Ramsay MacDonald's Government was short-lived. He had been brave and realistic enough to give formal recognition to the Government in Russia and had entered into a trade agreement with them. He was also negotiating a loan to the S.S.S.R.. The Opposition viewed such activity with distaste and alarm. But it was not any major political issue that brought the Labour Government down but an accusation against one Mr J.R.Campbell, acting -editor of the Communist journal "Workers' Weekly". The Director of Public Prosecutions brought a case of sedition against him for publishing an article calling on the armed forces not to intervene against strikers in any industrial dispute and not to fire on men who, after all, were their fellow-workers. But the Attorney- General, Sir Patrick Hastings, deemed it wiser to withdraw the indictment. To bring a case against Campbell and have it fail would be worse than not bringing a suit at all. Campbell had sustained disabling wounds as a soldier during the war when he had been awarded a decoration for exceptional gallantry. and he could well excite public sympathy on this account. It was also feared that such a prosecution could be interpreted as interference with the right of free speech. The Conservatives and Liberals in the House seized on the opportunity and successfully moved a vote of censure and MacDonald was forced to ask for the dissolution of Parliament.
Whatever MacDonald's faults might have been, there is no doubt that he had endured a most exacting few months as Prime Minister and had suffered harsh personal criticism from Tories, Liberals and his own back-benchers; he had added to his responsibilities by conducting his own Foreign Affairs. He faced the prospective General Election a tired, and personally very injured man. Nor could the affairs of State be neglected but these had to be conducted during the course of his travels between an arduous and demanding schedule of public meetings. He was addressing 20 and more meetings every day in different towns and was constantly travelling and on the move. So it was that the scurrilous affair of the "Zinoviev" letter caught him unawares. Though the whole deception was so skillfully and cunningly conducted that it is doubtful whether anyone in MacDonald's position could have overcome the consequences of it, no matter how alert and leisured they might have been.
Just 4 days before Polling Day, on 25th October, 1924,under melodramatic headlines,the Daily Mail published what purported to be a letter from the President of the Soviet Praesidium in Moscow, Mr Zinoviev, addressed to Mr MacManus, the Secretary of the Communist Party in Great Britain. The Mail reported it as "2 dramatic documents just released by the Foreign Office - a copy of a letter from Zinoviev to the British Communist Party and a protest note issued by the Foreign Office to the Russian Charge d'Affaires in London."
History leaves us in no doubt that the letter was a counterfeit; it was not until the summer of 1927 that one Drujalovsky, a known forger, confessed to having assisted in forging the Zinoviev letter with a group of White Russian emigres in Berlin; but whomsoever actually wielded the pen, there can be no question of the fact that the contents of the letter were devised by someone with a profound and intimate knowledge of British politics, and its author showed consummate skill and political insight. What can never be established is how much the Foreign Office and Press Lords actually believed it to be true, or whether it was used, cynically, as probably one of the dirtiest of dirty political tricks, to discredit at any price, the Socialist Movement. No one can ever know who instigated it. It was certainly not the work of either the Labour or the Communist Party, both of whom were the victims of the plot; almost certainly, the Foreign Office, the British Intelligence Service and Conservative Central Office were to some degree involved, either acting in naive belief of the letter's authenticity or dishonestly, pretending that they believed it. The readers' views upon it will depend upon their personal political predilections. But could anyone genuinely believe that Zinoviev would impart such views and directives in an open letter to the British Communist Party, when it was common knowledge that letters and correspondence to that body were quite likely to be intercepted? In any case, MacManus was actually in Moscow on the date appearing on the spurious letter and so Zinoviev could have given him any orders by word of mouth; for, as Saklatvala pointed out to a crowded election meeting in Trafalgar Square on 26th March, Zinoviev would never entrust such a confidential document to the British Post Office Service. One can only think that whoever perpetrated the swindle was either simple-minded or dishonest. The clever contents of the letter really rules out the possibility of simple-mindedness and, in my view, one is left, therefore, with the only other alternative.
The "letter" called upon the CPGB to press for Government ratification of the treaties drawn up by the Labour Government and which were so bitterly opposed by the Conservative Party. It called upon the CPGB to agitate more strongly and carry on more vigorous propaganda within Britain's armed forces. And it goes on to call for action that would make it possible to paralyse Britain's armed forces and ultimately to stir up civil war. The bombshell produced the desired effect among the British electorate. No one can definitively determine just to what extent the outcome of the election was affected by these sensation-seeking revelations. But the unusually large turn-out of 80% of the voters could well have been an indication of the panic induced by the publication. Needless to say, the Conservatives got in. (I hope I may be forgiven for reminding the reader of a principle of Roman Law, that the author of a crime is he who profits therefrom). The Labour Party increased its votes by about a million but nevertheless lost some 50 seats. The Liberals fared worst, losing some 100 seats in the House leaving them with only 42 MP.s.
