Chapter I: Part 1

Note: Images of the original pages are available through
Internet Archive. See
http://archive.org/details/politicalfutureo00lajpuoft

THE POLITICAL FUTURE OF INDIA

* * * * *

_OTHER BOOKS BY LAJPAT RAI_

YOUNG INDIA

_An Interpretation and a History of the Nationalist Movement
from Within_
Price $1.50 net

ENGLAND'S DEBT TO INDIA

_A Historical Narrative of Britain's Fiscal Policy in India_
Price $2.00 net

AN OPEN LETTER TO LLOYD GEORGE

Price 25 cents net

THE ARYA SAMAJ

_An Account of its Origins, Doctrines and Activities_
Price $1.75 net

OBTAINABLE FROM ALL BOOKSELLERS

* * * * *

THE POLITICAL FUTURE OF INDIA

by

LAJPAT RAI

New York B. W. Huebsch MCMXIX

Copyright, 1919, by B. W. Huebsch Printed in U.S.A.

TO MY FRIEND
COLONEL JOSIAH WEDGWOOD, M. P., D. S. O.

PREFACE

My book, _Young India_, was written during the first year of the war and was finally revised and sent to the press before the war was two years old. It concluded with the following observation:

"The Indians are a chivalrous people; they will not disturb
England as long as she is engaged with Germany. The struggle after
the war might, however, be even more bitter and sustained."

The events that have happened since have amply justified the above conclusion. India not only refrained from disturbing England while she was engaged in war with Germany, but actively helped in defeating Germany and winning the war. She raised an army of over a million combatants and supplied a large number of war workers, and made huge contributions in money and materials. She denied herself the necessities of life in order to feed and equip the armies in the field though within the last months of the war, when scarcity and epidemic overtook her, she lost six millions of her sons and daughters from one disease alone--influenza. This was more than chivalry. This was self-effacement in the interests of an Empire which, in the past, had treated her children as helots. How much of this effort was voluntary and how much of it was forced it is difficult to appraise. Great Britain, however, has unequivocally accepted it as voluntary and has attributed it to India's satisfaction with her rule. That India was not satisfied with her rule she has spared no pains to impress upon the British people as well as the rest of the world. Reading between the lines of the report of the Secretary of State for India and the Viceroy has established the fact of that dissatisfaction beyond the possibility of doubt, but if any doubt still remained it has been dispelled by the writings and utterances of her representative spokesman in India, in Great Britain and abroad. The prince and the peasant, the landlord and the ryot, the professor and the student, the politician and the layman--all have spoken. They differ in their estimates of the "blessings" of British rule, they differ in the manner of their profession of loyalty to the British Empire, they sometimes differ in shaping their schemes for the future Government of India but they are all agreed:

(1) That the present constitution of the Government of India is viciously autocratic, bureaucratic, antiquated and unsatisfying.

(2) That India has, in the past, been governed more in the interests of, and by the British merchant and the British aristocrat than in the interests of her own peoples.

(3) That the neglect of India's education and industries has been culpably tragic and

(4) That the only real and effectual remedy is to introduce an element of responsibility in the Government of India.

In the report of the Secretary of State and the Viceroy, so often quoted and referred to in these pages, the truth of (1), (3), and (4) is substantially admitted and point (2) indirectly conceded. In the following pages an attempt is made to prove this by extracts from the report itself. Ever since the report was published in July, 1918, India has been in a state of ferment,--a ferment of enthusiasm and criticism, of hope and disappointment. While the country has freely acknowledged the unique value of the report, the politicians have differed in their estimates of the value of the scheme embodied therein. Yet there is a complete unanimity on one point, that nothing _less_ than what is planned in the report will be accepted, even as the first step towards eventual complete responsible Government. This is the minimum. Even the ultra-moderates have expressed themselves quite strongly on that point. Speaking at the Conference of the Moderates held at Bombay on November 1, 1918, the President, Mr. Surendranath Banerjea, is reported to have said: "our creed is co-operation with the Government wherever practicable, and opposition to its policy and measures when the supreme interests of the mother-land require it.... I have a word to say ... to the British Government. I have a warning note to sound.... If the enactment of the Reform proposals is unduly postponed, if they are whittled down _in any way_ ... there will be grave public discontent and agitation." A little further in the same speech he asked if "by the unwisdom of our rulers" India was "to be converted into a greater Ireland." In less than six months from the date of this pronouncement, the rulers of India gave ample proof of their "unwisdom" by actually converting India into a "greater Ireland" and in establishing the absolute correctness of the prognostication made by the present writer in the concluding sentence of his book _Young India_. The manifesto of the Moderate Party issued over the signatures of the Moderate leaders all over the country contained the following warning: "We must equally protest against every attempt, by whomever made and in whatever manner, at any mutilation of the Montagu-Chelmsford proposals. We are constrained to utter a grave warning against the inevitable disastrous effects of such a grievous mistake on the future relations of the British Government and the Indian people which will result in discontent and agitation followed by repression on the one side and suffering on the other side." Little did they know when they uttered the warning that repression would come even before the Reform Scheme was discussed in Parliament and "mutilated" there. British rule in Ireland has been for the last twenty years a wearisome record of mixed concessions and coercions. Every time a concession was made it was either preceded or accompanied by strong doses of coercion. One would have thought that British statesmen were wiser by their experience of Ireland, but it seems that they have learnt nothing and that they have no intention of doing in India anything different from what they have been doing in Ireland. The history of British statesmanship in relation to Irish affairs is repeating itself almost item by item in India.

