In February, 1927, while Saklatvala was away in India, the question of sending a Statutory Commission to India was raised in the House of Commons. Under the terms of the India Act 1919, there was to be a decennial review and the Commons now sought to bring such a review forward.
It was not until June that the proposed composition of the Commission came up for discussion. Needless to say, although the Commission's task was to report on the future development of the administration of India, it was to be made up exclusively of Englishmen. Small wonder, then, that from the first, it was rejected by the great majority of politically-minded Indians. A joint committee was set up in India by the Indian National Congress with Motilal Nehru as its chairman. While not demanding out and out freedom for India, this committee demanded that Great Britain should grant Dominion Status; this did not please other political groups in the country who demanded total independence.
During a Debate on 2nd June in the House of Commons, George Lansbury, in a speech praised by Saklatvala, said: "I put it to the Noble Lord (Earl Winterton) that the time has come when we should cease treating the Indians as if they were good or bad children. We should treat them as our equals in this matter of the right to determine the future of their own country. ..... I press upon the Noble Lord that time is running out. What we look to find out from him...is the Government's idea as to the constitution of the Commission, the terms of reference of the Commission, and generally speaking what plans the Government have in mind for the consideration of the future constitution which they expect the House to accept in regard to India ... and I say that the time is long since overdue when we should give back to that nation the thing which they have not had for generations, namely, the right to rule themselves."
Mr Saklatvala took part in the debate on India a few days later and said, "I listened not only with interest, but with a great amount of respect and gratitude to the speech of the hon member for Bow and Bromley (Mr Lansbury), and yet on certain fundamental points I stand as much apart from his views as those of Lord Birkenhead. The hon member who has just sat down (Mr Wardlow-Milne) said that the majority of the people of India held moderate opinions. I do not know what moderate opinions are when one talks of India. I suppose that 'moderate opinion' is that which agrees with the views of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr Wardlow- Milne) I have frequently put it to this Committee and I do it once again that in the year 1927 - never mind what happened in 1827 - it is absolutely impossible for one country to hold another in subjection and pretend to offer them measures of reform giving them a partnership in the Commonwealth. That is all humbug. I see that a new Commission is to be appointed and I would like to ask what is going to be the scope of that Commission and its terms of reference. Everybody knows, whether it is put in black and white or not, that the first thing that will be put in the terms of reference is how this country can keep a stranglehold over India. That is a primary condition. Another condition will be that you must give to the Viceroy full power, and place a whip in his hand by which the interest, the prestige and the political power of Britain shall never be allowed to suffer a scratch. Whether that is put down in print or not, it is the fact. Perhaps hon members will pardon me for putting things very bluntly, but I think it is the only way in which I can explain my views. Between slavery and freedom there is no middle course, and the transition from slavery to freedom can never be attained by gradual measures. As long as you continue slavery, it must continue with the full strength in the bond; the bond must be strong to hold down the people. When you make up your minds that there shall be no slavery, then the bond must break, and it must break completely. There is no human possibility of gradual reform and gradual freedom. The hon Member for Kidderminster perverted an historical truth when he said that the last reforms of 1919 were not given to India by the Government under coercion. The Government of Great Britain played one of the most deceitful games in their history by pretending to give reforms to India, because the then Government of Great Britain was working under the greatest force and pressure and coercion of American and European nations. After the war, after the destruction of the power of the Kaiser, Great Britain stood, to the shame of the world, as worse than ten thousand Kaisers in her rule in India; and, in order to save the face of Great Britain, to show that Great Britain was no longer the only Imperialist power in the world, that the British Imperialism after the war was modifying itself into a group of Commonwealths, under tremendous coercion, perfidious Albion played the perfidious game by giving what you call reforms. In the reforms granted to India there is no measure of freedom. ...
... Why does Great Britain presume that, of all the savage peoples in the world who cannot manage their affairs, she must be the controller of India only? Why do you not take into your charge the people of Persia, the people of China, the people of Egypt, the people of Turkey, and everywhere else in the same manner and fashion as you take charge of the people of India? Did you not believe that the people of Germany had no instinct of democracy? Why did you not take charge of them? You say the Italian people have not the same instincts of democracy that the British people have. Why do you not go and assume parentage over them? It is all nonsense to say that for the benefit of the Indians the British nation has got to be there, and is performing a benevolent action. For goodness sake be honest, and say you are a nation of enterprise, and in seeking for enterprise to seek your own good, opportunity placed you in a strong position to throttle the country and the people of India - you are there and you are determined to remain there as long as you can get any good out of it. ..... The hon Member for Kidderminster said that there has been tremendous progress in India since I do not know when - the last twenty or thiry years - "
Mr WARDLOW-MILNE: "I am quite willing to make it a hundred years."
MR SAKLATVALA: " Make it as much as you like. I am prepared to grant you a still further term of 150 years, and I say that a nation which, after 150 years of hypercritical pretence, has kept the literacy of the people down to 6% ought to be pilloried in public in the eyes of the nations of the world. When a nation that says: 'I control and give progress to the people of India,' fails miserably - or rather, does not fail, but artfully and deceitfully, in its own interest, prevents 100% of education, and limits it like a tyrant and oppressor of an unspeakable character to 6%, - how can any member of that nation come and say, 'I am proud of my progress.'
