Freda Bedi Cont'd (#2)

[admin]

Part 1 of 2

Radcliffe Line
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 6/2/20


The regions affected by the extended Partition of India: green regions were all part of Pakistan by 1948, and orange part of India. The darker-shaded regions represent the Punjab and Bengal provinces partitioned by the Radcliffe Line. The grey areas represent some of the key princely states that were eventually integrated into India or Pakistan, but others which initially became independent are not shown.

The Radcliffe Line was the boundary demarcation line between the Indian and Pakistani portions of the Punjab and Bengal provinces of British India. It was named after its architect, Sir Cyril Radcliffe, who, as the joint chairman of the two boundary commissions for the two provinces, received the responsibility to equitably divide 175,000 square miles (450,000 km2) of territory with 88 million people.[1]

The demarcation line was published on 17 August 1947 upon the Partition of India. Today its western side still serves as the Indo-Pakistani border and the eastern side serves as the India-Bangladesh border.

Background

Events leading up to the Radcliffe Boundary Commissions

On 15 July 1947, the Indian Independence Act 1947 of the Parliament of the United Kingdom stipulated that British rule in India would come to an end just one month later, on 15 August 1947. The Act also stipulated the partition of the Presidencies and provinces of British India into two new sovereign dominions: India and Pakistan.

The Indian Independence Act, passed by the British parliament, abandoned the suzerainty of the British Crown over the princely states and dissolved the Indian Empire, and the rulers of the states were advised to accede to one of the new dominions.[2]

Pakistan was intended as a Muslim homeland, while India remained secular. Muslim-majority British provinces in the north were to become the foundation of Pakistan. The provinces of Baluchistan (91.8% Muslim before partition) and Sindh (72.7%) were granted entirely to Pakistan. However, two provinces did not have an overwhelming majority—Bengal in the north-east (54.4% Muslim) and the Punjab in the north-west (55.7% Muslim).[3] The western part of the Punjab became part of West Pakistan and the eastern part became the Indian state of East Punjab, which was later divided between a smaller Punjab State and two other states. Bengal was also partitioned, into East Bengal (in Pakistan) and West Bengal (in India). Before independence, the North-West Frontier Province (whose borders with Afghanistan had earlier been demarcated by the Durand Line) voted in a referendum to join Pakistan.[4] This controversial referendum was boycotted by Khudai Khidmatgars, the most popular Pashtun movement in the province at that time. The area is now a province in Pakistan called Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

The Punjab's population distribution was such that there was no line that could neatly divide Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs. Likewise, no line could appease the Muslim League, headed by Jinnah, and the Indian National Congress led by Jawaharlal Nehru and Vallabhbhai Patel, and by the British. Moreover, any division based on religious communities was sure to entail "cutting through road and rail communications, irrigation schemes, electric power systems and even individual landholdings."[5] However, a well-drawn line could minimize the separation of farmers from their fields, and also minimize the numbers of people who might feel forced to relocate.

As it turned out, on "the sub-continent as a whole, some 14 million people left their homes and set out by every means possible—by air, train, and road, in cars and lorries, in buses and bullock carts, but most of all on foot—to seek refuge with their own kind."[6] Many of them were slaughtered by an opposing side, some starved or died of exhaustion, while others were afflicted with "cholera, dysentery, and all those other diseases that afflict undernourished refugees everywhere".[7] Estimates of the number of people who died range between 200,000 (official British estimate at the time) and two million, with the consensus being around one million dead.[7]

Prior ideas of partition

The idea of partitioning the provinces of Bengal and Punjab had been present since the beginning of the 20th century. Bengal had in fact been partitioned by the then viceroy Lord Curzon in 1905, along with its adjoining regions. The resulting 'Eastern Bengal and Assam' province, with its capital at Dhaka, had a Muslim majority and the 'West Bengal' province, with its capital at Calcutta, had a Hindu majority. However, this partition of Bengal was reversed in 1911 in an effort to mollify Bengali nationalism.[8]

Proposals for partitioning Punjab had been made starting from 1908. Its proponents included the Hindu leader Bhai Parmanand, Congress leader Lala Lajpat Rai, industrialist G. D. Birla, and various Sikh leaders. After the Lahore resolution (1940) of the Muslim League demanding Pakistan, B. R. Ambedkar wrote a 400-page tract titled Thoughts on Pakistan,[9] wherein he discussed the boundaries of the Muslim and non-Muslim regions of Punjab and Bengal. His calculations showed a Muslim majority in 16 western districts of Punjab and non-Muslim majority in 13 eastern districts. In Bengal, he showed non-Muslim majority in 15 districts. He thought the Muslims could have no objection to redrawing provincial boundaries. If they did, "they [did] not understand the nature of their own demand".[10][11]


Districts of Punjab with Muslim (green) and non-Muslim (pink) majorities, as per 1941 census

After the breakdown of the 1945 Simla Conference of viceroy Lord Wavell, the idea of Pakistan began to be contemplated seriously. Sir Evan Jenkins, the private secretary of the viceroy (later the governor of Punjab), wrote a memorandum titled "Pakistan and the Punjab", where he discussed the issues surrounding the partition of Punjab. K. M. Panikkar, then prime minister of the Bikaner State, sent a memorandum to the viceroy titled "Next Step in India", wherein he recommended that the British government concede the principle of 'Muslim homeland' but carry out territorial adjustments to the Punjab and Bengal to meet the claims of the Hindus and Sikhs. Based on these discussions, the viceroy sent a note on "Pakistan theory" to the Secretary of State.[12] The viceroy informed the Secretary of State that Jinnah envisaged full provinces of Bengal and Punjab going to Pakistan with only minor adjustments, whereas Congress was expecting almost half of these provinces to remain in India. This essentially framed the problem of partition.[13]

The Secretary of State responded by directing Lord Wavell to send 'actual proposals for defining genuine Muslim areas'. The task fell on V. P. Menon, the Reforms Commissioner, and his colleague Sir B. N. Rau in the Reforms Office. They prepared a note called "Demarcation of Pakistan Areas", where they defined the western zone of Pakistan as consisting of Sindh, N.W.F.P., British Baluchistan and three western divisions of Punjab (Rawalpindi, Multan and Lahore). However, they noted that this allocation would leave 2.2 million Sikhs in the Pakistan area and about 1.5 million in India. Excluding the Amritsar and Gurdaspur districts of the Lahore Division from Pakistan would put a majority of Sikhs in India. (Amritsar had a non-Muslim majority and Gurdaspur a marginal Muslim majority.) To compensate for the exclusion of the Gurdaspur district, they included the entire Dinajpur district in the eastern zone of Pakistan, which similarly had a marginal Muslim majority. After receiving comments from John Thorne, member of the Executive Council in charge of Home affairs, Wavell forwarded the proposal to the Secretary of State. He justified the exclusion of the Amritsar district because of its sacredness to the Sikhs and that of Gurdaspur district because it had to go with Amritsar for 'geographical reasons'.[14][15][a] The Secretary of State commended the proposal and forwarded it to the India and Burma Committee, saying, "I do not think that any better division than the one the Viceroy proposes is likely to be found".[16]

Sikh concerns

While Master Tara Singh confused Rajagopalchari's offer with the Muslim League demand he could see that any division of Punjab would leave the Sikhs divided between Pakistan and Hindustan. He espoused the doctrine of self-reliance, opposed partition and called for independence on the grounds that no single religious community should control Punjab. Other Sikhs argued that just as Muslims feared Hindu domination the Sikhs also feared Muslim domination. Sikhs warned the British government that the morale of Sikh troops in the British Army would be affected if Pakistan was forced on them. Since Hindus seemed more concerned about the rest of India than Punjab, Master Tara Singh refused to ally with them and preferred to approach the British directly. Giani Kartar Singh drafted the scheme of a separate Sikh state if India was divided.[17]

During the Partition developments Jinnah offered Sikhs to live in Pakistan with safeguards for their rights. Sikhs refused because they opposed the concept of Pakistan and also because they were opposed to being a small minority within a Muslim majority. There are various reasons for the Sikh refusal to join Pakistan but one clear fact was that the Partition of Punjab left a deep impact on the Sikh psyche with many Sikh holy sites ending up in Pakistan.[18]

While the Congress had insisted for an India which was united and the Muslim League asked for a separate country, Dr. Vir Singh Bhatti distributed pamphlets for the creation of a separate Sikh state "Khalistan".[19] Sikh leaders who were unanimous in their opposition to Pakistan wanted a Sikh state to be created. Master Tara Singh wanted the right for an independent Khalistan to federate with either Hindustan or Pakistan. However, the Sikh state being proposed was for an area where no religion was in absolute majority.[20] Negotiations for the independent Sikh state had commenced at the end of World War II and the British initially agreed but the Sikhs withdrew this demand after pressure from Indian nationalists.[21] The proposals of the Cabinet Mission Plan had seriously jolted the Sikhs because while both the Congress and League could be satisfied the Sikhs saw nothing in it for themselves. as they would be subjected to a Muslim majority. Master Tara Singh protested this to Pethic-Lawrence on 5 May. By early September the Sikh leaders accepted both the long term and interim proposals despite their earlier rejection.[20] The Sikhs attached themselves to the Indian state with the promise of religious and cultural autonomy.[21]

Final negotiations


Pre-partition Punjab province

In March 1946, the British government sent a Cabinet Mission to India to find a solution to resolve the conflicting demands of Congress and the Muslim League. Congress agreed to allow Pakistan to be formed with 'genuine Muslim areas'. The Sikh leaders asked for a Sikh state with Ambala, Jalandher, Lahore Divisions with some districts from the Multan Division, which, however, did not meet the Cabinet delegates' agreement. In discussions with Jinnah, the Cabinet Mission offered either a 'smaller Pakistan' with all the Muslim-majority districts except Gurdaspur or a 'larger Pakistan' under the sovereignty of the Indian Union.[22] The Cabinet Mission came close to success with its proposal for an Indian Union under a federal scheme, but it fell apart in the end because of Nehru's opposition to a heavily decentralised India.[23][24]

Hindus and Sikhs in Punjab and Bengal clamoured for the division of these two provinces, arguing that if India could be divided along religious lines then so should these provinces because the Muslim majorities in both provinces were small.[25] The British agreed.[26][27] Scholar Akbar Ahmed says that the basic unit of administration in India was the province and not the district and that the district level division reduced the principle of partition to absurdity. According to Ahmed, such a division should have meant that Muslim estates in the United Provinces be separated and given to Pakistan.[28]

Sir Cripps remarked ″the Pakistan they are likely to get would be very different from what they wanted and it may not be worth their while.″[29] On 8 March the Congress passed a resolution to divide Punjab.[30]

In March 1947, Lord Mountbatten arrived in India as the next viceroy, with an explicit mandate to achieve transfer of power before June 1948. Within ten days, Mountbatten's staff had categorically stated that Congress had conceded the Pakistan demand except for the 13 eastern districts of Punjab (including Amritsar and Gurdaspur).[31]

However, Jinnah held out. Through a series of six meetings with Mountbatten, he continued to maintain that his demand was for six full provinces. He "bitterly complained" that the Viceroy was ruining his Pakistan by cutting Punjab and Bengal in half as this would mean a 'moth-eaten Pakistan'.[32][33][34]

The Gurdaspur district remained a key contentious issue for the non-Muslims. Their members of the Punjab legislature made representations to Mountbatten's chief of staff Lord Ismay as well as the Governor telling them that Gurdaspur was a "non-Muslim district". They contended that even if it had a marginal Muslim majority of 51%, which they believed to be erroneous, the Muslims paid only 35% of the land revenue in the district.[35]

In April, Governor Evan Jenkins wrote a note to Mountbatten proposing that Punjab be divided along Muslim and non-Muslim majority districts, but "adjustments could be made by agreement" regarding the tehsils (subdistricts) contiguous to these districts. He proposed that a Boundary Commission be set up consisting of two Muslim and two non-Muslim members recommended by the Punjab Legislative Assembly. He also proposed that a British judge of the High Court be appointed as the chairman of the Commission.[36] Jinnah and the Muslim League continued to oppose the idea of partitioning the provinces, and the Sikhs were disturbed about the possibility of getting only 12 districts (without Gurdaspur). In this context the Partition Plan of 3 June was announced with a notional partition showing 17 districts of Punjab in Pakistan and 12 districts in India, along with the establishment of a Boundary Commission to decide the final boundary. In Sialkoti's view, this was done mainly to placate the Sikhs.[37]

Mountbatten decided to threaten Jinnah by drawing a line less favourable to Muslims and more favourable to Sikhs if he did not agree to partitioning Punjab and Bengal.[38] However, Lord Ismay prevailed that he should use 'hurt feelings' rather than threats to persuade Jinnah for partition. They ultimately succeeded.[39] On 2 June Jinnah once again approached Mountbatten to plead for the unity of Punjab and Bengal but Mountbatten threatened that ' 'You will lose Pakistan probably for good.' '[28]

Process and key people

A crude border had already been drawn up by Lord Wavell, the Viceroy of India prior to his replacement as Viceroy, in February 1947, by Lord Louis Mountbatten. In order to determine exactly which territories to assign to each country, in June 1947, Britain appointed Sir Cyril Radcliffe to chair two Boundary Commissions—one for Bengal and one for Punjab.[40]

The Commission was instructed to "demarcate the boundaries of the two parts of the Punjab on the basis of ascertaining the contiguous majority areas of Muslims and non-Muslims. In doing so, it will also take into account other factors."[41] Other factors were undefined, giving Radcliffe leeway, but included decisions regarding "natural boundaries, communications, watercourses and irrigation systems", as well as socio-political consideration.[42] Each commission also had 4 representatives—2 from the Indian National Congress and 2 from the Muslim League. Given the deadlock between the interests of the two sides and their rancorous relationship, the final decision was essentially Radcliffe's.

After arriving in India on 8 July 1947, Radcliffe was given just five weeks to decide on a border.[40] He soon met with his fellow college alumnus Mountbatten and travelled to Lahore and Calcutta to meet with commission members, chiefly Nehru from the Congress and Jinnah, president of the Muslim League.[43] He objected to the short time frame, but all parties were insistent that the line be finished by 15 August British withdrawal from India. Mountbatten had accepted the post as Viceroy on the condition of an early deadline.[44] The decision was completed just a couple of days before the withdrawal, but due to political manoeuvring, not published until 17 August 1947, two days after the grant of independence to India and Pakistan.[40]

Members of the Commissions

Each boundary commission consisted of 5 people – a chairman (Radcliffe), 2 members nominated by the Indian National Congress and 2 members nominated by the Muslim League.[45]

The Bengal Boundary Commission consisted of Justices C. C. Biswas, B. K. Mukherji, Abu Saleh Mohamed Akram and S.A.Rahman.[46]

The members of the Punjab Commission were Justices Mehr Chand Mahajan, Teja Singh, Din Mohamed and Muhammad Munir.[46]

Problems in the process

Boundary-making procedures


The Punjabi section of the Radcliffe Line

All lawyers by profession, Radcliffe and the other commissioners had all of the polish and none of the specialized knowledge needed for the task. They had no advisers to inform them of the well-established procedures and information needed to draw a boundary. Nor was there time to gather the survey and regional information. The absence of some experts and advisers, such as the United Nations, was deliberate, to avoid delay.[47] Britain's new Labour government "deep in wartime debt, simply couldn’t afford to hold on to its increasingly unstable empire."[48] "The absence of outside participants—for example, from the United Nations—also satisfied the British Government's urgent desire to save face by avoiding the appearance that it required outside help to govern—or stop governing—its own empire."[49]

Political representation

The equal representation given to politicians from Indian National Congress and the Muslim League appeared to provide balance, but instead created deadlock. The relationships were so tendentious that the judges "could hardly bear to speak to each other", and the agendas so at odds that there seemed to be little point anyway. Even worse, "the wife and two children of the Sikh judge in Lahore had been murdered by Muslims in Rawalpindi a few weeks earlier."[50]

In fact, minimizing the numbers of Hindus and Muslims on the wrong side of the line was not the only concern to balance. The Punjab Border Commission was to draw a border through the middle of an area home to the Sikh community.[51] Lord Islay was rueful for the British not to give more consideration to the community who, in his words, had "provided many thousands of splendid recruits for the Indian Army" in its service for the crown in World War I.[52] However, the Sikhs were militant in their opposition to any solution which would put their community in a Muslim ruled state. Moreover, many insisted on their own sovereign state, something no one else would agree to.[53]

Last of all, were the communities without any representation. The Bengal Border Commission representatives were chiefly concerned with the question of who would get Calcutta. The Buddhist tribes in the Chittagong Hill Tracts in Bengal had no official representation and were left totally without information to prepare for their situation until two days after the partition.[54]

Perceiving the situation as intractable and urgent, Radcliffe went on to make all the difficult decisions himself. This was impossible from inception, but Radcliffe seems to have had no doubt in himself and raised no official complaint or proposal to change the circumstances.[1]

Local knowledge

Before his appointment, Radcliffe had never visited India and knew no one there. To the British and the feuding politicians alike, this neutrality was looked upon as an asset; he was considered to be unbiased toward any of the parties, except of course Britain.[1] Only his private secretary, Christopher Beaumont, was familiar with the administration and life in the Punjab. Wanting to preserve the appearance of impartiality, Radcliffe also kept his distance from Viceroy Mountbatten.[5]

No amount of knowledge could produce a line that would completely avoid conflict; already, "sectarian riots in Punjab and Bengal dimmed hopes for a quick and dignified British withdrawal".[55] "Many of the seeds of postcolonial disorder in South Asia were sown much earlier, in a century and half of direct and indirect British control of large part of the region, but, as book after book has demonstrated, nothing in the complex tragedy of partition was inevitable."[56]

Haste and indifference

Radcliffe justified the casual division with the truism that no matter what he did, people would suffer. The thinking behind this justification may never be known since Radcliffe "destroyed all his papers before he left India".[57] He departed on Independence Day itself, before even the boundary awards were distributed. By his own admission, Radcliffe was heavily influenced by his lack of fitness for the Indian climate and his eagerness to depart India.[58]

The implementation was no less hasty than the process of drawing the border. On 16 August 1947 at 5:00 pm, the Indian and Pakistani representatives were given two hours to study copies, before the Radcliffe award was published on 17 August.[59]

Secrecy

To avoid disputes and delays, the division was done in secret. The final Awards were ready on 9 and 12 August, but not published until two days after the partition.

According to Read and Fisher, there is some circumstantial evidence that Nehru and Patel were secretly informed of the Punjab Award's contents on 9 or 10 August, either through Mountbatten or Radcliffe's Indian assistant secretary.[60] Regardless of how it transpired, the award was changed to put a salient east of the Sutlej canal within India's domain instead of Pakistan's. This area consisted of two Muslim-majority tehsils with a combined population of over half a million. There were two apparent reasons for the switch: the area housed an army arms depot, and contained the headwaters of a canal which irrigated the princely state of Bikaner, which would accede to India.[citation needed]

Implementation

After the partition, the fledgling governments of India and Pakistan were left with all responsibility to implement the border. After visiting Lahore in August, Viceroy Mountbatten hastily arranged a Punjab Boundary Force to keep the peace around Lahore, but 50,000 men was not enough to prevent thousands of killings, 77% of which were in the rural areas. Given the size of the territory, the force amounted to less than one soldier per square mile. This was not enough to protect the cities much less the caravans of the hundreds of thousands of refugees who were fleeing their homes in what would become Pakistan.[61]

Both India and Pakistan were loath to violate the agreement by supporting the rebellions of villages drawn on the wrong side of the border, as this could prompt a loss of face on the international stage and require the British or the UN to intervene. Border conflicts led to three wars, in 1947, 1965, and 1971, and the Kargil conflict of 1999.

Disputes along the Radcliffe Line

There were disputes regarding the Radcliffe Line's award of the Chittagong Hill Tracts and the Gurdaspur district. Disputes also evolved around the districts of Malda, Khulna, and Murshidabad in Bengal and the sub-division of Karimganj of Assam.

In addition to Gurdaspur's Muslim majority tehsils, Radcliffe also gave the Muslim majority tehsils of Ajnala (Amritsar District), Zira, Ferozpur (in Ferozpur District), Nakodar and Jullander (in Jullander District) to India instead of Pakistan.[62]

Punjab

Lahore

Lahore having Muslims in majority with about 64.5% percent but Hindus and Sikhs controlled approximately 80% of city's assets,[63] Radcliffe had originally planned to give Lahore to India.[64][65][66] When speaking with journalist Kuldip Nayar, he stated "I nearly gave you Lahore. ... But then I realised that Pakistan would not have any large city. I had already earmarked Calcutta for India."[64][65] When Sir Cyril Radcliffe was told that “the Muslims in Pakistan have a grievance that [he] favoured India”, he replied, “they should be thankful to me because I went out of the way to give them Lahore which deserved to go to India.”[65] But in actually it's only an argument because according to Independence Act, partition was based on majority of population not on assets.[67][need quotation to verify]

Ferozpur District

Indian historians now accept that Mountbatten probably did influence the Ferozpur award in India's favour.[68]

[admin]

Part 2 of 2

Gurdaspur District

Under British control, the Gurdaspur district was the northernmost district of the Punjab Province. The district itself was administratively subdivided into four tehsils: Shakargarh and Pathankot tehsils to the north, and Gurdaspur and Batala tehsils to the south. Of the four, only the Shakargarh tehsil, which was separated from the rest of the district by the Ravi river, was awarded to Pakistan. (It was subsequently merged into the Narowal district of West Punjab.[69]) The Gurdaspur, Batala and Pathankot tehsils became part of India's East Punjab state. The division of the district was followed by a population transfer between the two nations, with Muslims leaving for Pakistan and Hindus and Sikhs leaving for India.

The entire district of Gurdaspur had a bare majority of 50.2% Muslims.[70] (In the `notional' award attached to the Indian Independence Act, all of Gurdaspur district was marked as Pakistan with 51.14% Muslim majority.[71] In the 1901 census, the population of Gurdaspur district was 49% Muslim, 40% Hindu, and 10% Sikh.[72]) The Pathankot tehsil was predominantly Hindu while the other three tehsils were Muslim majority.[73] In the event, only Shakargarh was awarded to Pakistan.

Radcliffe explained that the reason for deviating from the notional award in case of Gurdaspur was that the headwaters of the canals that irrigated the Amritsar district lay in the Gurdaspur district and it was important to keep them under one administration.[71] Lord Wavell had stated in February 1946 that Gurdaspur had to go with the Amritsar district, and the latter could not be in Pakistan due to its Sikh religious shrines.[71] In addition, the railway line from Amritsar to Pathankot passed through the Batala and Gurdaspur tehsils.[74]

Pakistanis have alleged that the award of the three tehsils to India was a manipulation of the Award by Lord Mountbatten in an effort to provide a land route for India to Jammu and Kashmir.[70] However, Shereen Ilahi points out that the land route to Kashmir was entirely within the Pathankot tehsil, which had a Hindu majority. The award of the Batala and Gurdaspur tehsils to India did not affect Kashmir.[75]

Pakistani View on the Award of Gurdaspur to India

Pakistan maintains that the Radcliffe Award was altered by Mountbatten; Gurdaspur was handed over to India and thus was manipulated the accession of Kashmir to India.[76][failed verification] In support of this view, some scholars claim the award to India "had little to do with Sikh demands but had much more to do with providing India a road link to Jammu and Kashmir."[77]

As per the `notional' award that had already been put into effect for purposes of administration ad interim, all of Gurdaspur district, owing to its Muslim majority, was assigned to Pakistan.[78] From 14 to 17 August, Mushtaq Ahmed Cheema acted as the Deputy Commissioner of the Gurdaspur District, but when, after a delay of two days, it was announced that the major portion of the district had been awarded to India instead of Pakistan, Cheema left for Pakistan.[79] The major part of Gurdaspur district, i.e. three of the four sub-districts and a small part of the fourth, had been handed over to India giving India practical land access to Kashmir, thus making the Indian intervention in Kashmir possible.[80] It came as a great blow to Pakistan. Jinnah and other leaders of Pakistan, and particularly its officials, criticized the Award as ‘extremely unjust and unfair’.[81][need quotation to verify]

Muhammad Zafarullah Khan, who represented the Muslim League in July 1947 before the Radcliffe Boundary Commission, stated that the Boundary Commission was a farce. A secret deal between Mountbatten and Congress leaders had already been struck.[82] Mehr Chand Mahajan, one of the two Non Muslim members of the Boundary Commission, in his autobiography, has acknowledged that when he was selected for the boundary commission, he was not inclined to accept the invitation as he believed that the commission was just a farce and that decisions were actually to be taken by Mountbatten himself.[83] It was only under British pressure that the charges against Mountbatten of last minute alterations in the Radcliffe Award were not officially brought forward by Pakistani Government in the UN Security Council while presenting its case on Kashmir.[84]

Zafrullah Khan states that, in actual fact, adopting the tehsil as a unit would have given Pakistan the Ferozepur and Zira tehsils of the Ferozpur District, the Jullundur and Rahon tehsils of Jullundur district and the Dasuya tehsil of the Hoshiarpur district. The line so drawn would also give Pakistan the State of Kapurthala (which had a Muslim majority) and would enclose within Pakistan the whole of the Amritsar district of which only one tehsil, Ajnala, had a Muslim majority. It would also give Pakistan the Shakargarh, Batala and Gurdaspur tehsils of the Gurdaspur district. If the boundary went by Doabs, Pakistan could get not only the 16 districts which had already under the notional partition been put into West Punjab, including the Gurdaspur District, but also get the Kangra District in the mountains, to the north and east of Gurdaspur. Or one could go by Commissioners' divisions. Any of these units being adopted would have been more favourable to Pakistan than the present boundary line. The tehsil was the most favourable unit.[78] But all of the aforementioned Muslim majority tehsils, with the exception of Shakargarh, were handed over to India while Pakistan didn't receive any Non-Muslim majority district or tehsil in Punjab.[62] Zafruallh Khan states that Radcliffe used district, tehsil, thana, and even village boundaries to divide Punjab in such a way that the boundary line was drawn much to the prejudice of Pakistan.[78]

According to Zafrullah Khan, the assertion that the award of the Batala and Gurdaspur tehsils to India did not 'affect' Kashmir is far-fetched. If Batala and Gurdaspur had gone to Pakistan, Pathankot tehsil would have been isolated and blocked. Even though it would have been possible for India to get access to Pathankot through the Hoshiarpur district, it would have taken quite long time to construct the roads, bridges and communications that would have been necessary for military movements.[80]

Assessments on the 'Controversial Award of Gurdaspur to India and the Kashmir Dispute'

Stanley Wolpert writes that Radcliffe in his initial maps awarded Gurdaspur district to Pakistan but one of Nehru’s and Mountbatten’s greatest concerns over the new Punjab border was to make sure that Gurdaspur would not go to Pakistan, since that would have deprived India of direct road access to Kashmir.[85] As per "The Different Aspects of Islamic Culture", a part of UNESCO’s Histories flagship project, recently disclosed documents of the history of the partition reveal British complicity with the top Indian leadership to wrest Kashmir from Pakistan. Alastair Lamb, based on the study of recently declassified documents, has convincingly proven that Mountbatten, in league with Nehru, was instrumental in pressurizing Radcliffe to award the Muslim-majority district of Gurdaspur in East Punjab to India which could provide India with the only possible access to Kashmir.[86] Andrew Roberts believes that Mountbatten cheated over India-Pak frontier[87] and states that if gerrymandering took place in the case of Ferozepur, it is not too hard to believe that Mountbatten also pressurized Radcliffe to ensure that Gurdaspur wound up in India to give India road access to Kashmir.[88][89][90]

Perry Anderson states that Mountbatten, who was officially supposed to neither exercise any influence on Radcliffe nor to have any knowledge of his findings, intervened behind the scenes – probably at Nehru’s behest – to alter the award. He had little difficulty in getting Radcliffe to change his boundaries to allot the Muslim-majority district of Gurdaspur to India instead of Pakistan, thus giving India the only road access from Delhi to Kashmir.[91]

However, some British works suggest that the 'Kashmir State was not in anybody's mind'[92] when the Award was being drawn and that even the Pakistanis themselves had not realized the importance of Gurdaspur to Kashmir until the Indian forces actually entered Kashmir.[93] Both Mountbatten and Radcliffe, of course, have strongly denied those charges. It is impossible to accurately quantify the personal responsibility for the tragedy of Kashmir as the Mountbatten papers relating to the issue at the India Office Library and records are closed to scholars for an indefinite period.[94]

Bengal

Chittagong Hill Tracts

Chittagong Hill Tracts had a majority non-Muslim population of 97% (most of them Buddhists), but was given to Pakistan. The Chittagong Hill Tracts People's Association (CHTPA) petitioned the Bengal Boundary Commission that, since the CHTs were inhabited largely by non-Muslims, they should remain within India. Since they had no official representation, there was no official discussion on the matter, and many on the Indian side assumed the CHT would be awarded to India.

On 15 August 1947, many of the tribes did not know to which side of the border they belonged. On 17 August, the publication of the Radcliffe Award put the CHTs in Pakistan. The rationale of giving the Chittagong Hill Tracts to Pakistan was that they were inaccessible to India and to provide a substantial rural buffer to support Chittagong (now in Bangladesh), a major city and port; advocates for Pakistan forcefully argued to the Bengal Boundary Commission that the only approach was through Chittagong.

Two days later, the CHTPA resolved not to abide by the award and hoisted the Indian flag. The Pakistani army dealt with the protest but its polemic somewhat remains with some of its non-Muslim majority arguing for its secession.[95]

Malda District

Another disputed decision made by Radcliffe was division of the Malda district of Bengal. The district overall had a slight Muslim majority, but was divided and most of it, including Malda town, went to India. The district remained under East Pakistan administration for 3–4 days after 15 August 1947. It was only when the award was made public that the Pakistani flag was replaced by the Indian flag in Malda.

Khulna and Murshidabad Districts

The Khulna District with a marginal Hindu majority of 51% was given to East Pakistan in lieu of the Murshidabad district with a 70% Muslim majority, which went to India. However, Pakistani flag remained hoisted in Murshidabad for three days until it was replaced by Indian flag on the afternoon of 17 August 1947.[96]

Karimganj

Sylhet district of Assam joined Pakistan in accordance with a referendum.[97] However, the Karimganj sub-division with a Muslim majority was severed from Sylhet and given to India which became a district in 1983. As of the 2001 Indian Census, Karimganj district now has a Muslim majority of 52.3%.[98]

Legacy

The Partition of India is one of the central events in the collective memory in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. As a crucial determiner in the outcomes of the partition, the Radcliffe Line and award process has been referred to in many films, books, and other artistic depictions of the partition of India. Apart from the larger story of the partition, the specific commemoration of the award itself or the recounting of the story of the process and the people involved in it has been comparatively rare.

Legacy and historiography

As a part of a series on borders, the explanatory news site Vox (website) featured an episode looking at "the ways that the Radcliffe line changed Punjab, and its everlasting effects" including disrupting "a centuries-old Sikh pilgrimage" and separating "Punjabi people of all faiths from each other" following from an earlier episode on [99][100]

Artistic depictions of the Radcliffe Line

One notable depiction is Drawing the Line, written by British playwright Howard Brenton. On his motivation to write Drawing the Line, playwright Howard Brenton said he first became interested in the story of the Radcliffe Line while vacationing in India and hearing stories from people whose families had fled across the new line.[101] Defending his portrayal of Cyril Radcliffe as a man who struggled with his conscience, Brenton said, "There were clues that Radcliffe had a dark night of the soul in the bungalow: he refused to accept his fee, he did collect all the papers and draft maps, took them home to England and burnt them. And he refused to say a word, even to his family, about what happened. My playwright's brain went into overdrive when I discovered these details."[101]

Indian filmmaker Ram Madhvani created a nine-minute short film where he explored the plausible scenario of Radcliffe regretting the line he drew. The film was inspired by WH Auden’s poem on the Partition.[102][103]

See also

• Curzon line
• Indo-Bangladesh enclaves
• McMahon Line
• Durand Line
• Rajkahini

Notes

1. Schofield, Kashmir in Conflict (2003, p. 35): Wavell, however, had made a more significant political judgement in his plan, submitted to the secretary of state, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, in February 1946: 'Gurdaspur must go with Amritsar for geographical reasons and Amritsar being sacred city of Sikhs must stay out of Pakistan... Fact that much of Lahore district is irrigated from upper Bari Doab canal with headworks in Gurdaspur district is awkward but there is no solution that avoids all such difficulties.'

