Saklatvala had been unanimously selected as the Labour candidate for Battersea North. In his Election Address he wrote, "I enclose herewith the Labour Party's Official Manifesto, which I pledge to support, with the only criticism that that is the least that one can demand under the present conditions of life all over the world, while our moral instincts, which transcend political conveniences, require us to go further. If re-elected, I shall, as usual, submit myself to you at least once every month to receive your instructions and to give attention to your wishes....." But, once again, he proclaimed with pride his adherence to the Communist Party, saying, "Before I close, I must ask your permission to say a word about my undoubted membership of the Communist Party, as for the last 12 months our opponents have been assiduously working a stunt under the vague term 'Bolshevism'. Last week Edwin Percival Power, age 20, a cabinet maker, of Chester Street, Bethnal Green, through depression from continued unemployment, took poison and died in Epping Forest, faithfully clutching his young sweetheart's photograph. A letter found on the body by the police read, 'I have come out in the open to die - out in the glorious air away from the paltry deceit and strife of the world. It will be a merciful release to die to ease the aching of my heart. May the Lord have mercy on my soul and receive me into the kingdom of Heaven.' Leibknecht, Rosa Luxemborg, Eisner, Vorovsky were assassinated by Fascist hands, but Edwin Power and his like are daily driven to despair and death by masters who shut their factories, and where Society has no right to take charge of them and work them.
"The new I.L.P. and Labour Party International, as well as the Moscow International, are described as anti-British, alien influences. When militarist jingoes of all nations work together it is called, 'Council of War', when intriguing politicians of all nations conspire together, they are called 'Council of Ambassadors'; when armed financiers meet together to rob unarmed nations they are called the 'League of Nations'; when workers of all nations meet and work together, they are called 'Alien Bolsheviks'. We MUST HAVE UNIFORM STANDARDS FOR THE WORKERS ALL OVER EUROPE AND ASIA, and we can neither leave the Communists or the right wing trade unionists or the Social Democrats to fight their own battles singly. Before the final and universal success we shall all have to get a united plan of action."
On this same theme, earlier in the address he asked, "How many Liberal and Conservative investors are every day using British wealth, originally produced by British workers,in countries abroad, where they can find human beings to work at cheaper rates and in a more docile manner? WITH BRITISH MONEY AND WITH BRITISH FOREMEN THAT THEY TOOK ABROAD, WHY DID THEY NOT TAKE BRITISH STANDARDS OF WAGES ALSO?..." A-propos of the war debt he wrote, "Liberals boast that free trade financed the last war. This is untrue. The war was not carried on from accumulated profit made in the past. Instead, to finance the war, the workers of this country are called upon to pay £1,000,000 per day indefinitely."(He was alluding to the interest payable on the national war debt.)
The Evening Standard on 26th November, 1923, announcing Saklatvala's candidature wrote: "In North Battersea Mr Saklatvala is, in many respects, without a parallel. He is an Indian by birth, and his antecedents neither suggest nor explain his revolutionary doctrines. His brother, for instance, is President of the Mill Owners Association in Bombay." It was, perhaps, due to such references and frequent accusations in the Commons about his being part of a successful, capitalist family, that led him to include in his Election Address, "I would here warn you against the attempt to misrepresent my position in the Labour world, by identifying me with others of a like name connected with finance in India and in America."
One of the most interesting events in Saklatvala's campaign, in the light of present-day problems of racism in our multi-racial society, was a clear indication at a public meeting that such general antipathy towards Indians did not exist at that time. The Liberal candidate accused 'supporters of Saklatvala' of rowdyism and threats against his person; he claimed that the intimidations were such as to make it too dangerous for him to address any more meetings in person and he therefore appointed his agent, Captain A.P.Godfrey,to speak for him. (If such threats had in fact been made, and there was never any evidence or proof that they had been, it might seem somewhat cowardly to expose his agent to the abuse rather than face it himself). The right-wing press upheld the view that supporters of Saklatvala were guilty; the left-wing press, notably the Daily Herald, thought the whole thing was a stunt to try to discredit Saklatvala. Saklatvala himself issued a leaflet which he distributed to audiences at his meetings; he also sent an ample supply of the leaflets to Mr Hogbin to give out at his meetings also. It was addressed to "Battersea Comrades" and stated: "Making a noise or causing a disturbance at Meetings of our Political Opponents is not in keeping with the traditions of Battersea where the people are ever ready to listen to all kinds of opinion.