"Take the death rate in India, the crushing infantile death rate in that city of Bombay; take the progress of the hon Member's own firm there. It has been a progress in infantile mortality from 150 to 200 up to 600 and 800 per thousand. There is tremendous progress in the murder of children all over India, and all over the industrial towns and cities there. ... The hon Member gives us the consolation that there are not so many deaths from famine. ... famine is no longer a periodical condition in India, - it is the constant lot of the people. To die from semi-starvation is a permanent condition in the country; the condition is not one of periodical famine. [Hon. Member: Have you any statistics?"] The statistics are the heavy death rate. A Government that tolerates a death rate such as exists to day in India is the most unfit Government on the face of the world, and, if nothing else, the murder of 4� millions of Indians who are dying because of the British rule, over and above the normal death rate which should exist in a tropical country like India, is alone a sufficient reason to tell the British to go out bag and baggage, in spite of all the chimneys that they are capable of erecting when they are there."
He then went on to speak of the plight of Indian workers in international and communist terms, relating the condition of the workers in India and in Great Britain; this was another of his constant and reiterated themes. He contended that the interests of the managers and owners of industry in the two countries were in competitive conflict the one with the other; whereas the workers of both nations should unite for their mutual benefit and common interest. "The millowners of India and the mill owners of Lancashire would rather wish to see each other weakened and destroyed. The mill WORKERS in India and the mill WORKERS of Lancashire will both gain an advantage by standing together, fighting together, working for a common standard of life, demanding the same standard of wages and demanding the same form of political franchise, liberty and freedom .... and where this country continually comes into conflict is on this question, that whenever you talk of reforms, whenever you talk of progress, whenever you talk of any measure of liberty you in your hearts believe that by granting a few concessions to your own class- brethren in India you are building a bridge of some kind. You are doing nothing of the kind. You are strengthening a class which in its economic interests is your rival and your competitor..."
He returned to the subject of the examination of the possibilities of a Commission to draw up a new constitution for India. "...Just as this country would not allow Chinamen or Germans to write a constitution for this country, it is equally absurd for this country to appoint a Committee to write a constitution for the people of India, on whatever basis. The only point of discussion in this Chamber should be whether this country is still to be a tyrant over India, or whether it will be courageous enough to say'no' and cease to be a tyrant."
When the 'Government of India - Statutory Commission Bill' came up for the 2nd Reading at the end of November, 1927, Mr Saklatvala moved an amendment. The intention of the Bill was to bring forward the decennial review of the Government of India Act 1919 (due in 1929).
MR SAKLATVALA: ...When the noble Lord (Lord Winterton) was introducing the Bill, he showed a little surprise that I should be prepared to offer opposition to the Bill as it stands. ...I think the noble Earl when he made the sweeping assertion that it is merely shifting the date, that there is no opposition in this country or in India, misinformed himself as well as the House, in that there is bitter opposition in responsible Indian circles capable of expressing themselves against this Bill. ...The Leader of the Opposition is supporting the Bill, I suppose taking it as a non-contentious Bill. .... Members of this House are under the impression that a desire was expressed by the Indians themselves for an earlier appointment of the Commission. I think the House is mixing up two things. The Indians greatly desire, not a Commission that would justify the India Act, but a sort of Round Table Conference to clear the air, ... and not the appointment of a Statutory Commission under the Act ... There are no issues which can be explored with any usefulness by any such Commission and therefore to expedite such a Commission is merely enacting a farce earlier.
"The issue is perfectly clear. Is Great Britain determined to carry on an antiquated, savage system of rule of another country and another people, or is Great Britain prepared to let the people of every country manage their own affairs, in a friendly way or even a hostile way if they choose so to do. ...The early appointment of the Commission does not get rid of the belief that the only purpose of the Government is to put a hypocritical cloak on the system of tyranny which, in the name of common sense and justice, ought to be abolished as soon as possible. I suggest to the Government that they should be bold enough to withdraw the Bill, and that if they are not afraid of the truth they should appoint, not a Statutory Commission under the Act, but an independent Commission composed entirely of Indians. Let those Indians come over to this country and cross examine you and listen to your witnesses and advise the House as to what is the exact position. The Bill precludes all such chances of preliminary negotiations and hastens the appointment of a Commission which is hated by the Indians, which is not required by them, which is only serving a dishonest and hypocritical purpose of Imperialism and is not intended to advance the freedom of a conquered country which you have no right to govern. I therfore move the rejection of the Bill."
Once again, Saklatvala stood almost alone in the House , supported by a mere handful of the more left-wing Labour Members, since the Labour Party officially supported the Bill. His Amendment was seconded by the Labour Member for Glasgow, Gorbals, Mr Buchanan.
In the course of a further Debate, during the Committee Stage of the Statutory Commission Bill, with Mr James Hope in the Chair, Saklatvala moved the following Amendment: "I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, at the end, to insert the words, 'provided that the said Commission shall not be appointed until a Resolution shall have been agreed to by the Legislative Assembly of India approving of its appointment.' ....Apart from the wording of the Act, (India Act 1919) I submit that after its passage, though not perhaps during its passage, it had become a contract between two parties, between the Government of this country and the body entrusted with whatever measure of popular Government was granted to India. Today we are asked to take a course of action by which one of the contracting parties wants to alter the contract radically, completely disregarding the existence of the other contracting party. That other contracting party having heard of our one-sided activity through other channels such as the Press, is objecting as strongly as possible and in whatever manner it can against this proposal. I have just this morning received a cablegram from the Trade Union Congress of India -
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Earl Winterton) I wish to raise a point of order. I ask you, respectfully, Sir, whether it is not quite out of order on any part of this Bill, much less on this Amendment, to discuss the composition or proposed composition of the Commission....As I understand the hon. Member, he is now dealing with objections which are being taken in India to the proposed Commission.
MR SAKLATVALA: .....I assure the noble Lord, I am not bothered about the personnel of the Commission. If the Commission is wrong, any saint or scroundrel appointed to it will be in the wrong place."
