Apr 13, 2018 - Propaganda of the British in the Madras Presidency, 1930 - 1931 ... all reasonable opportunities directly or through non-official mouth ...
Salt Satyagraha: The Preventive Measures and Counter Propaganda of the British in the Madras Presidency, 1930 - 1931 Dr.V.Venkatraman, Ph.D., D.Litt. Principal & Head, Rajapalayam Rajus’ College Rajapalayam
Gandhi, the massive leader of the nation commenced the Salt Satyagraha March on 12th March 1930 to break the Salt Law at Dandi beach from the Sabarmathi Ashram, as a token of Civil Disobedience Programme with 77 satyagrahis. The satyagrahis reached Dandi on 1 5th April 1930. Gandhi himself broke the Salt Law by picking salt 2 lying on the Dandi beach on 6th April 1930. Further, Gandhi appealed to his countrymen to start the movement at their respective regions. In Tamil Province, C.Rajagopalachari, the President of Tamil Provincial Congress Committee drew up a plan for the salt satyagraha in Tamil Province on the Gandhian model. He selected 100 satyagrahis from all over Tamil province and started the March from Trichy to Vedaranyam beach on 13th April 19303 and reached on 28th
April 1930.4 In the meantime, T.Prakasam and K.Nageswara Rao of Andhra Province organized another salt satyagraha at Marina beach in nd
5
Madras on 22 April 1930. On 27th April 1930, after the arrest of two prominent Andhra leaders, a serious confrontation arose between a crowd and the police in Madras city. At this juncture, the workers of Choolai Mills were on strike and there is much evidence that their own feelings of frustration were vented on the police, who accidentally killed an Indian Lawyer who 1
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3152874
was attempting to prevent the crowd from rioting. The Government of Madras gave rewards to the police for killing the Congress man. It appalled several press and the editors of the newspapers, who were amazed at the government’s unwillingness to grant any compensation to the widow of the lawyer.6 Between 1st April 1930 and December 1930, the police opened fire on crowds sixteen times in Madras Presidency; thirteen of these incidents were in Tamil cities and towns.7 On 29th April 1930, Rajagopalachari and the first batch of his team broke salt law at Vedaranyam and they were arrested by the 8
British Police.
The satyagrahis of these two salt camps were 9
severely beaten up by the police authorities. The attacks on the mob 10
in these two places were continued upto December 1930.
Government Policy on the Satyagraha The Government of Madras formulated a series of preventive measures to deal with the salt satyagraha movement in accordance with the policy of the Government of India. When Gandhi launched the salt satyagraha movement, the Government of India decided to prevent Gandhi and his followers from attaining martyrdom that is to say, the satyagrahis from becoming popular and the movement from gathering a momentum. The Government believed that forbearance would ultimately repay it and framed a batch of preventive measures to arrest the anti-British tendency among the Indians. In order to get the support for their launch, the British invited the Indian loyalists to subordinate the British efforts to subjugate the Congress satyagrahis. Frequent Meetings of the British Loyalists The Government of Madras ordered the District Officers to organize public meetings in their respective districts and to “take all reasonable opportunities directly or through non-official mouth 2
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3152874
pieces of impressing upon the people the fallacies underlying the principal contentions of the Congress party as well as the letter impracticability of the Congress programme.’’11 They wanted the District Officers to persuade the loyal elements in the Presidency, particularly among the professional classes, retired government servants and among the non-officials of standing, to organize public meetings and to refute the misleading Congress.12 Again the Government of Madras wanted the loyalists to impress on the people that the Civil Disobedience Movement would divert supplies from productive to unproductive channels.13 It also required the District Officers and their staff particularly in the course of their tours, to take all reasonable opportunities to convince the people not to join the movement. The Government desired “that the District Magistrates and Divisional officers should do more in the way of organizing public meetings and the meetings should be held as frequently as possible’’.14 Many counter measures were organized in every head quarters of all the districts of Tamil Province, Majority of the loyalists and local Zamindars were assembled in the meetings, which were organized by the District Magistrates of the respective Districts of the Presidency. Preventive Arrests The Government of Madras adopted another method to discredit the movement by making it suffer by sheer official disregard of it. The Government of Madras decided to disappoint the satyagrahis that they would all be arrested.16 So the government ordered the District Magistrates that arrests should be avoided. If the arrests and prosecutions became inevitable they should be confined as far as possible to the leader-levels.17 Even the leaders should be arrested only after obtaining prior consent of the government. 18 By the end of March 1930, when the leaders of Satyagraha were making intensive preparations, the District Magistrates of the affected districts demanded “that preventive action should be taken against the leaders”. It was however still the policy of the Government of Madras 3
to take action before the law was actually broken.19 This practice of the government admitted a large turnout from the Congress to the movement in a virulent manner. Terrorising the Public While the government officials were terrorizing the Indians, the government found out another method to deal with salt satyagraha. It was to make the salt manufacturing a physical impossibility. Though the Government knew fully well that the salt preparation by the satyagrahis was going to be a fiasco, since in its opinion, the manufactured salt would cost thrice more than duty salt. 20 Preparing salt fit to eat required some expertise, skill and equipments, which the satyagrahis lacked, it decided to make the salt preparation a physical impossibility. It ordered the destructions of natural efflorescence and sniggered to organize salt preventive patrols to destroy natural efflorescence.21 At Vedaranyam when salt began to form, the salt peons destroyed it ‘systematically and as quickly as possible’.22 They also sprayed sand over the natural efflorescence.23 When the Satyagraha was at its peak, the satyagrahis day after day, attempted to collect the salt from the swamps with the thorny cactus. The non-violent satyagrahis tolerated this provocation of the government everyday and practised their preparations again and again without any hesitation.
