Friday 1 September 2017

Gandhi, Nehru and Quit India

          





Madhu Limaye


          We, who were in our teens or a year or two more, at the time of the outbreak of Second World War, are the last generation of freedom fighters. Looking back, I see the Ninth August struggle as the fourth and the culminating phase of the freedom movement.

          The birth of the modern freedom movement is rightly traced to the foundation of the Indian National Congress in 1885. The Congress for many years was a Christmas gathering of India's educated elite who passed innocuous
resolutions on reforms at their annual meetings. It was Lokmanya Tilak who first introduced a popular element in our movement. Valentine Chirol, a noted British
journalist, called Tilak a "conspicuous" leader in the radical camp who was "destined to become one of the most dangerous pioneers of disaffection". If anyone can claim to be "truly the father of Indian unrest" Chirol wrote, "it is Bal Gangadhar Tilak". "From the Deccan his influence was projected far and wide", he wrote.
          Tilak's British opponents acknowledged his growing mass popularity. "The great development of the cotton industry which had led to vast agglomerations of labour had given Tilak an opportunity of establishing contacts with a class of the population hitherto outside the purview of Indian politics". Tilak was tried and convicted for sedition twice, the second time to six years' imprisonment. There was a violent reaction among the masses "Some of Tilak's supporters had declared that there would be a day's bloodshed for every year to which he might be sentenced … and as a matter of fact, he was sentenced to six years imprisonment and the riots lasted six days. The rioting assumed at times a very threatening character…The gravity of the disturbances however showed the extent of the influence Tilak had acquired over the lower classes in Bombay and not merely the turbulent mill hands", Chirol wrote. This was the first political action of the industrial working class, and this was acknowledged even by Lenin.

          Montagu, who visited India in 1917-18, in his book Indian Diary, called Tilak "the biggest leader in India at the moment". The Montagu declaration on responsible government and the new reforms made an impact on Tilak. He thanked the King Emperor and offered responsive co-operation. Tilak was enthused by the
League of Nations and thought that the subject nations could take their cases to this international organisation and obtain justice. During his stay in England in 1919 he
built good relations with the Labour movement, and made a financial contribution to the Labour Party. Just as Gokhale and the Liberals pinned their hopes on the Liberal Party, Tilak saw the possibility of co-operation with the rising Labour Party. Tilak had become optimistic about the achievement of self-government within the Empire in 10 to 15 years. In 1919-20 the Lokmanya had no new programme of struggle to offer. Advancing age and experience, it was said, had mellowed Tilak.

          Gandhiji emerged as the new leader in 1919. His noncooperation
and civil disobedience programmes drew millions into the movement. Through his constructive programmes he penetrated the village India. He created a formidable new team of leaders like Rajaji, Vallabhbhai Patel, Dr. Rajendra Prasad and Acharya Kripalani. He won over Jawaharlal Nehru, and Jawaharlal's entire family was swept off its feet by the personality of Mahatma Gandhi. Jawaharlal was an ardent supporter of Gandhiji's militant programme. Suspension of civil disobedience after Chauri Chaura distressed him. Despite the opposition of his father to Gandhiji's Council boycott programme, Jawaharlal remained a firm no-changer. But he was not part of the faction of no-changers headed by Rajaji. Rajaji's views underwent an astonishing transformation; from the leader of no-changers (he was called the Deputy Gandhi) he became an articulate supporter of the policy of working the scheme of provincial autonomy in the thirties, and in the forties he consistently sought accommodation with the British Government.

          Jawaharlal's radicalism and militancy increased during the late twenties and thirties. It was largely under the impetus provided by him and Subhas Babu that the
Congress, under, the younger Nehru's presidentship at Lahore, adopted the creed of complete independence. Gandhiji assured his young colleague that he would wage
a decisive struggle during his term. He was as true as his word. Then came the famous Dandi March, and the self-suffering of common people inspired by Gandhiji's example, convulsed the whole country. Jawaharlal was opposed to the suspension of disobedience and the Gandhi-Irwin Pact, although, with great reluctance, he ultimately fell in line.

