India’s Demand and England’s Answer
I
THE war in Europe grips our attention, for, whether we are in it or out of it, our future depends much on its outcome. For the moment our attention is diverted from the tragic struggle in the Far East, yet we know that this struggle is of essential significance and what happens in China will affect us all. So also in India, though here there is no obvious or external struggle in progress at present. For China and India will have a powerful effect on the shape of things to come, whatever that ultimate shape may be. This is not only so because of the vast numbers of human beings that live in these two countries — between 800 and 900 millions; not only because of their rich and tremendous past heritage; but because of their enormous resources and potential political and economic strength.
There is much talk of a new order and of world coöperation. There can be no stable order or effective coöperation in the world if India and China are ignored, and, relatively weak though they might be today, they are not so weak as to submit to any such treatment.
As an Indian, the future of India and her people is of tremendous importance to me, but the real significance of the Indian problem lies in its relation to the world problem. For India’s problem is part of the world problem, and neither can be considered fully or understood apart from the other. Even in the present war in Europe, India can make a difference.
It is right and proper, therefore, that what happens in India should attract attention in the United States of America and that the American people should seek to understand India’s problems in relation to the world, for on them ultimately will fall the burden of the future, whether they will it or not. Their great material resources and dominating position in the world have cast this burden on them today, but even more so has this responsibility been cast upon them because of their leadership of the forces of democracy. If, in the words of President Roosevelt, the American people are going to ‘keep ablaze the flames of human liberty, reason, democracy and fair play,’ they will have to throw their weight on the side of liberty and democracy in other parts of the world also, so that, out of present-day chaos and violence, real peace and freedom may emerge. Peace is indivisible, it has been said; so is freedom, and there will be no enduring equilibrium unless it spans the world.
As India has grown in strength and self-reliance and approached the gates of freedom, she has thought of herself more and more as a part of a larger order, and has considered her own problem as a part of the world problem. In recent years there has been the greatest interest and even anxiety in India in regard to happenings in Manchuria, Abyssinia, Spain, Palestine, and Central Europe. Indians have begun to develop an international outlook, and, though they have been passionately attached to Indian independence, they have viewed it not as isolation but in terms of coöperation in a world order.
It was because of this that we followed events in Europe, Asia, and elsewhere closely, and, as the prospect of a second world war approached, the Indian Congress laid down its policy in regard to such a war. We had bitter memories of the war of 1914-1918 and what followed it. In that war India’s help had been considerable, over 1,200,000 men being sent to various theatres of war. All manner of promises were held out to us about the future status of India. What really followed was intense repression, martial law in the Punjab, and the famous Amritsar massacre. Out of all this the Noncooperation movement of Mr. Gandhi was born, and for the past twenty years the struggle for Indian freedom has gone on, peacefully but effectively and on a mass scale. That struggle would have come in any case, for the time was ripe for vital changes in India, and both political and economic problems demanded them insistently. The war and post-war experiences brought matters to a head, and we saw how Indian men and resources had been exploited for the strengthening and furtherance of British imperialism.
So, as early as 1927, the Congress declared that the Indian people could not permit the exploitation of Indian resources for the furtherance of imperialist aims and that they would not cooperate in any imperialist war. Year after year this policy was reiterated and developed. With the growth of the Nazi power, the Congress condemned Fascism and Naziism and disapproved of their theory and practice. We approved of collective security to check aggression and noticed that British policy, in spite of occasional declarations to the contrary, was deliberately sabotaging this idea, on which the League of Nations had been based, and was often encouraging aggression. Munich came as a terrible shock, and the so-called nonintervention and betrayal of Spain were a tragedy which affected us deeply.
These events gave shape to the external policy of the National Congress. While on the one hand we disapproved of Fascism and Naziism, we dissociated ourselves entirely from British foreign policy and made it clear again that we could be no parties to a war imposed upon us for imperialist ends. Any such imposition would be opposed and resisted. The British Government meanwhile tried to amend the existing Indian constitution so as to concentrate all power, in the event of a war emergency, in the hands of the irresponsible Central Government, which it controlled completely. This took away from the powers of the Provincial Governments and reduced provincial autonomy to a farce. The attempt met with strenuous opposition.
In August 1939, Indian troops were sent abroad to Egypt and Malaya without any reference to the Central or Provincial Assemblies. As a protest against this, the Congress withdrew all its members from the Central Assembly and again warned the British Government of the consequences of dragging India into a war without the consent of the Indian people.
