A Forgotten Ambassador in Cairo, page 5
From aboard the ship to England, Hossain wrote a letter to Padmaja Naidu (daughter of Sarojini Naidu) on 24 March addressed to her at Woodstock College, Mussoorie where she was a student. A seal on the envelope showed that the letter had been opened by the censor indicating that Syud was considered notorious enough to be spied upon.
“Dear Padmaja, It was very cheery to have your dear little note and good wishes. As you see I am embarked with literal vengeance! But things are not overwhelmingly lively. For a long voyage to be supportable one needs congenial company. And that is lacking in the present case. Moreover, Woman is taboo on board—so that there is no question of ‘growing a soul’ en route—not of course that at my time of life that would have been a feasible proposition in any event! Which reminds me that the alleged ‘dimple’ disappeared long since—as the result, I fancy, of a rigorous course of self-imposed Yoga! Your mother not being able to start with me, needless to say, was a great disappointment…”10 Despite an erratic lifestyle, Syud Hossain was fastidiously conscious of his appearance, and was never one to countenance a ‘dimple’ or forego the discipline of a strict diet. As a later chronicler would point out, Hossain always appeared younger than his age, undoubtedly helped by his slim figure and a flawless dressing sense.11
The Home Rule deputations, however, were ill fated. A cable was received on 14 April from the first deputation asking for £100 to be sent to them at the Grand Hotel in Gibraltar. On 20 April, Hossain cabled that the British authorities had forced the deputation to disembark at Gibraltar on the order of the British War Cabinet and their passports to England had been cancelled. After waiting in Gibraltar for a suitable ship back home, both the deputations sailed back on 28 April to Bombay. In the meanwhile, a third deputation to England, led by Tilak, which left Madras on 17 March was stopped at Colombo, and their passports impounded. All of these led to the ‘deputation strategy’ being dropped by Besant.12
While Syud Hossain was cooling his heels in Gibraltar, a humongous scandal enveloped Bombay in shock, shame and fury. Mohammad Ali Jinnah—the forty-two-year-old legal luminary of the city’s bar, the President of the Muslim League, and the Chairman of the Board of the Bombay Chronicle— got married to a barely-eighteen-year-old Parsi girl, Ruttie Petit, after a two-year romance. Ruttie (or formally Ratanbai) was the daughter of the famously wealthy Sir Dinshaw Petit, a revered name in the Parsi community of Bombay, and a good friend of Jinnah. Both The Times of India and the Bombay Chronicle carried the same, scarcely noticeable but explosive item on their inner pages on 20 April 1918. The Times of India announced a “Mahomedan-Parsi Wedding” and said that, “The Hon. Mr. M.A. Jinnah was married to Bai Ratanbai, the only daughter of the Hon. Sir Dinshaw Petit, in Bombay yesterday.”13 According to a chronicler of the romance of this couple, Ruttie first surreptitiously converted to Islam on 18 April at the Jama Masjid, and equally furtively got married the next day at Jinnah’s bungalow at South Court on Mount Pleasant Road, Malabar Hill in the presence of a dozen witnesses, which included the Raja of Muhmudabad.14 The venerable Sir Dinshaw and his wife Lady Petit came to know of the wedding only from the following day’s newspaper, by which time the couple had entrained on their honeymoon to Nainital, a picturesque hill station in the Kumaon region of the Himalayas. There were many reasons for Bombay society’s outrage over the union: the vast difference in their ages, the young girl’s defiance of her father, and her conversion to Islam. In a court hearing that took place later, when Jinnah was accused of abducting the young girl, Ruttie famously replied, “Mr. Jinnah has not abducted me; in fact I have abducted him.”15 Ruttie’s return to india and relationship with her father was beyond repair, the conservative Parsi community boycotted Ruttie and excommunicated her.
