CHAPTER - VI
REPRESSION AGAINST THE
MOVEMENTS (1914-1919)
CHAPTER - VI
REPRESSION AGAINST THE MOVEMENTS (1914-1919)
On the international scene when the First World War broke out in
August 1914 with the German army threatening most of Europe, Britain took
quick steps to mobilize all the forces including those in its colonies like India
to effectively confront the enemies and defend its empire. Lord Hardinge, the
Viceroy of British India deputed the Indian Army personnel to fight alongside
the Allied forces.*1
But on the home front there was opposition and resentment from the
Congress for the despatch of the native forces to the war scene. Inorder to
deal with the situation firmly, the British Government in India tightened the
legislative and administrative measures in all the provinces. Consequently the
British Government in India passed repressive Acts such as the Foreigners
Ordinance, the Ingress into India Ordinance, the Defence of India Act and the
Rowlatt Act to suppress the movements like the Home Rule Movement and
the Rowlatt Satyagraha during the period from 1914 to 1919.
1 J.C.Johari. Pattabhi Sittaraniayya's History of the Indian National Congress, 1885-1947, Chand &
Co.. New Delhi. 1988. p.15.
1 13
Home Rule Movement and Its Impact
Annie Besant, the Theosophist and social reformer hid the foundation
in the Madras Presidency for the Home Rule Movement when it was launched
by Tilak against the British imperialism. She worked ceaselessly for the
Theosophical Society which was already functioning in Madras. Ultimately,
she rose to be its President in 1907. She made Madras he: home, taking to
Indian costume and Indian habits. The Theosophical Society stoked the fire of
patriotism in the youth of the Presidency and thus kept aloft the flame of
nationalism.
When Annie Besant found that the native Indians were devoid of
political rights and civil liberties in their own soil and their aspirations were
being suppressed by the British Government in India, she took to politics by
staunchly strengthening the Home Rule Movement in Madras.2
3 About the
same time the Viceroy, Hardinge sent a despatch to England proposing a sort
of federalism. Besant went to England and explained the need to grant
devolution of powers to Indians and returned to India in H13 with her cry for
Home Rule. In order to spread the message of Home Rule, she started a
weekly organ called the Commonweal in January 1914. The demand for
2 Saroja Sundararajan. March to Freedom in Madras Presidency. 1916-I9-T. Lalitha Publications.
Madras, 1989, pp. 90-91.
3 Ibid, pp.92-93.
114
Home Rule itself was but a reiteration of the long-stami«g demand of the
Congress.4
Besant played a very substantial role in broadcastiig the ideal of the
Indian National Congress to the public in the Presidency of Madras at large
by bringing into the national arena, hundreds of students, teachers,
government servants, social workers and other intellectuals.5
Then Besant bought the Madras Standard, a lewspaper which
happened to be in for sale in July 1914 and changed it to suit her political
needs under the appropriate name New India which became soon the national
champion of Swaraj. Besant was also the registered keeper of the press at
which her papers were printed. Both the papers viz., Commonweal and New
India became the armaments in her battle for Home Rule in India. Pentland,
the Governor of Madras, called New India a “daily political broadsheet rather
than a newspaper” which “unfortunately was printed and pmhlished in India”.6
Besant’s association with the Congress began in 1914 when the
twenty-ninth session of the Indian National Congress was held at Madras. At
this session of the Congress, Besant supported a resolution demanding
self-government for India. Besant was deeply depressed to find that the
hardcore nationalists who were snuffed out of the Congress at the Surat
4 Ibid, p.93.
5 Tara Chand, History of the Freedom Movement in India, Publications Division, Government of
India, New Delhi, 1972, Vol. Ill, p.449.
6 Home Rule File. No.7(a). 28 February. 1916.
session (1907) were still out of that august political body. She succeeded in
t 1916. q
bringing the hardcore nationalists back into the fold of the Congress in
Besant toured all parts of India delivering stirring addresses to the audiences
on the necessity of working for Home Rule for India.