In reply to Saklatvala, Earl Winterton launched into a vituperative attack upon him, thereby incurring great indignation among many fellow- Members. In the course of a bitter tirade he demanded, "What right has the hon Gentleman to come down here and make a most serious charge against every Party in the House of breaking faith with the people of India by breaking the spirit and the letter of the Act of 1919? ....I must say quite frankly again, that no one who has the remotest knowledge of India could possible accept the hon. Gentleman as an exponent of Indian opinion. ... he is repudiated by every responsible organisation in India. There is not a responsible organisation in India that accepts the hon. Gentleman as its spokesman. ..... May I point out to the hon. Gentleman the fact, although he ought to have known it before speaking with such confidence, that there have been no less than five resolutions passed in the Assembly in India in favour of the acceleration of the date? ... yet here is an hon. Gentleman who comes down here and claims, forsooth, to be an exponent of India opinion, telling us that these 5 resolutions have got to be entirely disregarded, that he, the Member for North Battersea, the representative of 300,000,000 Indian people, demands that this Committee shall retard the date ... "
Mr Buchanan, Member for Glasgow, Gorbals, interrupted the aristocratic oration with the question, "Will the Noble Lord kindly inform me of the dates of these 5 Resolutions, or, say, the date of the last one?" To which the Noble Lord somewhat lamely replied, "I could not give the hon Member the date off-hand, but Resolutions have been passed at different times ever since the Assembly came into being in 1920."
(In spite of repeated demands from many Members during the period of over an hour, the noble Lord failed to produce any evidence of the 5 Resolutions, being able to quote a date for only one and that had been in 1921!)
Lieut.Commander Kenworthy then intervened. He said:- "The Noble Lord must be very grateful to me, because but for my boldness in protesting against his attempt to rush the Committee stage yesterday, he would not have been able to treat the House this afternoon to this flow of invective against the hon. Member for North Battersea. (Mr Saklatvala) .... The noble Lord said that the hon. Member for North Battersea had no right to speak for any section of Indian opinion. I do not know that it behoves me particularly to defend the hon. Member for North Battersea; I think he can look after himself. But the noble Lord seemed to question the right of any Member of this House to give certain opinions. The hon. Member for North Battersea was sent here by the electorate in his constituency, and has every right to voice his opinion in this House. I am sure the hon Member treats the electors of North Battersea to a great many tirades on the Indian question, and that they well know his views. The Noble Lord, beside being a great ornament to this House, is an Irish Peer. What section of Irish opinion does he represent?"
THE CHAIRMAN: "The hon and gallant Member's question opens up an alarming vista."
Lieut.Commander KENWORTHY: ...I was only protesting against the noble Lord's suggestion that the hon Member on this side speaks for no section of Indian opinion, and when an Irish Peer, who has estates in England, and sits for a Sussex constituency, says that, I make the obvious retort, but I will not repeat it. I really think the Under-Secretary need not get heated over this matter at all. I, personally, am very glad to hear the views of the hon Member for North Battersea on Indian affairs. He is the only Indian born native in the House as far as I know. The noble Lord can console himself that he is going to get the Committee stage of this Bill. He has no need to worry about that. What he has got to worry about is Indian opinion in India, and if he would address himself to that, and not allow his leg to be pulled by the hon Member for North Battersea, it would be better."
Then came a very apt comment by Mr Stephen in support of Saklatvala:- "I wish to join in protesting against the tone of the Under-Secretary of State for India in his references to the hon Member for North Battersea. He said the hon Member does not represent any responsible Indian opinion. It is perhaps true or it is perhaps incorrect, but the point that struck me in this connection was that it came very badly from the noble Lord to make such a statement, seeing that the Government of which he is a junior Member was responsible for keeping the hon Member for North Battersea from visiting his own country to get into touch with Indian opinion. I think that the noble Lord would have been well advised if he had kept his temper when he was replying to the speech of the hon Member for North Battersea."
Mr Wallhead then followed in defence of Saklatvala. In the course of his speech he said:- "It would have been as well if, before the noble Lord thought out his scheme of indictment against the hon Member for North Battersea, he had been quite sure of his facts. ...he charged the hon Member with not being representative of Indian opinion and said that he represented no one at all. I believe that on a recent visit to India the hon Member was presented with nine open Addresses by nine of the great cities of India, some of which have refused the same privilege and honour to Lord Irwin, the Viceroy. If what I say is correct, as I am sure it is - and I believe the hon Member has these Addresses in his possession now - I think at least the noble Lord might have known those facts. .... I think the noble Lord should withdraw his statement and apologise to the hon Member for North Battersea for the statement he has made."
Nor did the attacks against the noble Lord rest there. Jimmy Maxton then took the floor. He said, "....listening to the noble Lord today and the subsequent discussion gives the impression that the Government seems absolutely determined in the handling of this question to proceed from folly to folly.; and as one who is genuinely anxious that the great Indian people shall be established in a position of liberty and dignity to develop their nation according to their own genius, I regret very much that first the noble Lord the Secretary of State, in the other place, and then the noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State in this House, should indicate to the Indian people that they had nothing but contempt for them. What possible measure of confidence can we have that the Government will deal with the Indian people in a decent, gentlemanly, man-to-man fashion when they cannot treat with ordinary common courtesy the one representative of the Indian people who sits in this House? I think it should have been possible for a responsible Minister of the Crown ...to have put through this Bill, to have listened to any criticism to it with retraint and dignity, having regard to the fact that there were greater issues at stake than his amour propre. ...."
