B BEFORE discussing at length the problems of Indiannationalism, let us consider whether India isreally a nation, or is merely a composite of peo-
ples inhabiting the same country. India's fundamentalunity as a nation has been denied often by prominentscholars, while its historic and cultured oneness hasreally never been acknowledged by the English rulersof the country . Sir John Strachey remarks
"This is the first and most essential thing tolearn about India-that there is not and never wasan India, or even any country of India, possessing, according to European ideas, any sort of unity,
physical, political, social, or religious ; no Indiannation, no `people of India' of which we hear somuch."We believe that Sir John Strachey is profoundly
wrong in his assertion that India is not a nation inthe "physical, political, social, or religious" sense . Onthe contrary, it can be proved easily that geograph-ically, historically, culturally, and spiritually India isfundamentally one. Cut -off from the north. and theeast by the snow-clad Himalayas, and surrounded onthe south and the west by the mighty Indian Ocean,India is geographically, one country . Every part ofthe interior is freely accessible from all sides . Nonatural boundary lines within the country divide itinto different parts ; nor do any high mountains ob-
[190]
INDIAN NATIONALISM-ITS ORIGIN AND GROWTH
struct the free passage from one part of the country tothe other. In fact, India is a physical unit, much moredistinct than any other country in Europe or America .
When we study the history of India, from the an-cient Vedic period to modern times, we find again thewhole of the Indian peninsula, from Bengal to Gujrat,and from Ceylon to Kashmir, mentioned always as onemotherland . "The early Vedic literature containshymns addressed to the Motherland of India . Theepic poems speak of the whole of BHARAT as thehome-land of Aryans." We hear nowhere any accountof separate nationalities within the country. The lit-erature of India is full of thoughts about Indian na-tionality ; but there is no mention of separate Bengal,Madras, Gujrat, or Punjab nations, based upon geo-graphic divisions . Powerful emperors in ancient aswell as modern times have ruled over the entire penin-sula in peace and security . "In fact, the belief in theunity of India was so strong in ancient times that noruler considered his territories complete until he hadacquired control over the entire peninsula ." Asokaruled over the whole of India in perfect harmony .Akhbar's power spread to the farthest ends of theland. And when, later on, the different governors ofthe border provinces rose in revolt and refused alleg-iance to the successors of Akhbar, it was the greatdistance from the capital that suggested revolt to thepopulation of these distant provinces, and not a feel-ing of separate nationality .
Culturally, again, India is one nation . In theirdaily habits, their ethical standards, and their spiritualresponses the Indians of every religion and locality
[ 191 ]
MY MOTHER INDIA
are fundamentally alike. "Their family life is foundedon the same bases ; their modes of dress and cookingare the same . Their very tastes are similar." Theyrespect the same national heroes and worship the sameideals. They have the same hopes and aspirations inthis life and in the hereafter. As a result, their men-tal and spiritual behavior is similar . In fact, theyare fundamentally one in mind and in spirit .
It is true that more than one dialect is spoken inthe country . Until 1920 the business of the IndianNational Congress itself was carried on in the Englishlanguage because no other language was common tothe whole of India . It was really tragic that a peoplewho were so profoundly proud of their national heri-tage and who aspired to political freedom were obligedto use at the meetings of their national assemblies anutterly foreign language . That the variety of lan-guages was in fact a very slight difficulty was demon-strated at the session of the Indian National Congressin 1920 . From the Congress platform at Amritsar in1919 Mahatma Gandhi had announced that at all sub-sequent meetings the business of the Congress wouldbe conducted in the Hindi language, which is spokenby more than a third of the population of the country .Teachers were sent immediately to different parts ofthe country to instruct the people in the Hindi lan-guage and when the Congress convened again in 1920its business was carried on in Hindi . Delegates fromBengal, Madras, and Bombay made their speeches inHindi as fluently as those from the United Provincesand the Punjab. Every one felt satisfied at the change .
[192]
INDIAN NATIONALISM-ITS ORIGIN AND GROWTH
A miracle had happened ; India had acquired a com-mon tongue in the course of a year .
The population of India is composed of many dif-ferent peoples, who came to the country originally asinvaders, and later settled there and became a partthereof. Through the process of assimilation andadaptation extending over generations, the originalAfghan, Mongol, and Persian conquerors of India havelost their peculiar characteristics, and become one withthe rest of the population in their language, ideas, andloyalties. The position of these foreign types in In-dia is exactly analogous to peoples of different nation-alities, who migrated from Europe into America inthe early times . The interval of a single generationwas usually sufficient to transfer the loyalties of Euro-pean immigrants from their native countries to theUnited States. The difference between India and theUnited States in this respect is merely that the Indianmust go back many more generations to reach his im-migrant than must the American .