Annie Besant specified three chief reasons for dhe requirement of
Home Rule to India, viz.,*9 8
1. The need for legislation necessary for the welfare of the country,
2. The economic conditions and the unfair incidence of taxation, the lack
of power of the people over their own resources, thdr own taxes, their
manufactures, exports and imports, and
3. The pressing need for mass education.
When the First World War broke out in August 1914, the British
Government passed the Foreigners Ordinance and the Ingress into India
Ordinance immediately. The Defence of India Act and Rules came into force
early in 1915. Defence of India (Consolidation of Rules) was implemented
from 23 December 1915. The section 12(A) of Defence of India Rules under
the Defence of India Act is inserted as follows:10
• “Any officer of the Government authorized in this behalf by a general or
special order of the Local Government may arrest without warrant, any
' Home Rule File. No. 5. 8 October. 1915.
8 Tara Chand, op.at. p.450.
9 Home Rule File. No.7(b). 22 May. 1916.
111 G.O.No.226, Judicial. 27 January. 1916.
person against whom a reasonable suspicion exists that he has acted, is
acting, is about to act with intent to assist the King’s enemies in a manner
prejudicial to public safety or the defence of British India.
• Any official exercising the power conferred by this Rule may use any
every means necessary to enforce the same.
• Any officer making an arrest under this rule shall forthwith report the fact
to the Local Government and pending receipt of the orders of the Local
Government, may by order in writing commit any person so arrested to
such custody as the Local Government may by general or special order
specify in this behalf, provided that no person shall be detained in custody
for a period exceeding 15 days without the order of the Local Government,
provided further that no person shall be detained in custody under this rule
for a period beyond a month”.
In pursuance of section 2 of the Defence of India Criminal Law
(Amendment) Act, 1915 (IV of 1915), the Governor-General in Council made
the following amendment in the Defence of India (Ccmsolidation) Rules,
191511: 16-A. (1) “Where an officer of Government authorized in this behalf
by the Local Government has reason to suspect that any person who is about
to depart from British India is attempting to do so for purposes prejudicial to
G O No. 1872, Judicial. 25 July. 1916
117
the public safety or the defence of British India, such officer may prevent the
departure of that person”.
(2) “Any officer preventing the departure of any person under this rule
shall forthwith report the case to the Local Government, and the Local
Government may, if it thinks fit, by order prohibit such person at any time
subsequently from leaving British India so long as the order is in force; and if
any person leaves British India in contravention of such an order he shall be
deemed to have contravened these rules”.
“By the passing of orders under section 45 (1) (f) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, District Magistrates, with sanction, can already impose
the obligation on village officials of reporting any matter likely to affect the
maintenance of order, or the prevention of crime, or the safety of person or
property, while all private persons have powers of arrest under section 59. It
is understood that in certain provinces, at least local Acts give further powers
to impose duties upon Village Officials and the Government of India is of
opinion that resort may appropriately be had to these provisions where
desired, without the issue of a special rule on the point”.12
Besant’s Home Rule League aimed to cover the two sections of people,
Indian and English. Dadabhai Naoroji agreed to be the General President of
the Home Rule League. William Wedderbum headed the English section and
12 G.O.No. 1977. Judicial. 20 August. 1915.
S.Subramania Iyer, the Indian section. A large and influential section of the
public greatly favoured the Home Rule League.13
Tilak who vociferously advocated Home Rule in die North India and
wrote articles in favour of his avowed policy against the Government was
sentenced to 6 years imprisonment for the seditious articles in the paper,
Kesari and was deported to Mandalay. He was released in 1914. His release
infused fresh life into the national movement in Bombay. In the New India of
25 September, 1915, Besant wrote, “It has baen decided to start a Home Rule
League with Home Rule in India” as its only object, as an auxiliary of the
Indian National Congress and its British Committee in England.14
Annie Besant started the Home Rmle League as an independent
organisation in Madras on 3 September 1916 in the Gokhaie Hall. Besant was
made the President, G.S.Arundale the Organizing Secretary, C.P.Ramasamy
Iyer one of the General Secretaries and B.P.Wadia as the Treasurer of the
Home Rule League. Home Rule League branches were quickly established at
Adyar, Kumbakonam, Madanapalli, Calicut, Ahmedabad, Allahadabad,
Benares, Bombay and Cawnpore. Before long there were as many as 200
branches,
all enjoying virtual
autonomy.
