Proceedings of the Hindu Mahasabha Working Committee Under the Presidency of Dr Syama Prasad Mookerjee Which Laid Down Mahasabha Policy Towards the Congress, January 1945

Explaining his differences with the Congress, the Mahasabha President said:

‘Our fundamental difference with the Congress is that we refuse to surrender on the basic principle of India's integrity nor do we subscribe to pandering to intransigent communalism. We must have the courage to face stern reality that the Congress policy of appeasement has merely widened the breach between Hindus and Muslims, has weakened the national resistance and has gravely jeopardized the legitimate rights of Hindus as such. The C.R. Formula, though powerfully backed by Gandhiji, failed to produce any result as it was nothing but a compromise with an untruth. We hear again of a move for a fresh Congress-League settlement through the efforts of Mr Bhulabhai Desai, though the detailed plans are not officially known to us. Let me say this unhesitatingly that the Hindu-Muslim problem will never be solved by the spokesmen of the Congress bartering away the rights of the Hindus and agreeing to increased percentage of representation to the Muslim League in the Central and Provincial Governments either on a higher basis than their population justifies or on a scale higher than what Muslims are entitled to even under the present constitution Hindu-Muslim settlement can only be achieved by Hindus and Muslims as such and not between a party swayed by communal passions alone utterly oblivious of the country's welfare and another that owes its strength and popularity to Hindu support but openly declares that it does not represent the Hindu community.

SECTION-1: Setbacks for Hindu Mahasabha, 1945–1946

As the war was coming to a close, attempts began to be made in different quarters for a solution of the political problem. After the failure of the Gandhi–Jinnah talks, two other outstanding events leading towards some sort of settlement had taken place from the non-official side. First, on 9 November 1944, Gandhi readily offered to cooperate with a committee, that Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru had for long opined should be appointed to investigate the entire constitutional and communal problem. Sapru then persuaded the Standing Committee of the Non-Party Conference to appoint a Committee under his chairmanship. The Sapru Committee, which Dr Mookerjee correctly believed was the outcome of Gandhiji's inspiration, met in Delhi on 29 December and dispersed on 31 December. It came with an interim report unanimously recommending the acceptance of parity between Caste Hindus and Muslims in the formation of an Interim National Government, subject to the condition that the Muslims must agree to a joint electorate. It is evident from Chairman Sapru's letter dated 7 January 1945 that while the Sikh attitude was quite helpful and he was expecting response from Hindus, Jinnah refused to recognise them. He also noted that while the view of the Hindus, shared by many minorities, favoured a strong Centre, the Muslim League view was that there should be no Centre of any kind. Wavell did not really expect anything to come of the Sapru Committee whose report was sent to him in April 1945 while he was in London.

From the sphere of education, Dr Mookerjee moved to the realm of politics in 1938 when, following disagreement with the Congress policy to boycott the Legislature, he resigned and was re-elected as an independent candidate. From then onwards, he was actively involved in politics till his death in 1953. His struggle against the Muslim League in Bengal began with his opposition to the Secondary Education Bill that communalised education. He also found it necessary to protest against defilement of Hindu images, molestation of Hindu women and discrimination in government employment. In contrast, the Congress maintained a discreet silence on these issues, both in and outside the Legislative Assembly, lest a word against injustice or outrage on Hindus should offend Muslims. He, therefore, thought it necessary, in the wider interests of Bengal and India, to keep the Muslim League out of power by mustering together all the non-Congress Hindu forces in the Legislature. His efforts bore fruit first with the forming of the Progressive Coalition with the Krishak Praja Party under the leadership of Fazlul Haq's new coalition cabinet (12 December 1941) that included Dr Mookerjee as Finance Minister. A leading member of the Cabinet, Syama Prasad emerged as the new spokesman of the Hindu cause, inveighing against the communal policy followed by the previous Haq Ministry under the influence of its coalition partner, the League. However, referring to the Governor repeatedly pressing them to abandon Haq and to settle with the League, Dr Mookerjee confessed that working as a minister in such a situation was ‘a strange experience’.

