Glimpses of World History

by Jawaharlal Nehru

  One of these was known as the “Four-Power Pact”, between America, Great Britain, Japan, and France. These four Powers pledged themselves mutually to respect the territorial integrity of their various possessions in the Pacific—that is to say, they promised not to encroach on each other’s territories. The other agreement, known as the “Nine- Power Treaty”, was between all the nine Powers attending—U.S.A., Belgium, Britain, France, Italy, Japan, Holland, Portugal, and China. The very first article of this treaty began thus: “To respect the sovereignty, the independence and the territorial and administrative integrity of China”.

  Both these agreements were obviously meant to protect China from further aggression. They were meant to stop the old game of concession-hunting and annexations which the Powers had so far played. The Western Powers had their hands full with the after-war problems and, for the moment, were not interested in China. Hence this self-denying ordinance to which they solemnly pledged themselves. Japan also pledged herself to this, although it conflicted with the deliberate policy which she had followed for many years. Before many years were over it was quite clear that Japan’s old policy continued in spite of all agreements and pledges to the contrary, and a Japanese invasion of China took place. It has been an extraordinarily barefaced example of international lying and hypocrisy. To understand the background of what happened later, I had to take you to the Washington Conference.

  About the time of the Washington Conference also, the final withdrawal of foreign troops from Siberia took place. The Japanese were the last to go. Immediately the local Soviets came to the front and joined the Soviet Republic of Russia.

  The Russian Soviet had early in its career addressed the Chinese Government and offered to give up all the special privileges which Tsarist Russia had enjoyed in China, in common with other imperialist Powers. Imperialism and communism could hardly go together, and, even apart from this, the Soviet deliberately adopted a generous policy towards eastern countries which had long been exploited or threatened by the Western Powers. This was not only good morals but sound policy for Soviet Russia, as it created friends in the East. The Soviet’s offer to give up special privileges was not a conditional one; it sought nothing in return. In spite of this, the Chinese Government was afraid of dealing with the Soviets, lest they might anger the western European Powers. At length, however, Russian and Chinese representatives met, and in 1924 agreed to certain terms. Learning of this agreement, the French, American, and Japanese Governments protested to the Peking Government, and Peking was so frightened at this that it actually disavowed the signature of its representative on the agreement. To such a pass was the unhappy Peking Government reduced! Thereupon the Russian representative published the whole text of the agreement. It created quite a sensation. For the first time in her contacts with the Powers, China had been treated honourably and decently and had her rights recognized. It was her first equal treaty with a great Power. The Chinese people were delighted with it, and the government had to sign it. It was quite natural for the imperialist Powers to dislike it, for it put them in a very unfavourable light. While Soviet Russia gave generously, they stuck to all their special privileges.

  The Soviet Government also got into touch with Dr Sun-Yat-Sen’s Southern Chinese Government, which had its headquarters at Canton, and they came to a mutual understanding. During most of this time a feeble kind of civil war was going on between the North and the South, and between various military commanders in the north. These northern tuchuns, or super-tuchuns as some of them were called, fought for no principles or programme; they fought for personal power. They allied themselves to each other and then crossed over to the other side, and formed a new combination. These ever-changing combinations were very confusing to the outsider. These tuchuns, or military adventurers, raised private armies, imposed private taxes, and carried on their private wars, and the burden of all this fell on the long-suffering Chinese people. Behind some of these super-tuchuns, it was said, were foreign Powers, and especially Japan. Help and money came to them also from the big foreign business houses in Shanghai.

  The one bright spot was the south, where Dr Sun-Yat-Sen’s government functioned. This had ideals and a policy, and was not merely a brigand’s affair, as some of the northern tuchuns’ governments were. In 1924 the first National Congress of the Kuo-Min-Tang, the People’s Party, was held, and Dr Sun placed a manifesto before it. In this manifesto he laid down the principles which should guide the nation. This manifesto and these principles have since been the basis of the Kuo-Min-Tang, and even now they are supposed to guide the general policy of the so-called National Government.

  In March 1925 Dr Sun died, after a life worn out in China’s service, and beloved by the Chinese people.

  154

  India during War-Time

  April 16, 1933

  India, as a part of the British Empire, was of course directly involved in the World War. But there was no actual fighting in or near India. Nonetheless the war influenced developments in India in a variety of ways, both directly and indirectly, and thus brought about considerable changes. Her resources were used up to the fullest extent to help the Allies.

  It was not India’s war. India had no grievance against the German Powers, and, as for Turkey, there was great sympathy for her. But India had no choice in the matter. She was but a dependency of Britain, forced to toe the line of her imperialist mistress. And so, in spite of much resentment in the country, Indian soldiers fought against Turks and Egyptians and others, and made India’s name bitterly disliked in western Asia.

