Gandhi, writing to the new Viceroy, Archibald Wavell, took exception to the following paragraph in his speech to the Legislature “...the demand for release of these leaders who are in detention is an utterly barren one until there is some sign on their part of willingness to co- operate. It needs no consultation with any one or anything but his own conscience for any one of those under detention to decide whether he will withdraw from the ‘Quit India’ resolution and the policy which had tragic consequences, and will co-operate in the great tasks ahead.”
Wavell wasn't very bright. He knew the demand to release Gandhi & Co was based on the notion that they could make a useful contribution to the war effort. Sadly, the fact was, they were utterly uselessness. This was proved by the fact that the Administration did not collapse in Provinces where Congress had resigned office. Indeed, efficiency had improved.
Then again, reverting to the same subject you say on pages nineteen and twenty, “There is an important element which stands aloof; I recognize how much ability and high-mindedness it contains;
Nehru went to Harrow. Surely, he can't be utterly useless? Sadly, he could be and was.
but I deplore its present policy and methods as barren and unpractical. I should like to have the co-operation of this element in solving the present and the future problems of India. If its leaders feel that they cannot consent to take part in the present Government of India, they may still be able to assist in considering future problems. But I see no reason to release those responsible for the declaration of August 8th, 1942, until I am convinced that the policy of non-cooperation and even of obstruction has been withdrawn — not in sackcloth and ashes, that helps no one — but in recognition of a mistaken and unprofitable policy.”
Gandhi's objection is as follows-
I am surprised that you, an eminent soldier and man of affairs, should hold such an opinion. How can the withdrawal of a resolution, arrived at jointly by hundreds of men and women after much debating and careful consideration, be a matter of individual conscience?
The answer is that any individual who supported a resolution made by a political party, can withdraw from it, either because they have come to see it as foolish or because they have come to believe that it goes against their own conscience. Indeed, every person is free to change their political affiliation unless they live in a totalitarian society and have sworn an oath of fealty to a Fuhrer.
A resolution jointly undertaken can be honourably, conscientiously and properly withdrawn only after joint discussion and deliberation.
No. It can be withdrawn without any discussion or deliberation if it is obvious that it was foolish or counter-productive. Such was the case with the Congress 'Quit India' resolution. Congress neither did anything nor died. The British repulsed Japanese aggression. 2.5 million Indians joined the British Indian Army. They were all volunteers.
Individual conscience may come into play after this necessary step, not before.
No. There is absolutely no need for 'deliberation' where everybody can see the foolishness of a course of action which, at one time, may have seemed reasonable.
Is a prisoner ever free to exercise his conscience?
Yes. A prisoner may have a change of heart and plead guilty to other crimes for which he has not been sentenced. He may give up a vicious way of life and seek to make reparation to his victims.
Is it just and proper to expect him to do so?
Yes. A prisoner remains a human being. To deny that he has a conscience which he can freely exercise is to deny his humanity. Equally, if a prisoner lacks a conscience by reason of imprisonment, it is likely that the prisoner also lacks the ability to think. Thus there is no point talking to or engaging in a correspondence with the cretin.
Again, you recognize “much ability and high-mindedness” in those who represent the Congress organization and then deplore their present policy and methods as “barren and unpractical”. Does not the second statement cancel the first?
No. Able and high-minded people may make wrong predictions. After events have shown those predictions were wrong, such people can withdraw support for policies which have failed.
Able and high-minded men may come to erroneous decisions, but I have not before heard such people’s policy and methods being described as “barren and unpractical”.
An erroneous decision does not have the desired fruit. In that sense it is 'barren'. Practical people don't stick with erroneous decisions. They don't debate or deliberate over what is bleeding obvious. They quietly give up their erroneous policies and adopt sensible policies.
Is it not up to you to discuss the pros and cons of their policy with them before pronouncing judgment especially when they are also admittedly representatives of millions of their people?
