The Role of South India in the Freedom Movement

Rajgopalchari 1878-1972

This chapter presents the life of one freedom fighter who had the courage and honesty to chart his own path according to his deepest convictions. His name is Rajagopalchari or as he was affectionately called Rajaji. Although in the first part of his political life he was almost totally influenced and under the spell of Gandhi, in the later part of his career he had the inner strength and courage to differ from him and even to stand up, sometimes as a lonely crusader. Today, when one looks in hindsight, one feels that had the Congress party listened to Rajaji, the course of Indian history might have been different. In this contest, we shall also point out the role of Sri Aurobindo in this turbulent period of Indian history. Unfortunately, the national leaders did not heed his advice and we are now paying the price for this short-sightedness. Rajaji thus stands out as an exceptional leader of his time for his deeper political vision.

Chakravarti Rajagopalachari was born in a village in Madras Presidency in December 1878 and graduated from the Central Hindu College of Bangalore. He then took a law degree from the Madras Law College.

He joined the Congress party soon after that and in 1921 was chosen general secretary of the Indian National Congress under Gandhi's leadership. In subsequent years he was intermittently a member of the all-powerful Congress Working Committee, the top executive arm of the National Congress, and worked very closely with Gandhi. At one time considered Mahatma Gandhi's heir, this brilliant lawyer from Salem in Tamil Nadu was regarded in pre-Independence years as one of the top five leaders of the Congress along with Jawaharlal Nehru, Rajendra Prasad, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad. So close was he to Gandhi that later his daughter married into Gandhi's family. Rajagopalchari was thus related to Mahatma Gandhi - Rajmohan Gandhi is the grandson of both. Of the five leaders, Rajaji, Nehru and Patel were christened the 'head, heart and hands' of Gandhi, in whose shadows they remained till his death. Despite this closeness and quite ironically, all three of them were to have a tempestuous relationship, bound together only by their common goal and Gandhi's charm. However, they respected each other immensely. Nehru wrote about Rajaji in his autobiography: '[Rajaji's] brilliant intellect, selfless character, and penetrating powers of analysis have been a tremendous asset to our cause.'

In 1937, when the Congress won the provincial elections in several Indian provinces, Rajagopalachari became chief minister of Madras. He was considered one of the best chief ministers and he introduced many revolutionary and radically progressive steps. Some examples may be cited. He ordered the release of political prisoners and introduced prohibition in the State. He threw open temples to the untouchables, for the plight of the downtrodden was very close to his heart. One Bill however which raised a great deal of controversy was making the study of Hindi compulsory. However, he held the position of Chief Minister only until the outbreak of the Second World War.

In September 1939, immediately after the Second World War broke out, Lord Linlithgow, the then viceroy of India, declared that India was at war with Germany. The Congress party, which by that time had formed governments in many provinces of British India resigned in protest stating that the viceroy's decision had pushed India into a war which was neither of India's making nor was it with consultation of its people or representatives.

It is felt by many political analysts that this act of resignation was a wrong step and helped Jinnah in the creation of Pakistan.

Page 94

As V. P. Menon pointed out: Had it (the Congress party) not resigned from its position of vantage in the Provinces the course of Indian history might have been very different.....

By resigning the Congress Party showed a lamentable lack of political wisdom. There was little chance of being put out of office: the British Government would surely have hesitated to incur the odium of dismissing ministries, which had the overwhelming support of the people. Nor could it have resisted a unanimous demand for a change at the centre, a demand which would have been all the more irresistible after the entry of Japan into the war. It is clear that but for the resignation of the Congress Ministries, Jinnah and the Muslim League would have never attained the position they did.1

 Another serious long-term consequence of the Congress decision to quit was losing control over the strategic North West Frontier Province. Had this Muslim majority province remained under Congress Party rule between 1940 and 1946, the plan for the partition of India could not have been put forward.

Sri Aurobindo also remarked on the resignation of the Congress Ministries: And it is not true that they [the British] have given nothing.... They gave provincial autonomy and didn't exercise any veto power. It is the Congress that spoiled everything by resigning. If without resigning they had put pressure at the Centre they would have got by now what they want. It is for two reasons I support the British in this war: first in India's own interest and secondly for humanity's sake, and the reasons I have given are external reasons, there are spiritual reasons too. 2

However that be, Rajaji along with the other chief ministers of the Congress-ruled Presidencies tendered their resignation.