References

1. Read & Fisher, The Proudest Day 1998, p. 482
2. Ishtiaq Ahmed, State, Nation and Ethnicity in Contemporary South Asia (London & New York, 1998), p. 99: "On 15 August 1947 India achieved independence... The several hundred princely states which came within Indian territory could in principle remain independent but were advised by both the British government and the Congress Party to join India."
3. Smitha, Independence section, para. 7.
4. See North-West Frontier Province and "North-West Frontier Province" Archived 4 June 2011 at the Wayback Machinefrom the Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, 2008, at Encyclopedia.com, accessed 10 September 2009
5. Read & Fisher, The Proudest Day 1998, p. 483
6. Read & Fisher, The Proudest Day 1998, p. 497: "Ten million of them were in the central Punjab. In an area measuring about 200 miles (320 km) by 150 miles (240 km), roughly the size of Scotland, with some 17,000 towns and villages, five million Muslims were trekking from east to west, and five million Hindus and Sikhs trekking in the opposite direction. Many of them never made it to their destinations."
7. Read & Fisher, The Proudest Day 1998, p. 499
8. Tan & Kudaisya 2000, p. 162–163.
9. Ambedkar, Bhimrao Ramji (1941) [first published 1940], Thoughts on Pakistan, Bombay: Thacker and company
10. Sialkoti, Punjab Boundary Line Issue 2014, p. 73–76.
11. Dhulipala, Creating a New Medina 2015, pp. 124, 134, 142–144, 149: "Thoughts on Pakistan 'rocked Indian politics for a decade'."
12. Sialkoti, Punjab Boundary Line Issue 2014, p. 82.
13. Sialkoti, Punjab Boundary Line Issue 2014, p. 84–85.
14. Sialkoti, Punjab Boundary Line Issue 2014, p. 85–86.
15. Datta, The Punjab Boundary Commission Award 1998, p. 858.
16. Sialkoti, Punjab Boundary Line Issue 2014, p. 86.
17. Self and Sovereignty: Individual and Community in South Asian Islam Since 1850, Ayesha Jalal, pages 433-434
18. The Politics if Religion in South and Southeast Asia, Tridivesh Singh Maini, page 70
19. War and Religion: An Encyclopedia of Faith and Conflict [3 Volumes], Jeffrey M Shaw, Timothy J Demmy, page 375
20. The Sikhs of the Punjab, Volumes 2-3 , J S Grewal, page 176
21. Ethnic Group's of South Asia and the Pacific: An Encyclopedia, James Minahan, page 292
22. Sialkoti, An Analytical Study of the Punjab Boundary Line Issue 2014, pp. 87–89.
23. Metcalf, Barbara D.; Metcalf, Thomas R. (2012), A Concise History of Modern India (Third ed.), Cambridge University Press, pp. 216–217, ISBN 978-1-139-53705-6, archived from the original on 30 July 2018, retrieved 29 July 2018: "...the Congress leadership, above all Jawaharlal Nehru,... increasingly came to the conclusion that, under the Cabinet mission proposals, the centre would be too weak to achieve the goals of the Congress..."
24. Jalal, Ayesha (1994) [first published 1985], The Sole Spokesman: Jinnah, the Muslim League and the Demand for Pakistan, Cambridge University Press, pp. 209–210, ISBN 978-0-521-45850-4: "Just when Jinnah was beginning to turn in the direction that he both wanted and needed to go, his own followers pressed him to stick rigidly to his earlier unbending stance which he had adopted while he was preparing for the time of bargaining in earnest."
25. Sialkoti, An Analytical Study of the Punjab Boundary Line Issue 2014, pp. 91.
26. Copland, Ian (2002). "he Master and the Maharajas: The Sikh Princes and the East Punjab Massacres of 1947". Modern Asian Studies. 36 (3): 657–704. doi:10.1017/s0026749x02003050. But in accepting the 'logic' of the League's two-nation theory, the British applied it remorselessly. They insisted that partition would have to follow the lines of religious affiliation, not the boundaries of provinces. In 1947 League president Muhammad Ali Jinnah was forced to accept what he had contemptuously dismissed in 1944 as a 'moth eaten' Pakistan, a Pakistan bereft of something like half of Bengal and the Punjab.
27. Liaquat Ali Khan (2004). Roger D. Long (ed.). "Dear Mr. Jinnah": Selected Correspondence and Speeches of Liaquat Ali Khan, 1937-1947. Oxford University Press. p. 286. ISBN 978-0-19-597709-7. Mountbatten, along with the Congress, thought that faced with the partition of these two provinces, Jinnah would back down and accept the union of India. They had, once again, vastly misjudged and underestimated Jinnah and the League. Mountbatten was becoming increasingly aggravated that he could not manipulate Jinnah. After some half a dozen meetings with Jinnah in the space of one week, Mountbatten became totally frustrated with him.
28. Akbar Ahmed (12 August 2005). Jinnah, Pakistan and Islamic Identity: The Search for Saladin. Routledge. pp. 203–. ISBN 978-1-134-75022-1.
29. Sialkoti, An Analytical Study of the Punjab Boundary Line Issue 2014, pp. 92.
30. Moore, Robin James. "Mountbatten, India, and the Commonwealth". Journal of Commonwealth & Comparative Politics. 19 (1): 35–36. doi:10.1080/14662048108447372. Though as late as March Cripps and Mountbatten still hoped for the acceptance of Plan Union, Jinnah had already dismissed all alternatives to Pakistan and Congress had acquiesced in the principle of partition.
31. Sialkoti, An Analytical Study of the Punjab Boundary Line Issue 2014, pp. 94–95.
32. Sialkoti, An Analytical Study of the Punjab Boundary Line Issue 2014, pp. 95–96.
33. Fraser, T. G. (1984). Partition In Ireland India And Palestine: Theory And Practice. Palgrave Macmillan UK. p. 123. ISBN 978-1-349-17610-6. Archived from the original on 30 July 2018. Retrieved 7 May 2018.
34. Moore, Robin James. "Mountbatten, India, and the Commonwealth". Journal of Commonwealth & Comparative Politics. 19 (1): 4–53. Though Mountbatten thought the concept of Pakistan 'sheer madness', he became reconciled to it in the course of six interviews with Jinnah from 5 to 10 April. Jinnah, whom he described as a 'psychopathic case', remained obdurate in the face of his insistence that Pakistan involved the partition of Bengal and the Punjab.
35. Sialkoti, An Analytical Study of the Punjab Boundary Line Issue 2014, pp. 98–99.
36. Sialkoti, An Analytical Study of the Punjab Boundary Line Issue 2014, pp. 97–98.
37. Sialkoti, An Analytical Study of the Punjab Boundary Line Issue 2014, pp. 108–109.
38. Moore, Robin James. "Mountbatten, India, and the Commonwealth". Journal of Commonwealth & Comparative Politics. 19 (1): 35–36. doi:10.1080/14662048108447372. The 22 May meeting settled the strategy for dealing with Jinnah if he rejected Plan Partition, for he was now virulent against the partition of Bengal and Punjab and claiming a land corridor to connect the eastern and western arms of his Pakistan. Mountbatten proposed to frighten him by a policy of isolation: power should be transferred to an Indian Dominion and 'an independent Government outside the Commonwealth for the Muslim majority areas'.134 Having used Jinnah's initial request for dominionhood to manoeuvre Congress towards the Commonwealth, he would now use the same strategy against the League. The Committee, however, adopted Listowel's proposal that in any event power should be transferred to a Pakistan Dominion, which might secede at once if it wished. It also accepted that Jinnah might be told that 'the consequence of refusal would be a settlement less favourable . . . than that contained in the announcement', for example a settlement more favourable to the Sikhs.
39. Sialkoti, An Analytical Study of the Punjab Boundary Line Issue 2014, pp. 107.
40. Frank Jacobs (3 July 2012). "Peacocks at Sunset". Opinionator: Borderlines. The New York Times. Archived from the original on 14 July 2012. Retrieved 15 July 2012.
41. Mansergy
42. Read & Fisher, The Proudest Day 1998, p. 483
43. Read & Fisher, The Proudest Day 1998, pp. 482–483
44. Read & Fisher, The Proudest Day 1998, p. 418: "He wrote to then Prime Minister Clement Attlee, "It makes all the difference to me to know that you propose to make a statement in the House, terminating the British 'Raj' on a definite and specified date; or earlier than this date, if the Indian Parties can agree a constitution and form a Government before this.""
45. "Minutes of the award meeting : Held on 16 August 1947". Archived from the original on 22 November 2014. Retrieved 11 December 2013.
46. Chester, Lucy (2009). Borders and Conflicts in South Asia: The Radcliffe Boundary Commission and the Partition of Punjab. Manchester: Manchester university Press. ISBN 9780719078996.
47. Read & Fisher, The Proudest Day 1998, p. 482: "After the obligatory wrangles, with Jinnah playing for time by suggesting calling in the United Nations, which could have delayed things for months if not years, it was decided to set up two boundary commissions, each with an independent chairman and four High Court judges, two nominated by Congress and two by the League."
48. Mishra, Exit Wounds 2007, para. 19: "Irrevocably enfeebled by the Second World War, the British belatedly realized that they had to leave the subcontinent, which had spiraled out of their control through the nineteen-forties. ... But in the British elections at the end of the war, the reactionaries unexpectedly lost to the Labour Party, and a new era in British politics began. As von Tunzelmann writes, 'By 1946, the subcontinent was a mess, with British civil and military officers desperate to leave, and a growing hostility to their presence among Indians.' ... The British could not now rely on brute force without imperiling their own sense of legitimacy. Besides, however much they 'preferred the illusion of imperial might to the admission of imperial failure,' as von Tunzelmann puts it, the country, deep in wartime debt, simply couldn’t afford to hold on to its increasingly unstable empire. Imperial disengagement appeared not just inevitable but urgent."
49. Chester, The 1947 Partition 2002, "Boundary Commission Format and Procedure section", para. 5.
50. Read & Fisher, The Proudest Day 1998, 483,&nbsppara. 1
51. population?
52. Read & Fisher, The Proudest Day 1998, p. 485
53. Read & Fisher, The Proudest Day 1998, pp. 484–485: "After the 3 June 1947 plan had been announced, the main Sikh organization, the Shiromani Akali Dal, had distributed a circular saying that 'Pakistan means total death to the Sikh Panth [community] and the Sikhs are determined on a free sovereign state with the [rivers] Chenab and the Jamna as its borders, and it calls on all Sikhs to fight for their ideal under the flag of the Dal.'"
54. Read & Fisher, The Proudest Day 1998, p. 481
55. Mishra, Exit Wounds 2007, para. 4
56. Mishra, Exit Wounds 2007, para. 5
57. Chester, The 1947 Partition 2002, "Methodology", para. 1.
58. Read & Fisher, The Proudest Day 1998, p. 484: Years later, he told Leonard Mosley, "The heat is so appalling, that at noon it looks like the blackest night and feels like the mouth of hell. After a few days of it, I seriously began to wonder whether I would come out of it alive. I have thought ever since that the greatest achievement which I made as Chairman of the Boundary Commission was a physical one, in surviving."
59. Read & Fisher, The Proudest Day 1998, p. .494
60. Read & Fisher, The Proudest Day 1998, p. 490
61. Read & Fisher, The Proudest Day 1998, pp. 487–488
62. Pervaiz I Cheema; Manuel Riemer (22 August 1990). Pakistan's Defence Policy 1947–58. Palgrave Macmillan UK. pp. 27–. ISBN 978-1-349-20942-2. Archived from the original on 30 July 2018. Retrieved 29 June 2017.
63. Ahmed, Ishtiaq. "The battle for Lahore and Amritsar". apnaorg.com. Retrieved 19 March 2019.
64. Dabas, Maninder (17 August 2017). "Here's How Radcliffe Line Was Drawn On This Day And Lahore Could Not Become A Part Of India". The Times of India.
65. Kuldip Nayar (24 August 2018). "'I nearly gave you Lahore': When Kuldip Nayar asked Cyril Radcliffe about deciding Indo-Pak border". Scroll.in. Scroll.in.
66. Kaul, Pyarelal (1991). Crisis in Kashmir. Suman Publications. p. 42. Under Radcliffe Award, Lahore was to have gone to India and not to Pakistan. The Arbitrator Radcliffe, announced to the representatives of India and Pakistan that Lahore had fallen to the lot of India.
67. Hoshiar Singh, Pankaj Singh; Singh Hoshiar. Indian Administration. Pearson Education India. ISBN 978-81-317-6119-9. Retrieved 2 January 2013.
68. Owen Bennett Jones (2003). Pakistan: Eye of the Storm. Yale University Press. pp. 60–. ISBN 978-0-300-10147-8. Archived from the original on 30 July 2018. Retrieved 29 June 2017.
69. Narowal – Punjab Portal
70. Tan & Kudaisya 2000, p. 91.
71. Schofield, Kashmir in Conflict 2003, p. 35.
72. "Gurdāspur District – Imperial Gazetteer of India, v. 12, p. 395". Archived from the original on 8 April 2008. Retrieved 25 April 2008.
73. Schofield, Kashmir in Conflict 2003, p. 38.
74. Schofield, Kashmir in Conflict 2003, pp. 33–34.
75. Ilahi, Shereen (2003). "The Radcliffe Boundary Commission and the Fate of Kashmir". India Review. 2 (1): 77–102. doi:10.1080/714002326. ISSN 1473-6489.
76. Zaidi, Z. H. (2001), Pakistan Pangs of Birth, 15 August-30 September 1947, p. 379, ISBN 9789698156091, archived from the original on 28 July 2017, retrieved 20 July 2017
77. Ziring, Lawrence (1997), Pakistan in the Twentieth Century: A Political History, Karachi: Oxford University Press, p. 62, ISBN 978-0-19-577816-8
78. The Reminiscences of Sir Muhammad Zafrulla Khan by Columbia University, 2004, p. 155, archived from the original on 30 July 2018, retrieved 20 July 2017
79. "Gurdaspur – the dist that almost went to Pak". The Tribune India. 15 August 2015. Archived from the original on 26 July 2017. Retrieved 21 July 2017.
80. The Reminiscences of Sir Muhammad Zafrulla Khan by Columbia University, 2004, p. 158, archived from the original on 30 July 2018, retrieved 20 July 2017
81. Zaidi, Z. H. (2001), Pakistan Pangs of Birth, 15 August-30 September 1947, p. 380, ISBN 9789698156091, archived from the original on 28 July 2017, retrieved 20 July 2017
82. Muhammad Zafarullah Khan, Tahdith-i-Ni'mat, Pakistan Printing Press, 1982, p. 515
83. Mehr Chand Mahajan, Looking Back: The Autobiography Bombay, 1963, p. 113, archived from the original on 30 July 2018, retrieved 21 July 2017
84. Sohail, Massarat (1991), Partition and Anglo-Pakistan relations, 1947–51, Vanguard, p. 76–77, ISBN 9789694020570
85. Wolpert, Stanley (2009), Shameful Flight: The Last Years of the British Empire in India, Oxford University Press, USA, p. 167, ISBN 9780195393941, archived from the original on 25 September 2014, retrieved 18 September 2017
86. The Different Aspects of Islamic Culture (PDF), 2016, p. 355, archived (PDF) from the original on 11 August 2017, retrieved 9 May 2017
87. Author's Review, Eminent Churchillians
88. Andrew Roberts (16 December 2010). Eminent Churchillians. Orion. pp. 128–. ISBN 978-0-297-86527-8. Archived from the original on 30 July 2018. Retrieved 18 September 2017.
89. Robert, Andrew (1994), Eminent Chruchillians, archived from the original on 22 January 2011, retrieved 16 May 2007
90. Sher Muhammad Garewal, "Mountbatten and Kashmir Issue", Journal of Research Society of Pakistan, XXXIV (April 1997), pp.9–10
91. Anderson, Perry, Why Partition?, archived from the original on 21 July 2017, retrieved 20 July 2017
92. Hodson, H. V. (1969), The Great Divide: Britain, India, Pakistan, London: Hutchinson, p. 355
93. Tinker, Hugh (August 1977), "Pressure, Persuasion, Decision: Factors in the Partition of the Punjab, August 1947", Journal of Asian Studies, XXXVI (4): 701, JSTOR 2054436
94. Robert, Andrew (1994), Eminent Churchillians, p. 105
95. Balibar, Etienne. "Is there a "Neo-Racism"?". Calcutta Research group. Archived from the original on 28 September 2007. Retrieved 5 September 2007.
96. "Nawabs' Murshidabad House lies in tatters". The Times of India. Archived from the original on 5 January 2017. Retrieved 2 May 2016.
97. "Sylhet (Assam) to join East Pakistan". Keesing's Record of World Events. July 1947. p. 8722. Archived from the original on 4 December 2013. Retrieved 2 June 2014.
98. ORGI. "Census of India Website : Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner, India". Archived from the original on 14 May 2007.
99. Johnny Harris and Christina Thornell (26 June 2019). "How a border transformed a subcontinent: This line divided India and Pakistan". Retrieved 26 July 2019. A brief history of how the region was split in two.
100. Ranjani Chakraborty, Danush Parvaneh, and Christina Thornell (22 March 2019). "How the British failed India and Pakistan: The history of two neighbors born at war — and the British strategy behind it". Vox. The two nations were born at war — which can be traced back to this British strategy.
101. "Web Chat with Howard Brenton". Archived from the original on 1 July 2014. Retrieved 14 July 2014.
102. "This Bloody Line". Archived from the original on 30 July 2018. Retrieved 16 August 2017.
103. "Watch: This Bloody Line, Ram Madhvani's short film on India-Pak divide". Archived from the original on 3 August 2017. Retrieved 16 August 2017.

Bibliography

• Chester, Lucy (February 2002), "The 1947 Partition: Drawing the Indo-Pakistani Boundary", American Diplomacy
• Datta, V. N. (2002), "Lord Mountbatten and the Punjab Boundary Commission Award", in S. Settar; Indira B. Gupta (eds.), Pangs of Partition: The parting of ways, Manohar, pp. 13–39, ISBN 978-81-7304-306-2
o Datta, V. N. (1998), "The Punjab Boundary Commission Award (12 August, 1947)", Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, 59: 850–862, JSTOR 44147058
• Dhulipala, Venkat (2015), Creating a New Medina, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-1-107-05212-3
• Mansergh, Nicholas, ed. The Transfer of Power, 1942-7. (12 volumes)[full citation needed]
• Mishra, Pankaj (13 August 2007). "Exit Wounds". The New Yorker.
• Read, Anthony; Fisher, David (1998), The Proudest Day: India's Long Road to Independence, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, ISBN 9780393045949
• Schofield, Victoria (2003) [First published in 2000], Kashmir in Conflict, London and New York: I. B. Taurus & Co, ISBN 978-1860648984
• Sialkoti, Zulfiqar Ali (2014), "An Analytical Study of the Punjab Boundary Line Issue during the Last Two Decades of the British Raj until the Declaration of 3 June 1947" (PDF), Pakistan Journal of History and Culture, XXXV (2)
• Tan, Tai Yong; Kudaisya, Gyanesh (2000), The Aftermath of Partition in South Asia, Routledge, ISBN 978-1-134-44048-1

Further reading

• India: Volume XI: The Mountbatten Viceroyalty-Announcement and Reception of 3 June Plan, 31 May-7 July 1947. Reviewed by Wood, J.R. "Dividing the Jewel: Mountbatten and the Transfer of Power to India and Pakistan". Pacific Affairs, Vol. 58, No. 4 (Winter, 1985–1986), pp. 653–662. JSTOR
• Berg, E., and van Houtum, H. Routing borders between territories, discourses, and practices (p.128).
• Chester, Lucy P. Borders and Conflict in South Asia: The Radcliffe Boundary Commission and the Partition of Punjab. Manchester UP, 2009.
• Collins, L., and Lapierre, D. (1975) Freedom at Midnight.
• Collins, L., and Lapierre, D. Mountbatten and the Partition of India.
• Heward, E. The Great and the Good: A Life of Lord Radcliffe. Chichester: Barry Rose Publishers, 1994.
• Mishra, Pankaj (13 August 2007). "Exit Wounds". The New Yorker.
• Moon, P. The Transfer of Power, 1942-7: Constitutional Relations Between Britain and India: Volume X: The Mountbatten Viceroyalty-Formulation of a Plan, 22 March-30 May 1947. Review "Dividing the Jewel" at JSTOR
• Moon, Blake, D., and Ashton, S. The Transfer of Power, 1942-7: Constitutional Relations Between Britain and. Review "Dividing the Jewel" at JSTOR
• Smitha, F. The US and Britain in Asia, to 1960. MacroHistory website, 2001.
• Tunzelmann, A. Indian Summer. Henry Holt.
• Wolpert, S. (1989). A New History of India, 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Chopra, R. M., "The Punjab And Bengal", Punjabee Bradree, Calcutta, 1999.

Documentary Film and TV

• Johnny Harris and Christina Thornell (26 June 2019). How a border transformed a subcontinent: This line divided India and Pakistan. Vox Media. Retrieved 26 July 2019. A brief history of how the region was split in two.

External links

• Drawing the Indo-Pakistani border

[admin]

Part 1 of 2

Anushilan Samiti
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 6/3/20

-- The Indian “Alsatia”: Sovereignty, Extradition, and the Limits of Franco-British Colonial Policing [The Charu Chandra Roy Affair], by Mark Condos

-- The Maniktala secret society: An early Bengali terrorist group, by Peter Heehs

Anushilan Samiti
Motto: United India
Formation: 1902
Type: Secret Revolutionary Society
Purpose: Indian Independence
Location: Bengal

Anushilan Samiti (Ônushīlôn sômiti, lit: bodybuilding society) was a Bengali Indian organisation in the first quarter of the 20th century that supported revolutionary violence as the means for ending British rule in India. The organisation arose from a conglomeration of local youth groups and gyms (akhara) in Bengal in 1902. It had two prominent, somewhat independent, arms in East and West Bengal, Dhaka Anushilan Samiti (centred in Dhaka, modern day Bangladesh), and the Jugantar group (centred at Calcutta).

From its foundation to its dissolution during the 1930s, the Samiti challenged British rule in India by engaging in militant nationalism, including bombings, assassinations, and politically-motivated violence. The Samiti collaborated with other revolutionary organisations in India and abroad. It was led by the nationalists Aurobindo Ghosh and his brother Barindra Ghosh, and influenced by philosophies as diverse as Hindu Shakta philosophy, as set forth by Bengali authors Bankim and Vivekananda, Italian Nationalism, and the Pan-Asianism of Kakuzo Okakura. The Samiti was involved in a number of noted incidents of revolutionary attacks against British interests and administration in India, including early attempts to assassinate British Raj officials. These were followed by the 1912 attempt on the life of the Viceroy of India, and the Seditious conspiracy during World War I, led by Rash Behari Bose and Jatindranath Mukherjee respectively.

The organisation moved away from its philosophy of violence in the 1920s due to the influence of the Indian National Congress and the Gandhian non-violent movement. A section of the group, notably those associated with Sachindranath Sanyal, remained active in the revolutionary movement, founding the Hindustan Republican Association in north India. A number of Congress leaders from Bengal, especially Subhash Chandra Bose, were accused by the British Government of having links with the organisation during this time.

The Samiti's violent and radical philosophy revived in the 1930s, when it was involved in the Kakori conspiracy, the Chittagong armoury raid, and other actions against the administration in British-occupied India.

Shortly after its inception, the organisation became the focus of an extensive police and intelligence operation which led to the founding of the Special branch of the Calcutta Police. Notable officers who led the police and intelligence operations against the Samiti at various times included Sir Robert Nathan, Sir Harold Stuart, Sir Charles Stevenson-Moore and Sir Charles Tegart. The threat posed by the activities of the Samiti in Bengal during World War I, along with the threat of a Ghadarite uprising in Punjab, led to the passage of Defence of India Act 1915. These measures enabled the arrest, internment, transportation and execution of a number of revolutionaries linked to the organisation, which crushed the East Bengal Branch. In the aftermath of the war, the Rowlatt committee recommended extending the Defence of India Act (as the Rowlatt Act) to thwart any possible revival of the Samiti in Bengal and the Ghadarite movement in Punjab. After the war, the activities of the party led to the implementation of the Bengal Criminal Law Amendment in the early 1920s, which reinstated the powers of incarceration and detention from the Defence of India Act. However, the Anushilan Samiti gradually disseminated into the Gandhian movement. Some of its members left for the Indian National Congress then led by Subhas Chandra Bose, while others identified more closely with Communism. The Jugantar branch formally dissolved in 1938. In independent India, the party in West Bengal evolved into the Revolutionary Socialist Party, while the Eastern Branch later evolved into the Shramik Krishak Samajbadi Dal (Workers and Peasants Socialist Party) in present-day Bangladesh.

Background

The growth of the Indian middle class during the 19th century led to a growing sense of Indian identity[1] that fed a rising tide of nationalism in India in the last decades of the 1800s.[2] The creation of the Indian National Congress in 1885 by A.O. Hume provided a major platform for the demands of political liberalisation, increased autonomy and social reform.[3] The nationalist movement became particularly strong, radical and violent in Bengal and, later, in Punjab. Notable, if smaller, movements also appeared in Maharashtra, Madras and other areas in the South.[3] The movement in Maharashtra, especially Mumbai (formerly Bombay) and Poona, preceded most revolutionary movements in the country. This movement was supported ideologically by Bal Gangadhar Tilak, who may also have offered covert active support. The Indian Association was founded in Kolkata (formerly Calcutta) in 1876 under the leadership of Surendranath Banerjea. The Association became the mouthpiece of an informal constituency of students and middle-class gentlemen. It sponsored the Indian National Conference in 1883 and 1885, which later merged with the Indian National Congress.[4] Kolkata - formerly Calcutta was at the time the most prominent centre for organised politics, and some of the students who attended the political meetings began to organise "secret societies" that cultivated a culture of physical strength and nationalist feelings.

Timeline

Main article: History of the Anushilan Samiti

See also: Jugantar and Dhaka Anushilan Samiti

Origins

By 1902, Kolkata (formerly Calcutta) had three secret societies working toward the violent overthrow of British rule in India: one founded by Calcutta student Satish Chandra Basu with the patronage of Calcutta barrister Pramatha Mitra,...

Pramathanath Mitra (30 October 1853 – 1910), known widely as P. Mitra, was a Bengali Indian barrister and Indian nationalist who was among the earliest founding members of the Indian revolutionary organisation, Anushilan Samiti in 1902. He established "anushilan samiti" on the theory of "anushilan tattya" which belongs to the book "The Theory Of Religion" written by Rishi Bankim.

-- Pramathanath Mitra, by Wikipedia

another led by Sarala Devi,...

Sarala Devi Chaudhurani, born Sarala Ghosal, (9 September 1872 – 18 August 1945) was the founder of the first women's organisation in India, the Bharat Stree Mahamandal in Allahabad in 1910. One of the primary goals of the organization was to promote female education, which at that time was not well developed. The organization opened several offices in Lahore (then part of undivided India), Allahabad, Delhi, Karachi, Amritsar, Hyderabad, Kanpur, Bankura, Hazaribagh, Midnapur and Kolkata (formerly Calcutta) to improve the situation of women all over India.

Sarala was born at Jorasanko, Kolkata on 9 September 1872 to a well known Bengali intellectual family. Her father Janakinath Ghosal was one of the earliest secretaries of the Bengal Congress. Her mother Swarnakumari Devi, a noted author, was the daughter of Debendranath Tagore, a leading Brahmo leader, and elder sister of poet Rabindranath Tagore. Her older sister, Hironmoyee, was an author and founder of a widow's home. Sarla Devi's family was a follower of Brahmoism, a religion founded by Ram Mohan Roy and later developed by Sarala's grandfather Debendranath Tagore....

During anti partition agitation she spread the gospel of nationalism in Punjab and maintained secret revolutionary society....

In 1905, under family pressure, Sarala Devi married Rambhuj Dutt Chaudhary (1866–1923), a lawyer, journalist, nationalist leader and follower of Arya Samaj, the Hindu reform movement founded by Swami Dayananda Saraswati.

After her marriage, she moved to Punjab, where she helped her husband to edit the nationalist Urdu weekly Hindusthan, which later converted in English. When her husband was arrested for his involvement in Non-cooperation movement, Mahatma Gandhi visited her home in Lahore as a guest; which resulted into profound friendship between the two, and she became a follower of Gandhi. Her only son, Dipak, married Gandhi's granddaughter Radha.

-- Sarala Devi Chaudhurani, by Wikipedia

and the third founded by Aurobindo Ghose. Ghose and his brother Barin were among the strongest proponents of militant Indian nationalism at the time.[5][6] Nationalist writings and publications by Aurobindo and Barin, including Bande Mataram and Jugantar, had a widespread influence on Bengal youth and helped Anushilan Samiti to gain popularity in Bengal. The 1905 partition of Bengal stimulated radical nationalist sentiments in Bengal's Bhadralok community, helping the Samiti to acquire the support of educated, politically-conscious and disaffected members of local youth societies. The Samiti's program emphasized physical training, training its recruits with daggers and lathis (bamboo staffs used as weapons). The Dhaka branch was led by Pulin Behari Das, and branches spread throughout East Bengal and Assam.[7] More than 500 branches were opened in eastern Bengal and Assam, linked by "close and detailed organization" to Pulin's headquarters at Dhaka. This branch soon overshadowed its parent organisation in Calcutta. Branches of Dhaka Anushilan Samiti emerged in Jessore, Khulna, Faridpur, Rajnagar, Rajendrapur, Mohanpur, Barvali and Bakarganj, with an estimated membership of 15,000 to 20,000. Within two years, Dhaka Anushilan changed its aims from those of the Swadeshi movement to that of political terrorism.[8][9]

The organisation's political views were expressed in the journal Jugantar, founded in March 1906 by Abhinash Bhattacharya, Barindra, Bhupendranath Dutt and Debabrata Basu.[10] It soon became an organ for the radical views of Aurobindo and other Anushilan leaders, and led to the Calcutta Samiti group being dubbed the "Jugantar party". Early leaders were Rash Behari Bose, Jatindranath Mukherjee and Jadugopal Mukherjee.[5] Aurobindo published similar messages of violent nationalism in journals such as Sandhya, Navashakti and Bande Mataram.

Nationalism and violence

See also: Delhi conspiracy case, Alipore bomb case, and Howrah-Sibpur Conspiracy case

The Dhaka Anushilan Samiti broke with the Jugantar group in West Bengal due to disagreements with Aurobindo's approach of slowly building a mass base for revolution. The Dhaka group instead sought immediate action and results through political terrorism. The two branches of the Samiti engaged in dacoity to raise money, and performed a number of political assassinations.[11] In December 1907, the Bengal branch derailed a train carrying Bengal Lieutenant Governor Andrew Henderson Leith Fraser in a plot led by the Ghosh brothers. In the same month, the Dhaka Anushilan Samiti assassinated former Dhaka district magistrate D. C. Allen. The following year, the Samiti engineered eleven assassinations, seven attempted assassinations and explosions and eight dacoities in West Bengal. Their targets included British police officials and civil servants, Indian police officers, informants, public prosecutors of political crimes, and wealthy families.[12] Under Barin Ghosh's direction, the Samiti's members also attempted to assassinate French colonial officials in Chandernagore who were seen as complicit with the Raj.

Anushilan Samiti established early links with foreign movements and Indian nationalists abroad. In 1907, Barin Ghosh sent Hem Chandra Kanungo (Hem Chandra Das) to Paris to learn bomb-making from Nicholas Safranski, a Russian revolutionary in exile.[7] Madam Cama, a leading figure of the Paris Indian Society and India House, a revolutionary organisation in London, also lived in Paris and was associated with V.D. Savarkar, who later published a bomb-making manual through India House. In 1908, young recruits Khudiram Bose and Prafulla Chaki were sent on a mission to Muzaffarpur to assassinate chief presidency magistrate D. H. Kingsford. They bombed a carriage they mistook for Kingsford's,[11] killing two Englishwomen. Bose was arrested while attempting to flee and Chaki committed suicide. Police investigation of the killers connected them with Barin's country house in Manicktala (a suburb of Calcutta) and led to a number of arrests, including Aurobindo and Barin.[11] The ensuing trial, held under tight security, led to a death sentence for Barin (later commuted to life imprisonment). The case against Aurobindo Ghosh collapsed after Naren Gosain, who had turned crown witness, was shot in Alipore jail by Satyendranath Basu and Kanailal Dutta, who were also being tried. Aurobindo retired from active politics after being acquitted.[13] This was followed by a 1909 Dhaka conspiracy case, which brought 44 members of the Dhaka Anushilan Samiti to trial.[14][15] Nandalal Bannerjee (the officer who arrested Khudiram) was shot and killed in 1908, followed by the assassinations of the prosecutor and informant for the Alipore case in 1909.

After Aurobindo's retirement, the western Anushilan Samiti found a more prominent leader in Bagha Jatin and emerged as the Jugantar. Jatin revitalised links between the central organisation in Calcutta and its branches in Bengal, Bihar, Orissa and Uttar Pradesh, establishing hideouts in the Sunderbans for members who had gone underground.[16] The group slowly reorganised, aided by Amarendra Chatterjee, Naren Bhattacharya and other younger leaders. Some of its younger members, including Taraknath Das, left India. Over the next two years, the organisation operated under the cover of two apparently-separate groups: Sramajeebi Samabaya (the Labourer's Cooperative) and S.D. Harry and Sons.[13] Around this time Jatin attempted to establish contacts with the 10th Jat Regiment, garrisoned at Fort William in Calcutta, and Narendra Nath committed a number of robberies to raise money. Shamsul Alam, a Bengal police officer preparing a conspiracy case against the group, was assassinated by Jatin associate Biren Dutta Gupta. His assassination led to the arrests which precipitated the Howrah-Sibpur Conspiracy case.[17]

In 1911, Dhaka Anushilan members shot dead Sub-inspector Raj Kumar and Inspector Man Mohan Ghosh, two Bengali police officers investigating unrest linked to the group, in Mymensingh and Barisal. This was followed by the assassination of CID head constable Shrish Chandra Dey in Calcutta. In February 1911, Jugantar bombed a car in Calcutta, mistaking an Englishman for police officer Godfrey Denham. Rash Behari Bose (described as "the most dangerous revolutionary in India")[18] extended the group's reach into north India, where he found work in the Indian Forest Institute in Dehra Dun. Bose forged links with radical nationalists in Punjab and the United Provinces, including those later connected to Har Dayal.[19] During the 1912 transfer of the imperial capital to New Delhi, Viceroy Charles Hardinge's howdah was bombed; his mahout was killed, and Lady Hardinge was injured.[20]

World War I

See also: Hindu–German Conspiracy, Ghadar Mutiny, Christmas Day Plot, and Rodda company arms heist


Bagha Jatin, wounded after his final battle on the banks of Burha Balang off Balasore.