But among the successful candidates was the Communist contender for North Battersea, Mr Saklatvala. I imagine this was pretty irritating to the instigators of the Zinoviev letter scare! This time, he had presented himself to the electorate as a Communist Candidate although he was supported by the Labour Party and the Trades Union Council. That he survived the onslaught of the Zinoviev letter is remarkable - but perhaps the British newspaper readers are not so gullible as might sometimes be supposed. The Zinoviev bogey was more frightening to middle class than to working class voters on whose support Saklatvala relied. But psephologists would have to concede, I think, that it was a great personal triumph for him to have won the seat and is an indication that the voters of Battersea trusted his word and his integrity. It was only the Communists at the time who could be absolutely certain that the letter was a forgery, since they and they alone knew, positively and beyond any doubt, that no such letter had ever been received; and it seems Saklatvala succeeded in convincing the people of Battersea of this fact.
A short while after the election and before the House convened, Father came home late one night after Mother had gone to bed. He called up the stairs asking her to come down and help him up to bed as he had broken his ankle and could not manage by himself. Mummy thought he was teasing her (as he frequently did) and just laughed, told him to stop fooling and to come to bed. But he was NOT fooling - he had indeed broken his ankle and when she finally took his pleading seriously, Mother found him standing in the hall with the help of crutches. He was still on crutches when he took his seat in the new Parliament on 2nd December 1924.
On the 16th December he was told by the leadership of the Parliamentary Labour Party that he was not to be given the Labour Whip. He reminded them, politely, that he had not applied for it. There is a marked difference in his speeches in the House once he was liberated from the Labour Whip and adherence to Labour policy. No one man, being the sole representative of a political Party in the House of Commons, could hope to change the course of Parliamentary events or to influence the voting in the House on any issue; but what Saklatvala did manage to do was to use the House as a platform from which to deliver persistent propaganda on behalf of the Communists; he acted as the irritant within the oyster-shell of the House of Commons and frequently produced pearls which were quoted by the Press of the day - so the propaganda in the House spread to the newspapers and to the electorate in general.
It was at 11.25 on the night of 17th December, 1924, that Saklatvala spoke in the House of his position as the sole Communist Member in the House. "It may seem rather out of proportion for an individual to stand up and say he represents a Party which claims to put forward its views, but I appeal to the House to realise the position. We have heard about the great fondness this House has for its traditions, and I can well understand that it would take some time to adjust itself to some new feature that arises here. I represent a proper, well-organised, well-formed and rather too loudly acknowledged political party in the country now. I am not one of those international Socialists who take offence at having friends in Moscow, Berlin or Delhi. As a member of the International Communist Party, I submit that our movement does extend from Moscow to Battersea, and much beyond that. It is as well organised a Party as any other Party in the State, with its machinery, its press, its branches all over the country. I would point out to hon. and rt. hon Gentlemen opposite - I do not know whether it was merely put on or whether it was their sincere belief - that right up to the last Election they were saying that our Party was the vital tail that was wagging the whole of the Labour dog. We do not count by numbers, but what we lack in numbers we make up for in solid importance. Our friends of the Liberal Party only succeeded in returning to the House one member for every seven and a half candidates, whereas our Party succeeded in returning one member out of seven candidates.
Considering the change that is now going on, and considering the rightful place the Communist Party is taking in the Parliaments all over Europe, this House might now grant to us justifiable claims and put us in the time-table. I do not for a moment claim that our Party should have a whole day, or a couple of days, allotted, but surely, now, the House could begin to allot to us, say, an hour, when other Parties can have a full day to themselves. I have looked over the Debates for the last 4 or 5 days, and it seems to me that our Party would be the only one that would stand in real difference without getting mixed up at times. We find it very difficult to find a line of strong demarcation. .............We have heard during the last few days of the Debate many points of agreement between the Tory Party and the administrators of the Labour Party, and we have seen very few points of strong disagreement...........looking at it all I submit that it is for the good of this nation and not for its harm, that one party should stand up boldly to say that it always says what it believes in, and believes in what it is prepared to say, and to act up to it. We represent that section of the working class that does not believe in continuity of policy. We represent a section of the working class that does not believe in saying at one time that your employers are your enemies, that individual capitalism is the source of all your evils, and yet that we should sit down with them, make friends and form a joint club so that evils may disappear from time to time.
