A Forgotten Ambassador in Cairo, page 8
On her return to Allahabad from the ashram, Sarup wrote a letter to Padmaja that was revealing in its irony, humour, and her irreverence for the Mahatma. It is quoted in full.15
Anand Bhawan
March 13th*
My dear Padmaja—Your fits could not possibly have been worse than mine when I just read the great Mahatmaji’s wonderful article! It was shown to me by the present editor of the “Independent”. A man I detest & despise & avoid as much as I can. He was simply gloating over it & I’m positive he only showed it to me because he wished to see what sort of an effect it was going to produce. Of course I wasn’t going to tell him what my opinions were on the subject so he might just as well have spared himself the trouble of coming all the way here when he might have been better employed. He even had the impertinence to tell me he sympathized with me—as if I wanted his sympathy! And then promptly goes to my brother & tells him that he had been in Syud’s confidence & mine (!) from the very beginning!! I have never come across a more filthy, despicable type of humanity than the above mentioned specimen!
But to get back to the article. I really cannot imagine what made Gandhiji write it. To me it is absolute “Greek” & I cannot follow his arguments at all. He told me when I was at the Ashram that this event had shaken his belief in all Mussalmans! “How could you”, he said to me, “regard Syud in any other light but that of a brother—what right had you to allow yourself, even for a minute, to look with love at a Mussalman”. Then later—“Out of nearly twenty crores of Hindus couldn’t you find a single one who came up to your ideals—but you must needs pass them all over & throw yourself into the arms of a Mohommedan”!!! Poor man! To him it is inconceivable for a Hindu & a Mussalman to marry & live happily. Oh! Another little incident that will amuse you was this.
Gandhiji was telling me one day how he would have behaved had he been me—of course—it didn’t carry much weight because being Gandhiji it is absolutely impossible for him ever to enter into my thought or feelings— however—I imagine me squatting on a little mat about six inches square opposite the great Mahatmaji receiving the following lecture. “Sarup, had I been in your place I would never have allowed myself to have any feelings but those of friendliness towards Syud Hossain—then, supposing Syud had ever attempted to show admiration for me or had professed love for me I would have told him gently but very firmly—Syud, what you are saying is not right. You are a Mussalman & I am a Hindu. It is not right that there should be anything between us. You shall be my brother but as a husband I cannot ever look at you.” Ahem! Isn’t that a nice, ladylike speech & worthy of a Hindu girl—the descendent of a thousand Rishis ?!!! Another strong objection was the difference of age. He said he did not consider it right that any girl should marry a man who was more than four years older than herself! But then, if I started telling you the good Mahatmaji’s objections I should fill a few hundred pages & though it would make quite amusing reading it would also be taking a great risk!
It shows how little you know of my cousins, my dear Padmaja, that you should even vaguely suggest their marrying Mohammedans. Good gracious! I wonder what would happen if I hinted at such a thing. I never have been popular with any of my girl cousins & that would really put the finishing touch to the whole thing! It is no concern of theirs what a madcap like myself chooses to do but they have far too much self respect to copy me!
I’m glad you are thinking of having the article framed & placed in a prominent position. It wouldn’t be a bad idea to give a copy to each of the gentlemen who have so far forgotten themselves as to “go courting” a Hindu girl! Perfectly shocking behavior which I most strongly disapprove of !! I sincerely trust however, now that you have refused them all, they regard you with the proper “brotherly” affection & that you in your turn are a devoted “sister”!
Talking of sisters reminds me. Gandhiji also asked Syud how he had dared to make love to a Hindu girl whom he ought to have looked upon like a little sister & that gentleman’s rather lame reply was—“Well, I did look upon her as a sister in the beginning.” “And does a brother, after a little, start making love to his sister?” At this question Syud looked a great many things but what he said I do not know because I was seized with a wild desire to laugh & making some excuse fled from the room.
I have more than paid back my debt now—haven’t I? I don’t think you will now raise any objection if I stop—so cheerio!