After returning from his abortive trip, Syud became more involved in the activities of the Congress. In a Special Session of the Congress held in Bombay from 29 August to 1 September 1918 at the Marine Lines Grounds to debate the Montagu-Chelmsford report*, Syed Hasan Imam was elected as the President of the session. Hossain was one of the General Secretaries, and on the second day of the session he gave a speech on ‘Responsible Government’. A group photograph of the General Secretaries shows a young Syud, dressed nattily in a suit and bow tie, along with Besant and Hasan Imam.16 By now, Hossain had gained enough notoriety in the eyes of the British authorities to be constantly on their radar. A confidential Bombay government report titled, ‘Statement relating to the Disturbances in the City of Bombay in April 1919’, states that, “In November 1918 Horniman and his associates of the Bombay Home Rule League engineered what was in some respects the most remarkable and most unscrupulous of all these political moves. His Excellency Lord Willingdon was about to leave the Bombay Presidency for England on the expiry of the tenure of his office. The Sheriff of Bombay had proposed to call a public meeting to consider the question of voting a memorial to His Excellency. Violent opposition to this meeting was organized in the Bombay Chronicle, Young India and the Hindusthan . The leaders in the anti-Willingdon agitation were Horniman, […] and M.A. Jinnah. Among the speakers who addressed the meetings of Home Rulers, mill-hands and workmen were Messrs. K.P. Khadilkar, […] and Syed Hossein. [sic]” 17
Bombay had by now eclipsed Calcutta as the preeminent city of India, commercially, industrially and intellectually, and was emerging as the pivot of the freedom movement. Syud Hossain’s years in Bombay at this crucial time helped him develop a wide network amongst those prominent in the freedom movement, both within the country and abroad, as well as renewing old friendships. Asaf Ali, on his return from England, had established his legal practice in Delhi, and in order to augment his income, had become a contributor to newspapers such as the Tribune. Having come to know of Hossain’s return and his joining the Bombay Chronicle, Asaf Ali travelled to Bombay to meet him and says, “…Syud, friendly and understanding as ever, generously opened to me the columns of the newspaper.”18 Asaf Ali became the Delhi correspondent for the Chronicle and later for The Independent . Syud Hossain was invited by Haridas Muzumdar, a student of Elphinstone College and the Secretary of its Historical and Economic Association to the college campus to give a talk on ‘India’s Right to Swaraj’.19
Syud and Muzumdar would meet again in a few years in New York and forge a lasting partnership there in the quest for India’s independence and for the rights of Indians in America.
In this short period of two years, Syud Hossain had established himself as a journalist of substance, one whose pen effectively articulated the nationalist sentiments. As well-known journalist A.S. Iyengar wrote, “There was in those days a glamour about Horniman and an aura about Syed Hussain [sic]. What Horniman did not know about journalism was not worth knowing at all. What Syed Hussain could write was, of course, the best.”20 It was, therefore, no surprise that a higher calling beckoned him.
5
Allahabad and The Independent
THE PRESS PLAYED a significant role in India’s freedom struggle. Many of the more famous Congress party leaders had established their own newspapers to disseminate their views to the public, and also to counter the views of the pro-establishment newspapers that were usually owned or edited by Englishmen. Madan Mohan Malaviya, a prominent Congressman, had founded the Leader in Allahabad in October 1909, and Motilal Nehru helped bring the redoubtable newspaperman C.Y. Chintamani as its editor. Over the next year, the two had numerous differences, with Nehru feeling that Chintamani was taking too moderate a line in his editorial policy. Nehru made a bid for the control of the paper, lost, and resigned from the board of the Leader, leaving Chintamani as the undisputed boss of the publication till the latter’s death in July 1941. Chintamani epitomised the ideal of the incorruptible and independent editor, and was once described as “the Pope of Indian Journalism”.1
As Motilal Nehru’s political activities grew, he felt the need for a daily newspaper based in the United Provinces (today’s Uttar Pradesh) that could articulate his views. He and his son Jawaharlal (who had returned to Allahabad in 1912 after his stints at Harrow, Cambridge and the Inner Temple) set about establishing one, and scouted around for a suitable editor. It appears that Motilal had had a discussion with Horniman which was followed through by Jawaharlal with a letter to Horniman on 6 November 1918, wherein he says, “…entirely relying on your offer to let us have Syud Hossain as an editor for a period. There is absolutely no one else whom we know or can think of who would make a desirable editor.” On the same date, Jawaharlal also wrote to Syud requesting him to come to Allahabad to start the daily. This letter was followed by another one from Motilal to Syud two days later where he laid out the broad scheme of how the newspaper should be managed and suggested the name, Nationalist. This was later changed to The Independent.2 Motilal’s dream was thus fulfilled in large part due to the counsel of Horniman, and his generosity in letting go of Syud Hossain. Motilal initially expected Hossain to be around as editor for not more than three to four months.3