Mr Becket than took up the cudgels on Saklatvala's behalf. "I am rather surprised," he said, "that the Under-Secretary of State resented this Amendment quite so strongly. I only felt, when reading it, amazement that the hon Member for North Battersea (Mr Saklatvala) should have come forward with such an extremely mild Amendment. It seems to me such a very reasonable request to make that I cannot understand why any hon Member on the other side of the House should hesitate for a moment to support it. It certainly does not justify the very un-English practice of standing up supported by big battalions and taunting a man in the way that has been done just because he happens to be in a minority of one. I do not suppose any Member will find more points of disagreement with the hon Member for North Battersea than myself, but he is certainly entitled to express his opinions without being treated insolently, and in this particular case I think that he has moved an Amendment which has nothing to do with any particular Party prejudice, but it is an extremely moderate and very helpful Amendment."
It will be understood from the above lively exchanges that Saklatvala did not want for champions in the House, despite his political isolation in that body. Through his years of sincere service he had earned and acquired the respect and friendship of many Members whose political views were divergent from his own. But, as Lieut. Commander Kenworthy had said, Saklatvala was well able to take care of himself (though I have no doubt he must have been deeply grateful for the support he received). Nevertheless, Saklatvala himself launched an offensive against the noble Lord.
MR SAKLATVALA: I apologise to the House for intervening in this Debate a second time, but I think the extraordinary character of some of the arguments which have been used demands some further explanation. On former occasions, during general Debates, many untruthful and unjustifiable assertions have been made by the noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State for India which I did not get an opportunity of answering. The noble Lord said emphatically that nearly every organisation in India repudiated my authority to speak on behalf of Indian subjects. That statement is far from the truth, and the noble Lord knows that it is contrary to the truth. I quite appreciate the reference to myself that has been made by an hon Member with regard to the 9 cities which welcomed me in India, while several of those cities refused to extend an official or even a formal welcome to the Viceroy of India. The noble Lord knows all this and he has reports in his possession showing that hundreds of thousands of the people of India approve of my plans and my policy, and they also approve of what I have been doing for India while residing in this country. If the noble Lord would make a journey with me to India, I would be quite willing to organise open public meetings - not camouflaged and manoeuvred meetings - and he would then find that 99 people out of every 100 at those meetings would declare in favour of my authority to speak on their behalf. I want to remind the noble Lord that he has been guilty of deceiving the British people and the whole world by placing unrepresentative Indian princes on the League of Nations. Some of these princes are corrupt men who are afraid to go back to India. Nevertheless, the noble Lord brings them to this country to speak in the name of the Indian people. ... I know that not one of those representatives of India on the League of Nations would be able to secure at a public meeting one vote as compared with the million votes I could secure declaring the belief that I do represent Indian opinion. For the noble Lord to make such remarks as he has done on this point is rather stupid. ..."
The Bill was, of course, passed.
On 25th November the House was asked by Earl Winterton to concur in the submission to His Majesty of the names of the following persons, namely, Sir John Simon, Viscount Burnham, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, Mr Cadogan, Mr Walsh, Colonel Lane Fox, and Mr Attlee, to act as a Commission for the purposes of Section 84A of Government of India Act (1919).
Once again, Saklatvala rose to move an Amendment in the following terms:- "I beg to move, to leave out from the word 'House' in line 1 to the word 'to' in line 4, and to insert instead thereof the words, 'resolve to invite Pandit Motilal Nehru, of the Legislative Assembly of India, to the Bar of the House to explain Indian sentiments and guide the House, as provided for in the Preamble of the Government of India Act 1919, before concurring in the submission to His Majesty of the names of persons."
(Motilal Nehru was in London at this time on a visit from India).
"I hope the House will not attribute to me any maliciousness, because today I can speak only as one of the conquered and enslaved subject races. I can assure the House that I bear no malice to any person in this House or outside this House, but I always prefer, when I give expression to the faith and feelings of those who are crushed and those who are oppressed, to speak in plain, blunt language. Not that I mean to hurt, but I refuse to weigh and choose words which mean nothing. I do submit that this House today, with that very mistaken notion that, because the Labour Party leaders and the Government leaders combine for a couple of hours on a particular issue they can make no mistake, are making the gravest mistake. They are insulting and hurting the people of India with the Government scheme, as well as with all the suggestions made from the Labour Benches. There is nothing but downright insults and injury to the people of India. I realise my other responsibility. I stand here representing the interests of the British electorate who sent me. I stand here as representing the vital interests of the workers of this country, who show sufficient confidence in me, not one electorate alone, but all over England, Scotland, Wales and even Ireland, wherever I have the pleasure of going and mixing and speaking with the people. I say that this resolution today is one of the gravest injuries, and almost an act of treachery to the working class of Great Britain, apart from the injury it is going to inflict upon the Indians."
"It is not merely from any narrow nationalist point of view that I am expressing any sense of injured feelings or anger. May I remind the House that within a few days of my first entry here, when the Irish Free State was before this House, and when that same Imperialist conspiracy of every British ruler was combining, irrespective of his conscientious belief to the contrary, new as I was in experience, almost nervous as I was, I felt it my duty to move the rejection of that Bill, and so do I feel again today, as one of the conquered races that know the curse of Imperialism, that know the evil to the rulers as well as the ruled of one nation ruling another. I am very sorry that the Government had no other spokesman than the Under-Secretary of State for India. The noble Lord has got many good qualities, and yet, at the same time, his good qualities, from certain points of view, are at times exceedingly unfortunate. .....and you pretend to deceive the world that there are no conscientious objections against Imperialism, against exploitation, and against many of the evils of Great Britain ruling India, and that you are all unanimous; at the same time you make every diabolical effort - I do not mean to apply that word to the personality of the Under-Secretary, but to the effort which he made - to show that while you are united, India is disunited, scattered into hundreds of fragments, and not only disunited but almost ununitable. While you make a hideous picture of the Indian people you try to make a virtuous picture of yourselves, and you know that both are untrue. The Under-Secretary opened his remarks by saying that there was welter and chaos when the British rulers went to India, and that they consolidated the conditions. May I ask the House just to review the historical position from 1910 to 1914? There was the Kaiser in Europe. He also felt the same thing, namely, that among the European communities there was such a welter and chaos that one strong man was required to rule the whole of Europe. He also felt like coming forward as the trustee and guardian of the small nationalities in Europe. He failed. You succeeded. That is the only difference, but the claim of the Kaiser and the claim of the British Kaisers is equally preposterous from the ethical standpoint and the point of view of national rights."
