Meerut is a small town about 100 miles from Delhi and almost a thousand miles away from Bombay and Calcutta; until 1929 it was of no particular significance or interest, being merely a small military station of no consequence. But from 1929 to 1933 it became scandalously notorious, for the protracted trial of the Meerut prisoners took place there. Justice is always depicted with blind-folded eyes to signify her impartiality; but in Meerut she was rendered blind so that she could not see that shameful trial in which Justice herself was to play so little part.
The general freedom movement in India had been gathering momentum and had been further strengthened by the almost universal antagonism to the Simon Commission. There was an intensification of political activity both by the Indian National Congress and the Peasants' and Workers' Party. The strength of the Trade Union Movement was growing and therefore strikes and industrial unrest were increasing. Although this state of disturbance was largely brought about by the repressive measures of the Government, the Government's only attempt to halt the tide was to increase the repression. On 20th March, 1929, two Englishmen, Philip Spratt and B.F.Bradley were arrested in India. Both these men were avowed communists and both had been elected members of the Executive Committee of the All India Trade Union Congress. At the same time, 29 Indians, most of whom were active and prominent in the Trade Union Movement, were also arrested. All 31 men were charged with conspiring to deprive the King-Emperor of the Sovreignty of India. They were thrust into prison and were not allowed bail. These arrests were followed by one more in June 1929, when H.Lester Hutchinson, an Englishman from Manchester, joined them, faced with the same charge.
Spratt was a Cambridge graduate who had gone out to India to study the conditions of the working class there and, finding conditions to be absolutely appalling, did what he could to further the Trade Union cause. Hutchinson had graduated from a Swiss University and from Edinburgh. While on the continent he had attended meetings of the League Against Imperialism in Berlin, had become interested in India and had journied there to see the situation at first hand. He was primarily a journalist rather than a political agitator and organiser but never-the-less, he was imprisoned along with the others. Bradley was an active member of the Amalgamated Engineering Union and was, at the time of his arrest, Vice President of the All India Trade Union Congress and of the Great India Peninsular Railwaymen's Union.
Among the Indians arrested,Dange and Ghate were 2 Assistant Secretaries of the All India Trade Union Congress, Joglekar and Nimbkar were Executive Members of railway unions as well as being well known in the Indian National Congress Party. The list included journalists, teachers, lawyers, and they were all connected with some form of working-class political activity.
As usual the Government was quick to arrest but slow to bring to trial and the prisoners were not brought before the courts until the end of January 1930, a full year after the first arrests, and the trial was not concluded until January 1933. Had they been tried in Bombay or Calcutta, where most of the alleged offences were said to have taken place, the prisoners would have been entitled to trial by jury. But the magistrate in the preliminary hearing ajudged that, "Man is a political animal ... justice in a case like this is more likely to be done by a trained judge than by a jury". This preliminary enquiry started in April 1929 and lasted for 8 months. But in fact the 'trained judge' turned out to be an individual from the British Civil Service, one Mr Yorke,who was appointed as an 'additional sessions judge' for the purpose of the conspiracy trial.
Although the arrests were carried out during the last few months of a Conservative Government, it is to the lasting and ineradicable shame of the Labour Party that the trial itself was conducted under a Labour Government. I have always thought of socialism as being the politics of compassion; (indeed, that was nearly chosen as the title of this book)- but compassion had no place in the events surrounding that iniquitous charade. Small wonder then that Saklatvala said he found it increasingly difficult to differentiate between the policies of the Conservative and Labour Parties. In July 1928 he wrote an article for the Sunday Worker in which he said: "...the Commonwealth Conference was the struggle of British Labour M.P.'s, through their leaders, to continue the time-honoured Tory policy of British imperialism accompanied by all its bloodshed and murder, through political and economic strangulation, but all to be done in the garb and cloak of Socialist benevolence. ..." Certainly in their political attitude to India and the rest of the Empire, there was little to choose between their very slightly varying forms of repression. Neither group thought that the freedom, so cherished and vaunted by Englishmen, should be bestowed upon the lesser mortals of 'foreign parts'. Freedom was a commodity to be reserved for home consumption only - it wouldn't do to have freedom spreading abroad. .