Lord Morley's reforms were both preceded and followed by strong measures of repression and suppression. As if to prove that British statesmanship can never in this respect set aside precedent even for once, Mr. Montagu's proposals have been followed by a measure of coercion unique even for India. Mr. Montagu's proposals for the reconstruction of Government in India are yet in the air. They are being criticised and examined minutely by numerous British agencies both in India and in England as to how and in what respects they can be made innocuous. Certain other reforms promised by the report, such as the scheme for Local Self Government and the policy in relation to the Arms Act, have already been disposed of in the usual masterly way of giving with one hand and taking back with the other. Similarly the "great" scheme of opening the commissioned ranks of the Army to the native Indians has practically (for the present at least) ended in fiasco. But the policy underlying the Rowlatt laws has surpassed all. In the chapters of this book dealing with the Revolutionary movement the reader will find a genesis of the Rowlatt laws of coercion.

On the sixteenth of January in the _Gazette of India_ was published a draft of two bills that were proposed to be brought before the Legislative Council of India (which has a standing majority of Government officials). These bills were to give effect to the recommendations of the committee presided over by Mr. Justice Rowlatt of the High Court of England, for the prevention, detection and punishment of sedition in India. Their introduction into the Legislative Council was at once protested against by all classes of Indians with a unanimity never before witnessed in the history of India. All sections of the great Indian population from the Prince to the peasant, including all races, religions, sects, castes, creeds and professions joined in the protest. Hindus, Mohammedans, Indian Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Parsees--all stood up, to a man, to oppose the measure. All the political parties, Conservatives, Liberals, Moderates and Extremists expressed themselves against it. The measure was opposed by all the non-official Indian members of the Legislative Council. All methods of agitation were resorted to in order to make the opinion of the country known to the Government and to warn the latter against the danger of defying the united will of the people. The press, the pulpit and the platform all joined in denouncing the measures, meetings of protest were held in all parts of the country and resolutions wired to the Government. A few days before the final meeting at which these bills were to be passed into law a number of prominent citizens, male and female, pledged themselves to passive resistance in case the measures were enacted. The passive resistance movement was inaugurated and led by Mr. M. K. Gandhi, a man of saintly character, universally respected and revered in India, the same who stood for the Government during the war and rendered material help in recruiting soldiers, raising loans and procuring other help for its prosecution. The following is the text of the pledge that was signed by hundreds and thousands of Indians belonging to all races and religions and hailing from all parts of the continent:

"Being conscientiously of opinion that the bills known as the
Indian Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill No. 1 of 1919 and No. 2 of
1919 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, we shall refuse civilly to obey these laws and such
other laws as a committee to be hereafter appointed may think fit
and we further affirm that in this struggle we will faithfully
follow truth and refrain from violence of life, person or
property."

The passive resistance movement was not approved by the country as a whole, and influential voices were raised against it even in its early stages but the fact that Mr. Gandhi had taken the responsibility of initiating and leading it and that many women had signed the pledge should have opened the eyes of the Government as to the intensity of the feeling behind it. Besides this threat of passive resistance the Indian members of the Council showed their solid opposition to the measure by using all the historic obstructive methods so well known to the student of Parliamentary debates in the House of Commons as associated with the Irish Nationalist party under the leadership of Parnell. The debates in the Legislative Council of India do not ordinarily last for more than one day, consisting, at the most, of eight hours. The debate on this bill lasted for three days; one sitting lasted "from 11 o'clock in the morning ... until nearly half past one the following day with adjournments for luncheon and dinner." The officials were determined to pass the bill at that sitting and so they refused to rise until the amendments on the agenda had been disposed of and the bill passed into law. The non-officials proposed no less than 160 amendments but by the application of closure methods they were all disposed of in three days and the bill passed (on the 18th of March). The Government made a few minor concessions but on the whole the bill remained as it had been drafted, a monument of Governmental shortsightedness and stupidity. The consideration of the other bill was postponed. As soon as the news reached Bombay that the first bill had become law "the market was closed as a protest" and "posters in English and the vernacular, were displayed throughout the city urging the non-payment of taxes and asking the people to resist the order of a tyrannical Government." (London _Times_, April 2.) Similar manifestations of anger were made throughout the country and the movement for passive resistance was definitely inaugurated. It spread like wild fire. Thousands joined it and the relations between the people and the Government became very strained. However, no violence was resorted to, nor was any harm done to life and property. Several members of the Legislative Council resigned their offices. One of them a Mohammedan leader, wrote the following letter to His Excellency the Viceroy:

"Your Excellency, the passing of the Rowlatt Bill by the
Government of India and the assent given to it by your Excellency
as Governor-General against the will of the people has severely
shaken the trust reposed by them in British justice. Further, it
has clearly demonstrated the constitution of the Imperial
Legislative Council which is a legislature but in name, a machine
propelled by a foreign executive. Neither the unanimous opinion of
the non-official Indian members, nor the entire public opinion and
feeling outside has met with the least respect. The Government of
India and your Excellency, however, have thought it fit to place
on the statute-book a measure admittedly obnoxious and decidedly
coercive at a time of peace, thereby substituting executive for
judicial discretion. Besides, by passing this Bill, your
Excellency's Government have actively negatived every argument
they advanced but a year ago when they appealed to India for help
at the War Conference, and have ruthlessly trampled upon the
principles for which Great Britain avowedly fought the war.

