Praveen Davar

Modi Not the Only Prime Minister After Nehru to Be Sworn in Three Times

Jawaharlal Nehru was sworn in as the prime minister four times, Atal Bihari Vajpayee thrice and Indira Gandhi also took oath as the prime minister four times.

Much is being made of Prime Minister Narendra Modi winning three times in a row, making him the first prime minister after Jawaharlal Nehru to achieve this feat. However, this is incorrect. Nehru was sworn in as prime minister not thrice but four times – in 1947, 1952, 1957, and 1962. While the 1962 elections were the third to be held in an independent India, Nehru had already been prime minister since 1947. If the interim government of 1946 – formed to oversee the transition of the country from a British colony to an independent republic – is counted, Nehru was actually sworn in as prime minister for the fifth time in 1962.

Not only has Modi fallen below the simple majority mark in his third term, but his performance, and that of the BJP, in the two previous elections is also far inferior to that of Nehru and the Congress during a similar period.

In 2014, the BJP won 282 seats. In 2019, its tally went up to 303 primarily due to the polarisation caused by the Balakot air strike following the controversial Pulwama terrorist attack. Before we focus on the the three consecutive elections won by Nehru, it is worth recalling that Atal Behari Vajpayee was also sworn in as the prime minister three times in a row – in 1996, 1998 and 1999 – and Indira Gandhi took oath as the prime minister four times – in 1966, 1967, 1971 and 1980.

In the first general election held in 1952, the Congress won 364 seats. Its tally went up to 371 in the second general election in 1957, but came down to 361 seats in 1962. In each of these elections, the total number of seats in the Lok Sabha was 494, far below the current strength of 542. Since the elections to the state assemblies were held simultaneously, the Congress won in all the states in the three general elections from 1952 to 1962 except losing one state in 1957 – when the Communist Party of India (CPI) won in Kerala, making him the first non-Congress chief minister in India and among the first communist leaders to be elected democratically anywhere in the world.

The opposition parties, like in the two previous elections, performed poorly in 1962 as well. While the CPI was the largest opposition party with 29 seats, C. Rajagopalachari’s Swatantra Party, contesting for the first time, secured 18 seats, and the Jan Sangh won only 14.

Socialists of all hues – Praja Socialist Party and Socialist Party – also won 18 seats combined. Despite the Congress’s overwhelming majority, Nehru held the opposition in great respect and was responsive to their criticism. The opposition parties, despite their low numerical strength, were able to influence government policies as Nehru encouraged free debate and always put national interest above that of his party. He regularly sat through the question hour and set an example of highest decorum, dignity and respect for parliamentary procedures and legislation.

In fact, the contribution of the country’s first prime minister, aptly called the architect of modern India, in laying down the foundations of parliamentary democracy and nurturing it for 17 long years after independence, is well known and acknowledged around the world.

Since Prime Minister Narendra Modi was sworn in for a third time on Sunday, along with his council of ministers, it may not be out of place here to recapitulate the modest size of Nehru’s ministry and the names of the outstanding personalities of the Nehru cabinet of 1962. His council comprised 17 ministers of cabinet rank and only 5 ministers of state (MoS).

Some of the prominent cabinet ministers were:

1. Jawaharlal Nehru, prime minister, minister of external affairs and minister of atomic energy

2. Morarji Desai, minister of finance

3. Jagjivan Ram, minister of transport and communications

4. Gulzarilal Nanda, minister of planning and labour and employment

5. Lal Bahadur Shastri, minister of home affairs

6. Sardar Swaran Singh, minister of railways

7. K.C. Reddy, minister of commerce and industry

8. V.K. Krishna Menon, minister of defence

9. Ashoke Kumar Sen, minister of law

10. K.D. Malaviya, minister of mines and fuel

11. S.K. Patil, minister of food and agriculture

12. Humayun Kabir, minister of scientific research and cultural affairs

13. B. Gopala Reddi, minister of information and broadcasting

14. C. Subramanian, minister of steel and heavy industries

15. Hafiz Mohd Ibrahim, minister of irrigation and power

16. Dr K.L. Shirimali, minister of education

17. Satya Narayan Sinha, minister of parliamentary affairs.

All the above eminent leaders were persons of high calibre, integrity and public stature chosen for their decades long service in the freedom struggle and in the building of modern India after independence. But it was Jawaharlal Nehru, who towered far above his colleagues, and it was his incomparable political and moral stature, lofty vision and outstanding achievements in domestic and international fields, that returned the Congress for the third consecutive time in 1962.

The high strike rate of 361, though slightly lower than 1952 and 1957, can , arguably, be attributed to the firm action taken by Nehru, in December 1961, to free Goa from 400 years of Portuguese rule. While there was countrywide applauding, one voice criticised the military action – Nehru’s friend-turned-foe, C. Rajagopalachari, who was by now the president of the Swatantra Party.

But the then prime minister took it lightly, remarking, “Rajagopalachari stands on a mountain peak by himself. Nobody understands him, nor does he understood anybody.” But some people did understand the upright Gandhian, and his party managed to win 18 seats, primarily in princely pockets of Rajasthan and Orissa.

After the Congress with 361 seats, and the Communists bagging 29 seats, the Swantantra was the third largest party in what was Jawaharlal Nehru’s last electoral battle in which he scored a brilliant victory.

Praveen Davar is a writer, an ex-army officer, a columnist, and the author of Freedom Struggle and Beyond.

It is Easy to Blame Nehru, but His Decisions on Kashmir Were Borne Out of Pragmatism

Nehru’s decisions, which were endorsed fully by his Cabinet, were aimed at keeping not just the ruler but also the people of Kashmir with India. Those who fault Nehru’s moves on Kashmir in 1947-48 should know that it is easy to be wiser with hindsight.

Jammu and Kashmir was one of the three princely states (the other two being Hyderabad and Junagadh) that did not accede to India by August 15, 1947, when the British paramountcy lapsed. While the power was transferred to the people in British India, the rulers of the 565 princely states had been given the option to join either of the two dominions – India or Pakistan.

To force Hari Singh, the Maharaja of J&K, to accede to Pakistan, a tribal invasion was engineered by it in the Kashmir valley in October 1947. As the Pakistan army-backed tribals reached the outskirts of Srinagar, the Maharaja signed the Instrument of Accession on October 26, 1947 and asked the Indian government to rescue his state from the invaders.

Writes Maroof Raza in his book Wars and no Peace: “When the news of this invasion coupled with the urgent appeal of Hari Singh for military assistance reached Delhi both Mountbatten and Nehru reacted with considerable speed to save what was left of Kashmir.”

Also read: Nehru and Kashmir: After SC’s Article 370 Order, BJP Attempts to Distort History Again

This is corroborated by M.J. Akbar in his book Nehru:The Making of India. Akbar writes,”Fortunately, the Prime Minister understood what was happening as soon as he got the news and he wasted not a minute to his response. As it turned out if Nehru has dithered even for a couple of hours, Srinagar would have fallen, and all would have been lost. Later, Nehru himself wrote to his sister Vijay Lakshmi Pandit, then Ambassador in Moscow: ‘If we had dithered and delayed by a day, Srinagar would have been a smoking gun. We got there in the nick of time.'”

Between October 27 and November 8, 1947, several Indian military reinforcements managed to reverse the tide of the battle for the Valley. The raiders were soon in total retreat as the Indian Army entered Baramulla via Srinagar. It is now an accepted view that the onset of the winter snow prevented any decisive operations from taking the momentum of the Indian Army up to Muzaffarabad.

Pashtun warriors from different tribes on their way to Kashmir and Gilgit during Indo-Pakistan war of 1947-48. Photo: Wikimedia Commons/Pakistan Army.

On December 20, 1947, the Indian government decided to take the matter to the United Nations against Pakistan’s involvement in the tribal invasion of the Valley. Mountbatten had initiated this idea, and this was to be done under Article 35 of the UN’s Charter. After repeated attempts failed to get a reluctant Jinnah to talk on the subject of Kashmir, Nehru and Patel were forced to establish India’s bonafides over Kashmir in the UN. Their decision was backed by the Cabinet which, besides Rajendra Prasad, included non-Congress stalwarts such as B.R. Ambedkar, Baldev Singh and Shyama Prasad Mukherjee. After the onset of summer fighting resumed with both sides seeking to consolidate and expand their footprint in all three regions of the state: Kashmir, Jammu, and Ladakh.

It was eventually on August 13, 1948, that the Security Council passed its three-part Basic Resolution:

(a) It called for a ceasefire.

(b) It asked Pakistan, as the aggressor, to withdraw all its forces regular or irregular (from Jammu and Kashmir). The resolution accepted that India could retain part of her troops in Kashmir.

(c) It called for a plebiscite, stating that the future status of Jammu and Kashmir shall be determined in accordance with the will of the people.

This final part of the UN Security Council Resolution on a plebiscite was NOT binding unless the first two parts of the Resolution were implemented, which are a ceasefire and the total withdrawal of Pakistani forces.

A ceasefire was eventually accepted by the Pakistan Army once it realised it could not pull off a military victory over Kashmir.

