Glimpses of World History

by Jawaharlal Nehru

  A mass struggle has one great advantage. It is the best and swiftest method, though perhaps a painful one, of giving political education to the masses. For the masses need the “schooling of big events”. Ordinary peace-time political activity, such as elections in democratic countries, often confuses the average person. There is a deluge of oratory, and every candidate promises all manner of fine things, and the poor voter, or the man in the field or factory or shop, is confused. There are no very clear lines of cleavage for him between one group and another. But when a mass struggle comes, or in time of revolution, the real position stands out clearly, as if lit up by lightning. In such moments of crisis, groups or classes or individuals cannot hide their real feelings or character. Truth will out. Not only is a time of revolution a test of character, of courage, endurance, and selflessness, it also brings out the real conflicts between different classes and groups, which had so far been covered up by fine and vague phrases.

  Civil Disobedience in India has been a national struggle; it has certainly not been a class struggle. It has definitely been a middle-class movement with peasant backing. It could not therefore separate the classes as a class movement would have done. And yet even in this national movement there was to some extent a lining up of classes. Some of these, like the feudal princes, the taluqdars and big zamindars, aligned themselves completely with the government, preferring their class interest to national freedom.

  The growth of the national movement, under the leadership of the Congress, resulted in the peasant masses joining the Congress and looking to it for relief from their many burdens. This increased the power of the Congress greatly and at the same time it gave it a mass outlook. While the leadership remained middle class, this was tempered by pressure from below, and agrarian and social problems occupied the Congress more and more. A gradual leaning towards socialism also developed. This was evidenced by an important resolution on fundamental rights and an economic programme, which was passed by the Karachi Congress in 1931. This resolution laid down that the constitution should guarantee certain well-recognized democratic rights and liberties as well as the rights of minorities. It further stated that key and basic industries and services should be State-controlled. The struggle for independence began to mean something much more than political freedom, and a social content was given to it. The real question became one of ending the poverty and exploitation of the masses, and independence was a means to this end.

  While the Civil Disobedience struggle was going on in India and vast numbers of political workers were in prison, the British Government put forward their proposals for Indian constitutional reform. A restricted form of provincial autonomy was suggested and a Federation in which the feudal princes would have a dominating voice. Every conceivable safeguard that the wit of man could devise was proposed by the Government, not only to hold on to their interests, but to strengthen their threefold occupations of India—military, civil, and commercial. Every vested interest was fully protected, and the most important, that of Britain, was most effectively safeguarded. Only the interests of the three hundred and fifty-odd millions of India seemed to have been overlooked. These proposals met with a storm of opposition in India.

  I have neglected Burma, and must tell you something about her. The Burmese people did not take part in the Civil Disobedience movements of 1930 or 1932. But in 1930 and 1931 there was a great peasant revolt in North Burma due to great economic distress. This revolt was put down with considerable barbarity by the British Government. Attempts are now being made to separate Burma from India politically, so that, in the event of India gaining freedom, Burma might continue to be exploited by British imperialism. Burma has considerable importance because of her oil and timber and mineral resources.

  Note (October 1938):

  Since this letter was written, five and a half years ago in prison, many changes have taken place in India. At that time the Civil Disobedience movement was still being carried on, though in an attenuated form, and large numbers of Congressmen were in gaol. The Congress itself, with its thousands of committees and allied organizations, had been declared illegal. In 1934 Civil Disobedience was stopped by the Congress and the Government withdrew the ban against the Congress. The old policy of boycotting the legislatures was varied by the Congress and elections to the Central Assembly were contested with considerable success.

  In 1935, after long debate, the British Parliament passed the Government of India Act, which laid down a new constitution for India. According to this, there was a measure of provincial autonomy, with numerous safeguards, and a federation between the Provinces and the Indian States. The Act met with widespread opposition in India, and the Congress rejected it. The safeguards and “special powers” in the hands of the Governors and the Viceroy were especially objected to as taking the substance out of provincial autonomy; the Federation was even more strongly opposed, as this perpetuated the autocratic regime in the States and brought about an unnatural and unworkable union between feudal and autocratic units and the semi-democratic provinces. It was looked upon as a deliberate attempt to smother the political and social progress of India and to strengthen the hold of British Imperialism, both directly and through the feudal princes. A communal arrangement was also made a part of the new constitution which created numerous separate electorates. This was welcomed by some minorities, which profited to some extent by it, but was condemned on the ground of being anti-democratic and a barrier to progress.

  The part of the Government of India Act dealing with Provincial Autonomy was applied early in 1937, and general elections were held all over India in accordance with it. The Congress, although rejecting the Act, decided to participate in these elections, and a very vigorous and widespread election campaign was conducted throughout the country. In the great majority of provinces the Congress had overwhelming success, and Congressmen formed the majority party in most of the new provincial legislatures. The question whether they should accept office as ministers in the Provincial Governments or not was hotly debated. Ultimately the Congress decided to accept office, but it made it clear that the old objective of independence and the old policy remained, and office was to be accepted to further that policy and to strengthen the country in its struggle for independence. Further, it laid down that the safeguards should not be used by the Governors.

