had earned appreciation from outside among people.105
From 1940 to 1943, the Congress elements absented themselves from the legislative sessions most of the time and the absence of the Congressmen reduced the Central Legislature to only a formal entity that could be easily neglected by the British Raj. Its foremost job was only to discuss the normal routine business: the absence of Congress Party’s members gave an easy time to the Government-led legislation. The rump that existed could not resist the Government from rushing several controversial measures, such as the Defense of India Act and the Excess Profits Act. Political demonstrations were rare as the security was tight. Relevance of the legislative proceedings so declined that several times, the House business had to be postponed even though a few leaders felt that the country’s interests were not best served by the policy of abstention from the Assembly floors.106 The Congress-Nationalists, however, stuck to the policy of attending the sessions regularly as they felt their abstention would be harmful to the country and the Muslim League members also continued to participate in the sessions.
The legislative standing in British India during the war years was further dwarfed by the range of unprecedented political developments beyond the walls of the Central Assembly, the continuing war and the devastating Bengal famine killings hundreds of thousands of civilians. One the most significant and unparalleled developments in the Indian political history since the WW II surfaced was the Muslim League’s demand for Pakistan in 1940. This history-making resolution emphatically rejected the scheme of Federation embodied in the 1935 Act and put forward the alternative plan of Pakistan for the future constitutional set up of India. Henceforth the unleashed communal issues accelerated the political acrimony throughout India that overshadowed the Central Legislature’s standing and influence. From 1940, the Muslim League leaders made it a point to raise the Pakistan demand on the floor of the House whenever constitutional grievances were brought forward. Two other great events which took place outside the Legislature had also their impact ← 27 | 28 → on it; one of them was the so-called Cripps offer. The concluding stages of the budget session in 1942 triggered another kind of tension when Sir Stafford Cripps came to the Central Legislature in New Delhi.107 His Mission was not even discussed in the Legislature as all parties agreed that it would be embarrassing to do so while negotiations were in progress.108
After the failure of the Cripps mission, the Congress decided upon a mass disobedience on August 8, 1942 known as the “Quit India” movement—it was also an unprecedented phenomenon that diverted public attention from peaceful constitutional politics practiced through legislatures. It was an attempt for direct action against the “British Raj” for national independence, which soon took the shape of a virtual “rebellion.”109 In order to exhort the Indian politicians to support the government in suppressing the “rebellion,” the Home Member introduced a vital debate on the 15th September 1942 which lasted for four days.110 The debate provided an opportunity for the Government to justify its “preventive action” in dealing with the situation. None of the parties openly justified the Congress action of an implicit rebellion, as it was understood then. The Congress-Nationalists sought to explain why such a defiant step was initiated by the Congress; even in its waning period, the Central Legislature was able to bring the both sides face to face on the floor though it was indeed a heated moment in the Indian legislative history. The Muslim League joined the Government to deplore this “Quit India” movement as it was intended not only to force the British Government but to coerce the Muslims to surrender to the Congress terms and action. The Budget session of 1943 was overshadowed by Gandhi’s fast and the excitement it caused.111 An adjournment motion was moved on the 15th February 1943 to draw the Government attention to the great apprehension caused by Gandhi’s fast, and eventually, the proposition was talked out.112 At this time, the devastating famine and terrifying food crisis of Bengal was causing great disquiet to the legislators. During the November session 1943, most of its time was spent on the discussion of the food situation.
With the return of the Congress Party to the legislative session in the autumn of 1944, the Assembly regained its enthusiasm and delivered several censure motions on the Government.113 As no elections had been held after 1934, the Legislature was already out of date and the elections of 1945 and 1946, as indicated earlier, were a great victory for the Congress and the Muslim League in the Central as well as provincial legislatures. The Congress-led ministries were formed in Assam, Bihar, U.P., North West Frontier Province, Bombay, Madras and C.P. and Orissa and soon the Congress Party ← 28 | 29 → in the Assembly saw a new leader in Sarat Chandra Bose. The Congress hold over the House was proved by the election of G. V. Mavalankar as its President. During the inter-war period, the Viceroy customarily made important political pronouncements to the newly elected members of the Assembly, but on the 28th January, 1946, while the Governor General came to address the newly elected members, he stated categorically that he would not make any striking political pronouncement.114 He also asked the House not to make any discussion which would reduce the prospect of a settlement of the constitutional issues or increase the bitterness already prevailing in the country.115 Indeed, the Legislature did not play any effectual role in the country’s political development from the beginning of the war. The impending Constituent Assembly was expected to assume the role of a forum for decisive political discussion. Soon when the Interim Government was formed in the autumn of 1946, the Assembly lost the status of a hostile critic as the Executive had the support of all the major political parties. There were numerous larger issues and excitements outside: prospects and fear of the expected partition, transfer of power worries, the specter communal killings etc. Yet the Central Legislature was not entirely a neglected institution; numerous important measures in the spheres of fiscal, commerce, industry, post-war development, international agreements etc. were debated in the Legislature. In fact, it was sustaining the Government at a critical juncture of Indian political history.
Notes
1. Cotton, H. E. A. Parties and Policies in India published in Contemporary Review, Feb., 1921. See also Chapter III.
2. Ray, P. C. India at the Cross-Roads in Contemporary Review, Feb., 1922.
3. Nanda, B. R. Mahatma Gandhi, p. 201.
4. See also Chapter III and Chapter V.
5. See Chapter IX.
6. Nanda, B. R. The Nehrus, p. 341.
7. See Chapter VI for discussion of the beneficial measures which could be achieved through the legislatures.
8. L.A. Deb., 1925 (Simla) pp. 24–25.
9. Hindu, September 9, 1926.
10. The Times, February 9, 1924. See also Chapter IX.
11. L.A. Deb., 1924, p. 370. (8th February, 1924).
12. Spear, P. India: A Modern History, p. 365.
13. Rufus Isaacs, First Marquess of Reading by his son the Marquess of Reading, p. 295.
14. Ibid. ← 29 | 30 →
15. Ibid., p. 296.
16. Nanda, B. R. The Nehrus, p. 231.
17. The Times, February 20, 1924 commented that it was utterly impossible to go beyond this enquiry.
18. See Chapter IX.
19. The Congress leaders were forced to change their mind and go back to the Central Assembly under the pressure of the Bombay businessmen. Vide, J. J. Coatman’s article “India on the Eve of Autonomy,” Asiatic Review, April, 1938.
20. Hindu, September 2, 1926.
21.