Though the Security Council called for a ceasefire in August 1948, Nehru, an ethnic Kashmiri, who knew the state’s topography like the back of his hand, allowed the Army to continue operations as long as it was advantageous to do so. By the end of November 1948, the Indian Defence Forces captured Dras, Batalik, and Kargil, thus securing the route to Ladakh. Simultaneously, they took Mendhar and linked up with the Poonch garrison lifting the year-long siege. India accepted the ceasefire only after the Army had completely secured Ladakh and Rajouri-Poonch sector. Balraj Puri, a well-known journalist who covered the Kashmir operations, has recorded for posterity:

A major cause for the success of the Army in clearing the Kashmir Valley of the raiders was the people and the terrain. The advance could not be maintained with the same ease beyond the Valley, where both the people and terrain were inhospitable. The martial communities of the area which were ethnically and politically closer would have put up stiff resistance. The switch from the role of liberator in the Valley to that of conqueror would have changed the character of the Indian Army. The military and political cost of attempting to conquer the area from Mirpur to Gilgit and Baltistan and retain it within India would have been prohibitive for India at that stage, apart from the fact that it would have lost us much international goodwill.

This argument, according to Raza, “should put to rest all the strategic speculation often indulged in by most Indians as to why the Indian Army did not initiate an operational drive beyond the Cease-Fire Line”. There were other reasons too: tremendous shortage of ammunition, fuel, transport, and other logistics problems. Hence both taking the J&K dispute to the UN in January 1949 was the right decision in the prevailing circumstances of the time. It is easy to be wiser by hindsight. Even so, there was no better option when the infant country was facing many other serious problems – rehabilitation of millions of refugees, acute food shortage, deplorable state of the inherited economy, etc.

In his extremely well-researched book, based on declassified papers, Kashmir, 1947, Prem Shankar Jha, a former editor of Hindustan Times, writes: “Nehru’s seemingly incomprehensible behaviour stemmed from the fact that he was trying to keep not just the ruler, but the people of Kashmir with India. Everything that Nehru did, especially his willingness to treat the accession as provisional, was geared to this purpose. Indeed, nowhere were Nehru’s qualities of statesmanship more evident. Nehru’s willingness to accept a ceasefire while a third of Kashmir was still in Pakistan’s hands was born out of the same type of farsighted calculation… an awareness, honed by his own Kashmiri origins… of the ethnic and religious dissimilarity of Kashmir Valley from the Muslims of Poonch, Mirpur, Muzzafarabad and Gilgit.. once the raiders had been cleared from the Valley, the largely Hindu and Sikh town of Poonch safeguarded, and the road to Buddhist Ladakh cleared at Kargil, Nehru was no longer keen to pursue the war… With the Sheikh opting for India, there was little likelihood of the state as a whole voting to join Pakistan. But if Pakistan did not vacate ‘Azad Kashmir’ this would be a blessing in disguise, for the parts that would not have become reconciled to becoming a part of India were the ones that it had cut away … Nehru’s vision was therefore sound.”

Sharing this vision were his cabinet colleagues Patel, Rajendra Prasad, Jagjivan Ram, Ambedkar, Baldev Singh, and Shyama Prasad Mukherjee.

The same cabinet also later endorsed the introduction of Article 370. A journalist of repute, now in the ruling party, wrote a decade before he switched sides: “Article 370 was viewed then as a victory for Indian unity, and not as a problem, as is being made out by the heirs of Shyama Prasad Mukherjee.” Unfortunately, in the India of today, it is Asatyamev Jayate (triumph of falsehood).

Praveen Davar is a writer, an ex-army officer, a columnist, and the author of Freedom Struggle and Beyond.

Reacknowledging Ambedkar’s Role as the Architect of India’s Constitution

Though he lived only nine years after Independence, he left an indelible mark on the history of modern India, which possibly is greater than his contribution during the freedom struggle. He died on December 6, 1956.

November 26 is celebrated as Constitution Day, when rich tributes are paid to the makers of India’s constitution, especially its principal architect B.R. Ambedkar, whose 67th death anniversary is today, December 6, 2023.

Though Baba Saheb Ambedkar, as he is popularly and affectionately known, lived only nine years after Independence, he left an indelible mark on the history of modern India, which inarguably is greater than his contribution during the freedom struggle when he signed the Poona Pact with M.K. Gandhi giving reserved seats to the Dalits after a prolonged struggle. A compromise between him and Gandhi was only the beginning of a new life for a community that had been suppressed for centuries by the obnoxious caste system of the Hindu society.

After India became free, Ambedkar was invited by prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru to join his cabinet and thus became the country’s first law minister. He was amongst the few non-Congress prominent personalities who were inducted into the Nehru cabinet. Others included defence minister Baldev Singh (Akali Dal), Shanmukham Chetty (Justice Party), and Syama Prasad Mukherjee (Hindu Mahasabha). They were opposed to the Congress party during the freedom movement. According to an eminent historian, this was “an extraordinary act of reconciliation for which Gandhi seems to be personally responsible”. Gandhi was reported to have said that freedom had not come to a single party but to all Indians and hence all parties must be given the opportunity for nation-building.

As a cabinet minister, Ambedkar had to be elected to the Constituent Assembly, for which the Congress facilitated his entry into the Assembly from a safe seat in Bombay (now, Mumbai). Earlier, he was elected from Bengal, but with the division of the province after the Mountbatten Plan of June 3, 1947, he ceased to be a member of the Constituent Assembly, as his constituency was allotted to East Bengal (now, Bangladesh).

Also read: B.R. Ambedkar’s Fears on the EC’s Independence, Boycott of Minorities Are Coming True

In her biography, Babsaheb: My Life with Dr. Ambedkar, Savita Ambedkar quotes correspondence between Rajendra Prasad, president of the Constituent Assembly; Jawaharlal Nehru, the prime minister-elect; Sardar Patel, the home minister; G. Mavalankar, speaker; and B.G. Kher, the chief minister of Bombay state to stress that all top Congress leaders were extremely keen to have her husband elected to the Constituent Assembly unopposed.

Dr B.R. Ambedkar with the women candidates of the Scheduled Castes Federation in 1942. Photo: Wikimedia Commons – CC0 1.

For instance, Patel wrote to Mavalankar on July 5, 1947, “Dr Ambedkar’s nomination has been sent to PM. I hope there would be no contest, and he would be returned unopposed so that he could come here on the 14th.” Rajendra Prasad similarly wrote earlier on June 30, 1947, to Kher, “I am anxious that he should attend the next session of the Constituent Assembly from the 14th July and it is, therefore, necessary that he should be elected immediately.”

A few months after he became the law minister, Ambedkar was chosen as the chairman of the committee formed to draft the Indian constitution. As chairman of the committee, he had to face criticism from several members of the Assembly whose views didn’t converge with that of the committee, but he handled the enormous task with great skill, tact, and authority.

During the debates, he also delivered brilliant speeches. The following quote from his speech in the Constituent Assembly on November 4, 1948, deserves special mention:

“Another criticism against the Draft Constitution is that no part of it represents the ancient polity of India. It is said that the new Constitution should have been drafted on the ancient Hindu model of a State and that instead of incorporating Western theories the new Constitution should have been raised and built upon village panchayats and district panchayats…… I hold that these village republics have been the ruination of India. I am, therefore, surprised that those who condemn Provincialism and Communalism should come forward as champions of the village. What is the village but a sink of localism, a den of ignorance, narrow-mindedness and communalism? I am glad that the Draft Constitution has discarded the village and adopted the individual as a unit.”

In the same speech, he stated, “Some critics have taken objection to the description of India as a Union of States.. some critics have said the Centre is too strong. Others have said that it must be made stronger. The Draft Constitution has struck a balance.”

However, he warned against the tendency to make the Centre stronger: “It cannot chew more than it can digest. Its strength must be commensurate with its weight. It would be a folly to make it so strong that it may fall by its own weight.”

A day before the constitution was adopted, in his last speech to the Assembly, on November 25, 1949, Ambedkar warned against the cult of Bhakti in politics. He said, “This caution is far more necessary in the case of India than in the case of any other country. For in India, Bhakti, or what may be called the path of devotion or hero-worship, plays a part in its politics, unequalled in magnitude by the part it plays in the politics of any other country in the world. Bhakti in religion may be a road to the salvation of the soul. But in politics, Bhakti or hero-worship is a sure road to degradation and to eventual dictatorship.”

In the same speech, he laid great emphasis on the principle of fraternity which “means a sense of common brotherhood of all Indians… the principle which gives unity and solidarity to social life” Ambedkar also explained why the realisation of the goal of nationhood for India is going to be difficult compared to United States.

Also read: While Celebrating Ambedkar as a ‘National Hero’, We Must Not Forget His Central Thesis

“The United States has no caste problem. In India, there are castes. Castes are anti-national, in the first place because they bring about separation in social life. They are anti-national also because they generate jealousy and anty between caste and caste. But we must overcome all these difficulties if we wish to become a nation in reality. For fraternity can be a fact only when there is a nation. Without fraternity, equality and liberty will be no deeper than coats of paint.”

However, what stands out the most in this speech is Ambedkar’s humility. He wanted no credit for himself but gave it to his colleagues. He said,

“The credit that is given to me does not really belong to me. It belongs partly to Sir B.N. Rau, the Constitutional Adviser to the Constituent Assembly who prepared a rough draft of the Constitution for the consideration of the Drafting Committee…. Much greater share of the credit must go to Mr. S.N. Mukherjee, the Chief Draftsman of the Constitution. His ability to put the most intricate proposals in the simplest and clearest legal form can rarely be equalled….I must not omit to mention the members of the staff working under Mr. Mukherjee. For I know how hard they worked and how long they have toiled, sometimes even beyond midnight.”