As war between Germany and Britain began to seem likely, Indian nationalists at home and abroad decided to use the war for the nationalist cause. Through Kishen Singh, the Bengal Samiti cell was introduced to Har Dayal when Dayal visited India in 1908.[21] Dayal was associated with India House, then headed by V. D. Savarkar. By 1910, Dayal was working closely with Rash Behari Bose.[22] After the decline of India House, Dayal moved to San Francisco after working briefly with the Paris Indian Society. Nationalism among Indian immigrants (particularly students and the working class) was gaining ground in the United States. Taraknath Das, who left Bengal for the United States in 1907, was among the Indian students who engaged in political work. In California, Dayal became a leading organiser of Indian nationalism amongst predominantly-Punjabi immigrant workers and was a key member of the Ghadar Party.

With Naren Bhattacharya, Jatin met the crown prince of Germany during the latter's 1912 visit to Calcutta and obtained an assurance that arms and ammunition would be supplied to them.[23] Jatin learned about Bose's work from Niralamba Swami on a pilgrimage to Brindavan. Returning to Bengal, he began reorganising the group. Bose went into hiding in Benares after the 1912 attempt on Hardinge but he met Jatin towards the end of 1913, outlining prospects for a pan-Indian revolution. In 1914 Bose, the Maharashtrian Vishnu Ganesh Pingle and Sikh militants planned simultaneous troop uprisings for February 1915. In Bengal, Anushilan and Jugantar launched what has been described by historians as "a reign of terror in both the cities and the countryside ... [which] ... came close to achieving their key goal of paralysing the administration". An atmosphere of fear severely affected morale in both the police and courts.[24] In August 1914, Jugantar seized a large amount of arms and ammunition from the Rodda company, a Calcutta arms dealer, and used them in robberies in Calcutta for the next two years. In 1915, only six revolutionaries were successfully tried.

Both the February 1915 plot and a December 1915 plot were thwarted by British intelligence. Jatin and a number of fellow revolutionaries were killed in a firefight with police at Balasore, in present-day Orissa, which brought Jugantar to a temporary end. The Defence of India Act 1915 led to widespread arrests, internments, deportations and executions of members of the revolutionary movement. By March 1916, widespread arrests helped Bengal police crush the Dacca Anushilan Samiti in Calcutta.[25] Regulation III and the Defence of India Act were enforced throughout Bengal in August 1916. By June 1917, 705 people were under house arrest under the Act and 99 were imprisoned under Regulation III.[25] In Bengal, revolutionary violence fell to 10 incidents in 1917.[26] According to official lists, 186 revolutionaries were killed or convicted by 1918.[27] After the war, the Defence of India Act was extended by the Rowlatt Act, the passage of which was a prime target of the protests of M. K. Gandhi's non-cooperation movement. Many revolutionaries released after the war escaped to Burma to avoid repeated incarceration.[28]

After the war

See also: Kakori conspiracy and Hindustan Socialist Republican Association

The first non-cooperation movement, the Rowlatt Satyagrahas led by Gandhi, was active from 1919 to 1922. It received widespread support from prominent members of the Indian independence movement. In Bengal, Jugantar agreed to a request by Chittaranjan Das (a respected leader of the Indian National Congress) to refrain from violence. Although Anushilan Samiti did not adhere to the agreement, it sponsored no major actions between 1920 and 1922. During the next few years, Jugantar and the Samiti became active again. The resurgence of radical nationalism linked to the Samiti during the 1920s led to the passage of the Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance in 1924. The act restored extraordinary powers of detention to the police; by 1927 more than 200 suspects were imprisoned under the act, including Subhas Chandra Bose, curtailing the resurgence of nationalist violence in Bengal.[29] Branches of Jugantar formed in Chittagong and Dhaka, in present-day Bangladesh. The Chittagong branch, led by Surya Sen, robbed the Chittagong office of the Assam-Bengal Railway in December 1923. In January 1924 a young Bengali, Gopi Mohan Saha, shot dead a European he mistook for Calcutta police commissioner Charles Tegart. The assassin was praised by the Bengali press and, to Gandhi's chagrin, proclaimed a martyr by the Bengal branch of the Congress. Around this time, Jugantar became closely associated with the Calcutta Corporation, headed by Das and Subhas Chandra Bose, and terrorists (and ex-terrorists) became significant factors in local Bengali government.

In 1923 another group linked to Anushilan Samiti, the Hindustan Republican Association, was founded in Benares by Sachindranath Sanyal and Jogesh Chandra Chatterjee, helping to radicalise north India. It soon had branches from Calcutta to Lahore. A series of successful dacoities in Uttar Pradesh were followed by a train robbery in Kakori, and subsequent investigations and two trials broke the organization. Several years later, it was reborn as the Hindustan Socialist Republican Association (HSRA).

In 1927, the Indian National Congress came out in favour of independence from Britain. Bengal had quietened over a four-year period, and the government released most of those interned under the Act of 1925 despite an unsuccessful attempt to forge an alliance between Jugantar and Anushilan Samiti. Some younger radicals struck out in new directions, and many (young and old) took part in Congress activities such as the 1928 anti-Simon Commission protests. Congress leader Lala Lajpat Rai died of injuries received when police broke up a Lahore protest march in October, and Bhagat Singh and other members of the HSRA avenged his death in December; Singh also later bombed the legislative assembly. He and other HSRA members were arrested, and three went on a hunger strike in jail; Bengali bomb-maker Jatindra Nath Das persisted in his strike until his death in September 1929. The Calcutta Corporation passed a condolence resolution after his death, as did Congress when Bhagat Singh was executed.

Final phase

See also: Chittagong armoury raid, Benoy Basu, Dinesh Gupta, and Badal Gupta


Surya Sen, Jugantar leader and mastermind of the Chittagong raid.

As the Congress-led movement picked up its pace during the early 1930s, some former revolutionaries identified with the Gandhian political movement and became influential Congressmen (notably Surendra Mohan Ghose). Many Bengali Congressmen also maintained links with the Samiti. Simultaneously with the nonviolent protests of the Gandhi-led Salt March, in April 1930, a group led by Surya Sen raided the Chittagong Armoury. In 1930 eleven British officials were killed, notably during the Writer's Building raid of December 1930 by Benoy Basu, Dinesh Gupta and Badal Gupta. Three successive district magistrates in Midnapore were assassinated, and dozens of other actions were carried out during the first half of the decade. By 1931 a record 92 violent incidents were recorded, including the murders of the British magistrates of Tippera and Midnapore.[30] However, soon afterwards, in 1934, the revolutionary movement in Bengal ended.


Benoy Basu


Badal Gupta


and Dinesh Gupta were noted for launching an attack on the Secretariat Building - the Writers' Building in the Dalhousie square in Kolkata.

A large portion of the Samiti movement was attracted to left-wing politics during the 1930s, and those who did not join left-wing parties identified with Congress and the Congress Socialist Party. During the mass detentions of the 1930s surrounding the civil-disobedience movement, many members joined Congress. Jugantar was formally dissolved in 1938; many former members continued to act together under Surendra Mohan Ghose, who was a liaison between other Congress politicians and Aurobindo Ghose in Pondicherry. During the late 1930s, Marxist-leaning members of the Samiti in the CSP announced the formation of the Revolutionary Socialist Party (RSP).

Organisation

Structure

Anushilan Samiti and Jugantar were organised on different lines, reflecting their divergence. The Samiti was centrally organised, with a rigid discipline and vertical hierarchy. Jugantar was more loosely organised as an alliance of groups under local leaders that occasionally coordinated their actions. The prototype of Jugantar's organisation was Barin Ghosh's organisation set up in 1907, in the run-up to the Manicktala conspiracy. It sought to emulate the model of Russian revolutionaries described by Frost. The regulations of the central Dhaka organization of the Samiti were written down, and reproduced and summarised in government reports.

According to one estimate, the Dacca Anushilan Samiti at one point had 500 branches, mostly in the eastern districts of Bengal, and 20,000 members. Branches were opened later in the western districts, Bihar, and the United Provinces. Shelters for absconders were established in Assam and in two farms in Tripura. Organisational documents show a primary division between the two active leaders, Barin Ghosh and Upendranath Bannerjee, and the rank-and-file. Higher leaders such as Aurobindo were supposed to be known only to the active leaders. Past members of the Samiti asserted that the groups were interconnected with a vast web of secret societies throughout British India. However, historian Peter Heehs concluded that the links between provinces were limited to contacts between a few individuals like Aurobindo who was familiar with leaders and movements in Western India, and that relationships among the different revolutionary groups were more often competitive than co-operative. An internal document of circa 1908 written by Pulin Behari Das describes the division of the organisation in Bengal, which largely followed British administrative divisions.

Cadre

Samiti membership was predominantly made up of Hindus, at least initially, which was ascribed to the religious oath of initiation being unacceptable to Muslims. Each member was assigned to one or more of three roles: collection of funds, implementation of planned actions and propaganda. In practice, however, the fundamental division was between "military’’ work and ‘‘civil’’ work. Dals (teams) consisting of five or ten members led by a dalpati (team leader) were grouped together in local Samiti led by adhyakshas (executive officers) and other officers. These reported to district officers appointed by and responsible to the central Dhaka organization, commanded by Pulin Das and those who deputised for him during his periods of imprisonment. Samitis were divided into four functional groups: violence, organisation, keepers of arms, and householders. Communications were carried by special couriers and written in secret code. These practices and others were inspired by literary sources and were partly a concession to the desire of young men to act out romantic drama. Less is known about the Jugantar network, which took the place of the Manicktala society after the Alipore bomb case. It faced divisions similar to the Samiti. Historian Leonard Gordon notes that at least in the period between 1910 and 1915, the dals in the Jugantar network were separate units, led by a dada (lit: elder brother). The dada was also guru, teaching those under his command practical skills, revolutionary ideology, and strategy. Gordon suggests that the dada system developed out of pre-existing social structures in rural Bengal. Dadas both co-operated and competed with each other for men, money, and material.

Many members of the Samiti came from upper castes. By 1918, nearly 90% of the revolutionaries killed or convicted were Brahmins, Kayasthas or Vaishyas.[27] As the Samiti spread its influence to other parts of the country, particularly north India, it began to draw in people of other religions and of varying religious commitments. For example, many who joined the Hindustan Republican Socialist Association were Marxists and many were militant atheists.[30] By the late 1930s, members with a more secular outlook were beginning to participate. Some components of the Samiti also included prominent participation from women, including Pritilata Waddedar who led a Jugantar attack during the Chittagong Armoury raid, and Kalpana Dutta who manufactured bombs at Chittagong.[31]

Ideologies

Indian philosophies

The Samiti was influenced by the writings of the Bengali nationalist author Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay. The name of the organisation, Anushilan, is derived from Bankim's works espousing hard work and spartan life. Bankim's cultural and martial nationalism, exemplified in Anandamath, along with his reinterpretation of the Bhagavat Gita, were strong influences on the strain of nationalism that inspired the early societies that later became Anushilan Samiti.[32] A search of the Dacca Anushilan Samiti library in 1908 showed that Bankim's Bhagavat Gita was the most widely read book in the library.[33]

The philosophies and teachings of Swami Vivekananda were later added to this philosophy. The "Rules of Membership" in the Dacca library strongly recommended reading his books.[33] These books emphasised "Strong muscles and nerves of steel", which some historians consider to be strongly influenced by the Hindu Shakta Philosophy. This interest in physical improvement and proto-national spirit among young Bengalis was driven by an effort to break away from the stereotype of effeminacy that the British had imposed on the Bengalis. Physical fitness was symbolic of the recovery of masculinity, and part of a larger moral and spiritual training to cultivate control over the body, and develop national pride and a sense of social responsibility and service.[34][35] Peter Heehs, writing in 2010, notes the Samiti had three pillars in their ideologies: "cultural independence", "political independence", and "economic independence". In terms of economic independence, the Samiti diverged from the Swadeshi movement, which they decried as a "trader's movement".[36]

European influences

See also: Carbonari

When the Samiti first came into prominence following the Muzaffarpur killings, its ideology was felt to be influenced by European anarchism. Lord Minto resisted the notion that its action might be the manifestation of political grievance by concluding that:

Murderous methods hitherto unknown in India ... have been imported from the West, ... which the imitative Bengali has childishly accepted.[37]

However others disagreed. John Morley was of the opinion that the political violence exemplified by the Samiti was a manifestation of Indian antagonism to the government,[37] although there were also influences of European nationalism and philosophies of liberalism.[38] In the 1860s and 1870s, large numbers of akhras (gymnasiums) arose in Bengal that were consciously designed along the lines of the Italian Carbonari.[39] These were influenced by the works of Italian nationalist Giuseppe Mazzini and his Young Italy movement. Aurobindo himself studied the revolutionary nationalism of Ireland, France and America.[38] Hem Chandra Das, during his stay in Paris, is also noted to have interacted with European radical nationalists in the city,[38] returning to India an atheist with Marxist leanings.[27]

Okakura and Nivedita

See also: Sister Nivedita, Kakuzo Okakura, and Pan-Asianism

Foreign influences on the Samiti included the Japanese artist Kakuzo Okakura and Margaret Noble, an Irish woman known as Sister Nivedita. Okakura was a proponent of Pan-Asianism. He visited Swami Vivekananda in Calcutta in 1902, and inspired Pramathanath Mitra in the early days of the Samiti.[38][40] However the extent of his involvement or influence is debated.[41] Nivedita was a disciple of Swami Vivekananda. She had contacts with Aurobindo, with Satish Bose and with Jugantar sub-editor Bhupendranath Bose. Nivedita is believed to have influenced members of the Samiti by talking about their duties to the motherland and providing literature on revolutionary nationalism. She was a correspondent of Peter Kropotkin, a noted anarchist.[38]

Later influences

See also: Communist Party of India and M.N. Roy

A major section of the Anushilan movement had been attracted to Marxism during the 1930s, many of them studying Marxist–Leninist literature whilst serving long jail sentences. A minority broke away from the Samiti and joined the Communist Consolidation, and later the Communist Party of India (CPI). The majority of the Anushilan Marxists were hesitant to join the Communist Party, however, since they distrusted the political lines formulated by the Communist International.[42] They also did not embrace Trotskyism, although they shared some Trotskyite critiques of the leadership of Joseph Stalin.

Impact

Police reaction and reforms

See also: Sir Harold Stuart and Charles Tegart

Shortly after its inception, the Samiti became the focus of extensive police and intelligence operation. Notable officers who led the police and intelligence operations against them at various times included Sir Robert Nathan, Sir Harold Stuart, Sir Charles Stevenson-Moore and Sir Charles Tegart.

The CIDs of Bengal and the provinces of Eastern Bengal and Assam were founded in response to the revolutionary movement led by the Samiti.[7] By 1908, political crime duties took the services of one deputy Superintendent of Police, 52 Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors, and nearly 720 constables. Foreseeing a rise in the strength of the revolutionary movement, Sir Harold Stuart (then Secretary of State for India) implemented plans for secret service to fight the menace posed by the Samiti.[43] A Political Crime branch of the C.I.D. (known as the "Special Department") was developed in September 1909, staffed by 23 officers and 45 men. The government of India allocated Rs 2,227,000 for the Bengal Police alone in the reforms of 1909-1910.[43]

By 1908 a Special Officer for Political Crime was appointed from the Bengal Police, with the Special Branch of Police working under him. This post was first occupied by C.W.C. Plowden and later by F.C. Daly.[43] Godfrey Denham, then Assistant Superintendent of Police, served under the Special Officer.[43] Denham was credited with uncovering the Manicktala safe house of the Samiti, raiding it in May 1908, which ultimately led to the Manicktala conspiracy case. This case led to further expansion of the Special Branch in Bengal. The CID in Eastern Bengal and Assam (EBA) were founded in 1906 and expanded from 1909 onwards. However, the EBA police's access to informers and secret agents remained difficult.[44] In EBA, a civil servant, H.L. Salkeld, uncovered the eastern branch of Anushilan Samiti, producing a four-volume report and placing 68 suspects under surveillance.[12] However the Samiti evaded detailed intrusion by adopting the model of Russian revolutionaries. Until 1909, the police were unclear whether they were dealing with a single organisation or with a conglomeration of independent groups.[12]

The visit of King George V to India in 1911 catalyzed improvements in police equipment and staffing in Bengal and EBA. In 1912, the political branch of the Bengal CID was renamed the Intelligence Branch, staffed with 50 officers and 127 men. The branch had separate sections dealing with explosives, assassinations, and robberies.[20] It was headed by Charles Tegart, who built up a network of agents and informers to infiltrate the Samiti.[20] Tegart would meet his agents under cover of darkness, at times disguising himself as a pathan or kabuliwallah.[20] Assisting Denham and Petrie, Tegart led the investigation in the aftermath of the Dalhi-Lahore Conspiracy and identified Chandernagore as the main hub for the Samiti.[20] Tegart remained in the Bengal police until at least the 1930s, earning notoriety amongst the Samiti for his work, and was subjected to a number of assassination attempts. In 1924, Ernest Day, an Englishman, was shot dead by Gopinath Saha at Chowringhee Road in Calcutta, due to being mistaken for Tegart. In 1930, a bomb was thrown into Tegart's car at Dalhousie Square but Tegart managed to shoot the revolutionary and escaped unhurt. His efficient curbing of the revolutionary movement earned praise from Lord Lytton and he was awarded the King's medal. In 1937 Tegart was sent to the British Mandate of Palestine, then in the throes of the Arab Revolt, to advise the Inspector General on security.[45]

[admin]

Part 2 of 2

Criminal Law Amendment 1908

In its fight against the Raj, the Samiti's members who turned approvers (i.e. gave evidence against their colleagues) and the Bengal Police staff who were investigating the Samiti were consistently targeted. A number of assassinations were carried out of approvers who had agreed to act as crown witnesses. In 1909 Naren Gossain, crown witness for the prosecution in Alipore bomb case, was shot dead within Alipore Jail by Satyendranath Boseu and Kanai Lal Dutt. Ashutosh Biswas, an advocate of Calcutta High Court in charge of prosecution of Gossain murder case, was shot dead within Calcutta High Court in 1909. In 1910, Shamsul Alam, Deputy Superintendent of Bengal Police responsible for investigating the Alipore bomb case, was shot dead on the steps of Calcutta High Court. The failures of a number of prosecutions of violence linked to the Samiti under the Criminal Procedures Act of 1898 led to a special act that provided for crimes of nationalist violence to be tried by a special tribunal composed of three high-court judges. In December 1908 the Criminal Law amendments were passed under the terms of Regulation III of 1818, with the goal of suppressing associations formed for seditious conspiracies.[46] The act was first applied to deport nine Bengali revolutionaries to Mandalay prison in 1908. Despite these measures however, the high standards of evidence demanded by the Calcutta High Court, insufficient investigations by police, and at times outright fabrication of evidence, led to persistent failures to tame nationalist violence.[47] The police forces felt unable to deal with the operations of secretive nationalist organisations, leading to demands for special powers. The Indian press opposed these demands strenuously, arguing against any extension of the already wide powers enjoyed by the police forces in India, which they claimed were already being used to oppress the Indian people.[48]

Defence of India Act

See also: Defence of India Act 1915

The threat posed by the activities of the Samiti in Bengal during World War I, along with the threat of a Ghadarite uprising in Punjab, led to the passage of Defence of India Act 1915. The act received universal support from Indian non-officiating members in the Governor General's council and from moderate leaders within the Indian political movement. The British war effort had received popular support within India and the act received support on the understanding that the measures enacted were necessary in the war situation. These measures enabled the arrest, internment, transportation, and execution of a number of revolutionaries linked to the organisation, which crushed the East Bengal branch of the Samiti. Its application led to 46 executions, as well as 64 life sentences given to revolutionaries in Bengal and Punjab in the Lahore Conspiracy Trial and Benares Conspiracy Trial, and in tribunals in Bengal,[26] effectively crushing the revolutionary movement. By March 1916, widespread arrests had helped Bengal Police crush the Dhaka Anushilan Samiti in Calcutta.[25] The power of preventive detention was used extensively in Bengal, and revolutionary violence in Bengal plummeted to 10 incidents in 1917.[26] By the end of the war there were over 800 detainees under the act in Bengal under the act. However, indiscriminate application of the act made it increasingly unpopular with the Indian public.

Rowlatt act

The 1915 act was designed to expire in 1919, and the Rowlatt Committee was appointed to recommend measures to continue to suppress the revolutionary movement. The committee recommended an extension of the provisions of the Defence of India Act for a further three years with the removal of habeas corpus provisions. However this was met with universal opposition by the Indian members of the Viceroy's council, as well as the population in general, and Gandhi called the proposed act "The Black Bills". Mohammed Ali Jinnah left the Viceroy's council in protest, after having warned the council of the danger of enacting such an unpopular bill. Nevertheless, the recommendations were enacted in the Rowlatt Bills. Gandhi then led a protest, the Rowlatt Satyagraha, one of the first civil disobedience movements that would become the Indian independence movement. The protests included hartals in Delhi, public protests in Punjab, and other protest movements across India. In Punjab, the protests culminated in the Jallianwalla Bagh Massacre in April 1919. After nearly three years of agitation, the government finally repealed the Rowlatt act and its component sister acts.

Bengal Criminal Law Amendment

Main article: Bengal Criminal Law Amendment

A resurgence of radical nationalism linked to the Samiti after 1922 led to the implementation of the Bengal Criminal Law Amendment in 1924, which reinstated the powers of incarceration and detention from the Defence of India Act. The act re-introduced extraordinary powers of detention to the police, and by 1927 more than 200 suspects had been imprisoned, including Subhas Chandra Bose. The implementation of the act successfully curtailed a resurgence in nationalist violence in Bengal, at a time when the Hindustan Republican Association was rising in the United Provinces.[29]

After the 1920s, the Anushilan Samiti gradually dissolved into the Gandhian movement. Some of its members left for the Indian National Congress, then led by Subhas Chandra Bose, while others identified more closely with Communism. The Jugantar branch formally dissolved in 1938. In independent India, the party in West Bengal evolved into the Revolutionary Socialist Party, while the Eastern Branch later evolved into the Sramik Krishak Samajbadi Dal (Workers and Peasants Socialist Party) in present-day Bangladesh.

Influence

Revolutionary nationalism

The nationalist publication Jugantar, which served as the organ of the Samiti, inspired fanatical loyalty among its readers.[49][50] By 1907 it was selling 7,000 copies, which later rose to 20,000. Its message was aimed at elite politically conscious readers and was essentially a critique of British rule in India and justification of political violence.[51] Several young men who joined the Samiti credited Jugantar with influencing their decisions. The editor of the paper, Bhupendranath Datta, was arrested and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment in 1907.[52] The Samiti responded by attempting to assassinate Douglas Kingsford, who presided over the trial, and Jugantar responded with defiant editorials.[52] Jugantar was repeatedly prosecuted, leaving it in financial ruins by 1908. However, the prosecutions brought the paper more publicity and helped disseminate the Samiti's ideology of revolutionary nationalism. Historian Shukla Sanyal has commented that revolutionary terrorism as an ideology began to win at least tacit support amongst a significant populace at this time.[50]

Keshav Baliram Hedgewar, the founder of the Hindu nationalist organisation Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), was an alumnus of the Anushilan Samiti. He was sent to Calcutta by B. S. Moonje in 1910 to study medicine, and to learn techniques of violent nationalism from secret revolutionary organizations in Bengal.[53] There he lived with independence activist Shyam Sundar Chakravarty,[54] and had contacts with revolutionaries like Ram Prasad Bismil.

Indian independence movement

James Popplewell, writing in 1995, noted that the Raj perceived the Samiti in its early days as a serious threat to its rule.[55] However, historian Sumit Sarkar noted that the Samiti never mustered enough support to offer an urban rebellion or a guerrilla campaign. Both Peter Heehs and Sumit Sarkar have noted that the Samiti called for complete independence over 20 years before the Congress adopted this as its aim. A number of landmark events early in the Indian independence movement, including the revolutionary conspiracies of World War I, involved the Samiti, as noted in the Rowlatt report. Later the ascendant left-wing of the Congress, particularly Subhas Chandra Bose, was suspected of having links with the Samiti. Heehs argued that the actions of the revolutionary nationalists exemplified by the Samiti forced the government to parley more seriously with the leaders of the legitimate movement, and that Gandhi was always aware of this. "At the Round Table Conference of 1931, the apostle of non-violence declared that he held 'no brief for the terrorists', but added that if the government refused to work with him, it would have the terrorists to deal with. The only way to 'say good-bye to terrorism' was 'to work the Congress for all it is worth'".[56]

Social influences

See also: Raja Subodh Mallik and National Council of Education

The founders of the Samiti were among the leading luminaries of Bengal at the time, advocating for social change in ways far removed from the violent nationalist works that identified the Samiti in later years. The young men of Bengal were among the most active in the Swadeshi movement, prompting R.W. Carlyle to prohibit the participation of students in political meetings on the threat of withdrawal of funding and grants.[57] Bengali intellectuals were already calling for indigenous schools and colleges to replace British institutions,[57] and seeking to build indigenous institutions. Surendranath Tagore, of the Tagore family of Calcutta financed the establishment of Indian-owned banks and insurance companies. The 1906 Congress session in Calcutta established the National Council of Education as a nationalist agency to promote Indian institutions with their own independent curriculum designed to provide skills in technical and technological education that its founders felt would be necessary for building indigenous industries. With the financial backing of Subodh Chandra Mallik, the Bengal National College (which later grew to be Jadavpur University) was established with Aurobindo as Principal.[57] Aurobindo participated in the Indian National Congress at the time. He used his platform in the Congress to present the Samiti as a conglomeration of youth clubs, even as the government raised fears that it was a revolutionary nationalist organisation. During his time as Principal, Aurobindo started the nationalist publications Jugantar, Karmayogin and Bande Mataram.[57] The student's mess at the college was frequented by students of East Bengal who belonged to the Dhaka Anushilan Samiti, and was known to be a hotbed of revolutionary nationalism, which was uncontrolled or even encouraged by the college.[58] Students of the college who later rose to prominence in the Indian revolutionary movement include M. N. Roy. The Samiti's ideologies further influenced patriotic nationalism.

Communism in India

Main article: Socialism in India

See also: M. N. Roy, Communist Party of India, and Revolutionary Socialist Party (India)


M. N. Roy, one of the founding fathers of Indian Communism as well as the Mexican Communist Party. He was a member of the Comintern.

Through the 1920s and 1930s, many members of the Samiti began identifying with Communism and leftist ideologies. Many of them studied Marxist–Leninist literature while serving long jail sentences. A minority section broke away from the Anushilan movement and joined the Communist Consolidation, and later the Communist Party of India. Former Jugantar leader Narendranath Bhattacharya, now known as M. N. Roy, became an influential member of the Communist International, helping to found the Communist Party of India. The majority of the Anushilanite Marxists hesitated to join the Communist Party.[42] Instead, they joined the Congress Socialist Party (CSP), but kept a separate identity within the party as the Revolutionary Socialist Party (RSP).[59] The RSP held a strong influence in parts of Bengal. The party sent two parliamentarians to the 1952 Lok Sabha elections, both previously Samiti members. In 1969, RSP sympathizers in East Pakistan formed the Shramik Krishak Samajbadi Dal (SKSD). RSP and SKSD have maintained close ties ever since. The RSP is currently a minor partner in the Left Front, which ruled the Indian state of West Bengal for 34 uninterrupted years. It also holds influence in South India, notably in parts of Kerala. The SUCI, another left-wing party with a presence in Bengal, was founded in 1948 by Anushilan members.

In popular culture

The revolutionaries of the Samiti became household names in Bengal. Many of these educated and youthful men were widely admired and romanticised throughout India.[30] Ekbar biday de Ma ghure ashi (Bid me farewell, mother), a 1908 song written by Bengali folk poet Pitambar Das that describes the execution of Khudiram Bose, was popular in Bengal decades after Bose's death.[27] The railway station where Bose was arrested is now named Khudiram Bose Pusa Railway Station in his honour.

The 1926 nationalist novel Pather Dabi (Right of the way) by Bengali author Sarat Chandra Chattopadhyay tells the story of a secret revolutionary nationalist organisation fighting the Raj. The protagonist of the novel, Sabyasachi, is believed to have been modelled after Rash Behari Bose, while the revolutionary organisation is thought to have been influenced by the Bengali Samiti. The novel was banned by The Raj as "seditious", but acquired wild popularity. It formed the basis of a 1977 Bengali language film, Sabyasachi, with Uttam Kumar playing the lead role of the protagonist.

Do and Die is a historical account of the Chittagong armoury raid published in 2000 by Indian author Manini Chatterjee. It was awarded the Rabindra Puraskar, the highest literary award in Bengal. The book formed the basis of Khelein Hum Jee Jaan Sey (We Play with Our Lives), a 2010 Bollywood film with Abhishek Bachchan playing the role of Surya Sen.

A marble plaque marks the building in Calcutta where the Samiti was founded. A plaque at the site of Barin Ghose's country house (in present-day Ultadanga) marks the site where Ghosh and his group was arrested in the Alipore bomb case. Many of the Samiti's members are known in India and abroad, and are commemorated in different forms. A number of Calcutta suburbs are today named after revolutionaries and nationalists of the Samiti. Grey Street, where Aurobindo Ghosh's press office stood, is today named Aurobido Sarani (Aurobindo Avenue). Dalhousie Square was renamed B.B.D Bag, named after Benoy, Badal, and Dinesh who raided the Writer's Building in 1926. Mononga lane, the site of Rodda & Co. heist, houses the busts of Anukul Mukherjee, Srish Chandra Mitra, Haridas Dutta, and Bipin Bihary Ganguly who participated in the heist. Chashakhand, a location 15 km east of Balasore where Bagha Jatin and his group made their last stand against Tegart's forces, commemorates the battlefield in Jatin's honour. The locality of Baghajatin in Kolkata is named after Jatin. In Bangladesh, the gallows where Surya Sen was executed are preserved as a historical monument.

