A Forgotten Ambassador in Cairo, page 10
After much bickering and many letters later, Patel finally issued an ultimatum to the British Committee in July 1919 that those of its members who were not prepared to accept the Congress position should resign. Clark and some of his colleagues gave in, and Polak was asked to either conform to the new dispensation or resign. Polak chose to quit and officially ceased to be the editor of India as of the issue of 18 July 1919. Shortly afterwards, in line with the Delhi resolutions, a new constitution for the British Committee was adopted on 25 July 1919. G.B. Clark, writing about the new constitution in the India of August 1919, acknowledged that the British Committee had been affected by the schisms in the INC between the Moderates and the Extremists, but going forward would be responsible to, and aligned with the interests of the INC. The new constitution made it explicitly clear that “the object of the Committee shall be to act as the Executive in the United Kingdom of the Indian National Congress… and…that the expenses of the Committee shall be defrayed by annual grants from the INC.”16 It had been an uphill battle for Tilak* and Patel, but their perseverance had borne fruit.
On Polak’s resignation, Helena Florence Normanton (1882–1957) who had joined India in 1918 took over full editorial responsibility. Normanton, who had lost her father when she was four years old and her mother when she was twelve, resolutely educated herself despite immense personal impediments, and graduated with a B.A. Honours First Class in History from the University of London.17 As a keen student of Indian history, she realised the falsity of prevailing British narratives that portrayed the acquisition of India as something beneficial to India. While not being an avowed anti-imperialist herself, her sympathies nevertheless were with India when she wrote that, “…the imperialism based on force and fraud is…disseminated through and by the School, the Press, the Pulpit and the Historian.”18 India could scarcely have found a more ideologically compatible editor than her to steer the periodical through perhaps the most taxing phase of its existence. During her editorship in the period 1919–20, India reported widely on the Montagu proposals, the Punjab Tragedy, the Turkey question, and the Khilafat delegation, and carried editorial opinions that were markedly radical in comparison with earlier times.
But Helena had decided on becoming a lawyer from a very young age when she saw her mother at a disadvantage, financially and legally, for being a single parent. In a historic event, Normanton was admitted as a student to the Middle Temple, being the very first woman ever to be admitted to the Inns of Court; the date was 24 December 1919, the day after the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act received Royal Assent.* Normanton began her term in January 1920; however, various reasons, both academic and non-academic, caused her to resign from her position at India . Her last issue as editor came out on 13 August 1920, and she formally left the paper soon after.19 She later married Gavin Watson Clark, son of G.B. Clark, in October 1921, and continued to retain her maiden name much against the mores prevalent then. She was also the second woman after Ivy Williams to be called to the bar on 17 November 1922. Helena Normantan was described by an American newspaper as “plump, blond and pretty and has pink cheeks” when she travelled to that country in 1925.
The coincidence of Normanton leaving India and the Khilafat delegation leaving for India at almost the same time gave an opportunity for Horniman to help Syud find a role. After G.B. Clark resigned from the British Committee in July 1920, Ben Spoor become the Chairman, and the Executive Committee now consisted of a number of Indians based in England, among them D.N. Bannerjea, B. Dube, J.M. Parikh as Vice-Chairman, C.B. Vakil as treasurer, and M.H. Kidwai as the honorary secretary. With Horniman overseeing the paper in the interim as honorary editor, the Committee began looking for a replacement for Normanton and called for applications for the post of editor-secretary. Horniman, R. Dell, R.W. Postgate and Fenner Brockway,20 applied for the position; Syud Hossain missed the deadline for applying, but on the recommendation of Horniman and Dube the delay was condoned, and he was asked to submit his application before the final meeting of the Executive Committee. In the ensuing discussions among the members of the Executive Committee, Ben Spoor felt that it might be a good idea to have an Indian and an Englishman as joint editors and secretary. Unable to reach a consensus, the Committee decided to hold a ballot. The result was a tie; Brockway and Syud got five votes each. The deadlock was resolved by the expedient process of appointing both Hossain and Brockway as joint Editor-Secretaries of the Committee and of India, for a period of one year at a salary of £550 each per annum.21 G.P. Blizard’s position as Assistant Secretary was confirmed and extended upto the end of February at an annual salary of £400.
The mode by which Syud Hossain was ‘elected’ to the post raised the hackles of many, even within the British Committee. Parikh, who perhaps did not quite share Spoor’s enthusiasm for dual editors, wrote to V.J. Patel on 19 August complaining that, “It appears that a vigorous canvass took place in favour of Hossain and what, I think is not right, is that Horniman seems to have represented to Spoor that there was a strong feeling amongst the Indians in favour of Hossain.” Parikh felt that Spoor was influenced by Horniman in the decision to appoint joint editors, and said that, “But one thing I must mention and it is the way in which Horniman brings about discord.”