SECTION-1: Dr Mookerjee's Quest for a Political Platform

Dr Mookerjee's resignation created a stir in the country. The Congress circles felt uneasy and the press they controlled tried to minimise the importance of the event. But the people hailed it as a brave act. The citizens of Delhi demonstrated their appreciation for Dr Mookerjee's stand by hosting a grand reception to congratulate him on his bold decision which was attended by more than a thousand representative citizens drawn from all walks of life. Some of the independent-minded Congressmen like H.V. Kamath, Member of Parliament, also hailed his exit from the Cabinet as the beginning of a healthy opposition within the Parliament. But the tragedy of the situation was that no organised opposition then existed within or without Parliament, which was also the Constituent Assembly and was elected indirectly by the Provincial Legislature in 1946 when the main problem before the country was the demand for partition of the country. The Congress then captured all the Hindu seats by presenting itself as the champion of united India, while Muslims, returned by the Muslim League, constituted the main opposition for some time. The Partition converted the Muslim League opposition into the sovereign Parliament of Pakistan. So in the parliamentary debates, the role of opposition had to be played by a few outspoken Congressmen and liberals like Pandit Hriday Nath Kunzru who, however, all belonged to the Congress party for voting purposes.

Letter to Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru dated 15 April 1950 by Dr S.R Mookerjee tendering resignation from the Central Cabinet and replies dated 15 April 1950 from Prime Minister and Speaker

My Dear Panditji,

I have given most anxious thought to the requests made to me to reconsider my decision. While attaching the greatest respect to the views expressed, I very much regret I do not find it possible to withdraw my resignation. In these circumstances I hope you will be good enough to accept it formally now.

Regarding Neogy, I had talks with him after yesterday's Party meeting. He also finds himself unable to withdraw his resignation. Apart from the reasons given by him already, he feels very strongly that the impending trade talks should not be finalised or implemented by Cabinet for a period of say two months. During this period Government should satisfy itself that the Political Agreement is actually being implemented by Pakistan. Meanwhile all possible steps should be taken to requisition the raw jute stocks in India and make them available to the mills at controlled prices. This will keep the mills going for at least two months, if not more.

During this period the top most priority in the matter of implementation should be given to recovery of abducted women.

Copies of telegrams circulated to us indicate how disturbances in some parts of East Bengal are still continuing. Some of them are of a fairly serious character. There are reports of about 50 women having been abducted. These incidents are apart from the border incidents which have been separately reported by West Bengal Government. How far this will be regarded as breach of Agreement is a matter for you to consider.

Presidential speech by Dr Syama Prasad Mookerjee at the Annual Function of R.S.S. (Rastriya Swayamsevak Sangh) New Delhi on 3rd December, 1950

I deem it a great pleasure to be invited to preside over your annual gathering. Let me, in the first place, warmly congratulate you on the performances you have just displayed, your discipline, efficiency and alertness indicate not only the spirit of your devotion but also the high qualities of training and organisation that you have imbibed. The R.S.S. has passed through many trials and tribulations. The fire of suffering and sacrifice has, however, added to its strength and vitality and today it stands more consolidated than perhaps it ever did before. As an organisation it is devoted to the development of Bharatiya culture and spirit of unity and solidarity amongst all classes of Hindus throughout this great country. The revival of the glory of our past culture and civilisation is a task of supreme importance in the building-up of free India. Our country is divided into many States and the people residing therein not only speak different languages but also follow varied habits and customs. But amidst all this diversity, there does exist a spirit of unity which in national interest has to be intensified, and broad-based. History reminds us that Hindus lost their political freedom because of disunity and jealousy amongst themselves and thus foreigners stepped into our country and ultimately captured political power. We must see to it that history is not allowed to repeat itself in future.