"The fundamental principles of justice have been uprooted and the
constitutional rights of the people have been violated, at a time
when there is no real danger to the state, by an overfearful and
incompetent bureaucracy which is neither responsible to the
people, nor in touch with real public opinion and their whole plea
is that 'powers when they are assumed will not be abused.'

"I, therefore, as a protest against the passing of the Bill and
the manner in which it was passed, tender my resignation as a
member of the Imperial Legislative Council, for I feel that, under
the prevailing conditions, I can be of no use to my people in the
Council, nor, consistently with one's self respect, is coöperation
possible with a Government that shows such utter disregard for the
opinion of the representatives of the people in the Council
Chamber and the feelings and sentiments of the people outside.

"In my opinion, a Government that passes or sanctions such law in
times of peace forfeits its claim to be called a civilized
Government and I still hope that the Secretary of State for India,
Mr. Montagu, will advise his Majesty to signify his disallowance
to this Black Act.

"Yours truly,
"M. A. Jinnah."

The leaders of the passive resistance movement declared 30th March as "the National protest day." The protest was to be made by all the traditional methods known to India for ages, viz., by fasting, stopping business, praying, and meeting in congregations in their respective places of worship. The only Western method contemplated was passing resolutions and sending telegrams to the authorities in India and England. The 30th of March was thus observed as a national protest day throughout India and there was only one clash between the people and the Government, viz., at Delhi, the national capital.

Delhi has been the national capital of India from times immemorial. It was the chief capital city of the Moguls. It has a mixed population of Hindus and Mohammedans, almost evenly divided. The European population there is not very large. There is a British garrison stationed in the Mogul fort. Besides being the capital of British India, Delhi is a very important trade center and the terminus of several railway lines. All business was stopped, shops closed and the city gave an appearance of a general strike. A mass meeting attended by 40,000 people, according to British estimates, and presided over by a religious ascetic, passed resolutions of protest and cabled them to the Secretary of State for India in London. It was at Delhi and on this day as already stated that the first clash occurred between the authorities and the people. It is immaterial how it came about but it may be noted that rifles and machine guns were freely used in dispersing the mobs at the railway station and other places. According to official estimates fourteen persons were killed and about sixty wounded. The non-official estimates give larger figures. Evidently nothing serious happened between March 30th and April 6th which last was observed as a day of mourning throughout British India from Peshawar to Cape Comorin and from Calcutta to Karachi and Bombay. People held meetings, made speeches, marched in processions, took pledges of passive resistance, closed shops, suspended business, bathed in the sea, joined in prayer and fasted. No violence of any kind was reported. In the words of a correspondent of the London _Times_, "the distinguishing feature of many of these demonstrations [meaning thereby passive resistance demonstrations] made on the 6th of April, specially at Delhi, Agra, Bombay and Calcutta, is the Hindu and Moslem fraternization, Hindus being freely admitted to the mosques, on occasions occupying the Mihrab (the niche indicating the direction of Mecca)." In a message dated April 7th the same correspondent cabled "an unprecedented event in the shape of a joint Moslem-Hindu service at the famous Juma Masjed at Delhi, at which a Hindu[1] delivered a sermon." The Juma Masjed is one of the jewels of Mogul architecture and probably the biggest mosque in India.

On April 9th Sir Michael O'Dwyer, the Lieutenant Governor of the Punjab, dwelt with pride on the fact that the province ruled by him with an iron hand for the last five years "had raised 360,000 combatants during the war." "Dealing with the political situation he declared that the Government of the province was determined that public order which was maintained during the war, should not be disturbed during peace. Action had therefore been taken under the Defence Act against certain individuals who were openly endeavoring to arouse public feeling against the Government." It was this action, viz., the summary arrest of leaders at Amritsar and the order of prohibition against Mr. Gandhi's contemplated visit to the Punjab, that set fire to the accumulated magazine. It exasperated the people and in a moment of despair the intense strain of the last few weeks found relief in attacks on Government buildings and stray persons of European extraction. What actually happened in different places no one can definitely tell just at this stage but it is clear that at places so widely distant as Amritsar and Lahore in the Punjab and Viramgam in the Gujerat (Western Presidency) railway stations, telegraph offices and some other public buildings were burned, railway traffic interrupted, tram cars stopped and some Europeans killed and attacked. At Amritsar three banks were burnt down and their managers killed. Telegraphing on April 15th and again on the 16th of April, the correspondent of the London _Times_ remarked that "the Punjab continued to be the principal seat of trouble" which was probably due to the extremely brutal methods which the Punjab Government had followed in repressing and suppressing not only the present 'riots' but also all kinds of political activity in the preceding six years. It appears that in about a week's time almost the whole province was ablaze. The Government used machine guns in dispersing meetings, showered bombs from aeroplanes and declared martial law in several towns, extended the seditious meetings prevention Act and other emergency laws in districts, marched flying military columns from one end to the other, accompanied by travelling courts martial to try and punish on the spot all arrested for offences committed in connection with the passive resistence movement. Leaders were arrested and deported without trial of any kind; papers were suppressed and all kinds of demonstrations prohibited.

