T

BOMBAY, 1922-23

PART I

GENERAL SUMMARY

HE review of the Political situation in the Presidency

during 1921-22 ended with the arrest and conviction of Mr. Gandhi and foreshadowed a distinct improvement in the Political situation. This prophecy was justified by the events of the next twelve months which, compared with the two preceding years, were relatively quiet. The year 1922-23 was not free from keen Political controversies but the discussions were conducted on a higher level and were free from the violent outbursts that will ever disfigure the political history of 1921-22. Moreover the outstanding questions that agitated the public mind were largely concerned with, and arose out of, the merits and de-merits of the constitution in contra-distinction to the previous year whose Political history was made up of concentrated assaults upon the administration and an endeavour entirely to wreck and to destroy that administration and all that it stands for in the life of the Presidency.

The leadership of the non-co-operation party, which came into existence with the Calcutta Congress of September 1920, when the boycott of Councils was definitely decided upon, had been in the hands of Mr. Gandhi. The members of the Working Committee of the Congress were, in comparison with the central figure, of minor importance. It was well-known that there were profound differences of opinion amongst the members of that committee but the personality and influence of Mr. Gandhi over Hindus and Mohammedans alike was successful in keeping the opposing elements together. After his conviction, there was no outstanding figure around which all parties could rally and within a few weeks it was apparent that his disappearance from the scene had struck a deadly blow at the unity of the National Congress. The mutterings

H 559-i

which had been faintly heard below the surface errupted, splitting the party from top to bottom. In this upheaval the Bombay Presidency was particularly concerned. A large section of the Deccan and Maharashtra Nationalists of the Tilak School of thought had accepted with manifest unwillingness the boycott decision of the Calcutta Congress and they were determined to obtain a revision of the non-cooperation programme so far as it concerned the boycott of the Legislative Councils. At the second Maharashtra Provincial Congress Conference held at Pen in the Kolaba district it was resolved that a special Committee should be appointed to revise the programme, and the Resolution as passed obviously implied a reversion to the original policy enunciated by Mr. Tilak at the Amritsar Congress of 1919, namely responsive co-operation with Government by entering the Councils. Gujarat, however, the birthplace and home of Mr. Gandhi, firmly supported the policy he had originally adumbrated and stood solidly against any change. With two schools of thought so diametrically opposed the differences between the two wings of the Congress party rapidly widened and Congress itself was quite unable to define a policy acceptable to all parties. The so-called constructive" programme resolved upon at Bardoli as a means to prepare the country for Civil disobedience was shelved, and in August a Committee was appointed to tour the Provinces in order to ascertain whether the country was ripe for some form or other of civil disobedience. The questionnaire ingenuously asked whether the constructive programme could not be worked more faithfully by entering the Legislative Councils and thus early preparing the country for civil disobedience and the non-payment of taxes. But when the Enquiry Committee reached Poona, the Headquarters of the Tilak school of thought, its Chairman made it clear that Congress members who were of opinion that the non-co-operation programme needed revision should not hold office in the Congress organization as by their views they showed that they did not conform strictly to the Congress creed. Most of the Deccan Nationalists thereupon resigned and embarked upon a campaign urging that there should not be a too rigid adherence to the Bardoli

66

programme, i.e., a certain amount of individual independence, entry into the Councils and the necessity for purging the non-co-operation movement of its idealistic tendencies and placing it upon a practical political basis.

The effect of this internecine war was to bring organised nonco-operation against Government almost to a standstill. Early in November the report of the Enquiry Committee was published and it was found that the Committee was equally divided on the question of Council entry. It was called a sane document by the change party, and a preposterous report by the other, as being disloyal to the principles of Mr. Gandhi. Altogether it did more harm than good to the Congress cause.