  As I have told you in a previous letter, politics were at a low ebb in India on the eve of the war. The coming of the war still further diverted attention from them, and numerous war measures, taken by the British Government, made real political activity difficult. A war period is always considered by governments a sufficient excuse for suppressing everybody else and doing just what they like themselves. The only licence permitted is licence for themselves. A censorship is established which suppresses truth, often spreads falsehoods, and prevents criticism. Special acts and regulations are passed to control almost every form of national activity. This was done in all the warring countries, and, naturally, it was done in India also, where a “Defence of India Act” was passed. Public criticism of the war or anything connected with it was thus effectively checked. Yet in the background there was universal sympathy with Turkey, and a desire that Britain should get a hard knock from Germany. This impotent wish was natural enough among those who had themselves been knocked about sufficiently. But there was no public expression of it.

  In public, loud shouts of loyalty to Britain filled the air. Most of this shouting was done by the ruling princes, and some of it by the upper middle classes who came into contact with the government. To a slight extent the bourgeoisie was also taken in by the brave declarations of the Allies about democracy and liberty and the freedom of nationalities. Perhaps, it was thought, this might apply to India also, and it was hoped that help rendered then to Britain, in her hour of need, might meet with a suitable reward later. In any event, there was no choice in the matter, and there was no other safe way; so they made the best of a bad job.

  This outward display of loyalty in India was much appreciated in England in those days, and there was many an expression of gratitude. It was stated by those in authority that, after this, England would look at India with a “new angle of vision”.

  But there were some Indians, both in India and in foreign countries, who did not adopt this “loyal” attitude. They did not even remain quiet and passive as the great majority did. They believed, according to the old Irish maxim, that England’s difficulty was their country’s opportunity. In particular, some Indians in Germany and in other countries of Europe gathered together in Berlin to devise means to help England’s enemies, and formed a committee for this purpose. The German Government was naturally eager to accept help of every kind, and they welcomed these Indian revolutionaries. A regular
written agreement was arrived at and signed by the two parties—the German Government and the Indian Committee—in which, among other things, the Indians promised to help the German Government during the war on the understanding that, in the event of victory, Germany would insist on Indian freedom. This Indian Committee thereupon worked on behalf of Germany throughout the war. They carried on propaganda among the Indian troops that were sent abroad, and their activities spread right up to Afghanistan and the north-west frontier of India. But, apart from causing a great deal of anxiety to the British, they did not succeed in doing much. An attempt to send arms to India by sea was frustrated by the British. The German defeat in the war put an end automatically to this committee and its hopes.

  In India also there were some instances of revolutionary activity, and special tribunals were appointed to try conspiracy cases, and many were sentenced to death and many to long terms of imprisonment. Some of the persons sentenced then are still in prison—after eighteen years!

  As the war proceeded, a handful of people made huge profits, as elsewhere, but the great majority felt the strain more and more and discontent grew. The demand for more men for the front went on growing, and recruiting for the army became very intense. All manner of inducements and rewards were offered to those who brought in recruits, and zamindars were made to supply fixed quotas of recruits from among their tenants. In the Punjab, especially, these “press-gang” methods—that is, forced recruiting—were employed to get men for the army and the labour corps. The total number of men that went from India to the various fronts, both as soldiers and in the labour corps, amounted to over a million. These methods were greatly resented by the people concerned and are supposed to have been one of the causes of the after-war troubles in the Punjab.

  The Punjab was also affected in another way. Many Punjabis, and especially Sikhs, had emigrated to California in the United States and to British Columbia in western Canada. A stream of emigrants continued to go till it was stopped by the American and Canadian authorities. In order to put difficulties in the way of such immigrants, the Canadian Government made a rule that only such immigrants would be admitted as came direct from port to port without having changed ships on the way. This was meant to prevent Indian immigrants, as they had invariably to change ships in China or Japan. Thereupon a Sikh, Baba Gurdit Singh, engaged a whole ship, named the Komagata Maru, and carried a crowd of immigrants with him from Calcutta all the way to Vancouver in Canada. He had thus cleverly evaded the Canadian law, but nonetheless Canada was not going to have him, and none of the immigrants were allowed to land. They were sent back in the same ship, and they reached India destitute and very angry. There was quite a little battle with the police at Budge Budge, Calcutta, resulting in many deaths, chiefly amongst the Sikhs. Many of these Sikhs were subsequently shadowed and hunted all over the Punjab. These people also spread anger and discontent in the Punjab, and the whole Komagata Maru incident was resented all over India.

  It is difficult to know all that happened in those war days, because the censorship would not allow many kinds of news to appear, and consequently wild rumours used to spread. It is known, however, that a big mutiny in an Indian regiment took place in Singapore, and there was trouble on a smaller scale in many other places.

