Labour Monthly, May 1942
Source: Labour Monthly, May 1942, p.144-148, signed by Ben Bradley;
Transcribed: by Ted Crawford.
The full tragedy of the failure of the recent negotiations between the War Cabinet and the Indian people must be clearly appreciated by those who desire
(a) total war in order that Hitler and his allies will be smashed this year, and
(b) that the principles for which we are fighting – the freedom of all peoples – should apply immediately to all people opposed to fascism, thus making it possible for them to participate in this great struggle.
Sir Stafford Cripps has returned to this country empty handed. The reason for this is the fact that the proposals taken by him on behalf of the War Cabinet did not indicate an appreciation of the urgency of the situation; neither did they show any generous approach to the aspirations of the Indian people.
The Press of this country have been at considerable pains to present the proposals as most generous, and to distort the actual position in India, thus to create the impression that should negotiations fail, as they have done, the responsibility would not be due to the British Government.
The Calcutta Statesman, one of the leading British newspapers in India, wrote, “We regret greatly the announcement of Sir Stafford Cripps’s immediate departure,” in an article contending that the blame for the present position lies with the India Office and the official section of the Government of India.
This may well be so, but Sir Stafford Cripps came very near to wrecking any possibility of discussion with the recognised leaders of Indian opinion at the very reactionary character of the Government proposals, and to challenge the general propaganda that they are in any way generous.
The above proposals did not come in for the main discussion in India for the simple reason that the Indian National Congress has directed its attention to the immediate situation and the threat of Japanese invasion.
The second part of the proposals dealing with the present situation made it clear that “until the new Constitution is framed H.M. Government must inevitably bear responsibility for, and retain control and direction of, the defence of India as part of their world war effort, but the task of organising to the full the military, moral and material resources of India must be the responsibility of the Government of India with the co-operation of the people of India.”
This leaves the defence of India completely in the hands of the representatives of the British Government, while the Indian leaders will have the task of organising the supply of men and material.
It was around this part of the proposals that most discussion took place. The Indian National Congress asked for the right of the Indian people to be responsible for the defence of their country, and for a Government in India that could claim the confidence of the people.
Sir Stafford Cripps held discussions in New Delhi with representatives of various bodies – the Indian National Congress, the Moslem League, the Liberal Federation, the Hindu Mahasabha, and so on.
In these discussions a sharp contrast is shown between the approach of the Indian National Congress and the Moslem League. While Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad, on behalf of the Congress, have been concerned with the present emergency and defence of India, Mr. Jinnah has been primarily concerned with certain Moslem interests and the establishment of Pakistan.
Let me emphasise that the Indian National Congress represents the overwhelming majority of the Indian people – Hindus, Moslems, Sikhs, etc. In 1937, when the Provincial Assembly elections took place under the present Constitution, the Congress secured a two to one majority, and Congress Governments were formed in 9 out of 11 Provinces.
Any settlement on behalf of the Indian people must in the long run rest with the Congress because it commands the allegiance of the great majority of the Indian people.
Almost the whole Press, and even the B.B.C., has been concerned to minimise the status of the Indian National Congress and to describe it as a Hindu body.
This is part of the policy to show the position in India as being Hindu versus Moslem, and that the British Raj is there, holding the scales evenly balanced.
What is the Moslem League that it should be treated on an equal basis as the Indian National Congress? The Moslem League was founded in December, 1906, and in 1910 Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald wrote a book, “The Awakening of India,” in which he said of the League that:-
The political successes which have rewarded the efforts of the League have been so signal as to give support to the suspicion that sinister influences have been at work, that the Mohammedan leaders were inspired by certain Anglo-Indian officials, and that these officials pulled wires at Simla and in London, and of malice aforethought sowed discord between the Hindus and Mohammedan communities by showing the Mohammedans special favours.
In the same year as the Moslem League was formed it sent a deputation to the Viceroy, Lord Minto. Lord Minto received the deputation and announced his acceptance of all their demands.
It was subsequently revealed by the great Moslem leader, Mohamed Ali, in the course of his Presidential Address to the 1923 Session of the Indian National Congress, that this Moslem deputation was “a command performance” arranged by the Government.
Yet it was Mr. Jinnah of the Moslem League that occupied so much time of Sir Stafford Cripps putting forward his plans of Pakistan – the demand that all territory north of the Indus Valley should be an independent Moslem country.
The overwhelming majority of Moslems do not desire this separation. Abdul Ghaffer Khan, the Congress leader, speaks for the Moslem Pathan of the North-west Frontier where there was a Congress Government; they do not want it.
The present Governments of the two Provinces of Bengal and Sind, both with large Moslem populations, have expressed opinions against Pakistan.
