The Persian Tragedy (1739)

Tags

, , ,

Nadir Shah is hardly a household name in India. Historians apart, it’s unlikely too many Indians would have even heard about the one time ruler of Iran. He came, he saw, he plundered and he left India in 1739. Incredible as it may sound, that brief invasion proved a tipping point in Indian history. This is the story of that extraordinary episode.

Condition of India in 1739
Geographically, the Mughal Empire was at its zenith at the turn of the 18th century, including most of present day India and Afghanistan plus the whole of present day Pakistan and Bangladesh. Not since the time of Ashoka the great had one single political authority ruled over nearly the whole of south Asia.

However, the massive expansion of the empire under Aurangzeb had come at a monumental cost. The disastrous campaign in the Deccan had sapped the military strength and prestige of the Mughals. The treasury was teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. The death of Aurangzeb in 1707 resulted in a scramble for power, resulting in court intrigues that increasingly weakened central authority of the Mughal court in Delhi.

Inevitably, regional satraps started enjoying greater autonomy from central authority in Delhi. Far more ominously, the Marathas, whose rising empire had been seemingly destroyed during the Deccan campaign, started re-asserting themselves under the astute hand of Peshwa (Prime Minister) Balaji Vishwanath Bhat.

Aurangzeb

Aurangzeb

The Afghan Situation
In faraway Iran, another empire was rapidly disintegrating at the turn of the 18th century with the Safavid dynasty in deep decline. The extent of their decline was brought home by Afghan invasion in 1722, which resulted in complete collapse of Safavid rule. But the Persians effected a dramatic turnaround under the command of Nadir Shah, who restored the last Safavid ruler to the imperial throne. While Tamasp was nominally the ruler, Nadir Shah was the actual power behind the throne (he would become de jure ruler in 1736).

With the capital Isfahan now recovered, Nadir Shah set out on a campaign against the Afghans, who fled the marauding invaders, taking refuge in Kabul and further east in what is today eastern Afghanistan and FATA region of Pakistan- territories which formed the frontiers of the Mughal empire at the time.

The Afghans were a predominantly tribal people who only grudgingly accepted the central authority of the Mughal sultan in Delhi. Successive Mughal emperors had taken considerable efforts to secure that region from the Persians next door. However, with declining Mughal power and the palace intrigues that occurred after the passing away of Aurangzeb, the security of that crucial frontier region had fallen into neglect.

Nadir Shah sent several messages to the Mughal emperor in Delhi, complaining about the fact that his officials at the frontier were providing refuge to elements inimical to his interests. It is possible that Nadir Shah intended to take on the Mughals anyway- there had been rumours to that effect as far back as 1734. The Mughals, too occupied with palace intrigues to bother about events in the distant frontiers of their empire, made no effort to address his complaints. After a series of ineffective communications, the Persian emperor decided to take matters into his own hands.

Nader Shah

Nader Shah

Nadir crossed the line from the frontier and entered the north-western frontier of the Mughal empire, occupying Kabul by 1738. Whether out of genuine concern, or simply as a pretext to invade, he sent out a new message to the Mughal emperor. The messengers were intercepted en route and attacked. Nadir Shah now had his reason/ pretext.

As the year 1739 wound its course, Nadir Shah moved further and further east. Attock, Peshawar and finally Lahore were sacked. Mughal authorities were ousted and the Persians held sway.

Enemy at the Gates
With the Persians barely four day’s march from their imperial capital, the Mughals made frantic efforts to raise Rajput armies in their support. The Rajput princes, either because they sensed the weakness of their Mughal tormentors or because of the antagonism created by Aurangzeb’s bigoted policies (possibly both), refused to support the Mughal emperor.

The two armies came face to face in Karnal (in present day Indian state of Haryana) on 13th February 1739. Whereas the Persians were led by an astute, iron-willed general in their emperor, the Mughals lacked unity of command as well as cohesion. Predictably, the Mughal army was routed.

The victor imposed an indemnity of two crore (twenty million) rupees on the vanquished- surely, an astronomical amount for that era. But a greater indignity lay in store for Mughal emperor Muhammad Shah. On 20th March the inhabitants of Delhi were treated to the unimaginable scenes of their emperor marching shoulder to shoulder with his conqueror. In the words of a historian

The imperial court was stripped of its splendid appliances…nobles and other rich men were compelled to disgorge their accumulated wealth… terror, dejection and shame sat on every countenance

But a greater tragedy awaited.

The Massacre
On the night of the 21st, a rumour went around Delhi that Nadir Shah had been killed. Seeing the opportunity to avenge their humiliation at the hands of the infidel, influential figures in Delhi unleashed their men, resulting in the murder of over 700 Persian troops.

The infuriated Nadir Shah, who was very much safe and sound, ordered his troops to carry out a general massacre. In the seven hours between 8 A.M and 3 P.M, the inhabitants of the imperial capital were put to the sword. Chandni Chowk, Dariba Kalan and the buildings around Jama Masjid were burnt to the ground. It is estimated that 1,10,000 inhabitants were massacred before the pleas of Muhammed Shah saved thousands of others from a grisly fate.

Not surprisingly, the war indemnity was increased manifold. In the words of an eyewitness

All the regal jewels and property and the contents of the treasury were seized by the Persian conqueror. He thus became possessed of treasure of the amount of 60 lakh rupees and the jewels, many of which were unrivalled in beauty were valued at about 50 crore… elephants, horses and whatever else pleased the emperor’s eye became his spoil… the accumulated wealth of 348 years changed masters in a moment.

For the Mughals, who were devout Sunni Muslims, a humiliating thrashing at the hands of an infidel Shia was the ultimate humiliation. The once mighty Mughal empire lay in ruins.

Aftermath

  • Nadir Shah’s second son Nasrollah was married to one of the imperial princesses
  • Owing to the plunder obtained from the sacking of daily, Nadir declared a 3 year tax holiday in Iran
  • The provinces west of Peshawar were annexed to the Persian empire
  • Nadir Shah was assassinated in 1747
Muhammad Shah

Muhammad Shah

Legacy

  • The provinces annexed by Nadir Shah were never recaptured, forming what is today known as Afghanistan
  • Mughal authority, which had hitherto survived merely on reputation, effectively collapsed. The Sultan in Delhi only remained the emperor of Hindustan in name
  • The Marathas, a rising force in the country at the time, became de facto rulers of most parts of India in the decades that followed
  • Several regional satraps, such as the Nizam of Hyderabad and the Nawab of Bengal became absolute rulers of their provinces although they nominally owed suzerainty to the Mughal emperor
  • The disintegration of the Mughal empire into multiple states paved the way for British conquest of India
  • The fear of a Russian invasion prompted the British rulers of India to attempt annexation of Afghanistan with a view to securing their empire, resulting in three campaigns in Afghanistan by the British

Sources

  • Sidney. J. Owen, The Fall of the Mugul Empire, John Murray, London (1912)
  • Michael Axworthy, The Sword of Persia, I.B. Tauris (2006)
  • Edward Granville Brown, A Literary History of Persia- Volume IV, T.F. Unwin, London (1924)
  • The New Indian Express, Nadir Shah’s Vast Pillage of Delhi, 22nd August 2013

The Principle of Numerical Superiority (1964-65)

Tags

It was a pleasant Sunday morning on 26th January 1964. A young man called Chinnasami made his way to the Tiruchirapalli railway station with cans of petrol. Before a crowd of astonished onlookers, the young man doused himself with petrol and set himself ablaze, screaming Hindi ozhiga! Tamizh vazhga! (Down with Hindi! Long live Tamil)

Chinnasami was perhaps the first, but not the last to lay down his life for his mother tongue in that turbulent period, whose repercussions are felt to this day.

A Constitutional Time Bomb

With independence in sight, the British government formed the Constituent Assembly of India to frame a new constitution for India in 1946. The first meeting of the assembly was to be on 9th December.

The very first day it became evident that the choice of official language of the republic was going to be a vexed issue when R.V. Dhulekar of the United Provinces (predecessor to the present day Uttar Pradesh) moved an amendment, speaking in Hindi. The Chairman Dr. Sinha reminded Dhulekar that many members did not know the language, to which Mr. Dhulekar replied saying

People who do not know Hindustani have no right to stay in India…

Dhulekar’s outburst was just the beginning. The demand for adopting Hindi as the national language remained vociferous throughout the lifetime of the Constituent assembly (whose last meeting was on 24th January 1950), much to the consternation of members from southern India, where Hindi was hardly spoken. One of the members, T.T. Krishnamachari of Madras famously said

…this kind of intolerance makes us fear that…a strong centre will also mean enslavement of people who do not speak the language of the centre…

After much debate, the assembly arrived at a compromise. Articles 120 and 346 of the constitution, read together, provided for the use of Hindi and English for transacting business in the parliament as well as between the parliament and the states. Article 120(2) provided for the omission of English after 15 years from the date on which the constitution would come into force- which would be 26th January 1965. With remarkable foresight, Dr. Ambedkar and his team added the words “unless parliament by law otherwise provides” in the text of Article 120(2), providing an escape clause if need be.

The compromise ensured the passing of the constitution, but the language issue had only been differed, not resolved. It was only going to be a matter of time before it would come back to haunt the country.

The Tamil Question

Tamil is an ancient language which, unlike the vast majority of Indian languages, does not trace its ancestry to Sanskrit. The language has a script, vocabulary and syntax that’s vastly different from nearly all other Indian languages. Besides, Tamil speakers have a literature and history very different from most of the country, as most political developments that affected the rest of India never affected that region.