Citations

1. Mitra 2006, p. 63
2. Desai 2005, p. 30
3. Yadav 1992, p. 6
4. Heehs 1992, p. 2
5. Sen 2010, p. 244 The militant nationalists thought of more direct and violent ways of ending British rule in India ... The chief apostle of militant nationalism in Bengal was Aurobindo Ghose. In 1902, there were three secret societies in Calcutta - Anushilan Samiti, founded by Pramatha Mitra, a barrister of the High Court of Calcutta; a society sponsored by Aurobindo Ghose and a society started by Sarala Devi ... the government found it difficult to suppress revolutionary activities in Bengal owing to ... leaders like Jatindranath Mukherjee, Rashbehari Bose and Jadugopal Mukherjee.
6. Mohanta, Sambaru Chandra (2012). "Mitra, Pramathanath". In Islam, Sirajul; Jamal, Ahmed A. (eds.). Banglapedia: National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh (Second ed.). Asiatic Society of Bangladesh.
7. Popplewell 1995, p. 104
8. Heehs 1992, p. 6
9. Gupta 2006, p. 160
10. Sanyal 2014, p. 30
11. Roy 1997, pp. 5–6 The first such dacoity was committed by Naren ... Around this time, revolutionaries threw a bomb at the carriage of Mr. and Mrs. Kennedy ... in Muzaffarpur, under the mistaken notion that the 'notorious' Magistrate Kingsford was in the carriage. This led to the arrest of Kshudiram Bose and the discovery of the underground conspiratorial centre at Manicktala in eastern Calcutta ... Nandalal Banerjee, an officer in the Intelligence Branch of the Bengal Police was shot dead by Naren ... This was followed by the arrest of Aurobindo, Barin and others.
12. Popplewell 1995, p. 108
13. Roy 1997, p. 6 Aurobihdo's retirement from active politics after his acquittal ... Two centres were established, one was the Sramajibi Samabaya ... and the other in the name of S.D. Harry and Sons.
14. Popplewell 1995, p. 111
15. Roy 2006, p. 105
16. M. N. Roy's Memoirs p3
17. Roy 1997, pp. 6–7 Shamsul Alam, an Intelligence officer who was then preparing to arrest all the revolutionaries ... was murdered by Biren Datta Gupta, one of Jatin Mukherjee's associates. This led to the arrests in the Howrah Conspiracy case.
18. Popplewell 1995, p. 112
19. Popplewell 1995, p. 167
20. Popplewell 1995, p. 114
21. Roy 1997, pp. 7–8 The group foresaw the possibility of a world war and planned to launch a guerrilla war at that time, expecting assistance from Germany. ... Lala Hardayal, on his return to India in 1908, also became interested in the programme of the Bengal revolutionaries through Kissen Singh.
22. Desai 2005, p. 320
23. Samanta 1995, p. 625
24. Popplewell 1995, p. 201
25. Popplewell 1995, p. 210
26. Bates 2007, p. 118
27. Sarkar 2014, p. 107 "Hemchandra Kanungo, to cite the earliest example, came back from Paris as an atheist with some interest in Marxism ... a street-beggar's lament for Kshudiram, for instance, could still be heard in Bengal decades after his execution ... In a 1918 official list of 186 killed or convicted revolutionaries, no less than 165 came from the three upper castes, Brahman, Kayastha, and Vaidya".
28. Morton 2013, p. 80 "Following ... the first two decades of the twentieth century, the Indian government's law enforcement officials had claimed that the detention of alleged Bengali terrorists was a success, a claim that served to justify the Rowlatt Report's recommendation of emergency measures in 1918. In response to this, many leaders of the revolutionary movement went underground in the 1920s and fled Bengal to other British territories, particularly Burma."
29. Heehs 2010, pp. 171–172 "The activity and influence of the Bengal terrorists led to the passage in 1924 of the Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, extended the next year as an Act. This again gave the police extraordinary powers, and between 1924 and 1927 almost 200 suspects were imprisoned, among them Subhas Bose. Acts of terrorism in Bengal dropped off, but an Anushilan-linked group in the United Provinces [the Hindustan Republican Association] grew to some importance."
30. Chowdhry 2000, p. 138
31. "Bollywood & Revolutionary Bengal: Revisiting the Chittagong Uprising (1930-34)". History Workshop.
32. Ray 1988, p. 83: "To explain the direct reason for the conversions to revolutionary terrorism, one must turn to the intellectual origins of the movement. Perhaps the single most efficient instrument of conversion was the Bhagavad Gita ... An entirely new Gita emerged from the reinterpretation of Bankim."
33. Ray 1988, p. 84: "A sudden search of the Dacca Anushilan Samiti library in November 1908 by the police ... shows the books that were most read by revolutionaries ... the library issue book proved that the Gita was in great demand ... Among the books recommended in rule 7 of the "Rules of Membership" discovered in the library, the works of Vivekananda were given first place."
34. Bandyopadhyaya 2004, p. 260 The physical culture movement became a craze ... this was a psychological attempt to break away from the colonial stereotype of effeminacy imposed on the Bengalees. Their symbolic recovery of masculinity ... remained parts of a larger moral and spiritual training to achieve mastery over body, develop a national pride and a sense of social service.
35. Heehs 1992, p. 3
36. Heehs 2010, p. 161 "The ideology of revolutionary publicists such as Bipin Chandra Pal and Aurobindo Ghose ... had three major components: political independence or swaraj; economic independence as promoted by the swadeshi-boycott movement; and the drive for cultural independence by means of national education ... A circular of the Anushilan Samiti states: "This Samitihas no open relationship with any kind of popular and outward Swadeshi, that is (the boycott of) belati [foreign] articles ... To be mixed up in ... such affairs is entirely against the principles of the Samiti" (Ghosh 1984: 94). Members of Barin Ghose's group likewise stigmatized the swadeshi-boycott movement as bania (shopkeeper) politics."
37. Heehs 2010, p. 160, paras 1–2 "[Morley] wrote to Viceroy Lord Minto, 'that Indian antagonism to Government would run slowly into the usual grooves, including assassination' ... he considered Bengali terrorism to be an almost natural result of political discontent. Minto, on the other hand, considered it entirely imitative. Writing to Morley after the Muzaffarpur attempt, Minto declared that the conspirators aimed 'at the furtherance of murderous methods hitherto unknown in India which have been imported from the West, and which the imitative Bengali has childishly accepted' ... the terrorists were playing at being 'anarchists.'"
38. Heehs 2010, p. 160 para 3 "There were ... some foreign influences on Bengali Terrorism ... Aurobindo Ghose's study of the revolutionary movements of Ireland, France, and America. Members of the early 'secret societies' drew some of their inspiration from Mazzini ... The Japanese critic Kakuzo Okakura inspired Pramathanath Mitra and others with revolutionary and pan-Asiatic ideas just when the samiti movement was getting started. The Irishwoman Margaret Noble, known as Sister Nivedita after she became a disciple of Swami Vivekananda, had some contact with Aurobindo Ghose and with younger men like Satish Bose and Jugantar sub-editor Bhupendranath Bose. Nivedita was in correspondence with the non-terroristic anarchist Peter Kropotkin, and she is known to have had revolutionary beliefs. She gave the young men a collection of books that included titles on revolutionary history and spoke to them about their duty to the motherland ... undoubted connection of Hem Chandra Das with European revolutionaries in Paris in 1907."
39. Heehs 1994, p. 534 "[Around 1881] a number of self-styled 'secret societies' were set up in Calcutta that were consciously modelled on the Carbonari and Mazzini's Young Italy Society ... They were in fact simply undergraduate clubs, long on nebulous ideals but short on action."
40. Samanta 1995, p. 257
41. Heehs 1993, p. 260
42. Saha, Murari Mohan (ed.), Documents of the Revolutionary Socialist Party: Volume One 1938–1947. Agartala: Lokayata Chetana Bikash Society, 2001. pp. 20–21
43. Popplewell 1995, p. 105
44. Popplewell 1995, pp. 105–107
45. "Londonderry born imperial policeman remembered". Retrieved 8 July 2014.
46. Riddick 2006, p. 93
47. Horniman 1984, p. 42 [There are] records of cases during the years from 1908 to 1914 which were abortive ... due to the usual faults of police work in India—the hankering~after approvers and confessions, to be obtained by any means, good or bad; the concoction of a little evidence to make a bad case good- or a good case better; and the suppression of facts which fail to fit the theory.
48. Horniman 1984, p. 43 Police authorities took up the attitude that ... they were helpless in the face of a secret organisation ... Demands were put forward for special powers, the lowering of the standard of evidence, and other devices for the easy success of the police ... the whole Indian Press anticipated with the liveliest apprehension the prospect of any extension of those wide powers which already enabled the police to oppress the people.
49. Sanyal 2014, p. 89 "The Jugantar newspaper served as the propaganda vehicle for a loose congregation of revolutionaries led by individuals like Jain Banerjee and Barin Ghose who drew inspiration from ... Aurobindo Ghose."
50. Sanyal 2014, p. 93 "This attitude cost the paper dearly. It suffered five more prosecutions that, by July 1908, brought about its financial ruin … The trials brought the paper a great deal of publicity and helped greatly in the dissemination of the revolutionary ideology ... testimony to the fanatical loyalty that the paper inspired in its readers and the deep impression that the Jugantar writings made on them ... revolutionary terrorism as an ideology began to win if not overt, then at least the tacit, support of Bengalis."
51. Sanyal 2014, pp. 90–91 "[Sanyal translates from Jugantar:] "In a country where the ruling power relies on brute force to oppress its subjects, it is impossible to bring about Revolution or a change in rulers through moral strength. In such a situation, subjects too must rely on brute force." ... The Jugantar challenged the legitimacy of British rule ... [its] position thus amounted to a fundamental critique of the British government ... By 1907 the paper was selling 7000 copies, a figure that went up to 20,000 soon after. The Jugantar ideology was basically addressed to an elite audience that was young, literate and politically radicalized."
52. Sanyal 2014, pp. 91–92 "Bhupendranath Dutt, the editor and proprietor of the Jugantar was arrested in July 1907 and charged under section 124 A ... Bhupendranath was sentenced to a year's rigorous imprisonment ... The Jugantar's stance was typically defiant ... The paper did nothing to tone down the rhetoric in its future editions."
53. Jaffrelot 1996, p. 33
54. M. L. Verma Swadhinta Sangram Ke Krantikari Sahitya Ka Itihas (Part-2) p.466
55. Popplewell 1995, p. 109
56. Heehs 2010, p. 174
57. Heehs 2008, p. 93
58. Samanta 1995, p. 303
59. Saha, Murari Mohan (ed.), Documents of the Revolutionary Socialist Party: Volume One 1938–1947. Agartala: Lokayata Chetana Bikash Society, 2001. p. 35-37

References

• Asiatic Society of Bangladesh (2003), Banglapedia, the national encyclopedia of Bangladesh, Asiatic Society of Bangladesh, Dhaka.
• Bandyopadhyaya, Sekhar (2004), From Plassey to Partition: A History of modern India, Orient Longman, ISBN 978-81-250-2596-2.
• Bates, Crispin (2007), Subalterns and Raj: South Asia since 1600, Routledge, ISBN 978-0-415-21483-4.
• Chakrabarti, Panchanan (1995), Revolt.
• Chowdhry, Prem (2000), Colonial India and the Making of Empire Cinema: Image, Ideology and Identity, Manchester University Press, ISBN 978-0-7190-5792-2.
• Desai, A. R. (2005), Social Background of Indian Nationalism, Mumbai: Popular Prakashan, ISBN 978-8171546671.
• Ganguli, Pratul Chandra (1976), Biplabi'r jibandarshan.
• Guha, Arun Chandra, Aurobindo and Jugantar.
• Heehs, Peter (1993), The Bomb in Bengal: The Rise of Revolutionary Terrorism in India, 1900–1910, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-563350-4.
• Heehs, Peter (July 1994), "Foreign Influences on Bengali Revolutionary Terrorism 1902-1908", Modern Asian Studies, 28 (3): 533–536, doi:10.1017/s0026749x00011859, ISSN 0026-749X.
• Heehs, Peter (1992), History of Bangladesh 1704-1971 (Vol I), Dhaka: Asiatic Society of Bangladesh, ISBN 978-9845123372.
• Heehs, Peter (2008), The Lives of Sri Aurobindo, New York: Columbia University Press, ISBN 978-0-231-14098-0.
• Heehs, Peter (2010), "Revolutionary Terrorism in British Bengal", in Boehmer, Elleke; Morton, Stephen (eds.), Terror and the Postcolonial, Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, ISBN 978-1-4051-9154-8.
• Horniman, B. G. (1984), British Administration & The Amritsar Massacre, Delhi: Mittal Publications, OCLC 12553945.
• Jaffrelot, Christophe (1996), The Hindu Nationalist Movement in India, Columbia University Press, ISBN 0-231-10334-4.
• Morton, Stephen (2013), States of Emergency: Colonialism, Literature and Law, Liverpool University Press, ISBN 978-1-84631-849-8.
• Mukherjee, Jadugopal (1982), Biplabi jibaner smriti (2nd ed.).
• Mitra, Subrata K. (2006), The Puzzle of India's Governance: Culture, Context and Comparative Theory, New York: Routledge, ISBN 978-0-415-34861-4.
• Popplewell, Richard James (1995), Intelligence and Imperial Defence: British Intelligence and the Defence of the Indian Empire, 1904-1924, London: Frank Cass, ISBN 978-0-7146-4580-3.
• Ray, Rajat Kanta (1988), "Moderates, Extremists, and Revolutionaries: Bengal, 1900-1908", in Sisson, Richard; Wolpert, Stanley (eds.), Congress and Indian Nationalism, University of California Press, ISBN 978-0-520-06041-8.
• Riddick, John F. (2006), The History of British India: A Chronology, Greenwood Publishing Group, ISBN 978-0-313-32280-8.
• Roy, Samaren (1997), M. N. Roy: A Political Biography, Orient Longman, ISBN 81-250-0299-5.
• Roy, Shantimoy (2006), "India Freedom Struggle and Muslims", in Engineer, Asghar Ali (ed.), They Too Fought for India's Freedom: The Role of Minorities, Sources of History, Vol. III, Hope India Publications, p. 105, ISBN 9788178710914.
• Samanta, A. K. (1995), Terrorism in Bengal, Vol. II, Government of West Bengal.
• Sanyal, Shukla (2014), Revolutionary Pamphlets, Propaganda and Political Culture in Colonial Bengal, Delhi: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-1-107-06546-8.
• Sarkar, Sumit (2014) [First published 1983], Modern India 1886-1947, Pearson Education, ISBN 978-93-325-4085-9.
• Sen, Sailendra Nath (2010), An Advanced History of Modern India, Macmillan, ISBN 978-0230-32885-3.
• Yadav (1992), Missing or empty |title= (help).
• Majumdar, Purnima (2005), Sri Aurobindo, Diamond Pocket Books (P) Ltd, ISBN 978-8128801945.
• Radhan, O.P. (2002), Encyclopaedia of Political Parties, New Delhi: Anmol Publications PVT. LTD, ISBN 9788174888655.

[admin]

Part 1 of 2

Sri Aurobindo [Aurobindo Ghose] [Aurobindo Ghosh]
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 6/3/20


Sri Aurobindo
Aurobindo Ghose
Personal
Born: Aurobindo Ghose, 15 August 1872, Calcutta, Bengal Presidency, British-occupied India (present-day Kolkata, West Bengal, India)
Died: 5 December 1950 (aged 78), Pondicherry, French India (present-day Puducherry City, Puducherry, India)
Religion: Hinduism
Spouse: Mrinalini Devi (m. 1901; died 1918)
Alma mater: University of Cambridge
Relatives: Krishna Dhun Ghose (father), Swarnalata Devi (mother), Benoybhusan Ghose, Manmohan Ghose (both elder brothers), Sarojini Ghose (younger sister), Barindra Kumar Ghose (younger brother)
Founder of: Sri Aurobindo Ashram
Philosophy: Integral Yoga, Involution (Sri Aurobindo), Evolution, Integral psychology, Intermediate zone, Supermind
Religious career
Disciples: Champaklal, N. K. Gupta, Amal Kiran, Nirodbaran, Pavitra, M. P. Pandit, A.B. Purani, D. K. Roy, Satprem, Indra Sen
Influenced: Mirra Alfassa; Auroville
Literary works: The Life Divine, The Synthesis of Yoga, Savitri
Quotation: The Spirit shall look out through Matter's gaze. And Matter shall reveal the Spirit's face.[1]

Sri Aurobindo (born Aurobindo Ghose; 15 August 1872 – 5 December 1950) was an Indian philosopher, yogi, guru, poet, and nationalist.[2] He joined the Indian movement for independence from British rule, for a while was one of its influential leaders and then became a spiritual reformer, introducing his visions on human progress and spiritual evolution.

Aurobindo studied for the Indian Civil Service at King's College, Cambridge, England. After returning to India he took up various civil service works under the maharaja of the princely state of Baroda and became increasingly involved in nationalist politics in the Indian National Congress and the nascent revolutionary movement in Bengal with the Anushilan Samiti. He was arrested in the aftermath of a number of bomb outrages linked to his organisation, but in a highly public trial where he faced charges of treason, Aurobindo could only be convicted and imprisoned for writing articles against British rule in India. He was released when no evidence could be provided, following the murder of a prosecution witness, Narendranath Goswami [Norendra Nath Gossain] during the trial.

From its foundation to its dissolution during the 1930s, the Samiti challenged British rule in India by engaging in militant nationalism, including bombings, assassinations, and politically-motivated violence. The Samiti collaborated with other revolutionary organisations in India and abroad. It was led by the nationalists Aurobindo Ghosh and his brother Barindra Ghosh, and influenced by philosophies as diverse as Hindu Shakta philosophy, as set forth by Bengali authors Bankim and Vivekananda, Italian Nationalism, and the Pan-Asianism of Kakuzo Okakura. The Samiti was involved in a number of noted incidents of revolutionary attacks against British interests and administration in India, including early attempts to assassinate British Raj officials. These were followed by the 1912 attempt on the life of the Viceroy of India, and the Seditious conspiracy during World War I, led by Rash Behari Bose and Jatindranath Mukherjee respectively....

By 1902, Kolkata (formerly Calcutta) had three secret societies working toward the violent overthrow of British rule in India: one founded by Calcutta student Satish Chandra Basu with the patronage of Calcutta barrister Pramatha Mitra, another led by Sarala Devi, and the third founded by Aurobindo Ghose. Ghose and his brother Barin were among the strongest proponents of militant Indian nationalism at the time.[5][6] Nationalist writings and publications by Aurobindo and Barin, including Bande Mataram and Jugantar, had a widespread influence on Bengal youth and helped Anushilan Samiti to gain popularity in Bengal. The 1905 partition of Bengal stimulated radical nationalist sentiments in Bengal's Bhadralok community, helping the Samiti to acquire the support of educated, politically-conscious and disaffected members of local youth societies. The Samiti's program emphasized physical training, training its recruits with daggers and lathis (bamboo staffs used as weapons). The Dhaka branch was led by Pulin Behari Das, and branches spread throughout East Bengal and Assam.[7] More than 500 branches were opened in eastern Bengal and Assam, linked by "close and detailed organization" to Pulin's headquarters at Dhaka. This branch soon overshadowed its parent organisation in Calcutta. Branches of Dhaka Anushilan Samiti emerged in Jessore, Khulna, Faridpur, Rajnagar, Rajendrapur, Mohanpur, Barvali and Bakarganj, with an estimated membership of 15,000 to 20,000. Within two years, Dhaka Anushilan changed its aims from those of the Swadeshi movement to that of political terrorism.[8][9]

The organisation's political views were expressed in the journal Jugantar, founded in March 1906 by Abhinash Bhattacharya, Barindra, Bhupendranath Dutt and Debabrata Basu.[10] It soon became an organ for the radical views of Aurobindo and other Anushilan leaders, and led to the Calcutta Samiti group being dubbed the "Jugantar party".[citation needed] Early leaders were Rash Behari Bose, Jatindranath Mukherjee and Jadugopal Mukherjee.[5] Aurobindo published similar messages of violent nationalism in journals such as Sandhya, Navashakti and Bande Mataram....

Anushilan Samiti established early links with foreign movements and Indian nationalists abroad. In 1907, Barin Ghosh sent Hem Chandra Kanungo (Hem Chandra Das) to Paris to learn bomb-making from Nicholas Safranski, a Russian revolutionary in exile.[7] Madam Cama, a leading figure of the Paris Indian Society and India House, a revolutionary organisation in London, also lived in Paris and was associated with V.D. Savarkar, who later published a bomb-making manual through India House. In 1908, young recruits Khudiram Bose and Prafulla Chaki were sent on a mission to Muzaffarpur to assassinate chief presidency magistrate D. H. Kingsford.[citation needed] They bombed a carriage they mistook for Kingsford's,[11] killing two Englishwomen. Bose was arrested while attempting to flee and Chaki committed suicide. Police investigation of the killers connected them with Barin's country house in Manicktala (a suburb of Calcutta) and led to a number of arrests, including Aurobindo and Barin.[11] The ensuing trial, held under tight security, led to a death sentence for Barin (later commuted to life imprisonment). The case against Aurobindo Ghosh collapsed after Naren Gosain, who had turned crown witness, was shot in Alipore jail by Satyendranath Basu and Kanailal Dutta, who were also being tried.[citation needed] Aurobindo retired from active politics after being acquitted.[13] This was followed by a 1909 Dhaka conspiracy case, which brought 44 members of the Dhaka Anushilan Samiti to trial.[14][15] Nandalal Bannerjee (the officer who arrested Khudiram) was shot and killed in 1908, followed by the assassinations of the prosecutor and informant for the Alipore case in 1909....

A large portion of the Samiti movement was attracted to left-wing politics during the 1930s, and those who did not join left-wing parties identified with Congress and the Congress Socialist Party. During the mass detentions of the 1930s surrounding the civil-disobedience movement, many members joined Congress. Jugantar was formally dissolved in 1938; many former members continued to act together under Surendra Mohan Ghose, who was a liaison between other Congress politicians and Aurobindo Ghose in Pondicherry. During the late 1930s, Marxist-leaning members of the Samiti in the CSP announced the formation of the Revolutionary Socialist Party (RSP)....

According to one estimate, the Dacca Anushilan Samiti at one point had 500 branches, mostly in the eastern districts of Bengal, and 20,000 members. Branches were opened later in the western districts, Bihar, and the United Provinces. Shelters for absconders were established in Assam and in two farms in Tripura. Organisational documents show a primary division between the two active leaders, Barin Ghosh and Upendranath Bannerjee, and the rank-and-file. Higher leaders such as Aurobindo were supposed to be known only to the active leaders. Past members of the Samiti asserted that the groups were interconnected with a vast web of secret societies throughout British India. However, historian Peter Heehs concluded that the links between provinces were limited to contacts between a few individuals like Aurobindo who was familiar with leaders and movements in Western India, and that relationships among the different revolutionary groups were more often competitive than co-operative.[citation needed] An internal document of circa 1908 written by Pulin Behari Das describes the division of the organisation in Bengal, which largely followed British administrative divisions....

In the 1860s and 1870s, large numbers of akhras (gymnasiums) arose in Bengal that were consciously designed along the lines of the Italian Carbonari.[39] These were influenced by the works of Italian nationalist Giuseppe Mazzini and his Young Italy movement. Aurobindo himself studied the revolutionary nationalism of Ireland, France and America.[38] Hem Chandra Das, during his stay in Paris, is also noted to have interacted with European radical nationalists in the city,[38] returning to India an atheist with Marxist leanings.[27]

Foreign influences on the Samiti included the Japanese artist Kakuzo Okakura and Margaret Noble, an Irish woman known as Sister Nivedita. Okakura was a proponent of Pan-Asianism. He visited Swami Vivekananda in Calcutta in 1902, and inspired Pramathanath Mitra in the early days of the Samiti.[38][40] However the extent of his involvement or influence is debated.[41] Nivedita was a disciple of Swami Vivekananda. She had contacts with Aurobindo, with Satish Bose and with Jugantar sub-editor Bhupendranath Bose. Nivedita is believed to have influenced members of the Samiti by talking about their duties to the motherland and providing literature on revolutionary nationalism. She was a correspondent of Peter Kropotkin, a noted anarchist.[38]...

The chief apostle of militant nationalism in Bengal was Aurobindo Ghose. In 1902, there were three secret societies in Calcutta - Anushilan Samiti, founded by Pramatha Mitra, a barrister of the High Court of Calcutta; a society sponsored by Aurobindo Ghose and a society started by Sarala Devi ... the government found it difficult to suppress revolutionary activities in Bengal owing to ... leaders like Jatindranath Mukherjee, Rashbehari Bose and Jadugopal Mukherjee....

"There were ... some foreign influences on Bengali Terrorism ... Aurobindo Ghose's study of the revolutionary movements of Ireland, France, and America. Members of the early 'secret societies' drew some of their inspiration from Mazzini ... The Japanese critic Kakuzo Okakura inspired Pramathanath Mitra and others with revolutionary and pan-Asiatic ideas just when the samiti movement was getting started. The Irishwoman Margaret Noble, known as Sister Nivedita after she became a disciple of Swami Vivekananda, had some contact with Aurobindo Ghose and with younger men like Satish Bose and Jugantar sub-editor Bhupendranath Bose. Nivedita was in correspondence with the non-terroristic anarchist Peter Kropotkin, and she is known to have had revolutionary beliefs. She gave the young men a collection of books that included titles on revolutionary history and spoke to them about their duty to the motherland ... undoubted connection of Hem Chandra Das with European revolutionaries in Paris in 1907."...

"The Jugantar newspaper served as the propaganda vehicle for a loose congregation of revolutionaries led by individuals like Jain Banerjee and Barin Ghose who drew inspiration from ... Aurobindo Ghose."

-- Anushilan Samiti, by Wikipedia

Satyendra Nath Bosu (aka. Satyendranath Bose or Satyen Bose; 30 July 1882 – 21 November 1908) was an Indian nationalist of the Anushilan Samiti. Bosu, while held in Alipore Jial hospital as an under-trial in the Alipore Bomb Case, shot dead, with the help of Kanailal Dutta, the Crown witness, Narendranath Goswami, leading to the collapse of the case against prime accused Aurobindo Ghosh [Sri Aurobindo]. Bosu gave himself up on the jail premises, and was subsequently put on trial, along with Dutta, and found guilty and executed by hanging on 21 November 1908 for the murder of Goswami....

Satyendranath was the maternal uncle of Shri [Sri] Aurobindo, though he was about ten years his junior...

Police raided the premises at 32 Murari Pukur Road at Kolkata on 2 May 1908 and a bomb-factory was discovered, as was a cache of arms, a large quantity of ammunition, bombs, detonators, and other tools. They also confiscated Revolutionary literature. The raids were being conducted at various places throughout Bengal and Bihar, and more detention was on the move. Aurobindo Ghosh [Sri Aurobindo], Barindra Kumar Ghose, Ullaskar Dutt, Indu Bhusan Roy and many others were arrested. During this time one detainee, Narendranath Goswami (aka Norendra Nath Gossain), became approver of the British, and started revealing names of many persons to the police, leading to further arrests.

Goswami was a resident of Srirampur near Chandernagore. He knew all the plans and activities of the revolutionaries. Appearing in the witness box he started implicating many of his former colleagues by mentioning their names. Barin Ghosh, Shanti Ghosh and Ullaskar Dutta's names were mentioned in attempting to blow off the governor's train at Chandernagore station in 1908. Referring to the bomb outrage in the Mayor's house he mentioned the name of Charu Chandra Roy, as being the leader of the revolutionary outfit in Chandernagore; and on 24 June mentioned the names of Aurobindo Ghosh and Subodh Chandra Mullick as being linked to revolutionary activities.

The under-trial prisoners under the leadership of Barin Ghosh hatched a plan to escape from the Alipur Central Jail, and also to get rid of Goswami. B.C. Roy, Barrister-at-law, defending the prisoners, offered to help with men and arms. Barin wrote letters from jail to Sudhangshu Jiban Rai, Preo Shankar Rai, and Basanta Banerjee of Chandernagore to meet B. C. Roy for arrangements of arms. He also wrote to Shrish Chandra Ghosh to send phial, acid for the purpose of throwing at jail wardens, and wax to copy keys. On Sunday, 23 August, one revolver was smuggled into the jail by Shudhangshu Jiban Rai. The next day, Barin asked Hem Das to give it to Satyendranath with instructions to kill Goswami. That time Satyendranath was admitted in the jail Hospital. He expressed his inability to use such a big revolver, and returned it back. On Sunday, 30 August, another revolver reached Barin though Shrish. it was a smaller one. Kanailal took it, and subsequently got admitted to the jail hospital. The Revolvers were received loaded. The stage was set.

It was time for retribution for the traitor inside Presidency Jail. It appears that Narendranath, intentionally kept separated from the other prisoners, was confined in the European Ward in Alipore Central Jail. On 31 August 1908, Narerdranath was brought from that ward to the Jail Hospital by a European Convict Overseer named Highens. Narendranath had apparently previously arranged to meet at that time in the Hospital two fellow prisoners who were already patients in the Jail Hospital, named Kanailal Dutta and Satyendranath Bosu. Kanailal and Satyendra managed to acquire two revolvers secretly. Shrish Chandra Ghosh of Chandernagore smuggled the revolvers into the jail, assisted by Motilal Roy. Narendranath had apparently been approached by the second of these prisoners, who had pretended that he also wished to make a statement, and his visit was really in order to get this statement. Evidently, it was however part of a plot to get Narendranath within striking distance, for it appears that almost immediately on Narendranath’s arrival on the landing, at the head of the staircase leading to the second story of the Hospital, these two prisoners opened fire on him with the two revolvers. Highens, the Convict Overseer, attempted to arrest one of them, and was shot through the wrist. Narendranath, although shot in several places, was not mortally hit, and fled down the stairs out of the Hospital Compound and along an alleyway towards the gate. Kanailal Dutta pursued him and shot him fatally through the back. He was then secured by a Eurasian Prisoner named Linton.

-- Satyendranath Bosu, by Wikipedia

During his stay in the jail, he had mystical and spiritual experiences, after which he moved to Pondicherry, leaving politics for spiritual work.

At Pondicherry, Sri Aurobindo developed a spiritual practice he called Integral Yoga. The central theme of his vision was the evolution of human life into a divine life. He believed in a spiritual realisation that not only liberated but transformed human nature, enabling a divine life on earth. In 1926, with the help of his spiritual collaborator, Mirra Alfassa (referred to as "The Mother"), he founded the Sri Aurobindo Ashram.

His main literary works are The Life Divine, which deals with theoretical aspects of Integral Yoga; Synthesis of Yoga, which deals with practical guidance to Integral Yoga; and Savitri: A Legend and a Symbol, an epic poem.

Biography

Early life time

Aurobindo Ghose was born in Calcutta (now Kolkata), Bengal Presidency, India on 15 August 1872 in a Bengali Kayastha family that was associated with the village of Konnagar in the Hoogly district. His father, Krishna Dhun Ghose, was then assistant surgeon of Rangpur in Bengal and later civil surgeon of Khulna, and a former member of the Brahmo Samaj religious reform movement who had become enamoured with the then-new idea of evolution while pursuing medical studies in Edinburgh.[3][a] His mother was Swarnalata Devi, whose father was Shri Rajnarayan Bose, a leading figure in the Samaj. She had been sent to the more salubrious surroundings of Calcutta for Aurobindo's birth. Aurobindo had two elder siblings, Benoybhusan and Manmohan, a younger sister, Sarojini, and a younger brother, Barindrakumar (also referred to as Barin).[4][5]

Young Aurobindo was brought up speaking English but used Hindustani to communicate with servants. Although his family were Bengali, his father believed British culture to be superior. He and his two elder siblings were sent to the English-speaking Loreto House boarding school in Darjeeling, in part to improve their language skills and in part to distance them from their mother, who had developed a mental illness soon after the birth of her first child. Darjeeling was a centre of British life in India and the school was run by Irish nuns, through which the boys would have been exposed to Christian religious teachings and symbolism.[6]

England (1879–1893)


Aurobindo (seated center next to his mother) and his family. In England, ca. 1879.[7]

Krishna Dhun Ghose wanted his sons to enter the Indian Civil Service (ICS), an elite organisation comprising around 1000 people. To achieve this it was necessary that they study in England and so it was there that the entire family moved in 1879.[8][ b] The three brothers were placed in the care of the Reverend W. H. Drewett in Manchester.[8] Drewett was a minister of the Congregational Church whom Krishna Dhun Ghose knew through his British friends at Rangapur.[9][c]

The boys were taught Latin by Drewett and his wife. This was a prerequisite for admission to good English schools and, after two years, in 1881, the elder two siblings were enrolled at Manchester Grammar School. Aurobindo was considered too young for enrolment and he continued his studies with the Drewetts, learning history, Latin, French, geography and arithmetic. Although the Drewetts were told not to teach religion, the boys inevitably were exposed to Christian teachings and events, which generally bored Aurobindo and sometimes repulsed him. There was little contact with his father, who wrote only a few letters to his sons while they were in England, but what communication there was indicated that he was becoming less endeared to the British in India than he had been, on one occasion describing the British Raj as a "heartless government".[10]


Basement of 49 St Stephen's Avenue, London W12 with Sri Aurobindo Blue Plaque

Drewett emigrated to Australia in 1884, causing the boys to be uprooted as they went to live with Drewett's mother in London. In September of that year, Aurobindo and Manmohan joined St Paul's School there.[d] He learned Greek and spent the last three years reading literature and English poetry, while he also acquired some familiarity with the German and Italian languages ; Peter Heehs resumes his linguistic abilities by stating that at "the turn of the century he knew at least twelve languages: English, French, and Bengali to speak, read, and write; Latin, Greek, and Sanskrit to read and write; Gujarati, Marathi, and Hindi to speak and read; and Italian, German, and Spanish to read."[14] Being exposed to the evangelical structures of Drewett's mother developed in him a distaste for religion, and he considered himself at one point to be an atheist but later determined that he was agnostic.[15] A blue plaque unveiled in 2007 commemorates Aurobindo's residence at 49 St Stephen's Avenue in Shepherd's Bush, London, from 1884 to 1887.[16] The three brothers began living in spartan circumstances at the Liberal Club in South Kensington during 1887, their father having experienced some financial difficulties. The Club's secretary was James Cotton, brother of their father's friend in the Bengal ICS, Henry Cotton.[17]

By 1889, Manmohan had determined to pursue a literary career and Benoybhusan had proved himself unequal to the standards necessary for ICS entrance. This meant that only Aurobindo might fulfill his father's aspirations but to do so when his father lacked money required that he studied hard for a scholarship.[13] To become an ICS official, students were required to pass the competitive examination, as well as to study at an English university for two years under probation. Aurobindo secured a scholarship at King's College, Cambridge, under recommendation of Oscar Browning.[18] He passed the written ICS examination after a few months, being ranked 11th out of 250 competitors. He spent the next two years at King's College.[12] Aurobindo had no interest in the ICS and came late to the horse-riding practical exam purposefully to get himself disqualified for the service.[19]

At this time, the Maharaja of Baroda, Sayajirao Gaekwad III, was travelling in England. Cotton secured for him a place in Baroda State Service and arranged for him to meet the prince.[20] He left England for India,[20] arriving there in February 1893.[21] In India, Krishna Dhun Ghose, who was waiting to receive his son, was misinformed by his agents from Bombay (now Mumbai) that the ship on which Aurobindo had been travelling had sunk off the coast of Portugal. His father died upon hearing this news.[22][23]

Baroda and Calcutta (1893–1910)

Main article: Political history of Sri Aurobindo

See also: Anushilan Samiti

In Baroda, Aurobindo joined the state service in 1893, working first in the Survey and Settlements department, later moving to the Department of Revenue and then to the Secretariat, and much miscellaneous work like teaching grammar and assisting in writing speeches for the Maharaja of Gaekwad until 1897.[24] In 1897 during his work in Baroda, he started working as a part-time French teacher at Baroda College (now Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda). He was later promoted to the post of vice-principal.[25] At Baroda, Aurobindo self-studied Sanskrit and Bengali.[26]


Copy of Bande Mataram, September 1907

During his stay at Baroda, he had contributed to many articles to Indu Prakash and had spoken as a chairman of the Baroda college board.[27] He started taking an active interest in the politics of India's independence struggle against British rule, working behind the scenes as his position in the Baroda state administration barred him from an overt political activity. He linked up with resistance groups in Bengal and Madhya Pradesh , while travelling to these states. He established contact with Lokmanya Tilak and Sister Nivedita.

