Opinion Rabindranath Tagore, not Congress, led the moral charge after Jallianwala Bagh
He stood with ordinary Indians in the grave crisis, while Congress dithered.
Tagore blamed the colonial administration for the massacre. He termed the British rule “one continued lie, one perpetual deceit. (Express file photo) 
-
Share -
-
-
Ankita Pandey in her article (‘Jallianwallah Bagh fact-check’, IE, April 14) has not mentioned all the facts to build a proper theoretical construct to analyse the horrors of the massacre at Jallianwala Bagh on April 13, 1919. She concentrates on the attempt of the Indian National Congress to appoint a committee to look into the facts of the incident ignoring the fact the constitution of this committee was a belated one. In the immediate aftermath, there was no protest from any of the nationalist leaders. The sole voice of protest was from Rabindranath Tagore.
On April 18, Gandhi withdrew the satyagraha against the Rowlatt Act, blaming his own countrymen rather than the British for the repression that was unleashed. His indictment of his own followers, appreciation of Montague and welcoming the Crown Prince’s visit to India, emboldened the British to be more openly defiant and repressive. Tagore had no immediate knowledge of the massacre. C F Andrews after consulting Tagore went to Delhi on April 17. Within a day or two, the news of Gandhi’s withdrawal of the movement appeared in the newspaper. Tagore blamed the colonial administration for the massacre. He termed the British rule “one continued lie, one perpetual deceit. And today in 1919 the last shred of pretence at equality is thrown away… in acts of flogging of Indians; in aeroplanes bombing helpless villagers and machine guns firing on crowds”. He also castigated the Congress leadership rather than the people and his earlier warning to Gandhi clearly reflected it. He reaffirmed his faith in Gandhi’s leadership and methods though he moved from Santiniketan to Kolkata and tried to organise a protest meeting against the massacre by sending Andrews to meet Gandhi.
P C Mahalanobis who was in constant touch with Tagore wrote about his agony when none protested at the carnage. Andrews conveyed to Tagore that Gandhi did not want to embarrass the government and on hearing this, Tagore became totally silent. He approached C R Das with a proposal to convene a protest meeting, which he would preside over. Since that did not materialise, Tagore decided to protest against the barbarism in his individual capacity. He showed the letter he had drafted to the Viceroy, Lord Chelmsford to Andrews who suggested softening the stance. Andrews noted that he had never seen Tagore as distressed as he was at that time. Tagore decided to renounce the title of knighthood and sent a letter dated May 31 to the Viceroy wherein he wrote: “The time has come when badges of honour make our shame glaring in their incongruous context of humiliation, and I for my part wish to stand, shorn of all special distinctions, by the side of those of my countrymen, who, for their so-called insignificance, are liable to suffer a degradation not fit for human being.”
It was the lone voice of protest but it stirred the nation as well as outside, true to his memorable song “ekla chalo re”. The Daily Herald observed that the poet was “not either pro-German or anti British but was a pointer that Indians would not renounce their rights for the sake of a title”. The Manchester Guardian, repeating the comments of the East Anglian Times wrote, that “if we do not act now then we are a disgraced people”. The nationalist press in India was critical of Tagore. The Anglo-Indian press and even the Viceroy.
Tagore as usual sent songs, three this time, to the 1919 Amritsar Congress session but he was unhappy with its proceedings. In a letter to Ramananda Chatterjee, the editor of The Modern Review, he pointed out that he expected a firmer united action plan from the Congress and Gandhi. He appreciated the efforts of Swami Shraddhananda, which failed as the Congress lacked both dignity and discipline. It was unfortunate that the Congress even did not mention Tagore’s renunciation of Knighthood but applauded the resignation of Sir Chettur Sankaran Nair from the Viceroy’s council. Even the issues of atrocities in Punjab were raised childishly.
Tagore’s heroic and singular act did not find mention in Pattabhi Sitaramayya’s The History of the Indian National Congress (1935). His renunciation was a principled one, not in any desire to be popular. He was courageous. He stood with the ordinary Indians in the moments of grave crisis.
(The writer retired as professor of political science in Delhi University)
-
Share
-
-
-
Share
