Why do we see cycles in agitational politics? The answer is that there are affiliational benefits from joining a movement which appears fresh or new. It is an adventure and appeals to the young. There is a 'discoordination game' involving costly signals supporting a separating equilibrium. Regret minimization militates for FOMO- fear of missing out. Equally, those who organize agitations are aware of the effervescent nature of mass movements. They focus on 'talent-spotting' and recruiting those who will best serve the organization in duller times. By creating an obedient and dedicated cadre, they hope to have the manpower to replace the current administration when it throws in the towel or finds the game is not worth the candle.
Niradh Chaudhuri, like other Indians, noticed that the Swadeshi or Swarajist movement was subject to ebbs and flows. In some cases there were exogenous triggers. Japan's victory over Russia and the subsequent uprising against the Tzar was one such. It coincided with Curzon's partition of Bengal and Milner, in South Africa, attempting to make the British Empire pro-consular. That failed. Kitchener prevailed over Curzon in India and tipped Smuts the wink that the Tories were on their way out. The Morley-Minto reforms appeared a return to the policies of Ripon. Perhaps there would be genuine devolution and the grievances of India and Ireland would be redressed in a gradual manner. In any case, there was increasing acrimony between the Naram Dal Moderates and the Garam Dal Extremists. The latter might thoughtlessly open the door to anarchy.
By mid-1917 it was clear that the age of Empires was over. The stage was set for the Montague-Chelmsford reforms. Perhaps it was too little too late. More worryingly, perhaps it was the only alternative to a reversion to War-Lordism and Anarchy. Still, the fact is, India could have got in 1924 what Ireland and Egypt and Afghanistan got in 1922. No doubt, the Brits would continue to play a big role. But, in formal terms, India would be an independent member of the League of Nations.
Why did Gandhi unilaterally surrender? The answer is obvious. He hadn't yet built up a big enough cadre of acolytes who could take over the administration. So he went to jail and played possum. The next exogenous shock was the Wall Street crash and the Great Depression. This coincided with Hindus and Muslims uniting against the Simon Commission which, the Tory, F.E Smith had abruptly imposed fearing a Labour victory in 1929.
Niradh writes-
'...the opposition to the Simon Commission on the ground that it was all British would not have been so general and fanatical if
there had been no Wall Street Crash- in India, this was seen as the culmination of the worsening terms of trade for primary producers. Clearly, Winston's decision to revert to the Gold standard in 1925 had been a mistake.
it had not been for the temper of the moment - if after the exhaustion of the 1920 movement in 1922 , political excitement had not begun to rise. This was happening in obedience to the cyclical law of the nationalist movement, which I have already analysed.
Nope. There was an exogenous cause of a global type as well as a foolish decision by the Secretary of State to focus upon.
The ebb tide which had set in five years before was over, and the flood-tide was coming. To vary the metaphor, the boiler had generated enough steam to drive the engine of nationalist agitation, and what was seen in the boycott of the Simon Commission was the roaring escape of the bursting steam through the safety-valve, which preceded the engine's getting into motion.
Gandhi, with his usual genius for alienating Muslims and doing stupid shit, screwed the pooch yet again. His financial backers saw that they needed to do a deal with Manchester so as to ride out the Depression. Popular agitation would quickly turn into 'no-rent' campaigns. That would mean financial collapse as agricultural mortgages stopped being serviced.
Even in 1942, when the Brits literally had their backs to the wall, he snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Sadly, he was shot before he could start fasting to death to demand the return of British rule. This was because, he could see Independent India would not be Gandhian. It would be an ordinary nation-state. For India to become truly Gandhian, it must first surrender to Pakistan and then keep surrendering to everybody else till the Brits felt obliged to return to protect their investments. At that point Hindus would finally take the hint and give up sex and eating nice food and just fucking curl up and die already.
Niradh took a different view.
Thus it happened that at the end of each phase of active agitation the participants could not see any tangible result of their efforts and sacrifices.
For the majority who participate in a new mass agitation, the reward is immediate and affilational. It's like going to a rave. You feel exalted. You feel euphoric. Then you crash. Still, it is a story you can bore your children with.
If anything was achieved at all, that was a partial concession made by the British Government on its own initiative and in its own time. and the concessions when they came fell short of what even the most moderate nationalists in India wanted and would be satisfied with.
The British had to respond to the same exogenous shocks as affected the Indian masses. It was enough that Gandhi showed he was a stupid, useless, cunt, for each agitation to collapse on its own. The alternative, as Sir Sankaran Nair pointed out, to a boring, bureaucratic, Nightwatchman State was Gandhi & then Anarchy. In 1939, Gandhi gave the game away by saying that if the Brits fucked off without handing over the Army to the INC, then Muslims and Punjabis (regardless of creed) would take over the country. Hindus, being non-violent Congress-wallahs- i.e. cowardly weaklings- needed to be protected from more virile peoples.