Not if it is common knowledge that the policy was wholly erroneous and was wholly barren of the desired fruits.
Does it become an all-powerful Government to be afraid of the consequences of releasing unarmed men and women with a backing only of men and women equally unarmed and even pledged to non-violence?
Did Gandhi really believe Wavell, a soldier, was afraid of him? The fact is Wavell had used his troops to kill agitators during the Quit India movement. The British sustained no casualties. Moreover, they could hire plenty of Indians eager and willing to do this type of wet work in return for quite modest remuneration.
Moreover, why should you hesitate to put me in touch with the Working Committee members so as to enable me to know their minds and reactions?
Because Churchill hated Gandhi and didn't want his political career to revive. Churchill was Wavell's boss. Churchill would soon find that Wavell was not a good 'nightwatchman'- i.e. a diehard Tory who would be implacable in his treatment of Congress. The truth is Wavell was a decent chap. He didn't mind killing enemy soldiers. He just didn't greatly care for shooting darkies who could not shoot back. The other problem was that he was like Allenby. He didn't see why wogs shouldn't be allowed to rule themselves.
10. Then you have talked of the “tragic consequences” of the ‘Quit India’ resolution.
At least a 1000 people were killed. That was 'tragic' to Wavell but not to Gandhi.
Even you, I am sorry, have fallen into the common error of describing the Indian forces as having been recruited by “voluntary enlistment”.
Unlike many Englishmen serving in the Army, Indians had not been conscripted. They faced no penalty if the refused to join the army. Wavell had made no error in describing Indians in the British Indian Army in these terms.
A person who takes to soldiering as a profession will enlist himself wherever he gets his market wage.
This is utterly false. Wavell was a professional soldier. Would he have gone over to the Germans if they paid him more? No. Gandhi was lying and, what's more, he knew he was lying.
Voluntary enlistment has come to bear by association a meaning much higher than that which attaches to an enlistment like that of the Indian soldier.
Gandhi is saying Indian soldiers are mercenaries. This was an outrageous lie. Still, it must be said, Gandhi had tried to recruit Indian soldiers during the Great War. No doubt, he was paid to do so.
Were those who carried out the orders at the Jallianwalla massacre volunteers?
Yes. They went on to defeat the Afghans under Brigadier Dyer. The Indian soldiers were from the Gurkha and Baluch regiments. Both had fought Sikhs in previous centuries.
The very Indian soldiers who have been taken out of India and are showing unexampled bravery will be ready to point their rifles unerringly at their own countrymen
Gurkhas are Nepali.
at the orders of the British Government, their employers. Will they deserve the honourable name of volunteers?
In the case of young Indians who joined the Army between 1939-45, yes. During the Great War, there was an element of compulsion in enrolment, more particularly in the Punjab.
Wavell's response was forthright-
'I regret that I must view the present policy of the Congress party as hindering and not forwarding Indian progress to self-government and development. During a war in which the success of the United Nations against the Axis powers is vital both to India and to the world, as you yourself have recognized, the Working Committee of Congress declined to co-operate, ordered Congress ministries to resign, and decided to take no part in the administration of the country or in the war effort which India was making to assist the United Nations. At the greatest crisis of all for India, at a time when Japanese invasion was possible, the Congress party decided to pass a resolution calling on the British to leave India, which could not fail to have the most serious effect on our ability to defend the frontiers of India against the Japanese. I am quite clear that India’s problems cannot be solved by an immediate and complete withdrawal of the British.'
I do not accuse you or the Congress party of any wish deliberately to aid the Japanese.
Bose had left the Congress party by then. Still, it must be said, many in the Congress party took a rather rosy view of the Axis powers. Maybe, the Japs just wanted to give the Indians hugs and kisses. Hitler too might only show up on our border in order to entertain us with his yodelling. After all, he is Austrian. Austrians yodel incessantly.