"The Under-Secretary then told us about the trusteeship of minorities and one thing another, and he made a big picture. "... (Please see Chapter 2. page 9 para 3 to par 2 on page 10)...
The speech continues:- "In 1919 you gave self -Government, liberty, equality, fraternity - to the people of India. You, the heaven-born guardians of the depressed classes, what did you do? You have not enfranchised 2% of the depressed classes of the population. If you were sincere in your belief, why did you not give the people full political franchise? What is the trouble of the depressed classes, and the untouchable classes? Sixty million of people untouchable! Do not tell such cock-and-bull stories everywhere every time. ...60 millions of people are not suffering from untouchability, but from the great curse of British imperialism, which keeps them illiterate and uneducated. Why did you not do your duty by these people? Why did you not give them education? You say, 'Where is the money to come from? We cannot do it. They are an Asiatic people, full of religious superstition.' I have come from a second visit to Russia, and I unhesitatingly say, I say it seriously and most earnestly, that the British Government ought to go and learn from Lunacharski how in 6 years he has taken in hand all the Asiatic peoples of the Soviet Republic and turned illiteracy into literacy producing a good, scientific, well-educated people. [laughter] Yes, when real, genuine freedom came to Russia, the first effect was that the Asiatic peoples, who under the Tsar had been kept illiterate and ignorant, all got a good education, in some respects even better than and higher than the elementary schools in Britain. I was not alone when I went to Russia. There were 120 British men and women with me. Every one of them is as good if not better than those who have been roaring with laughter here. What I saw. they have seen, and what I believe, they believe."
"Political rights and depressed classes! Mohammedans, Sikhs and Parsees! It was your duty to grant them political rights, so that minorities could protect their own interests. What did you do? According to your own statements, only seven million out of two-hundred-and-forty-seven millions have the right to vote. That is how you have protected minorities. This Commission is to go out, not to protect minorities, but to decide how to keep the minorities under the thumb of a still smaller minority, namely, the British rulers. When we talk of the rights of minorities, it is the same story again: 'Oh, they are illiterate, they are superstitious, they have different languages and different religions.' Let me go back to the illustration of Russia. In Russia the Asiatic tribes not only have different languages but 18 new alphabets had to be created, but with goodwill, what have the Soviet rulers of the people achieved? There is a political vote for every man and woman at the age of 18, and the Asiatic people excercise the vote, with very great advantage and without any trouble. And yet the noble Lord stands up here today and says, 'We are ruling India because there are depressed classes and Mohammedans and minorities.' It is all bunkum and nonsense. The oppressors of India are here. You are responsible as a country - not you, personally, Mr Speaker , I mean the country is responsible - for all that ill picture which has been painted of India, and then you jibe at the people of India and tell the world that they are peculiarly bad and superstitious and ignorant, and that their women do this and that and the other. (This is a reference to the book "Mother India" published a few months earlier) The women of India are as good sisters to the women of Britain and to the women of China as anybody else. Deprive the women of this country of their political rights, and of their education and they would come down to the same low level as the illiterate, uneducated women of India."
"What is wrong is the presence of British rule, which prevents the introduction of modern thought, modern evolution, modern education and scientific methods of evolving a peoples' political, economic and social rights. That is what they are suffering from. You are sending out this Commission, not to unify religions, not to produce touchability, not to drive away superstition and ignorance with learning and literature, not to drive away slavery by giving political rights to the people, but you are sending out this Commission to find out how the British nation can tell lies to the world at large, and hypocritically pretend that the British are carrying out their trust in India. It is all nonsense and you all know it. It is not your fault. The Romans did the same thing once apon a time, when they were ruling your country. My ancestors, the Persians did the same thing when they were ruling the Jews, the Assyrians and the Turks. We are all subject to the same failing. Whenever one country governs another, it always talks of acting on behalf of minorities, just as the League of Nations pretends today, but it always tramples upon the rights of majorities. Who are the majority among the Indian people? Never mind the Hindus and the Mohammedans, because religious differences exist in all nations of the world. The majority of the people of India are peasants and agriculturists. The majority of the people in the large cities are industrial workers. What rights have you given to them? What is your blooming Commission going to do for them? What instructions will it have? What is the purpose of this country's rule in India? To keep talking of minorities and to trample on the rights and the progress of the majority. Because the Mohammedans are a minority in India - there are 80 million - is that a justification for 40 million Britishers to enslave 220 million Hindus? That is the logic of what the world is asked to believe."