  As a result of this decision, Congress ministries were formed in seven provinces: Bombay, Madras, United Provinces, Bihar, Central Provinces, Orissa, and the North-West Frontier Province. A coalition ministry was formed some time later by the Congress in Assam. The two principal provinces where there were non-Congress ministries were Bengal and the Punjab.

  The formation of Congress Ministries led to the release of political prisoners and the removal of restrictions on civil liberties in those areas. The masses welcomed the change and looked forward expectantly to a rapid improvement in their condition. Political consciousness among the people increased rapidly and agrarian and workers’ movements gathered momentum. There were many strikes. The ministries immediately undertook agrarian and debt legislation to lighten the burden on the peasantry, and tried to better the condition of the industrial workers. Something was done but, circumstanced as they were and working within the limitations of the Act, no far-reaching social changes could be attempted.

  There were frequent conflicts between the Congress Ministers and the Governors, and on two occasions the ministers offered their resignations. An acceptance of these resignations would have led to a major clash between the Congress and the British Government. This was not desired by the latter, and the viewpoint of the ministers prevailed. The situation is, however, essentially unstable and conflicts are inevitable. For the Congress this is a passing phase and the objective remains independence.

  A major conflict may be precipitated by an attempt on the part of the British Government to impose Federation. This has so far not been done because of the strong opposition to it. The Congress today is more powerful than at any p
revious period of its existence and it cannot be ignored. It is determined not to submit to the proposed Federation. The Congress demand is for a Constituent Assembly, elected by adult franchise, which would frame a constitution for a free India.

  The communal problem has again assumed importance in India and has caused friction. There is a tendency, however, for economic and social questions to come to the forefront and to divert attention from communal and religious cleavages.

  The mass awakening in India has spread to the Indian States, and powerful movements are growing in many States demanding responsible government. This has been notably so in Mysore, Kashmir, and Travancore among the major states. These demands have been met, especially in Travancore recently, by brutal suppression and violence on the part of the State authorities. In many of these semi-feudal states (such as Kashmir), the administration is controlled by British officials.

  During the last few years India has taken a growing interest in international affairs and has sought to see its own problem in relation to the world problem. The events in Abyssinia, Spain, China, Czechoslovakia, and Palestine have moved the people of India deeply, and the Congress is beginning to develop a foreign policy. This policy is one of peace, and of support of democracy. It is equally opposed to imperialism and fascism.

  Burma was separated from India in 1937. It has been given a legislative assembly which is similar to the provincial assemblies in India.

  163

  Egypt’s Fight for Freedom

  May 20, 1933

  Let us now go to Egypt and follow another struggle between a growing nationalism and an imperialist Power. The Power there, as in India, is Britain. Egypt is, in many ways, very different from India, and Britain has been there for a comparatively short period, and yet there are numerous parallels and common features in the two countries. The nationalist movements of India and Egypt have adopted different methods, but, fundamentally, the urge to national freedom is the same and the objective is the same. And the way imperialism functions in its efforts to suppress these nationalist movements is also much the same. So each of us can learn much from the other’s experiences. For us in India there is an especial lesson, for we can see, in the example of Egypt, what British grants of “freedom” amount to, and what they lead to.

  Of all the Arab countries (Arabia, Iraq, Syria, Palestine), Egypt is the most advanced. It has been the highway between East and West, the great trade route for steamships ever since the building of the Suez Canal. With the new Europe of the nineteenth century it has had far more contacts than any of the countries of western Asia. It forms a very distinct national unit, quite separate from the other Arab countries, but with the closest cultural ties with them, for they all have the same language, traditions, and religion. The daily newspapers of Cairo go to all the Arab countries and have great influence there. Among all these countries the nationalist movement first took shape in Egypt, and it was thus natural for Egyptian nationalism to become a model for the other Arab countries.

  I have told you, in my last letter on Egypt, about the nationalist movement of 1881-82 headed by Arabi Pasha and how this was crushed by Britain. I have also told you of the early reformers, of Jemal-ud-din Afghani, and of the impact of the new ideas from the West on orthodox Islam. These reformers tried to harmonize Islam with modern progress by going back to old principles and discarding many of the accretions of religion, the many things that get added on to it in the course of centuries. The next step among progressive people was to separate religion from social institutions. The old religions have a way of covering and regulating every aspect of our day-today lives. Thus Hinduism and Islam, quite apart from their purely religious teachings, lay down social codes and rules about marriage, inheritance, civil and criminal law, political organization, and indeed almost everything else. In other words, they lay down a complete structure for society and try to perpetuate this by giving it religious sanction and authority. Hinduism has gone farthest in this respect by its rigid system of caste. This religious perpetuation of a social structure makes change difficult. So in Egypt, as elsewhere, progressive people tried to separate religion from the social structure and institutions. The reason they gave was that these old institutions, which religion or custom had imposed on the people in the past, were no doubt proper and suitable for the conditions that prevailed at the time of the Scriptures. But these conditions had greatly changed now, and the old institutions did not fit in with them. Ordinary common sense tells us that a rule made for a bullock-cart would not suit a motor car or a railway train.