66

Discussion on the report by the General Body of Congress members was postponed until the December Session at Gaya. In the meanwhile both parties endeavoured by intensive propaganda to ensure a majority in support of their views at the Congress meeting. A week or so before the Gaya Session a settlement was reached in the Maharashtra Provincial Congress Committee in which it was agreed that both parties should be equally represented on that Committee and on District Committees, but in the event of the Resolution boycotting the Councils being passed at Gaya the "pro-changers" should resign their offices and vice-versa. In the event of a compromise neither party was to resign. The decision of the Gaya Congress was in favour of the “No-change" party, and it was resolved that Congress leaders should devote themselves for the next four months to collecting Rs. 25 lakhs, obtaining 50 thousand volunteers and completion of the preparations for civil disobedience, it being agreed that the country was not at the moment sufficiently prepared for this step. Mr. C. R. Das, leader of the "Prochange" party, resigned his Presidentship of the Congress and formed a new party styled "The Congress-Khilafat-Swarajya Party," now known as the "Swarajya party of which he was elected President. The position of this party in the Nationalists' ranks was a curious one, for it was stated that although it would have its own programme, which differed fundamentally from that of the Congress, it would nevertheless remain within the Congress fold. A meeting of the new party was held in Bombay at the

end of January 1923, and an energetic recruiting campaign was started. It was early evident that the Nationalists' cause was being materially weakened by the existence of the two parties and efforts were made to effect a compromise. At the end of February an agreement was reached at a meeting held at Allahabad. It was then decided that all Council propaganda should be suspended by both parties for the next two months, but that the majority should be at liberty to push on their programme to get Rs. 25 lakhs and 50 thousand volunteers and that the Swarajya party should co-operate to this end. It was soon made clear, however, that the aims of the Swarajya party were more in accordance with the ideas of the rank and file of Congress members than the unadulterated "no-change" programme.

Meanwhile the Central Khilafat Committee had appointed an independent Enquiry Committee on the question of Civil disobedience which to the delight of the "no-changers" reported in favour of the continuance of the boycott programme. Muslim interest in the Congress was not so active as in the previous year. Their hopes and fears really centred round the developments at Angora and the possibility of a peace favourable to Turkey. When the terms of the Turkish treaty as suggested at the Allied Conference at Paris were announced they were regarded as an appreciable modification of the Sevres treaty, but not sufficient to satisfy Indian Muslim aspirations. H. E. the Viceroy's despatch to the Secretary of State and the firm attitude displayed by the Allies against any Greek move to occupy Constantinople were appreciated, but this was considerably modified by Mr. Lloyd George's speech on the Near East question and his apparent agreement with Greece's refusal to withdraw her army from Turkish territory. The rapid advance of the Turkish army, the Greek reverses and the evacuation of Smyrna, which completely reversed the situation were greeted with jubiliation by every Mussulman in India. The successful termination of the Lausanne Conference and the resignation of Mr. Lloyd George were greeted with relief as it was anticipated that the new Premier would adopt a policy more favourable to Turkey. On the whole, however, the chief Political controversies of the year were not concerned with non-co-operation as such.

66

The quarrels in the Congress ranks had prevented that body from playing the dominating part in the politics of the country it had attained under the leadership of Mr. Gandhi. People were rather tired of the infructuous nature of the idealistic programme of the previous two or three years and there was a growing feeling that India's National aspirations could best be attained by using the wide powers given by the Government of India Act. The main point of contention was whether those powers should be used for constructive or purely destructive purposes. Several events caused profound dissatisfaction amongst the Moderate party in the Presidency. The first was the speech delivered by Mr. Lloyd George, the then Prime Minister, during a debate in the House of Commons on the Indian Civil Service, generally known as the Steel frame" speech, in which he declared that the Civil Services of India were the steel frame of the whole structure of the administration; that the constitutional changes recently made in India were the result of an experiment; that he could not predict the influence which non-co-operation would exert upon the next elections, but if there was a change in the character of the Legislature and the purpose of those who were chosen to sit therein, the new situation would have to be taken into account. He further went on to say that he perceived no period when India could dispense with the guidance and the assistance of a nucleus of the members of the Civil Service. The continued assistance of the British officials, he said, was necessary to bring about the discharge of Britain's great trust in India and it was not in order to relinquish this trust but to bring India into partnership with this trust that the reforms had been introduced. In Bombay the speech was believed to foreshadow a possible renunciation of the policy of the Reform Scheme and the progress of India towards Self-Government, and the no-change party was quick to seize upon the speech as justifying its "boycott the Councils " policy. H. E. the Viceroy's reply to a non-official deputation on the subject went a long way to neutralise the agitation, reinforced as it was by a clear authorisation that His Excellency obtained from Mr. Lloyd George that nothing in the speech was intended to conflict with or to indicate any departure from, the policy in