Chitta Ranjan Part 3

Chitta Ranjan's life may well be compared to an aeolian harp which gives out different notes as different gusts of feelings play on it.

With the internment of Mrs. Annie Besant it sounded a new note--a note inspired by an ardent love of humanity. From this time dates his real entry into practical politics. At a meeting held on the 25th July 1917 to protest against the internment of Mrs. Annie Besant, Chitta Ranjan delivered a speech in course of which he remarked:--

"The Prime-Minister said the other day--'The development of India is not only an economic but a political necessity, the British Empire is founded not only upon the freedom of the individual but upon autonomy of its parts uniting in one common-wealth people differing immensely from one another in race, language, religion and colour.' The utterances of His Majesty's Ministers are at once a promise and a hope. Every order of internment is a protest against the redemption of that promise and the fulfilment of that hope. I protest against these internment orders because whether any promises have been made or not every order of internment is a violation of natural justice and an outrage on humanity.... I do not think that the G.o.d of Humanity was crucified only once. Tyrants and oppressors have crucified humanity again and again and every outrage on humanity is a fresh nail driven through His sacred flesh.... The Anglo-Indian Press is never tired of saying to us: "Do not be impatient, there is plenty of time." There is no nation on the face of the Earth more patient than the Indian Nation. But there is a limit to human patience and I say to those doubtful friends, 'As soon as you transgress that limit, you forfeit the right of asking us to be patient.' When we find the utterances of our officials are at variance with their action, have we not right to say, "What is the good of your making promises?--You do not really mean what you say."... What are we that we should say "peace, peace,"

when there is none."

In course of another speech delivered at a meeting on October 2nd 1917, Chitta Ranjan dwelt at length on the policy of internment and demanded the release of the gentlemen who had been interned. He said:--

"There is hardly a home in East Bengal from which one or more persons have not been interned. Every home in East Bengal is filled with sadness to-day because these people have been s.n.a.t.c.hed away from their homes and imprisoned without trial or without proof. I say this policy is un-British, is opposed to all the time-honoured traditions upon which the British Empire is based. It is opposed to all rules of common sense and prudence and uprightness and the sooner this policy is abrogated the better for the peace and prosperity of the empire. At a time when the British Government in its wisdom has declared its policy that Home Rule in some shape or other must be granted to this country, that some sort of responsible Government is necessary for the foundation and preservation of the empire; is it wise then to detain these men against popular opinion, against the universal desire of the Indian people?"

On August 20, 1917, the Secretary of State made the most notable utterance in the House of Commons:--"The policy of His Majesty's Government, with which the Government of India are in complete accord, is that of the increasing a.s.sociation of Indians in every branch of the administration and the gradual development of self-governing inst.i.tutions with a view to the progressive realisation of responsible government in India as an integral part of the British Empire." This announcement gave rise to a new ray of hope in the minds of the people who were growing dissatisfied with the existing system of government and were demanding progressive reforms. The Anglo-Indians were mostly against the policy of Self-Government in India. Some of them made very angry speeches. One gentleman is reported to have said that if there was a government by the people and for the people there would be no security for life and prosperity. Chitta Ranjan gave a splendid retort:--

"If the Anglo-Indians want to make India their home, let them do so and we will work hand in hand with them in the interest of the Indian Empire. But if they come here to make money, and all their interest lies in how best to make it, they are no friends of India, they have got no right to call themselves Indians, they have got no legitimate right to oppose the granting of self-government to the people of India."

In a meeting of the Anglo-Indians one Mr. Arden Wood was reported to have said: "If racial feeling is to be dominant in Indian politics the time will come, when, we the British, will either have to leave India or reconquer it." It is difficult to take this foolish speech seriously. In course of one of his speeches Chitta Ranjan referred to it and said:--

"They may leave India if they find it unprofitable to stay in India.

They may stay in India if they find it profitable to do so but the tall talk of reconquering India is a comical statement. If this gentleman does not know, he ought to know that India was never conquered. India was won by love and by promise of good government.

India was never conquered and G.o.d willing, it will never be conquered for all time to come. India will impress her ideal, her civilisation, and her culture upon the whole world."