While the Meerut prisoners were awaiting trial they witnessed the barbaric and inhuman cruelty practiced against other political detainees. The prisons were already full and during the Civil Disobedience campaign of 1930, thousands of political prisoners were cast into gaol - by the end of that year, there were 23,000 political inmates of Indian prisons. Many prisoners were chained, flogged and kept in disgraceful conditions and many of them committed suicide because of their wretchedness. One of the most inhuman practices was for violent criminals to be used to flog political prisoners and these men were allowed to give vent to all their natural brutality, many of the flogged men being rendered unconscious by the beatings inflicted upon them. Despite their own suffering, 30 of the Meerut prisoners submitted a Memorial to his Excellency the Governor of the United Provinces (which appears as an appendix to this chapter). British Governments, Labour, Liberal and Conservative, do not appear to have attached so much importance to human rights in our not too distant past as they have expressed in more recent years, when criticising events in countries under regimes different from our own. There is no nation that does not make use of brutality when it deems it desirable - no nation that is guiltless. Let he who is without sin among you cast the first nuclear missile.
Perhaps the case of the Meerut prisoners would not have become such a cause celebre in Britain had it not been for the 3 Englishmen included in their number. Their plight was common to many thousands of Indians about whom it was not fashionable then to care.
When, in 1930, Gandhi was invited to participate in the 2nd Round Table Coference, Congress said he would participate only if all political prisoners in India, including the now famous Meerut prisoners, were released. Gandhi told the Meerut prisoners, "If you are not released by the end of the year, I hope shortly to join you." Despite this characteristically histrionic proclamation, he attended the conference and the prisoners were not released.
There can be no doubt that the aim of the arrests was to put the leaders of the working class movement out of the way and thereby to stop the current wave of strikes, discontent, street demonstrations and general turbulent unrest. It was supposed also to act as a deterrent to others. But the arrests and the subsequent long detention awaiting the outcome of the trial. only served to provoke greater anger and frustration and things got worse rather than better. Neither the Trade Union movement nor the various movements demanding freedom and independence for the Indian people were intimidated into inactivity. Leaders were put in prison, but other leaders took their place.
In the U.K., there was great support for the prisoners and meetings were held up and down the country to raise money to pay for their defence. Of course, Saklatvala worked with his usual energy and enthusiasm for the cause. A National Meerut Defence Committee was formed with headquarters at 30,John Street, London, W.C.2. and regional committees were set up in towns and factories all over the country. Money was collected to help pay for the defence and also to supply the prisoners with a little palatable food and other things they needed to relieve the hardship of their long detention in the sweltering heat of the Indian plains. It was stated after the trial that the Government had spent £120,000, on the prosecution (it was, needless to say, Indian money) and the defendents had no comparable sums to spend on their defence.
Meetings were also organised by the League Against Imperialism, by the Workers' Welfare League of India, the Meerut Trade Union Defence Committee, and the Meerut Prisoners' Release Committee. Saklatvala was a prominent speaker and propagandist in all these bodies. He travelled up and down the country addressing huge meetings, raising money, interest and support among the workers of Great Britain. He lost his Parliamentary seat in the 1929 election and so he no longer had the floor of the House of Commons as his platform but this did not diminish the power of his activities in any way. He was also a frequent speaker in the London Branch of the National Indian Congress which reflected the divisions that were current in the parent body in India, namely, those who supported the non-violent approach of Gandhi and those who, like Saklatvala, demanded positive action and the use of the power of the working class masses to wrench freedom from the British - for they believed it would never be freely given but that it had to be taken. In 1931, when Gandhi agreed to co-operate with the British Government and attend the Round Table Conference, Saklatvala led a faction in the London Branch of Congress regretting this co-operative participation. At one meeting where he was speaking, the Chairman, being pro-Gandhi, walked off the platform and hoped to bring the meeting to a close; but Saklatvala took over the Chair and the meeting continued, the anti-Gandhi-ites winning the day.
Even before the arrests of the Meerut prisoners it was clear that the Labour Party was as repressive in India as the Conservatives were. In the Socialist review of 1928, Ernest Thurtle wrote an article under the headline "India's Lost Faith in Labour" in which he said that the 3rd International, in its campaign against imperialism has not neglected India. It has its agents there ...." He goes on to say, "Mr Saklatvala, too,has worked hard in this direction. He has great influence in India. Irrespective of his communist views, the Indian people are proud of him. They admire the way, by his orational gifts and force of character,he has won his way to the House of Commons. They, a subject race, suffering to some extent from an inferiority complex, are naturally intensely proud of the courage with which Saklatvala, one of themselves, denounces the British domination of India in unmeasured terms in the very House of Commons itself. He is rebel by proxy for them all and they love him for it. When he speaks to them, therefore, they listen, and he speaks to them frequently. ..."