Among the leaders arrested are the names of some of the most conservative and moderate of the Punjab public men--men whose whole life is opposed to extremism of any kind. Those men were subjected to various indignities, handcuffed and marched to jail. They have been held in ordinary prison cells and all comforts have been denied to them as if they were criminals. Counsel engaged for them from outside the Province have been refused admission into the Province. Machine guns and aeroplanes have been used in dispersing unarmed mobs and crowds were fired at in many places. At Lahore the General Officer Commanding gave notice "that unless all the shops were re-opened within 48 hours all goods in the shops not opened will be sold by public auction." As to the causes of the upheaval, the Anglo-Indian view is contained in a telegraphic message to the London _Times_ bearing date April 20th. Below we give a verbatim copy of this message:

CAUSES OF THE UPHEAVAL.

"Bombay, April 20.--We have passed through the most anxious ten
days that India has known for half a century. We have further
anxious days in store, for although in Bombay conditions are
improving and Mr. Gandhi has publicly abandoned the passive
resistance movement, while men of weight are rallying to the
support of the Government, the situation in Northern India is
disquieting.

"We may pause to enquire into this widespread manifestation of
violence. How came it that passive resistance to the Rowlatt
Act--never likely to be applied to the greater part of India,
especially to Bombay, and nominally confined to the sale of
proscribed literature of doubtful legality, which was
waning--suddenly flamed into riot, arson, and murder at Delhi,
Ahmedabad, Viramgam, Amritsar, and other parts of the Punjab on
the prevention of Mr. Gandhi's entry into Delhi? All day on April
11 Bombay stood on the brink of a bloody riot, averted only by the
Governor, Sir George Lloyd's prudent statesmanship and the great
restraint of the police and military in face of grave provocation.

"The movement seems to have been twofold. In part it was the
expression of the prevailing ferment. India is no less affected
than other parts of the world by the social and intellectual
revolution of the war, by expectations based on the destruction of
German materialism and by ambitions for fuller partnership in the
British Empire.

PROFITEERING AND TRICKERY.

"The disruptive effect of these ideals is accentuated by
prevailing conditions. The prices of food are exceedingly high,
supplies are scanty, while efforts to control prices are hampered
by the profiteering and trade trickery unfortunately never absent
from this country. [As if it was absent from other countries.]

"India having been swept bare of foodstuffs, to meet the
exigencies of the war, the people feel that the home Government is
lukewarm in releasing supplies from outside, and resent
particularly that the Shipping Controller is maintaining high
freights on fat and rice from Burma. These severe sufferings are
superimposed on the devastating influenza and cholera epidemics.
So much for the social and economic situation.

"Then the activities of the Indo-British Association created grave
doubts whether Parliament will deal fairly with India when the
reform scheme is considered. The Rowlatt Act was precipitated into
this surcharged atmosphere.

"The Act was wickedly perverted by the Extremists until among the
common people it became the general belief that it gave plenary
powers to a police which was feared and distrusted. Among educated
people, few of whom studied the report or the Act, it was bitterly
resented as a badge of India's subjection after loyal
participation in the war, at a time when the strongest feeling in
the country was craving for its self-respect in the eyes of the
nations. Further, it was regarded as prejudicing the cause of
political reform.

"Another powerful contributory cause was the ferment amongst the
Moslem community. Everywhere the Moslems believe that the Peace
Conference is bent on the destruction of Islam. There is no
confidence in British protection after our declared policy in
regard to Turkey and the undoing of the settled fact in Eastern
Bengal in 1911.

"This feeling is the more dangerous because it is inchoate. Moslem
officers returned from Palestine and Arabia, and acquainted with
the realities of Turkish rule, have expressed astonishment at the
strength of this feeling among their co-religionists here.
Mohamedans have been foremost in the work of riot and destruction
in Ahmedabad and Delhi, and the lower elements were ripe for
trouble in Bombay. I am unable to say how far this ferment
affected the outbreaks in the Punjab.

"This seething Moslem unrest is the most menacing feature of
Indian politics to-day. It explains the unprecedented admission of
Hindus to the Mosques of Delhi and Aligarh....

REVOLUTIONARY INSPIRATION

"So much for the general situation. In Northern India the
outbreaks were nakedly revolutionary. They are unconnected with
the Rowlatt Act or with passive resistance, which probably
precipitated a movement long concerted. There is abundant evidence
of the organized revolutionary character of the disturbances in
the systematic attacks on railways, telegraphs, and all means of
communication, and its definitely anti-British character is
apparent from the efforts to plunge the railways into a general
strike.

"There are signs of the inter-connection of the Punjab
revolutionaries with the Bombay revolutionaries who organized
attacks on communications at Ahmedabad and Viramgam, derailed
trains, cut telegraphs, and sent rowdies from Kaira to take part
in the work of destruction. There is evidence also of some outside
inspiration, but whether Bolshevist or otherwise is obscure.

"Whilst in the Punjab the soil was fruitful, owing to economic
conditions, the ravages of influenza, and the pressure of last
year's recruiting campaign, the revolutionary origin of the
disturbances is unquestioned...."

As usual the message is a mixture of truth and imagination. At most it is a partisan view. Be the causes what they may, the events in our judgment amply justify the following conclusions:

(_a_) That India is politically united in demanding a far reaching measure of self-determination.

(_b_) That she will not be satisfied with paltry measures of political reform which do not give her power to shape her fiscal policy in her own interests, independent of control from London.

(_c_) That it is useless to further harp on the "cleavages" of race, religion and language, in dealing with the problem of India.