"Many Elections have been won by Candidates in the past as a result of unfair treatment given to them at Public Meetings.
"I strongly advocate a fair hearing for and a calm discussion with everybody who wishes to express or explain his opinions.
"I strongly urge upon all to preserve the fair name of Battersea, and to be calm and well-conducted at all Meetings.
"Do not let me appeal to you in vain. SAKLATVALA"
The Daily Herald reported that Saklatvala thought it wrong to hold, at such times as these, Party meetings to be addressed by representatives of one side only. "He invites Conservatives and Liberals to attend his meetings and address his rallies. He asks for similar privileges in return." As a result of this policy, Saklatvala and Captain Godfrey, (Mr Hogbin's Election Agent) were addressing a joint meeting in Battersea, immediately after the distribution of Saklatvala's exhortation to the voters to give everyone a fair hearing. Captain Godfrey first referred to the 'splendid sportsmanship' shown by Saklatvala "But," he added, "I have to confess to having an instinctive preference for an Englishman." Whereupon there was general uproar, the audience rose to their feet and "Withdraw!" "Shame!" "You're asking for it!" and "What about Lady Astor?" (Who was a non-coloured but most colourful foreigner by birth), were some of the remarks distinguishable through the din, which continued until Mr Saklatvala himself intervened. In answer to the general clamour Captain Godfrey assured everyone that he had intended no offence and that if his remark had caused offence, he withdrew it. How wonderful it would be were such strong and wholesome reactions to be found in an audience today.
Early in the evening on Polling Day, the 6th December, before the results had been declared, Saklatvala attended a big rally of the I.L.P. in the Queen's Hall where he received a resounding ovation. But his good fortune was not to hold and he lost the seat by 186 votes. (Hogbin polled 12,527 and Saklatvala received 12, 341 votes). It had been a hard-fought campaign and the gap was narrow but the result was a bitter blow to Saklatvala and the Communist Party. Their were rowdy scenes at Battersea Town Hall when the 4 candidates (for South and North Battersea) appeared on the balcony of the Town Hall and,later, in the Council Chamber The Daily Telegraph reported that "Mr Saklatvala, attempting to pour oil on the troubled waters, thereupon appealed to all his friends present to understand that in a Parliamentary Election someone had to win and someone else had to lose. Mr Hogbin had his disappointment 12 months ago. He (Mr Saklatvala) did not hide the fact that when, after hard work and great stress, a man lost an election, he must feel disappointed, but that need not make him bitter."
After the Election, MacDonald was to form the first Labour Government. Reginald Bishop, a close associate and Father's Secretary, has been quoted as saying that Saklatvala came under great pressure from the Parliamentary Labour Party at that time. They not only sought his advice on India but apparently proffered all sorts of allurements with promises of high office if he would renounce his membership of the Communist Party and wholeheartedly and unreservedly toe the Labour Party line. Personally I do not think that any such inducements would be considered by Father to be a temptation or a pressure. He was being promised gifts for which he had no use and which did not tempt him at all. It was like offering a succulent steak to a vegetarian - they offered merely what he did not want. He wanted a free India and a Communist India, and nothing short of that would satisfy him. He also wanted international Communism and was determined to remain politically and morally free to preach his personal, Communist gospel.