Aurobindo often travelled between Baroda and Bengal, at first in a bid to re-establish links with his parent's families and other Bengali relatives, including his sister Sarojini and brother Barin, and later increased to establish resistance groups across the Presidency. He formally moved to Calcutta in 1906 after the announcement of the Partition of Bengal. In 1901, on a visit to Calcutta, he married 14-year-old Mrinalini, the daughter of Bhupal Chandra Bose, a senior official in government service. Aurobindo was 28 at that time. Mrinalini died seventeen years later in December 1918 during the influenza pandemic.[28]

Aurobindo was influenced by studies on rebellion and revolutions against England in medieval France and the revolts in America and Italy. In his public activities he favoured non-co-operation and passive resistance; in private he took up secret revolutionary activity as a preparation for open revolt, in case that the passive revolt failed.[29]


Sri Aurobindo seated at the table, with Tilak speaking: Surat session of Congress, 1907

In Bengal, with Barin's help, he established contacts with revolutionaries, inspiring radicals such as Bagha Jatin or Jatin Mukherjee and Surendranath Tagore. He helped establish a series of youth clubs, including the Anushilan Samiti of Calcutta in 1902.[30]

Aurobindo attended the 1906 Congress meeting headed by Dadabhai Naoroji and participated as a councillor in forming the fourfold objectives of "Swaraj, Swadesh, Boycott, and national education". In 1907 at the Surat session of Congress where moderates and extremists had a major showdown, he led along with extremists along with Bal Gangadhar Tilak. The Congress split after this session.[31] In 1907–1908 Aurobindo travelled extensively to Pune, Bombay and Baroda to firm up support for the nationalist cause, giving speeches and meeting with groups. He was arrested again in May 1908 in connection with the Alipore Bomb Case. He was acquitted in the ensuing trial, following the murder of chief prosecution witness Naren Goswami within jail premises which subsequently led to the case against him collapsing. Aurobindo was subsequently released after a year of isolated incarceration.

Once out of the prison he started two new publications, Karmayogin in English and Dharma in Bengali. He also delivered the Uttarpara Speech hinting at the transformation of his focus to spiritual matters. The British persecution continued because of his writings in his new journals and in April 1910 Aurobindo moved to Pondicherry, where Britain's secret police monitored his activities.[32][33]

Conversion from politics to spirituality


Photographs of Aurobindo as a prisoner in Alipore Jail, 1908.

In July 1905 then Viceroy of India, Lord Curzon, partitioned Bengal. This sparked an outburst of public anger against the British, leading to civil unrest and a nationalist campaign by groups of revolutionaries that included Aurobindo. In 1908, Khudiram Bose and Prafulla Chaki attempted to kill Magistrate Kingsford, a judge known for handing down particularly severe sentences against nationalists. However, the bomb thrown at his horse carriage missed its target and instead landed in another carriage and killed two British women, the wife and daughter of barrister Pringle Kennedy. Aurobindo was also arrested on charges of planning and overseeing the attack and imprisoned in solitary confinement in Alipore Jail. The trial of the Alipore Bomb Case lasted for a year, but eventually, he was acquitted on 6 May 1909. His defence counsel was Chittaranjan Das.[34]

During this period in the Jail, his view of life was radically changed due to spiritual experiences and realizations. Consequently, his aim went far beyond the service and liberation of the country. [35]

Aurobindo said he was "visited" by Vivekananda in the Alipore Jail: "It is a fact that I was hearing constantly the voice of Vivekananda speaking to me for a fortnight in the jail in my solitary meditation and felt his presence."[36]

In his autobiographical notes, Aurobindo said he felt a vast sense of calmness when he first came back to India. He could not explain this and continued to have various such experiences from time to time. He knew nothing of yoga at that time and started his practice of it without a teacher, except for some rules that he learned from Ganganath, a friend who was a disciple of Brahmananda.[37] In 1907, Barin introduced Aurobindo to Vishnu Bhaskar Lele, a Maharashtrian yogi. Aurobindo was influenced by the guidance he got from the yogi, who had instructed Aurobindo to depend on an inner guide and any kind of external guru or guidance would not be required.[38]

In 1910 Aurobindo withdrew himself from all political activities and went into hiding at Chandannagar in the house of Motilal Roy, while the British were trying to prosecute him for sedition on the basis of a signed article titled 'To My Countrymen', published in Karmayogin. As Aurobindo disappeared from view, the warrant was held back and the prosecution postponed. Aurobindo manoeuvred the police into open action and a warrant was issued on 4 April 1910, but the warrant could not be executed because on that date he had reached Pondicherry, then a French colony.[39] The warrant against Aurobindo was withdrawn.

Pondicherry (1910–1950)

In Pondicherry, Sri Aurobindo dedicated himself to his spiritual and philosophical pursuits. In 1914, after four years of secluded yoga, he started a monthly philosophical magazine called Arya. This ceased publication in 1921. Many years later, he revised some of these works before they were published in book form. Some of the book series derived out of this publication was The Life Divine, The Synthesis of Yoga, Essays on The Gita, The Secret of The Veda, Hymns to the Mystic Fire, The Upanishads, The Renaissance in India, War and Self-determination, The Human Cycle, The Ideal of Human Unity and The Future Poetry were published in this magazine.[40]

At the beginning of his stay at Pondicherry, there were few followers, but with time their numbers grew, resulting in the formation of the Sri Aurobindo Ashram in 1926.[41] From 1926 he started to sign himself as Sri Aurobindo, Sri (meaning holy in Sanskrit) being commonly used as an honorific.[42]

For some time afterwards, his main literary output was his voluminous correspondence with his disciples. His letters, most of which were written in the 1930s, numbered in the several thousand. Many were brief comments made in the margins of his disciple's notebooks in answer to their questions and reports of their spiritual practice—others extended to several pages of carefully composed explanations of practical aspects of his teachings. These were later collected and published in book form in three volumes of Letters on Yoga. In the late 1930s, he resumed work on a poem he had started earlier—he continued to expand and revise this poem for the rest of his life.[43] It became perhaps his greatest literary achievement, Savitri, an epic spiritual poem in blank verse of approximately 24,000 lines.[44]

Sri Aurobindo died on 5 December 1950. Around 60,000 people attended to see his body resting peacefully. Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, and the President Rajendra Prasad praised him for his contribution to Yogic philosophy and the independence movement. National and international newspapers commemorated his death.[41][45]

Mirra Alfassa (The Mother) and the development of the Ashram

Sri Aurobindo's close spiritual collaborator, Mirra Alfassa (b. Alfassa), came to be known as The Mother.[46] She was a French national, born in Paris on 21 February 1878. In her 20s she studied occultism with Max Theon. Along with her husband, Paul Richard, she went to Pondicherry on 29 March 1914,[47] and finally settled there in 1920. Sri Aurobindo considered her his spiritual equal and collaborator. After 24 November 1926, when Sri Aurobindo retired into seclusion, he left it to her to plan, build and run the ashram, the community of disciples which had gathered around them. Sometime later, when families with children joined the ashram, she established and supervised the Sri Aurobindo International Centre of Education with its experiments in the field of education. When he died in 1950, she continued their spiritual work, directed the ashram, and guided their disciples.[48]

Philosophy and spiritual vision

Main article: Integral yoga


Aurobindo's model of Being and Evolution[49][50]

Introduction

Sri Aurobindo's concept of the Integral Yoga system is described in his books, The Synthesis of Yoga and The Life Divine. [51] The Life Divine is a compilation of essays published serially in Arya.

Sri Aurobindo argues that divine Brahman manifests as empirical reality through līlā, or divine play. Instead of positing that the world we experience is an illusion (māyā), Aurobindo argues that world can evolve and become a new world with new species, far above the human species just as human species have evolved after the animal species. As such he argued that the end goal of spiritual practice could not merely be a liberation from the world into Samadhi but would also be that of descent of the Divine into the world in order to transform it into a Divine existence. Thus, this constituted the purpose of Integral Yoga.[52] Regarding the involution of consciousness in matter, he wrote that: "This descent, this sacrifice of the Purusha, the Divine Soul submitting itself to Force and Matter so that it may inform and illuminate them is the seed of redemption of this world of Inconscience and Ignorance."[53]

Sri Aurobindo believed that Darwinism merely describes a phenomenon of the evolution of matter into life, but does not explain the reason behind it, while he finds life to be already present in matter, because all of existence is a manifestation of Brahman. He argues that nature (which he interpreted as divine) has evolved life out of matter and the mind out of life. All of existence, he argues, is attempting to manifest to the level of the supermind – that evolution had a purpose.[54] He stated that he found the task of understanding the nature of reality arduous and difficult to justify by immediate tangible results.[55]

Supermind

Main article: Supermind (Integral yoga)

At the centre of Aurobindo's metaphysical system is the supermind, an intermediary power between the unmanifested Brahman and the manifested world.[56] Aurobindo claims that the supermind is not completely alien to us and can be realized within ourselves as it is always present within mind since the latter is in reality identical with the former and contains it as a potentiality within itself.[57] Aurobindo does not portray supermind as an original invention of his own but believes it can be found in the Vedas and that the Vedic Gods represent powers of the supermind[58] In The Integral Yoga he declares that "By the supermind is meant the full Truth-Consciousness of the Divine Nature in which there can be no place for the principle of division and ignorance; it is always a full light and knowledge superior to all mental substance or mental movement."[59] Supermind is a bridge between Sachchidananda and the lower manifestation and it is only through the supramental that mind, life and body can be spiritually transformed as opposed to through Sachchidananda [60] The descent of supermind will mean the creation of a supramental race [61]

Affinity with Western philosophy

In his writings, talks, and letters Sri Aurobindo has referred to several European philosophers with whose basic concepts he was familiar, commenting on their ideas and discussing the question of affinity to his own line of thought. Thus he wrote a long essay on the Greek philosopher Heraclitus[62] and mentioned especially Plato, Plotinus, Nietzsche and Bergson as thinkers in whom he was interested because of their more intuitive approach.[63] On the other hand, he felt little attraction for the philosophy of Kant or Hegel.[64] Several studies[65] have shown a remarkable closeness to the evolutionary thought of Teilhard de Chardin, whom he did not know, whereas the latter came to know of Sri Aurobindo at a late stage. After reading some chapters of The Life Divine, he is reported to have said that Sri Aurobindo's vision of evolution was basically the same as his own, though stated for Asian readers.[66][67]

Several scholars have discovered significant similarities in the thought of Sri Aurobindo and Hegel. Steve Odin has discussed this subject comprehensively in a comparative study.[68] Odin writes that Sri Aurobindo "has appropriated Hegel’s notion of an Absolute Spirit and employed it to radically restructure the architectonic framework of the ancient Hindu Vedanta system in contemporary terms."[69] In his analysis Odin arrives at the conclusion that "both philosophers similarly envision world creation as the progressive self-manifestation and evolutionary ascent of a universal consciousness in its journey toward Self-realization."[70] He points out that in contrast to the deterministic and continuous dialectal unfolding of Absolute Reason by the mechanism of thesis-antithesis-synthesis or affirmation-negation-integration, "Sri Aurobindo argues for a creative, emergent mode of evolution."[70] In his résumé Odin states that Sri Aurobindo has overcome the ahistorical world-vision of traditional Hinduism and presented a concept which allows for a genuine advance and novelty.[71]

Importance of the Upanishads

Although Sri Aurobindo was familiar with the most important lines of thought in Western philosophy, he did not acknowledge their influence on his own writings.[72] He wrote that his philosophy "was formed first by the study of the Upanishads and the Gita… They were the basis of my first practice of Yoga." With the help of his readings he tried to move on to actual experience, "and it was on this experience that later on I founded my philosophy, not on ideas themselves.”[73]

He assumes that the seers of the Upanishads had basically the same approach and gives some details of his vision of the past in a long passage in The Renaissance of India. "The Upanishads have been the acknowledged source of numerous profound philosophies and religions," he writes. Even Buddhism with all its developments was only a "restatement" from a new standpoint and with fresh terms. And, furthermore, the ideas of the Upanishads "can be rediscovered in much of the thought of Pythagoras and Plato and form the profound part of Neo-platonism and Gnosticism..." Finally, the larger part of German metaphysics "is little more in substance than an intellectual development of great realities more spiritually seen in this ancient teaching."[74] When once he was asked by a disciple whether Plato got some of his ideas from Indian books, he responded that though something of the philosophy of India got through "by means of Pythagoras and others", he assumed that Plato got most of his ideas from intuition.[75]

Sri Aurobindo's indebtedness to the Indian tradition also becomes obvious through his placing a large number of quotations from the Rig Veda, the Upanishads and the Bhagavadgita at the beginning of the chapters in The Life Divine, showing the connection of his own thought to Veda and Vedanta.[76][77]

The Isha Upanishad is considered to be one of the most important and more accessible writings of Sri Aurobindo.[78] Before he published his final translation and analysis, he wrote ten incomplete commentaries.[79] In a key passage he points out that the Brahman or Absolute is both the Stable and the Moving. "We must see it in eternal and immutable Spirit and in all the changing manifestations of universe and relativity."[78][80] Sri Aurobindo's biographer K.R.S. Iyengar quotes R.S. Mugali as stating that Sri Aurobindo might have obtained in this Upanishad the thought-seed which later grew into The Life Divine.[81]

[admin]

Part 2 of 2

Synthesis and integration

Sisir Kumar Maitra, who was a leading exponent of Sri Aurobindo's Philosophy,[82] has referred to the issue of external influences and written that Sri Aurobindo does not mention names, but "as one reads his books one cannot fail to notice how thorough is his grasp of the great Western philosophers of the present age..." Although he is Indian one should not "underrate the influence of Western thought upon him. This influence is there, very clearly visible, but Sri Aurobindo... has not allowed himself to be dominated by it. He has made full use of Western thought, but he has made use of it for the purpose of building up his own system..."[83] Thus Maitra, like Steve Odin,[84] sees Sri Aurobindo not only in the tradition and context of Indian, but also Western philosophy and assumes he may have adopted some elements from the latter for his synthesis.

R. Puligandla supports this viewpoint in his book Fundamentals of Indian Philosophy. He describes Sri Aurobindo's philosophy as "an original synthesis of the Indian and Western traditions." "He integrates in a unique fashion the great social, political and scientific achievements of the modern West with the ancient and profound spiritual insights of Hinduism. The vision that powers the life divine of Aurobindo is none other than the Upanishadic vision of the unity of all existence."[85]

Puligandla believes that the Western influence also becomes evident through Sri Aurobindo's critical position vis-à-vis Shankara[86] and his assumption that the latter teaches through his Mayavada or Illusionism that the world is unreal and illusory. Puligandla objects, "nowhere does Shankara say that the world is unreal and illusory. Quite the contrary, through the concept of sublation he teaches that the world is neither real nor unreal. That this is indeed his teaching is further borne out by his distinction between lower and higher truths." Therefore, Puligandla concludes that "Aurobindo's characterization of Shankara's Vedanta as a world-negating philosophy is unfounded." He believes that Sri Aurobindo in his endeavour to synthesize Hindu and Western modes of thought has wrongly identified Shankara's Mayavada with the subjective idealism of George Berkeley, "which undoubtedly stands in sharp contrast to the realism of the Western philosophical tradition in general." Nonetheless, Puligandla believes that Sri Aurobindo was "a great philosopher-mystic" with a significant vision of man and the world.[85]

Sri Aurobindo's critique of Shankara is supported by U. C. Dubey in his paper titled Integralism: The Distinctive Feature of Sri Aurobindo’s Philosophy. He starts by summarizing what he considers to be Sri Aurobindo's most important contributions to philosophy and mentions at first his integral view of Reality. "The creative force or 'cit-śakti' is regarded by him as one with the Absolute. Thus there is no opposition between the Absolute and its creative force in his system." Next Dubey refers to Sri Aurobindo's conception of the supermind as the mediatory principle between the Absolute and the finite world and quotes S.K. Maitra stating that this conception "is the pivot round which the whole of Sri Aurobindo’s philosophy moves."[87]

Dubey proceeds to analyse the approach of the Shankarites and believes that they follow an inadequate kind of logic that does not do justice to the challenge of tackling the problem of the Absolute, which cannot be known by finite reason. With the help of the finite reason, he says, "we are bound to determine the nature of reality as one or many, being or becoming. But Sri Aurobindo's Integral Advaitism reconciles all apparently different aspects of Existence in an all-embracing unity of the Absolute." Next, Dubey explains that for Sri Aurobindo there is a higher reason, the "logic of the infinite" in which his integralism is rooted, and expounds this concept by presenting some quotations from The Life Divine. In concluding he notes critically "that Sri Aurobindo does not explain sufficiently the nature of the logic of the infinite." Nevertheless, "the way he proposes this logic is undoubtedly his unique contribution in the field of Absolutism."[87]

Legacy


Sri Aurobindo on a 1964 stamp of India

Sri Aurobindo was an Indian nationalist but is best known for his philosophy on human evolution and Integral Yoga.[88]

Influence

His influence has been wide-ranging. In India, S. K. Maitra, Anilbaran Roy and D. P. Chattopadhyaya commented on Sri Aurobindo's work. Writers on esotericism and traditional wisdom, such as Mircea Eliade, Paul Brunton, and Rene Guenon, all saw him as an authentic representative of the Indian spiritual tradition.[89] Though Rene Guenon thought Sri Aurobindo's thoughts were betrayed by some of his followers and that some works published under his name were not authentic, since not traditional. [90] [91]

Haridas Chaudhuri and Frederic Spiegelberg[92] were among those who were inspired by Aurobindo, who worked on the newly formed American Academy of Asian Studies in San Francisco. Soon after, Chaudhuri and his wife Bina established the Cultural Integration Fellowship, from which later emerged the California Institute of Integral Studies.[93]

Sri Aurobindo influenced Subhash Chandra Bose to take an initiative of dedicating to Indian National Movement full-time. Bose writes "The illustrious example of Arabindo Ghosh looms large before my vision. I feel that I am ready to make the sacrifice which that example demands of me."[94]

Karlheinz Stockhausen was heavily inspired by Satprem's writings about Sri Aurobindo during a week in May 1968, a time at which the composer was undergoing a personal crisis and had found Sri Aurobindo's philosophies were relevant to his feelings. After this experience, Stockhausen's music took a completely different turn, focusing on mysticism, that was to continue until the end of his career.[95]

Jean Gebser acknowledged Sri Aurobindo's influence on his work and referred to him several times in his writings. Thus, in The Invisible Origin he quotes a long passage from The Synthesis of Yoga.[96] Gebser believes that he was "in some way brought into the extremely powerful spiritual field of force radiating through Sri Aurobindo."[97][98] In his title Asia Smiles Differently he reports about his visit to the Sri Aurobindo Ashram and meeting with the Mother whom he calls an "exceptionally gifted person."[99][100]

After meeting Sri Aurobindo in Pondicherry in 1915, the Danish author and artist Johannes Hohlenberg published one of the first Yoga titles in Europe and later on wrote two essays on Sri Aurobindo. He also published extracts from The Life Divine in Danish translation.[101]

William Irwin Thompson travelled to Auroville in 1972, where he met "The Mother". Thompson has called Sri Aurobindo's teaching on spirituality a "radical anarchism" and a "post-religious approach" and regards their work as having "... reached back into the Goddess culture of prehistory, and, in Marshall McLuhan's terms, 'culturally retrieved' the archetypes of the shaman and la sage femme... " Thompson also writes that he experienced Shakti, or psychic power coming from The Mother on the night of her death in 1973.[102]

Sri Aurobindo's ideas about the further evolution of human capabilities influenced the thinking of Michael Murphy – and indirectly, the human potential movement, through Murphy's writings.[103]

The American philosopher Ken Wilber has called Sri Aurobindo "India's greatest modern philosopher sage"[104] and has integrated some of his ideas into his philosophical vision. Wilber's interpretation of Aurobindo has been criticised by Rod Hemsell.[105] New Age writer Andrew Harvey also looks to Sri Aurobindo as a major inspiration.[106]

Followers

The following authors, disciples and organisations trace their intellectual heritage back to, or have in some measure been influenced by, Sri Aurobindo and The Mother.

• Nolini Kanta Gupta (1889–1983) was one of Sri Aurobindo's senior disciples, and wrote extensively on philosophy, mysticism, and spiritual evolution based on the teaching of Sri Aurobindo and "The Mother".[107]
• Nirodbaran (1903–2006). A doctor who obtained his medical degree from Edinburgh, his long and voluminous correspondence with Sri Aurobindo elaborate on many aspects of Integral Yoga and fastidious record of conversations bring out Sri Aurobindo's thought on numerous subjects.[108]
• M. P. Pandit (1918–1993). Secretary to "The Mother" and the ashram, his copious writings and lectures cover Yoga, the Vedas, Tantra, Sri Aubindo's epic "Savitri" and others.
• Sri Chinmoy (1931–2007) joined the ashram in 1944. Later, he wrote the play about Sri Aurobindo's life – Sri Aurobindo: Descent of the Blue – and a book, Infinite: Sri Aurobindo.[109] An author, composer, artist and athlete, he was perhaps best known for holding public events on the theme of inner peace and world harmony (such as concerts, meditations, and races).[110][better source needed]
• Pavitra (1894–1969) was one of their early disciples. Born as Philippe Barbier Saint-Hilaire in Paris. Pavitra left some very interesting memoirs of his conversations with them in 1925 and 1926, which were published as Conversations avec Pavitra.[111]
• Dilipkumar Roy (1897–1980) was a Bengali Indian musician, musicologist, novelist, poet and essayist.
• T.V. Kapali Sastry (1886–1953) was an eminent author and Sanskrit scholar. He joined the Sri Aurobindo Ashram in 1929 and wrote books and articles in four languages, exploring especially Sri Aurobindo's Vedic interpretations.
• Satprem (1923–2007) was a French author and an important disciple of "The Mother" who published Mother's Agenda (1982), Sri Aurobindo or the Adventure of Consciousness (2000), On the Way to Supermanhood (2002) and more.[112]
• Indra Sen (1903–1994) was another disciple of Sri Aurobindo who, although little-known in the West, was the first to articulate integral psychology and integral philosophy, in the 1940s and 1950s. A compilation of his papers came out under the title, Integral Psychology in 1986.[113]
• K. D. Sethna (1904-2011) was an Indian poet, scholar, writer, cultural critic and disciple of Sri Aurobindo. For several decades he was the editor of the Ashram journal Mother India.[114]
• Margaret Woodrow Wilson (Nistha) (1886–1944), daughter of US President Woodrow Wilson, she came to the ashram in 1940 and stayed there until her death.[115]

Critics

• Adi Da finds that Sri Aurobindo's contributions were merely literary and cultural and had extended his political motivation into spirituality and human evolution[116]
• N. R. Malkani finds Sri Aurobindo's theory of creation to be false, as the theory talks about experiences and visions which are beyond normal human experiences. He says the theory is an intellectual response to a difficult problem and that Sri Aurobindo uses the trait of unpredictability in theorising and discussing things not based upon the truth of existence. Malkani says that awareness is already a reality and suggests there would be no need to examine the creative activity subjected to awareness.[117]
• Ken Wilber's interpretation of Sri Aurobindo's philosophy differed from the notion of dividing reality as a different level of matter, life, mind, overmind, supermind proposed by Sri Aurobindo in The Life Divine, and terms them as higher- or lower-nested holons and states that there is only a fourfold reality (a system of reality created by himself).[118]
• Rajneesh (Osho) says that Sri Aurobindo was a great scholar but was never realised; that his personal ego had made him indirectly claim that he went beyond Buddha; and that he is said to have believed himself to be enlightened due to increasing number of followers.[119]

Literature

Indian editions

• A first edition of collected works was published in 1972 in 30 volumes: Sri Aurobindo Birth Centenary Library (SABCL), Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram.[120]
• A new edition of collected works was started in 1995. Currently, 36 out of 37 volumes have been published: Complete Works of Sri Aurobindo (CWSA). Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram.[121][122]
• Early Cultural Writings.
• Collected Poems.
• Collected Plays and Stories.
• Karmayogin.
• Records of Yoga.
• Vedic and Philological Studies.
• The Secrets of the Veda.
• Hymns to the Mystic Fire.
• Isha Upanishad.
• Kena and Other Upanishads.
• Essays on the Gita.
• The Renaissance of India with a Defence of Indian Culture.
• The Life Divine.
• The Synthesis of Yoga.
• The Human Cycle – The Ideal of Human Unity – War and Self-Determination.
• The Future Poetry.
• Letters on Poetry and Art
• Letters on Yoga.
• The Mother
• Savitri – A Legend and a Symbol.
• Letters on Himself and the Ashram.
• Autobiographical Notes and Other Writings of Historical Interest.

American edition

Main Works

• Sri Aurobindo Primary Works Set 12 vol. US Edition, Lotus Press, Twin Lakes, Wisconsin ISBN 0-941524-93-0
• Sri Aurobindo Selected Writings Software CD ROM, Lotus Press, Twin Lakes, Wisconsin ISBN 0-914955-88-8
• The Life Divine, Lotus Press, Twin Lakes, Wisconsin ISBN 0-941524-61-2
• Savitri: A Legend and a Symbol, Lotus Press, Twin Lakes, Wisconsin ISBN 0-941524-80-9
• The Synthesis of Yoga, Lotus Press, Twin Lakes, Wisconsin ISBN 0-941524-65-5
• Essays on the Gita, Lotus Press, Twin Lakes, Wisconsin ISBN 0-914955-18-7
• The Ideal of Human Unity, Lotus Press, Twin Lakes, Wisconsin ISBN 0-914955-43-8
• The Human Cycle: The Psychology of Social Development, Lotus Press, Twin Lakes, Wisconsin ISBN 0-914955-44-6
• The Human Cycle, Ideal of Human Unity, War and Self Determination, Lotus Press. ISBN 81-7058-014-5
• The Upanishads, Lotus Press, Twin Lakes, Wisconsin ISBN 0-914955-23-3
• Secret of the Veda, Lotus Press, Twin Lakes, Wisconsin ISBN 0-914955-19-5
• Hymns to the Mystic Fire, Lotus Press, Twin Lakes, Wisconsin ISBN 0-914955-22-5
• The Mother, Lotus Press, Twin Lakes, Wisconsin ISBN 0-941524-79-5

Compilations and Secondary Literature

• The Integral Yoga: Sri Aurobindo's Teaching and Method of Practice, Lotus Press, Twin Lakes, Wisconsin ISBN 0-941524-76-0
• The Future Evolution of Man, Lotus Press, Twin Lakes, Wisconsin ISBN 0-940985-55-1
• The Essential Aurobindo – Writings of Sri Aurobindo ISBN 978-0-9701097-2-9
• Bhagavad Gita and Its Message, Lotus Press, Twin Lakes, Wisconsin ISBN 0-941524-78-7
• The Mind of Light, Lotus Press, Twin Lakes, Wisconsin ISBN 0-940985-70-5
• Rebirth and Karma, Lotus Press, Twin Lakes, Wisconsin ISBN 0-941524-63-9
• Hour of God by Sri Aurobindo, Lotus Press. ISBN 81-7058-217-2
• Dictionary of Sri Aurobindo's Yoga, (compiled by M.P. Pandit), Lotus Press, Twin Lakes, Wisconsin ISBN 0-941524-74-4
• Vedic Symbolism, Lotus Press, Twin Lakes, Wisconsin ISBN 0-941524-30-2
• The Powers Within, Lotus Press. ISBN 978-0-941524-96-4

Comparative studies

• Hemsell, Rod (Oct. 2014). The Philosophy of Evolution. Auro-e-Books, E-Book
• Hemsell, Rod (Dec. 2014). Sri Aurobindo and the Logic of the Infinite: Essays for the New Millennium. Auro-e-Books, E-Book
• Hemsell, Rod (2017). The Philosophy of Consciousness: Hegel and Sri Aurobindo. E-Book
• Huchzermeyer, Wilfried (Oct. 2018). Sri Aurobindo’s Commentaries on Krishna, Buddha, Christ and Ramakrishna. Their Role in the Evolution of Humanity. edition sawitri, E-Book
• Johnston, David T. (Nov. 2016) Jung's Global Vision: Western Psyche, Eastern Mind, With References to Sri Aurobindo, Integral Yoga, The Mother. Agio Publishing House, ISBN 9781927755211
• Johnston, David T. (Dec. 2016). Prophets in Our Midst: Jung, Tolkien, Gebser, Sri Aurobindo and the Mother. Universe, E-Book
• Singh, Satya Prakash (2013). Nature of God. A Comparative Study in Sri Aurobindo and Whitehead. Antrik Express Digital, E-Book
• Singh, Satya Prakash (2005). Sri Aurobindo, Jung and Vedic Yoga. Mira Aditi Centre, ISBN 9788187471127
• Eric M. Weiss (2003): The Doctrine of the Subtle Worlds. Sri Aurobindo’s Cosmology, Modern Science and the Metaphysics of Alfred North Whitehead, Dissertation (PDF; 1,3 MB), California Institute of Integral Studies, San Francisco

