the police had to make 300 arrests besides using force to break up the demonstrations. In Badanganj in Arambagh Sub-division of Hooghly district in Bengal, the police resorted to shooting for dispersing the Congress procession. Following the Independence Day celebrations, Mrs. Gandhi was arrested at Borsad in Gujerat and sentenced to six months' imprisonment, on February 7th, for leading a procession of women. As soon as the White Paper embodying the Government proposals regarding the Indian Constitutional Reforms was announced on March 17th, the annual session of the Indian National Congress was convened at Calcutta with Pandit Madan Mohon Malaviya as the President-elect. The Congress session was at once banned like the Delhi session of 1932 — nevertheless, delegates and leaders assembled in Calcutta from all parts of the country on April 11th, for the occasion. The important leaders who could be easily spotted out were all arrested, including Pandit Malaviya, Mrs. Motilal Nehru, Mr. M. S. Aney (Central Provinces), Dr. Alam (Punjab), Dr. Syed Mahmud (Bihar), all of them being members of the Congress Working Committee with the exception of Mrs. Nehru. Thereafter, Mrs. J. M. Sengupta proceeded to the appointed place at the head of 2,500 Congressmen for holding the meeting and under her presidentship the meeting was held. Resolutions were passed reaffirming (1) the goal of independence, (2) the efficacy of the method of civil disobedience for attaining the goal, and (3) the boycott of foreign cloth and of British goods of all kinds. The most important resolution was one emphatically condemning the White Paper proposals. Before the meeting ended, large contingents of police arrived on the scene, arrested Mrs. Sengupta and 250 others, including 40 ladies, and dispersed the meeting by force. The following extract from the speech of the President-elect, the venerable Pandit Malaviya, reflects the feeling of the country at the time:

"It is estimated that nearly 120,000 persons including several thousand women and quite a number of children have been arrested and imprisoned during the last fifteen months. It is an open secret that when the Government started repression, the official expectation was that they would crush the Congress in six weeks' time. Fifteen months have not enabled the Government to achieve that object. Twice fifteen months will not enable it to do so."

This was not the review made by a young hot-head but by one of the oldest and most moderate leaders of the Congress. Consequently, the response made by the country to the Congress appeal in 1932 and 1933, in spite of lack of preparation, in spite of the sudden arrest of the organisers and financiers of the Party early in January 1932, and in spite of the diversion caused by the Mahatma's East in September 1932 and the anti-untouchability campaign thereafter — can by no means be regarded as unsatisfactory. Nevertheless, the country was startled one fine morning in May to hear that the Mahatma had suspended the civil-disobedience campaign.

While in prison the Mahatma had decided to go on a three weeks' fast (1) as a penance, because his followers outside had not made sufficient progress with the anti-untouchability campaign. The object of the fast was to bring about a change of heart — not in the bureaucracy but in his countrymen — who were responsible for the sad plight of the untouchables. The Government had no objection to a fast of that kind and as a matter of fact, thanks to British news-agencies, the fast was given wide publicity in the European Press, (2) because it helped to advertise the internal differences of the Indian people. However, the Government considered it prudent to set him free. The day after his release he made the announcement referred to above. (3) At first the civil disobedience campaign was suspended for six weeks, but the suspension was subsequently extended for six weeks more, i.e., till the end of July. The sudden suspension of the campaign without rhyme or reason, would under ordinary circumstances have produced a widespread revolt in the Congress organisation, but since he was in the middle of a fast which could end fatally, all judgment was suspended for the time being. While suspending the civil-disobedience campaign, the Mahatma made an appeal to the Government of India to withdraw the Ordinances and release the civil-disobedience prisoners. But, unfortunately, a settled Government preserves a continuity of policy and cannot alter its policy overnight as an individual can. The Government's reply was therefore a refusal. While responsible Congressmen in India were unwilling or afraid to speak out against the Mahatma after his surrender of May 1933, a manifesto was issued by the late Mr. Vithalbhai J. Patel (4) and the writer from Vienna, condemning the Mahatma's decision. The manifesto stated that the decision virtually undid the work and the sacrifice of the last thirteen years. It signified a failure of the civil-disobedience campaign, as also of Mahatma Gandhi's leadership. It was, therefore, time to turn to a more radical policy and leadership. Owing to the preoccupation of the public over Mahatma Gandhi's health, the manifesto did not, however, produce the effect which it would otherwise have. Even friends thought that it was an outrageous act to criticise the Mahatma when his life was in jeopardy because of the fast.

