INDIAN NATIONALISM--ITS ORIGIN AND GROWTH
Before discussing at length the problems of Indian nationalism, let us
consider whether India is really a nation, or is merely a composite of
peoples inhabiting the same country. India’s fundamental unity as a
nation has been denied often by prominent scholars, while its historic
and cultured oneness has really never been acknowledged by the English
rulers of the country. Sir John Strachey remarks:
“This is the first and most essential thing to learn about
India--that there is not and never was an India, or even any
country of India, possessing, according to European ideas, any
sort of unity, physical, political, social, or religious; no
Indian nation, no ‘people of India’ of which we hear so much.”
We believe that Sir John Strachey is profoundly wrong in his assertion
that India is not a nation in the “physical, political, social, or
religious” sense. On the contrary, it can be proved easily that
geographically, historically, culturally, and spiritually India is
fundamentally one. Cut off from the north and the east by the snow-clad
Himalayas, and surrounded on the south and the west by the mighty
Indian Ocean, India is geographically, one country. Every part of the
interior is freely accessible from all sides. No natural boundary lines
within the country divide it into different parts; nor do any high
mountains obstruct the free passage from one part of the country to
the other. In fact, India is a physical unit, much more distinct than
any other country in Europe or America.
When we study the history of India, from the ancient Vedic period to
modern times, we find again the whole of the Indian peninsula, from
Bengal to Gujrat, and from Ceylon to Kashmir, mentioned always as one
motherland. “The early Vedic literature contains hymns addressed to
the Motherland of India. The epic poems speak of the whole of BHARAT
as the home-land of Aryans.” We hear nowhere any account of separate
nationalities within the country. The literature of India is full of
thoughts about Indian nationality; but there is no mention of separate
Bengal, Madras, Gujrat, or Punjab nations, based upon geographic
divisions. Powerful emperors in ancient as well as modern times have
ruled over the entire peninsula in peace and security. “In fact, the
belief in the unity of India was so strong in ancient times that
no ruler considered his territories complete until he had acquired
control over the entire peninsula.” Asoka ruled over the whole of
India in perfect harmony. Akhbar’s power spread to the farthest ends
of the land. And when, later on, the different governors of the border
provinces rose in revolt and refused allegiance to the successors of
Akhbar, it was the great distance from the capital that suggested
revolt to the population of these distant provinces, and not a feeling
of separate nationality.
Culturally, again, India is one nation. In their daily habits, their
ethical standards, and their spiritual responses the Indians of
every religion and locality are fundamentally alike. “Their family
life is founded on the same bases; their modes of dress and cooking
are the same. Their very tastes are similar.” They respect the same
national heroes and worship the same ideals. They have the same hopes
and aspirations in this life and in the hereafter. As a result,
their mental and spiritual behavior is similar. In fact, they are
fundamentally one in mind and in spirit.
It is true that more than one dialect is spoken in the country. Until
1920 the business of the Indian National Congress itself was carried
on in the English language because no other language was common to
the whole of India. It was really tragic that a people who were
so profoundly proud of their national heritage and who aspired to
political freedom were obliged to use at the meetings of their national
assemblies an utterly foreign language. That the variety of languages
was in fact a very slight difficulty was demonstrated at the session
of the Indian National Congress in 1920. From the Congress platform at
Amritsar in 1919 Mahatma Gandhi had announced that at all subsequent
meetings the business of the Congress would be conducted in the Hindi
language, which is spoken by more than a third of the population of
the country. Teachers were sent immediately to different parts of the
country to instruct the people in the Hindi language and when the
Congress convened again in 1920 its business was carried on in Hindi.
Delegates from Bengal, Madras, and Bombay made their speeches in Hindi
as fluently as those from the United Provinces and the Punjab. Every
one felt satisfied at the change. A miracle had happened; _India had
acquired a common tongue in the course of a year_.
The population of India is composed of many different peoples, who
came to the country originally as invaders, and later settled there
and became a part thereof. Through the process of assimilation and
adaptation extending over generations, the original Afghan, Mongol, and
Persian conquerors of India have lost their peculiar characteristics,
and become one with the rest of the population in their language,
ideas, and loyalties. The position of these foreign types in India is
exactly analogous to peoples of different nationalities, who migrated
from Europe into America in the early times. The interval of a single
generation was usually sufficient to transfer the loyalties of European
immigrants from their native countries to the United States. The
difference between India and the United States in this respect is
merely that the Indian must go back many more generations to reach his
immigrant than must the American.