"The Leader of the opposition put foward certain schemes. I do not want my colleagues in the Labour Party to misunderstand me. I do wish to offer criticism, but not because of any personal difference of opinion. ... I do not wish to offer criticism as to how the Indians will look upon the action of the Labour Party. I know the effect of it will be disastrous for the working Hindu and the British and Indian workers who will have to work side by side for the benefit of both. .... The Leader of the Opposition suggested that great advantages might accrue to India through these Committees being set up. All I can say is that the putting of more sugar on the propositions of these Committees will not make the Indian people swallow them more easily. ... When you are dealing with a fundamental question like the one we are now considering, if you believe that you have only to put a little more honey, sugar and cream on the top of it in order that India will swallow it, then you are making a disastrous mistake. On these matters the Indian mind has a little more penetration than the western mind. The Leader of the Opposition stated that he thought there was some possibility of good results from this Commission, but why did he say that? In my view the Commission will only create confusion. ... The Leader of the Opposition did place his finger on one essential fact that should make for war or peace. He said that people would give up arming, people would give up fighting - I use that phrase in reference to the Indian situation as meaning a political fight in the future - ...if only everyone had a sense of security against the other. The Commission that is being appointed today - let us not be blind - is not driving, but it has driven, all sense of security from the mind of each and every politician, from every school and every thought in India. ... You can make as many speeches as you like, you can have any kind of concordats between yourselves and the Front Bench of the Labour Party, or the Back Bench of the Labour Party, but that is not going to restore a sense of security in the Indians. Every Indian politician has now the feeling that this roving Commission comes to insult us, to offend us, to deny to us our natural, undoubted right to rule our country.
"What on earth is a British Commission to find out in India in regard to whether Indians should rule in their own country, any more than if you had the impudence to appoint a Commission to France tomorrow to see whether that country should be run by Frenchmen or whether the British should go there to take care of the minorities in Alsace-Loraine?
It is not too late for the Government to abandon this almighty,pre-ordained attitude, to come off their perch and to realise that they must discuss with other nations the kind of Government they propose and the action they are going to take. ....I am anxious to press upon the Government, and upon the noble Lord in particular, that they cannot treat the Indians as coolies and they cannot treat H.M.'s Opposition as coolies, as the noble Lord tried to do this afternoon."
In another speech a little later in the same Debate Saklatvala said, "I appreciate the difficulty of my position, as is often the case, yet I have to carry on, expressing views which otherwise could not be expressed. While I have listened to the charming appeals of the rt hon. Member for Preston (Mr T. Shaw) and the noble Lord, about the House unanimously passing the Bill with all graciousness and sympathy and so on, I honestly and sincerely warn the House that if that well-intentioned but misdrected advice is followed, in the eyes of intelligent Indian opinion this House will be stooping to a meanness towards the whole of India. ..... the rt hon Member for Preston and the noble Lord, ... still look upon this Bill as something against which India has not expressed an opinion. Let me submit certain evidence to the contrary.
A Member of this House, the hon Member for Pontypridd (Mr Mardy-Jones), is now in India. When he reached Bombay he conveyed to many Indian friends a piece of advice as coming from this House generally and from the Labour Party in particular, namely, that the Indians should make the best of the coming opportunity, and accept the Commission. That hon Member himself has sent a telegram from Calcutta to the effect that it is the unanimous opinion of all intelligent politicians in India that the Bill ought not to be carried; and that the Labour Party, at least, should be advised to wash its hands of it, and should remain aloof from the great tragedy that is being enacted against India and the conspiracy which is being hatched in the shape of this so-called harmless Bill.... The hon Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr Purcell) has also gone to India to confer with the Trade Union Congress and the Labour elements there, and yesterday we received a similar protest from the leaders of the Trade Union Congress - not from one individual but from the Congress Committee as a whole. Again, I put it to the House that this Bill is an act of meanness when seen from the Indian side of the transaction. ....
The noble Lord, after all the manipulation of a surgeon extracting a tooth, at last produced ONE Resolution out of the FIVE which were mentioned. ..... The spirit of THAT Resolution was, 'Your Act is a complete farce and a scrap of paper and worse than useless. Get on with the job and reconsider the situation.' The subsequent Resolutions, which the noble Lord, despite persistent demands, did not produce, will support that argument. As differences of opinion developed, Indians have appealed to various parties in this House and to individual friends in the Labour Party to the effect that it would be fatal merely to appoint a Commisssion such as was provided for in the old Act before certain issues wre cleared up by heart-to-heart talks and unhampered discussions. They have asked for Round Table Conferences. They have suggested that deputations should be officially invited by the Secretary of State to come here. They have asked that delegates should be sent from here to India and that delegates from India should be received here, but all these demands we are ignoring.
We are pretending that this Bill is something desired by the Indians. I consider it my duty, not so much towards my Indian compatriots or towards the British working-class, as towards this House, to say that what we are doing today in the name of peace and harmony is an act of unpardonable and contemptible meanness towards India. I still advise the Government to withdraw the Bill and to send a telegram to the Indian Legislative Assembly, and I undertake that there shall be no further delay than one week in obtaining an expression of their views. By doing so, the Government will act in the manner provided for in the Preamble of the Act of 1919, and Parliament will be enabled to have that guidance from the Indian contracting party, which it is supposed to have. By proceeding along those lines, the Government will tread a safer road than that which they propose tonight to take." Saklatvala's speech was followed by an eloquently moving speech by Mr Buchanan, Labour Member for Glasgow-Gorbals in the course of which he reiterated that Pandit Motilal Nehru who was already in London, should, as an elected representative of the Indian people, be consulted.
The Bill passed this Third Reading without Amendment.