Ambedkar may have denied himself the credit, but many knew the reality. Rajendra Prasad, the president of the Constituent Assembly, stated:

“I have realised, as nobody else could have, with what zeal the members of the Drafting Committee and especially its Chairman, Dr. Ambedkar, in spite of his indifferent health, have worked. We could never make a decision which was, or could ever be, so right as when we put him on the Drafting Committee and made him its Chairman. He has not only justified his selection but has added lustre to the work which he has done.”

Ambedkar at the end of his life

The Hindu Code Bill was the first revolutionary step towards women’s empowerment in the Nehru era, but its passage in parliament met with several roadblocks despite both prime minister Nehru and law minister Ambedkar were deeply committed to it. It was ultimately passed, but not before Baba Saheb resigned from the Cabinet frustrated by its delay. Savita Ambedkar writes in her book:

“Prime Minister Nehru had just returned from a tour of America when Saheb met him and got from him the approval to table the bill. Nehru assured Saheb that he would get the bill approved…but Speaker Mavalankar, President Dr. Rajendra Prasad and Home Minister Vallabhbhai Patel were openly against it… It was under these difficult circumstances that Doctor Saheb tabled the Bill in the Lok Sabha on 5 Feb 1951.”

But despite the best efforts of Nehru, the Bill could not be passed till the end of September 1951 and Ambedkar submitted his resignation from the Cabinet on September 27, 1951. The Hindu Code Bill was ultimately passed after the general elections in 1952 by breaking it into various sections which took almost the entire period of the first Lok Sabha.

Ambedkar was elected to the Rajya Sabha from Bombay State (now, Maharashtra) in April 1952. But his health started failing following a heart attack in November 1953 while on a train journey from Delhi to Bombay. Though he continued to remain active in public life (for instance in 1954 he addressed the Defence Services College, Willington), he started taking more interest in religious activities.

A decade earlier Nehru had written in The Discovery of India about his attraction to Buddhism for its fight against priestcraft and ritualism as well as for its ethical approach to life. But Ambedkar had one more reason for his preference for Buddhism: the religion had no caste. He wrote a book The Buddha and His Gospel, the title of which was later changed to The Buddha and His Dhamma.

Having lost interest in politics in the evening of his life, and in a state of rapidly deteriorating health, Baba Saheb began preparations for converting to Buddhism. It was on October 14, 1956, less than two months before his death, that a Deeksha ceremony was held at Nagpur, the venue preferred to Mumbai after great deliberation and debate between the Ambedkarites of both the cities. Nearly six lakh followers of Ambedkar embraced Buddhism with their leader, who had vowed way back in 1935, “I was born a Hindu, but I shall not die a Hindu.”

Baba Saheb passed away peacefully in his sleep before dawn on December 6 in Delhi. Amongst the early visitors to his residence to pay their condolences at Alipore Road (now a memorial) were Nehru and many Union ministers, including Babu Jagjivan Ram, who made arrangements for the mortal remains of Ambedkar to be carried to Mumbai. Savita Ambedkar recorded for posterity:

“After Saheb’s passing away, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru offered me a job of a medical officer in a government hospital. In fact, he even showed readiness to take me into the Rajya Sabha, but I turned down the offers. The reason was that Doctor Saheb had made me give up my job after marriage, and I didn’t think it proper to go against his wishes….Later President Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan and Prime Minister Indira Gandhi also showed readiness to get me in the Rajya Sabha but I humbly declined.”

Savita Ambedkar died in 2003 living up to her vow she had taken: “I live as an Ambedkar, and I shall die an Ambedkar.”

Praveen Davar is an ex-Army officer, a columnist, and the author of Freedom Struggle and Beyond.

Remembering Maulana Abul Kalam Azad: A Scholar, Patriot and Builder of Modern India

Today, November 11, marks the 135th birth anniversary of India’s first education minister. The Maulana played a crucial role in bringing Indian Muslims out of their self-imposed political indifference to cooperate with their Hindu brethren in the task of freeing the country from foreign rule.

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad was a stalwart of the freedom struggle who stood out amongst a galaxy of leaders on account of his intellectual prowess and deep commitment to the nationalist politics of 20th-century India. He was a profound thinker, an interpreter of religion, an upholder of secularism, and one of the builders of the modern Indian state. He was a rare combination of high learning, deep intellect, and revolutionary activity.

Azad’s father, Muhammed Khairuddin, was a scholar and mystic. He wrote numerous books in Arabic and Persian, and had a large number of disciples in Delhi, Gujarat, Maharashtra, and Calcutta. Being the son of a religious leader, Azad received his early education in the traditional manner, directly under the supervision of his father. After acquiring proficiency in Arabic and Persian, he studied Philosophy, Mathematics, and Algebra. He completed the entire course of study by the time he was 16. Soon after, he became a teacher of Philosophy, Mathematics and Logic, and quickly earned recognition as a scholar in Arabic and Persian and in Islamic theology. Azad had inherited from his father the temperament of a scholar, but his thirst for knowledge and his passion for action did not permit him to lead the quiet life of a teacher and religious leader.

At the age of 20, he toured the West Asian countries and came in contact with Arab and Turkish revolutionaries who were working for the freedom of their lands. Abul Kalam was inspired by these people, and on his return to India, he entered politics and started Al Hilal, an Urdu weekly, from Calcutta in 1912 to propagate his ideas. The first issue of Al Hilal was published on June 1, 1912. Abul Kalam was only 24 then, but he had already been accepted as ‘Maulana’ by Muslim theologists. From the very day of its inception, Al Hilal took its stand against British rule in India. In the pages of this journal, he wrote editorials which were remarkable for their beauty of style and forcefulness of language. Through these, the Maulana urged the Muslims of India to come out of their self-imposed political indifference and cooperate with their Hindu brethren in the task of freeing the country from foreign rule. This was a bold and new line of thinking for Indian Muslims and it created a great stir among them.

Also read: On His Birth Anniversary, Remembering What Maulana Abul Kalam Azad Said About Sedition

Ever since the unsuccessful Indian revolt of 1857, Indian Muslims had been living in an atmosphere of despair and lack of faith. Some Muslim leaders like Sir Syed Ahmed Khan tried to restore the confidence of the Indian Muslims by pursuing a policy of gaining the favour of the ruling power and keeping away from the field of active politics.

Revolt of 1857. Photo: Wikimedia Commons

To Maulana Azad, this policy appeared not only unpatriotic but also un-Islamic. He realised that the interests of Indian Muslims could be served only if they took part in the national struggle for independence. He felt that the liberation of India was necessary for the progress and prosperity of the entire Muslim world. From 1920 till 1945 Abul Kalam Azad was in and out of prison a number of times.

After he was released from Ranchi, he was elected president of the All-India Khilafat Committee (Calcutta session in 1920), and president of the Unity Conference (Delhi) in 1924. In 1928, he presided over the Nationalist Muslim Conference. He was appointed in 1937 as a member of the Congress parliamentary sub-committee to guide the Provincial Congress ministries. He was twice elected president of the Indian National Congress, the first time in 1923 when he was only 35 years old, and the second time in 1940. Addressing the delegates at the Congress session in Ramgarh (Jharkhand) the Maulana stated:

“I am a Muslim and profoundly conscious of the fact that I have inherited glorious traditions of the last thirteen hundred years. I am not prepared to lose even a small part of that legacy. The history and teachings of Islam, its arts and letters, its civilisation and culture, are part of my wealth and it is my duty to cherish and guard them. As a Muslim, I have a special identity within the field of religion and culture… But, with all these feelings, I have another equally deep realisation, born out of my life’s experience, which is strengthened and not hindered by the spirit of Islam. I am equally proud of the fact that I am an Indian, an essential part of the indivisible unity of Indian nationhood, a vital factor in its total makeup without which this noble edifice will remain incomplete. I can never give up this sincere claim.”

According to historian S. Irfan Habib, this was Azad’s response to the exclusivist and faith-based nationalism of Savarkar, which aided the Muslim communalists led by the League to instil fear among Muslims about their future in united India.

Maulana Azad concluded his presidential address thus:

Our shared life of a thousand years has forged a common nationality. Such moulds cannot be artificially constructed. Nature’s hidden anvils shape them over the centuries. The mould has now been cast and destiny has set her seal upon it. Whether we like it or not, we have now become an Indian nation, united and indivisible. No false idea of separatism can break our oneness. We must accept the inexorable logic of facts and apply ourselves to fashioning our future density.

He continued as the president of the Congress till 1946, for no election was held during this period as almost every Congress leader was in prison on account of the Quit India Movement (1942). After the leaders were released Maulana Azad, as the president of the Congress, led the negotiations with the British Cabinet Mission in 1946, and when India became independent he was appointed education minister, a position in which he continued till his death on February 22, 1958. His role as India’s first minister for education was marvellous. Besides setting up many scientific and technological institutions, he founded the Indian Council of Cultural Relations as also the three ‘akademis’ devoted to arts, literature and music. He thus substantially contributed to the fulfilment of Jawaharlal Nehru’s vision of modern and liberal India.