See also

• Integral movement
• Integral psychology

References

Notes

1. Aurobindo described his father as a "tremendous atheist" but Thakur calls him an agnostic and Heehs believes that he followed his own coda.[4][5]
2. Krishna Dhun Ghose returned to India soon after, leaving his wife in the care of a physician in London. Barindra was born in England in January 1880.[7]
3. While in Manchester, the Ghose brothers lived first at 84 Shakespeare Street and then, by the time of the 1881 census, at 29 York Place, Chorlton-on-Medlock. Aurobindo was recorded in the census as Aravinda Ghose, as he was also by the University of Cambridge.[10][11][12]
4. Benoybhusan's education ended in Manchester.[13]
Citations
1. Savitri: A Legend and a Symbol, Book XI: The Book of Everlasting Day, Canto I: The Eternal Day: The Soul's Choice and The Supreme Consummation, p 709
2. McDermott (1994), pp. 11–12, 14
3. Aall, Ingrid (1971). Robert Paul Beech; Mary Jane Beech (eds.). Bengal: change and continuity, Issues 16–20. East Lansing: Asian Studies Center, Michigan State University. p. 32. OCLC 258335. Aurobindo's father, Dr. Krishnadhan Ghose, came from a Kayastha family associated with the village of Konnagar in Hooghly District near Calcutta, Dr. Ghose had his medical training in Edinburgh...
4. Heehs (2008), pp. 3–7, 10
5. Thakur (2004), p. 3
6. Heehs (2008), pp. 8–9
7. Heehs (2008), p. 10
8. Heehs (2008), pp. 9–10
9. Heehs (2008), pp. 10, 13
10. Heehs (2008), p. 14
11. 1881 Census
12. ACAD & GHS890AA.
13. Heehs (2008), p. 19
14. Peter Heehs, The Lives of Sri Aurobindo, Columbia University Press (2008), p. 43
15. Heehs (2008), pp. 14–18
16. English Heritage
17. Heehs (2008), p. 18
18. Aurobindo (2006), pp. 29–30
19. Aurobindo (2006), p. 31
20. Thakur (2004), p. 6
21. Aurobindo (2006), p. 34
22. Aurobindo (2006), p. 36
23. Thakur (2004), p. 7
24. Aurobindo (2006), p. 37
25. Aurobindo (2006), p. 42
26. Aurobindo (2006), p. 43
27. Aurobindo (2006), p. 68
28. Heehs (2008), p. 53
29. Aurobindo (2006), p. 71
30. Heehs (2008), p. 67
31. Thorpe (2010), p. 29C
32. Lorenzo (1999), p. 70
33. Heehs (2008), p. 217
34. Aurobindo (2006), p. 86
35. Aurobindo (2006), p. 61
36. Aurobindo (2006), p. 98
37. Aurobindo (2006), p. 110
38. Heehs (2008), pp. 142–143
39. Aurobindo (2006), p. 101
40. Thakur (2004), pp. 31–33
41. Sri Aurobindo: A Life Sketch, Sri Aurobindo Birth Centenary Library, 30, retrieved 1 January 2013
42. Heehs (2008), p. 347: Sri Aurobindo without the surname seems to have first appeared in print in articles published in Chandernagore in 1920. It did not catch on at that time. He first signed his name Sri Aurobindo in March 1926, but continued to use Sri Aurobindo Ghose for a year or two.
43. Thakur (2004), pp. 20–26
44. Yadav (2007), p. 31: "the fame of Sri Aurobindo mainly rests upon Savitri which is considered as his magnum opus ... [It is] a 24000 line blank verse epic in which he has widened the original legend of the Mahabharata and turned it into a symbol where the soul of man, represented by Satyavan, is delivered from the grip of death and ignorance through the love and power of the Divine Mother, incarnated upon earth as Savitri."
45. Heehs (2008), pp. 411–412: "On the morning of December 6, 1950 all of the major newspapers of the country announced the passing of Sri Aurobindo ... President Rajendra Prasad, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, central and state ministers ... recalled his contribution to the struggle for freedom, his philosophical and other writings, and the example of his yogic discipline. Abroad, his death was noted by newspapers in London, Paris and New York. A writer in the Manchester Guardian called him 'the most massive philosophical thinker that modern India has produced.'"
46. Leap of Perception: The Transforming Power of Your Attention (1 ed.). New York: Atria books. 2013. p. 121. ISBN 978-1-58270-390-9.
47. Aurobindo (2006), p. 102
48. Jones & Ryan (2007), pp. 292–293
49. Wilber 1980, p. 263.
50. Sharma 1991.
51. McDermott (1994), p. 281
52. Aurobindo, Sri. The Synthesis of Yoga. Lotus Press, 1996. P. 7-8
53. Aurobindo, Sri. The Synthesis of Yoga. Lotus Press, 1996. p. 106.
54. Aurobindo (2005), p. 5
55. Aurobindo (2005), p. 7
56. Aurobindo, Sri. The Life Divine Lotus Press, 1990. P. 132.
57. Aurobindo, Sri. The Life Divine Lotus Press, 1990., P. 132-133
58. Aurobindo, Sri. The Life Divine Lotus Press, 1990., P. 134
59. Aurobindo, Sri. The Integral Yoga.Lotus Press, 1993. P. 65.
60. Aurobindo, Sri. The Integral Yoga.Lotus Press, 1993., P. 65-655.
61. Aurobindo, Sri. The Integral Yoga.Lotus Press, 1993., P. 68.
62. Complete Works of Sri Aurobindo (CWSA) vol. 13, Essays in Philosophy and Yoga , Pondicherry, Sri Aurobindo Ashram 1995, pp. 215–58
63. Huchzermeyer 2016Ch. 2–4, 7 and 8
64. CWSA vol. 36, Autobiographical Notes, p. 112.
65. One of the more comprehensive titles is: K.D. Sethna. The Spirituality of the Future. A Search apropos of R.C. Zaehner’s Study in Sri Aurobindo and Teilhard de Chardin. London 1981
66. Huchzermeyer 2016, p. 0127.
67. Sethna, K.D. (1981). The Spirituality of the Future. A Search apropos of R.C. Zaehner’s Study in Sri Aurobindo and Teilhard de Chardin. Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. p. 257. ISBN 978-1611470703.
68. Sri Aurobindo and Hegel on the Involution-Evolution of Absolute Spirit. Philosophy East and West, Vol. 31, No. 2 (Apr. 1981), pp. 179–191
69. Odin, p.179. (Sri Aurobindo himself denied to be influenced by Hegel. See A.B. Purani, Evening Talks with Sri Aurobindo.Pondicherry, Sri Aurobindo Ashram 2001, p. 106)
70. Odin, p. 186
71. Odin, p. 190
72. Evening Talks with Sri Aurobindo, p. 106
73. CWSA vol. 36, Autobiographical Writings, p. 113
74. CWSA, vol. 20, p. 330
75. CWSA vol. 27, Letters on Poetry and Art, p. 520.
76. Huchzermeyer 2016, p. 10.
77. Heehs (2008), p. 276.
78. Heehs (2008), p. 267.
79. CWSA vol. 17, Publisher’s Note
80. CWSA 17:30
81. K. R. Srinivasa Iyengar (1972) Sri Aurobindo – A Biography and a history. Pondicherry, Sri Aurobindo Ashram. p. 441.
82. Huchzermeyer 2016, p. 85.
83. Maitra, S.K. (1988): The Meeting of the East and the West in Sri Aurobindo’s Philosophy. Pondicherry, Sri Aurobindo Ashram. p. 49. ISBN 978-8170580782
84. Huchzermeyer 2016, p. 78.
85. Ramakrishna Puligandla (1997). Fundamentals of Indian Philosophy. D.K. Printworld. pp. 267–268. ISBN 978-81-246-0087-0.
86. For Sri Aurobindo’s critique, see, for instance, CWSA vol. 17, Isha Upanishad, pp. 498–99. There he says that Shankara’s world-negative approach "has overshadowed for centuries the lives and souls of hundreds of millions of human beings." However, he also recognized him as "one of the mightiest of metaphysical intellects." (Isha Upanishad, p. 497)
87. U. C. Dubey (2007) "Integralism the distinctive feature of Sri Aurobindo's philosophy", pp. 25–27, Ch. 2 in Understanding Thoughts of Sri Aurobindo. Indrani Sanyal and Krishna Roy (eds.). D K Printworld. New Delhi. ISBN 9788124604021
88. McDermott (1994), p. 11
89. Heehs (2008), p. 379
90. René Guénon, Etude sur l'hindouisme, Les Éditions traditionnelles, 1989, nouvelle édition, p268
91. http://classiques.uqac.ca/classiques/gu ... ouisme.pdf
92. Haridas Chaudhuri and Frederic Spiegelberg (1960) The integral philosophy of Sri Aurobindo: a commemorative symposium, Allen & Unwin.
93. "From the American Academy of Asian Studies to the California Institute of Integral Studies[1]
94. Ratna Ghosh (2006). Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose and Indian Freedom Struggle: Subhas Chandra Bose : his ideas and vision. Deep & Deep. pp. 42–. ISBN 978-81-7629-843-8.
95. O'Mahony (2001)
96. Sri Aurobindo and European Philosophy, pp. 155–56
97. Huchzermeyer 2016, p. 155.
98. Der unsichtbare Ursprung, Olten 1970, p. 96.
99. Huchzermeyer 2016, p. 157.
100. Asien lächelt anders, Frankfurt 1968, p. 112
101. Bracker, Klaus J. (2018). Veda and Living Logos. Anthroposophy and Integral Yoga. Lindisfarne Books. pp. 227–232. ISBN 978-1-58420-938-6
102. "Thinking otherwise – From Religion to Post-Religious Spirituality: Conclusion". Retrieved 13 April 2014.
103. Kripal (2007), pp. 60–63
104. Ken Wilber, Foreword to A. S. Dalal (ed.), A Greater Psychology – An Introduction to the Psychological Thought of Sri Aurobindo, Tarcher/Putnam, 2000.
105. Rod Hemsell (January 2002). "Ken Wilber and Sri Aurobindo: A Critical Perspective".
106. "Hidden Journey: A Spiritual Awakening". Retrieved 6 February 2014.
107. Sachidananda Mohanty (2008). Sri Aurobindo: A Contemporary Reade (1 ed.). New Delhi: routeledge. p. 36. ISBN 978-0-415-46093-4.
108. Nirodbaran (1973), pp. 1–19
109. Sri Chinmoy, Sri Chinmoy's writings on Sri Aurobindo, srichinmoylibrary.com, retrieved 12 November 2013
110. Dua (2005), pp. 18–22
111. Satprem (1965). Mother's Agenda. 6 (3 ed.). Paris: Inst. de Recherches Évolutives. p. 188. ISBN 978-0-938710-12-7.
112. Satprem (1982), p. 5
113. K. Satchidanandan (1990) Who's who of Indian Writers: supplementary volume. New Delhi: Sahitya Akademi, p. 134. ISBN 978-8172015145
114. * P. Raja (2018), K.D. Sethna. New Delhi, Sahitya Akademi. ISBN 9788126052837
115. "Woodrow Wilson Daughter Dead". The Milwaukee Sentinel. 14 February 1944. p. 1. Retrieved 16 November 2015.
116. "Bubba Free John in India". The Dawn Horse Magazine. 4 August 1974. Retrieved 6 March 2014.
117. "Sri Aurobindo's theory of evolution – a criticism by Prof. Malkani examined". Retrieved 6 February 2014.
118. "Wilber's Critique of Sri Aurobindo". Retrieved 13 October 2014.
119. "Osho Beyond Enlightenment". Beyond Enlightenment. Retrieved 6 March 2014.
120. G.D. Gupta (1989) Glossary and Index of Proper Names in Sri Aurobindo’s Works, Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust. p. xv. ISBN 978-8170581703
121. "SABDA - Collected Works".
122. Huchzermeyer 2016, p. 189.

Bibliography

• Census Returns of England and Wales, Kew, England: The National Archives of the UK: Public Record Office, 1881, Class: RG11; Piece: 3918; Folio: 15; Page: 23; GSU roll: 1341936
• Thorpe, Edgar (2010), The Pearson General Knowledge Manual, New Delhi: Dorling kindersley Pvt ltd
• Anon, Aurobindo, Sri (1872–1950), English Heritage, retrieved 18 August 2012
• Aurobindo, Sri (2005), The Life Divine, Pondicherry: Lotus press, ISBN 978-0-941524-61-2
• "Ghose, Aravinda Acroyd (GHS890AA)". A Cambridge Alumni Database. University of Cambridge.
• Aurobindo, Sri (2006), Autobiographical Notes and Other Writings of Historical Interest, Sri Aurobindo Ashram Publication Department
• Dua, Shyam (2005), The Luminous Life of Sri Chinmoy, Noida: Tiny Tot Publications, ISBN 978-81-304-0221-5
• Heehs, Peter (2008), The Lives of Sri Aurobindo, Columbia University Press, ISBN 978-0-231-14098-0
• Huchzermeyer, Wilfried (2016), Sri Aurobindo and European Philosophy, Prisma, Auroville, ISBN 978-81-928152-9-9
• Jones, Constance; Ryan, James D., eds. (2007), Encyclopedia of Hinduism, Facts on File, ISBN 978-0-8160-5458-9
• Kripal, Jeffery John (2007), Esalen: America and the Religion of No Religion, Chicago, USA: University of Chicago press, ISBN 978-0-226-45369-9
• Lorenzo, David J. (1999), Tradition and the Rhetoric of Right: Popular Political Argument in the Aurobindo Movement, London: Associated University Presses, ISBN 978-0-8386-3815-6
• McDermott, Robert A. (1994), Essential Aurobindo, SteinerBooks, ISBN 978-0-940262-22-5
• Nirodbaran (1973), Twelve years with Sri Aurobindo, Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram
• O'Mahony, John (29 September 2001), "The Sound of Discord", The Guardian, London
• Satprem (1982), The Mind of the Cells, New York, NY: Institute for Evolutionary Research, ISBN 978-0-938710-06-6
• Thakur, Bimal Narayan (2004), Poetic Plays of Sri Aurobindo, Northern Book Centre, ISBN 978-81-7211-181-6
• Yadav, Saryug (2007), "Sri Aurobindo's Life, Mind and Art", in Barbuddhe, Satish (ed.), Indian Literature in English: Critical Views, Sarup and Sons
• Wilber, Ken (1980), The Atman project:a transpersonal view of human development, The Theosophical publishing house, ISBN 9780835605328
• Sharma, Ram Nath (1991), Sri Aurobindo's Philosophy of Social Development, Atlantic Publishers
Further reading[edit]
• Iyengar, K. R. Srinivasa (1985) [1945]. Sri Aurobindo: a biography and a history. Sri Aurobindo International Centre of Education. (2 volumes, 1945) – written in a hagiographical style
• Kallury, Syamala (1989). Symbolism in the Poetry of Sri Aurobindo. Abhinav Publications. ISBN 978-81-7017-257-4.
• Kitaeff, Richard. "Sri Aurobindo". Nouvelles Clés (62): 58–61.
• Mehrotra, Arvind Krishna (2003). A History of Indian Literature in English. Columbia University Press. p. 116. ISBN 978-0-231-12810-0.
• Mishra, Manoj Kumar (2004). Young Aurobindo's Vision: The Viziers of Bassora. Bareilly: Prakash Book Depot.
• Mukherjee, Prithwindra (2000). Sri Aurobindo. Paris: Desclée de Brouwer.
• Satprem (1968). Sri Aurobindo, or the Adventure of Consciousness. Pondicherry, India: Sri Aurobindo Ashram Press.
• K. D. Sethna, Vision and Work of Sri Aurobindo
• Singh, Ramdhari (2008). Sri Aurobindo: Meri Drishti Mein. New Delhi: Lokbharti Prakashan.
• van Vrekhem, Georges (1999). Beyond Man – The Life and Work of Sri Aurobindo and The Mother. New Delhi: HarperCollins. ISBN 978-81-7223-327-3.
• Raychaudhuri, Girijashankar.....Sri Aurobindo O Banglar Swadeshi Joog (published 1956)...this book was serially published in the journal Udbodhan and read out to Sri Aurobindo in Pondicherry while he was still alive......Sri Aurobindo commented, " he will snatch away smile from my face"
• Ghose, Aurobindo, Nahar, S., & Institut de recherches évolutives. (2000). India's rebirth: A selection from Sri Aurobindo's writing, talks and speeches Paris: Institut de recherches évolutives.

External links

• Official website Sri Aurobindo Ashram
• Sri Aurobindo at Curlie
• Works by or about Sri Aurobindo at Internet Archive
• Auroville
• Complete Works of Sri Aurobindo

[admin]

Barindra Kumar Ghosh [Barindra Ghosh] [Barin Ghosh]
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 6/3/20


Barindra Kumar Ghosh
বারীন্দ্র কুমার ঘোষ
Born: 5 January 1880
Died: 18 April 1959 (aged 79), Kolkata, India
Nationality: India
Occupation: Revolutionary, Journalist
Parent(s): Dr. Krishnadhan Ghosh, Swarnalata Debi

Barindra Kumar Ghosh or Barindra Ghosh, or, popularly, Barin Ghosh (5 January 1880 – 18 April 1959) was an Indian revolutionary and journalist. He was one of the founding members of Jugantar, a revolutionary outfit in Bengal. Barindra Ghosh was a younger brother of Sri Aurobindo.

Early life

Barindra Ghosh was born at Croydon, near London on 5 January 1880. His father, Dr. Krishnadhan Ghosh, was a physician and district surgeon. His mother Swarnalata was the daughter of the Brahmo religious and social reformer, scholar Rajnarayan Basu. Revolutionary and a spiritualist in later life, Aurobindo Ghosh was Barindranath's third elder brother. His second elder brother, Manmohan Ghose, was a scholar of English literature, a poet and professor of English at Presidency College, Calcutta and at Dhaka University. He also had an elder sister named Sarojini Ghosh.

Barindranath attended school in Deoghar, and after passing the entrance examination in 1901, joined Patna College. He received military training in Baroda. During this time, (late 19th century – early 20th century) Barin was influenced by Aurobindo and drawn towards the revolutionary movement.

Revolutionary activities

Main article: Anushilan samiti

Barin came back to Kolkata in 1902 and started organising several revolutionary groups in Bengal with the help of Jatindranath Mukherjee [Bagha Jatin]. In 1906, he started publishing Jugantar, a Bengali weekly and a revolutionary organization named Jugantar soon followed. Jugantar was formed from the inner circle of Anushilan Samiti and it started preparation for armed militancy activities to oust British from Indian soil.

Barin and Jatindranath Mukherjee, alias Bagha Jatin, were instrumental in the recruitment of many young revolutionaries from across Bengal. The revolutionaries formed the Maniktala group in Maniktala, Kolkata. It was a secret place where they started manufacturing bombs and collected arms and ammunition.

Following the attempted killing of Kingsford by two revolutionaries Khudiram and Prafulla on 30 April 1908, the police intensified its investigation which led to the arrest of Barin and Aurobindo Ghosh [Sri Aurobindo] on 2 May 1908, along with many of his comrades.

Prafulla [Chandra Chaki] and Khudiram Bose tried to assassinate the District Judge, Mr. Kingsford by throwing bombs at the carriage in which Kingsford was supposed to travel, but he was not in the carriage, and two British women were killed instead. Prafulla committed suicide when he was about to be arrested by the Police. Khudiram was arrested and tried for the murder of the two women and sentenced to death. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi did not approve this violence and regretted the deaths of two women. He stated "that the Indian people will not win there freedom through these methods". However, Bal Gangadhar Tilak in his newspaper Kesari, defended the two young men and called for immediate swaraj. This was followed by the immediate arrest of Tilak by the British colonial government on charges of sedition....

Barin Ghosh [younger brother of Sri Aurobindo] brought Prafulla to Kolkata and he was enlisted in the Jugantar party. His first assignment was to kill Sir Joseph Bampfylde Fuller (1854-1935), the first Lieutenant Governor of the new province of Eastern Bengal and Assam. However, the plan did not materialize.

Sir Joseph Bampfylde Fuller KCSI CIE (20 March 1854 – 29 November 1935) was a British inventor, writer and first Lieutenant Governor of the new province of Eastern Bengal and Assam, knighted for his service in India.

Fuller studied at Marlborough College. In 1885, he began his Indian Civil Service career as the Commissioner of Settlements and Agriculture of Central Provinces. He became an Additional member of the Viceroy's Council in 1899. He served as Secretary to Government of India during the period 1901–02. He then served as Chief Commissioner of Assam during 1902–05.

Fuller held office as Lieutenant Governor of Eastern Bengal and Assam from 16 October 1905 until he resigned on 20 August 1906 to Lord Minto over the (British) Government of India's refusal to support reprisals against school agitators in Sirajganj.

Fuller initiated the building of the Governor's residence in Dhaka, which became Old High Court Building, Dhaka. "Fuller Road", an important road at the heart of the University of Dhaka is named after him.

Fuller invented an anti-gas alarm widely used during World War I.

-- Bampfylde Fuller, by Wikipedia

Next, Prafulla, along with Khudiram Bose was chosen for the assassination of Kingsford, the magistrate of Muzaffarpur, Bihar. Kingsford, during his previous tenure as the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta, was unpopular for passing harsh and cruel sentences on young political workers of Bengal. He was also noted for inflicting corporal punishments on such workers. This led to the planning of his murder, and Chaki and Bose were selected and sent to Muzaffarpur to execute this task. Prafulla took the fake name of 'Dinesh Chandra Roy' in this operation.

Khudiram and Prafulla watched the usual movements of Kingsford and prepared a plan to kill him. In the evening of 30 April 1908, the duo waited in front of the gate of European Club for the carriage of Kingsford to come. When a vehicle came out of the gate, a bomb was thrown into the carriage. There was a mistake of identification by them, as the vehicle was not carrying Kingsford, but the wife and daughter of Mr Pringle Kennedy, a leading pleader of Muzaffarpur Bar. The daughter died soon, and his wife succumbed to her injuries. The revolutionaries fled.

-- Prafulla Chaki [Dinesh Chandra Roy], by Wikipedia

The trial (known as the Alipore Bomb Case) initially sentenced Barin Ghosh and Ullaskar Datta to death. However, the sentence was reduced to life imprisonment, by Deshbandhu Chittaranjan Das and Barin was deported to the Cellular Jail in Andaman in 1909 along with other convicts.

In 1789, the Bengal Presidency established a naval base and penal colony on Chatham Island in the southeast bay of Great Andaman. The settlement is now known as Port Blair (after the Bombay Marine lieutenant Archibald Blair who founded it). After two years, the colony was moved to the northeast part of Great Andaman and was named Port Cornwallis after Admiral William Cornwallis. However, there was much disease and death in the penal colony and the government ceased operating it in May 1796.

In 1824, Port Cornwallis was the rendezvous of the fleet carrying the army to the First Burmese War. In the 1830s and 1840s, shipwrecked crews who landed on the Andamans were often attacked and killed by the natives and the islands had a reputation for cannibalism. The loss of the Runnymede and the Briton in 1844 during the same storm, while transporting goods and passengers between India and Australia, and the continuous attacks launched by the natives, which the survivors fought off, alarmed the British government. In 1855, the government proposed another settlement on the islands, including a convict establishment, but the Indian Rebellion of 1857 forced a delay in its construction. However, because the rebellion gave the British so many prisoners, it made the new Andaman settlement and prison urgently necessary. Construction began in November 1857 at Port Blair using inmates' labour, avoiding the vicinity of a salt swamp that seemed to have been the source of many of the earlier problems at Port Cornwallis.

17 May 1859 was another major day for Andaman. The Battle of Aberdeen was fought between the Great Andamanese tribe and the British.

The Great Andamanese are classified by anthropologists as one of the Negrito peoples, which also include the other four aboriginal groups of the Andaman islands (Onge, Jarawa, Jangil and Sentinelese) and five other isolated populations of Southeast Asia. The Andaman Negritos are thought to be the first inhabitants of the islands, having emigrated from the mainland tens of thousands of years ago.

Until the late 18th century, the Andamanese peoples were preserved from outside influences by their fierce rejection of contacts (which included killing any shipwrecked foreigners) and by the remoteness of the islands. Thus the ten Great Andamanese tribes and the other four indigenous groups are thought to have diverged on their own over the course of millennia....

Estimates of the Great Andamanese population by the time of the first British settlement (1789–1796) vary between 2000 and 6600 individuals. When the British established a permanent settlement and penal colony on Great Andaman in the 1860s, the population was estimated at 3500. At that time their isolated stone-age culture was suddenly confronted with the industrial and colonial culture of 19th century Europe. The colonial administrators proactively tried to pacify and co-opt the tribes, recruiting them to capture escaped convicts. Populations went into sharp decline as contact intensified. Imported diseases, to which the islanders had no immunity, decimated the tribes at the end of the 19th century; In some cases, people who became sick were killed by other tribe members in an attempt to stop contagion. The migration of mainland settlers to the islands accelerated this decline.

By 1901, only 625 Great Andamanese were left, and following censuses reported steadily declining numbers: 455 in 1911, 207 in 1921, 90 in 1931. Von Eickstedt counted "around one hundred" in 1927.

In 1949, the surviving Great Andamanese were relocated to a reservation on Bluff Island (1.14 km2) in an attempt to protect them from diseases and other threats. In 1951, after Indian independence, their numbers had shrunk to about 25, mostly from the northern tribes. They became extinct in the mid 20th century, but had a few admixed individuals which went to an all-time low of only 19 in 1961.

-- Great Andamanese, by Wikipedia

Today, a memorial stands in Andaman water sports complex as a tribute to the people who lost their lives. Fearing foreign invasion and with help from an escaped convict from Cellular Jail, the Great Andamanese stormed the British post, but they were outnumbered and soon suffered heavy loss of life. Later, it was identified that an escaped convict named Doodnath had changed sides and informed the British about the tribe's plans. Today, the tribe has been reduced to some 50 people, with less than 50% of them adults. The government of the Andaman Islands is making efforts to increase the headcount of this tribe.

In 1867, the ship Nineveh wrecked on the reef of North Sentinel Island. The 86 survivors reached the beach in the ship's boats. On the third day, they were attacked with iron-tipped spears by naked islanders. One person from the ship escaped in a boat and the others were later rescued by a British Royal Navy ship.

For some time, sickness and mortality were high, but swamp reclamation and extensive forest clearance continued. The Andaman colony became notorious with the murder of the Viceroy Richard Southwell Bourke, 6th Earl of Mayo, on a visit to the settlement (8 February 1872), by a Muslim convict, a Pathan from Afghanistan, Sher Ali Afridi. In the same year, the two island groups Andaman and Nicobar, were united under a chief commissioner residing at Port Blair.

From the time of its development in 1858 under the direction of James Pattison Walker, and in response to the mutiny and rebellion of the previous year, the settlement was first and foremost a repository for political prisoners. The Cellular Jail at Port Blair, when completed in 1910, included 698 cells designed for solitary confinement; each cell measured 4.5 by 2.7 m (15 by 9 ft) with a single ventilation window 3 metres (10 ft) above the floor.

The Indians imprisoned here referred to the island and its prison as Kala Pani ("black water"); a 1996 film set on the island took that term as its title, Kaalapani. The number of prisoners who died in this camp is estimated to be in the thousands. Many more died of harsh treatment and the harsh living and working conditions in this camp.

The Viper Chain Gang Jail on Viper Island was reserved for troublemakers, and was also the site of hangings. In the 20th century, it became a convenient place to house prominent members of India's independence movement.

The Andaman and Nicobar islands were occupied by Japan during World War II. The islands were nominally put under the authority of the Arzi Hukumat-e-Azad Hind (Provisional Government of Free India) headed by Subhas Chandra Bose, who visited the islands during the war, and renamed them as Shaheed (Martyr) & Swaraj (Self-rule). On 30 December 1943, during the Japanese occupation, Bose, who was allied with the Japanese, first raised the flag of Indian independence. General Loganathan, of the Indian National Army, was Governor of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, which had been annexed to the Provisional Government. According to Werner Gruhl: "Before leaving the islands, the Japanese rounded up and executed 750 innocents."

At the close of World War II, the British government announced its intention to abolish the penal settlement. The government proposed to employ former inmates in an initiative to develop the island's fisheries, timber, and agricultural resources. In exchange, inmates would be granted return passage to the Indian mainland, or the right to settle on the islands. J H Williams, one of the Bombay Burma Company's senior officials, was dispatched to perform a timber survey of the islands using convict labor. He recorded his findings in 'The Spotted Dear' (1957).

The penal colony was eventually closed on 15 August 1947 when India gained independence. It has since served as a museum to the independence movement.

-- Andaman Islands, by Wikipedia

Release and later activities

Barin was released during a general amnesty in 1920 and returned to Kolkata to start a career in journalism. Soon he left journalism and formed an ashram in Kolkata. He published his memoirs "The tale of my exile - twelve years in Andamans"[1]. In 1923, he left for Pondicherry where his elder brother Aurobindo Ghosh had formed the Sri Aurobindo Ashram. He was influenced by Aurobindo towards spirituality and Sadhana. Barin returned to Kolkata in 1929 and again took up journalism. In 1933 he started an English weekly, The Dawn of India. He was associated with the newspaper The Statesman,...

The Statesman is an Indian English-language broadsheet daily newspaper founded in 1875 and published simultaneously in Kolkata, New Delhi, Siliguri and Bhubaneswar. It incorporates and is directly descended from The Friend of India, founded in 1818. It is owned by The Statesman Ltd and headquartered at Statesman House, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata, with its national editorial office at Statesman House, Connaught Place, New Delhi. It is a member of the Asia News Network.

Asia News Network (ANN) is a news coalition of 24 news organisations from South, Southeast and Northeast Asia.

Asia News Network members comprise The Korea Herald, China Daily, China Post (Taiwan), Gogo Mongolia, The Japan News, Dawn (Pakistan), The Statesman (India), The Island (Sri Lanka), Kuensel (Bhutan), Kathmandu Post (Nepal), Daily Star (Bangladesh), Eleven Media (Myanmar), The Nation (Thailand), Jakarta Post, The Star and Sin Chew Daily (Malaysia), the Phnom Penh Post and Rasmei Kampuchea (Cambodia), The Borneo Bulletin (Brunei), The Straits Times (Singapore), Vietnam News, Philippine Daily Inquirer and Vientiane Times (Laos).

-- Asia News Network, by Wikipedia

The Statesman has an average weekday circulation of approximately 180,000, and the Sunday Statesman has a circulation of 230,000. This ranks it as one of the leading English newspapers in West Bengal, India.

-- The Statesman (India), by Wikipedia

and in 1950, he became the editor of the Bengali daily Dainik Basumati. This time he got married. He died on 18 April 1959.

Works

The following are books by Barindra Ghosh:

• Dvipantarer Banshi
• Pather Ingit
• Amar Atmakatha
• Agnijug
• Rishi Rajnarayan
• The Tale of My Exile
• Sri Aurobindo

Other books

• Barindrakumar Ghosh, Pather Ingit, Calcutta, 1337 (Bengali year).
• Upendra Nath Bandyopadhyaya, Nirbasiter Atmakatha, Calcutta, 1352 (Bengali year).
• RC Majumdar, History of the Freedom Movement in India, II, Calcutta, 1963.

References

1. Ghose, Barindra Kumar (1922). The tale of my exile - twelve years in Andamans. Pondicherry: Arya Publications.

External links

• Works by or about Barindra Kumar Ghosh at Internet Archive

[admin]

Satyendranath Bosu [Satyendranath Boseu] [Satyendra Nath Bosu] [Satyendranath Bose] [Satyen Bose]
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 6/3/20


Satyendra Nath Bosu
Satyendra Nath Bosu, Bengali Revolutionary
Born: 30 July 1882, Midnapore District, Bengal Presidency, India
Died: 21 November 1908 (aged 26), Alipore Central Jail, Calcutta, India
Nationality: Indian
Known for: Role in Indian freedom struggle

Satyendra Nath Bosu (aka. Satyendranath Bose or Satyen Bose; 30 July 1882 – 21 November 1908) was an Indian nationalist of the Anushilan Samiti. Bosu, while held in Alipore Jail hospital as an under-trial in the Alipore Bomb Case, shot dead, with the help of Kanailal Dutta, the Crown witness, Narendranath Goswami, leading to the collapse of the case against prime accused Aurobindo Ghosh [Sri Aurobindo].[1] Bosu gave himself up on the jail premises, and was subsequently put on trial, along with Dutta, and found guilty and executed by hanging on 21 November 1908 for the murder of Goswami,[2] [3]

Early life

Satyendranath was born on 30 July 1882 in Midnapore district (presently Paschim Midnapore) of West Bengal, India. His father, Abhaya Charan Bosu, was a Professor in the Midnapur College. Since around 1850, he settled at Midnapur, which became the residence of Satyendranath’s family. Abhaya Charan had five sons (Jnanendra Nath, Satyendra Nath, Bhupendra Nath, Subodh Kumar and another boy) and three daughters.[4] Satyendranath was the maternal uncle of Shri [Sri] Aurobindo, though he was about ten years his junior. The Bosu family originally hailed from the village Boral of district 24 Parganas, and were descendants of the famous Babu Raj Narayan Bosu. The father of Babu Raj Narayan Bosu, Babu Nanda Kishore Bosu, was a follower of Raja Ram Mohan Roy and was the first of his family to be initiated into Brahmoism. Babu Nanda Kishore had three sons, the eldest of whom was Babu Raj Narayan. The reputation of Babu Raj Narayan as a man of piety and letters was widespread. Besides, he was a distinguished member of the Adi Brahmo Samaj [Adi Dharm] and was a Senior Scholar of the then Hindu College. [5] His two younger brothers were Madan Mohan and Abhaya Charan. In the year 1850 or thereabout, Babu Raj Narayan, with his two younger brothers, left his ancestral village and settled at Midnapur where he was appointed Head Master of the district School. In 1867, he retired from Government service and came down to Calcutta where he lived for some time. In 1880 he finally settled with his family at Deoghur and died in the year 1899.[6]

Having successfully passed the Entrance and F.A. Examinations Satyendranath studied up to the B.A. standard of the Calcutta University but did not go up for the B.A. Examination. He left College and served for about a year at the Midnapur Collectorate.[4]

Revolutionary activities

Satyendranath got involved in a stunning case of murder of Narendranath Goswami in the sequences of events in a series, in which there were three remarkable events of armed revolution at the dawn of nineteenth century.

Midnapur arms case

Satyendranath was arrested by the police in charge of possessing a gun which was licensed in his brother’s name at Midnapore. He was convicted and sentenced to two months’ rigorous imprisonment, according to the police report.[2]

Kingsford assassination attempt

See also: Khudiram Bose and Prafulla Chaki

Just two days after the Muzaffarpur bomb attack (30 April 1908) aimed at killing Kingsford, the police raided and arrested a number of revolutionaries in Bengal on 2 May 1908.

Prafulla [Chandra Chaki] and Khudiram Bose tried to assassinate the District Judge, Mr. Kingsford by throwing bombs at the carriage in which Kingsford was supposed to travel, but he was not in the carriage, and two British women were killed instead. Prafulla committed suicide when he was about to be arrested by the Police. Khudiram was arrested and tried for the murder of the two women and sentenced to death. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi did not approve this violence and regretted the deaths of two women. He stated "that the Indian people will not win there freedom through these methods". However, Bal Gangadhar Tilak in his newspaper Kesari, defended the two young men and called for immediate swaraj. This was followed by the immediate arrest of Tilak by the British colonial government on charges of sedition....

Barin Ghosh [younger brother of Sri Aurobindo] brought Prafulla to Kolkata and he was enlisted in the Jugantar party. His first assignment was to kill Sir Joseph Bampfylde Fuller (1854-1935), the first Lieutenant Governor of the new province of Eastern Bengal and Assam. However, the plan did not materialize.

Sir Joseph Bampfylde Fuller KCSI CIE (20 March 1854 – 29 November 1935) was a British inventor, writer and first Lieutenant Governor of the new province of Eastern Bengal and Assam, knighted for his service in India.

Fuller studied at Marlborough College. In 1885, he began his Indian Civil Service career as the Commissioner of Settlements and Agriculture of Central Provinces. He became an Additional member of the Viceroy's Council in 1899. He served as Secretary to Government of India during the period 1901–02. He then served as Chief Commissioner of Assam during 1902–05.

Fuller held office as Lieutenant Governor of Eastern Bengal and Assam from 16 October 1905 until he resigned on 20 August 1906 to Lord Minto over the (British) Government of India's refusal to support reprisals against school agitators in Sirajganj.

Fuller initiated the building of the Governor's residence in Dhaka, which became Old High Court Building, Dhaka. "Fuller Road", an important road at the heart of the University of Dhaka is named after him.

Fuller invented an anti-gas alarm widely used during World War I.

-- Bampfylde Fuller, by Wikipedia

Next, Prafulla, along with Khudiram Bose was chosen for the assassination of Kingsford, the magistrate of Muzaffarpur, Bihar. Kingsford, during his previous tenure as the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta, was unpopular for passing harsh and cruel sentences on young political workers of Bengal. He was also noted for inflicting corporal punishments on such workers. This led to the planning of his murder, and Chaki and Bose were selected and sent to Muzaffarpur to execute this task. Prafulla took the fake name of 'Dinesh Chandra Roy' in this operation.

Khudiram and Prafulla watched the usual movements of Kingsford and prepared a plan to kill him. In the evening of 30 April 1908, the duo waited in front of the gate of European Club for the carriage of Kingsford to come. When a vehicle came out of the gate, a bomb was thrown into the carriage. There was a mistake of identification by them, as the vehicle was not carrying Kingsford, but the wife and daughter of Mr Pringle Kennedy, a leading pleader of Muzaffarpur Bar. The daughter died soon, and his wife succumbed to her injuries. The revolutionaries fled.

-- Prafulla Chaki [Dinesh Chandra Roy], by Wikipedia

33 revolutionaries were charged with waging war against the government.[7] Kanailal Dutta was one of these men, who was also arrested on 2 May 1908 and detained in Alipore Jail.