          The passion of freedom so possessed him in those years that for him the Hindu-Muslim question almost did not exist, and much as he approved the amelioration of the depressed classes he thought Gandhiji's fast "would
obscure the main issue". He was perplexed by Gandhiji's anti-untouchability campaign and his repeated fasts. He confesses in his Autobiography that his mind was not largely filled by the Harijan movement in which Gandhiji was completely, engrossed at that time.

          Jawaharlal opposed the Government of India Act, 1935, and he made herculean efforts to use the election campaign of 1935-36 as a weapon of mass awakening. He was dead set against acceptance of office in the provinces. However, he again submitted to the dominant opinion in the Congress and Gandhiji's advice. Probably it was during 1937-41 that changes in the international
situation and the failure of his attempts to influence Congress ministerial policies from outside gave him a jolt. His hatred for the brutalities of Nazism, fascism and
Japanese militarism diluted his militancy vis-a-vis the British, and he moved slowly, towards a position not far rom that of Rajaji. This threatened to engulf the freedom movement in a tragedy in 1942.

          What was the position in early 1942? The Japanese had destroyed the French and Dutch colonial empires in South-East Asia. They had dealt a crippling blow to British naval power in the Indian Ocean. The British forces and the Indian divisions had surrendered in Singapore. Burma fell, and the Japanese were now knocking at the North- Eastern frontiers of India. The half-hearted British attempt to win over India's support in the war effort through the ill-fated Cripps proposal had failed. The Indian political leadership was bogged in despondency and frustration. Subhas Babu, it became known, had gone to Germany and was making preparations for the liberation of India with the help of the Axis powers. Gandhiji did not doubt Subhas Babu's indomitable courage and burning patriotism. But he sincerely felt that freedom obtained by him with the help of the German and Japanese war machines would result only in exchanging one slavery or another.

          Maulana Azad, Rajaji and Jawaharlal were anxious to make an honourable settlement with the British Government provided real power was transferred to
Indian hands. The British Government headed by Churchill had absolutely no intention of conceding real power or a Cabinet government to India. They exploited the opposition of the Muslim League, the princes and others to remain here as the effective rulers of the country. In their anxiety to fight Japanese militarism Nehru and Rajaji wanted to organise popular resistance under the aegis of a national government. They were disappointed. The British Government refused to budge. Rajaji, however, persisted in his efforts to secure a compromise and advocated acceptance of partition to secure the Muslim League's support for a settlement. Although mentally the Maulana and Jawaharlal were eager to co-operate, they would not agree to do so at the cost of self-respect. Meanwhile, Gandhiji was alarmed by the introduction of American troops into India. He
wrote pungent articles against this. "Cannot a limitless number of soldiers be trained out of India's millions? Would they not make as good fighting material as any in the world? Then why foreigners? We know what American aid means. It amounts in the end to American influence, if not American rule added to British. It is tremendous price to pay for the possible success of Allied armies'".

          Gandhiji was shaken by the possibility of India becoming the arena of military conflict. Not only because he thought that the country would be devasted. He feared that India would get involved in a civil war. Jawaharlal was not opposed to the induction of American troops. He had openly talked in terms of armed resistance against the Japanese and the launching of a guerrilla war. He had even said that if Subhas Babu came in the van of the Japanese forces he would fight him with a sword in hand. The prospect of a conflict between India's two most popular leaders (next only to the Mahatma) made Gandhi sleepless. He was asked about his differences with Jawaharlal and Rajaji. "I am sorry", Gandhiji said about Jawaharlal, "that he has developed a fancy for guerrilla warfare. But I have no doubt that it will be a nine days' wonder. It will take no effect". He wrote to Jawaharlal on April 15, 1942 saying that he "was making a mistake. I see no good in American troops entering India and in our resorting to guerrilla warfare". When Rajaji persisted in his propaganda about unity with the Muslim League on the basis of partition, pressed by Vallabhbhai and other members of the Working Committee, he advised Rajaji to resign from the Assembly. In fact, he told him that he should "sever his connection" with the Congress and then carry on his campaign with "all zeal and ability" he was "capable" of.