Some of our countrymen believe that Chitta Ranjan bears an ill will against the Europeans as a cla.s.s. This belief has no basis at all.

Those Englishmen who had any opportunities of knowing him personally would bear this out that much as he condemned the present system of Bureaucratic Government he had no racial feeling against them. He has many intimate friends among the Europeans. Sir Lawrence Jenkins, the late Chief Justice of Bengal, who was on very good terms with Chitta Ranjan, once enquired of him why he alone was not seen in the Calcutta Club when many other respectable Indians graced it with their presence. Chitta Ranjan openly spoke out his mind and said, "My Lord, before answering your question, I should mention here a peculiar custom of our country. Every Indian house-holder of the higher castes has in his house a place fitted for religious discussions where members of the lower castes are not admitted, but adjoining it he sets apart another place where all are equally welcome. Your Bengal Club and Calcutta Club can well be compared to the above two places. You do not admit natives into your Bengal Club, but as if to show your generosity you have fixed the Calcutta Club as a meeting place of the Black and the White. But do you not think, my Lord, that when you make this distinction you rather insult the Indians by admitting them to the Calcutta Club?" Sir Lawrence Jenkins was much pleased with these n.o.ble words of Chitta Ranjan and thence forward his respect for him was enhanced in a hundred-fold degree.

Again in 1916 when Mr. Montagu came to India Chitta Ranjan was for the first time invited to the Government House. He went there and learnt that he was invited at the suggestion of the Secretary of State himself. The subject for discussion was the political condition of India at that time. In course of the conversation the question arose if India was just at that time fit for self-government and His Excellency the Governor was of opinion that she was not. Chitta Ranjan could not bear this unjustified remark; he said with a retort--"If after bearing the responsibility of educating India for the last one hundred and fifty years, you have failed to make us fit for self-government, the fault is surely not ours." His Excellency became red with anger at these fearless words of one of his subjects and immediately left the place. But Mr. Montagu was much pleased with this just remark of Chitta Ranjan and talked with him for hours together over many important topics relating to the welfare of India.

On another occasion when he was staying at England during the Puja holidays one of his Bengali friends introduced him to Lord Morley.

After the formal introduction Lord Morley asked him, "Are you a Native?" Chitta Ranjan replied with a smile, "Certainly I am." At this frank reply Lord Morley was so very impressed that afterwards he mentioned this fact to his friend Sir Lawrence Jenkins (who had just then retired from the Chief-Justiceship of Bengal) and spoke very highly of Chitta Ranjan. Sir Lawrence could not but then utter these few words--"And this is the man your government wanted to deport."

In fact Chitta Ranjan has never borne any racial feeling against the Europeans but has only opposed the present system of Bureaucratic Government. In course of one of his speeches he has remarked:--

"When I ask for Home-rule or Self-Government, I am not asking for another Bureaucracy. In my opinion Bureaucracy is Bureaucracy, be that Bureaucracy of Englishmen, or of Anglo-Indians or of Indians."

When in accordance with the announcement of August 1917, Mr Montagu, the Secretary of State came to India to learn at first hand what reforms were actually wanted by the people themselves, the Nationalist party of India thought it proper to convene meetings at different places of the Provinces so as to advise the political a.s.sociations of the country to demand full responsible Self-Government at once. None of the leading pleaders and barristers of Calcutta was ready to go to the mufa.s.sil for that purpose at a great personal loss. But Chitta Ranjan to whom the question of the welfare of his mother-country was ever dearer than life itself could not but respond to this call of duty. "Work for my country is part of my religion"--this is the motto of his life. He left Calcutta, and visited different places and educated the public in the question of national welfare on Indian ideals. For though he obtained western education, he never forgot our ancient ideals. Of this he spoke in a lecture at Mymensingh delivered in October 1917:--

"Much as I venerate European culture, much as I love and much as I acknowledge my indebtedness to the education which I had in Europe, I cannot forget that our nationality must not rest content with borrowing things from European Politics."