And the British people listened to him also and he addressed meeting after meeting in the cause of the Meerut prisoners. Large halls were packed to capacity to hear him speak and advertisements appeared in the left wing press advising organisations who wanted Saklatvala to speak at their meetings to book him well in advance. He was much in demand still.
In January 1930 a further application was made on behalf of the prisoners to conduct the trial at Allahabad with a jury. Mr Chakravarty, the prisoners' defence Counsel, was still in England because the case in India had been unforseeably brought forward. Chakravarty wrote to the Secretary of State for India, Mr Wedgwood Benn, asking for an urgent interview but he did not even receive a reply. He was later told by a junior official that a reply would be sent to him after he returned to India.
Meanwhile, Mrs Knight, the mother of Lester Hutchinson, visited the offices of the Daily Worker and told them of her experiences with members of the Labour Party. She said: "I got in touch with Mr Lansbury and asked him to get me an interview with Wedgwood Benn at the India Office. This he refused to do, saying quite bluntly, I could not see anyone at the India Office, because the Government had decided not to interfere in this case. They were not going to have another Cambell case, Mr Lansbury had told her. I then went to see Mr Fenner Brockway, as I understood he was interested in the Indian workers. He told me that he sincerely believed that these men had been arrested unjustly and would do all he could to secure their release. At that time he was trying to get an interview with Benn - later he succeeded - but he was told to put the question in the House. On doing this, he was toldthat the Government would not interfere, and Mr Brockway, with all the other Lefts, was silent... I met Mr Horribin, M.P. whom I had known for some time. He also said he would do all in his power to secure the release of my son and his comrades .....However, Mr Horribin also changed his mind, and the next time I saw him, he would not even speak about it.
"Mr Brockway did raise the question at the Brighton Labour Party Conference ...the Chairman called on Dr Drummond Shields (Under-Secretary for India) who made a lying and misleading statement - but no protest came from Brockway or the other Lefts. I tried to make myself heard, asking to be allowed to answer Dr Shields, but the platform was not having any. At this stage, Ellen Wilkinson came off the platform to me, and said it was no use, I would not be allowed to speak. I asked her to speak but she said she could not. She said the reason for the attitude of the Labour Party and the Government was that Lord Irwin, the Viceroy, was in England and had said that if the Government interfered in the case, both he and others in the Civiul Service would resign.
"On leaving the building I met Dr Drummond Shields. I stopped him, told him who I was, and put the statement just made to me by Ellen Wilkinson. His reply was, 'Well, you see the position we are in, so what can we do - you know we lost our last Government by interfering with the Campbell case - and we're not going to lose this one on the Meerut case.'
"After this experience I have come to the conclusion that the only way to help my son and his comrades is to fight this Labour Government, and I hope that all honest workers will join in this fight. These comrades' only crime is helping the Indian workers to organise for a better standard of life, and to throw off this yoke of British imperialism that is sucking their life blood. I am proud of my son and his comrades. They are brave fighters and well worthy of your fighting support." She found such support in Saklatvala.
It is interesting to note that Lester Hutchinson spent 4 years in jail, awaiting trial, sentence and appeal - and on appeal was found to be 'Not Guilty'. So a man who was NOT GUILTY spent 4 years in appalling conditions in an Indian prison (where for part of the time he was extremely ill) and then was acquitted and released, with no questions asked and no compensation. Yet no one listened when his mother had asked for help. It is a terrible thing when courts of law are used as political weapons rather than as intruments of justice.
Another lady involved in the trial was the young bride of one of the Indian prisoners, Mr Joglekar. The following letter from her appeared in the Manchester Guardian in February 1933.
A LETTER FROM MEERUT
The unique 'Meerut Conspiracy Case' is over. The result is out. The judgements vary from transportation for life to 3 years rigorous imprisonment. Because the persons concerned in the case represented Labour, "C" class treatment has been awarded to them. In Indian gaols, "C" class is for ordinary criminals. It means 9 hours manual labour with bad food and clothing. After 3 months interval they are allowed to write a letter OR to have an interview with a relative. As food and rest are necessary to live a life, reading and books are equally important for middle-class life. In gaol books are supposed to be something dangerous.
The judgement was delivered on 16th January 1933. Not even the relatives were allowed to attend the court. We had to stand outside the gate, waiting for the result. We were promised an interview on the gaol premises. After hurrying 3 times to the gaol, we were told to come the next day, 17th January 1933. On that day I had to stand at the gate for nearly 3 hours and then only was I allowed to see my husband for 20 minutes.