The chief barrier in the way of spiritual unityamong the people of India, is religion . Hinduism andMohammedanism are the dominant religions of thecountry. The main portion of the population is Hindu,but seventy millions of Mohammedans are scatteredover the whole country in small groups. The Moham-medans came to India originally as invaders and con-querors, and now occupy a position in the country ofmixed authority and subjection . Wherever they formthe majority group, they dominate the followers ofother religions ; while in other places they are helddown as minorities . Since the beginning of their con-
[193]
MY MOTHER INDIA
tact the Hindus and the Mohammedans of India havenever agreed. Intervals of peace and harmony be-tween the two communities have occurred occasionallyduring the reigns of benevolent emperors like Akhbarand Shah Jahan ; but their hearts were never joined intrue companionship even before the beginning of Eng-lish influence . The modern rulers of India have helpedto strengthen the differences between the Hindus andthe Mohammedans in so far that the animosities be-tween the two religious groups were no less bitter in1918 than they were three hundred years ago . Sincethe days of Gandhi's leadership, however, a great dealhas been accomplished in building up a feeling of gen-uine comradeship and love between the Hindus andMohammedans of India . When the Moslems all overthe world were in a state of deep distress at the Khilaf
at issues after the Severs treaty, the Hindus of Indiamade common cause with the Moslems of the world .Khilafat was included in the Congress program as oneof India's main issues . This liberality helped to winthe hearts of the Mohammedan population of Indiatoward their Hindu compatriots, and the HinduGandhi was idolized by both religious groups, as lead-er and savior. It was an auspicious beginning offriendship between these two isolated factions in In-dia, and ever since it has been enthusiastically fol-lowed up by the younger generation of the country .It may be confidently expected that as the youthof India acquire influence in the affairs of thecountry, the friction between the Hindus and the Mo-hammedans will cease, and their age-long battles basedupon superstition and error will come to an end .
[194]
INDIAN NATIONALISM-ITS ORIGIN AND GROWTH
Worse still in their ethical and spiritual signifi-cance are the differentiations between the caste groupsamong the Hindus . Numerous social reform societiesare working at the present time to remove the barriersof caste within Hindu society ; and until the work ofbuilding up a human fellowship among the differentcaste and religious groups of India, based upon thehighest moral teachings of the Hindu sages, is com-pleted, the political as well as spiritual regenerationof the country will remain an idle dream .
We have seen that in the cultural sense, on accountof the sameness of feelings and instincts, the Hindus,Mohammedans, Sikhs, Parsis, Bengalis, Mahratas, andMadrasis are fundamentally alike . Yet the bitternessbetween these warring elements of the country hadgrown into such immense proportions at one time thata communal feeling of neighborhood and human de-cency among them seemed inconceivable. Two hun-dred years ago, when the English first began to ac-quire control over the country, the people of Indiawere divided into perfectly hostile groups ; and nopower then existed which could bring together thesewarring factions . Among the causes that have secret-ly conspired to develop a spirit of unity among thedifferent religious and social groups of India, the fore-most has been British imperalism in the country .Britain gave to India, in the first place, a long reignof peace. This enabled the people of different parts ofthe country to have a more direct and steady inter-course than was possible in earlier times . The Englishalso gave to the higher classes of India a knowledge ofEnglish history and classical literature, whose study
[ 195 ]
MY MOTHER INDIA
breathed into the minds of the educated Indians a loveof liberty. Acquaintance with the spirit of Europeannationalism created a desire for Indian nationality . Anational consciousness soon sprang into existence andfound expression through the medium of the IndianNational Congress.
Greater than everything else, however, in its directconsequences of uniting the people of India into onenation has been the universal antagonism towardBritish rule. As the tyranny of foreign rule gradual-ly began to be felt, hatred against it increased . Thedifferent factions in the country were forced to unitefor the purpose of driving out of the country the arro-gant intruders. Whatever else may be doubtful, onething is certain about India : "The sentiment of an-tagonism toward British rule and of resentmentagainst its iniquitous character is both universal andprofound."
The principal grievances against English rule areits alien character and its exploitation of the country'swealth. Mahatma Gandhi calls it "Satanic," becauseit is founded not upon the consent of the governed butupon the military strength of the ruler . "It is basednot on right but on might . Its last appeal is not toreason or to the heart but to the sword." Gandhiwrites
"I came reluctantly to the conclusion that theBritish connection had made India more helplessthan she ever was before, politically and econom-ically . . . . The government established by lawin British India is carried on for this exploitationof the masses. No sophistry, no jugglery in fig-
[ 196 ]
INDIAN NATIONALISM-ITS ORIGIN AND GROWTH
lures can explain away the evidence the skeletonsin many villages present to the naked eye. I haveno doubt whatsoever that both England and thetown-dwellers of India will have to answer, ifthere is a God above, for this crime against hu-manity 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 . Itmay be asked : "Why should the alien origin of a ruleitself be such a strong argument against it?" "Is itnot true that England has given to India peace andefficiency in government? That constitutes the chieffunction of governments everywhere, and the rulewhich has successfully achieved this purpose justifiesits existence . If it is true elsewhere, it should be truein India also ." Our questioner may be both profound-ly right and profoundly wrong . However, the accept-ance or rejection of a foreign lordship by the heart isa matter of such subtle sentiment, that the only wayto explain its meaning to the reader is to create a situ-ation where he shall be called upon to judge in thematter .