Communications with the
headquarters were carried on either through individuals who were active or
13 Letter No.4307, W-l, Home, 29 September. 1915.
11 Saroja Sundararajan. March to Freedom in Madras Presidency, 1916-194~. Lalitha Publications.
Madras. 1989. pp.98-99.
1 19
through “New India”, a weekly wherein a page was devoted to Home Rule
News.15
The activities of the Home Rule League continued vigorously. Special
Home Rule classes had been started and were to be held twice a week within
the hall of the Young Men’s Indian Association (YMIA) at Madras. Attention
was being concentrated on the student classes. The students from St.Joseph’s
College, Trichinopoly, Government College, Coimbatore and Pachiappa’s
College, Madras participated actively in the Home Rule Movement.16 Further
Home Rule Volunteer Corps was established in Madras under the ambit of the
Home Rule League and those volunteers were given training to conduct the
Home Rule Movement successfully.17
The Home Rule Movement brought Besant immense popularity and
fame and elevated her to the position of an important national leader in the
country. The Manifesto of the Home Rule League stated its object to be
“strong, steady and sustained agitation”.114 The resolution of the Lucknow
Congress in December 1916 gave a further impetus to Besant’s Movement.
The Congress recognized the Home Rule League as part of itself when it
15 Sew India. 4 September. 1916.
Letter No.4374, W-l, Home, 17 November, 1916.
1 Letter No.4508, W-l, Home, 1 December, 1916.
18 G O.No.4496. Judicial. 8 October, 1915.
120
called upon the Home Rulers along with the Congress committees to cany on
the “educative and propaganda work of the Congress”.19
As she continued to wield her powerful pen defiantly against the
Government, action was taken against her under the Press Act. On 26 May
1916, at the instance of the Government of Madras, the Chief Presidency
Magistrate issued an Order calling upon Besant to deposit a security of
Rs. 2000/- within 14 days. Besant paid it in person and submitted a letter to
the Chief Presidency Magistrate describing her contribution as a kind of
forced loan. She refused to change or modify the tone of her paper with
regard to Home Rule.20
There were meetings condemning the Madras Government and fund­
raising campaigns began in Besant’s favour all over India. S.Subramania Iyer,
a person of great legal acumen and a prominent Home Ruler characterized the
application of the Indian Press Act to the paper, New India as a deliberate act
to stifle the voice of the Home Rule Movement. The leadiag newspapers of
Madras published innumerable letters condemning the Government’s action.
The Hindu commented adversely on the refusal of a railway bookstall owned
by a European firm to sell copies of New India and on the refusal of the
Principal of the Forest College in Coimbatore to invite a representative of that
paper to cover a college function. The same paper also took to task the
19 Saroja Sundararajan, March to Freedom in Madras Presidency, I9I6-I9-T, Lalitlia Publications.
Madras. 1989, p. 101.
211 .Vcic India. 8 June, 1916.
Bombay Government under Willingdon which served Prohibitory Order on
Besant through the Madras Government, banning her entry to their Presidency
on the ground that her activities were prejudicial to the public safety under
Rule 3 of the Defence of India Rules.
'y i
The Madras Mail was the sole paper which defended the action of the
Madras Government in demanding the security as absolutely correct. The
agitation for Home Rule was steadily gaining in scope and strength and the
virulence of Besant’s anti-British Campaign continued unabated. Two of the
notable books which she published during this period were “How India
wrought for freedom” and “India A Nation”. She also issued 10,000 copies
each of two leaflets on “Self Government”. Her speeches also disturbed the
government considerably.22 On 25 August 1916 the Madras Government
declared the security deposited by Besant in her capacity as “Keeper of New
India printing works” forfeited, and ordered the deposit of a fresh security of
Rs. 10,000/- with the District Magistrate of Chingleput. The high-handed
action of the Madras Government was vehemently criticized all over India
both by the public and the Press. Besant paid the second security of
Rs. 10,000/- under protest on 4 September 1916.23
21 Saroja Sundarajan. op.at. pp. 103-104.
22 Home Rule File. No.7(B), 22 May, 1916.
21 Saroja Sundararajan, March to Freedom in Madras Presidency, 1916-194~. Lalitha Publications.
Madras. 1989. pp. 104-105.