New Instructions to the Government Officials Offended by the intimidating and provocative actions of the British officials, frustrated by their failure to prepare salt in a large quantity, the Satyagraha deviated from their creed of non-violence and decided to resist the seizure of manufactured salt. Gandhi advised them to resist the seizure of manufactured salt and “wanted them to protect it like mother protects her baby.24 The government on their 4
part offended by the indignations that the satyagrahis were keeping on them by their open defiance of law in front of the eyes of Police and other officials. Depressed by the popularity that the satyagrahis were attaining by such open defiance and they being looked upon as heroes by the people, and fearing that such a course would bring about more disaffection. So they modified their initial policy and issued “revised instructions” to the District Magistrates permitting them “to arrest” if absolutely necessary.25 Yet the government advised against mass arrests, preferred leaders to followers and made arrest conditional upon resistance to the seizure of salt.26 Again they wanted arrests to be done without much publicity, with maximum of fuss, and suggested quick trails and the removal of the convicted persons to a regular fail immediately so as to avoid “heroes” being garlanded and delivering a farewell messages.27 At the same time the salt unit was placed under the orders of the local Government and the local salt officials under the District Magistrates.28 The revised instructions of the government gave a turning point to the movement by bringing about tussles between the volunteers and the Police. Official Pressure on the Marchers In another practice, the Government of Madras directed its officials to exert pressure over the people through “all matters involving the exercise of their discretion. Such as for example the sale or grant of land, preference should be given to proved loyalist and disloyalists should be excluded. Similarly gun licenses were not to be granted or renewed to any person not unquestionably loyal”.29 The government also wanted the cancellation of gun licenses of those who were convicted of an offence in connection with the Civil Disobedience Movement and of those who were actively sympathetic with the movement.30 Intercepting Telegrams In order to cause inconveniences to the Congress leaders in communicating orders to the volunteers and to the volunteers in 5
seeking directions from the leaders, the government used this measure. If ordered to stop transmission of telegrams calculated to support the Civil Disobedience Movement and advised strict application of Indian Telegraph Rules Nos. 13 and 156.31 It authorized the Telegraph authorities to refuse objectionable telegrams and in case of doubt , it was to be referred to the nearest civil or military authority. Targeting the Government Servants The Government of Madras drew the attention of the government servants to Rule 23 of the Government Servants Conduct Rules and warned that obvious punishment for participation in or overt sympathy with the Civil Disobedience Movement was dismissal.32 Village officers who sympathized with the movement were to be dismissed and a substitute, not his heir, was at once to be appointed.33 Threatening the Parents In order to prevent school going teenage boys taking part in the movement as volunteers the Government of Madras directed the District Magistrates to force the parents or guardians of such boys to execute bonds for the future good behavior their children or wards. The Government of Madras believed that it would bring about considerable advantage and secure the active co-operation of elders in keeping youth from further participation in the Civil Disobedience Movement.34 Attack on the Directing Organization Using majority of sections of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1922, the Government of Madras declared the various Congress organizations as unlawful bodies. After this, the concentrations of volunteers at the headquarters of these Congress bodies were broken up by force after declared Unlawful Assssociations. They were again dispersed if collected in another 6
place of refuge.35 In order to give these organizations a still greater blow, ‘Unlawful Association Ordinance of 1930” was promulgated. Section 8 of this Ordinance made all offences under section 17(1) of the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1922 shall be cognizable and nonmalleable.36 Still worse was that the notifications under the Criminal Law Amendment Act was so drafted as to embrace the volunteers, and many of them were prosecuted under the Act on the basis of their previous association with the organization still illegal.37 By introducing such drastic measures over the satyagrahis of the movement the Government of Madras satisfied on its implementations. But, they did not affect any way the volunteers and the general public in participating the salt Satyagraha in the Madras Presidency. Mobilization of Public Opinion The Madras Provincial Congress Committee organized many rural, urban and district level meetings to propagate the concept of Gandhi’s salt satyagraha. By mobilizing the Congress volunteers, they sped up the programme and appealed to the media to publish Gandhian endeavours in their papers. Accepting the call of the national leaders, the public opinion on salt satyagraha was chiefly mobilized in Madras Presidency by the nationalist press. There was a sudden reaction in the form of furious pro-Gandhian articles, published by the Indian Press. The papers such as the Sudandhira Sangu, the Gandhi, the Navasakthi, the Andhra Patrika, the Krishna Patrika, the Mathru Bhumi, the Tamilnadu, the Swadesamitran, the Ooliyan, the Janmabhumi etc., in vernacular languages and the Hindu, the Young India, the Navajeevan and the Swarajya in English published the day to day programmes of Gandhi’s salt satyagraha march. They not only published news items but also exhibited pictures, cartoons, messages of Gandhi, the police atrocities on the volunteers, appeals of national leaders, editorials on 38
the events, etc.