Let us suppose that by some trick of fortune Japanobtained mastery over America . Let us grant, at thesame time, that the Japanese rule over America wasmore efficient than the American rule, and in the lightof our modern knowledge it is not beyond the limit ofprobability to imagine that Japanese efficiency in gov-ernment could be greater than American efficiency .How would our reader feel about the situation? Wouldhe be willing to discard his own indigenous native gov-ernment for the sake of a more efficient rule under the
[197]
MY MOTHER INDIA
Japanese Mikado? What would be his reaction if hesaw his own "stars and stripes" replaced by the Im-perial flag of Japan? Certainly, he would not feel atease about the matter. The condition of the native ofIndia under British authority is exactly similar incause and consequence. In its fundamental aspect therule of a country by an alien power is essentiallywrong in principle . It is unnatural and hence utterlyimmoral. Whether it is the Japanese in Korea, theUnited States of America in the Philippine Islands, orthe English in India-it is all unnatural and immoral .There can never be any ethical, moral, or spiritualjustification of an other than native rule in a country ."The government of a people by itself," says JohnStuart Mill, "has a meaning and reality ; but such athing as government of one people by another does not,and cannot exist ."
So far there have existed only two principles forthe government of any country in the world, one is thegovernment of a country by its chosen representatives,who are held responsible to their constituents, andare necessarily required to rule the country in the in-terests of the governed . This system was describedby an American emancipator as "government of thepeople, by the people, for the people ." When we lookback over the histories of the different countries ofthe world, we find that, without a single exception, thecountries which have advanced in their material andcultural possessions, during the past two hundredyears, have been those whose governments were basedon the principle of "government of the people, by thepeople, for the people."
[ 198 ]
INDIAN NATIONALISM-ITS ORIGIN AND GROWTH
In the modern world we find that the governmentsof the United States of America, England, France, andGermany are typical for their representative char-acters . It goes without saying that the progress whichthese nations have made during recent times wouldnot have been possible under any other system of gov-ernment. Take the case of any of these countries,America for example ; you will find that "America hasbeen made great by the democratic character of itsgovernmental institutions . Its colossal achievementsin the mechanical arts, the high advancement in itscultural and artistic life, the mammoth nature ofits commercial and industrial progress, the mag-nitude of its educational equipment, its institutionsof learning and research, and its high standard ofliving-all these owe their origin to the beneficentcharacter of the American government," whose foun-dation was laid upon the noble principles contained inthe Declaration of Independence
" . . . That all men are created equal ; Thatthey are endowed by their Creator with certaininalienable rights ; that among these are life, lib-erty, and the pursuit of happiness. That, to se-cure these rights, governments are institutedamong men, deriving their just powers from theconsent of the governed ; . .
"There is still another principle (or lack of princi-
ple) on which the government of a country could bebased. This occurs where the country is governed byan alien power, which derives its authority not fromthe consent of the governed, but from some outsidesource. As a natural consequence of this system the
[199]
MY MOTHER INDIA
rulers of such countries are not concerned with thebenefits to be derived by the ruled country . In suchcases the interests of the subject nation are completelysubordinated to those of the master country . "Thecommerce of the ruling power is expanded at the ex-pense of the ruled ; the industries of the governingcountry are enhanced at the cost of the extinction ofthose of the governed." "The material, cultural, andmoral life of one people is enriched at the expense ofthe life sources of a more helpless and unfortunatepeople." The process begins with the impoverishingof the subject nation through a system of economicexploitation of its wealth resources by the dominantpowers. Poverty in its turn degrades the character ofthe people, and the nation becomes morally flabby . Thedegeneration of an impoverished and suppressed peo-ple is assisted by the deteriorating influence of theother policies of the foreign ruler, such as the disarm-ing of the subject people, the introduction in theirmidst of an alien system of education so designed asto form in its higher classes a group of miseducated"snobs" and to create in the upper sections of thecountry contempt for its past history and culture .
This kind of government has existed in India forthe past two hundred years . To begin with, Englandcarried away all the tangible wealth of the country "inthe form of indemnities, grants, and gifts from itsprinces, and assessments and taxes from the people ."At the same time the industries of the country weredestroyed, and its commercial prosperity was checkedby a selfish policy of enriching the manufacturingclasses of England at the expense of those in India .
[ 200 ]
INDIAN NATIONALISM-ITS ORIGIN AND GROWTH
The entire population of the country was disarmed asthe next step . Thus were the natures of the peopledegraded, their martial spirit was crushed, and "a raceof soldiers and heroes converted into a timid flock ofquill-driving sheep."