It is necessary to get this clear, and to remove the picture created by the tremendous Press barrage that the main problem was a communal one. It is not so. My own experience among the workers and peasants of India in the Trade Union and Peasant Movements, and in strike action there, is complete unity between Hindu and Moslem.
The Indian National Congress is quite conscious of the special interests of the various communities – Hindu, Moslem, Sikh, Parsee and so on – that go to make up the vast Indian population, and will take steps to see that those interests are protected.
These are not, however, the main questions facing the people of India at this critical moment. The two Congress leaders, Jawaharlal Nehru and Abdul Kalam Azad (Hindu and Moslem, though the Kemsley Press may not know), directed their discussion along the lines that the present urgent situation demands: that is, the part the Indian people, will play in the united struggle against fascism and in defence of their country, and the establishment of a responsible Provisional National Government that commands the confidence of the people.
In the discussions certain concessions were made allowing for an Indian Defence Member, who would be responsible for organising the moral and material resources of India for the war.
But when this came to be defined with more precision, all the important power for recruiting and political control over the Army was reserved to the Commander-in-Chief, who would not be responsible to an Indian Executive Council, but only to the War Cabinet in Britain.
At the present moment the Viceroy is not only the Governor-General; he chooses all members of the Executive Council and presides over every meeting of the Council. He takes decisions sometimes on behalf of the entire government of India without consulting a single member, and can reject the advice of even the majority if he thinks it necessary. Moreover, there are several departments in his personal charge, for decisions about which he need not, and frequently does not, consult the Executive Council.
It was on this question of responsibility that the visit of Cripps failed. The Congress Resolution stated:—
That to take away defence front the sphere of (Indian) responsibility at this stage is to reduce that responsibility to a farce and to nullity, and to make it perfectly clear that India is not going to function as a free and independent Government during the war.
The essential and fundamental pre-requisite for the assumption of responsibility by the Indian people in the present is the realisation as a fact that they are free and are in charge of maintaining and defending their freedom.
The keen desire to unite with the forces of freedom in the present great world struggle against fascism is expressed by the whole working class, peasant and student movement in India. These vast sections have watched closely the discussions, sincerely trusting that the outcome would give India the rightful standing to play her part in this great struggle.
This keen desire of the Indian masses was expressed at the last session of the All-India Congress Committee held in January, when Mahmud Ali Khan (Punjab) moved certain amendments to the Resolution on behalf of the Communist Party. They stated, inter alia, that the Congress recognised the changed character of the war, and realised that the supreme issue before all mankind to-day was the achievement of a final and complete victory over Hitler and his allies. The present reactionary policy of the British Government should not prevent the Indian people from forging their rightful place in the war against fascism. The All-India Congress Committee was asked, to declare its full and whole-hearted support to the cause of the peoples of Russia, China, Great Britain and America and of the Nazi-occupied countries in Europe.
This is a clear lead to the people of India. In order to carry this effectively into operation, the many trade union, peasant and Communist leaders must be released from the prisons in India.
The lessons of Malaya, Singapore and Burma are such that could not be ignored. The people of these countries did not want the Japanese invaders, but the British Government failed to win the people in a free alliance in the common struggle.
Free India, in unity with the Chinese people, can be the rock upon which the plans of the Axis Powers in the East can be smashed. The grave and urgent situation demands a settlement satisfactory and acceptable to the Indian people.
Even in this hour of great disappointment Jawaharlal Nehru issues a stirring call to his countrymen – “Who lives if India perishes? India calls, and every Indian, man and woman, must listen to that call. Let each one of us stick to the post of duty whatever befalls.”
India receives the shock of air raids from another foreign power; the East Coast harbour towns of Vizagapatam and Cocoanada are raided by the Japanese and the first casualties reported. At the same time, the eastern arm of the Axis Powers steadily advances along the Irrawaddy through Burma to the frontier of India.
Hitler in the West prepares for his spring offensive, while Japan drives through from the East. Frustrated by the heroic defence of the Soviet Union, in desperation these two fascist Powers prepare their gigantic pincer movement aimed at linking up in the Middle East.
The peoples of the democratic countries are facing the eve of the greatest battles the world has known. It is in this situation of gravest danger that the world democratic front of all free peoples must be strengthened by the fighting alliance of all peoples opposed to fascism. The Indian people are opposed to fascism, and our urgent task is to remove any obstacle that may be in the way, thus enabling India to take her place in the world democratic front against fascism.
In order to secure this we must demand the immediate reopening of discussions with the Indian National Congress on the basis that a Provisional National Government will be established immediately, through which the responsibility of mobilising and organising the people for the defence of India will be the hands of the leaders and representatives of the Indian people.