          Jawaharlal offered to resign from the Working Committee. "I have thought over the matter a great deal and still feel that your capacity for service will increase
if you withdraw" Gandhi said. In the same letter dated July 13, 1942 he informed Jawaharlal that the Maulana and himself (Gandhi) had drifted apart. "I do not
understand him nor does he understand me ... No one is at fault. We have to face the facts. Therefore I suggest that the Maulana should relinquish presidentship but
remain in the Committee, the Committee should elect an interim President and all should proceed unitedly". Gandhiji had already resolved on the launching of the mass movement. Through his Harijan articles, interviews and statements he had fired the enthusiasm of the, masses, especially the younger people. He was sorry over the differences that had arisen. He acknowledged the fact that nobody had the "drive" which Jawaharlal had displayed. Gandhi grieved that they were on the verge of a parting of ways.

          In early 1928, a similar situation had arisen. After the Madras Congress at the end of 1927, Gandhiji felt that Jawaharlal was "going too fast". He received a sharp reply from his young colleague. Gandhiji suggested that if he wanted to go his own way, he was welcome to do so. He should unfurl his banner of revolt. Jawaharlal was shaken and wisely retraced his steps. The freedom movement gained as a result. In 1942 also the two had continuous discussion. Gandhiji had taken the position that the British should withdraw from India. II they could not entrust power to a national government they should leave the country to anarchy or God. He thought that the continuance of British rule in India and the increasing strength of the American forces would invite Japanese invasion. He calculated that the Japanese had got bogged down in China and had swallowed the entire South East Asia. Their main concentration would be against the Americans, and if no threat of a flanking movement developed from the West(India), the Japanese, he suggested, might not embark on a new adventure. Even if they did, Gandhiji thought that a free India would so catch the imagination of the people that they would be able to resist the Japanese onslaught. Gandhiji was so determined that he proposed to undertake a fast unto death and self-immolation followed by similar fasts and self-immolation by his closest' followers.

          Jawaharlal, although his emotions impelled him the other way, was convinced by the deadly logic of Gandhiji, his innate self-respect and sense of discipline. Nothing illustrates this better than the article he wrote in the National Herald on June 30, 1942, which made it clear that he was not contemplating a break with Mahatma Gandhi and that he would not join the Rajaji campaign.
He declared that the empire must go, not only because it was evil but because it was a hindrance to victory of the progressive forces in the world. "That is why the cry of 'Quit India' becomes a vital, urgent ,and essential cry for victory". Even more revealing is his letter to Sampurnanand, who was himself worried over Gandhiji's thinking. Jawaharlal admitted that he also was worried and distracted beyond measure. He continued: " Yet gradually I have come to the conclusion that there is no other way out. I am convinced that passivity is fatal now. Our soldiers will largely surrender to the Japanese, our people will submit to them. There is only one chance of changing this and that is by some action now. The risk is
there. I hate anarchy and chaos but somehow in my bones I feel some terrible shake-up is necessary for our country. Otherwise we shall get more and more entangled in communal and other problems, people will get thoroughly disillusioned and will merely drift to disaster".

          This time again Jawaharlal compromised with his leader and mentor. Again the nation was the gainer. The objective situation and the obstinacy of  British imperialism forced Jawaharlal to support Gandhiji's plan of struggle. Gandhiji prepared draft instructions for civil resisters. This document was dated August 4, 1942. This was to be an all-out campaign, including hartals, withdrawal from government services, satyagraha and even no-tax campaign. Every Indian, in the event of the arrest of the national leaders, should obey the dictates of his or her
conscience and offer such resistance as, he or she could. He laid down only one condition: that the people should not have recourse to violence. Gandhiji knew that a movement of this magnitude might not remain absolutely peaceful. So he made it clear that outbreak of disturbances would not, this time, deter him from pursuing
his programme.