7
Many of the nationalist papers reproduced the articles, letters, and appeals of Gandhi, which were published in the Navajeevan, the Young India and the Harijan of Gandhi in their frequent issues. The papers like the Sudandhira Sangu, the Gandhi in Tamil, the Andhra Patrika, the Krishna Patrika, the Janmabhumi in Telugu; the Mathru Bhumi in Malayalam were the ardent supporters of Gandhian 39
endeavours. They published Congress activities frequently and appealed to the Indians to participate in the Salt Satyagraha March in their respective regions. Apart from the newspapers, the Congressmen of this presidency published pamphlets, leaflets, pictures, cartoons etc., initiating the anti-British attitude among the Indians and called upon themselves to involve in the Gandhian Movements.40 Press Gagging The Government of British India decided to censor all news items connected to the salt satyagraha movement. Lord Irwin , the then Viceroy of British India who entertained the view that majority of newspapers were merely engaged in inciting violence and encouraging the Gandhian Civil Disobedience programme passed the Indian Press Ordinance No. II, 1930 on 27th April 1930.41 Gandhi regarded that “in its new form, the Act contains additional provisions making the whole piece deadlier than before’’.42 In Madras Presidency, the Government of Madras demanded security from 24 newspapers and 36 presses, of which 19 newspapers and 20 presses were closed down.43 The Congress party sought to evade the Press Ordinance by producing and distributing cyclostyled and printed bulletin. 44 To meet this, the government promulgated the Unauthorized News Sheets and Newspapers Ordinance No. VII of 1930.45 This Ordinance gave power to the government authorities to seize and destroy the literature of objectionable nature. This Unauthorized News-sheets and Newspapers Ordinance expired on 27th October1930.46 After the expiry of Ordinance No.VII of 1930, there was substantial increase in the number of papers which wrote in 8
favour of the Civil Disobedience Movement.47 In Madras Presidency, the nationalists distributed pamphlets and handouts exhorting the people to join the Civil Disobedience movement.48 The British Government decided to arrest the dissemination of such political literature as they could turn the public opinion against the British Government.49 Lord Irwin promulgated a new Press Ordinance on 23rd December 1930 better known as the Indian Press and Unauthorized News-Sheets and Newspapers Ordinance No. X of 1930.50 This Ordinance was nothing but a mere renewal of the provisions of the Indian Press Ordinance No. II of 1930. The Editors of all the newspapers condemned all the above repressive measures of the government severely. But these Press Laws and Press Ordinances didn’t hamper the tone of nationalist press in Madras Presidency. They remained a very powerful media to disseminate the gospels of Indian nationalism.51 The British Government’s Reaction Irked by this, the English authorities in India initiated an antiGandhian propaganda to disturb the pro-Gandhian endeavours all over India. Lord Irwin, the then Viceroy of British India convened frequent emergency meetings with the Home and Law Department authorities to curb the pro-Salt Satyagraha campaigns of Gandhi and his fellow Congressmen. An earlier attempt was also made by H.G.Haig, the Home Secretary to Government of British India, by sending its office circular letter in January 1930, advising the Local Governments to take all practicable steps to counter act the Congress 52
propaganda at their regional level. To speedup the counter propaganda, the Home Department sent its another office letter on 13th March 1930 to advise them to take necessary steps. For this purpose, they were disposed to think that the distribution of anti-Gandhian and pro-British publications in the form of circulating leaflets to justify the government actions regarding the implementation of Salt Tax. H.G.Haig, the Home Secretary to Government of India sent this letter along with seven pro-British 9
leaflets in English on the foresaid subject, which were prepared by the 53
Director of Public Information, New Delhi. Moreover, the Home Secretary suggested the Local Governments to modify the content of these leaflets according to their local conditions and also advised them to translate the leaflets in their native languages. Further, they were directed to distribute the leaflets widely, particularly in the villages at a very early date to cover the public opinion in favour of the British 54
actions. The Home Secretary, further asserted that the District Officers and their Staff should be encouraged particularly in the course of their tours in the local areas of their regions and asked them to take reasonable opportunities of impressing on the Indians, particularly, people who lived in a large scale in the rural and urban sides, the fallacies underlying the Congress assertions as well as the dangers of the Gandhian programme of Civil Disobedience. The Seven Pro-British Leaflets 1) The Salt Tax 2) Is India Growing Poorer? 3) The Value of the Rupee; 4) Land Revenue; 5) The Revenue from Drink and Drugs; 6) Hand Spinning and 7) India’s Debt55 The Provincial Governments advised their respective departments for any suggestions as regards modifications or amplification on the leaflets. The Government of Madras Presidency in its letter asked the Home Secretary to send all these seven leaflets to the Senior Translator for translation into the native languages and then to the Government Press for printing copies. In the meantime, the District Collectors were also asked for an estimate of the requirements on the basis of “wide distribution, particularly in villages”. Further, the Government thought that the leaflets translated would be quite unintelligible to the ordinary villager – and not 10
sufficiently complete to satisfy those with a smattering of political 56
economy. Further, the Government of Madras asked the district authorities that action might perhaps be concentrated to begin with on distribution of the Salt Tax pamphlet which should convince anyone who is not resolved to remain unconvinced and the results watched before further expenditure is incurred. The Governor of Madras was asked to present the detailed preparations of the publication of leaflets before the Council meeting, which was to be held on 23 March 1930, 57