Also read: Review: Irfan Habib’s ‘Maulana Azad: A Life’ Is a Voice of Reason and Unity in Times of Hate

Two events in Maulana’s life in the years leading to independence are worth recalling. In 1939, Mahatma Gandhi, opposed to the re-election of Subhas Chandra Bose as president of the Indian National Congress, proposed Azad’s name, but the latter, after initially accepting the offer, withdrew from the contest. This was politically correct as a contest against Subhas Chandra Bose, who was then at the peak of his popularity, was too risky. Hence Azad chose discretion as the better part of valour. Like Gandhi, Maulana Azad was opposed to the partition of India right till the end. But unlike the Frontier Gandhi, and like Gandhi, he ultimately gave in to the Mountbatten Plan.

According to historian Rajmohan Gandhi, “By the end of March 1947, Patel had become keen on division and, later, Nehru too was reconciled to it — Azad too acquiesced. In India Wins Freedom, he has written of his battles to prevent division but at Congress’s meetings, he did not oppose the Mountbatten Plan. Neither the Mahatma nor the Maulana defied Nehru and Patel who were backed by Rajagopalachari, Rajendra Prasad, Govind Ballabh Pant and many others.”

This is corroborated by Acharya Kripalani, Congress President in 1946, and a bitter critic of Azad. The Acharya writes in his biography of Mahatma: “In his book India Wins Freedom (pp. 192-97), Maulana Azad has said that he was against partition and that he had made his opinion clear to Gandhiji. I do not know what private conferences he had with Gandhiji. All I know is that he never opposed it in the Working Committee or the AICC.”

Soon after partition, deeply hurt and angry, addressing a vast multitude from the pulpit of Delhi’s Jama Masjid the Maulana gave them hope and confidence:

I told you that the two-nation theory was the death knell of a life of faith and belief … Those on whom you relied for support have forsaken you, left you helpless …. dear brethren ! I have no new antidote for you, only something that was brought about 1400 years ago…. do not fear and do not grieve. And you will indeed gain the upper hand if you are possessed of true faith.

Maulana Azad died on February 22, 1958, before he turned 70. A week before he died prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru visited the ailing Maulana who looked in the eyes of his beloved friend and said, “Jawahar Khuda Hafiz.” No better words could express the personality of the great scholar than Nehru’s tribute in Parliament on February 24, 1958, “It has become almost a commonplace, when a prominent person passes away, to say that he is irreplaceable. That is often true; yet, I believe that it is literally and absolutely true in regard to the passing away of Maulana Azad. We have had great men and we will have great men, but I do submit that the peculiar and special type of greatness which Maulana Azad represented is not likely to be reproduced in India or anywhere else — we mourn today the passing of a great man, a man of luminous intelligence and mighty intellect with an amazing capacity to pierce through a problem to its core.”

Indeed the greatness of Maulana, like Nehru himself, cannot be reproduced here or anywhere.

Praveen Davar is an ex-Army officer, a columnist, and the author of Freedom Struggle and Beyond.

Kamaraj’s Journey: From Humble Beginnings to Kingmaker

As chief minister, he oversaw post-independence “golden age” of Madras state. As Congress president, he oversaw the leadership change after Nehru’s death.

The death anniversary of Kumaraswami Kamaraj falls on October 2, which is the birth anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi and Lal Bahadur Shastri. All three symbolised simplicity, austerity, and integrity of the higher order.

Kamaraj was born on July 15, 1902, in a family struggling to make ends meet. His father died when he was only six years old. Kamaraj had to drop out of school as his mother could not afford to the fees. At the age of 12, Kamaraj joined his uncle’s clothing store as a salesman but the fledgling Indian nationalist movement attracted his attention.

The news of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre in Punjab on April 13, 1919 spread like wildfire throughout the country. Virudhnagar, the birthplace of Kamaraj, was no exception. The 16-year-old Kamaraj joined the Indian National Congress and engaged in organising meetings in Virudhnagar and neighbouring areas. He later went on to become the president of the party.

He participated in the non-cooperation movement in 1921, but his family did not support his involvement in politics, and sent him to Trivandrum (now Thiruvananthapuram) to work in a timber shop owned by his uncle. But Kamaraj’s interest in politics did not wane and he joined the Vaikom Satyagraha in Travancore. He fought for the rights of the people belonging to the lower castes, who weren’t allowed to enter the streets near the temples.

After the success of the Vaikom Satyagraha in 1925, he returned to Virudhnagar, where he plunged full-time into the freedom struggle.

In 1923, Kamaraj met Sathyamurthy, who, along with C. Rajagopalachari (Rajaji), was among the tallest leaders of the Madras Presidency. The 20-year-old Kamaraj adopted Sathyamurthy as his political guru. This would pay him rich dividends in the future conflicts with Rajaji, who was the arch-rival of Sathyamurthy.

In 1930, Kamaraj took part in the Salt Satyagraha Movement and was sentenced to two years of imprisonment. By the time the Quit India Movement ended, Kamaraj had been to prison six times and had spent years in British jails.

In 1940, with the help of Sathyamurthy, he was elected as the president of the Tamil Nadu Congress Committee, defeating his opponent, supported by Rajaji, by a narrow margin of 103 to 100 votes. He held this post till 1954.

This time, Rajaji – who was the sitting chief minister for the second time – had become unpopular, and Kamaraj, in a dexterous move, persuaded him to step down on health grounds. Then Kamaraj became the chief minister, defeating C. Subramanian, Rajaji’s candidate, by 93 to 41 votes.

The “golden age”

Kamaraj took over as chief minister of Madras on April 13, 1954. This was the beginning of what is described as the “golden age” in the history of post-independence Madras state (now Tamil Nadu). His first major reform was to provide free and compulsory primary education to all children in the rural areas. He also ensured that there was no village in the whole state that didn’t have at least one school and a teacher.

To encourage parents to send their children to school, he introduced the free midday meal scheme for both rural and urban children. This was indeed an innovative idea which was later improved upon by the MGR government. It later became a central scheme when Indira Gandhi came back to power in 1980.

Also read: What a First-Hand Experience of Midday Meals Taught a Chennai Man About Equality

The United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government further expanded this programme, which has now become a universally accepted scheme which no government can roll back. By harnessing irrigation power, Kamaraj turned a food-deficit state into a food-surplus state. But the best was yet to come.

Kamaraj appointed R. Venkataraman (later President of India), as his minister for industries and gave him a free hand to execute his vision of making Madras a top industrial state. Steel, power, cement, and chemical industries were developed throughout the state. The government ensured that all industries and plants were evenly distributed throughout the state and no region was offered any special treatment.

He ran a clean and honest government by setting a personal example. He expected his subordinates to follow his example. He himself drew inspiration from Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, who by the end of the 1950s had emerged on the world stage as the “moral leader of mankind”.

The ‘Kamaraj Plan’

By 1963, Kamaraj’s ninth year as chief minister, and Nehru’s 16th year as prime minister, the popularity of the grand old party had waned. In May 1963, the party lost three by-elections to the Lok Sabha. Three opposition stalwarts – Acharya Kripalani, Ram Manohar Lohia and Minoo Masani – were elected to parliament even though the Congress tried its best to defeat them.

It was at this point that Nehru called Kamaraj to Hyderabad to discuss a plan he had earlier submitted for reinvigorating the party. When Kamaraj submitted his proposal, he had only Madras in mind.

He resigned from the post of chief minister to focus on strengthening the party organisation in the state, and to counter the growing influence of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK). But Nehru told him the strategy should apply to the whole of India and asked him to raise this issue at the next Congress Working Committee (CWC), which was to meet shortly.

Under the proposal, all Union ministers and chief ministers were expected to submit their resignations to the prime minister. Nehru christened the plan as the ‘Kamaraj Plan’ and accepted the resignations of six Union ministers and six chief ministers. Among the Union ministers who had resigned were Morarji Desai, Lal Bahadur Shastri and Jagjivan Ram. The chief ministers included Kamaraj (Madras), Biju Patnaik (Orissa [now Odisha]) and C.B. Gupta (Uttar Pradesh). Nehru also resigned but Kamaraj and the CWC refused to accept it.

Soon after the Kamaraj Plan came into effect, he was unanimously elected as the president of the Indian National Congress, even though then home minister Lal Bahadur Shastri was among the names that did the rounds.

Nehru died on May 27, 1964. It was natural that the Congress president, who had the experience of being an extremely successful chief minister for a decade, will be considered as a serious candidate. But in his typical style, Kamaraj set at rest all speculations about him: No English. No Hindi. How [could he become PM]?

Also read: As India Turns 75, Here’s 75 Debates for Argumentative Indians

Though there were other aspirants, too, the choice ultimately narrowed down to Morarji Desai, supported by the right-wing and leaders such as Jagjivan Ram, former INC president D. Sanjeevaya and Odisha chief minister Biju Patnaik. But like the mythological Pandavas who had Krishna on their side, Shastri had the support of not only Kamaraj but also Indira Gandhi, who had declined to be in the contest as she was, within days of her father’s death, ’emotionally ill-prepared’.

In a matter of just two days, Kamaraj moved swiftly and met nearly 250 MPs and convinced them to support Shastri.

Desai was totally outmaneuvered and withdrew in favour of Shastri, who became the prime minister, but Desai chose to remain out of his cabinet.