The chief barrier in the way of spiritual unity among the people
of India, is religion. Hinduism and Mohammedanism are the dominant
religions of the country. The main portion of the population is Hindu,
but seventy millions of Mohammedans are scattered over the whole
country in small groups. The Mohammedans came to India originally as
invaders and conquerors, and now occupy a position in the country
of mixed authority and subjection. Wherever they form the majority
group, they dominate the followers of other religions; while in
other places they are held down as minorities. Since the beginning
of their contact the Hindus and the Mohammedans of India have never
agreed. Intervals of peace and harmony between the two communities
have occurred occasionally during the reigns of benevolent emperors
like Akhbar and Shah Jahan; but their hearts were never joined in
true companionship even before the beginning of English influence.
The modern rulers of India have helped to strengthen the differences
between the Hindus and the Mohammedans in so far that the animosities
between the two religious groups were no less bitter in 1918 than they
were three hundred years ago. Since the days of Gandhi’s leadership,
however, a great deal has been accomplished in building up a feeling
of genuine comradeship and love between the Hindus and Mohammedans of
India. When the Moslems all over the world were in a state of deep
distress at the Khilafat issues after the Severes treaty, the Hindus
of India made common cause with the Moslems of the world. Khilafat was
included in the Congress program as one of India’s main issues. This
liberality helped to win the hearts of the Mohammedan population of
India toward their Hindu compatriots, and the Hindu Gandhi was idolized
by both religious groups, as leader and savior. It was an auspicious
beginning of friendship between these two isolated factions in India,
and ever since it has been enthusiastically followed up by the younger
generation of the country. It may be confidently expected that as the
youth of India acquire influence in the affairs of the country, the
friction between the Hindus and the Mohammedans will cease, and their
age-long battles based upon superstition and error will come to an end.
Worse still in their ethical and spiritual significance are the
differentiations between the caste groups among the Hindus. Numerous
social reform societies are working at the present time to remove the
barriers of caste within Hindu society; and until the work of building
up a human fellowship among the different caste and religious groups
of India, based upon the highest moral teachings of the Hindu sages,
is completed, the political as well as spiritual regeneration of the
country will remain an idle dream.
We have seen that in the cultural sense, on account of the sameness
of feelings and instincts, the Hindus, Mohammedans, Sikhs, Parsis,
Bengalis, Mahratas, and Madrasis are fundamentally alike. Yet the
bitterness between these warring elements of the country had grown
into such immense proportions at one time that a communal feeling of
neighborhood and human decency among them seemed inconceivable. Two
hundred years ago, when the English first began to acquire control
over the country, the people of India were divided into perfectly
hostile groups; and no power then existed which could bring together
these warring factions. Among the causes that have secretly conspired
to develop a spirit of unity among the different religious and social
groups of India, the foremost has been British imperialism in the
country. Britain gave to India, in the first place, a long reign of
peace. This enabled the people of different parts of the country to
have a more direct and steady intercourse than was possible in earlier
times. The English also gave to the higher classes of India a knowledge
of English history and classical literature, whose study breathed
into the minds of the educated Indians a love of liberty. Acquaintance
with the spirit of European nationalism created a desire for Indian
nationality. A national consciousness soon sprang into existence and
found expression through the medium of the Indian National Congress.
Greater than everything else, however, in its direct consequences of
uniting the people of India into one nation has been the universal
antagonism toward British rule. As the tyranny of foreign rule
gradually began to be felt, hatred against it increased. The different
factions in the country were forced to unite for the purpose of
driving out of the country the arrogant intruders. Whatever else may
be doubtful, one thing is certain about India: “The sentiment of
antagonism toward British rule and of resentment against its iniquitous
character is both universal and profound.”
The principal grievances against English rule are its alien character
and its exploitation of the country’s wealth. Mahatma Gandhi calls it
“Satanic,” because it is founded not upon the consent of the governed
but upon the military strength of the ruler. “It is based not on right
but on might. Its last appeal is not to reason or to the heart but to
the sword.” Gandhi writes:
“I came reluctantly to the conclusion that the British connection
had made India more helpless than she ever was before, politically
and economically.... The government established by law in British
India is carried on for this exploitation of the masses. No
sophistry, no jugglery in figures can explain away the evidence
the skeletons in many villages present to the naked eye. I have
no doubt whatsoever that both England and the town-dwellers of
India will have to answer, if there is a God above, for this crime
against humanity which is perhaps unequalled in history.”--Gandhi,
_Speeches_, pp. 753-4.
We said just now that one of the main grievances against English rule
in India is its alien character. It may be asked: “Why should the
alien origin of a rule itself be such a strong argument against it?”