A Headline in Kudiyarasu Newspaper proclaiming

A Newspaper Headline proclaiming “Down with Hindi”

Not surprisingly, Hindi was hardly understood, much less spoken in the then Madras presidency. To expect that a people proud of their language and culture would accept an unknown language as their official language was at best unrealistic. The founding fathers should have known from personal experience how troublesome the language issue was going to be- the imposition of Hindi had led to anti-Hindi agitations in the Madras Presidency in the late 30s.

Official Languages Act

To give effect to the provisions of the constitution, the Government of India passed the Official Languages Act, 1963. Read together, Sections 2 and 3 of the act provided that English may continue to be used in addition to Hindi for all official purposes. The ambiguous wording of the act left scope for interpretation. As anyone familiar with legal language would know, the word ‘may’ can be interpreted to mean that the provision of law can be optional or mandatory (unlike the word ‘shall’, which leaves no scope for ambiguity).

The most sensible thing to do, given popular sentiment, was to preserve the status quo. Unfortunately, the leaders in Delhi decided not to exercise the option given by the Official Languages Act. With effect from 26th January 1965, all state legislatures would be bound to use Hindi exclusively as their official language.

A New Force in Tamil Politics

In 1949, a breakaway faction of the Dravida Kazhagam (Dravidian association/ movement) under the leadership of C.N. Annadurai had formed a new party named Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (association for the progress of the dravida people) or DMK as it still is popularly known. Through the 1950s, it remained no more than a fringe presence in the political landscape in Tamil Nadu.

C.N. Annadurai

C.N. Annadurai

However, riding on the twin waves of anti-brahminism and anti-Hindi, the party had come to assume a far greater presence by the early 60s, as the deadline of 30th January 1965 rapidly approached. Party leader Annadurai, whose energy and oratory had been the driving force behind the party’s rise insisted that Hindi was no more than a regional language. When confronted with the fact that it was the most commonly spoken language in the country, he famously replied

If we had to accept the principle of numerical superiority while selecting our national bird, the choice would have fallen not on the peacock but on the common crow.

In the 1962 state legislative assembly elections the party had won 50 seats in the then 206 seat assembly, with a vote share of 27.1%- a huge jump from its performance in the previous elections. By the early 60s, DMK was second only to the all powerful Congress party in the Madras Presidency, with a huge following across the state.

The party called for a day of mourning on 26th January 1965 in protest against the expiry of constitutional protection for English. The demand was emphatically rejected by the Congress government. On 24th January, the DMK announced that it would defy the government ban on demonstrations on Republic Day.

The state was set for a conflict between the Congress government in the state and the rising star in the political landscape.

Anti-Hindi Agitation

Congress offices in the city of Madurai were stoned and Congress workers beaten by mobs of irate students. Hindi books were burnt in Madras. The government acted swiftly, arresting Annadurai and over hundred other DMK leaders, effectively depriving the party of its head.

But the students were not finished yet. A student movement called “Tamilnad Anti-Hindi Agitation Council’ had come into existence, manned by students who feared that exclusive use of Hindi would effectively shut them out of the civil services. This largely apolitical body (almost completely independent of the DMK) took the fight forward.

Shastri: The PM on the Hot Seat

Shastri: The PM on the Hot Seat

On 27th January, the police raided hostels in a number of colleges in Madras and arrested student leaders. It was alleged that a number of students were indiscriminately beaten. Whether true or not, the rumours only served further inflame public opinion. By second week of February, the movement had ceased to be a mere student agitation, spreading across the state. Trains were being stopped by protesting mobs and there were lathi charges in multiple locations. on 10th February, 24 people were killed in police firing, while two police sub-inspectors were burnt alive by irate mobs.

Shastri Douses the Flame

On 11th February C. Subramaniam (Minister of Food) and another junior minister O. Alagesan, resigned from their posts in protest against the prime minister’s language policy. Confronted by a rebellion at home, Shastri finally bowed to the inevitable. The same evening he spoke on all India Radio, clarifying that Nehru’s assurance about continuing the use of English would be honoured. He went on to clarify that

  • Every state would have complete and unfettered freedom to continue transacting business in the regional language or English
  • Communications between states would be either in English or accompanied by an authentic English translation
  • Non Hindi speaking states would be free to correspond with the centre in English
  • In the transaction of business at the centre, English would continue to be used
  • The all-India civil services examinations would continue to be conducted in Hindi and English

Aftermath

  • Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, riding on the anti-Hindi wave, won with an outright majority in the 1967 state assembly elections with 137 seats, becoming the first ever party other than the Congress to win a state election with a clear majority
  • Annadurai became the first non-Congress Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu in 1967, serving in that capacity until his untimely death in February 1969

Legacy

  • The Congress, which lost power in 1967, never came back to power in Tamil Nadu
  • As recently as June 2014, responding to concerns by DMK, AIADMK and communist parties, the central government was forced to clarify that the new circular on use of Hindi did not amount to imposition of Hindi
  • English still remains the language of official communication besides Hindi
  • Hindi remains one of the 22 official languages recognised by the constitution of India, but not the national language
  • The concept of self-immolation, virtually unknown until then, became a fairly common means of political protest in India

Sources

  • Ramchandra Guha, India After Gandhi,  Picador India, 2007
  • Sumathi Ramaswamy, Passions of the Tongue: Language Devotion in Tamil India (1891-1970), Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997
  • Duncan B. Forrester, The Madras Anti-Hindi Agitation, 1965: Political Protest and its Effects on Language Policy in India, Pacific Affairs, Vol. 39, No. 1/2 (Spring – Summer, 1966)
  • Ramchandra Guha, Hindi Against India, The Hindu (16th January 2005)

The Forgotten Genocide (1770)

Tags

, ,

A google search of the term ‘corporate greed’ throws up a staggering 2.69 million results. There are scores of articles on the net blaming corporate greed for a variety of problems. However, perpetrating genocide is certainly not one of them. Incredible as it may sound, it has happened in the past, that too on a scale people today could scarcely imagine.

This is a small tribute to the countless victims of the colossal crime perpetrated by the East India Company.

Rulers of Bengal

The battle of Buxar on 22nd October 1764, fought between the East India Company and the triumvirate of Mughal emperor Shah Alam II, the nawab of Bengal and the nawab of Avadh resulted in an overwhelming victory for the company.

On 20th February 1765, the newly appointed nawab of Bengal signed a treaty with the East India Company whereby the administration of the province was entrusted to a deputy subedar. By virtue of the treaty, the deputy subedar could not be dismissed without the consent of the company- which meant that the key person responsible for administration of the state owed his power not to the ruler, but to the company. The agreement effectively established a diarchy whereby the nawab was the nominal ruler responsible for ruling the province while real power remained firmly in the hands of the company.

Robert Clive: The Conqueror of Plassey and Buxar

Robert Clive: The Conqueror of Plassey and Buxar

Six months later, on 12th August 1765, the defeated Mughal emperor Shah Alam II concluded a treaty formally granting the East India Company the ‘diwani’ for the provinces of Bengal (which included the modern day Bangladesh) Bihar and Orissa. The treaty gave the company complete control over use of land and collection of revenue in those provinces.  Once again, the mughal emperor in Delhi held nominal power while the remote control was firmly in the hands of the company.

With those two treaties, the East India Company became the effective rulers of the provinces of Bengal, Bihar and Orrisa, unburdened by responsibility or accountability.

New System of Land Settlement

Semi-feudal zamindars (hereditary landlords) existed well before the British even set foot in India. East India Company officials cancelled the hereditary rights of the zamindars in the districts of Burdwan and Midnapore in 1760 and sold their estates by auction for a 3 year period. This brought to power men who had neither fortune nor character, whose only concern was to extort as much out of their subjects as possible. In the words of Governor Verelst

…numberless harpies were let loose to plunder, whom the spoil of a miserable people enabled to complete their…payment

The new policy was a spectacular success for the company, its land revenue collections registering a spectacular jump of 68% from £ 2.26 Million in 1765-66 to £ 3.79 Million in 1768-69. The effect of that plunder would prove devastating.

Drought from Hell

Historically, agriculturists retained surplus stocks after paying duties to the crown, which acted as a buffer in the event of crop failures. However, the vastly increased revenue collections deprived countless farmers of the buffer stocks. Under the circumstances, a drought was bound to have an effect quite out of proportion to its intensity.

A partial crop failure in 1768, combined with brutal taxation meant that there was an acute scarcity of foodgrains come 1769. Spring rains brought temporary respite, but left the situation far from comfortable. Provincial officials appealed to the Company bosses to remit land taxes. In complete disregard of their warnings, the Company opted for a business as usual policy.

As we have seen earlier in this blog, rice was grown in three harvests in Bengal, out of which aman crop (harvested in November/ December) was the most important one, as the local populace depended on it (plus whatever surplus was available) for sustenance until the minor boro crop in February/ March. Unfortunately, not a drop of rain fell from September onwards. In the words of the then superintendent of Bishanpore

The fields of rice  are become like fields of dried straw

Not surprisingly, millions of people were left to starve. The only way out now was to declare a famine and arrange for famine relief measures. The government did neither, going on as though nothing out of the ordinary had happened. As records show, government collections slipped marginally from £ 3.78 million in 1768-69 to £ 3.34 million in 1769-70- still substantially higher than collections in 1765-66, when the province suffered from a severe drought but one which paled in comparison to the disaster underway.

By March 1770, hundreds of thousands were already dead and the entire province was crushed by appaling poverty. As had been the case the previous year, the minor boro crop in February/March brought temporary respite from starvation. Unfortunately, at this stage the government decided that it was time to make good the deficient collections from the previous financial year. In April, land taxes were increased by a further 10%. With the next crop several months away (in August/ September) the government’s decision came like a thunderbolt from hell for the starving millions in the province.