Syud left the Bombay Chronicle and came to Allahabad in January 1919 to take charge as the editor. He was paid a salary of rupees one thousand five hundred a month in addition to food and accommodation, a sizable compensation in those days.4 At the same time, Motilal had offered Sri Prakasa a salary of rupees four hundred a month without accommodation for the post of an Assistant editor, an offer that the latter for various other reasons did not accept.5 A.S. Iyengar and C.S. Ranga Iyer, both of whom were working for the Leader, were persuaded by Motilal to join the editorial staff of The Independent6 whose offices were initially run from the empty stables of Anand Bhawan, the palatial house of Motilal Nehru.7 The first issue of The Independent came out on 5 February 1919. Motilal defined the paper’s aim as follows: “The Independent came into existence to lay bare the soul of a nation, of a people ripening into nationhood, of communities merging into a people, of individuals growing into a community. How shall it approach its noble works? Or better still, how not? Not along the facile line of opportunism, the fatal line of least resistance…But by bringing the fierce light of day to play upon the dark spots wherever they exist. By striving to press home the eternal truth that…while on the one hand national rights cannot be withheld to be doled out in little bits with a consciousness of high-minded generosity, those rights cannot, on the other hand, thrive in an atmosphere of religious cleavage and racial antagonism. Thus alone can The Independent fulfill its mission.”8
In response to a request from Syud for an autographed message to be published in the first issue of The Independent, Gandhi wrote to him, “In wishing you success in your new enterprise, I would like to say how I hope your writings would be worthy of the title you have chosen for your journal; and may I further hope that to a robust independence you will add an equal measure of self-restraint and the strictest adherence to truth? Too often in our journals as in others do we get fiction instead of fact and declamation in place of sober reasoning. You would make The Independent a power in the land and a means of education for the people by avoiding the errors I have drawn attention to.”9 The Mahatma’s exhortation to editors is perhaps even more relevant to our times. Apart from Gandhi, other leaders such as Besant, Tagore, and Sarojini Naidu sent messages of goodwill. Horniman pithily said, “Be Independent.”
Motilal Nehru hosted a dinner on 7 February at his house, Anand Bhawan, to honour the birth of The Independent. It was an impressive gathering of the political stalwarts of the era along with Jawaharlal, Horniman, Syud Hossain, and the editorial staff of the paper. It was an evening of merriment and self-congratulations. In his toast, Motilal heaped encomiums on both Horniman and Syud and said, “…the moment I met Mr. Syud Hossain, I spotted him as the one man who is capable of running our democratic paper.” Horniman, in a humorous reply to the toast, called the three-day old newspaper a ‘lusty infant’ and continued, “…it was a hard wrench to me and the proprietors of the Bombay Chronicle to part with Mr. Syud Hossain…”10
1919 was perhaps the defining year of India’s freedom movement, its “annus horribilis” if you will. The passing of the Rowlatt Act, the government’s brutality in the Punjab, and the horrific massacre at Jallianwala Bagh in Amritsar on 13 April 1919, turned the entire country against British rule, and even those who had advocated a more restrained approach with the British were now vociferous in their condemnation, unable to rationalise their earlier stance with the newly-revealed diabolism of their ruler. It was during this most important phase of India’s independence movement that Syud found himself at the helm of one of India’s most influential newspapers with the task of arousing public opinion. And he rose admirably to this most onerous of responsibilities. The Independent became a radical mouthpiece of the Congress and a sharp critic of British policies, in its coverage of the news as well as its opinion pieces. This made it so popular that it could legitimately claim within three months that it “…had the largest circulation of any daily paper in Northern India…” and “exceeded the combined circulation of its main competitors, The Pioneer, The Leader and The Indian Daily Telegraph.”11 Syud Hossain had proved his mettle against the formidable Chintamani. His editorials frequently tended to get emotional, and the strong language that he used perturbed the senior Nehru enough to say that, “The whole outlook in regard to The Independent is a most discouraging one. Syud has persistently disregarded the advice I gave him and will soon put The Independent in hot water just for the sake of a strong adjective.”12
The Independent did not disappoint Motilal on this count. As the months unfolded, Syud Hossain and his newspaper played a stellar role in disseminating the draconian provisions and disastrous consequences of the Rowlatt Act to the public, despite being subjected by the government to censorship, intimidation, and threats of physical harm.