“Is it not true that England has given to India peace and efficiency
in government? That constitutes the chief function of governments
everywhere, and the rule which has successfully achieved this purpose
justifies its existence. If it is true elsewhere, it should be true in
India also.” Our questioner may be both profoundly right and profoundly
wrong. However, the acceptance or rejection of a foreign lordship by
the heart is a matter of such subtle sentiment, that the only way to
explain its meaning to the reader is to create a situation where he
shall be called upon to judge in the matter.
Let us suppose that by some trick of fortune Japan obtained mastery
over America. Let us grant, at the same time, that the Japanese rule
over America was more efficient than the American rule, and in the
light of our modern knowledge it is not beyond the limit of probability
to imagine that Japanese efficiency in government could be greater than
American efficiency. How would our reader feel about the situation?
Would he be willing to discard his own indigenous native government
for the sake of a more efficient rule under the Japanese Mikado?
What would be his reaction if he saw his own “stars and stripes”
replaced by the Imperial flag of Japan? Certainly, he would not feel
at ease about the matter. The condition of the native of India under
British authority is exactly similar in cause and consequence. In
its fundamental aspect the rule of a country by an alien power is
essentially wrong in principle. It is unnatural and hence utterly
immoral. Whether it is the Japanese in Korea, the United States of
America in the Philippine Islands, or the English in India--it is
all unnatural and immoral. There can never be any ethical, moral, or
spiritual justification of an other than native rule in a country.
“The government of a people by itself,” says John Stuart Mill, “has a
meaning and reality; but such a thing as government of one people by
another does not, and cannot exist.”
So far there have existed only two principles for the government of
any country in the world, one is the government of a country by its
chosen representatives, who are held responsible to their constituents,
and are necessarily required to rule the country in the interests of
the governed. This system was described by an American emancipator as
“government of the people, by the people, for the people.” When we
look back over the histories of the different countries of the world,
we find that, without a single exception, the countries which have
advanced in their material and cultural possessions, during the past
two hundred years, have been those whose governments were based on the
principle of “government of the people, by the people, for the people.”
In the modern world we find that the governments of the United States
of America, England, France, and Germany are typical for their
representative characters. It goes without saying that the progress
which these nations have made during recent times would not have been
possible under any other system of government. Take the case of any
of these countries, America for example; you will find that “America
has been made great by the democratic character of its governmental
institutions. Its colossal achievements in the mechanical arts, the
high advancement in its cultural and artistic life, the mammoth
nature of its commercial and industrial progress, the magnitude of
its educational equipment, its institutions of learning and research,
and its high standard of living--all these owe their origin to the
beneficent character of the American government,” whose foundation
was laid upon the noble principles contained in the Declaration of
Independence:
“ ... That all men are created equal; That they are endowed by
their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these
are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That, to secure
these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed; ...”
There is still another principle (or lack of principle) on which the
government of a country could be based. This occurs where the country
is governed by an alien power, which derives its authority not from the
consent of the governed, but from some outside source. As a natural
consequence of this system the rulers of such countries are not
concerned with the benefits to be derived by the ruled country. In such
cases the interests of the subject nation are completely subordinated
to those of the master country. “The commerce of the ruling power is
expanded at the expense of the ruled; the industries of the governing
country are enhanced at the cost of the extinction of those of the
governed.” “The material, cultural, and moral life of one people is
enriched at the expense of the life sources of a more helpless and
unfortunate people.” The process begins with the impoverishing of the
subject nation through a system of economic exploitation of its wealth
resources by the dominant powers. Poverty in its turn degrades the
character of the people, and the nation becomes morally flabby. The
degeneration of an impoverished and suppressed people is assisted by
the deteriorating influence of the other policies of the foreign ruler,
such as the disarming of the subject people, the introduction in their
midst of an alien system of education so designed as to form in its
higher classes a group of miseducated “snobs” and to create in the
upper sections of the country contempt for its past history and culture.
This kind of government has existed in India for the past two hundred
years. To begin with, England carried away all the tangible wealth
of the country “in the form of indemnities, grants, and gifts from
its princes, and assessments and taxes from the people.” At the
same time the industries of the country were destroyed, and its
commercial prosperity was checked by a selfish policy of enriching the
manufacturing classes of England at the expense of those in India.
The entire population of the country was disarmed as the next step.
Thus were the natures of the people degraded, their martial spirit was
crushed, and “a race of soldiers and heroes converted into a timid
flock of quill-driving sheep.”