The introduction of an utterly alien system of edu-cation was still another step in rooting out of thecountry the remnants of national honor and pride .According to the scheme of English education in thecountry, formulated by Lord Macaulay, English wasmade the medium of instruction for all branches ofstudy . English history and English literature re-ceived preference over Indian history and Indian lit-erature. The text-books for schools and colleges wereprepared by English agents of the government ; andfrom them sentiments of love and admiration for In-dian civilization and culture on one hand, and respectfor the character and behavior of its princes on theother, were rigidly excluded . In its place the Englishkings, the English people, the English religion, theEnglish government, the English institutions, in facteverything English was held up as ideal . Accordingto the history texts, whenever a battle was fought be-tween the English and the native princes, the formerwere always in the right and the latter forever in thewrong. The English were always the victorious, andthe natives always the beaten party. Mir Jafar, thearch-traitor of the country, was a noble and worthyprince, while Mir Kasam, the benevolent protector ofhis subjects against the injustice of the East IndiaCompany's agents, was a hypocrite and a debauche .The reason for the exaltation of Mir Jafar and the ex-
[201]
MY MOTHER INDIA
ecration of Mir Kasam is, however, easily understood .Mir Jafar was the commander-in-chief of the army ofSiraj-ud-Daulah, who stood against the forces of LordClive on the battlefield of Plassey. At a suggestion ofbribery from Clive, Mir Jafar led the whole of hisarmy over to the side of the enemy, and thus securedfor the English the victory of Plassey, which was thebeginning of their real power in the country. On theother hand, Mir Kasam was continually fightingagainst the encroachments of the East India Companyover his own territories and the rights of his subjcts .Which of the two princes was a real man and a worthyhero among his people, Mir Jafar or Mir Kasam? MirKasam, according to every kind of moral and ethicalstandard of nobility and courage ; Mir Jafar, accord-ing to the corrupt standards of British Imperialism inIndia .
After the Indian youths had finished their scantyeducation, the future that lay before them was of avery uninviting nature. As all the high offices in theservice of the country were monopolized by the Eng-lish, the only positions left for the educated classes ofIndians were those of low-paid clerks and assistants inthe government offices . No prospect of fame, orwealth, or power opened before them. There was nogreat stimulus for the pursuit of higher knowledge .The young scholars no sooner began to know theirpositions in the world than they realized the useless-ness of great attainments . Of what use was theirlearning if they were not to have employment as re-sponsible public administrators of their country andso use their knowledge in the service of India? The
[ 202 ]
INDIAN NATIONALISM-ITS ORIGIN AND GROWTH
extent of the exclusion of the native inhabitants ofthe country from offices of dignity and high emolu-ments in the government service may be realized fromthe following figures . According to the figures of1913, out of 2,501 civil and military offices in BritishIndia carrying monthly salaries of 800 rupees($266.00) or more, only 242, less than ten per centwere held by Indians ; out of the 4,986 appointmentscarrying a monthly salary of 500 rupees ($166 .00),only 19 per cent were held by Indians ; and out of the11,064 appointments carrying a monthly salary of 200rupees ($66.00) only 42 per cent were held by In-dians. Conditions have not changed much since 1913 .*
In order to enable the American reader to realizefully the magnitude of injustice involved in the wrongpolicies of the English government in India regardingthe country's systems of education and public employ-ment, we shall use our previous illustration once more .Let it be supposed that simultaneously with the con-solidation of Japanese power in America it was or-dered by the Mikado that henceforth the Japaneselanguage should form the sole medium of instructionin the schools and colleges throughout the UnitedStates . The American children would be required tolearn the Japanese language before reaching school .The texts given to the youths of the country to studyand digest would be books written and published inJapan, from which the names of such national heroesas Washington and Lincoln were excluded, but inwhich the praises of Japan were sung in high chorus .
Quoted from Lajpat Rai .[ 203
MY MOTHER INDIA
Shakespeare, Milton, Emerson, Longfellow, and Hawthorne would be excluded from the American school
curriculum, and Japanese literature substituted in itsplace. The business of all governmental departmentswould be conducted in Japanese, and its official cir-culars and reports would be printed in Japanese . Allthe higher posts in the service of the country would bereserved for the Mikado's own countrymen. The pres-ident and his cabinet ; supreme, district, and superiorcourt judges ; the governors of the states,-all wouldbe appointed in Tokyo from among the Japanese in fa-vor with the government of the Mikado . Native-bornAmericans would be employed only as stenographers,postmen, grammar school teachers, and street car con-ductors, and then only at starvation wages . Buddhismwould be made the state religion of America . Whatwould any self-respecting American say if all thiswere done to his country? What would he do when hischildren and his grandchildren raised a cry against theinjustice done to their country and its manhood, andthis cry was drowned by the declaration of the Japa-nese imperialists that Japan was carrying the YellowMan's burden in the United States of America .