As the summer of 1770 wore on, people fell like flies. In desperation, famers sold their cattle, their implements and even devoured their seedstocks. Countless farmers even sold their children in desperation. In June 1770, the British resident at the mughal darbar affirmed that desperate people were resorting to cannibalism to survive. Whole villages became deserted.

Warren Hastings

Warren Hastings

As the corpses piled on, disease and pestilence took over. Lakhs of survivors, their immunity all but destroyed by starvation, perished as the year wore on.

Aftermath

  • Timely and abundant rains resulted in bountiful harvests in the winter of 1770, followed by even better harvests in 1771-72 and 1772-73
  • The human cost of the famine was estimated at a staggering 10 million people- one third of the population of the region
  • In November 1772, Governor Warren Hastings wrote to the court of directors

Notwithstanding the loss of at least one-third of the inhabitants of the province and the consequent decrease of cultivation, the nett collections of the year 1771 exceeded even those of 1768

  • The entire administration was accused of trading in grain for private advantage. No satisfactory investigations were made and it was widely suspected that senior company officials were responsible for the black marketing
  • Hastings extended the system of zamindari by auction to the whole of the province in 1773
  • The East India Company, facing tremendous financial difficulties, applied to the government for a bailout. Deemed too big to fail (to use the modern parlance), the British government bailed out the company in 1773- the first corporate bailout in all history.

Legacy

  • Vast areas became depopulated. Most of Birbhum, for instance, became forested and remain impassable until well into the 1810s
  • Several noble families, reduced to ruin, took to bandity as a means of survival, becoming the scourge of the countryside. The bandits were eventually put down by military action in 1790.
  • The disaster came to be known as Chhiattōrer monnōntór- the famine of ’76 (as 1770 coincided with the year 1176 in the Bangla calendar)
  • The famine of 1770 is almost completely forgotten in India today.

Sources

  • Romesh Dutt, The Economic History of India Under Early British Rule (Sixth Edition), Kegan Paul, French, Trubner & Co. Ltd, 1901
  • W.W. Hunter, The Annals of Rural Bengal (Second Edition), Leypoldt & Holt (1868)
  • John Fiske, The Unseen World and Other Essays (10th Edition), Houghton, Mifflin and Company (1876)

I Propose to Ignore it Completely (1952)

Tags

Potti Sriramulu is hardly a household name in India today. He was a follower of Mahatma Gandhi and even spent time at Sabarmati Ashram in the 30s, like thousands of other long forgotten Indians. Gandhi once said of him that

I know he is a solid worker, ‘though a little eccentric

Incredible as it may sound, that long forgotten, ‘little eccentric’ man played a pivotal role in redrawing the map of India as we know it today. This is not just his story, but the story of millions of his fellow Indians.

Linguistic Reorganisation of India

After the integration of the princely states was completed in 1948, India was divided in 28 states (plus the union territory of Andaman & Nicobar Islands), the political divisions reflecting the legacy of the past. Speakers of the same language lived in multiple states. For example, Marathi speakers were present in significant numbers in Bombay state as well as Hyderabad. Significant populations of Gujarati speakers lived in 3 different states.

Political Map of India (1952)

Political Map of India (1952)

The situation was never going to be sustainable. Language is one of the strongest uniting factors, especially in a country like India where several languages have been around since time immemorial, each of them having its unique culture, history, grammar and literary traditions- a fact the the Indian National Congress had recognised as far back as 1917, when it committed itself to the creation of linguistic provinces in independent India.

But independence was a remote prospect back then. Its unlikely anyone in 1917 would have expected to see India a free country in his or her lifetime. Even the few who did, would surely not have imagined the circumstances in which it came to pass.

Consigned to the Back Burner (1947)

With freedom came the horrors of partition. For the first time in history, the whole of India as we know it today was one single political entity, but unity and stability was far from assured in the atmosphere of hatred and violence. Religion had just split the country into two. For people living at the time, there was no reason to assume that language might not do likewise.

In any case, political leaders had far bigger priorities. A new economic policy had to be framed, millions of refugees from Pakistan had to be re-settled, new jobs had to be created for millions in an economy in deep recession even as an undeclared war was being fought in Kashmir. Given those circumstances, reorganisation of the country on linguistic lines was hardly on top of the list of priorities for the country’s leaders.

Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya

Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya

However, for common Indians who had none of the worries that their political leaders had, linguistic reorganisation was naturally a pressing issue. The clamour was growing louder and louder in the southern peninsula, with Marathi, Kannada, Telugu, Malayalam and Gujarati speakers all demanding a state of their own.

The government in Delhi successfully bought time with two separate committees in 1948-49, both of which recommended deferring the issue, to considerable popular dismay. The question was when, rather than whether, matters would come to a head.

The Telugu Question

Telugu was one of the most commonly spoken languages in India (it is still the 3rd most commonly spoken language in the country), with a literature and culture that dated back to nearly two millennia. Unfortunately, Telugu speakers were split between Hyderabad and Madras Presidency at the time of independence. In the former, they shared space with a considerable number of Marathi speakers and in the later, they were far outnumbered by Tamil speakers.

Now that they were free citizens in an independent country, Telugu speakers demanded that the Congress honour its long stated commitment to form a Telugu speaking state called Andhra Pradesh- an issue that had been around since four decades.

C. Rajagopalachari (1878-1972)

C. Rajagopalachari (1878-1972)

The formation of Andhra Pradesh was a relatively easy matter, but complicating the situation was the Telugu speakers’ demand to include of the city of Madras (now Chennai) in the state of Andhra Pradesh. Tamil speakers, who were in a majority in the city and were demanding a Tamil province of their own, staunchly resisted.

The JVP committee (Jawaharlal Nehru, Vallabhai Patel and Pattabi Sitaramaiah- hence the initials JVP) formed in December 1948 recommended the formation of Andhra Pradesh, but concluded that Madras would not be part of it. Sitaramaiah, himself a Telugu speaker, further complicated matters by suggesting that the report did not recommend Madras to be part of the Tamil province. Instead, the coastal city ought to be a centrally administered union territory.

A Shocking Defeat

The first ever national elections were soon followed by the first ever state legislative assembly elections. With summer rapidly approaching, the Madras state went to vote in March 1952. Out of the 375 seats in the state legislature, 145 were from Telugu speaking areas, where the Andhra question was not a burning issue. Any doubts about the sheer gravity of the issue were put to rest as the immensely popular prime minister found masses of protesters waving black flags and screaming ‘we want Andhra’ wherever he went campaigning.

The election results drove the point home in no uncertain terms. The Congress won a mere 43 seats out of 145 in the Telugu speaking regions- punishment for the party leadership’s prevarication over the Andhra issue. With just 152 seats in the house, the party was well short of a clear majority.

More trouble lay ahead.

Potti Sriramulu

Potti Sriramulu

Fast for Andhra

On 19th October 1952, Potti Sriramulu- formerly an engineer with Railways and Satyagrahi- went on a fast unto death in Madras, demanding the creation of Andhra Pradesh. He had the overwhelming support of Telugu speakers across the country- a fact whose significance was scarcely realised in Delhi.

By 3rd December, Sriramulu had not eaten for 45 days. Flooded with frantic telegrams, prime minister Nehru wrote to Madras chief minister C. Rajagopalachari (or Rajaji as he was popularly known)

Some kind of fast is going on for the Andhra province…I am totally unmoved by this and I propose to ignore it completely.

The prime minister and the state chief minister were by now objects of hatred. As the aging Sriramulu’s health deteriorated, the scale and extent of violence escalated. By the 12th, Nehru had come around to the fact that the creation of Andhra Pradesh was inevitable. Two days later, Rajaji cabled a rather frantic telegram warning that the situation was getting out of hand.

On 15th December, after a staggering 58 days without food, Potti Sriramulu breathed his last. Predictably, all hell broke loose. Government properties were damaged and scores of protesters were killed or injured in police firing. Faced with the spectre of unending violence and a vexatious problem that was not going away, prime minister Nehru bowed to the inevitable. On 17th December 1952 he made a statement that the state of Andhra Pradesh would be created with 11 Telugu speaking districts plus three talukas of Bellary district. The city of Madras was not included in Andhra Pradesh.

Aftermath

  • The new state of Andhra Pradesh was inaugurated at Kurnool on 1st October 1953
  • Simultaneously, a Tamil speaking province called Tamil Nadu was created
  • The government of India formed the States Reorganisation Commission in August 1953 with 3 members: Justice Fazl Ali, K.N. Panikkar and Hridaynath Kunzru
  • The language question would remain a burning issue for a variety of reasons until the mid 60s
Political Map of India (2015)

Political Map of India (2015)

Legacy

  • The recommendation of the States Reorganisation Committee paved the way for the creation of the present day states of Maharashtra and Gujarat
  • Andhra Pradesh further split into two Telugu speaking states in 2014: Andhra Pradesh and Telangana
  • Potti Sriramulu remains a much revered figure in Andhra Pradesh to this day

Sources

  • Ramachandra Guha, India After Gandhi (First Edition), Picador India, 2007
  • The Fight for Madras, The Hindu, 18th August 2013

“I have burnt my boats” (1927-29)

Tags

,

It was a pleasant late winter day on Friday, 3rd February 1928, when members of the 7-member Indian Statutory Commission, led by Sir John Simon, arrived at Bombay on the west coast of India.