6
Rowlatt Act and Amritsar
(1919)
THE VICEROY, LORD CHELMSFORD, with the consent of the Secretary of State for India, Edwin Montagu, appointed a committee in December 1917 headed by Justice Rowlatt to advise on legislation to enable the government to deal effectively with criminal conspiracy connected with the revolutionary movement in India. Based on the report that the committee submitted, the government framed a bill in February 1919 called the “Anarchical and Revolutionary Crimes Act”, popularly called the Rowlatt Act after its author. In its outline, the bill sought to curtail the liberty of the people by continuing in peacetime the restrictions on civil liberties imposed during the war years (WWI had ended in November 1918). It provided for the speedy trial of offences by a Special Court whose hearings could be held in-camera, and with no provision for appeal against its verdict. The Provincial governments were given virtually unlimited powers to order any person, on suspicion, to furnish security and to report to the police. The police were also given the authority to search a place, arrest a suspect without warrant, and keep him in confinement. The bill, enacted on 18 March 1919, led to unprecedented fury and indignation across the country. In particular, the people of Punjab, who had loyally supported the British government in its imperial war with thousands of their men serving in the British army with singular gallantry across the world, felt betrayed. They had expected accolades but were rewarded instead with fetters and gaol.
Even before the bills were legislated into an Act, Gandhi had decided to oppose the bills, and thus did his concept of Satyagraha take root in India. Satyagraha, according to Gandhi, was a “religious movement, a process of purification and penance” and involved the complete eschewal of violence. Non-cooperation and Civil Disobedience were the two offshoots of Satyagraha.1 Virtually every Indian leader of note, whether in the political, legal or bureaucratic sphere, was opposed to the Rowlatt Act; nonetheless, many such as Motilal Nehru and Annie Besant did not support Gandhi’s civil disobedience movement, with Besant fearing that it might foment violence. When Gandhi went to Allahabad in March 1919 (11th and 12th) and stayed with Motilal Nehru, it was Jawaharlal who was keen to join Gandhi’s Satyagraha movement while Motilal was only lukewarm.2 At Allahabad, Gandhi attended a meeting to protest against the Rowlatt Bills; being indisposed and unable to speak himself, his speech was read out by Syud Hossain in English, and Mahadev Desai (Gandhi’s secretary) in Hindi.3 Gandhi launched his Satyagraha movement with a hartal (all business was to be suspended and people were to fast and pray) on 6 April 1919.
Meanwhile, Punjab was on the boil. The province, under the administrative leadership of Lt. Governor Sir Michael O’Dwyer, was already notorious for the repressive measures the administration had adopted to rein in the agitators. Now it went beyond the boundaries of law and humanity. In Amritsar, the local leaders, Dr Saifuddin Kitchlew and Dr Satya Pal, had taken the Satyagraha oath, and led the protests against the Rowlatt Act with public meetings and processions. The hartal on 6 April was a great success as the entire city had shut down. In order to forestall further trouble, the government arrested the duo on 10 April and deported them to Dharamshala, a small town in the hills about two hundred kms away. Meanwhile, Gandhi, who was planning to come to the Punjab, was arrested on his way to Delhi and sent back to Bombay on 9 April. This news reached Amritsar the next day. The resultant furore saw people gathering at Hall Gate and moving towards Hall Bridge where the police opened fire and killed a few. The agitation intensified, and the subsequent violence saw a few Europeans being killed by the rioters as well as many Indians shot in police firing. The Punjab government passed an order on 11 April under the Defence of India Act requiring all papers not to publish any account of the disorder in the Punjab unless approved by the censor, thus stifling all news from reaching other parts of the country.4