(_d_) That the country is no longer prepared to let measures of coercion pass and take effect without making their protest and dislike known to the authorities in a manner, the significance of which may not be open to misunderstanding.

The Indian members of the Legislative Council while opposing the Rowlatt Bills spoke in sufficiently clear and strong language of the grave situation the Government was creating by its ill-considered policy. They knew their people. The bureaucracy evidently dismissed it as bluff or, if it knew what was likely to happen, encouraged it in the hope that the outbreak might justify their opposition to, and dislike of, the Montagu-Chelmsford scheme. In doing that they have had to hatch the eggs they themselves laid. These events have, besides, proved (_a_) that the lead of the country has passed from the hands of the so called "natural leaders," the aristocracy of land, money and birth; (_b_) that even the moderate leaders have considerably lost in prestige and influence; (_c_) that the lead has definitely passed into hands that openly and frankly stand for self-determination and self-government within the Empire and are prepared for _any sacrifice_ to achieve that end; (_d_) that the old methods of governing India must now be discarded once for all and the charge of provinces taken away from sun-dried bureaucrats of the type of Sir Michael O'Dwyer and Sir Reginald Craddock.

The bloodshed in the Punjab, which outdid all other Provinces in sending help during the war both in men and money, pointed to the administration or mal-administration of Sir Michael O'Dwyer as responsible for the nature and intensity of the outbreak. If ever there was a British ruler of India who deserved impeachment it is Sir Michael O'Dwyer. He was not only a tyrant and a snob of the worst order but he was incompetent also. One of the two things must have happened: Either he was out of touch with public feeling in the province or he deliberately provoked this disaster by a policy of strength. In either case he deserves to be publicly impeached and condemned for incompetence or brutality or possibly for both.

The following Summary of the orders passed by the officer commanding shows the nature of the martial law administered in the "most loyal" province in India, a province which has so far been considered to be the right arm of British Ráj in India.

I have italicised some words and sentences for special attention. The reader I hope will note the exceptions in favor of the Europeans and the Indian servants in the employ of the Europeans and also the reasonableness of the other orders, threatening punishment upon the owners of certain properties and requiring "all students," and all male persons belonging to private Colleges in Lahore to attend four times a day at a particular place for roll call. Order No. 14 is a gem of great brilliance.

I have omitted order No. 6 as unimportant. Orders from 8 to 12 inclusive are not available. What has been given above, however, is quite sufficient to show the nature of the martial law that has been applied to the Punjab, after five years of unquestioned and unrivalled loyalty to the British Empire, in the period of greatest danger that had overtaken it. Such is the reward of "loyalty."

NO. 1

Whereas the Government of India has for good reasons proclaimed
Martial Law in the districts of Lahore and Amritsar; and

Whereas superior military authority has appointed me to command
troops and administer Martial Law in a portion of the Lahore
district, ... and whereas Martial Law may be briefly described as
the will of the Military Commander in enforcing law, order and
public safety:

I make known to all concerned that until further orders by me the
following will be strictly carried out:

1. At 20·00 hours (8 o'clock) each evening a gun will be fired
from the Fort, and from that signal till 05·00 hours (5 o'clock)
on the following morning no person _other than a European_ or a
person in possession of a military permit signed by me or on my
behalf will be permitted to leave his or her house or compound or
the building in which he or she may be at 20 hours. During these
prohibited hours no person other than those excepted above will be
permitted to use the streets or roads, and any person found
disobeying this order will be arrested, and if any attempt is made
to evade or resist that person will be liable to be shot.

This and all other orders which from time to time I may deem
necessary to make will be issued on my behalf from the water-works
station in the city, whither every ward will keep at least four
representatives from 6 A.M., till 17·00 hours (5 P.M.) daily to
learn what orders, if any, are issued and to convey such orders to
the inhabitants of their respective wards. _The onus of
ascertaining the orders issued by me will rest on the people
through their representatives._

2. Loyal and law-abiding persons have nothing to fear from the
exercise of Martial Law.

3. In order to protect the lives of his Majesty's soldiers and
police under my command, I make known that if any firearm is
discharged or bombs thrown at them the most drastic reprisals will
instantly be made _against property surrounding the scene of the
outrage_. Therefore it behooves all loyal inhabitants to see to it
that no evil-disposed agitator is allowed on his premises.

4. During the period of Martial Law I prohibit all processions,
meetings or other gatherings of more than 10 persons without my
written authority, and any such meetings, gatherings or
processions held in disobedience of this order will be broken up
by force without warning.

5. I forbid any person to offer violence or cause obstruction to
any person desirous of opening his shop or conducting his business
or proceeding to his work or business. Any person contravening
this order will be arrested, tried by a summary court and be
liable to be shot.

6. At present the city of Lahore enjoys the advantage of electric
lights and a water-supply; but the continuance of these supplies
will depend on the good behaviour of the inhabitants and their
prompt obedience to my orders.

NO. 2

All tongas and tum-tums, (horse carriages) whether licensed for
hire or otherwise, will be delivered up to the Military Officer
appointed for that purpose at the Punjab Light Horse ground by
17·00 (5 P.M.) to-day--Tuesday, 15th April. Drivers will receive
pay and horses be rationed.

NO. 3

All motor-cars or vehicles of any descriptions will be delivered
to the Military Officer appointed for that purpose at the Punjab
club by 17·00 (5 P.M.) this day.