It will be pertinent to note Gandhi's reaction at the beginning of the Second World War. A short passage is reproduced from a book written by Narendra Sarila: 'Gandhi, during a meeting with Lord Linlithgow stunned him by saying that the British should have the courage to let Germany occupy Britain': "Let them take possession of your beautiful island, if Hitler chooses to occupy your homes, vacate them, if he does not give you free passage out, allow yourself, man, woman and child to be slaughtered." 3.... Faced with such an impracticable - even unethical - attitude of the leader of the Indian National Congress Party, no wonder, ... Lord Linlithgow could not afford to seek the cooperation and support of the Muslim League to ensure the successful mobilization of Indian resources for the Second World War.'

It is a wonder that no Congress leader except Rajagopalchari protested against this attitude. This was also the beginning of taking the Muslim League into confidence by the British and this naturally led to the formation of Pakistan.

The Differences with Gandhi

The first serious difference between Rajaji and the Congress party led by Gandhi broke out a few months after the Second World War erupted.

It was in early 1940 just a few months after the Second World War broke out that Rajaji expressed his differences with Gandhi; although he had resigned from the post of Chief Minister, he now suggested that India should support the British in the war and join in the war effort.

The Congress Resolution

In March 1940, the fifty-third session of the Congress met at Ramgarh in Bihar under the presidency of Mulana Azad. It passed a resolution on 20 March declaring that since Great Britain

Page 95

was waging the war essentially for imperialist ends and for the preservation and strengthening of her own empire, India could not in any way, directly or indirectly become party to the War. Stating that 'India's constitution must be based on independence, democracy and national unity', the resolution repudiated attempts to divide India or to split up her nationhood. It reiterated that nothing short of complete independence would be acceptable to the people of India.

Rajaji's strategy

About three months after the Ramgarh Congress, the Tinevelli District Political Conference was held at Ambasamudram. Presiding over its session, Rajaji said if India enthusiastically extended her co-operation in the war effort, there was every possibility of Britain giving her in return a substantial share in the administration of India. He persuaded the Congress to accept a resolution to the effect that if there was a declaration that India would be free at the end of the War and if an all-party national government was formed right away, the Congress would prosecute the War as an ally of Britain. This offer of Indian participation in war efforts ran counter to the Gandhian principle of non-violence. For the first time in twenty years Rajaji disobeyed Gandhiji.

The Congress Working Committee which met at Wardha in June 1940, reiterated after five days of hectic debate (17-21 June) the country's strict adherence to the principle of non-violence in its struggle for independence but declared its inability 'to go the full length with Gandhiji'. It, however, recognised that Gandhiji 'should be free to pursue his great ideal in his own way'. It was at this session that Gandhiji expressed a desire to be absolved from the activities of the Congress. And he was relieved. The Working Committee opined that India had not 'the strength to exercise ahimsa against the invasion of a foreign foe'. The opposition was led by Rajaji at the next meeting held on 3 July at Delhi. When Gandhiji said that India would defend itself non-violently so far as the Congress was concerned, Rajaji retorted: 'I cannot go with Gandhiji in his conception of the State. Ours is a political organization not working for non-violence but for a political ideal. We are working in competition with other political parties.' He highlighted the limits of non-violence in conducting the affairs of men. This had made such a profound impression even on Jawaharlal Nehru who endorsed Rajaji'' stand stating, 'I agree with Rajaji in his understanding of violence and non-violence; else, we cannot function on the political plane'. Rajaji was able to win over the majority of the Working Committee to his side including President Maulana Azad and Vallabhbhai Patel. Thus a serious difference arose between Gandhiji and the Working Committee on the question of applying the principle of non-violence. Whereas Gandhiji wanted it to be applied in all spheres of life not excluding the defence of India, the Working Committee was firm that it should be restricted to the struggle for freedom. Four days later, on 7 July, the Working Committee passed a resolution calling upon Britain to acknowledge the complete independence of India and to give immediate effect to it by the constitution of a Provisional National Government at the centre.

The Working Committee declared that the adoption of these measures would enable the Congress to organise effectively for the defence of the country. This resolution which was passed after deliberations lasting over five solid days (3 to 7 July) was a departure from the spirit of the earlier Ramgarh resolution. Gandhiji described the resolution as 'fateful'. In a persuasive speech delivered three weeks after the Delhi meet, Rajaji said that the Delhi resolution had only restated the Congress position. He averred that it was similar in content to the one passed at Ramgarh but different in approach owing to changes in the political conditions since then. Rajaji then recalled how Gandhiji himself who adumbrated his policy of non-violence in Hind-Swaraj in 1913, went round the country in 1917, actively recruiting men for the army during the First World War. He cited this precedent to show there was nothing dishonorable in making an offer of co-operation to the British in their war effort if India were to be given independence. Gandhiji was relieved of the leadership of the Congress on the issue of renouncing violence even for the defence of India.