The role of kingmaker

Kamaraj was destined to play the role of the kingmaker in less than two years. Shastri died at Tashkent on January 11, 1966 after signing a peace treaty with Pakistan following the India-Pakistan War in 1965, in which he led the nation successfully with his inspiring slogan of ‘Jai Jawan Jai Kisan’. This time the contest was between Desai and Mrs. Gandhi. Despite appeals from many leaders, including Kamaraj, Desai refused to withdraw and forced a contest.

In the election to the leader of the Congress Parliamentary Party (CPP) that followed, Mrs. Gandhi, with the support of Kamaraj and others like Jagjivan Ram and Y.B. Chavan, won by a margin of 355-169 votes.

But the role of Kamaraj as kingmaker was still not over. In the 1967 elections, Congress’s tally in the Lok Sabha reduced considerably and it lost power in as many as eight states, including Kamaraj’s own home state of Tamil Nadu. To keep the Congress ship stable in view of its narrow majority, Kamaraj suggested to Mrs. Gandhi to appoint Desai as the deputy prime minister.

Mrs. Gandhi readily accepted the proposal but soon differences arose between her and the Kamaraj-led syndicate.

Following the Congress’s split in 1969, Kamaraj was a disillusioned person but managed to win his Lok Sabha seat from Nagercoil in alliance with Rajaji, his one-time foe. Soon he rebuilt relations with Mrs. Gandhi but his deteriorating health and the rise of MGR after the DMK split prevented Kamaraj from reviving the Congress in the state. He died on October 2, 1975 and was posthumously awarded the Bharat Ratna in 1976 by the Indira Gandhi government. His statue on Krishna Menon Marg was unveiled in 1985 by then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi.

Praveen Davar is a former army officer, columnist, and author of Freedom Struggle and Beyond.

Remembering the Rich Life Feroze Gandhi Lived Before His Untimely Death

Feroze Gandhi was a freedom fighter, prominent parliamentarian and crusader against corruption. This piece traces the various threads in his rich life, including his joining the Nehru family, before his untimely death 63 years ago.

Feroze Gandhi, whose 111th birth anniversary falls today, was a freedom fighter, prominent parliamentarian, journalist and above all, a crusader against corruption. He was only forty-eight years old when he died due to a massive heart attack just four days before his birthday.

Feroze Gandhi was born on September 12, 1912 in Bombay (now Mumbai) in a Parsi family from Gujarat. He lost his father when he was hardly six years old, and his family comprising his mother and her five children moved to Allahabad to live with his aunt, who was a surgeon in the city’s Lady Dufferin Hospital.

After completing his graduation from Allahabad, he went to study at the London School of Economics (but much later).

In 1930, Feroze joined the independence movement, which was then passing through the phase of civil disobedience led by Mahatma Gandhi, whose satyagraha also included the boycott of English education. It was in a demonstration outside his college, the Ewing Christian College, that Feroze Gandhi’s first contact with the already well known Nehru family happened.

Kamala Nehru, the wife of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, who was incarcerated, was leading a procession on a hot summer afternoon shouting slogans like ‘Bharat mata zindabad’ and ‘Mahatma Gandhi zindabad’ when she fainted due to exhaustion.

Feroze Gandhi, who was was witnessing the demonstration with his classmates atop a wall in the campus, jumped down immediately and helped carry Kamala under the shade of a tree and nursed her to recovery. This chance encounter was the beginning of a lasting relationship with the Nehrus that only ended with his death 28 years later.

When during the civil disobedience movement Feroze was imprisoned for the first time, Lal Bahadur Shastri, who also hailed from Allahabad, was amongst his jail companions. They developed an intimate friendship and often visited Anand Bhavan together after their release.

In 1961, a year after Feroze Gandhi’s death, Shastri, who was then home minister, recalled his association with the former: “Feroze was much younger than I. Despite that, we became very close friends, and it became routine to meet and go on for hours with general political exchange of ideas and opinions. Very few people at the age of seventeen or eighteen show such a devotion, patriotism and understanding as Feroze did.”

Motilal Nehru, who was sentenced to six months in jail along with his son Jawaharlal, died on February 6, 1931, soon after he was released. At his funeral in Allahabad, Feroze Gandhi’s mother, Rattimai, met Mahatma Gandhi and begged him to tell Feroze to give up political activities and resume his studies.

This is what the Mahatma replied in Gujarati to Rattimai, who was a Gujarati from Surat:

“Oh bahen … if I get seven boys like Feroze to work for me, I will get swaraj within seven days. In the India of the future, nobody will ask whether your son passed his BA or MA, but they will like to know how many times your son has been interned for nationalst activities.” The words of the Mahatma didn’t impress Rattimai. But though she was dejected, she decided not to interfere in Feroze’s chosen path.

The decade of the 1930s was an eventful one in the history of the freedom struggle and in the Nehru household. It saw the top stalwarts of the Congress assume presidentship after the Salt Satyagraha (March – April 1930) – Sardar Patel (1931), Jawaharlal Nehru (1936, 1937), Rajendra Prasad (1934) and Subash Bose (1938, 1939).

Months before Nehru became Congress president for the second time, Kamala Nehru, who had been suffering from tuberculosis for long, died in a sanatorium in Switzerland. Before she died on Feb 6, 1936, Kamala Nehru is believed to have given her consent to the marriage of her daughter Indira to Feroze, who had proposed to her three years earlier.

The marriage ultimately was solemnised as per Vedic rituals at Anand Bhavan on March 26, 1942, the day of the Ram Navami festival. Since it was an inter-faith wedding in those days of extreme orthodoxy, it was bound to raise a major controversy. It was especially so as one party involved was the most well-known political family.

Upper caste Hindus especially reacted vehemently: ‘Brahmin girl marrying a Parsi?’ But since Mahatma Gandhi blessed the marriage, the controversy died down.

But nevertheless Pandit Nehru issued a press statement:

“A marriage is a personal and domestic matter … though parents may and should advise in the matter, the choice and ultimate decision must lie with the two parties concerned … it is no business of parents or others to come in the way. When I was assured that Indira and Feroze wanted to marry one another, I accepted willingly their decision and told them that it had my blessing.”

Nehru went on to add: “Mahatma Gandhi, whose opinion I value not only in public affairs but in private affairs also, gave his blessings to the proposal … [he] expressed a wish that marriage might take place in Sevagram so that he might find it convenient to be present at it and bless the union personally … but the members of the family felt that it should take place in our home.”

Amongst those who attended the simple and unostentatious marriage ceremony, in which a 24-year-old Indira wore a khadi saree spun by her father in jail, were Dr Rajendra Prasad, Maulana Azad, Govind Ballabh Pant, Sarojini Naidu, Syed Mahmud and Acharya Kripalani. A surprise guest at the Anand Bhavan was Sir Stafford Cripps, who had arrived in India for his famous Cripps Mission that was to be rejected by the Congress Working Committee (CWC) the following month.

The Quit India Movement led to the arrest of Mahatma Gandhi and all senior leaders of the CWC in Bombay on the dawn of August 9, 1942.

Since Jawaharlal Nehru was taken to Ahmadnagar jail along with Sardar Patel, Maulana Azad and others, Feroze and Indira Gandhi returned to Allahabad, and after carrying out underground activities for nearly a month, were arrested in mid-September and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment in Naini jail, where once again Feroze found the company of Nehru’s successor-to-be as PM, Lal Bahadur Shastri.

This was Feroze Gandhi’s fourth and last term in jail. He had been arrested three times earlier in the 1930s during and after the civil disobedience movement. After serving a full term of one year in Naini and Faizabad jails, Feroze was released and went back to stay at Allahabad with Indira Gandhi, who had been released earlier.

Almost a year before independence, an interim government was formed on September 2, 1946 and Jawaharlal Nehru, as head of the government, became extremely busy with his monumental responsibilities. He had founded the National Herald in 1937, but now after it resumed publication in early 1946, he realised he wouldn’t be able to devote time for the paper.

He persuaded Feroze to become a director in the National Herald in his place. Feroze Gandhi was appointed as the managing director of the Associated Journals Limited, which published the National Herald. He ran the paper efficiently and brought it out from the financial difficulties it was facing earlier.

He also took the initiative of bringing out the Urdu and Hindi editions of the paper and launching it from New Delhi in addition to Lucknow, from where it was running from the outset.

Acknowledging his contribution, Nehru noted: “Feroze has been in the Herald now for over six months … and from all accounts, has done very good work … and we are gradually reducing our liabilities … there is peace in the Herald office and cooperation between the editorial, managerial and press departments.”

The first general elections after independence were held in 1952 and Feroze Gandhi, who fought for the Lok Sabha from Rae Bareli (now being represented by Sonia Gandhi) won by a massive margin. He was re-elected from the same constituency in the second general election in 1957.

It was during these two terms in parliament that he became a national figure by his brilliant performance on the floor of the House, taking up issues that resonate even today, over six decades later. His maiden speech in parliament on corruption in the insurance companies run by Rama Krishna Dalmia led to the latter’s arrest and paved the way for the nationalisation of the insurance business.

In 1958, he raised the Haridas Mundhra scandal involving the now-government controlled LIC. This caused a great embarrassment to the clean image of the government and led to the resignation of the then-finance minister T.T. Krishnamachari (TTK, as he was popularly called, was however reinstated as a minister after the 1962 general elections and reappointed as finance minister in 1964 when Lal Bahadur Shastri took over as PM).

Besides the finance minister, the finance secretary H.M. Patel was dismissed from service and Mundhra, like Dalmia earlier, had a stint in jail.