In July, a Conference of important Congressmen, then out of prison, was held at Poona. It could be regarded as an unofficial meeting of the All-India Congress Committee. Two groups were represented at the Conference — one in favour of calling off the movement altogether and the other in favour of resuming it with full vigour. The former group had probably a majority and most of the members of this group were in favour of reviving the Swarajist policy of carrying the fight inside the Legislatures which had been abandoned at the Lahore Congress in December 1929. Nevertheless, at the end, the Conference decided to give in to the Mahatma. At his instance it was decided that the Mahatma should make a further attempt to see the Viceroy and come to an understanding with him. If this failed, the Congress should resume 'individual' civil disobedience, but that 'mass' civil disobedience should be given up altogether. The purpose of this was that the Congress should not organise any campaign on a mass scale but should leave it to individuals to break any laws that they felt called upon to on their personal responsibility. Soon after the Poona Conference the Mahatma approached the Viceroy for an interview, but all that he got was a humiliating rebuff. He and some of his closest followers, thereupon, proceeded to start civil disobedience individually and by August 1933 they found themselves in prison once again. This time even the Mahatma's incarceration did not create a great stir. 'Individual' civil disobedience was offered all over India by the loyal adherents of the Mahatma and a few hundred persons were thereby thrust back into prison. But it was a foregone conclusion that where mass civil disobedience had failed, individual civil disobedience would not produce any appreciable effect. On reaching prison, the Mahatma found that the facilities afforded him since September 1932, during his last incarceration, for conducting the anti-untouchability campaign from behind the prison walls — would not be given him this time. (5) He thereupon gave notice to the Government that if he did not get those facilities, he would feel called upon to resort to fasting. It is difficult for a layman to reconcile this attitude of the Mahatma with his lifelong principle that a Satyagrahi prisoner should voluntarily submit to jail discipline. However, the Government once again found themselves in an uncomfortable position. By that time they had realised that individual civil disobedience was going to fizzle out and consequently there would be no risk in setting the Mahatma at liberty. So once more the Mahatma found himself a free man. On coming out from prison, the Mahatma announced that since he had been sentenced to one year's imprisonment in August 1933, and since he had been released by the Government before the expiry of his term, he would consider himself as a prisoner till August 1934, and would not offer civil disobedience during that period.

Before offering civil disobedience, the Mahatma had issued a statement in July to the effect that there was too much secrecy in the affairs of the Congress and in the management of the civil-disobedience campaign, and this secrecy was largely responsible for the failure that had overtaken the Congress. In the Mahatma's opinion, the Congress organisations had become corrupt bodies. Soon after this, at the instance of the Mahatma, the Acting-President of the Congress, Mr. M. S. Aney, issued orders, dissolving all Congress organisations in the country. Confusion worse confounded! What were the people to do? Normal human reason could not follow the logic of the Mahatma and those who could be expected to speak out the plain truth, were not available. At this juncture, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru was released from prison after serving his term of two years' imprisonment. All eyes turned on him. He was the one man who could influence the Mahatma — who could drag the Congress out of the mess into which it had fallen. Pandit Nehru had long talks with the Mahatma and following that, an interchange of letters. The correspondence was duly published, but on perusal it was found to be more doctrinaire than practical. What the public wanted to know urgently was not whether and wherein Pandit J. L. Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi agreed or disagreed fundamentally — but how the Congress could be restored to life and vigour. During his four months of comparative freedom, Pandit Nehru wrote and spoke freely and gave expression to his socialistic — or communistic — ideas, but the Congress did not show any signs of resuscitation. In an exceedingly interesting and able article under the caption 'Whither India?' he pleaded for social and economic equality, for the ending of all special class-privileges and vested interests, but that did not help the Congress one jot or tittle. With a popularity only second to that of the Mahatma, with unbounded prestige among his countrymen, with a clear brain possessing the finest ideas, with an up-to-date knowledge of modern world movements — that he should be found wanting in the essential quality of leadership, namely the capacity to make decisions and face unpopularity if need be, (6) was a great disappointment. But there was no help for it. What had been expected of him had to be accomplished by lesser men.