Members of the Commission were confronted by protesters waving black flags. Few would have imagined then, but the forces they inadvertently set in motion that day would have a profound impact, the effects of which continue to haunt the sub-continent to this day.

Government of India Act, 1919

As we have seen earlier, Indians expected greater devolution of powers from the British rulers after the end of the first world war, to which they had contributed more than a million soldiers. The British government, unwilling to grant any substantial concessions, enacted the Government of India Act, 1919.

Sir John Simon (1873-1954)

John Simon (1873-1954)

The act resulted in a bicameral legislature consisting of the 145 member Legislative Assembly (of which 103 would be elected) and the 60 member Council of State (of which 22 were elected). The right to vote was subject to several restrictions, due to which the voter base for the Legislative Assembly was restricted to 9,09,874 voters in 1920 (representing roughly 1% of the then population of India).

Largely unnoticed at the time was Section 41 of The Act, which mandated the creation of a commission to conduct an inquiry into the system of Government, the growth of education and the development of representative institutions in India. This commission was to be constituted after 10 years from the enactment of The Act, which meant that it was due in December 1929. The British government decided to advance it by 2 years with dubious intentions, as we shall see.

India in 1927

By 1927 the struggle for independence (insofar as there was any struggle still underway) was all but dead. The period between 1920-22, when the Non-Cooperation Movement briefly threatened to bring an end to British rule, were but memories of another time. Having withdrawn the Non-Cooperation Movement in the face of multiple outbreaks of violence (more about that at a later date), M.K. Gandhi had gone into semi retirement from active politics. Without his unifying leadership, the national movement was drifting like a rudderless ship. Only a handful of underground revolutionaries were still active.

Go Back By late 1927, the British rule seemed more secure anyone could have possibly imagined in the heady days of the early 20s. India, it seemed, was destined to remain under the British yoke for the foreseeable future…

…until the British government gave the virtually dead struggle a new lease of life.

The Simon Commission

Elections to the British House of Commons were due in 1929. The Conservative Party, which was in power in the late 20s, faced the prospect of losing power to the Labour Party in the 1929 elections . The Conservatives feared that a Labour government would be more sympathetic to Indian demands and thus likely to concede far greater reforms than they were willing to countenance.

In order to forestall that possibility, the Conservatives decided to advance the constitution of the Commission to ensure that its work would be completed before the 1929 elections. And so on 8th November 1927, Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin announced the constitution of the statutory commission.

If Indian leaders were astonished to hear the announcement, their surprise soon turned to indignation when Baldwin announced that the commission would consist of 7 British members of parliament. In other words, the commission that was to help prepare the future constitution of India did not contain a single Indian member. Whether it was due to arrogant disregard for Indian opinion or plain incompetence, the composition of the commission was bound to be unacceptable to any self-respecting Indian.

The Indian Response

All political parties in India, irrespective of their ideology, unanimously decided to boycott the commission. The situation was aptly summed up by Tej Bahadur Sapru in his presidential address at the annual session of the All-India Liberal Federation

I do not think a worse challenge has been thrown out ever before to Indian nationalism… if our patriotism is a prejudice and if the patriotism of of the seven members of parliament is to be treated as impartial justice… we are not going to acquiesce in this method of dealing with us. Neither our self-respect nor our sense of duty to our country can permit us to go near the commission.

With one ill-advised decision for short term gains, the Conservatives had strengthened the hands of the very forces they sought to forestall.

The Congress in Action

The 42nd annual session of the Indian National Congress was to be held at Madras between 26th and 28th December 1927. the party- energised by the unexpected developments of November- moved a proposal to adopt dominion status as its ultimate goal, which was in keeping with the general mood of the moderate faction led, among others, by an eminent lawyer from Allahabad called Motilal Nehru.

Motilal Nehru (1861-1931)

Motilal Nehru (1861-1931)

The younger section led by Motilal’s son, a 38 year old lawyer called Jawahralal Nehru, opposed the resolution and moved a counter-resolution demanding complete independence (while they abstained from voting). Unexpectedly perhaps, the resolution was passed unanimously.

The Congress Boycott

With its cadre spread right down to the grassroots (owing to structural changes initiated in the early 20s), the involvement of the Congress took the proposed boycott to an unprecedented level. There was a complete hartal in every city across India on 3rd February. The commission was greeted by protesting crowds waving black flags and carrying banners with the words “Go Back, Simon” wherever it went.

On 16th February, Lala Lajpat Rai moved a resolution in the Legislative Assembly calling for a refusal to cooperate with the commission (his tryst with the commission would ultimately lead to his tragic death later that year). The resolution was passed by an overwhelming majority of the elected members. Extraordinarily, the passing of the resolution was accompanied by cries of “Bande Mataram” in a chamber usually known for its loyalty to the British rulers.

The ‘Nehru’ Constitution

Secretary of State for India, Lord Birkenhead had thrown down a challenge calling on Indians to produce a constitution having the general support of the people of India. This was back in July 1925. While announcing the constitution of the statutory commission, he renewed the challenge.

I have twice invited our critics in India to put forward their own suggestions for a constitution. That offer is still open.

Indian leaders decided to accept the challenge. After a series of deliberations, it was ultimately decided to entrust a committee under the chairmanship of Motilal Nehru. The committee’s report was placed for consideration at the All Parties Conference in Lucknow in August 1928. Lack of unanimity resulted in the ‘Nehru Constitution’, as it came to be known, being placed before a representative convention in Calcutta on 22nd December.

The Muslim League and a section of the Khilafat Committee, led by a prominent Bombay lawyer called Muhammad Ali Jinnah, proposed certain amendments to the communal settlement proposed in the Nehru constitution which were rejected after an acrimonious debate. Prompting Jinnah to withdraw from the convention in protest.

Tej Bahadur Sapru (1875-1949)

Tej Bahadur Sapru (1875-1949)

The disillusioned Jinnah threw in his lot with the Aga Khan and Sir Muhammed Shafi. The joint front demanded, among other things, separate electorates for Muslims in statutory bodies.

An Uneasy Decision

The last days of December saw Congress delegates from all corners of the country converge for the annual session in Calcutta. It soon became evident that the party was deeply divided between the faction whose ambitions for the immediate future were restricted to dominion status and the extremists, whose immediate demand was nothing short of complete independence.

M.K. Gandhi proposed a compromise, suggesting that Dominion Status be laid down as the immediate objective, subject to the Nehru constitution being accepted in its entirety by the British parliament within a year. The left-wing extremist faction led by the party’s rising stars Jawaharlal Nehru and Subhas Chandra Bose (who enjoyed an excellent relationship back then) strongly opposed the proposal. The amendment was lost by 973 votes to 1350.

Subhas Chandra Bose

Subhas Chandra Bose

For the time being at least, the country’s largest political party had declared dominion status (akin to Australia or Canada) as its ultimate objective. The ball was now firmly in the court of the powers that be in Westminster.

Congress Proposes, Westminster Disposes

The Viceroy of India, Lord Irwin, issued a statement on 31st October 1929, that the natural issue of India’s constitutional progress was the attainment of dominion status. The declaration was widely appreciated by Indian leaders. But the drama was far from over.

Irwin

Lord Irwin (1881-1959)

The new government formed after the 1929 elections was an unstable coalition, largely dependent on the Liberal Party. With the Conservative Party as well as Liberal Party opposed to it, the new government was unable to proceed with the proposal to work towards dominion status. When Gandhi, Nehru and others met him on 23rd December 1929, Lord Irwin was unable to give any assurances, whereupon M.K. Gandhi declared that he was all for complete independence. It was the tipping point for the hitherto moderate Gandhi who would declare

I have burnt my boats

Aftermath

  • As expected, the 1929 elections brought the Labour party to power, albeit in coalition with the Liberal party
Stanley Baldwin (1867-1947)

Stanley Baldwin (1867-1947)

  • Gandhi’s declaration in favour of complete independence marked his return to the vanguard of the struggle for independence after a 7 year hiatus
  • Jawaharlal Nehru was elected as president of the Indian National Congress at the Lahore Session in last week December 1929
  • During the Lahore Session it was declared that Sunday, 26th January 1930 would be पूर्ण स्वराज्य दिवस (day of complete independence)
Lala Lajpat Rai (1865-1928)

Lala Lajpat Rai (1865-1928)

  • M.K. Gandhi launched the Civil Disobedience Movement in March 1930

Legacy

  • Jawaharlal Nehru became an unwavering supporter of Gandhi, resulting in a parting of ways with Subhas Chandra Bose, whose admiration of Gandhi was never unconditional (Bose too would become Congress president in the late 30s)
  • Nehru would go from strength to strength, becoming one of the most prominent Congress leaders in the 30s. He went on to become the first prime minister of independent India, serving for a record 17 years
Clement Attlee (1883-1967)

Clement Attlee (1883-1967)

  • The twentieth anniversary of the पूर्ण स्वराज्य दिवस (day of complete independence) was chosen to be the day on which the constitution of independent India came into force. 26th January has, ever since, been celebrated in India as Republic Day
  • One of the members of the Simon Commission, Labour Party leader Clement Attlee served as Prime Minister from 1945 to 1951, in the course of which his government would grant complete independence to India

Jinnah Disposes

  • Disillusioned with the Congress, Muhammad Ali Jinnah completely threw in his lot with the Muslim League. His demand for seperate electorates for Muslims would prove the tipping point in the chain of events that ultimately led to the creation of Pakistan
  • Lord Irwin, whose name changed to Lord Halifax became the secretery of state for foreign affairs in 1935. In his new avatar as Lord Halifax, he would be instrumental in executing prime minister Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement of Hitler, leading to the infamous Munich Agreement in 1938 that paved the way for Hitler’s bloodless annexation of Czechoslovakia.

