Progress of Nationalism (1905-1916)
THE progress of the nationalist movement forms the most important feature in Indian history during the first half of the present century. The second phase begins in 1905. During the first twenty years of its existence, the Congress passed a series of resolutions to which the Government paid but little heed, and the only notable result of its efforts was the Indian Councils Act of 1892. This failure to achieve any conspicuous success strengthened the radical section of the Congress, which assumed a more militant attitude and demanded bolder action against British Imperialism. The new spirit, which received a fillip from Japan’s great victory over Russia in 1904-1905, was brought to a head by an unpopular measure of Lord Curzon, viz. the Partition of Bengal, referred to above. The destruction of the bond that united the Bengalis, under colour of providing for administrative efficiency, considerably weakened the politically advanced Bengali intelligentsia. It split them into two separate Provinces, in both of which they would be outnumbered by other elements of the population, and kindled religious animosities, thus interfering with the growth of a true national spirit transcending creed and community. The Partition of Bengal, carried out despite the strongest opposition from Nationalists, whose leaders included both Hindus and Muslims roused a fierce spirit of resistance among them, and gave a new turn to the political movement.
Under the guidance of leaders like Surendranath Banerjee, Bepin Chandra Pal, A.Rasul, Aswini Kumar Datta and Arabinda Ghosh, the agitation spread like wild-fire all over Bengal and even far outside it. Mr. Gokhale, who presided over the Congress in 1905, correctly gauged the situation when he said:
The Bengalis openly defied the Government and sought to exert pressure upon it by the adoption of such political weapons as the boycott of British goods, Swadeshi (use of indigenous goods), and the spread of National Education. The Congress, held in 1906, pot only endorsed these plans, but, for the first time in its history, laid down as its goal “the system of government obtaining in the self-governing British colonies” which the President summed up in one word, ” Swaraj”. The new spirit reflected in these changes was sponsored by Tilak, Bepin Chandra Pal, Lajpat Rai and other “extremist” leaders. But the ” moderate” leaders like Surendranath Banerjea, Pheroze Shah Mehta, and Gokhale did not keep pace with it, and there was an open split between the two parties in the Surat session of the Congress in 1907. For nine years the Extremist section kept out of the Congress.
Much happened during these eventful years. Lord Curzon’s policy of disintegrating Bengal and of brushing aside the claims of the Indian educated classes to be the prophets of what they themselves spoke of as the ” New Nationalism” bore fruit. In 1906 Nawab Salimulla of Dacca set up a permanent political organization of the Muslims, known as the Muslim League, which supported the Partition of Bengal and opposed the boycott of British goods. The Government launched a campaign of repression. Large numbers of the people of Bengal, and also their sympathisers outside, including Tilak, were tried and imprisoned and, under an old regulation of 1818, some of the leaders were deported without trial. Peaceful pickets were beaten and sent to jail, meetings were broken up by the police with lathi charges, and popular outbreaks were suppressed with severity. These measures failed to check the nationalist movement. On the contrary, they gave rise to an underground conspiracy to terrorise the Government by killing officials. Bombs were secretly prepared in the outskirts of Calcutta, and the “anarchist movement”, as it came to be called, became a new factor in Indian politics. The Government sought to bring the situation under control by passing a number of repressive laws which severely restricted the right of holding public meetings, laid down a heavy penalty for possessing materials for manufacture of bombs, changed the system of trial for facilitating conviction, and armed the Executive with almost unlimited powers over individual persons and political organizations. The lndian Press Act of 1910 laid down heavy fines and forfeiture of press for seditious publications, which were defined in such wide terms as to include almost any independent critics of the Government. Books, newspapers, or other documents containing “Prohibited” matter were to be forfeited. The public life was thoroughly stifled by imposing restrictions on public meetings and press, and rendering impartial justice almost impossible. The Government also prosecuted quite a large number of persons, the punishments inflicted being almost always severe and in many cases vindictive. Even Lord Morley, the Secretary of State for India, characterized the sentences as “indefensible”, “outrageous” and “monstrous”.
As the repressive policy failed in its objective, the Government sought to rally the Moderates by granting the Morley-Minto Reforms in 1909 and modifying the Partition of Bengal two years later. The Moderates were at first jubilant, but some of the regulations under the 1909 Reforms, especially the creation of separate electorates for Muslims, were strongly disapproved by most of them. In fact, this policy, which was regarded as one of “divide and rule”, alienated the Moderates from the Government and paved the way for their union with the Radical section of the Congress at the Lucknow session in 1916.
The introduction of the separate electorate has an interesting history. It was a device adopted by the new Viceroy, Lord Minto, to win over the Muslims and set them against the Congress movement. A deputation of the Muslims, encouraged by the British officials, if not by the Government itself, was induced to ask for representation as a separate community, and further pray “that their position should be estimated not merely on their numerical strength but in respect to the political importance of their community and the service it has rendered to the Empire”. Lord Minto conceded both, and we know from an entry in Lady Minto’s diary of Ist October, 1906, that this act was jubilantly hailed by British officialdom as “nothing less than the pulling back of 62 millions of people from joining the ranks of seditious opposition”. Even the great Liberal statesman Lord Morley supported this ingenious device of “separate electorate” and “weightage” which was virtually a stab in the back at Indian Nationalism.
Ramsay MacDonald, who later became the Prime Minister of Britain, correctly diagnosed the situation when he observed that “the Mahomedan leaders are inspired by certain Anglo-Indian officials, and these officials have pulled wires at Simla and in London, and of malice aforethought sowed discord between Hindu and Mahomedan communities by showing the Muslims special favour”.