Page 96

The tense atmosphere was, however, eased considerably when Gandhiji himself said, 'If my position was not acceptable, then Rajaji's was the only real alternative'. However, Gandhiji prognosticated the breach in the Congress to be a passing phase. He had the least doubt that Rajaji and Patel would be back with him. However, the happenings did pain him. He confessed that he had no difficulty in the past in 'carrying Rajaji with me, his intelligence as well as his heart but since this question cropped up, I saw that our thoughts were running in different directions. I see that 1 cannot carry him now along with me.' When Rajaji was interviewed by the Associated Press correspondent on 11 July, regarding the Delhi resolution he repeated that, since the war had lost its aggressive nature 'the defence of India is now an integral part of the defence of Britain. This is the key to understand the resolution of the Congress Working Committee.'

A week later, on 18 July, while explaining the differences of opinion on the matter of extension of non-violence to the field of national self-defence, Rajaji said in Madras that there was no rupture between Gandhiji and the Congress High Command. The AICC which met at Poona from 25 to 28 July ratified the Delhi resolution of the Working Committee. Intelligent public opinion throughout India welcomed this development. Rajaji had, of course, his own doubts about the acceptance of the Congress proposal by the British Government because he knew that the views of the senior Civil Servants who advised the Viceroy and the Secretary of State were 'reactionary and out of date'.

In this context, we present the position taken by Sri Aurobindo. We present here a long letter approved and partly written by Sri Aurobindo in 1940.

The textual basis of this statement was an essay written by Anilbaran Roy and submitted to Sri Aurobindo for approval. Sri Aurobindo thoroughly revised and enlarged the first four paragraphs and added seven new ones, transforming Anilbaran's essay into an entirely new piece that may be considered his own writing. In revising, he retained Anilbaran's third-person 'Sri Aurobindo'.

'Sri Aurobindo's decision to give his moral support to the struggle against Hitler, which was made at the very beginning of the war, was based like all his actions on his inner view of things and on intimations from within. It was founded on his consciousness of the forces at work, of their significance in the Divine's leading of the world, of the necessary outer conditions for the spiritual development in which he sees the real hope of humanity. It would not serve any purpose to speak here of this view of things: but some outer considerations of a most material kind easily understandable by everyone can be put forward which might help to explain his action to the general mind, although they do not give the whole meaning of it; it is only these that are developed here. The struggle that is going on is not fundamentally a conflict between two imperialisms—German and English,—one attacking, the other defending itself. That is only an outward aspect, and not the whole even of the outward aspect. For the Germans and Italians believe that they are establishing a new civilization and a new world-order. The English believe that they are defending not only their empire but their very existence as a free nation and the freedom also of other nations conquered by Germany or threatened by the push to empire of the Axis powers; they have made it a condition for making peace that the nations conquered shall be liberated and the others guaranteed against farther aggression. They believe also that they are standing up for the principles of civilization which a Nazi victory would destroy. These beliefs have to be taken into consideration in assessing the significance of the struggle. It is in fact a clash between two world-forces which are contending for the control of the whole future of humanity. One force seeks to destroy the past civilization and substitute a new one; but this new civilization is in substance a reversion to the old principles of dominant Force and a rigid external order and denies the established values, social, political, ethical, spiritual, altogether. Among these values are those which were hitherto held to be the most precious, the liberty of the individual, the right to national liberty, freedom of thought; even religious liberty is to be crushed and replaced by the subjection of religion to State control. The new ethics contemn and reject all the principles that can be summed up in the word "humanitarianism "; all that is to it a falsehood and a weakness. The only ethical values admitted are those of dominant Force on the one side