But you are too intelligent a man, Mr. Gandhi, not to have realized that the effect of your resolution must be to hamper the prosecution of the war; and it is clear to me that you had lost confidence in our ability to defend India, and were prepared to take advantage of our supposed military straits to gain political advantage. I do not see how those responsible for the safety of India could have acted otherwise than they did and could have failed to arrest those who sponsored the resolution. As to general Congress responsibility for the disturbances which followed, I was, as you know, Commander-in- Chief at the time; my vital lines of communication to the Burma frontier were cut by Congress supporters, in the name of the Congress, often using the Congress flag. I cannot therefore hold Congress guiltless of what occurred; and I cannot believe that you, with all your acumen and experience, can have been unaware of what was likely to follow from your policy.
Wavell, in a polite way, is calling Gandhi a liar and a hypocrite. If he gives up his foolish policy, he and his people might be able to do something constructive for the people of India. Sadly, Congress could do nothing constructive.
Gandhi's reply is, he says, as frank as Wavell's letter.
Your letter is a plea for co-operation by the Congress in the present administration and failing that in planning for the future.
Wavell said he wanted Congress to 'join wholeheartedly with the other Indian parties and with the British in helping India forward in economic and political progress — not by any dramatic or spectacular stroke, but by hard steady work towards the end ahead.' In other words, Congress would be treated on the same footing as other Indian parties. This is what Gandhi objected to.
In my opinion, this requires equality between the parties and mutual trust. But equality is absent
Jinnah and Ambedkar said that Congress did not treat the Muslims or the Dalits as equals.
and Government distrust of the Congress can be seen at every turn.
Rival parties distrusted Congress.
Is it not high time that you co-operated with the people of India,
The British had cooperated very well with the people of India for centuries. Indian cooperation with the British war-effort played a substantial role in Britain's victory over its enemies.
through their elected representatives instead of expecting co-operation from them?
Those 'elected representatives' who resigned office in 1939 did not want to co-operate with the Viceroy. It turned out that their Provinces were run well enough without them. Then they tried non-cooperation but it failed once again just as it had failed twenty years previously.
You remind me that you were Commander-in-Chief at the time.
Wavell experienced the bitterness of defeat at the hands of the Japanese. But he had no great difficulty in killing agitators in India.
How much better it would have been for all concerned if confidence in the immeasurable strength of arms had ruled your action instead of fear of a rebellion!
Guns in the hands of even the worst regiments were very effective in completely extinguishing 'fear of rebellion'. During the Mutiny, 6,000 of the 40,000 British residents in India were killed. In 1942, there were hardly any White casualties.
Had the Government stayed their hand at the time, surely, all the bloodshed of those months would have been avoided.
No. There would have been anarchy.
And it is highly likely that the Japanese menace would have become a thing of the past.
Because Ahimsa fairy has magic powers. Did you know that if you spin cotton while sleeping naked with your great-niece you will get so much 'soul force' that Putin's army will turn into cute little bunny rabbits? Zelenskyy is very wicked for not spinning cotton. What can I say? Jews are like that only.
Unfortunately it was not to be. And so the menace is still with us, and what is more, the Government are pursuing a policy of suppression of liberty and truth.
They had jailed useless nutters.
I have studied the latest ordinance about the detenus, and I recall the Rowlatt Act of 1919. It was popularly called the Black Act. As you know it gave rise to an unprecedented agitation. That Act pales into insignificance before the series of ordinances that are being showered from the Viceregal throne. Martial law in effect governs not one province, as in 1919, but the whole of India. Things are moving from bad to worse.
As in 1915, the Defence of India Act had been promulgated. But, once Gandhi unilaterally surrendered and went meekly to jail in 1922, the Government could withdraw the Rowlatt Act. This time around, there was no reason to fear political repercussions from jailing Gandhi & Co.
You say, “It is clear to me that you had lost confidence in our ability to defend India and were prepared to take advantage of our supposed military straits to gain political advantage.”