The feeling of a deep and passionate resentmentfelt by the people of India regarding these matterswas expressed by the late Mr. G. K. Gokhale thus
A kind of dwarfing or stunting of the Indianrace is going on under the present system . Wemust live all our lives in an atmosphere of in-
feriority, and the tallest of us must bend, in order that the exigencies of the system may be satis-fied. The upward impulse, if I may use such anexpression, which every schoolboy at Eton or Har-
[204]
INDIAN NATIONALISM-ITS ORIGIN AND GROWTH
row may feel, that he may one day be a Gladstone,a Nelson, or a Wellington, and which may drawforth the best efforts of which he is capable, thatis denied to us . The height to which our manhoodis capable of rising can never be reached by usunder the present system . The moral elevationwhich every Self-Governing people feel, cannot be felt by us
. Our administrative and military talentsmust gradually disappear owing to sheer disuse,till at last our lot, as hewers of wood and drawersof water in our own country, is stereotyped ."If, therefore, the world sees the spectacle of an
indignant India in revolt against the English rule, itshould not be surprised . It is only natural that theEnglish should resent the attempts of the Indians tosecure their independence. It is hoped, however, thatthe other nations of the world will not feel hostileagainst the battle cry of the Indians against the Brit-ish oppression in their country . If the English im-perialists try to prove the virtue of their rule in India,please remember that the question is not whether theEnglish rule is good or bad, but whether the principleunderlying it is right or wrong . No self-respectingAmerican citizen desires to see Japanese lordship es-tablished in his native land ; he would call a conditionintolerable in which the Japanese held all the positionsof power in the government of his country . The full-blooded inhabitants of India feel in much the same wayabout the British supremacy in India . The reason ofthis attitude of both American and Indian nationalistsis the same. The self-respect of an honest man revoltsagainst foreign domination . The eyes of Modern In-dia have been opened, and her people realize "that they
[ 205 ]
MY MOTHER INDIA
are men, with a man's right to manage his own af-fairs." As was expressed by Mrs . Annie Besant inher presidential address before the Indian NationalCongress in 1917 : "India is no longer on her kneesfor `boons' ; she is on her feet for Rights ."
The first voice of organized Indian nationalist opin-ion demanding reform in the British government ofIndia, was heard in 1885 . In that year the first ses-sion of the Indian National Congress was held in Bom-bay. The Congress began as a gathering of a smallgroup of progressive nationalist leaders from differentparts of the country . Gradually, as its function be-came known, the ranks of the congress were swelledby delegates from all sections of India, and soon itsresponsible character as the representative organ ofIndian progressive opinion on political matters wasrecognized in both England and India .
The Congress began its career as a critic of Britishpolicies in the country. It submitted a request to theEnglish nation for an inquiry into Indian affairs andpresented claims for reforms in the irresponsible andautocratic character of the British Government in thecountry. As time passed and the real nature of Eng-lish rule began to be disclosed, the Indian nationalistsbecame "bolder in their criticisms and more ambitiousin their claims for reform." Except for minor con-cessions granted through the courtesy of a few sym-pathetic viceroys nothing positive in the direction ofthe better government of India was accomplished bythe Indian National Congress until the Morley-Mintoreforms of 1909 . Yet in spite of its enormous dif-ficulties, arising from the stubbornness of British bu-
[ 206 ]
INDIAN NATIONALISM-ITS ORIGIN AND GROWTH
reaucracy in India and the cold, unconcerned attitudeof the English Parliament towards Indian claims, theCongress had done excellent work in arousing the edu-cated classes of the country to a realization of their po-litical wrongs .
The Indian nationalist movement received a greatimpetus during the harsh reign of Lord Curzon as thehigh-handed Viceroy of India . One of the acts of LordCurzon was the partition of Bengal in 1905,-"an actwhich aroused in the entire population of Bengal aviolent outburst of popular disapproval ." The purposeof the English Vceroy in dividing the province intotwo portions was to destroy the unity of Bengal, andto sow at the same time seeds of bitter Hindu-Muslimfeuds. But the Bengalee youths were determined notto accept the dismemberment of their ancient land ofBengal, and the entire province was in a state of an-archy for a period of six years . In spite of the at-tempts of the English to quiet the agitation, it gradu-ally spread all over India until at last the hated act wasrepealed by royal proclamation at the Delhi coronationDurbar in 1911 .
In the meantime the Morley-Minto reforms, spon-sored by John Morley, the noted biographer of Glad-stone and at that time Secretary of State for India,and Lord Minto, the Viceroy of India, had become lawby the India Council Act of 1909 . The reforms wereaccepted by a few moderate leaders as "generous," buton the whole public opinion in India regarded them asinadequate and petty . For the first time seats in theexecutive councils of the provinces as well as those inthe Indian government were thrown open to Indians .
