INDIAN CONGRESS SPLIT ON APPEASEMENT ISSUE

Dominion, Volume 35, Issue 264, 6 August 1942, Page 5

INDIAN CONGRESS SPLIT ON APPEASEMENT ISSUE

Gandhi’s Desire To Negotiate With Japan SEIZURE OF CONGRESS DOCUMENTS (By Telegraph.—Press Assn— Copyright.) (Received August 5, 8 p.m. LONDON, August 4. On the eve of the meeting of the All-India Congress Working Committee this weekend a bombshell has been thrown into Indian political circles by the Government of India’s publication of documents which were seized when the Congress offices at Allahabad were raided several weeks ago.

These reveal that the original draft “quit India” resolution which Mahatjna Gandhi sent to the Working Committee was substantially different from Pandit Nehru’s resolution which superseded it, and this forms the subject matter of the committee’s imminent meeting.. The crucial difference concerns a reference by Gandhi to Indian negotiations with Japan. Gandhi’s draft contained the passage: “Japan’s quarrel is not with India. She is warring against the British Empire. India’s participation in tbe war has not been with the consent of the representatives of the Indian people, and it is purely a British act. If India were freed her first step would probably be to negotiate with Japan. - “Congress is of the opinion , that if the British withdrew India would be able to defend herself in the event of the Japanese or any other aggressor attacking India. The Congress Committee is therefore of the opinion that the British should withdraw from India.” Amended Version. The Working Committee eventually substituted the following for Gandhi’s passage: “If India were free she would determine her own policy aud she might be kept out of the war, though her sympathies in any event have been with the victims of aggression. If, however, circumstances had led her to join in the war she would have done so as a free country fight-

ing for, her freedom, and her defence would have been organized on a popular basis with a national army under national control and leadership and intimate contacts with the people. Free India would know’ how to defend herself in the event of an attack from any aggressor.” Gandhi was not present at the meeting of the Working Committee at which his draft was discussed, but the report of the meeting shows that Nehru dramatically interjected: “The whole background of the draft would make the world think we are passively lining up with the Axis Powers. The British are asked to withdraw, and. we are thereafter to negotiate with Japan and possibly come to terms, which may include a large measure of civil control by us, and a certain measure of military control by them, the passage of armies across India, etc.”

Nehru continued, "If Gandhi’s approach is accepted we would become passive partners with the Axis Powers. There is no difficulty about Gandhi’s draft as far as the main action is concerned, but its whole thought and background favours Japan.” He also said: “It is Gandhi’s feeling that Japan and Germany will win. This feeling unconsciously governs his decision.” Difference in Approach.

The minutes showed that Kripalani, Patel, Prasad and others supported Gandhi’s draft. Prasad was apparently invited to prepare an alternative draft, which he did by excising the more objectionable parts of the original. Nehru, Rajagopalachari, and others still objected. Alaulana Azad, the Congress President, said he was not clear what the difference between the two groups was. “Gandhi’s prescription,” he said, “is the only alternative, though I doubt its effectiveness.” He asked Nehru to prepare his own draft. Nehru at the next sitting produced his draft resolution. The chairman again summoned the committee and asked the committee to accept Nehru’s draft in order to get a unanimous decision. He held there was practically no difference between the two drafts, though others thought there was a vital difference in the approach. Eventually Nehru’s draft was accepted unanimously. The discussions in the committee revealed that the majority were appeasers, while even a minority was only anxious that the resolution should be so phrased that the Congress position before world opinion would not be compromised. The Indian Government had not punished the documents earlier because it did not wish to acerbate feelings and always hoped that Congress would adopt a reasonable attitude. PRIDE IN DOMINION STATUS (Bv Telegraph.—Press Assn. —Copyright.) (Special Australian Correspondent.) SYDNEY, August 5. "Australia is completely satisfied with its status and rights as a selfgoverning member of the British Commonwealth of Nations,” says the Prime Alinister, Air. Curtin, commenting on the statement by the leader of the Indian Congress, Bandit Nehru, that he "hated Dominion status. ‘ .Urn partnership is that of equals in a fraternity of unity whose history lias been marked by great contributions to civilization and whose future we are defending to our utmost as a stronghold of democracy,” Mr. Curtin added.

CONGRESS INTENTION Three Months’ Campaign Intended OPENING THIS MONTH LONDON, August 4. Pandit Nehru, in an interview in Bombay today, said that the Congress civil disobedience campaign would probably be launched a fortnight after ratification by the Congress committee at the end of the week. The campaign was likely to last three months, and it would decide the country’s fate. “Congress will not be satisfied till India is granted complete and immediate independence,” he said. “Internal disturbances are unlikely if the local authorities discharge their duties faithfully.” The Indian Liberal leader, Sir Tej Sapru, in a statement, asks Gandhi to call a conference of Indian political leaders and abandon, or at least postpone, the idea of launching civil disobedience till such conference had met and failed. Sir Tej said he did not agree with the view that so long as the British remained ip India there could be no such thing as communal settlement. He preferred that Gandhi should call the conference, failing which the Viceroy and members of his Council should take the responsibility of calling the conference. Sir Sikander Hyat-Khan, Premier of the Punjab, described the civil dis-

obedience resolution as “a gross betrayal of our country.” inkai. The general secretary of the All-India Hindu movement declared that while a free India would have been a tower or strength to the Allies the only result of civil disobedience would be to nurl tne country into chaos and confusion and to make it an easy prey for the enemy. The All-Indian Union of Christians also came out against the resolution, also tho All-India Nationalist League, in so far as civil disobedience is concerned. The Indian Communist Party, in a statement today, said that the Indian Communists are doing their utmost' to convince their fellow patriots that civil disobedience does not lead to freedom, but cuts the nation from freedom’s battle, and only helps to strengthen the Imperialists who refuse to move with the times. It was announced in New Delhi that the sixth session of the Indian National Defence Council will ‘be held there from September 7to 9. The Viceroy will preside. NOT ASHAMED, SAYS GANDHI Would Plead With Japs LONDON, August 4. Mahatma Gandhi in a statement today said, “I think the Government’s procedure in searching the committee, rooms aud seizing documents is reprehensible. Congress is not an illegal body but is acknowledged to be the oldest representative organization. “I purposely incorporated the sentence about negotiation with Japan. If this was ultimately dropped, I also associate myself with the deletion. The reading of the notes, though they are not authenticated, will not be harmful to Congress prestige. There is nothing to cause members shame. “I have never, even in my most unguarded moment, expressed the opinion that Germany and Japan will win the war; on the contrary, I have frequently said that they cannot win if Britain only sheds her Imperialism once and for all. I have nothing to withdraw or of which I am ashamed.” Gandhi also said: “If India became an independent nation tomorrow I would certainly seek the permission of the provisional Government to send me to Japan. I would plead with her in tbe first instance to free China. Pandit Nehru stated that the notes seized were brief and disjointed. Alley were torn from their context and gave a wrong impression. Had Gandhi been present much of the discussion mi o lit have been avoided. “There is an important qualification to the statement that Gandhi expected an Axis victory,” he added. I refeired to what lie has repeatedly said—his belief that Britain is heading for disaster unless she changes her whole policy toward India and the colonies. The reference to negotiations with Japan is also incorreel and is torn from its context. It is absurd to say that any of ns envisaged some arrangement with the Japanese giving them the right of passage. It was pointed out that Japan would want this, and we could never agree. Our policy has always been based on the utmost resistance to aggression.”