Like most left-wing Socialists, Father became totally disillusioned by Ramsay MacDonald. It was said that on one occasion, listening to one of MacDonald's orations, Jimmy Maxton was actually crying and was heard to mutter, "Bastard!" under his breath. Beatrice Webb said of him that "he was a good substitute for a Leader." In fairness to MacDonald it has to be remembered that he formed a Government without having a clear majority in the House. Asquith said, "If a Labour Government is ever to be tried in this country it could hardly be tried under safer conditions." But a stronger Leader and a more wholeheartedly dedicated Socialist could certainly have achieved more. And Labour Policy on the Colonies was little better, in Saklatvala's view, than the Tory one. The Labour Secretary of State for India, Lord Olivier, was a Fabian and Saklatvala was totally out of sympathy with him. Saklatvala made this clear when he addressed the 24th Annual Conference of the Labour Party, held on October 7th-10th at the Queen's Hall in London. In the report of that Conference it is stated that Mr Saklatvala complained that no mention was made in the Report of the replies which were given to the deputations to the India Office. The Indian Labour Problem, he submitted, had a great bearing on the progress as well as the safety of the Trade Union Movement in this country. In this respect the splendid case that was made out by the deputation was quoted, but there was not one single word as to what the India Office had to say in return. Very important suggestions were made to the India Office and it was pointed out that miners in India were working at very low wages, and that a very large number of women were employed underground. And yet they were told from time to time that Welsh coal was no longer in demand because foreign coal could be sold in certain markets at 10 shillings a ton cheaper. Throughout the whole industrial movement in India cruel,inhuman treatment was meted out to Indian workers. The deputation demanded from the Labour Government that they should appoint a Commission to go out to India to examine the whole affair, but they were not told in this report what had happened or what the answer would be. There was no mention made in the report of the 2 boys shot down during the mills strike, nor of the trial and imprisonment of many people. The whole thing was a conspiracy against the workers both of India and of Great Britain."
In an issue of The Labour Monthly in 1924, Lenin described MacDonald as using "smooth, melodious, banal, and socialist-seeming phraseology which serves in all developed capitalist countries to camouflage the policy of the bourgoisie inside the Labour Movement"
As an Indian Communist working politically in England,which was the centre of the British Empire and the seat of its Government, Saklatvala had an important and personal role to play in the Communist Party of Great Britain and in the Communist International. He certainly helped to create and foster a Communist Party in India. This work continued even when he ceased to be a Member of Parliament; indeed, if anything, his propaganda and meetings up and down the country were carried on more vigorously than ever when he was freed from his duties as a Member of the House of Commons.
Nor did he neglect the constituents of Battersea. There is a report in the Tooting and Balham Times of "an extraordinary meeting, unique in Party politics" held in Battersea Town Hall and addressed by Battersea's two M.P.s, Viscount Curzon and Mr Hogbin and also by the official Labour parliamentary candidate, Mr Saklatvala. The hall was packed by people of all shades of political opinion and there was applause when Saklatvala said that if he had his way, all political meetings should be organised on a multi-party basis.
Mr Saklatvala made a blistering attack on Battersea's housing. He said Viscount Curzon had accompanied him on a tour of houses that "were disgraceful and diabolical. Houses where there were 5, 6 and 7 lodgers in one room. The slates had gone from the roofs, the windows were without panes of glass and the walls were filthy and full of millions of microbes." Earlier in his speech he claimed that he was in England "to expel from them their national hypocrisy and to make them real Christians." "You go to Church," he said, "and the Church preaches morality and asks you to lead healthy lives, and observe in private life morality and decorum between the sexes. Yet under your capitalist system you allow Father, Mother and 3 or 4 children to live in one room." He declared that they studied medical science, economics, they gave mind-training and produced articles to improve the health and comfort of their people, and yet they permitted 90% of the population to live in insanitary houses. In Battersea, he said, there were houses that were a disgrace to any city.