With love
Sarup
[Post Script]
Say, what is your opinion of old Arundale’s proposed marriage? The Brahmins of our part are all in arms against such a thing & the most amusing articles are appearing in all the papers threatening poor old Mrs Besant with terrors undreamt of if she allows it to take place. I happen to know the girl—she is quite a nice kid, but rather too much of a child!
Despite Motilal’s adoption of western ways in his sartorial and dining styles, he was a conservative orthodox Hindu at heart who obviously did not countenance his daughter marrying a Muslim. While Gandhi’s opposition to this marriage may seem strange given his public posturing of Hindu-Muslim brotherhood, he too was equally traditional, and for him any inter-religious fraternity would stop well short of matrimonial unions between the communities. Sarup’s reference to Gandhi’s article is the one that appeared in Young India on 25 February 1920. He wrote this shortly after the time of Sarup’s stay at the ashram perhaps having been influenced by the recent events involving Sarup and Syud. Two paragraphs in it are significant:
“I hold strong views on religion and on marriage. The greater the restraint we exercise with regard to our appetites whether about eating or marrying, the better we become from a religious standpoint. I should despair of ever cultivating amicable relations with the world, if I had to recognize the right or the propriety of any young man offering his hand in marriage to my daughter or to regard it as necessary for me to dine with anybody and everybody.”
“…And it would seriously interfere with the growing unity between Hindus and Mahomedans if, for example, Mahomedan youths consider it lawful to court Hindu girls…In my opinion it is necessary for Hindu and Mahomedan young men to recognize this limitation. I hold it to be utterly impossible for Hindus and Mahomedans to intermarry and yet retain intact each other’s religion.”16
In today’s age of political correctness, few leaders would publicly voice an opinion as explicit as Gandhi’s, despite their private sympathy for such a view. Gandhi’s ideas on inter-religious marriage still resonate with a sizeable segment of today’s India, perhaps more today than in his times. Gandhi, in this respect was consistent; he prevented his son Manilal from marrying a Muslim girl, Fatima Gool, in 1926.17
9
The Aftermath
AFTER SYUD HOSSAIN’S departure, The Independent went through a succession of editors. Ranga Iyer took over from Syud for a short while but Motilal soon realised he was one “who cannot be trusted to write a single line without pre-censorship”. In January 1920, Motilal hired Bipin Chandra Pal as editor-in-chief. Pal’s views were at odds with the Nehrus and within ten days of his arrival he attacked Gandhi and the Congress despite The Independent being a Congress paper. A frustrated Motilal wrote to his son that, “He has run amuck abusing all nationalists without distinction.” Nonetheless, Pal continued as the Editor-in-Chief till mid-September 1920. Finally, as revealed in his letter of 6 February 1920 to Jawaharlal, Motilal decided to hire George Joseph as the editor of The Independent who then moved to Allahabad with his wife Susannah to take up his duties.1
The Independent, however, closed down in 1923 after financial difficulties and the arrests of its editor and the editorial staff. As Jawaharlal notes in his autobiography, “This paper (Independent) met with great success, but from the very beginning it was handicapped by quite an amazing degree of incompetence in the running of it. Almost everybody connected with it—directors, editors, managerial staff—had their share of responsibility for this. I was one of the directors, without the least experience for the job. Both my father and I were, however, soon dragged away to the Punjab, and during our long absence the paper deteriorated greatly and became involved in financial difficulties. It never recovered from them, and, although it had bright patches in 1920 and 1921, it began to go to pieces as soon as we went to gaol. It expired finally early in 1923.”2
The whole sordid affair with Hossain led to a bitter standoff between Sarup and her father that lasted for many months. George Joseph’s wife, Susannah*, stepped in as a peace-maker in the family row.3 A few months later, with the express blessings of Gandhi, Sarup’s engagement to Ranjit Pandit, a Maharashtrian Saraswat Brahmin, was announced and they were married on 9 May 1921 at Allahabad, a function that was graced by Gandhi himself. From then on Sarup Kumari became Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit. Sarojini Naidu attended the wedding, and then made an intriguing comment in her letter of 13 May to her daughter, Leilamani. Describing Sarup’s wedding as a very pretty and simple affair, she continues, “Poor Syud. My heart ached for him all the time and yet how thankful I was that it had all ended like this because Sarup did not really care and Syud never never really cared either.”4 Did Sarojini mean that both of them had put this affair behind them realising that continuing with it would spell disaster in both their lives?