Feroze, who ideologically was a staunch socialist, also made a strong case for the nationalisation of Telco, as the company, according to figures he marshaled painstakingly, was charging nearly the double of railway engines being imported from Japan. This raised a stir in the Parsi community as the Tatas, like Feroze, belonged to the same community.

As Feroze was earning greater laurels and becoming more and more popular, he unfortunately died of a heart attack at a young age, four days before his 48th birthday. His sudden death shocked the whole nation, but no one more than his life companion Indira Gandhi, then 43.

His death was physically and psychologically wounding for her. As she described later: “My whole mental and physical life changed suddenly, my bodily functions changed … I was physically ill. It upset my whole being for years … it was not just a mental shock, but it was as though someone had cut me in two.”

Gradually she recovered and was to ultimately become the country’s second longest serving prime minister after Jawaharlal Nehru, but there was a greater personal tragedy in store for her twenty years after the death of her beloved Feroze.

What if Feroze Gandhi had not died so early? The ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’ of history will remain what they are.

Praveen Davar is an ex-Army officer, a columnist and author of Freedom Struggle and Beyond.

‘Quit India’: The Last Nail in the Coffin of the British Empire

The movement took a turn not contemplated by Gandhi and the Congress leaders.

Japan bombed Pearl Harbour, an American base, in December 1941, and this drew the US into the Second World War. Japan’s armies began to march swiftly through Southeast Asia, bringing the war to the very doors of India. If the Japanese had to be resisted, something had to be done to involve the Indians in the war effort.

Realising the gravity of the situation, Winston Churchill, the prime minister of Britain, under pressure from American President Roosevelt, agreed, reluctantly, to consider proposal for a self-government in India. Sir Stafford Cripps, a member of the War Cabinet, was dispatched to India with the proposals of the British government. He met the Congress president Maulana Azad on March 25, 1942, followed by a meeting with Jawaharlal Nehru. They both told him that the viceroy should only be a constitutional head, and the proposed Council should have an Indian as defence member.

But this was rejected by the War Cabinet when the demand was placed before Churchill by Cripps on March 27. Cripps met M.K. Gandhi and showed him the proposal, to which the latter stated: “Why did you come if this is what you have to offer – I would advise you to take the next plane home.” Gandhi was also believed to have remarked that Cripps’ proposals were “a post dated cheque on a crashing bank”. But this statement attributed to Gandhi in Sewagram was denied by him as a “tissue of lies”.

The expected failure of the Cripps Mission showed that Britain was not willing to make any political concessions during the war. But then could Britain defend India? Singapore, a heavily guarded fortress of Britain, had fallen on February 15, 1942 and then Rangoon on March 7. The war was now on the borders of India. The country was seething with frustration. It wanted action. That was also the thinking of Gandhi.

The Congress Working Committee (CWC) decided to meet in April 1942. Gandhi sent a draft for the CWC meeting through Miraben, saying Britain could not defend India, that India had no quarrel with any power including the Japanese, and that British and all foreign troops should be immediately withdraw from India. Gandhi was prepared to leave the Congress with his followers if his draft was not accepted: “The time has come when every one of us has to choose his own course.” Though there was a majority of 11 to 6 in the Working Committee in favour of Gandhi’s draft, to avoid a split, Nehru’s alternative and less militant draft was accepted.

There was a showdown between Gandhi and some of his lieutenants on the one hand, and Nehru and Azad on the other, in the next meeting of the Working Committee meeting which began on July 5, 1942 at Wardha and lasted for several days. Azad felt that if Japan invaded India she should be resisted, for it would be most undesirable to change an old master which, in the course of time, had “become effete and was losing its grip for a new and virile conqueror”. So he opposed Gandhi’s plan of civil disobedience. Nehru supported him. However, a compromised was reached.

On July 14, the CWC passed a resolution calling upon the British to quit India; but adding, at the insistence of Nehru, that after such withdrawal the Congress was agreeable to the stationing of the armed forces of Allied Powers to resist the Japanese aggression. The die was thus cast and there was now no going back. It was also decided to call a meeting of the AICC in Bombay on August 7 to ratify the resolution. The Bombay meeting of the AICC confirmed the Wardha CWC resolution. On August 8, Nehru moved the ‘Quit India’ resolution and Sardar Patel seconded it. The resolution was passed amidst scenes of great enthusiasm and nationalist fervour.

Before the Quit India movement was launched, Gandhi was asked whether he would call off the movement as he did in 1922 in the event of any eruption of violence. He replied, “I am the same Gandhi as I was in 1922, I attach the same importance to non-violence that I did then.”

But, in fact, he was not the same Gandhi. According to historian Sankar Ghose, “He, in his seventies, was an impatient Gandhi who could not wait for Independence, whatever the consequences. So he gave the call, ‘Do or Die.’ ‘I waited and waited,’ Gandhi wrote in the Harijan on June 7, 1942, ‘until the country should develop non-violent strength necessary to throw off the foreign yoke. I feel that I cannot afford to wait …If in spite of all precautions rioting takes place, it cannot be helped.’ He now said that everyone was ‘free to go to the fullest length’, though only under ahimsa. But ‘the fullest length’ could include a general strike if that became a dire necessity. He was even prepared to tolerate ‘fifteen days of chaos’. He was no longer unduly perturbed by violence taking place.”

At 5 in the morning of August 9, a day after the AICC ratified the Quit India resolution, Gandhi, Nehru, Patel, Azad and all top Congress leaders were arrested. Though Gandhi, who had been imprisoned at Aga Khan Palace at Poona, was released earlier in May 1944 on grounds of health, Nehru was in prison at Ahmednagar Fort for 34 months, his longest ever, from August 1942 to June 1945. The wholesale arrest of the leaders touched off a spontaneous popular revolt throughout India. For a week all business was paralysed in Bombay, Ahmedabad, Delhi, Bangalore, Calcutta and many other places.

The authorities let loose cruel repression. In Delhi, the police fired on 47 separate occasions on August 11 and 12. In UP there were 29 firings between August 9 and 21, resulting in the death of 76 persons and severe injury to 114. In the Central Provinces the police killed 64, wounded 102 and arrested 11,088 in the first three weeks. In Mysore State about 600 persons were killed by police firing during the first few days of the movement. In Patiala, eight students were killed while trying to hoist the national flag over a public building. Over 100 were shot in a Mysore procession. In Calcutta there were numerous firings, resulting in many deaths. The same was the case in all big cities. In Midnapore (Bengal) and in some parts of Maharashtra, parallel governments were set up which functioned effectively for a short time.

The casualties from August 9 to November 30, 1942 were, according to the Secretary of State for India, 1,008 killed, and 3,275 seriously injured. The popular estimate was however very much higher. The number of people imprisoned was over 100,000. The movement had taken a turn not contemplated by Gandhi and the Congress leaders. Infuriated by the wholesale arrest of their leaders and the cruel repression let loose by the authorities, people in several places destroyed public property like bridges, police stations, etc., and removed even rail tracks, cut off telegraph wires and vented their anger in various other acts of violence.

Acharya Kriplani (who was INC president in 1946-47) writes in his biography of Gandhi: “Had the people had the guidance of the leaders, such wanton destruction would not have taken place. Even if Gandhiji alone were out, he would have undertaken a fast if nothing else had prevailed. It would have cooled down people’s ardour for destruction and the movement would have gone on generally on right lines.”

But Kriplani held the firm view: “It is my opinion that India could not have achieved its independence, but for the accession of strength which the nation received by the successive struggles started by Gandhiji. A nation which could throw a challenge to the Empire at a time when the armies of all the Allies were on Indian soil could no more be held in thralldom.” Even if one is wiser by hindsight, the Acharya’s opinion is difficult to challenge.

Praveen Davar is former secretary, AICC and the author of Freedom Struggle & Beyond.

Remembering Tilak, the Father of India’s Revolution

Tilak was the tallest of the leaders of his generation who prepared the nation for the trials and triumphs of the Gandhian era.

Amongst the stalwarts of the freedom struggle in the pre-Gandhi era, the name of Lokmanya Tilak stands out as a colossus for his supreme courage, sacrifice, selflessness and for his historic role in the early phase of the independence movement.

Bal Gangadhar Tilak was born on July 23, 1856, at Ratnagiri, Maharashtra, in a middle-class family. Soon after his graduation, Tilak developed a serious concern for the social and political problems of his day. He wanted to reform the system of education introduced by the British and started a society to spread education in Maharashtra.

But his restless mind could not remain limited to one field. He soon ventured into journalism and started a Marathi paper, Kesari. He passionately wrote on reforming Indian society. On the problem of untouchability he wrote, “I would not recognise even God if he said that untouchability was ordained by him.” While advocating social reforms, he turned the attention of people to the political problem — liberation of India from British rule. He began writing articles in the Kesari asserting every Indian’s birthright to be free. This was a revolutionary doctrine to be preached in those days.

This brought him into conflict with the empire and he was convicted on the charge of sedition in 1897. However, this conviction proved to be a blessing in disguise: from a provincial leader, Tilak became a national leader.

In 1889 (the year Jawaharlal Nehru was born), Tilak attended the Bombay session of the Indian National Congress presided by Sir William Wedderburn. Tilak was then 33. Two other young Congressmen, who were to become his contemporaries, also appeared on the Congress platform for the first time — Lala Lajpat Rai (34) and Gopal Krishna Gokhale (33).