Alipore Bomb Case

Main article: Alipore Bomb Case

Police raided the premises at 32 Murari Pukur Road at Kolkata on 2 May 1908 and a bomb-factory was discovered, as was a cache of arms, a large quantity of ammunition, bombs, detonators, and other tools. They also confiscated Revolutionary literature. The raids were being conducted at various places throughout Bengal and Bihar, and more detention was on the move. Aurobindo Ghosh [Sri Aurobindo], Barindra Kumar Ghose, Ullaskar Dutt, Indu Bhusan Roy and many others were arrested. During this time one detainee, Narendranath Goswami (aka Norendra Nath Gossain), became approver of the British, and started revealing names of many persons to the police, leading to further arrests.[8]

Goswami was a resident of Srirampur near Chandernagore. He knew all the plans and activities of the revolutionaries. Appearing in the witness box he started implicating many of his former colleagues by mentioning their names. Barin Ghosh, Shanti Ghosh and Ullaskar Dutta's names were mentioned in attempting to blow off the governor's train at Chandernagore station in 1908. Referring to the bomb outrage in the Mayor's house he mentioned the name of Charu Chandra Roy, as being the leader of the revolutionary outfit in Chandernagore;[9] and on 24 June mentioned the names of Aurobindo Ghosh and Subodh Chandra Mullick as being linked to revolutionary activities.[10]

A conspiracy hatched

The under-trial prisoners under the leadership of Barin Ghosh hatched a plan to escape from the Alipur Central Jail, and also to get rid of Goswami. B.C. Roy, Barrister-at-law, defending the prisoners, offered to help with men and arms.[9] Barin wrote letters from jail to Sudhangshu Jiban Rai, Preo Shankar Rai, and Basanta Banerjee of Chandernagore to meet B. C. Roy for arrangements of arms. He also wrote to Shrish Chandra Ghosh to send phial, acid for the purpose of throwing at jail wardens, and wax to copy keys.[11] On Sunday, 23 August, one revolver was smuggled into the jail by Shudhangshu Jiban Rai. The next day, Barin asked Hem Das to give it to Satyendranath with instructions to kill Goswami. That time Satyendranath was admitted in the jail Hospital. He expressed his inability to use such a big revolver, and returned it back. On Sunday, 30 August, another revolver reached Barin though Shrish. it was a smaller one. Kanailal took it, and subsequently got admitted to the jail hospital. The Revolvers were received loaded. The stage was set.[12]

Murder of Narendranath Goswami

It was time for retribution for the traitor inside Presidency Jail.[2] It appears that Narendranath, intentionally kept separated from the other prisoners, was confined in the European Ward in Alipore Central Jail. On 31 August 1908, Narerdranath was brought from that ward to the Jail Hospital by a European Convict Overseer named Highens. Narendranath had apparently previously arranged to meet at that time in the Hospital two fellow prisoners who were already patients in the Jail Hospital, named Kanailal Dutta and Satyendranath Bosu. Kanailal and Satyendra managed to acquire two revolvers secretly. Shrish Chandra Ghosh of Chandernagore smuggled the revolvers into the jail,[12] assisted by Motilal Roy.[13] Narendranath had apparently been approached by the second of these prisoners, who had pretended that he also wished to make a statement, and his visit was really in order to get this statement. Evidently, it was however part of a plot to get Narendranath within striking distance, for it appears that almost immediately on Narendranath’s arrival on the landing, at the head of the staircase leading to the second story of the Hospital, these two prisoners opened fire on him with the two revolvers. Highens, the Convict Overseer, attempted to arrest one of them, and was shot through the wrist. Narendranath, although shot in several places, was not mortally hit, and fled down the stairs out of the Hospital Compound and along an alleyway towards the gate. Kanailal Dutta pursued him and shot him fatally through the back. He was then secured by a Eurasian Prisoner named Linton. (Excerpts from a letter No 1876-C dated 31 August 1908, addressed to The Chief Secretary to the Government of Bengal, Calcutta from Commissioner of Police, Calcutta.[5]

Nine shots fired

Excerpts from the Magistrate’s commitment order in the case of murder of Narendranath Goswami (spellings unchanged):

"The two revolvers were brought into the office and examined and the smaller one (Exhibit I) was found to have in the chambers four discharged cartridges while the larger (Exhibit II) had five discharged cartridges and one loaded cartridge. Thus we may assume that in all nine shots were fired. Four bullets were found — two inside the dispensary, one just outside the dispensary, and one was extracted from the dead body of Norendra. From the medical evidence it appears that this was the bullet which caused Norendra’s death. It entered fairly high up in the back and severed the spinal cord and almost completely penetrated the breast in front but spent its force before doing so and lay imbedded under the skin of the breast. Exhibit VII is this bullet (contained in a glass bottle sealed by Captain Daley). An examination of this bullet shows that it was fired from the larger of the two revolvers (Exhibit II). The evidence of Linton shows that the revolver was the one used by Kanai Lall Dutt. Thus the fatal shot was fired by Kanai Lall Dutt."[5]

Trial, sentencing and martyrdom

The murder of Narendranath Goswami was a daring act unparalleled in the history of revolutionary terrorism. On 5 September 1908 the Indu Prakash made the following observation:

"The Bengal anarchists were perhaps the most romantic lot in the whole anarchist world, and in point of bravery, daredevilry and cunning they were no doubt far ahead of Russian and Spanish desperadoes - quick in action, quick in revenge and smart in getting rid of any approver."[12]

On 21 October 1908, the High Court pronounced its judgment by giving sentence of death to both the accused. Kanailal declined to file an appeal against such order. The sentence was carried out on 10 November 1908, and Kanailal was hanged till death in the Alipore Jail at about seven in the morning.[13] In the trial of Satyendranath, the Sessions Judge, disagreeing with the majority verdict of the jury, referred the case to the High Court and there Satyendranath was convicted and sentenced to death. He was hanged on 21 November 1908.[14]

While fleeing from Muzaffarpur, on 2 May 1908, Prafulla Chaki was cornered at Mokama Ghat railway station and was about to get arrested when he took his own life by firing two shots, one at the forehead and the other on the left side of his chest at the head.[15] Khudiram Bose was the first martyr in the history of the revolutionary movement for Indian independence, Kanailal Dutta was the second, and Satyendranath Bosu was the third. The execution of these men in 1908 aroused great commotion in public life. The witness accounts of the final moments before martyrdom and accounts of their sacrifices became canonical.[16]


The revolver used by Kanailal Dutta to shoot Narendranth Goswami


Muraripukur Garden House of Barin Ghosh


Kanailal Dutta and Satyen Bosu arrested after murder of Naren Goswami

See also

• Indian Independence Movement
• Indian nationalism
• Revolutionary movement for Indian independence

References

1. "Alipore Bomb Case". sriaurobindoinstitute.org. Retrieved 13 September2017.
2. "Alipore Bomb Case". sriaurobindoinstitute.org. Retrieved 13 September2017.
3. Mohanta, Sambaru Chandra (2012). "Dutta, Kanailal". In Islam, Sirajul; Jamal, Ahmed A. (eds.). Banglapedia: National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh(Second ed.). Asiatic Society of Bangladesh.
4. "Satyendra Nath Bosu". aurobindo.ru. Retrieved 13 September2017.
5. "The assassination of Narendranath Goswami". sriaurobindoashram.org. Retrieved 13 September2017.
6. Surendra Nath Banerjee. "The Bengalee dated 19th September, 1908". Calcutta.
7. Huda, Nurul (2008). The Alipore Bomb Case: A Historic Pre-Independence Trial. Neogy Books. ISBN 978-81-8973-831-0.
8. Bose, Bejai Krishna (1910). The Alipore Bomb Case - Mr. Beachcrofts Judgment. Calcutta: M N Mitra.
9. Tailleur, Georges (1947). Chandernagore ou le let de Dupleix - in Affaires Politiques. Paris: AOM.
10. Belloir, Jean (1953). Calcutta to Claude de Marolles - Charge d'Affaires. 36. Paris: MEA.
11. Miles, William FS (1995). Imperial Burdens- Counter Colonialism in Former French India. Lynne Rienner Publishers. p. 162. ISBN 978-1-55587-511-4.
12. Sen, Shailendra Nath (2012). Chandernagore - From Bondage to Freedom 1900-1955. Primus Books. ISBN 978-93-80607-23-8.
13. Sengupta, Subodh Ch.; Basu, Anjali (2002). Sansad Bengali Charitavidhan (Bengali) Vol I. Kolkata: Sahitya Sansad. pp. 80, 390. ISBN 81-85626-65-0.
14. Heehs, Peter (2008). The Lives of Sri Aurobindo(Second ed.). Columbia University Press.
15. Arun Chandra Guha (1971). First spark of revolution: the early phase of India's struggle for independence, 1900-1920. Orient Longman. Retrieved 13 September2017.
16. Banerjee, Upendra Nath (1928). Nirbasiter Atmakatha (in Bengali) (Memoirs of the Deported Prisoner). Calcutta: Hrishikesh Kanjilal.

External links

• Hitendra Patel, Khudiram Bose: Revolutionary Extraordinaire

[admin]

Kanailal Dutta
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 6/4/20


Kanailal Dutta
কানাইলাল দত্ত
Kanailal Dutta
Born: 31 August 1888, Chandannagar, Hooghly, Bengal, British India
Died: 10 November 1908 (aged 20), Kolkata, Bengal, British India
Nationality: Indian
Occupation: Revolutionary
Parent(s): Chunilal Dutta, Brajeshwari Devi

Kanailal Dutta (Bengali: কানাইলাল দত্ত) (31 August 1888 – 10 November 1908) was a revolutionary in India's freedom struggle belonging to the Jugantar group. He was born in Chandannagar, West Bengal. He, along with Satyendranath Bose, was convicted by the British [1] for assassination of Narendranath Goswami,[2] an approver of the British, in the Jail hospital of Alipore Central Jail on 31 August 1908. Satyendranath Bose was hanged till death on 21 November 1908.[3]

Early life


Birth place of Kanailal Dutta

Kanailal Dutta was born in Chandan Nagar, West Bengal. His father, Chunilal Dutta, was an accountant in Bombay. Kanailal's early school life was started in Girgaon [Girgaum] Aryan Education Society School, Bombay...

The Aryan Education Society's High School is a Marathi medium educational institute located in Girgaon, Mumbai, India.

It is located at 75 Jaganath Shankar Seth Road. It was established in 1897.

The Aryan Education Society has total of three schools under its management. First is the Aryan High School which was a boys'-only school until 1985, when it became co-educational. On the same road (Jagannath Sankerset Road i.e. JSS Road) the society has another school, Sharada Sadan, which is a girls'-only school. The third school is at Palghar.

The Aryan High School building is owned by the Aryan Education Society, while Sharada Sadan is a lease-hold premises with permanent occupancy rights (pagdi). Palghar Aryan School is owned by the society, however, the adjoining ground is on permanent lease.

Alumni of the school include C D Deshmukh, the first Finance Minister of India, Sudhir Phadke, legendary Marathi Singer.

-- Aryan Education Society High School, by Wikipedia

A growing number of Hindu clubs and societies devoted their energies principally to secular ends. They organized 'social gatherings' that breached the boundaries of 'caste and creed'; promoted recreational activities; and established educational trusts, libraries, and reading rooms. For instance, the Aryan Social Union was established in 1892 by Seth Damodhar Sukhadwalla, a prominent philanthropist, to foster 'social intercourse and brotherly [relations] between the members and sympathisers of the Theistic Societies without caste and creed distinctions.'119 Likewise, an Aryan Education Society was founded in 1897 by 'a group of young graduates' to impart education at a moderate cost to poor students of the community. The society was said to be sustained 'by fees received from students, and by grants, subscriptions, donations and contributions, received from time to time from Municipal or other kindred bodies and from members of the public generally.' Another association, the Aryan Excelsior League ran 'a Charity Bureau, a debating club, a library, moral classes for boys, and girls, Mahila Mandal, a lecture series and a publications department.'120

The Making of an Indian Metropolis: Colonial Governance and Public Culture in Bombay, 1890-1920, by Prashant Kidambi

Aryan Education Society that has been founded in 1897 by the youths of Girgaon suburb of Mumbai who were inspired by the National cause before independence. Now this institute is running with full flung in its post centenary period.

This institute has been boosted by the guidance of eminent personalities such as Late Justice Mahadeo Govind Ranade, Late Dr. Sir Bhalchandra Bhatavadekar, Late Gopalkrishna Deodhar, Late Justice Mahadeo Govind Chitale, who were honoured with the presidentship of the society. You may realize the importance of society's deeds in the history society's glorious heritage has been going on for last 117 years ceaselessly.

The eminent personalities who were groomed in the society now prove their performance in the various fields like Art, Sports, Drama, Literature, Politics and Music. We are proud that such personalities were our Aryaputras and Aryakanyas.

We observe a tremendous difference in the situations of pre centenary and post centenary has been observed/happened in the stream of education. New thoughts and policies emerged. The activities of the society expanded. Today there are pre-primary, Primary, Secondary and Vanita Vinayala Teacher's Training College Marathi/English Medium running at Girgaon in Mumbai. Also the same functions are going on in Pre-Primary (Marathi/English Medium), Primary (Marathi/ English Medium), M. N. Dandekar High School and K.G

-- Aryan Education Society

and later he came back to Chandannagar and took admission to Duplex College in Chandannagar. In 1908, he appeared for his BA exam at Hooghly Mohsin College, which was affiliated with the University of Calcutta.

Revolutionary activities

During his early college days, Kanailal met with Professor Charu Chandra Roy [Charuchandra Roy, Professor of the Dupleix College from Chandannagar], who inspired him to join the revolutionary movement during the agitations against the Partition of Bengal. During 1905 movement against partition of Bengal, Kanailal Dutta was in the forefront from Chandannagar group. He also developed a close connection with the Gondolpara revolutionary group, which was led by Srishchandra Ghosh.[4] In 1908, he moved to Kolkata and joined Kolkata based revolutionary group Jugantar.

Kingsford assassination attempt

Just two days after the Muzaffarpur bomb attack (30 April 1908) aimed at killing Kingsford, the police raided and arrested a number of revolutionaries in Bengal on 2 May 1908. 33 revolutionaries were charged with waging war against the government.[5] Kanailal Dutta was one of these men, who was also arrested on 2 May 1908 and detained in Alipore Jail.

Alipore Bomb Case


Muraripukur Garden House of Barin Ghosh

Police raided premises at 32 Murari Pukur Road at Kolkata on 2 May 1908 and a bomb-factory was discovered as was a cache of arms, a large quantity of ammunition, bombs, detonators and other tools. They also confiscated Revolutionary literature. The raids were being conducted at various places throughout Bengal and Bihar, and more detention was on the move. Aurobindo Ghosh, Barindra Kumar Ghose, Ullaskar Dutt, Indu Bhusan Roy and many others were arrested. During this time one detainee, Narendranath Goswami (aka Norendra Nath Gossain), became approver of the British, and started revealing names of many persons to the police, leading to further arrests.[6]

Goswami was a resident of Srirampur near Chandernagore. He knew all the plans and activities of the revolutionaries. Appearing in the witness box he started implicating many of his former colleagues by mentioning their names. Barin Ghosh, Shanti Ghosh and Ullaskar Dutta's names were mentioned in attempting to blow off the governor's train at Chandernagore station in 1908; referring to the bomb outrage in the Mayor's house he mentioned name of Charu Chandra Roy, being the leader of the revolutionary outfit of Chandernagore;[7] and on 24 June mentioned names of Aurobindo Ghosh and Subodh Chandra Mullick linking to revolutionary activities.[8]

A conspiracy hatched


The revolver used by Kanailal Dutta to shoot Narendranth Goswami

The under-trial prisoners under the leadership in Barin Ghosh hatched a plan to escape from the Alipur Central Jail, and also to get rid of Goswami. B.C. Roy, Barrister-at-law, defending the prisoners, offered help with men and arms.[7] Barin wrote letters from jail to Sudhangshu Jiban Rai, Preo Shankar Rai and Basanta Banerjee of Chandernagore to meet B. C. Roy for arrangements of arms. He also wrote to Shrish Chandra Ghosh to send phial, acid for the purpose of throwing to jail wardens and wax to copy keys.[9] On Sunday, 23 August, one revolver was smuggled into the jail by Shudhangshu Jiban Rai. Next day Barin asked Hem Das to give it to Satyendranath with instruction to kill Goswami. That time Satyendranath was admitted in the jail Hospital. He expressed his inability to use such a big revolver, and returned it back. On Sunday, 30 August, another revolver reached Barin though Shrish. it was a smaller one. Kanailal took it, and subsequently got admitted to the jail hospital. The Revolvers were received loaded. The stage was set.[4]

Murder of Narendranath Goswami


Kanailal Dutta and Satyen Bosu arrested after murder of Naren Goswami

It was time for retribution for the traitor inside Presidency Jail.[2] It appears that the Narendranath, intentionally kept separated from the other prisoners, was confined in the European Ward in Alipore Central Jail. On 31 August 1908, Narerdranath was brought, from that ward, to the Jail Hospital by a European Convict Overseer named Highens. Narendranath had apparently previously arranged to meet, at that time, in the Hospital, two fellow prisoners, who were already patients in the Jail Hospital, named Kanailal Dutta and Satyendranath Bose. Kanailal and Satyendra managed to acquire two revolvers secretly. Shrish Chandra Ghosh of Chandernagore smuggled the revolvers into the jail, assisted by Motilal Roy.[10] Narendranath had apparently been approached by the second of these prisoners, who had pretended that he also wished to make a statement; and his visit was really in order to get this statement. Evidently it was however part of a plot to get Narendranath within striking distance for it appears that almost immediately on Narendranath's arrival on the landing, at the head of the staircase leading to the second story of the Hospital, these two prisoners opened fire on him with the two revolvers. Highens the Convict Overseer attempted to arrest one of them and was shot through the wrist. Narendranath although shot in several places was not mortally hit and fled down the stairs, out of the Hospital Compound and along an alley way towards the gate. Kanailal Dutta pursued him and shot him fatally through the back. He was then secured by a Eurasian Prisoner named Linton. (Excerpts from a letter No 1876-C dated 31 August 1908, addressed to The Chief Secretary to the Government of Bengal, Calcutta from Commissioner of Police, Calcutta.[11]

Nine shots fired

Excerpts from the Magistrate's commitment order in the case of murder of Narendranath Goswami (spellings unchanged):

"The two revolvers were brought into the office and examined and the smaller one (Exhibit I) was found to have in the chambers four discharged cartridges while the larger (Exhibit II) had five discharged cartridges and one loaded cartridge. Thus we may assume that in all nine shots were fired. Four bullets were found — two inside the dispensary, one just outside the dispensary, and one was extracted from the dead body of Norendra. From the medical evidence it appears that this was the bullet which caused Norendra’s death. It entered fairly high up in the back and severed the spinal cord and almost completely penetrated the breast in front but spent its force before doing so and lay imbedded under the skin of the breast. Exhibit VII is this bullet (contained in a glass bottle sealed by Captain Daley). An examination of this bullet shows that it was fired from the larger of the two revolvers (Exhibit II). The evidence of Linton shows that the revolver was the one used by Kanai Lall Dutt. Thus the fatal shot was fired by Kanai Lall Dutt."[11]

Trial, sentencing and martyrdom

Murder of Narendranath Goswami was a daring act unparalleled in the history of revolutionary terrorism. On 5 September 1908 the news paper Indu Prakash made the following observation:

"The Bengal anarchists were perhaps the most romantic lot in the whole anarchist world, and in point of bravery, daredevilry and cunning they were no doubt far ahead of Russian and Spanish desperadoes - quick in action, quick in revenge and smart in getting rid of any approver."[4]

On 21 October 1908, the High Court pronounced its judgment by giving sentence of death to both the accused. Kanailal declined to file an appeal against such order. Kanailal offered no defense and was averse to an appeal. Sir Prafulla Chandra Roy on a later date commented that Kanailal taught the Bengalees the proper use of "shall" and "will", pointing to his sense of English grammar. When the question of an appeal came up, Kanailal simply said, 'There shall be no appeal'. It was the use of "shall" in the imperative.[12]

Kanailal's statement to the District Magistrate about his motive for assassinating Naren was touchingly direct and simple:

"I wish to state that I did kill him. I do not wish to give any statement why I killed him. Wait, I do wish to give a reason. It was because he was a traitor to his country."

The sentence was carried on 10 November 1908, and Kanailal was hanged till death in the Alipore Jail at about seven in the morning.[10]

In the trial of Satyendranath, the Sessions Judge, disagreeing with the majority verdict of the jury, referred the case to the High Court and there Satyendranath was convicted and sentenced to death. He was hanged on 21 November 1908.[13]

An account of a Jail Warden: Charu Chandra Roy recalled the account of a British jail warden, who, on 9 November 1908, a day before the day of hanging, saw Kanailal smiling, and said, "You are smiling now, but tomorrow morning all the smiles will disappear from your lips." The next day when Kanailal was brought to the gallows he saw the warden, and asked him smilingly, "How do you find me now?" The warden had no answer. Later, the warden told Charu Chandra Roy, "I am the sinner who has executed Kanailal. If you have a hundred men like him, your aim will be fulfilled."[4]

About fifteen years after the death of Kanailal, Motilal Roy published a memorial booklet on Kanailal Dutta in Bengali from Chandarnagore town, which was under French occupation that time and beyond British jurisdiction. It was immediately banned by the British under Sea Customs Act of 1878 which prohibited any "objectionable materials" from being transported into British territories. In that book Motilal recalled the sight of Kanilal's body on the funeral pyre:

"As soon as the blanket was carefully removed, what did we see - language is wanting to describe the lovely beauty of the ascetic Kanai - his long hair fell in a mass on his broad forehead, the half-closed eyes were still drowsy as though from a test of nectar, the living lines of resolution were manifest in the firmly closed lips, the hands reaching to the knees were closed in fists. It was wonderful! Nowhere on Kanai's limbs did we find any ugly wrinkle showing the pain of death.."[14]

An extraordinary scene was witnessed at the day of cremation of Kanailal in the Kalighat burning ghat, when his body was handed over to his family for cremation. A huge crowd gathered and all were pushing each other to touch the bier. The body was decked with flowers. Men, women and children followed the procession in large numbers, shouting Jai Kanai occasionally. He gloried in the deed he had committed and went to his execution without flinching.[4]


Statue of Kanailal Dutta in Chandannagar, Hooghly

While fleeing from Muzaffarpur, on 2 May 1908, Prafulla Chaki was cornered at Mokama Ghat railway station and was about to get arrested when he took his own life by firing two shots one at the forehead and the other on the left side of his chest at the head.[15] Khudiram Bose was the first martyr in the history of revolutionary movement for Indian independence. Kanailal Dutta was the second, and Satyendranath Bose was the third. The execution of these men in 1908 aroused great commotion in public life. The witness accounts of the final moments before martyrdom and accounts of their sacrifices became canonical.[16]

References

1. "Alipore Bomb Case". sriaurobindoinstitute.org. Retrieved 13 September 2017.
2. "Assassination of Narendranath Goswami". sriaurobindoinstitute.org. Archived from the original on 8 March 2017. Retrieved 13 September 2017.
3. Mohanta (2012)
4. Sen (2012)
5. Huda (2008)
6. Bose (1910)
7. Tailleur (1947)
8. Belloir, Jean (1953). Calcutta to Claude de Marolles - Charge d'Affaires. 36. Paris: MEA.
9. Miles (1995)
10. Sengupta (2002)
11. "The assassination of Narendranath Goswami". sriaurobindoashram.org. Archived from the original on 8 March 2017. Retrieved 13 September 2017.
12. "FLASH BACK: Murder And Martyrdom: All Within Jail". bhavans.info/heritage/murder.asp. Retrieved 15 September 2017.
13. Heehs (2008)
14. Ghosh (2017)
15. Arun Chandra Guha (1971). First spark of revolution: the early phase of India's struggle for independence, 1900-1920. Orient Longman. Retrieved 15 September 2017.
16. Banerjee, Upendra Nath (1928). Nirbasiter Atmakatha (in Bengali) (Memoirs of the Deported Prisoner). Calcutta: Hrishikesh Kanjilal.

External links

• Kanailal's picture at museum collection of Institut de Chandernagor

Bibliography

• Bose, Bejai Krishna (1910), The Alipore Bomb Case - Mr. Beachcrofts Judgment, Calcutta: M N Mitra
• Ghosh, Durba (2017), Gentlemanly Terrorist - Political Violence and the Colonial State in India, 1919-1947, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-110-718-666-8
• Heehs, Peter (2008), The Lives of Sri Aurobindo (Second ed.), Columbia University Press
• Huda, Nurul (2008), The Alipore Bomb Case: A Historic Pre-Independence Trial, Neogy Books, ISBN 978-81-8973-831-0
• Miles, William FS (1995), Imperial Burdens- Counter Colonialism in Former French India, Lynne Rienner Publishers, p. 162, ISBN 978-1-55587-511-4
• Islam, Sirajul; Jamal, Ahmed A., eds. (2012), "Dutta, Kanailal", Banglapedia: National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh (Second ed.), Asiatic Society of Bangladesh
• Roy, Motilal (1923), Kanailal, Calcutta: Prabartak Publishers
• Sarkar, Hemanta Kumar (1923), Revolutionaries of Bengal : their methods and ideals, Calcutta: The Author
• Sen, Shailendra Nath (2012), Chandernagore - From Bondage to Freedom 1900-1955, Primus Books, ISBN 978-93-80607-23-8
• Tailleur, Georges (1947), Chandernagore ou le let de Dupleix - in Affaires Politiques, Paris: AOM
• Sengupta, Subodh Ch.; Basu, Anjali (2002), Sansad Bengali Charitavidhan (Bengali) Vol I, Kolkata: Sahitya Sansad, pp. 80, 390, ISBN 81-85626-65-0

[admin]

Part 1 of 2

The Indian “Alsatia”: Sovereignty, Extradition, and the Limits of Franco-British Colonial Policing [The Charu Chandra Roy Affair]
by Mark Condos, Lecturer in Imperial and Global History, School of History, Queen Mary, University of London
2019

Abstract:

By the eve of the First World War, the world’s two most powerful imperial powers, Britain and France, had begun to work together in order to defeat the growing menace posed by transnational anti-colonial networks operating within Europe. When it came to the front lines of the anti-colonial struggle, however, Franco-British collaborative policing efforts continued to be plagued by persistent rivalries and contestations between these erstwhile enemies. This is particularly evident in the case of the French-controlled settlement of Chandernagore in India, which was one of the centres of revolutionary activity in Bengal. This article examines how Chandernagore’s unique legal and political status as a French possession enabled it to become a ‘haven’ or ‘Alsatia’ for Indian revolutionaries operating against the British colonial state. It traces how the persistence of this vestige of French sovereignty placed it at the centre of repeated conflicts between British and French colonial authorities over the detection, arrest, and extradition of these revolutionaries, revealing both the possibilities and limitations of colonial police cooperation. Far from being peripheral in nature, these conflicts cut to the heart of even more fiercely contested debates within the imperial metropole about the relationship between national sovereignty and international law in an increasingly global age.

Funding Details:

This research was supported by the Leverhulme Trust.

Disclosure Statement:

There is no potential conflict of interest. 
 
I – Introduction

On the morning of 23 December 1912, crowds of cheering onlookers lined the cramped streets and roofs of the Chandni Chowk market in Old Delhi to witness what was supposed to be the triumphant arrival of Viceroy Hardinge into the city. Hardinge’s grand entry heralded the official transfer of power from the old, and increasingly embattled British capital of Calcutta, to the shining, new, purpose-built colonial city of New Delhi. At around 11:45 a.m., shortly after the Viceroy’s procession entered the market, a bomb struck Hardinge’s elephant-mounted howdah (carriage) as it passed near a crowded block of buildings about midway between the railway station and the Red Fort.[1] The explosion instantly killed Hardinge’s Indian attendant, as well as a young boy in the crowd. Several others were wounded, including Hardinge, who suffered moderate injuries to the back of his right shoulder and neck, causing him to lose consciousness.[2] This sensational attempt against the life of the highest British official in India sent shockwaves throughout the British Empire and around the world.[3] British officials immediately began one of the largest manhunts in the history of British India for the individuals responsible. David Petrie, an officer within the Indian Department of Criminal Intelligence and future Director General of MI5, was given charge of the investigation, and the considerable resources of all of the provincial CIDs across India were placed at his disposal. Known political suspects were rounded up, questioned, or placed under increased surveillance; additional police were posted across North India to monitor and scrutinise people’s movements around Delhi; and a substantial reward of Rs. 15,000 for information that led to arrest of the individuals responsible for the attack was widely publicised across the country.[4]

British investigators quickly uncovered strong links between the Delhi attack and several other recent bombings committed by Bengali revolutionary groups, including an attack at Midnapur less than a fortnight before on 13 December and another at Calcutta’s Dalhousie Square in March 1911.[5] Tracing the common origin of the bombs used in these attacks, officials eventually narrowed their focus to the French-controlled settlement of Chandernagore, located just outside Calcutta.[6] By June 1913, however, the investigation stalled due to a lack of reliable information, which the British blamed on the uncooperative French police.[7] Writing in late August 1913, the Home Member of the Viceroy’s Council, R.H. Craddock, fumed over the apparent British powerlessness to take action against Indian terrorists who took refuge in Chandernagore:

SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Held by the French entirely on sufferance, constituting a small enclave within a few miles of the largest city in India, with an incompetent and underpaid Police in the pay of the anarchists, it offers the easiest possible Alsatia to all these political criminals. … In this sanctuary exists unchecked a gang whose object in life is to compass the assassination of high officers of the British Government.[8]

 
In another note from 5 October 1913, Craddock expressed his frustration in similarly stark terms: ‘SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Within a few miles of Calcutta is a centre of anarchical conspiracies, where plans may be hatched, bombs manufactured, arms imported, emissaries instructed, and youth depraved, with absolute impunity’.[9]

Despite its general neglect within both South Asian and French historiography, Chandernagore was one of the most important centres of revolutionary activity in Bengal.[10] Between the emergence of the Swadeshi Movement in 1905, and the outbreak of the First World War in 1914, Chandernagore was the main source of arms for Bengali revolutionaries.[11] Its more liberal press laws also meant that it played a vital role in printing and distributing anti-British propaganda.[12] Even more crucially, the settlement’s close proximity to Calcutta, and the high amount of commercial traffic that passed between its porous borders with British India on a daily basis, made it an obvious choice for Indian revolutionaries seeking to evade the legal jurisdiction of the British police. Because it was not part of British India, and was subject instead to the laws and jurisdiction of the local French colonial authorities, British officials were deeply reliant on the close cooperation and goodwill of their French colleagues when it came to the detection, arrest, and extradition of Indian revolutionaries operating from, or taking refuge within, the settlement. However, as Craddock’s statements suggest, this was far from a smooth and harmonious relationship. Indeed, Craddock’s telling allusion to Chandernagore as an ‘Alsatia’ -– the colloquial term for the area north of the City of London near Whitefriars that provided a legal sanctuary for debtors and other individuals sought by the law until the end of the seventeenth century –- suggests the French had allowed it to become a ‘safe haven’ or legal sanctuary for terrorists.[13]

The existence of such a space so close to the heart of British colonial power in India raises a number of important issues within the history of empire and anti-colonialism. First, it points to the peculiarities and limits of colonial sovereignty within the Indian subcontinent itself. Rather than being an all-powerful colonial regime that stretched smoothly across India, the British state was constrained by the existence of rival and competing sovereignties, like the French. Second, the apparent inability of the French and British to cooperate effectively when it came to putting a stop to Indian revolutionary activity is particularly striking when we consider that this was the same period when these two powers increasingly began to work together in order to police Indian revolutionaries within Europe itself, where the self-professed liberal nature of France and Britain’s imperial metropoles had paradoxically enabled them to develop their anti-colonial politics in similar sorts of ‘safe zones’.[14] This complicates the argument put forward recently by Martin Thomas and Richard Toye that the British and French increasingly acted as ‘co-imperialists’ following the 1904 Entente Cordiale, sharing personnel and much-needed expertise to expand, consolidate, and defend their imperial possessions from various external and internal threats.[15] Instead, it provides a revealing site for the continued conflicts between British and French officials as they attempted to negotiate and balance the competing imperatives of colonial police cooperation and preserving their respective imperial and national interests.[16] Finally, Chandernagore’s unique political and legal status provided new possibilities for the elaboration of Indian anti-colonialism itself. Despite the existence of a wide-array of draconian powers and a higher tolerance for the use of physical violence and other coercive methods for maintaining law and order within the colonial world, Indian revolutionaries in Bengal repeatedly continued to elude British colonial authorities by seeking refuge in this ‘Indian Alsatia’. While it is beyond the scope of this article to present an exhaustive examination of Chandernagore’s contribution to the Indian revolutionary movement, it seeks to understand how the unique political, cultural, legal, and jurisdictional qualities of the settlement afforded Indian revolutionaries operating there an increased freedom of action they did not enjoy in British India. To do so, it explores the highly fraught colonial and imperial politics surrounding the extradition and rendition of Indian revolutionaries between French and British India. These conflicts not only had a profound impact on the unfolding of the Indian nationalist movement and the strategies adopted by revolutionaries, but also fuelled debates within the imperial metropole about national sovereignty and the wider political relations between the French and British governments.