Sources

  • Bipan Chandra & Others, India’s Struggle For Independence, Penguin India Books, 1989
  • R.C. Mazumdar & Others, Struggle for Freedom, The History and Culture of the Indian People (Volume Eleven), Bhavan’s Book University, 1969

Prelude to Emergency: The Fall of Gujarat (1974)

Tags

So many articles have been written about the emergency over the last few weeks, that there’s little left to be said about it. However, none of them have adequately explained the factors that led to it. In this series of articles, we shall recount the events of the early and mid 70s which led to the imposition of the emergency.

for a clear understanding of the events of that fateful period, we shall first recall the political and economic situation in the 70s.

Indira Gandhi in Control

As we saw in the previous article, a series of electoral reverses in 1967 consigned the Congress to a slim majority at the centre and to the opposition benches in several states. The opposition had a field day during that period, helped in no small measure by the prime minister’s lack of experience.

But the early 70s saw a spectacular turnaround. Thumping electoral wins at the centre in 1971 and several states in 1972 had completely reversed the debacles of 1967. Indira Gandhi’s control over the Congress (R) (as the party was now known- more on that at a later date) was absolute. Regional satraps had been systematically destroyed and the ‘high command’- a euphemism for Mrs. Gandhi and her kitchen cabinet- took all decisions.

A Marathi Caricature

A Marathi Caricature from the early 70s

The dramatic turnaround was largely due to the गरीबी हटाओ (eliminate poverty) campaign in 1971 with Indira Gandhi at the vanguard, which had raised impossible hopes- a fact that would come back to haunt Mrs. Gandhi and her team.

Opposition in Disarray

The opposition space lay in shambles. Stalwarts like C.Rajagopalachari, Ram Manohar Lohia and Deen Dayal Upadhyaya, who had lent credibility and substance to the opposition had all passed away and there was no opposition leader even remotely approaching their stature.

With the dramatic reversal of fortunes after the heady days of 1967, the non-Congress opposition would have been forgiven if they feared being condemned to a life of insignificance. It was but natural that they would grab the first opportunity coming their way to unseat the government.

Deen Dayal Upadhyaya

Deen Dayal Upadhyay

That opportunity came sooner than they could have possible expected.

An Economy in Shambles

It would be an understatement to say that India’s economy in the mid 70s was in shambles. The war against Pakistan in 1971 had left the treasury virtually bankrupt. Economic growth had steadily declined over the years: from a CAGR of 2.1% from 1954-64, per capita income grew at a pathetic 0.6% from 1967-73. Industrial production, which had grown at around 9% between 1961 and 1965 had slipped to 2.8% by 1973. The number of unemployed youth registered in the employment exchanges more than tripled from 2.6 million in 1966 to 8.4 million by 1974.

The situation was further compounded by droughts in 1972 and 73, resulting in severe foodgrain shortages that naturally led to runaway inflation. The inflation rate was a whopping 22% in 1972-73 (more than double the inflation rate during the UPA II years!). Then came the oil shock of October 1973, which sent crude oil prices shooting through the roof. India, with its dependence on imported crude oil naturally felt the impact (as it would do four decades later) of rising oil prices. By mid 1974, inflation had hit a scarcely believable 30%.

MRTP: The law which shackled the private sector for 3 decades

MRTP: The law which shackled the private sector for 3 decades

Not surprisingly, popular discontent was rife. To be sure, there’s precious little that any government could have done about it. Unfortunately for India, the government’s disastrous economic policies had successfully throttled the private sector, making economic recovery all but impossible. Worse still, Indira Gandhi- whose power over the party was absolute- effectively institutionalised corruption, which made day to day life even more difficult for the common man.

Having raised expectations sky high with the गरीबी हटाओ (eliminate poverty) campaign in 1971, she naturally felt the ire of the masses now.

Discontent in Gujarat

The chief minister of Gujarat at the time was Chimanbai Patel, who had toppled his predecessor (and fellow Congressman) Ghansham Oza in July 1973, much to the displeasure of Indira Gandhi, who had handpicked Oza for the post. Nonetheless, there was work to be done and Mrs. Gandhi assigned Patel the responsibility of collecting funds to be used in election campaigning, as elections in the states of Uttar Pradesh and Orissa were on the cards.

Ghanshyam Oza

Ghanshyam Oza

1973 was a particular difficult time in Gujarat. Acute food shortages had resulted in food prices increasing by 100% during the course of the year (no typo there!). Patel compounded the woes of the common man by extracting lakhs of rupees from groundnut oil traders, giving them a free hand in return. The cooking oil mafia (known at the time as “cooking oil kings”) sent groundnut oil prices spiralling beyond the means of the common man. Inevitably, popular discontent was on the verge of boiling over, earning the chief minister the name चिमणचोर (Chiman the thief).

Trouble Boils Over

On Thursday, 20th December 1973, students of Lalbhai Dalpatbhai Engineering College went on protest against a substantial increase in mess charges. In an era when political violence was rampant, the protest (inevitably perhaps) took a violent form, as the students set the college canteen ablaze and attacked the rector’s house. The authorities, rather foolishly, dismissed it as an instance of stray violence. Their delusions would soon be shattered.

Two weeks later, on 3rd January 1974, the students went on strike again. This time hostel and college furniture too was destroyed. The college authorities called the police. Scores of students were arrested and hundreds beaten up. The news of the police violence (magnified, one imagines, several times over) quickly spread around in the student community. In the surcharged atmosphere, the news was the straw that broke the camel’s back.

Where it all started

Where it all started

Students of the colleges and high schools in Ahmedabad went on strike. The demands of the striking students came to include resignation of the education minister and arrest of the hoarders and black marketeers responsible for the price rise. The Congress government instantly developed cold feet, releasing all the students who had been arrested, but doing nothing to address the other demands. The government’s half-baked, bumbling attempt was inevitably seen as a sign of weakness by the emboldened students, who smelt blood.

A week later, on 10th January 1974, the student leaders called for an Ahmedabad bandh. School and college teachers, bank workers, middle class people and (far more significantly) all opposition parties threw in their lot with the students. Large scale rioting ensued. The authorities predictably replied with even greater force. Far from dying down, the protests spread to all major cities in the state.

The Fall of Patel

The presence of the RSS and its student wing- the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) gave the student movement the dual benefit of a dedicated, efficient cadre supporting it as well as organisational support. Needless to say, the presence of the ABVP gave what was until then no more than a student protest, fresh impetus as well as a new direction.

Chimanbhai Patel

Chimanbhai Patel

The students announced the formation of a नवनिर्माण युवक समिती (Navnirman Yuvak Samiti– youth committee for regeneration)- an organisation dedicated to waging a non-violent struggle to achieve, among other things, purification and rebuilding of society. The list of demands issued by the samiti now included resignation of the hugely unpopular chief minister Chimanbhai Patel and dissolution of the state assembly (the Congress held 140 seats in the then 168 member Gujarat state assembly, which was expanded to its current capacity of 182 members in 1975).

With no sign of their demands being met, the samiti called for a statewide strike on 25th January. Owing to popular discontent, the strike was astonishingly successful across most towns and cities in Gujarat. With violence virtually paralysing the state of Gujarat, Indira Gandhi bowed to the inevitable. Chimanbhai Patel resigned from his post on 9th February 1974.

The Movement Becomes Militant

The resignation of Chimanbhai patel only served to embolden the protesters, who pressed on the demand for the dissolution of the state assembly and fresh elections. At this crucial juncture, their movement received the blessings of veteran freedom fighter and legendary leader Jayaprakash Narayan (or JP as he was popularly known), who visited Ahmedabad on 11th February. As he would write some months later:

For years I was groping to find a way out..I have been searching for the right way to achieve (my objectives)… Then I saw the students of Gujarat  bring about a political change… and I knew that this was the way out

To drive home their demands, the students started using far more militant methods. State assembly members were convinced or coerced to resign their posts through a combinations of gherao, destruction of property and public shaming- in one extreme instance, a Congress leader was stripped and paraded naked. Nearly all opposition legislators and as many as 40 Congress MLAs had resigned before the end of February. One of the most vocal opposition members calling for the dissolution of the assembly was, ironically, Chimanbhai Patel. Angry and disillusioned after being ditched by his leader, he had by now formed a new political party.

The last straw came in the form of veteran leader Morarji Desai who, as we have already seen, had scores to settle with Indira Gandhi. On 11th March, he went on an indefinite fast demanding the dissolution of the state assembly. After playing the waiting game, Mrs. Gandhi finally bowed to the inevitable and dissolved the state assembly. Gujarat came under presidential rule and fresh elections were announced, to be held in September 1975 (when they were due anyway).

Aftermath

  • Desai started a second fast unto death in April 1975, compelling Indira Gandhi to advance the Gujarat state assembly elections to June 1975.
  • The success of the student movement in Gujarat would inspire their counterparts in Bihar who, coincidentally, were engaged in a similar movement in 1973-74
  • The student movement in Gujarat would snowball into a wider crusade against corruption under the leadership of Jayaprakash Narayan- popularly known as the JP movement (more about it later)
Narendra Modi (1974)

A young pracharak called Narendra Modi (1974)

  • A 23 year old RSS pracharak called Narendra Damodardas Modi rose to prominence in the RSS ranks with his tireless work in support of the Navnirman Samiti, earning himself the ‘workaholic’ tag he carries to this day.
  • Never before or since has a democratically elected government with a clear majority in the assembly been forced to quit before its term in the history of independent India.
  • The navnirman movement was and remained a movement of the urban middle class. The workers were uninvolved until a railway strike in the summer of 1974
  • Chimanbhai Patel returned to become the Chief Minister of Gujarat in 1990 with outside support from (incredibly) the Congress party. He retained his position until his death in February 1994, by which time he had rejoined the Congress.

