the 1934 elections was “to use every weapon put into their hands.”82 It was quite clear that the Congress Party wanted to enter the Central Assembly to pass its verdict on the proposed constitutional reforms.83 The Congress entry in the election contest after a long period of ← 23 | 24 → civil resistance and abstinence from parliamentary activities attracted great public attention.84 With the emergence of a strong Congress group inside the Central Assembly, New Delhi again became the centre of political activities.85 The Assembly opened on January 21, 1935, when 40 members of the Congress Party in Gandhi caps occupied the opposition benches.86 Public galleries were then filled to capacity when the Viceroy had arrived to address the Assembly on the 24th January. The changed political mood which had brought the non-co-operators into constitutional places was hinted at even in the galleries where there were many adherents of the Congress.87
The country’s political mood at that time was basically defined by the controversy over the Communal Award announced by the British Government on the 17th August, 1932. As the Award retained separate electorates and also gave “weightage” to the Muslims in various provincial legislatures, the Muslims were largely satisfied with it. The Bombay session of the Indian National Congress held in October 1934 decided that its attitude to the Communal Award would be neutral.88 But there was a powerful section among the Congressmen known as the Congress-Nationalists who were bitterly opposed to the Award. Pandit Malaviya, leader of the Congress-Nationalists, went to the Congress Session in Bombay and moved amendments opposing the Congress neutrality to the Award; but his amendments were lost.89 Later the Congress-Nationalists contested the 1934 elections as a separate party and their faction of eleven Congress-Nationalists formed a new party in the Assembly with M. S. Aney as its leader. Outside the Assembly, the Congress-Nationalists started a regular protest against separate electorates and the Award: the dispute became the undeniable marker of the increasing Hindu-Muslim differences across the country. The All-India Anti-Communal Award Conference sponsored by them was held on 23rd February 1935—it appointed a Committee to carry on active agitation against the Award.90 The Muslims, on the other hand, held a pro-Communal Award Conference in New Delhi on the 24th March, 1935; this body reiterated its faith in the Award as the only way to an agreed settlement of the communal problem, and they condemned the sponsors of the on-going anti-Award movement.91
The newly elected Assembly reflected all these forces of nationalism and communalism that cast a spell of disunity inside the legislative body. On February 4th, 1935, the historic debate on the Report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee was launched; it continued for three days and brought political divergence on the fore.92 As many as 9 amendments were moved to the motion expressing various views of which three bids stood for the principal ← 24 | 25 → trends of Indian body-politic. Bhulabhai’s proposition stood for the Congress views: (a) a “root and branch” rejection of the Report and (b) the “neutrality” to the Award. But Jinnah’s motion implied (a) a trial of the Constitution for what they were worth and (b) acceptance of the Communal Award which rallied the support of practically all the Muslims. Bhai Parma Nand, representing the Congress-Nationalist views, demanded rejection of the Report as it was allegedly an arbitrary and unjust Communal Award.93 Eventually, Jinnah’s amendments were accepted by the House that also impacted the growing Hindu-Muslim schism over the subject.94 This Assembly was different from its predecessor in composition and outlook; it was now obvious to more people than ever before that the real battle for the country’s political liberation could be fought more vigorously among the people outside the floor of the House. The Central Assembly, politically speaking, lost its earlier political prestige; now the All-India legislative chamber was little more than a sounding board for the Congress leaders. Hitherto, its main role had been to criticize and censure the Government from time to time in order to justify their further demands for India’s constitutional progress. As a change of its strategy, the Congress leaders were no longer speaking of a wholesale holdup as they did in the 1920s; in fact, they supported, directly or indirectly, many measures which were intended to serve the country’s interest. Another observable phenomenon in legislative politics: though the Congress did not command a majority in the Central Legislative Assembly in New Delhi, the Congress supporters could find many issues on which other groups came forward to censure the Government.95
The Congress leaders repudiated the 1935 Act but they decided to participate in the provincial elections under it in 1936–37 (results of those elections were published in 1937). For them, the central purpose of entering the legislatures was “not to co-operate in any way with the Act but to combat it and end it from within.”96 In the (provincial) general elections held in the winter months of 1936–37, the Congress found itself in an absolute majority in the legislatures of the five provinces, namely Madras, U.P., C.P., Bihar and Orissa. With the support of pro-Congress groups, the Congress could also command a majority in Bombay and it was the largest single party in the North West Frontier Province, and in Assam. With this position at hand, the Congress refused to accept office in any province unless the Governor gave an assurance that he would not use his special powers in defiance of the provincial cabinet. So minority ministries were formed in the provinces where Congress members were in a majority but refused to form the cabinet. The ← 25 | 26 → constitutional deadlock was, however, settled in a rather conciliatory declaration by the Governor General on 22nd June, 1937. After this announcement, the Congress-led ministries were formed in 7 provinces: Bombay, Madras, Orissa, North West Frontier Province and the U.P., C.P., and Bihar. However, the acceptance of office by the Congress leaders and their sharp political turn was rather paradoxical as they earlier pledged to combat the constitution. It was difficult to ignore that in reality, a kind of dual control was imposed on the newly formed provincial Ministries. Firstly, they were invariably under the control of the Congress “high-command” asserting a sway from outside.97 Secondly, they were also expected to work within the precincts of the constitutional stipulations of the Government of India Act 1935. An outstanding example of the partisan hegemony by the Central Congress authorities was at last manifested when the Congress ministries resigned in the autumn of 1939 under the Congress Party’s central directives.98 Earlier in 1939, the Congress as well called upon its members in the Central Legislature to refrain from attending its session.
The outstanding reason for the withdrawal of Congressmen from the legislatures and ministries was the declaration of WW II.99 It would have been feasible, tactical and wise to give the Central Legislature an opportunity to declare by a resolution the hostility of India to the Axis.100 But the Viceroy declared India’s participation in the War and he suspended the Federal Scheme (of the 1935 Act) in his address to the Central Legislature on the 11th September, 1939.101 The explicit purpose of the address was to rally support for the war effort; but to the Congress leaders, it was an open defiance of public opinion to drag India to a global war. Earlier on the 15th February, 1938 the Congress had given its verdict by passing a resolution in the Legislative Assembly: it clearly stated that the Indian troops should not be dispatched outside without consulting the Central Legislature.102 When Indian troops were sent out to Egypt and Singapore without consulting the Central Legislature, the All India Congress Committee (A.I.C.C.) took a serious exception to this. This action was, however, defended by Lord Birkenhead on the plea that the party-leaders of the Central Assembly were consulted privately about the dispatch of Indian troops.103 The deadlock created by the Congress-resignation stood as a big challenge; it amounted to India’s “forced” participation in the raging war. In November 1940, the Government met a formidable situation when the Congress-members dramatically returned to the Assembly Chamber to reject the Supplementary Finance Bill for additional revenue of two cores of rupees to meet the war expenditure. As the Muslim League ← 26 | 27 → remained neutral, the Congress members were successful in rejecting the Bill and thereby re-affirming its stand on the war policy of the Government.104 In the momentous debate on the Finance Bill, the Government tried to persuade the Congress leaders and other political groups to accept the War as a threat to India’s security. Had it been possible to get the Bill passed, it would have been easier for the Government to show to the outside world that India’s war efforts had the sanction of her elected representatives. The denunciation of the excessive