II – A Brief History of Extradition

The practice of surrendering prisoners from one state to another dates back to the ancient world.[17] Extradition treaties were conducted between monarchs who agreed to surrender fugitives who committed treason, attempted regicide, or anything else that might disrupt the established political order.[18] Because the surrender of a person who was granted refuge in another state ran counter to established traditions of asylum and hospitality, extradition from the outset was considered an ‘exceptional’ measure beyond the normal political and legal order.[19] The use of extradition by states to acquire jurisdiction over individuals accused of committing the kinds of ‘political’ crimes outlined above, as opposed to ‘common’ criminal offences (fraud, theft, rape, murder, etc.), remained a central and remarkably durable feature of European extradition agreements until the end of the eighteenth century.[20] During the early nineteenth century, however, the proliferation of railways and steamships made it increasingly easy for criminals of all stripes to quickly travel long distances to evade the authorities of one country, and so states increasingly began to include common criminal offences into extradition agreements.[21] At the same time, political offences were progressively excluded from these treaties. This shift is often attributed to the impact of the French Revolution and the promulgation of the French Constitution of 1793, which promised asylum to individuals exiled from their home countries who were fighting for ‘the cause of freedom’.[22] In 1833, Belgium became the first European nation to codify this principle through what is now known as the ‘political offence exception’.[23] The following year, France and Switzerland both passed similar legislation, and Britain finally followed suit in 1870.[24] Thus, the principle of granting asylum for political crimes rapidly gained acceptance among Western Europe’s more democratic and liberal regimes, enabling them to cast themselves as champions of democracy and freedom.[25]

Once states began to enshrine the political offence exception within their extradition laws, they quickly realised that it was also in their interests to place certain limits on what constituted political crime.[26] Following a failed assassination attempt against Napoleon III in 1855, Belgium was placed in the awkward of position of having to refuse the extradition of the would-be assassins, causing national and international uproar. As a result, Belgium became the first country to introduce an exception to the political offence exception. Known as the Belgian clause or attentat (‘attempt’ or ‘attack’) clause, this provision denied protection to individuals who murdered or attempted to murder heads of state.[27] Over the course of the nineteenth century and twentieth centuries, the attentat clause was gradually expanded to include genocide, war crimes, apartheid, and acts of ‘terrorism’.[28] The attentat clause forced states [to] reconsider how they conceived of legitimate political crimes they still deemed worthy of protection. To do so, they began to differentiate between ‘pure political’ and ‘relative political’ offences. ‘Pure political offences’ referred to actions directed against the political organisation or government of a state which contained no element of common crime, and which did not cause any injury or harm to private persons or property.[29] ‘Relative political’ offences, on the other hand were political acts that also incorporated elements of common crime, such as the assassination of a public official. In the 1890s, for example, European anarchists seeking to overthrow various governments were placed outside the political offender exception.[30] As legal scholars have pointed out, however, relative political offences are highly problematic due to the often hybrid nature between common crime and political crime, and the difficulty in disentangling the two.[31] In the absence of a clear and universally accepted definition of what constitutes legitimate political action, it is difficult for states to maintain their neutrality in international struggles, support individuals and groups genuinely seeking democratic and liberal goals, and to prevent the potentially unjust treatment of prisoners at the hands of authoritarian regimes, especially in this age of heightened terrorism when states are increasingly wary of applying the political offence exception.[32]

In the imperial world, extradition was seldom a straightforward affair, and colonial governments often had to navigate an overlapping and sometimes competing set of extradition procedures and laws within the same imperial political formation. In the case of the British Empire, colonies had to reckon with agreements and procedures developed by their own local governments as well as by the British Parliament back in London. Although imperial statues such as the Extradition Act of 1870 (33 Vict.) and the Fugitive Offenders Act of 1881 (44 & 45 Vict.) were designed to clarify and standardise the procedures governing the extradition of criminals to foreign states and the transfer of fugitives between different parts of the empire,[33] colonial governments nonetheless retained the ability to formulate their own local measures, so long as they were generally in keeping with the parameters of these imperial laws.[34] In India, for example, the Government of India (GOI) passed four different extradition laws and amendments between 1872 and 1903 alone.[35]

The need for so many different extradition laws was a reflection of the complexity of reconciling the GOI’s commitments under the imperial Extradition Act of 1870 with its unusually vast and tangled legal and political geography. Though the most iconic maps of the British Empire depict India as a solid mass of red or pink, suggesting that British dominion stretched evenly and assuredly across the entire subcontinent, this was hardly the case. Aside from the tenuous control exerted by the colonial state over India’s porous frontier regions, the continued existence of its nominally independent ‘princely states’ disrupted the smooth and even unfolding of British legal and political authority.[36] The princely state of Hyderabad, to take one example, was often a reluctant partner when it came to the arrest and extradition of criminals operating across its borders, which led to a series of repeated political disputes and legal contestations with British authorities about the applicability of laws like the Fugitive Offenders Act.[37]

British hegemony was additionally complicated by Portuguese possessions in Goa and Daman along India’s western coast, as well as a handful of small, scattered comptoirs (trading posts) that the French had managed to cling to in the wake of the Napoleonic Wars. Geographically dispersed, with a total area of little more than 500 square kilometres, and completely dependent on the British for trade and defence, these French enclaves, known collectively as l’Inde Française posed little obvious threat to British rule.[38] Nevertheless, these vestiges of Dupleix’s [Joseph Marquis Dupleix, Governor-General of French India and rival of Robert Clive] once ‘glorious’ Indian empire retained a strong emotional and symbolic significance among France’s pro-colonial lobbyists, despite their relative economic and strategic insignificance within the wider French colonial empire.[39] French officials in India accordingly sought to preserve and advance their nation’s sovereign claims over these territories by repeatedly challenging their British neighbours for greater political concessions through appeals to evolving notions of international law.[40] Thus, far from being a unified political entity, colonial India was punctuated by various enclaves or islands of overlapping, ‘layered’, and competing sovereignty.[41]

As a result, when it came to the arrest and rendition of fugitive criminals, the British colonial government was regularly required to transact with an array of different political formations. Within this context, extradition treaties and agreements can be understood as one of the key ways in which colonial authorities attempted to tame and re-order this tangled legal geography.[42] In the case of Franco-British political relations, extradition treaties were also seen as an important mechanism for reducing tensions and ensuring peaceful relations between these two frequent rivals. As legal scholars have long recognised, one of the key purposes for the development of extradition treaties was to foster mutual respect and goodwill between sovereigns, while also tackling the shared international problem of preventing and punishing criminal acts.[43] As William Magnuson has pointed out, however, this model of rational inter-state exchange could also be profoundly complicated and shaped by domestic politics, which might provide governments or their officials with different incentives to breach these agreements.[44] By the turn of the twentieth century, both Britain and France had an increasingly strong interest in working together to expand, police, and defend their respective empires. British and French officials alike recognised the dangerous threat posed by global revolutionary movements, and should have had strong incentives to work together. Indeed, in the metropole they increasingly did.[45] Yet, in places such as India, this remained a much more complicated affair. Overlapping ideas about extradition, difficulties in distinguishing between ‘pure political’ and ‘relative political’ offences, local political exigencies, as well as wider imperial and metropolitan considerations all combined to hamstring their ability to work together effectively when it came to rendering fugitives in India.

III – L’Affaire Charu Chandra Roy

Just after 8 a.m., on 22 June 1908, British and French police forces raided the home of Charu Chandra Roy in Chandernagore. When the police entered the residence, Godfrey Charles Denham, a British officer within the Special Branch of the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) of the Bengal Police, produced and read out a warrant for Roy’s arrest. Roy was then placed under the custody of the French Commissioner of Police, E. Prieur, while Denham and the French police searched the house for an hour. Following the search, Roy was conducted into a car and taken by the French authorities to the Prosecutor’s Office, where he was officially given over to the custody of Denham. An adjutant then escorted Denham and Roy to a jetty where a steamship from Calcutta was waiting to convey them down the Hooghly river and into British territory.[46] At first glance, Roy’s arrest and extradition appear to offer a glimpse into the successful workings of Franco-British colonial policing of Indian revolutionaries. Roy’s extradition, however, quickly became a source of international controversy which demonstrated the complexity and the limits of collaborative colonial policing in India.

On the surface, Roy was a respectable and prominent citizen of the French settlement. In addition to being the deputy director of the local Dupleix College, he was also a registered elector who helped select India’s representative to the French Chamber of Deputies in Paris.[47] Roy, however, was also a leading Swadeshi activist and one of the main revolutionary leaders in Chandernagore. In addition to promoting the movement to his students at Dupleix College, Roy also organised boycotts and public meetings within the settlement. On 4 April, one of these protests had turned violent after armed soldiers and police were despatched by Mayor Paul Emile Léon Tardivel to shut it down.[48] In revenge, Roy gave his approval to Barin Ghosh, one the leaders of the Calcutta-based Manicktolla [Maniktala] secret society, to assassinate Tardivel.[49] Ghosh and his associates subsequently attempted to kill Tardivel by throwing a bomb into his dining room on the night of 12 April 1908, but the detonator failed and Tardivel escaped unharmed.[50] Based on his public activities and his known connections with the Manicktolla group, the Bengal Government suspected that Roy was closely involved in the preparation of explosive materials and the planning of various other terrorist attacks, including an assassination attempt against former Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal, Sir Andrew Fraser, and the notorious botched attack against Magistrate Douglas Kingsford at Muzzafarpur.[51] Following the Kingsford attempt, the members of the Manicktolla group were arrested and prosecuted in a high-profile trial that became known as the Alipore Conspiracy Case.[52] During their investigation, British officials discovered that two of the accused in the Alipore Conspiracy Case, Upendra Nath Banerji and Kanailal Dutta, had actually studied under Roy at Dupleix College, and that Roy also had close connections with Narendra Nath Goswami, who later turned state’s evidence and was assassinated in the Alipore prison by Dutta and Satyendra Nath Bose.[53] It was Goswami’s testimony that finally provided British authorities with sufficient evidence to obtain a warrant for Roy’s arrest and extradition, after which Roy was transferred to the same prison ward in the Alipore jail as the Manicktolla conspirators, including Aurobindo Ghosh.[54]

Shortly after Roy’s extradition and imprisonment, the case against him began to unravel. Because British authorities believed Roy had been directly involved in helping to prepare explosives and organise attacks, his arrest warrant cited charges under sections 107, 150, and 157 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) of 1860, and sections 19 and 20 of the 1878 Indian Arms Act.[55] British officials had hoped that incriminating evidence, including bomb-making materials, would be found at his home, and were obviously disappointed when the police came back empty-handed. Lacking sufficient evidence to indict him for the aforementioned charges, the British authorities decided to change their strategy and arraign Roy under the much more serious and wide-ranging charges of conspiring to ‘wage war’ against the sovereign (sections 121, 121A, and 123 of the IPC).[56] This fateful decision to unilaterally revise the charges levied against Roy would ultimately force a confrontation between the French and British governments over the extremely sensitive issue of national sovereignty and the respective rights of their citizens and subjects.

From the outset, French officials had been uneasy about extraditing such a prominent public official, and the Bengal Government became noticeably incensed when it had to wait for over two weeks while the cautious Administrator of Chandernagore, Maurice Guizonnier, considered their request.[57] Although Guizonnier reluctantly agreed to help his British counterparts, he wrote to his superior, Governor Adrien Bonhoure, highlighting the ‘delicate’ judicial and political questions surrounding the case. In particular, he gestured to the complexities of Britain and France’s overlapping extradition treaties and agreements.[58] Roy’s extradition had been requested according to the Franco-British Convention of 1815, which governed the sale and production of salt and opium in India. Article 9 of this treaty provided for the mutual extradition of both Indians and Europeans who violated the laws of British and French India.[59] In 1876, however, the French and British governments concluded a new Extradition Treaty, which included an article specifying that ‘nationals’ were exempt from extradition.[60] Guizonnier, therefore, concluded that it would have been within French rights to refuse Roy’s extradition.[61] When the General Prosecutor and Chief of the Judicial Service, A. Raynaud, weighed in a few weeks later, however, he pointed out that the 1876 Treaty specifically did not alter or revoke the wide-ranging powers granted by article 9 of the 1815 Convention. ‘Nationals’, Raynaud concluded, ‘are therefore liable to extradition in India’.[62] In light of the confusion about the validity of the procedure followed in Roy’s arrest and extradition, Bonhoure decided to refer the entire case to his superior in Paris, the Minister for the Colonies, Raphaël Milliès-Lacroix.[63]

While Roy languished in a British jail cell and the French authorities debated the legality of the extradition, his brother, Kanailal Roy Gupta, began an aggressive publicity and letter-writing campaign in the hopes of obtaining his release. Three day’s after Roy’s arrest, Gupta, published an open letter of vigorous protest addressed to the French Public Prosecutor in Chandernagore in the local newspaper, Matribhumi (motherland). With its motto, ‘liberté, égalité, fraternité’, Matribhumi was known for its advocacy of French republican and liberal values, while also being a prominent mouthpiece for Indian radicals and revolutionaries.[64] In his letter, Gupta proclaimed his brother’s innocence and argued that both the search of Roy’s house, as well as his arrest and extradition were technically illegal. To make his case, Gupta stressed that Roy was a loyal and respectable ‘French citizen’, and cited the 1876 Extradition Treaty, which guaranteed that ‘citizens’ were protected against extradition.[65] In a subsequent letter published in Matribhumi on 25 July, Gupta renewed his attacks against the legality of the extradition, this time pointing out that the 1876 Treaty specifically prohibited the extradition of individuals accused of ‘political crimes’.[66] As we have seen, the convention of not extraditing political prisoners was a vital principle of international law governing the rendition of prisoners from one state to another. It was considered so important, in fact, that the French and British had concluded a separate agreement in 1861 which clarified that while the GOI retained ‘the widest possible powers of extradition’ under the 1815 Convention, that this did not apply to ‘political offences’.[67]

Gupta clearly understood that upholding the political offence exception would be an important priority for a self-professed liberal regime like France that sought to position itself as a champion of liberty and democracy, and so on 15 July, he personally wrote to Bonhoure, informing him that the British had abandoned the initial charges against Roy, and had replaced them with charges for political crimes. Gupta stirred the pot further by claiming that the ‘charges of murder and attempted murder against Charu Chandra Ray were nothing more than a ploy to catch your good faith unawares and to easily obtain his extradition’.[68] Two weeks later, on 23 July 1908, Gupta wrote a similar letter to the Minister for the Colonies, Milliès-Lacroix, peppering it with patriotic language and beseeching the Minister to protect the rights of a fellow citizen.[69] In yet another letter to Bonhoure from 31 July 1908, Gupta forwarded various documents and correspondence obtained from the British authorities that provided irrefutable evidence that Roy was to be prosecuted for crimes against the state, and reminded him that France did not extradite individuals accused of political offences. He also argued that the involvement of a British officer in the search and arrest invalidated the entire extradition procedure. According to Gupta, only French agents had the legal authority to arrest Roy and search his home, and Roy should have been conducted to the Chandernagore frontier before being handed over to the British authorities.[70]

Back in Paris, the pro-colonial press attempted to turned Roy’s plight into a national cause célèbre. One sympathetic daily entitled La Politique Coloniale came to Roy’s defence by reprinting Gupta’s letters and whipping up patriotic sentiment and outrage by claiming that the arrest of a French civil servant by a British police officer represented a violation of France’s sovereignty.[71] Another newspaper entitled La Presse Coloniale decried Roy’s treatment as ‘monstrous’, declaring that ‘[t]here could be no more overt violation of our fellow citizens’ rights and no greater compromise to their interests and the interests of the metropole’.[72] As the press stoked the flames of public outrage, the League for the Defence of the Rights of Man and Citizens also became involved in the affair. Founded in 1898 to defend Captain Alfred Dreyfus against his unjust and illegal conviction for treason during the infamous Dreyfus Affair which dominated French politics between 1894 and 1906, the League was a powerful and politically influential left-wing organisation.[73] On 21 August, the President of the League, Francis de Pressensé, wrote to Milliès-Lacroix, drawing his attention to Roy’s case:

If the facts relayed … are accurate, our countryman was the victim of a monstrous violation of our laws, and indeed of the law of man. I am aware of the serious events which led a renowned liberal, Lord Morley, Secretary of State for India, to order measures of prevention and suppression to be enforced across the entire peninsula. Yet the law, the law of man, and international guarantees cannot, in any circumstance, exist in isolation. France’s honour, and the safety of her representatives, are at stake.[74]

As such, De Pressensé implored Milliès-Lacroix and the French government to undertake ‘the most energetic intervention’ on Roy’s behalf to obtain his release from the British authorities.

As the pressure mounted, the French government found itself on the defensive, searching for new ways to justify and uphold the legality of the extradition. In the metropole, much of the outrage over the Roy case appears to have been driven by the misapprehension that he was a French ‘citizen’, rather than a French ‘subject’. The French government therefore tried to deflect criticism by clarifying that Roy was not, in fact, a natural-born Frenchman, and was simply a ‘native subject’. This meant that, from a judicial point of view, Roy’s extradition was completely legal and consistent with French treaty obligations toward the British.[75] Officials also continued to insist that the proper extradition procedure had been followed, and that there had been no violation of French sovereignty.[76] All of this changed, however, when the Bengal Government, after numerous delays, finally confirmed on 15 September that they had, indeed, changed the charges against Roy.[77] The following day, Guizonnier registered his strong disapproval to Bonhoure, and expressed irritation that the Bengal authorities had previously been so unresponsive to his requests for clarification about the progress of Roy’s case.[78] Now that the British authorities had demonstrated their bad faith in unilaterally deciding to switch the charges without asking the French for authorisation, Guizonnier believed that it was within their rights to challenge the extradition.[79]

From a strictly legal point of view, there was little the French government could officially do unless a verdict of guilty was rendered against Roy.[80] By October 1908, however, public scrutiny of Roy’s case had become so great that the French government feared the potential national embarrassment and domestic political backlash that would occur if the apparent irregularities of the affair were officially raised in the Chamber of Deputies. Eager to portray themselves as defenders of liberty, while also avoiding any appearance that they had violated the generally recognised principles of granting asylum to political prisoners, the French authorities intervened on Roy’s behalf and pressured the British to retract the charges of conspiracy and waging war against the sovereign. Writing to the Permanent Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and future Viceroy of British India, Charles Hardinge, French Ambassador Paul Cambon pointed out SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 that ‘Great Britain had always declared herself as opposing the principle of extraditions for political offences’ and asked that they limit themselves to the original charges listed on Roy’s arrest warrant.[81] Two days later, on 12 October 1908, Cambon sent another letter to the Foreign Office, urging them to ‘avoid introducing any political aspect into this judicial affair’.[82] Just over two weeks later, on 27 October, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs finally reported to the Ministry for the Colonies that the British had relented and withdrawn all the political charges against Roy.[83] With insufficient evidence to proceed against Roy for the initial charges, and the option of pursuing him for political crimes now closed to them, British authorities were compelled to drop all charges against Roy, and he was finally released from the Alipore jail on 7 January 1909.

The controversy provoked by the handling of Roy’s case fed into a growing sense distrust and simmering tension between British and French authorities. Embittered by the apparent reluctance on the part of the French to aid them in their efforts, the Bengal Government concluded that drastic measures would need to be taken in [the] future if French authorities were not more cooperative when it came to extraditing individuals accused of political offences:

If the French Government persisit [sic] in a wide construction of the word ‘political’ and in the perpetuation of the state of things described, it is obvious that the old friendly and altogether easy-going relations between the local administrations must cease. The only possible course for this Government would be at great expense to surround Chandernagore with a cordon of police, and to instute [sic] the severest scrutiny for contraband of every kind. Such action would impose intense inconvenience on the residents of the settlement and there is no doubt that the French local authorities at least would recommend any possible concession in order to avoid it.[84]

 
The French, for their part, were clearly annoyed about the apparent British duplicity in changing the charges against Roy, but also realised they needed to maintain the goodwill of their powerful neighbours. In an effort to placate their irritated British counterparts, Bonhoure unsuccessfully attempted to block Roy’s reinstatement as deputy director of Dupleix College shortly after his release from prison.[85] If Roy’s reinstatement was not insulting enough to the Bengal Government, the appearance of a copy of the radical Jugantar newspaper on the public notice board at Dupleix College a few days later was seen as positively provocative. Commenting on the incident, the Calcutta-based newspaper The Englishman made veiled, yet sufficiently obvious, insinuations that Roy was responsible, and chastised French authorities for not doing enough to ‘prevent Chandernagore becoming a spawning-bed for sedition-mongers’.[86] After reading The Englishman article, the French Consul General in Calcutta, Ernest Ronssin expressed his understandable concern that the French would permit someone who openly ‘preaches’ murder against British authorities to continue to serve as a public official, and warned that Roy’s known connections with the Chandernagore ‘anarchists’ would erode the good relations between the British and French in India.[87]

The Charu Chandra Roy affair left a bad taste in the mouths of both British and French officials alike. Yet just over a year after its conclusion, the French and British governments found themselves drawn into an even more acrimonious conflict surrounding the extradition of another Indian revolutionary. On 8 July 1910, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar escaped from his British captors as his ship passed through the French port city of Marseilles from London enroute to India, where he was meant to face trial. Savarkar jumped ship and managed to swim ashore, but was promptly arrested by a French police officer and surrendered back to the British. When the French public caught wind of these events, however, there was an outcry against the impromptu extradition. This became the spark for a major diplomatic incident between the two powers, at the heart of which lay an intense legal debate about national sovereignty in an increasingly international age. Although the case was finally decided at the Hague in favour of the British, it continued to cast a long shadow over the still fragile Franco-British Entente Cordiale.[88] As Edouard Néron, a member of the French Chamber of Deputies put it in an article written for Les Annales Coloniales shortly after the verdict was rendered: ‘This judgment will, undoubtedly, be of great significance. It is concerned, in fact, with one of the most delicate questions concerning territorial sovereignty and the right of asylum, and it is probable that it will form the subject of jurisprudence for similar disputes in the future’.[89]

Although neither the political scandal nor the ensuing diplomatic crisis were on the same scale as that of the Savarkar case, the Roy affair nonetheless set an important precedent within India itself when it came to determining the possibilities and limits of Franco-British collaborative colonial policing. After British officials learned that Aurobindo Ghosh [Sri Aurobindo] had fled to Pondicherry via Chandernagore in 1910, Secretary of State for India John Morley gestured explicitly to the Roy case when he ordered Viceroy Hardinge not to pursue the French for his extradition in the hopes of avoiding a similar political incident.[90] The apparent success of Gupta’s letter-writing offensive and the ensuing publicity campaign by liberal newspapers and organisations also provided a sobering lesson to the French authorities about the problems that could arise if they were seen to be colluding too openly with their British counterparts. This was reinforced during King George V’s royal visit to India in 1911, when the League for the Defence of the Rights of Man pressed the French government over the presence of special undercover British police officers in Chandernagore, claiming that it was an ‘invasive’ violation of French sovereignty.[91] Finally, the apparent confusion surrounding Britain and France’s overlapping extradition agreements and procedures highlighted the importance of clarifying these issues, and prompted French colonial officials to try and obtain greater power to resist extradition requests when they were deemed to run counter to their interests.[92] As we shall see in the following section, all of these factors played a role in the inability of the French and British authorities to apprehend Rash Behari Bose, the mastermind behind the assassination attempt against Viceroy Hardinge in 1912.

IV– The Flight of Rash Behari Bose

In February 1914, a series of police raids in Delhi and Lahore uncovered evidence that the mastermind behind the 1912 assassination attempt against Viceroy Hardinge was Rash Behari Bose, the head clerk in the Forest Department at Dehradun in Uttarakhand.[93] The police subsequently attempted to arrest Bose in Lahore, but he managed to escape and eventually made his way back to his home town of Chandernagore, where he had even studied under Charu Chandra Roy at Dupleix College. Though it did not take long for British authorities to pick up Bose’s trail, it did take them several days to obtain permission from the French authorities to conduct a search of his house.[94] By the time French and British police raided Bose’s home on the morning of 8 March, Bose had already escaped to Benares after reading reports in the Calcutta-based newspapers advertising the large reward for his arrest.[95] Two subsequent searches of his domicile turned up nothing more than a few proscribed publications.[96] Although Bose departed Chandernagore for Benares before the British began their extradition proceedings, Petrie later lamented how ‘the delay inseparable from the arranging of extradition formalities has greatly prejudiced our chances of capturing him’.[97] The Governor of the French Settlements, Alfred Albert Martineau, however, saw it slightly differently, and described the failure to apprehend Bose and the repeated impositions placed on his administration by the British authorities as ‘a humiliating and grotesque situation’.[98]

On 5 March 1914, after learning that the British authorities were in hot pursuit and seeking his extradition from Chandernagore for violations of the Explosives Act (1884) and section 302 (murder) of the IPC, Bose petitioned the French Minister for the Colonies in Paris, Albert François Lebrun, to deny their request. Citing both the Treaty of 1815 and the Convention of 1876, Bose insisted that the ‘political character’ of his supposed crimes protected him against extradition and implored Lebrun to grant him asylum.[99] Less than two weeks later, on 16 March, Bose’s uncle, Nandakisor Sinha, sent a similar petition to Martineau. Sinha also argued that the Convention of 1876 protected Bose from extradition due to the political nature of his alleged crimes, and he beseeched Martineau for the ‘protection of the French Government’.[100] As with the various petitions sent on behalf of Roy six years earlier, Bose and Sinha both presented an ardently juridical defence against Bose’s extradition by insisting it was the legal duty of the French authorities to grant him political asylum. At the same time, they also implicitly advanced an important moral argument as well. By casting Bose in the role of a legitimate freedom fighter, these petitions attempted to exploit French national pride about being a self-professed liberal, democratic state that was committed to the causes of freedom and justice.

When the pro-colonial press caught wind of the Bose affair, they also rallied to his defence. On 15 April 1914, La Presse Coloniale published an article entitled ‘An Illegal Extradition in Chandernagor’, accusing the British Viceroy of ‘having nothing better to do’ than ‘invade’ French territory in order to ‘ransack’ the houses of French citizens and subjects without sufficient warning or even official authorisation.[101] According to the article, this represented an unacceptable threat to the security and rights of French citizens and subjects: ‘SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 our compatriots from overseas are not only frustrated by the searches of a foreign nation, but those who carry even some small suspicion are still extradited with an unlawful and abusive ease’.[102] As Henry Croisilles, the paper’s correspondent put it, ‘We may soon see foreign police entering the home of any citizen without prior permission’.[103] Alarmist as it may have seemed, this kind of rhetoric touched a nerve with the French public, tapping into their sense of patriotism and also insecurity and emotional attachment to these vestiges of their ‘lost’ empire.[104]

On 21 April 1914, Gaston Doumergue, the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, wrote to Lebrun and compared Bose’s plea for protection to the one mounted in 1908 by Roy and his supporters. Doumergue reminded Lebrun that his predecessors had ultimately sanctioned Roy’s extradition because the initial charges levied by the British authorities constituted common criminal offences, and were not protected by the political offence exception.[105] Thus, regardless of the overtly political implications of Bose’s alleged offences, their violent nature also necessarily invalidated them from being non-extraditable offences. As Doumergue put it, ‘It is the first duty of insurgents or rebels who claim to be in a state of war to abstain from barbarous or disloyal acts which the customs of war reject’.[106] Doumergue was well aware of the political difficulties that would arise if the French were seen to being offering shelter to violent revolutionaries, and he took a hard line by insisting that the French colonial authorities should do everything in their power to cooperate and help the British in their efforts.[107]

In a subsequent letter, Doumergue reiterated that the French were not to extend Bose any protection because of both the special nature of the case, as well as the difficulty of extending political legitimacy to ‘anarchist attacks committed in Hindustan’.[108]

Yet despite his avowed commitment to rooting out Indian revolutionaries, Doumergue also recognised that French sovereignty and national pride might be damaged if they were seen to be too acquiescent toward British demands. As such, he stressed that French colonial authorities should not allow their cooperation with the British to compromise the ‘independence of our authority in our Indian possessions, however compelling the obligations of applying Article 9 of the Convention of 7 March 1815’.[109] In order to minimise this, Doumergue suggested that in future the French authorities could simply expel revolutionaries from their territory.[110] In response, Martineau agreed that expulsion would help ‘avoid the ever-unpleasant procedure of extradition’, but cautioned that it ‘would in reality be tantamount to purely and simply handing over of criminals to the English authorities’.[111] Martineau was particularly sensitive to how these kinds of political entanglements threatened French sovereignty in India and political stability back home, and was prepared to take fairly remarkable steps to avoid future disputes of this nature. In May 1914, after Bose managed to elude the French and British police, Hardinge asked Martineau to do everything in his power to arrest Bose should he ever return to Chandernagore. Although Martineau offered his assurances to Hardinge, he secretly instructed the Administrator of Chandernagore to inform Bose’s family that he would be arrested if he returned. Writing to Maurice Raynaud, the Minister of the Colonies in Paris, Martineau justified this bold decision by arguing that it would help prevent even greater ‘diplomatic difficulties’.[112]

For Martineau, the kinds of political disputes surrounding extradition and inter-imperial policing were merely symptomatic of the much more fundamental and apparently insurmountable problem of having two clashing imperial sovereignties in India. As a result, Martineau believed that the only viable solution was for France to cede control of Chandernagore directly to the British in return for expanded territorial concessions around Pondicherry.[113] As he put it in a letter from 1917:

In Chandernagor we assume a most thankless and futile role. We are obliged to defend, in the name of our principles, a right of hospitality which may turn against our interests, and yet, after the victories of the Marne and Verdun, which have caused the greatest stir in India, we cannot sacrifice those principles which bind us. That is why the cession of Chandernagor has always seemed to me the most political and honourable way of escaping from an extremely difficult and, as it were, hopeless moral situation.[114]

Yet despite Martineau’s best efforts, and a sporadic series of informal and formal negotiations between the British and French governments over the next several years, this proposal ultimately came to nothing.[115]

Following his flight from Chandernagore to Benares, Bose continued his revolutionary activities, and was one of the key organisers in the unsuccessful Ghadar uprising in Punjab that terrified the British colonial establishment during the First World War.[116]

The Ghadar Mutiny, also known as the Ghadar Conspiracy, was a plan to initiate a pan-Indian mutiny in the British Indian Army in February 1915 to end the British Raj in India. The plot originated at the onset of World War I, between the Ghadar Party in the United States, the Berlin Committee in Germany, the Indian revolutionary underground in British India and the German Foreign Office through the consulate in San Francisco. The incident derives its name from the North American Ghadar Party, whose members of the Punjabi Sikh community in Canada and the United States were among the most prominent participants in the plan. It was the most prominent amongst a number of plans of the much larger Hindu–German Mutiny, formulated between 1914 and 1917 to initiate a Pan-Indian rebellion against the British Raj during World War I. The mutiny was planned to start in the key state of Punjab, followed by mutinies in Bengal and rest of India. Indian units as far as Singapore were planned to participate in the rebellion. The plans were thwarted through a coordinated intelligence and police response. British intelligence infiltrated the Ghadarite movement in Canada and in India, and last-minute intelligence from a spy helping to crush the planned uprising in Punjab before it started. Key figures were arrested, mutinies in smaller units and garrisons within India were also crushed.

Intelligence about the threat of the mutiny led to a number of important war-time measures introduced in India, including the passages of Ingress into India Ordinance, 1914, the Foreigners act 1914, and the Defence of India Act 1915. The conspiracy was followed by the First Lahore Conspiracy Trial and Benares Conspiracy Trial which saw death sentences awarded to a number of Indian revolutionaries, and exile to a number of others. After the end of the war, fear of a second Ghadarite uprising led to the recommendations of the Rowlatt Acts and thence the Jallianwala Bagh massacre.

-- Ghadar Mutiny, by Wikipedia

After the failed Ghadar uprising, Bose once again managed to evade the British authorities and return to Chandernagore, before finally escaping to Japan in May 1915. Although Bose’s escape to Japan signalled an end to the controversy with the French government, British officials continued to pursue Bose’s extradition with the Japanese authorities. In the absence of an official extradition treaty with Japan and faced with the ever-problematic issue of extraditing persons accused of political offences, Hardinge resorted to diplomatic subterfuge. Concealing the political nature of Bose’s offences, Hardinge applied considerable pressure through the British embassy in Tokyo and depicted Bose as part of a wider German conspiracy to undermine the Allied war effort.[117] When the Japanese government finally agreed to issue a deportation order, Bose went into hiding with the help of his friends connected to the ultranationalist Kokury [Black Dragon Society/Kokuryu-Kai] SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 ūkai and Gen’y SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 ôsha secret societies. The deportation order was eventually rescinded in March 1916, and Bose freely continued to write and lecture against British colonial rule in India throughout the 1920s and 30s.[118]

The ultimate failure of British authorities to apprehend one of the would-be assassins of the Viceroy of India was a great blow to their prestige, and provides yet another striking demonstration of the enduring fault lines that continued to plague Franco-British colonial police cooperation during this period. In August 1913, while harried British officials desperately sought those responsible for the Delhi bombing, R.H. Craddock vented his frustration about their inability to intervene in the affairs of Chandernagore. The French police, Craddock claimed, were underfunded, understaffed, and either too corrupt, timid, or incompetent to suppress the revolutionaries who operated there.[119] As a result, Chandernagore had become a dangerous haven of sedition, propaganda, and terrorist violence. ‘We cannot’, Craddock wrote, ‘go on quietly in the knowledge that Chandernagore contains men skilled in making bombs and living there in impunity, who can at any time plot an outrage of their own, or supply bombs to trusted emissaries of seditionaries in other parts of India who make their plots and supply their own throwers’.[120] As Tegart put it a few years later, ‘the Chandernagore Settlement provides, in its present state, an Alsatia for revolutionary fugitives and is an active centre of plots directed towards the subversion of British rule in India’.[121] Although it would be unfair to blame Bose’s initial escape from Chandernagore on the French authorities, the inability of the British police to operate freely within the French settlement certainly did not help matters. Martineau’s somewhat astonishing decision to warn Bose’s family that he would be arrested if he ever returned also reveals how the patience of his beleaguered colonial administration had run out, and that this kind of close police cooperation was ultimately incompatible with upholding France’s dignity and honour.