In spite of all this, India was declared a belligerent country immediately on the outbreak of the war in Europe, and the Indian Constitution Amending Bill was rushed through the British Parliament within a few minutes. This was deeply resented, and ordinarily the Congress would have been justified in following up its previous decisions by advising the Indian people to abstain from the war. Apart from these developments, we could not conceive that Mr. Neville Chamberlain’s Government, in spite of its professions, could stand or work for democracy and freedom. At the same time we did not want a Nazi victory and our sympathies were entirely on the side of the victims of aggression.
The Congress thereupon, on September 14, 1939, issued a long statement on the war crisis making it clear that if the war was to defend the status quo, imperialist possessions, colonies, vested interests and privilege, then India could have nothing to do with it. If, however, the issue was democracy and a world order based on democracy, then India was intensely interested in it. She could not support imperialism or fascism in any form, but she would throw her weight on the side of democracy, provided that democracy functioned in India also. It was manifestly absurd for a subject India to become the champion of liberties abroad which were denied to her. The Congress therefore invited the British Government to declare its war aims in regard to democracy and imperialism and the new order that was envisaged, and, in particular, how these aims were going to apply to India and be made effective in the present. A declaration of Indian independence was asked for, and the recognition of the right of the Indian people to frame their own constitution through a Constituent Assembly, without external interference.
This claim was not put forward in any spirit of bargaining. It was the inevitable outcome of our long struggle for freedom, and it was the essential preliminary for any effort in India to make the war popular there. We have a background of a hundred and fifty years of conflict between Indian nationalism and British imperialism. It is not easy to get rid of it. England may be partly democratic at home; to us in India she appears in imperialist garb only, and we have suffered under this imperialism for many generations now. Her recent policy, both in India and abroad, has strengthened our conviction that her outlook is still completely imperialist. It was only by a full declaration of Indian independence that the great psychological barrier which separates India from England could be broken down. It was only then that the bona fides of England in this war could be established. Otherwise why should we be parties to imperialist adventures and allow our resources to be exploited for imperialist ends?
II
The answer that the British Government gave us demonstrated that our fears and apprehensions were fully justified. It refused to define its war or peace aims, and, in regard to India, stated that ‘at the end of the war’ His Majesty’s Government ‘will be very willing to enter into consultation with representatives of several communities, parties and interests in India and with the Indian Princes with a view to securing their aid and coöperation in framing such constitutional modifications as may be deemed desirable.’ Among the interests and parties, it was made clear, were British financial and mercantile interests.
The war in Europe may shake up the world, and the whole political and economic structure may be on the verge of collapse, but Whitehall still speaks in the old voice and language of British imperialism. We must wait till the end of the war, when Whitehall will decide. The elected representatives of the Indian people do not count; various odd groups will be consulted and then what is deemed desirable will emerge. Among the groups that must have their say are the Indian Princes and British vested interests, both of whom are completely opposed to the idea of Indian freedom. The Indian States, ruled by the Princes, are relics of a bygone mediæval age where full-blooded autocracy and often something like a feudal system prevail. They would have vanished long ago if the British Government had not protected them. During recent years a people’s movement has arisen in these states demanding freedom and democratic rights. This has been crushed to the accompaniment of brutal repression and gangster methods, which have nothing to learn from Nazi methods. The British Government has given full support to this repression in the Indian States.
British financial, mercantile, and other vested interests are the emblems of imperialist control and exploitation in India. It is ultimately on their behalf and for their sake that Britain controls India. To ask us, therefore, to get the Princes as well as British vested interests to agree to any change is to put up a barrier which can never be surmounted. It means that the final decision about the liquidation of British imperialism must rest with that imperialism itself.
The British Government’s answer was an affront to the people of India, who saw in it the desire to consolidate the imperialist regime in India and elsewhere. If this was so, the war in Europe became obviously a war of rival imperialisms, and India could be no party to it. Not only the Congress but all groups and parties condemned this answer. The Congress decided that under these circumstances it could not associate itself with the war, and, as a first step in noncooperation, called upon the Provincial Governments to resign. Eight such governments resigned, and, as it was not possible to have any other alternative popular governments in seven of them, the constitution was suspended and the governor became the autocrat. In the eighth province, Assam, a precarious ministry was formed and its future is uncertain. So we have gone back to autocracy and completely irresponsible government.
Taken aback by the volume of resentment in India, the British Government made another approach and offered some seats in the Viceroy’s Executive Council to popular representatives, whom the Viceroy would nominate. This was an attempt to buy up by high office some prominent leaders. It ignored completely the issues at stake and avoided a declaration about India’s freedom. If the Congress had been foolish enough to accept this bait, it could have been said with justice that it was bargaining for personal preferment. The offer was rejected.