"With regard to the wording of my Amendment, I remember that when I was in the House in 1922 the first King's Speech I heard was read and debated. My hon. Friend, the Member for West Houghton was reported to have said this: 'I was proud to come to the House because I did not during the war send any young boy to his doom, and the Labour Party, I feel sure, will echo every word when I say that their advent to this House, if it means anything at all, means goodwill among all the peoples of the earth. I am glad to learn that the people of India rejoice because our numbers are growing, and the people of Egypt feel better towards this country because they know that the Labour Party brings international good will.' I offer no comment, but I suppose everybody is agreed that, foolish as the Indians may be, and wicked as the Egyptians may be, I do not believe that today they entertain that belief that was attributed to them last year. With regard to the Amendment of which I have given notice, I submit that it is based upon the teachings and doctrines preached to the working classes from one end of Great Britain to the other for the last 30 years. We are still telling the working classes that their struggle is a class struggle, that their emancipation lies in the complete extinction of the individual ownership system, and that their only salvation in international affairs is not based upon Imperialism and protective tariffs, and armies, bombs and insolent letters to Zaghul Pasha, saying, 'My soldiers and bayonets will remain where they are but still we are pacifists.' Or telling the people of India, 'My ordinances shall rule you, but still we are the Party of goodwill', and telling everybody, 'we believe in a certain philosophy of life, but we do not practice it when it is a question of the democratic Parliament of the British Empire.' In this respect I submit to the House that the things I would have placed before it would not have been in any hostile spirit, but would have been presented to this House and the country at large as the viewpoint which will have to be accepted some day or other as the only sane and honest view of life."
His reference to 'insolent letters to Zaglul Pasha' (Prime Minister of Egypt) referred to an incident in Egypt on 20th November, 1924, when Sir Lee Stack, Governor-General of the Sudan and Sirdar (that is, Commander-in-Chief) of the Egyptian army, was shot and killed and his Aide-de-Camp and his chauffeur were also wounded. The British Government sent what The Times described as 'a stern note' to Zaglul Pasha saying, inter alia, that His Majesty's Government considered that the murder was 'the natural outcome of a campaign of hostility to British rights and British subjects in Egypt and Sudan founded upon a heedless ingratitude for benefits conferred by Great Britain , not discouraged by your Excellency's Government". The note went on to demand an apology, the punishment of those responsible,the immediate suppression of political demonstrations and the payment of a fine of £500,000. Egypt's reply apologised, agreed to pay the fine and seek out the criminals, but refused sundry other requests contained in Britain's letter. As a result of further correspondence between the 2 Governments, Zaglul Pasha resigned as Prime Minister and there was a political crisis in Egypt.
These events were debated in the House of Commons, for the transfer of the Egyptian money (the fine of £500,000) to the Sudan 'for benevolent purposes'. It is not surprising that the incident and ensuing correspondence raised the anti-imperialist hackles of the Communist Member for North Battersea, whose contribution to the Debate was as follows:
"May I point out that even a wise use of this money is not going to satisfy the constitutional point involved in the whole issue. We were informed at the beginning that a cheque was demanded and promptly paid. The promptness of the payment does not at all prove either the justification for the demand or the willingness with which the payment was made. I have in mind 2 cheques amounting to £300,000 which were also promptly paid by an eminent gentleman, and I think that the British Government have applied exactly the same tactics, and the promtness with which the £500,000 was paid was due to the same fear under pressure, intimidation and blackmail. ...The rt hon Gentleman seems to speak as if it were some amount due to the Sudanese Government, that the British Government were merely collecting it in a spirit of benevolence. That is not so. The British Government are now using the name of the Sudanese Government ... The cheque was extorted from the Egyptian Government in a manner which is discreditable to the whole history of international relations.... and it was because of the mailed fist of Britain that this cheque was forthcoming. ... the justice at the back of it were your gunboats and your blue-jackets. The British Government had to pay after all what appeared to them to be justifiable sums to the extent of £50,000 ( it had been decided to pay £40,000 to Sir Lee Stack's widow and sums of £3000 and £5000 each to the Aide-de-Camp and to the chauffeur). and not £500,000, and the Egyptian Government might be looked to to indemnify the British Government for this £50,000 - ........they have demanded ten times the money they paid and now there is talk of 'benevolent purposes'. ....What is the Sudanese Government but a military tyranny of a foreign power imposed upon the innocent people of the Sudan? Who are the Sudanese Government? How many Sudanese have created the Sudanese Government? When the Germans entered Belgium and they created there the new Belgian Government, every man in this country said that it was not a Belgian Government, but that it was a German tyranny. In the Sudan today the Briton is a robber who is sticking there by force of arms. ....I say in the name of the Communist Party [laughter] ....which makes you jeer here and makes your Brigadier-Generals go to Trafalgar Square and enlist thousands of young men as Fasciti to fight them, that this House is going to be now a party for the first time to this blackmail. ...Are we to understand that this nation is not entitled to recover its common sense and sense of justice a little later on when the angry mood has passed away? Are we to understand that the sense of justice of the British Foreign Office, the British Prime Minister, the British House of Commons and the British nation on this particular question is lost for ever, and that we are going to misappropriate this loot in perpetuity? Is there no possibility even now of referring the moral point involved in this exaction of £500,000 and of handing back to the Egyptians whatever balance an impartial international tribunal may say you wrongly took from them? Instead of talking loudly about benevolence to the Sudanese, cannot you ascertain that the Sudanese are more self-respecting than you are and would refuse to touch this blood money and use it for benevolent purposes. ......"