If Gandhi thought the Brits could defeat the Japanese, why did he ask them to 'quit India'? Either he wanted Japanese rule or thought that Indians could defeat Japan on their own. In the former case, he was a traitor to his country. In the latter case, he had shit for brains.
Moreover, a politician is supposed to try to gain political advantage. Wavell had interpreted Gandhi's actions charitably. The old man was wrong in his assessment of the situation but not necessarily stupid or a traitor.
Gandhi was greatly incensed with this view of him as a sensible man rather than a lunatic.
I must deny both the charges. I venture to suggest that you should follow the golden rule, and withdraw your statement and suspend judgement till you have submitted the evidence in your possession to an impartial tribunal and obtained its verdict.
Why does Gandhi not refer this 'denial' of his to an impartial tribunal? The answer is that his golden rule was that only he was in the right. Everybody else was an evil bastard.
I confess that I do not make the request with much confidence. For, in dealing with Congressmen and others Government have combined the prosecutor, judge and jailor in the same person and thus made proper defence impossible on the part of the accused.
This was perfectly legal. The Defence of India Act gave the Executive the power to suspend civil liberties of many types.
Judgements of courts are being rendered nugatory by fresh ordinances. No man’s freedom can be said to be safe in this extraordinary situation. You will probably retort that it is an exigency of the war. I wonder!
Gandhi wonders whether there really was a Second World War. He was right to do so. The fact is the Ahimsa fairy prevents any such nastiness from occurring. All these so called 'soldiers' are just pretending to fight in wars. The truth is, when they meet on the battlefield they indulge in sodomy and mutual masturbation. Look at that Wavell fellow. Did you know he is blind in one eye? It is well known that masturbation causes blindness. No doubt, he let Rommel toss him off but declined to permit any Japanese general a like favour. That's the only reason he still has one sound eye. Still, you can now understand the importance of keeping your hands busy spinning cotton. Mind it kindly. Jai Me!
The question may be asked, why did Viceroys bother to talk to or correspond with Gandhi? The answer is that Reading had found that once Gandhi started talking he could be manipulated into betraying his allies or, if he had none, betraying himself. Thus, the Brits published the corresponded between Viceroys and Gandhi so as to demonstrate that Gandhi was a lunatic while they themselves were doing everything possible to make India strong and independent.
One letter not made public was written by Gandhi after the 'Direct Action Day' Calcutta riots.
August 28, 1946 DEAR FRIEND, I write this as a friend and after deep thought. Several times last evening you repeated that you were a "plain man and a soldier" and that you did not know the law.
Nor did Gandhi. His trick was to pretend non-lawyers were obliged to talk like lawyers though if he was faced with a lawyer, he would start babbling about God.
We are all plain men though we may not all be soldiers and even though some of us may know the law. It is our purpose, I take it, to devise methods to prevent a repetition of the recent terrible happenings in Calcutta.
The way to do this is by sending in soldiers and shooting rioters.
The question before us is how best to do it. Your language last evening was minatory.
Wavell wanted Nehru to agree that provinces must remain in their assigned Groups under the Cabinet Mission Plan till the first election was held. This 'compulsory grouping' was a considerable concession to the League. Gandhi's retort was that 'if India wants her bloodbath, she will have it'. In other words, the Hindus could kill just as ruthlessly as the Muslims.
As representative of the King you cannot afford to be a military man only, nor to ignore the law, much less the law of your own making.
The King's representative is accountable only to the Crown in Parliament. Nobody else can tell him what he can or can't afford to do or be.
You should be assisted, if necessary, by a legal mind enjoying your full confidence.
The Viceroy had access to very good legal advise. Gandhi had shit for brains. Wavell considered Gandhi's letter 'abusive and vindictive'.
You threatened not to convene the Constituent Assembly if the formula you placed before Pandit Nehru and me was not acted upon by the Congress.