[207]
MY MOTHER INDIA
The provincial and central legislative councils wereenlarged and made to include more "elected" Indianmembers. Henceforth the provincial councils were tocontain a majority of "non-official" "elected" membersas distinguished from the "official" and "non-officialnominated" members, the official being the officers ofthe Government who sat in the councils as ex-officiomembers and the non-official nominated who werenominated to their positions as council members bythe governor of the province for provincial councilsand 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 BritishParliament's overriding authority ; they could discussthe budget and other measures ; they could criticiseand suggest . They could not oppose and propose, butneither depose nor dispose . They could not overthrowthe administration, or tighten the purse strings . Theywere, in short, experimental debating clubs."
Those who had put their confidence in the Morley-Minto reforms were soon disappointed. The real na-ture of the new councils as mere "debating clubs" wasdiscovered and found unsatisfactory. The people ofIndia had demanded the right to control the affairs oftheir country's government, and they had been grantedmerely the right to discuss and to criticize, with noauthority whatsoever to alter the policies of its of-ficials. The helplessness of the Indian members in theCouncils was proved after the World War during the
*Imperialism and World Politics, page 300 .[ 208
INDIAN NATIONALISM-ITS ORIGIN AND GROWTH
agitation over the Rowlatt Bills. The uproar againstthis piece of repressive legislation was so strong thatall Indian members of the Central Legislative Council,including those who were nominated by the govern-ment, voted against its passage . But in spite of thesolid opposition from Indian members in the Counciland an unprecedented revulsion against the Billsamong all classes in the country, they were made lawby the Viceroy . That legislation was a "direct slap inthe face of nationalist India ." It is a matter of com-mon knowledge that it led to the satyagraha of Ma-hatma Gandhi, which in turn crystallized into the non-violent non-cooperation movement.
After the reforms of 1909, the Indian NationalCongress continued to arouse the masses of the coun-try to a national consciousness and to a demand forrepresentation in the government of the country . In1914 all groups of Indians joined in a spirit of loyaltyto assist the British Empire during the World War .India made heavy contributions to the war-time needsof England in both man-power and money power ; as arecompense for her loyalty the people of India werepromised liberal home rule after the war . In the mean-time the Indian National Congress and the All-IndiaMoslem League (founded in 1912 by the Mohamme-dans of India) had agreed to present the joint claimsof all communities in the country for home rule . Thescheme formulated by these two organizations atLucknow in 1916, and known as the Congress-LeagueScheme, had for its aim the attainment of Swaraj(home rule) within the British Empire . They pro-posed a plan by which India within a period of fifteen
[ 209 ]
MY MOTHER INDIA
years should acquire the same rights as the self-gov-erning colonies of the Empire .
Before the end of the war, the Secretary of Statefor India, Mr. Montague, was sent to India by theBritish Parliament for the study of the conditions ofthe country with a view to launching a scheme of widerinfluence for its people . A joint report prepared bythe Secretary, Mr. Montague, and the Viceroy, LordChelmsford, was published in 1918, and after slightmodifications was passed by the British Parliament asthe Act of 1919 .
Although the Montague-Chelmsford reforms werean improvement over the reforms of 1909, all sectionsof the Indian people except a few isolated moderatesat once declared them to be unsatisfactory . Besidesenlarging the existing councils and providing for moreelected members in them, the reforms of 1919 intro-duced the new principle of "dyarchy" into the prov-inces. The various departments of the provincal gov-ernment were known as "reserved" or "transferred ."The control of the "reserved" departments remainedin the hands of the governors, who were not re-sponsible in any way to the legislatures . These in-cluded law, order, justice, and police . The class of"transferred" subjects included among others educa-tion, agriculture, and public health . Their controlwas placed in the hands of ministers elected by andresponsible to the provincial legislatures, which con-tained a majority of elected members. The system of"dyarchy" in the provincial governments, however,was not a success . No sooner had the new schemebegun to function than difficulties over the budget
[210]
INDIAN NATIONALISM-ITS ORIGIN AND GROWTH
aarose between the ministers in charge of different de-partments. The ministers of transferred subjects weregiven the privilege of managing their departments ac-cording to popular demand, but they were not pro-vided with the funds necessary to make possible theproposed reforms . "The strings of the purse werestill held by an outside power," a condition which madework of these responsible ministers wholly ineffective ."In defiance of Lincoln's principles regarding the fateof a house divided against itself," comments Prof .Moon, "the British Government made it a principle todivide the administration of India. India was to be`half free, half slave .' Autocracy and self-governmentwere to be twin columns supporting British imperial-ism. It is interesting to note the subjects which werereserved as of interest to Great Britain-the repres-sion of disorder was a prime interest . Ingenious as itwas, the scheme was by no means an unqualified suc-cess."