122
Institutions like the YMIA, the Ramakrishna Mission and the Madras
Mahajana Sabha also supported the Home Rule Movement. Madras Students’
Convention was established under the Presidentship of SLSubrahmanya Iyer.
By this time 5000 volunteers became the members of the Home Rule League
in Madras Presidency.24 The students were also enthused and their aid and
sympathy enlisted. A.Rangaswamy Iyengar, Editor of Swadesamitran
translated Besant’s “How India Wrought for Freedom” into Tamil and
arranged for the printing of the leaflets, “Reserved for Europeans” which were
distributed to the student population. Consequently college students in Madras
as well as in the mofussil areas protested against the reservation of carnages
for Europeans and Eurasians. They paraded the platforms in large numbers
shouting “Damn the English”. Then the movement had also captured the
imagination of the younger generation wkich had cone under Besant’s
powerful spell.
‘J S
Thus Besant easily succeeded in her effort to seek for Home Rule an
emotional youth support. Alarmed of students becoming toe backbone of the
Home Rule Movement in Madras, Pentland’s Government passed an Order
forbidding students from involving themselves in political agitations.26 The
Home Rule Movement was initially confined more to Madras city. However it
Letter No.5168, Home, 1 January, 1917 and Letter No.621-W-l. Home, 16 January, 1917.
25 G.O.No.744, Public (Confidential), 7 June, 1917.
26 G.O.No 559. Home (Education). 1 May. 1917.
spread over in more places such as Trichinopoly, Tanjore, Tinnevelly,
Madura, Nagapattam, Dindugul and gained its popularity. 27
P.Varadarajulu Naidu took active part in Home Rule Movement at
Madras in 1916 and he was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment. George
Joseph also actively participated in Home Rule Movement at Madura in
1917.28
In his address to the Legislative Council on 24 May 1917, Pentland the
Governor of Madras proclaimed that if Besant and her followers did not
abandon the Home Rule agitation, he would resort to folkrw stem measures.
His threat of stern measures against Besant exposed Pentland to severe
criticism.29 S.Subrahmaia Iyer in a communication to the Press cautioned
Pentland that if the Madras Government proceeded against Besant, he would
seek all constitutional remedies open to get the government orders reversed.
But Pentland ignored the warning.30
On 7 June 1917, the Government of Madras passed an order restricting
the movements and activities of Besant, C.Arundale and B.P.Wadia due to
their growing political works which began to show a tendency to bring the
2' Letter No.4315-W-l, Home, 19 November, 1917 and Letter No. 1016-W-l, Home, 2 April, 1918.
28 H.K.Ghazi. Who's Who of Freedom Fighters (Tamilnadit). Government of Tamilnadu, Madras.
1973. Vol.I. p.300 and p.377.
29 Home Rule File No.7(h), May, 1917.
30 Saroja Sundararajan, March to Freedom in Madras Presidency, 1916-1947, Lalitha Publications.
Madras. 1989. p. 107.
124
government into contempt and hatred.31 The Governor of Madras had an
interview with Besant on 16 June 1917 before taking action on her relating to
the Home Rule agitation. About an hour after the interview, Besant and her
colleagues in the political and journalistic world, G.S.Arundale and
B.P.Wadia were issued an Order of Internment by the Governor in exercise of
section 3 of Defence of India Rules, 1915. The Order forbade them to make
speeches, attend meetings and publish or procure the publication of any
writing or speech composed by them, but to remain confined to the hills of
Ootacamund, which was the one that the internees chose out of the six
places32 suggested by the Government. As per the original orders, all the three
internees were authorized to live together in the same place of internment
under police control and censorship.33
Meetings were held in places such as Salem, Omalur, Coimbatore,
Kumbakonam,
Srivaikundam,
Trichinopoly,
Conjeevaraan,
Tindivanam,
Tuticorin and Kulittalai in June 1917 to protest the Order of Internments
issued to Annie Besant and her associates.34
Pentland persecuted not only Besant and her close associates but also
her staff and their relatives. On 19 June 1917 an order was served on
Narayana Sadashiv Maratha of Poona who had taken up residence at Adyar,
11 G.O.No.744. Public (Confidential), 7 June, 1917.
12 The Nilgiris District. Coimbatore District, Bellary District. The Palani Hills. The Shevaroy Hills
and the Municipal tow n of Vizagapatam.