The introduction of an utterly alien system of education was still
another step in rooting out of the country the remnants of national
honor and pride. According to the scheme of English education in the
country, formulated by Lord Macaulay, English was made the medium of
instruction for all branches of study. English history and English
literature received preference over Indian history and Indian
literature. The text-books for schools and colleges were prepared by
English agents of the government; and from them sentiments of love and
admiration for Indian civilization and culture on one hand, and respect
for the character and behavior of its princes on the other, were
rigidly excluded. In its place the English kings, the English people,
the English religion, the English government, the English institutions,
in fact everything English was held up as ideal. According to the
history texts, whenever a battle was fought between the English and
the native princes, the former were always in the right and the latter
forever in the wrong. The English were always the victorious, and the
natives always the beaten party. Mir Jafar, the arch-traitor of the
country, was a noble and worthy prince, while Mir Kasam, the benevolent
protector of his subjects against the injustice of the East India
Company’s agents, was a hypocrite and a debauché. The reason for the
exaltation of Mir Jafar and the execration of Mir Kasam is, however,
easily understood. Mir Jafar was the commander-in-chief of the army
of Siraj-ud-Daulah, who stood against the forces of Lord Clive on the
battlefield of Plassey. At a suggestion of bribery from Clive, Mir
Jafar led the whole of his army over to the side of the enemy, and thus
secured for the English the victory of Plassey, which was the beginning
of their real power in the country. On the other hand, Mir Kasam was
continually fighting against the encroachments of the East India
Company over his own territories and the rights of his subjects. Which
of the two princes was a real man and a worthy hero among his people,
Mir Jafar or Mir Kasam? Mir Kasam, according to every kind of moral and
ethical standard of nobility and courage; Mir Jafar, according to the
corrupt standards of British Imperialism in India.
After the Indian youths had finished their scanty education, the future
that lay before them was of a very uninviting nature. As all the high
offices in the service of the country were monopolized by the English,
the only positions left for the educated classes of Indians were
those of low-paid clerks and assistants in the government offices. No
prospect of fame, or wealth, or power opened before them. There was no
great stimulus for the pursuit of higher knowledge. The young scholars
no sooner began to know their positions in the world than they realized
the uselessness of great attainments. Of what use was their learning if
they were not to have employment as responsible public administrators
of their country and so use their knowledge in the service of India?
The extent of the exclusion of the native inhabitants of the country
from offices of dignity and high emoluments in the government service
may be realized from the following figures. According to the figures of
1913, out of 2,501 civil and military offices in British India carrying
monthly salaries of 800 rupees ($266.00) or more, only 242, less than
ten per cent were held by Indians; out of the 4,986 appointments
carrying a monthly salary of 500 rupees ($166.00), only 19 per cent
were held by Indians; and out of the 11,064 appointments carrying a
monthly salary of 200 rupees ($66.00) only 42 per cent were held by
Indians. Conditions have not changed much since 1913.[46]
In order to enable the American reader to realize fully the magnitude
of injustice involved in the wrong policies of the English government
in India regarding the country’s systems of education and public
employment, we shall use our previous illustration once more. Let it be
supposed that simultaneously with the consolidation of Japanese power
in America it was ordered by the Mikado that henceforth the Japanese
language should form the sole medium of instruction in the schools and
colleges throughout the United States. The American children would be
required to learn the Japanese language before reaching school. The
texts given to the youths of the country to study and digest would be
books written and published in Japan, from which the names of such
national heroes as Washington and Lincoln were excluded, but in which
the praises of Japan were sung in high chorus. Shakespeare, Milton,
Emerson, Longfellow, and Hawthorne would be excluded from the American
school curriculum, and Japanese literature substituted in its place.
The business of all governmental departments would be conducted in
Japanese, and its official circulars and reports would be printed in
Japanese. All the higher posts in the service of the country would
be reserved for the Mikado’s own countrymen. The president and his
cabinet; supreme, district, and superior court judges; the governors of
the states,--all would be appointed in Tokyo from among the Japanese
in favor with the government of the Mikado. Native-born Americans
would be employed only as stenographers, postmen, grammar school
teachers, and street car conductors, and then only at starvation wages.
Buddhism would be made the state religion of America. What would any
self-respecting American say if all this were done to his country?
What would he do when his children and his grandchildren raised a cry
against the injustice done to their country and its manhood, and this
cry was drowned by the declaration of the Japanese imperialists that
Japan was carrying the Yellow Man’s burden in the United States of
America.
The feeling of a deep and passionate resentment felt by the people
of India regarding these matters was expressed by the late Mr. G. K.