Another significant move was fathered by the British Government. This was to shift public attention from the political problem to the communal. The problem which had assumed importance since the war was a purely political one — the freedom of India and the right of her people to frame their constitution. The communal problem, though important in its own sphere, had nothing to do with the political. The British Government, however, sought shelter in communal difficulties and made the agreement of certain reactionary communal groups and minorities a prerequisite for any further consideration of the political problem. The Indian Congress declared that it was prepared to go any length to recognize and protect minority and communal rights and interests, provided that Indian unity, democracy, and freedom did not suffer. It could not satisfy, under any circumstances, those who were politically reactionary and opposed to the very conception of freedom and democracy. These reactionary groups, communal or princely, have lined up now, as they have done in the past, behind British imperialism, to resist any change which will give power to the people.
The National Congress did not ask for any power or privileged position for itself. It demanded a declaration of India’s independence and the framing of India’s constitution by a Constituent Assembly, freely elected under adult franchise. This Assembly would elect representatives to meet the representatives of the British Government for the settlement of all problems of mutual interest and for a treaty between two free nations. This was the obvious and only democratic procedure possible, in order to ascertain the will of the nation as a whole, giving full opportunity to all. Any other course would mean the imposition of the will of Britain or of some privileged groups in the country.
The question of the minorities or of different communities is worthy of consideration, but it has to be remembered that, whatever minority claims or objections might be, they cannot come in the way of a declaration of India’s freedom by Britain. Such a declaration would state the intention and decision of the British Government. Whitehall has, however, made the minority problem an excuse for making no declaration at all.
What is this minority problem in India? The word ‘minority’ is misleading, as we are not dealing with racial minorities or nationalities as in Europe, but with religious groups usually of the same racial stock. The smaller religious groups are Christians, Sikhs (an offshoot from Hinduism), Parsees, and so forth. The main divisions are Hindus and Muslims, the former constituting about two thirds of the entire population. The Muslims, though theoretically a minority in the whole of India, number seventy millions and are in a majority in five northern provinces. Under provincial autonomy they can, if they function communally or religiously, control these five provinces. The distribution of the population and the administrative areas is such that there is a balance, and it is hardly conceivable that either of the great communities, even if so inclined, could ignore the other or misbehave towards the other. If this happened there would immediately be repercussions in other parts of India.
It is absurd to imagine that these two huge religious groups are ranged against each other in the country, although it is unfortunately true that conflicts have taken place from time to time, chiefly in towns. There is a long history behind this, and a consistently followed British policy to encourage disruptive tendencies. While Indian nationalism has sought to unify India and has to a large extent succeeded, British imperialism has tried to introduce barriers to unity. One of the most unfortunate of these has been the introduction of separate electorates, each group voting independently for its own candidates. The result of f this is the perpetuation of a feeling of separation and the encouragement in each group of the extremer communal and bigoted elements. This bigotry or communal feeling has often been exploited by political reactionaries to their own advantage.
In spite of all this, the National Congress has met with considerable success in developing political unity of outlook and action. The Congress is open to all Indians who subscribe to the objective of Indian independence, without any religious or other distinction. It has, inevitably, a very large Hindu membership, but it has also hundreds of thousands of Muslims on its rolls. The Northwest Frontier Province, which is 95 per cent Muslim, is dominated by the Congress and has a Congress Muslim Ministry.
Both the Hindus and Muslims have their own communal organizations, the Muslim being the All India Muslim League. The League is controlled by reactionary politicians who have taken little or no part in the struggle for Indian freedom during the last twenty years, and who have often opposed it and sided with British imperialism. Apart from the League, there are three other important Muslim organizations which are politically more advanced and have often coöperated with the Congress, and which today entirely support the Congress demand for Indian independence and a Constituent Assembly.
The Congress has repeatedly laid down that the rights of all minorities must be fully protected by fundamental laws in the constitution. Every conceivable minority right — religion, freedom of conscience, culture, language, and so forth — could be thus protected, apart from other civic rights which would apply to everybody. Any infringement of such a right could be challenged in a supreme court.
In the demand for a Constituent Assembly, minority rights have been especially considered. The Assembly would be elected by adult suffrage, but, to ensure that minorities can send the representatives of their own choice, they have been given the option to have separate electorates for the purpose, much as we dislike this separatist machinery. Further, it has been suggested that all questions directly affecting any minority’s interests, as such, should be settled by agreement and not by the greater voting power of the majority. If such an agreement is not arrived at in regard to any particular point, it can be referred for arbitration to the League of Nations or the International Court at The Hague or any other impartial body mutually agreed upon.