From Allahabad, Syud travelled to Bombay in February 1920 and joined the other members of the Khilafat deputation to sail for London. Motilal and Syud may have assumed that the oceans separating India and England would have created a barrier wide enough to obliterate the remnants of l’affaire Sarup. They were too sanguine. On 14 April 1920, Lt. Col. Cuthbert James, Conservative M.P. representing the constituency of Bromley, asked a non-oral question in the House of Commons viz. “To ask the Secretary of State for India whether Syed Hassan, or Hussein, a member of the Indian Caliphate delegation recently visiting this Country and professing to speak for their co-religionists in India, has recently at the instance of Pundit Moti dal Mehru [sic], been accused of the abduction and forcible proselytization of the latter’s daughter.”5 Edwin Montagu, the Secretary of State replied, “I have no information whatever as to this matter.”
Syud was not one to let this pass. In a letter to Lt. Col. James on 28 April he wrote, “I have to inform you that you have been misled into making a gross and unfounded aspersion on my character. The suggestion contained in your question is absolutely false, and I am at a loss to understand on what authority you could have considered yourself entitled to make it. But you have allowed yourself to be made a vehicle of a wicked and malignant libel on me which I now call upon you to withdraw and apologize for in as public a manner as that in which you have uttered it. In the alternative I ask you as a man of honour, to repeat your statement outside the privilege of Parliament in order to enable me to deal with it in a suitable manner.” Lt. Col. James did not bother to reply to him, which made the latter write a note to the Speaker of the House of Commons, J.W. Lowther, on 7 May giving the facts of the case and concluding by asking the Speaker, “Before resorting to any other remedies which it may be in my power to take, I think it right to appeal to you, Sir, to afford me such protection as may be in your power and to inform me whether under the rules of the House any means are open to me publicly to refute this wicked slander before the Bar of the House.” In reply to this, the Secretary to the Speaker informed Syud that the Speaker had forwarded his letter to Lt. Col. James.
Lt. Col. James ignored the Speaker’s letter too. Syud wrote to James again on 15 June and after detailing the past events said, “It is therefore clear that you are seeking to shield yourself behind the privilege of Parliament after first having prostituted your position as a member of it to defame me, by declining to do that which any honourable man would, of course, have been anxious to do. In the circumstances, it becomes necessary in the public interest to expose you as a cad and a blackguard. I accordingly propose to have copies of this and my previous letter to you, as well as of my correspondence with the Speaker, sent to the Speaker of the House of Commons, Members of both houses of Parliament, the Secretary of State for India, and to the Press in Great Britain and India as well as to the political organisations in your constituency.” This elicited a mischievous response from James. His letter to Syud of 17 June said, “Colonel Cuthbert James has received the letters to him by Syud Hossain and the 28th April and 15th June, and notes their contents. He suggests that as Mr. Hossain proposes to publish his correspondence, he should send copies to his late employer, proprietor of the Allahabad Independent Pundit Motilal Mehru, [sic] with a view to confirmation.”
Syud too replied in the third person to James on 18 June. “Mr. Syud Hossain has received Lieut-Colonel James the further extension of time for which he appears to be indirectly asking. Lieut-Colonel James could have had all the ‘confirmation’ he professes to desire if he had had the courage the aftermath to repeat his libel outside the privilege of Parliament as was suggested six weeks ago. The course is still open to Lieut-Colonel James, if he finds it difficult to act as a gentleman by withdrawing and apologizing for his libel.”
Further correspondence was unavailable to determine if the issue had been satisfactorily concluded.