by the Home Department of Government of India. The Governor of Madras decided to translate the leaflets such as “The Salt Tax (1)”, “Is India Growing Poorer? (2)”, “Land Revenue (4)”, “The Revenue from Drink and Drugs (5)”, “Hand Spinning (6)”, and “India’s Debt (7) except the leaflet entitled “The Value of the Rupee” (2) and to be printed in Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam, Kanarese languages 58
immediately. Further actions were taken in accordance with the permission of the Home Department of the Government of India. Preparatory Measures of the Government After the drafting stage of these leaflets, the Government sent the leaflets one by one to the Chief Secretary to Government of Madras to revise. The draft pamphlet on the Salt Tax was revised by the Chief Secretary of Madras in time. The leaflet on the Land Revenue was modified by Pate, the Home Department authority. Pate suggested the Government authorities that the leaflets prepared by the Government had some bias and he advised the authorities, the foresaid pamphlets be circulated in the schools and colleges not in vernacular versions but it should be in original English language, supplied by the Home Department directly.
59
For the lower standards 60
of the schools, the vernacular versions may be circulated. In the meantime, a Telegram sent by the Home Department, the Government of India on 26th March 1930, mentioned the fact that the leaflet entitled The Revenue from Drink and Drugs was liable to 11
61
misconstruction. Hence, the authorities were asked to stop the publication of this leaflet for sometime. Further, the Public Department of Madras instructed the Senior Translator B.Rama Rao that the leaflets should not be translated literally and in classical language as in the case of a government order or legislative enactment, but in simple terms so that the sense of the leaflets were substantially reproduced in such a manner as to be immediately 62
intelligible to any illiterate riot or petty shop keeper. Further, they stated that the technical terms and abstract words should be avoided. The Government of Madras desired that this translation work should be attended urgently and submitted at the earliest date. B.Rama Rao, the Senior Translator to the Government of Madras returned the translated versions of all these leaflets in Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam and Kanarese to the Under Secretary to the Government of Madras, Public Department on 1st April 1930. The Under Secretary went through these proof copies of all translated vernacular versions and sent back to the Senior Translator on 2 nd April 1930.63 B.Rama Rao, the Senior Translator was requested to return the originals and the proofs duly recorrected at the earliest date. Further, the Senior Translator was asked to have the following sentence added to the leaflet on the Sales Tax in each vernacular immediately. It reads: “Moreover, it is not an invention of the British Government; it 64
was levied in ancient times and is mentioned in your Shastras”. By inserting the sentence in the Salt Tax leaflet, the Under Secretary to the Government of Madras justified the Government’s introduction of Salt Tax, levied not by the British first time, but they truly followed the foot steps of the Hindu Shastras. By quoting to the Indians especially the majority Hindu families to pay Salt Tax, as it was introduced by their Shastras. The corrected proofs were once again sent to the Superintendent of Government Press in Madras on 65 3rd April 1930. He was requested to strike off 150 copies of the Kanarese; and 300 copies each of Tamil and Telugu pamphlets. 12
Further, the Superintendent of the Government Press was requested to 66
supply 500 copies of each pamphlet. In the mean time, the Public Department of Government of Madras accepted and released an order to print the leaflet, “Is India Growing Poorer?” for publication. The Government Press took two weeks for printing of all required leaflets 67
in vernacular languages. In the mean time, A.G.Green Esquire, Superintendent of Government Press of Madras was asked to suspend the distribution of the pamphlets for time being, by a letter written by the Chief Secretary, Government of Madras on 25th April 1930, due to the latest political situation in the Madras Presidency. On 29th April 1930, the Superintendent, Government Press, Madras was informed that the vernacular leaflets recently printed were intended for distribution all over the districts of Madras Presidency. At this juncture, the District Magistrates were asked to telegraph their total requirements in each vernacular and in English to the Superintendent, who was asked to dispatch the required number of copies direct to 68
each District Magistrate, after the telegrams were received. Further the District Magistrates of bi-lingual districts were asked to state the number of copies in each vernacular should be submitted. A post copy of these telegrams to the Superintendent, Government 69
Press should be submitted to the Government of Madras. Except one or two districts in Malabar and Kanada, majority of the District Magistrates received their requirement of copies of the leaflets for their respective districts. The Government of Madras was very much interested to circulate the leaflets like the Salt Tax; the Land Revenue; the India’s Debt to cope up the situation of Salt Satyagraha 70
in the Presidency. They delayed the sending of the leaflets such as the Is India Growing Poorer? and the Revenue from Drink and Drugs”, due to its contents. But, they included all the other leaflets 71
for circulation by the first week of the May, 1930. While circulating these leaflets, Master Man, Public Department official of Government of Madras reviewed some of the leaflets and 13
suggested that the figures stated in the leaflet Salt Tax, referred to the 72
whole of India. He suggested the authorities to pin point the Madras Presidency’s figures in it. The suggestions made by Master man was 73