Sources

  • Bipan Chandra, In the name of Democracy, Penguin Books India (2003)

Victory in Defeat (1967)

Tags

, ,

Hard Times

As we saw in the previous article, Indira Gandhi became the third prime minister of India in January 1966 following the untimely passing away of Lal Bahadur Shastri.

Unfortunately for Mrs. Gandhi, 1966 was perhaps the worst time to become prime minister. The wars of 1962 and 1965 had drained the treasury. A series of droughts in the mid 60s had left the country on the verge of starvation. But for the grudging support of the Americans during that period, India would have suffered a devastating famine reminiscent of British times. Coming on top of that was a balance of payments crisis which forced a devaluation of the currency (more on that some other day).

The Lok Sabha elections to be held in February 1967 was to be the first election since independence without the colossal presence of Nehru. After 20 years of independence, there was a whole generation of young voters which had no recollection of the colonial era, for which freedom was a given. With rising unemployment and massive food shortages, the Congress was fighting the double handicap of (what we would call today) anti incumbency and the absence of Nehru.

Indira Gandhi: PM Under Siege

Indira Gandhi: PM Under Siege

PM Under Siege

After the initial euphoria of taking over the mantle from Shastri, Indira Gandhi found herself increasingly besieged. The decision to devalue the Rupee had not gone down well with the syndicate, especially the big boss Kamaraj, who virtually declared war on her.

The rift between the new prime minister and the party bosses led to an outcome few could have thought possible at the time: the coming together of Morarji Desai and the syndicate. Much as they disliked each other, their distrust of Mrs. Gandhi was strong enough to bring them together. With the passive complicity of the syndicate, Morarji Desai’s cohorts started openly pulling down the prime minister on the floor of the parliament.

As the 1967 elections approached, the syndicate actively set out undermine Indira Gandhi. Many of her supporters were denied party tickets. The ones who could not be kept out were allocated paltry amounts by the syndicate, which had a stranglehold over the party’s finances.

To get around the limitations forced upon her, Indira Gandhi adopted the strategy of appealing directly to the people of the country over the heads of her party bosses. Her strategy of raking up day to day issues affecting the common man and the prestige of her father meant that her rallies attracted thousands of enthsuastic supporters wherever she went.

Ram Manohar Lohia: Mrs. Gandhi's Nemesis

Ram Manohar Lohia: Mrs. Gandhi’s Nemesis

United Colours of Opposition

In three Lok Sabha election since independence, the Congress had never won less than 361 seats in the then 494 member Lok Sabha- a crushing majority- despite the fact that it had never won a clear majority of the votes (for the record, no party since independence has won the majority of the votes in any national election). The combination of a fragmented opposition, Nehru’s towering presence and the first past the post system had given the party a virtual monopoly over power.

However, by 1967, several regional players had emerged on the stage who were too insignificant to challenge the Congress individually. After two decades on the wrong side of the fence, they joined hands with the sole objective of blocking the Congress (a recurring trend over the decade that would follow). Led by Ram Manohar Lohia, the formidable Gandhian freedom fighter turned politician, the opposition parties set up a seat sharing agreement whereby Congress candidates in most constituencies faced very few opponents- a de-fragmentation of the opposition space if you may.

The arrangements made, the opponents waited with baited breath as the Month of February entered its final week (elections were held from 17th to 21st February 1967).

Kamaraj & Ghosh: Lost Seat Lost State

Kamaraj & Ghosh: Lost Seat Lost State

An Unmitigated Disaster

As expected after two decades of unchallenged rule, the Congress vote share shrunk, going down from 45% in 1962 to 41%. However, given the first past the post system and the seat sharing agreement between the opposition parties, the results were disastrous.

The Congress won the elections- as expected- but its seat share fell by a jaw dropping 78 seats. From 361 seats in the 494 member Lok Sabha in 1962, it had plummeted to 283 out of (now) 520. At this distance in time, 283 out of 520 may appear a comfortable majority, but it was a slim majority for a party that had never held less than 70% of the seats in the Lok Sabha. Besides,  the war between Indira Gandhi and the syndicate plus Desai meant that even the clear majority was no guarantee of stability.

The state elections, which coincided with national elections until 1967 (the era of unstable state governments was just beginning in the late 60s), gave the party an even bigger jolt. The Congress was ousted from power in nearly all northern states, leading to the famous jibe that one could travel from Calcutta to Amritsar without passing through a single inch of Congress governed territory.

The era of Congress hegemony was over.

S.K. Patil: King no More

S.K. Patil: King no More

Yesterday was Yesterday

The outcome of the 1967 elections was calamitous for the syndicate. S.K. Patil of Maharashtra lost his seat. Atulya Ghosh of West Bengal and K. Kamaraj of Tamil Nadu lost their seats as well as their states. Having enjoyed unbridled power since 1964, the syndicate suddenly found itself without a leg. Their stranglehold over the party was over…

…and so it seemed, until their foe turned friend Morarji Desai- the very reason why the syndicate had come into existence in 1964- unwittingly threw a lifeline. Twice denied by the syndicate, he insisted on a vote in the Congress parliamentary party to decide who would become prime minister.

After a disastrous election, the last thing the party needed was a fresh round of blood letting with unpredictable consequences. Many senior leaders, some of whom were supporters of Desai, ruled out the possibility. Quick to sense the opportunity, the syndicate brokered a truce, ruling that Indira Gandhi would continue as Prime Minister, with Morarji Desai as Deputy Prime Minister.

Third time unlucky, Desai bowed to the inevitable. Reflecting on it later, he famously said

Yesterday was yesterday, today is another day

Aftermath

  • The biggest winner of the electoral disaster, ironically, was Indira Gandhi. The syndicate’s authority naturally waned after the electoral disaster, in which she emerged as the party’s biggest vote catcher. In her battle against the syndicate (and Morarji Desai), the 1967 elections would prove to be the tipping point
  • The Congress lost power in Tamil Nadu to a regional outfit called Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK). That party and a its breakaway faction- the AIADMK- have ruled Tamil Nadu ever since.
  • The Congress regained West Bengal in 1971, holding on to power until it was all but wiped out in 1977.  As in the case of Tamil Nadu, the party never again regained power in the state.
  • The syndicate’s victory would prove a temporary one. Indira Gandhi would ultimately emerge triumphant in 1969
  • The struggle for supremacy would impel Mrs. Gandhi to ideologically lean leftward, resulting in a series of socialist legislations which would shackle the Indian economy for two decades

No Hindi No English (1966)

Tags

,

A Shocking News

India awoke on Tuesday, 11th January 1966 to a shocking news. Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri was dead. Gulzarilal Nanda, who had played caretaker following the death of Nehru in 1964, had been sworn in as acting prime minister yet again.

It was barely 19 months since Shastri had succeeded Nehru after a series of behind the scenes machinations that we recounted in the previous article. Whereas Nehru’s deteriorating health had given the syndicate ample time to plan the succession, the untimely and wholly unexpected passing away of Shastri caught everyone off guard.

The actors in the succession drama of 1964 sprung into action yet again.

Hats in the Ring

Having been thwarted 19 months ago, Morarji Desai now saw a golden opportunity to realise his long cherished dream. This time his opponents were unprepared and there was simply no Congress leader whose stature even remotely approached his. Besides, at 70, Desai was not getting any younger. Expectedly, the aged Gandhian left no doubt that he intended to stake his claim to the prime ministership.

Morarji Desai: A second chance

Morarji Desai: A second chance

To forestall a repeat of 1964, Desai insisted on a free and confidential vote by the Congress parliamentary party. With no obvious reason to deny it, the syndicate accepted the suggestion with the rider that the issue would be voted on by the Congress Grand Council, consisting of all members of parliament plus the state chief ministers- a point Desai could hardly refuse.

At this stage, an unexpected entrant threw his hat into the ring. Second time bridesmaid Gulzarilal Nanda lost no time in meeting I & B Minister Indira Gandhi to ask her if she would like to be prime minister. Mrs. Gandhi told him that she had no such ambitions- for the time being at least, she had no intention to make public her ambitions (Shastri had effectively sidelined her- so much so, that she had been contemplating quitting her post and living for a few years at least, in the UK where both her sons were in university).

Sensing an opening, Gulzarilal Nanda asked her if she would support his candidature. Mrs. Gandhi prudently replied that she would not stand in his way if Nanda could get support from the others. Wrongly interpreting it as an offer of unconditional support, Nanda approached Kamaraj asking to be named prime minister on a permanent basis until the forthcoming general elections in 1967. As a rider, he added that Mrs. Gandhi was the only candidate who would have his support.

Characteristically, Kamaraj heard him out without committing himself to any course of action. He would have to go to Delhi and consult with fellow syndicate members before taking any decision.

Gulzarilal Nanda: An Unlikely Candidate

Gulzarilal Nanda: The Unlikely Candidate

No Hindi, No English

With elections just a year away and the party facing the prospect of its first elections without the towering presence of Nehru, Kamaraj figured that Indira Gandhi was the best bet until the elections. She enjoyed the prestige of being the great man’s daughter, quite apart from the fact that she was not associated with any particular region- giving her the benefit of universal acceptability. With no serious challengers to Desai in the horizon, she was the only alternate to the finance minister.