In a lecture delivered on the 11th October 1917 at Dacca, Chitta Ranjan dwelt on the nature of the Self-Government that India stands in urgent need of:--

"There is one thing to which I desire to draw your attention and it is this; that in framing the scheme you must not be swayed by a feeling that the Government will not grant this or grant that. What the Government will grant and what the Government will not grant, that is the business of the Government, we have got only to consider what is necessary for our national well-being, if you find that certain steps are absolutely necessary for our national development, do not fail to put that down in your scheme out of timidity."

In course of another speech delivered on the 14th October 1917 he added:--

"Our Self-Government does not mean the Self-Government of the Hindus, the Self-Government of the Mahomedans; Self-Government does not mean Self-Government of the land-holders; Self-Government means Government by all the People of India in which all interests are to be represented and if there are any cla.s.ses who are depressed, they ought to be told that the sooner Self-Government is introduced into this country the better for them: they ought to be told that we have no desire to restrict the franchise in any manner at all to the disregard of any such interest, and if any kind of responsible government is introduced into this country, which is made responsible to the people, they will have the power in their hands to oppose any oppression or injustice in every possible way."

Lord Minto was undoubtedly responsible for the reign of terror in India; it was he who first introduced repressive laws in this country.

They were directed against the natural aspirations of the Indians.

While protesting against these laws Chitta Ranjan had the courage to tell the Bureaucratic Government--"That we are fighting for the ideal expressed by the King's Ministers; we are fighting for carrying out that very policy which has been declared in England by His Majesty's Ministers".

In 1918 the Congress and the Muslim League considered in a joint meeting that Self-Government for India could be delayed no longer.

Otherwise the growth of Indian Nationality and the development of Indian manhood would be impossible. The Bureaucracy in this country would not grant it. Therefore it was necessary that Indian demands should be carried across the seas to the great British Democracy. The Indian National Congress and the Muslim League thought it proper to send a deputation to England to tell the British Democracy that Indians wanted the right to build up their own const.i.tution--a const.i.tution which alone would enable us to secure the development of Indian nationality and the development of Indian manhood. A public meeting of the Citizens of Calcutta was held on the 18th March, 1918, under the Presidency of Babu Motilal Ghose to support the Indian Deputation to England, when Srijut Chitta Ranjan Das said:--

"It is plain that you may agitate as long as you like; you may demand your right, as you have a right to demand, but you will not get the Bureaucracy in this country to support you. You must, therefore, go to their masters....

If we find that we are not to get Self-Government, we have at least the right to get an honest answer. Let the British Democracy say, if it likes, that this war is a war of liberation of humanity, but liberation of humanity does not include the liberation of India. When I consider the objections put forward to the grant of Self-Government, I can hardly keep my patience. They say we are not educated enough to get Self-Government. My answer is: whose fault is it? For the last 150 years you have been governing this country and yet you have not succeeded in educating the people of this country to such an extent that they may be fit for governing themselves. Do we not know that j.a.pan was made only in 50 years? You have had 150 years. Why is it that at the end of that period we are told that we are not fit to govern ourselves? n.o.body really believes that the time has not come.... We are further told that we are divided between many sects.

We follow different religions, we have got different interests to serve and so on. If you say that we are not fit for Self-Government, because we are divided in our interests, and in our religions, my answer is that Self-Government and Self-Government alone is the remedy of that."

It has in season and out of season, been dinned into our ears that a subject people has no politics. It was therefore that political discussions, had hitherto been carried on in the spirit of singing laudation to the administration of Government, however palpable its defects seemed to be. This mendicant spirit in politics has been overthrown by the exertions of Chitta Ranjan and his compatriots in the field of national work in this country. Chitta Ranjan's ideal of political life was neither Utopian nor Quixotic. All that he demanded was, that all men are ent.i.tled to have equal opportunities without which the progress of human society and consequently the progress of a nation comes to a stand-still. He wanted for his countrymen the opportunities for self-realisation which would render pointless and inappropriate at the present-day Matthew Arnold's remarks:--

"The East bowed low before the blast, In patient deep disdain; She heard the legions thunder past, And plunged in thought again."

CHAPTER VIII.

Chitta Ranjan's Part in the Non-Co-operation Movement.

While on the cessation of all hostilities in Europe India stood on the tip-toe of expectation for the new age of freedom that was about to dawn and while men conjured rosy visions of the future, Lord Chelmsford inaugurated in an evil moment a policy of depriving India of even the elementary rights of personal freedom and free speech--rights which are most valued in an enlightened democracy.