corrected and carried out by the British authorities in May 1930. The Government of Madras further collected the copies of each vernacular and the English version, printed and circulated among the villagers of Madras Presidency, were sent to the Home Department, 73 Government of India on 14th May 1930. The Government of Madras fielded all the District Collectors and the important English 74
officials to the villages of this Presidency. The District Collectors camped in their respective district areas along with officials between 29th March and 12th April 1930 to distribute all the seven leaflets in vernacular for villagers; and circulated the English version of the said leaflets to the colleges and the schools located in the prominent towns of Madras Presidency.
75
The Anti-Gandhian Leaflets – Content Analysis In the middle of March 1930, the Government of British India ushered the Home Department to prepare a counter propaganda against the Gandhian model of non-violent Satyagraha. Haig, the Home Secretary to the Government of India organized a similar meeting with Legal and Public Department officials in February 1930. On the basis of final decision taken at the time of meeting, they advised the Director of Public Information, New Delhi to draft some pro-Government literature to give counter propaganda to the Gandhian movements. The Director of Public Information prepared seven anti-Gandhian or Pro-British leaflets within a fortnight and submitted before the Home Department in the first week of March 76
1930. It is a must to know the contents of all seven leaflets, which were translated by the Government of Madras Presidency with the consultation of the Home Secretary to the Government of India. The Salt Tax 14
The purpose of preparing the leaflet Salt Tax was to justify the implementation of Salt Tax on the Indians. The leaflet had three paragraphs. In this first para of the leaflet, the British authorities wanted to establish their justification on Salt rates. It reads: “…The Tax on 5 seers of salt amounts to 3 annas only. That is all the SaltTax costs you; 3 annas a year or 1 pice a month. What would happen if there were no salt tax and the government gave up supervising the 77
production and distribution of Salt?...”. Further it says, “…If Government ceased to have any concern with salt, the merchants would get the manufacture under their control and sell it at whatever profit they liked, just as they sell grain, cloth and ghee…”. Hence the British authorities decided to levy tax on salt, only to protect the Indians from native merchants. In the third para of the leaflet, the British Government said that the Salt Tax is not heavy and unjust. It is not heavy because it costs you (Indians) less than a quarter of a rupee every year. Further, they stated that the Government levied the Salt-tax only to keep the country going and it was not unjust because the Government was 78
standing always for the betterment of the Indians. By stating these statements before the people of the country, the Government indirectly encouraged the people to pay Salt-tax and appealed to them not to support Gandhi’s Salt Satyagraha as the main agenda of the British to separate the Indians from Gandhi. Is India Growing Poorer? The second leaflet contains two pages and three paragraphs, entitled “Is India Growing Poorer?”, deals with the condition of India, after coming of the British. In the first para of the leaflet, the British Government advised the Indians not to accept the rumours that India is growing poorer day by day. Further it reads, “…you are enjoying a number of things which show that the people of this country are better off than they used to be. Travel by railways is increasing every year, as also is travel by Motor-cars and motor-buses… All this means that people of this country, are better than they were before”. 15
79
Further, it stated that this country was growing richer and not poorer, is the great increase in the money invested in industries. More so, the Indians were given employment in industries during the slack season when there was no cultivation. It added further that India now exported vast quantities of cotton and iron goods, for example, which she did not export in the days past. It said that the English authorities are focusing their attention to increase the wealth of this country, not 80
concentrating the interests of the British profits in India. The English by the leaflet explained that India is growing richer and not poorer. Hence, Indians were asked by the British to disobey Gandhi’s appeals. The Value of the Rupee The third leaflet entitled The Value of the Rupee is a short one, translated in Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam and Kanarese and circulated among the villagers. It is a statement like presentation of Government regarding the alteration of value of rupee in India. It reads: “You (Indians) are being told that some years ago the government altered the value of the rupee, and by doing so it takes away a lot of money from India each year. This is quite untrue”. By stating this fact, the British denied the propaganda made by the nationalists that a lot of 81
money was sent to England from India for the last many decades. Further the leaflet says, “Another thing to be remembered is that by fixing the value of the rupee, as they did, the government can buy from abroad all sorts of supplies which they need, and they can pay to foreign countries the sums of money which they have to pay, with fever rupees than they otherwise could have done. This means less taxation for this country”. The British authorities justified the value alteration of money and it was made only to decrease the taxation. Gandhi and other prominent leaders of Congress charged the British that they are taking crores and crores of money from India to 82
England. Hence, the British authorities decided to make a counter propaganda in this regard by circulating the leaflet to the Indians to justify their mislead. 16
Land Revenue Gandhi appealed to the Indian peasants not to pay land revenue and asked them to participate in the no-tax agitation, as a part of the Civil Disobedience programme. Gandhi and other Congress leaders made frequent appeals on this subject while organizing meetings all over India. Irked by this stand of Gandhi, the Government of India published a leaflet entitled Land Revenue in Vernacular and in 83