When the House was debating the granting of £15000 to send the Prince of Wales on a visit to Africa and South America, Mr Kirkwood (Labour) said the Prince of Wales should go on a tour of this country, to be shown the slums, the poverty and the terrible working conditions of his own people. Mr Saklatvala, always offering a novel twist to older ideas, said he would rather spend the money showing some of the slum dwellers of Battersea the living conditions of people like the Prince, by giving them a week of luxury living. It was also stated that one of the purposes of the Prince's tour was to promote the sale abroad of British goods. Saklatvala said, "I fail to understand how a visit from the Prince of Wales can enable you to sell to Argentine any article which you are not capable of selling with the sound workmanship of British workers at a reasonable, competitive cost.....You cannot send royal ambassadors to any country if your workmen are producing bad materials and try to induce trade through the splendours of royalty. I would challenge hon Members opposite to take any shoddy material ... and effect a large trade in it by sending royalties abroad as salesmen..." To which George Lansbury made the additional comment, "I can understand the argument that we need a King to act as a representative of the British Dominions, but I have yet to learn that it is the function of kingship to go round as a commercial bagman doing trade."
On 26th February,1925, there was a debate on estimates for the air forces. Mr Thurtle proposed an Amendment, therby giving one or two Labour members the opportunity to deliver impassioned speeches on disarmament. George Lansbury's appeal was particularly moving. He ended by saying: "I believe our people have got the greatest God-given opportunity that the masses of no other country have ever had - no democracy has ever had the opportunity our people have. You have given them education, you have given them municipal administrative powers, you have given them the right to organise, the right to vote, the right to come here - what for? To let the world be as it has been? No. We are here to say that mankind is one and that the one-ness of human life is sacred - that the lives of the black child and white child are equally sacred, because Christ was born and because Christ died to make those lives sacred."
Father's plea was more pragmatic and mundane. He referred to the contention of former speakers that Britain and France were life-long friends and that there was no chance of going to war against each other. In that case, said Mr Saklatvala, since France has a powerful air-force of 120 squadrons, can we not rely on their protection? He went on to say, "It is said that we of the Communist Party are the enemies of the Christian Church; that we are out to destroy all Christian churches. I submit that the foundation stone of the Christian Church is, 'Thou shalt not kill'. You, who pretend to be the supporters and faithful upholders of that Church, come and tell the nation tonight that the biggest function of the Government and of the State is to organise the most efficient weapons for murder and killing. Organised murder, you say, is the duty of the State and preaching 'Thou shalt not kill' is the duty of the Church and you pretend that Church and State are the best friends of each other.......Mr Ramsay MacDonald, speaking at Swindon the other night, said, in the usual dramatic fashion, that whatever was won by the sword and was attempted to be kept by the sword, would perish by the sword. Was he intentionally sending the British interests in Egypt, in Iraq and in India to perdition when he was trying to defend them by the British sword?"
A few weeks later, on 19th March, estimates for the Royal Navy were being debated. Saklatvala said, "We have in front of us an item of expenditure which the rt. hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty explained has to be taken by the world as an index and measure of the love of this nation for peace. We have a right to know from him, and the world has a right to know, before he describes this nation as the most peaceful nation, if he can produce in the records of the last 125 years any other nation that has waged so many wars as Great Britain. We have a right to know, the world has a right to know, from the rt hon Gentleman the name of any other nation which during the last 125 years has taken the lives of so many people of other nations in war, or for the sake of keeping law and order, as the British nation during that period." In the same speech, he referred to the discipline of men in the Navy and a Member called out, "What do you know about it?" Saklatvala replied to the interruption, "I admit that Battersea is not noted as a naval port, though half of Battersea has the honour to be represented by a very valiant naval officer." (Perhaps out of embarrassment at the interruption, Saklatvala in the next sentence addressed the Chair as "Comrade Fitzroy"! The Times reported the amusing and almost certainly unique incident the next day, saying there was laughter in which the Hon. Member himself joined.)
He was to return often to this contention of Great Britain's record as an historic killer-nation. And when people criticised the Russian revolution because of the bloodshed, he always claimed that far more human blood had been spilled to create and maintain the British Empire than had been shed in the creation of the Russian Bolshevik State.