33 G.O.No.744. op.cit.
31 Swailesamiran. 19. 25 and 26 June. 1917.
125
to leave the Presidency within forty-eight hours. On 1 August, the Madras
Government directed his son Karandikar, who was then the staff of the paper
New India to leave the Presidency under rule (3) of the Defence of India
(Consolidation) Rules, 1915.35
In view of the mounting criticism, the Government of Madras, in it its
order of 3 July 1917, informed the three internees of its decision to, “relax the
orders issued against them by permitting the publication of purely
theosophical or religious writings or speeches composed by them provided
that such speeches had been previously examined and passed for publication
by the Govemor-in-Council himself or by such officer as he might appoint.”
But all the three internees declined the offer as inconsistent with their
principles. Before long, the campaign against the Madras Government’s
action spread to other parts of the country.36
At Lucknow, the All-India Muslim League passed a resolution
protesting against the action of Pehtland on the Home Rule agitation launched
by Besant and her associates. Malaviya, a member of the Congress requested
the Viceroy to issue a circular to the Madras Government to prevent any local
government from interfering with any agitation conducted on constitutional
15 Sarqja Sundararajan, March to Freedom in Madras Presidency. I9I6-194~, Lalitha Publications.
Madras, 1989, p. 110.
16 G.O.No.884. Public. 3 July. 1917.
126
lines and also cancel the extension of the prohibition for college students from
attending political meetings. 37
Gandhiji paid the highest tribute to Besant when he said that she had
brought the Home Rule within the consciousness of every Indian village,
towns and cities within a short time. On 7 July 1917, he sent a letter to the
Viceroy stating that the Order of Internments were a big blunder.
His plan
was that if his advice went unheeded, and Besant and her associates were not
released before 31 July 1917, he would begin passive resistance i.e. young
men should go to villages and preach Home Rule as far as possible in the
language of Besant, so that Government might intern and imprison many. If
the Government did not release Besant and her friends, the young men should
go to Ootacamund to make Besant disobey the Order of Internment and
challenge the Government to further repression. It almost looked as if the
whole of India was on the brink of a revolution.39
The Government of India was certainly alarmed at the repercussions
that followed the internment. Even Jinnah, leader of the Muslim League
worked hard for Besant’s release, although there was a personal motive
behind his gesture. Only the anti-Besant Anglo-Indian section in the Madras
Presidency led by the Madras Mail persisted in their demand that they should
37 G.O.No.559, Home (Education). 1 May, 1917.
38 The Madras Mail, 8 July, 1917.
39 Saroja Sundararajan, March to Freedom in Madras Presidency, 1916-1947, Lalitha Publications,
Madras, p. 113.
127
not be released unless she gave up her agitation. The Madras Mahajana Sabha
cabled to the Secretary of State condemning the threat held out by the Madras
Mail and appealing to him to end the prevailing tension.40
Meanwhile Besant and her legal adviser David Graham Pole gave a
petition to the King-in-Council questioning the validity of the Defence of
India Act. In her petition dated 31 July 1917, Besant stated that the High
Courts of India did not possess ample jurisdiction to determine the validity of
acts of the Indian Legislature and that her case should be referred to the
Judicial Committee and the Order of Internment should be cancelled. The
petition was referred to Montagu, the Secretary of State who dismissed her
contention about the jurisdiction of the High Courts of India but said that if
she failed to obtain redress from the High Court of Madras, she could apply to
the Privy Council in the usual manner. Hence the King-in-Council conveyed
the same to her rejecting her petition.41
Even though Besant’s correspondence was under strict censorship,
she was not prevented from seeing visitors. She made the Olcott Lodge a
virtual centre of pilgrimage. Men like C.P.Ramaswamy Iyer and Pattabhi
Sitaramayya were frequently visiting her for instructions and inspiration.