It passes the wit of man to devise further safeguards for a minority, but if any other expedients to ensure confidence in a minority or to protect its interests suggest themselves, the Congress will gladly consider them, for the Congress is anxious to settle this problem to the satisfaction of all. But nothing can be agreed to which goes against Indian freedom or democrary or disrupts India. Nor can a minority be allowed to dominate or override the majority. After all, the majority has also some rights.
Our communal or minority problem would have been settled long ago if a third party had not been always there to play it up, holding all manner of political gifts in its hands. So long as British imperialism functions in India, a real communal settlement is exceedingly difficult to arrive at. The bid of the British Government can always be higher than that of the neighbor, and reactionary groups take advantage of this fact and barter away national freedom for seeming communal gains. It is for this reason that the Constituent Assembly has been suggested for the settlement of the communal problem. It will do so only when everyone realizes that this is the final authority, and that no outsider can intervene. The pressure of events will then force a solution, for the alternative is internal conflict.
Stress has been laid on adult or nearadult franchise for the Constituent Assembly. Apart from political reasons for this, such a wide franchise is desirable even from the point of view of the communal problem. This is essentially a middle-class problem and does not affect the masses at all. If the members of the Constituent Assembly are elected by the masses, they will bring an economic outlook with them and will be more concerned with mass problems than with others. The Hindu and the Muslim peasant or worker or shopkeeper or artisan or business man has the same problem to face. He is not worried by communal or religious divisions in regard to his work or business. For this reason we are opposed to a restricted electorate which will be largely controlled by the communally-minded classes, intent on preserving their own narrow interests.
Objection is raised to adult franchise because this will give an enormous electorate in India and vast constituencies. This difficulty can be got over by indirect election and the formation of electoral colleges.
III
The world is full of problems today, and some of them, not finding solution, have led Europe into the dreadful holocaust of war. No problem is an easy one and each is tied up with many others. None of us minimizes the difficulties we have to face in India, difficulties of our own creation or due to our own failings, as those created by the British Government. But the Indian problem is yet capable of solution peacefully, and with an eye to the larger problems of the world. That solution is being hindered by reactionary elements in England and in India, but the problem remains and grows more serious, for behind it lie all manner of economic conflicts — the vast poverty of our country, the agrarian question, the feudal princely areas, the dominance of British vested interests. The tragedy is that Britain should have encouraged, and should continue to encourage, disruptive and reactionary tendencies in India in order to preserve her imperial interests. She will not preserve them, for they are destined to go, but they will go in hostility and conflict if no better way is found. The day when India could submit to external impositions is past.
It was a brave offer made on behalf of India to England for a declaration of war aims and Indian independence. If that had been accepted in the spirit in which it was made, there would have been an end to generations of conflict and struggle between the two countries, and for the first time we should have had willing coöperation between equals. If England had accepted it, she would have startled the world and proved that she really stood for democracy and freedom. She would have gained a greater victory than any she can possibly achieve on the battlefield, and the moral backing of the world would have been with her.
But imperialisms die hard, and British imperialism is old and tough. It was too much to expect that Mr. Chamberlain’s Government should liquidate it, even under stress of war. It is clear to us that this imperialism is functioning and is seeking to preserve itself. India will be no party to this, and therefore she has dissociated herself from the war. We have taken the first step in noncoöperation, and though we have been in no hurry to take another step, events carry us inevitably towards further conflict.
Attempts will no doubt be made again by the British Government to come to terms with Indian nationalism. But they are foredoomed to failure unless they recognize that there are no halfway houses to Indian freedom, and that this can no longer be reconciled with British imperialism. That imperialism will have to be liquidated, and India acknowledged to be an independent country. Dominion status and the like have ceased to have significance, and in any event they have no application to India. We have to think of the world in terms other than those of empire, howsoever free internally this might be. If we have international coöperation, as we must, it has to be on a world scale. To that conception of international coöperation or world order India is fully attached, and she would gladly associate herself with it.
India is far from America, but more and more our thoughts go to this great democratic country, which seems, almost alone, to keep the torch of democratic freedom alight in a world given over to imperialism and fascism, violence and aggression, and opportunism of the worst type. Even in our own struggle for freedom we have adhered to peaceful methods and have conceived of political action in moral terms, though we may have failed often enough in acting up to that conception. We have had misfortune enough in the world; but if even this war is to be carried on in the old imperialist way with no higher aims, if it results in no essential difference to the world or to human freedom, if it does not end the root causes of war and human degradation, then that will be tragedy indeed. India would gladly work to prevent this tragedy. It was in this spirit that we invited the British Government to state its aims. It is in this spirit also that we shall try to continue, even though our path leads to conflict with England. We should ill serve the cause we cherish by submitting to that very evil of imperialism against which we have struggled for so long.