He took the opportunity to use the Naval Estimates Debate to call for a better standard of life for naval ratings and their families; he claimed the right for naval ratings to join trade unions just as their fellow-workers outside the forces were allowed to do; he called for more freedom of worship and political affiliation for the ordinary seamen. "If Admirals can go to Trafalgar Square and deliver fulsome speeches to the British Fascisti, why should the members of the Army and the Navy in the lower ranks not be at liberty to join the Communist Party and carry on Communist propaganda?", he asked.
Early in April, Mr Saklatvala moved an Amendment to the Co-partnership Bill at its second reading. He returned to his strongly held conviction that cheap labour in the British Empire was causing unemplyment and great hardship among the workers of Great Britain. "The factor which creates opposition between capital and labour is the unjustifiably existing capitalist, and the only way to remove opposition between capital and labour is to remove this interloper called the individual capitalist." [Hon. Member: Are not you a capitalist?] "Then remove me", retorted Saklatvala. (Once again, he was being identified with his capitalist family from whom he was to be officially severed within the next few weeks)
In another Debate he said it was cruel to divide people into those who worked with their brain and those who worked with their hands. "There is," he said, "no worker who works by hand alone without working with his brain at the same time. No engine-driver, driving his mail train at the rate of 50 or 60 miles an hour in a blizzard, is working merely with his hands. No spinner, no weaver, no smelter, no miner, no carpenter, no brick-layer, no stone-mason can do his work correctly if he does not use his brain just as much as the Lord Chancellor and the judges and lawyers and architects. Each individual worker works by his brain as well as by his hand, while a few lucky ones sit in easy chairs and pretend to work by brain and refuse to work by hand" [Hon. Member: "Like yourself!"] "Like myself", Saklatvala continued. "I do not claim to be an angel on earth. I claim to be full of all those vices, all those defects. all those drawbacks which the present hideous individual capitalist system imposes upon me."
During the Debate on Mr Churchill's budget speech in April, there was pandemonium and uproar in the House because Churchill accused working people of cheating over unemployment benefits. Labour Members said he was insulting the whole Labour Movement and demanded that he withdrew the offensive remarks. Saklatvala rose and said: "The Chancellor of the Exchequer has brought about this disorder, and it falls upon a revolutionary Communist to restore order." He proceeded to give a detailed and critical analysis of the budget proposals.
So he remained extremely active in the Commons making many lively and apposite contributions to many Debates on a variety of subjects. At the same time, he remained as vigorous as ever in his political campaigning outside the House, travelling up and down the country addressing large and enthusiastic crowds of working people. Although we had very little money, Father never accepted anything in the way of expenses and travelled often at night (largely to save time but, I think in those days there were concessional fares for nocturnal journies) Whenever he had to change trains in the middle of the night, he would telephone my Mother and have a conversation with her; he remained always a sentimentally ardent partner and tried to mitigate the loneliness he felt during these enforced separations by frequent telephone calls; just as when the House sat late, he would make a point of phoning her in the course of the evening to keep in touch.
In March 1925, The Sunday Worker was launched, to which he gave his support, being one of its founders He journied to Dublin and addressed a large meeting there. He spoke in favour of the Labour candidates in Battersea during the London County Council Elections in February. He continued to give much attention to the Workers' Welfare League of India and a resolution was passed by the Executive Committee of the All India Trade Union Congress that the W.W.L.I should be their representative at the Trade Union Congress in the U.K.
A journalist described how he was going up in the lift at the House of Commons to hear Mosely speak in one of the Committee rooms after his brief visit to India. "I met Saklatvala, his head, as usual, deeply immersed in statistics. 'On your way to hear Mosely?' I asked. 'Mosely!' he exclaimed, 'what can he know about India? Five weeks there at the outside! No', he went on, 'I'm going to hear Sir Willoughby Carey - he was Chairman of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce and he is a great employer of labour in Calcutta. He's the man to listen to - not Mosely.' "
But one of the most notable events which became quite a 'cause celebre' in the Press occurred in connection with the Conference to be held in Washington by the Inter-Parliamentary Union. In 1923 Father and Mother had attended the I.P.U. conference held in Copenhagen (which my Mother had greatly enjoyed and she often spoke of it to me in later life when she recalled with nostalgia how the wives of the Members had been entertained by the Danish Royal Family and their friendly simplicity and lack of formality made a great impression on her) As anything of an international nature (anything but an international war, that is!) appealed to Father, he arranged to attend the 1925 Conference in Washington. My Mother elected not to go - she had visited the States many years before and had no wish ever to go there again. Father had 2 brothers in the States and no doubt, fond of his immediate family as he undoubtedly was, he must have been greatly looking forward to visiting his younger brothers, Pherozeshah and Beram. He applied for and received his visa in readiness for the trip.