Indian Legislative Assembly Debates, Vol. 8 (1946) pp. 1053–55

Jawaharlal Nehru on the Communal Riots, 14 November 1946

To give an account of the communal trouble in the country is to deal with a chain of events going back to the past. One evil action leads to another which again becomes the ostensible cause of further evil. The preaching and practice of hatred and violence inevitably sows seeds which yield bitter fruit. If we sow the wind we have to reap the whirlwind.

Ever since the Interim Government took charge of affairs they have been intensely occupied with these communal troubles. The House will remember that this Government took office very soon after what is called the great Calcutta killing which began on the 16th August. All our work was shadowed by these events and we tried our utmost to deal with this situation. The House knows that the Government of India may not interfere, under the existing constitution, with the Provincial autonomy. In so far as any one can interfere under the constitution, it is the Governor- General, and not the Governor-General in Council. Nevertheless, as Indians in responsible positions to whom the country looked for guidance, we tried our utmost to help. Throughout this unhappy period, whether it was in Calcutta or elsewhere in India, or Noakhali and East Bengal, or Bihar, the Government were acutely conscious of their responsibilities and keenly desirous of combating the peril that had encompassed the country. and keenly desirous of combating the peril that had encompassed the country.

SECTION-1: Circumstances Behind Formation of Second Fazlul Haq Ministry in Bengal

The 1937 elections returned the Congress as the single largest party in Bengal but unable to form a ministry without the cooperation of at least A.K. Fazlul Haq's Krishak Praja Party. The latter being a Muslim peasant's party, accorded priority to krishak welfare, whereas the Congress wanted the release of political prisoners to be the first priority. Fazlul Haq, whom the Europeans did not trust and who had been kept far away from Government counsels for long, “was dying for power”. Disinclined to fall into the arms of the Sir Khwaja Nazimuddin-led Muslim League, Haq implored the Congress to form a coalition ministry in Bengal with himself as Premier. Dr Mookerjee regrets that “If this had been done, Bengal would never have gone under the heels of Leaguecum- British conspiracy”, “Bengal would have been a different province altogether” and “India's political history would have been different”. But the Congress High Command bungled and did not agree to this. Haq became Prime Minister, thanks to a marriage of convenience with Nazimuddin (who got the Home portfolio) arranged by Nalini Ranjan Sarkar (who became Finance Minister), a leading member of the Bengal Congress, “a clever power-broker and perfect master of the political game of changing sides”. Although numerically strong, none of the Hindu ministers enjoyed any support of the Hindu community or of the Hindu legislators and could hardly exercise any restraining influence in framing and executing government policies.

The Great Calcutta Killing – Who Is Responsible

Speech of Dr S.P. Mookerjee at the Bengal Legislative Assembly on 20th September 1946 in support of the no confidence motion against the Muslim League Ministry headed by Mr U.S. Suhrawardy for the responsibility of the ‘Great Calcutta Killing’, on 16th August, 1946 the ‘Direct Action Day’ called by Mr M.A. Jinnah, President of Muslim League.

Dr Syama Prasad Mookerjee: Mr Speaker, Sir, since yesterday we have been discussing the motions of non-confidence under circumstances which perhaps have no parallel in the deliberation of any legislature in any part of the civilised world. What happened in Calcutta is without a parallel in modern history. St Bartholomew's Day of which history records some grim events of murder and butchery pales into insignificance compared to the brutalities that were committed in the streets, lanes and by-lanes of this first city of British India. We have been discussing, Sir, as to the genesis of these disturbances. Time will not permit me to go through the detailed history and course of events during the last few years. But let me say this that what has happened is not the result of a sudden explosion, but it is the culmination of an administration, inefficient, corrupt and communal, which has disfigured the life of this great province. But so far as the immediate cause is concerned, rightly reference has been made by members belonging to the Muslim League and also to the opposition that we have to look to the resolution that was passed at Bombay at the all-India session of the Council of the Muslim League.