After Pandit Nehru, Mr. K. F. Nariman, the Bombay leader, was released and without delay he began to give public expression to his views (7) on the decisions of the Poona Conference in July 1933. Referring to the Mahatma's decision to start civil disobedience in August 1933, because the Viceroy did not grant him an unconditional interview, he said, "Interview or Death" is the national slogan for the present … The renewed fight in August last is not for Swaraj, nor even for political constitutional advance, but for the assertion of a supposed "national right" of an unconditional interview. If that right was conceded, even the modified individual fight would be called off and peace between Government and the people restored, though the Congress political goal is not satisfied.' Speaking of the Mahatma's condemnation of secrecy, he remarked: 'By what rule of modern warfare or sport are we bound to disclose our plans and schemes beforehand to the enemy? But I forget, it is a religious fight and not political; so neither the rules of sport nor the canons of modern warfare apply! Secrecy of one's plans and future actions is the very essence of all modern national movements and struggles.' On the decision to call off 'mass', but retain 'individual' civil disobedience, he stated: 'Does it need an Indian National Congress to tell an individual to break laws on his own responsibility and take the consequences? … That eternal liberty to act as he likes and take the consequences is given to man since the days of Adam.' Then he dealt with the Mahatma's assertion that 'continuance by even one person (of civil disobedience) ensures revival into such an irrepressible mass movement as no amount of repression will suppress.' And Mr. Nariman asserted on the contrary: 'If this "one man" theory were true, India as well as Ireland should have been transformed after this most inspiring, unforgettable, blood-curdling, patriotic, heroic example (referring to the self-immolation of Terence MacSwiney and Jatin Das) ... The whole misconception is again based on the same unsustainable theory and slippery foundation — the "change of heart" theory exploded above, that the Britisher would pine at the suffering and yield.' Criticising the decision to dissolve or suspend all Congress organisations, he maintained: 'None can dissolve the National Assemblies that have come into existence by popular vote.' Then finally he asked: 'How can we induce Gandhiji to rid himself of this almost incorrigible habit … this perpetual blundering, blending of religion and politics?' Mr. Nariman opined that the remedy lay in securing for Gandhiji, in place of the late Pandit Motilal Nehru, another political taskmaster — 'a plain-speaking outspoken giant and not lip-sealed mummies who always shake their heads like spring dolls, perpendicularly or horizontally, according as the Mahatma pulls the strings straight or sideways.'

It was refreshing and heartening to find in the Working Committee at least one man who could think boldly and have the courage to call a spade a spade. But though Mr. Nariman was brilliant in his analysis, he was weak in action. His suggestion for summoning the All-India Congress Committee to end the existing stalemate was not taken seriously by the General Secretary, Pandit Nehru, and when the latter was clapped in prison in January 1934, for making an alleged seditious speech in Calcutta, no silver lining was visible in the dark horizon. It was left to Dr. M. A. Ansari, the Moslem leader of Delhi, to tackle the situation. During his visit to England in 1933 he had been pained and humiliated by the arrogance of the Conservative politicians and their assertion that the Congress was down and out. That feeling was heightened on finding on his return to India that the Congress was in a state of suspended animation. After appealing to the Mahatma to bring the Congress back to life once again, he along with Dr. B. C. Roy of Calcutta, summoned a conference of Congressmen of their way of thinking at Delhi in March 1934. By that time, civil disobedience was as dead as a door-nail, but the Congress could not function because of the Ordinances and the Ordinances would not be withdrawn by the Government till civil disobedience was unconditionally withdrawn. The only way out of the mess was for the Congress leaders to eat the humble pie, call off the civil-disobedience campaign and thereby secure the withdrawal or suspension of the Ordinances. The Delhi Conference prepared the ground for that by resolving to revive the All-India Swaraj Party to contest the elections to the Legislatures. (8) The next month a larger Conference was summoned to pursue the same topic, and Ranchi (in Bihar) was chosen as the venue, because the Mahatma would be there at the time. The Conference confirmed the decision arrived at at Delhi to revive the All-India Swaraj Party and the prime-movers, Drs. Ansari and Roy, were able to secure the support of the Mahatma. The next month, in May, a meeting of the All-India Congress Committee was summoned at Patna after an interval of about three years. This meeting offered a surprise to the public in as much as Mahatma Gandhi himself sponsored the idea that Congressmen should enter the Legislatures. This decision had added importance in view of the fact that meanwhile the Government had decided to dissolve the Indian Legislative Assembly and hold a General Election in November. The All-India Congress Committee decided that instead of permitting the Swaraj Party to function, the Congress should itself undertake the responsibility and a Parliamentary Board was therefore set up for running the elections. The Committee further decided to call off the civil-disobedience campaign, the Mahatma, however, retaining the right to offer civil disobedience. (9) Once again the Government came to know in advance what the decision of the All-India Congress Committee would be and no obstacles were therefore placed in the way of the Committee meeting openly, though it was still an unlawful body. After the meeting, when the Government felt that the defeat and humiliation of the Congress was complete — they withdrew the ban on most of the Congress organisations in the country and allowed them to function.