The Congress, since its birth in 1885, was dominated by the Moderates who had faith in British sense of justice and fair play, and believed in constitutional and lawful methods of agitation. This, however, dramatically changed with Lord Curzon’s decision to partition the sate of Bengal. The youth of India moved towards militant politics and direct action. Along with Bipin Chandra Pal and Lala Lajpat Rai, Tilak seized the opportunity of disillusionment against the British and denounced the “political mendicancy” of the Moderates. The trio of Bal-Pal-Lal, along with Aurobindo Ghose, became popular as “extremists”, though they preferred to call themselves “nationalists”.

Nehru recalls in The Discovery of India, “With the coming of age of the National Congress, which had been founded in 1885, a new type of leadership appeared, more aggressive and defiant and representing the much larger numbers of the lower middle classes as well as students and young men. The powerful agitation against the partition of Bengal had thrown up many able and aggressive leaders there of this type, but the real symbol of the new age was Bal Gangadhar Tilak from Maharashtra. The old leadership was represented also by a Maratha, a very able and a young man, Gopal Krishna Gokhale. Revolutionary slogans were in the air, tempers ran high and conflict was inevitable. To avoid this, the old patriarch of the Congress, Dadabhai Naoroji, universally respected and regarded as the father of the country, was brought out of his retirement. The respite was brief and in 1907 the clash came, resulting apparently in a victory for the old moderate section. (But) there was no doubt that the vast majority of politically- minded people in India favoured Tilak and his group.”

On June 24, 1903, an arrest warrant was served on Tilak in Bombay. The historic trial of Tilak on charges of sedition began on July 13. He was convicted and deported to Mandalay, Burma, where he was to spend the next 11 years of his life. On hearing the verdict, Tilak defiantly said: “All I wish to say is that, in spite of the verdict of the jury, I maintain that I am innocent. There are higher powers that rule the destiny of things and it may be the will of providence that the cause which I represent may prosper more by my suffering than by my remaining free.”

In Mandalay, Tilak soon settled himself into the routine of writing and thinking. The man of action absorbed himself in reading, in learning new things and in contemplating on the true message of the Gita. A most fruitful result of this constant reading and reflection was the Geeta Rahasya. On June 8, 1914, Tilak was informed that his exile was over. He was then 58, and his health was broken, but his spirit was unbowed. On his return to India, he resumed his political activities.

According to Tilak’s biographer, D.V. Tamhankar, “The year 1916 was the most eventful in Tilak’s career. The early part of the year saw the foundation of the Home Rule League, its phenomenal success, the presentation of the public purse on Tilak’s 61st birthday, and his legal victory in the last sedition of the Lucknow Congress, which marks the zenith not only of Tilak’s life, but also, perhaps, of the history of the Congress. Tilak, who had previously borne a reputation for intransigence in politics, now appears in the role of a constructive and conciliatory stateman. The days of fiery speeches and denunciations are over; a new phase of compromise and responsive cooperation begins. He is seen at his best at the Lucknow Congress which marks a definite stage in the political evolution of India.” Under Tilak’s inspiration, there was a united demand for Swaraj, the first occasion when Muslims and Hindus, Moderates and extremists, Parsees and others spoke together with one voice to demand vital reforms. Tilak emerged as a messiah of Hindu-Muslim unity.

The formation of the Indian Home Rule League was the crowning achievement of Tilak’s political career. He had worked for 35 years to give concrete shape to the people’s political aspirations, largely aroused and sustained to by his own exertions and sufferings, and his labours at last bore fruit. The country could now speak out and demand its birthright without fear. The people had become conscious of their rights; their aspirations had assumed a definite shape, and they realised that a foreign bureaucracy “cannot be mended but must be ended”. Now the time had surely come, Tilak said, to demand control of the country’s affairs. But if the demand for Swaraj was to be effective, it must be made through a powerful and organised body. The Home Rule League was to be that body. It was founded on April 28, 1916, with its headquarters in Pune. A similar Home Rule League was started by Annie Besant (who the following year became the first woman president of INC) with its headquarters in Madras. Both the Home Rule Leagues supplemented each other. The Home Rule Movement marked the beginning of a new phase in India’s struggle for freedom. It placed before the country a concrete scheme of self-government.

Nehru, while unveiling a portrait of Lokmanya Tilak in Parliament on July 28, 1956, concluded his glowing tribute to Tilak: “It was not my privilege to come into close contact with Tilak. When he was at the height of his career, I was away in a far country, still a student. But even there his voice and his story reached us and fired our imagination. We early grew up under that influence and were moulded by it. In a sense, India to the youth of that time was what had been presented by Tilak, through what he said and what he wrote, and above all, what he suffered. That was the inheritance that Gandhiji had to start his vast movements with. If there had not been that moulding of the Indian people and India’s imagination and India’s youth by Lokmanya, it would not have been easy for the next step to be taken. Thus, in this historical panorama, we can see one great man after another coming and performing acts of destiny and history which have cumulatively led to the achievement of India’s freedom. We meet here not only to unveil the picture of this great man, the Father of India’s Revolution, but to remember him and to be inspired by him.”

Tilak was the tallest of the leaders of his generation who prepared the nation for the trials and triumphs of the Gandhian era. On August 1, 1920, a day before Gandhiji launched the Non-Cooperation Movement, Tilak passed away, thus marking the end of one and beginning of another era that culminated in the realisation of his dream of free India.

Praveen Davar is a columnist and the author of Freedom Struggle and Beyond.

Remembering Dadabhai Naoroji, the Great Hero of the Initial Phase of India’s Freedom Struggle

‘The Grand Old Man of India’ was not only one of the founder members of the Indian National Congress but also one whose vision shaped the organision.

Note: Today, June 30, is the death anniversary of Dadabhai Naoroji.

“Let us always remember that we are all children of our mother country. Indeed, I have never worked in any other spirit than that I am an Indian, and owe duty to my country and all my countrymen. Whether I am a Hindu, a Muslim, a Parsi, a Christian or any other creed, I am above all an Indian. Our country is India, our nationality is Indian.”

These inspiring words were spoken by Dadabhai Naoroji in Lahore, where he was presiding over a session of the Indian National Congress for the second time. Earlier, he was president of the Congress at its second session in Calcutta (now Kolkata) in 1886 and, later, for the third time in Calcutta again in 1906.

Naoroji was born in Bombay (now Mumbai) on September 4, 1825 in a priestly Parsi family, the only child of Manekbai and Naoroji Palanji Dordi, who had migrated from Navsari in present-day Gujarat.

A brilliant student, Naoroji joined the famed Elphinstone College, Bombay after passing the matriculation examination and graduated from there in 1845, winning many prizes and scholarships. On the completion of his college career, he was appointed assistant professor at Elphinstone College and awarded the honorary LLD degree by Bombay University.

As a devout Zoroastrian, Naoroji learnt that one should be pure in thought, speech and action. He also read the lives of many great men of world history, which inspired him to think that he owed a debt to society. He decided to pay back the debt by devoting himself to the service of the people.

Naoroji looked beyond his profession of teaching and felt the need for reform in society. He started schools to impart education to women and societies to provide young people with opportunities to discuss various literary, scientific and social subjects.

He also began a Gujarati weekly named Rast Goftar (‘Truth Teller’) to spread his ideas in the city of Mumbai, where he became famous as a pioneer of social reform and was regarded as “the promise of India” by his fellow professors.

Also Read: To Commemorate Dadabhai Naoroji Is To Write an Inclusive, More Complex Colonial History

In 1855, Naoroji went to England to work as a partner in a commercial firm named Cama & Company. This was the first Indian firm to be founded in London. But his principles of putting ethics and commercial morality above business interests made it difficult for his partners to deal with him, and Naoroji was forced to leave the firm.

He started his own company, which initially did very well, but soon ran into debt due to his friends who were in financial distress. However, he managed to overcome his financial problems as he also worked as a professor of Gujarati at the University College, London.

Naoroji used his presence in England to help the people of India by voicing their grievances under British rule. It was due to his efforts that Indians were given the opportunity to compete in the civil service examinations. In late 1866, he founded the East India Association, London, to promote understanding and friendship between the peoples of India and England.

Both Indian and English people became members of this association, through which Naoroji tried to educate the British public regarding the problems being faced by Indians. He was the first Indian to raise before the British public how wealth was being drained from India to England and the fact that British rule was the cause of India’s poverty.

He returned to India in 1869 – the year Gandhi was born. He toured the country and delivered lectures about the objects and work of the East India Association. He was honoured by the citizens of Bombay for his services rendered in London. In July 1875, Naoroji was elected as a member of Bombay’s municipal corporation, and in January 1885, he became the vice-president of the Bombay Presidency Association.

Also Read: At Last, a Biography of India’s Grand Old Man

This organisation was one of the precursors of the Indian National Congress, which was founded on December 28, 1885. Dadabhai was thus not only one of the founder members of the Congress, but also one whose vision gave birth to the idea of India’s foremost political organisation.

He had an earnest desire to become a member of the British parliament because he wanted to sit there as a true representative of the people of India, ventilating their grievances and securing justice for them. He failed in his first attempt, but ultimately succeeded in joining the House of Commons in 1892, becoming the first Indian to be elected to parliament.

It was an occasion for great rejoicing in India. Naoroji was also the first Indian to sit on a royal commission appointed to look into financial hardships faced by people in British India.