We were married on the 10th January 1933. Mr Joglekar could not be freed on bail or parole for one day. Just to sign the marriage deed he was brought to the District Magistrate's Court for an hour. Now he is sentenced to 12 years (transportation). Signed. Ambika Joglekar.
In January 1933 sentences were passed on 27 prisoners, the rest having died or been acquitted. These savage sentences prevailed for a period of 6� months when the appeal was finalised.
M.Ahmad Transportation for life. (Transportation was to a penal colony in the Andamans)
Dange 12 years transportation
Usmani 10 " "
Spratt 12 " "
Ghate 12 " "
Joglekar 12 " "
Nimbkar 12 " "
Bradley 10 " "
Mirajkar 10 " "
S.S.Josh 7 " "
Majid 7 " "
Goswami 7 " "
A.Prasad 5 " "
P.C.Joshi 5 " "
Adhikari 5 " "
Desai 5 " "
Chakravarti 4 years rigorous imprisonment
Basak 4 " " "
Hutchinson 4 " " "
Mitra 4 " " "
Jhabwalla 4 " " "
Sehgal 4 " " "
Kasle 3 " " "
Shankar 3 " " "
Kadam 3 " " "
Alve 3 " " "
Huda 3 " 2 "
Saklatvala wrote, "By savage and appalling sentences, after a monstrous trial, the British Raj in India has proclaimed to her three-hundred-and-fifty million conquered slaves that, henceforth, the study of the mighty triumph of Communism in the U.S.S.R., which in 17 brief years has put to shame the inhuman results of 150 years of British rule in India, will be visited upon the heads of Communists in India with a revengeful ruthfulness."
He was far from being alone in condemning the condemnation. Although the prisoners had to endure, for more than 6 months, the threat of these excessive sentences being carried out, the appeal in August 1933 reduced the sentences reduced the sentences drastically, as shown below:
M.Ahmad 3 years rigorous imprisonment
Dange 3 " " "
Usmani 3 " " "
Spratt 2 " " "
Ghate 1 " " "
Joglekar 1 " " "
Nimbkar 1 " " "
Bradley 1 " " "
Mirajkar 1 " " "
Josh 1 " " "
Maji 1 " " "
Goswami 1 " " "
Chakravarty 7 months " "
Prasad ) Conviction maintained but released forthwith
Basak ) " " " " "
Joshi ) " " " " "
Adhikari ) " " " " "
Huda ) " " " " "
The remaining 8 prisoners were acquitted (and, in their innocence, had spent 4 years in gaol).
When Bradley finally came back to the U.K. he was officially and ceremoniously welcomed by Saklatvala who was at the head of a huge demonstration at Victoria Station. He had earned his hero's welcome the hard way.
We should not forgot the prisoners of Meerut and the representatives of a democratic system that condemned them. "
THE MEMORIAL addressed to His Excellency the Governor of the United Provinces and signed by 30 of the Meerut prisoners while in jail awaiting trial.
Meerut. September 3, 1930
Your Excellency,- The memorial of the undersigned most respectfully showeth:
(1) That your memorialists as under-trial prisoners in the Meerut Conspiracy Case are the inmates of the District Jail, Meerut, and have been here since March, 1929.
(2) That since the Civil Disobedience Movement began there has been a very large addition to the population of the jail, so much so that we believe that the jail is overcrowded far in excess of its usual capacity and the prescribed maximum.
(3) That apart from the fact that the system of making differentiations among political prisoners is bad in principle, the classification of these prisoners into "A", "B" and "C" Classes has been made in such a way as to cause great dissatisfaction, and in many instances no regard is paid even to the rules on the subject framed by the Government. Instances are not wanting where invidious distinction has been made between prisoners of equal status and education.
(4) That the "C" Class prisoners were from the beginning dissatisfied with the food supplied to them, particularly with regard to the 'bhuji'.
(5) That they made repeated representations to the authorities concerned, with no practical result, and when a number of them declined to take the food, they were punished with 'cells',' standing handcuffs' and 'bar-fetters'.
(6) That the whole jail was full of all sorts of reports and rumours regarding the treatment meted out to them, and representations were made on their behalf by the "A" and "B" Class prisoners. A number of your memorialists also made representations in writing to the Superintendent of Jail on August 21st,
(7) That it may be mentioned in this connection that since the present jailer has come the discontent has further increased by reason of his harsh treatment and the abusive language he is reported to have been in the habit of using towards the prisoners.