To be sure, there was an element of risk therein- Mrs. Gandhi was already an experienced politician with a well established political base. Either Kamaraj underestimated her, being a woman (Ram Manohar Lohia would famously call her ‘gungi gudiya‘- dumb doll), or else figured that with all party organisations firmly under the control of the syndicate, they could easily keep her in check.

However, Kamaraj found that she was a far from unanimous choice. Atulya Ghosh and S.K. Patil were both opposed to the proposal, insisting instead, that the Madras strongman take over the mantle. Kamaraj, who only spoke Tamil pithily replied “No Hindi, No English, how?” In response Ghosh and Patil insisted that under the circumstances, Nanda should be named the prime minister until the 1967 elections.

K. Kamaraj: No Hindi, No English

K. Kamaraj: No Hindi, No English

Yet another factor now entered the equation: a unanimous declaration by Congress MPs from the Hindi speaking states that they were not going to allow the prime ministerial seat to go out of their region, effectively shutting Desai and Kamaraj out of the race. Gulzarilal Nanda did not have the stature to garner adequate support.

In effect, that left only candidate in the fray.

Settling the Issue

By now Indira Gandhi was surely aware of the fact that she was one of the favourites in the race to succeed Shastri. Nonetheless, she played her cards carefully, declaring that she would act on the advice of the party president and that she would prefer unanimity in the party ranks.

As it happened, that unanimity was far from forthcoming. The grand council meeting on Friday, 14th January witnessed a series of heated debates which ultimately proved fruitless. The only decision taken that day was to defer any decision until the 19th. In the event, behind the scenes manoeuvres settled the issue well before that date.

The following morning, D.P. Mishra (then Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh) called a meeting of chief ministers from 8 states: the Hindi speaking states (UP, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh) and the five electorally important states under the control of the syndicate (Maharashtra, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Mysore and Andhra Pradesh). The chief ministers of the Hindi speaking states were firmly in support of Mrs. Gandhi. This naturally clinched the issue for the syndicate, which was hitherto divided.

Indira Gandhi: Winner of the Race

Indira Gandhi: Winner of the Race

Completely outnumbered by the big 8 (which collectively accounted for more than 66% of the total strength of the then 494 member Lok Sabha), CMs from other states naturally opted to jump into the bandwagon rather than be left alone. As if in a trice, the vexed issue of succession had been resolved.

Climax

The country, unaware of the machinations behind the scenes, awaited with bated breath as the Congress Grand Council went to vote on Wednesday, 19th January 1965.

To those who were in the know, the outcome came as no surprise, even if the scale of victory did. Indira Gandhi beat Morarji Desai 355 to 169 to become the third prime minister of independent India

Aftermath

  • Indira Gandhi would serve nearly two decades as prime minister, save a 34 month period from March 1977 to January 1980 when she was dethroned…
  • …by Morarji Desai, who finally realised his cherished dream of becoming the prime minister at the ripe old age of 81. His premiership lasted all of 28 months (how it happened is a long story, to be taken up at a later date)
  • Indira Gandhi would work under the imposing shadow of the syndicate until the 1967 elections unleashed new forces (more on that in this article)
  • Mrs. Gandhi would lock horns in a prolonged battle for supremacy, in the course of which the syndicate would subsequently ally itself with Morarji Desai to keep her in check. The power tussle would result in the demolition of the syndicate and Mrs. Gandhi’s ultimate triumph in 1969 (more on this in a subsequent article)
  • The Congress never again chose its leader by voting

Note: it had been erroneously stated earlier that the total strength of the Lok Sabha was 520 in 1962. It was actually 494, increased to 520 in 1967 and 543 in 1977 (unchanged since then). The error has been corrected.

The Battle for Succession (1964)

Tags

,

In October 1963, four prominent Congress leaders came together at the Tirupati temple: Kumarasami Kamaraj, the former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu and then Congress party president, Siddavanahalli Nijalingappa, then Chief Minister of Mysore (as Karnataka was known until 1973), Neelam Sanjiva Reddy of Andhra Pradesh and Atulya Ghosh of West Bengal.

The foursome (soon to be joined by Sadashiv Patil of Maharashtra) were important regional leaders who were individually of little consequence outside their respective states. Collectively however, they could wield tremendous clout, controlling as they did, party cells in the most (electorally) important states outside the Hindi speaking region.

The foursome who came together at Tirupati had something beyond mere pilgrimage in their minds. There was one single factor unifying them: the health of the prime minister. The machinations they set in force that day would have repercussions far bigger than they could have possibly foreseen. This is the first part in a series of articles dedicated to the era between the end of the Nehruvian era and the era of Indira Gandhi.

Nehru: personification of en era of optimism

Nehru: personification of en era of optimism

India at 17

In 1964, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru was serving his fourth term as Prime Minister of India. In 17 years since independence, the Prime Minister had not changed. Everything else had.

The euphoria of independence was long forgotten, so was the idealism and the optimism of the Nehruvian era. Nehru the man was still around, but the era he once personified was long gone. The humiliation in the 1962 war against China and an agrarian crisis had plunged the country into despondency. The country was on the brink of starvation, unemployment was high and economic conditions gave little room for optimism.

Nehru’s condition mirrored that of his country. His spirit broken after the debacle of 1962, Panditji was an old man in failing health. By the end of 1963, the state of his health left no doubt that the end was imminent.

After Nehru Who?

The Congress party, which had been virtually unchallenged since independence and still did not have a serious contender in the horizon, now faced a serious crisis. The arrogance and hubris inevitable after nearly two decades of nearly unchallenged rule had destroyed the sheen that the party of Gandhi and Nehru once enjoyed. If the Congress still enjoyed a virtual monopoly over power, it was due in no small measure to the stature of Panditji. It was but natural that Congress leaders were apprehensive about life without him.

Morarji Desai

Morarji Desai: Heir Apparent

The heir apparent to the Prime Ministerial was finance minister Morarji Desai. A veteran of the freedom struggle, Desai had been a part of the Congress right since the 1920s. Not only was he one of the most senior Congress leaders, he had also held a number of key positions in the government including the vital finance portfolio. In the impending battle for succession, he was bound to be one of the frontrunners.

But support for Desai was far from unanimous. His abrasive, take no prisoners approach had alienated several leaders. Besides, there also was the very real fear of loss of autonomy. Whereas Nehru normally took regional leaders on board while taking major decisions, there was nothing in Desai’s track record to suggest a capacity for taking others along. Regional satraps, long used to a high degree of autonomy, had reason to fear and loathe Morarji Desai who made no secret of his prime ministerial ambitions.

Consequently, it was imperative to plan for the day Panditji would be gone. That was the reason why the regional satraps met in October 1963.

The syndicate members (L to R) Ghosh, Nijalingappa and Reddy

The syndicate members (L to R) Ghosh, Nijalingappa and Reddy

The Syndicate

The foursome of Kamaraj, Reddy, Nijalingappa and Ghosh (soon to be joined by S.K. Patil, the ‘uncrowned king of Bombay’), would form a clique that would come to be dubbed as ‘the syndicate’. To understand how that clique came into existence, its essential to describe the condition of the Congress party at the time.

The states of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, which sent nearly one fourth of the MPs to the then 520 member Lok Sabha, were naturally the most important states. Any would be successor’s ambitions depended on support of the Congress committees of those two states. But by 1963, the numerical strength of those two states had become inconsequential, as the party organisations in both states were faction ridden.

Satraps from other regions were inevitably going to fill in the vacuum of leadership. They could not become kings themselves- that honour could only befall a person from UP or Bihar- but they collectively had the numerical strength to be king makers if they could take those two states along.

Such were the circumstances under which the syndicate came into existence.

K. Kamaraj: Leader of the Syndicate

K. Kamaraj: Leader of the Syndicate

The Heir Non-Apparent

The first challenge confronting the syndicate was to find a candidate who would be at once a political lightweight as well as a non-controversial candidate, as support from UP and Bihar party organisations would be indispensable. Fortunately for them, there was one man who ticked all boxes- Lal Bahadur Shastri.

Shastri, who shared his birthday with his idol Mahatma Gandhi, had been involved with the Congress right since the 20s. After a four year stint as minister of police & transport for the government of Uttar Pradesh, Shastri was promoted to a cabinet role in Nehru’s government in the mid 50s. By the early 60s, he was one of the men closest to the prime minister. Although he was nominally a minister without portfolio in 1963, he had for all practical purposes become Nehru’s right hand man.

Known for his decisiveness and energy, the dimunitive Shastri was important enough to enjoy wide acceptability within the party but not powerful enough to pose a threat to the would-be kingmakers. In him, the syndicate had the perfect man to checkmate Morarji Desai. Having decided the heir to the prime ministerial throne, the syndicate manoeuvred behind the scenes to garner support from UP and Bihar.

The gunpowder was dry. All eyes were now on a dying Nehru.

Lal Bahadur Shastri- The heir non-apparent

Lal Bahadur Shastri- The heir non-apparent

The Battle for succession 

After a prolonged struggle against ill health, Jawaharlal Nehru breathed his last on 27th May 1964. Minister for home affairs Gulzarilal Nanda was sworn in as the acting prime minister. Everyone knew that he was only there as a caretaker until the battle for succession reached its conclusion.

The wily Kamaraj was known to keep his cards close to his chest at all times. It used to be said of him that his standard response to any question was paarkalaam, Tamil for “let’s see”. True to style, he spoke not a word about the succession in the days following Nehru’s death. The fact that he was the party president meant that there was no public discussion of the topic.

Even as they maintained a studious silence in public, Kamaraj and co. were involved in hectic behind the doors negotiations with party organisations in other states. Within 48 hours, factions within UP and Bihar and the entire organisation in the other big 5 states: Maharashtra, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Mysore rallied behind the syndicate.