NO. 4

By virtue of the powers vested in me I have prohibited the issue
of third or intermediate class tickets at all railway stations in
the Lahore Civil Command, _except only in the case of servants
travelling with their European masters or servants or others in
the employ of the Government_.

NO. 5

Whereas, from information received by me, it would appear that
shops, generally known as Langars, for the sale of cooked food,
are used for the purpose of illegal meetings, and for the
dissemination of seditious _propaganda_, and whereas I notice that
all other shops (particularly in Lahore city) have been closed as
part of an organized demonstration against his Majesty's
Government, now, therefore, by virtue of the powers vested in me
under Martial Law, I order that all such Langars or shops for the
sale of cooked food in the Lahore civil area, except such as may
be granted an exemption in writing by me shall close and cease to
trade by 10·00 hours (10 A.M.) tomorrow, Wednesday, the 16th
April, 1919.

Disobedience to this order will result in the confiscation of the
contents of such shop and the arrest and trial by summary
procedure of the owner or owners.

* * * * *

NO. 7

Whereas I have reason to believe that certain students of the D.
A. V. College in Lahore are engaged in spreading seditious
_propaganda_ directed against his Majesty's Government, and
whereas I deem it expedient in the interests of the preservation
of law and order to restrict the activities of such students, I
make the following order:--

_All students of the said college_ now in this Command area will
report themselves to the Officer Commanding Troops at the
Bradlaugh Hall daily at the hours specified below and remain there
until the roll of such students has been called by the principal
or some other officer approved by me acting on his behalf, and
until they have been dismissed by the Officer Commanding Troops at
Bradlaugh Hall.

07·00 hours. (7 A.M.)
11·00 hours. (11 A.M.)
15·00 hours. (3 P.M.)
19·30 hours. (7.30 P.M.)

NO. 8

Whereas some evilly-disposed persons have torn down or defaced
notices and orders which I have caused to be exhibited for
information and good government of the people in the Lahore
(Civil) Command.

In future all orders that I have to issue under Martial Law _will
be handed to such owners of property as I may select and it will
be the duty of such owners of property to exhibit and keep
exhibited and undamaged in the position on their property selected
by me all such orders_.

The duty of protecting such orders will therefore devolve on the
owners of property and failure to ensure the proper protection and
continued exhibition of my orders will result in severe
punishment.

_Similarly, I hold responsible the owner of any property on which
seditious or any other notices, proclamations or writing not
authorized by me are exhibited._

* * * * *

NO. 13

Whereas information laid before me shows that a martial law notice
issued by me and posted by my orders on a property known as the
Sanatan Dharam College Hostel on Bahawalpur road, has been torn or
otherwise defaced, in contravention of my Martial Law Notice No. 8.

Now, therefore, by virtue of the powers vested in me under martial
law, I order the immediate arrest of _all male persons domiciled
in the said hostel and their internment in the Lahore Fort_
pending my further orders as to their trial or other disposal.

NO. 14

Whereas practically every shop and business establishment in the
area under my command has been closed in accordance with the
_hartal_ or organized closure of business directed against his
Majesty's Government.

And whereas the continuance or resumption of such _hartal_ is
detrimental to the good order and governance of the said area.

And whereas I deem it expedient to cause the said _hartal_ to
entirely cease:

Now therefore by virtue of the powers vested in me by martial law
I make the following order, namely:--

By 10·00 hours (10 A.M.) tomorrow (Friday), the 18th day of April,
1919, every shop and business establishment (except only _langare_
referred to in martial law notice No. 5, dated 15th April, 1919)
in the area under my command, shall open and carry on its business
_and thereafter daily shall continue to keep open and carry on its
business_ during the usual hours up to 20·00 hours (8 P.M.) in
exactly the same manner as before the creation of the said
_hartal_.

And likewise I order that every skilled or other worker will from
10·30 hours (10.30 A.M.) tomorrow, resume and continue during the
usual hours his ordinary trade, work or calling.

And I warn all concerned that if at 10·00 hours (10 A.M.)
tomorrow, or at any subsequent time I find this order has been
without good and valid reason disobeyed, the persons concerned
will be arrested and tried under the summary procedure of martial
law, and shops so closed will be opened and kept open by force,
any resultant loss arising from such forcible opening will rest on
the owners and on occupiers concerned.

And I further warn all concerned that this order must be strictly
obeyed in spirit as well as in letter, that is to say, that to
open a shop and then refuse to sell goods and to charge an
exorbitant or prohibitive rate, will be deemed a contravention of
this order.

[Note: Shops had evidently remained closed for seven days.]

NO. 15

Whereas it has come to my knowledge that the present state of
unrest is being added to and encouraged by the spreading of false,
inaccurate or exaggerated reports or rumours:

Now, therefore, by virtue of the powers vested in me by martial
law I give notice that _any person_ found guilty of publishing,
spreading or repeating, false, inaccurate or exaggerated reports
in connection with the military or political situation, will be
arrested and summarily dealt with under martial law.

NO. 16

Whereas I have reason to believe that certain students of the Dyal
Singh College in Lahore are engaged in spreading seditious
propaganda directed against his Majesty's Government and whereas I
deem it expedient in the interest of the preservation of law and
order to restrict the activities of such students, I make the
following order:--

_All students of the said college_ now in this command area will
report themselves to the officer commanding troops at the
telegraph office daily at the hours specified below and remain
there until the roll of such students has been called by the
principal or some other officer approved by me acting on his
behalf, and until they have been dismissed by the Officer
Commanding Troops at the telegraph office:--

07·00 hours. (7 A.M.)
11·00 hours. (11 A.M.)
15·00 hours. (3 P.M.)
19·00 hours. (7 P.M.)