Sir Robert Horne and Colonel H.C.Woodcock wrote to the Times complaining that Saklatvala was to be part of the British Parliamentary delegation; Mr Woodcock went as far as to say that if Mr Saklatvala was included, he himself would refuse to attend. The Times wrote that Mr Kellog, American Secretary of State, appeared to have no objection to receiving Mr Saklatvala. Further letters were sent to The Times asserting that other Members would withdraw from the delegation if Saklatvala was to be a part of it. One Member wisely observed that if all Members withdrew as a protest, this would leave Mr Saklatvala as the sole representative in Washington of the British House of Commons!
A report from America published in the British Press said that Senator Borah conferred with President Coolidge and Mr Kellog and afterwards said that Mr Saklatvala should not be excluded from the U.S.A. He added: "This man has been free to express his opinions in England, and our Government cannot afford to be more afraid than the British."
But at the last moment, on 16th September, Mr Kellog announced that instructions had been telegraphed to London to revoke the passport visa that had been granted earlier to Mr Saklatvala. All the newspapers headlined the news of his exclusion. Many speculated that the revocation of the visa could only have been on advice from the British Government. Under a full-length photgraph of Mr and Mrs Saklatvala in their London garden, The Sphere wrote, "It seems so obvious to me that Mr Saklatvala might, in a party of 41 members, be expected to suffer some measure of modification of his extreme views, and that there was no virtue in making a hero of him." The Morning Post correspondent wrote that the paper had arranged to send a reporter to Washington to report on the Conference, but that since Mr Saklatvala was not to be a part of it, they would not bother to send anyone - "There is nothing in it for us if Mr Saklatvala is not there."
The Daily Telegraph reported a huge protest meeting held in Battersea. "For some hours before the building was opened there were long queues extending around the Town Hall, and when the doors opened, there was a wild rush for admission. The hall, which is capable of holding 2000 people, was quickly filled, and an overflow meeting was held......" To cheers from his audience he is reported as saying that for the last four months attacks had been launched against him, underground and overground, and he had resisted them all with a smile of indifference. "I stand by every word of the columns I have spoken," said Mr Saklatvala. "I have not spoken these words with any feeling of hatred for the people of Britain, or through any nationalist emotion at being an Indian. I challenge any honest person to face me with them on a public platform. Great Britain has no right to rule India any more than Germany had a right to rule Great Britain." His passport for America was in his pocket, he said, his passage was paid and his baggage was packed; three or four men were watching his house, and saw his luggage on the steamer. And, like the allies, they had to send an S.O.S. to America to win their battles for them. The first thing America did in answer to the appeal was to adopt most unconstitutional and unreasonable methods. If America were so thin-skinned, if she always lived in terror of Bolshevism, if she had not the back-bone of a man, if she were afraid of the voice of truth on behalf of the workers, she ought not to have given out pompously and said, 'We welcome all the world's representatives to a world's conference.' He was ready to go to America now and face any tribunal or any Committee of the Senate or any public meeting. If any one of the British Delegates had the courage of a man, let him come out on a public platform. He took no exception to being classed a poor, common immigrant, he added, he only represented the poor devils of Battersea. (Cheers)...
After this demonstration of popular support in Battersea some of the more re-actionary elements of the Constituency tried to organise a petition to the Mayor asking him to prohibit Mr Saklatvala (their elected Parliamentary representative) from holding any further meetings in the Town Hall. Needless to say, nothing came of it. A number of resolutions protesting against the ban were prepared to put before the Washington conference.
George Lansbury wrote in the press, "The American Government, by its action, has made Comrade Saklatvala a political figure of international importance. ...The action of Coolidge and Kellogg was that of the usual capitalist cowards. Liberty to them means liberty for those who will do and say what the capitalists want them to say or do. ...It is well that in so public a manner, American statesmen should reveal themselves for what they are. Today in America, hundreds of men are in jail for their activities on behalf of the Workers' Movement...hundreds of foreign workers are being deported for their activities in the Labour Movement. ...There is no reason why any of us should feel disgruntled because of the action taken against Saklatvala. It is good that the world should know that all anti-Labour Governments now are united in hunting down those who wish to overthrow capitalism. I do not agree with all Saklatvala's policies or methods, but I do believe in freedom, and certainly believe in his ultimate aim, which is the aim of all true Socialists, namely, the overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of Socialism."
In America, Senator Borah refused to address the Conference, the chief reason being that he objected to the ban on Saklatvala .In America, the Civil Liberties Union held a huge protest meeting in New York to coincide with the arrival of delegates to the Conference.
