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