First parade at 11·00 hours (11 A.M.) on the (?) April, 1919.

"The latest order under martial law passed today makes it unlawful
for more than two persons to walk abreast on any constructed or
clearly defined pavement or side-walk in such area. Disobedience
to this order will be punished by special powers under martial
law. It shall also be illegal for any male person to carry or be
found in possession of an instrument known as a _lathi_. All
persons disobeying this order will be arrested and tried by
summary proceedings under martial law."

* * * * *

NO. 24

Whereas I deem it expedient to make provision for the preservation
of health and the greater comfort of British troops stationed in
the area under my command,

And whereas a number of electric fans and lights are required in
the buildings in which some of such troops are quartered,

Now therefore by virtue of the powers vested in me by martial law
I authorize any officer appointed by me for that purpose to enter
any college, public building, hostel, hotel, private or other
residence or building and remove such number of electric lights
and fans required for the purpose aforesaid,

And any attempt to obstruct such removal, or to hide, or to damage
or to impair the immediate efficiency of any such fans or lights,
will be summarily dealt with under martial law,

But nothing in this order shall authorize the removal of any fan
or light from a room usually inhabited by a woman.

These are only a few of the orders we have been able to obtain.

For weeks the Punjab was in a state of terror. Almost all of the
Native papers were either directly or indirectly suppressed or
terrorized into silence. Numerous persons were arrested and placed
for trial before military commissioners. Among them were a large
number of the most honored men in the province. Legal counsel from
outside the province was denied to them, and admission of
newspapermen into the province barred. In punishing the persons
found guilty the military commissioners have awarded sentences,
the parallel of which can only be found in the history of Czarism
in Russia. Flogging in the public was resorted to in more than one
place. In short, a complete reign of terror was established. So
great was the terrorism that the whole country was thrown into
such a paroxysm of rage, anger and despair as to make the people
forget the desire for a political constitution at this terrible
price.

Just as I am writing these lines I learn from the London _Times_ that the reports of the two committees that were sent to India to inquire into (_a_) questions connected with the franchise and (_b_) the division of functions between the Government of India and local governments, and between the official and the popular elements in the local governments, have been published in Great Britain. In one of the Appendices is given a rather brief and inadequate summary of the recommendations of these committees published by the London _Times_. At this stage it is impossible to make any comments except that the franchise is by no means as broad as it could have been, the restriction of local residence on candidates for the provincial Legislative Councils extremely unreasonable, and the strength of the Provincial Councils very meagre. The recommendations are unsatisfactory in other respects also, specially the power granted to the Governor to dismiss ministers.

The question, however, is, "Will the Cabinet stand by these recommendations or will they allow them to be whittled down?" Mr. Montagu's bill, which is promised to be introduced in the House of Commons early in June, will answer the question.

In conclusion, I have to tender my thanks to my friend Dr. J. T. Sunderland for having read my proofs.

_June 2, 1919._

LAJPAT RAI

FOOTNOTES:

[1] This Hindu happened to be the leader of a section of the Arya Samaj--an organization known for its bitter attitude towards Mohammedanism.

CONTENTS

PREFACE, v
I INTRODUCTORY, 1
II DEMOCRACY IN INDIA, 16
III THE PRESENT IDEALS, 30
IV THE STAGES, 36
V THE CONDITIONS OF THE PROBLEM, 39
VI THE PUBLIC SERVICES IN INDIA, 62
VII THE INDIAN ARMY AND NAVY, 84
VIII THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY IN INDIA, 91
IX THE NATIVE STATES, 98
X THE PROPOSALS, 110
XI INDIA'S CLAIM TO FISCAL AUTONOMY, 136
XII THE REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENT, 146
XIII THE PUNJAB, 164
XIV RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REPRESSIVE LEGISLATION, 175
XV THE REVOLUTIONARY PARTY, 181
XVI EDUCATION, 190
XVII THE PROBLEM, 197
XVIII THE INTERNATIONAL ASPECT, 205
APPENDIX A, 209
APPENDIX B, 225
APPENDIX C, 231

The Political Future of India

I

INTRODUCTORY

Now we are faced with the greatest and the grimmest struggle of
all. Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, not amongst men, but amongst
nations--great and small, powerful and weak, exalted and
humble,--equality, fraternity, amongst peoples as well as amongst
men--that is the challenge which has been thrown to us.... My
appeal to the people of this country, and, if my appeal can reach
beyond it, is this, that we should continue to fight for the great
goal of international right and international justice, so that
never again shall brute force sit on the throne of justice, nor
barbaric strength wield the sceptre of right.

DAVID LLOYD GEORGE

"Causes and Aims of the War." Speech delivered
at Glasgow, on being presented with the freedom
of that city, June 29, 1917

We are told that the world is going to be reconstructed on entirely new lines; that all nations, big or small, shall be allowed the right of self-determination; that the weaker and backward peoples will no longer be permitted to be exploited and dominated by the stronger and the more advanced nations of the earth; and that justice will be done to all. "What we seek," says President Wilson, "is the reign of law, based upon the consent of the governed and sustained by the organized opinion of mankind."