Wavell saw compulsory grouping as vital to avoid Civil War. The question was whether he would have any sort of caretaker government, forget about an interim government, to work with. The Constituent Assembly would be useless if there was no fucking Federal Government for it to draw up a Constitution for. At around this time, he sent London his 'Breakdown' plan for evacuating India within 18 months come what may. Atlee, like Churchill, now realized Wavell was the wrong man for the job. If the Brits were going to evacuate, they should do it with all possible speed and from the entire sub-continent. There was no need to drag the thing out.
Interestingly, Wavell says Linlithgow agreed with him that the Brits had better clear out as fast as possible. The alternative was to completely change policies so as to hold on to it.
In practice this meant leaving India to sort out its own problems. Perhaps, it was too poor to have a Civil War. Ethnic cleansing using agricultural implements is the most it could afford.
If such be really the case then you should not have made the announcement you did on 12th August.
i.e. of a caretaker government. Gandhi, it seems, objected to having a Government of any sort.
But having made it you should recall the action and form another ministry enjoying your full confidence. If British arms are kept here for internal peace and order,
Evil Britishers refused to let the Japanese enslave the Indians. Now they are demanding the right to protect Indians from being massacred by other Indians! What a farce! India should be having bloodbath five times a day.
your Interim Government would be reduced to a farce. The Congress cannot afford to impose its will on warring elements in India through the use of British arms.
In which case either it had to make concessions to the League or let bloodbaths occur. The real difficulty was that the Army didn't want to spend its time shooting rioters because officers would be accused of being as brutal as Brigadier Dyer.
Nor can the Congress be expected to bend itself and adopt what it considers a wrong course because of the brutal exhibition recently witnessed in Bengal.
In which case, nothing could be expected of Congress. It was pointless to have a caretaker or interim government. There would be no Federal Government in Delhi. There would just be a Viceroy arranging the evacuation of the White population in between lecturing Provincial Premiers on their duty to protect minorities.
Such submission would itself lead to an encouragement and repetition of such tragedies. The vindictive spirit on either side would go deeper, biding for an opportunity to exhibit itself more fiercely and more disgracefully when occasion occurs. And all this will be chiefly due to the continued presence in India of a foreign power strong in and proud of its arms.
But reluctant to use those arms to kill rioters. Only if there was a 'responsible' Indian government in Delhi could this be done. Otherwise each Province needed to do its own ethnic cleansing, or protection of minorities, using its own resources. No British officer wanted to return to blighty to face the sort of charges that had been levelled against 'the butcher of Amritsar'. If you shoot Muslim rioters, the League will denounce you. If you shoot Hindus or Sikhs, then the Mahasabha or Akalis will denounce you. If do nothing, Congress will denounce you. But it will also denounce you if you do anything whatsoever.
I say this neither as a Hindu nor as a Muslim.
nor as a goat. I've often felt that Gandhi would have been a very good politician if he had spoken purely as a goat.
I write only as an Indian. In so far as I am aware, the Congress claims to know both the Hindu and Muslim mind more than you or any Britisher can do. Unless, therefore, you can wholly trust the Congress Government which you have announced, you should reconsider your decision, as I have already suggested. You will please convey the whole of this letter to the British Cabinet.
In the event it was Nehru who reconsidered. He came to the view that this was, as Wavell said, a practical, not a legal matter. Gandhi's idiocy had gotten Congress nowhere. It must help itself to power while power was on offer. After that, it could wave goodbye to its principles and deal with the League on a tit for tat basis.
I think Wavell deserves his place in history. His brief from Atlee was to tilt towards Nehru and see if Jinnah's supporters deserted him. He went in the opposite direction. Pakistani historians have a soft spot for him. Perhaps, that country would not have been created but for his sense of fair play. But that isn't necessarily a feather in his cap. Currently, Pakistan is a bigger shit-show than India
No comments:
Post a Comment