The Central Legislature in British India, 192147. Mohammad Rashiduzzaman
it was impossible to disguise the fact that they were in effect associating themselves with the machinery of the new reformed constitution.41 It was felt across the spectrum that the Congress should not control the Swaraj Party policy and program inside the Indian Legislatures and they should have full liberty to act in the best interests of the country.42 By the end of 1926, the Swarajist newspapers were no longer calling for unbridled non-cooperation and obstruction.43 In the fourth legislatures (1927–30) under the Reforms, the Swarajists were reduced in number and those places were taken by the newly styled Responsivist faction of the Swaraj Party. To their leader, Lajpat Rai, the country through the election outcomes had repudiated the policy of arbitrary hitch and “walk-outs.”44 What’s more, the machinery of the 1919 Reforms, notwithstanding the nationalist drive against the innovations, could not be totally ignored while the Swarajists worked hard to gain control of the perceived “puppet legislatures.”
From the inauguration of the Government of India Act 1919, numerous Congress party activists felt that the Swarajist role in the legislatures was of little significance for the country’s larger emancipation.45 Such negative attitudes gradually gained ground since 1921 but when an all British Statutory Commission (Simon) was appointed to enquire into the possibilities of furthers Reforms, the nationalists realized that the real battle for country’s liberation should be fought in the streets among the larger population. But when a formal denunciation of the Simon Commission flared in the Central Assembly floor on February 16th, 1928,46 it irrefutably signaled the beginning for a prolonged agitation throughout the country on the most extreme lines ever yet attempted in India.47 On that day, the public galleries of the Central Assembly were crowded for watching the debate on the Simon Commission and 134 out of 145 members were present.48 One incident showed how seriously the non-official leaders took this occasion for demonstrating their anger against the government. Harchandri Vishindas (a non-official member from Sind) died when he was being brought to the House in an ambulance car. The member was very ill in Karachi and only came to New Delhi in response to an urgent call by the Nationalist Party whip so that he could vote against the Commission.49
A number of the lawmakers, however, felt that the Assembly’s no-confidence motion did not necessarily reflect the political opinion outside.50 ← 19 | 20 → This belief was partly confirmed when a few amongst the Muslim leaders wanted to co-operate with the disputed Commission. Two sessions of the Muslim League were held at the same time in December 1927, one in Calcutta and another in Lahore.51 The Calcutta Session was presided over by Muhammad Yakub, the Deputy President of the Assembly; Sir Muhammad Shafi presided over the other session in Lahore. It was the question of offering co-operation to the Simon Commission that divided the League and resulted in its two separate sessions. The Calcutta session passed the following resolution almost unanimously with only two delegates dissenting (one of them was Tamizuddin Khan who later became President, Pakistan Constituent Assembly and Speaker National Assembly, Pakistan): “The All-India Muslim League emphatically declares that the Statutory Commission and the procedure, as announced, are unacceptable to the people of India. It, therefore, resolves that the Mussalmans throughout the country should have nothing to do with the Commission at any stage or in any form.”52 Jinnah was an active supporter of the Calcutta session: the resolution of the Calcutta League was welcomed by the Congress press.53 On the other hand, the Lahore League repudiated the Congress decision in Madras not to co-operate with the Commission.54 One of the prominent leaders of the Lahore session was Nawab Sir Zulfiquar Ali Khan who led his dissident Muslim group in the Central Assembly to vote in favor of the Simon Commission on February 16, 1928.55 The Justice Party in South India also felt that it would be to their advantage if they co-operated with the Commission and by the end of September 1928, all but one of the nine Legislative Councils in the major provinces had decided to appoint their respective Committees to work with the Commission.56 The Council of State also passed a resolution supporting cooperation with the Simon Commission and it elected three members to the Central Legislative Committee for co-operation with the Simon Commission. Eventually, only two Legislatures, the Central Assembly and the C. P. Legislative Council did not revise their previous stand and the Central Legislative Committee was completed by including the members nominated by the Government from among the members of the Assembly.57