          And so the AICC met at the Gowalia Tank Maidan in Bombay in the second week of August. I attended that meeting. I was only 20 years old then; I had started political and mass work in Khandesh at the end of 1939. In 1940 I had been sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment on account of my anti-war speeches. After my release I had resumed my work in the two districts of Khandesh. We young socialists had become convinced, after the entry of Japan into the war, and, especially, after the fall of Singapore, that the country could not be saved from a Japanese take-over except by forcing British withdrawal through a mass struggle. In February 1942, on the insistence of Sane Guruji, I
accompanied Vinoba Bhave on his tour of Khandesh. I remember I had asked him only one question: Can we attain Swaraj without a big mass struggle in the immediate future? The spiritual heir of Mahatma Gandhi said that we should concentrate on constructive programme and village self-sufficiency and the British rule would automatically disappear. No struggle was necessary. I felt heart-broken. If this was the view of Vinoba, Ithought, Gandhiji also must be thinking on the same lines. My delight therefore knew no bounds when Gandhiji mounted his offensive after the collapse of the Cripps Mission and the introduction of American troops into India. We began our preparations in right earnest. The meeting of the West Khandesh District Congress Committee took place at Shirpur in an atmosphere of wild enthusiasm. Even Balubhai Mehta, mildest of Gandhians and an extreme "social conservative", President of the DCC, was euphoric. (My friends were active in East Khandesh DCC also). After the meeting we left for Bombay. But the local rivulet was in flood and we could start only after the flood subsided. With the help of Yusuf Meherally, the then Mayor of Bombay, whose fondness for the young people was proverbial, we managed entry into the AICC pandal itself. By the time Gandhiji began his inspired speech in Hindi (followed by a speech in English) I and my friends had edged very close to the platform. I was a witness to that grand moment in India's history. I had been a critic of some of Gandhiji's views, but by that inspired utterance late in the night he captivated me and millions of young people.

          Gandhiji and the national leaders were not allowed formally to start the struggle. Gandhiji had declared that he would meet the Viceroy and make one final effort at an honourable compromise. In the early hours of August 9, 1942 the British Government arrested all these leaders and They remained in jail virtually for the next three years.

          The Socialists, who had assembled for the AICC meeting at Bombay, decided not to court arrest passively. They resolved to build an underground movement. Yusuf Meherally and Asoka Mehta had been arrested. JP was in prison. Lohia, Achyut Patwardhan, Purshottam Tricumdas, S. M. Joshi, (N. G. Goray was in a Nizam jail), Shiroo Limaye and all the rest of us went undergroud. Aruna Asaf Ali joined us. Some Gandhian Congress leaders, presumably under Acharya Kripalani's direction given prior to his arrest along with other Working Committee members, had also taken counsel and had proceeded to establish an Underground AICC. Among them were Sucheta Kripalani, Sadiq Ali and Giridhari Kripalani. Lohia, who had previously worked with these people at the AICC, was a common link between this group of Gandhian AICC workers and the Socialists. The two groups determined, not surprisingly, to work together. They provided valuable guidance to the resistance movement throughout the country, JP joined them after his daring escape from Hazaribag jail with his colleagues. However, initially at least, there was a strong element of spontaneity in the August revolt. The AICC organisation stepped in later. The resistance movement did not of course stay 'within the limits of pure non-violence. Nevertheless, the Underground AICC discouraged acts of terrorism and asked the people to stick to the non-killing, non-injury formula.
 I do not wish to relate here the brave deeds of our people. They form a glorious chapter in the history of our freedom movement. If Gandhiji had not given the Quit India call, I have no doubt that our freedom would have been delayed., I was not happy about Jawaharlal's activities in the first half of 1942. We thought that he
was launched on a disastrous course. But he controlled himself in time and moved the Quit India resolution at the Bombay AICC. He also suffered imprisonment along with other leaders. I pay him a tribute for preserving the anti-imperialist unity in the decisive phase of our struggle for freedom.

 –First published in the Independence Day-Quit
India Number, 1991 of Janata


- JANATA, August 13, 2017

No comments:

Post a Comment

New Posts on SP(I) Website

लड़खड़ाते लोकतंत्र में सोशलिस्ट नेता मधु लिमए को याद करने के मायने आरोग्य सेतु एप लोगों की निजता पर हमला Need for Immediate Nationalisation ...