On the night of 1st June 1964, Morarji Desai had an in camera meeting with party president K. Kamaraj. What was discussed during that meeting is anybody’s guess. What is known beyond doubt is that after the meeting, Desai declared to the press that Lal Bahadur Shastri was unanimously chosen as the new prime minister. And so on 9th June 1964, Shastri took the oath as the second prime minister of the Republic of India.

Gulzarilal Nanda (1898-1999)

Gulzarilal Nanda (1898-1999)

Aftermath

  • Lal Bahadur Shastri would prove a more than adequate replacement for Nehru, deftly handling a succession of crisis over the course of 1965. Despite his short reign, he remains to this day one of the most respected prime ministers in the history of independent India.
  • The syndicate’s victory would prove short lived, as Shastri passed away in January 1966 after serving just 18 months as Prime Minister, triggering another battle for succession in which the syndicate would checkmate Morarji Desai a second time
  • Morarji Desai would eventually realise his dream of becoming the Prime Minister in 1977, aged 81
  • The syndicate would go on to control the party apparatus until the crisis of 1969

The Bengal Famine (1943)

Tags

, , ,

Droughts remain a relatively common phenomenon in India even today, largely due to lack of irrigation facilities in most parts of the country. While the condition of most farmers in India remains precarious to this day (and thousands of suicides are reported each year), it is a far cry from what it was during the colonial era. With inadequate (at times non existent) famine relief and usurious taxation, one failed monsoon could easily spell death for millions during the British Raj.

Bengal- the first region to come under British rule- started its tryst with the Raj with the Great Bengal Famine (1769-70) (known in Bangla as ৭৬-এর মন্বন্তর/ Chhiattōrer monnōntór), which claimed an estimated 10 million lives- roughly a third of the population of the region. That famine proved to be the predecessor of many under British rule. Between 1769 and 1900, over 50 million Indians died due to famines across the length and breadth of India. Nonetheless, by the 20th century famines had became a thing of the past…

…until 1943, when Bengal’s tryst with the Raj ended with another colossal famine. Seven decades after after it happened, its time we recounted that man-made holocaust.

1 out of 3000000 victims of the Bengal Famine (1943)

1 out of 3000000 victims of the Bengal Famine

Prelude to Tragedy

Rice, the staple diet in Bengal, used to be grown in three crops in Bengal. Aman (harvested in November/ December) was the most important crop, followed  by the minor boro crop (harvested in February/ March) and aus (harvested in August September), which sustained people until the aman would be harvested in the winter. The rice available in Bengal at the beginning of a calendar year used to be in the form of the aman crop plus whatever reserve grains would be available.

Due to unfavourable weather conditions in the region, the average annual production of rice between 1938-39 to 1942-43 dropped to 24.4 million tonnes from 25.8 million tonnes between 1933-34 and 1937-38. The drop in production, coinciding with a period of rapidly rising population, resulted in grain shortages every year, which was not a major problem  as shortages could be met either through imports from neighbouring Burma or by transporting foodgrains from other parts of the country. The combination of the two plus the brilliance of the administrators ensured that there were virtually no deaths despite a potentially disastrous drought in 1940-41. Unfortunately, a lot changed in the two years that followed.

On 29th November 1941, the British government gave provinces the power to exercise prohibition of movement of foodgrains under the Defence of India Rules, 1939. With a war currently underway, the Provinces naturally rushed to prohibit movement of foodgrains outside their respective areas, which meant that it became virtually impossible to transport surplus grains from one province to the other. It didn’t help that by virtue of the Government of India Act 1936, the central government no longer had absolute control over the provinces they way it once did.

The government’s fears were scarcely unfounded, as the Japanese were quickly overrunning south east Asia at the time. It was only a matter of time before they would become a threat to the empire in India.

Leopold Amery © Michael Nicholson/Corbis

Leopold Amery © Michael Nicholson/ Corbis

The Japanese Come Calling

The expected Japanese invasion of Burma started in January 1942. By March, Burma was occupied by the Japanese, which meant that the British government confronted a hostile enemy barely a few hundred kilometres across the Bay of Bengal. From a food supply point of view, it also meant that an essential source of supply of rice was now cut off.

In preparation of war, the military authorities put in place a ‘denial policy’ under which rice and paddy stocks estimated to be in excess of local requirements were removed from the coastal districts of Midnapore, Bakarganj and Khulna (the last two are in present day Bangladesh). In addition, all boats capable of carrying 10 or more passengers were removed.

While it made for sound military strategy, the denial policy effectively ensured that there would be no reserve stocks in case of a poor harvest in areas near the coast. The British government compounded it by stepping up food grains exports to Europe. The export of rice between January and July 1942 jumped to 3,20,000 tonnes as compared to just 1,32,000 tonnes for the corresponding period in 1941.

The increased exports, coinciding with the loss of rice from Burma and the prohibition imposed by other provinces set the stage for the tragedy that followed.

Disaster Strikes

The morning of 16th October 1942 a cyclone followed by torrential rains stuck the western districts of Bengal. A few hours later came three massive tidal waves. The combination of tidal waves and torrential rains pushed up the water levels in the rivers Hoogly, Rupnarayan, Haldi and Rasalpur. The resulting floods severely damaged the aman crop over an estimated area of over 8,000 square kilometres. In many areas in the interiors, the torrential downpours even destroyed the reserve stock of grains. After the floods receded, fungus set in, further damaging the crop.

By the end of December, it was obvious to all that the aman crop was going to be woefully inadequate. Not surprisingly, speculators started hoarding up grains, expecting a windfall. They were not to be disappointed. From Rs. 5/10/0 per maund in January 1942, the price had shot up to Rs. 12/8/0 per maund in the Calcutta wholesale market by January 1943

(NoteMaund was the old unit of weight, equal to 37.3242 kgs. There is no equivalent to the ana in today’s terms, but in those days the Indian rupee consisted of 16 anas of 12 pice each. Prices used to be denominated in Rs/ Anas/ Pice. The old units of measures disappeared after India adopted the metric system in a phased manner between 1955 and 1962).

By December, fears of a Japanese attack proved to be true. The Japanese bombardment of Calcutta started on 20th December. There were five air raids in the last days of December 1942, followed by more in January 1943. The air raids threw the entire distribution system out of gear. Desperate to secure supplies to keep the city running- an imperative, as Calcutta was the base for securing the government against Japanese aggression- the government of Bengal decided to procure grains not only for supply, but also to serve as buffer stocks.

After two months experimenting with various measures, none of which succeeded in securing the food supply for Calcutta, the government announced that it was going to abrogate any attempts at price control on 11th March. The decision made sense from the point of view of securing food supplies for the city of Calcutta, as the measures already undertaken had achieved precious little.

But for the average Bengali, the outcome was bound to be an unmitigated disaster. From an already unaffordable Rs. 15 per maund in early March, the wholesale prices had leapt to Rs. 30/10/0 by 17th May. In many districts, the prices were nudging 50- and we’re talking only about wholesale prices. In an era when the vast majority of Indians lived on daily earnings that seldom exceeded a few anas, the skyrocketing prices put food grains well out of reach. By the second quarter of 1943, millions were starving.

The most sensible thing to be done under the circumstances, was to stop exports of food grains from India and divert them to Bengal, which is what Leopold Amery (Secretary of State for India) and Field Marshal Wavell (who would become viceroy in the summer of 1943) strongly advocated. Unfortunately for them and for millions of starving Bengalis, the then British Prime Minister Winston Churchill was more concerned about starving Greeks (who were, coincidentally, reeling under a famine at the very same time) than starving Indians. In any case, Churchill had a marked hatred for Indians. In his own words:

I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.

Worse still, offer for aid from the USA and Canada were turned down. Tonnes of wheat from Australia sailed past India to the Balkans and the Mediterranean region, even as millions of Indians were starving. His response to the first telegram from Delhi about the famine was to inquire why Gandhi hadn’t died yet. Whatever spin apologists for Mr. Churchill might put, the undeniable reality is that he bears no little responsibility for the tragedy of 1943.

The famine could have been contained by cracking down on hoarding. After all, an even greater food scarcity in 1940-41 had caused virtually no deaths. In the event the combination of human greed, administrative incompetence and Mr. Churchill’s callousness ensured that no effective measures were carried out. For their folly, millions of Indians paid a heavy price.

Aftermath

  • By common consensus, 2 to 3 million people died in the man made famine (some estimates place the human cost even higher)
  • The British authorities never officially declared a famine
  • Lord Wavell, who took over the office of Viceroy in October 1943, lost no time in initiating famine relief arrangements.
  • A strong monsoon coupled with favourable weather conditions would result in an excellent harvest in the winter of 1943-44, bringing the famine to an end
  • Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of independent India would say that that sight of well fed British soldiers at he height of the famine was “the final judgement on British rule in India”.
Churchill: Epitome of imperial callousness

Churchill: Epitome of imperial callousness

Legacy

  • The economic dislocations caused by the famine, war in the east and the partition of Bengal four years later sent the region of Bengal on a vicious downward spiral. Once the most prosperous province of India, Bengal remains to this day an economically backward region
  • Historian Madhusree Mukherjee in her 2010 book “Churchill’s Secret War” described then British Prime Minister Churchill’s role in the famine in extremely scathing terms
  • Outside of the state of West Bengal in present day India, the 1943 famine is a virtually forgotten chapter in colonial history.

Source

  • Famine Inquiry Commission, Report on Bengal, Usha Publications, New Delhi (1960)