The decision of the All-India Congress Committee to contest the coming elections did not pass unchallenged. There was a solid group opposed to it — but this time it was not the old 'No-Change' Party that was opposing, because the leader of that Party, the Mahatma, was himself the sponsor of the council-entry proposal — but the newly-formed Congress Socialist Party. While the All-India Congress Committee was deliberating, the oppositionists held an All-India Conference of their Party. This Party had strong support from the United Provinces and Bombay, besides a fair measure of support from all parts of India. From such information as is available, it appears that the Congress Socialist Party has offered a platform not only to those who are Socialists by conviction, but also to those who are dissatisfied with the Congress policy of council-entry. It is unfortunate that the opposition to council-entry came from the Socialist Party, because there is nothing anti-Socialist in fighting within the Legislatures, if such a policy is otherwise deemed expedient. But it may be that the Socialist Party, representing some of the radical forces in the Congress, instinctively felt called upon to oppose a party that had rallied all the moderate elements. And there is no doubt that those who have taken a leading part in the Swarajist revival of 1934, are of a different calibre from that militant group which formed the backbone of the Swaraj Party in 1923. It is interesting to note here that as in 1928, the erstwhile Swarajists and 'No.-changers' made common cause against the Independence-wallahs — so also in 1934, these two groups seem to have closed up their ranks against the common enemy. Though the Congress Socialist Party has, in some respects, been harking back to the ideas and shibboleths that were popular forty or fifty-years ago, it does stand for a radical tendency in the Nationalist movement and the formation of such a party is a very hopeful feature of the times. The latest reports go to show that the organisation of the party is making headway in most of the provinces, and in the recent elections to the Bombay Congress Committee, the Socialists claimed to have captured half the seats.

In spite of the menace of the Socialists, the official bloc in the Congress have not been a happy family. At the meetings of the Working Committee held at Bombay and Benares, after the Patna meeting in May, differences appeared over the attitude that should be adopted towards the so-called 'Communal Award' of the British Government. Pandit M. M. Malaviya and Mr. M. S. Aney held that the Communal Award, like the White Paper, should be strongly condemned. The rest of the Working Committee under the influence of the Moslem members, maintained that the Congress should 'neither accept nor reject' the Communal Award, though they admitted that the Award was thoroughly obnoxious. Why the Moslem leaders in the Congress have taken tip this attitude, it is difficult to say — especially when one remembers that after the Karachi Congress, it was they, who by their firm attitude, prevented the Mahatma from yielding to the demand of the communalist Moslems for separate electorate. Whatever the reason may be, the fact remains that today they are holding a pistol at the Working Committee — and because of their insistence, the Committee has been forced to take up this ridiculous attitude of neither accepting nor rejecting the Award. The argument ordinarily urged in favour of not rejecting the Award is a twofold one. Firstly, the Congress should represent all parties in the country, including the communalist Moslems, and secondly, that until the parties arrive at an agreed solution, the present solution should stand. Both the arguments are fallacious. The Congress does not represent all the parties in the land — for instance, it does not represent the loyalists, whether Hindus or Moslems. Secondly, it is the rejection of a bad solution that will force us to arrive at a good solution. Like the White Paper, the Communal Award should be straight away rejected — no matter whether an alternative solution is immediately available or not. Moreover, this 'all parties' idea is a false and dangerous idea. The party that is fighting for freedom is the party that is solely responsible for producing the Constitution. And so far as the communal question is concerned, the Congress solution is already there. Be that as it may, in the present circumstances one is reluctantly driven to the conclusion that the Nationalist Moslems have been gradually — may be unconsciously — coming into line with their communalist co-religionists.