(8) That alternately with the punishment meted out to the prisoners, and reported assaults on them by the ordinary convicts at the instance of the jail officials, offers are reported to have been made to these prisoners of prompt release if they would tender an apology. About sixty prisoners, unable to stand this treatment, accepted this offer and were released.
(9) That a number of boys were kept in cells at the absolute mercy of the convict overseer about whose habits and character the less said the better.
(10) That interviews with relatives, etc., such as are allowed by the jail rules, have been forbidden in many cases. The relatives of the prisoners coming to the jail for interviews have also been treated discourteously, having been kept waiting all day outside the jail gate, where there is no convenience for visitors, only to be told in the evening that interview is refused.
(11) That it was hoped that the Inspector-General of Prisons, in the course of his visit, which took place on August 27, would inquire personally into grievances of the "C" Class prisoners, but so far as your memorialists are aware he did not visit them at all. One of your memorialists, Dr Mukerjee,as well as the "A" and "B" Class prisoners, made an oral representation about the "C" Class prisoners to the Inspector-General when he visited them.
(12) That on the morning of August 29, at about 8.30, your memorialists were surprised to hear loud groans, and it seemed to them there was considerable commotion in and about the circle where the "C" Class prisoners are lodged. This was shortly followed by a gunshot and the alarm bell. Within a few minutes a very large number of armed policemen, preceded by a number of warders armed with lathis and rifles, rushed inside. Subsequently, the Superintendent of Jail and the Superintendent of Police , followed within a few minutes by the District Magistrate and the Joint Magistrate, went in. The cries and groans continued until these officials went inside. As long as they were there, and thereafter, there was absolute silence.
(13) That some of your memorialists, returning from court at about 12 noon found whipping going on and several prisoners lying on the ground groaning and bleeding.
(14) That within less than four hours from the start of what the District Magistrate calls a 'serious' mutiny, inquiry was finished and punishment was given, and it did not, so far as your memorialists' information goes, take more than half an hour to conduct the inquiry.
(15) That the official communique issued by the District Magistrate, which states that it was a 'serious mutiny', and that it was quelled 'without the use of firearms', and that ' no prisoner was reported to have been injured', seems to your memorialists to be self-contradictory, and calculated to mislead the public as to the extent and character of the matter.
(16) That although the disturbance itself was of a trivial character, and no allegations being made that any jail official was hurt, and it being stated that no prisoner was injured, nevertheless, no fewer than fifty-six prisoners were given bar-fetters, and thirteen prisoners were given the maximum punishment (thirty stripes) allowed under the Whipping Act, which is a severe and inhuman punishment. It is further reported that a large supply of bar-fetters has been ordered.
(17) That the victims of the whippings were mostly boys from sixteen and seventeen up to twenty-two years.
(18) That your memorialists have reason to believe that in some cases at least whipping administered was not in accordance with the regulations laid down by Your Excellency's Government. One Anglo-Indian Inspector of Police is alleged to have snatched a rattan away from the convict who had been ordered to do the job, and began flogging him. As a result, certain parts of the body were injured which are not specified in the regulations. It is alleged that all those who were flogged have been put in cells and have not been given proper medical care. One of them, who was extremely weak and was in bar-fetters, was caned in that condition against the provisions of the Prisons Act, and subsequently flung into a solitary cell. One prisoner was so severely injured by the flogging that two days after he was still subject to repeated fainting fits.
(19) That in identifying the persons for punishment, it seems that those who had taken a prominent part in presenting the common grievances to the authorities were singled out. It may be mentioned in this conection that a number of ordinary convicts who took part in the identification and in the execution of the caning order were given substantial remission.
(20) That according to the official communique the District Magistrate held a summary inquiry. It is not clear what this means nor under what law the whipping was administered. According to the Prisons Act, it is the Jail Superintendent who is authorised to inquire into the jail offences and mete out punishments.
(21) That your memorialists, as inmates in the jail for the last eighteen months and as political prisoners, consider it their duty to acquaint Your Excellency's Government with all the facts which are within their knowledge or information. While from the limitations of their present position your memorialists cannot verify all the reports and rumours that have come to their ears, they assure Your Excellency that in spite of many things much more serious than what has been stated, being heard by them, they have put down only those which they seriously believe to have the largest amount of truth as foundation.
(22) In these circumstances your memorialists pray that a searching and strict inquiry be made into the events of August 29, the inhuman and brutal punishment of thirty stripes given to thirteen Satyagrahis, and that the officials responsible for these be brought to book. It is further prayed that the serious injustice and oppression which the "C" Class prisoners are suffering be forthwith removed.
Signed by thirty prisoners.