Gokhale thus:
“A kind of dwarfing or stunting of the Indian race is going
on under the present system. We must live all our lives in an
atmosphere of inferiority, and the tallest of us must bend, in
order that the exigencies of the system may be satisfied. The
upward impulse, if I may use such an expression, which every
schoolboy at Eton or Harrow may feel, that he may one day be a
Gladstone, a Nelson, or a Wellington, and which may draw forth
the best efforts of which he is capable, that is denied to us.
The height to which our manhood is capable of rising can never
be reached by us under the present system. The moral elevation
which every Self-Governing people feel, cannot be felt by us.
Our administrative and military talents must gradually disappear
owing to sheer disuse, till at last our lot, as hewers of wood and
drawers of water in our own country, is stereotyped.”
If, therefore, the world sees the spectacle of an indignant India in
revolt against the English rule, it should not be surprised. It is only
natural that the English should resent the attempts of the Indians
to secure their independence. It is hoped, however, that the other
nations of the world will not feel hostile against the battle cry of
the Indians against the British oppression in their country. If the
English imperialists try to prove the virtue of their rule in India,
please remember that the question is not whether the English rule is
good or bad, but whether the principle underlying it is right or wrong.
No self-respecting American citizen desires to see Japanese lordship
established in his native land; he would call a condition intolerable
in which the Japanese held all the positions of power in the government
of his country. The full-blooded inhabitants of India feel in much
the same way about the British supremacy in India. The reason of this
attitude of both American and Indian nationalists is the same. The
self-respect of an honest man revolts against foreign domination. The
eyes of Modern India have been opened, and her people realize “that
they are men, with a man’s right to manage his own affairs.” As was
expressed by Mrs. Annie Besant in her presidential address before the
Indian National Congress in 1917: “India is no longer on her knees for
‘boons’; she is on her feet for Rights.”
The first voice of organized Indian nationalist opinion demanding
reform in the British government of India, was heard in 1885. In
that year the first session of the Indian National Congress was held
in Bombay. The Congress began as a gathering of a small group of
progressive nationalist leaders from different parts of the country.
Gradually, as its function became known, the ranks of the congress
were swelled by delegates from all sections of India, and soon its
responsible character as the representative organ of Indian progressive
opinion on political matters was recognized in both England and India.
The Congress began its career as a critic of British policies in
the country. It submitted a request to the English nation for an
inquiry into Indian affairs and presented claims for reforms in the
irresponsible and autocratic character of the British Government in the
country. As time passed and the real nature of English rule began to be
disclosed, the Indian nationalists became “bolder in their criticisms
and more ambitious in their claims for reform.” Except for minor
concessions granted through the courtesy of a few sympathetic viceroys
nothing positive in the direction of the better government of India was
accomplished by the Indian National Congress until the Morley-Minto
reforms of 1909. Yet in spite of its enormous difficulties, arising
from the stubbornness of British bureaucracy in India and the cold,
unconcerned attitude of the English Parliament towards Indian claims,
the Congress had done excellent work in arousing the educated classes
of the country to a realization of their political wrongs.
The Indian nationalist movement received a great impetus during the
harsh reign of Lord Curzon as the high-handed Viceroy of India. One of
the acts of Lord Curzon was the partition of Bengal in 1905,--“an act
which aroused in the entire population of Bengal a violent outburst of
popular disapproval.” The purpose of the English Viceroy in dividing
the province into two portions was to destroy the unity of Bengal, and
to sow at the same time seeds of bitter Hindu-Muslim feuds. But the
Bengalee youths were determined not to accept the dismemberment of
their ancient land of Bengal, and the entire province was in a state
of anarchy for a period of six years. In spite of the attempts of the
English to quiet the agitation, it gradually spread all over India
until at last the hated act was repealed by royal proclamation at the
Delhi coronation Durbar in 1911.
In the meantime the Morley-Minto reforms, sponsored by John Morley,
the noted biographer of Gladstone and at that time Secretary of State
for India, and Lord Minto, the Viceroy of India, had become law by
the India Council Act of 1909. The reforms were accepted by a few
moderate leaders as “generous,” but on the whole public opinion in
India regarded them as inadequate and petty. For the first time seats
in the executive councils of the provinces as well as those in the
Indian government were thrown open to Indians. The provincial and
central legislative councils were enlarged and made to include more
“elected” Indian members. Henceforth the provincial councils were to
contain a majority of “non-official” “elected” members as distinguished
from the “official” and “non-official nominated” members, the official
being the officers of the Government who sat in the councils as
ex-officio members and the non-official nominated who were nominated
to their positions as council members by the governor of the province
for provincial councils and by the Viceroy in the case of the central
council.