Page 97

and, on the other, of blind obedience and submission, self-effacement and labor in the service of the State. Wherever this new idea conquers or can make its power felt, it is this order of things that it seeks to establish; it is not satisfied with setting itself up in one country or another, it is pushing for world conquest, for the enforcement of the new order everywhere, securing it,—this at least Germany, its principal agent, conceives to be the right method and carries it out with a scientific thoroughness by a ruthless repression of all opposition and a single iron rule. The other Force is that of the evolutionary tendencies which have been directing the course of humanity for some time past and, till recently, seemed destined to shape its future. Its workings had their good and bad sides, but among the greater values it had developed stood the very things against which the new Force is most aggressive, the liberty of the individual, national liberty, freedom of thought, political and social freedom with an increasing bent towards equality, complete religious liberty, the humanitarian principle with all its consequences and, latterly, a seeking after a more complete social order, which will organize the life of the community, but will respect the liberty of the individual while perfecting his means of life and helping in every way possible his development. This evolutionary world-force has not been perfect in its action, its working is still partial and incomplete: it contains many strong survivals from the past which have to disappear; it has, on the other hand, lost or diminished some spiritual elements of a past human culture which ought to recover or survive. There are still many denials of national freedom and of the other principles which are yet admitted as the ideal to be put in practice. In the working of that force as represented by Britain and other democracies there may not be anywhere full individual freedom or full national liberty. But the movement has been more and more towards a greater development of these things and, if this evolutionary force still remains dominant, their complete development is inevitable.

Neither of these forces are altogether what we need for the future. There are ideas and elements in the first which may have their separate value in a total human movement; but on the whole, in system and in practice, its gospel is a worship of Force and its effect is the rule of a brutal and pitiless violence, the repression of the individual, not only a fierce repression but a savage extinction of all that opposes or differs from it, the suppression of all freedom of thought, an interference with religious belief and freedom of spiritual life and, in an extreme tendency, the deliberate will to "liquidate" all forms of religion and spirituality. On the side of the other more progressive force there are, often, a limited view, grievous defects of practice, an undue clinging to the past, a frequent violation of the ideal; but at the same time the necessary elements and many of the necessary conditions of progress are there, a tendency towards an enlargement of the human mind and spirit, towards an increasing idealism in the relation of men with men and of nation with nation and a tolerant and humane mentality. Both are, at present, or have been largely materialistic in their thought, but the difference is between a materialism that suppresses the spirit and a materialism that tolerates it and leaves room for its growth if it can affirm its strength to survive and conquer.

At present the balance in the development of human thought and action has been turning for some time against the larger evolutionary force and in favour of a revolutionary reaction against it. This reaction is now represented by totalitarian governments and societies, the other tendency by the democracies; but democracy is on the wane everywhere in Europe, the totalitarian idea was gaining ground on all sides even before the war. Now with Hitler as its chief representative, this Force has thrown itself out for world-domination. Everywhere the results are the same, the disappearance of individual and national liberty, a rigid "New Order", the total suppression of free thought and speech, a systematic cruelty and intolerance, the persecution of all opposition, and, wherever the Nazi idea spreads, a violent racialism denying the human idea; outside Europe what is promised is the degradation of the coloured peoples to helotry as an inferior, even a subhuman race. Hitler, carrying with him everywhere the new idea and the new order, is now master of almost all Europe minus Great Britain and Russia. There would be then nothing that could stand in his way except Russia; but Russia has helped his projects by her attitude and

Page 98

seems in no mood to oppose him. The independence of the peoples of the Middle East and Central Asia would disappear as the independence of so many European nations has disappeared and a deadly and imminent peril would stand at the gates of India. These are patent facts of the situation, its dangerous possibilities and menacing consequences. What is there that can prevent them from coming into realization? The only material force that now stands between is the obstinate and heroic resistance of Great Britain and her fixed determination to fight the battle to the end. It is the British Navy alone that keeps the war from our gates and confines it to European lands and seas and a strip of North Africa. If there were defeat and the strength of Britain and her colonies were to go down before the totalitarian nations, all Europe, Africa and Asia would be doomed to domination by three or four Powers all anti-democratic and all pushing for expansion, powers with regimes and theories of life which take no account of liberty of any kind; the surviving democracies would perish, nor would any free government with free institutions be any longer possible anywhere. It is not likely that India poor and ill-armed would be able to resist forces which had brought down the great nations of Europe; her chance of gaining the liberty which is now so close to her would disappear for a long time to come. On the contrary, if the victory goes to Britain, the situation will be reversed, the progressive evolutionary forces will triumph and the field will lie open for the fulfillment of the tendencies which were making India's full control of her own life a certainty of the near future. It is hardly possible that after the war the old order of things can survive unchanged; if that happened, there would again be a repetition of unrest, chaos, economic disorder and armed strife till the necessary change is made. The reason is that the life of mankind has become in fact a large though loosely complex unit and a world-order recognizing this fact is inevitable. It is ceasing to be possible for national egoisms to entrench themselves in their isolated independence and be sufficient for themselves, for all are now dependent on the whole. The professed separate self-sufficiency of Germany ended in a push for life-room which threatens all other peoples; nations which tried to isolate themselves in a self-regarding neutrality have paid the penalty of their blindness and the others who still maintain that attitude are likely sooner or later to share the same fate; either they must become the slaves or subservient vassals of three or four greater Powers, or a world-order must be found in which all can be safe in their freedom and yet united for the common good. It will be well for India, if in spite of the absorption of her pressing need, she recognizes that national egoism is no longer sufficient. She must claim freedom and equality for herself in whatever new order is to come or any post-war arrangement, but recognize also that the international idea and its realization are something that is becoming equally insistent, necessary and inevitable. If the totalitarian Powers win, there will indeed be a new world-order,—it may be in the end, a unification; but it will be a new order of naked brute Force, repression and exploitation, and for the people of Asia and Africa a subjection worse than anything they had experienced before. This has been recognised even by the Arabs who were fighting England in Palestine before the war; they have turned to her side. Not only Europe, Asia and Africa, but distant America with all her power and resources is no longer safe, and she has shown that she knows it; she has felt the peril and is arming herself in haste to meet it. In the other contingency, there will be not only the necessity for a freer new order, but every possibility of its formation; for the idea is growing; it is already recognised as an actual programme by advanced progressive forces in England and elsewhere. It may not be likely that it will materialise at once or that it will be perfect when it comes, but it is bound to take some kind of initial shape as an eventual result in the not distant future. These are some of the more obvious external considerations which have taken form in Sri Aurobindo's contribution to the War Fund accompanied by his letter. It is a simple recognition of the fact that the victory of Great Britain in this war is not only to the interest of the whole of humanity including India, but necessary for the safeguarding of its future. If that is so, the obligation of at least a complete moral support follows as a necessary consequence. It is objected that Britain has refused freedom to India and that therefore no Indian should support her in the War. The answer arises inevitably from the considerations stated above. The dominant need for