10
England and Khilafat Delegation
THE DELEGATION TO England (consisting of Mohamed Ali at the head of the deputation, Hasan Muhammad Hayat and Syud Hossain) set sail on the S.S. Hungaria (a ship owned by the Lloyd Triestino Co.) on 1 February 1920 for the three-week journey to Venice through Karachi, Aden, Suez, Port Said, and Brindisi. (Syed Sulaiman Nadvi, the fourth member, joined the delegation later in London). On their way from Venice to Paris they were held up at Laroche by the French railway strike, and it was with some difficulty that they reached Paris. They arrived in London to a cold day on 26 February, but without their baggage which had been misplaced enroute. Nonetheless, they went straight to Westminster to hear the debate on Constantinople in the House of Commons, on whether Turkey would continue to retain possession of the historic city. After their eventful journey, it was a welcome relief for the delegation to retire that night to the Curzon Hotel in Mayfair.1
The British government at this point was pre-occupied with the postwar re-organisation of states. WWI had come to an end on 11 November 1918, and the Central Powers (Bulgaria and the empires of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire) had been vanquished by the Allied powers (U.S.A., Britain, France, Italy, Russia, etc.). The peace conference in Paris had resulted in the signing of the Treaty of Versailles on 28 June 1919. Discussions however continued in Paris even after this date to decide, among other issues, the status of Ottoman territories like Constantinople and Palestine. The other major concern of the British government was to deal with the fallout of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre at Amritsar. The Hunter Committee that was appointed in October 1919 had england and khilafat delegation submitted its report on 8 March 1920, which was then placed before the Secretary of State for India for further deliberation by the British cabinet. The proceedings of the Hunter committee meetings were comprehensively covered by the British press as well as in India, the London-based newspaper of the British Committee of the Indian National Congress, edited at this time by Helena Normanton. Given the important role that India played in the life of Syud Hossain in England, its story is told in some detail in the next chapter.
Meanwhile, B.G. Horniman, after his deportation from Bombay and arrival in London, had been busy publicising the Punjab atrocities amongst the British public through interviews and articles. In historian Milton Israel’s words, “Although Horniman was supposed to be safely back in England, and no longer able to participate in Indian politics, his presence seemed hardly diminished. Over the next seven years he was the Editor across the water—filing stories regularly, acting as the Chronicle ’s London correspondent, publishing articles in India, and in the Catholic Herald, for subsequent reporting in the Chronicle .”2 Horniman sent his articles published in England through those traveling to India and had them published in the Bombay Chronicle . It was only in 1926 that Horniman was able to return to India and that too through a legal subterfuge, by first landing in Ceylon and then coming to India. The Daily Herald of 19 December 1919 carried a report of the Amritsar tragedy as well as a statement by Horniman of the circumstances leading to his deportation. He also published two books, The Agony of Amritsar and the Reign of Terror in the Punjab (with Helena Normanton in late 1919) as well as Amritsar and Our Duty to India in May 1920.3
The Hunter Report was debated extensively in the Houses of Parliament. The Jallianwala Bagh incident was perhaps the greatest blot on the British Empire anywhere during its reign. Even Winston Churchill, the epitome of die-hard imperialism, condemned the incident in the House of Commons debate as, “…the slaughter of nearly 400 persons and the wounding of probably three or four times as many, at the Jallianwala Bagh on 13 April… is an episode which appears to me to be without precedent or parallel in the modern history of the British Empire. It is an event of an entirely different order from any of those tragical occurrences which take place when troops are brought into collision with the civil population. It is an extraordinary event, a monstrous event, an event which stands in singular and sinister isolation.”4 A cynical view is that Churchill condemned Dyer and described the incident as being ‘singular’ to portray this as an aberration by an individual in an otherwise benevolent British imperialism. Nonetheless, there was a clear divide amongst the British public, the newspapers, and the two houses of Parliament on the culpability of Brigadier Dyer. The Morning Post went so far as to institute a fund collection to pay for Dyer’s legal expenses, and to ensure him a comfortable retirement.