Dr Syama Prasad Mookerjee is one of the most remarkable public figures that adorned the Indian political scene in the crucial pre-independence and post-independence decades of Indian history. He was a fearless patriot for whom his country always came first. His elegant personality and brilliant intellect were all the more admirable for his lofty idealism, impeccable character and simple lifestyle. Beginning as an educationist at the young age of 23, he rose to be the youngest Vice-Chancellor of the Calcutta University. Entering politics a few years later, he made his mark as a dynamic and far-sighted political leader when he outwitted the British and the Muslim League by uniting the nationalist forces in Bengal to oust the League Ministry and install the Haq-led Coalition Ministry, in which he became the Finance Minister.

Making his debut on the all-India stage soon there after as President of the All-India Hindu Mahasabha, which he had joined on account of the magnetic influence of Veer Savarkar's pure nationalism, patriotism and realism, he became the most effective spokesman of nationalist opinion on the critical question of the unity of the country, which was being threatened by the Muslim League with the direct encouragement of the British Government. Even though he was a member of the Government, Syama Prasad took up the cudgels against the British Government on behalf of nationalist India in 1942 when all the Congress leaders were in jail following the Quit India Movement.

Even when the first decade of the twenty-first century is more than half way through, India is groping towards congenial inter-community relations, which are forever worsening. Writing in 1997, Sudipta Kaviraj very perceptively noted that the preceding decade had witnessed “a sudden and unexpected revival of Hindu communal politics” that seemed surprising “after forty years of modified success of capitalism and democracy”, since communalism had traditionally been “associated with the power of tradition, the alleged unwillingness of religious people to accept modern notions of democratic politics”. During the last nine years conditions have deteriorated much more even as India is poised to emerge as a technological and knowledge super-power. Communalism has even acquired strong international overtones and linkages, as not only the one time militancy in Punjab and the continuing militancy in the Kashmir valley, but also the terrorist attacks inside India engineered by ‘international’ terrorist outfits, in tandem with disgruntled local elements, provide ample testimony to. There is no lull since 1990 in the continually burgeoning theoretically inclined literature on the rise and growth of communalism in both pre-and-post colonial India, and no signs of scholarly exhaustion about it, though in the popular psyche communalism is no more the dominant and single category. This is because in the backdrop of the recent spurt in and global preoccupation with terror, disruptive and subversive acts that have communalist springs or overtones have taken on new meanings of international conspiracy and terrorism.

Colonialism deeply affected attitudes to politics, society, community, nation, gender, intercommunity relations, and ecology in India. The area is, however, not only over-researched but has also received the scholarly attention of the most incisive students of history and politics in India. One would have hesitated to rush into this scholarly minefield had the purpose not been very limited, which is to understand how the thought processes of the most versatile genius of Bengal and India in the nineteenth and the first half of the twentieth century were conditioned by colonialism while reflecting on the above mentioned questions, and yet how transcending this colonial context, they remain relevant even in the twenty-first century post-modern world.

The reasons for choosing Tagore as a filter for ‘re-membering’ the impact of colonialism in India are many, not the least of which is the extreme difficulty of branding Tagore in any of the post-Enlightenment or anti-Enlightenment modes of thought prevalent in colonial India. Politics of colonialism not only in India but anywhere else, where colonialism has made it impossible to resurrect the country's past(s) in pristine, unalloyed forms, can be best understood not from the reactions of ‘Ariels’ or the ‘Calibans’ it produced, but from those of other independent thinkers, who inhabited interstitial spaces between the extreme archetypes with a kind of ‘inbetweenness’.