  Apart from supplying men for the war and helping in other ways, India was also made to provide hard cash. This was called a “gift” from India. A hundred million pounds was paid in this way on one occasion and, later, another big sum. To call this enforced contribution from a poor country a “gift” does credit to the sense of humour of the British Government.

  All this that I have told you so far consisted of the less important consequences of the war, so far as India was concerned. But a far more fundamental change was being brought about by the wartime conditions. During the war, India’s foreign trade, like the foreign trade of other countries, was wholly upset. The vast quantity of British goods that used to come to India was now very largely cut off. The German submarines were sinking ships in the Mediterranean and the Atlantic, and trade could not be carried on under these conditions. India had thus to provide for herself and supply her own needs. She had also to supply the government with all manner of things needed for the war. So that Indian industries grew rapidly, both the old industries, like the textile and jute, and new war-time industries. Tata’s iron and steel works, which had so far been cold-shouldered by the government, now assumed tremendous importance, as they could produce war material. They were more or less run under government control.

  For the war years, therefore, capitalists in India, both British and Indian, had an open field and little competition from abroad. They made full use of this opportunity and profited by it at the cost of the poor Indian masses. Prices of goods were put up and incredible dividends were declared. But the workers, whose labour produced these dividends and profit, saw little change in their miserable conditions. Their wages went up a little, but the prices of the necessaries of life went up far more, and so their position actually became worse.

  But the capitalists prospered greatly and accumulated huge profits, which they wanted to invest again in industry. For the first time Indian capitalists were strong enough to exert pressure on the government. Even apart from this pressure, the force of events had forced the British Government to help Indian industry during war-time. The demand for further industrialization of the country led to the importation of more machinery from abroad, as such machinery could not then be made in India. So that in place of manufactured goods coming from England to India, we find now more machinery coming.

  All this involved a great change in British policy in India; a century-old policy was given up and a new one adopted in its place. British imperialism, adapting itself to changing conditions, changed its face completely. You will remember my telling you of the early stages of British rule in India. The first was the eighteenth-century stage of plunder and carrying away of hard cash. Then came the second stage when British rule was firmly established, and which lasted for over 100 years—right up to the war. This was to keep India as a field of raw material and a market for Britain’s manufactured goods. Big industry was discouraged here in every way, and India’s economic development prevented. Now, during war-time, comes the third stage, when big industry in India is encouraged by the British Government, and this is done in spite of the fact that it conflicts to some extent with Britain’s manufacturers. Thus it is obvious that if the Indian textile industry is encouraged, Lancashire suffers to that extent, because India has been Lancashire’s best customer. Why then should the British Government make this change in its policy to the detriment of Lancashire and other British industries? I have already shown how its hands were forced by war conditions. Let us consider these reasons for the change in detail: 1. War-time demands automatically force the issue and push on industrialization in India. 2. This increases the Indian capitalist class and strengthens it, so that they demand more and more facilities for the growth of industry, to afford them an opportunity to invest their surplus funds. Britain is no longer in a position to ignore them completely, as this might alienate them and lead them to support the more extreme and revolutionary elements in the country, which are growing stronger. Therefore, it is desirable to keep them, if possible, on the British side by giving them some opportunities for growth. 3. The surplus money of the capitalist class in England also seeks opportunities for the investment in undeveloped countries, as profits are greater there. England itself being highly industrialized, there are no such favourable opportunities of investment there. Profits are not so great and, owing to the strength of the organized labour movement, labour troubles are frequent. In undeveloped areas labour is weak, and hence wages are low and profits high. British capitalists naturally prefer investing in undeveloped areas under British control, such as India. Thus British capital comes to India, and this leads to still further industrialization. 4. The experience of the war showed that only highly industrialized countries can carry
on a war effectively. Tsarist Russia broke down ultimately in the war because it was not sufficiently industrialized and had to rely on other countries. England fears that the next war may be a war with Soviet Russia at the Indian frontier. If India has not got her own big industries, the British Government will not be able to carry on the war properly on the frontier. This is too great a risk. Therefore, again, India should be industrialized.

  For these reasons, inevitably, British policy changed and the industrialization of India was decided upon. The larger imperial policy of Britain demanded it, even at the cost of Lancashire and some other British industries. Of course Britain made out that this change was due to the British Government’s exceeding love of India and her welfare. Having decided upon this policy, Britain took steps to ensure that the real control of the new industry in India would remain in the hands of British capitalists. The Indian capitalist is obligingly taken as a very junior partner in the concern.

  In 1916, during war-time, an Indian Industrial Commission was appointed, and two years later it reported, recommending that industries should be encourged by government, and that new industrial methods should be introduced in agriculture. It also suggested that an attempt should be made to give universal primary education. As in the early days of factory development in England, mass elementary education was considered necessary in order to produce skilled labour.