The powers of the reformed councils, however, were limited. “The
councils,” says Prof. Parker T. Moon, “could pass resolutions subject
to the British Parliament’s overriding authority; they could discuss
the budget and other measures; they could criticise and suggest. They
could not oppose and propose, but neither depose nor dispose. They
could not overthrow the administration, or tighten the purse strings.
They were, in short, experimental debating clubs.”[47]
Those who had put their confidence in the Morley-Minto reforms were
soon disappointed. The real nature of the new councils as mere
“debating clubs” was discovered and found unsatisfactory. The people of
India had demanded the right to control the affairs of their country’s
government, and they had been granted merely the right to discuss and
to criticize, with no authority whatsoever to alter the policies of
its officials. The helplessness of the Indian members in the Councils
was proved after the World War during the agitation over the Rowlatt
Bills. The uproar against this piece of repressive legislation was so
strong that all Indian members of the Central Legislative Council,
including those who were nominated by the government, voted against
its passage. But in spite of the solid opposition from Indian members
in the Council and an unprecedented revulsion against the Bills among
all classes in the country, they were made law by the Viceroy. That
legislation was a “direct slap in the face of nationalist India.” It is
a matter of common knowledge that it led to the _satyagraha_ of Mahatma
Gandhi, which in turn crystallized into the non-violent non-coöperation
movement.
After the reforms of 1909, the Indian National Congress continued to
arouse the masses of the country to a national consciousness and to a
demand for representation in the government of the country. In 1914
all groups of Indians joined in a spirit of loyalty to assist the
British Empire during the World War. India made heavy contributions to
the war-time needs of England in both man-power and money power; as a
recompense for her loyalty the people of India were promised liberal
home rule after the war. In the meantime the Indian National Congress
and the All-India Moslem League (founded in 1912 by the Mohammedans of
India) had agreed to present the joint claims of all communities in the
country for home rule. The scheme formulated by these two organizations
at Lucknow in 1916, and known as the Congress-League Scheme, had for
its aim the attainment of _Swaraj_ (home rule) within the British
Empire. They proposed a plan by which India within a period of fifteen
years should acquire the same rights as the self-governing colonies of
the Empire.
Before the end of the war, the Secretary of State for India, Mr.
Montague, was sent to India by the British Parliament for the study
of the conditions of the country with a view to launching a scheme
of wider influence for its people. A joint report prepared by the
Secretary, Mr. Montague, and the Viceroy, Lord Chelmsford, was
published in 1918, and after slight modifications was passed by the
British Parliament as the Act of 1919.
Although the Montague-Chelmsford reforms were an improvement over
the reforms of 1909, all sections of the Indian people except a
few isolated moderates at once declared them to be unsatisfactory.
Besides enlarging the existing councils and providing for more elected
members in them, the reforms of 1919 introduced the new principle of
“dyarchy” into the provinces. The various departments of the provincial
government were known as “reserved” or “transferred.” The control of
the “reserved” departments remained in the hands of the governors,
who were not responsible in any way to the legislatures. These
included law, order, justice, and police. The class of “transferred”
subjects included among others education, agriculture, and public
health. Their control was placed in the hands of ministers elected
by and responsible to the provincial legislatures, which contained a
majority of elected members. The system of “dyarchy” in the provincial
governments, however, was not a success. No sooner had the new scheme
begun to function than difficulties over the budget arose between
the ministers in charge of different departments. The ministers of
transferred subjects were given the privilege of managing their
departments according to popular demand, but they were not provided
with the funds necessary to make possible the proposed reforms. “The
strings of the purse were still held by an outside power,” a condition
which made work of these responsible ministers wholly ineffective. “In
defiance of Lincoln’s principles regarding the fate of a house divided
against itself,” comments Prof. Moon, “the British Government made
it a principle to divide the administration of India. India was to
be ‘half free, half slave.’ Autocracy and self-government were to be
twin columns supporting British imperialism. It is interesting to note
the subjects which were reserved as of interest to Great Britain--the
repression of disorder was a prime interest. Ingenious as it was, the
scheme was by no means an unqualified success.”[48]
Yet it must be admitted that the reforms of 1919 were never given
a fair trial by the people of India. Before the time came for the
installation of the new councils, the Indian nation had already
launched upon its career of non-violent non-coöperation against the
British Government. How the agitation against the Rowlatt Bills led
to martial law in the Punjab and to the massacre at Amritsar, which
in turn drove Mahatma Gandhi and the Indian National Congress to the
policy of boycott against English rule, has already been explained in
a previous chapter. One of the items in the non-coöperation program
of the Congress was the boycott of councils, and as a consequence
of this item all the responsible nationalist leaders withheld their
names and support from the council elections. When after the arrest
of Mahatma Gandhi in 1922, one wing of the Indian nationalists under
the leadership of Mr. C. R. Das, decided to go into the councils,
they did so with the purpose of breaking them up. The avowed object
of followers of Mr. Das, who were henceforth called the “Swarajists,”
was to capture the councils with a view to breaking the machinery
of the government from within by obstructing its business at every
step. Even though the “Swarajists” finally did succeed in holding the
majority seats in different legislative councils of the country, and
in causing considerable annoyance to the government officials by their
obstructionist methods, yet they were far from being able at any time
to halt the government machinery.