Before long she got a flag bearing the Home Rule colours erected at Gulistan,
40 The Hindu, 17 September, 1917 and Annual Report of the Madras Mahajana Sabha, 1917.
41 Saroja Sundararajan. op.cit, p.l 14.
128
the cottage built for her. This was followed by the formation of a local branch
of the Home Rule League at Ootacamund.42
With her health failing miserably on the hills due to old age, Besant
wanted to shift her residence from Ootacamund to Coimbatore. The
Government of Madras gladly accepted her feeling perhaps that she would be
less troublesome there. But veiy soon, Besant made the entire district of
Coimbatore a centre of special Home Rule activity.43 The Madras
Government could not cope with the mass movement gathering momentum
day by day throughout the Presidency. Overtaken by these developments,
Pentland urged the Viceroy to consider the immediate deportation of Besant
to England.44
Regarding the other two internees, Pentland suggested that C.Arundale
might considerately be given the option to accompany Besant as escort while
B.P.Wadia might be released by the Madras Government and directed to
return to his own native Presidency of Bombay.45
On 20 August 1917 Edwin Montagu succeeded Chamberlain and he
made a historic announcement in the House of Commons on the British policy
in India. The declaration was that the “Policy of His Majesty’s Government,
with which the Government of India are in complete accord, is that of the
42 Ibid, p. 115.
43 Fortnightly Reports (Confidential). 17 August and 1 September. 1917.
44 Letter No.4496, W-l. Home (Political). 15 November, 1915.
45 Saroja Sundararajan, March to Freedom in Madras Presidency, 1916-194", Lalitha Publications.
Madras, 1989. p. 116.
129
increasing association of Indians in every branch of the administration and the
gradual development of self-governing institutions with a view to the progress
of responsible government in India as an-integral part of the British Empire”.
A direct result of this declaration was to release Besant and her colleagues
from all restrictions on their liberty, which was announced in the Imperial
Legislative Council on 5 September 1917. Consequently the three internees
were released on 17 September 1917 at 11 PM unconditionally.46
After three months of her internment, Anne Besant was chosen as the
President of the Indian National Congress session at Calcutta in December
1917 by Rabindranath Tagore, A.Subramania Iyer and others. Thus Besant
thundered from her Presidential Chair that, “India shall soon be seen, proud
and self-reliant, strong and free, the radiant splendour of Asia, the light and
blessing of the world”47
Montague-Chelmsford Reforms
Edwin Montague, the liberal minded Secretary of State for India who
toured India in 1917-18 and Chelmsford the Viceroy of India in their joint
report recommended legislative reforms for India which formed the basis of
the passing of the Government of India Act, 1919. This Act provided for
creating central bicameral legislature with ultimate power of certification or
approval being retained by the Viceroy even though the Act increased the
Ibid., pp. 117-119.
Ibid., p. 121.
130
strength of the non-official members. Regarding the Governor’s Provinces
(which included Madras), the Act provided for adoption of ‘Dyarchy’
dividing the provincial subjects into ‘Reserved’ that related to Police,
Revenue etc under the charge of the Governor’s Executive Council and into
“Transferred” that related to the charge of Ministers appointed from the
Legislative Council to be presided over by an elected President while
retaining the ultimate power of approval with the Governor.48
Even though majority of the legislative council members were to be
elected with communal representation, the Congress leaders reacted with a
mixed response with the Moderates and the Home Rule Leaguers welcoming
it while the Justice Party after initial hesitation, welcomed it as this party
ultimately secured 28 reserved seats for Non-Brahmins in the new council
having a total strength of 130 members. The Congress leaders on the whole
boycotted the elections in view of the passage of the Rowlet Bill in March
1919 and the atrocities of Jallian Walla Bagh Massacre in April 1919.49
Rowlatt Act and Its Significance
The coercive measures of the British Government met with fierce
opposition from Indians of all shades of public opinion. The MontaguChelmsford Reforms Scheme (1917) intended to grant a small measure of
w S.Krishnaswamy, The Role of Madras Legislature in the Freedom Struggle. 186l-194~. Indian
Council of Historical Research. New Delhi, 1989, pp.78-79.