Towards the close of December 1917 Lord Chelmsford thought it fit to appoint a Commission presided over by Mr. Justice Rowlatt of the King's Bench Division to investigate and report on revolutionary conspiracies in India and to advise the Government to frame such legislation as might enable them to deal more effectively with the reactionary movements. The Commission was appointed without any sort of compelling necessity and, to say the least of it, at a most inopportune moment. The Commission held its sittings at different places of India and after an one-sided and unjudicial enquiry published a long report towards the close of April 1918. The war having just then successfully terminated in favour of the Allies, the Defence of India Act and other war-time measures which could only last so long as the war continued, would necessarily cease to be in force any longer and therefore the Commission suggested certain penal laws as a more effective and permanent safe-guard against the so-called anarchists of India. The report was emphatically protested against by every section of the Indian press but in spite of all popular opposition, Government drafted a bill substantially embodying the recommendations of the Rowlatt Committee and hurried it through the Imperial Legislative Council within six months of the report. The bill is generally known as the Rowlatt Bill. The effect of its provisions was two-fold: the Provincial Governments would be vested with an authority similar to that which was given to them by the Defence of India Act, and every person accused of a revolutionary crime would be summarily tried by the tribunals specially appointed for the purpose.

Against such a cruel and tyrannical measure the whole of India protested with one voice. Public feeling was in a state of high ferment and yet in spite of all this, and in spite of the fact that every Indian Non-official member of the Imperial Legislative Council voted against the proposed measure, the Rowlatt Bill was pa.s.sed into Law in March 1919. The situation in India reached a state of very high tension. Mahatma Gandhi advised his countrymen to take the Satyagraha Pledge as the only means of securing redress for their grievances. The pledge ran thus:--

"Being conscientiously of opinion that the Bills are unjust, subversive of the principle of liberty and justice, and destructive of the elementary rights of individuals, on which the safety of the community as a whole and the state itself is based, we solemnly affirm that in the event of these Bills becoming law and until they are withdrawn, we shall refuse civilly to obey these laws and such other laws as may be thought fit and further affirm that in this struggle we will faithfully follow truth and refrain from violence to life, person and property."

Mahatma Gandhi further suggested that the second Sunday after the publication of the Viceregal a.s.sent to the Rowlatt Act should be observed as a day of humiliation and prayer, a twenty-four hours'

fasting should be observed by all adults, all work should be suspended for the day and public meetings should be held on that day in all parts of India at which Resolutions praying for the withdrawal of the measure should be pa.s.sed. Indians gladly and freely took this pledge.

Of the leaders in Bengal Chitta Ranjan was the first to rally round Mahatma Gandhi in preaching the Satyagraha vow. In March 1919 at a huge meeting of the citizens of Calcutta he delivered a speech in Bengali on Satyagraha in course of which he said:--

"To-day is Mahatma Gandhi's day. To-day is the day for us to express the afflictions of our heart. In days of prosperity we forget ourselves, but on evil days when fallen we realise ourselves and hear the message of G.o.d.

To-day at this national crisis we must search for the soul of the nation. This soul is to be attained by strength. What is that strength? It is not brute force, but the force of love. This is what Mahatma teaches us and this is the message of all India. The realisation of this message requires the abandonment of selfishness, envy, malice, and hatred. Why do we protest against the Rowlatt Act?

We know it for certain that its enforcement means the dwarfing of our national being. To avert this calamity we should abandon all envy and malice and infuse into the hearts of our countrymen an ardent love for mother-country. This is why Mahatma has said--"Do not hate even your enemies, for the victory of love is ensured." This agitation, therefore, springs from love and righteousness; it is the throbbing of the heart of a nation. The only means to gain our object is self-sacrifice--self-sacrifice inspired by love."

The campaign of Satyagraha was started and what followed is written large in characters of fire and blood in the pages of Indian History.