Page 99

India and the World is to survive the tremendous attack of Asuric Force which is now sweeping over the earth. The freedom of India, in whatever form, will be a consequence of that victory. The working towards freedom was clear already in the world and in the British Empire itself before the War; Eire, Egypt had gained their independence, Iraq had been granted hers; many free nationalities had arisen in Europe and Asia; India herself was drawing nearer to her goal and the attainment of it was coming to be recognised as inevitable. If the totalitarian new order extends over Asia, all that will disappear; the whole work done will be undone. If there is the opposite result, nothing can prevent India attaining to the object of her aspirations; even if restrictions are put upon the national self-government that is bound to come, they cannot last for long. In any case, there is no moral incompatibility between India's claim to freedom and support to Britain in the struggle against Hitler, since it would be a support given for the preservation of her own chance of complete liberty and the preservation also of three continents or even of the whole earth from a heavy yoke of servitude. There remains the objection that all War is evil and no war can be supported; soul-force or some kind of spiritual or ethical force is the only force that should be used; the only resistance permissible is passive resistance, non-cooperation or Satyagraha. But this kind of resistance though it has been used in the past with some effect by individuals or on a limited scale, cannot stop the invasion of a foreign army, least of all, a Nazi army, or expel it, once it is inside and in possession; it can at most be used as a means of opposition to an already established oppressive rule. The question then arises whether a nation can be asked to undergo voluntarily the menace of a foreign invasion or the scourge of a foreign occupation without using whatever material means of resistance are available. It is also a question whether any nation in the world is capable of this kind of resistance long enduring and wholesale or is sufficiently developed ethically and spiritually to satisfy the conditions which would make it successful, especially against an organized and ruthless military oppression such as the Nazi rule; at any rate it is permissible not to wish to risk the adventure so long as there is another choice. War is physically an evil, a calamity; morally it has been like most human institutions a mixture, in most but not all cases a mixture of some good and much evil: but it is sometimes necessary to face it rather than invite or undergo a worse evil, a greater calamity. One can hold that, so long as life and mankind are what they are, there can be such a thing as a righteous war,—dharmya yuddha. No doubt, in a spiritualised life of humanity or in a perfect civilisation there would be no room for war or violence, —it is clear that this is the highest ideal state. But mankind is psychologically and materially still far from this ideal state. To bring it to that state needs either an immediate spiritual change of which there is no present evidence or a change of mentality and habits which the victory of the totalitarian idea and its system would render impossible; for it would impose quite the opposite mentality, the mentality and habits on one side of a dominant brute force and violence and on the other a servile and prostrate non-resistance. ' 4

It is evident that the judgement of the Congress party was mistaken and has resulted in serious consequences for the nation. If only they had listened to Sri Aurobindo - or even what Rajaji proposed, many of the problems facing the nation could have been avoided.

Page 100

HOME