■” Ibid.
131
self-government to India with the overall control being retained by the crown
and the Rowlatt legislation purporting to put down terrorisl activities in India
were taking shape side by side. The Sedition Committee was appointed on
10 December 1917 under the headship of Sidney Rowlatt <if the King’ Bench
Division of His majesty’s High Court of Justice. The task of the Rowlatt
Committee was to investigate and report on the extent and depth of the
criminal conspiracies connected with the revolutionary movement in India
and to advise on the legislation that would be necessary to enable the
government to deal with them effectively.50
The Rowlatt Committee Report was presented to the Government on
15 April 1918. The Rowlatt Report was published on 19 July 1918, i.e. just
eleven days after the publication of the Montagu-Chelmsford Report. It only
deepened the discontent and dissatisfaction over the Reforms proposals.
However the Rowlatt Bill was passed as Anarchical Revolutionary Crimes
Act in 1919 popularly called the Rowlatt Act. The Act was to be in force for
three years.51
The Rowlatt Act was mainly divided in three parts. It bestowed on the
Government the power : (1) to set up special courts consisting of three High
Court Judges for specified offences; (2) to direct execution of bond for good
behaviour; internment within city reporting at police stalion; and abstention
5,1 vSoLi^5u-nc|.MM^o^;
fF*
M G.O.No.224, Public, 25 April. 1919.
132
from specific acts; and (3) to arrest without warrants, preventive detention
and search of places.52
The Provincial Government could order any person on suspicion, “to
furnish security or to notify his residence, or to reside in a particular area or to
abstain from any specified act, or finally to report himself to the police”. The
Provincial Government could also search a place and amesl a person without
warrant and keep him in confinement, “in such places and under such
conditions and restrictions as it may specify”. Immediately after the passage
of the Rowlatt Act, B.N.Sarma resigned his office as meimter of the Imperial
Legislative Council.53
Rowlatt Satyagraha Movement
Mohandas
Karamchand
Gandhi
after
eicountering
racial
discrimination by the whites in South Africa returned to India in January
1915. The plight of the landless peasants and coolies and of the oppressed
classes over whom untouchability was being practiced in India pained him
very much. He found that the subjugation of the native Irefans to the British
imperialist masters perpetrated the problems of India. He decided to devote
his entire life to bring salvation for the masses from social, political and
economic oppression. Initially he took up the cause of the tenants in Bihar in
52 Saroja Sundararajan, March to Freedom in Madras Presidency, I916-19-F, Lalitha Publications.
Madras, 1989, pp.208-209.
133
their quarrel with the planters in 1917. It was about this time he was given the
title of “Mahatma”. In 1918 he organized a passive resistance in the Kaira
district in the presidency of Bombay and advised the ryots not to pay land
revenue on account of the poorness of their crops. This may be regarded as
one of the first indications in India of his inclination towards the policy of
Non-Co-operation.54
It was significant that at the time of the passage of the Rowlatt Act,
Gandhi arrived on 17 March 1919 in Madras at the invitatkm of Kasturiranga
Iyengar in order to expound the significance of the Satyagsaha pledge to the
people. It was only in Madras that the idea of Satyagraha took concrete shape.
Gandhi told C.Rajagopalachariar, an active member of tie Congress that the
people be mobilised to observe a general hartal from one end of the country
to the other and that this strike would differ from other strikes for it would be
accompanied by fasting and prayer to symbolize the humiiation which the
people were undergoing. The whole of India would fast and all the machinery
of Government and all trade would come to a standstill for twenty four hours.
The hartal would be observed on 6 April 1919 after the Viceroy gave his
assent to the Rowlatt Bill. Gandhi also said that he was “fairly sure” of
response to his appeal from Madras, Bombay, Bihar and Sind.35
51 P.C.Baniford. Histories of the Non-Co-operation and Khilafat Movements, Government of India
Press. Delhi. 1925, pp. 1-2.
Saroja Sundararajan, March to Freedom in Madras Presidency, 1916-1947. Lalitha Publications.
Madras, pp.209-210.