The place of the Central Legislature in Indian politics was not strictly that of a national Parliament—it was a kind of quasi-parliament. One can hardly overstress the influence of outstanding leaders of the Central Assembly like Motilal, Jinnah, Lajpat Rai, Malaviya, Jayakar and Moonjee. Their views in the Legislature undoubtedly reflected the general trend of opinion outside. But their influence could not be universal since the British Indian provinces ← 20 | 21 → with their regional, racial and linguistic differences had distinct features. Each of the provinces had its own local leaders who often overshadowed the personalities of the Central Legislature. Pandit Motilal Nehru was undoubtedly one of the most important Indian political leaders of the time under review. His influence in some of the northern Indian provinces such as U.P., Bihar and Orissa was considerable, but his influence in Bengal, Bombay and Madras was overshadowed by that of local leaders.58 To the Bengali Hindus, there could be no greater leader than C. R. Das popularly known as “Deshbandhu” (Friend of the Country), who was the Swaraj Party leader in the Bengal legislature. Bengal was rather poorly represented in the Central Legislature as none of her representatives there was outstanding. After the death of C. R. Das in 1925, the prominent Bengali congressmen like J. M. Sen Gupta, Sarat Chandra Bose and Dr. B. C. Roy continued to serve the provincial legislatures and dominated the local scene. To the Justice Party in South India, Motilal’s Swaraj Party was a Brahmin threat to the non-Brahmins. In the Punjab, the Unionist leader Sir Fazl-i-Husain was more prominent than anyone else. Yet the Central legislature was the only forum for all-India politics and the all-India matters could be discussed in this body only.59 It was an important meeting place of all the divergent forces of Indian politics.
The record of Indian politics from 1924 to 1930 marked a distinct swing towards constitutionalism and then a steady decline towards extra-constitutional mass actions projecting more on the demands for independence: it was a gradual drift to the left wing movement which believed more in direct action.60 The left wing younger generation of Congress was represented by Jawaharlal Nehru and Subash Chandra Bose and the Calcutta Session of the Congress in December 1928 had given to the British Government, to use the words of Jawaharlal Nehru, “an offer of one year’s grace and a polite ultimatum.”61 By December 1929, the period of grace came to an end when the offer of minimum national demand embodied in the “Nehru Report” was not conceded. The Lahore Congress which started its session on December 31, 1929 was a momentous event; more appropriately, it was a gathering to declare a revolt.62 It took certain decisions which changed the course of events for the subsequent years. Firstly, the Congress members in the Central and Provincial Legislatures were called upon to resign. Secondly, the Congress resolved for complete Independence for India. Thirdly, the All-India Congress Committee was given full authority to launch civil disobedience. The items of that radical program included: (a) breaking of the salt law, (b) boycott of foreign clothes and other British goods, (c) non-payment of land revenue, and ← 21 | 22 → (d) boycott of liquor and opium. The call of 1920, as Gandhi wrote, “was a call for preparation. The call of 1930 is for engaging in the final conflict.”63 At this critical hour, the Viceroy made a speech to the Central Legislature on the 25th January 1930 apparently to rally support for the coming Round Table Conference.64 But one thing was made clear that the Dominion Status for India was not coming too soon, which shattered all hopes of any peaceful settlement between the British Government and the Congress and so the Civil Disobedience campaign was launched in full vigor.
The years from 1930 to 1934 saw the big nationalist struggle in the shape of civil disobedience which under the Congress leadership reached its height and then gradually declined. During this period, the public attention surely moved away from the legislatures; the elections of 1930 were boycotted by the Congress; so the legislatures were again dominated by the moderates from 1931 to 1934. Though the general nationalist trend favored mass agitation, there were a few strands of opinion which were reluctant to totally abandon the legislatures. Out of 38 Swarajists in the Central Assembly, only 21