The British Press reported great unrest in India during this period and there was little doubt that the proposed Simon Commission was adding fuel to the political flames. On 21st November, 1927, the Daily Herald wrote: "Mr George Lansbury, Chairman of the Labour Party, has received from Pundit Motilal Nehru, Leader of the Swarajist Party in the Indian Assembly and who is in London, a letter urging the Labour Party not to support the Government's Indian Commission. Pundit Nehru enclosed in his letter the following cable from the President and General Secretary of the Indian National Congress, 'All Party leaders declare boycott Commission, rejecting proposals and improvements in reference to Select Committee procedure. Gandhi agrees. Please induce Labour to withdraw from the Commission and not support compromise proposals." In his letter Pundit Nehru said: "I do not see how I can induce the Labour Party to withdraw its members from the Commission or to desist in its efforts for a compromise, except by appealing to you, as Chairman of the Party, and informing the Party, through you, that the Congress would very much appreciate strong and unqualified opposition by the Labour Party to the proposals of the Conservative Government. It is evident that the compromise proposals do not meet either the demand of India or that of the Labour Party itself as expressed in their various Resolutions. India expects the Labour Party to stand firm by her, and I take this opportunity to inform you that any proposals falling short of some suitable form of fully responsible Government will not satisfy the Congress.'
The matter will be discussed at a meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party Executive today. Pundit Motilal Nehru, expressing his views to Reuter's correspondent said, 'I am almost sure that if, as a concession to public opinion in India, some Indian names were now included, the Commission and the programme laid out for it would remain as unacceptable as at present. ..... So far as India is concerned, she will not be satisfied with anything short of some form of fully responsible Government. I must add that, though the action of the Government does not in the least surprise me, the attitude taken by the Labour Party was not expected by me, and has caused general disappointment in India, as is shown by the private telegrams I have received. I am authorised to state that the action of the Labour Party, in not withdrawing their members from the Commission and trying to effect some sort of compromise, is not supported by any responsible Party in India. ....."
The Sunday Worker of 18th December 1927, published a cable received from Mr Chaman Lal, President of the Indian Trade Union Congress. It read: "Indian Labour at the recent session of Trade Union Congress, under my Presidentship, at Cawnpore [to which for the first time, the British T.U.C. sent fraternal delegates] passed a Resolution demanding that the British Labour Party should withdraw its members from the Simon Commission and resolved itself also to boycott the Commission. I, therefore, appeal through the Sunday Worker to British Labourists and Trade Unionists to protest against Mr Ramsay MacDonald's imperialist proclivities. The movement for the boycott of the Simon Commission is universal. All Nationalists, including Moslems are for it. (for the boycott, that is) Such remarkable unanimity has not been witnessed since the days of the non-co-operation movement. Pundit Motilal Nehru's lead is highly praised in all quarters ....All classes in India are aghast at the betrayal by the Labour Party. The Simon Commission will register the middle-class imperialist verdict. MacDonald and company have written a shameful chapter in the history of both nations."
It was not only the Sunday Worker that reported the antagonism of the Indians to the Commission. The Times carried several articles on the subject. Meetings were held in most of the big cities in India and all shades of political opinion expressed their unequivocal antipathy to the Simon Commission. Even if Saklatvala had sat silent in the House (and I am sure many of the Members must often have wished that he had!) the picture was plain to see and neither Earl Winterton nor Ramsay MacDonald could have been in any doubt that the Commission was loathed and hated by the Indian people; and yet they insisted, in their dictatorial way, upon imposing it upon the Indian people, showing the imperialist's all too common disregard for the feelings of the people they governed, by force and against the popular will. Democracy might be praised for home consumption but it was not to be allowed to blossom in India. Consultation with the Indian people and Government by consent of the people was not to be considered.
Apart from official protests from political bodies in India, general popular unrest was manifestly worsening. There were thousands of political prisoners and questions were asked in Parliament - Mr Montagu raised the question of the people who committed suicide in prison. He was followed by George Hall who protested at the practice of chaining prisoners; and he quoted the 1926 Report of the Bombay Jail Department which showed that the flogging of prisoners had increased.
There can be no doubt that the appointment of the Simon Commission aggravated the violent opposition to what was more and more considered to be the despotic rule of the British, and it made Gandhi's method of non-violent, non-co-operation more difficult to sustain. In 1926, a Marxist group in the city of Bombay had created a 'Workers and Peasants Party' which, in effect, was a communist party; they were said to be responsible for organising massive strikes in the textile mills during 1928 and 1929 which all but paralysed the whole industry. How far this group was responsible for all this industrial unrest it is hard to prove, but that the Simon Commission inflamed the anger of the workers and provided fertile ground for the Peasants and Workers Party to flourish in, cannot be disputed
This industrial unrest led, in turn, to the Communist leaders of the Workers and Peasants Party being arrested and subjected at Meerut to a trial lasting three years, which, in itself, was yet another cause of discontent and conflict.
It was during all this controversy that the League Against Imperialism convened an international conference in Brussels. James Maxton was elected Chairman and Saklatvala was elected to the Executive Council. Jawaharlal Nehru represented the Indian National Congress at the Conference and the I.N.C. unanimously resolved to become a corporate Associate Member of the L.A.I. It was reported from Brussels that Pandit Motilal Nehru's address on the position of the Indian Movement with regard to the Simon Commission made the antagonism to the Commission abundantly clear. Ellen Wilkinson's explanation that 'under the Government of India Act, 1919 a Commission had to be appointed after 10 years, but that she strongly objected to Indians not being represented,' was met with stony silence by the Council, which knew that she had failed to support Saklatvala's lone fight in the Commons. Saklatvala brought the house down when, in cutting tones, he said, "Miss Wilkinson explains that there is the 1919 Act in the law books. Whose law books? In the law books of the British tyrants, without the consent of the Indian people!" A strong Resolution exposing and condemning the British Labour Party's policy was adopted unanimously.
A few days later on his return from Brussels, Saklatvala was interviewed by the Sunday Worker. He is quoted as saying, concerning the I.L.P's leader's speech to the Indian National Congress in Bombay at which Fenner Brockway criticised the Royal Commission to India, that Brockway 'has undertaken an impossible job. ...In India, Brockway denounces the Royal Commission, but in Great Britain the I.L.P. takes no steps against Major Attlee, one of its members, for sitting and working on that Commission.