The Indian people also form a part of the world that needs reconstructing. They constitute one-fifth of the human race, and inhabit about two million square miles of very fertile and productive territory. They have been a civilized people for thousands of years, though their civilization is a bit different from that of the West. We advisedly say "a bit different," because in fundamentals that civilization has the same basic origin as that of Greece and Rome, the three peoples having originally sprung from the same stock and their languages, also, being of common descent. For the last 150 years, or (even) more, India has been ruled by Great Britain. Her people have been denied any determining voice in the management of their own affairs. For over thirty years or more they have carried on an organized agitation for an autonomous form of Government within the British Empire. This movement received almost no response from the responsible statesmen of the Empire until late in the war. In the meantime some of the leaders grew sullen and downhearted, and, under the influence of bitter disappointment and almost of despair, took to revolutionary forms. The bulk of the people, however, have kept their balance and have never faltered in their faith in peaceful methods. When the war broke out the people of India at once realized the world significance of this titanic struggle and in no uncertain voice declared their allegiance to the cause of the Allies. Our masters, however, while gratefully accepting our economic contributions and utilizing the standing Indian army, spurned our offers for further military contributions. In the military development of the Indians they saw a menace to their supremacy in India.

The Russian Revolution first, and then the entry of the United States into the War, brought about a change in the point of view of the British statesmen. For the first time they realized that they could not win the war without the fullest coöperation of the people of India, both in the military and the economic sense and that the fullest coöperation of the United States also required as a condition precedent, quite a radical revision of their war aims. President Wilson's political idealism, his short, pithy and epigrammatic formulas compelled similar declarations by Allied statesmen. The British statesmen, at the helm of affairs, found it necessary to affirm their faith in President Wilson's principles and formulas if they would not let the morale of their own people at home suffer in comparison. In the meantime the situation in India was becoming uncomfortable. The Nationalists and the Home Rulers insisted on a clear and unequivocal declaration of policy on the lines of President Wilson's principles. The British statesmen in charge of Indian affairs, at Whitehall, were still temporizing when the report of the Royal Commission on the causes of the Mesopotamia disaster burst out on the half-dazed British mind like a bombshell. To the awakening caused by the report and its disclosures a material contribution was made by the outspoken, candid and clear-cut speech of a younger statesman, whose knowledge of the working of the Indian Government could not be questioned. When the Parliament, press and platform were all ablaze with indignation and shame at the supposed incompetence of the Indian Government, to whose inefficiency and culpable neglect of duty were ascribed the series of disasters that ended with the surrender of a British force at Kut-el-amara, Mr. Edwin Samuel Montagu, who had been an Under Secretary for India under Lord Morley and was at the time of the Mesopotamia disaster Minister of Munitions, came out with a strong and emphatic condemnation of the system and the form of Government under which the "myriads" of India lived and had their affairs managed. Mr. Montagu's opinion of the machinery of the Indian Government was expressed as follows:

"The machinery of Government in this country with its unwritten
constitution, and the machinery of Government in our Dominions has
proved itself sufficiently elastic, sufficiently capable of
modification, to turn a peace-pursuing instrument into a
war-making instrument. It is the Government of India alone which
does not seem capable of transformation, and I regard that as
based upon the fact that the machinery is statute-ridden
machinery. The Government of India is too wooden, too iron, too
inelastic, too antediluvian, to be any use for the modern purposes
we have in view. I do not believe that anybody could ever support
the Government of India from the point of view of modern
requirements. But it would do. Nothing serious had happened since
the Indian mutiny, the public was not interested in Indian
affairs, and it required a crisis to direct attention to the fact
that the Indian Government is an indefensible system of
Government."

Regarding the Indian Budget Debates in Parliament, he said:

"Does anybody remember the Indian Budget Debates before the War?
Upon that day the House was always empty. India did not matter,
and the Debates were left to people on the one side whom their
enemies sometimes called "bureaucrats," and on the other side to
people whom their enemies sometimes called "seditionists," until
it almost came to be disreputable to take part in Indian Debates.
It required a crisis of this kind to realise how important Indian
affairs were. After all, is the House of Commons to be blamed for
that? What was the Indian Budget Debate? It was a purely academic
discussion which had no effect whatever upon events in India,
conducted after the events that were being discussed, had taken
place."

He held that the salary of the Indian Secretary of State should be paid from the British Treasury, and then there would be real debates:

"How can you defend the fact that the Secretaries of State for
India alone of all the occupants of the Front Bench, with the
possible exception of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster,
are not responsible to this House for their salaries, and do not
come here with their Estimates in order that the House of Commons
may express its opinion....

"What I am saying now is in the light of these revelations of this
inelasticity of Indian government. However much you could gloss
over those indefensible proceedings in the past, the time has now
come to alter them.

"The tone of those Debates is unreal, unsubstantial and
ineffective. If Estimates for India, like Estimates for the
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and the Colonial Secretary
were to be discussed on the floor of the House of Commons, the
Debates on India would be as good as the Debates on foreign
affairs. After all, what is the difference? Has it even been
suggested to the people of Australia that they should pay the
salary of the Secretary of State for the Colony? Why should the
whole cost of that building in Charles Street, including the
building itself, be an item of the Indian taxpayer's burden rather
than of this House of Commons and the people of the country?"

Can and does the House of Commons control the India Office? Here is Mr. Montagu's answer.