This book is about Rabindranath Tagore (1861–1941), India's poet par excellence, the first unit of whose name, ‘Ravi’, signifies the Hindu sun god; and who in narcissistic love of that name consciously and endlessly punned on it from the earliest days of his creative genius to the final days of its maturation. Fittingly, he is also the most Apollonian of the creative geniuses India has produced. It would constitute the ultimate sin for a Bengali, or for that matter an Indian, to even faintly suggest that his conception of the universe could be, what Sudipta Kaviraj said about Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay in his famous book, The Unhappy Consciousness, namely, “tense, disorderly, nocturnal, swept by incomprehensible disorders”. Many would simply not understand it. As Bishnu De says it in his verse, in my poor translation, about the synonymousness of the poet's first name with sun, and its signification for us of the blinding and revealing light of his genius:

Nationalism amidst Globalization

This chapter seeks to measure Tagore as a theorist of nationalism. The reasons for doing so are twofold. The first is the widespread misconception about Tagore's attitude to nationalism, derived from a pamphlet written by him, titled Nationalism, which is at best a period piece. The second reason is that like civil society, nationalism too is in the present times a hotly contested discursive field. Around the general question of if the heyday of nationalism is over, numerous theorists are giving different dates of the origins of the concept, its components, its nature, and its future amidst the present tide of globalization. By locating Tagore in the contentious terrain of competing theories of nationalism, we can not only gain a few insights into his true worth as a political thinker, but can also analyze to what extent Western-generated theories of nationalism are applicable to India. This may additionally help us understand if a new theory of nationalism can come out of India.

One may wonder why one would try to bring out Tagore's views on a concept that is being adjudged a little anachronistic in today's globalizing world. But nationalism as a concept, and also as a form of movement is experiencing a new resurgence in spite of the inexorable trend towards globalization in the present times. Not everyone would accept this view.

In the last chapter we refered to “Rabibār”, “Laboratory” and “Seş Kathā”, Tagore's three last stories, in the context of Tagore's thinking on the women's question in India. But it is possible to situate the stories in an altogether different and dissimilar context, that of Tagore's male engineers. This is the basic purpose of this chapter. These were the three ‘new-fangled’ stories that he started writing toward the end of his long and teleologically evolving literary career. There are strong reasons why we should take it up for a closer analysis in the first decade of the third millennium, when our technology is going to execute a leap from the wheel (whether driven by steam, power or nuclear energy) to chips. In his pathbreaking book Art and the Industrial Revolution, a famous art historian and dedicated Marxist, concluded: “In our nucleonic age, it is left to the historians to assess the achievements of coal and iron and steam and of the great artists who were concerned with its images”. We want to emphasize that Tagore was one of them, and refuse to put him in an anachronistic bucolic mould, as much of uninformed criticism has sought to do.

Of these companion stories “Seş Kathā” (“The Last Word”) came out in Śanibārer Cithi of Phalgun 1346 (February–March 1939); “Rabibār” (“Sunday”) was first published in the autumnal number of Anandabazar Patrika in Āśvin 1346 (September–October 1939); and ‘Laboratory’, was originally published in the autumnal issue of Anandabazar Patrika in Bangabda Āśvin 1347 (September–October 1940).

The aim of this book is to assess Tagore as a social theorist on the anvil of modern concepts and ideas. Therefore, this chapter begins by focusing on his views on the possibilities and role of a civil social sphere in colonial India for many reasons. First, the concept of civil society has witnessed a tremendous resurgence in modern political theory. Western political leaders, sophisticated political theorists, economists, sociologists, and international bankers – none have left any stone unturned in promoting it in the East and the South. A noted Lockean scholar has jestingly shown how an issue of a financial daily carried the resolve of the then US President that without trying to become the ‘world's policeman’, his government would “do what we can to help civil societies emerge from repression”. Three years after that, General Colin Powell, who later became the US Secretary of State, taught us that “at a minimum a civil society is one where whose members care about each other and about the well-being of the community as a whole”.

Secondly, Tagore's search for non-state spheres in ancient and his contemporary India is taken up, not only to show that he anticipates many of the recent concerns of civil society, but that he can be profitably used by scholars who want to explore its possibilities in the South.