It is interesting to note here the speech which Saklatvala had made when addressing the Inter Parliamentary Conference in 1923 - nothing could have been more pacific; indeed it's sentiments might be expressed by any of our modern and moderate speakers in defence of today's Common Market. He had said: "Mr President. Ladies and Gentlemen, the resolutions before the Conference are quite clear and, to put the matter briefly, they appeal to our sense of fair play and common brotherhood all over Europe and all over the world. The war-guns boomed and are silenced, ... and they have left the world worse than it was when they began. We have therefore to come round to the position of everybody playing fairly towards others, the stronger ones helping the weaker ones, and the weaker ones playing fairly again towards the stronger ones when they themselves become strong once more. (Hear, hear!) I may be pardoned, Mr President, if I am rather personal, but I speak with a particular faith in the existence of fairplay and the spirit of brotherhood. After all, who am I? One of a conquered and vanquished race, a subject Indian, conquered by another nation. Well, here I am in this great Conference because of that spirit of fairplay and brotherhood that does exist in Great Britain and does exist in other parts of Europe. Coming from the British section I may say that only the other day Great Britain signed a treaty with Turkey. Turkey was defeated in war ... Great Britain would like to have a Treaty more advantageous to herself, but still she did not land soldiers in Constantinople and go forth to conquer, but followed brotherhood and fairplay, and peace for the future. We could have done so towards Russia, but still Great Britain refrained, and I am sure will refrain, from any hostile act against Russia. ... If I may ask you .. to hark back to what happened immediately after the war I would remind you that our friends fromAmerica sat at the conference table and the other Allies drove the U.S. President to sign a Peace treaty which, according to his conviction, was against the spirit of brotherhood and fairplay.
...that has resulted in driving America away from the brotherhood of Europe. We want America back (applause). We want Germany, Russia, France, Italy, Belgium, Great Britain. all to unite together on a basis of fairplay. ...we do not want national victories on our banner now. We want human good, human equality, and the uplifting of human beings to be the objects inscribed on our banners now. ... We have got to talk of reparations not in terms of money penalties but in terms of human happiness and human peace and human gladness, which is all we want to see upon the earth. When there is peace in Europe there will be peace in Asia. When there are good relations between these European nations there will be good relations between the others. ..We want all countries and all political parties - and I include my friends the Communists of whom I am one - we want them all to seek the good of their neighbours and not their downfall. We want Germany to understand that if France is suffering from devastation and injustice Germany has proved herself a bad neighbour; we want France to understand that if Germany is steeped in misery and poverty and injustice France is a bad neighbour. We do not want our own homes to be in bad order, or the homes of our neighbours, but we want an era of peace and full confidence and brotherhood and fairplay, and this will not be realised by reparations. (Applause)" Certainly nothing he said at THAT conference could justify his being denied access to the Conference of 1925.
It was during all the hullaballoo over the ban on Saklatvala's admission to the States that he resigned officially from Tata's. His brother, Sorab, came to England for the first and only time that year, largely to bring pressure to bear on Father, whose widely proclaimed Communism was proving an embarrassment to the capitalist firm. He and his wife, Auntie Mehri and three-year old daughter, Rhoda, stayed in the Cecil Hotel. Rhoda was accompanied by her Nanny, a concept of family life entirely new to me. I was overwhelmed with pity for her, since it seemed to my 6 year-old mind, that she was closer to the Nanny than to her Mother. I clung to my Mother like a limpet during the whole of their stay. Father's letter of resignation was addressed to Tata Ltd in London and read, "Dear Sirs, I may briefly state that I have been studying the recent trend of events arising out of my political activities and views. I candidly admit that at the present juncture one's political obligations require at times a somewhat uncompromising stand, irrespective of ones personal interests. In my case, I realise, that with the prominence of your office as an outstanding East India House, and with my relationship with the leading members of the firm in Bombay, this sacrifice does not, and will not, stop at a voluntary surrender of my personal advantages, but it may unjustly operate as an unnecessary and unjustifiable harm to others and to the firm's standing in commercial banking circles. Such criticism may be uncharitable now and yet it may grow day by day. Therefore, after a full and calm consideration of the question, with the benefits of consultation with my brother in London, I have decided to offer my resignation from your firm as Manager of the Cotton Mills Department, as I can do so without inconvenience to you with your preparation made ready for my absence in America. In this step I assure you of the inseparable good will on my part towards all the members of the firm, and I am sure of the continuance of the same on their part. Yours faithfully, Signed Shapurji Saklatvala.
Interviewed by a Sunday Worker representative he said he did not regret the step - " My services in the cause of the struggling workers....will now be able to command my fuller attention."