Parikh was not alone; D.N. Bannerjea too vented against the way Syud was appointed and wrote to Motilal Nehru on 20 August, “…Applications were invited until the 11th August. When the Committee met on the 12th, Mr. B.G. Horniman applied on behalf of Syed Hussain [sic] who had not till then even sent in an application. Some of us protested but the extraordinary step was finally adopted. At the next meeting, Messrs Delgado, Horniman, Dube and two Mohammadan friends of Syed Hussain voted for him. I know nothing about Syed Hussain, but in this country there is strong prejudice against him which compromises our cause.” Motilal forwarded Bannerjea’s letter to Patel on 17 September with a covering letter saying that, “It discloses a disgraceful state of things.”22 The Indian members of the British Committee were evidently upset that the “Horniman clique” continued to wield a disproportionate amount of influence in the affairs of the Committee.
The British Committee, through its letter of 16 September signed by G.P. Blizard, informed V.J. Patel of the developments relating to the appointment of Hossain, Brockway and Blizzard.23 Patel saw red at this breach of the newly adopted constitution and a reply was cabled to the Committee on 12 October which stated, “Congress Executive entirely disapproves Syed [sic] Hossain’s appointment by the British Committee; ask you to cancel appointment immediately; Congress alone has the right to appoint Indian on staff, India or British Committee; Congress taking steps select suitable Indian, in place of Blizard. Meanwhile Blizard must continue. Executive approve Brockway’s appointment; if Syed Hossain desires appointment in place Blizard he must apply Congress direct. Money will be cabled after your reply.”24
In the less than cordial to and fro of telegrams and letters that were exchanged between Patel and the Committee over the next several weeks, Patel cabled that the “…Congress disowns liability for Syed Hossain’s remuneration…” The Committee replied that Syud’s appointment was its internal decision; his employment for a period of one year was a contractual obligation, and any cancellation of the same would expose the Committee and the Congress to liability for breach of contract. The Committee was also short of funds, and one of the letters contained an explicit threat that the Committee would be forced to close down by November if funds from the Congress were not forthcoming.25
Finally, Patel, by his letter of 17 November 1920 to Ben Spoor, temporarily bought a truce by cabling £1,000 to the Committee with the proviso that, “it is to be distinctly understood that no part of that amount is to go towards the payment of Mr. Syed Hossain whose appointment was made in defiance of the view of the Congress Executive”. The letter continued by insisting that the Committee did not have the right to appoint Indians on its staff and that, “This attitude of the British Committee has given a handle in the hands of those who have been urging for the discontinuance of the Committee, and I am sure matters will assume a more serious aspect unless the Committee cancels the appointment before you arrive in India.”26 Ben Spoor, as a delegate of the British Committee, was to attend the Congress Session at Nagpur in December 1920. He, however, ignored Patel’s directive regarding Syud.
Despite these unsavoury events, the first issue under the combined editorial control of Hossain and Brockway came out on 8 October 1920. The next few months saw a change in the content of the paper as well as in its presentation. The editorials were sharper, contributions from Indian leaders such as Gandhi, C.F. Andrews and Horniman increased, the analysis had greater depth, and the first page was now devoted to editorial content replacing the mishmash of news culled from sundry sources. Syud wrote on topics such as criticising the use of Indian troops by the British Government in the war theatres of Arabia, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Turkey, and Persia; and the use of non-cooperation in other imperial colonies such as Hungary, Korea, and Egypt. He launched a tirade against Chelmsford and published an article on 3 December by Horniman justifying the need for Indian propaganda abroad. The last was perhaps an argument to counter voices within the Congress, including that of Gandhi, who saw foreign propaganda as pointless in the domestic struggle against British imperialism.
There was now a growing clamour both within the British Committee (represented by Parikh) and in the Congress, questioning the need for a British Committee in its current setup. Gandhi himself, conscious of Tilak’s earlier squabbles and influenced by prevailing dissonance, wrote an article in his newspaper Young India in October with reference to an open letter from Normanton to Gandhi which was published in the same issue. Normanton, in her letter strongly supported Gandhi’s non-cooperation strategy and questioned “whether non-cooperation does not logically entertain the winding up of the British Committee of the Congress in its present form…” and went on to allege that the present Chairman of the Committee [Spoor] “…is an avowed and ardent co-operationist [and] has been the main reason of my resignation of the editorship of India… Even the newspaper India is to a large extent wasted effort, due presumably to lack of knowledge upon the business and directorial side of the paper…”. She recommended that what was “really required in England is a group of eminent Britons united by an ardent love of the cause of India and ready to demonstrate it by financially meeting their own committee’s expenses”.27
Gandhi, in his response, agreed with Normanton’s view on India as well as her suggestion on the British Committee and said, “…I endorse Miss Normanton’s views about the newspaper India also. The paper costs much more than it is worth. Its influence on English opinion is practically nothing and it is an indifferent vehicle of English opinion for India’s enlightenment…And now that we have embarked on non-cooperation and are determined to become self reliant, it would be more consistent for us to disestablish the British Committee and stop India . It would save a needless waste of public money and turn our attention more towards ourselves…We are in possession of further evidence, which we have received from another esteemed correspondent in London in connection with the very unsatisfactory condition of the newspaper India. The total circulation of India, our correspondent informs us, is, 500 only (!), 220 in Great Britain, the rest in India. Last year’s income was £4-17-0 (!!) only, while the expenditure for the current year is estimated to £3300. This is how our correspondent puts it:
‘For the maintenance of India we pay—that is the poor people of India pay—£1800 a year, out of which Mr. Syed Hussain as editor-secretary gets £550 a year with effect from October. Mr. Fenner Brockway as co-editor-secretary gets £550. Mr. G.P. Blizard as secretary £400, the typist £150, clerk £150.’