English and widely circulated among the rural people. In this leaflet, the British authorities blamed Gandhi, who spoke on the adversity of British Land Revenue, levied on the Indians. It reads: “Mr.Gandhi complains that the Land Revenue is crashing tax on the peasants, but there are some important facts which show that he is wrong. The settlement takes place after a long period of years, and it is known that the land revenue assessment raises comparatively little at each settlement. But in any district in India it will be found that since the last settlement the prices of the products raised on the land have increased on the land have increased out of all proportion to the slight increase in the land revenue”. The British justified the imposition of land revenue on the peasants and called them not to hear 84
the words of Gandhi. Further it compared the status of the Indian farmers with that of the Southern Europe farmers. It says: “…the conditions of the peasant owner of his land in India with those of the small farmer in Southern Europe and always the Indian peasant owner’s conditions have been found to be more favourable 85
than those of Southern Europe farmer”. Thereby, the British advised the Indians through this leaflet to support the Government ventures in this regard. The Revenue From Drink and Drugs As the part of boycott programme of Civil Disobedience of Gandhi, he preached the adverse effects of the Toddy, Liquor, Arrack, Opium etc., and appealed to them not to drink and consume drugs. 17
The intensive anti-British propaganda of Gandhi and other leaders disturbed the regular income from drink and drugs to the British Government. Hence, the Government decided to counter Gandhian boycott programme by publishing this leaflet during Civil Disobedience.86 The leaflet reads: “Mr.Gandhi has accused the government of doing harm to the people by raising revenue from drink and drugs. In the first place it must be pointed out that any taxation on these things naturally makes them harder to obtain and therefore taxation on these 87
things is to the advantage of the people of India”. Moreover, the leaflet said that the Government was trying to ruin the people of India by encouraging them to resort to drink but on the contrary their action clearly proves that they were prepared to sacrifice revenue by making it more and more difficult for people to indulge in drink. Further, it stated that the Government decided to abolish the sale of opium within next four or five years, and the 88
revenue from opium was falling every year rapidly. The Government made a statement that they were not no longer willing to sell opium. But, they advised the people to buy opium as much as possible now and appealed to them not to accept the false statement of Gandhi. Hand Spinning The sixth leaflet on Hand spinning was also a statement type of presentation. Gandhi, in his constructive programme, advised the Indians to avoid the usage of foreign clothes. Instead of availing these, he suggested the people to favour for Khaddar and Khadi products. He blamed the British for destroying the hand-spinning industry in this country. The leaflet rejected the statement of Gandhi and says: “In fact, handloom spinning and weaving is increasing year by year and Indian students of these regions have written that more cloth is produced on handlooms than is produced in the great cotton factories in this country”.89 18
Moreover, it says, “villagers all over the country can now see with their own eyes machinery being applied to sugar cane pressing, flour milling, cotton ginning and so on, and they know that they can now get work in certain seasons in many places where there was no work not many years ago”. It stated that only because of the British efforts, the Indian villagers are living pleasantly not because of 90
Gandhi. India’s Debt The leaflet entitled India’s Debt, is the last in the list of seven anti-Gandhian leaflets. In this leaflet, the government rejected the complaint of Gandhi that the public debt in this country was a great burden to the people and listed out the government’s concern over the Indians by telling the fact that every five rupees, which India owes, nearly four rupees was spent on making such things as railways and 91
canals, on which so much of the welfare of this country depends. Moreover, it said that a very great part of India’s debt was lent to the government by Indians themselves, and so the interest on the debt went to Indians and was spent in this country. Further, it reads, “In fact, had the greater part of the public debt not been borrowed India could not have had many of her railways and canals and other things which are helping to make this country wealthier and more safe against attacks of famine and disease, and thus the money which has 92
been borrowed has been well spent and spent for the good of India”. By narrating the scenes, the British authorities justified the under estimated deeds committed by them in India. The Government of Madras took some stern steps to curb the anit-British propaganda by passing ten Emergency Ordinances in 1930 and another ten Ordinances in 1932, to subjugate the political activities of Congress leaders, publication of nationalist literature, press etc. The counter propaganda made by the Government of India by circulating these seven anti-Gandhian leaflets did not dampen the 93
spirit in any way the Gandhian programmes. By the middle of 1930, after circulating these leaflets to the villagers, who realized the 19
consistent efforts of Gandhi and his gospels of nationalism, they voluntarily extended their support to the Gandhian Civil Disobedience movement. The people of Madras Presidency actively participated in the Salt Satyagraha and boycott programmes. The anti-British stand of the people prevailed upto the suspension of Civil Disobedience Movement on 20th May 1934 by Gandhi. References : 1. G.Venkatesan, History of Freedom Struggle in India, Coimbatore, 1985, p.290. 2. V.Venkatraman, Towards Independence!, 2nd Edn., Rajapalayam, 2007, p.85. 3. Fortnightly Report, Strictly Confdl., Second Half of March, 1930. 4. V.Venkatraman., (ed.) Sudandhira Sangu and Civil Disobedience Movement In Tamil Nadu (T), 1930-1933, Rajapalayam, 2003, pp.8-10. 5.