All attempts at a compromise having failed, Pandit Malaviya and Mr. Aney resigned from the Congress Working Committee and the Parliamentary Board and proceeded to form a separate party — under the name of the Congress Nationalist Party — with the object of fighting the Communal Award and the White Paper. This Party held an All-India Conference in Calcutta on August 19th, under the Presidentship of Pandit M. M. Malaviya — the Chairman of the Reception Committee being Sir P. C. Roy, the well-known chemist and philanthropist. The Conference was a successful one and it was evident that public opinion in Bengal — especially of the Hindu community — was behind the Party. Bengal Hindus have been suffering from a just grievance because the Communal Award has allotted them only 80 seats out of 250 in the new Legislature, while Moslems have been given 119 seats. (10) To add to this, the Poona Agreement concluded at the time of the Mahatma's fast, has allotted 30 seats to the depressed classes, out of these 80 seats, as against the provision for 10 in the Communal Award, though the depressed classes issue hardly exists in Bengal. Bengal Hindus (11) have therefore been greatly offended by the decision of the Working Committee not to reject the Communal Award. It is difficult to say at this stage what will be the result of the elections. It may, however, be a safe forecast to say that the majority of the elected seats for Hindus will be captured by the official Congress Party. But though the Congress Nationalist Party will have a smaller number of seats, they will have the solid support of the Hindu community in their propaganda as also in their work in the Assembly. In non-communal matters, the two Congress groups will be found in the same lobby. So far as the Nationalist Moslems are concerned, they hope to capture a fair percentage of the seats.

Notes

After the famous September fast, the Mahatma had fasted once again in December, but that fast had been a short one. The present fast was described by him as a 'heart-prayer for purification of myself and my associates for greater vigilance and watchfulness in connection with the Harijan cause.'
The writer was in Vienna when the news regarding the fast appeared in the Continental Press. After 14 months' incarceration when his health was in an alarming condition, Lt.-Col. Buckley, I.M.S., of Lucknow who had been treating him, recommended his transfer to Europe for treatment. Thereupon the Government of India permitted him to leave for Europe on his own financial responsibility. He was released at Bombay when he sailed and arrived in Vienna in March 1933.
It is a matter for conjecture if the Government knew that the Mahatma would suspend the civil-disobedience campaign if he were set free. On May 8th, 1933, when the Mahatma started his fast the Government issued a communique stating that in view of the nature of the object of the fast and the attitude of mind which it disclosed, the Government had decided that the Mahatma should be set at liberty. After his release, the suspension of civil disobedience was ordered by the Acting President of the Congress, Mr. Aney, on the 'recommendation' of the Mahatma.
The late Mr. V. J. Patel had returned from the United States after three months' strenuous propaganda on behalf of India, which ultimately cost him his life. He, as well as the writer, were undergoing treatment in Vienna at the time.
The reason given by the Government was that on the former occasion he had been incarcerated without trial, whereas on this occasion he was convicted after trial.
This defect in Pandit J. L. Nehru was manifest on other occasions as well, when the Congress passing through a crisis — e.g., in the crisis of 1923-24 and subsequently in the crisis of 1928-29.
For a full statement of his views one should refer to his book, Whither Congress? Bombay Book Depot, Girgaon, Bombay, November 1933. Mr. Nariman has been a member of the Congress Working Committee since January 1930.
Before the Delhi Conference, another Conference, called the Democratic Swarajya Party Conference, had been held at Bombay at the instance of Mr. N. C. Kelkar of Poona and Mr. Jamnadas Mehta of Bombay for popularising the idea of fighting the next elections. This Conference had large support from all parts of Maharashtra.
As early as April 7th, 1934, the Mahatma issued a statement advising all Congressmen to suspend civil disobedience as a means of obtaining Swaraj and asserting that in the existing circumstances, only one person, and that himself, should bear the responsibility of civil disobedience. This curious reservation was accepted by the All-India Congress Committee in May and the Bombay Congress in October 1934.
Under the existing Constitution, Hindus have 60 per cent of the elected seats in the Bengal Legislative Council. This is in accordance with the Lucknow Pact of 1916 — the agreement arrived at between the Indian National Congress and the All-India Moslem League.
This is also the case with the Punjab Hindus. Many of the Hindu constituencies in Bengal and Punjab have, therefore, returned members of the Congress Nationalist Party to the Assembly.