The point at issue between India and England is this: India has
outgrown its old habit of submission. It does not bend its knee to beg
for reforms and concessions. It is standing on its feet and demanding
its rights, and the methods it is using to secure the rights of the
people to govern themselves are of its own creation. The surprising
thing in this whole affair is not that India has lost faith in the
British sense of justice and has decided to boycott its English rulers;
the amazing thing is that it took the people of India so long to find
out the truth about England’s interests in the country and their own
welfare. It is a sad commentary upon the genius of Indian leadership
that it took the Indian National Congress thirty-five years to
discover the path of non-coöperation towards _Swaraj_ (home rule). To
expect from the English nation, which rewarded General Dyer for his
massacre of 800 unarmed civilians with a purse of £10,000 ($50,000),
a grant of self-government was stark nonsense. And yet until the new
path was struck out by Mahatma Gandhi in 1920, Indians of all shades
of opinion persevered in their belief that freedom could be acquired
by begging. Mahatma Gandhi was the first man among Indians to realize
the fact that freedom is never got by gifts of the rulers, but on the
contrary is won by the might of the ruled. Freedom is a thing which
cannot be given to a nation from outside; the ability to acquire it
must be developed from within.
It is really amazing how old habits stick with beings long after
their uselessness has been established. A case of this occurred in
India after the incarceration of Mahatma Gandhi in 1922. The Mahatma
had started the country on the lines of non-coöperation, and they
were proceeding quite successfully, when he was suddenly arrested and
sentenced to six years’ imprisonment. Soon after he had disappeared
from the scene of the Congress, there sprang up in its midst a new
party which at once resolved to go back into the councils, as if they
had not had enough experience with the council business in previous
times. What prompted the “Swarajists” to this action has always
remained unintelligible to me. Did they really believe that they
could conquer the English bureaucracy of India through speeches in
the council chambers, or frighten them into submission through their
obstructionist terrors? If they did, it was a typical case of the
triumph of hope over experience. If ever anyone made the English rulers
of the country quake in their shoes it was Gandhi. He did not do this
by the politician’s tricks. He who fights against the English nation
with those weapons works against heavy odds, because the English are
already past masters in the art of diplomacy. The bureaucrats were
terrified by Gandhi because he used the weapon of passive resistance,
which was native to himself and his countrymen but foreign to the
British militarists. The rulers of the country were completely baffled
by Gandhi’s methods. They simply did not know what to do. If it had
been an armed insurrection of a rebellious nation, they possessed
enough military force to suppress it with success; but their best
strategists failed when they had to encounter a mass of three hundred
million disobeying and yet non-resisting people, who had risen in
sudden revolt against their established authority at the bidding of a
saintly leader.
Gandhi’s non-violent non-coöperation still forms the creed of the
Indian National Congress. The masses all over the country have been
made conscious of the loss of their national dignity under the rule of
the British; the blood of the martyrs at Jallianwalla Bagh has made the
heart of India bleed; and it is hoped that before the present agitation
in the country is slackened, India will have achieved its national
freedom, and have become able once more to offer its contribution of
art, beauty, and culture to the rest of the world.
Other outside influences besides the injustices of the British rule in
the country, that have conspired together to strengthen the nationalist
movement of India during the twentieth century, were the Japanese
victory in the Russo-Japanese war, and the lowering of the white man’s
prestige in the minds of all Eastern nations during and after the World
War. The crushing defeat of the Russian forces at the hands of the
Eastern islanders during the Russo-Japanese war broke forever the spell
of the invincibility of white man’s arms against Eastern foes; and this
incident gave a great impetus to the nationalistic movements in all
countries of the East.