This produced very widespread disillusionment among those who took an active part in the movements and went to jail.
No. Revolutionaries who were sent to the Cellular Jail in the Andamans became disillusioned and recanted. Those who did a bit of jail time for sedition gained a reputational benefit. True, some did better than others in terms of being materially rewarded for their sacrifice. Still, once C.R Das became the Mayor of Calcutta in 1924, some 'freedom fighters' got sinecures or government contracts. Those who didn't may well have felt cheated. But this had nothing to do with the British.
They went back to private life. remained tied down to the difficult task of gaining a livelihood, and never again joined any movement.
Unless their own clan or caste had risen in the Party and thus they could count on a handsome reward for jumping once more into the fray.
Consider the great freedom fighter Gour Hari Das whose 32 year long battle to get a pension for his contribution to India's Freedom Struggle was turned into a film.
At the age of 14, his daddy took him along to get arrested and sentenced to eight months in prison. After two months he was released in March 1945. It is not stated whether his father paid a bribe so as to get this testimonial onto his and his son's CV. Still, its purpose was obvious.
To be fair, Hari Das only decided to get the freedom-fighter's certificate when his son was applying to Engineering College. There was a quota for the sons of 'freedom fighters'. The Indian middle class can sympathize with the father's burning desire. Engineering College matters. Gandhian shite does not. The odd thing is Hari Das persisted even though his son got into IIT on merit. Moreover, the rules clearly state that a minimum of six months (save for women and SC/ST) imprisonment was required. Still, the fellow got his certificate in 2008. If Gandhian politics was merely gestural, there was still some cash value to those gestures.
A permanent nucleus of agitators remained only among those who had burnt their boats and incurably injured their worldly prospects.
Their worldly prospects of some of them were greatly boosted by their obedience to the Mahacrackpot. Lal Bahadur Shastri- a Kayasth from Bihar too poor to go to English Medium College- became Prime Minister after Nehru. Shastri was just as short and frail as Niradh and seven years younger. Niradh's cup of bitterness overflowed. The very next year, his 'Continent of Circe' came out. Sadly, Shastri was seen as a doughty opponent of Pakistan's military dictator. India's performance in the 1965 war was quite good. The nation mourned when Shastri died at Tashkent.
So they felt that they had to remain lifelong nationalist workers. These men finally formed the regimental officer and Nco cadres of the nationalist movement.
C.R. Das had become Mayor of Calcutta in 1924. The CEO of the Calcutta Corporation was Netaji Bose. He was ten months older than Niradh and belonged to the same caste. No wonder Niradh felt he was wasting his time in the Department of Military Accounts.
The privates had to be recruited from the growing generation untouched by the previous movement.
No. There was plenty of 'talent spotting' of potential future leaders. Niradh himself, but for his prickly personality and lack of savoir faire, could have done well for himself as a mouthpiece for the Congress Party. But he would have had to follow the example of Ramananda Chatterjee and stick to facts and figures and reasoned arguments. Come to think of it, his well received articles attacking the Martial Races theory were based on the statistics he himself compiled by going through the Army lists. His training in the Department of Military Accounts came in useful. Sadly, he didn't stick with alethic research and publicity.
As they joined the nationalist movement between the ages of sixteen and twenty, it needed a period of anything from eight to ten years for a new batch of recruits to reach the enlisting age.
No. Political parties were casting their nets more widely. They didn't need yet more bombastic Kayasthas. They needed able young people from other communities- e.g. Jagjivan Ram. It must be said, Congress made a mistake in not conciliating and co-opting J.N Mandal who had won election in 1937 as an independent though pitted against a Congress, Kayastha, blue-blood- a nephew of Ashwini Kumar Dutta no less.
Thus the active phases of the Indian nationalist movement had the same intervals,
because the exogenous shocks had that periodicity. There is such a thing as a business cycle.
unless slightly hastened or delayed by special circumstances. This cyclical recurrence was seen from 1905to 1942.
But not later. The post-war world order was designed to be robust to exogenous shocks. One result was that methodical work by committed people could pay off. The most spectacular example of this was Swamy Prabhupada- a batch-mate of Niradh's from the Scottish Church College- who in 1965, five years after becoming a monk, was able to go to New York to spread the message of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Within 10 years it had 40 centres and 5000 initiated members in the US. It was spreading all over the world.
Meanwhile, the committed Communists were preparing to take power from Congress in West Bengal. It remained in power between 1977 and 2011. It seems the seed planted by Chatto & M.N Roy bore fruit. Bengali Scientists, Mathematicians, Doctors, Engineers, Statisticians- and even Economists- were doing very well all over the world. Sadly, thanks to Ranajit Guha & Gayatri Spivak & Amartya Sen, Bengali engagement with History or Literature or Philosophy turned to utter shit. It was in this context that Niradh Chaudhuri, splenetic bigot that he was, shone by comparison.
No comments:
Post a Comment