The Lieutenant-Governor of the Punjab, Sir Michael O'Dwyer, did in an evil moment start a counter-campaign of repression. Drs Kitchelew and Satyapal, two popular leaders, were arrested and Mahatma Gandhi who proceeded to the Punjab from Bombay was prohibited from entering the province, was arrested and sent back to Bombay. A strong rumour to the effect that Mahatma Gandhi was imprisoned spread over all parts of India and exasperated the populace. Disorder broke out at Calcutta, Ahmedabad and many other places, but it took a serious form in the Punjab where martial law was proclaimed, and scores of persons were illegally hauled up before the martial law tribunals. Counsel for defence was disallowed and the unfortunate victims were all sentenced to death. In April 1919 the civil population of Amritasar convened a public meeting at the Jallianwalla Bagh to protest against some of the high-handed and tyrannous measures of the Punjab Government. The military were ordered by their Commanding Officer, General Dyer, to open fire on the harmless and defenceless crowd of men, women and children. In the name of public peace aeroplanes bombed the civil population from above and men were made to crawl on their bellies as a sign of penitent submission. This conduct of the Punjab authorities met with the full approval of Lord Chelmsford.

Independent public opinion demanded a thorough and sifting enquiry into the atrocities of the Punjab and in compliance with the insistent public demand, Mr. Montagu, the Secretary of State for India, appointed a Committee consisting of official and non-official members and presided over by Lord Hunter to investigate and report on the Punjab disorders. The Indian National Congress deputed a Committee consisting of Mahatma Gandhi, Srijut Chitta Ranjan Das, and other prominent leaders to conduct an independent enquiry of the disturbances. Chitta Ranjan was not then keeping good health, but the call of the mother-country was paramount with him. For about four months he served on the Committee at a great personal sacrifice. The report of the Committee which was published in due time contained a severe denunciation of the most cold-blooded atrocities committed by the authorities of the Punjab. The official report, though the European members forming the majority attempted at whitewashing, contained much evidence to show that there had been some excessive use of military force. Both the reports astounded the world with first-hand knowledge of the unparalleled atrocities of the Punjab. The matter was agitated in Parliament and the staunch friends of India there tried their best to get justice done to India. The Secretary of State expressed his confidence in the Viceroy, the Viceroy his confidence in Sir M. O'Dwyer, who in turn fully approved of the deeds of General Dyer and this gentleman openly prided over his b.l.o.o.d.y performances at Jallianwalla Bagh. But the most shameful termination of the affair was the fact that the House of Lords hailed General Dyer as the Saviour of India. However four things relating to the Punjab event augmented the discontented feeling of the people bringing home to them their utterly helpless condition. First, the minority report of the Indian members of the Hunter committee and the shameless whitewashing of the European members of the same committee; secondly, the non-impeachment of General Dyer and Sir M. O'Dwyer; thirdly, the heinous approbation of Dyer's conduct by the House of Lords; and fourthly the large contributions to the Dyer Fund both in England and India as a reward of his gallant deed.

Simultaneously with these high handed and arbitrary proceedings in the Indian administration a fresh wrong was done to every follower of the Muslim faith. At the end of the European War, Mr. Lloyd George in replying to Indian representations on behalf of Turkey, a.s.sured Islam that Turkey would have full justice. But when peace was concluded, the treatment meted out to Turkey was extremely derogatory to her self-respect and dignity; the Khilafat, the supreme temporal and spiritual power in Islam was most shamelessly handled. The Prime Minister, when reminded of his previous promise, replied somewhat ironically that Turkey had had justice done to her.

At this moment Mahatma Gandhi came forward with his scheme of the pa.s.sive resistance movement now generally styled, Non-Co-operation as the only means of rectifying the Punjab and Khilafat Wrongs. On the 4th of September 1920 at the Special Session of the Indian National Congress at Calcutta, which was presided over by Lala Lajpat Rai, the Non-Co-operation resolution of Mahatma Gandhi was adopted by an overwhelming majority. It laid down the following steps to prepare the country for non-violent Non-Co-operation:

(_a_) National Education.

(_b_) Boycott of Law Courts.

(_c_) Boycott of Foreign Goods.

(_d_) Call for Self-Sacrifice.

(_e_) Organisation of the Indian National Service.

(_f_) The Swadeshi Vow.

(_g_) Tilak Memorial Swarajya Fund.