134
Kasturiranga Iyengar had a major share in preparkg the ground in the
Madras Presidency for Ghandhi’s mission. The public meeting at the Marina
Beach on
18 March 1919 which was attended by about one lakh
people were addressed by Gandhi and eminent provincial leaders like
Kasturiranga Iyengar, Sarojini Naidu, C.Vijayaraghavachari, S.Satyamurti,
T.V.Gopalaswami Mudaliar and S.S.Bharati. Gandhi then made a tour of the
Madras Presidency, particularly the Tamil Districts covering all in a period of
about two weeks. He visited Tanjore, Trichinopoly, Madura, Tuticorin and
Nagapatam and addressed huge audiences inspite of his unsatisfactory health.
He took pains to explain to them the importance of the Satyagraha pledge, the
laws whose breach was contemplated by the pledge and the real spirit of a
satyagrahi.56
The Viceroy who could always depend on the loyalists’ support in
encountering public opposition gave his assent to the Act whereby it became a
law of the land. Gandhi decided to launch the Satyagraha Movement against
the obnoxious Rowlatt Act. The massive gathering in Madras on its first
hartal on 6 April 1919 on the Marina Beach suspending all their daily works,
devoting the whole day to fasting and prayer symbolised Satyagraha as purely
an “inward and purifying movement” and thus wholly non-violent.
G.O.No.222, Public, 24 April, 1919.
The Hindu. 7 April. 1919.
135
57
The Madras Satyagraha Sabha under the leadership of Rajaji,
A.Rangaswamy Iyengar, G.Harisarvottama Rao and T.Andhinarayana Chetty
called upon all who loved the country to fast and pray on 6 April 1919; and
desired every hamlet, village and town to pass a resolution on the same day
regarding the fast, their feelings towards the Rowlatt Act and prayers to the
Secretary of State and the Viceroy to have the Act revoked. The Moderates
also opposed the Act vehemently. The police too abstained from displaying
their authority and desisted from suppressing an orderly protest. The
Satyagrahis took a pledge to the effect that until the Rowlatt Act was
withdrawn, they would refuse civilly to obey these laws and such other laws
and faithfully follow truth and refrain from violence to life, person or
property”.58
P.Varadarajulu Naidu took part in Anti Rowlatt Movement, 1919 at
Tiruppur, Coimbatore district. He was arrested and sentoiced to 15 months
imprisonment under section 124-A, IPC and put up in Trichinopoly jail.59
S.Venkatakrishna Pilli from Tanjore district also took part in Anti-Rowlett
Movement and he was arrested and imprisoned in Trichinopoly jail for one
5X Saroja Sundarajan, op.cit, pp.213-214.
59 H.K.Gha/.i. Mho’s Mho of Freedom Fighters (Tamilnadu), Government of Tamilnadu, Madras.
1973. Vol.l. p. 132.
h" Ibid.. Vol.II. p.514.
136
Amidst all the feelings of resentment, hostility and opposition
expressed by way of Satyagraha in Madras and in all the provinces, the
government passed the Rowlatt Act. Following the passage of the Rowlatt
Act, came the Punjab tragedy when unarmed civilians gathered to attend a
public meeting on 13 April 1919 at Jallianwalabagh in Amritsar were fired by
the command of British General Dyer without any warning to the people. The
cold-blooded massacre at Jallianwala Bagh, to which it would be difficult to
find a parallel in the annals of any civilized Government took place before
Martial Law was declared at Amritsar on 15 April 1919 and in five districts of
the Punjab. But the British Government failed to punish the culprits behind
the Jallianwala Bagh massacre.61
Thus the atrocities of the British Government in Punjab and Amritsar
had implanted in the heart of every Indian to launch a relentless struggle
against the British. It had induced the people in the whole of Tamil Districts
to protest the British regime with hartal and anger. The loss of faith in the
British sense of fair play in governance and justice was fedt in the minds of
the natives and their leaders to such an extent and to such level that agitational
path of Non-cooperation with the government along mass-based movements
became a necessity.
61 R.C.Majumdar. History of the Freedom Movement in India, Fimia KLM Private Limited, Calcutta,
1977. Vol.Ill. pp.21-24.
137