  Such was the argument used by these progressives and reformers. This led to increasing secularization of the State and of many institutions—that is to say, they were separated from religion. This process went farthest, as we have seen, in Turkey. The President of the Turkish Republic does not even take his oath of office in the name of God; he takes it on his honour. Matters have not developed to this extent in Egypt, but the same tendency is at work there and in other Islamic countries. The Turks, Egyptians, Syrians, Persians, etc., speak today far more in the new language of nationalism than in the old one of religion. Probably the Muslims of India have resisted this nationalizing process more than any other large group of Muslims in the world, and they are thus far more conservative and religious-minded than their co-religionists of the Islamic countries. This is a curious and striking fact. The new nationalism has usually gone hand in hand with the development of the bourgeoisie, the middle classes under the capitalist economic system. The Muslims in India have been backward in developing this bourgeoisie, and this failure may have obstructed their march towards nationalism. It is also possible that the fact of being a minority community in India has so worked on their fears as to make them more conservative and tied to old tradition, and suspicious of new-fangled notions and ideas. It must have been some such psychology which made the Hindus draw into their shells and become a very rigid caste-bound community when the early Islamic invasions took place, nearly 1000 years ago.

  The new middle class grew in Egypt, with the growth of foreign trade, during the last quarter of the nineteenth century and afterwards. A member of this class, having risen to it from a fellah or peasant family, was Saad Zaghlul. He was a young man when Arabi Pasha challenged the British in 1881-2, and he served under Arabi. From that time onwards until his death in 1927, for forty-five years he worked for Egyptian freedom, and became the leader of the Egyptian independence movement. He was Egypt’s unquestioned leader, beloved of the peasantry from which he had sprung, and idolized by the middle classes to which he belonged. But the so-called aristocracy, the old feudal landlord class, did not take to him kindly. They did not like the rising middle class, which was gradually pushing them away from their dominant position in the country. Zaghlul was an upstart in their eyes, and he had to struggle against them as a leader and representative of his own class. As in India, the British tried to find support for themselves in this feudal landowning class. This class was really more Turkish than Egyptian, and represented the old governing nobility.

  Thus the British in Egypt, in the approved and well-tried fashion of imperialism, tried to attach to themselves some social group or political section, and obstructed the development of a single nationality by setting one class or section against another. As in India, they tried to raise a minority question, the Christian Copts forming a minority in Egypt, but in this they failed. And all this they did, also in the approved fashion, with pious phrases on their lips and pleas that everything that they did was for the benefit of the other party; they were the “trustees” of the “dumb millions”, and all would be well if “agitators” and such-like people with “no stake in the country” would not create trouble. Incidentally, this process of conferring benefits often resolved itself into shooting down large numbers of the people benefited. Perhaps in this way they were made to escape the miseries of this world, and their departure for paradise was hastened.

  Egypt had been under martial law right throug
h the war and for long afterwards. During war-time a Disarmament Act had been passed and a Conscription Act. The country was full of British troops. It had been declared a British protectorate at the beginning of the war.

  With the coming of peace in 1918 the nationalists in Egypt became active again, and drew up Egypt’s case for independence to place before the British Government as well as before the Peace Conference in Paris. There were no real parties in Egypt then. One national Party, called the Watanists, existed with a small membership. It was proposed to send a big deputation under Saad Zaghlul Pasha to London and Paris to plead for Egypt’s independence, and in order to make this deputation a national one with strong backing, a widespread organization was set up. This was the origin of the great Wafd party of Egypt, for wafd means deputation. The British Government refused to permit this deputation to go to London, and, in March 1919, arrested Zaghlul and other leaders.

  This resulted in the outbreak of a bloody revolution. Some British people were killed, and the city of Cairo and other centres passed into the hands of the revolutionary committee. Nationalist Committees of Public Safety were formed in many places. The university students took a great part in this rebellion. After these initial successes, however, the rebellion was to a large extent suppressed, though occasionally English officials were killed. But though the active insurrection was suppressed, the movement was far from being crushed, It changed its tactics and entered upon a second phase—that of passive resistance. So successful was this that the British Government were forced to take some steps to meet the Egyptian demand. A commission was sent from England under Lord Milner. The Egyptian nationalists decided to boycott this commission, and they did so with remarkable success. Again the students played an important part in the boycott of the Milner Commission. The Commission were so impressed by the national resistance that they made some far-reaching recommendations. The British Government ignored these, and the struggle in Egypt continued for three years, from early in 1919 to early in 1922. The Egyptians would agree to nothing short of complete independence—istiqlal el-tam.