Yet it must be admitted that the reforms of 1919were never given a fair trial by the people of India .Before the time came for the installation of the newcouncils, the Indian nation had already launched uponits career of non-violent non-cooperation against theBritish Government . How the agitation against theRowlatt Bills led to martial law in the Punjab and tothe massacre at Amritsar, which in turn drove Ma-hatma Gandhi and the Indian National Congress to thepolicy of boycott against English rule, has alreadybeen explained in a previous chapter. One of the items
* Imperialism and World Politics, page 303 .[ 211 ]
MY MOTHER INDIA
in the non-cooperation program of the Congress wasthe boycott of councils, and as a consequence of thisitem all the responsible nationalist leaders withheldtheir names and support from the council elections .When after the arrest of Mahatma Gandhi in 1922, orewing of the Indian nationalists under the leadershipof Mr. C. R. Das, decided to go into the councils, theydid so with the purpose of breaking them up . Theavowed object of followers of Mr. Das, who werehenceforth called the "Swarajists," was to capture thecouncils with a view to breaking the machinery of thegovernment from within by obstructing its businessat every step . Even though the "Swarajists" finallydid succeed in holding the majority seats in differentlegislative councils of the country, and in causing con-siderable annoyance to the government officials bytheir obstructionist methods, yet they were far frombeing able at any time to halt the government ma-chinery.
The point at issue between India and England isthis : India has outgrown its old habit of submission .It does not bend its knee to beg for reforms and con-cessions. It is standing on its feet and demanding itsrights, and the methods it is using to secure the rightsof the people to govern themselves are of its own crea-tion. The surprising thing in this whole affair is notthat India has lost faith in the British sense of justiceand has decided to boycott its English rulers ; theamazing thing is that it took the people of India solong to find out the truth about England's interests inthe country and their own welfare . It is a sad com-mentary upon the genius of Indian leadership that it
[ 212 ]
INDIAN NATIONALISM-ITS ORIGIN AND GROWTH
took the Indian National Congress thirty-five years todiscover the path of non-cooperation towards Swaraj(home rule) . To expect from the English nation,which rewarded General Dyer for his massacre of 800unarmed civilians with a purse of £10,000 ($50,000), agrant of self-government was stark nonsense . Andyet until the new path was struck out by MahatmaGandhi in 1920, Indians of all shades of opinion per-severed in their belief that freedom could be acquiredby begging. Mahatma Gandhi was the first manamong Indians to realize the fact that freedom isnever got by gifts of the rulers, but on the contraryis won by the might of the ruled . Freedom is a thingwhich cannot be given to a nation from outside ; theability to acquire it must be developed from within .
It is really amazing how old habits stick with beingslong after their uselessness has been established . Acase of this occurred in India after the incarcerationof Mahatma Gandhi in 1922. The Mahatma hadstarted the country on the lines of non-cooperation,and they were proceeding quite successfully, when hewas suddenly arrested and sentenced to six years' im-prisonment . Soon after he had disappeared from thescene of the Congress, there sprang up in its midst anew party which at once resolved to go back into thecouncils, as if they had not had enough experiencewith the council business in previous times. Whatprompted the "Swarajists" to this action has alwaysremained unintelligible to me. Did they really believethat they could conquer the English bureaucracy ofIndia through speeches in the council chambers, orfrighten them into submission through their obstruc-
[ 2131
MY MOTHER INDIA
tionist terrors? If they did, it was a typical case ofthe triumph of hope over experience . If ever anyonemade the English rulers of the country quake in theirshoes it was Gandhi . He did not do this by the politi-cian's tricks . He who fights against the English na-tion with those weapons works against heavy odds,because the English are already past masters in theart of diplomacy . The bureaucrats were terrified byGandhi because he used the weapon of passive resist-ance, which was native to himself and his countrymenbut foreign to the British militarists . The rulers ofthe country were completely baffled by Gandhi'smethods. They simply did not know what to do . If ithad been an armed insurrection of a rebellious nation,they possessed enough military force to suppress itwith success ; but their best strategists failed whenthey had to encounter a mass of three hundred milliondisobeying and yet non-resisting people, who had risenin sudden revolt against their established authority atthe bidding of a saintly leader .
Gandhi's non-violent non-cooperation still formsthe creed of the Indian National Congress . The massesall over the country have been made conscious of theloss of their national dignity under the rule of theBritish ; the blood of the martyrs at JallianwallaBagh has made the heart of India bleed ; and it is hopedthat before the, present agitation in the country isslackened, India will have achieved its national free-dom, and have become able once more to offer its con-tribution of art, beauty, and culture to the rest of theworld .
Other outside influences besides the injustices of[214 ]
INDIAN NATIONALISM-ITS ORIGIN AND GROWTH
the British rule in the country, that have conspired to-gether to strengthen the nationalist movement of In-dia during the twentieth century, were the Japanesevictory in the Russo-Japanese war, and the loweringof the white man's prestige in the minds of all Easternnations during and after the World War . The crush-ing defeat of the Russian forces at the hands of theEastern islanders during the Russo-Japanese warbroke forever the spell of the invincibility of whiteman's arms against Eastern foes; and this incidentgave a great impetus to the nationalistic movementsin all countries of the East .
