Committees to work with the Commission.56 The Council of State also passed a resolution supporting cooperation with the Simon Commission and it elected three members to the Central Legislative Committee for co-operation with the Simon Commission. Eventually, only two Legislatures, the Central Assembly and the C. P. Legislative Council did not revise their previous stand and the Central Legislative Committee was completed by including the members nominated by the Government from among the members of the Assembly.57
The place of the Central Legislature in Indian politics was not strictly that of a national Parliament—it was a kind of quasi-parliament. One can hardly overstress the influence of outstanding leaders of the Central Assembly like Motilal, Jinnah, Lajpat Rai, Malaviya, Jayakar and Moonjee. Their views in the Legislature undoubtedly reflected the general trend of opinion outside. But their influence could not be universal since the British Indian provinces ← 20 | 21 → with their regional, racial and linguistic differences had distinct features. Each of the provinces had its own local leaders who often overshadowed the personalities of the Central Legislature. Pandit Motilal Nehru was undoubtedly one of the most important Indian political leaders of the time under review. His influence in some of the northern Indian provinces such as U.P., Bihar and Orissa was considerable, but his influence in Bengal, Bombay and Madras was overshadowed by that of local leaders.58 To the Bengali Hindus, there could be no greater leader than C. R. Das popularly known as “Deshbandhu” (Friend of the Country), who was the Swaraj Party leader in the Bengal legislature. Bengal was rather poorly represented in the Central Legislature as none of her representatives there was outstanding. After the death of C. R. Das in 1925, the prominent Bengali congressmen like J. M. Sen Gupta, Sarat Chandra Bose and Dr. B. C. Roy continued to serve the provincial legislatures and dominated the local scene. To the Justice Party in South India, Motilal’s Swaraj Party was a Brahmin threat to the non-Brahmins. In the Punjab, the Unionist leader Sir Fazl-i-Husain was more prominent than anyone else. Yet the Central legislature was the only forum for all-India politics and the all-India matters could be discussed in this body only.59 It was an important meeting place of all the divergent forces of Indian politics.
The record of Indian politics from 1924 to 1930 marked a distinct swing towards constitutionalism and then a steady decline towards extra-constitutional mass actions projecting more on the demands for independence: it was a gradual drift to the left wing movement which believed more in direct action.60 The left wing younger generation of Congress was represented by Jawaharlal Nehru and Subash Chandra Bose and the Calcutta Session of the Congress in December 1928 had given to the British Government, to use the words of Jawaharlal Nehru, “an offer of one year’s grace and a polite ultimatum.”61 By December 1929, the period of grace came to an end when the offer of minimum national demand embodied in the “Nehru Report” was not conceded. The Lahore Congress which started its session on December 31, 1929 was a momentous event; more appropriately, it was a gathering to declare a revolt.62 It took certain decisions which changed the course of events for the subsequent years. Firstly, the Congress members in the Central and Provincial Legislatures were called upon to resign. Secondly, the Congress resolved for complete Independence for India. Thirdly, the All-India Congress Committee was given full authority to launch civil disobedience. The items of that radical program included: (a) breaking of the salt law, (b) boycott of foreign clothes and other British goods, (c) non-payment of land revenue, and ← 21 | 22 → (d) boycott of liquor and opium. The call of 1920, as Gandhi wrote, “was a call for preparation. The call of 1930 is for engaging in the final conflict.”63 At this critical hour, the Viceroy made a speech to the Central Legislature on the 25th January 1930 apparently to rally support for the coming Round Table Conference.64 But one thing was made clear that the Dominion Status for India was not coming too soon, which shattered all hopes of any peaceful settlement between the British Government and the Congress and so the Civil Disobedience campaign was launched in full vigor.
The years from 1930 to 1934 saw the big nationalist struggle in the shape of civil disobedience which under the Congress leadership reached its height and then gradually declined. During this period, the public attention surely moved away from the legislatures; the elections of 1930 were boycotted by the Congress; so the legislatures were again dominated by the moderates from 1931 to 1934. Though the general nationalist trend favored mass agitation, there were a few strands of opinion which were reluctant to totally abandon the legislatures. Out of 38 Swarajists in the Central Assembly, only 21 resigned and in the provincial legislatures also, all the Congressmen did not resign at the first call. J. Nehru said that Congress legislators who retained their seats had resigned from the A.I.C.C.65 while the Nationalists under Malaviya did not first resign from the Central Legislature to join the Civil Disobedience. But soon the passage of the Textile Industries (Protection) Bill which gave preferential treatment to the British textile products disappointed them. When Malaviya’s amendments to modify the Bill were lost, he walked out with his associates on the 31st March, 1930.66 This reluctance of the so-called Responsivists to leave the legislatures was further expressed by N. C. Kelkar, a prominent Maharastra leader and a member of the Central Assembly. In his Presidential address to the session of the Hindu Maha Sabha, he observed: “Non-cooperation with the Legislative Councils by the Hindus would not only be futile but suicidal. So long as no parallel Government is established, the boycott of Councils would be a self-imposed injury for which there is no remedy.”67 It was felt outside that the Congressmen should not leave the legislatures to those who were “subservient to the bureaucracy.”68
Broadly speaking, the Muslims stayed away from the Civil Disobedience movement; they did not boycott the elections of 1930.69 Only in the North West Frontier Province, the Muslims under the leadership of Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan participated in the Civil Disobedience movement.70 There was a great response on behalf of the Muslim leaders to take part in the Round Table Conferences. It seems that the Muslim leaders at this stage were more ← 22 | 23 → attracted by the prospect of contributing to the growth of a new constitution.71 This attitude became very clear when the Muslim League later agreed to give a trial to the 1935 Reforms for “what they were worth.” The main reason for not taking part in Civil Disobedience was the growing feeling that the Congress movements were detrimental to the Muslim interests.72 It was the Nehru Report which roused the Muslim suspicion about the Congress motives; Jinnah was disappointed about the recommendations of the Nehru Report and he tried to bring the dissident Muslim groups together. The All India Muslim League Committee wanted to introduce certain amendments to the Report. On behalf of the League, Jinnah moved those amendments at the All-Parties Convention but they were lost.73 This rejection deeply shocked him personally; to him, it was the “parting of the ways between the Hindus and Muslims.”74 In the legislative bodies, suspicion about the Congress objectives was mounting—the demands for more Muslim representation in the services and welfare of the community in various spheres of life surely gained ascendancy. The Muslim support to defeat the Government on the legislative floor was no longer readily available. To the Muslim leaders, the Civil Disobedience Movement was little more than a contrivance to frighten the Government to grant Dominion Status to India with the communal settlement proposed in the Nehru Report; however, it was unacceptable to the Muslims.
The Congress leaders’ decision to contest the 1934 elections of the Central Assembly had a mixed reception. On the liberal sector the party, the leaders congratulated the Congress politicians for their “wise and patriotic decision” to re-enter the legislatures.75 It also pointed out that the Congress efforts of direct action outside had been a dismal failure.76 One delegate opposed the Congress resolution to enter the legislatures in its Bombay session of 1934: he pointed out that it was a mere waste of time to go to legislatures and it was a grave mistake to hope that the program would carry them nearer their ultimate goals.77 The newspapers representing the left wing of the Congress Party also opposed the decision;78 their main reason was the “failure” of the Swarajists in the past.79 One Hindu communal organ, the Rishi welcomed the Congress decision on the condition that it must agitate against the Communal Award.80 It also recommended that Congress members in the legislatures should work in co-operation with the Hindu Maha