After presiding over the Lahore session of the Congress in 1893, Naoroji was specially invited to preside over its Calcutta session in 1906, when the Congress faced a vertical split between the moderates and extremists. It was in this session that a demand for swaraj – or self-governance – was raised for the first time.

A.O. Hume, Dadabhai Naoroji and William Wedderburn. Photo: Twitter/@INCinHistory.

This session was also historic in that it opened with universal prayers and the singing of Vande Mataram. The resolutions passed in it included a demand for reversing the partition of Bengal. Raising the slogan of swaraj, Dadabhai appealed to the people to remain united and work hard to attain self-sufficiency.

Now an old man, Naoroji was referred to as ‘The Grand Old Man of India’. He was a staunch believer in constitutional methods and belonged to the school of the moderates. Although he believed in swadeshi, he was not against the use of machines for organising key industries in the country. He inspired Jamsetji Tata to raise Indian capital for his iron and steel industries.

A devout Zoroastrian but Catholic in outlook, he did not believe in restrictions of caste, creed and gender. He was one of the earliest pioneers of women’s education and a proponent of equal rights. Amongst his close friends were A.O. Hume, William Wedderburn, Badruddin Tyabji, K.T. Telang and Gopal Krishna Gokhale.

This great hero of the initial phase of India’s freedom struggle died on June 30, 1917 at the age of 91, after nearly seven decades of selfless service to the country. Along with Tilak and Gokhale, who followed him – though with methods at variance with each other’s – Naoroji, in the opinion of this writer, can certainly be counted as one of the three greatest Indians of the independence movement’s pre-Gandhi era.

A befitting tribute was paid to him by Jawaharlal Nehru in parliament while he unveiled a portrait of Bal Gangadhar Tilak in the central hall in 1956:

“We have, to my right here, the picture of Dadabhai Naoroji, in a sense the father of the Indian National Congress. We may perhaps in our youthful arrogance think that some of these leaders of old were very moderate, and that we are braver because we shout more.”

“But every person who can recapture the picture of old India and of the conditions that prevailed, will realise that a man like Dadabhai was, in those conditions, a revolutionary figure.”

Praveen Davar is a columnist and the author of Freedom Struggle and Beyond.

Remembering Deshbandhu Chittaranjan Das: The Stormy Petrel of Indian Politics

Chittaranjan Das’ entry into politics took place at a crucial moment and, in the course of only eight years, he rose to all-India fame by virtue of his ardent patriotism, sterling sincerity and oratorical power.

Today, June 16, is Chittaranjan Das’s 98th death anniversary.

Chittaranjan Das, whose life is a landmark in the history of India’s freedom struggle , was endearingly called ‘Deshbandhu’ (friend of the country). Born on November 5, 1870, in Calcutta, he belonged to an upper middle class Vaidya family of Telirbagh in the then Dacca district. His father, Bhuban Mohan Das, was a reputed solicitor of the Calcutta High Court. An ardent member of the Brahmo Samaj, he was also well-known for his intellectual and journalistic pursuits. Das’ patriotic ideas were greatly influenced by his father.

After receiving his early education at the London Missionary Society’s Institution at Bhowanipore in Calcutta, Das passed Calcutta University’s entrance examination in 1886 as a private candidate and graduated from the Presidency College in 1890. He then went to England to compete for the Indian Civil Service but he was “the last man out” in his year. Therefore, he joined the Middle Temple and was called to the Bar in 1893.

It was Bankim Chandra who partly influenced him in his political ideas. While at the Presidency College, Das was the leading figure of the student’s association; and from Surendranath Banerjea he took his first lesson in public service and elocution. Das was the defence counsel in the Dacca Conspiracy Case (1910-11). He was famed for his handling of both civil and criminal law.

However, it was in 1917 that Das came to the forefront of nationalist politics when he was invited to preside over the Bengal Provincial Conference in Bhowanipore. At the Conference, Das gave his memorable presidential speech in Bengali, animated by lofty idealism and patriotic fire.

Das’ political career was brief but meteoric. His advent into politics in 1917 took place at a crucial moment and, in the course of only eight years (1917-25), he rose to all-India fame by virtue of his ardent patriotism, sterling sincerity and oratorical power.

Statue of Chittaranjan Das at Deshbandhu Park in Kolkata. Photo: Wikimedia commons

He played a significant role in the controversy over the election of Annie Besant as President of the Indian National Congress for its Calcutta session. During this period (1917-18) he also took part in the agitation against the government policy on internment and deportation under the Defence of India Actm 1915. On the eve of the Calcutta Session (1917) of the Congress, he had been on a lecturing tour in Eastern Bengal, addressing large gatherings of self-government.

In 1918, both at the Congress special session in Bombay and the annual session in Delhi, Das opposed the scheme of Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms as wholly inadequate and disappointing. The demand for Provincial Autonomy was successfully propounded in the teeth of vehement opposition from Besant and others. In 1919, Das went to the Punjab as a member of the non-official Jallianwala Bagh Enquiry Committee. At the Amritsar Congress (in 1919) he made the first advocacy of obstruction while opposing the idea of co-operation with the government in the implementation of the 1919 Reforms.

A special session of the Congress was held in Calcutta in September, 1920 to give a call for non-cooperation under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi. The Non-Cooperation Resolution was initially opposed by many senior Congress leaders including Lala Lajpat Rai, Chittaranjan Das and Madan Mohan Malaviya. But Motilal Nehru’s support to the Mahatma proved crucial and the Calcutta congress passed the resolution in favour. At the Nagpur session held in December the same year to ratify the Calcutta resolution, Lajpat Rai and Das even supported the resolution. In fact both of them were chosen to respectively move and second it.

In December 1921, Deshbandhu was due to preside over the Congress’ Ahmedabad session. Since he was in prison, Hakim Ajmal Khan acted as the President and Deshbandhu’s presidential address was read out by Sarojini Naidu. After the session, Gandhi gave notice to the Viceroy of a mass civil disobedience with a no-tax campaign to be started at Chauri Chaura in UP’s Gorakhpur district. Infuriated by police excesses, a mobi in Chauri Chaura surrounded a police station and set it on fire, burning a number of policemen alive. On hearing the report of this incident, Gandhi called off the whole movement without consulting any one. All the Congress leaders criticised this action though with varying degrees of vehemence.

Motilal Nehru and Jawaharlal wrote strong letters to Gandhi from prison. K.M. Munshi said he was ashamed to see his leader lose his nerves in the midst of the battle. Lala Lajpat Rai sent a 70-page indictment of Gandhi’s arbitrary action. Writing later, Jawaharlal said in his autobiography: “We were angry when we learnt of this stoppage of our struggle at a time when we seemed to be consolidating our position and advancing on all fronts.”

The first session of the Indian National Congress (INC), after the Non-Cooperation Movement of 1920-21, was held in Gaya in December 1922. It was here that Das was elected to preside over the session. Das and Motilal Nehru, who had presided over the Congress three years earlier, were in favour of the council entry as they felt that it was the best forum to present the country’s legitimate demands.

The other eminent leaders who supported the move were Hakim Ajmal Khan and Vithalbhai Patel (elder brother of Vallabhbhai Patel). They were called pro-changers. Those who were opposed to council entry were C. Rajagopalachari, Dr M.A. Ansari (later President, INC in 1927) and Vallabhbhai Patel. This group came to be known as no-changers.

Jawaharlal Nehru did not join either of the groups. Though his sympathy lay with the no-changers, Jawaharlal tried to bring about a compromise between the warring groups. Both sides were adamant and refused to compromise following which Jawaharlal resigned from the Congress Working Committee (CWC).

Chittaranjan Das 1965 stamp of India. Photo: Wikimedia commons

Motilal Nehru and Das formed the Swaraj Party within the Congress, contested elections throughout the country and were met with resounding success. Mahatma Gandhi, who presided over the Congress’ December session in May 1924,, met Motilal Nehru and Das and told them that the council entry and non-cooperation were not compatible with each other. At an All India Congress Committee session in Ahmedabad in June that year, a resolution was passed to debar those who did not believe in the policy of boycott of courts and legislatures from holding an executive office in the Congress.

Another resolution made it compulsory for all Congressmen to give ten tolas of self-spun yarn in lieu of an annual fee of four annas (twenty-five paisa). Both these resolutions were not accepted by the Swarajists and they walked out of the session. He felt ‘defeated and humbled’, wrote Gandhi in Young India. However, the great liberal and democrat that he was, Mahatma left the Swarajist free to follow their own programme. But the death of Das, in June 1925 seriously affected the fortunes of the Swaraj Party which was merged with the INC in 1935. This was also due to the fact that the Viceroy had veto power over all the decisions of the Assembly which both Das and Motilal Nehru found frustrating.

Das passed away at the age of 55 on June 16, 1925 in Darjeeling. Great as a jurist, Das was the greatest and most dynamic leader of the then Bengal province.

In a touching tribute to him, Mahatma Gandhi who attended the cremation of the Deshbandhu at Calcutta said: “One who has served the world can never die. His moral body has perished, his spirit of service. His liberality, his love of the country, his self-sacrifice, his fearlessness-can we say that these, too, have perished? They will go on increasing in strength among the people, whether in greater or smaller measure.”

Praveen Davar is a columnist and author of Freedom Struggle and Beyond.