The Simon Commission eventually arrived in India on Friday, 3rd February, 1928. The Sunday Worker 0f the 5th gave prominence on its front page to a report from its Bombay correspondent, headlined:
INDIA DESCRIBED AS AN ARMED CAMP - MILITARY PARADES IN STREETS OF CHIEF CITIES
3 Killed , 100 Injured and 200 Arrests Reported
"India is an armed camp. In all the principal cities today the military parade the streets and arrests continue wholesale. It is now stated that 3 people were killed, 100 injured and 200 arrested following demonstrations here and in Madras and Calcutta.
Armoured cars are on the streets of Calcutta. The 'hartal' (strike) which marked the arrival here of the Simon Parliamentary Commission was a complete success. Mills, factories and dock work stopped. The workers were peaceful and the firing in Madras was the result of an unprovoked attack by the police.
A LESSON FOR LABOUR
"The Simon Commission has received the welcome which it deserved,", Shapurji Saklatvala told the Sunday Worker yesterday. "It has been well-known for some time that the Commission would have a hostile reception from the Indian workers, who view it as the latest weapon of British imperialism. When the Commission arrived in Bombay, the Government shut all the dock gates in order to prevent people from approaching the Commission ... When this bona fide deputation of Bombay workers, led by their accredited representative, Shaokat Ali, marched down to the dock gates, the Government closed the gates and adopted every method to prevent them from reaching the Commission. ...... Everyone in the British Labour movement can see that my opposition to the Commission was correct and that when I warned the Labour Party that they would be viewed as an instrument of imperialism by the Indian workers, I spoke the truth. My prophesy has been verified by the events of the past 2 days. When the Bombay workers burned the effigy of MacDonald in the streets along with that of Lord Birkenhead and others, they showed that they viewed the Labour Party as nothing more nor less than the willing hirelings of British imperialism.
"Lord Winterton has also had his reply. He told me in the House of Commons that I was not voicing the sentiments of Indian workers. He only needs to look at what is happening now to see whether I spoke the truth or not."
In March 1930, one of the most dramatic events to express the rejection by the Indian people of British rule in their country, was the march to the sea by Gandhi, leading thousands of ordinary working people and also most of the leaders of the Indian National Congress; this was specifically against the Salt Tax which the British Government of India introduced at that time. It was a law that caused great hardship to masses of the people and served yet again to underline the helplessness of the Indian people in controlling their own affairs. Great brutality was used against thousands of peaceful, non-violent demonstrators which in itself inflamed the people and produced yet further antagonism. The harsher the suppression of the peaceful expression of the Indian people, the more united did they become in fighting imperialist domination. The jails were full; but again, instead of curbing the unrest, it served merely to increase it. No matter what tactics the British employed, the demand for total independence and self-Government was gaining momentuum; the Indian people were marching relentlessly towards their longed-for goal of freedom.
As usual, these all too serious events were not without their humour where Saklatvala was concerned. In a speech delivered at Blaengarw, Mr Hartshorn, much criticised Labour Party participant in the Simon Commission, was reported to have said that 'Saklatvala should have his neck wrung.' When challenged to a debate with Saklatvala, he refused to appear with him. Saklatvala again invited Mr Hartshorn to a joint meeting and Mrs Saklavala added her assurance that, if her husband's neck WAS wrung, she undertook not to claim damages or compensation'!
Despite all the violent opposition to the Commission, it continued to traipse up and down India, speaking to the few politicians who had not officially boycotted it. Even if the Labour Party had not realised before the Commission went to India that the Indian people as a whole and nationalist politicians in particular, were profoundly opposed to it, they certainly were left in no doubt during the years in which it operated. By the time it finally published its report and set up its futile Round Table Conference in 1930, Saklatvala was no longer in Parliament and his words of protest could not be so widely heard. India was represented at the 1st Round Table Conference only by the few Indian princes who, in their own self interest, remained true to the British Crown; no one could possibly imagine that they repesented the views of the majority of the Indian people.
The Conservative Government that followed set up a 2nd Round Table Conference which Gandhi was tempted to attend, much against the wishes of most of his Congress colleagues. He went to the Conference in the hope of obtaining Dominion Status for his country, but went away at the end of it empty-handed and disillusioned.
It was during Gandhiji's visit to England that my middle brother, Beram, said to Mummy, "What's the matter with Father? Why is he so bad-tempered?" To which my Mother, somewhat cynically replied, "Well, Gandhi's here and getting all the lime-light." "Tell Father to take off his trousers and appear in nothing but a loin-cloth, and he'll soon attract just as much attention as Gandhi!" was the irreverent reply. But while there may have been an element of personal jealousy, Father undoubtedly felt that Gandhi was betraying the cause of the Indian National Congress, most of whose members were opposed to his participation in the Conference. Following as it did the years of what Father thought of as the betrayal of India by the Labour Party, the participation in this useless Conference by Gandhi was the unkindest cut of all. So when the Mahatma had to return home disappointed, empty-handed, humiliated and disillusioned. Father had at least the satisfaction of saying, yet again, "I told you so."
In a way, the 1931 Round Table Conference DID bring Indian independence nearer, in that the majority of Indian leaders now realised that Independence had to be struggled for - it was never going to be freely given by any British Government under the leadership of any political party. In this way it perhaps served to unite the people against British rule and dispelled all illusions. Just as it had taken the Great War to produce the India Act of 1919, so it took the 2nd World War to achieve total independence for what was left of poor India after it had been carved up between the dissenting elements in the country. The Lord giveth, but the noble Lords taketh away.