The paper has had a chequered career but we never had success from the propagandist point of view. It has never had a constructive policy. To squander £1800 on a 3d weekly with a circulation of 500, and to spend another £1500 on establishment charges, £3300 in all, looks like reckless extravagance.”28
The figures stated by Gandhi (on the financials as well as the circulation) were disputed by the British Committee, and Parikh sent a telegram in December 1920 to Patel (at Nagpur) calling the “anonymous correspondent’s” statements “maliciously false”.29
Gandhi’s views on India made it abundantly clear that Syud Hossain’s tenure as editor was merely that of an undertaker out to give the newspaper a respectable burial. Gandhi’s thoughts were formalised in the Nagpur session of the INC held between 26th and 31st December 1920. One of the resolutions that was passed in the session was on Foreign Propaganda :
That, in the opinion of this Congress, it is necessary in the interests of India to disseminate correct information about India and Indian questions in foreign countries.
This Congress, while authorizing the All India Congress Committee to give effect to the foregoing resolution, resolves: That the publication of newspaper “India ” as an organ of the Congress be discontinued forthwith and the contracts of the present staff be terminated.
That, subject to the existing liabilities in connection with the British Congress Committee and newspaper India no further financial assistance from the Congress fund be supplied for these purposes; and
That a committee consisting of Mr. Ben Spoor. Mr. Parikh, Mr. Holford Knight, Dr. Vakil, Mr. M.H. Kidwai and Mr. Dube be appointed for winding up the affairs of the British Congress Committee and newspaper India. 30
The last issue of India came out on 14 January 1921. Tucked away on page 11 was a small news item announcing that, “Mr. Ben Spoor, M.P. the Chairman of the British Committee of the Indian National Congress, and Mr. Halford Knight, another delegate of the Committee to the Congress, have telegraphed to the Secretary from Bombay that the Committee is to be dissolved, and that its organ, India, is to cease publication.” The first page of the last issue was devoted to a reprint of Gandhi’s article in Young India, “The Meaning of Swaraj—Wanted a Strong and Self-Reliant India”. J.M. Parikh’s piece, “The British Committee—A Retrospect” reviewed the work of the Committee over the years, and concluded by saying that, “To concentrate on intensive constructive work is an admirable thing, but it should not be accompanied by segregation from the outer world.” Fenner Brockway, in his editorial titled ‘Britain and India—A Call for Continued Activity Here’, advocated that, despite the cessation of the activities of the British Committee, “[it] demands not less but more activity from the friends of India and Britain”, to ensure continued amity between the two countries even after India achieved freedom. Horniman, in his farewell message to India ’s readers, regretted the decision of the Congress but assured the readers that friends of India’s freedom in Britain would not abandon the cause of the journal.31
The Bombay Chronicle called the decision to wind up the British Committee and India an unfortunate one. In the issue of Young India of 19 January 1921, Gandhi gave a spirited riposte by saying, “The abolition [of the Committee] was a matter of principle. It was felt that a noncooperation Congress could not keep a foreign agency for helping its work…So far as the newspaper India is concerned, we are certainly better without it. It raised in us false hopes…We must adopt new methods for combating the evils of sensational and untruthful journalism and public life. The Congress has given the lead by abolishing the Committee and its organ, India. ”32
And thus was the British Committee wound up after an existence of thirty-one years, with India a year younger. Ultimately, it was not so much the utility or not of India that determined its demise; it was the ideological cleft between the two groups of the Congress manifesting itself in the British Committee that devoured both the Committee and its organ.33 Or did Gandhi, with his flair for the dramatic, wind up the Committee as a symbolic sacrifice to his non-cooperation movement? Syud was India ’s editor for a mere four months from October 1920 to January 1921, perhaps working pro bono for some of that time due to V.J. Patel’s obduracy.
In January 1921, it was announced that Lord Reading, the Chief Justice of England, would be appointed as the new Viceroy of India replacing Lord Chelmsford. Lord Reading, while accepting his congratulatory messages had said that, “…In selecting the representative of Justice from this country to take the supreme place as the King’s representative in India, it is the desire of His Majesty…to make manifest to India that Justice will remain the supreme guiding factor in the destinies of India…” In his last editorial for India titled, “What is Justice?”, Syud welcomed Reading’s appointment, and quoting his above statement, went on, in his inimitable style, to advise the future Viceroy, “We sincerely hope that he may be enabled to live up to his own expectations in the Viceregal career that opens before him. No structure of theoretical justice such as he postulates can be reared on a foundation of broken pledges, condoned frightfulness, and continued exploitation.”34 Syud Hossain’s battle cry of CMG had finally come true (CMG—Chelmsford Must Go ).