Report on the Administration of Madras Presidency, 1929-1930, Madras 1931, pp xv-xvi 6. Public (Police) Dept., G.O.172, confdl., 3rd April 1933. 7. The Civil Disobedience Movement, 1930-1931,District Magistrate Letters to the events of the Movement, Strictly Confdl., Madras, 1931, pp.150-155. 8. V.Venkatraman, India Sudandira Porattathil Rajapalayam, 1905-1947, Rajapalayam, 1997, p.25. 9. Sudandhira Sangu, Madras 23, April 1930. 10. V.Venkatraman, The Cartoons of Sudandhira Sangu, 1930-1933, Rajapalayam, 2000, pp.10-12. 11. Under Secretary Safe File No. 699 / 1930, Chief Secretary’s D.O. Letter to the Distric Magistrates, No 428-S. 12th June 1930 12. Civil Disobedience Movement (1930-31), Government of Madras, 1931, p.30 13. Under Secretary Safe File No. 665, 21st May 1930. 14. Under Secretary Safe File No. 699 / 1930, Chief Secretary’s D.O. 20
Letter to the District Magistrates No. 128 – S, 8th April 1930 15. Civil Disobedience Movement (1930-31) , Government of Madras, 1931, p.3 16. Under Secretary Safe File No. 699 / 1930, No.128 – S, 8th April 1930. 17. Chief Secretary’s D.O. Letter to the District Magistrates,No.132S,12th April 1930. 18. Civil Disobedience Movement (1930-31), p.3 19. Ibid.,p.4, 20. Pattabhi Sitaramaya, History of the Indian National Congress, (1885-1947), New Delhi, 1988, p.370 21. Under Secretary Safe File No. 699 / 1930, Chief Secretary’s D.O. letter to the District Magistrate No. 128 – S, 8 April 1930 22. Under Secretary Safe File No. 699 (A) 19 April 1930 23. Suthanthira Sangu, Madras, 9th April 1930 24. Sudandira Sangu, Madras 16th April 1930 25. Civil Disobedience Movement (1930-31) , pp.3-5 26. Ibid.,p5. 27. Under Secretary Safe File No. 699 / 1930 Chief Secretary’s D.O. Letter to the District Magistrates, No. 189 – S, 28th April 1930. 28. Civil Disobedience Movement (1930-31), pp.3-5 29. Under Secretary Safe File No. 699 / 1930 (Chief Secretary’s D.O. letter to the District Magistrates, No. 399-S 5th June 1930) 30. Under Secretary Safe File No. 699 / 1930 (Chief Secretary’s D.O. letter to the District Magistrates, No. 497-S 20th June 1930) 31. Under Secretary Safe File No. 699 / 1930 (Chief Secretary’s Telegram to the District Magistrates No.202 – S, 30th April 1930) and Civil Disobedience (1930-31) p.21 32. Public (General) G.O.No.702, dated 5th June 1930. 33. Under Secretary Safe File No. 699 / 1930 (Chief Secretary’s D.O. letter to the District Magistrates No. 371 – S, 31 May 1930.) . 34 Civil Disobedience Movement (1930-31), p.53 35. Ibid., p.36 36. Under Secretary Safe File Strictly Confdl., 30th August 1930 21
37. Civil Disobedience Movement (1930-31), p.10 38. Madras Native News Paper Report, Vol-I, 1930, pp.630-62. 39. Fortnightly Report, Strictly Confdl., Second Half of March 1930. 40. V.Venkatraman, Proscribed Press and Political Literature under the British Raj, 1910-1935, Rajapalayam, 2008, pp.118-124. 41. Home (Political) Department file No. 503/1, 1930, NAI 42. Sudandira Sangu, 3rd May, 1930 43. Civil Disobedience Movement (1930-31), p.20 44. Ibid., p.21 45. Indian Annual Register, vol – II, 1930, p.1 46. Under Secretary Safe File No. 681, Strictly Confdl l., 2 July 1930 47. Home (Political) Department, File No. 13 / 6, 1931 48. Fortnightly Report, Strictly confidl., second half of October 1930 49. Anandha Bodhini, Madras, 9th January 1931, MNNPR, 1931, vol-1,p.30 50. Fortnightly Report, Strictly Confdl., Second half of January 1931, 51. V.Venkatraman, Towards Independence, p.111 52. Letter No.113, Home Department, New Delhi, 30 January 1930. 53. Letter No.295, From Home Secretary-Govt. of India to the Chief th Secretary,Government of Madras, dt.13 March 1930, New Delhi. 54. Under Secretary Secret File-672, confdl., 12 June 1930. 55. Letter No.295, dt.13 March 1930 from Home Dept. Government of India. 56. U.S.S.File No.672, confdl., 12 June 1930, p.2. 57. Ibid., p.3. 58. Letter dtd.21 March 1930, Chief Secretary to Govt. of Madras to Under Secretary,Madras.