Saklatvala, as a delegate to the 24th annual Labour Party Conference held at the Queens Hall, London, in October,1924, wound up the perennial debate on the affiliation to the Labour Party of the Communist Party, which was, of course, once again rejected. Indeed, the gap between the two parties was widening, although the Communists remained convinced that the Labour Movement could only gain in strength if all left wing movements worked together harmoniously against the united capitalist forces that were exploiting workers all over the world. But although they claimed to be working for the same aims, there was deep division as to the means used to achieve them. Mr Frank Hodges,M.P., introduced the recommendations of the Executive which were "That the application for affiliation from the Communist Party be refused. And that no member of the Communist Party shall be eligible for endorsemnent as a Labour Candidate for Parliament or any Local Authority." At the end of the debate, in which Harry Pollitt also took part in favour of affiliation, Mr Saklatvala contended that the Object in the Constitution of the Labour Party was also, in the main, the object of the Communist Party. With regard to Parliamentary Democracy, it was a mistaken idea, he said, to say that the Communists did not believe in the right of the people as expressed in Parliament, but they refused to accept a sham democracy in the form of Parliament as it is now constituted. It was so undemocratic that it compelled the Prime Minister to keep a man like George Lansbury out of the Labour Government. As to the non-endorsement as Labour Candidates of members of the Communist Party, this was, he said, a very wrong step. There were members of the Labour Party who were also members of the National Liberal Club and of the Reform Club; if members of the Communist Party were to be debarred, so too should the members of these other organisations. He had sat for 8 months in the House of Commons and he could honestly say that he had never received a single letter or telegraphic intruction from Moscow. The Communist Party, he said, was recognised all over Europe as a definitely working class organisation. Wise or unwise, stupid or prudent, it was admitted to be a working class movement, and yet it was proposed to put up a cast iron bar against it. He hoped the resolutions would be defeated. In this, he was, of course, to be disappointed as all three resolutions, excluding Communists from membership of the party, from endorsement by the Labour Party as Parliamentary Candidates and denying the affiliation of the Communist Party to the Labour Party, were all carried. In spite of these resolutions, Saklatvala was to remain an active member of the Labour Party until 1928.
Communism was then comparatively new to Britain, and was considered to be an import from abroad and was, therefore, dubbed by those who feared it, as 'unpatriotic' - though more than any other Party, perhaps, it stood for the betterment of conditions for working men who were as much part of the British nation as were the bankers, businessmen and aristocracy. It was, perhaps, largely due to this accusation of disloyalty that the Labour Party feared it might lose middle-class votes if it consorted openly with the Communist Party. (We had, many centuries earlier imported quite a few good ideas from foreign parts, such as the wheel from Egypt, arithmetic from the Arabs and Christianity from Jerusalem, and the basis of our legal system from Rome, to name but a few. But these were imported before England had become 'top nation'. Now she was sitting on top of the world, perhaps she felt it no longer appropriate to introduce innovations from abroad.) This, I suppose, is the greatest weakness of the democratic voting system; politicians, anxious from the best motives to achieve or gain power, all too often prune their policies to court the voters rather than forming policies to further their fundamental political and economic principles. After all, there are still those who believe that a Party has to trim its principles in order to woo reluctant voters. Personally, I think it a most dangerous course to follow; for such parties all too often lose their direction and miss their final destination. And in the last analysis, who is going to vote for a Party that doesn't know where it is heading? The Vicar of Bray is remembered only as a figure of fun and certainly did not achieve much, other than to survive. True he retained his head but there are few who believe it was worth keeping. It is hard - indeed it is distressing- - to imagine the steadfast adherence to principle and the dogged spirit of optimism that prevailed among those early Socialist and Communist leaders, now that we have to witness the dismantling of our own welfare state and the disintegration of the Communist Governments in Eastern Europe. They were all so positive that Communism would spread all over the world ultimately and that, with it, would be achieved human happiness. For my part, I remain convinced that depression and sorrow are the natural emotional state of mankind; after all, the first thing a human baby does is to cry - and it is to cheer ourselves up that we divert ourselves with learning, music, dance, theatre, games, drink, drugs and suicidal smoking, flirtations, and the pursuit of love, good food, travel, hard work - and thus most of us manage for much of the time to hold our natural depression at bay; I do not subscribe to the belief in original sin, only to the belief in original despair. And despair is not an illness to be cured, but a natural condition which has to be endured. One has only to look into the eyes of the inmates of refugee camps, to realise that, stripped of human hope and the chance of activity and endeavour, our inborn depression reasserts itself. And despair crept into Father's thinking sometimes for, in his latter years, he apparently said once to my Mother, "Well, Sehri, have I been a fool? Should I have made money like the rest of them and given you and the children a comfortable life, instead of spending my energies on politics?" This mood of despondency passed, especially as my Mother reassured him that she would not have had it any other way. But he would not have been human if he had never had moments of self-doubt and loss of hope. But these moments were rare and, with his strength of purpose, he overcame them; for the most part he fervently believed that Communism, and with it human happiness, would be achieved, that the poor and oppressed would be rescued, that, in the spirit of the Magnificat, the mighty should be put down from their seats, and those of low degree would be exalted; the hungry should be filled with good things, and the rich would be sent empty away.