Again when during the World War native regi-ments from the different colonial possessions of thefighting powers were gathered in the battlefields ofEurope to witness the "white man's holocaust," theirrespect for his supposed superior civilization disap-peared. At the same time the World War weakenedthe potential powers of the imperialistic white nations,thereby increasing considerably the chances of successfor the rebellious peoples in the East . The high-sounding sentiments of "Self-determination" forweaker nations, and "a world made safe for democ-racy" uttered by the allied statesmen, during theperiod of war, had, ever since the ending of the WorldWar on Armistice Day, quickened the hopes not only ofIndia but of other dependent nations as well to seekin every direction for the realization of the ideals ex-pressed by these eloquent orators of the allies . Whatwill the end be?
Since this was written some developments of a[215]
MY MOTHER INDIA
momentous character have taken place in the politicalsituation of India, of which an appropriate notice mayconveniently be taken here.
At the 1928 session of the Indian National Congressheld at Calcutta a scheme of self-government, jointlyprepared by all parties in India, was presented to theBritish Parliament for enaction into law. Thisscheme, known as the Nehru Report, was accompaniedby an ultimatum to the effect, that if Dominion Statusequivalent to that of other self-governing dominions ofthe Empire like Canada and South Africa was notgranted to India by the British Parliament before themidnight of December 31st, 1929, the Indian NationalCongress would henceforth declare complete indepen-dence as its immediate goal . Since no satisfactory re-sponse was made to this ultimatum by the BritishParliament within the prescribed time limit, the In-dian National Congress at its annual session held atLahore during the last week of 1929 committed itselfto complete independence and a severance of all rela-tions with the British Government. The Independenceresolution of Mahatma Gandhi was carried by an over-whelming majority of 2,994 votes against only 6 . Jan-uary 26th, 1930, was chosen by the Indian NationalCongress as the day of Indian Independence . It wasobserved by all Indians, in India and abroad, amidstspectacular demonstrations, during which the nationalflag was hoisted with ceremony, and the Declaration ofIndependence read to the masses . Resolutions of ap-proval were passed at nearly 750,000 meetings, andpledges of support given to the Indian National Con-gress under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi, by
[ 216 ]
INDIAN NATIONALISM-ITS ORIGIN AND GROWTH
the enthusiastic crowds, everywhere . At a later datethe All-India Congress Committee consisting of 300members transferred its authority to guide the pol-icies of the Congress to a working committee of tenchosen leaders of the people, who in turn have ex-pressed their implicit faith in the leadership of Ma-hatma Gandhi .
After all efforts at reconciliation with the BritishGovernment had failed, Mahatma Gandhi embarkedon his campaign of Civil Disobedience on March 9th,1930. On that day he left his home at Ahmedabadwith a batch of 79 volunteers to reach Jalalpur, avillage on the ocean shore and 150 miles distant,where he and his followers will start manufacturingsalt in open defiance of the British Government'smonopoly of salt manufacture in India . This will besymbolic of Gandhi's program of Civil Disobedience .On this historic journey Gandhi and his followershave been greeted with tremendous enthusiasm bythe general populace, who have gathered in numbersof hundreds of thousands and lined Gandhi's marchall along his journey .
The plan of Gandhi is very simple. He, with hisbatch of volunteers, will start manufacturing salt atJalalpur . Since this involves the disobedience of thecivil authority of the British Government, it will becompelled to arrest Gandhi and his followers . Thevolunteers in case of their arrest will be replaced byother batches of equal numbers . In this way thecampaign will continue until one of the parties with-draws. The Government will either succeed in break-ing up the power of Gandhi's followers or yield to the
[ 217 ]
MY MOTHER INDIA
demands of nationalistic India . On the one handGandhi has openly defied the British Government toarrest him, and on the other hand he has strictly en-joined his followers to maintain a spirit of non-vio-lence. In a recent statement to the press he declaredthat he was not afraid so much of the wrath of theBritish Government as of the mad fury of his owncountrymen bursting forth into open violence .
Gandhi's march to Jalalpur has aroused universalenthusiasm all over the country. Huge demonstra-tions are taking place everywhere . Indication of theBritish Government's policy of repression has shownitself already in the arrest of Gandhi's chief lieu-tenant, Mr. Vallabhai Patel, and the mayor of Cal-cutta, Mr. Sen Gupta . The masses have so far main-tained the spirit of non-violence . Gandhi has givento the British Government of India the choice betweena peaceful settlement and violence . He has been ableso far to hold his countrymen in a calm mood of peace-ful agitation . If he is arrested and the Governmentstarts repression with its customary display of vio-lence, the revolution in India may take a differentcourse. In such a case the responsibility will be allEngland's .