Again when during the World War native regiments from the different
colonial possessions of the fighting powers were gathered in the
battlefields of Europe to witness the “white man’s holocaust,” their
respect for his supposed superior civilization disappeared. At the same
time the World War weakened the potential powers of the imperialistic
white nations, thereby increasing considerably the chances of success
for the rebellious peoples in the East. The high-sounding sentiments
of “Self-determination” for weaker nations, and “a world made safe for
democracy” uttered by the allied statesmen, during the period of war,
had, ever since the ending of the World War on Armistice Day, quickened
the hopes not only of India but of other dependent nations as well to
seek in every direction for the realization of the ideals expressed by
these eloquent orators of the allies. What will the end be?
* * *
Since this was written some developments of a momentous character
have taken place in the political situation of India, of which an
appropriate notice may conveniently be taken here.
At the 1928 session of the Indian National Congress held at Calcutta
a scheme of self-government, jointly prepared by all parties in
India, was presented to the British Parliament for enaction into
law. This scheme, known as the Nehru Report, was accompanied by an
ultimatum to the effect, that if Dominion Status equivalent to that
of other self-governing dominions of the Empire like Canada and South
Africa was not granted to India by the British Parliament before the
midnight of December 31st, 1929, the Indian National Congress would
henceforth declare complete independence as its immediate goal. Since
no satisfactory response was made to this ultimatum by the British
Parliament within the prescribed time limit, the Indian National
Congress at its annual session held at Lahore during the last week of
1929 committed itself to complete independence and a severance of all
relations with the British Government. The Independence resolution of
Mahatma Gandhi was carried by an overwhelming majority of 2,994 votes
against only 6. January 26th, 1930, was chosen by the Indian National
Congress as the day of Indian Independence. It was observed by all
Indians, in India and abroad, amidst spectacular demonstrations, during
which the national flag was hoisted with ceremony, and the Declaration
of Independence read to the masses. Resolutions of approval were passed
at nearly 750,000 meetings, and pledges of support given to the Indian
National Congress under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi, by the
enthusiastic crowds, everywhere. At a later date the All-India Congress
Committee consisting of 300 members transferred its authority to guide
the policies of the Congress to a working committee of ten chosen
leaders of the people, who in turn have expressed their implicit faith
in the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi.
After all efforts at reconciliation with the British Government had
failed, Mahatma Gandhi embarked on his campaign of Civil Disobedience
on March 9th, 1930. On that day he left his home at Ahmedabad with
a batch of 79 volunteers to reach Jalalpur, a village on the ocean
shore and 150 miles distant, where he and his followers will start
manufacturing salt in open defiance of the British Government’s
monopoly of salt manufacture in India. This will be symbolic of
Gandhi’s program of Civil Disobedience. On this historic journey Gandhi
and his followers have been greeted with tremendous enthusiasm by the
general populace, who have gathered in numbers of hundreds of thousands
and lined Gandhi’s march all along his journey.
The plan of Gandhi is very simple. He, with his batch of volunteers,
will start manufacturing salt at Jalalpur. Since this involves the
disobedience of the civil authority of the British Government, it will
be compelled to arrest Gandhi and his followers. The volunteers in case
of their arrest will be replaced by other batches of equal numbers. In
this way the campaign will continue until one of the parties withdraws.
The Government will either succeed in breaking up the power of Gandhi’s
followers or yield to the demands of nationalistic India. On the one
hand Gandhi has openly defied the British Government to arrest him, and
on the other hand he has strictly enjoined his followers to maintain a
spirit of non-violence. In a recent statement to the press he declared
that he was not afraid so much of the wrath of the British Government
as of the mad fury of his own countrymen bursting forth into open
violence.
Gandhi’s march to Jalalpur has aroused universal enthusiasm all
over the country. Huge demonstrations are taking place everywhere.
Indication of the British Government’s policy of repression has
shown itself already in the arrest of Gandhi’s chief lieutenant, Mr.
Vallabhai Patel, and the mayor of Calcutta, Mr. Sen Gupta. The masses
have so far maintained the spirit of non-violence. Gandhi has given
to the British Government of India the choice between a peaceful
settlement and violence. He has been able so far to hold his countrymen
in a calm mood of peaceful agitation. If he is arrested and the
Government starts repression with its customary display of violence,
the revolution in India may take a different course. In such a case the
responsibility will be all England’s.
FOOTNOTES:
[46] Quoted from Lajpat Rai.
[47] _Imperialism and World Politics_, page 300.
[48] _Imperialism and World Politics_, page 303.