On 25th May, 1925, the Home Secretary had announced to the House that certain delegates from Germany who intended to attend the Annual Conference of the Communist Party of Great Britain to be held in Glasgow, had been refused permission to enter the country for this purpose. There was a lively Debate initiated by Jimmy Maxton, claiming that the Conference of the Communist Party was a perfectly legal and bona fide event and that to exclude these fraternal delegates from the country was a denial of the rights of free speech. Maxton was supported by several other members on the Labour benches and during the course of the Debate it was claimed that German and British members of the employing class were getting together and making agreements, so members of the working class of both countries should also be allowed to come together under the auspices of a legally constituted political Party. The Home Secretary, Joynson -Hicks, said that the policy had always been to afford free speech to our own nationals but not necessarily to foreigners. "I say frankly," said the Home Secretary, "that we have a right, as an imperial Government, to prevent these men coming in for destructive purposes,....they (the Government) do object to having Communist party doctrines enlarged, improved and spread by agitators from abroad..." To which Saklatvala replied, "On the same democratic principle, would Indians also have the right to say by a majority that no Englishmen should enter their country; or would the Chinese have the right to say that no Christian missionaries should enter their country?" Joynson-Hicks said sarcastically, "I had not noticed that the Communist Party had arrived. It is perfectly clear that wherever, in any country, there is a democratic House of Commons and a democratic Government, that Government has the right to do what it considers to be in the best interests of its people." Saklatvala asked him, "Do the Government make the democracy, or do the people of the country make the democracy?" Joynson-Hicks explained, "The Government is the expression of the views of the people of a democratic country." To which Saklatvala rejoined, "In conquered countries would the Government have the right to express the views of the people? Were the Germans expressing the views of the Belgian people during the occupation? If the Russians conquered England would they be expressing your feelings?" This debate on the exclusion of the German delegates to Scotland throws some light on the feelings engendered by the later exclusion of Saklatvala from the United States of America. Saklatvala and Joynson-Hicks were often to cross swords in the House and Joynson-Hicks was one of only a few Members who showed a personal animosity towards the Communist member; he was to make it patently clear the following year.
During the course of one Debate, Lansbury took exception to a remark made by Austen Chamberlain relating to Saklatvala not being a native of Great Britain and called for a withdrawal of the remark. In complaining to the Speaker, Lansbury claimed, "Another hon Member has insulted one of the best-living men in this or any other country..." Chamberlain assured the House "What I thought was a perfectly innocent remark has aroused a good deal of criticism. I beg, through you, Sir, to assure the hon member that I meant nothing insulting." The remark in question - which he was never allowed to complete - began, "When the hon. Member knows this country more intimately ...." In a reply published in the Sunday Worker, Saklatvala said: "....throughout these 19 years (the period of his stay in Britain) I have not spared myself in studying the conditions, troubles, temperament and needs of the working class, for whom alone I am concerned. Against one Chamberlain, I have the voice of 15,000 British workers in Battersea, and during my visits to the provinces for communist propaganda I have reason to know that there are as many thousands elsewhere who know that I have a far more intimate knowledge of the conditions and needs of the workers of Britain than ever Mr Austen Chamberlain will be able to possess."
In the course of a Parliamentary Debate on the Poor Law in Scotland, Saklatvala made an amusing comment on the system of voting in the House. "I rise to support the Amendment. In doing so I fully realise that I am not supporting a cause which is going to win in the lobbies. It was only on Tuesday night that the followers of the Government had been weeded out of what little conscience they had, and since then they had not had sufficient time to recover. It is just as easy for them to support their leaders whether they are right or wrong. I am perfectly sure that the reclining figure on the back bench will become perpendicular when the Division comes and that he will vote for the Government."
Also in lighter vein he intervened humorously in an exchange between Captain Wedgwood Benn and Joynson Hicks. Wedgwood Benn asked the Home Secretary what general rules governed the attendance of secret police at meetings; on what subjects were they asked to report; and whether they were employed to register in general opinions expressed, or whether their duties were limited to the prevention of crime and of the advocacy of crime. On getting an evasive reply, Wedgwood Benn pressed his point. Joynson-Hicks then said that the object of police attendance was to inform him of what takes place "...and if there are revolutionary sentiments or revolutionary projects discussed at that meeting..." Mr Saklatvala rose to ask the innocent question, "Will the rt. hon. Gentleman say if police duties also include attendance at dinner parties where revolutionary talk may be going on, and if that is extended to the private dining rooms of the House of Commons, where I hold dinners with my revolutionary friends on occasions?"
During one Debate taking place very late at night, Saklatvala said, "I hope I will not be charged with an attempt to keep hon. Members opposite up - because it is my honest desire to keep them down!"
In spite of personal attacks and disappointments, Saklatvala never lost his sense of humour- he saw many of the flaws of imperial society, its pomposity, its double standards, its claim to its own freedom while denying freedom to more than half the world, as ludicrous as well as wicked - and laughter, even when silent, is a great booster of morale.