59. Chief Secretary Letter dtd.25 March 1930, Govt. of Madras to Under Secretary, Madras, p.1. 60. Ibid., p.2 22
61. Telegram No.941-S dtd.26 March 1930 from the Govt. of India to Chief Secretary, Govt. of Madras. 62. Public Department, Memo No.100-S, dt.29 March 1930 to the Senior Translator to Govt. of Madras. 63. Letter No.363, Strictly Confdl., dtd.1st April 1930 from Senior Translator to Govt. of Madras to Chief Secretary of Madras. 64. Public Dept., Memo No.106-S, dtd.2nd April 1930 from Under Secretary to Govt. of Madras to Senior Translator, Madras. 65. Letter No.374, Strictly Confdl., dtd.3rd April 1930 from Senior Translator, Madras to under Secretary to the Govt. of Madras. 66. Public Dept. Memo No.: 108-S, dtd.3rd April 1930 from Under Secretary, Madras to the Senior Translator, Madras. 67.Public Dept., Memo No.109-S, dtd.3rd April 1930 from Under Secretary, Madras to the Superintendent of Govt. Press. 68. U.S.S. File No.672, Strictly Confdl., dtd.12 June 1930. 69. Home Dept., (Political) Letter No.5447, dtd.21st April 1930 from Deputy Secretary – Govt. of India to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Madras. 70. Public Dept., Memo No.191-S, dtd.29th April 1930 from Under Secretary, Madras to the Superintendent of Govt. Press, Madras. 71. Public, D.O.No.193-S, dtd.29th April 1930, Confdl., from Under Secretary to the All District Magistrates, Madras. 72. U.S.S. File No.672, Confdl., dtd.12 June 1930, p.34. 73. Public, Letter dated 8 May 1930 from Mr.Master Man to the Under Secretary, Madras. 74. U.S.S. File No.672, Confdl., dtd.12 June 1930, p.66. 75. Fortnightly Report, Second Half of April, 1930. 76. U.S.S. File No.672, Confdl., dtd.12 June 1930, pp.66-70. 77. A Leaflet entitled The Sales Tax issued by the Government of Madras in April 1930. 78. The Leaflet entitled Sales Tax in Tamil issued by 23
79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93.
the Govt. of Madras in March 1930. U.S.S.File No.672, Strictly Confdl., 12 June 1930, p.86. The Leaflet entitled Is India Growing Poorer? in English issued by the Government of Madras in April 1930. U.S.S. File No.672, Strictly Confdl., 12 June 1930, p.88. The Leaflet entitled The Value of the Rupee in English issued by the Govt. of Madras in April 1930. The Leaflet entitled Land Revenue in Tamil issued by the Govt. of Madras in April 1930. U.S.S. File No.672, Strictly Confdl., 12 June 1930, p.91. The Leaflet entitled Land Revenue in English issued by the Govt. of Madras in April 1930. The Leaflet entitled The Revenue from Drink and Drugs in English issued by the Govt. of Madras in April 1930. U.S.S. File No.672, Strictly Confdl., 12 June 1930, p.100. Ibid., p.101. The Leaflet entitled Hand Spinning in English issued by the Govt. of Madras in April 1930. U.S.S.File No.672, Strictly Confdl., 12 June 1930, p.103. Ibid., p.106. The Leaflet entitled India’s Debt in English issued by the Govt. of Madras in April 1930. V.Venkatraman, Proscribed Press and Political Literature under the British Raj, 1910-1935, pp.30-36.
24
